V'
p
PHYSICAL THERAPY
STUDENTS
Thurs Oct. 7 - 7:30 pm
meeting in Union
A SPEAKER WILL TALK
all P.T. MAJORS WELCOME
ACE FURNITURE
2429 "0" 432-4466
RENT-A- TV
Reliable TV, Radio,
Stereo Repair
V i
)Jmi , Miiiimim in mi I Mill Mil
gene budig
I I I I
i I
u
u
' N.
"
V:
sn o ? bigger budget would
o1:IINk?I
1
yr neip inu programs
X)
A
V
4
3t
1
s
I
J
New life for CSL
Council on Student Life met Tuesday night to
discuss questions raised by the attempted injunction
against the Time-Out Conference, The Daily Nebraskan,
and World in Revolution. It seems that the Council may
be on the brink of a definition of its function, if it will
only recognize the opportunity for what it is.
It seems that everyone involved with student
activities is again asking the $64,000 question: Who can
determine which organizations have a claim to student
fees and what monetary priorities should be set? This is
not a new question. And it's about time we came up
with an answer.
A special subcommittee was appointed to look into
these matters. CSL meets in regular session tonight.
Obviously, after years of questioning it is highly
ridiculous to assume that a report with ali the answers
will be presented. It's too early for specific answers
now. But an even more important precedent can be set,
that of jurisdiction.
CSL now has, within its reach, a reason for being. It
is entirely valid that some board should hear complaints
and act on decisions concerning allocation of student
fees. Since its formation, CSL has been hunting for
questions to investigate. Certainly this could be one of
CSL's major functions. As a governing group that claims
to oversee Nebraska students' lives, CSL clearly should
have the power to determine where our student fee
monies go.
Students fees are just that..money paid by students
for the organization and maintainance of certain student
services. For that reason, a group with significant
student representation should dole out the funds. For
too long various activities and services have blindly
assumed that since fee support had been there in the
past, the subsidy would continue.
It is natural that certain students are questioning the
legacy of student money allocation. What is not natural
is the array of groups that have been called on to make
this momentous and highly political decision.
One year we find ourselves at the mercy of the
legislature. The following fall we find ourselves at the
back of a crowded courtroom wondering who will
finally take a stand and what that outcome will be.
CSL should take up this function. Few would dispute
the validity of a study of student fees. But let's talk to
the right judge in a court of the students and not the
outside world.
Laura Willers
IlIflJMIMlMyjM
-- - - "-
c j;. c-ct Manaaina Editor: Laura Wilier. New Editor:
Stava Strasiar. Avrtmg Manager: Barry Piloer. Publication
Committee Chairman: iamm Horner.
Staff writers: Bill Smitherman. Carol Strester. Manna Kehm, Bart
Becker Dennis Snyder, Vicki Pulos. BoKenn Rogers. Steve Kadel. H. J.
Cumm.ns. Randy Beam. Lucy Lien. Ouane Le.bhart. Sports ed.tor: J.m
Johnston. Photoorapherv Bill Ganzei. oa.i
editor: Larry Kubert. Literary editors: Alan Boye. Lucy Karchberger.
East campus writer: Terri Bedient Artist: Al Chan. Copy editors: Tom
Lansworth. Jim Clemons. Sara Tresk, J.m Gray. Niaht ed.tor: Leo
Schleicher.
BUSINESS STAFF
Coordinator: Jerri Haussler. Ad staff: Greg Scott, Beth Malashock,
Jane KidweH. Sue Phillips, M.ck Moriarty, Jeff Aden, Steve Yates. Kay
Phillips O J. Nelson, Suzi Goebel. Secretary: Kathy Cook.
Telephones: editor: 472 2S88. news: 472 2589. edvert.s.ng
472 2590 Second class postage rates paid at Lincoln, Nebraska.
Subscription rates are $5 per semester or $9- per yeer. Published
Monday Wednesday. Thursoey and Friday during the school year
except during vacation and enam periods. Member of the Intercollegiate
Press, National Educational Advertising Service.
The Daily Nebraskan is a student publication, independent of the
University of N-ebraska's administration, faculty and student
government.
Address: The Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union. University of
Nebraska. Lincoln, Nebraska 68508.
Listen! Here is the best part:
THERE ARE NO LOSERS!
ff" torn braden
Paying for schools
WASHINGTON Serrano vs.
Priest is not yet as famous as
Brown vs. the Board of
Education of Topeka. but
within the next few years it is
likely to have as great an
impact on the public schools.
The California decision points
eventually to something as
radical as a national tax for
schools.
