c 
 
 <958 
 
 ABSTRACT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE 
 PRESIDENT'S FACULTY CONFERENCE 
 
 (JUNE 9, 1958) 
 
 on the 
 
 First Report 
 
 of the University 
 
 Study Committee on 
 
 Future Programs 
 
 URBANA, ILLINOIS 
 DECEMBER, 1958 
 

 
 First Report of the University Study Committee 
 on Future Programs 
 
 Proceedings of the 
 
 PRESIDENT'S FACULTY CONFERENCE, JUNE 9, 1958 
 
 University of Illinois 
 
 Contents 
 
 Conference Committees 2 
 
 Program of the Conference 3 
 
 Preface 4 
 
 Planning in Higher Education in IlHnois — 
 
 Address by President Henry 5 
 
 Resume of Discussion on State 
 
 Planning for Higher Education 14 
 
 First Report of the University Study 
 
 Committee on Future Programs 15 
 
 Resume of Discussion on the 
 
 Committee's Report 38 
 
 Report of the President's Faculty Conference 46 
 
 Participants 49 
 
University of Illinois 
 
 Presidents Faculty Conference, June 9, 1958 
 
 Conference Theme 
 
 First Report of the University Study Committee on Future Programs 
 
 Sponsor: President David D. Henry 
 
 University Study Committee on Future Programs 
 
 H. K. Allen 
 
 G. M. Almy, Chairman 
 
 Hollis Barber 
 
 J. E. Cribbet 
 
 L. J. Cronbach 
 
 A. D. Culler, Secretary 
 
 B. J. Diggs 
 
 G. A. Krakower 
 
 G. N. Ray, ex officio 
 
 M. B. Russell 
 
 C. W. Sanford, ex officio 
 
 F. T. Wall, ex officio 
 A. S. Weller 
 
 Conference Steering Committee 
 
 G. M. Almy 
 J. E. Cribbet 
 A. D. Culler 
 
 Royden Dangerfield, Chairman 
 A. K. Laing 
 G. W. Salisbury 
 
 Committee on Resolutions 
 G. M. Almy 
 
 Royden Dangerfield, Chairman 
 R. W. Fleming 
 Roy Huitema 
 C. A. Krakower 
 G. W. Salisbury 
 J. R. Shipley 
 
 Secretariat 
 
 G. H. Bargh 
 
 Mrs. Eunice Parker 
 
Program 
 
 PRESIDENT'S FACULTY CONFERENCE, JUNE 9, 1958 
 
 Room Dj Law Building 
 
 9 : 00 a.m. — Plan and Purpose of the Conferences President Henry 
 
 9:15 a.m. — State Planning for Higher Education 
 
 1. Report on the Role and Program of the Illinois Commis- 
 sion of Higher Education 
 
 2. Report on the Joint Council on Higher Education 
 
 3. The University's Responsibilities in Planning for Higher 
 Education in Illinois 
 
 10: 15 a.m. — Coffee Break 
 
 10:30 a.m. — Discussion of the First Report of the University Com- 
 mittee ON Future Programs, Part I: The Chief Responsi- 
 bilities and Aims of the University in the Next Decade 
 
 12:00 noon — Lunch — Spice Box, Bevier Hall 
 
 2:00 p.m. — Discussion of Part I (continued) 
 
 Discussion of Part II: The Growth and Size of the Univer- 
 sity at Urbana-Champaign 
 
 3: 15 p.m. — Coffee Break 
 
 3 : 30 p.m. — Discussion of Part II (continued) 
 
 6:00 p.m. — Dinner — Room 314N, Illini Union 
 
 7 : 30 p.m. — Consideration of Report of the Resolutions Committee 
 
 9:30 p.m. — Adjournment 
 
Preface 
 
 The President's Faculty Conference^ met on June 9, 1958, on invitation 
 of President David D. Henry. This all-day conference v^^as called for the 
 purpose of providing a forum for informal discussion of current problems 
 affecting the University of Illinois. Faculty members in attendance were 
 from all ranks and from the three campuses. 
 
 The principal agenda of the conference was based on the first report of 
 the Study Committee on Future Programs. This Committee, appointed on 
 June 3, 1957, was asked to develop guide lines for future development of 
 the University of Illinois, to formulate objectives and points of emphasis, 
 and to suggest programs to implement the recommendations made. Having 
 arrived at some tentative conclusions, the Committee made its first report 
 on May 22, 1958. At that time the Committee suggested that the report be 
 made available for general discussion by the University community. 
 
 The purpose of the conference was not to determine the policy of the 
 University but rather to discuss, clarify, supplement, and promote under- 
 standing of the Committee's report. The conference aided in crystallizing 
 informed faculty opinion and in supplying guidance for the Committee and 
 the administration. 
 
 At the conclusion of its deliberation, the Faculty Conference adopted a 
 report representing the views of the majority of those in attendance. 
 
 This pamphlet includes the text of the first report of the Committee on 
 Future Programs, the report adopted by the conference, the principal state- 
 ments made at the conference, and a short summary of the discussion. It 
 is circulated in the hope that it will stimulate still further discussion on the 
 part of the University community of the important points covered by the 
 Committee's report and comments made at the conference on June 9, 1958. 
 
 The Conference Steering Committee 
 
 ^ Invitational, upon nomination of the Conference Steering Committee. 
 
Planning in Higher Education in Illinois 
 
 PRESIDENT DAVID D. HENRY 
 
 The Committee on Future Programs has identified state planning for 
 higher education as a fundamental issue at the start of its work. The 
 feasibility of a number of the Committee's recommendations will be deter- 
 mined by forces and events which are beyond the control of this institution. 
 So the questions arise: What is the status of higher education planning in 
 the state of Illinois? What has been its history? What are the conditions of 
 its success? 
 
 The Steering Committee asked me to deal with these topics. I agreed to 
 lead the discussion, in cooperation with others of the administrative staff 
 who are working with the agencies to which I shall refer. With the help of 
 Dean Browne, Vice-President Ray, Vice-President Farber, and Dean 
 Dangerfield, we shall lay this topic before you. 
 
 A first consideration is — what are the University's responsibilities in state 
 planning for higher education? There are those who would say, why do 
 we bother about what others do? Why not chart our course, go our own 
 way? There are several reasons why this course cannot be followed by the 
 University of Illinois. One is the traditional role of the comprehensive 
 state university, particularly the state university combined with the land- 
 grant college, which has grown to great position, scope, and influence. 
 
 If you read the papers written before the founding of the land-grant 
 colleges and state universities, if you go into the history of our own univer- 
 sity, if you delve into the records of the Board of Trustees, you will find on 
 the record — and, therefore, in the expectation of the people of the state, 
 who ultimately control the institution — that the state university has a role 
 of leadership in planning for the elementary and secondary schools and other 
 
PRESIDENT S FACULTY CONFERENCE 
 
 institutions of higher learning. That traditional role is an overwhelming 
 influence on us. 
 
 Second, we should be interested in state planning as a part of internal 
 planning. Obviously, what happens elsewhere will affect in some ways 
 what we do. For example, we cannot ignore regional universities, which in 
 time aspire to become state-wide universities; we cannot ignore the develop- 
 ment of junior colleges. 
 
 Third, the university has long been conceived as a development arm of 
 the state. Just as a large industry has its department of development, the 
 state has looked to the state university as a source of ideas on a large number 
 of subjects which presumably affect the development of the state itself. So 
 to build our own program effectively, and as the custodian of professional 
 resources, we have an obligation to be interested in and concerned with 
 state planning. 
 
 There may be others, but I have limited myself to these three reasons 
 why we must accept responsibility in state planning. 
 
 At one time the views of the state university were dominant in the area 
 of state planning; these views were of influence upon both the secondary 
 and elementary schools and upon other higher institutions. It is something 
 of an understatement to say to you today that our views are not only not 
 dominant, they are often not sought. This condition leads one to wonder 
 as to what has happened in the past twenty-five to fifty years that this 
 change should have taken place. Obviously as other institutions be- 
 come stronger they look upon this institution with envy; some wish to 
 imitate. Others see us as a competitor for state funds and we are tempted 
 at times to see them in that light. It is certainly true that there has come 
 an increasing competition for state support for all phases of education — 
 elementary, secondary and higher education — and for other state services. 
 This competition has affected the relationships among the institutions in 
 this and other states. The expansion of the regional institutions has had a 
 bearing. The resistance of nongovernmental institutions to what appears to 
 be the absorptive capacity of the public educational institutions has created 
 problems. These conditions, arising out of past actions and events, now 
 appear to affect the influence and the acceptance of the state university as 
 the dominant voice in state planning. 
 
 A very interesting talk on this point was given by President Morrill, of 
 the University of Minnesota, at the last meeting of the National Association 
 of State Universities. As retiring president of that association, he discussed 
 the current status of the state university and the change that has taken place 
 in its former position of primacy. 
 
PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 
 
 We have to recognize, also, that there has come a call for coordination 
 of the state universities. This call comes from different sources and for 
 different reasons: some are primarily interested in making sure that the 
 institutions are going in the right direction; others, of course, are interested 
 primarily in the conservation of expenditures. 
 
 I have before me a staff paper of the Commission of Higher Education, 
 which objectively sets forth the issue of coordination of higher education. 
 It is a factual, historical statement. I want to quote some sentences because 
 they illustrate where we begin. 
 
 Since 1945 four official study groups in Illinois have considered, in varying detail, 
 the problem of higher education coordination. They all evidenced some dissatis- 
 faction with the present set-up. Their recommendations ranged in integrative 
 character from fuller utilization of a voluntary council on higher education to 
 creation of one board of education for all public schools, elementary through the 
 University level. 
 
 In my view, our problem today is not coordination of higher education 
 but planning. We should concentrate not on which planner is going to 
 direct us but rather upon how plans are to be made. The central problem 
 is, "How can you get good planning without having the planners run the 
 institutions?" 
 
 One agency that has come into being in the past years as an agency of 
 voluntary planning for the publicly-supported higher institutions is the Joint 
 Council on Higher Education. The University has five delegates to the 
 Council: the President, the Vice-President and Provost, the Vice-President 
 and Comptroller, Dean Browne, and Director Potthoff. These, either ex 
 officio or as appointees, have been the delegates from the beginning. Others 
 confer with this group in briefing sessions before the meetings of the Coun- 
 cil. They are: Dean Smiley, as chairman of the University Committee on 
 Institutional Relations; Dean Dodds, as Dean of the College of Education; 
 and Dean Dangerfield. 
 
 I have asked Dean Robert Browne to give you a brief statement on the 
 history of the Joint Council. He has been a member, I believe, from the 
 beginning of the Council. 
 
 DEAN BROWNE 
 
 The Joint Council on Higher Education came about through a sugges- 
 tion that in matters affecting all six of the state-supported schools we would 
 be in a most unenviable position if we were not able to say that we had 
 talked over our common problems and had exchanged information which 
 might bear upon the facts affecting one another. 
 
8 president's faculty conference 
 
 The Council was organized as an informal body for the purpose of pro- 
 moting the exchange of information and the exchange of views, without 
 authority over matters of appropriation requests or of educational policy. In 
 its early years the Council was not very effective. The members met and 
 fenced with each other. While appearing to cooperate, they revealed no 
 information of importance. 
 
 The organization of the Council was formalized with a document which 
 took the place of a constitution. In that document it was agreed that none 
 of the institutions would initiate any new programs until they had in- 
 formed the other institutions and had given them an opportunity to 
 present their views. It must be stated in all candor that this has not been 
 very well observed. 
 
 The Council meets at least three times a year and the meetings are held 
 on the various campuses, in rotation. In addition the Council on Higher 
 Education has a program of joint studies which may be proposed by any 
 one of the institutions and adopted by the others. It is my belief that the 
 Council has demonstrated that it is not a good research institution. Most of 
 the studies it has produced so far have not been very significant. It has 
 made studies of comparative costs in the six institutions and studies on the 
 use of space. It has also made studies of duplication of services and the 
 extent to which the institutions are engaged in the business of recruiting 
 students and the various means of doing so. 
 
 The most important contribution the Council on Higher Education has 
 made is to answer the critics who might charge that the institutions have 
 refused even to talk together. We do talk together. 
 
 The Council is almost twenty years old. Sometimes those of us who have 
 worked with it express disappointment with what it has been able to ac- 
 complish. On the other hand we hold to an earnest hope that it can be 
 expanded into a full-grown medium of educators themselves for trying to 
 find resolution to difficulties confronting them. 
 
