TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Chapter I. THE STATE's PRoVISION FOR CoNTROL OF PuB8 LIC SuPPORTED HIGHER EDUCATION .............................. Functions of the Board of Regents ........................ 9 Term of Office .............................................................................. 11 Some Regents from Congressional Districts 12 Filling Vacancies ..................................................................... 14 Stability of the Board ......................................................... 14 Governor's Relation to the Board of Regents 16 Recent Changes in Legislation ....:............................... 19 Appropriations Paid in Full ....................................... 22
II. ADMINISTRATION OF THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM... 24 I. EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 24 Size of the Central Office Staff .................. 27 Local Administration ............................................. 28 II. FISCAL ADMINISTRATION 29
III. THE UNIVERSITY CouNCIL .................................... 51 Recommendations ...................................................... 55
III. AGRICULTURE AND THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM 57 Cooperatoin Between the Georgia Experiment Station and the School of Technology 58 Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College ............ 60 Research in Agriculture ................................................... 65 Extension Service in Agriculture ........................... 65
IV. THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND E.NGINEERING EDUCATION AND RESEARCH - 72

Chapter

Page

V. THE UNIVERSITY SYsTEM AND HIGHER EDu-
CATION FOR NEGROES --------------------------------------------------------------- 78 I. THE STATE's INSTITUTIONAL PROGRAM...... 78
II. THE STATE's PRoVISIONS FOR ScHOLAR-
smPs ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 82 Wider Use of Scholarships --------------------------- 84

VI. STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THE
uNIVERSITY SYSTEM --------------------------------------------------------------------- 88 Introduction ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 89 General Conclusions ------------------------------------------------------------ 91
Factors Affecting the Development of Student Personnel Services in the University
System ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 97 Recommendations ------------------------------------------------------------------ 99
VII. THE JUNIOR CoLLEGES ------------------------------------------------------------ 109

VIII. TEACHER EDUCATION AND THE uNIVERSITY
SYSTEM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 122
IX. THE SuRVEY CouRsEs AND THE ExAMINA-
TIONS USED IN THEM .........................,..................................... 128

X. XL

MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS --------------------------------------------------- 146 I. GRADUATE INSTRUCTION AND RESEARCH 146 II. UNIVERSITY CENTER IN GEORGIA------------------ 147
III. INSTITUTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENTS ------------ 148
IV. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG MEMBER
INSTITUTIONS ............................................................... 148
. v. RETIREMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------ 150
VI. NEPOTISM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 150 VII. THE DIVISION OF GENERAL ExTENSIONS 150
VIII. THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF GEORGIA
CENTER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 152 FINANCING THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM ........................ 156
Financial Needs ........................................................................ 175

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1. University System of Georgia, Payments on State Appropriations for Current Operations... 22

2. Actual Payments Made on State Allotments to the Colleges for Negroes, University System, 1933-34 Through 1942-43 ............................................................ 78

3. Fall Quarter Enrollments in the Colleges for Negroes, University System, 1933 Through 1942 80

4. Median, Q1 and Q3 Scores Made by Freshman Students Entering the Institutions for Whites in the University System in Fall Quarter, 194041. (Southeastern Aptitude Examinations)............ 132

5. Persistence of Entering Freshmen, Senior Colleges, University System of Georgia ........................... 133

6. Persistence of Entering Freshmen, Junior Colleges, University System of Georgia ........................... 134

7. Teaching Units of the University System, FullTime-Student Equivalents and Student-CreditHours for 1940-41 .............................................................................. 158
8. Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs for 1940-41 ........................ 162
9. Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs per Student-CreditHour for 1940-41 ................................................................................. 163
10. Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs per Full-Time-Student Equivalent for 1940-41 ................................................... 164
11. Instructional Costs at the University of Georgia for 1940-41 ................................................................................................ 169
12. Income of the Teaching Units of the University System, Exclusive of Receipts from Auxiliary Enterprises and Funds for the Purchase of Land and Buildings, for 1940-41 ....................................... 174

INTRODUCTION
On August 28, 1931 the then governor of Georgia~ Richard B. Russell, Jr., signed a legislative act designed ''To simplify the operations of the Executive Branch of the State Government.'' This act became effective January 1, 1932.
Section 45 of the Act provides for a ''department of the State Government of Georgia, to be known as the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia." By this act there was transferred to the Board of Regents the responsibility for twenty-six institutions devoted to education or research. Previously each of these units had its own governing board and executive officer. The only coordinating and guiding influence among the institutions was such as might be exerted by the Governor and General Assembly in connection with appropriations.
When the reorganization went into effect Dr. C. M. Snelling who had been president of the University was called to the Chancellorship of the University System. He immediately sought funds from the General Education Board for a survey of the entire system. He was successful and the field work on the study was started in May, 1932 and completed in February, 1933. The report was not in form for publication until some months later when it appeared as a booklet bearing the title: ''Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia.''
As was to be expected the report was not accepted in full by the Board of Regents but the recommendations that were adopted resulted in the most far-reaching changes that any state has made in the administrative control of its program of higher education. The report recommended the reduction in the number of units in the System from twenty-six to nine or possibly ten. This
1

reduction was to be effected by discontinuance of certain institutions and the unification of others. Actually the number of units in the System as finally organized .by the Board of Regents was seventeen. In addition to the reduction in the number of units a considerable number of changes were made in the allocation of functions of institutions, and some of the units were changed from four-year colleges to junior colleges.
The System consists of the following institutions, coordinated in that part of the educational work of the state which is under the administration of the Board of Regents:
I. Senior or senior and graduate institutions
1. The University of Georgia 2. Georgia School of Technology 3. Georgia State College for Women 4. Georgia State W omans College 5. Georgia Teachers College 6. University of Georgia School of Medicine.
II. Junior colleges
1. North Georgia College 2. West Georgia College 3. Georgia Southwestern College 4. Middle Georgia College 5. South Georgia College 6. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College.
III. Experiment Stations
1. Georgia Experiment Station 2; Coastal Plain Experiment Station.
IV. Colleges for Negroes
1. Georgia State College 2. Albany State College 3. Fort Valley State College.
2

In addition to the foregoing institutions the Board of Regents established a Department of Adult Education. This department was intended to encompass the extension activities of the University System except for the Cooperative Extension Service in Agriculture and Home Economics. Actually the developments have not followed the pattern originally adopted. Instead there have been established:
1. A Division of General Extension with a Director responsible to the Chancellor;
2. The University System of Georgia Center, embracing the Evening College and the Junior College in Atlanta with a Director responsible to the Chancellor.
Mention should also be made of the Cooperative Extension Service in Agriculture and Home Economics, the Director of which is responsible to the Chancellor.
In 1940 as a result of the efforts of Chancellor S. V. Sanford and Mr. Cason Callaway who was at that time Chairman of the Board of Regents the General Education Board gave the funds for a re-study of the conditions in the System. Conditions have not at all times been favorable to a re-study. This with other factors has delayed the completion of this report until now three years have elapsed since the second grant was made and ten years since the first survey was completed.
The reader of this report will find frequent references to the first study. Not infrequently quotations from the earlier report have been used. These uses of the earlier report are partially due to the effort that has been made throughout this study to emphasize the progress that has been made in incorporating the results of the first study in the operation of the System. The acceptance of the suggestions of the 1932-33 survey has not, however, been made the sole criterion in evaluating the work of the System. As was to be expected those locally responsible
3

have in instances found better solutions to the problems raised than were recommended by the Survey Committee.
The following persons have assisted in the conduct of the present survey: R. B. Atwood, President, State College:
State-Supported Colleges for Negroes in Georgia. A. J. Brumbaugh, Dean of Students, University of Chi-
cago: Student Personnel Services in the University Sys-
tem.
In addition to the general report Dean Brumbaugh prepared special reports on the student personnel services in the following institutions:
Fort Valley State College Georgia School of Technology Georgia State College for Women Georgia Teachers College Middle Georgia College The University of Georgia
Doak S. Campbell, President of Florida State College for Women: Preparation of Teachers in the University System of Georgia.
James Lea Cate, Associate Professor, University of Chicago: Humanities Survey Course in the University System.
Thomas Cooper, Dean of the College of Agriculture, University of Kentucky: Agriculture in the University System.
Merle Couiter, Professor, University of Chicago: Human Biology Course of the University System.
John W. Davis, West Virginia State College: Colleges for Negroes, University System of Geor-
gia.
4

Leland C. DeViney, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin: Introductory General Course in the Social Sciences.
Newton Edwards, Graduate Student, Syracuse University: Overhead Administration of the University System.
G. E. Freeman, State Director of Vocational Education, Nashville, Tennessee : Preparation of Teachers of Trades and Industries and Vocational Agriculture.
H. P. Hammond, Dean of the College of Engineering of Pennsylvania State College: Engineering Education in the University System of Georgia.
B. K. Johnstone, Professor of Architecture, Pennsylvania State College: Curriculum in Industrial Design.
Druzilla Kent, Professor of Home Economics Education, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville: Preparation of Teachers of Home Economics.
E. W. Lehmann, Professor, University of Illinois: Agricultural Engineering at the University of
Georgia. W. I. Myers, Chairman of the Department of Agricul-
tural Economics and Farm Management in Cornell University:
Agriculture in the University System. Negro Education in the University System. John M. Stalnaker, College Entrance Examination Board: Examinations in the Survey Courses of the University System. R. B. Stewart, Controller, Purdue University: Administrative and Financial Organization and Procedures of the University System of Georgia.
5

R. J. Stephenson, Assistant Professor, University of Chicago:
Physical Sciences I and II in the University System. C. E. Wylie, Professor and Head of Dairy Department
of the University of Tennessee and Dairy Husbandman in the Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station:
Animal and Dairy Husbandry Work in the College of Agriculture.
Special mention should be made of the assistance rendered by Dr. Wilpert Stumpf and Mr. Norman Burns who at different times were in immediate charge of the office of the Survey Staff in Atlanta. They were responsible for assembling the general data about the several units of the System and the latter assisted in the preparation of the reports on teacher education, General Extension and the University System of Georgia Center.
Each of these persons has prepared a written report covering his phase of the study. No attempt is made in this report to reproduce these studies in full. Instead they have been used in two ways :
1. They have been used in the preparation of this report which is confined to a discussion of what the Survey Staff considered to be major issues.
2. They have been reproduced and copies placed in the hands of persons connected with the University System who might be concerned with them.
For most of the statistical analyses made in connection with the survey the year 1940-41 was used. It was felt that in that year the situation was in general more typical than in succeeding years when normal institutional operations were disturbed by war conditions.
The study has not been concerned primarily with an evaluation of the work of the several units of the System as entities, although considerable of this was necessary;
6

but rather with their work as parts of the System. Many years ago the state committed itself to a relatively large number of publicly controlled institutions -more than are to be found in most states. As has been seen he number of these units has been reduced by dropping institutions in some instances and by combining them in others. In this report are contained suggestions for further reductions which in the opinion of the Survey Staff should be made. Even if all of these recommendations are accepted the number of institutions remaining will be relatively large.

To provide the state-wide point of view a place in the state's program of higher education, a single board with a single executive-the Chancellor-has been created. It is too early to say that Georgia has completely solved the problem of coordinating its efforts in the field of publicly supported higher education. It has, however, made great progress in that area in the last decade. Many other states that have been struggling with the problems involved in securing the maximum return from the resources put into higher education could learn from the experience of the State of Georgia.

Throughout the study members of the staff have had the full cooperation of persons connected with the University System. Especial mention should be made of the support and assistance of Chancellor S. V. Sanford and Dr. J. C. Dixon, Vice-Chancellor; L. R. Siebert, Secretary, and W. Wilson Noyes, Treasurer.

December, 1943.

GEORGE A. wORKS Director

7

CHAPTER I
THE STATE's PRoVISION FOR CoNTROL OF PuBLICLY
SuPPORTED HIGHER EnuCA'l'ION
Prior to the creation of the University System which was put in operation January 1, 1932, each educational institution receiving appropriations from the General Assembly had its own governing board. When legislation was enacted creating the Board of Regents and giving it responsibility for publicly supported higher education and research in Georgia, two limitations were placed on its authority. It could not discontinue any institution without the approval of the legislature; and further, the legislative appropriations were made to the individual institutions instead of the Board of Regents of the University System. These restrictions prevented the Board from administering the state's appropriations as it might deem best for the development of a coordinated program of publicly controlled higher education. Early in its study (1932-33) of the situation the Survey Committee recommended: "that both of these restrictions be abrogated and that the Board of Regents be given the power to determine what institutions should be continued and to allocate the appropriations made to the Board for the support of the University System."
The legislature, at an early date, took action placing the responsibility for both of these functions in the hands of the Board of Regents. This was a far-sighted move on the part of the legislature as it opened the way for a large part of the progress that has been made during the last decade in adjusting the development of publicly supported higher education to the needs of the state. The major portion of this progress would have been impossible of realization under the provisions of the original consolidation act.
8

Another striking illustration of legislative wisdom was shown at the 1943 session of the legislature in changing some of the provisions relating to the membership of the Board of Regents. (These provisions have now been incorporated into the constitution of the state.) There are still further changes that in the opinion of the Survey Staff are desirable. An adequate consideration of these modifications calls for a brief review of the functions and desirable characteristics of a body such as the Board of Regents.
Functions of the Board of Regents
On the legal side there can be no question about the extent of the authority of the Board of Regents over the System. The General Assembly has placed full responsibility in its hands and under the existing legislation it could assume the responsibility for the administration of the System even in detail. This is the usual procedure followed by legislatures in making provisions for the control of higher education and it is a much better procedure than it would be for the General Assembly to attempt to define in detail the responsibilities of the Board of Regents. It is evident to even the casual student that the administration of a program of higher education such as that of a college or university involves many activities that call for professional training on the part of those who are charged with the execution of policies. Manifestly this is not the type of activity for which a group of laymen would be prepared. The assistance of a professional staff is necessary and the successful administration of the SYstem will depend in a large measure on a clear definition of the responsibilities of Board and professional staff. In publicly supported higher institutions boards of control such as the Board of Regents carry responsibility for:
9

1. The determination of policies. It is impracticable for the members of a legislature, or an electorate to make their wishes concerning higher education known directly to the responsible heads of the institutions. They, by one means or another, attempt to select a group of representative citizens who interpret their desires as best they can. This group of citizens, in this case the Board of Regents, determines policies for the conduct of the institutions in accord with the legislation. The Board of Regents has as one of its chief functions that of formulating policies for the University System.
2. Advisory functions. After having determined on the policies to be followed the Board or its committees should on request act in an advisory capacity to its chief executive, the Chancellor, in the discharge of his duties. The Board as a whole, its committees, or individual members, should not assume, however, the executive functions involved in the administration of the System. They should be assigned to the Chancellor and he should be held responsible for their proper discharge.
3. Checking on execution of policies. As a corollary to its policy making function the Board of Regents has the responsibility for checking to see whether or not the policies it has adopted are carried out. It should also determine whether or not the results of the policies that have been adopted are what were anticipated. Under the usual administrative conditions the Chancellor should make the necessary reports but there may be times when the Board of Regents will desire to use other procedures.
The present Board of Regents has been in office only since January 1, 1943. It is starting under auspicious circumstances. The changes in the legislative and constitutional provisions relating to the Board make for favorable conditions of service. The attitude of the Governor and the general sentiment of the public is favorable
10

to the University System. As a consequence the Board has the opportunity to establish a pattern of control that will influence the development of publicly supported higher education in Georgia for generations to come.
Term of Office
It is of fundamental importance that a board charged with responsibilities of this nature should consist of representative citizens of the state serving for terms long enough to give a high degree of stability to the Board and to insure a reasonable degree of continuity of policy on its part. It requires some time even for the most conscientious member, after beginning service on the Board of Regents, to become acquainted with the problems of as complex an organization as the University System. The term of office should be long enough so that members will have several years of service after they have attained the maximum degree of usefulness. On the other hand it is desirable to have "new blood" gradually infused into the membership to prevent the Board from becoming static.
In discussing the Board of Regents the previous report made the statement that:
The Board . . . should not be subject to as rapid changes in personnel as may occur under the present legislation. The Survey Committee recommends a change to a membership of either ten or twelve regents appointed by the Governor, with terms of either ten or twelve years, one term to expire each year.1
This recommendation was designed to achieve two ends: (1) To give the members a longer period of service than was provided under the six-year term of the existing legislation; (2) To prevent a Governor from ap-
1 Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, p. 16.
11

pointinga majority of the members of the Board during a single term of office. Unfortunately this recommendation was not accepted. The short term of office was one of the factors that contributed to the ease with which Governor Talmadge came to dominate the Board of Regents with such unfortunate consequences from the standpoint of the University System.
Legislation enacted during the 1943 session increased the appointive period of service of board members from six to seven years. This is an improvement over the previous legislation since it increased the normal period of service and was a step toward the realization of the first objective of the suggested change in length of term; but it fails to meet the second purpose as the term of the Governor has recently been changed from two to four years and a governor will appoint, during a normal period of service, a majority of the Board. The present offers no threat to the University System as the Governor has made it clear that he expects the Board of Re.. gents to determine policies in accord with legislation and its best judgment and without interference on his part. Any threat to the Board due to the length of term is further reduced by the fact that normally the Governor will not have appointed the majority of the Board until his last year in office.
Some Regents From Congressional Districts
Under the legislation in effect at the time of the first survey (1932-33) one member was appointed by the Governor from each congressional district and one from the state at large. In considering this phase the Survey Committee .said:
With the exception of the Governor and the regent appointed at large, each member is the representative of a definite area-the congressional district. There is always the danger that these mem-
12

bers will be regarded as representatives of given sec-

tions by the persons resident in the district from

which they come, whereas, they should be the repre-

sentatives of the interest of higher education for the

state as a whole. They should be without institu-

tional and regional bias.

The Survey Com-

mittee recommends that all regents be appointed

from the state at large.2

_This recommendation has not thus far been accepted. At the time the Board of Regents reorganized the System there was evidence in decisions made as to institutions to be discontinued, and in the allocation of functions, of the influence of regional bias on the part of some members of the Board. An examination of the minutes of the Board over a period of years prior to the appointment of the present Board (1943) also reveals the influence of regional bias in the determination of some of the actions of the Board.

The present Board seems determined to hold itself above actions of that kind. For this it is to be commended. It will find it necessary, however, to be constantly on its guard. The experience of the Board of Regents of Georgia in this matter has been a repetition of the experience of many other governmental units having boards or councils with a membership based on geographical divisions. It is very difficult to get members of such bodies to look at problems from the viewpoint of the entire area concerned. They are prone to give first consideration to what they regard as the interests of the territory from which they come. The University System of Georgia should be so conducted as to give the maximum benefit to the state as a whole. Not infrequently this will mean that the desires of a section of the state must be subordinated to the interests of the entire state.

Ibid., pp. 1516.
13

As far as it is humanly possible, members of the Board should be without district or institutional bias. A heavy responsibility rests on the members of the Board who have just come into office to make this viewpoint the tradition of the Board of Regents.
The original legislation creating the Board of Regents made the Governor an ex-officio member. The previous report recommended against such membership; and the new act passed by the 1943 legislature is in accord with the original recommendation. This is a distinct step for~ ward as much of the difficulty of the Board of Regents during Governor Talmadge's administration can be traced to his membership on that body.
Filling Vacancies
Another modification of the legislation regarding the filling of vacancies in the Board of Regents was made by the last session of the legislature. If a vacancy occurs for any reason other than the normal expiration of the term for which a member has been appointed the Board is empowered to fill the vacancy until such time as a session of the Senate may be held. This provision will obviate some of the difficulties that have been met in the past. It might have been well if the legislature had gone one step further and given the Board power to fill the unexpired term of the member without approval by the Senate. Such a provision would not be needed under present conditions in the State; but it would have been of material assistance at times in the history of the University System. It must not be forgotten that a recurrence of those conditions are a possibility under another Governor.
StabilJity of the Board
Much emphasis has been placed on the desirability of having a high degree of stability in the Board of Regents. This has been done not only as a result of the troubles
14

which have grown out of abrupt changes in the personnel but also because the legislation seems to indicate that it was the intent to give the Board of Regents a considerable degree of autonomy. This view is supported by a decision of the State Supreme Court which follows :
So long as the Board does not exercise its powers capriciously or arbitrarily or so as to thwart the purposes of the legislature in establishing a system of university education, the Board itself must determine what is necessary for the usefulness of the system and thus will govern the University of Georgia and its several branches. The powers granted are broad and comprehensive and subject to the exercise of a wise and proper discretion. The Regents are untrammelled except for such restraints of law as are directly expressed or necessarily implied.3
In an unpublished report dealing with the administration of publicly supported higher education in Georgia (prepared in connection with the present survey) occurs a statement that is so pertinent in connection with the Governor's relationship to the choice of board members that it is incorporated in this report.
There are, of course, many considerations which should be borne in mind by the Governor in making appointments to the Board of Regents. In so far as is possible all the economic and cultural interests of the state should find representation on the Board. Members should be drawn from different sections of the state [but not representing geographically defined areas], from both sexes, and from different professional and occupational groups. But to make the Board truly representative of the people of Georgia is a responsibility resting on the Governor and the Senate and in the performance of this re-
Georgia Reports, Vol. 179, p. 218.
15

sponsibility their hands should not be tied with narrow restrictive measures.4
The present Governor and the new Board give promise of setting standards of administration which if followed by their successors will be more potent in creating a desirable pattern of control than any statement which can be written into legislation. It would be well for the Board of Regents to bear in mind that even more is at stake than the development of a good administrative pattern for the University System of Georgia. Other states face problems similar to those of Georgia and they are watching with interest the developments of higher education under the Board of Regents.
Governor's Relation to the Board of Regents
Under the provisions of Georgia legislation the Governor has other responsibilities relating to the University System aside from that of appointment of the members of the governing Board. He properly has much to do with the determination of the fiscal policies and procedures of the University System. The report just quoted (prepared before 1943) discusses this phase in the following words:
The financial affairs of the state of Georgia are coordinated and controlled to a large extent through the Budget Bureau. The law provides that the Governor be the director of the Budget Bureau and that the Auditor, who is appointed by the Governor, be the assistant director. . . . He may if he chooses exercise immediate and direct control of the Budget Bureau or he may delegate authority to his assistant, the Auditor, who is his own appointee. Acting directly or through the Auditor, the Governor is in position to exercise a large influence in determining
"Survey of the Overhead Administration of the University System of Georgia," Newton W. Edwards, pp. 5657.
16

the amount of funds which shall be available to the several departments of the state government. The statutes provide that the Board of Regents prepare an estimate of the budget requirements of the University System and that this proposed budget be submitted to the Governor in his capacity as director of the Bureau of the Budget. He may require of the Board of Regents such itemized estimates and other information in such form and manner as he may deem necessary. Therefore, he is in position to balance the claims of the Board of Regents against the claims of the other departments of the state government, all of which are seeking their share of the public funds. There is no limitation on the discretion of the Governor in revising the estimates of the Board of Regents. When the Governor has made up a budget for all the state departments it is submitted to the legislature for its guidance in making appropriations.
It is not to be supposed, however, that the financial authority of the Governor over the University System stops at this point. After the legislature has passed the appropriation act, it is in the power of the Governor in his capacity as director of the Budget to determine what amount of the appropriation will be made available to the various departments. Frequently in Georgia the revenue actually received is less than the amount appropriated by the legislature. In such a case the Governor has the authority to decide how much of the revenues available shall go to the several departments of the state government. In other words, it commonly happens that the Governor in administering the budget exercises a continuous discretion as to what portion of the public revenue shall be spent by the several departments of the state government. In this respect he exercises
17

the same functions of balancing claims against the public funds that he exercised when the budget was originally adopted.
As director of the budget, the Governor also has authority to require requests by the various departments and boards for quarterly allotments. Far more important he may, under the emergency legis- ' lation which has been in force for some time, reduce any line item in the allotment and refuse to pay, or reduce the appropriation of the legislature to a given department.
Thus, the Governor has almost complete power, through financial control, over the activities carried on by any administrative agency of the state. He occupies the director's seat. He is in position to starve any or all aspects of the University System. . . . Through his financial powers he is in position to bring pressure on the Board of Regents in such matters as the dismissal of presidents or professors in the various. units of the University System, the appointment of new men to take their places, and the determination of salaries which shall be paid.5
The Governor of Georgia has certain relations with the University System in his capacity as general coordinator of the administrative agencies of the state government. . . . The Governor has been able to bring about a considerable degree of coordination of the activities of the various departments of state government, including the University System. This he has been in position to do very largely because of his control of the financial resources of these departments. . . . No argument is necessary to demonstrate the need for whole-
1 Ibid., pp. 6-9.
18

hearted cooperation between the different departments of state administration. In Geo.rgia, as elsewhere, there has been urgent need for the development of an effective administrative pattern to secure a good working arrangement of relationship so as to avoid friction and reduce wasteful duplication and thus reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of the state government.6
Recent Changes in Legislation
Legislation passed at the last session of the General Assembly (1943) made a number of modifications that affect materially the Governor's powers over the University System as well as other branches of the State Government. Among these changes are the following provisions :
.1. The Auditor who is assistant director of the Budget Bureau is elected by the legislature instead of being appointed by the Governor.
2. A Finance Commission has been created ''to the end that all agencies of the State shall have a just hearing and an unbiased determination of appropriation needs of the respective agency before the preparation and submission of a Budget Bill to the General Assembly.117
The Finance Commission herein established shall actively assist the Governor in the preparation of the Budget for submission to the General Assembly as required by law and shall meet in the State Capitol at such time as the Governor or Governor-elect may direct; for this purpose. The.Finance Commis. sion shall meet also on call to act on any budget appeals that may be filed by the various State agencies,
1 Ibid., pp. 17-20.
Georgia Lawe, 1943, pp. 298-299.
19

advise with the Governor in the performance of the official duties as required in Section 40-413 of this Act and to make recommendations to the Governor to aid him in promoting economy and efficiency in the operations of the State Government.8
3. In case a State agency is not satisfied with quarterly budgets submitted for its operation an appeal may be made for a hearing before the Finance Commission.
4. "On and after the passage of this Act, neither the Governor in his official capacity nor the Finance Commission shall have the power to arbitrarily strike the name of any individual employed by the State from a requisition for allotment of funds or from the Budget of any department or agency of State Government.' '9
It is extremely difficult to determine the exact amount of authority and control that should be exercised by a central authority of the state and the amount of control that should be exercised by the agency directly responsible for the administration of the University System. The successful conduct of affairs of the University System requires that those directly responsible for the administration be given a large measure of independent action. It is also true that the success of the whole administration of the state is dependent on a certain degree of central control to secure the necessary coordination of the policies and activities of the numerous agencies and departments of government. It must be conceded that there should be a central authority with the power to secure the proper relations of the administrative agencies to each other so that all the affairs of the state may be carried on with the greatest economy possible. . . . No one can have so extensive
Ibid., p. 299.
1 Ibid., p. 301.
20

and impartial a view of all the affairs of state government as the chief executive; and no one can adjust the conflicts of interest with so much competency as can the chief executive. Certainly, the Governor should have sufficient authority over the administration of the University System to secure the proper degree of coordination of that particular department with other departments of the state administration, in accordance with the general policies he has adopted. On the other hand, a great deal of independent action should be accorded those directly responsible for the administration of the University System. The Governor should not be in position to interfere with carrying forward the detailed work of the University System, he should not be able to substitute his own judgment for that of those in charge of the administration of the University System.
It is of prime importance that there be established a tradition of non-interference with the details of university administration by periodically changing political officials. Likewise, it is of equally prime importance for the success of state administration that there be established the tradition of giving to the central political officer such as the Governor power to coordinate and relate the administrative activities of the various agencies of the state.10
The legislation enacted by the General Assembly in 1943 which has been cited above would seem to give the University System the protection it should have against arbitrary acts on the part of a Governor and at the same time it leaves latitude for the exercise of the authority necessary on his part to coordinate the activities of the University System with other state agencies; and at the same time exert his influence as chief budgetary officer of
10 "Survey of the Overhead Administration of the University System of Georgia," Newton W. Edwards, pp. 3133.
21

the state in harmonizing the requests of state agencies for funds with the resources available. Education should neither seek nor expect any favored treatment. The new legislation appears to be a long step forward in defining the proper relationship of the Governor to the University System and the state is to be congratulated on the progress it has made.
Appropriations Paid in Full
Table I shows the legislative appropriations that were made to the University System of Georgia over the period from 1930-31 to 1942-43 inclusive. It will be observed that during that period of thirteen years the three last years are the only ones in which the System received its appropriations in full. The Board of Regents could
TABLE. I
University System of Georgia, Payments on State Appropriations for Current Operations