Serrano vs. Priest is a ruling
by California's supreme court
that children who live in poor
school districts are being
denied equal protection of the
law. Central to the court's
decision is the notion that a
child's education is the
function of the wealth of the
state not of the wealth of the
school district in which his
parents happen to live.
What the decision means for
California is a statewide
property tax or some other
means of putting school-tax
money into a common pot and
reapportioning so as to give
each child the same amount of
financial backing for his school
years. The California decision
has already had a partial
counterpart in Florida. Test
cases are coming up in other
states, and seem likely,
eventually, to reach the
nation's Supreme Court.
For California, the decision
marks the end of a long effort
to give children an equal
education without upsetting
the ancient idea that local
school districts should finance
local schools. Since the 19th
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
century, the state has aided
school districts by giving them
state funds according to a
school population formula.
This accentuated the inequality
because state money was
granted on an equal basis
among districts without
reference to their taxable
wealth.
Beginning in 1940,
California tried to correct the
inequality by an additional
amount of state aid, this time
apportioned according to the
ability of the district, poor
districts getting more than rich
ones. The move did not solve
the problem. Rich school
districts levied an additional
tax on each $100 of assessed
valuation at an insignificant
increase to the homeowner and
continued to outpace the poor
ones.
Thus it was that beginning
in 1945, California tried to
solve the problem by
equalizing districts according
to wealth. The effort
continued through the 1960s
as the state board of education
labored to persuade rich
districts to merge with
contiguous poor ones.
But the law required that
the issue be decided by popular
vote in each school district and
the result was predicatable.
Even the poorer districts
sometimes voted against
merger, persuaded by school
officials who were afraid
merger might mean fewer
school officials.
Even if elections had
succeeded, inequalities would
have continued to exist as
between heavily populated
areas in the south of the state
and sparsely settled areas in he
north which happened to have
industry or large power plants.
Industry and large power
plants will provide the
opposition to the statewide
property tax which the
California court has
sanctioned. They will want
money for the schools to come
from other taxes than property
because under a statewide
property tax they will now
begin to pay their fair share of
the school burden. They
cannot win in the legislature if
California voters discover the
truth: That average taxes on
residential property will go
down once property taxes on
large industrial and power
complexes are tossed into a
statewide pot.
By an extension of this
argument, is it fair for
schoolchildren in property
taxed poor states-states which
have little industrial base-to
have poor schooling as
compared to children in richer
states?
If a child's education is not
a function of the wealth of his
school district, why isn't it a
function of the wealth of his
nation?
The following article by Gene A. Budig, assistant vice
chancellor of the University of Nebraska, is reprinted from
College & University Business.
No fewer than 22 governors are exerting budgetary
pressures designed to assure comprehensive revaluation of
graduate programs at their state universities, according to a
March, 1971, survey of 31 governors.
They appear to be convinced that the number of
doctoral programs can be reduced without impairing in any
way the well being of their states.
It appears they are primed to make a dramatic shift in
the emphasis of American public higher education, one that
would strongly favor the junior and community movement
Their attraction to the two-year, vocational-technical
programs is great, primarily because these offerings hold
continued prospects for immediate employability.
A majority of the nation's governors are conversant with
the literature of higher education and they are quick to cite
statistics which support their contentions. For example
most of the 22 chief executives are keenly aware that:
"In a time of an oversupply of doctorate and an
undersupply of money, should the state invest its
dollars in another level of education which might
have a higher yield?"
-Federal dollars stimulated, but state dollars largely
underwrote programs that came into existence during the
1960s; .
-National production of doctorates nearly tripled from
1958 to 1969 from 9.000 to almost 26.000.
-The average cost of a doctoral degree in a science is
more than $60,000;
-Most young Ph.D's are experiencing problems in
gaining employment and many of them are ending up being
"underemployed' and
-The cost of graduate education, especially at the
doctoral level, will remain quite high.
Along with state legislators, governors are asking
themselves and their constituents one basic question: In a
time of an oversupply of money, should the state invest its
dollars in another level of education which might have a
higher yield?
Governors and legislative committees in a number of
states have commissioned "impartial" professionals to
analyze and respond to the question. But regardless of their
responses, there is no doubt that the next two years will
bring a curtailment of graduate education programs and an
expansion of the two-year vocational programs. Economic
and political considerations will be overwhelming and
domineering.
At least 10 governors are overtly receptive to the idea of
dramatically expanding geographical cooperation among
the institutions of higher education in the expensive areas
of graduate education. These officials contend that their
states can no longer be "all things to all people
educationally."