 [President Henry called on Vice-President Farber to speak on the Joint 
 Council's role in budget presentation.] 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT AND COMPTROLLER FARBER 
 
 One bit of evidence of cooperation emerging from the Council is the 
 agreement on the form of presentation of the budget to the General As- 
 sembly. In the past, each institution presented its budget in the way it 
 thought best. The General Assembly was often confused by the different 
 modes of presentation. The agreement on form of presentation to the last 
 session of the General Assembly worked out very well. The agreement to 
 
PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 
 
 present information in the same form will be followed in the next session 
 of the Legislature. The next step is much harder to take: that of all 
 agreeing on how much should be asked. Without some legislative mandate 
 it is unlikely that such a procedure will ever emerge. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT AND PROVOST RAY 
 
 The Council on Higher Education has great potential usefulness. You 
 all know that the proportion of the tax dollar in Illinois devoted to educa- 
 tion is relatively small. If all the state universities could concur in their 
 recommendations and adopt a solid front, not only on distribution of funds 
 but also on spending proportionately greater sums on education, this would 
 be materially helpful. 
 
 PRESIDENT HENRY 
 
 Mr. Potthoff is one of our delegates. Mr. Potthoff, is there any other 
 point you would emphasize at this time? 
 
 DIRECTOR POTTHOFF 
 
 There is one point. There is a relationship between the Commission of 
 Higher Education and the Joint Council on Higher Education. The Com- 
 mission is designed, among other things, to carry on various studies, many 
 of which will relate to higher institutions either individually or collectively, 
 and one approach which the Commission might make would be through the 
 Joint Council to obtain cooperation in certain studies. This is but one evi- 
 dence that it is advantageous to have the Joint Council even though it has 
 not lived up to expectations. 
 
 PRESIDENT HENRY 
 
 Two problems have been identified in this discussion which limit the work 
 of the Joint Council. One is the difficulty of finding a common ground on 
 which all can agree. Obviously when we get into matters of institutional 
 objectives, faculty standards, educational practices, we see wide variations 
 among the institutions. Further, we approach these matters with different 
 philosophies, different standards, and different attitudes. There are some 
 topics where we can make a common approach and on several of these there 
 has been noteworthy progress. The Council aided in the establishment of 
 the Nonacademic Personnel Program and the Retirement System. These 
 are two areas where our interests are all the same and variations in ideas 
 have nothing to do with differences in objectives or standards of perform- 
 
10 president's faculty conference 
 
 ance. One of the studies of future enrollments in higher education in Illi- 
 nois, prior to the creation of the temporary commission, was a very useful 
 document. Here again we had a common ground that could be measured. 
 Most of our difficulty is in identifying the common ground where we can 
 deal with the questions unreservedly. The University of Illinois has recently 
 made the proposal that we all agree to submit plans for new and expansions 
 of old programs in advance of the fact, and that we ask each institution to 
 carry the views of others to their governing boards for consideration before 
 the institutional board concerned approves the expansion. 
 
 Another reason for the relative inadequacy of the Council is that its 
 interests are exclusively with the public institutions, and there is no place 
 on it for representatives from the private institutions. The private institu- 
 tions for a long time have felt that in the light of their total service to the 
 state of Illinois they have received too little consideration in terms of state 
 planning. Some three years ago a temporary Commission on Higher Edu- 
 cation was appointed by the Governor, in accordance with a resolution 
 passed by the General Assembly, to deal with all of the questions which 
 seemed to lie ahead for higher education in this state. One of the factors 
 that led to the creation of that commission, when the questions might have 
 been referred to the Joint Council, was the interest in giving the private 
 institutions an adequate voice in the deliberations. 
 
 That commission met for two years. It was made up of the presidents 
 of the public universities plus the presidents of some of the private univer- 
 sities, plus some of the members of the General Assembly. It rendered a 
 long report. Its summary report, Illinois Looks to the Future, was published. 
 The main recommendations of this commission are touched upon in the 
 report of the Future Programs Committee. We need say no more at this 
 point than that the commission demonstrated the usefulness of an "organized 
 look" at higher education; it brought forth some facts and figures for public 
 view and appraisal; it gave us some experience in working together. While 
 the commission had a good many inadequacies, which are irrelevant to our 
 discussion today, it strongly supported the junior college program in Illinois; 
 it supported, if it did not actually lead, the movement for the state scholar- 
 ship plan now in effect; and it made a strong statement on the University 
 of Illinois in Chicago. 
 
 The temporary commission expired under the terms of the resolution 
 creating it, and following the last session of the General Assembly, a per- 
 manent Illinois Commission of Higher Education was appointed. The plan 
 for the new Commission was set forth in the Inaugural Address of the 
 Governor on January 14, 1957. The legislation which implemented the 
 
PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11 
 
 recommendation was much fuller than the statement of the Governor 
 and a rather broad statement of scope was given to the Commission. 
 
 I am going to read another paragraph from the staff paper of the Illinois 
 Commission of Higher Education previously quoted: 
 
 Following a precedent set for the Common Schools by the well known School 
 Problems Commission, probably the most significant of the powers of the Higher 
 Education Commission is its authority to review and make recommendations on 
 university budget requests. Readily apparent are the opportunities for coordination 
 of the several institutions stemming from the judicious use of this authority, espe- 
 cially after the commission has gained stature in the public eye. On the other 
 hand, it is completely possible that the present boards, with their entrenched 
 stature, large alumni following and other factors, may tend to disregard the Com- 
 mission and continue to present successfully relatively uncoordinated budget requests 
 to the Governor and the legislature. In addition to this duty of screening finance 
 requests, the commission is authorized to perform other functions of a coordinating 
 nature and to analyze various proposals for the improvement of public higher edu- 
 cation in Illinois. 
 
 Representation of Illinois Public and Private institutions of higher education in 
 commission deliberations is assured by the creation of an official advisory Com- 
 mittee of Delegates which must participate in at least one commission meeting 
 each quarter. . . . 
 
 May I add that the delegates have been invited to attend every Commission 
 meeting. Mr. Park Livingston has attended as the delegate of this Univer- 
 sity. Mrs. Frances Best Watkins has been his alternate. 
 
 This Committee is composed of one representative from and selected by each of 
 the three public institutional boards, two members selected by the Commission 
 from private institutional boards, and one commission-designated member from a 
 governing board of a Junior College. The delegates have the right to participate in 
 discussion but do not have a vote in deciding issues. 
 
 The Commission is setting up its committees. Recently, three of our staff 
 members were nominated by the President to serve as advisers to these 
 committees. One of the problems is to get expert advice for such committees. 
 Dean Dangerfield will participate in the discussions of the committee dealing 
 with kinds of institutions and their relationships in the state; Dean Wall 
 will be a member of the committee to deal with the problems of graduate 
 education; and Vice-President Farber is on the committee dealing with loan 
 funds. Three others of our staff are working in advisory capacities on 
 specific topics within the committee framework of the Commission. 
 
 I am going to call on Mr. Dangerfield to give a brief review of the 
 Commission of Higher Education. 
 
 DEAN DANGERFIELD 
 
 The act which created the Commission (S.B. 547, approved July 9, 1957) 
 
12 president's faculty conference 
 
 does not answer many of the questions that might be raised with respect to 
 the powers and responsibihties of the Commission; but perhaps it would be 
 well to read one section of the act: 
 
 Sec. 5. The Commission shall have the power and it shall be its duty: 
 
 (a) To analyze the present and future aims, needs and requirements of higher 
 education in the State of Illinois. 
 
 (b) To study requests to the Governor or to the General Assembly for appro- 
 priations of state funds for higher education for any purpose or in any form what- 
 soever, and to make recommendations thereon to the Governor and the General 
 Assembly. 
 
 (c) To study the means and methods of financing the operational and physical 
 plant requirements of higher education. 
 
 (d) To study the role of and the need for different types of institutions and 
 programs of higher education in the State of Illinois. 
 
 (e) To compare at its discretion higher education in the State of Illinois with 
 other states. 
 
 (f ) To advise the Governor, when the Governor may from time to time request, 
 regarding any area of higher education. 
 
 (g) To submit a written report on or before the first Monday in February of 
 each year of its activities and recommendations made during the preceding calendar 
 year to the Governor, and the members of the General Assembly. 
 
 (h) To make rules, regulations and by-laws, not inconsistent with the law, for 
 its meetings, procedures and the execution of its duties imposed upon it by this 
 ACT. 
 
 As the Commission organizes — and it is still in the process of organizing, 
 as demonstrated by the fact that it is creating advisory committees and the 
 staff is being recruited — it is too early to say just what role the Commission 
 may come to play as a coordinating agency in the field of higher education. 
 It is not too early to conclude that it will become a leading force in the 
 planning of future developments in the field of education. 
 
 There are many plans for commissions on higher education being tried 
 by the several states. One pattern followed by some states is the creation of 
 one state-wide board for higher education. It was adopted by Georgia, 
 Oklahoma, and Oregon. Under this plan the legislature appropriates all 
 funds to the one board, which in turn allocates to the governing boards of 
 the institutions. A second pattern is that of an advisory board to counsel 
 with and advise the governing boards. The Indiana Plan is an interesting 
 development. Here the heads of the public institutions were coerced by the 
 legislature into developing a coordinated budget request. The individual 
 institutions make up the budget but do so in consultation with each other. 
 
 In a number of states there have been created commissions to study public 
 higher education. There are thirteen such study commissions at work. 
 
PLANNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13 
 
 It is clear that the state legislatures are coming to demand more informa- 
 tion and better coordination of programs in the field of higher education. 
 
 The activities of the Illinois Commission of Higher Education should be 
 observed carefully. It is most difficult to say just what will emerge from 
 the Commission in the way of plans for coordination. It is hard to deter- 
 mine to what extent the Commission will exercise and develop the powers 
 specified in the act creating it. 
 
 It appears not to be the intent of the Commission to go to the extremes 
 in developing budget control. It is clear that the Commission is moving 
 in the direction of coordinated plans for future development. 
 
 PRESIDENT HENRY 
 
 We must emphasize that the citizen is going to expect state planning in 
 the field of higher education. It is obvious that the people who are to pay 
 the bill are going to expect wise planning and efficient management of 
 educational resources. 
 
 Professional studies of needs and ways of meeting them are essential to 
 wise decisions. This is an effective part of state planning. 
 
 The danger in state planning is that the uninformed, partially informed, 
 or ill-informed will conclude that this is a simple business and that all that is 
 needed is to put all institutions under one board. Coordination can be 
 achieved only through careful cooperative planning. It does not come 
 through mandate or edict. Rather, it grows out of the experience of insti- 
 tutions in working together. 
 
 The emphasis on planning is national and not limited to local areas. 
 
 Internal planning is related to external planning. External planning will 
 affect our internal planning, but conversely the internal planning in the 
 University will affect the state as a whole. 
 
 There is no doubt that increased state planning will come to Illinois. The 
 key questions are "how," "what form will it take," and "what will be the 
 role of the University of Illinois in it?" 
 
 There is a great difference between planning and being coordinated by 
 planners. How to achieve one without getting the other is a central question. 
 
Resume of Discussion on State Planning for Higher Education 
 
 It was pointed out that the proposal to issue state bonds for educational 
 and public welfare institutions' buildings, to be voted on November 4, 1958, 
 afforded an opportunity for coordinated action on the part of the Joint 
 Council on Higher Education. Steps have already been taken in the devel- 
 opment of coordinated programs for supplying information concerning the 
 need for educational buildings. 
 
 In response to questions from the floor it was indicated that the Com- 
 mittee of Delegates, provided for in the act creating the Commission of 
 Higher Education, does not duplicate or supplant the Joint Council on 
 Higher Education. The Committee of Delegates does not operate as a 
 committee. Rather, the delegates serve as advisers to the Commission of 
 Higher Education. There is still need for the Joint Council on Higher 
 Education, which brings together the presidents of the six state universities. 
 
 The control and supervision of the junior college system is vested in the 
 Superintendent of Public Instruction. His powers and duties were briefly 
 outlined. Some emphasis was placed on the importance of state-level leader- 
 ship in the development of junior colleges within the state. 
 
 14 
 
First Report of the University Study Committee 
 on Future Programs 
 
 Members of the Committee: 
 
 G. M. Almy, Chairman 
 H. K. Allen 
 HoLLis Barber 
 J. E. Cribbet 
 L. J. Cronbagh 
 
 A. D. Culler 
 
 B. J. DiGGS 
 
 C. A. Krakower 
 M. B. Russell 
 A. S. Weller 
 
 Ex officio Members: 
 
 Provost Gordon N. Ray 
 Dean C. W. Sanford 
 Dean F. T. Wall 
 
 Contents 
 
 Introduction 16 
 
 I. The Chief ResponsibiUties and Aims of the 
 
 University in the Next Decade 18 
 
 II. The Growth and Size of the University at 
 
 Urbana-Champaign 28 
 
 III. General Education in the University 34 
 
 University of Illinois, May 22, 1958 
 
First Report of the University Study Committee 
 on Future Programs 
 
 INTRODUCTION 
 
 In his letter of appointment, dated June 3, 1957, President Henry outlined 
 the task of the Committee with this statement: 
 
 Following extensive consultation with representatives of the faculty and the 
 administrative staff, including the Executive Committee of the Council, I am 
 establishing a University Study Committee on Future Programs. . . . 
 
