# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1950_S235
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

’ included in the materials presented to the college presidents and

262 SEMINARIES AND COLLEGES

As a result of this attempt to measure the efficiency of the Present
District aid system, 22 Districts supplied the details indicateg,

There was a large number of optimistic reports; however, there
is reason to believe that all Districts would welcome Suggestions
for improvement. The areas most frequently mentioned in replies
to the questionnaire indicated a desire for improvement in the
techniques of follow-up in the procedure, centralization of data,
and an exchange of information. In this connection a long list of
constructive suggestions was also received from the District aid

authorities.
Areas of Weakness

Wherever feasible, a detailed report and discussion has been

to the District aid officers; however, in order to motivate the
attached recommendations, we should like to list here five genera]
areas of weakness on which there is quite common consent:

1. Lack of agreement on the function of the student aid system,
The Districts ought to understand more clearly what they
should try to achieve with financial assistance for students
At present some regard their function as a sort of loan
service, others as a kind of scholarship, still others as a “give
away” fund, with strings attached. Some restrict their aid
to males, others include women students or even students
preparing for church service apart from theology or teaching.
Everyone concerned in the program would be benefited by
an explicit statement of objectives.

2. Lack of uniformity in general policy. Certain advantages are
to be derived from varied policies of the Districts governing
student aid, such as local adaptability, opportunity for ex-
perimentation, and the stimulation of new ideas. The Dis-
trict aid system, however, suffers from an excessive lack of
uniformity in fundamental principles. Student applicants,
many of whom have shifted with their families from one
part of the country to another in accordance with the
increasing mobility of our population, need to have an
understanding of uniform fund requirements. More impor-
tant, the synodical colleges, which are drawing from ever
wider areas of the Church, will be in a better position to
help students make use of available funds if the policies are
generally standardized. It is also apparent from the Districts
themselves that a set of workable policies would make their
role in the student aid program more effective if certain
basic agreements were reached. Instead of having 32 dif-
ferent systems of student aid, the Church would then have
one system, with some modifications for local purposes.

Lack of adequate integration with the colleges attended by

subsidized students. Since scholarship is apparently to be

one of the bases upon which the awards are to be made, the
colleges should be tied into the system more closely. The
present rather general failure to consult with the schools
in establishing scholastic criteria must be a handicap for

ad

SEMINARIES AND COLLEGES 263

the awards committees. The colleges probably need to agree

upon the basic minimum scholastic requirements.

. 4, Inadequate means of determining need. The Districts them-

' selves admit this to be one of their principal difficulties.
Practice now is widely varied, and in a comparison of Dis-
trict with District, injustices might seem to result. Samples
of forms received from every District surveyed indicate the
need for standardization in establishing the criteria. Over-
dependence upon the local pastor and insufficient use of
the personal interview technique suggest areas requiring
improvement,

5. The absence of a central clearinghouse of information. The
Church and the church colleges have a vital interest in the
District student aid programs. At present they have no way
of ascertaining the effectiveness of the system. No central
agency receives data on the number of students assisted, on
the criteria of the disbursements, or on other important
aspects of the undertaking in the Districts. In addition, the
Districts have no way of exchanging ideas except by informal
correspondence. And the colleges are bewildered by the
variety of practices in District aid. Until a central agency
receives reports and sends out information, the system will
continue to lack uniformity of policies and standardization
of practices.

Recommendations

As a result of the total study, the Board for Higher Education
is ready to present the following conclusions for the guidance of
Synod and for whatever progress toward efficient and unified pro-
cedure might be achieved:

a. Recommended Organization

1) The Districts would continue to control the raising and
disbursing of funds for the student aid program. Their
specific duties would be to receive applications and pass
upon the factor of need for financial assistance. The ad-
ministrative agency should be a committee responsible to
the District Board of Directors, one of the members of the
committee serving as principal executive. ;

2) The colleges should be brought more actively into the
system. They should pass upon the scholarship of initial
applicants and students applying for continuation of aid.
They should be kept constantly informed on the District
aid activity in so far as it concerns the respective college.
They should publicize the opportunities under the District
aid program to needy applicants or enrolled students. They
should report regularly to the District upon the perform-
ance, character, and development of subsidized students.
They should render regular reports to the central informa-
tion center for student aid.

3) Under the jurisdiction of the Board for Higher Educa-
tion, an extension of the office of the Executive Secretary
should be established. It would be the function of this
agency to receive reports from Districts and colleges on

‘

WAIL st

foe ae

>

epi Aly okie eee A a ES Es

Postage on!
eS LEE REE

SMA