Expanded educational compacts or reciprocal
arrangements, which are certain to materialize, will mean a
likely reduction in the number of doctoral programs at
various state universities.
It is significant to note that 50 institutions in the United
States produce 90 of all doctorates, and the remaining
10 are produced by the other 190 doctoral institutions.
Gubernatorial sentiment leans heavily in the direction of
eliminating low production doctoral programs and not
adding additional programs, especially at the 190
institutions, according to Kenneth Roose, former
vice president of the American Council on Education.
Governors seem to be convinced that the proliferation of
doctoral programs and doctoral institutions has
substantially increased the cost of public higher education.
Governors seem to be convinced that the
proliferation of doctoral programs and doctoral
institutions has substantially increased the cost of
public higher education.
They cite data indicating that, in a number of instances,
new doctoral programs are living off the rations supposedly
allocated for undergraduate programs. A measurable
curtailment of graduate programs would upgrade
undergraduate education, they contend, and such a
curtailment would allow more innovative programming in
the vocational areas.
In "Doctoral Planning for the 1970s," recently
published in "The Research Reporter," Lyman Glenny
aptly asserted that "the watchwords of the 1970s should
be: Limit the number of doctoral programs and improve
the quality." His assertion is destined to be frequently
quoted in gubernatorial circles in the next few years. There
is no doubt that he had touched upon a sensitive nerve
which has caused painful reaction by a score of publicly
elected officials.
There has been limited discussion on ways to restrain
many of the newly developing insitutions from engulfing
the doctoral market. It has been suggested in some quarters
that the federal government, rather than slicing its support
of graduate education across the board, should indicate that
federal policy for the next decade will be to identify no
more than 75 universities that will be eligible for federal
funds.
Several governors from more sparsely populated states
indicate that such a move might be in the national interest
in preserving the strength of the major graduate centers.
However, a large majority of the nation's chief executives
are opposed to the thought of major withdrawal from the
graduate education area; it is a matter of public service,
they contend.
Professional educators need to realize that the
1970's are going to be very much different. For at
least the next two to three years, budgetary
constraints upon most public universities are going
to be tight, and to ambitious educators they are
going to be painful.
It should be noted that 20 of the 31 governors who
participated in the study believe that even state intitutions
with highly regarded graduate programs may have to
consider cutting back in order to shift resources to areas of
higher priority.
Along with a growing number of educators, they think
that "time is running out" on substandard programs in state
universities. Such programs, the governors believe, must
either be brought up to acceptable standards or eliminated.
Professional educators need to realize that the 1970s are
going to be very much different. For at least the next two
to three years, budgetary constraints upon most public
universities are going to be tight, and to ambitious
educators they are going to be painful.
According to Allan Carter, an analyst of graduate
educational trends, the availability of funds from external
sources to support new graduate programs will be minimal.
He believes the drop in fellowship support for graduate
students from federal sources will place additional burdens
on the university when its traditional forms of support -state
legislatures, tuition and private gifts - are likely to be
shrinking. -
Heightening the governors' anxiety is the most recent
report by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.
In a Jan. 1971, survey, 42 governors responded that their
states could afford very little more in support for the
institutions of higher education. Thirty-nine governors
expressed the belief that the federal government would
have to greatly increase its support.
Significantly, the commission has recommended that
federal funds for higher education be increased and that the
state's share decline proportionately.
But this relative decline in state funds will be quite small
over the next decade and states will have to continue
providing about one quarter of increasing total funding for
colleges and universities - a topic of certain debate at state
levels.
D0D0ffl(JD!S
Now Playing the NAZARETH'
2 Dance Floors
tilt i . , i ! - i
"t ,'r ' '
ftsSS1 If
STOCK UP WHILE THE SUPPLY
LASTS OF THIS HAMM'S SPECIAL LIMITED SUPPLY PACKAGE
Vrr-': .-AW C ; '?V' ST PA'.. SA FPAC$C- - i i'.i-":
m . ,. . 'i-LzSS'-''''
r the eeolesi 1
for the smartest girls in town ... by our
professionally trained stylists. The easy-care
secret is in the layered way the top is cut.
Re-style cut $4.
Body permanents $12.50 and up.
II A 0
Beauty Satan, Third Floor
I'
I.
ft
. :
' t
i' -1 v
V . ..
l'"
I
k
H-
I
fa
if-
I'.'
Pi
'A
l.'jf -
'
If:--
5
ev:.
.''
m-
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1971
THE DAILY NEBRASKAN
PAGE 5
PAGE 4
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 1, 1971
, ' ,', .. ' ' " .' : .
