As a result, the cumulative debt burdens of graduate students are growing significantly. Graduate students now seem to be expected to incur debts in amounts that strain their means. The present maximum that a student may borrow under the GSL and NDSL programs combined is $25,000, but it has been calculated that a beginning professional, with a salary of about $15,000—an assistant professor, for example-cannot reasonably be expected to service a loan in excess of $8,000.

Many graduate students complete their undergraduate educations with substantial debts of several thousand dollars. They then can afford to borrow only a small additional amount to help finance their graduate degree before exceeding a reasonable or manageable debt limit.

Prospective arts and science graduate students typically face difficult financial situations compounded by several factors: high expenses for undergraduate education, low or nonexistent student earnings and assets, families unable or unwilling to contribute to the graduate education of their children, no access to grant funds (BEOG or SEOG), limited Federal fellowship opportunities, constricted academic career opportunities, and low salary prospects for the successful new faculty member.

All of this is compounded by the substantial foregone income that results from up to 6 or more years of graduate or professional training.

Consequently, the financial prospects facing a talented prospective graduate student in arts and sciences frequently are forbidding. The system seems now to favor those who either have the necessary financial resources or who can borrow in substantial

amounts.

Many students fear, or simply cannot incur a major debt. Administrators working with these students know that this seems to be true particularly for students from low-income backgrounds.

The case for the Federal role in graduate education today rests not on the arguments of the sixties for the production of steadily increasing numbers of highly trained individuals, but on the need to provide for continued access and free choice for the Nation's most intellectually qualified.

Graduate education is not viewed as an entitlement; no one should, I believe, argue that everyone has a right to go to graduate school, or that there should be a graduate equivalent of the BEOG program.

Nor should we, under current circumstances, argue that total enrollments should be increased and that more students should be going to graduate schools. Proposals have been made to this committee to extend eligibility for student assistance programs to students enrolled in undergraduate programs on a less than half-time basis. That may be a desirable change in public policy.

I would argue, however, that it is at least as much in the Nation's interest that individuals who are pursuing a graduate degree be our most intellectually able and not our most financially able. This country's system of financial assistance should provide for the needy among those who have the ability to pursue advanced Rudies and training and who will become the Nation's leaders in the arts, sciences, and the professions.

One small, but effective way to address a part of the problem is to make some needed adjustments in the administration of the work-study program that would encourage its use for graduate and professional students.

RECOMMENDATIONS-A REAFFIRMATION OF INTENT

From the time the work-study program was created in 1964 as part of the Economic Opportunity Act, the law has made undergraduate, graduate, and professional students eligible for the funds. Thousands of graduate students have received work-study funds. Many work in jobs directly related to their studies. Over the years, the number of graduate students receiving work-study assistance while small, has steadily increased.

According to a 1977 report by the American Council on Education, in 1976-77, 5 percent or 35,000 of all work-study recipients (698,000) were graduate students. In public universities, 10.8 percent of work-study students were graduate students and in private universities 16.7 percent of students receiving work-study were enrolled in graduate and professional programs.

The growth in the use of the program at the postbaccalaureate level is encouraging, but much remains to be done to inform students, their graduate and professional schools and others of the availability and potential of this program and to encourage Federal program administrators to foster the use of the program for graduate and professional students.

Therefore, I would urge the committee to include in its report a strong reaffirmation of the role of the work-study program for graduate and professional students and to encourage graduate and professional schools and student aid officers to develop the untapped potential of the program. This committee should encourage Federal program managers to take the steps necessary to enhance the use of the program for these students.

A strong reaffirmation by this committee of your intention in this area I believe would make a difference. It is fair to say that despite a law which clearly states that graduate and professional students shall be eligible for work-study and a long, clear congressional record of support for the program, confusion remains among graduate and professional students, their schools and student financial aid administrators. A restatement of congressional intent for this dimension of the program would be timely and helpful.

PAYMENT ON A SALARY BASIS

Second, I would urge the committee to direct that the regulations-section 175.24(a)-be amended to permit universities the option of compensating graduate and professional students on a salary basis. Current regulations require that students aided with work-study funds be paid hourly wages.

