Page images

that the reviewers may be reacting as administrators rather than as faculty members who teach.

Dr. RUTHERFORD. I think many of them are not. For example, some of the ones I know from the Council of Scientific Society Presidents are mathematicians and teachers, so there is certainly little danger of that. I would recommend, Mr. Pease, that you query Dr. Nelson on this this afternoon. He had made a year-long study of the situation and has interviewed faculty members all over the country, and I am sure that he can give to you some responses from the kinds of people that they are talking about.

I would also point out that large-scale studies involving the collection of information are a long process, because, among other things, we have to clear through OMB. You know the problem of getting something done in a timely way.

Dr. ATKINSON. Let me just comment, Mr. Pease. I don't think we were aware of that language or we would have complied and sent this report to you. We will be happy to provide a sample of the people who have participated in our program. But I also want to echo Dr. Rutherford's remarks. The people who participated in these programs are highly enthusiastic and they should be. It is a marvelous experience. I recommend it, and I want to see it continued. There is a question of limited resources, however, of how to spend those resources.

Mr. PEASE. Very fine. I am not happy but at least grateful for the information that you weren't aware of this language. Is there some better way that we in the Congress can communicate the language of conference reports to the NSF in the future so that you are able to know what we put in the conference report?

Dr. ATKINSON. Your admonishment will lead us once again into those matters. I think we are able to read the language.

Mr. Pease. Thank you. Well, given that most of the 12 people who reviewed it are probably more administration than teaching right now, I have looked over them and I still find it very interesting that not 1 of the 12 really is critical of these long-term fellowships, and I would like to read a paragraph from one of the reviews by Mr. Louis Salter.

He says:

What is remarkable, given the divergence and starting point and style is the unanimity in recommendation as between the two studies. This is as between the studies by Dr. Kormandy and Dr. Bergquist.

Both agree in recommending a mix of extended- and intensive-mode strategies. The two modes are complementary. Both are needed for faculty development, and particularly if the needs of undergraduate science teachers are to be met. Kormandy is unequivocal in recommending an increase in NSF funding for the Foundation's faculty fellowship program.

He also goes on to recommend a balanced mix of intensive-mode activity--study enumerating strengths and weaknesses of the two pure modes. And then goes on to strongly recommend a combination of the two, suggesting several different strategies for achieving them.

Now, apparently you disagreed with these two studies that the NSF commissioned and decided to go ahead only with the short-term program, is that correct?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. No; that is a different question, Mr. Pease. I strongly believe in the mix, but I think it is not disassociated from

the funds you have available to support and administer such a mix. Every program we do takes people to do it. We could have as many variations as we want. If we run short courses, if we run research experience—which has its advocates and which is very important these days—and if we run a fellowship program, that is really three programs. We don't have three people; we have limited funds, so we do 40 of this and 100 of that. It is simply not good management, I believe, with such small numbers to have a mix of all of the good things you can think of. They are all good, all of them, but until we can get the resources up so that we can manage them sensibly and truthfully, I still believe we have set the proper priority. The responses suggest that if we have to make choices, these are the priorities. Incidentally, people who respond usually do not have the job of having to make choices. But we are in that situation, and good management and other considerations set the priorities the way we have them.

Mr. Pease. In the introduction to this report, you say, "Our recommendations and proposed program plan for faculty development are as follows:" Then you say, “At the minimum level, approximately a $3 and $5 million funding range.”

Do you propose essentially intensive activities and at an intermediate level, $5 to $10 million, you propose going on to some other possibilities, including multimedia approaches ? And then you say at the optimum level, above $10 million, you would propose to instituteI might say reinstitute—the time-extended activities which have been the sole program up to this point.

Now, I am interested in knowing, Where are we now in the funding range?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. $4 million.
Mr. PEASE. $4 million?
Dr. RUTHERFORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. PEASE. And so you would need an increase of over two and a half times before you would find it worthwhile to reinstitute what you are planning to phase out; is that correct?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. Perhaps worthwhile is not quite the right word. Before I think it would be good policy; yes, sir. Incidentally, I suppose part of your question is: Why do we have something intervening between these two modes about which there is so much discussion: the industrial research participation? I think there is a different order of argument here, but it serves the strong need to have more of our faculty understand, to do some research, and to do some of that research in industry, so they can get a better sense of that aspect of our economy. We were beginning to make some headway on that, and that is the part of the research resource problem, too.

Mr. PEASE. You have people in NSF, your staff people, working essentially now, at least up until this year, on one program—the extended faculty grant program. And now you are proposing at the $4 million level and, if we ever get up to that, the $5 million level, going into three different areas: Intensive 4- to 6-week activities, research participation in summer research, and these new mechanisms and delivering modes. So you are willing to invest the administrative time and resources of NSF administering three different programs rather than the time-extended activity. That suggests to me that you must consider the time-extended activities are really pretty low on the cost-effective scale. Is that a correct interpretation ?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. No; I don't mean to imply that, if that is the message it carries. I am saying after we get up above some level like $5 million we can begin to be more active in various types of effort. I think there is some misunderstanding. I am not talking about teaching college faculties to use the new telecommunication technologies. I am talking about the use of computer networks, satellites, information systems and the like to assist faculties in more effective ways as opposed to always depending on the more extensive face-to-face teaching. I want to be able to do enough of that so that when the technology develops we will be in the position to exploit it. It is really a question of R. & D.

Mr. PEASE. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of your time. Could I have a few more minutes ?

Mr. BROWN. Yes.
Mr. PEASE. OK. Thank you.

As I recall last year's committee report in the NSF authorization directed that vigorous efforts be made by the Foundation for changing the physical location of the education directorate so it can be contiguous to the best of the Foundation. Have you made progress in that?