Year

State Appropriation

1930-31 1931-32
1932-33 1933-34 1934-35 1935-36
1936-37 *Stop-Gap
Payment, lh Year 1937-38 1938-39
1939-40. 1940-41 1941-42 1942-43

$ 2,252,866.00 2,301,116.00 1,900,500.00 1,883,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00
666,666.66
1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00 1,750,000.00 1,700,000.00 1,798;197.07

Total

$24,002,345.73

*Change in fiscal year.
22

Received

Total Amount

Per Cent

$ 2,001,304.40

88

1,891,264.97

82

1,624,927.50

85

1,336,930.00

71

1,177,500.00

78

1,387,500.00

92

1,275,000.00

85

666,666.66

100

1,295,000.00

74

1,155,000.00

66

1,651,500.00

94

1,890,752.81

108

1,708,188.84

100

1,798,197.07

100

$20,859,732.25

87

improve the administration of the fiscal aspects of the University System if the legislature continues to match appropriations and expected revenues as fully as they have during the last three years. It may not be possible to estimate exactly the revenue a particular tax structure will provide, but certainly there is no need for the striking differences between the amounts appropriated to the University System and the amounts received by it. In any fiscal relationship definiteness of expectation is of importance. It is especially true of an agency that is charged with the development of a program of education in which the major portion of the expenditure is for salaries of personnel. The practice over the period from 1930-31 to 1938-39 inclusive was a very wasteful one. The legislature should continue to provide against the pronounced gap between estimates of income and legislative appropriations. Provision should be made for the state to borrow the sums required to meet the expenditures authorized by the legislature. Certainty of appropriations will make for economy and efficiency in the development of the University System's program of education.
23

CHAPTER II
ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
In this chapter attention is given to the staff in the Central Office for the administration of the educational program of the System; the fiscal administration of the System; and the activities of the University Council. There might be some question about the inclusion of the Council since presumably it is not primarily an administrative organization. In spite of this fact this chapter seems to be the most appropriate place for the consideration of its place in the System as it has at times acted in an administrative capacity.
I. Educational Administration
The report made in 1932-33 made statements concerning the chancellorship that are pertinent enough at the present time to warrant repetition.
It may be stated without reservation that the ultimate success of the University System will be determined in a large degree by a proper functioning of the office of the Chancellor. The Board of Regents exercises legal powers. The Chancellor wields influences that are as much personal as they are official and professional. Such influences are the vital essence of the leadership of an educational system constructec,l and operated for human values. This office should personify wisdom in the art of administering material things and, beyond this, should furnish an inspiring leadership for the realization of the spiritual values without which the University System cannot make its greatest contribution to the political, economic, and cultural life of the state. .
From now on, the chief concern of the Board of Regents should be that of providing for such an organization of the Chancellor's office as will make of
24

it not only an effective agency for the right government of the University System but also, and what is of much greater importance, a center of stimulation for the development of the spirit of service and achievement in each institution of the University System and, consequently, in the System as a whole.
For the attainment of these ends, the Chancellor should be designated and regarded as the chief executive officer of the Board of Regents.1
The by-laws of the Board of Regents that have been in effect in the decade previous to the creation of the present board were not clear with reference to the functions of the Board and the Chancellor. Among the several sections of the by-laws there were conflicting statements regarding policies and procedures. The actions of the Board at times during the period under consideration were not in accord with the recommendation made in the earlier survey or with the accepted principles of good administration. Illustrations are to be found in which committees, or chairmen of committees discharged administrative functions that clearly should have been the responsibility of the Chancellor and his assistants.
At the time of the earlier survey (1932-33) there was in the Central Office only one officer besides the Chancellor. That individual was a Secretary-Treasurer. At present the staff of the Central Office consists of a Chancellor, the Secretary of the Board, the Treasurer and several members of the staff doing secretarial work. The Secretary is provided for by state legislation and he is responsible to both the Board of Regents and the Chancellor. In addition there is an Examiner of the University System who should be thought of as a member of the Central Office although he is housed at the University of Georgia instead of Atlanta.
1 Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, p. 18.
25

As has been indicated the previous report emphasized making the Chancellor's office "an effective agency for the right government of the University System.'' Specifically it recommended that:
At an early date there should be added to the staff of the Chancellor's office an individual to be designated as Executive Secretary. This officer, properly trained in educational and statistical techniques, should be charged, under the supervision of the Chancellor, with the necessary duty of assembling, analyzing, and interpreting the regular and special reports of the operations of the several branches of the University System so as to make continually available in proper form for the Board of Regents that general information and other specific data upon which the Board may base its action. Furthermore, this officer should be responsible for the performance of those many routine and simpler duties of the Chancellor's office in order that the Chancellor may be left free for those activities that belong to his leadership of the University System.2
No appointment has specifically been made to the position. The present Secretary takes care of the latter of these assignments. The former function has been partially met by the appointment of the University Examiner. This officer, however, is concerned to a large extent with the conduct of the program of testing and examining but he has in a measure taken care of what was suggested as the primary function of the Executive Secretary. That phase of the Chancellor's office has not been conducted on as broad a basis as was contemplated in the previous report (1932-33). It is recommended that the University Examiner be located at Atlanta rather than in Athens.
Ibid., pp. 2122.
26

Size of the Central Office Staff
The Survey Staff is convinced as a result of its study of the workings of the University System that the time has come when the personnel of the Chancellor's office should be increased in number. In accord with the suggestion made in the section of this report dealing with the financial administration of the System it recommends the appointment of a Business Manager. Later in this section suggestions are made covering the duties of the position. It includes a number of activities conducive to improved administration of the System which the Chancellor's office is not now in position to render. Their acceptance will contribute materially to the efficiency and the economical administration of the University System.
A second major appointment is recommended, viz., an Assistant to the Chancellor whose primary concern should be with curriculum, instruction, and student personnel problems.
The person selected for this position should have a scholastic background that compares favorably with the best qualified members to be found in the faculties of the University System. He should have had both teaching and administrative experience in the field of higher education that would equip him to counsel with presidents and faculty committees and members concerning curricular and instructional problems.
Considering the size of the present staff in the Chancellor's office these recommendations may seem to call for a striking increase. When consideration is given to the extent of the University System and the multiplicity of questions which arise the proposed expansion is in the opinion of the Survey Staff fully justified.
The changes that have been effected since the re-organization of the University System are far reaching indeed. But on the side of curriculum and instruction they
27

have been confined very largely to determining what institutions should be continued and the allocation of functions among the institutions that have been retained. Much remains to be done in further refining the functions to be discharged by the several units of the System. There are also a large number of minor adjustments that should be worked out within the instructional programs of the institutions of the System. While these modifications have been designated as minor, in the aggregate they are very important. The survey courses, the curricula at the junior college level, and the study of new areas of educational service are other illustrations of phases that should come under the Assistant's eye. The report on student personnel services reveals an area in which there is tardiness of development in most of the institutions of the University System. In another place in this report some suggestions are made concerning the examination system that is used in connection with the survey courses. This represents another opportunity for modification and adaptation to the needs of the System.
The Chancellor as the executive officer of the Board of Regents would be responsible for the coordination of the work of all the staff members and for public relations which are necessarily very important in such a system of higher education as Georgia has. while much has been accomplished in developing a unity of viewpoint regarding the University System among the several member institutions, a great deal remains to be done and it is an area that naturally falls to the chief executive officer of the Board. The conferences with the executives of the several units bore evidence of the favorable response that such programs as have been suggested in connection with the two recommended positions would receive.
Local Administration
The Central Office has very wisely acted so as not to
28

relieve the local administrative authorities of responsibility for their units. No appointments may be made to the staff of an institution except on the recommendation of the president. This procedure goes to the heart of the problem of building a strong educational institution, viz., quality of personnel. It also places the responsibility for personnel where it belongs-on the president of the institution. These statements do not imply that the Chancellor and the Board of Regents are without voice in determining who shall be admitted to membership in the several faculties. They may veto proposed appointments but the initiative in making appointments and promotions lies with the president. If it develops that an administrative head is unable to handle his problems of personnel it is better to supplant him by another than to undermine him by assuming his functions.
II. Fiscal Administration
The financial procedures used in the University System and the administrative practices relating to them were studied by R. B. Stewart, Controller of Purdue University. Copies of Mr. Stewart's complete report have been transmitted to the Board of Regents and the chief administrative officer of each unit of the System. The report in full is recommended for adoption except the sections relating to the development of four administrative centers for the University System as a whole, and the recommendation covering the relationship of the Secretary of the Board of Regents to the Chancellor. The Survey Staff believes both of these recommendations have a great deal of merit but their practicability is in doubt at the moment. The Survey Staff suggests that the new fiscal officer be designated Business Manager instead of Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager.
29

The sections which follow have been selected because of their importance. They should have early consideration by the Board of Regents.
1. It is recommended that a budget procedure be established within the statutes of the University System and followed completely, to the end that the Regents shall have for study and appropriate action a complete, consolidated budget for the entire University System which they direct.
This is far more important than may readily appear. A budget is frequently thought of as a mere outline showing the distribution of available resources among departments and purposes. It is frequently thought of as a program of limitation and those in charge of budgeting generally look upon budgetary procedure and control only as a means of definite check and restriction upon operating departments. All this is true. But, if properly prepared, the budget program is a means of bringing forth for full consideration by all those responsible almost every problem of significance within the institution. The budget should be prepared in such a manner as to develop a complete understanding of institutional problems by all officers even up to and including the Board of Regents as the ultimate authority within the System. Once a budget has been properly prepared, it represents the planned solution in financial terms and within definite limits of the educational problems of the University System in terms of dollars and cents. By shifting and arranging the dollars and cents equivalents of all problems as presented, those in charge bring about that development of the several parts of the University System in relation to each other as will best serve the purposes of the System as determined by the responsible authority established by the State. Good budgeting is
30

adequate pre-planning, and effective planning, when followed by good management, produces the most desirable institution. It is impossible to plan an educational program except in terms of sound budget procedure.
Such a budget should be assembled in accordance with a definitely prescribed procedure somewhat as follows:
(a) Forms should be prepared providing spaces for data arranged in accordance with the prescribed state classification of accounts covering a period of at least three or four years, and with provision for an explanatory detail of all items;
(b) These forms should be filled in by the proper central accounting office at each unit as to actual data for the past two years and current estimates for the present year, transmitted to the operating and instructional departments with such instructions as may be deemed advisable, and the departmep.ts should complete the forms by inserting, with supporting explanations, their estimates and requests for funds during the ensuing year for which the budget is being prepared ;
(c) When the departments have prepared their estimates and explanations, the departmental requests should be reviewed by the proper dean or divisional head in conference with the department head initiating each request, and the forms containing the requests as approved by the dean or divisional head should be returned to the accounting office for assembling, summarization, and presentation in toto to the President* together with data concerning the income during the burget period for the particular institution;
*The chief executive whether he is president or dean.
31

(d) The President should study the entire set of information and critically review the requests jointly with each and every dean or divisional head and the institutional business officer, working out in conference, attended by all three officers, such modifications of the original requests as will afford the best operation and development of his institution within the limits of prospective support and policies, and then should submit the detailed revised requests as the institution's program or budget to the Chancellor of the University System;
(e) The Chancellor's Office should consolidate the several institutional budgets into a University System Budget and the Chancellor should study the entire program and review the requests jointly with each and every president or dean of administration and the chief :financial officer of the University System, agreeing in conference, attended by all three officers, to such final requests as will afford the best operation and development of the several institutions as a state-wide university system. The :final result of such deliberations should be submitted to the Regents, via committee or otherwise, for :final study and action. It is strongly advised that the Regents appoint a special committee which shall meet with the Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and others to study the budget in complete detail. This Committee might well spend several days in studying the Chancellor's proposals and should be informed of all items not recommended by the Chancellor, as well as those items included in his proposed budget. Such a complete review will tend to generate confidence and good will between all those responsible for the administration of the University System. After full deliberation, the Committee should then transmit the budget to the Board with its recommendations. The
32

budget as considered by the Regents in final form should comprise one complete document with suitable schedules and exhibits to portray in comparative form for three or four years, and for the several institutions, the program which the Regents must direct. The most recent budget (1941-1942) of the University of California is an excellent example of ite final budget document as proposed, assuming the working papers included historical data for the preceding year or two.
The foregoing outline of procedure entails the preparation of forms by an authorized University System business officer, preparation of operating estimates by the head of each respective operating department, review of estimates first by the department head and his chief, next by his chief and the institutional head, then by the institutional head and the Chancellor, assisted by the institutional business officer, and, finally, by the Chancellor, assisted by the Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager, and the Board of Regents in whom the responsibility and authority for the University System is~ vested. In each case the responsible educational officer, the finance officer, and the head of the unit or system shall work together and in each other's presence, in order that there may be no misunderstanding of the reasons for decisions as finally made and no dodging of mutual responsibility for the decisions as made. Such procedure would fo-rce the attention and careful consideration of every officer for the entire System in the making of plans and programs, and would direct the Chancellor's thinking completely into all of the ramifications of operation, development, and policy which need the attention of the legal controlling authorities.
33

It is understood that the University System receives appropriations from the State Legislature for financial support. These are presumably based upon a carefully prepared budget reflecting the needs and requests of all the institutions and departments of the System as correlated in the Chancellor's Office and submitted by the Regents for the University System. Detailed data for such requests and e,.idence of the existence of such a comprehensive University System budget were not available in the Chancellor's Office. Careful questioning of the heads of several of the separate institutions indicated that no such detailed material is presented in any prescribed or uniform manner or in definite financial terms to the Chancellor. No evidence was produced that such separate institutional statements, if made, are consolidated into a complete related budget for the University System as a whole. More than one chief administrative officer commented upon the fact that he had not been consulted by the Chancellor nor by the Regents on the requirements of his unit nor the effect of changes sometimes made in the budgets submitted. This apparent lack of definite budgetary procedure in the formulation of the University System program is reflected in lesser offices of administration, where several deans or heads of departments stated they had no knowledge of the consideration given to their budgetary requests from the date such requests were first made in early spring to the time the newspapers announced final approval by the Regents of the separate budgets for each institution in the System. On the day the approved budget for one institution was inspected, an administrative officer within that institution admitted he had no knowledge of the status of his departmental budget, since no superior officer
34

had at any time conferred with him nor reported to him upon budgetary matters since departmental material had left his office several months before.
Since the budget is the limiting factor in the operation of the University System and since the allocation of funds within the System affects and controls the development of the several parts of the University System, it follows that the procedure of building the University System budget should require the best thought and correlated endeavor of every department head and officer of the System. It is submitted, therefore, that the procedure in building and operating a budget for the University System is no less important and may be even more important than the nature of the control over expendi~ tures within the final approved budget.
A budget prepared as recommended would require immediate consideration, for example, of the basis on which the funds provided by the State Legislature are prorated or alloted among the several institutions of the System. Inquiry in the Chancellor's Office indicated that funds are allotted at present generally upon a basis of perhaps three factors, namely: (1) what the institutions have received in the past, (2) what the Chancellor feels is the least possible modification of such historical allotments for regular operations, and (3) more or less emergency situations requiring special consideration of the Regents, as, for example, increasing the capacity of the medical school during the current year due to the requirements and pressure of national defense, or, the enlargement or unusual care of particular buildings as in the case of the special allotments made for that purpose in 1940-1941.
Although it was stated that allotments are made to the several institutions on the basis of enrollment
35

and the relative cost of instruction, a study of enrollment and comparative allotments over a period of years [based upon data supplied by the Treasurer of the University System in the Chancellor's Office] would indicate that there is little if any relationship between the allotments and the enrollment or cost of instruction either on a total or a per capita basis. This would further substantiate the statement that the allotments were based upon historical precedent as modified by the Chancellor's individual judgment, perhaps influenced by the manner in which individual institutional heads were able to present special projects to him for consideration. A further study of the data presented substantiates the statement that there is little, if any, relationship between the amount allotted from the state appropriation and the cost of the several types of instruction being offered in the several institutions. It is recognized that medical education is the most expensive of all instructional costs, being followed by agriculture, engineering, and science. Naturally, the per capita cost of medical instruction is the highest in the System, but it has increased approximately 150o/o during the seven-year period for which data were presented while the allotment for technical instruction has decreased approximately 35%. The decrease in the per capita allotment at Athens, which includes the College of Agriculture, cannot be said to indicate a reduction in the support for agricultural inst111ction since much of the instruction at Athens is of the liberal arts variety which, in many departments, approaches the cost of junior college instruction. It is not contended that allotments should be made to the several units in the System strictly on a per capita basis, but there should be some relationship between the cost of instruction of a certain type in one insti-
36

tution and in another, and a complete comparative budget built according to the definite procedure outlined would require consideration of all problems, including the amount of the students' fees and other income, necessary to make allotments with the wisdom and foresight which a University System should provide.
2. It is recommended that suitable accounting control be established, particularly in the larger institutions, to the end that the control of expenditures within the limits of the approved budgets be handled by the local finance office of each unit.
At the present time, control of budget expenditures is delegated in many instances to department heads. Furthermore, in some units, expenditure control tends to be retroactive in the accounting office due to the present purchasing procedure, which does not lend itself readily to internal institutional control. The type of control to be established will depend upon whether the recommendation pertaining to institutional purchasing, is adopted.
Expenditures for any institution should be made upon the basis of requisitions submitted by the particular operating department requiring the material or services. Such requisitions should be priced by a competent purchasing authority who is in direct contact with the operating department in order that the right type of material may be secured at the lowest prices obtainable. Once such prices are obtained, the requisitions, together with all bids and data, should be transmitted to the chief institutional or divisional finance officer to be checked against the budget control accounts for four purposes: (1) to ascertain if the expenditure is properly within institutional policy as established by the Regents and
37

administrative officers, (2) to ascertain if unencumbered allotments are sufficient to pay for the item when delivered, (3) for the accounting classification of the expenditure, and (4) for the designation of the proper fund from which payment shall be made.
At present, requisitions for desired items are prepared by department heads and forwarded through the local finance offices to the state purchasing office. Inasmuch as departments in several of the units thus do not know the cost of the item, an estimated cost is used and the local budget is encumbered according to the estimate. When the central purchasing office prices the requested item, an order is placed at the lowest bid price and the local department notified of the order by carbon copies. Budget control, when based to any large extent upon estimated costs rather than actual prices, is less effective and departmental memoranda accounts are not deemed ample control over expenditures.
3. It is recommended that the finances of all auxilary self-supporting enterprises, particularly operations of the dormitories and dining halls, be separated completely from instructional funds and the enterprise be placed upon a self-sustaining basis, being charged for all costs of maintenance as well as for improvement and the ultimate replacement of facilities. It is further recommended that the operating policy for such units be so formulated that all funds collected for board and room shall be used to provide the very best such facilities that can be provided for the amount charged to the students without subsidy from the institution for maintenance and utility services.
Throughout the University System, a large investment has been made by the State from funds
38

supplied through the public treasury, by gift, and otherwise in dormitories and dining halls. Some of the more recent structures and equipment layouts are exceptionally well suited to their purpose and represent an excellent standard toward which an effort should be made to bring all of such facilities. With the exception of these few units financed in part by the investment of trust funds at the University of Georgia in Athens and the Georgia School of Technology in Atlanta, these facilities are operated in such a manner as to intermingle the finances with the support for the instructional work of the institutions. This is a false basis of operation and in the larger institutions works a definite hardship upon certain students for the benefit of others.
When all the students reside in college-owned dormitories and take their meals in the college dining hall, the injustice to students is minimized but the administrative mind is confused and educational policies obscured. In the junior colleges there appears to be a uniform rate of $12.00 per month for board and $4.00 per month for room, although there is only a general similarity in the food provided and a wide disparity in the dormitory accommodations. Even in the same institution, students were found to be housed in remarkably dissimilar quarters, ranging from four students in one room with two double beds, two double study desks, and one large closet, to more nearly fire-proof quarters with two students in a room with single beds, separate closets, and adequate space for study. Disparity in sanitary facilities is even more noticeable and important, ranging from one stool, lavatory, or bath for ten persons down to one each for four persons.
Without exception, it appears that University System administrative officers are expected to earn
39

a profit, or at least collect income in excess of eLpenditures, on dining hall and dormitory operation~. This excess income is used for the current operation of the instructional program. In some of the institutions, the operations of the dormitories and dining halls are financially equal to the instructional activity and the amount of so-called profit on the dormitory and dining hall operations comprises a large part of the funds available for instructional purposes.
Some contend that accurate division of charges to students as between board and room on the one hand and instructional fees on the other is academic only, since the instructional costs in excess of state funds must be collected from the student in some manner. However, it is submitted that the funds collected for board and room should be devoted to that purpose and the student should be entitled to as good quarters and as good food for the price charged as can be made available. It is unfair and unethical to charge a student a small sum for college fees for instruction and a larger than necessary sum for board and room in order that the total amount collected may be made to finance the work of the college.
The present policy makes it necessary to reduce or lower the standard of accommodations in dormitories and dining halls in order to augment funds for instruction. However, if instructional costs increase, appropriations or instructional fees should be increased accordingly, and if board and lodging costs are reduced, those charges should be reduced accordingly or the accommodations improved. Each division of operation should be considered separate by the administration and the program for each should be developed on a basis of the support secured for
40

each. At present, if a college administrator is running short of funds for his instructional program, the obvious action is to reduce the cost of board and room to the institution in one way or another in order that additional 'profit' will be available to pay instructional costs or to buy equipment which should be provided otherwise.
In the larger institutions where only a part of the students live in dormitories and board in college dining halls, it is unfair to operate a dining hall at a loss and to absorb the deficit or a part of the costs in the instructional budget. This is illustrated in the case of the Brittain Dining Hall at the Georgia School of Technology, where the entire cost of maintenance of the building is absorbed by the general University budget, though operations otherwise are approximately balanced. The reverse of this is true where a fraction of the student population lives in dormitories which turn over a 'profit' used for general institutional operations, thus causing those residing in such dormitories to pay a larger amount for their instructional services than do the students who pay only the instructional fees and live elsewhere.
It is submitted that the quality and character of a student's environment outside the classroom is no less important than the instructional program of the classroom. It is important, therefore, that charges be made to students with proper regard to those things for which the student is entirely responsible and to those things for which the state, through established authority, customarily makes available for less than cost. In each case, the students are entitled to the maximum facilities which can be provided with the amount of funds available. The unfairness which now exists as between groups of students in
41

the larger institutions may be eliminated and the entire dormitory and dining hall program improved materially by using all funds collected for board and room for the student housing program.
While too much emphasis cannot be placed upon this important question, it is granted that if the crowded inferior conditions are, at their worst, somewhat better than the living conditions which the student heretofore has been accustomed to, such poor conditions may be satisfactory. The essential result is to improve the standard of living of each student, especially on the lower levels. However, the data submitted to show the background of the students enrolled in the several units of the University System do not indicate that Georgia students are from the lowest level homes. It would seem that for many young people, the University System is improving and training the intellect without in any way improving the standard of living or the knowledge of how to live. In several buildings, conditions are such as to generate the desire to destroy, to mutilate, or generally indulge in rowdy and unsatisfactory living habits. An effort should be made to improve such situations and to bring about a feeling of respect and responsibility for things and persons and a desire for proper personal conduct. These are essentials of good citizenship! Certain old structures at the University, at the Athens Coordinate College, and at the School of Technology should be modernized or abandoned without delay. These are examples of very bad situations which could be eliminated almost immediately if the recommendations herein presented are accepted.
4. It is recommended that a general ledger be included in the accounting system for each of the units of the University System of Georgia, and that inso-
42

far as is practicable, based upon existing.limitations or restrictions, the general ledger accounts follow the classification recommended by the National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education.
The present a.ccounting system for the units comprising the University System of Georgia does not include a general ledger either for the several units or for the University System. A university or college partakes of the nature of a corporate entity rather than of a municipality. Moreover, acting in a private as well as a public capacity, the scope of its operations is related to its assets and liabilities. The accounting system, therefore, should be made complete and should include all control data regarding ownership and trusteeship as well as of operations.
5. It is recommended that all accounting be placed on a fund basis and that all fund operations be conducted with respect to the several separate funds used to support the activities of the institution. Separation of funds will aid in clarifying administrative thought and practices for the betterment of the institution involved.
The practice throughout the University System is to commingle all funds in the accounting system except for certain specific trust funds. Each fund is surrounded by its particular legal requirements and every fund is in reality a trust of the Regents for some purpose in the University System. It is therefore considered essential to maintain separate ledger records of all transactions by funds as well as by departments and purposes. It is proper to maintain a fund ledger as well as a departmental expenditures ledger at each institution. Such accounting is required for all Federal funds and the same practices
43

should be followed for all funds regardless of their source or origin. The principle of this is embodied in the practice now followed by the University of Georgia at Athens, although it is believed better practice to account for each expenditure by fund rather than summarizing and transferring a selected list of items for transfer charge against specific funds as at present.
6. It is recommended that uniform rules be promulgated for the assessment, collection, deferment, and final payment of all student accounts as prescribed by the Regents and that any and all deferred fees or charges be evidenced by a properly signed note approved or countersigned by the parent or guardian of the student involved. It is further recommended that the Regents adopt a rule to prevent any student from taking final examinations unless and until all financial obligations currently or past due to any and all units of the University System for any purpose whatever, except unmatured loans from trust funds, be fully satisfied.
It was ascertained that several methods and standards prevail in the University System for assessing, collecting, or deferring fees or other student accounts. Although the handling of student accounts at each and every institution undoubtedly is carried on honestly and all monies are accountea for, nonetheless the practices vary widely and are not always well controlled. In certain units of the System, it was learned that fees are paid prior to registration, at others the reverse practice is followed. The procedure for fee deferment and subsequent collection varies from a mere approval by the Treasurer or President to committee study and action on the cases which arise. Some units require notes, some require notes endorsed by others, while some rely
44

upon open accounts sometimes not even approved in advance or in writing by parents or guardians.
7. It is recommended that a complete :financial report be prepared for each unit of the University System in accordance with the recommendations of the National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education (University of Chicago Press) and that such reports be consolidated into a complete :financial report for the University System to be published by the Regents.
The University System of Georgia publishes an annual report of the Chancellor which includes the report submitted by the head of each constituent institution. However, no data are presented concerning the :financial operation of any of the units, although the general :financial needs of the System and certain details are presented. A complete :financial report will permit all those concerned to study more intelligently the financial facts of the University System, if presented in the same manner as now followed by most important institutions of America. If taxpayers are called upon to approve a plan of expenditure, they are entitled to know the details of the program and its requirements (Budget). Likewise, they are equally entitled to know in detail of the operations and uses for which their money has been actually expended. Stewardship is not complete until all facts are made known in clear and understandable form, such as a properly prepared :financial report.
8. It is recommended that the practice of diverting maintenance or operating funds to construction activities be discontinued and that new construction be carried on only with those funds specifically allotted for that purpose.
45

