899 



more than half of the Fulbright-Hays program apparently have not 

 received in-depth evaluation by agencies administering the program. 

 As a result, there are almost no appropriate measures of the impacts 

 of scientific exchanges, that is, accomphshments of grantees with 

 respect to both the advance of science and the promotion of scientific 

 and political cooperation between the United States and the Fulbright- 

 Hays host country. What little information that is available consists 

 of unpublished reports prepared by the CIEP and annual reports 

 prepared for the Congress by the Advisory Commission on Inter- 

 national Educational and Cultural Affairs.®'' 



These reports do indicate, however, that the quality, quantity, and 

 impacts of scientific exchange are influenced by two factors: (1) 

 general considerations of educational and cultural exchange programs 

 which address intellectual, diplomatic, and administrative issues; 

 and (2) considerations unique to scientific research and teaching 

 abroad. 



Statistical and descriptive data in these reports indicate that a 

 majority of Americans recommended to be sent abroad annually 

 under the senior Fulbright-Hays program have been scientific and 

 technical personnel. Forty-seven countries are served by the program; 

 38 percent of the countries served are in Europe.^^ In relation to the 

 total number of countries served by the program, a disproportionately 

 higher number of total exchanges are recommended annually for the 

 European countries, where high-quality applicants have always out- 

 numbered available lectureship and research scholar vacancies. In 

 contrast, scientific and technical exchanges are disproportionately 

 fewer in number in the developing countries. In addition, participants 

 in developing countries are not as well qualified academically, and 

 frequently vacancies must be filled by recruitment. Specifically: 



— under the Fulbright-Hays program, Americans are awarded 

 grants for lectureship or study in five geographic areas; on the 

 average, about half of the Americans who are recommended for 

 awards each year are recommended for service in. Europe; and 



"> The annual reports of the Board of Foreign Scholarships typically contain superficial comment on the 

 quality of programs, lists of members, references to meetings, data on cost sharing agreements, and general 

 information describing exchange by state, and tenure abroad. The Annual Reports of CU, International 

 Exchange, contain: information on cooperating private agencies and their activities; examples of notable 

 exchange activities; statistical profiles of longitudinal and other characteristics of exchange (for all programs 

 ■without differentiation by type of program) ; and separate tables on exchange by country and exchange by 

 subject category of grantee, both foreign and American. 



The U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs has produced re- 

 ports treating problems in organization, administration, policy guidance, and steps needed to improve the 

 quality of American as well as foreign grantees. These are printed as Congressional documents: 



A Beacon of Hope — The Exchange of Persons Programs, 1963 (first report of the U.S. Advisory Commission 

 on International Educational and Cultural Affairs); Americaii Studies Abroad, 1963; A Sequel to a Beacon 

 of Hope, 1964, (second report); ^ Report on the Strategic Importance of Western Europe, 1964; Third Annual 

 Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 1965; Fourth Annual 

 Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural Affairs, 1966; Open Hearts, 

 Open Minds: How America Welcomes Foreign Visitors, 1966; Foreign Students in the United States— A National 

 Survey, 1966; Fifth Annual Report of the U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educational and Cultural 

 Affairs, 1968; The Use of U.S. Owned Excess Foreign Currencies, 1967; Government, The Universities and Inter- 

 national Affairs: A Crisis in Identity, 1967; Is Anyone Listening, 1968 (sixth annual report): A Multitude of 

 Counselors, 1970 (seventh annual report); Eighth Annual Report, 1971. 



The CIEP has done little in-depth research, but its evaluations of the day-to-day funding, selection, and 

 operational problems useftilly point out major areas which need to be improved. The Committee's evaluations 

 are included in its annual reports, submitted to the Board of Foreign Scholarships; reports are not presented 

 to Congress, nor published, but they are available for public review. 



" Binational commissions for the prc^ram are located in: Africa: Ethiopia, Ghana, Liberia, Tunisia; 

 South America: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay; .Asia.- Afghanistan, 

 Australia, Ceylon, Republic of China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nepal, Pakistan, 

 Philippines, Thailand; Europe: Austria, Belgium, Luxenbourg, Denmark, Firiland, France, Federal 

 Republic of Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, 

 United Kingdom, Yugoslavia; Middle East Cyprus, Iran, Israel, Turkey, United Arab Republic. (Source: 

 "Binational Educational Foundations and Commissions: Executive Secretaries and Addresses," issued by 

 CU/Board of Foreign Scholarships, September 1970.) 



