PERSESTENCE Am CHANGE EN MAJOR FEEL?) Cf ACAQ-EMKCALLY §WSCI£NT ENGINEEMNG fiUfiERTfi' A? FH§LE£ Mimmmm U‘fli‘é—‘EESEEEB Thesis far {Em Deqvm 05 Ei. D. memm sum mmm Roger D. Augustine 1966 THESIS L LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE IN MAJOR FIELD OF ACADEMICALLY PROFICIENT ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT THREE MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITIES presented by Roger D. Augustine has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. degree in Education Q///wzsz/¢m Major profesyl/ Date A11331813 2; 1966 0-169 ABSTRACT PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE IN MAJOR FIELD OF ACADEMICALLY PROFICIENT ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT THREE MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITIES by Roger D. Augustine Decreasing engineering enrollments and increasing attri— tion of talented engineering students have attracted the concern of government and industrial leaders, engineering educators and others interested in the Nation's scientific manpower needs. An extensive review of the literature re- vealed little research which has contributed insight to the causes of these increasing attrition rates. As a result, this exploratory study was designed to identify factors causally related to persistence and change in major field of academically proficient engineering students during their freshman and sophomore years at Michigan State University, Northwestern University and the Madison campus of The Uni- versity of Wisconsin. The population consisted of all the male students who entered engineering at the three universities as first-time freshmen in September 1963. The sample was comprised of two groups--the persisters and non-persisters. The non-persisters were those members of the population who had been in Roger D. Augustine continuous attendance since their matriculation and who had changed majors to non-engineering curricula during the fresh- man or sophomore year while earning at least a "C" cumulative grade point average. A comparison group of persisters was established by individually matching students from the popu- lation who had demonstrated the same academic potential as the non-persisters but who had persevered in the pursuit of their engineering degrees. A questionnaire and an interview guide were developed to assess the nature and importance of each student's pre-college and college experiences that in- fluenced his educational and vocational planning. During the fall of 1965, following the administration of the ques— tionnaires by mail, the present investigator conducted the 30-40 minute, in—depth interviews on the respective campuses. Electronic tape recordings were made to facilitate subsequent analysis of the interview data. Of the 326 students invited to participate, 221 (126 non-persisters and 95 persisters) or 68 percent returned questionnaires. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no hypotheses were formulated for testing. Appropriate statistical analyses of the data elicited by the questionnaire revealed the following noteworthy significant relationships: 1. Subjects from working class and upper middle class homes tend to persist in engineering curricula more frequently than those from lower middle class homes. Roger D. Augustine 2. Non—persisters attach proportionately more importance to social status and prestige than do persisters. 3. Non-persisters attach proportionately more importance than persisters to the opportunity to work with people rather than things. 4. Proportionately more subjects from suburban high schools persist in their engineering studies than do those graduated from central city and non-metropolitan high schools. 5. The age at which respondents first considered the pos- sibility of a career in science or engineering is inversely related to persistence in an engineering program. Interviews were conducted with a total of 176 students-- 104 persisters and 72 non-persisters. The findings from these data are based on a content analysis of case notes prepared from the electronic tape recordings of the interviews. The following are the most noteworthy of these findings. 6. Although students choose engineering majors for a wide variety of reasons, the following are among the most common for the respondents in this study: a) success and interest in high school science and mathe- matics courses, b) the encouragement toward engineering received from fathers, brothers, relatives and friends, c) the interest developed while pursuing mechanical or scientific hobbies and leisure—time activities, Roger D. Augustine d) extrinsic features such as the monetary benefits, prestige and glamour of the field, and e) the belief that an undergraduate engineering program would provide a sound background for a career in some other field. 7. High school students, teachers, guidance counselors and parents evidently know little about the work of the pro- fessional engineer or the nature of the educational programs leading to such careers. 8. Persisters and non—persisters are frequently dis- satisfied with the highly structured, inflexible engineering curricula. 9. Certain required courses, especially mathematics, antagonize many students and reinforce misconceptions of the nature of engineering work. 10. Sophomore engineering courses are welcomed and en- joyed by most students. 11. Friends and acquaintances of respondents play im- portant roles in their decisions to continue their engineering studies or change to other curricula. 12. Large proportions of both persisters and non-persisters report passive, procedural relationships with their academic advisers as being typical throughout their college years. 