It was observed at Middle Georgia College in Cochran and at Georgia State College in Savannah that maintenance funds provided for the operation of the units were being diverted into the construction of new buildings. In the case of Middle Georgia College, maintenance funds were used in connection with an enlargement of the gymnasium, while at Georgia State College in Savannah, maintenance funds were used to construct a combination cannery and farm shop building and a poultry building. At the time maintenance funds were being used for the new buildings at Savannah, certain major repairs to buildings were necessarily neglected. Lack of attention to architectural plans and specifications or of supervision of work during construction has resulted in structural faults in relatively new buildings, causing the plaster to fall from ceilings. Adequate plant maintenance should not be delayed in order to provide new construction unless specifically ordered by the Regents. Nonetheless, funds available for such rep'air were being used for the new structures mentioned. Undoubtedly, similar practices may exist elsewhere in the System.
9. It is recommended that the Regents employ an officer, subordinate to and under the direction of the Chancellor, with the title of 'Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager,' who shall be charged with responsibility (a) for the assembly and supervision of the budget as prepared in accordance with Recommendation 1 under the Chancellor's direction, (b) for all business and :financial procedures and practices within the limit of policies established by the Regents, and (c) for the specific operation and maintenance of the financial accounts and records, the purchasing system, the dormitory and dining hall
46

operations, and the physical plant of the University System.
It is important that the University System be provided with a cpmpetent educational finance officer, working under the direction of the Chancellor of the University System. This individual must be a man of superior qualifications, possessing at least one advanced degree and with actual experience with classroom instruction and the management of business affairs. The individual must be an educational officer rather than a business technician.
An individual, to function properly as Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager must have both an educational and a business background sufficient to command the respect and confidence of the instructional and scientific as well as the business staff and the business public of the State. This officer must be competent to devise and prescribe business practices which will have proper relationship to the instructional activities of every unit of the University System. He should work primarily through the chief administrative heads of each unit, being directly responsible for the general oversight of the financial and business affairs of the System.
To prevent any misunderstanding or confusion in the administration of the University System, the \!:ice-Chancellor and Business Manager should be subordinate at all times to the Chancellor of the University System, but should sit with all meetings of the Board of Regents and be heard by the Regents in the discussion of all matters pertaining to the business policies and practices of the University System or its constituent units.
He would be in charge of those system-wide business procedures designed to provide the Chancellor
47

and Regents with tools of effective control and administration. The President's choices for controller or chief business officer at each institution should be such as to meet his approval.
10. It is recommended that purchasing for the University System be separated from the office of the State Purchasing Agent and that the purchasing for the University System be placed under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager with assistants in each of the units large enough to buy effectively, and that all institutional purchasing be done directly through the University System purchasing offices.
Universities and colleges are specialized technical institutions which frequently require unusual and specific items unrelated in time or usefulness to general recurring operating needs of the ordinary variety. Such purchases usually require a scientifically trained Purchasing Agent who understands the needs of the scientific, educational and research departments and who is competent to aid the scientific, educational, and research workers in securing those materials and services best fitted to meet the special needs when they arise. This is recognized in the State of Georgia, where the State Purchasing Office delegates partial purchasing authority to some of the individual units, and further accepts and fills requests from instructional departments exactly as specified. Although the problem is given such official recognition, the present practice is unsound and uneconomical, since it is necessary to maintain special purchasing offices at the University of Georgia in Athens and at the Georgia School of Technology in Atlanta in addition to much purchasing activity in the business offices of the several units of the University System.
48

Educational institutions are generally allowed very liberal and special discounts and not infrequently receive gifts of special apparatus and material because of the scientific and public nature of their work. Much of such special consideration is lost to the taxpayers of the State and to the University System of Georgia when purchasing for the System is handled in the Office of the State Purchasing Agent where numerous problems are involved which prevent the granting of special educational prices for the benefit of all taxpayers.
There are certain items which can be consolidated into general contracts for the University System. However, modern merchandising methods provide standard packages for most economical purchases and when demands are adjusted to such standard merchandising units, there is little to be gained in special discounts and much to be lost in distribution expense from enlargement of orders. Furthermore, the present quarterly budget control limits the placing of annual orders for scientific material, such as chemicals, microscopes, and other standard commodities.
At the present time, much of the State Purchasing Agent's work for the University System is mere clerical confirmation of work done at the unit institutions and later cleared through the central State Purchasing Office. Nonetheless, the University System is charged pro rata on the basis of dollar value of expenditures for all of the purchases of the entire State. Thus, it appears that the University System is charged doubly for much of its present purchasing. At the Georgia School of Technology, a special purchasing department is maintained at the direct expense of the School, although the School also pays
49

its pro rata charge for purchases when the expense of the State Purchasing Office is later distributed.
It was admitted by those engaged in the purchasing work, both in the State office and at the institutions, that the purchasing officers must have continuity of employment to foster the professional development required to perform effectively for the educational and research activities. If the purchasing personnel were responsible to the officers and regents of the University System for satisfactory performance, the purchasing staff would be motivated to meet the educational and scientific needs most adequately rather than to satisfy exigencies of political situations bound to arise under the present set up. It would seem feasible for this plan of operation to be put into practice immediately upon the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager, if the Governor would name such individual as Assistant State Purchasing Agent in charge of purchases for the University System.
However, the State Purchasing Law should be amended at the earliest possible time so as to place responsibility for expenditures under control of the Regents, where it belongs, rather than under an independent purchasing authority. The Vice-Chancellor and Business Manager could easily co-ordinate the institutional purchases in any event and secure to the institutions all benefit of pool buying, educational discounts and allowances, and any special opportunities otherwise available.
Another reason for closely relating the purchasing to the institutional operations is to afford opportunity of closer check of the quality of delivered materials against the specifications agreed upon by the
*In recent months this has been changed.
50

purchasing authority. Without accusing vendors in any way, it is generally accepted that only continuous and close inspection of materials delivered as against the exact materials thought to be ordered assures the buyer of his best interest. The purchase of fuel is an example of such close relationship, and foodstuffs is another item requiring the closest cooperation between the buyer, user, and inspector. This recommendation to separate and return the purchasing authority and activity to the institutions is certain to be economical for the State and salutary in the effect upon the work and morale of the instructional and scientific staffs.
Finally, at least, purchasing for dormitories and dining halls should be handled differently than at present. The funds are derived entirely from students and should be spent directly for their benefit in accordance with the recommendation made on that point. Some may question whether board and room income ever should be considered as within the purview of State purchasing.
III. The University Council
In the report made on the reorganization of the University System in 1932 occurs the following statement:
For the paramount purpose of promoting that internal integration of the University System which is the product of mutual understanding and complete cooperation of individuals, it is recommended that steps be taken to organize under the direction of the Chancellor a series of university councils representative of the institutional, educational, and scientific interests concerned. The following are cited as illustrative of the organizations in mind:
51

Superior Council Junior College Council Teacher Training Council Scientific Research Council Student Life Council
The principal one of these councils is that termed the Superior Council. . . .
It should be the recognized duty of such Superior Council, under the leadership of the Chancellor, to consider and to make recommendations to the Chancellor, the Board of Regents, or the respective faculties for changes in legislation affecting the University System, for changes in regulations concerning the staffs, for extensions or curtailments of the activities of the University System, and for the establishment of new divisions and departments; also, recommendations concerning the distribution of funds among the several institutions, the conditions of entrance to the several institutions, the conditions upon which degrees shall be conferred, the conditions governing the transfer of students and their credits from one institution to another, the conditions upon which scholarships and fellowships shall be conferred, all questions of interinstitutional relations and of relations with other institutions [outside the System] of higher education, and all other matters which are vital to the development of the University System as a well coordinated agency of the state for higher education.
The successful operation of such Superior Council may be looked upon as a measure of the ability of the units of the University System to contribute to the organic unity of the University System.8
I Ibid., pp. 22-24.
52

In the adaptation of the recommendation to the conditions in the University System of Georgia a University Council was created. Subordinate to the Council and responsible to it have been committees appointed from time to time as the Council deemed necessary. In 1940 an Executive Council was established but it has never functioned and during the last two or three years the University Council has been relatively inactive.
The Survey Committee thought of the University Council as an agency that would contribute to the spiritual union of the several units of the University System, the most difficult problem that has to be met in endeavoring to bring institutions that have grown up independently of one another into an organization functioning with organic unity. An examination has been made of the activities of the University Council for the purpose of securing an estimate of the service rendered by it. The following statements have been selected from the report that grew out of that examination:
In 1933 the Chancellor . . . called together a group of presidents, deans, and other leading officers of the institutions making up the University System. There gradually evolved what came to be known as the Council of the University System. The membership, process of appointment, organization, authority and duties of this body have developed utterly haphazardly. Suffice it to say that the Council has been in a constant state of flux. In spite of this disorder the Council has been the most interesting and promising agency developed by the University System of Georgia. The Council has a membership representative of the faculties of the units. This group met to discuss the whole range of academic and administrative problems affecting in common the units of the enterprise. The Council has done much to bring about coordination of the isolated
53

competitive state institutions through the creation and fostering of the ideal or vision of a group of institutions each with a definite place in a system of higher education. This ideal, quite distinct from any structural arrangement, has been responsible in a large measure for the rapid integration and coordination of the state's sprawling higher educational enterprise. It is remarkable that in so few years a feeling of unity and pride in a system could be achieved.4

The role of the Council has never been clearly

understood and appreciated by those in the System,

at least not by a great many.

The Chancel-

lor is interested in having the Council develop a

friendly spirit in the System, of making it an avenue

for the exchange of information and views. The

members of the Council, on the other hand, have been

attempting to develop uniform policies for the Sys-

tem. They have been interested in administering

special programs. And they have been concerned

with fact finding and analysis as a basis for policy

formation and administration.5

The Council has been able to agree on a number of policies that were not acted upon by either the Chancellor or the Board. In such instances each unit in the System has voluntarily met the standard of action as set up in the policy agreed upon. The Council has been very successful if judged by the criterion of being able to agree on a policy to be adopted by each of the units. Much coordination and integr:ation of the work of the System is brought about in this manner. It is true, however, that any particular unit may, if it so elects, refuse to be bound

"Survey of the Overhead Administration of the University System of Georgia," Newton W. Edwards, pp. 155-156.
Ibid., p. 185.
54

by the action of the Council. As a rule, the units seem to consider themselves morally bound by the action of the Council despite any lack of action by the Chancellor or the Board.6
It must be acknowledged that some of those connected with the University System are less enthusiastic in their support of the work of the Council. Some go so far as to express the view that it has little if any value except as a social institution by means of which members of the staffs of the several units become acquainted with one another. Even these acknowledge, however, that this increased breadth of acquaintance is likely to be the basis of better understanding.
Recommendations
In spite of its weaknesses the achievements of the Council seem to have justified its existence and it is recommended that it be continued. The experiences of the Council lead to some suggestions for modifications of the policies and procedures it should follow. The following recommendations are made to cover these points:
1. Instead of making reports to both the Board and the Chancellor, as was advised in the report of the previous Survey Committee, it should be regarded as a body advisory to the Chancellor and report to him only. Under the present by-laws the Chancellor has the power to veto the action of the Council and it seems on the whole desirable to place on the Chancellor the entire responsibility for deciding what recommendations of the Council he should put before the Board of Regents. This arrangement makes for clarity of procedure and fixes definitely the responsibility for action or failure to act.
2. Three months after the Council has made a recommendation to the Chancellor it shall become operative un-
Ibid., pp. 189-190.
55

less in the meantime the Chancellor has transmitted a written veto to the Council accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the veto.
3. Agreements reached by all of the units in the University System should not become operative without the direct approval of the Chancellor, or by a failure of the Chancellor to veto as is suggested in '' 2' '.
4. The Council should avoid becoming an administrative body except to the extent necessary for the conduct of its own business.
15. The Council should prepare the agenda for its meetings.
56

CHAPTER III
AGRICULTURE AND THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Since the report on the University System was made in 1932-33 some progress has been made in placing certain phases of the work in agriculture on a more satisfactory basis but the basic changes that were recommended at that time have not been effected. As a background for consideration of these aspects of the present survey the following excerpt is taken from the previous report:
The Survey Committee recommends that the College of Agriculture of the University of Georgia should be developed as the state's principal center of instruction, research, and extension in agriculture. It is commonplace to say that agriculture is a fundamental industry of Georgia and, as such, should have a conspicuous place in the University System. This does not necessarily mean large numbers of resident students, but it does call for sufficient emphasis on research and extension to make the influence of the College of Agriculture felt on farms throughout the entire state. . . .
These general remarks are preliminary to a more detailed consideration of what the Survey Committee believes to be one of the largest problems before the Board of Regents, viz., the development and integration of instruction, extension, and research in the field of agriculture. The present conditions are unsatisfactory and are cutting the state off from the amount and quality of service it should have for the welfare of agriculture.
The main points involved in the present unsatisfactory conditions are :
57

1. Relation of the agricultural extension service to the College of Agriculture
2. Relation of the experimental work in agriculture to the College of Agriculture
3. Relation of the College of Agriculture to the rest of the University.1
As will be indicated later these problems remain un solved except for the last one. Very marked progress has been made in developing closer relationships between the College of Agriculture and the rest of the University but as is indicated later there is need for further clarification of the administrative relationships.
Cooperation Between the Georgia Experiment Station and the School of Technology
Since the foregoing statements were prepared in 1932-33 progress has been made in improving conditions in other directions. Mention may be made of the following:
Evidences are found of cooperation between the Georgia Experiment Station (Griffin) and Georgia School of Technology. In all the previous years of the existence of the two institutions there had been no cooperation between them and it is unlikely that any would ~ave occurred under the decentralized control that existed prior to the passage of the reorganization act in 1931.,
The change that has taken place is partially revealed in a letter written by Director H. P. Stuckey of the Georgia E.xperiment Station to the Director of the Survey under date of May 14, 1941. He writes:
One of the most extensive cooperative projects we have had with the Engineering Experiment Station [a part of Georgia School of Technology] is one
1 Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, p. 75-76.
58

involving the production and processing of flax to be spun and woven into fabrics with cotton textile machinery. One reason for increasing flax as a crop to be used for this purpose is that flax is sown broadcast and is therefore a soil conserving crop. Also, it is adapted to sections of the state where cotton is less well adapted, and gives the growers an additional cash crop. The Georgia Experiment Station is at this time growing 60 acres of flax which will be turned over to the Engineering Experiment Station to be decorticated in specially designed machines and then further processed into fabric by the Textile Division of Georgia Tech. The Tennessee Valley Authority is the third cooperator in this undertaking, and the work has been under way for about three years, and is giving very promising experimental results.
In summarizing the lines of cooperative effort under way between the Georgia Experiment Station and the Georgia School of Technology Director Stuckey includes the following:
1. A detailed study of growing and processing flax, crotalaria, ramie, and others showing a possibility of producing useful factors.
2. A study of peanut hulls for the production of insulating blocks, paper, and miscellaneous mulches for plantbed protection.
3. A study of the spinning qualities of cotton fibers, emphasizing the superior points of improved varieties.
4. A study of peanut products as a source of materials for the economic production of plastics.
5. A study of various clay deposits with a view of making ceramic products useful in agriculture and industry.
59

6. To design and develop machinery adapted to mechanized agriculture in Georgia, including the processing of agricultural products.
7. A study of naval stores to develop products for both agriculture and industry, emphasizing spray materials and disinfectants.
8. A study of vegetable oils to produce products useful both in industry and as human foods.
9. An economic study of processing fruits and vegetables, emphasizing frozen products.
These are striking achievements in view of the long period during which there was no cooperative effort between the two. institutions. It is, however, only a forecast of what the people of Georgia may properly expect in the way of cooperation between them under the present unified administrative control.
Abraham Bald'wirm Agricultural College
At the time of the earlier study (1932-33) the Georgia State College for Men at Tifton was giving a four-year curriculum in agriculture. In the report it was recommended that this College be discontinued and that action was taken. Although it was not recommended by the Survey Committee there was established at Tifton the Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College an institution offering two years of post secondary education in agriculture and home economics. The program was designed to be terminal rather than preparatory to further study in these two subjects. This view is supported by the following action taken by the Board of Regents:
Whereas, it is the further opinion of the Regents of the University System that there is need for an educational institution in the University System of the type that would properly prepare the young men
60

of Georgia to become practical and efficient farmers rather than professional agriculturists; . . .
It is therefore resolved, That the Georgia State College for Men be discontinued, and in lieu of same there be established . . . College, which college would offer a Terminal Course not to exceed two (2) years, and such courses to be worked out in close coordination with the work of the Coastal Plain Experiment Station.
It is further resolved that full credits be given at other Institutions of the University System for work accomplished by students transferring from this Institution.2
This same view was emphasized later at a meeting of the Board of Regents held August 21, 1936. The occasion was the reception by the Board of a report covering the activities of the College. At that time the following minute was spread on the record:
The main objective [of the College] is to train young boys and girls for wholesome and satisfying lives on the soil. Further it was the desire on the part of the Regents that at one of the junior colleges the majority of the students upon completion of the course would return to the farms of Georgia.
In discussing the objective of the institution before a meeting of the University Council President King expressed the view that it was a terminal college offering a two-year course in farming and home making and that it aimed "to send young men and women back to rural communities to improve conditions there.' '3
The Council's Committee on Long Range Policy virtually repeated the objectives set up by the Regents in making the following suggestions : That the College em-
2 Minutes, Board of Regents, April 1415, 1933.
3 Proceedings, Council of the University System of Georgia, August 1214, 1933.
61

phasize terminal courses in agriculture for farmers; that provision be made for those students who wish to continue their education in agriculture at the College of Agriculture beyond the two-year period; that provision be made for the transfer to any other units in the System of students who, at the end of the first year, decide to pursue other vocations.4
In the light of the foregoing an analysis will be made of certain data bearing on the achievements of Abraham Baldwin College in comparison with the stated purposes.
1. The College has had a consistent growth. Its annual enrollment grew from 86 students in 1933 to 405 in 1939. Its first decline came in 1940 when the enrollment was 341. Data submitted by the president show that over the five year period from 1935 to 1939 inclusive an average of 77 per cent of the freshman returned for their sophomore year and 54 per cent graduated.
2. Spot maps of the state were made for 1938-39 and 1939-40 showing the home counties of students attending the College. These maps revealed that the counties which were the homes of more than five freshman were grouped roughly into three areas: (a) a cluster of counties in southwestern Georgia, (b) a group just south of the east-central portion of the state, and (c) Fulton County. Tift County in which the College is located, was the home of the largest single county group. As a whole, the large majority of students came from the southern half of the state. However, the freshmen of 1938-39 were drawn from 106 of the 159 counties of the state, and those of 1939-40, from 103 of the counties.
3. The president supplied information on which the proportion of students graduating who subsequently went on for further formal study was computed over the period from 1936 to 1940 inclusive. Certain general
Ibid., December 5, 1943.
62

observations may be made on the basis of this computation: (a) over the five-year period 48 per cent of the graduates continued their schooling elsewhere; (b) the average for men was 47 per cent and for women 50 per cent; (It must be borne in mind in interpreting these figures that if the data had been collected a year or two later the percentage going on for further study would probably be increased as not all of the graduates who planned to do further study were in position to do so immediately after graduation.) (c) there is no pronounced trend so far as the percentage of men who go on to advanced study is concerned but there is a very evident trend downward in the case of women. The decline was from 73 per cent in 1936 to 38 per cent in 1940. These figures indicate that the College is becoming a terminal institution for women to a greater degree than is true for men.
4. Several studies made of the records of students who transferred to the University of Georgia after completing their programs at Abraham Baldwin show that they have done creditable work after transferring.
5. There were 315 men who graduated in the period from 1936-1940 inclusive. Of these 30 per cent were farming in 1941 and 21 per cent were in allied occupations. Some incomplete data over a longer period show a somewhat larger proportion of the men engaged in farming.
In view of the preceding evidence apparently the College is not serving as a terminal institution to the degree that was anticipated; nor are the men who graduate going into farming to the extent that was expected. These facts do not warrant the conclusion that there is no place for the College in the University System. They would seem to justify raising the question as to whether or not all is being done that can be done to make clear the place
63

of the College in the System. In making this statement two things are in mind: (1) There seems to be an increasing tendency in the bulletins of the College to emphasize the preparatory function of the College. This is in contrast to the action of the Board, the early statements of the president, and the action of the University Council. It should be borne in mind that this issue was raised initially by the action of the Board of Regents requiring other institutions of the System to give full credit for the work done at Abraham Baldwin. This has undoubtedly exerted an influence in the direction of increased emphasis on the preparatory function of the College. (2) In response to a query as to the principal problems of the College the president stated that there welre two of which "blanket" acceptance of credit for work done at Abraham Baldwin by other institutions in the System was one. This seems to indicate a pressure toward increased emphasis on the preparatory purpose of the College in contrast with its terminal function.
It is the opinion of the Survey Staff that it is too early to make a final decision concerning the place of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College in the state's program for the improvement of agriculture. It is recommended that a tentative attitude be taken and that meantime two steps be made:
1. The curriculum of the College both in agriculture and home economics should be reviewed by a committee consisting of representatives of the College of Agriculture, School of Home Economics, the extension service in agriculture, vocational education in the State Department of Education, and the College. This committee should give consideration to the practicability of the College giving two curricula-a preparatory and a terminal one-instead of attempting to meet the needs of both groups of students with one curriculum as is now the situation.
64