 You may recall that a similar committee reported in 1945. Many of the features 
 of that report are pertinent today and I am suggesting that the committee begin 
 its work with a review of the 1945 report, indicating the portions that remain 
 appropriate for present University planning and adding new suggestions. 
 
 While I do not wish to restrict the committee in its assessment of the tasks 
 ahead, it is my hope that it will emphasize outstanding guidelines for future de- 
 velopment, some points of emphasis, some restated objectives, some new objectives, 
 and programs to implement these suggestions. In short, I hope the committee will 
 give us the ground work for future educational planning for the University. 
 
 Many units of the University have plans for the future. Some do not, and 
 perhaps should be stimulated to prepare them. An over-all view of these plans 
 and a canvass of areas for experimentation should be a part of the committee's 
 analysis. 
 
 I am not suggesting a comprehensive self-study of the kind carried out at a 
 number of institutions, a particularly good example being New York University; 
 but I hope the committee will be a medium for institutional self-examination, along 
 certain broad outlines with suggestions for next steps in over-all educational 
 planning. 
 
 I would hope that the administrative structure and organization, while open to 
 committee study, would not be the point of major attention. I think the emphasis 
 at this time should be on educational planning as contrasted with physical and 
 organizational planning. 
 
 The 1945 report of a similar committee, with Professor R. R. Hudelson 
 16 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 17 
 
 as chairman, was sent in July to members of the present committee for 
 review. On October 23, 1957, a letter was sent to deans, directors, and 
 heads of departments asking for specific information on future plans of 
 departments and colleges and for general opinion and comment on the long- 
 range role and responsibilities of the University. The response from the 
 faculty was prompt, thoughtful, and extensive. 
 
 As the Committee undertakes to formulate a position on almost any 
 significant aspect of the future educational program of the University, it 
 finds that its conclusions must rest to an important extent upon decisions or 
 assumptions as to the future role of the University in the state's total pro- 
 gram of higher education. State-wide planning has not proceeded far enough 
 to give a clear prospect of the institutions and resources that will be avail- 
 able to carry on higher education, nor has the particular role of the Univer- 
 sity been clearly defined. Hence the Committee has attempted in this 
 preliminary report to develop a point of view and to assert its convictions in 
 respect to the role and responsibilities of the University and to the related 
 question of the size and structure of the student body in the years ahead. 
 In doing so it has tried to reflect the consensus of the faculty expressed 
 orally and in letters. The Committee's recommendations on more specific 
 future programs are contingent upon whether its conclusions on these 
 central questions are valid and acceptable to the University and the state. 
 
 The need for more explicit planning or coordination in the state is 
 illustrated by considering two diflferent approaches to the problems of higher 
 education. On the one hand our democratic ideals recognize that every 
 graduate of the high schools should have available the opportunity to develop 
 his talents through further education or training. On the other hand, the 
 state and national welfare calls for a steadily increasing number of experts 
 with the best possible education in the advanced branches of learning and 
 the professions. Both objectives are worthy of fulfilment and are not incom- 
 patible when sufficient resources are made available to education beyond the 
 high school. The magnitude and cost of the task, however, compel careful 
 planning as to the number and kinds of public institutions needed in the 
 state and a reasonably clear definition of the major responsibilities of each. 
 The recent Illinois Higher Education Commission and the present Illinois 
 Commission of Higher Education have undertaken important aspects of 
 such planning. The University itself should continue to participate actively 
 in planning ways of meeting the educational needs of the state as a whole. 
 
 The University Study Committee on Future Programs is necessarily 
 limited to study and recommendations on the educational plans of the Uni- 
 versity of Illinois. As noted above the Committee is convinced that the 
 
18 president's faculty conference 
 
 essential first step is agreement on the main responsibilities and aims of the 
 University and the consequent growth and distribution of the student body 
 among the different levels of study in the next decade. These are the sub- 
 jects of the following two sections of this first report. 
 
 In a third section some aspects of the problem of general education in 
 the University are discussed and recommendations are made. This 
 University-wide problem is included in the preliminary report because a 
 report by a University Committee on General Education is under discussion 
 at this time in the University and may lead in the near future to decisions of 
 long-range importance. 
 
 I. THE CHIEF RESPONSIBILITIES AND AIMS OF THE UNIVERSITY 
 IN THE NEXT DECADE 
 
 In a consideration of the chief aims and responsibilities of the University 
 of Illinois in the next ten years attention must be given to its traditional 
 aims and functions, to changing conditions which affect demands on centers 
 of higher education of the state, and to the University's particular role in 
 relation to other centers of education as they seem likely to develop. 
 
 In 1944 a committee on future programs of the University began its 
 preliminary report^ with a statement of the aims of the University. It in- 
 cluded a brief review of the historical development of the University's 
 objectives and a statement of its aims in the postwar world, as then seen by 
 the committee after an extensive canvass of faculty opinion. The pertinent 
 parts of the statement are as follows: 
 
 Any realistic analysis of the University's aims must take into account the pur- 
 poses and ideals which have inspired its past development and the nature of the 
 changing social, economic, and educational conditions which will determine its 
 development in the future. . . . The history of the University throughout its 
 seventy-six years of existence is one of constantly expanding educational service. 
 Its charter makes plain that the original intention of its founders was to provide 
 special encouragement for agriculture and the mechanic arts. It is equally clear, 
 however, from the language of the Morrill Act that there was never the intention 
 of fostering a narrowly vocational conception of education. ... In the early days 
 of the institution's existence as an "Industrial University," its principal avowed 
 aim was the preparation of students in agriculture and engineering. ... As a 
 second phase of development, we can recognize the gradual extension of the field 
 of professional preparation to include training for a vast assembly of the most 
 diverse occupations. ... A third phase of development has consisted in the 
 
 ^ "University of Illinois Future Programs," University of Illinois Bulletin, Vol. 43, 
 No. 12, p. 5-7 (1945). 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 19 
 
 construction and expansion of a system of educational service rendered directly to 
 the citizens of the State. . . . The University should now recognize that its student 
 body consists potentially of the entire adult population of the State. An equally 
 important though occasionally less direct form of public service is to be seen in 
 the benefits accruing both to the State of Illinois and to the nation as a whole 
 from the distinguished and still expanding programs of research conducted in the 
 University. . . . The University has as its first large responsibility the education 
 of its undergraduate and graduate students; but it is becoming increasingly evident 
 that it can justify the outlay made by its larger constituency only by the extent 
 to which it is prepared to diagnose and satisfy the immediate and long-term 
 educational needs of the State as a whole. . . . We may say then that the Uni- 
 versity is entering upon a stage of development in which the dominant emphasis 
 can and should be upon energetic and planned educational initiative in the service 
 of the needs of society as a whole. The University has long outgrown the time 
 when it could afford to restrict its attention merely to those young people who 
 were under its supervision. If it is to play a full part in the future, it must be 
 prepared to assume vigorous leadership in the extension of educational oppor- 
 tunities. 
 
 The emphasis in the above statement of aims is on the broadest kind of 
 educational service to the citizens of the state. The University will continue 
 to vv^ork in this spirit. Rapidly changing conditions, however, are so increas- 
 ing the importance of higher education, the kinds of education needed, and 
 the number of students that the needs cannot be met efficiently and with 
 high standards by simple expansion of the University in all of the directions 
 which may seem desirable to individual groups. The functions of the Uni- 
 versity must be more explicitly defined than in 1945. The University's role 
 in relation to that of other present and developing centers of education 
 must be more carefully considered. 
 
 Changes in Conditions Affecting Higher Education Since 1945 
 
 There have indeed been changes in "social, economic, and educational 
 conditions" since the 1944-45 report was written. Five noteworthy examples 
 will be described briefly. 
 
 The first change is the greatly increased dependence of the state and 
 national welfare on science and technology and the consequent shortage 
 of trained persons at all levels in nearly every field of science and technology. 
 The period since 1945 has seen developments and applications in all of the 
 sciences which have profoundly affected the material conditions of human 
 life, including new and efficient means of agricultural and industrial pro- 
 duction, communication, transportation, control and cure of disease. 
 Scientists, doctors, engineers, and technicians are needed in much greater 
 numbers than our institutions of higher education can now supply them. 
 These conditions strongly affect the responsibilities of the University. 
 
20 president's faculty conference 
 
 A second important change is the new demand by the state, the nation, 
 and, indeed, by a troubled world on the social sciences and humanities. 
 Some of the most striking advances in science and its application are at the 
 same time the hope and the despair of mankind. For their great benefits 
 to be realized in peace, extremely difficult social, economic, and political 
 problems, national and international, must be solved. Progress requires the 
 intensive development of wise leadership, backed by sound learning and 
 research in many fields. It requires also a wide general understanding among 
 citizens of the nature and uses of science and of the nature and aspirations 
 of human beings. Education and the advancement of knowledge and under- 
 standing are the roots of progress toward the solution of the complex and 
 difficult problems that face mankind. 
 
 A third change is the increasing realization within the state of the role 
 that Illinois must play in the nation and the world. Since 1945 it has 
 become steadily clearer that the United States must actively maintain a 
 position of world leadership or resign itself to second place in world influence 
 and power. Illinois in turn has resources and geographic advantages 
 matched by very few other states with which to contribute to the nation's 
 strength and influence. The state's human and material resources are de- 
 scribed in the report of the Illinois Higher Education Commission.^ For 
 example, in 1950 Illinois was fourth among the states in population with 
 one-seventeenth of the nation's people. In 1955 it ranked third in total 
 personal income and seventh in per capita income; fourth both in value 
 of manufactured goods (1954) and in agricultural receipts with one-twelfth 
 and one-seventeenth, respectively, as its share of total national production. 
 However, the ratio of total per capita state and local taxes to per capita 
 income is less than the national average. 
 
 Thus Illinois has the resources to play an increasing role in the economic 
 and cultural life of the nation and the world. Its natural advantages, com- 
 bined with modern air and seaway transportation, have given Illinois and 
 its principal city, Chicago, the opportunity to become a national and world 
 center, economic and cultural, with an influence limited only by the imagi- 
 nation, energy, and wisdom of its people. But to realize its proper role 
 Illinois must educate its youth soundly in many fields and at all levels and 
 it must make certain that the advancement of knowledge is continuously 
 encouraged. 
 
 A fourth very marked social change affecting education is the steadily 
 increasing birth rate, which promises that the college age population in the 
 
 'Illinois Looks to the Future in Higher Education, p. 63. (Report of the Higher 
 Education Commission to the Governor and Legislature of the State of Illinois, 1957.) 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 21 
 
 State of Illinois will double in the next two decades. Moreover, we should 
 note the conclusion of the Illinois Higher Education Commission that "any 
 estimated increase of the demand for higher education which projects 
 merely on the basis of population changes alone will understate the increased 
 demand for higher education." The Commission has prepared comprehen- 
 sive estimates of college age population and college enrollments,^ which 
 include the following figures: 
 
 ILLINOIS POPULATION 18-24 YEARS OF AGE 
 
 FULL-TIME DAY ENROLLMENT 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Ratio of 
 
 
 
 Rel 
 
 . No. 
 
 
 Rel 
 
 .No. 
 
 Enroll, to 
 
 Tear 
 
 Number 
 
 (7955= 700) 
 
 Number 
 
 (7955= 700) 
 
 Pop. (78-24) 
 
 1955 
 
 790,000 
 
 
 100 
 
 97,000 
 
 
 100 
 
 .12 
 
 1960 
 
 848,000 
 
 
 107 
 
 113,000 
 
 
 116 
 
 .13 
 
 1965 
 
 1,060,000 
 
 
 134 
 
 133,000 
 
 
 137 
 
 .13 
 
 1970 
 
 1,308,000 
 
 
 166 
 
 177,000 
 
 
 182 
 
 .135 
 
 1975 
 
 1,489,000 
 
 
 189 
 
 212,000 
 
 
 219 
 
 .14 
 
 As the authors point out, all estimates of this sort are uncertain. Unfore- 
 seen events can lead to a demand substantially higher or substantially lower 
 than that projected here. These figures are far from speculative, however, 
 referring as they do mainly to persons already bom and progressing in our 
 educational system. The fact that more precise forecasts are difficult or 
 impossible to achieve need be of no great concern, since sound social plan- 
 ning would in any event require that plans be adaptable promptly to the 
 needs that actually develop. It would be irresponsible for the state not to 
 begin at once to plan for educational facilities which can take care of 
 enrollments of the size projected, namely, double the present enrollment by 
 1970 or 1975. 
 