15. Non-persisters cite a variety of reasons for changing out of engineering. Those most frequently mentioned include: Roger D. Augustine a) Students had mistaken impressions of the engineering field. b) Students were dissatisfied with the content of the required courses. c) The student's scholastic performance did not meet his self—expectations. d) Students adopted new career goals. e) Students felt they could find more appropriate routes to the non-engineering career goals they had originally es- tablished. f) Students wanted to explore other career opportunities. Eight recommendations were offered for action by engineer— ing societies, engineering schools and high schools. Impli- cations were drawn for further research. PERSISTENCE AND CHANGE IN MAJOR FIELD OF ACADEMICALLY PROFICIENT ENGINEERING STUDENTS AT THREE MIDWESTERN UNIVERSITIES BY Roger D. Augustine A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology 1966 Roger D. Augustine Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Final examination: August 2, 1966, College of Education Dissertation: Persistence and Change in Major Field of Academically Proficient Engineering Students at Three Midwestern Universities Outline of Doctoral Studies: Major subject: College Student Personnel Administration Minor subject: Higher Education Cognate area: Sociology Biographical and Educational Information: Born: April 2, 1954, Buffalo, New York Undergraduate studies: Michigan State University B. A. in Economics June 1957 Master's program: Michigan State University M. A. in Counseling and Guidance June 1958 Doctoral program: Michigan State University Doctoral candidate: 1958-1966 University of Buffalo Related course work: 1960—1961 Professional Experience: Michigan State University Graduate Resident Adviser 1957-1959 East Lansing, Michigan West Shaw Hall State University College Assistant Dean of Students 1959-1962 Buffalo, New York and Director of Housing Michigan State University Graduate Assistant 1962—1965 East Lansing, Michigan Guidance and Personnel Services Department ii Michigan State University Assistant to the Dean 1965-1966 East Lansing, Michigan College of Engineering Member of The American Personnel and Guidance Association, The American College Personnel Association, The American Society for Engineering Education, the Association of Higher Education, The National Education Association, The National Association of Student Personnel Administrators, and Phi Delta Kappa. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is deeply indebted to many people. Unfortu- nately, it is not possible to recognize here all of those whose interest and cooperation have made this study possible. It is fitting, however, that recognition be given those who have made special contributions. Dr. Walter F. Johnson, chairman of the writer's Guidance Committee and director of this thesis, has provided constant encouragement and invaluable counsel throughout the past several years. His support and guidance of this research is particularly appreciated. The writer wishes to express sincerest thanks to the dedicated members of his Guidance Committee: Dr. James W. Costar, who has been both friend and adviser over these many years; Dr. William A. Faunce, who contributed significantly to the development of this study; and Dr. John X. Jamrich, who has been a source of encouragement and assistance since the inception of this candidate's doctoral program. The author acknowledges the financial support and en- couragement of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Dr. Larkin H. Farinholt, vice president. Dr. J. D. Ryder, Dr. Harold B. Gotaas, and Dr. Kurt F. Wendt——Deans of Engineering at iv Michigan State University, Northwestern University and The University of Wisconsin, respectively-—played important roles in the development of this research at their respective institutions. Their support is gratefully acknowledged. Special appreciation is due Dean J. D. Ryder for his whole- hearted encouragement and cooperation in facilitating the work of this study. Dr. Lois B. Greenfield and Dr. L. Joseph Lins, both of The University of Wisconsin, and Dr. William T. Brazelton of Northwestern University all have made substantial contribu- tions to the investigation. Their willing and effective efforts have enhanced and enriched the study from its con- ception. The author is also deeply appreciative of the keen interest and personal encouragement of his friends and pro- fessional colleagues: George M. VanDusen, Craig D. Laubenthal and Donald Waterstreet. A special note of gratitude is due Dr. C. R. St. Clair, Jr., who has been most supportive of the author's work. The writer wishes to express his sincere appreciation to his loyal secretary, Gretchen L. Forsyth, who has made many substantive contributions to the project in addition to ef- fectively managing the various phases of the work. Her gracious personality and competent handling of her responsi- bilities contributed markedly to the success of the study. The efforts of the many other project assistants during the past year are also gratefully acknowledged. Finally, the author expresses his heartfelt appreci— ation for the faithful support and selfless sacrifices of his loving wife, Clara Louise. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . Need and Importance of the Study . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . Studies of Curricular Change. . . Other Related Studies . . . . . . Discussion of Previous Research. . . . III. DESIGN OF THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . The Population and Sample. . . . . . . Instrumentation. . . . . . . . . . . . The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . The Interview Guide . . . . . . . Data Collection Procedures . . . . . . Analyzing the Data . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VIV. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA. . . . . Report of the Findings . . . . . . . . DiScussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEW DATA. . . . . . . Report of the Findings . . . . . . . . Reasons for Choosing Engineering. Reactions to Engineering Programs Discussion and Summary . . . . . . . . vii 16 17 21 24 27 27 50 52 54 36 57 59 4O 42 75 78 80 81 81 87 98 TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued CHAPTER VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . The Problem and Methodology . Findings and Conclusions. . . Recommendations . . . . . . . Implications for Further Research REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page 105 105 106 115 115 117 125 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 4.1 A summary of the participation of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) in the question- naire and interview phases of the study . . . . 40 4.2 A comparison of the ages of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4.5 A comparison of the marital status of per- sisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) . . . . . . 44 4.4 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to the sizes of their home towns and communities in which their high schools were located. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.5 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to the urban-rural characteristics of their home towns and com- munities in which their high schools were located . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 4.6 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to the sizes of their high school graduating classes. . . . . . . . . 47 4.7 A comparison of the number of siblings of per- sisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) . . . . . . 48 4.8 A comparison of the number of older and younger siblings of persisters (P) and non—persisters (NP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4.9 A comparison of the birth order of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) . . . . . . . . . . 49 4.10 A comparison of persisters (P) and non—per- sisters (NP) with respect to the formal edu— cations of their fathers and mothers. . . . . . 50 ix LIST OF TABLES - Continued TABLE 4.11 4.14 4.15 4.16 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-per- sisters (NP) with respect to the prestige ratings of their fathers' present occupations (FPO), fathers' occupations at respondents' births (FRB), and mothers' present occupa- tions (MPO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of the perceived socioeconomic status of the families of persisters (P) and non—perSiSterS (NP) 0 o o o o o o o o o o o e o A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to their parents' atti- tudes towards college attendance during respondents' high school years. . . . . . . . . A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to their parents' attitudes toward college attendance for their sons and daughters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of persisters (P) and non—per- sisters (NP) with respect to their assessments of their families' sacrifices made to permit college attendance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of persisters (P) and non—per- sisters (NP) with respect to their rankings of each of twelve selected reasons for coming to college . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to their ratings of ten characteristics of the "ideal" job and of their realistic job expectations. . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to their assessments of their future incomes as compared to the incomes of their families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A comparison of expectations of annual earnings ten years after completion of formal education of persisters (P) and non—persisters (NP) . . . Page 52 55 55 55 56 57 59 61 61 LIST OF TABLES — Continued TABLE 4.20 A comparison of high school extracurricular activities of persisters (P) and non—persis- ters (NP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.21 A comparison of persisters (P) and non—persis— ters (NP) with respect to the ages when they first considered the possibility of a career in science or engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.22 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters with respect to the ages when they decided to enroll in engineering schools. . . . . . . . 4.25 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis- ters (NP) with respect to the incidence of per- sonal contacts with people in the field of engineering prior to their entering college . . 4.24 A comparison of majors upon matriculation of persisters (P) and non—persisters (NP). . . . . 4.25 A comparison of prestige ratings of original engineering majors of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.26 A summary of present departments or majors of non- persisters (NP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.27 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persis— ters (NP) with respect to their sources of financial assistance during freshman and sopho- more years in college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.28 A comparison of persisters (P) and non—persis- ters (NP) with respect to the incidence of change in their long—range educational goals. . xi Page 62 65 64 65 67 67 68 69 7O LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX Page A. Cover Letter for the Questionnaire. . . . . . 124 B. The Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 C. The Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 D. Time Schedule for Data Collection . . . . . . 