2. In considering the achievements of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College attention should be directed to the series of short courses in the conduct of which the College has apparently been very successful. This program should be given consideration also by the suggested committee.
It has been suggested that a representative from the Department of Vocational Education of the State Superintendent's Office be included in the membership of the committee. This is based on the view that certain phases of work in vocational agriculture in the public schools are closely related to some of the work of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College and, in the interest of securing maximum returns for expenditures made, clear relationships should be established between the two agencies.
Research in Agriculture
Research in agriculture is conducted by three units of the University System. They are the Georgia Experiment Station at Griffin, the Coastal Plain Experiment Station at Tifton, and the College of Agriculture. Each is an independent unit with its chief executive officer who is directly or indirectly responsible to the Board of Re- . gents through the Chancellor. The earlier survey report (1932-33) recommended that the Board appoint a director of agricultural research who would be responsible for coordination of the research conducted in agriculture and home economics in the University System. This director should be responsible to the Dean of the College of Agriculture.
Extension Service in Agriculture
The work in agricultural extension is too widely separated from the resident instruction and the research in agriculture. It is true that recommendations for appointments to the staff of the extension division go through the hands of the Dean of the College of Agri-
65

culture but in reality his relationship to appointments and to the program of the extension division is nominal and very different from that which obtains in the case of resident instruction. This should not be the situation.
In the report made in the previous survey the importance of securing closer working relations among the several aspects of the work in agriculture was pointed out in the following words :
The integration of these several phases [resident instruction, agricultural extension, and research] of the activities of the College of Agriculture should be carried even further. Each of the three aspects of the work-teaching, extension, and research-should be coordinated through the several departments of the College of Agriculture. For example, the Department of Horticulture would have an interest in teaching, extension, and research, and it would have its staff and facilities developed with these activities in mind. The proposed organization will reduce to the minimum the dangers of the present situation which are great because of the existence of three practically independent divisions concerned with agriculture. 6
The report might well have gone further and pointed out the likelihood of larger returns coming to the people of the state as a result of more intimate working relationships existing among the personnel concerned with the three phases of work.
The importance of taking the steps necessary to secure this integration was strongly emphasized in the previous report which was made ten years ago. The change has not been effected. The Survey Staff, therefore, once more urges that this problem have early consideration by
Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, pp. 7778.
66

the Chancellor and the Board of Regents. It is the most important issue faced by the Board of Regents in the field of agriculture.
The acceptance of the foregoing suggestions would provide an administrative organization consisting of a director of resident instruction, a director of agricultural research, including the experiment stations, and a direc.tor of extension. Each of these directors would be responsible to a Dean of the College of Agriculture. The several departments of the College would be the units through which the directors would function. The directorships need not be full-time administrative positions unless the duties of the position require such service.
Incidentally it should be pointed out that these changes would effect a very desirable administrative modification by reducing the Chancellor's ''span of control.'' Under the recommended organization there would be one director of agricultural research responsible to the Dean of the College of Agriculture instead of two reporting to the Chancellor. And the suggestions made elsewhere in this report by which the director of the Agricultural Extension Service is responsible to the Dean of the College of Agriculture would reduce by three the number of administrative officers responsible to the Chancellor.
The previous report (1932-33) covered the relationship of the director of research and the director of extension to the School of Home Economics (pp. 80-81) and therefore this phase will not be discussed in this report.
There is need for some clarification of the relationship of the President of the University to the work in agriculture. This need undoubtedly grows out of the present administrative organization by which the director of agricultural extension, and the directors of the agricultural experiment stations are responsible directly
67

to the Chancellor. The proposed administrative organization would clarify this situation. It would provide a Dean of the College of Agriculture with general responsibility for resident instruction, agricultural extension, and agricultural research and having the same relationship to the President of the University as any other dean.
Much has been done to make for a close working relationship between the extension division of the College of Agriculture and Georgia State College-the landgrant college for Negroes; but further improvement should be sought. The Federal legislation wisely makes provision for only one center of administration of the cooperative extension work in agriculture and home economics. That center is the original land-grant college which is the institution for whites. This arrangement should not preventjoint consideration by whites and Negroes of the general policies and allocation of funds that should govern in the development of the work. It is recommended that those responsible for the cooperative extension work develop their plans and procedures on the assumption that increasingly the Negroes will carry responsibility for the work themselves. The same general reasoning applies to the research work in agriculture except that in all probability the development in this phase will come somewhat more slowly. It is believed, however, that at an early date provision should be made for a sub-station at Fort Valley which should be made the land-grant college in agriculture for Negroes.
There are two other problems dealt with in the previous report (1932-33) that relate to the College of Agriculture that should have mention at least in this report.
1. The idea of regional institutions is gradually receiving acceptance in certain professional :fields and in graduate subjects in which the demand for personnel is limited. It is recognized that not every state should attempt every type of professional training or develop
68

graduate instruction in all fields of knowledge. In recognition of this principle the report of the previous survey carried the following statement:
It is recommended that the professional curriculum at the University for the training of veterinarians be discontinued. The primary reason back of this suggestion is the limited number of veterinarians needed and the necessity for a much larger expenditure than the state is now making. . . . Alabama has a program for the training of veterinari:;ms. There is no need for one in Georgia. It would be much better for Georgia to establish a system of scholarships that would make it possible for promising individuals interested in veterinary science to go to strong schools approved by the Board of Regents.6
The Board of Regents accepted the recommendation relating to the discontinuance of the department but it has not developed a program of scholarships. The recommendation on this phase is renewed. A requirement for a limited number of years of practice in Georgia might be stipulated for the holders of scholarships.
2. The previous report (1932-33) made the following suggestion concerning agricultural engineering:
Agricultural engineering was established at the University in 1929, [It was a part of the College of Agriculture.] and it is too early to evaluate the results. In the opinion of the Survey Committee, after the lapse of a few more years the work in agricultural engineering should be carefully appraised with a view to the determination of a future policy. It should not at this time be accepted as a permanent feature of the work of the University, although if it
Ibid., p. 50.
69

is to be continued in its present form it belongs to the College of Agriculture rather than in the School of Technology. 7
In connection with the present study the work of the department was reviewed briefly by Dean H. P. Hammond, Pennsylvania State College, and more exhaustively by Professor E. W. Lehmann, University of Illinois. Both are in accord with the idea that a program of agricultural engineering should be continued in the College of Agriculture. They are also in agreement in holding that the department should as presently staffed discontinue its graduate instruction. Professor Lehmann discusses the subject as follows:
The need for, and the desirability of, providing a program for graduate study at this time seems rather doubtful. First, the number of students taking graduate work is very limited. Second, those who have taken graduate work are largely staff members. Third, it would be of greater value for staff members to take graduate training at other institutions. Fourth, too little research is in progress to make a graduate program effective. Fifth, special equipment and laboratory facilities are too limited for an effective graduate program. Sixth, little or no opportunity is afforded for formal graduate training in the field of specialization due to the limited number of students-only one or two each year -and the lack of other engineering departments on the campus. Seventh, there is a lack of maturity of the staff and there are too few staff members in each field of specialization for effective teaching.
Dean Hammond writes: The question will doubtless arise as to the status
of work for the master's degree in agricultural engi-
' Ibid., p, 59.
70

neering. It seems clear that without additions to the staff and equipment as well as considerably increased financial support the expanded program that would be needed for a really adequate program of post-graduate work should not be attempted.
The Survey Staff viewing the needs of the University System as a whole is of the opinion that the graduate work in this subject should be discontinued and should not be renewed until much larger :financial resources are available for the University System and further only when there is objective evidence of sufficient demand for graduate instruction in the subject so that it can be given effectively and economically. If graduate work in agricultural engineering is developed it should be on the basis of cooperation between the School of Technology and the College of Agriculture.
Primary recommendation: At an early date the Chancellor and the Board of Regents should take the steps necessary to effect a unified program in agriculture with a division devoted to research including the experiment stations, a second concerned, with extension, and a third dealing with resident instruction. These three phases should be brought under a dean responsible to the President of the University.
71

CHAPTER IV
THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND ENGINEERING
EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
The School of Technology is one of the two major institutions of the University System. The other is, of course, the University. The Georgia State College for Women is an important institution in the state's program of higher education but it does not occupy the same relationship to the program of higher education as a whole that is borne by either the School of Technology or the University as there are other publicly supported colleges women can attend. In one respect the School of Technology is unique among the units of the University System of Georgia. Its sphere of influence as represented by the source of its student body extends to a large degree beyond the boundaries of the state. It is a regional institution. This should be a source of pride to Georgians. It means that the state is making a contribution to higher education in the southeastern area of the United States that extends far beyond the boundaries of the state.
Dean H. P. Hammond in discussing the general situation of the institution makes the following statements:
The Georgia School of Technology should be thought of not merely as a local or state institution but as one occupying an important position in engineering education in the southeastern states and even in the Nation as a whole. During the present year (1942) the total enrollment, exclusive of students in extension courses, is over 4,200, including 2,835 regular students, 40 per cent of whom came from outside the State. The School is third in size among engineering schools and colleges of the country, and it has the largest engineering enrollment in
72

the Southeast. The regular faculty numbers over 150 teachers. The campus comprises 44 acres on which are located 39 buildings. The School offers 17 curricula in engineering, architecture, industrial management, and public health, and its program is administered through 18 departments of instruction. The administrative units of the School include a division of graduate studies, evening and summer sessions, a division of cooperative work, the Department of Personnel, the Health Service, the Library, an Extension Division, the State Engineering Experiment Station, and the Departments of Military and Naval Science and Tactics. The institution has gained rapidly in size and in the extent of its work in recent years. In short the Georgia School of Technology has become a large and complex institution and it should be thought of, financed and administered as such, not from the point of view which has continued from the earlier days when it was a relatively small institution of simple form and organization. . . .
The School is operated at a total annual expenditure of about one million dollars; the cost of instruction per regular student per year is less than $270, an amount wholly inadequate for an institution of this type. Only one-fifth of the School's operating income comes from State appropriations and less than one-fourth of the investment in land, buildings, and equipment has been supplied from this source. The balance of operating income is derived from student fees and endowments, and most of the physical plant also has been obtained from private benefactions with some recent additions from Federal funds. In effect, the Georgia School of Technology is a publicly controlled but privately supported institution, a condition which is unique among schools of science
73

and technology in this country. It is this basic situation which has led to many of the unsatisfactory conditions which will be discussed.
Dean Hammond made a comparative analysis of the sources of revenue for the School of Technology for 1931-32 and 1940-41. He found that in the former year 44.3 per cent of the income came from public sources and in the latter year only 25.7 per cent came from such sources, a decrease of nearly one-half. The largest item of income from private sources was found to be tuition and student fees which increased from 40.4 per cent of the total income in 1931-32 to 51.2 per cent in 1940-41. The percentage coming from legislative appropriations for the period declined from 37.0 per cent to 22.0 per cent. These data indicate a pronounced trend toward an increased dependence on funds from private sources.
The analysis reveals that the income of $270 per student was not only much less than for comparable institutions but it was actually lower in 1940-41 than it was in 1931-32.
Dean Hammond concludes his analysis of the financial situation of the School of Technology with this brief statement:
The State has failed, from the date of establishment of the School down to the present time, to provide adequately either for the construction of facilities or for operation and maintenance. . . . If the State is to continue to exercise control it should recognize a corresponding financial obligation. This will include the recognition of the fact that the cost of operating a school of engineering and science is greater per unit of capacity than is that of many other types of institution.
Failure to secure adequate financial support is clearly evident in many vital aspects of the condition
74

and work of the institution, many of which will be discussed in subsequent sections of this report: insufficient numbers of teachers for the size of the student body; inadequate salaries with the resulting difficulties of attracting and holding first-class men; excessive teaching burdens and auxiliary services which should be assigned to other types of employees ; failure to develop properly the field of postgraduate studies ; and the poor upkeep of physical plant both as to general maintenance and as to janitorial service. The general result is exceedingly unsatisfactory.
The earlier report on the University System recommended that the Georgia School of Technology should be recognized ''as the institution devoted to the mechanic arts under the provisions of the Morrill Act, and a fair share of the funds from this source should be allocated to it.'' This has not been done and the Survey Staff renews its recommendation. The institution is entitled to both the designation and the funds.
The report recognizes that the period of service of President M. L. Brittain is drawing to a close. In speaking of this service and the qualities needed by Dr. Brittain's successor Dean Hammond makes a statement of such fundamental importance that the Survey Staff feels justified in urging the Chancellor and the Board of Regents to give it careful consideration. He writes:
Dr. Marion L. Brittain has rendered the State of Georgia long and valuable service first as Superintendent of Public Instruction and, for the past twenty years, as President of the Georgia School of Technology. His influence on the School will be felt for many years to come. He has reached the age of retirement, however, and a successor must soon be sought. This individual will occupy one of the most
75

important educational posts in the Southeast and a position of major trust and responsibility in the administrative organization of the State.
When this new head is chosen he should be a man widely recognized for his standing in science or engineering as well as for his qualifications as an administrator and leader. Every school of technology in the country except one is headed by an engineer or a man eminent in some closely related field. This is recognition of the fact that fully to understand the problems of such a school its head should have a background not only of familiarity but achievement in the field of education over which he is to preside. He should be able to discuss the scientific and technical problems of his faculty with understanding and appreciation so as to reach sound conclusions, inspire his staff by the leadership of a professional colleague, and promote the best interests and development of the institution both internally and in its external relationships.
A man having these qualifications will be difficult to find, but it is imperative to the interests of the State and region that he should be found. Expedience should not enter into his selection and only men of first class attainments and high character should be eligible for consideration.
Once selected such a man should be accorded proper freedom of action within the accepted limits of responsibility of an important college presidency and he should be given the necessary resources with which to work.
It should not be assumed from the foregoing discussion that no progress has been made in the improvement of the program of engineering education in the state since the Board of Regents was created. The work in
76

mining education formerly offered at North Georgia College has been discontinued, the work in civil and electrical engineering which was formerly given at the University of Georgia is no longer offered. As a result all of the engineering work done in the University System of Georgia is now given at the School of Technology except agricultural engineering. This is offered at the College of Agriculture which seems to be the appropriate place for it at the under-graduate level at least.
In addition to the foregoing the plant of the School of Technology has been improved by the expenditure of more than a million and a quarter dollars, a number of the changes have been made in the educational program in accord with the recommendations of the previous study, and most important of all has been the establishment of the State Engineering Experiment Station.
In spite of these signs of progress a reading of Dean Hammond's report will convince the reader that a critical time has come in the life of the School of Technology. The Survey Staff urges the Board of Regents to study Dean Hammond's complete report and to act as promptly and fully as possible in accordance with his recommendations.
77

CHAPTER V
THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM AND HIGHER EDUCATION FOR NEGROES
I. The State's Institutional Program
The report made in 1932-33 stressed the inadequacy of the publicly supported higher institutions for Negroes in Georgia. The following statement was made:
The Survey Committee is convinced, as a result of its examination of these three institutions [the colleges for Negroes], that there is need for a more liberal policy of support than has prevailed in the past.1
TABLE II
Actual Payments Made on State Allotments to the Colleges for Negroes, University System, 1933-34 Through 1942-43

Year

Georgia State College

Albany State Colege

Fort Valley State Colege**

Total

1933-34 1934-35 1935-36 1936-37 1937-38
1938-39 1939-40 1940-41 1941-42
1942-43

$ 34,299 39,666 30,500 32,834 31,317 23,303 31,053 45,884 37,000 36,500

$' 26,137
30,660 20,500 18,668
30,729 18,366 24,507 45,757 26,666 35,000

$ 10,878 17,500
14,500 25,851 18,993
13,318 21,291 46,305
37,000 35,000

$ 71,314 87,826 65,500 77,353 81,039 54,987 76,851
137,946
100,666 106,500

* Figures include purchases of equipment, new as well as replacements, but do not
include capital expenditures for buildings and land.
**Prior to 1939-40 the figures reported in the Fort Valley State College column are for the State. Teachers and Agricultural College at Forsyth.
The recommendation was made that the weakest of the institutions-the one at Forsyth-be abandoned and a new college established at Fort Valley if the Board of

1 R.\port to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, p. 44.
78

Regents found it possible to secure the plant of the Fort Valley Industrial and Normal School. This action has been taken and as a result the University System now has three institutions for Negroes which are well located with reference to the centers of Negro population.
Realization of the potentialities of the situation, however, lies largely in the future due to the inadequate financial support of the colleges. Table II shows the contributions made by the state to each institution by years from 1933-34 to 1942-43 inclusive. These figures reveal no very consistent pattern except that each institution got more funds from state sources at the end of the decade than it did at the beginning. The expenditures from state sources in 1942-43 were 171 per cent of those made in 1933-34. In evaluating this statement two points should be borne in mind :
1. The state support was at a low ebb in 1933-34. The entire income from state sources for the three institutions was only slightly more than $70,000.
2. Enrollments increased during the period (see Table III). Enrollments at Georgia State College and Albany State College in 1942 were, respectively 166 per cent and 213 per cent of enrollments in 1933. Data on enrollments at State Teachers and Agricultural College at Forsyth, the institution which was closed at the time Fort Valley State College was established in 1939, are not available, but it is known that they were at a lower level than enrollments at Fort Valley have been.
The inadequacy of the present support is attested by the statements of the members of the Survey Staff who visited the institutions. Further evidence on this point is to be found in the low salaries paid faculty members in the Negro colleges-in the reports dealing with these colleges specific illustrations are pointed out in which the need for more liberal support is indicated. More ample
79

state support for the publicly controlled colleges for Negroes must be put as the first and most important recommendation of this section of the Survey Report.
The allocation of functions among the colleges for Negroes is difficult to make at this stage in the development of the program of higher education for Negroes. It appears, however, that the following statements may be made with a fair measure of confidence:
1. Each of the institutions should offer a junior college program for the constituency of its adjacent territory. Three types of curricula should be offered in each of these programs: (a) senior college preparatory; (b) vocational terminal; and (c) general terminal. The
TABLE III
Fall Quarter Enrollments in the Colleges for Negroes, University System, 1933 Through 1942

Year

Georgia State College

Albany State College

Fort Valey* State College

1933

288

90

1934

256

101

1935

269

103

1936

335

109

1937

343

133

1938

523

208

1939

566

334

218

1940

562

241

306

1941

510

269

311

1942

477

192

304

Became a member of the System in 1939.
senior college preparatory curricula should be so arranged that it would be possible for students to enter another coilege for Negroes in the System at the end of the junior college period with little or no loss of credit. It seems improbable that it will be practicable to require completion of a four-year course, as has been contemplated, for all new Negro teachers in the immediate fu-

80

ture. The demand for teachers for the elementary schools may be so great that it will be necessary for each of the colleges to give a two-year elementary teacher education curriculum for some years to come.
2. Both Georgia State College and Fort Valley should give four-year programs for the preparation of high school teachers in academic subjects.
3. Albany should limit its four-year program to the preparation of elementary school teachers. This should be considered the primary purpose of this college. As has been indicated it seems probable that the two-year curriculum will need to be given for some time.
4. Service courses in home economics and agriculture should be given in the curricula for elementary teachers and also as parts of the program of terminal general education at each of the institutions.
5. Teachers of industrial arts and business subjects should be prepared at Georgia State College. Any institution preparing elementary school teachers should have some service courses in industrial arts. This institution should be designated as the land-grant college for the mechanic arts.
6. The professional curricula in home economics should be given at Georgia State College and at Fort Valley. These curricula should be. designed for high school teachers except that Georgia State College should offer supplementary instruction that will be helpful to home demonstration agents, and for women who wish to enter business activities related to home economics.
7. At a meeting of the Board of Regents held August 11, 1943 it was decided to develop instruction in animal husbandry, dairying, horticulture, poultry husbandry, and agricultural engineering at Georgia State College. Under the accepted phases of agriculture to be developed at Fort Valley College were agricultural economics and
81

rural sociology, plant pathology, genetics, and agronomy. In the minutes the statement is entered that: "This is not an iron-clad assignment-it is suggestive and experience will tell what further adjustments must be made.'' It is the opinion of the Survey Staff that this will not prove to be satisfactory as a permanent arrangement. The Survey Staff recommends that the work in agriculture be developed at Fort Valley College as rapidly as practicable and that at some time in the not distant future it should be made the land-grant college in agriculture for Negroes and the only one of the three institutions in which specialized curricula in agriculture should be offered.
II. The State's Provisions for Scholarships
The decision in the Gaines case has centered attention in many of the southern states on the provisions they are making for the higher education of Negroes. This is true in Georgia. It is evident to anyone who has given the matter careful consideration that the literal acceptance of the decision in this case would mean the creation for Negroes in many of the states of weak professional schools and feeble imitations of graduate instruction. It could not be otherwise considering the resources of most of the states.
The idea of regional institutions is receiving acceptance gradually. A recent illustration is furnished by an agreement between the University of West Virginia and the Medical College of Virginia by which the University of West Virginia will give the first two years of the medical program for whites and contract with the Medical College of Virginia for the last two years. Another illustration is furnished by Texas University and the University of Chicago in maintaining an observatory through cooperative effort.
82

In the interest of those Negroes seeking professional and graduate instruction it is believed that somewhat similar plans if adopted would in many instances give the Negro better educational opportunity than will be provided if each state attempts to establish institutions that will parallel the facilities provided for whites.
In the opinion of the Survey Staff the following steps should be taken to improve the opportunities of the Negro in Georgia for higher education:
1. The programs of the three colleges for Negroes should be materially strengthened with respect to staff, facilities, and diversity of programs offered in general education at the undergraduate level. It is not believed desirable to attempt graduate work in any one of them at the moment. That should be left to the future.
2. The programs for professional training in agriculture, home economics, and for teacher education should be strengthened.
3. Provision should be made for instruction at the undergraduate level in professional fields only as rapidly as such development can be justified in terms of the number of students involved.
4. Provisions should be made by which scholarships would be available for graduate and professional study at either the graduate or undergraduate level for those qualified for such study, to supplement the work of the three colleges. Virginia is spending $40,000 a year on scholarships of this character. Georgia should start with an initial sum of at least $20,000 to $25,000 annually with the expectation of increasing the funds as rapidly as the demand warrants.
5. The scholarships should be large enough to cover the difference in cost to the student between getting the desired study in Georgia and the cost at the institution attended by the student.
83

6. Provision should be made for scholarships in professional fields open to Negroes although the state may not provide instruction for whites in that subject. The opportunities for the Negro are so limited that eve.ry possible avenue should be opened to him.
7. Atlanta University is in position to meet the needs of students in certain fields of graduate and professional study and without doubt many holders of scholarships will wish to attend that institution. It is recommended, however, that a list of acceptable institutions be prepared which the student may be free to attend if he prefers any one of them to Atlanta University.
8. It is recommended that the presidents of the three institutions for Negroes and the Chancellor prepare a list of institutions and regulations to be submitted to the Board of Regents for approval.
9. It is recommended that the presidents of the three institutions for Negroes constitute a committee to select and recommend to the Chancellor persons to receive scholarships.
Wider Use of Scholarships
Scholarships should not be thought of as a device to be used for the Negro alone. In the previous report (1932-33) the Survey Committee recommended the discontinuance of the professional curriculum in veterinary medicine and also the abandonment of the effort to maintain the School of Medicine and the use of scholarships for students in these two fields of professional study. The program of veterinary medicine was discontinued except such. instruction as was needed for students in the College of Agriculture. The recommendation regarding scholarships was not accepted and it is now renewed. The recommendation concerning the School of Medicine was not adopted and it has been continued as a unit in the System.
84

The growth of professional training and the development of graduate instruction is making clearer each day the desirability of providing certain types of instruction for which there is a limited demand on a regional rather than a state basis. Illustrations of such types of professional training are furnished by such fields as forestry, library science, social service, veterinary medicine, medicine, engineering. In the :field of graduate instruction the need for cooperation on a regional basis among institutions is even more marked. In the interest of quality of work done and of economy in doing it scholarships and cooperative working agreements such as have been devised for medical education by the University of West Virginia and the Medical College of Virginia should be used much more widely for both colored and whites.
In conclusion the following general policies for the development of higher education for Negroes are suggested:
The Survey Staff recommends that the Board of Regents strengthen the programs of the three colleges for Negroes as rapidly as funds and personnel can be secured. It further recommends that scholarships be provided at the undergraduate and graduate levels for those types of training in which the demand is very limited. To show compliance with the spirit of the court decision in the Gaines case rather than just the letter it is suggested that scholarships be made available to the Negroes for type.s of preparation sought by them even though the University System does not provide instruction for whites in the subject. Librarianship furnishes an illustration. The University System does not have a school of library science and there is no occasion for it to establish one at this time. Nevertheless it is suggested that scholarships be made available for qualified Negroes who wish to study in this field. The same policy might well be followed by the state for white students in
85

library science as has been suggested for veterinary medicine.
The Board of Regents at a meeting held August 11, 1943 made a declaration of policy which seems to be in accord substantially with the foregoing. The pertinent excerpts follow:
The board declares its purpose as rapidly as it becomes possible to do so to meet the constitutional requirements announced by the Supreme Court of the United States with regard to furnishing substantially equal opportunities for Negroes on the postgraduate level. It will continue the policy hereinafter set out until war conditions and other conditions create a situation where compliance in the post-gradnate field in the University System is possible.
The board now agrees that it will, at the next session of the General Assembly, present a recommendation that the Assembly authorize it to use sufficient funds to provide scholarships in other institutions for post-graduate work for qualified Negroes, this to be regarded as a temporary expedient pending development of the completion of the work in our own system and to continue only so long as such scholarships do meet the requirements of the situation.
The board now constitutes the following machinery for handling such scholarships when and if funds are available for same; namely: the three heads of the Negro institutions and the chancellor, the chairman of the Committee on Education and the chairman of the Committee on Finance shall constitute a special committee to pass upon all such applicants and to determine their qualifications and the amount of such scholarships, the same to be measured by the difference in cost to the applicant in the institution
86

to which he is sent and the cost to white students obtaining similar work in the University System. ' These policies seem to be in substantial accord with those suggested by the Survey Staff. The points on which there appear to be some differences in viewpoint are: 1. The method of selecting the holders of scholarships. 2. The Regents propose graduate scholarships only but the Survey Staff recommends undergraduate scholarships as well for professional fields. 3. By implication at least the Regents propose scholarships only in those fields in which the University System is giving instruction for whites and does not offer parallel instruction for Negroes. The Survey Staff recommends the use of scholarships regardless of whether or not the University System offers instruction for whites in the subject. It believes that scholarships should be available for whites in certain fields instead of attempting to develop instruction in them.
87