 Rising costs of education are the fifth major change affecting the program 
 of the University. The total and individual costs of education will continue 
 to rise in the period ahead. The President's Committee on Education 
 Beyond the High School^ concludes that "if the needs for major increases in 
 faculty salaries and for new facilities are to be met, it does appear reasonably 
 certain that the requirements of higher education, based on the current value 
 of the dollar, will at least have doubled by 1970." The Committee esti- 
 mates that by 1970 the national cost of higher education will have risen to 
 $6 billion and that this cost will be near 1.0 per cent of the Gross National 
 Product, compared to 0.7 per cent at present. 
 
 ' Ibid., Chap. IV. See also the report to the Commission by P. P. Klassen. 
 * Second Report to the President, July (1957), p. 84. 
 
22 president's faculty conference 
 
 The Illinois Higher Education Commission in its report examines in con- 
 siderable detail the future economic development of the state and its impli- 
 cations for higher education.^ Its "analysis leads to one conclusion: Illinois' 
 economy should continue to grow at the same rate as that of the nation." 
 
 Illinois must provide opportunity for higher education to all who have 
 the ability and serious intent to learn, and it may reasonably be assumed that 
 the state will have the resources required. Yet the financial cost will be so 
 great that the state's total program of higher education must be planned 
 with great efficiency so as to achieve its ends at the least cost consistent with 
 high quality. Efficiency demands that the role and function of each publicly 
 supported institution be well defined and differentiated. Each institution 
 must be strongly encouraged to do full justice to its chief or unique responsi- 
 bilities, and to devote resources to those responsibilities which it shares with 
 other institutions only to the extent justified by the total needs of the state. 
 
 Trends of Educational Planning in Illinois 
 Recommendations of Illinois Higher Education Commission 
 
 The 1957 report of the Commission contains a thorough survey of present 
 institutions of higher education in Illinois.^ It analyzes present enrollments 
 and unused capacities, projects enrollments, and considers certain costs of 
 expansion. It makes three definite recommendations as to steps that should 
 be taken to increase educational opportunities for the young people of the 
 state: 
 
 1. Extend locally controlled public junior colleges eventually to cover the 
 state. 
 
 2. Establish a program of state scholarships to enable superior Illinois 
 students, deterred by financial considerations, to attend qualified institutions 
 of their choice, public or private, within the state. 
 
 3. Acquire a site and construct suitable quarters to permit the present 
 two-year program of the Chicago Undergraduate Division to be moved from 
 Navy Pier. 
 
 Junior Colleges. The functions of the junior colleges are to provide two- 
 year terminal programs of a vocational nature, preparation for transfer to 
 a four-year institution, and general and adult education of the kinds wanted 
 in the community. 
 
 The Commission's detailed study of enrollment and of potential financial 
 resources of all communities in the state leads to the conclusion that with 
 state support of $200 per student there are twenty-one to twenty-four specific 
 
 ^ Op. cit., p. 1 1 and Chap. IV. 
 " Op. cit., Chap. VI. 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 23 
 
 locations where junior colleges might be established, in addition to the pres- 
 ent nineteen, public and private. The Commission recommends that Illinois 
 plan now to accommodate, within twenty years, 25,000 to 30,000 full-time 
 day students in junior colleges in addition to those now enrolled, with at 
 least 10,000 of the additional enrollment in junior colleges outside of Chi- 
 cago. The present full-time day enrollment is approximately 10,000. Illinois 
 would then have in 1975 approximately forty junior colleges with an enroll- 
 ment of 35,000 to 40,000 students. 
 
 State Scholarships. The General Assembly accepted the recommendations 
 on state scholarships in 1957. It enacted legislation to establish the program 
 and appropriated $600,000 to initiate at least 1,000 scholarships for 1958-59, 
 which will pay the tuition of superior Illinois students who are deterred by 
 financial considerations from attending college, at Illinois institutions of 
 their choice, public or private. One purpose of the program is to encourage 
 enrollment in the private institutions. Scholars are selected by examination. 
 
 Chicago Undergraduate Division. The Commission expressed the opinion 
 that the need did not exist at that time (1956) for the development of 
 four-year degree-granting programs at the Chicago Undergraduate Division. 
 The Board of Trustees of the University has agreed that the need for ex- 
 pansion of the present program should be fully established and that resources 
 should be provided by the General Assembly before expansion to four-year 
 programs. A University committee has been appointed to study the educa- 
 tional questions related to the expansion. 
 
 Effect on the University. Our present concern with the above recom- 
 mendations is their effect, if carried out, upon the role of the University 
 and the size and structure of its student body in the period ahead. Their 
 most pronounced effect will be further to disperse and increase the oppor- 
 tunities for freshman- and sophomore-level college work and to some extent 
 for more advanced studies. This will lead to increased numbers transferring 
 to the University for junior-senior and graduate enrollment in the basic 
 fields of learning and in those professional and occupational kinds of educa- 
 tion which the University is best equipped to provide. Demands on the 
 University will focus more and more strongly on the advanced levels of 
 instruction, continuing and enhancing the trend of recent years. 
 
 The state scholarship program will have the desirable effects of increasing 
 interest in higher education and of enabling some superior students to go to 
 college who could not otherwise do so. Though substantial as a scholarship 
 program it will not have, on its present scale in numbers and stipend, a large 
 relative effect on the enrollment in the University. 
 
24 president's faculty conference 
 
 The Commission's recommendations fall short of meeting the problems 
 raised by their projected estimates of enrollments. Their estimate of the 
 total full-time day student capacity of all public and private higher edu- 
 cational institutions in the state in 1955 is about 119,000. The recommended 
 junior college expansion, if it were to be carried out, would bring the total 
 capacity to about 145,000 in 1975. The full-time day enrollment anticipated 
 by the Commission for 1975, however, is 212,000 for all institutions com- 
 bined; and even for 1970 it is 177,000. Moreover, the total capacity in our 
 educational institutions must at any given time exceed considerably the 
 total enrollment, since the needs and choices of students will never fit pre- 
 cisely the capacities of the diverse and scattered institutions. It is, therefore, 
 apparent that even if the recommendations made by the Higher Education 
 Commission are followed there is likely to be a deficit in 1975 of 60,000 to 
 80,000 places for students. To meet the needs of 1970 and beyond, this 
 Committee judges it essential to have in full operation well before 1970 
 a four-year branch of the University in Chicago and to provide for sub- 
 stantial expansion at Urbana-Champaign and in other state-supported cen- 
 ters of higher education. 
 
 The trends of educational planning, such as that of the Illinois Higher 
 Education Commission, are in the desirable direction of sharing responsi- 
 bilities which can most readily be shared and of emphasizing in the Univer- 
 sity those which it can best fulfil. This Committee has been repeatedly 
 concerned with questions raised by the growing necessity of dispersal and 
 decentralization of higher education in the state. Will the community junior 
 colleges be established at the needed rate and will they have the resources 
 to develop good two-year programs? Will the other state colleges and 
 universities be strengthened, where necessary, to provide first-class liberal 
 education as well as appropriate kinds of occupational education? Will it 
 become necessary or desirable to establish two-year or four-year branches 
 of the University downstate as well as in Chicago? One cannot escape the 
 fact that the actual demands upon the University at Urbana-Champaign 
 will depend upon the answers to such questions. The Committee hopes and 
 urges that state-wide planning and coordination lead to clear agreement 
 with respect to the development of all institutions concerned. 
 
 The University cannot lose sight of its responsibility toward higher edu- 
 cation in the state as a whole, but the Committee, in this report, is limited 
 to expressing its views, based substantially on the thinking of the faculty, as 
 to the main role of the University in the years ahead and the proper direc- 
 tion of and limitations upon the expansion of its student body. 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 25 
 
 Future Aims and Responsibilities of tlie University 
 
 We will assume that state-wide educational developments look toward 
 wider sharing of undergraduate education among public and private institu- 
 tions, especially at the freshman and sophomore level. On the other hand 
 it may be assumed that for the next decade at least the University will 
 continue to be the principal public institution with comprehensive programs 
 at advanced levels in the fundamental fields of learning and in the profes- 
 sions. The spectrum of the University's activities will continue to be broad, 
 but the chief functions on which its efforts should be focused as the state's 
 educational system develops are the following: 
 
 1. Teaching, research, and scholarly and creative activity in the funda- 
 mental fields of learning. 
 
 2. Teaching and research in professional and occupational areas closely 
 dependent on the fundamental fields of learning. 
 
 3. Liberal education of able young men and women who do not intend to 
 become highly trained specialists and, to the extent possible, of students 
 aiming toward specialized or professional training. 
 
 4. Vocational training in fields which are clearly of substantial and wide 
 importance to the state and nation, especially those which require four-year 
 programs including sound preparation in the fundamental fields of learning 
 and which the University is uniquely or best fitted to provide. 
 
 5. Extension education and essential public services which require the 
 kinds and level of expertness represented in the faculty of the University. 
 
 The characteristic feature in all of these functions is the emphasis and 
 dependence on the fundamental branches of learning. It is this feature 
 which will give the University unity and coherent purpose in the midst of 
 diversity of function and of large numbers of students and faculty. The 
 order in which the objectives are listed expresses the completeness with 
 which the University must attempt to fulfil them. Thus teaching and the 
 advancement of knowledge in the basic fields must underlie all of the 
 University's essential work. For the next decade at least the University will 
 have nearly unique responsibilities among the state-supported institutions in 
 graduate teaching and research in the basic fields and in a number of pro- 
 fessional and occupational fields. Liberal education, however, will be 
 shared among many colleges, as will vocational and some professional train- 
 ing among a different group of colleges. The opportunities and needs for 
 extension education and public service will be so numerous that the Univer- 
 sity will have to select those in which it can be most useful and effective and 
 which are consistent with the major educational responsibilities of the 
 University. 
 
26 president's faculty conference 
 
 Fundamental Fields of Learning. The fundamental fields are mathe- 
 matics, the biological and physical sciences, the humanities, the fine arts, 
 and the social sciences. They are fundamental not only because they have 
 long been studied for their own sake but also because they underlie most 
 fields of applied knowledge. In science, for example, basic research is the 
 source for every advance in applied science. 
 
 There are a number of reasons why the fundamental branches of learning 
 should be given high priority in the University. The creative advancement 
 and dissemination of knowledge in the basic fields is crucial to the scientific, 
 economic, and cultural strength of the state and nation; a university provides 
 the best environment for these purposes; the University is the only public 
 institution in the state which is broadly equipped for advanced instruction 
 and research in the fundamental fields. Further, strong faculties and pro- 
 grams in these fields are essential to sound education and research in the 
 applied and professional areas. Finally, graduate instruction and research 
 supply college and university teachers to carry on the dissemination and 
 further advancement of knowledge. To provide an appropriate share 
 of teachers in the next decade would alone tax the capacity of the Graduate 
 College to the utmost."^ 
 
 The times call for increased recognition in the University of the role and 
 importance of the fundamental fields of knowledge. Illinois and the Univer- 
 sity have developed gradually from a primary concern with meeting pressing, 
 immediate needs for vocational training to the point where the long-range 
 needs of the state must become a primary consideration. It follows that the 
 University must increase its strength in faculty and facilities in the funda- 
 mental fields and in their application to the professional fields. In a number 
 of fundamental areas outstanding departments have been developed, but the 
 University's strength is not as great in all areas as it should be in comparison 
 with that of other American universities of similar resources and size. As the 
 University grows in the fundamental fields, strong emphasis should continue 
 to be placed on the need to build a faculty distinguished in research and 
 teaching rather than on the need simply to increase the staff in proportion 
 to over-all enrollment. 
 
 It is easy to understand the need and value of training and research for 
 immediately practical use. Such fields have received major attention in the 
 University's growth in curricular offerings, staff, and buildings during the 
 
 'The President's Committee on Higher Education in its Second Report (1957) 
 estimates that in the nation between 15,000 and 22,500 new college and university 
 teachers will be needed annually in the next twelve years. The graduate schools are 
 currently awarding 9,000 doctoral degrees annually, but no more than 5,000 of the 
 recipients go into teaching. 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 27 
 
 past decades. It is therefore all the more important to make clear to 
 the people of the state the long-range importance to them of education and 
 research in the fundamental fields and the unique responsibility of the 
 University in developing these fields. 
 