155 E. Miscellaneous Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 xii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Statement of the Problem Undergraduate engineering enrollments throughout the United States dropped precipitously from 1957 through 1962. These decreases represented even sharper declines in the pro— portions of engineering students within America's colleges and universities. (16:185) At the same time, reports by both the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Engineering Manpower Commission indicated a need for an increasing number of engineering graduates to meet the Nation's demand in the decade ahead. This demand was placed at between 48,000 and 72,000 first engineering degrees annually. (15,56) However, total bachelor's degrees conferred between 1957 and 1962 averaged only about 52,000--far fewer than the projected de- mand. (16:184) Many industrial executives, government officials, engi- neering educators and others concerned with the country's man— power supply voiced grave concern over this projected cumulative deficit. As a result of this anxiety, a series of engineering manpower studies appeared during the next few years prepared for private industry, engineering societies, and government committees and agencies. In an excellent [‘0 analysis of these reports, Dr. Harold A. Foecke summarized their reSpective contributions and assessed the engineering manpower situation as it appeared in early 1965. Although some dissent was evident, these studies revealed a remarkable unanimity of Opinion that the demand for qualified engineers would far outstrip the supply well into the 1970's. (20:5—8) Indeed, Dr. Foecke concluded from an examination of other occu- pational data that ”they indicate steady long term trends toward an increase in the percentage of our population or work force engaged in engineering and other technical pursuits." (20:8) The mounting concern prompted engineering educators to study enrollment patterns more carefully than ever before. In 1957 freshman engineering enrollments constituted 10.8 percent of the Nation's total freshman enrollments. By 1961, however, this proportion had dropped to 6.6 percent. (48:4) A parallel concern developed about that same time due to in- creasing rates of attrition from undergraduate engineering curricula. While scant factual data apparently were available to quantify the extent of this problem, the plethora of opinions on the matter left little doubt that this too was a thorn in the side of engineering education. Thus, two primary problems--decreasing enrollments and increasing attrition-— had been identified as compounding the shortage of engineers resulting from the natural economic and technological growth of the American society. A variety of studies were launched to better understand the nature and causes of these enrollment and attrition problems. An investigation by an American Society for Engi- neering Education (ASEE) committee in 1959 concluded that there was some foundation for the widespread belief that many highly-qualified students were transferring out of engineering programs. (10) In an article on the increasing shortage of engineers and scientists, Heather David succinctly placed the dimensions of the problem in clear perspective: ". . . about half of each (engineering) class does not make it—-they flunk out, drop out, and an increasing number switch out." (12:12) The potential consequences of these trends were suggested in the final report of an extensive NSF study conducted in 1961. It concluded that if the proportion of engineering freshmen did not increase, retention rates improve, and transfers into engineering schools rise, the deficit would have to be made up of untrained personnel. (56:55) What could be done to come to grips with these problems? This question was posed by many including Dr. Robert H. Roy, Chairman of the ASEE Engineering College Administrative Council. In appointing a Committee for the Analysis of Engineering Enrollment in 1961, he observed that "engineering enrollments over the country are down, . . . despite a coincidental rise in the college population. There has been much speculation as to why . . . but, as far as I know, nobody really knows what has brought the down trend about." ( 2:1) With the aid of a NSF grant a study group was established at the University of Alabama and an investigation initiated during the 1965-64 academic year. Also in 1965 the Engineering Manpower Commission con- ducted a survey to ascertain the views of deans of engineering colleges with respect to the attrition of engineering students. The report indicated that there seemed "to be a large area of agreement that: 1. Large numbers of students who are well qualified for engineering are dropping out. 2. High attrition rates cause student disillusionment which reacts against engineering and is one of the principal causes of the declining freshman enroll- ments. In other words, 'Why take engineering if the odds are stacked against you?‘ 5. There are effective ways of reducing student attrition if we would face up to the problem." (19:5) The work of the ASEE study group at the University of Alabama, mentioned above, seemed to further substantiate the belief that over the past several years there has been a trend toward an ever-increasing loss of high-quality engineering students to other fields. It reported that the retention rates in engineering schools appear to have decreased considerably since 1950. At the same time, the study suggested that the percentage of entering engineering freshmen who change majors and graduate in other divisions has steadily increased. (2:55) Significantly, the report's first recommendation urges "that a major effort be made to ensure that a larger fraction of the students who enter engineering successfully complete the de— gree requirements." ( 2:5) Need and Importance of the Study The extensive literature on enrollments and attrition in the engineering and science fields confines itself primarily to projections and analyses of the supply and demand for technically trained personnel in the years ahead. As a con— sequence, a better understanding of manpower needs has resulted. However, these efforts have contributed little insight as to what might account for these declining enrollments and increas- ing attrition