CHAPTER VI
STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES IN THE
uNIVERSITY SYSTEM
The study made of student personnel services in the units of the University System at the time of the earlier survey (1932-33) revealed that several of the institutions were doing practically nothing with that phase of higher education and n,one of the institutions had a well developed program. Dean A. J. Brumbaugh of the University of Chicago was in charge of this part of the survey on both occasions and his present report on the whole indicates that progress has been made but that much still remains to be done.
The complete report has been mimeographed and copies have been sent to each institution of the University System. In addition to the general report supplementary reports were prepared on student personnel services in the following units of the System: Fort Valley State College, Georgia School of Technology, Georgia State College for Women, Georgia Teachers College, Middle Georgia College, and the University of Georgia. A copy of each of these reports has been filed with the institution concerned and also in the Chancellor's office.
This report includes only selected sections of the complete statement. Those chosen for reproduction in this volume deal with General Conclusions, Factors Affecting the Development of Student Personnel Services in the Institutions Constituting the University System of Georgia, and Recommendations.
One of the main recommendations provides for the appointment in the central office of a coordinator of student personnel services in the University System. The Survey Staff is of the opinion that the suggestion is a constructive one but it believes that the appointment of
88

an Assistant to the Chancellor and a Business Manager should be given precedence. If this precludes the appointment of a coordinator of student personnel service at this time it is recommended that the Assistant to the Chancellor be given responsibility temporarily for student personnel service. The University Examiner and the Coordinator of Student Personnel should be responsible to the Chancellor through the Assistant to the Chancellor.
The complete report on Administrative and Financial Organization and Procedures overlaps at two places on the report on student personnel. The overlapping is on the following points:
1. The desirability of the Board of Regents issuing a brochure that would interpret the University System of the state as a whole to prospective students and their parents.
2. The need for the correction of the sub-standard conditions that are to be found in some of the residence halls for students and better adjustment of dormitory fees to the quality of the facilities and services available.
The suggestions from the two sources are differently phrased but in essence they are in agreement. The Survey Staff recommends that they be accepted.
The sections of the report on student personnel services which follow are recommended for guidance in the development of that phase of the University System's program:
Introduction
One section of the Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia made by the Survey Committee in 1933 dealt with the administration of student personnel services in the institutions of higher education. It was pointed out in that
89

report that there was a recognition in most institutions of the need for more effective administration of students and student affairs; that in some of the institutions commendable first steps had been taken toward the development of an adequate plan for the administration of students but that none of the programs could be regarded as entirely adequate either in scope or in organization. It was suggested that the administration of each institution outline a personnel program appropriate to its need and that the more urgent provisions be put into effect at once. Those phases that were regarded as less essential were to be developed gradually. It was proposed further that the institutions might well make a cooperative approach to the development of those aspects of their personnel programs that were common to all of the institutions; for example, the administration of intelligence, placement, reading and other tests and the development of a satisfactory system of records.
It is the purpose of the present study to determine what progress the institutions constituting the University System of Georgia have made since the previous survey in the development of their personnel programs and in the light of present conditions to recommend further steps for the improvement of these programs. With a view to securing as comprehensive an over-view as possible of the nature and scope of the personnel services that are now being provided, each institution in the University System was asked to furnish detailed data in schedules which were borrowed from the office of the Secretary of the Commission on Higher Institutions of the North Central Association. In addition, a more intensive study was made of the programs of seven institutions, namely: The University of Georgia,
90

Georgia School of Technology, Georgia State College for Women at Milledgeville, Georgia Teachers College at Statesboro, Georgia State College at Savannah, Middle Georgia College at Cochran, and Fort Valley State College at Fort Valley. Dr. W. A. Stumpf visited the institutions in the System which, because of lack of time, the author of this report found it impossible to visit personally. During the visit to each institution personal interviews were held with the chief administrative officers, with faculty members who have a major responsibility in the student personnel program, and in most instances with a selected group of students. An attempt was made in these conferences to discover what personnel functions are being performed, what methods are being employed to coordinate the activities of the various personnel officers, and how effectively and adequately these services are actually meeting the needs of students on the respective campuses.
The phases of student personnel work covered in this study are practically the same as those included in the survey of 1932-33 and the six institutions that were visited in the first survey were included in those visited by the author in the present study. This approach makes it possible to judge what progress has been made in the development of the personnel programs and what changes in the previous recommendations should be made in the light of the general reorganization that has been effected in each institution.
General Conclusions
Provision for the coordination and extension of personnel serVices in the University System-In October, 1934, the Chancellor of the University System issued the following statement embodying several
91

resolutions which had been passed by the Board of Regents:
'Mr. Beers will serve as Executive Secretary of the Council of the University System and exofficio as corresponding secretary of the committees, divisions, and sections of the Council. His principal function will be as adviser to our faculties in the matter of testing. He is charged with the responsibility of developing through tests and measurements a competent program of student personnel and guidance.'
The provision of a central, coordinating officer, charged with the responsibility of aiding and advising the several institutions in the University System in the development of their personnel programs is sound in principle and represents an important step in the right direction. Considerable evidence was found in the institutions visited to indicate that there have been improvements in the personnel programs, some of which have undoubtedly resulted in part from the influence and leadership emanating from this central, coordinating office. Most conspicuous among the improvements are the following:
(a) The extension of the health programs in the institutions. This includes the adoption of a uniform physical examination form for all institutions; the extension of the medical examinations of students and food handlers; the improvement of sanitary conditions. Much of the marked improvement in the field of health service can undoubtedly be attributed to the committee on physical examinations and health set up in 1934. This committee is also responsible for a number of significant research and service projects in the area of student health. As a result of the special attention given to student health
92

programs, there has been an increase in the number of full-time and part-time physicians in several of the colleges. There has resulted, moreover, an extension and improvement of student health facilities and a closer relationship between the physicians and the other administrative officers concerned directly with student welfare.
(b) A Committee on Student Personnel was made a part of the University System Council in 1936. It organized focal groups in the several colleges for the purpose of discussing personnel procedures, individual student cases, clinical methodologies and of reviewing recent literature in the field of personnel work. These measures contributed to improving the competence of the members of the several staffs concerned most directly with student welfare and to stimulating interest in extending and rounding out the student personnel program.
(c) A new committee on 'Examinations, Records and Standards of Scholarship' to take the place of the committee on Student Personnel referred to in 'b' has just been set up under the statutes of the University System Council. There is nothing to indicate yet what functions this committee will perform or how effective it may eventually be in discharging its functions.
(d) The system of comprehensive examinations and of freshman week placement tests has provided a body of valuable information concerning students to be used for counseling purposes. The comprehensive examinations, in so far as they are related to the personnel services in these institutions, have served (1) to provide a more uniform measure of student achievement than marks given by individual instructors based upon separate examinations; (2)
93

As a basis for comparing achievement among the students in the various institutions. Also, an index of relative achievement can be derived by comparing the performance of students in the comprehensive examinations with their scholastic aptitude as measured by tests given during freshman week. Such comparisons may suggest desirable modifications in the curriculum and may be one means of evaluating the effectiveness of both the instructional and the personnel procedures. (3) As a source of information that may aid personnel officers in the several institutions in counseling students with reference to their academic programs.
One of the important contributions in the field of examinations has been the introduction of a battery of freshman-sophomore placement examinations. At present these include English, world history, mathematics, and general science. The examinations are given during freshman week to all freshmen in each institution. The examinations are sent to the office of the Examiner, are scored there and the results are sent back to the institutions as soon as possible. The same battery of tests is given to students in each institution at the end of the sophomore year. By this procedure administrative officers have available both a measure of freshmen achievement when they first enter and an index of achievement at the end of two years of college work. Certain limitations affecting the maximum use of these test results during fresh~ man week will be pointed out later in the recommendations.
There can be no question that in spite of some limitations in the operation of the examination system both the freshman-sophomore examinations and the comprehensive examinations constitute an important step forward in the development of the per-
94

sonnel and educational programs of the institutions in the state system of higher education in Georgia.
{e) Marked progress has been made in the improvement of the systems of records, particularly as they relate to the large body of information derived from the freshman-sophomore placement tests and the comprehensive examinations. Reference has already been made to the physical examination form which has been adopted for the whole University System. Special mention should also be made of the individual student profile, a form which has been adopted for the transfer of information concerning individual students from one institution to another and for recording the results of the freshman-sophomore tests in each institution. This form should prove particularly valuable to counselors in the several institutions. In many respects the system of records, apart from those which have had state-wide adoption, as well as the plans for keeping these records, vary widely from one institution to another. The uniform records that have been adopted constitute merely a :first step in the development of a system of records that will serve both the common needs of all the institutions in the University System and the differentiated needs of individual institutions. While some allowance must be made for adapting the records to the needs of the various institutions and to the facilities which they have for keeping such records, there are large possibilities for coordinating and systematizing the present records.
(f) There is evident a spirit of inquiry and experimentation with reference to personnel problems that is promising for the future of this work. Various types of research in the :field of student health and in the :field of tests and measurements have already been cited. Further mention should be made
95

of the experimental use of tests and diagnostic instruments that have not been included as a part of the regular state-wide testing program. Among the instruments thus employed are psychological tests, personality schedules, vocational interest tests, and aptitude tests of various types. While this spirit of inquiry and experimentation is found only in certain institutions, it is of sufficient significance to be included among the promising developments that have taken place in the personnel field since the previous survey of the University System.
(g) Steps worthy of note have been taken in some institutions to coordinate the various phases of the student personnel program. As has already been stated, some of these steps have undoubtedly resulted from the influence of the central personnel officer and the inter-institutional committees that have been set up for the purpose of promoting personnel programs. In some institutions, however, the provision for coordination has resulted from leadership within the institutions rather than from influences coming from the outside.
(h) There is apparent a growing recognition of the importance of providing for the clinical diagnosis of special problems, e.g., reading disabilities and poor study habits, faced by students and for providing appropriate remedial procedures. In most instances the necessary remedial procedures are still far too limited. The awareness of the need for this type of service is more impressive in this connection than the adequacy of the provisions that are made to meet this need.
(i) It was pointed out in the earlier survey report that in most institutions in the System, students were regulated by a multiplicity of rules which al-
96

lowed very little opportunity for the development of individual initiative or responsibility. There is now a noticeable tendency in most of these institutions to provide larger opportunities for students to participate in the management of affairs affecting directly student life in its manifold phases, thereby developing a sense of individual and collective responsibility. These provisions could still be extended considerably, but the steps already taken are in the right direction and are to be commended.
Factors Affecting the Development of Student Personnel Services in the University System
A number of factors have affected the development of student personnel services in the various institutions in the University System of Georgia. These factors account in part at least for the variations that are found among the personnel programs. The most significant of these may be briefly summarized as follows :
(a) Administrative philosophies with reference to personnel work. The prevailing philosophy in some of these institutions stresses the disciplinary nature of education. Those holding this point of view believe that conformity to external authority is a large element of a student's education; and, that in a competitive educational system the fittest will survive.
There is, furthermore, the belief on the part of some administrative officers, particularly in the junior colleges,. that the educational program is so definitely laid out that there is little need for or opportunity for educational counseling.
Then too, some administrators feel that the individuality of an institution is endangered by the acceptance of plans and procedures proposed by agen-
97

cies outside of the institution itself. In other words, there is a concern that the institutions may be required to conform to a pattern of organization and procedure that has the earmarks of regimentation.
(b) Linked very closely with the administrative philosophies just discussed is the feeling in most of the institutions that their individual interests must be safeguarded. It seems essential, for example, that the enrollment of each institution be kept at as high a level as possible for the sake of the fees that are derived from students and for the purpose of making requests for budgetary appropriations from the Board or Regents. Administrative officers in these institutions generally subscribe to the proposition that the educational interests of some of their students might be served better were they registered in another institution in the University System. Yet one finds little evidence that students applying for admission to a particular institution are advised to go elsewhere or that students already registered in an institution are encouraged to transfer to another. Because of the different kinds of institutions found within the University System and because of the allocation of various functions to different institutions, one might reasonably expect a much larger emphasis than now prevails upon the distribution of students to the institutions which can best serve their educational interests.
(c) Most of the institutions in the University System operate under limitations of finance and staff that make the provision of student personnel services difficult. It is not the purpose of this part of the survey to inquire into the organization of the curricula in the various institutions. From what is known concerning the over~expansion of some departments and the consequent offering of a multi-
98

plicity of courses in many institutions of higher education throughout the country, it seems reasonable to suppose that curricular reorganizations might be effected which would release the time of some faculty members to participate in the student personnel program, thereby strengthening both the educational program of the institutions and their personnel services without incurring any additional :financial outlay.
(d) The wide geographical distribution of the institutions in the University System imposes a practical limitation in terms of the time and expense involved in travel upon the effective operation of a personnel committee or council composed of representatives from these institutions.
Recommend1ations
While progress in the development of student 'personnel services in the institutions constituting the University System of Georgia has been somewhat slow and irregular, the advancement that has already been made, and the potentialities that exist in the System, are encouraging. The University System is in a position to develop a program of personnel services that will not only increase the effectiveness of its member institutions and improve the benefits which its students derive from their educational programs, but which will also point the way to better personnel programs in institutions throughout the country. As a means of speeding up the development of the personnel programs in the Georgia institutions and of improving the services that are already in operation, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. That the Board of Regents appoint a state coordinator of guidance and personnel services. The
99

position is of such importance as to require the full time of the coordinator. Moreover, he might advantageously be located in the central office of the Board of Regents to avoid the impression that an officer connected with any institution in the University System is endeavoring to influence or direct the policies of the other institutions. Budgetary limitations and other practical considerations may make it necessary, however, to appoint some one wlio is recognized as a leader in student personnel work in one of the institutions in the System. In this event, the appointee should give at least half of his time to his responsibilities as coordinator.
Under the present statutes of the Board of Regents the examiner for the University System is also charged with the responsibility for developing a competent program of student personnel and guidance. The statute defines his principal function, however, to be 'an adviser to our faculties in the matter of testing.' While the functions of developing an adequate testing program for the University System and the development of a competent program of student personnel and guidance are not inconsistent, the two combined comprehend such a large scope of activities that they can hardly be dealt with adequately by a single individual. This suggestion in no wise reflects unfavorably upon the competence of the present examiner to serve as the director of the personnel programs of the institutions in the University System. It is believed, however, that the value of his services can be increased if arrangements are made which will permit him to concentrate upon the improvement of examinations, the extension of the placement and achievement tests and the
See discussion at beginning of this section.
100

research that is essential to the organization of personnel services on a sound basis.
The coordinator of student personnel services in the proposed arrangement should be chairman of a committee on student personnel work of the University Council. The examiner would become chairman of the special committee on examinations, records, standards of scholarship. The examiner would also be ex-officio a member of the committee on student personnel work and would be regarded as the technical consultant with reference to all phases of student personnel work the development of which would be related in any way to the :findings of the committee on examinations, records, and standards of scholarship. In fact, it would be one of the important functions of the committee on examinations, records, and standards of scholarship, under the chairmanship of the examiner, to carry on necessary research pertaining to the student personnel work and to make recommendations to the committee on student personnel.
The membership and organization of the committee might be much like that of the Committee on Student Personnel appointed in 1935 but recently superseded by the Committee on Examinations, Records and Standards of Scholarship. Its membership should be chosen from the chief personnel officers in each of the institutions constituting the University System. The coordinator of student guidance and personnel, who would serve as chairman of this committee, should be selected on the basis of his breadth of training in the personnel :field, his demonstrated competence as an administrator of student personnel services, and his ability to work cooperatively with administrative officers who hold divergent points of view regarding the nature and place of a personnel
101

program in an institution of higher education. The coordinator and the committee on. student personnel would not be regarded as exercising supervisory functions in the sense of having authority to require institutions to adopt a particular plan of organization or of personnel procedures.
2. It is recommended that a state-wide testing program in the high schools be developed. Such a program has been under discussion from time to time but it is reported that opposition to it has come from certain officers within the state and that as a consequence some of the high school administrative officers have not been receptive to the proposal. There is general agreement among the administrative officers who were consulted in the various institutions in the University System that a state-wide testing program involving privately-controlled as well as publicly-controlled colleges and universities would be highly desirable. Two advantages of such a program are immediately apparent: First, it would make for a much more effective pre-college counseling program than is now in operation. On the basis of information derived from the tests included in such a program and from supplementary information supplied by students, guidance officers in the high schools as well as entrance counsellors in the colleges could give much more competent advice to high school seniors in the selection of a college than they can under present conditions. If the placement tests were given during the junior year in high school the information could be used in the senior year for the purpose of directing toward college many students who have the ability to do college work but who under present conditions do not think of themselves as potential candidates for college. Moreover, some students who contemplate going to
102

college but who might profit more from other types of education than that ordinarily gotten in college might be advised and redirected in their plans. Second, information for purposes of classification and educational counseling of freshmen when they first register in an institution would be available at a time when it was most needed. Under the present plan the placement tests are given during freshman week, but in a good many instances they cannot be scored in time to make the results available to deans and registration officers when students first register.
Inasmuch as there appears to have been some opposition among the high school administrative officers to such a program, it would be essential to enlist the cooperation of these high school administrators before the program is undertaken. The experience in other states where state-wide testing programs are already in effect suggests also that it would be advantageous, as already suggested, to enlist the cooperation of private institutions of higher education in the state.
3. It is recommended that steps be taken toward the cooperative interpretation of the University System. At the present time each institution in the System prepares its own announcements and publicity materials. These materials differ widely in quality and in the adequacy with which they interpret the programs of the respective institutions. As first steps toward the cooperative interpretation of the University System, a brochure might be prepared under the auspices of the Board of Regents describing the objectives, functions, and facilities of each institution, with some statement of the types of students to whose needs the various programs are best adapted. Arrangements might also be made for conferences of high school principals and the guidance
103

officers of the various institutions at which the several units of the University System would be presented and interpreted.
The chief advantages of this type of approach would be the elimination of duplications in publicity materials which in many instances have more the characteristics of popular advertising than of sound educational information. Furthermore, this would be an indirect means of promoting more adequate guidance programs in the high schools and of placing upon guidance officers in the high schools more responsibility for aiding students in deciding whether they should go to college and which college is best adapted to their educational purposes and needs.
4. It is recommended that a workshop for personnel officers in the colleges, and eventually for guidance officers in the high schools in the state, be organized. One of the difficulties under which a state-wide personnel committee operates, as already pointed out, is the limitation of time and financial resources for meetings of sufficient duration to permit an adequate study of personnel problems in the various institutions with a view to formulating policies for the improvement of the personnel services. A workshop of several weeks coming at a time when the members of the personnel committee and others interested are free from teaching responsibilities, or at a time when they might be relieved of their teaching responsibilities, would provide an opportunity for concentrated study of the various aspects of personnel programs and would undoubtedly be more fruitful of constructive suggestions than periodic short meetings can possibly be.
If the workshop for college personnel officers proves effective, it might be extended to include a
104

group of high school guidance and administrative officers. Such an arrangement should make for a much closer coordination of the guidance functions in the high school and the personnel functions in the institutions in the University System.
5. It is recommended that the Board of Regents make a special study of the financial resources available for aiding students in the various institutions with a view to setting up funds to supplement the resources already available. This present study found that apart from the honor scholarships some institutions have no scholarships and no loan funds but that as high as 25 per cent of the students enrolled find it impossible to pay their accounts by the end of the school year. In other institutions there are scholarship funds of considerable amounts and loan funds more than adequate for the needs of the students enrolled. It might even be possible to pool some of the funds now allocated to various institutions, and thereby to serve better the financial needs of students who merit the benefits of higher education throughout the state. That is to say, a state fund available to students in all institutions in the University System might be set up by the Board of Regents. Any plan adopted for the provisions of general scholarship and loan funds should carefully safeguard the awards and grants so that they will not be used for purposes of political patronage.
6. It is recommended that special consideration be given to the provision for housing students in the various state institutions. The adequacy of dormitory facilities, the physical conditions of some of the institutionally-operated dormitories and the opportunities for social education that are inherent in dormitori(''l call for special attention. The impression of the examiners relative to the dormitory situation
105

in the institutions visited may be briefly summarized as follows:
Most of the dormitories on a few campuses were of high quality in construction, appearance and operation. Examples might be cited from the campuses of Georgia Teachers College at Statesboro, Georgia State College for Women at Milledgeville, the State University and Georgia School of Technology.
A number of the dormitories on the several campuses gave favorable first impressions by their external appearance but were disappointing in their interior decoration and general maintenance. At a very small additional cost the interiors of these dormitories could be made really attractive and homelike.
Some of the dormitories are definitely sub-standard. Among the inadequacies noted are: poor and limited toilet facilities, limited closet space, small study tables, poor lighting, poor and unsanitary floors, limited fire protection, unsatisfactory sleeping arrangements, poor sanitary conditions, and lack of taste in interior decoration. For illustrations of these various inadequacies one might cite Candler and the Old College dormitories at the State University, Winnie Davis at the Coordinate College, Knowles at Georgia School of Technology, the Men's Dormitory at Fort \TI.alley, and the dormitories at Tifton. These are cited merely as illustrations; others could no doubt be added to the list had the examiners visiteq the dormitories in all of the institutions.
There is no close relationship between the rates charged and the accommodations provided. That is to say, the charges for the poorer accommodations
106

are too high compared with the charges for accommodations in the well-kept dormitories.
By and large little consideration has been given to the utilization of dormitories for the social development of students. A wide range of activities may be employed to develop within dormitory groups an esprit de corps and to cultivate some of the social amenities which are often neglected on college campuses. In fact, dormitories afford possibilities of achieving some of the values commonly attributed to fraternities without the negative influences wliich too often characterize fraternities.
Some of the conditions referred to in this recommendation call for attention from the business officers of the various institutions. Others fall within the administrative sphere of the personnel officers. Generally, howeyer, a closer cooperation than now obtains between the business offices and the personnel offices will lead to greatly improved living arrangements.
The committee on student personnel already referred to might well study the housing situation in all of the institutions of the University System with a view to making recommendations for the improvement of living conditions to the appropriate officers in each institution.
7. It is recommended that one of the first subjects for consideration by the committee on student personnel be the further development of a uniform system of record blanks and forms comparable to the physical e:X:amination form that has already been deYeloped and adopted. There is special need throughout the University System for a uniform application blank for admission which will give much more information concerning the applicant than is now
107

available. Some record forms will vary according to the type of institution in which they are being used, but there are a number of areas in which uniform blanks printed and distributed by the central office could be employed to a decided advantage.
108

CHAPTER VII
THE JUNIOR CoLLEGEs
At the time of the earlier survey (1932-33) there was a wide diversity among the junior college programs offered by the units of the University System. This was a natural consequence of the complete administrative decentralization that had obtained previously. These marked differences of program, even among thosE) having the same general objectives, resulted in numerous difficulties when students sought to transfer from one institution to another. This situation and other factors led the Survey Committee to make two important recommendations:
1. The Survey CoiDinittee recommends that all professional and technical schools except the School of Technology, delay the beginning of their specialized curricula until the end of the junior-college period.1
2. The Survey Cominittee has recommended that in all four-year institutions, except the School of Technology, the first two years of the four-year curricula should be devoted to general education. This recommendation is in harmony with the general trend in higher education by which specialization is being delayed until the end of the junior-college period. . . .
The character of this junior-college curriculum is a subject with which, except the School of Technology, all of -the four-year institutions, the two-year teacher training institutions which also offer a general junior college curriculum, and any junior colleges that may be continued as members of the Uni-
1 Report to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, p, 90.
109

versity System are concerned. This curriculum should be substantially the same in all of the institutions. It should be developed cooperatively.2
The acceptance of this view makes the character of the junior~college curriculum a matter of major importance. It is a question which should have the immediate attention of the best talent in the University System.3
It may be well to review some of the developments that have taken place in the University System since the foregoing statements were made. But before this is done attention will be given to the relationship of the junior college program to the School of Technology, which was made an exception to the recommendation, and to Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College.
The report made by Dean: Hammond in 19ib-33 dealt with this problem as follows:
The Georgia School of Technology offers a distinctly 'Professional' type of engineering curriculum. Technological subjects are introduced fairly early in the course and there is a considerable content of what are usually referred to as 'Professional' subjects. One of the most important characteristics of such a curriculum is that it provides definitely prescribed sequences of scientific and technological subjects beginning in the Freshman year and extending through to graduation. These sequences cannot be broken without disrupting the whole program of study. Curricula of this type have been referred to as unified, i.e., they are not divided into pre-professional and professional stages, the former consisting of a preliminary period of general academic study

Ibid., pp. 102-103, 8 Ibid., p. 90.