 Professional, Occupational, and Vocational Education. Items 2 and 4 in 
 the list of University responsibilities above have to do with preparation for 
 specific kinds of life work. For our purposes it is not necessary to draw 
 sharp boundaries between professions, occupations, and vocations. At Illi- 
 nois, as the Hudelson Committee put it, "Professional preparation has been 
 extended to include training for a vast assembly of the most diverse occupa- 
 tions." The College of Agriculture, including the Department of Home 
 Economics, offers in the 1957 catalog nine different bachelor's degrees with 
 thirty-four options for specialization, most of them in rather specific occupa- 
 tions. The College of Commerce and Business Administration offers thirty- 
 three options leading to ten bachelor's degrees. To prepare to be an engineer, 
 a student enrolls in one of twelve departments which together offer twenty- 
 eight options for specialization. Liberal Arts offerings include fourteen 
 distinct bachelor's degrees in curricula preparatory to the teaching of partic- 
 ular subjects in the high schools. These are only a fraction of the total 
 number of possibilities of occupational specialization at Illinois. 
 
 The increase over the years in numbers of curricula reflects the increasing 
 degree of specialization in industry, the health professions, education, and 
 other fields in which people work. Few graduates, however, find their life 
 work in precisely the field in which they specialized in the University. 
 Furthermore, the kinds of special technical knowledge needed in most 
 occupations change markedly within a generation. Graduates who have been 
 in professional positions requiring a high degree of judgment and adaptabil- 
 ity to new problems usually look upon college studies in the basic knowledge 
 underlying the profession as more useful than the specialized courses in the 
 techniques of the profession. 
 
 For these reasons the University's professional and occupational curricula 
 should be closely connected with the arts and sciences from which the ap- 
 plied fields stem. Some of the research carried on in a professional college 
 may well be in a related basic field : research in the Colleges of Medicine or 
 Agriculture may be fundamental biochemistry; of Law, history or govern- 
 ment; of Engineering, physics; of Commerce, economics. 
 
 Thus it is the University's responsibility to provide professional education 
 in those needed areas which by nature depend upon and in their programs 
 stress the fundamental bases of the subject. By the same token, kinds of 
 vocational training which do not depend strongly upon or need not be 
 
28 president's faculty conference 
 
 taught in a way which relates them closely to the basic fields should be 
 curtailed or established at centers such as the junior colleges in regions 
 where there is need for such training. In such cases the University might 
 well have limited programs of high quality with emphasis on the education 
 of teachers. It should also assist in the establishment of programs in other 
 centers. One example is the training of skilled technical aides to work under 
 the supervision of highly trained engineers or scientists. They are needed 
 in industry in the ratio of at least five per engineer. However, an institute 
 in which large numbers of them are trained cannot be properly operated as 
 an integral part of a college devoted primarily to the education of highly 
 trained engineers. 
 
 II. THE GROWTH AND SIZE OF THE UNIVERSITY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 The Committee is convinced that in order to focus on the future programs 
 of the University it is necessary either to be informed, or to make assump- 
 tions, or to assert convictions, first, on the chief aims and responsibilities of 
 the University and second, on the rate of growth and the structure of the 
 student body in the years ahead. In the previous section a point of view 
 on the major responsibilities of the University is developed. The aims of the 
 University determine to an important extent the rate of growth and the 
 distribution of its student body, which are the subjects of this section. 
 
 On these basic points the Committee has been greatly aided by the reports 
 of the Illinois Commission of Higher Education, the South Campus Site 
 Committee, and by opinions from the faculty in response to our letter of 
 inquiry. 
 
 The Committee believes and assumes that the responsibilities which will 
 fall uniquely or most completely on the University of Illinois in the next 
 decade will be advanced teaching and research in the fundamental branches 
 of learning and in professional and occupational fields which depend closely 
 upon these branches. The important tasks of liberal education, of vocational 
 education, of extension education and public service will be widely shared 
 among institutions. 
 
 The University's Bureau of Institutional Research has arrived at an esti- 
 mate, for 1969, of 33,500 students at Urbana-Champaign and 20,000 in a 
 four-year branch in Chicago. These numbers are based primarily on popu- 
 lation studies without consideration of possible changes in emphasis among 
 the functions of the University at Urbana-Champaign. The South Campus 
 Site Committee, asked to study the need and implications of a major expan- 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 29 
 
 sion of the campus to the south, has recommended such an expansion and 
 has discussed in detail the relative merits of two alternative plans: (1) a 
 southward movement by colleges or logical divisions thereof and (2) a de- 
 velopment which would concentrate freshmen and sophomores south of 
 Florida Avenue. It has assumed a growing enrollment which would reach 
 33,500 in 1969, divided among classes in about the same proportions as at 
 present. In particular it has assumed that there would be 14,600 freshmen 
 and sophomores in the University in 1969. 
 
 A markedly different picture emerges with respect to the structure of the 
 student body and rate of growth of the University at Urbana-Champaign 
 if one develops the consequences of the views of this Committee : ( 1 ) that 
 continued improvement and expansion of education and research at ad- 
 vanced levels are vitally important to the state, (2) that for the next decade 
 the University is the only public institution in the state which can assume 
 major responsibility for such developments, and (3) that kinds and levels of 
 higher education which can readily be shared should be distributed among 
 appropriate institutions. 
 
 In the fall of 1957-58 the distribution among freshmen-sophomore, junior- 
 senior, and graduate students was approximately 7500:7600 (including law 
 and veterinary medicine) :3500 (full or part-time) or in the ratio of about 
 2:2:1. Nearly equal numbers of the two undergraduate groups reflect the 
 fact that although half of the entering freshmen drop out before reaching 
 junior status large numbers of students enter at advanced levels to specialize 
 in the widely diversified fields of learning offered by the University. It must 
 be assumed that new fields of specialization will be needed and developed 
 and that the numbers of students seeking advanced education will continue 
 to increase. The University's most unique and urgent responsibility is to 
 prepare to accommodate them under conditions which will stimulate and 
 retain their interest in developing their talents. A four-year branch at 
 Chicago can share the teaching of juniors and seniors, as can other public 
 and private colleges in the state. The growing numbers of freshmen and 
 sophomores, on the other hand, can be more widely distributed, many of 
 them in the proposed expanded system of junior colleges. 
 
 For these reasons it is proposed that at Urbana-Champaign the distribu- 
 tion among the three levels of students should in the next ten years approach 
 a ratio of 2:3:2 instead of the present 2:2:1. Since some professional pro- 
 grams require more than four years and since advanced undergraduate 
 courses are taken by many graduate students, it would be better to say that 
 the ratio of freshman-sophomore to all more advanced enrollment should 
 approach 2 to 5, instead of the present 2 to 3. Then if, as predicted by 
 
30 president's faculty conference 
 
 the Bureau of Institutional Research, the number at the advanced levels 
 increases to approximately 19,000 by 1969, the appropriate number of 
 freshmen and sophomores at that time would be 7,500 and the total enroll- 
 ment about 26,500. This kind of control of growth implies, in 1969, an 
 enrollment of freshmen and sophomores about the same as the present 
 number and hence the need for counseling and admission procedures which 
 will select freshmen who appear to have the ability to thrive intellectually 
 under the conditions of a large university with high standards. In the nearer 
 future the freshman-sophomore enrollment could be allowed to rise above 
 the present figure, and then be reduced to restore the proposed balance as 
 the capacities increase in other institutions, such as the junior colleges. 
 
 It is not intended to propose that at this time an ultimate limit be set on 
 enrollment at Urbana-Champaign. The illustrative number of 26,500 stu- 
 dents in 1969 is one which would probably accommodate all of the qualified 
 advanced students who may be expected to enroll at that time plus numbers 
 of freshmen and sophomores to give a reasonable balance in an institution 
 with the responsibilities characteristic of a major university. 
 
 In justification of the proposed distribution of students and rate of 
 growth the advantages and difficulties of a large university at the different 
 levels of instruction will be discussed briefly. Most of the points will reflect 
 comments of the faculty. 
 
 The principal advantage of a large, well-supported university is that it 
 can embrace the diverse fields of learning with relative completeness 
 and excellence. First-class library, laboratory, and other facilities for 
 advanced study and research can be justified economically if the enrollment 
 is sufficient to utilize them fully. Extensive opportunities for research and 
 scholarly work, with healthy cross-fertilization among related fields, can 
 attract an outstanding staff and student body. Students and faculty can 
 enjoy a wide range of cultural activities. 
 
 Such advantages can be realized with relative economy by an increasing 
 number of students as a university grows. Eventually, however, they are 
 offset by the physical and psychological disadvantages of sheer size. The 
 point at which this happens depends on the rate of growth and can be 
 deferred by skillful planning and assurance of resources to carry out plans. 
 In the absence of long-range plans, rapid growth beyond an optimum size 
 leads first to crowded conditions, then to duplication of facilities, often to 
 separation of parts of educational units. The campus becomes inconveniently 
 extended, operations that must be centralized become ponderous and rigid, 
 and traffic and parking problems become intolerable. Boomtowm conditions 
 on and off the campus that accompany too rapid growth make it difficult 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 31 
 
 to attract the first-class faculty and students who are sought by many 
 universities. 
 
 There is, nevertheless, a widespread feeling of obligation in the faculty 
 that at and above the level where students begin to concentrate in a field 
 of learning or profession the University must make every efTort to accom- 
 modate ail who are able, well-prepared, and serious in their intent to learn. 
 The number of fields of specialization is large. If each has adequate facilities, 
 a faculty that covers reasonably well the branches of the field, and a healthy 
 but manageable enrollment of advanced students, the total number of such 
 students in the University can become very large without massive enroll- 
 ments occurring in any one area. Variations in demand among fields will 
 cause pressures here and there. In general, however, the University should 
 seek the resources to provide education at the advanced levels for all well- 
 qualified students who apply. Enrollment of students in any area should 
 be limited only by the capacity of facilities and faculty. In some professional 
 fields the capacity may have to be limited to numbers that are deemed to 
 be the state's fair share of education in those fields. 
 
 At the freshman-sophomore level the situation is different. Common ele- 
 ments in educational programs lead to large enrollments in relatively few 
 courses — for example, in English, mathematics, biology, chemistry, eco- 
 nomics, psychology, and certain languages. In each of these fundamental 
 fields of learning the University should have a distinguished faculty which 
 should not be divided into a group which teaches only advanced courses 
 and one which teaches only freshmen. As far as practicable all members of 
 a department should be concerned with both basic and advanced instruction, 
 for the benefit of the students and the morale of the staff. With unrestricted 
 enrollments of underclassmen, however, the numbers of sections in intro- 
 ductory courses in a department mount by the score and the number 
 of staff needed to teach them becomes much greater than the number 
 needed for the advanced courses and the direction of graduate students. 
 Graduate teaching assistants are usually added to teach the sections. The 
 much maligned assistants often do a superior job, especially if the numbers 
 required are small enough to allow careful selection and if they can work 
 in close association with experienced teachers — a few to each teacher. It is 
 a question of proper balance between numbers of senior and junior faculty. 
 Even at present some departments are seriously out of balance, with too 
 large a fraction of sections taken by assistants. The balance will shift in 
 the right direction if over the next decade the enrollment of advanced 
 students increases more rapidly than the numbers of freshmen and sopho- 
 
32 president's faculty conference 
 
 mores and if the necessary additional senior faculty participates in both 
 elementary and advanced instruction. 
 
 Restriction of freshman-sophomore enrollments should be done by in- 
 creasingly selective admission in order to limit the range of abilities of stu- 
 dents in the large introductory courses. A faculty which is expected to 
 devote a major effort to advanced instruction and research can not also be 
 expected to devote the special attention to large numbers of weak, ill- 
 prepared, or uninterested students which is necessary to enable them to get 
 much from courses of universit}^ standard. On the other hand, a large 
 university holds special and stimulating advantages for the able and well- 
 motivated freshman who can himself assume a good deal of responsibility 
 for learning. 
 
 A proposal to restrict the numbers of freshmen and sophomores in the 
 University must assume that many new junior colleges or other educational 
 institutions will be established or expanded. The University must be pre- 
 pared to stimulate and assist the development of the junior colleges and to 
 advise in the articulation of their curricula with those of the University 
 for those students who plan to transfer for advanced work. The kind of 
 effort needed is illustrated by the current work of the English Department 
 with the high schools in connection with the plan to drop remedial English 
 for entering freshmen and the recent efforts of the Mathematics Department 
 and College of Engineering in helping the high schools to prepare students 
 for new entrance requirements in engineering. This service, however, will 
 have to be placed on a continuing basis with appropriate organization and 
 staff. Advanced placement examinations for students transferring from the 
 junior colleges may be necessary since it will be no service to students to 
 allow them to transfer to the University without sufficient preparation. 
 Coordination of high school curricula with those of the University for stu- 
 dents who plan to enter as freshmen should also be considerably extended 
 and improved. This could be done through the same organization which 
 advises the junior colleges. 
 