rates. Despite the sharp increases in the number of engineering freshmen since 1965, engineering freshman enrollments con- tinued to decline proportionately relative to the changes in male, first-time enrollments. In fact, undergraduate engineer— ing enrollments in 1965 dropped to 9.5 percent of the country's total male degree-credit enrollment—-the lowest point in eight consecutive years and down from 14.6 percent in 1957. (16:184) This trend flies in the face of Foecke's previously quoted conclusion that an increasing proportion of the Nation's work force will necessarily be engaged in engineering and other technical pursuits.. Given this enrollment picture, efforts to identify causes of engineering attrition take on an even greater urgency. A project of this nature should raise broad questions dealing with the vocational development of high school and COllege age youth, particularly as they relate to decisions to study in the natural sciences or engineering. Researchers reviewing a large body of this literature came to a similar conclusion: We need a better understanding of the critical decision points during which a student decides to become an engineer. Closely associated with this is the need for attaining a better understanding of the role of parents, teachers, and guidance counselors in shaping career selections. (48:1) In consideration of these needs, an exploratory study was undertaken to investigate certain dimensions of the problem of engineering attrition. The total group which leaves engineer- ing is comprised of three elements: the dropouts, who discon- tinue their academic endeavors altogether: the students with deficient scholastic records who transfer to other institutions or other curricula; and those students who are performing satisfactorily in engineering but who change to other fields of study. The latter group of students has received the least attention. Consequently, they will provide the focus for this study. Purpose of the Study As suggested above, it is the purpose of this study to identify factors causally related to persistence and change in major field of academically proficient engineering students during their freshman and sophomore years at three selected universities. An exploratory approach seemed most appropriate in light of the dearth of information available on the causes of engineering attrition. A questionnaire and interview guide were designed and used with a group of students who had left engineering prior to their junior year. To place this information in perspective, similar data were collected from a comparison group of students who had continued to persist in the engineering programs of their respective institutions. Three universities were included in the study to broaden the representativeness of the findings and conclusions. Four goals consistent with the purpose of the study were estab- lished to guide the research: 1. To understand better the vocational development pro— cess as it is manifested by those students who choose engi— neering as their college major. 2. To identify factors which help explain and differen— tiate student decisions to persist in engineering or to change major fields of study. 5. To formulate hypotheses, whenever possible, to serve as a basis for the work of future investigators. 4. To make recommendations based on the outcomes of the study which might prove useful to guidance personnel, engi— neering educators, professional engineers and others inter— ested in the engineering manpower situation. Theory Psychologists, sociologists, educators, economists and others, working separately and together, have contributed much to the understanding of the career decision—making process. From their work has evolved a variety of theories designed to explain the vocational behavior of people in American society. In truth, however, they are all in the elementary stages of theory building, leaving substantial strides to be made in the future. Also, the observer sometimes notes that there is much overlapping from one point of View to another. Often differences are more a matter of emphasis than of substance. Nevertheless, some theoretical guidelines are necessary if the researcher is not to wander aimlessly about, poking first here and then there for answers to the questions he has raised. The present investigator has found the thinking of Donald E. Super to be the most helpful in understanding the vocational development process. He provides an extensive dis— cussion of his views in a book entitled The Psychology of Careers. (60) In another publication in collaboration with several associates, Super offers eleven propositions which have served as working principles in guiding the development of the present project. The propositions describe the general nature of the vocational developmental process, suggest the effects of role— taking upon the development of the self-concept and relate the effects of both these factors to vocational development. Other propositions deal with the dynamics of career patterns and the concept of occupational multipotentiality of the indi- vidual. These eleven propositions (62:89-96) are listed below for the use and convenience of the reader. Proposition 1. Vocational development is an ongoing, continuous, and generally irreversible process. Proposition 2. Vocational development is an orderly, patterned process and thus predictable. Proposition 5. Vocational development is a dynamic process of compromise or synthesis. Proposition 4. Self-concepts begin to form prior to adolescence, become clearer in adolescence, and are trans— lated into occupational terms in adolescence. Proposition 5. Reality factors (the reality of personal characteristics and the reality of society) play an increasing- ly important part in occupational choice with increasing age, from early adolescence to adulthood. Proposition 6. Identification with a parent