110

and the latter of purely professional work. The curriculum is a coherent, integrated whole. With rare exceptions engineering colleges in this country provide programs laid out on this general plan.
It is this unified characteristic of the engineering curriculum that makes co-ordination of junior college and senior engineering college work difficult. Only in isolated instances has there been any concerted effort to bring about such a co-ordination of programs, and such of these efforts as have been tried have met with indifferent success, at least from the standpoint of the engineering college.
The problems of co-ordination of the curriculum of the Georgia School of Technology with those of junior colleges that are or may be provided in the State is not different from these two types of institution elsewhere. A solution of the problem requires the adoption of either of two plans: (1) revision of the curriculum of the School of Technology so as to accommodate it to the prevailing type of junior college curriculum; or (2) provision of curricula in the junior colleges paralleling the first two years of the School of Technology. The formet alternative would cause a drastic curtailment of the professional position of the curriculum of the School of Technology. A considerable fraction of the work of the senior year would have to be dropped or postponed to postgraduate years. . . . Such a curtailment of work would put the School out of line with the recognized standards of engineering education prevailing throughout. the country. It is not recommended. The second alternative would hardly be practicable for financial reasons, if for no others. To equip the junior colleges of the State to provide for the first two years of the curriculum of the School of Technology would mean installation of extensive labora-
111

tory facilities and additions to teaching staffs that would be entirely out of proportion to any resulting gains. Under existing conditions it is clearly impracticable to bring about such a complete unification of programs of junior colleges and of the School of Technology as to make it possible for students to pursue two years of work in the former and then to complete their requirements for the degree in two years at t~e latter.
On the other hand, a program of five years, providing two years in the junior college followed by three years at the Georgia School of Technology is not only wholly practicable but would doubtless be distinctly advantageous. Such a combined program would require no considerable modification of the programs of either school but could be effected by a mutual agreement as to division of work. Under such an arrangement the junior college could provide courses in mathematics, English, modern foreign languages, history and in most instances physics and chemistry. . . . The School of Technology could then provide a three-year program adapted to the needs of juni<fr college graduates. While this program would entail an extra year beyond the customary four, the student would have a well rounded education.
The Staff of this present survey agrees with this point of view as did the Survey Committee in connection with the earlier study.
The Su.rvey Committee of 1932-33 did not recommend the establishment of Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College. If this institution is to be limited to terminal work in agriculture and home economics it should not be expected to accept the idea of a program of general education that might meet the needs of other junior colleges,
112

or the first two years of a four-year college program. On the other hand, if as now appears to be the case, it is to become largely a senior college preparatory institution it should develop a program to meet that objective as well as to provide training in agriculture and homemaking that will prepare its students to enter immediately upon the work of the farm and the farm home. In the section of this report dealing with agriculture in the University System more extended consideration is given to this question.
Not only would it be a serious mistake for the junior colleges to attempt to offer the professional subjects in engineering but in other professional fields as well in which four years of work are necessary to equip students for service. In spite of the view which was presented in the previous report there has been a tendency on the part of some colleges to project professional subjects into the junior college period. This tendency is especially marked in agriculture, home economics, forestry, and pharmacy.
This trend apparently is not entirely due to senior college requirements for admission that are set up by the four-year institutions. Instances were found especially in business in which technical and professional subjects had been put into the junior college period although those responsible for the professional work of the senior college or of the professional school would prefer that the students should not attempt work of that type during the junior college period.
Instead of attempting to off'er these professional subjects in the junior college preparatory curricula those responsible for educational counselling of students should point out the advantages to the prospective professional student of entering on his program of professional study with a more extended period of general education than is offered by the high school. The two years spent in a local junior college will be relatively inexpensive and the
113

student can then enter on his career as a student in a professional school or in any other type of specialization with a greater degree of maturity and a broader background of experience and education.
The reader should not assume from the foregoing statements that the present Survey Staff is reversing the stand taken on the junior college in the earlier study. This is not the case. The principles that were enunciated at that time are considered to be applicable to ,those junior colleges that are separate institutions. If they were applied there would still remain, besides the School of Medicine, five institutions for whites with curricula that are four or more years in length as well as three1institutions for Negroes. Each of these institutions should have a junior college program preparatory to the work of the senior college and conditions should be such that after two years of work in any one of these institutilons students could transfer to another with little if any loss of time, except in the case of the School of Techn:ology.
At this point attention should be given to the objectives of the junior college period. The discussion thus far has been concerned almost exclusively with the preparatory function-getting the student ready for senior college or professional school study. There are two other objectives which should have attention by those responsible for the educational program of the University System. Many of the students who enter the member institutions will not have the interest or the :financial resources to complete a four-year college program. Some of them will find it necessary to begin productive work before the end of a period of study of that length and will wish to obtain some type of preparation that will contribute to their effectiveness as workers. Others will wish to have a year or two of college work because. of the contribution that it will make to their effectiveness as citizens of the state and of the community in which they
114

may live. These two objectives call for the development in the System of terminal courses of two types (1) specialized vocational curricula; (2) courses designed to contribute to the social intelligence of the student.
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, was intended to meet the needs for vocational preparation in farming. But as is shown elsewhere in this report it has become to a considerable extent a junior college preparatory to ~;Jenior college work in agriculture. Other areas in which there may be opportunities for a terminal vocational education are, for example, secretarial work, teaching as long as the requirements may be met by two years of college work, laboratory technicians, and nursing. If curricula of these types are developed it should be done only after a study of local conditions. These curricula will find little place for usefulness unless there is a good market for the skills which are developed.
In the discussion of the second type of terminal curriculum the previous report suggested that it ''should be the most important curriculum inasmuch as it aims to train for social citizenship in American civilization.''
If these views were to be accepted the complete undergraduate program as represented in the curricula of the institutions of the University System would consist of the following:
1. A terminal curriculum that would have as its primary purpose contributing to the social intelligence of the student.
2. Vocational curricula adapted to local opportunities for employment.
3. Senior college preparatory curricula.
The three are to be thought of as curricula that are appropriate to the first two years of college work whether those years are offered by a separate junior college or by a junior college that constitutes the first two years of
115

a four-year institution. It is suggested that all of the institutions of the University System of Georgia except the School of Technology and Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College should offer the first of these curricula. The second should be offered only by those colleges that have local opportunities for employment and a sufficient number of students to make it possible to give the instruction without an excessive per capita cost. The preparatory curriculum should be given during the junior college period at the undergraduate four-year colleges, except the School of Technology, and at the separate junior colleges.
This discussion should not be interpreted as meaning that none of these phases is to be found in the University System at the moment. The Georgia School of Technology is a vocational school at the professional level as are several of the schools of the University of Georgia. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College is doing good work of a terminal vocational character in agriculture and home economics at the junior college level. Its program could be improved if the recommendations made elsewhere in this report were accepted. There is also some teacher training work and some commercial work being offered at the junior college level. The great emphasis of most of the institutions at the junior college level, however, is on the senior college preparatory phase; this in spite of the fact that only a minority of the students go beyond the first two years of college study.
It has been suggested that more emphasis should be placed on the curricula designed to prepare students for their responsibilities for citizenship of a high type. It must be acknowledged that the senior college preparatory curricula undoubtedly make a considerable contribution to this objective. This is especially true in view of the comprehensive courses that constitute a considerable
116

part of the work of the first two years. There is an evident tendency on the part of some of the four-year institutions to push specialized subjects into the requirements of the first two years so that students may get during that period some of the specialized instruction that more properly belongs in the senior college and the professional school. This is contrary to one of the most pronounced trends of the day in higher education, i.e., the tendency to extend the period of general education. As is readily seen this greatly increases the problem of the separate junior colleges as they feel under compulsion to offer the specialized subjects that may be required of transfer students by any one of the senior colleges.
The problems that have been under discussion are not only important from an educational viewpoint, and in the contribution the University System can make to the education of the youth of the state, but they have significant financial implications. If an undue number of specialized subjects are offered in the junior colleges it will greatly increase the per capita cost of instruction and will result in the dissipation of funds that are badly needed for other purposes in the University System.
The Survey Staff recommends that the question of the curricula to be offered and the courses to be included in them be made the subject of further careful study.
To give the reader a fairly complete picture of the situation statements from the earlier study (1932-33) are quoted at this point.
In the past twenty-five years, a new educational unit-the iunior college-has been developed. Its growth during the past ten years has been very rapid, and it is now evident that this new institution is to become in some form or other a permanent part of our program of education. Naturally, the administrative and financial relations of the state and of
117

the local community to the junior college have not become so clearly defined as they have in the case of the high school. In recent years, however, the trend has become fairly evident. The tendency is to regard the period covered by the junior college as a part of American secondary education and to place the responsibility for administration on the local unit as is the case with the high school at present.
The state of Georgia has been tardy in accepting the view that the junior college is a local institution. All of the publicly supported institutions of this type in the state, save one, are supported and administered by the state through the Board of Regents of the University System. This is so contrary to the trend in America with reference to secondary education that the Survey Committee does not hesitate to urge a change of policy in this matter. . . .
In fact, the junior college should be a part of the upward expansion of the common school and not a part of the program of education concerned primarily with the training of specialists. [This is a part of the program of higher education.] Furthermore, in its clientele, the junior college is distinctly a local institution. The data collected by the Survey Committee in connection with its study of the geographical distribution of students show this to be true in Georgia, as has been found elsewhere, in spite of the efforts of some of the junior colleges to draw their student body from the entire state. The local character of the junior college and the functions which it has in the program of education point to the desirability of the transfer of the junior college to local communities.
When that time arrives, provision should be made by the state of Georgia for financial assistance to be
118

given to local communities for the development of junior colleges under standards to be prescribed by the state. Logically, as the junior colleges become an integral part of the program of secondary education, they should be placed under the State Board of Education.4
The present Survey Staff is strongly of the opinion that the views expressed in the earlier report are sound and it recommends to the Board of Regents that it adopt them as its guiding principles with reference to the separate junior college. It is recognized that the acceptance of this policy and putting it into practice will meet with opposition from some communities that have in their midst junior colleges supported by the state. This should not be the factor that determines the policy of the Board. The Board of Regents is charged with the responsibility of developing the most effective program of publicly supported higher education for the state that is possible with the funds made available. The desires of local communities must be subordinated to the interests of the state as a whole. Furthermore the Board of Regents should bear in mind that it is building not for today alone. Its actions should be taken with an eye to the long future.
It is recognized that there will need to be a transition period from the present situation to that which has been recommended for the future. With these factors in mind the Survey Staff recommends that at this time, in addition to the junior colleges that were discontinued as units of the University System following the previous survey, the following be given up as state institutions:
Middle Georgia College, Cochran South Georgia College, Douglas.
The acceptance of these recommendations would leave junior colleges at Dahlonega and Americus. The former

Ibid., pp. 2526; 29, 30.

119

is large enough to be run economically and effectively, its clientele is drawn from over the state very generally, and it is in an area that is sparsely settled and has no considerable center that would serve as a good location for a local junior college. In accord with the statements already made the Board of Regents should not commit itself to the idea that the College will of necessity always be a member of the University System.
Georgia Southwestern College at Americus offers a more adequate program for the preparation of elementary school teachers than do the other two-year junior colleges. The continuance of this institution as a unit of the University System is justified so long as the shortage of elementary school teachers in the state requires the certification of teachers with only two years of college preparation.
West Georgia College at Carrollton is in reality not a junior college as it already has developed a third year. Whether or not it should be continued on a three-year basis or made a four-year institution is a question that may well be left to the future. Meantime it is doing an exploratory piece of work in teacher education for rural communities. It should carry a two-year program of teacher prepara'tion as long as it is necessary for teachers to be certificated with that limited amount of education. It should also give a two-year program of general education at the end of which period the student might go to some four-year institution for further study.
In summary the situation among the units would be as follows in the institutions for whites:
1. The University, Georgia State College for Women, Georgia Teachers College, the Georgia State W omans College, North Georgia College, Georgia Southwestern College, and West Georgia College would give programs of general education at the junior college level that would
120

prepare students for further study in the four-year institutions.
2. Terminal vocational curricula and terminal curricula in general education would be offered at those institutions in which the local situation justifies them in terms of numbers of students and in vocational opportunities.
The colleges for Negroes would be expected to offer the following programs at the junior college level in addition to their four-year programs:
1. Each would give programs of general education at the junior college level preparatory to advanced study.
2. Each would give a two-year program of elementary teacher education as long as the need for such service existed.
3. Each would give terminal courses in general education.
In addition to the foregoing it is recommended that Georgia State College should offer courses in trades and industries at the sub-collegiate level until such time as other facilities are developed to meet the need.
121

CHAPTER VIII
TEACHER EDUCATION AND THE uNIVERSITY SYSTEM
The character of the public schools of Georgia is an important factor in determining the quality of work that can be done by the higher institutions of the state. The University System, as well as the privately controlled higher institutions of the state, have an interest therefore in the education of teachers. In the case of the University System there is reason for special concern. The state has established a common school system consisting of elementary and secondary schools and it has an interest in seeing that these institutions have an adequate supply of properly educated teachers. The responsibility for the administration of this phase of public education has been placed in the State Department of Education but the discharge of the state's responsibility in the preparation of these teachers is an obligation of the University System. The number of teachers needed and their importance to the welfare of the state make this a heavy responsibility. The adequate preparation of this teaching personnel will call for no small part of the funds available for the System.
A close estimate of the number of teachers that will be required under the contemplated standards of the State Department of Education cannot be made on the basis of the data available. It is evident, however, that the number in preparation for teaching in the elementary schools will have to be materially increased for both white and Negro when the requirement is raised to four years of college education for beginning teachers. The enrollment will have to be greater than it has been at any time in the past. In the opinion of the Survey Staff this increase should be taken care of by the expansion of the facilities of institutions that are now preparing teachers rather than by the addition of new institutions. This will
122

call for a material expansion of the facilities at Georgia Teachers College. The Board of Regents should be in position to meet this need as soon as conditions return to normal.
President Doak S. Campbell, who made the study of teacher preparation at the time of the 1932-33 survey, assisted by Norman Burns, and a specialist in home economics education and another in agriculture and trades and industries has prepared a report that will be made available to those in the System who are interested in the work of teacher education. The chief recommendations. without the supporting data of the complete study are reproduced here :
1. The University, Georgia State College for Women, and Georgia Teachers College should continue to offer programs for the preparation of both elementary and high school teachers. The opportunities in elementary school teaching should be emphasized at each of these units, particularly at Georgia Teachers College, through the programs of student guidance until such time as a better balance is brought about in the supply and demand of elementary school teachers and high school teachers. The equalization of salaries for elementary and high school teachers in the state salary schedule should contribute to the attainment of this end. It still remains to convince the local boards of education and the county superintendents that as good preparation and as high a degree of competence are needed for teaching in the elementary school as are required in the hig~ school, and that, therefore, higher salary supplements for high school teachers than for elementary teachers with equivalent preparation are unjustifiable. As a means of protecting the quality of teaching in the elementary school and, at the same time, encouraging a larger number of prospective
123

teachers to prepare for the elementary school, it is to be hoped that the State Department of Education will take steps to insure the employment of teachers in the type of position for which they have been prepared.
2. Even though the number of students prepared for elementary teaching at the University, Georgia State College for Women, and Georgia Teachers College is increased, it seems apparent that, for the time being at least, these units will not be able to meet the total demand for elementary teachers. It is not recommended, however, that the junior college units of the System all continue to prepare teachers. This work should be carried on at West Georgia College and Georgia Southwestern College, but should be discontinued at North Georgia College, Middle Georgia College, and South Georgia College. For the time being, West Georgia College should continue its three-year program and Georgia Southwestern College its two-year program for the preparation of elementary teachers. When the State Board of Education puts the four-year requirement into effect the situation will have to be re-examined from the point of view of whether or not the existing four-year institutions can at that time meet the demand for elementary teachers.
3. So far as the Georgia State W omans College is concerned two courses of action are open : the present minimum program, which is not at all adequate, could be strengthened; or, teacher education could be abandoned entirely at that institution. The latter course of action seems preferable. The problem of meeting the shortage of elementary teachers in Georgia should be solved by expanding enrollments and facilities at a small number of well-located institutions rather than by the less economical plan
124

of increasing the number of units at which teacher training programs are offered.
4. The University is preparing a sufficient number of teachers of vocational agriculture to meet the needs of the state.
5. The University and Georgia State College for Women are preparing a sufficient number of teachers of vocational home economics to meet the demand in the state. Programs for the preparation of teachers of vocational home economics should not be instituted in any of the other units of the System. This, of course, should not be interpreted to mean that home economics courses of a service nature should not be offered in the other institutions.
6. Due to an expansion of industrial arts work in the public schools of Georgia it seems probable that for some time to come there will be sufficient demand for industrial arts teachers to justify their preparation at both the University and Georgia Teachers College.
7. The University should continue to be the only unit of the University System authorized to offer work in teacher education on the graduate level.
8. All three of the Negro units in the University System should emphasize the preparation of elementary teachers. Georgia State College and Fort Valley State College should continue to prepare high school teachers. In view of the serious shortage of teachers for the Negro elementary schools it is probable that each of the units should offer, for the time being, a two-year program which would meet the present requirements for the professional certificate as well as a four-year program.
9. It is not necessary that Negro teachers of vocational agriculture be prepared at more than one
125

institution in Georgia. The pertinent considerations in determining the best location for this work are discussed in the section of the general Survey Report which deals with Negro education.
10. Both Georgia State College and Fort Valley State College should continue to prepare teachers of vocational home economics.
11. A strong program for the preparation of Negro teachers of industrial arts should be established at Georgia State College. The preparation of Negro teachers of trades and industries should also be centered at this institution. Courses in industrial arts should be offered at the other two Negro institutions on a service basis in connection with their programs for the preparation of elementary school teachers.
12. There is little likelihood of sufficient demand for Negro teachers of business and commercial subjects to justify their preparation at more than one institution in the state. It is recommended that this function be assigned solely to Georgia State College. Fort Valley State College might well offer service courses and terminal programs in this field.
13. For the time being, no effort should be made to offer graduate work at any of the three Negro units. The opportunity for graduate study for Negroes should be provided through scholarships which would permit worthy students to attend Atlanta University or other accredited graduate schools.
14. A close working relationship between the Board of Regents and the State Board of Education would be highly desirable. The Board of Regents should seek the assistance of the State Department of Education in securing annually information relative to the needs of the state for various types of teachers. Unless the University System knows the
126

nature and scope of the task it must assume in the preparation of teachers it can hardly be expected to set up its teacher training programs in such a way as to serve most effectively the public schools of the state.
127

CHAPTER IX
THE SURVEY CouRS'}]s AND THE EXAMINATIONS UsED IN THEM

The earlier survey report (1932-33) placed a great deal of emphasis on the importance of offering an extended period of general education for those students who were going to senior colleges or professional schools. The four-year institutions, except the School of Technology, were urged to delay all or nearly all of their specialized subject matter offerings until the senior college period at least.1 The report made no specific recommendation regarding the use of survey courses as a device for extending the period of general education. They were, however, adopted by the Board of Regents as a feature of the program of the junior college period of instruction.

In 1934 the Board on the recommendation of the University Council stipulated that survey courses should constitute two-thirds of the curriculum at junior college level in all of the units except the School of Technology. In 1937 on the recommendation of the University Council the requirement in survey courses was reduced to :fifty per cent of the work of the junior college period. The University Examiner reports as typical programs for freshman and sophomores the following:

Freshman

Social Sciences, Mathematics, Biological Sciences, English

two courses, one course,
one or two courses

10 hours 5 hours
10 hours 5 or 6 hours

1 It is pointed out elsewhere in this report that in some instances the tendency has been to increase the proportion of specialized work required during the junior college period. This is true especially of agriculture. Other colleges requiring consid erable special work in the first two years are, home economics, forestry, and pharmacy.
128

Sophomores

Humanities,

two courses,

Physical Sciences,

two courses,

Contemporary Georgia, one course,

Electives,

four courses,

10 hours 10 hours 5 hours 20 hours

All of the colleges make a practice of exempting certain students individually from particular survey course requirements, largely on the basis of placement examinations administered to entering freshmen. Exemptions of this nature probably do not touch more than two or three per cent of the entire freshman enrollment. Some of the colleges, especially the four-year institutions, exclude some or most of the survey courses for certain groups of students. For the most part these exemptions affect professional and vocational degree groups.2

In connection with the study of this phase of the survey of the University System two things were done:

1. A group of four consultants was brought to Atlanta for a two-day conference with instructors who were teaching the survey courses in the biological sciences, the humanities, the physical sciences, and the social sciences. Representatives of each of these fields from units of the University System met as a group with the consultants to discuss the problems involved in handling the courses and for the purpose of formulating recommendations. The results of these conferences have been reported in a pamphlet issued in June 1941 under the title: "Conference Report, Administration and Content of Survey Courses, Recommendations by Consultants. F. S. Beers, editor.''

This document contains a considerable number of constructive suggestions for meeting the problems that have

2 Conference Report: Administration and Content of Survey Courses, Recommen. dations by Consultants, F. S. Beers, ed., University System of Georgia, June, 1941, p. 4.
129

been encountered in the administration of the survey courses in the University System. In spite of the difficulties involved the sentiment of the conference was on the whole for the continuation of the use of the survey courses although there were numerous suggestions, as might be expected, for their modification. The sentiment for the continuation of the survey courses was strong enough to justify the view that the administrative difficulties can be overcome.
A statement made by one of the consultants appears to offer a sound basis for the consideration of the place of general education in th~ University System of Georgia. The statement is :
Through its appropriate officers and faculties, [the University System should] reconsider the total implications of a general education at the junior-college level. If there is a common belief that the ehief aim of the first two years of college is to provide a common background of knowledge and skills and tastes that any educated person should have, and that a correlative but secondary aim is to prepare a student with the proper equipment for subsequent training of an academic, professional, or vocational sort-if these principles are accepted, then an equitable distribution of the time between the general courses and the tool courses necessary to the several types of advanced work can be arrived at. If some acquaintance with the natural sciences in their pure form, with the social sciences, and with the humanities is considered necessary for the educated man, there is no immediately discernible reason why they should not be taught in equal measure to the potential doctor, lawyer, engineer, and agriculturist as well as to those who expect to proceed to a liberal arts degree.3

8 Ibid., p. 16.

130

The Survey Staff recommends that the University Council proceed to study the place of a program of general education in the System. When the Council has reached a decision on this phase it is recommended that it be adopted as the policy of the University System and that departures should be made from it only after approval by the University Council and the Chancellor.
In the interpretaton of the foregoing the following points should be borne in mind:
I. The conditions in engineering education are such that it would not be practicable to require the School of Technology to make any large provision for general education in the junior college period.
II. The programs of terminal training at Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College should not be subject in full to the general education requirements of other institutions. If this institution offers a curriculum preparatory to senior college study that program should meet the requirements of the System in general education.
III. Some of the colleges may find it desirable to provide programs of terminal general education for students who do not have the interest, time, or financial resources to continue to a degree. The curricula formulated for such students would not include those tool subjects preparatory to advanced academic or professional study. The test data for the different units (see Table IV) show marked differences among the institutions, and within each institution in the scholastic ability of students admitted. These differences are -great enough so that consideration should be given to them in adjusting the development of the programs of instruction among the units, and within the several units. Some of the suggestions made in connection with the examinations are designed to result in increased flexibility so that such adjustments may be made more readily. Tables V and VI
131

Table IV
Median, Q, and Q Scores Made by Freshman Students Entering the Institutions for Whites in the University System in Fall Quarter, 1940-41 (Southeastern Aptitude Examinations)

Institution (Georgia School of
Technology not included)
1. 2. 3. Women
Men 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Scores

Q,

Median

Q.

86

112

142

70

90

117

76

103

130

56

79

108

60

82

107

57

78

103

53

77

102

53

77

98

55

74

101

54

74

99

5()

68

92

44

64

88

give some data on the persistence of students in the several units of the University System. These figures are evidence of the need for study in the adaptation of the programs in the several units to the needs of those students who do two years or less of work at the college level. The differences in the scholastic aptitude and in the length of time students remain in college call for consideration in the formulation of programs of instruction.
2. The second step in this phase of the survey was to make a study of the examinations and the examination procedures used in connection with the survey courses of which they were an integral part. This aspect of the study was handled by John M. Stalnaker, College Entrance Board, Princeton, New Jersey.
The position and responsibilities of the University Examiner are sufficiently unique to justify a brief description of the functions of the office as a background
132

for this section of the report. The statement which follows was prepared for the Survey Staff by F. S. Beers, Examiner.
Commonly used survey course examinations throughout the state were authorized by the Board of Regents in 1934, with the supervisory function over marking placed in the hands of the State Examiner. The beginnings of a system of examinations were made in 1934. The examination program that followed and its various operations were reviewed by the Committee on Education of the Board of Regents in 1939 and approved by them, with the specific recommendation that the administration 'coordinate the work of the survey courses with the type of examinations that shall be given by the University Examiner.'
The procedures for common examinations on a state-wide base were designed with the primary pur-
Table V
Persistence of Entering Freshmen, Senior Colleges, University System of Georgia

Institution

Period

Average No. of Fershmen
Entering in Fall Quarter

Per Cent Returning
as Sophomores

Per Cent Returning
as Juniors

University of Georgia

1935-36

inclusive 774

70

54

Georgia State College

1935-38

for Women

inclusive

.. Georgia School of Technology

. Georgia Teachers. College

519 734
211

69 73 47

40 55 19

Georgia State Womans College

.