Dr. RUTHERFORD. We have worked awfully hard on that. We have been doing that for the 21/2 years I have been here, but we also seem to run into problems with the GSA and the prevailing prices. Would you say that is the main problem right now? Dr. ATKINSON. We are continuing to work on getting more space

for the Foundation. It is a difficult matter; the main building is located centrally in Washington, and space in that area commands a rate higher than the Government is prepared to pay.

The Board, as you know, has clearly emphasized this issue time and time again. It was a key issue when I came to the Foundation. It was a key issue when the Deputy Director came to the Foundation. It is just something that we seem unable to solve.

Mr. PEASE. Thank you.

Finally, if I might direct a question perhaps to Dr. Cota-Robles and also Dr. Atkinson, and give Dr. Rutherford a rest. Last year there was some concern raised in the committee about composition of the National Science Board and what seemed to be a paucity of representation on the Board, over the years, from people who are primarily teachers or administrators at undergraduate institutions rather than graduate schools. Has there been any change in that situation in the last year?

Dr. Cota-Robles ?

Dr. COTA-ROBLES. Well, I myself am at the University of California at Santa Cruz, where the primary responsibility is undergraduate instruction. I left my administrative post and am back as a teacher and researcher. So from that perspective there has been that change.

Dr. ATKINSON. I would like to enter for the record an analysis of the present and former Board members. Of course, the President decides who is appointed to the Board. NSF always places emphasis on college versus university background in the lists that go to the President, and NSF always wants a strong representation of members from colleges on the Board. I think NSF achieves such balance over time; this analysis will show it.

Mr. PEASE. I would appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and hope we can enter it into the record.

Mr. Brown. Without objection, it will be entered into the record. [The material to be furnished is as follows:]



[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

Mr. PEASE. What I have seen in previous years was that your strong efforts did not produce very many people who were on the Board and at the same time were engaged in undergraduate teaching or even administration in an undergraduate institution. There certainly were a lot of people who had backgrounds at such institutions. That is almost a given, but I was concerned about people who can bring to the Board a current perspective and a current concern about undergraduate teaching

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Brown. Thank you very much, Mr. Pease. I want to emphasize that Mr. Pease's questions are probably difficult at times, but these are questions that have been raised in the committee and in the Congress and he is by no means going off on some obscure direction here in trying to define the justification for the decrease in funding.

Thank you all very much, gentlemen. We appreciate your thoughtful and forthright presentation.

Our next witness will be Kenneth Baker, president of the Harvey Mudd College, in Claremont, Calif. Dr. Baker is well qualified as a spokesman for the various institutions which focus on science and technology and engineering in higher education. We are pleased to have you here this morning.

[The biographical sketch of Dr. Baker follows:]

Dr. DAVID KENNETH BAKER Personal Data.--Born: October 2, 1923 ; Glasgow, Scotland. Citizenship: USAnaturalized 1956. Married : Vivian Christian Perry. Children : Richard R. Residence: President's House, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California.

Education.—1937–1942: Hamilton Central Collegiate, Hamilton, Canada. 1946 B. Sch.: McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 1953 Ph.D.: University of Pennsylvania.

1976: President, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, California.
1967–1976: Vice President and Dean, St. Lawrence University.
Feb.-Sept. 1969: Acting President, St. Lawrence University.

1965–1967 : Manager, Professional Personnel and University Relations General Electric Research and Development Center, Schenectady, New York.

1953–1965 : Assistant, Associate, Professor of Physics, Union College.

Summer 1963, 1964 : Program Leader, Agency for International Development, Delhi, and Ahmedabad, India.

1960–1961: Visiting Lecturer, St. Andrews University, St. Andrews, Scotland. Summers 1956–57-58: Director, Summer Institutes for Science Teachers.

1951–1953: Instructor of Physics, Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania.

1947–1951: Teaching Assistant, Department of Physics, University of Pennsylvania.

Consulting positions: 1954-1955: Alco Products, Schenectady, New York. 1956–1957 : General Electric Company, Schenectady, New York. 1954–1964 : National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. 1962: Agency for International Development, Washington, D.C. 1964: Ronald Press Company, New York City. Advisory positions: 1976: Advisory Council/Los Angeles Council of Engineers & Scientists. 1979: President/Association of Independent Engineering Colleges.


MUDD COLLEGE, CLAREMONT, CALIF. Dr. BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be here.

I come from out "there," where the action is. My sole purpose here this morning is to ask you to seek additional funding for scientific equipment beyond NSF requests. I want to emphasize that I feel that these should be additional dollars for scientific equipment in undergraduate laboratories. My institution is primarily an undergraduate institution in science and engineering.

It is no longer time for us to be shy about our needs, and I think that Dr. Rutherford, in listening to him this morning, is a little bit shy about stating the needs of undergraduate institutions.

I also serve as president of the Association of Independent Engineering Colleges, consisting of 16 of the major independent engineering colleges and universities in the country. There is a list of those colleges on the last page of my submitted testimony. Some of you may like to look at it.

My day-to-day responsibility is to work with the ultimate resource of this country. By the “ultimate resource" I mean those young people, those young men and those young women, who will form the science and technology base of the next few decades. Without them no progress is possible on health, on defense, on production, on new jobs, or on social progress, let alone the day-to-day operation of our sewage treatment plants, our agriculture, our electrical power systems. The future of this Nation depends upon their training.

I would like to make several points in this oral testimony. First of all, I do place the emphasis on the 4-year undergraduate science and engineering colleges or departments of science in liberal arts colleges. You should understand that of the students who graduate from those

« PreviousContinue »