The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1922-12-29
Why 50 GREAT DIFFERENCE?

WHY 50 GREAT DIFFERENCE?
We were Interested in reading the
following paragraph n the report o.
the proceedings Of the South Care
lima Luth ran synod recently held II
Prosperity.
professor James c. N;aard, treas
urer OF tie faculty, preser;ed th2
anrua! rero.t for the wear cndng
June /, 1922. The to2;tl income VA
s35,495.G7; tac .,otal expenditures
s3A,o35.20, leaving . balance o.
hand June !. 1922. Of $1,4oo.41,"
lit: is :...:.t ,se income at Ne"5rI~
ry cou!>; rot ba doubled TIE fac
ulty shoald be increased md tie "a:
of those row = thc fac;;;.y sho,:!>:
also be increased.
There were !&st :-ca: q: New err
college some 234 boys and g.gs, ant;
this year around three aI.Gved. TA4
statement above Of course is by t.t
treasurer of Nswbcc:c:- c2!,e&e and !;
a showing of cIpe9&,t turcs for t!:2
last session c. 1921-7922.
We 90 not ike TO nike com22r.-
sons, but we can not help thin?licg
about comparing the expenditures o.
the University cf South Carolina wi,h
the expenditures o: Newoeccy col
lege. The maintenance fund 8, the
university of the same session was
just around s25o,coo. Of course
you will say this is a un;rersi,E and
a state institution, and o. course it
takes more money TO run state IN
stitution than private college. Thai
is true. But at the un;ve. y there
were only around 900 students dur-
ing the same college Year. Ana the
work a. the two institutions is ve.y
much the same. And cae gcadI&ec>
of the two institutions compare abour
the same. 1t does not seem % Us Saat
there should be sucI; 4 great differ
ence il the cost OF operating the two
Institutions. 1t costs the state about
$500 per year for each student al TIE
university in addition TO what i
costs the student. waiie a. <eWoe-ry
it. costs only abou. S125 per student,
a part of which is paia by the student
and part comes from the measre
endowment which The people have
gone down in their jeans and p-ovid-
ed
This IS not written N any spirit O.
opposition to the university nor %
any of ths state institutions, bat 1t
has seemed to Us that there might oc
a little more econany in the admin
issrat:on OF our sta,e Institutions OF
higher learning. At leas. it has ap-
peaced tha: i: night be looked iaso
and see if there is any, place waere
there might be . I,tie economy prac-
-ticed. The state appropriation fo:'
the common scn53!s amounts 20 oclI
six or seven dollars per ch!i3. The
proportion is oot of joint, it has an-
peared to US. We are not Unmindtul
of the fact tha: il order 10 have q
good system Of common schools the
state must maintain system %
higher institutions CT learning, O.
that has been thc history of educa-
ton. Education seems to come from
the top down a, 4 nct from bottom
up. The expend;t-.c on he common
schools from a.! sources is only
around forty do:2a"s PEE white cMld,
And Of course tie greater part o.
that comes from saa local tax on the
property in the 400! districts. The
ratio of expenditure at the other state
colleges is about ;::c same as a. sae
university.
TIE educ2ticna! prc3,em that will
face the next ;esia.ati,re IS 70 adjust
expenditures 50 ta.. ,ae common
schools WI! not oe neglected ard a
sufficient amour. c.ov:GaG to give g
each child in tac state :. least term
cf eight months - ,hs. ::ere may b.
al least a sca?b,.:2ve O. equality Of
opportunity.