# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_1975_S284
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

284 HIGHER EDUCATION

major Lutheran bodies. This can largely be explained by the
differing nature of the ethnic, cultural, and historical back-
ground of the early leaders and members. It might reasonably
be stated that since the other church bodies were originally
composed largely of members who had come to America for
nonreligious reasons they adapted the American educational
system at an earlier time and consequently developed church-
related colleges and universities open to all students interested
in higher education. From these institutions they recruited
ministerial students for the seminaries. The LCMS training
for the pastoral ministry found its roots in the Gymnasium con-
cept used by the fathers in their native Germany. It was felt
that this concept preserved the theological uniformity for which
many had left their native land. Additionally, the LCMS was
vitally concerned with Christian education and for the same
reasons used the concept of the parochial school, staffed by
its own pastors and teachers.

With a few exceptions the colleges and universities related
to other Lutheran bodies, as well as Valparaiso University, are
largely attended by students interested in a college education
offered in a Christian setting fairly near their homes. As these
colleges have expanded their program offerings, they have
become attractive to an increasing number of non-Lutheran
students. Although the number of Lutheran students is larger
than 10 years ago, the denominational mix has changed, and
the past 5 years have generally seen a decline in total Lutheran
students while enrollments have increased slightly. A concern
has developed that rising tuitions are placing Lutheran colleges
out of reach for middle-class Lutheran families. It is noteworthy
that a similar trend appears to be developing at several of the
LCMS junior colleges.

During the ’73-’'74 year some 1,251 Missouri Synod students
of a total of 11,573 Lutherans attended the ALC-related col-
leges. This represented nearly 11 percent of the Lutheran stu-
dents and 6.5 percent of the total enrollment. Colleges located
in heavily populated Missouri Synod areas attract larger per-
centages of LCMS students. In a study several years older the
LCA-related colleges located in the Midwest were equally as
attractive to LCMS students desiring a general education.

It is noteworthy that during a period when numerous private
educational institutions throughout the country have failed,
Lutheran-related colleges have generally been able to adapt
to changing conditions and have prospered. This speaks well
for the leadership of the colleges and for the commitment ex-
hibited by the Lutheran constituency supporting these colleges.

Impact of Changing U.S. Education Scene
on LCMS System

Higher education in this country was originally church re-
lated, then largely independent, and has now become dominated
by publicly supported institutions. As recently as 1951 half of
2,102,000 college students attended private institutions. While
the number of students attending private institutions has in-
creased to the equal of the total enrollment 23 years earlier,
only a fourth of some 8,500,000 college students today attend
private institutions.

Public junior (community) colleges are a relatively new
phenomenon. In the early 1900s all eight junior colleges in the
United States were independently operated. In 1950, 324 out
of 597 were public, and in 1972, 910 out of 1,141 were public.
Though enrollment in independent junior colleges has not de-
clined, it consists only of some 140,000 students out of an enroll-
ment of 3 million. Most of the private junior colleges enroll
fewer than 500 students while the majority of public junior col-
leges have enrollments in excess of 1,500.

The current overwhelming factor affecting change in U.S.
higher education has been rapidly rising costs. The dependence
of private colleges on tuition and donations has forced tuitions
to the point where the tax-supported public institutions, large
in size and diverse in curriculum, have attracted an ever in-
creasing percentage of higher education students: predictions
for the future are not very bright for private higher education.
A number of national studies suggest that private higher educa-
tion can survive only with some form of federal aid made avail-
able for the purpose of reducing the cost differential between
private and public institutions.

Originally higher education was largely restricted to the
wealthy. In recent years higher education has become increas-
ingly important for all young people. The community college

concept of liberal arts education and career instruction offered
by the same institution has become a very appealing option
for ever increasing numbers of American youth. Additionally
the switch from liberal arts education at the universities and
4-year colleges to specialized education has opened many op-
portunities and options for young people as well as for those
already in the work force.

As the number of youth attending public colleges and uni-
versities and community colleges has risen, a growing conflict
has developed over the question of who should pay for the rising
cost of education, the student who benefits or the taxpayers.
Two panels working independently, the Carnegie Commission
on Higher Education and the Committee for Economic Develop-
ment, each has called for increases in tuition rates at public
institutions to force middle-income students to bear more of the
cost of their education, so that the gap between public and
private school tuitions is narrowed. The CED recommendations
that public colleges and universities increase undergraduate
tuition charges by more than double to support 50% of the
costs of instruction were based on the criterion of providing
closer equity of tuition cost with private college tuitions and
thereby improving the competitive positions of the private
institutions in the marketplace. The Carnegie Commission,
however, has advocated increasing the availability of education
to low-income students without altering the current systems.
Its primary approach would be to involve federal tax dollars
in support of public higher education, The increased cost for
additional students would largely come from federal, state, and
local tax sources, with only a small portion coming from the
student or the student’s family.

A recent development in higher education has been that an
increasing number of students are attending college on a part-
time basis or are attending college later in life. This is particu-
larly evident at the community colleges but is affecting other
institutions as well. Students apparently feel that the opportuni-
ties and options available to them are so various that they are
taking longer to determine their own vocational and educational
goals.

Largely as an effort to stem the rapid increases in students
attending public universities, which placed a large demand
on new construction, a number of states have adopted and
funded tuition grants for students attending in-state private
institutions. This has been instrumental in slowing down the
closing of many private institutions and has tended to help
strengthen the better ones. Consequently, while private insti-
tutions have been forced to increase tuitions, the student has
had some relief from state tax dollars via tuition subsidies and
from certain federal grants-in-aid and other support programs.

The rapid change in the birth rate from 100 live births per
thousand women 15 to 44 years of age in 1953 to less than 69
per thousand in 1974 has caused significant concern for higher
education and for all education. The change in birth rate will
not immediately affect the number of college youth, those 18
to 21 years of age. In 1984 this age group will be the same in
number as in 1973: by 1991 it will number the same as in the
mid-1960s. The sharp reductions in this college age group be-
ginning in the middle 1980s will create a rather unstable condi-
tion for all of higher education but particularly for programs
related to teacher education.

It appears that the forces at work in American higher edu-
cation require an ever increasing need for cooperative effort
between private schools and between private schools and state
schools. As state planning is becoming concerned with what
might be, what should be, and what will be based on projections,
and what has been based on historical trends, it is looking at
total available resources consumed in the higher educational
process. Of real significance is the inflationary factor and the
changing expectations and interests of youth. Institutions cannot
respond fast enough to accommodate a constantly changing
society without suffering added costs irrespective of changing
enrollments.

A recently federally subsidized study indicates that among
the solutions for the continued existence of private education
are flat grants to students (the voucher system). There are
indications that only a handful of private schools can exist for
long without receiving at least half of the amount of tax subsidy
given to public institutions and that the voucher system is the
least expensive way to serve the students and to retain the pri-
vate educational system. Federal grants to states as a solution
can be effective only as the restrictions placed on them will