145

53

26

Fort Valley State College

1939*

133

71

23

Georgia State College

1935-38

inclusive 171

62

39

* Fort Valley was a junior college prior to 1939. Albany State College did not become a senior college until 1942-43.
133

pose of stabilizing or making meaningful from institution to institution the marks or grades in given courses, especially the survey courses. They were also, of necessity, designed so that the help of faculty members might be readily enlisted in the preparation and administration of such examinations.
Table VI
Persistence of Entering Freshmen, Junior Colleges, University System of Georgia

Institution
Georgia Southwestern College
Atlanta Junior College West Georgia College Middle Georgia College North Georgia College South Georgia College Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural College

Period

Average
No. of Freshmen Entering
in Fall
Quarter

Returned as Sophomores
Number Per Cent

1935-39

200

inclusive

"

92

"

162

"

247

"

277

"

177

"

162

132

66

60

65

106

65

149

60

183

66

90

51

125

77

In the early days, 1934-1936, committees of faculty members were chosen in each subject matter field, representing the various kinds and classes of institutions. These committees were brought to Athens or met elsewhere in the state to construct examination questions and to pass judgment on the final form of the examination in a given subject.
The original plan which was to have committees supervise the construction and editing of examinations aroused considerable criticism to the effect that the examinations showed bias. As a result of this attitude, more recent procedures have called for a contribution to final examinations from each teacher. Now, all teachers construct questions on some given
134

topic, as assigned by the Examiner's Office, and submit these questions in writing to the Examiner on a given date. An editorial committee is then selected from the teaching staff; and the final form of the examination is edited rather thoroughly in the Examiner's Office.
Every effort is made to have each teacher represented in each examination covering his field. The names of the contributors are then printed on the outside of each examination booklet. Examinations are thus fairly assured of being representative of the teachers' point of view and are then checked for adequacy of sampling by those especially trained for the purpose. .
Almost all known varieties of questions have been UB'ed at various times in the survey course examinations : matching, completion, multiple choice, master list, problems, and essay types of questions. . . .
The difficulty and validity of each item in each examination is determined by the Examiner's Office (T. L. Kelley sigma scale technique).
A comparative analysis of all the examinations for any given quarter is made and distributed to the teaching faculties. Individual item values, in terms of difficulty and validity, are mailed to the contributing teachers. And the general analysis is sent out to all faculty members. This general analysis shows for each examination the number of items constituting the total, the median score, the inter-quartile range, the reliability coefficient, and the per cent of questions that fall in the low validity bracket.
In the Examiner's Office systematic analysis by experimentation on types of questions and their relative difficulty and validity has led, over a period of
135

years, to concentration in the examinations on questions involving a reading knowledge of the subject, multiple choice questions of a generally factual nature, and master list questions designed to afford comparisons among fundamental concepts. . . .
By designation of the Chancellor and the Board of Regents, the Examiner's Office represents an administrative conjunction of authority over certain academic procedures as well as generally over student personnel.
The Board assigned to the Examiner supervisory powers over grading and examining in the survey courses, but left these powers in the faculty hands for the non-survey curricula.
This limitation of powers as defined by the Board was unconsciously or otherwise restricted still fur"" ther by the colleges when they reduced the survey curriculum from an original 75% of student time to 50% in 1937, and to about 30% at some of the senior colleges later on.
The task set for the Examiner of making college grades comparable, of making credits transferable, and of bringing about in general a sufficiently stable background of education and educational procedure at the junior college level to make the individual guidance of students possible has, as a result of these limitations, been more an advisory than an administrative undertaking and is, therefore, almost incalculably more complicated and less efficient than if the administrative power of the Examiner in academic affairs were broader. . . .
During the first quarter of common examinations, each faculty member or department was permitted to interpret the raw scores on the examinations as the individual instructor or the department as a
136

whole saw fit. The result was chaos. The standards as set by various instructors and departments were then made the subject of a fairly exhaustive study and the results were published to the faculties and were discusS'ed in group meetings. By the end of the winter quarter, 1934-1935, two major advances in making marks or grades comparable were effected; and by the winter quarter of 1938 a reasonably satisfactory scale, approximating linearity in intervals and related by definition to national norms, was established.
The original scale was brought about by a polling of the faculties in regard to their past experiences in grading. Thes'e results were summarized by averaging, and the scale so derived was submitted to the Chancellor for consideration. The Chancellor made some slight modifications in it and approved it to read as follows: A's, 7%; B's 18%; C's, 45%; D's, 20%; F's, 10%.
An adaptation of the Spearman Rho method of rank order correlation was designed and put into the hands of survey course teachers so that they might combine their class rank order of students with the rank order as determined by the final examination. The ess'ential, stabilizing influence of state-wide examinations was retained in the final grade by the teacher, who determined the mid-point of the two rank-orders (class work and examinations) and referred that mid-point to a state scale derived from the examination scores themselves. . . .
The following suggestions from the report of Mr. Stalnaker concerning the conduct of the examinations are recommended by the Survey Staff for adoption as it is believed their acceptance will do much to emphasize the educational possibilities of the survey courses as a
137

part of the program of general education and also contribute to the adaptation of the curricular offerings to the individual differences in students' interests and aptitudes.
The following recommendations are based on the belief that the present administrative arrangement of the University System examinations is a sound and desirable one and should be continued. It is recommended:
1. That the survey courses be reorganized, the content altered, and the syllabi re-written. Although the examinations do to a large extent influence the methods of study, the emphases, and even the nature of the instruction, they do not determine the basic content of the course. The course should determine the nature of the examination. It is possible to devise survey courses representing contributions to a general education of all students within the System, and to organize these courses so that the concentration is upon vital and large-scale educational objectives. Once such courses are organized, the examination program can fall into its proper place and the examinations be made to wield an appreciable influence in promoting and maintaining interest in the important aspects of the courses. Unless the courses are fundamentally sound and well organized, the development of good examinations serving ap. educational function is rendered difficult, if not impossible.
2. That each course, as outlined in the syllabus, be designed to occupy not more than two-thirds of the time allotted to the course, and that the remaining time be used at each unit to supplement or extend the work in ways consonant with the interests, intelligence, and training of the students at the unit, and the abilities and interests of the staff handling the
138

work. In this way the syllabi may be suitable for all units in the System and at the same time the units drawing well-prepared students will be enabled to extend their work and the units whose students are less well prepared will be able to spend more time on the basic part. The examination, of course, will be restricted to the basic syllabus.
Unquestionably it will be a trying task to devise a syllabus which presupposes even less time than is now available, but the problem is not incapable of solution, particularly if the courses are considered in the light of the extent to which they contribute to a general education rather than the extent to which they combine all the facts presented in various departmental courses previously taken by some junior college students.
3. That the survey course examinations be comprehensive rather than quarterly examinations and be longer and more varied in types of question than is true at present. This recommendation follows from the first recommendation, for if the courses are so organized that they are integrated surveys contributing to a general education, it would be undesirable to interrupt the work for quarterly exaininations administered by the office of the University System Examiner. The proper place for the examination is at the termination of the course. Such an arrangement allows for the preparation of better examinations and encourages students to view the course as awhole, rather than in segments.
The problem of assigning grades quarterly could be solved, as it has been at other institutions faced with the same problem, by basing quarterly grades exclusively on the instructor's estimates, but allow-
139

ing the quarterly grades to be validated by a passing grade or better for the entire course.
4. That the comprehensive examinations be offered only once each academic year. For this recommendation to be most effective, the survey courses should be given on a yearly basis.
Certain administrative and scheduling difficulties may loom large in considering such a change, but if the change is a wise educational move, ways to implement it can be found. There is a possibility at least that some of the present scheduling problems, which are said to be great, would in the long run be simplified by this type of change.
There is no external reason why the examinations should not be offered as frequently as demand for them arises, but in consideration of the facilities and the general load carried by the staff concerned, and of the amount of time and care necessary for the preparation of adequate comprehensive examinations, it would seem wise at this time to restrict the examinations to once each academic year, preferably at the conclusion of the year's course.
5. That the instructional staff continue to develop the actual items used in the examinations, with the following changes in procedure:
a. That in addition to assigning sections of the syllabus for question coverage, the Examiner direct attention to the extent' to which the objectives are being measured which transcend the memorization of simple factual material. In addition to questions testing the memorization of the many bits of factual material necessary for adequate comprehension of the subject, questions should be devised to test the extent to which the students can apply the facts they have acquired to new situa-
140

tions and can integrate the knowledge gained from different sections of the course.
b. That the effort now being made to have the examination representative of all teachers who are willing to contribute be abandoned. The examination should include only items judged to be of intrinsic merit, regardless of the contributor. The names of the contributors could well be omitted from the examination. All teachers should continue to submit test items. It is their right to maintain a control over the content of the examination.
c. That the items submitted for a comprehensive examination be reviewed and edited by a committee representative of the groups teaching the course. This committee, which should have ample time in which to do their task should have authority to accept or reject any items, to revise where desirable, and to develop new material when necessary. They must be especially concerned to see that the major objectives of the course are as adequately measured as appears possible. In presenting the examination material to this committee it would be desirable not to indicate the correct answers to the items submitted, but to have each member of the committee independently answer the proposed test item. The items submitted to the committee should not indicate the name of the contributor.
d. That the work of preparing the comprehensive examinations be distributed over the entire time that the course is given. The instructional staff could be invited to contribute questions at regular intervals. The reviewing committee should meet several times throughout the year. Such a
141

procedure would encourage a more deliberate consideration of the merits of the items, and would remove the pressure which last minute preparation of examinations invariably brings with it.
. 6. That the instructional staff be given more information about the various devices which have been developed for measuring other than memory of factual material. If as much as a two weeks' summer work shop could be arranged at some convenient locality and attended by the teachers of the survey courses, the effectiveness of the survey courses and the improvement in the examinations would doubtless more than justify the work such a project would entail. The University System Examiner, if funds were available, might arrange for a review by appropriate persons of the efforts that have been made in other states faced with the same problem of general education and how to measure some of its outcomes. Instruction in the use of the essay tests should not be omitted from such a course of study.
If it proves impossible to finance such a venture, either internally or from outside sources, other means should be sought to acquaint the faculty with the work being done at other institutions in an effort to measure more than the memory of isolated bits of factual information.
7. That the ratings on the University System comprehensive examinations be determined as at present, but that each unit exercise autonomy in determining (a) the weight of the examination rating in the final course grade, and (b) the nature of the distribution of the final course grades. This recommendation, if adopted, will not foster the ideal of comparable grades in the survey courses, no matter where or how or to whom the courses are taught. It is based on the belief that comparability of grades
142

in the survey courses throughout the System has but minor advantages, even if attainable, and apparently at present it is far from attainable. The transferring of students from one unit to another creates little trouble as far as survey courses are concerned, since these courses are, or should be, courses contributing principally to a general education. The difficulty in transferring students usually arises from the quality and extent of the preparation they have received in courses which are the technical basis for more advanced courses in the same field, a difficulty which no comparability of ratings in survey courses will remove. The present recommendation recognizes the differences in the nature of the various units within the System, and the fact that some units attract students better endowed and better trained by superior schooling. There is little reason for pretending that the best institution and the poorest, on this basis, maintain the same standards in survey courses or in any other courses. Certainly the maintenance of the same standards throughout these institutions would make them both less effective units in the University System.
A common examination for all students makes possible comparisons of value for certain types of investigations and research. Within each unit the problems of equating grades in various departments can be attacked with the aid of the University Examiner.
Even with the authority for the grade distribution entirely in the hands of the individual units o( the System, the University System Examiner could still advise and encourage a sensible interpretation. Pressure to cram students for a certain known type of examination should be lessened. The examination should assume its proper position of being secondary
143

to the course, and of being a tool to aid the instructors in their task of teaching.
8. That greater use be made of the talent and facilities of the office of the University System Examiner in conducting studies and research leading to more effective teaching and examining in the survey courses. The results of this work should be published and circulated to the faculties concerned.
The foregoing suggestions are based on the assumption that the use of the survey courses is to be continued. The objective sought is a continuation of general education through the junior college period instead of projecting the professional or specialized curricula into that period. The use of the survey course is one method by which that end can be attained. Undoubtedly the several faculties of the University System could devise other means for the realization of that objective. Before the survey courses are abandoned, however, careful consideration should be given to :
1. The difficulties involved in the development of a series of courses that will better serve the needs of the students than the survey courses.
2. The fact that outside of the University of Georgia the survey courses have received pretty general acceptance and that even within that unit they have many supporters.
Apparently much of the difficulty that has been experienced in dealing with th~ survey courses in the University is the result of a failure to provide satisfactory administrative provisions for the conduct of the courses. The numbers of students and the complexities of a university organization involve problems not found in the smaller units of the System. If the use of the survey courses is continued it is recommended that :
144

1. A member of the University staff be given responsibility for the general supervision of the planning of schedules for these courses, the selection of instructional staff, and an advisory relationship to the promotion of staff members.
2. Provision be made for a budget for clerical assistance and supplies needed in the conduct of the courses.
145

CHAPTER X
MISCELLANEOUS PROBLEMS
I. Grailluate Instruction and Research
At present the graduate instruction offered in the University System of Georgia is given entirely at the University of Georgia and the School of Technology. By far the greater part of it is done at the former institution and even there very little has been done above the level of the Master's degree. A few years ago the doctorate was offered in a very few fields but this development has been temporarily stopped by the war conditions. Meantime the administration of the Graduate School is taking steps to prepare the institution for a larger development of graduate instruction above the level of the Master's degree as soon as conditions permit.
It is to be expected that the major development of graduate instruction will be at the University of Georgia but considerable expansion especially in the applied fields should be anticipated at the School of Technology. It seems probable, however, that some of the other institutions may have contributions to make by way of personnel and facilities. As far as practicable these resources should be utilized. Education is a field that would seem to offer possibilities in this respect. This may mean that at times it will be desirable to have students doing some of their work at places other than Athens. When such work is properly supervised provision should be made to give it the same recognition as if students were in residence at the University of Georgia.
From the preceding statements it is evident that graduate instruction is only in its beginnings in the University System. It is very important that there be developed as large a degree of unity in the program as is practicable. The conditions seem to be propitious for such a
146

development. As a means of securing the maximum return it is recommended that there be created a committee on graduate instruction consisting of representatives from Georgia School of Technology, each of the four-year colleges, and the University of Georgia. The University should have a majority of the membership. A committee of this character would be a means of keeping the four-year colleges in touch with the development of the graduate instruction, and it would at the same time inform those doing graduate work of the conditions in those four-year institutions not doing such work.
II. University Center in Georgia
In the earlier report (1932-33) stress was placed on the importance of the Board of Regents taking cognizance of the privately controlled institutions in making plans for expansion of its educational program. The statement is made that: "This topic is of enough importance to justify calling attention to the desirability of keeping the duplication of all forms of professional and expensive specialized education at the minimum.'' Happenings since that statement was written serve to reinforce its significance. Considerable progress has been made in the development of what is known as the University Center in Georgia. This represents a cooperative venture on the part of the Agnes Scott College, Emory University, Georgia School of Technology, the University of Georgia, the Atlanta Art Association, and Columbia Theological Seminary. The purpose is to improve, "the cultural and educational opportunities of the region." . Such a center would make for the maximum development with a minimum expenditure and would serve to increase greatly the influence of the institutions of higher education. In the opinion of the Survey Staff the Board of Regents should participate in this important development, which holds much promise of in-
147

fluencing the development of research and graduate instruction in Georgia.
III. Institional Announcements
At present each member of the University System issues a catalogue which is given fairly wide distribution in the state. This is a relatively wasteful procedure. Furthermore, these catalogues do not give an overall picture of the University System of Georgia such as would be most helpful to the prospective student in making a choice of an institution. In Oregon the State Board of Higher Education for a number of years has prepared a pamphlet containing information about the state's program of higher education as a whole. The Survey Staff recommends the adoption of this procedure by the University System of Georgia in the belief that it will not only give a better idea of the University System but it will probably cost less since copies of the complete catalogue of a given institution would be sent to prospective students only on request.
Uniformity in the complete announcements of the individual institutions is not recommended but the Survey Staff urges that in some cases the standard of publication be raised. In this connection the question of pooling printing contracts should be considered with a view to securing the utmost economy consistent with a good quality of publication.
IV. Relationships Among Member Institutions
A weakness of the University System that not infrequently comes to the surface in conferences with representatives of the several units is the existence or' an appreciable measure of competition among them. It may not be desirable or practicable to eliminate this feeling entirely but the acceptance of certain principles would contribute to an improvement in the relationship among
148

the members of the System. The following are some of the principles :
1. The purpose of the University System is to secure for the people of Georgia the maximum return with the funds they make available for the support of higher education. This will undoubtedly mean that at times certain units of the System will not get as large grants from the state as faculty and administration might like to have. This condition will have to be recognized and accepted as one of the accompaniments of the unification that is being attempted. If the Board of Regents fails to use its funds to the best advantage of the state it is accountable to the legislature for that failure.
2. It should be the effort of those responsible for the conduct of the University System to provide such conditions of instruction as will place the work undertaken by two or more units on a parity in the matter of quality. Freshman English should be taught under conditions with regard to such matters as preparation of staff, library facilities, class-size, teaching loads as will make for equality in the character of work done by the several institutions. It is realized that differences in student body may make this impossible of full realization but it is the goal to be borne in mind. This does not mean that the department of English in a junior college should have as extensive offerings as are to be found at the University. The University has been assigned graduate work in that field as one of its functions and the difference in objectives calls for a difference in offerings. What is true for English holds for all subjects taught in more than one of the units. Related to this difference is the fact that certain fields of learning will be found at only one institution, e.g., pharmacy, law, medicine, and engineering. The University, because it is a university, will furnish more illustrations of this condition than any other unit. This does not mean that the University is better 9r superior
149

to other units of the System. It simply means that in the interests of getting good results with the minimum expenditure of funds certain professional training has been located at the University and at no other unit. This gives the University certain objectives not found in other institutions. This only makes the University different but not of necessity better.
V. Retirement
At the time of the 1932-33 survey a recommendation was made urging the Board of Regents to make provision for a contributory plan of allowances for retirement. This was accompanied by the suggestion that an age for retirement should be fixed. Neither of these steps has been taken. Meantime a plan for a state-wide system of allowances for retirement of public school personnel has been enacted. Provision has been made to include faculty members of institutions in the University System. The plans for the administration of the law are being formulated as this report is being prepared. If the legislation does not prove to be adequate for the needs of the University System steps should be taken to supplement it.
VI. Nepotism
Attention was called in the previous report to the extent to which nepotism was practiced by some of the institutions in the University System. Evidence was found in the present survey of improvement in this respect. Furthermore, provisions have been included in the ByLaws of the Board of Regents designed prevent an extension of the practice.
VII. The Divrision of Goo,eraJ, Extension
Very generally publicly controlled institutions have accepted the idea of offering opportunities for study to persons who are unable to take up residence at an insti-
150

tution, by means of correspondence instruction and extension classes. The earlier report (1932-33) made some recommendations regarding the organization and conduct of instruction of that character. A review of the results of this program has been made and leads to the following recommendations :
1. Reductions should be made in the scope of work offered and in the number of courses carried by the individual members of the full-time staff engaged in teaching extention classes. The data collected show that not infrequently the load carried by an instructor is so heavy, and the diversity of subjects so great, as to impair the quality of work done.
2. Care should be taken to prevent full-time instructors in resident work from carrying excessive loads of extension work. Cases of that kind were found. The administrative heads of the units should protect members of their faculties from this practice.
3. A larger proportion of the cost of conducting extension courses should be borne by funds from the state instead of depending so largely on student fees. The present policy tends toward excessive teaching loads, a rate of compensation lower than that paid for resident instruction, and relatively large student fees.
4. The rates of compensation for extension class teaching and for the grading of correspondence lesson assignments should be increased. Instructors should be remunerated for preparing and revising outlines for correspondence courses. The earlier report (1932-33) suggested the desirability of the utilization in the program of extension of competent instructors from the privately controlled as well as the publicly controlled higher institutions. Very few teachers from the privately controlled institutions have been drawn into the work. The very low rate of compensation appears to have been a factor contributing to this situation.
151

5. The location of the Division of General Extension should be at the University of Georgia instead of in Atlanta as was suggested in the earlier report. It is believed this change would contribute to the maintenance of educational standards. The University of Georgia is suggested because a large majority of the courses offered by full-time members of the staff are University of Georgia courses. This is a natural consequence of the diversity of the work offered by the University. The sug. gested change in the location should not be interpreted as implying that an effort should be made to limit extension instructions to members of the University faculty. Competence, not institutional connection, should be the test in the selection of members of the instructional staff.
VIII. The University System of Georgia Center
The University System of Georgia Center, located in Atlanta, includes an Evening College and a day Junior College. In the day Junior College, which has for its primary purpose the preparation of students for senior college, the first two years of college work are offered. The Evening College offers three years of work toward the degree of Bachelor of Arts or Bachelor of Science, four years of work leading to the degree of Bachelor of Commercial Science, and terminal programs in business which require for their completion the equivalent of two years of full-time study.
As a result of its study of this unit of the University System the Survey Staff makes the following recommendations:
1. The offering of three years of work toward a Bachelor's degree in the liberal arts serves no useful educational purpose. Such a program is not terminal, nor does it serve as satisfactory preparation for further study leading to a degree. The student presumably be-
152

gins the study of his field of concentration in his junior year, but he must transfer to another institution if he is to complete his studies. Under such circumstances it is obvious that a well-integrated program of study in a field of concentration would be difficult to achieve. It is recommended that the University System of Georgia. Center offer no senior division liberal arts courses other than the few needed as service courses in the senior division work in commerce.
2. Through its evening programs in business and commerce the University System of Georgia Center is in a position to render a valuable service to residents of the Atlanta area engaged in business occupations. It is therefore recommended that the institution continue to offer both the terminal programs in business and the Bachelor of Commercial Science degree. The areas of concentration should, however, be strictly limited to the field of business. The concentration which is now offered in the field of the social sciences should be discontinued since it is clearly inappropriate in a Bachelor of Commercial Science degree program. In offering this field of concentration the College is, in effect, offering a liberal arts degree, and if it were to be continued it should be so designated. The Survey Staff is, however, of the opinion that the Center will serve the community more effectively, so far as specialized work is concerned, if it concentrates its resources on the development of strong programs in the field of business. The Atlanta area is already well served in the field of the liberal arts by other institutions of higher education. The major in the social sciences offered by the University System of Georgia Center is intended primarily for in-service teachers in the Atlanta area. The needs of this group can be more adequately met by these other institutions.
3. For its teaching staff the Center relies largely on part-time instructors recruited from the public schools
153

and higher institutions of Atlanta, and from among practicing business and professional people in the community. An increase in the number of full-time instructors would strengthen the educational program. In higher education it has come to be generally accepted that determination of policy with regard to matters concerning the curriculum and the instructional program is the responsibility of the faculty. If the members of a teaching staff are to act effectively in these matters they must be organized in a faculty group with clearly stated duties and responsibilities regarding the determination of academic policies. The faculty, if it is to meet these responsibilities, must have a strong nucleus of full-time teachers representing the various subject-matter fields in which courses are offered. Part-time instructors will not ordinarily take an active part in general faculty activities. No matter how competent they may be, part-time instructors have their main interests elsewhere. They cannot be expected to concern themselves to any great extent with histitutional problem beyond those which relate directly to their own classes. The ultimate goal might well be a faculty composed entirely of full-time teachers except for certain business and professional people in the community who would be engaged on a part-time basis to teach specialized subjects in the field of business and commerce for which, by virtue of their experience, they were particularly well qualified.
4. Teaching loads of full-time members of the faculty of the University System of Georgia Center are too heavy. In a number of cases it was found that part-time members of the faculty also have carried excessive teaching loads. It is to be assumed that teachers and professional and business people in general have full employment schedules in addition to their part-time teaching duties at the University System of Georgia Center. In view of this fact the maximum load for a part-time
i54

teacher in any twelve-month period might wen be set at twenty quarter hours-one five-hour course each quarter and one in the summer session. Also, there is a tendency at this institution to permit instructors to cover too wide a range of subject matter in the courses taught. Instructors should be permitted to teach only in those fields in which, either through graduate study or specialized business and professional experience, they are especially well qualified.
5. This unit of the University System has been almost entirely dependent for its support on its income from student fees. In recognition of the unsatisfactory nature of this situation the Board of Regents has recently increased its annual allotment to the institution, and. as a result of this increased support from the Regents steps have already been taken to strengthen the educational program. A still further increase in the annual allotment from state funds is needed if work of high quality is to be carried on at this institution. The Center is still dependent on the income from student fees to a greater extent than the other units of the System with the exception of the Division of General Extension.
6. The University System of Georgia Center is the only unit of the University System which is not accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. It is imperative that every effort be made to secure accreditment in the near future. The lack of accreditment of this unit will call into question the status of the entire System, since credits earned at the Center are accepted without penalty by other units of the System.
155

CHAPTER XI
FINANCING THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Elsewhere in the Survey Report recommendations are made for improvement in budgetary practice in the University System. In this section of the report a procedure is outlined which, it is believed, provides a more objective basis for the allocation of funds to the several units of the University System than is at present employed by the Regents.
It is the function of the Board of Regents to allocate the funds at its disposal in the way in which, in its judgment, the state system of higher education may make its maximum contribution to the welfare of the people of the state. This means that the Regents must decide, first, what services which properly come within the sphere of the University System are most important and, second, how these services may best be rendered. Since the funds available for higher education are never unlimited the relative importance of various services, as seen by the Regents, must be weighed against the relative costs of these services. It is therefore essential that costs be set up on a basis which will permit comparisons. It is obvious that for this purpose total dollar costs are of little value. Costs of various services within an institution or inter-institutional costs can only be compared if they are set up in terms of a unit which will have the same meaning throughout the System. A number of units may be used but two of the units most commonly used in cost studies are the student-credit-hour and the full-time-f'!tudent equivalent. The student-credit-hour may be defined as one student under instruction for a period for which one hour of credit is allowed. The student-credit-hours for a course would thus be calculated by multiplying the number of students in the course by the number of hours of credit which the course carries.
156

The total student-credit-hours for a college would be the total of the student-credit-hours for all the courses. T'he number of full-time-student equivalents in a college in any one year would be the total number of student-credithours in the year divided by the normal number of credit hours which would be carried by a full-time student. For example, if the number of student-credit-hours in a college in any one year were 45,000 and the normal full-time student load for the year were assumed to be forty-five quarter hours, the number of full-time-student equivalents during the year would be 1,000. This would not be the same as the number of students enrolled in the college since not all the students enrolled would carry the normal program of studies.
As an illustration of the procedure which might be followed in the University System the Survey Staff made a limited study of unit costs in the System for the year 1940-41. This year was selected since it was considered to be a more nearly typical year than the succeeding years during which the normal operations of the institutions have been disturbed by war conditions. The method employed was an adaptation of the procedure outlined in "University Unit Costs," a bulletin of the United States Office of Education/ which in turn was based on the procedure for the computation of unit costs suggested by the National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education.2 The limitations of this study imposed by the nature of the data available will be pointed out in the discussion of the procedure. The usefulness of unit cost data in arriving at a basis for the allocation of funds will be taken up following the discussion of the cost study.
1 John H. McNeely, University Unit Costs, United States Office of Education, Bulletin No. 21. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938.
2 National Committee on Standard Reports for Institutions of Higher Education, Financial Reports for Colleges and Universities, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1935.
157

All the teaching units of the University System except the School of Medicine and the Division of General Extension were included in the study. The first step was the computation of total student-credit-hours and fulltime-student equivalents for each of the institutions. The computation of student-credit-hours was made from lists of class enrollments in the summer session of 1940 and the three regular quarters of 1940-41. The lists were furnished by the institutions. The summer session was included since summer session costs are included in the institutional statements of expenditures. In computing full-time-student equivalents it was assumed that the normal full-time load would be forty-five quarter hours a year. Table VII shows the student-credit-hours and full-time-student equivalents for each of the institutions.
Table VII
Teaching Units of University System, Full-Time-Student Equivalents and Student-Credit-Hours for 1940-41

Institution

Full Time-Student Equivalents

Student-Credit-Hours

University of Georgia Georgia State College
for Women Georgia Teachers College Georgia State Womans College ,. Georgia School of Technology
West Georgia College
Georgia Southwestern College Middle Georgia College North Georgia College South Georgia College Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural College University System of
Georgia Center
Albany State College Fort Valley State College Georgia State College

3,901
1,693 738 4(}9
2,771
373
392 400 625 320
399
992
449 512 776

175,559
76,195 33,190 18,398 124,683
16,807
17,655 18,020 28,130 14,420
17,956
44,657
20,192 23,057 34,933

158

The costs with which this study is concerned are educa,tional and general costs-those which have to do with the instruction of students. For the purposes of the study educational and general expenditures were limited to the following types of expenditures:
1. .Administrative and General. This group includes the current expenditures for the general administrative offices and all other general activities which affect the institution as a whole, except the expense of operating and maintaining the physical plant.
2. Plant Operation and Maintenance. This group includes the, current expenditures for operating and maintaining the physical plant of the entire institution except the auxiliary enterprises.
3. Library. This group includes the current expenditures for library salaries, books and periodicals, supplies and materials.
4. Instruction. This group includes the current expenditures for the departments of instruction, including salaries, supplies, equipment, office expense, and other expenses of carrying on the teaching program.
Expenditures for organized research and extension activities were not included in the study. Expenditures for auxiliary enterprises-dining halls, dormitories, book stores, and like activities-were also excluded from consideration, since these enterprises are not considered to be a part of the instructional program. The Regents rightly expect the auxiliary enterprises to be self-supporting and will provide no state funds for their support. Unit costs could be computed for those activities which are not directly related to the instruction of students, but some different unit would have to be used. The studentcredit-hour and full-time-student equivalent are obviously not appropriate.
159

