890 



TABLE 2.-SUBJECT DISTRIBUTION OF RECOMMENDED CANDIDATES, PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED BY THE COM 

 MITTEE ON THE INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE OF PERSONS, 1961-62 AND 1966-70 



Source: This information was compiled from unpublished data supplied by the Committee on the International Exchange of 

 Persons, Conference Board of Associated Research Councils, "Annual Report to the Board of Foreign Scholarships." Data 

 for 1970-71 from Annual Report . . ., July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970 (1970), p. 42; for 1959-70 from Annual Report, July 1, 

 1968 to June 30, 1969 (1969), Table 111; for 1968-69 from Annual Report, July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968 (1969), Tsble Ill- 

 data for 1967-68 from Annual Report, July 1, 1966 to June 30, 1967 (1967), Table III; and date for 1966 to 1967 from Annual 

 Report July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1966 (1966), Table III. 



CIEP data should be considered the most reliable for this study since they include only senior research scholars and 

 lecturers sent abroad in professional scholarly fields. The percentage of scientists to total American program exchanges 

 Is lower when figured on the basis of data for total senior mutual educational and cultural exchanges as published in an- 

 nual Department of State appropriations hearings. These sources include information on exchanges sent on some programs 

 other than those handled by the CIEP, and are not as valid for longitudinal comparative purposes since the time periods 

 upon which they are based are not the same and repeats occur. Department of State data, extrapolated from appropria- 

 tions hearings, yield lower percentages: 



Total number Percent of 



Total number of science science grantees 



Time period of grantees grantees to total 



Academic years: 



1966 to 1967 900 318 35 



1967 to 1968 _ 724 329 45 



1968 to 1969 _ 672 294 44 



Program year: 



1969 416 146 35 



1970 507 215 42 



The scientific exchanges conciiicted under the Ful bright-Hays pro- 

 gram have not been described in detail in documents available to the 

 public or to the Congress. The purpose here is to identify and assess 

 the major diplomatic, administrative, and substantive considerations 

 which impact upon them. The stucly describes the initiation and 

 evolution of these international educational and cultural activities, and 

 summarizes legislative and executive branch efforts to insulate program 

 operations from undue political pressures. For instance, to attract 

 superior grantees, the Congress gave responsibility for domestic day- 

 to-day selection and program operations to several nongovernmental 

 groups, funded and supervised by CU in the Department of State. 

 Similarly, binational exchange commissions and other arrangements 

 were initiated to encourage bilateral cooperation in selecting grantees 

 and in determining the scope and content of country programs. 

 However, these programs are part of overseas educational and cul- 

 tural activities; thus overseas field administrative responsibilities were 

 given to Cultural Affairs Officers attached to the United States 

 Information Agency (USIA), thereby imparting to these programs a 

 distinctly political and informational character. These divisions of 

 responsibility may seem warranted in view of the administrative 

 mechanics of U.S. oflicial representation abroad and the need to 

 maintain the integrity of educational and cultural exchanges. But 

 they have raised questions as to the impact of such arrangements on 

 the quality and effectiveness of the program's coordination and 

 evaluation mechanisms. 



