Their Relation to Higher Educational Finänce
49
Bibliolh&J
divided between the recipient of higher education and society. There is
no unity of thought regarding such division. It brings up not ot'.ly a qufstion,
of accounting, but one which involves social and financial
determine how much each should pay, it is necessary to estimate just the
Proportion of benefit the individual and society receive when the individual
is given a College education. We find that some believe in drawing a line
between fixed and operating expenses. Such a division is not necessarily
in proportion to benefits received. It is not possible to obtain equity in
this matter with any mathematical precision. A further problem presents
itself here. There is not only the allocation of costs between society and
the Student body, but further adjustments must be made within the Student
body. The ratio will not be the same for society and for the Student in
different courses. It is evident that the ratio between society and the individual
will vary depending upon the economic value of the course the
Student follows. This does not mean that all professions and other endeavors
are not necessary to our social organization, but the cash value
of the education received varies depending on the subjects pursued.
According to the theory of dual benefit in higher education, the next
step is to find the ratio of benefit as between society and the individual,
and also the difference which exists in this ratio in the various schools
or professions. The latter should be based on the cost to the Institution
of giving education and the cash value of that education to the recipient.
The finding of this ratio and the allocation of educational costs accordingly,
would seem to be the starting point for the readjustment of College and
university finance under our present social and economic organization.
The Problem of Cost Allocation
The views set forth above are illustrative of the cross currents of
thought that exist among those who direct the financial policies of higher
education. The reasons for the divergent views are obvious. They are
due to the failure to take a long ränge view of higher learning and the
failure to recognize the changing aims, or purposes, which come about due
to a changing social, political, and economic society. Notice has not been
taken of the facts that in some fields of learning the political motive, in
others the cultural, and in many more, the economic predominates; that in
most fields of learning all three are present in varying degrees and costs
should be allöcated proportionately. The financial house of higher education
needs to be constantly remodeled to meet our changing economic
and social conditions. This readjustment should necessarily Start from
the ratio of benefits received by the parties concerned. Just how such a
ratio can be established and costs allöcated accordingly is the next question
to be determined.