 The Committee is a\vare of the many problems raised in adapting the 
 structure and size of the student body at Urbana-Champaign to the major 
 educational responsibilities of the University as it sees them. Most important 
 is that the proposal depends upon the establishment of a number of junior 
 colleges of good quality and possibly upon setting up downstate branches 
 of the Universit\\ Within the University some of the major problems raised 
 by the proposal are: 
 
 1. The development of higher standards of selective admission of fresh- 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 33 
 
 men and transfer students, and improved procedures for counseling students 
 who are interested in attending the University. 
 
 2. The allocation among colleges of freshmen and sophomores and the 
 ratio of Illinois to out-of-state students. 
 
 3. The subsidy of graduate students as their numbers increase relative to 
 the numbers of assistantships in freshman-sophomore instruction. 
 
 The Committee believes that over the long term these problems can 
 gradually be solved. At all events it is convinced that with unrestricted 
 growth at all levels and in all kinds of educational programs which are 
 individually desirable the University will fall far short of its capabilities in 
 meeting its major responsibilities and the vital needs of the state for the 
 best possible education and research at the more advanced levels. Further, 
 it believes that the responsibility which can best be shared with other centers 
 is education appropriate to the first two years beyond the high school. 
 
 To summarize the above discussion and proposals the Committee makes 
 five recommendations concerning the size and growth of the University at 
 Urbana-Champaign : 
 
 1. At the junior-senior and graduate levels in the fundamental fields of 
 learning and in professional and occupational fields closely dependent upon 
 the basic fields the University should endeavor to secure first-class faculty 
 and facilities to accommodate all able and well-prepared students who apply. 
 In certain professional fields facilities may limit enrollment to numbers 
 deemed to be the state's fair share of education in those fields. 
 
 2. At the freshman and sophomore levels the University should acceler- 
 ate efforts to develop counseling and admissions procedures which will 
 select students who have the ability and maturity to succeed in a large 
 university with high standards. As the need to limit enrollment develops, 
 tested procedures can be applied to maintain an appropriate balance be- 
 tween the tasks of teaching large (but limited) numbers in the relatively 
 few basic introductory courses and of teaching large numbers of more 
 advanced students widely distributed among the diversified fields of 
 specialization. 
 
 3. The physical expansion of the University should be planned to accom- 
 modate 25,000 to 30,000 students at Urbana-Champaign by 1969, dis- 
 tributed between freshman-sophomore and more advanced students 
 approximately in the ratio of 2 to 5. This recommendation leaves open 
 the question of expansion beyond 1969 but campus planning should permit 
 further increase of enrollment in case it should turn out to be necessary 
 or desirable. 
 
34 president's faculty conference 
 
 The most urgent needs are improved facilities and increased capacities 
 for advanced study. The teaching of freshmen and sophomores should be 
 an integral part of the work of the large departments. All activities of each 
 department should be kept as near together as practicable to preserve the 
 important benefits to students and faculty that derive from reasonably close 
 association. If possible each college should also preserve a physical unity 
 for reasons well expressed by the South Campus Site Committee in pre- 
 senting one of its alternative plans, i.e., expansion to the south by colleges. 
 
 4. The Universit)^ should participate actively, in an advisory capacity 
 but with suitable staff and organization, in the development and strength- 
 ening of the junior colleges, to the ends that all high school graduates who 
 seek to continue their education will have the opportunity to do so and that 
 junior college graduates who wish to transfer to the University will be able 
 to prepare fully for more advanced study. Similar advisory service should 
 be provided to the high schools in a more completely organized way than 
 at present. 
 
 5. The University should press forward on the expansion of the Chicago 
 Undergraduate Division into a four-year branch of the University. If con- 
 tinued study of the needs of higher education in Illinois and of the devel- 
 opments in the other public and private universities and colleges in the 
 state show the necessit)^ for additional two- or four-year branches of the 
 University at centers other than Chicago, the University should be prepared 
 to establish them. The aim is to assure that a sound program of higher 
 education will be available to all properly qualified high school graduates. 
 
 III. GENERAL EDUCATION IN THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 The following statement deals with general education, for many years a 
 subject of concern in the various colleges of the Universit)'. The subject is 
 brought forward at this time because an ad hoc University Committee on 
 General Education, in its report of December 18, 1957, proposed that the 
 University Council take steps to resolve the question of the desirability of a 
 University- wide policy on general education. The following statement was 
 addressed, therefore, to the University Council, via the Provost, on Febru- 
 ary 27, 1958: 
 
 In September, 1957, the Provost appointed a University Committee to 
 consider problems in general education. The Committee recently submitted 
 its report and recommended that the issue of a University-wide program of 
 general education be referred to the University Council. This report was 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 35 
 
 also sent to the University Study Committee on Future Programs, as falling 
 within the range of its deliberations. Sections I and IV of this report have 
 been carefully considered by this Committee. 
 
 The Committee on Future Programs is indebted to the General Educa- 
 tion Committee for its accurate statement of existing University policy on 
 general education. Present University policy does consist largely in leaving 
 the matter of general education to college policy. But although this policy 
 has some merit, the Committee on Future Programs after due deliberation 
 hsis come to the conclusion that present University policy is unwise and 
 should be altered. 
 
 The Committee on Future Programs has not debated the merits of gen- 
 eral education — it has assumed them. It is mindful of the fact that a 
 specialized course of a given number of hours, essential to a professional 
 curriculum, can be superficially defended more easily and directly than a 
 course of the same number of hours in general education. It is nevertheless 
 convinced that a sound program of general education is essential to intelli- 
 gent and useful citizenship and to the kind of personal life a University 
 seeks to afford its students. Numerous reports and proposals attest to this 
 as an ever present need, competing in importance today with the great 
 research and professional needs in our society. 
 
 The issue which this Committee has considered is whether this University 
 can wisely delegate its responsibility for the general education of its students 
 to the special colleges. This Committee thinks that it cannot. It believes 
 that this responsibility should rest primarily on the University, secondarily 
 on the colleges. This Committee does not mean to criticize, openly or by 
 implications, the substantial efforts of some colleges — even though faced 
 with exacting requirements of professional competence — to provide a sound 
 general education for their students. The Committee takes its stand on 
 grounds that general education in principle should be a University require- 
 ment, for all graduates. A college should not have the power, or the 
 temptation, to judge its professional goals as more important than the goals 
 of humane life and the needs of enlightened citizenship. 
 
 In point of fact demands for specialized curricula have been constantly 
 on the increase. This trend indicates man's increasing needs and his greatly 
 increased specialized knowledge. A college, however, should not be subject 
 to academic pressures solely from within, for more specialized curricula. It 
 should also be subject to pressures which derive both from increasing 
 knowledge in fields outside the college in question and from that vast part 
 of man's cultural heritage which a university as a whole seeks to preserve 
 and transmit. It is the business of a university to strike the right balance: 
 
36 president's faculty conference 
 
 to stand for sound professional training on the one hand and civilized 
 graduates on the other. The tension between college and university, far 
 from being a destructive one, is the kind of tension on which the health of 
 both parties directly rests. 
 
 Precisely what kind and how much general education this University 
 should require is not easy to decide. The effect of specialized demands in 
 our society has been to shrink the traditional four-year liberal arts require- 
 ment to something like one year's university work. If the University should 
 require as little as thirty hours, this would add a year to some specialized 
 curricula. This Committee does not regard this as necessarily undesirable. 
 Increased requirements would put pressure on the high school student to 
 satisfy more requirements prior to entering the University. But in any case 
 the University should require more than rhetoric and physical education. 
 Actual practice in the University is fortunately well ahead of University 
 policy. 
 
 This Committee does not favor a system of rigid requirements in general 
 education for this University. It is of the opinion that many students will 
 derive maximum benefit from broad survey courses. At the same time, since 
 surveying the whole range of human knowledge is completely impossible, 
 many students will derive much greater benefit from specialized sequences 
 outside the areas of their major work. A system of basic and distribution 
 requirements allows for flexibility of this kind. It embodies the principle, 
 to which this Committee subscribes, that sound general education consists in 
 the acquisition of (1) basic literacy and (2) some insight into the ways of 
 thinking characteristic of developed fields of knowledge outside the area of 
 the major. Such a system, however, should have its flexibility tempered by 
 well organized and logically coherent sequences of courses. As an illustra- 
 tion of what this Committee has in mind, the following is suggested: 
 
 Basic requirements: 
 
 1. Rhetoric, 6 hours 
 
 2. Mathematics, or logic, or foreign language, 6-8 hours 
 
 Distribution requirements: 
 
 1. Humanities (6-8 hours — two courses in sequence) 
 
 2. Social studies (6-8 hours — two courses in sequence) 
 
 3. Natural science (6-8 hours — two courses in sequence) 
 
 This Committee is of the opinion, however, that University policy on 
 general education should not consist simply in a requirement. The Univer- 
 sity should stand for the well educated man as well as the thoroughly 
 trained and professionally competent specialist. It should be fully aware of 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 37 
 
 the possibilities of intellectual development of its students outside the class- 
 room as well as within, and should exercise vigorous leadership in stimulat- 
 ing this development. Progress in this direction presently suffers from 
 
 (1) rarity of personal contact between undergraduate and any professor, 
 
 (2) residences which are designed as mass facilities for eating, sleeping, and 
 studying, not as centers of scholarly life, (3) lack of departmental lounges, 
 language tables, and the like, (4) lack of effective recognition of honors 
 students, (5) lack of a bookstore dealing in scholarly and antiquarian 
 books. This is only a sample of deficiencies which have been pointed out 
 to us. 
 
 For the reasons indicated, the University Study Committee on Future 
 Programs recommends that the University Council (1) endorse the prin- 
 ciple that the University should set up a system of requirements in general 
 education for undergraduate students in all colleges and (2) request the 
 Provost to appoint a University Committee to study concrete proposals for 
 (a) a formal University requirement in general education, and (b) ways and 
 means which would allow the University to take a more active part in 
 developing the general education of its students. 
 
 Editor's Note: At its meeting on June 5, 1958, the University Council sug- 
 gested the creation of a University Committee on General Education. President 
 Henry requested each of the three Senates to elect members of the Committee. 
 
Resume of Discussion on the 
 
 First Report of the University Study Committee 
 on Future Programs 
 
 THE CHIEF RESPONSIBILITIES AND AIMS OF THE UNIVERSITY IN THE NEXT DECADE 
 
 Professor Almy opened the discussion of Part I of the report by present- 
 ing the five major responsibilities of the University as the committee sees 
 them. 
 
 1. Teaching, research, and scholarly and creative activity in fundamental 
 fields of learning. 
 
 2. Teaching and research in professional and occupational areas closely 
 dependent on the fundamental fields of learning. 
 
 3. Liberal education of those who do not intend to become highly trained 
 specialists and, to the extent possible, of students aiming toward special- 
 ized or professional training. 
 
 4. Vocational training in fields which are clearly of substantial and wide 
 importance to the state and nation, especially those which require four- 
 year programs including sound preparation in the fundamental fields of 
 learning and which the University is uniquely or best fitted to provide. 
 
 5. Extension education and essential public services which require the kinds 
 and level of expertness represented in the faculty. 
 
 For purposes of discussion the definition of the fundamental fields as set 
 forth in the report was accepted. 
 
 The fundamental fields are mathematics, the biological and physical sciences, the 
 humanities, the fine arts and the social sciences. They are fundamental not only 
 because they have long been studied for their own sake but also because they 
 underlie most fields of applied knowledge. In science, for example, basic research 
 is the source for ever)' advance in applied science. 
 
 38 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 39 
 
 President Henry spoke on the historical nature of the state university. 
 He paraphrased Lotus D. Coffman, former President of the University of 
 Minnesota: "The state university should be concerned with any intellectual 
 activity of benefit to mankind, without distinction as to whether fundamental 
 or applied, without any other distinction." He pointed out that establish- 
 ment of priorities among the five central objectives, while modifying the 
 historical approach, would give direction to the programs to which the 
 University is now committed and would provide a framework within which 
 to consider new proposals. 
 
 There was consensus on the necessity of the University's pursuing points 
 1, 2, and 3 with vigor, and there were present those who felt that where 
 choices had to be made they should be made at the expense of the "service" 
 programs. There was no question of the desirability of providing "service," 
 and the effectiveness of service programs in building support throughout 
 the state was acknowledged. 
 
 President Henry mentioned that the tradition of the land-grant college 
 is one of providing teaching, research, and services, and elimination of any 
 one of these functions would be a departure from the established pattern. 
 
 Vice-President Ray asked if the Committee was not proposing a table 
 of priorities rather than intending to proscribe certain of the five types of 
 programs. He felt that a very strong case could be made for adopting a 
 list of priorities. 
 
