.
Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday, Feb. 27, 1950
No Consideration Shown To Vets
To hell with the veterans!
This seems to be the attitude the administration has taken. In the scheduling of payment of fees this semester, no consideration of the veterans' financial status was shown, or if so, it was ignored.
Month after month, year after year, the men and women attending the University on the GI Bill have been receiving their checks on the 20th of the month. So the University schedules payment of fees for Feb. 13, 14, 15, and 16, the worst possible time of the month as far as the veterans are concerned.
To the high mugul of the University $4 or $6 may not seem like much. But for a guy squeaking by on $110 a month a fine of that proportion is a heavy blow to the old pocketbook.
Any fees not paid by the 16th had a fine of $2 per day assessed. For the veteran, who didn't receive his check until Monday, the 20th, this cost $4 to $6, depending on what time of the day he was able to cash his check.
in the future there should be some provision made for late payment by veterans. It is almost an impossibility for many of these men to have the necessary money before their checks come in.
If fees must be paid on the dates set this year
Granted a veteran can get an award from Aids and Awards but just how many veterans could this department handle if there was a full-scale rush. It seems as if a lot of unnecessary bookwork could be cut out if the University would only re-schedule the fee payment time to coincide with the receiving of government checks by the GIs.
If the University wanted to do the proper and fair thing about the situation which arose this year, they would refund all fines assessed from veterans who had to pay their fees late. Then, in the future, some arrangement could be made. It might mean a little more trouble, but after all, the veterans comprise a good percentage of the student population and some consideration of their predicament should be shown.
—John McMillion
You Can Tell The Weather By The Signs
In grandfather's day they regarded certain signs as sure indications of what the weather would be. We can't laugh too loudly, however, for we have some just as ridiculous.
What's the one thing that is more unpredictable than a woman—the weather, of course. Kansas may be the worst offender when it comes to sudden temperature changes, but as the popular saying goes, "If you don't like Kansas weather now, wait five minutes."
Everyone knows that all you have to do is plan a picnic and it will rain, or start to polish your ice skates and the ice thaws. Some days you just can't win, but remember that weather predictions can't always be 100 per cent accurate.
In 1856 they believed that when dandelions bloomed early in the morning that there would be fair weather the next day. They thought that when
cream and milk soured in the night there would be thunderstorms soon.
Crows were supposed to utter a peculiar cry before rain. If there was much dew on a summer evening after a dry day, or if dew or white mist formed in the evening near a river, and then spread over the countryside there would be fair weather
When gnats fly in a group in the beams of the setting sun, they fortell fair weather; when they are scattered they mean hot days ahead; and when they gather under trees and bite more than usual, it indicates rain.
If the sun disappears in a dark cloud before it sets there will be a storm, and if there is a ring around the moon and if the turtle doves coo it means rain.
It's all very simple—there's no need to depend on the weatherman. Just learn the signs and plan your picnic accordingly.
12.000 Enrollment?-It Appears Certain
Ann Kelly
(Editor's Note: This is the first of a two-part series on future growth of the University).
Who says the University of Kansas is going to have 12,000 students be that many students roaming on Mount Oread 14 years from now?
Practically everybody believes that Chancellor Franklin D. Murphy is the originator of the "12,000 students in 1970" statement. But he got his information from Registrar James K. Hitt. And where did the registrar get his information?
He got it from a little pamphlet titled, "College Age Population Trends, 1940-1970." And where did the little pamphlet come from?
What's caused all the commotion? Lifting a statement from the pamphlet verbatim answers that question. "Barring some unprecedented national disaster, there will be by the year 1970 almost twice the number of young people of college age in the United States as there are at this time."
How does Mr. Thompson know there'll be twice as many available students in 1970 as there are now? Simple! He just took figures for the number of births and deaths in the United States in each year since 1918.
Since we're not sure you're following the reasoning—because we're not—let's take a look at Page 13 and see what it is and see just what is happening.