E.xcept for the University, the cost figures used in the study were obtained from the Budget Comparison reports submitted by the institutions to the Board of Regents office. The cost figures for the University were obtained from the audit report.
As a result of the efforts of the Treasurer of the University System and of meetings of the business managers of the institutions a fairly high degree of uniformity exists throughout the System in the classification of expenditures. For the purposes of the study it was necessary, however, to make certain adjustments in setting up the educational and general expenditures for the several institutions in order to make them more nearly comparable. For example, in the Budget Comparison reports expenditures for library books were in some cases reported as capital outlay, in other cases, as a current expenditure. In the study these expenditures were in all cases treated as current expenditures for the library. In some cases unpaid salaries for 1939-40 were included in expenditures for 1940-41. These amounts were deducted in computing expenditures for salaries for 1940-41. Student activities were in some cases reported as an auxiliary enterprise. In the study expenditures for this purpose were treated as an educational expense and were classified under ''administrative and general'' expense. Similarly, expenditures for student health service, which in the reports were in some cases treated as an auxiliary enterprise, were, for the purposes of the study, included under administrative and general costs. In some of the reports expenditures for such activities as placement, alumni, and printing were reported under separate headings. In the study such items were included under the administrative and general heading.
It should be mentioned at this point that in the study of unit costs all expenditures for administrative and general purposes were considered to be expenditures for in-
160

structional purposes. This is not entirely accurate since some part of these expenses should be borne by the auxiliary enterprises and other non-instructional activities. However, it was not possible from the data available to prorate administrative and general expense among the various activities.
Practice is not uniform through the System in the matter of the classification of expenditures for equipment. In some instances such purchases are clearly of the nature of capital expenditures and should therefore be considered capital outlay. In other instances they are obviously for the purpose of replacing worn out or obsolete equipment and should thus be treated as a current expense. There are, however, numerous borderline cases which in the judgment of one business manager might be capital outlay but which another business manager might treat as a current expense. In a study of comparative costs it is essential that there be as high a degree of uniformity in account classification and financial reporting among the institutions in the System as can be attained. The preparation of a classification manual by the Treasurer of the University System with the cooperation of the business managers of the institutions would be an important first step in this direction.
Table VIII shows educational and general expenditures for the institutions in the System for the year 1940-41. Tables IX and X show educational and general costs per student-credit-hour and per full-time-student equivalent. The University shows the highest unit cost for total educational and general items. The high costs of its technical and professional programs and its program of graduate studies result in relatively high instructional costs and plant operation and maintenance costs.
Attention should be called to the fact that unit educational and general costs at the Georgia School of Tech-
161

Table VIII
Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs for 1940-41

Institution

Administrative and General

Plant Operation
and Maintenance

Library

I
Instruction

Total Educational
and General

University of Georgia Georgia State College
for Women Georgia Teachers
College Georgia State
Womans College Georgia School
of Technology
West Georgia College
Georgia Southwestern College
Middle Georgia College
North Georgia Colle~e
South eorgia College
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural Collefe
University System o Georgia Center
Albany State College Fort Valley State
College Georgia State College

$ 86,354 67,318 30,144 29,124 85,114 15,709
12,118 9,649
17,750 9,409 10,273 28,774 12,762 23,595 15,184

$197,672 52,111 16,249 9,089 113,211 9,690
8,423 10,326 13,603
7,325 14,810 18,177 15,644 35,135 19,102

$75,447 12,554 13,502 6,112 16,965 4,825

$720,112 242,647 100,283 52,903 473,636 40,358

$1,079,585 374,630 160,178 97,228 688,926 70,582

3,333 4,432 5,470 2,433 2,561 3,052 1,193 4,527 5,237

33,445 33,334 46,019 26,768 42,680 50,495 26,310 73,458 69,466

57,319 57,741 82,842 45,935 70,324 100,498 55,909 136,715 108,989

nology are lower than at the University, despite the fact that the latter institution offers relatively low-cost curricula in liberal arts and commerce which would tend to bring down the average costs for the entire institution. The inadequacy of the support for the School of Technology is fully discussed elsewhere in the Survey Report, as well as in the special report on engineering education prepared by Dean H. P. Hammond. No further comment need be made at this point.
Instructional costs at Georgia State College for Women are very little higher than at Georgia Teachers College despite the fact that the latter institution does not bear the expense of operating a program in vocational
162

home economics. It seems probable that the former institution, because of its size, is able to effect economies in instruction which tend to offset the high cost of the vocational home economics program.
Other things being equal, one would expect unit instructional costs at the Georgia State Womans College, where the offerings are confined largely to the relatively low-cost liberal arts, to be considerably lower than at a teacher training institution like Georgia Teachers College. That the difference in unit instructional costs at these two institutions is not greater is probably due to the fact that Georgia Teachers College in 1940-41 had a considerably larger student body and was therefore able to operate more economically.
Table IX
Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs Per Student-Credit-Hour for 1940-41

Institution

Administra tive and General

Plant Operation
and Maintenance

Library

Total

Instruction

Educational and

General

University of Georgia Georgia State College
for Women Georgia Teachers
College Georgia State
W omans College Georgia School
of Technoi08"f
West Georgia College
Georgia Southwestern College
Middle Georgia College
North Georgia College South Georgia College Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural Cotlefe University System o
Georgia Center
Albany State College Fort Valley State
College Georgia State College

$ .49 .88 .91 1.58 .68 .93
.69 .54 .63 .65 .57 .64 .63 1.02 .43

$ 1.13 .68 .49 .49 .91 .58
.48 .57 .48 .51 .82 .41 .77 1.52 .54

$ .43 .17 .41 .33 .14 .29
.19 .25 .19 .17 .14 .07 .06 .20 .15

$ 4.10 3.19 3.02 2.88 3.80 2.40
1.89 1.85 1.64 1.86 2.38 1.13 1.30 3.19 2.00

$ 6.15 4.92 4.!13 5.28 5.53 4.20
3.25 3.21 2.94 3.19 3.91 2.25 2.76 5.93 3.12

163

Table X
Teaching Units of the University System, Educational and General Costs Per Full-Time-Student Equivalent for 1940-41

Institution

IAdministra

Plant Operation

I

tive and

and

Library

General Maintenance

I Total

Educational

Instruction

and

General

University of Georgia GeO<"gia State College
for Women Georgia Teachers
College Georgia State
Womans College Georgia School of
Technology
West Georgia College College
Georgia Southwestern Middle Georgia
College North Georgia College South Georgia College Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural Collefe University System o
Georgia Center
AtbanV State College Fort alley State
College Georgia State College

$ 22 40 41 71 31
42 31 24 28 29 26 29 28 46 19

$ 51 31 22 22 41
26 21 26 22 23 37 18 35 69 25

$ 19 7 18 15
6
13 9
11 9 8 6 3 3 9 7

$ 185 143 136 130 171
108 85 83 74 84
107 51 59
143 89

$ 277 221 217 238 249
189 146 144 133 144 176 101 125 267 140

Unit administrative and general costs appear to be much higher at the Georgia State Womans College than at the other four-year institutions. As was pointed out above, differences in comparative costs as reported in this study may be due in part to differences among the institutions in the classification of expenditures. It is to be expected, however, that administrative and general costs would be relatively high in so small an institution since they are relatively independent of enrollments. It is undoubtedly true that enrollments could be considerably increased with little if any increase in expenditures for these purposes. The low level of administrative and general costs at the University is significant in this connection.

164

In analyzing unit cost data the Chancellor and the Board of Regents should be concerned not only with investigating costs which appear to be unwarrantedly high; they should also give attention to costs which appear to be too low. For example, unit costs for the library appear to be so much lower at Georgia State College for Women than at the other senior colleges as to raise a question as to the adequacy of the provision being made at that institution for meeting the needs of the library. It may of course be that in any one year certain costs will be abnormal. If, as is here suggested, unit costs are computed each year, such variations will be clearly indicated by comparing costs from year to year.
With the exception of Georgia State College, a senior college for Negroes, unit educational and general costs are lower at the junior college units of the University System than at the senior colleges. This is primarily due to the fact that junior college instructional costs are lower. Administrative and general costs and plant operation and maintenance costs at the junior colleges are more nearly comparable with those at the senior colleges. In part, the junior colleges have lower instructional costs because they do not offer advanced specialized courses or professional work, and therefore have fewer small classes. Data gathered by the Survey Staff also indicate that teaching loads are in general heavier and salaries are lower than at the senior colleges.
Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College operates on a higher cost level than the other two-year junior colleges. It is to be expected that its program in agriculture would be more expensive than the liberal arts programs carried on at the other junior colleges.
With the exception of the University System of Georgia Center, which will be discussed later in the report, North Georgia College has the lowest educational and
165

general costs of all the white institutions. This is in part a result of the economies permitted by its larger enrollment. Also, the average teaching load at this institution was the heaviest of the white colleges.
A three-year program for the preparation of rural teachers is offered at West Georgia College. Educational and general costs at this institution are higher than those at the two-year junior colleges but lower than those at the four-year colleges. The program is being conducted on an experimental basis with the aid of a grant from the Rosenwald Fund. The educational and general costs reported in Table VIII do not include the cost of the research being carried on in connection with this program.
There appear to be wide differences in costs among the Negro colleges. Georgia State College, the land-grant college for Negroes, offers high-cost programs in agriculture and home economics, yet, according to the cost figures developed in this study, its unit costs were about the same as those at the two-year junior colleges, and were very much below the cost level on which Fort. Valley State College was operating. Again, the differences may be due in part to lack of comparability of the cost data. Furthermore, the relatively high costs at Fort Valley State College may well be abnormal since 1940-41 was the first year the College was operated as a four-year institution. The reported disparity in costs between these two Negro units does, however, illustrate the type of situation with which the Chancellor and the Regents should be concerned in their annual analysis of comparative costs. In considering the low costs at Albany State College it should be kept in mind that in 1940-41 this institution was still a junior college.
Much lower unit costs are reported in 1940-41 for the University System of Georgia Center, which includes the Evening College and the Atlanta Junior College, than for
166

any other unit of the University System. Since so many of the students carry only part-time programs of study and so many members of the staff teach on a part-time basis, it may not be entirely fair to compare this institution with the others in the System. Nevertheless, it seems significant that this institution which, unlike the others, is almost entirely dependent on student charges for its income, appears to operate on so much lower a cost level than the other institutions. The student charges in the Evening College are approximately the same as those at Georgia State College for Women, Georgia Teachers College, and the Georgia State W omans College; the student charges at the Junior College are higher than those at the other junior colleges. These facts clearly imply discrimination against the students at the University System of Georgia Center. It is pointed out elsewhere in the report that the Board of Regents has recently increased to a considerable extent its allotment to this unit. This is certainly a step in the right direction, but the students are still paying a much larger share of the cost of the educational program at the Center than at the other institutions in the System.
The group of costs referred to above as instructional costs includes current expenditures for salaries, supplies, materials, and equipment for all the departments of instruction. For the larger institutions and for those offering professional and other special curricula in addition to the liberal arts, a breakdown of unit instructional costs by curriculum would provide the Chancellor and the Board of Regents with useful data on the comparative costs of the different types of programs. Such a breakdown would probably be worthwhile only at the University, Georgia State College for Women, Georgia State College, and possibly the Georgia School of Technology. The other institutions are too small and do not have sufficiently diversified curricula to justify the undertaking.
167

In setting up instructional costs by curriculum care must be exercised, especially in the case of salaries, in assigning to each division all instructional costs which should be charged against that division. When an instructor teaches in more than one division his salary should be prorated among the divisions. Similarly, if an instructor also has general administrative responsibilities only a portion of his salary should be charged to the division in which he teaches.
The procedure in breaking down unit costs of instruction is illustrated by a study made by the Survey Staff of instructional costs at the University for the year 1940-41. The instructional costs of the several schools and colleges which comprise the University were secured from the audit report. The unit used was tl;le studentcredit-hour computed from the lists of class enrollments in the manner described earlier in this report. Table XI shows the instructional costs per student-credit-hour for the several schools and colleges. The data on expenditures and student-credit-hours are for the regular year only; the summer session was not included. The cost figures are not entirely accurate since it was not possible to prorate among the several schools and colleges certain im~tructional cost items which were reported in lump sums. These items were small in amount, however, and it is not believed that their omission would invalidate the conclusions which may be drawn as to the relative costs of instruction in the different schools and colleges.
It will be observed that there are wide differences among the schools and colleges of the University in unit instructional costs. The highest costs by far are found in the College of Education. It is probable that this situation exists mainly because of the high cost of the supervised teaching program. In this connection it should be pointed out that the College of Education was charged with the expense of all supervised teaching including the
168

Table XI
Instructional Costs at the University of Georgia for 1940-41

School or
Colle~e

Student-CreditHours

Agriculture
Arts and Sciences Commerce Education
Forestry Home Economics Journalism Law Pharmacy

19,265 91,874 10,791
9,308 2,764 6,069 4,657 3,175 1,608

Instructional Costs
$ 97,325 263,706 30,22'6 160,142 19,035 25,449 10,615 26,123
13,609

Unit Instructional
Costs
$ 5.05 2.87 2.80
17.20 6.89 4.19 2.28 8.23 8.46

preparation of agriculture and home economics teachers. Expenditures for teacher training and supervision in agriculture and home economics alone accounted for 43 per cent of the College of Education's expenditures for instructional purposes.
In connection with the survey it was possible to make a study of unit costs for one year only. It has also been pointed out that one cannot be completely confident of the comparability of the cost data developed. It would not, however, be difficult to bring about a high degree of uniformity in the System in the matter of classification of expenditures, thereby insuring a high degree of comparability of the cost data.
It is believed that accurate unit cost data would be of value to the Board of Regents in making allocations to the institutions under its control. In the first place, such data would bring to light those instances in which costs at a particular institution appeared to be out of line. It would then be possible to determine which of the cost elements, that is, administrative and general costs, instructional costs, plant operation and maintenance
169

costs, or library costs, was responsible for the situation. Also, in those institutions where the curricula were sufficiently diversified to justify a breakdown of instructional costs by curriculum, unit cost data would permit a comparison of the relative costs of the several curricula within an institution. Once the Board of Regents was satisfied that the costs in any particular college or division of a college were justified in terms of the services being performed, it would have a basis-a point of departure-for considering budget requests.
When an institution submits its annual budget to the Regents for approval its anticipated expenditures for administrative and general purposes, for instruction, for plant operation and maintenance, and for the library should be reduced to a unit cost basis, using the anticipated full-time-student equivalent as the unit. This would require that the estimated enrollment be converted to full-time-student equivalents by estimating, in the light of past experience, the anticipated number of fulltime and part-time students and the average load ordinarily carried by part-time students. It has been suggested that, in those institutions where the curricula are diversified, the unit instructional costs be broken down by curriculum. However, though in all institutions budget requests for instructional purposes should be broken down by department, it is not recommended that the attempt be made to reduce the amounts budgeted for each curriculum to unit terms since it would not be feasible to attempt to estimate in advance the student-credit-hours for each curriculum. In the budget, therefore, proposed expenditures in the "instruction" group should be expressed i:ri. unit terms for the institution as a whole, but not for the separate curricula.
The reduction of the budget requests for each of the four groups of educational and general items to unit terms would place the changes in the proposed budgets
170

of the individual units-that is, the changes from the previous year's budget-on a basis which would permit comparison among the units. Such comparisons would be much more difficult if total figures were used because of the differences among the units in the total amounts budgeted for educational and general expenses.
If the procedure suggested here were adopted unit cost figures for previous years would be available at the time the budget requests were submitted. Unless important changes in the program of an institution were contemplated or some considerable change in its status were anticipated unit costs for educational and general purposes would not be expected to vary greatly from year to year. The Regents should not, however, fall into the error of making an allotment of a certain amount merely because that amount had been allotted to the institution in the previous year. Progressive leadership in the institutions can be expected to bring to the attention of the Chancellor and the Regents, through the medium of the budget, proposals for changes in the institution's program designed to improve and expand its services to its constituents. Because of such changes budget requests may vary from the unit costs of previous years. The president of each institution should, however, be called upon to explain and justify such variations, and theRegents would then be in a position to make the allocations on the basis of their judgment as to the value to the total program of the services to be performed by the several institutions in the System in relation to the relative costs of those services.
The above discussion has been concerned only with proposed expenditures for current educational and general purposes. In determining the allotments to be made the Regents should first make adequate provision for meeting those needs. The amount of state funds to be allotted for educational and general purposes would of
171

course be determined by deducting from the proposed expenditures for educational and general purposes as approved by the Regents the anticipated income for these purposes from other sources. Requests for funds for capital outlay and other extraordinary and non-recurring items, and for purposes other than those classified as educational and general, should then be considered. Allocations for such purposes would be made on the Regents' judgment as to the relative urgency of the needs expressed by the several institutions. In this as in other matters the Regents would be dependent upon the advice and counsel of the Chancellor who would, through his own contacts and the contacts of his staff, be intimately acquainted with conditions at the several institutions.
It is believed that this procedure could be used to advantage even if appropriations from the legislature were no larger than they are at present. Its use would be more complicated, however, if appropriations were not large enough to per_mit the institutions to keep their plants in reasonably good repair. In the past, maintenance of plant has often been neglected for a period of years, and then a large sum is needed for plant rehabilitation. It then becomes difficult to separate what should have been normal expenditures for maintenance from capital outlay. This was the situation in 1940-41 when unusually large allotments were provided for plant improvement and rehabilitation.
If the above procedure were adopted the allocations for current educational and general operations would be clearly separated from those for capital outlay and other purposes. Since the allotments would be made on the basis of a careful study of needs, funds allotted for one purpose should not be used by the institution for another purpose except with the express permission of the Regents.
172

Table XII shows the income received by the teaching units of the University System, excepting the School of Medicine, from the Board of Regents, from student fees, and from other sources for the year 1940-41. Funds intended for the purchase of land or for the purchase or construction of buildings, and receipts from auxiliary enterprises, are not included. The receipts from other sources shown in the table include Federal funds, state funds other than those included in the Board of Regents allotment, gifts and grants from private sources, endow- .. ment income, rents, and receipts from miscellaneous sources.
There are wide variations among the institutions in the proportionate amount of income received from the different sources. Students at the University System of Georgia Center and students enrolled in the Division of General Extension provided, respectively, 88 and 82 per cent of the income, while at a number of the institutions student fees amounted to one-fourth or less of total income. With the exception of the two institutions mentioned above, the Georgia School of Technology is the college which shows the largest proportionate amount of income from student fees and the smallest proportionate amount received from the Board of Regents. Out-ofstate students pay larger fees than residents of Georgia, and the School of Technology is the only institution in the System with an appreciable number of students from other states. Nevertheless, as is pointed out elsewhere in the report, this institution is in great need of more adequate support. The need of the University System of Georgia Center and of the Division of General Extension for a larger measure of support from the state is also discussed elsewhere in the report.
No attempt has been made in the above discussion to indicate how much should be allotted to each of the institutions in the University System. It should be empha-
173

Table XII
Income of the Teaching Units of the University System, Exclusive of Receipts from Auxiliary Enterprises and Funds for the Purchase of Land and Buildings, for 1940-41

Institution
. University of Georaia Georgia State College for Women GeorfJia Teachers Co lege Georgia State Womans College Geor'fa School of echnology West Georgia College Georgia Southwestern College Middle Georgia Collet;e North eorgia College South Georgia College Abraham Baldwin Aer;icultural ollege University Systern of Geot"gia Center Division of Genera! Extension Albany State College Fort Valley State College Georgia State College

Board of Regents
Amount %
$ 449,182 36
185,660 53 72,511 53
65,662 66 257,316 28
64,682 58
53,317 67 46,763 67 66,763 64 52,537 70
62,949 76
7,952 8 2,650 4 45,757 69 46,305 34 45,884 41

Student Fees
Amount %
$ 504,241 40
130,998 37 52,894 38
31,831 32 520,713 56 26,202 23
21,149 26 21,866 31 35,737 34 21,386 29
16,935 21
91,166 88 55,786 82 17,175 26 21,306 16 21,696 19

Other
Amount %
$ 299,503 24
36,580 10 12,424 9
1,406 2 152,655 16
21,485 19
5,628 7 1,156 2 1,236 2 1,057 1
2,705 3
4,299 4 9,673 14 3,516 5
67,539 so
45,174 40

Total

$1,525,890 40 $1,591,081 42 $ 666,036 18

Total
$1,252,926
353,238 137,829
98,899 930,684 112,369 80,094 69,785 103,736 74,980 82,589 103,417
68,109 66,448 135,150 112,753
$3,783,007

sized that the Survey Staff has attempted to do no more than suggest a procedure by which the allocation of funds may be placed on a more objective basis than is at present employed. The procedure is not a rule of thumb which could be arbitrarily applied; its adoption would not relieve the Chancellor and Regents of the need for

174

careful study of the relative needs of the several institutions and the relative values of the services performed. It does, however, provide the means for expressing interinstitutional costs and intra-:institutional costs on a basis which would permit comparisons.
Financial Needs
The University System of Georgia needs larger appropriations from the General Assembly than it is getting. In 1931-32, the year before the System was organized, the institutions received $1,891,264.97 and in 1940-41 the income from the state was $1,890,752.81, representing a small decrease. These figures do not tell the whole story. In 1938-39 the income from the state dropped to $1,155,000 a reduction of approximately 40 per cent. In spite of the reduction in income from state sources that came after the reorganization, the Board of Regents has paid off a million dollars of indebtedness that it inherited from the institutions that had previously been controlled by the state. At no time since the University System was organized has the state's appropriation for its support reached the level that obtained prior to the reorganization.
It is evident that in terms of dollars the income received by the Board of Regents from the state has been reduced markedly; but that is not all of the picture. In 1933-34, the first year for which enrollment data are available, the enrollment in the University System was 8,035. The enrollment in 1940-41, the last year not affected by the war, was 13,736, an increase of slightly more than 70 per cent. The decrease in the number of dollars coming from the state, the rapid growth in enrollment, and the decreased purchasing power of the dollar have to be taken into consideration in evaluating the magnitude of the task that has been carried through by the Board of Regents. Economy has been carried to the
175

point where it ceases to be a virtue and the citizens of the State of Georgia should give immediate consideration to the :financial needs of their University System.
As aids in the consideration of this problem some figures obtained in the study of the System and others, unpublished, from the United States Office of Education will be used. An analysis of the sources of general income of the teaching units of the System for 1939-40 shows that 45.5 per cent came from student fees and 35.7 per cent came from state appropriations. Data from the United States Office of Education for that year show that for the seventeen southern states, including the District of Columbia, the average percentage coming from student fees was 21.8 and from the state governments 48.8.
These data make it evident that the State of Georgia provides a relatively small percentage of the general income of the higher institutions of learning and that it places relatively heavy dependence on the fees paid by students. It rests with each state to determine what its policy will be in this matter but it should be borne in mind that heavy student fees certainly act as a deterrent to college attendance. This is especially true in a state with a low per capita income as Georgia has.
Before concluding this discussion some consideration should be given to what Georgia is doing in terms of the per capita receipts for higher education and how its per capita income compares with the other southern states. These data were obtained from the United States Office of Education. The figures on per capita receipts are for the year 1939-40 and those for per capita income are for 1939.
The per capita income for the State of Georgia was $297. This is low when compared with the national figure but four states are lower: Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, and South Carolina. In spite of their low per
176

capita income each of these states contributed appreciably more per capita to the support of higher education than did Georgia. Georgia contributes 39 cents per capita toward the support of its publicly controlled higher institutions. The :figures for the other states are South Carolina, 82 cents; Alabama, 84 cents; Mississippi, 53 cents; and Arkansas, 78 cents. Mississippi with a per capita income of only $205, as contrasted with Georgia's $297, makes a per capita contribution to higher education that is 36 per cent greater than that of Georgia.
These are data that should be pondered by the citizens of Georgia. The record that has been made by the Regents, in spite of difficulties, since the reorganization should give the people of the state assurance that the funds they make available will be carefully spent. The Survey Staff, therefore, urges that the General Assembly be more generous in its support of the University System. Some of the phases of the work of the System calling for more ample funds which should come from state appropriations and not from student fees are:
1. Increased salaries for faculty members. The funds available for this purpose should be increased by $300,000. The level of salaries throughout the System is low and it should be raised as soon as practicable. An average increase of 10 per cent, which would be very modest for instructional salaries, would call for an increase in the budget of $200,000.
2. Administrative salaries in the member institutions are also low. To put them on a proper basis would call for an increase of $40,000 to $50,000.
3. The funds available for graduate instruction including staff, laboratory supplies, and library resources would call for at least $75,000 in addition to the present expenditures.
4. Increases in salaries and of size of staff in the Central Office would call for approximately $25,000.
177

5. The Division of General Extension and the University System of Georgia Center should have more liberal support if their programs are to be worked out on a satisfactory basis. The estimated increase for these units is $30,000.
6. It will be necessary for the State of Geo' rgia to take steps to provide much more ample facilities for the higher education of Negroes in compliance with the Gaines Decision. Scholarships for Negroes as well as more ample provision for instruction in publicly-controlled institutions will cost at least an additional $100,000.
7. The current income for miscellaneous purposes of a minor character throughout the System should be increased by approximately $50,000.
The funds coming from the state for current expenditures for 1943-44 amount to $1,900,000. If the suggested increases, which amount to $600,000, were made the state's contribution to the current income of the University System would amount to $2,500,000.
It should be borne in mind that the foregoing discussion has to do only with funds for current expenses. While there has been a material expansion of the facilities of the System there are additional needs calling for expansion of plant and additional equipment.
The discussion of the financing of the University System has been left to the conclusion of this report. The preceding chapters give the reader some idea of the scope of the System and the character of the program which it is developing in response to the needs of the state. It is evident from what has been said in preceding pages that many things remain to be done but it is only as present conditions are set against the background of 1932-33 that an adequate picture can be obtained of the progress that has been made. The time has come, however, when the
178

Board of Regents should ask the state for much more generous support than it has received in recent years; and its record of achievement should give the public confidence that funds made available will be used in the interest of the state.
179