 Professor Cribbet pointed out that the focus of the problem lies in the 
 question: "Should the state university be 'all things to all people'?" He 
 stated that the Huddleson Report of 1945 had answered the question 
 affirmatively. He felt that, under rapidly changing conditions, all of the 
 educational needs cannot be met efficiently and with high standards by 
 simply expanding the University in all directions in response to pressures 
 brought by particular groups. The functions of the University need more 
 explicit definition; a reasonable policy of operation must be formulated. 
 Such a policy involves establishing a table of priorities so that application 
 of the policy can be made in terms of dollars and cents in specific cases. 
 
 The University's obligation to provide professional education, in those 
 areas where the fundamental basis of the subject is stressed, was generally 
 recognized. There was considerable discussion of the University's responsi- 
 bility in connection with the providing of technical training. In many 
 instances technical training can be undertaken only in connection with pro- 
 fessional education. Training in dental hygiene was cited as an example. 
 There appeared to be a consensus that the University should not undertake 
 programs involving strictly subprofessional training, but that it does have a 
 
40 president's faculty conference 
 
 primary responsibility to supply leadership to other agencies which offer 
 such training. 
 
 It was pointed out that adhering strictly to the criterion that teaching and 
 research in the fundamental fields must underlie all of the University's 
 essential programs would depart so far from present practice that University 
 programs would have to be drastically revised, placing a strain on our 
 present administrative arrangements. In view of both internal and external 
 pressures, it is doubtful that the state university could operate realistically 
 on such a strict criterion. 
 
 Is it possible to settle the fundamental issues of how and when and by 
 what standards the University should plan its programs? 
 
 President Henry pointed out that in the past much of the consideration 
 of new developments has been disjointed and sporadic. It now becomes 
 necessary for the administration and the faculty to share planning responsi- 
 bility, and there is need to outline a procedure for carrying this out. Such 
 a procedure would lessen the internal strain. The Committee report is the 
 result of an organized look at the total structure of the University and an 
 attempt to make a coherent effort at educational planning which will match 
 our physical planning. 
 
 It was pointed out that there exists a system of external pressures some of 
 which might be, while others might not be, good for the future over-all 
 service of the University to the people of Illinois. To counter adverse 
 pressures we now need a system of positive counter pressures or a policy so 
 clearly stating our function and objectives that the shadow of each future 
 proposal is clearly outlined against it. Of the two counter measures the 
 latter is preferable. 
 
 The President invited the attention of the participants to the traditional 
 strength of the University, which was derived from the fact that, in the 
 popular image, it has been both economically and culturally close to the 
 hopes of the people. The land-grant college has stemmed from this concept. 
 It might be a great mistake for the state university to diminish its direct 
 relationships with the people of the state. The service programs of the 
 University constitute one avenue for strengthening relations with the people, 
 holding their personal interest. 
 
 The Afternoon Session 
 
 The afternoon session opened with rather full discussion of whether or 
 not the University should devote its resources equally to the five objectives, 
 or whether the situation is now such as to require the establishment of 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 41 
 
 priorities. There was considerable debate as to the relative importance of 
 the function of extension education. The conference was prepared to 
 recognize the idea that extension education is a major responsibility of the 
 state university. It was stated that the University should carry on extension 
 programs ( 1 ) which require the resources of the state university ; ( 2 ) which 
 it can do well; (3) which are in the public interest; and (4) which re- 
 quire an in-service setting as opposed to pre-service. The University should 
 not attempt to undertake those extension education programs which can be 
 carried on equally well by other schools or special agencies. 
 
 The question was raised as to whether or not it was the intent of the 
 Committee to establish a set of priorities. It was answered that all five types 
 of programs were deemed important but that point 1 would take precedence 
 over the other four if resources were so limited as to preclude adequate 
 financing for all. It was reported that the Committee viewed teaching and 
 research as being so closely related that no distinction in priority should be 
 made between them. 
 
 It was pointed out that, in considering the priorities suggested in the 
 report, it must be recognized that uniform freedom of choice is not possible 
 since the University receives money from various sources specifically ear- 
 marked and not available for general distribution. 
 
 The trend of the discussion was characterized by a participant as "heated 
 agreement." The fact is that the time has come when we must make 
 choices. The University can not do everything, and we are at a point where 
 resources are such that the most central objectives must be selected. Are 
 the five points in the report a "package deal," or is there an implicit order 
 of priorities? 
 
 A member of the Committee, Professor Diggs, expressed the view that 
 false emphasis had crept into the discussion of the specific five points, and 
 that it was the Committee's intent that the items dependent upon funda- 
 mental research should take precedence over the items which do not rest 
 on such research. 
 
 Professor Almy reiterated that the Committee's task was not to evaluate 
 the relative importance to the state of the five educational objectives under 
 discussion but rather to identify the role of the University in meeting these 
 needs. The order in which they are listed corresponds to the degree of the 
 University's responsibility in fulfilling them. In this sense they are held to 
 be in order of priority for the University. The total task of meeting these 
 five important objectives will be shared among all of the higher educational 
 institutions of the state. 
 
42 president's faculty conference 
 
 THE GROWTH AND SIZE OF THE UNIVERSITY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
 
 Professor Almy remarked that the University's Bureau of Institutional 
 Research had estimated an enrollment for 1969 of 33,500 students at 
 Urbana-Champaign and 20,000 at a four-year branch in Chicago. 
 
 Studies show that at present only 50 per cent of the entering freshman 
 students reach the junior level. The heavy enrollment at the lower level 
 makes it difficult in many departments to provide senior staff for the teach- 
 ing of elementary courses. The present distribution of enrollment at the 
 three levels — freshman-sophomore, junior-senior, and graduate — is in the 
 ratio of 2:2:1. 
 
 The Committee believes that the University'' s unique and most urgent 
 responsibility is to provide education for the advanced students. This belief 
 is based on the assumption that the growing numbers of freshmen and 
 sophomores can be widely distributed — many of them will be enrolled in 
 junior colleges, whereas the University is the only Illinois public institution 
 which for the next decade can assume major comprehensive responsibility for 
 education at advanced levels. The Committee therefore recommends that 
 the University seek, through the control of admissions, to establish a ratio 
 approaching 2:3:2, or, to put it more generally, two freshmen and sopho- 
 mores to five more advanced students. Accepting the Bureau's estimate, for 
 1969, of 19,000 students above the sophomore level, the appropriate number 
 of freshmen-sophomores would be 7,500 — a total enrollment of 26,500. 
 
 Professor Cribbet pointed out that this recommendation of the Committee 
 did not stem from a belief that there must be a fixed limit on the size of the 
 University at Urbana-Champaign, but rather that since there must be con- 
 trol somewhere it can best be applied at the freshman-sophomore level. 
 
 There seemed to be general agreement among the participants that such 
 a policy could be adopted only if other institutions in the state are prepared 
 to accommodate all qualified students v/ho wish to go beyond the high 
 school. 
 
 The view of the local AAUP chapter that there should be a numerical 
 limitation on growth — with the upper figure of 25,500 — was reported. 
 The chapter's feeling is that, rather than expand beyond that number on the 
 local campus, expansion should take place in Chicago and perhaps else- 
 where in the state. The economic advantages to the commuting student 
 were cited. It was pointed out that undue local expansion would put great 
 strain on Urbana-Champaign resources. Fear was expressed that the plans 
 of the building committee indicate great growth at the Urbana-Champaign 
 campus. 
 
 The President observed that in his opinion the building committee's report 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 43 
 
 and this Committee's report were not out of step. Professor Parker, chair- 
 man of the building committee, said that his committee was trying to keep 
 the building plans flexible as long as possible and that their plans were 
 based on departmental estimates of needs up to 1969. Present planning is 
 on the basis of 2:2:1 for 30,000 students (12,000 freshmen-sophomores and 
 18,000 juniors, seniors, and graduate students) . Eleven per cent over- 
 crowding would be necessary to accommodate the predicted 33,500. 
 
 The building committee estimates that on the basis of 2:3:2 distribution, 
 the same facilities would accommodate 27,000 (7,000 freshmen-sophomores 
 and 20,000 juniors, seniors, and graduate students), as it takes more space 
 to accommodate the advanced students. It was recognized that physical 
 planning must be based upon educational planning and that the building 
 committee is a faculty committee aware of academic problems. 
 
 Within the next few months, the President said, the budget will go to the 
 Board of Trustees and then to the Legislature. Many buildings are pro- 
 posed in two stages, but the advanced planning for the next four years will 
 be done in the light of the ten-year building program plans. In the course 
 of the next four years, these building plans can still be adjusted to fit educa- 
 tional planning and revised estimates of future enrollments. 
 
 A question was raised concerning the development of the south campus 
 site, and assurance was given by the President that only the area south of 
 Florida Avenue and immediately adjacent to the present campus was under 
 consideration at the present. The whole question is still open, since no 
 decision has to be made soon. 
 
 It was stated that all institutions will be faced with tremendous enrollment 
 increases according to the projections based on the past twenty years. It 
 was pointed out that the Committee reconmiendation is based on the as- 
 sumption that the junior colleges will be able to take care of the lower-level 
 enrollment; but we must face the fact that new junior colleges create a 
 demand for advanced training. Experience shows that an increased propor- 
 tion of high school graduates go on to college if junior colleges are locally 
 available. 
 
 Doubt was expressed as to the wisdom of the current practice of having 
 so large a number of freshman-sophomore classes taught by graduate stu- 
 dents. The question of the cost of subsidizing graduate students was raised. 
 Professor Almy reported that no detailed cost studies have been made but 
 that it was acknowledged that an increased number of fellowships would be 
 needed if the new ratio were attained. The idea was also expressed that 
 advanced graduate students could be used more effectively in advanced 
 courses than is now the case. If teachers' salaries continue to rise, there will 
 
44 president's faculty conference 
 
 be more students who are willing to borrow to prepare for these better pay- 
 ing jobs. It was also assumed that other kinds of support for graduate 
 students will be developed. 
 
 The President commented that it has been generally assumed that the 
 development of the four-year campus in Chicago will give uniform relief to 
 the Urbana-Champaign campus. This, however, is an unproved premise; 
 it may actually increase the load in certain areas of advanced and grad- 
 uate work. The President also cautioned, in planning to attract the superior 
 student, not to leave the impression that we aren't interested in the good 
 average student. On this comment there was general consensus. 
 
 There was considerable discussion of the need for better high school- 
 college relations. This led to consideration of admission standards. Three 
 years of English is the only general requirement for admission to the Uni- 
 versity, but the various colleges have additional specific requirements. Ques- 
 tion was raised as to the distinction between "accredited" and "recognized" 
 as used in the University catalog. Dean Sanford explained that "accredited" 
 is the term applied by the North Central Association and "recognized" is the 
 one used by the State Department of Education. So far as meeting the 
 University's entrance requirements is concerned, they are interchangeable. 
 
 A strong plea was made for the University to try to impress its philosophy 
 on the secondary schools. It was regretted that the University has seemed to 
 take the position that it must do the best it can with the type of students it 
 gets. It was felt by many of the participants that it is incumbent upon the 
 University now to give leadership to the secondary education of the state. 
 Many present held the view that the University could well impose further 
 entrance requirements in terms of specific subject prerequisites. This is done 
 in a number of states — California was cited — and many feel that it would 
 not be unreasonable to do the same here. 
 
 Dean Dodds stated that it is quite appropriate for the University to 
 explore admission requirements with the high schools, although he was of 
 the opinion that the academic sequences suggested in the conference are not 
 too different from the records presented by many of the better entering 
 students. It was explained that high school visitation and regulatory func- 
 tions are more properly the role of the state than of the University and that 
 for this reason the University has withdrawn from many such activities 
 which it formerly carried on. 
 
 The President observed that the University can look to the regional 
 agencies to do the accrediting job. This makes it possible for the Univer- 
 sity to proceed along guidance lines rather than on a policing basis. 
 
 The Committee urges the development of improved counseling and test- 
 
FIRST REPORT ON FUTURE PROGRAMS 45 
 
 ing procedures for the lower half of the high school graduates. Higher 
 admission standards were advocated, by a participant, as a means of reduc- 
 ing casualties. The President indicated that it is not necessarily true that 
 increases in admission requirements alone greatly improve retention. 
 
 Mr. Ray pointed out that much of what is implied in the raising of ad- 
 mission requirements can be accomplished through the counseling process. 
 As we come to stand for a certain kind of education, the cooperation of the 
 high schools will be more readily attained. 
 
 It was stated that the Committee admitted that limitation on out-of- 
 state and foreign students might be necessary where facilities are especially 
 limited and expensive (such as in medicine). This has already been done 
 in such fields as architecture, dentistry, and medicine, and the report rec- 
 ognizes that kind of situation. 
 