Time cards or comparable recordkeeping and reporting mechanisms must be used by students and work reports must be certified by their supervisors. This causes institutions to restrict work-study employment to less than professional jobs and to construct convoluted nonstandard payment procedures for compensating graduate students with work-study funds.

Not all, but many undergraduate students hold work-study jobs in libraries, food service departments, and similar activities where hourly wage reporting is reasonable and appropriate. For them, current regulations and time-keeping systems are entirely satisfactory. But many graduate and professional students are employed as junior professionals. They often serve as colleagues to faculty and serve as teaching and research assistants.

For many of them and for their faculty supervisors, hourly time reporting is an impediment to the use of the program. It just doesn't fit the circumstances of their employment, or their relationship with their supervisors. The hourly requirements are burdensome and impractical and are generally held by graduate and professional schools to be inappropriate for junior professionals serving in administrative, teaching or research-related positions. The use of the work-study program at the graduate and professional levels would be used if universities were given the option in the regulations to compensate graduate and professional students, as appropriate, on a salary basis. Of course, reasonable certification of effort and performance should be required.

It would be appropriate to require periodic, perhaps term, certification from faculty supervisors stating that assisted students have satisfactorily fulfilled professional responsibilities for which they were receiving work-study compensation.

Last year several higher education associations made this recommendation to Commissioner Boyer. The Commissioner declined to make the change because, he replied, "there is no statutory rationale" to differentiate between undergraduate and graduate students. For your information, a copy of our letter to him and the Commissioner's response has been given to your staff. I hope the committee will provide the statutory basis for this technical change in the regulation. No other change would do as much to ease the use of the program for graduate and professional students' need.

NEED

Third, because many graduate students find themselves unable to call on already strained family resources in financing their advanced education, it may be appropriate to provide the flexibility in the law to allow graduate students to receive work-study assistance, when funds are available, without regard to need.

While the law should retain priority for undergraduate and graduate students with the greatest financial need, it would enhance the use of the program at the graduate and professional levels if work-study funds were available to graduate students without regard to need where appropriations are sufficient.

A specific proposal on this point has been presented to the committee by the Association of American Universities, the Association of Graduate Schools and by the Council of Graduate Schools. I urge the committee to give it careful consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to present these views to the committee. I know that this committee has been a particularly strong advocate of the work-study program since it was created.

*-353 0 79 (Pt. 6) 54

The program has been a favorite of the Congress; the legislative record shows that clearly and it does seem to me that the program continues to offer substantial untapped potential for the future. It also offers valuable educationally related work experience to graduate and professional students which enhances their future employment prospects. Law schools and their students learned this early in the program, and law students now are the single largest group of students aided by the program among professional schools. The experience of the first 12 years clearly demonstrates that the program has an important role to play for graduate and professional students. I urge the committee to sustain your support for the program and to provide an authorization sufficient to meet the needs of both undergraduate and graduate students.

I will be happy to respond to your questions.

Mr. FORD. Reverend Driscoll.

Prepared statement of Reverend Driscoll follows:]

PENNSYLVANIA Association of Colleges and UniversitiES 800 NORTH THIRD STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17102

We are pleased to have an opportunity to testify concerning the reauthorization of this excellent program. It proves especially valuable to students in the State of Pennsylvania. Not only are needy students able to receive excellent earnings through summer and term time employment, but also they can receive excellent career related experience in the program run cooperatively by our institutions and the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

The changes we suggest to improve the College Work Study Program are as follows:

Sec. 442 (a) and (b). Allotments to States.

We do not believe this section detailing the State Allotment Formula can or should be changed at this time. There is widespread acceptance of the fact that the formula is not currently as equitable as it could be. We think this section should be reserved for revision in the next two or three years on the basis of documented state need based upon data accumulated from the tri-partite applications. Every institution should be required to file a complete tri-partite so the necessary data can be amassed.

Sec. 444 (a) (1).

Add language to this section to permit contracts with profit making business and industry as a way of expanding the employment opportunities for students. A higher rate of participation should be required from the profit making segment. (See (6) below).