With the aid of the Federal Bureau of Vital Statistics, statistician Thompson figured out how many people would be living, from each birth year, until they were in the 18- to 21-year-old class.
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
The little pamphlet was a product of another registrar, Ronald B. Thompson of Ohio State University. Its first appearance was made in August 1953, but it's caused such a commotion in the field of education that it is now in its third printing.
Just for an example we'll take the birth year of 1937. In that year 2,203,337 babies were born. Of that total, an estimated 2,057..
917 reached the age of 18 in 1955 and are potential college students.
An estimated 2,015,901 youngsters were expected to reach the age of 21 during 1955, of the 2-167,636 babies born in 1934.
So, taking the student potential of the youngsters 18,19,20 and 21 years old, estimated, that is, add them together, and you come up with a student potential of 8,081,-310 for the year 1955.
What Mr. Thompson has discovered, though, is the fact that there will be 13,609,831 potential students in the 18- to 21-year-old bracket by 1970—and that doesn't include graduate students.
So now, you want to know how the chancellor can say that KU will have 12,000 students in 1970. Here is how he has the basis for his statement.
Chancellor Murphy appointed a four-man committee in 1954—the University Planning Council—composed of Ethan Allen, chairman and head of the KU Governmental Research Bureau, Raymond Nichols, executive secretary to the chancellor, Kenneth Anderson, dean of the School of Education, and Mr. Hitt.
They studied the Thompson report—but they went further into the problem. They took five "critical" counties in Kansas—Douglas, Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee and Wyandotte—and figured out just where all the high school, junior high and grade school students were located in 1953. From these figures they estimated the number of those in each grade who would become high school seniors.
With the remaining 100 Kansas counties, the committee took the cumulative total of all of them and figured them as one unit, along with the other five counties.
Each of the five counties was tabulated separately because the five combined provided 39 to 44 per cent of the total number of entering freshmen at KU during the last five years.
With the figure of those expected to enroll at KU from out of state and the percentage of
those expected to re-enroll from the previous year, the committee found that it could predict the future enrollment of the University to a figure of 87 per cent. These predictions, or projections, were made for 1954 through 1970.
As a check on the above system of projecting the expected enrollment, the committee also made an estimate of the situation by relating the University growth to the estimated "national collegiate growth" as compiled by the U.S. Department of Education. The KU enrollment was increased each year by the same proportion as the estimated national increase.
Also figured in these projections was the experience gained from the actual enrollments during the periods of 1930 to 1939 and 1951 to 1953.
They estimated the enrollment in 1954 to be 6,561 students. In relation to the national growth, the estimate was 6,551. The actual enrollment was 6,750 students during the year.
For KU, here's what has happened since the committee completed its work in 1953.
So, comparing the actual figures with the estimated, the committee is revising its estimates somewhat figuring that from the present until 1965, the enrollment figure will increase about 500 per year over the estimated figures.
After 1965, the World War II babies begin coming into their own; all estimated enrollment figures will go into the trash can. KU expects the increase to be 750 students a year after 1965, so in 1970, the actual enrollment should be about 3,000 students more than 1953 estimates for that year.
For 1955, the KU estimate was 6.643, with the national estimate at 6.580. The actual enrollment was 7.340 students.
The burden of future planning for the University naturally falls directly on Chancellor Murnhv and the Board of Regents. And they're at work now, planning the needs of the University in the light of an expanded student population at Mt. Oread.
Sam L. Jones
*TH' SIGNA PHI NOTHINGS AREN'T PLEDGING TH' SAME CALABER OF BOYS THEY USED TO:
... Letters ...
Editor:
Leo Flanagan's editorial on the supposed benefits of advertising ignores completely the moral aspect of the subject. This is perhaps not too surprising in light of the fact that Mr. Flanagan does not appear to recognize the social and moral significance of various national "weeks." Such "weeks" are obviously direct outgrowths of the alienation, fragmentation, and sickness of our society.