 Many agreed that it would be impossible for the Chicago campus to grow 
 to 20,000 students without developing a graduate school. It was pointed out 
 that the faculty in a branch of that size will want the stimulus of creative 
 research and high-level instruction. 
 
 Dean Wall stated that the single most important factor in graduate en- 
 rollment is the extent of subsidy available. He said that the University must 
 take cognizance of the effect of the change in ratio of students and seek 
 ways to fill the vacuum if fewer graduate students can find employment in 
 the teaching of elementary courses. It is his belief that the distinguished 
 members of the staff want the stimulus of working with graduate students 
 on their research and that the graduate students contribute as much to the 
 standing of the University as they receive. He believes that 80 per cent of 
 the graduate students should be subsidized in whole or in part. The Presi- 
 dent commented on the financial implications of such a subsidy and indi- 
 cated that it would be beyond normal expectation for the state to provide 
 increased faculty salaries plus living expenses for 80 per cent of the grad- 
 uate students. 
 
 The President observed that if the substance of the report reflects the 
 consensus of the faculty, and if it is well stated and properly documented, it 
 will be well accepted. He expressed the hope that in the resolutions and in 
 the editorial comment every effort will be made not to be misunderstood. 
 What is said must be in the total context. He then referred to growth as a 
 normal function and expressed hope for a plan in balance. 
 
Report of the President's Faculty Conference 
 
 [At the close of the President's Faculty Conference on the First Report 
 of the University Study Committee on Future Programs, agreement was 
 indicated on the following points. It should not be assumed, however, 
 that every participant necessarily subscribed to every detail of every 
 statement.] 
 
 1. The President's Faculty Conference as exemplified by today's meeting 
 is useful and should be repeated. 
 
 2. There is a need for continued planning and coordination of higher 
 education on a state-wide basis. 
 
 3. The University should exercise strong leadership in the direction of 
 state-wide planning of higher education in Illinois. To facilitate such plan- 
 ning it should undertake extensive studies and where appropriate invite 
 other institutions and agencies to participate. 
 
 4. The Conference supports the view that the University should be con- 
 cerned with all appropriate forms of intellectual activity. In a period of 
 increasing demands, it will be necessary to establish more stringent priorities 
 for future programs. 
 
 5. The Conference approves the "Future Aims and Responsibilities of 
 the University" as set forth in the First Report of the University Study 
 Committee on Future Programs (pages 25-28). The Conference feels, how- 
 ever, that the following paragraph of the report (page 25) should be 
 amended to include the italicized sentence. 
 
 The characteristic feature of all of these functions is the emphasis and depend- 
 ence on the fundamental branches of learning. It is this feature which will give 
 the University unity and coherent purpose in the midst of diversity of function and 
 of large numbers of students and faculty. All of these objectives are important. 
 
 46 
 
REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE 47 
 
 The order in which they are listed expresses the completeness with which the Uni- 
 versity must attempt to fulfil them. . . . 
 
 Because of the difficulties of definitiorij the Conference recommends the 
 closest cooperation between the Educational Policy Committees of the three 
 University Senates and the administration in the development of specific 
 criteria to be applied with respect to new programs. 
 
 6. The Conference believes that the University has an important obliga- 
 tion to render service on a broad scale to the people of the state. It is 
 believed, however, that services undertaken should be closely related to 
 teaching and research programs. 
 
 7. The University should continue to exercise positive leadership, through 
 appropriate channels, in encouraging the development of high school cur- 
 ricula and standards designed to improve student preparation for college 
 work. 
 
 8. The University should participate actively, in an advisory capacity but 
 with suitable staff and organization, in the development and strengthening 
 of the junior colleges, to the ends that all high school graduates who seek 
 to continue their education will have the opportunity to do so and that 
 junior college graduates who wish to transfer to the University will be able 
 to prepare fully for more advanced study. 
 
 9. Counseling and admission procedures should be further developed to 
 encourage those students to enroll who have the ability, maturity, and 
 preparation to succeed in university work. 
 
 10. At the junior-senior and graduate levels in the fundamental fields of 
 learning, and in professional, vocational, and occupational fields closely 
 dependent upon the basic fields, the University should endeavor to accom- 
 modate all able and well prepared students who apply. 
 
 11. The future growth of the University at Urbana-Champaign should 
 be planned to provide a distribution between freshmen-sophomores and 
 more advanced students approximately in the ratio of 2 to 5.^ This recom- 
 mendation leaves open the expansion beyond 1969. The recommendation 
 assumes commensurate growth on the part of other educational institutions 
 in Illinois. 
 
 12. The University should press forward towards the expansion of the 
 Chicago Undergraduate Division into a degree-granting division of the Uni- 
 versity. If continued study of the needs of higher education in Illinois and 
 
 ^ On the basis of current estimates of future enrollment of junior, senior, and 
 graduate students, such a distribution would result in a total enrollment at Urbana- 
 Champaign of between 25,000 and 30,000 by 1969. 
 
48 president's faculty conference 
 
 of the developments in the other public and private universities and colleges 
 in the state show the necessity for additional divisions of the University at 
 centers other than Chicago, the University should be prepared to establish 
 them. The aim is to assure that a sound program of higher education will 
 be available to all properly qualified high school graduates. 
 
 13. The Conference recognizes that fellowship and scholarship grants, 
 and appointments as graduate assistants, are necessary for a large part of the 
 graduate student body. It is from the graduate students that future faculty 
 members must be recruited. These students contribute greatly to the success 
 of University instructional and research programs. For these reasons the 
 Conference emphasizes the importance of increased funds to provide for 
 fellowships, scholarships, and assistantships for the increased number of 
 graduate students expected. 
 
 i 
 
Participants 
 
 PRESIDENT'S FACULTY CONFERENCE, JUNE 9, 1958 
 
 Code: 
 
 FP Study Committee on Future Programs 
 
 SC Steering Committee 
 
 CR Committee on Resolutions 
 
 Campus: 
 
 UC Urbana-Champaign Campus 
 
 CPC Chicago Professional Colleges 
 
 CUD Chicago Undergraduate Division 
 
 AU All-University 
 
 H.K. Allen (UC)— FP 
 Economics 
 
 G. M. Almy (UC) — FP, SC, CR 
 Physics 
 
 H. W. Bailey (CUD) 
 Mathematics 
 
 N. M. Bedford (UC) 
 Accountancy 
 
 J. S. Begando (CPC) 
 Pharmacy 
 
 Thomas E. Benner (UC) 
 Education 
 
 L. E. Boley (UC) 
 Veterinary Medicine 
 
 C. A. Brandly (UC) 
 Veterinary Medicine 
 
 C. K. Brightbill (UC) 
 
 Recreation 
 A. G. Brodie (CPC) 
 
 Orthodontics 
 
 E. L. Broghamer (UC) 
 Mechanical Engineering 
 
 R. B. Browne (UC) 
 
 Extension 
 Emily C. Cardew (CPC) 
 
 Nursing 
 
 C. C. Caveny (CUD) 
 Executive Dean 
 
 49 
 
50 president's faculty conference 
 
 John E. Cribbet (UC) — FP, SC 
 Law 
 
 R. G. Cohn (UC) 
 Law 
 
 A. Dwight Culler (UC) — FP, SC 
 
 English 
 
 Roy den Dangerfield (AU) — SC, CR 
 Associate Provost 
 
 M. M. Day (UC) 
 
 Mathematics 
 
 Milton Berber (UC) 
 
 Labor and Industrial Relations 
 
 Donald E. Dickason (AU) 
 Nonacademic Personnel 
 
 B. J. Diggs (CU)-FP 
 
 Philosophy 
 B. L. Dodds (CU) 
 
 Education 
 T. J. Dolan (CU) 
 
 Theoretical and Applied Mechanics 
 
 R. B. Downs (AU) 
 Library 
 
 W. J. Dunne (CUD) 
 Commerce 
 
 Fred P. Ellison (UC) 
 Spanish 
 
 H. O. Farber (AU) 
 
 Vice-President and Comptroller 
 
 W. A. Ferguson (UC) 
 Mathematics 
 
 F. H. Finch (UC) 
 
 Education 
 R. W. Fleming (UC) — CR 
 
 Labor and Industrial Relations 
 D. W. Gotshalk (UC) 
 
 Philosophy 
 
 Norman A. Graebner (UC) 
 History 
 
 Paul M. Green (UC) 
 Commerce 
 
 Coleman R. Griffith (UC) 
 
 Education 
 H. E. GuUey (UC) 
 
 Speech 
 
 R. P. Hackett (CUD) 
 Cortiw.erce 
 
 T. S. Hamilton (UC) 
 
 Agriculture 
 H. W. Hannah (UC) 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 David D. Henry (AU) 
 President 
 
 L. B. Howard (UC) 
 
 Agriculture 
 
 Laura J. Huelster (UC) 
 
 Physical Education 
 Roy Huitema (CUD) — CR 
 
 Physical Sciences 
 
 A. J. Janata (AU) 
 
 Secretary, Board of Trustees 
 
 Valentine Jobst, IH (UC) 
 Political Science 
 
 E. C. Jordan (UC) 
 
 Electrical Engineering 
 C. M. Kneier (UC) 
 
 Political Science 
 
 C. A. Knudson (UC) 
 French 
 
 C. A. Krakower (CPC) — FP, CR 
 
 Pathology 
 
 AlanK. Laing (UC) — SC 
 Architecture 
 
 Harold Lancour (UC) 
 Library 
 
 L. H. Lanier (UC) 
 
 Psychology 
 
 Mark H. Lepper (CPC) 
 Preventive Medicine 
 
 R. F. Lesemann (AU) 
 
 Legal Counsel 
 S. E. Luria (UC) 
 
 Bacteriology 
 
 James M. McCrimmon (UC) 
 
 Humanities 
 
 G. C. McVittie (UC) 
 
 Astronomy 
 
 Carl R. Meloy (CUD) 
 Physical Sciences 
 
PARTICIPANTS 51 
 
 Van Miller (UC) 
 Education 
 
 N. M. Newmark (UC) 
 Civil Engineering 
 
 Milan V. Novak (CPC) 
 Microbiology 
 
 R. T. Odell (UC) 
 Agronomy 
 
 N. A. Parker (UC) 
 
 Mechanical Engineering 
 
 Theodore B. Peterson (UC) 
 Journalism 
 
 S. H. Pierce (UC) 
 General Engineering 
 
 E. F. Potthoff (UC) 
 
 Bureau of Institutional Research 
 
 R. M. Price (CUD) 
 Physics 
 
 O. L. Railsback (CUD) 
 Physics 
 
 J. Austin Ranney (UC) 
 Political Science 
 
 Gordon N. Ray (AU) 
 
 Vice-President and Provost 
 
 J. G. Replinger (UC) 
 Architecture 
 
 Marcus Rhoades (UC) 
 Botany 
 
 M. B. Russell (UC) — FP 
 Agronomy 
 
 G. W. Salisbury (UC) — SC, CR 
 Dairy Science 
 
 C. H. Sandage (UC) 
 Advertising 
 
 C. W. Sanford (AU) 
 Admissions and Records 
 
 H. M. Scott (UC) 
 Animal Science 
 
 Frederick Seitz (UC) 
 Physics 
 
 James R. Shipley (UC) — CR 
 Art 
 
 C. P. Slichter (UC) 
 Physics 
 
 J. R. Smiley (UC) 
 
 Liberal Arts and Sciences 
 
 Janice M. Smith (UC) 
 Home Economics 
 
 James N. Snyder (UC) 
 Physics 
 
 S. C. Staley (UC) 
 Physical Education 
 
 G. Y. Steiner (UC) 
 
 Government and Public Affairs 
 
 Marietta Stevenson (UC) 
 Social Work 
 
 H. S. Stillwell (UC) 
 
 Aeronautical Engineering 
 
 Russell Sullivan (UC) 
 Law 
 
 R. M. Sutton (UC) 
 History 
 
 Earl R. Swanson (UC) 
 Agricultural Economics 
 
 F. W. Trezise (CUD) 
 
 Engineering 
 
 Fred H. Turner (UC) 
 Dean of Students 
 
 F. T. Wall (AU) 
 Graduate College 
 
 Karl R. Wallace (UC) 
 Speech 
 
 D. A. Wallace (CPC) 
 Medicine 
 
 G. L. Webster (CPC) 
 Pharmacy 
 
 L. B. Wetmore (UC) 
 
 City and Regional Planning 
 
 P. E. Yankwich (UC) 
 Chemistry 
 
 Raymond J. Young (UC) 
 Education 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 
 
 3 0112 084223392