These "weeks" almost always represent attempts either to exploit popular sentiment for selfish ends, or to cope with universal problems to which we cannot give the constant attention that they demand. "Advertising Week" obviously serves the first of these functions, and it seems to me that it is doubly vicious in that advertising itself contributes so much to the alienation of our society.
According to the system of values prevailing, human beings are machines trained to manipulate one another as if they were commodities; that is, they are motivated by the desire to sell commodities to one another and to treat themselves and others as if they were commodities.
One of the chief purposes of advertising is to create needs so that diverse products may be sold in large volume, and not so that important human needs may be well satisfied. This purpose is both a result and a cause of the extreme commodity orientation of our society.
The nauscatse vulgarity and implicit hypocrisy of much advertising are perceived by many, but unfortunately the society from which the advertising springs has already deadened the sensitivity of many; and who knows how many of us already accept the images of the world of advertising as representative of the truly good life?
To this end, the advertising business quite deliberately uses every trick it can conceive of; it exploits almost every human emotion, and constantly debases language, the image of the human figure, and images of human life—which supposedly represent the good life. The question of falsity in advertising, I believe, extends far beyond the question of limitations or laws. Desirable as truly effective limitations would be, the activity itself is largely false by its own nature.
The economic question is a more complicated one, but it cannot be separated from the moral question. It seems to me that all men of sensitivity and good will who believe that a system of open economic competition is necessary to preserve human freedom must reject the help of advertising to the extent that it contributes to the degradation of human values and leads toward moral chaos. Those who believe that a society based on a
system of production for use and human development—and not for the accumulation of profit—is desirable and at least possible, must hope for the elimination of advertising.
No matter what one's position on these matters may be, should we not all join in the hope that, in Emersonian phrase, man may serve law for man and reject the rule of things?
Mordecai Marcus Instructor of English
What to do? Wait till next year?
Read another paper? Trade in the
School of Journalism for a bigger
and better badminton team? Alas,
alack and phooey upon you.
Editor:
The times lack character. Take for example The Daily Kansan editorial page this semester. The "What's Wrong" series might have amounted to something, if it hadn't been so full of double-talk and fuzzy yes-buts.
And now, "What's wrong with the UDK editorial page?" With the exception of a few national items such as desegregation it has been slosher than a wet mashed potato sandwich. What's wrong with the editors? They're pussy-footers. (A lot of Flanagan's stuff was hogwash, but at least he tried to scratch at the issues.)
Our good readers have recently been denied the privilege of reading one of George Herman's letters—also, apparently, on the "What's Wrong" theme, and having to do with The Daily Kansan. It was suppressed, because the editor thought it unfit for publication. Excuse me if I am smelling a snake in the grass.
One fair indication of editorial decadence is a scarcity of letters to the editor—whether that scarcity $b_{\mathrm{e}}$ due to readers' indifference to what is being editorialized, or to the fact that the page is more conveniently padded with advertisements
Peter Earle
Peter Earle Lawrence graduate student
UNIVERSITY OF DAILY HANSAN
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1899, became biweekly 1904,
trilweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephonia, Vikr 3, 1978
Telephone 4156 3-2700
Extension 251, news room
Extension 276, business office
Member Inland Daily Press office.
Associated Collegiate Press. Represented
National Advertising Service. 420
Madison Avenue. News service:
United Press. Mail subscriptions:
$3 a semester or $4.50 a year. Pub-
nish every afternoon at the University,
except Saturdays and Sundays, University
days, and examination periods. Entered
matter matter Sept. 17, 1910, at
Lawrence, post office under act of
March 3, 1879.
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Jim Wiese
Jim Wiens Business Manager David Cleveland, Advertising Manager; Dib Hunter National Advertising Manager; Walt Griffith, Circulation Manager; Walt Baskin Classified Advertising Manager; Clifford Meyer, Promotion Manager.