or parent substitute is related to the development of adequate roles, their consistent and harmonious interrelationship, and their interpretation in terms of vocational plans and eventualities. Proposition 7. The direction and rate of the vertical movement of an individual from one occupational level to another is related to his intelligence, parental socio— economic level, status needs, values, interest, skill in inter— personal relationships, and the supply and demand conditions in the economy. Proposition 8. The occupational field which the indi- vidual enters is related to his interests and values, the identifications he makes with parental or substitute role models, the community resources he uses, the level and quality of his educational background, and the occupational structure, trends, and attitudes of his community. Proposition 9. Although each occupation requires a characteristic pattern of abilities, interests, and personality 10 traits, the tolerances are wide enough to allow both some variety of individuals in each occupation and some diversity of occupations for each individual. Proposition 10. Work satisfactions depend upon the extent to which the individual can find adequate outlets in his job for his abilities, interests, values, and personality traits. Proposition 11. The degree of satisfaction the individual attains from his work is related to the degree to which he has been able to implement his self-concept in his work. Plan of the Study The three institutions included in the study were Michigan State University, Northwestern University and the Madison campus of The University of Wisconsin. All the male students who entered engineering at these three schools as first-time freshmen in September 1965 constituted the study population. The sample consisted of two groups--the persisters and non- persisters. The persisters were those students who had been enrolled continuously in engineering curricula through the beginning of their junior year. The non-persisters were those students who had changed majors during their freshman or sophomore year to non-engineering curricula while earning at least a "C" cumulative grade point average. The exploratory nature of the study suggested that the primary data gathering technique be a private, in-depth inter— view between the investigator and each subject. 11 , A semi-standardized interview guide was developed to facilitate this phase of the project. Prior to the interview, each sub- ject received a questionnaire and a cover letter from his respective engineering dean explaining the study and inviting the student's participation. The content of both the question- naire and the interview guide reflected the goals established for the study and the theoretical considerations outlined earlier. Briefly, these instruments were intended to aid the researcher in assessing the nature and impact of each subject's pre—college and college experiences on his educational and vocational decision-making. Analyses appropriate to the questionnaire and interview data were employed to gain an appreciation of the initial find- ings. These results were then synthesized and interpreted within the context of the original objectives of the study. The plan for disseminating these findings and recommendations included the distribution of a summary report to deans of engineering schools in the United States, directors of counsel- ing services at those institutions, officers of the principal guidance associations and engineering societies and others concerned with the Nation's engineering and scientific man- power needs. Limitations of the Study All research requires a variety of theoretical and opera- tional assumptions in order that the investigator may design 12 a study and draw useful conclusions from the data collected. Limitations are imposed on these findings to the extent that these original assumptions were valid. In addition, as he defines and delimits his project, he further limits the scope of the conclusions which are permissible. This study is as liable as any with respect to the vagaries which might invalidate the assumptions necessary to move forward with the investigation. Exploratory studies are particularly vulnerable as the design and instrumentation have been developed from a limited body of knowledge concerning the relevant variables under study. Extreme caution must be exercised during analysis to discern causal relationships from simply symptomatic ones. Statistically significant correla- tions may not identify meaningful relationships. The design and methodology of this study impose specific limitations which must be considered in order to clarify the expectations which may properly emerge from the project. Only three engineering schools and one entering engineering class were studied. The latter decision severely restricts the scope of the conclusions which may be drawn. However, this approach seemed defensible in an exploratory study when the limited availability of time, budget and professional staff were taken into account. The ex post facto design constitutes another major weak— ness of the study. In his excellent discussion of ex post facto research, Kerlinger cites three primary limitations which 15 must be taken into account in all such studies: "(1) the in— ability to manipulate independent variables, (2) the lack of power to randomize, and (5) the risk of improper interpre— tation." (50:571) In addition to these considerations, the present investigation introduces other limitations of some importance. Subjects find it difficult to recall events, feelings and motivations of from four to six years ago. Significant omissions may occur. Subsequent events may have overshadowed or cast a different meaning upon past experiences. All of these problems have obvious implications for the inter— pretations to be made later in the report. Finally, a word must be said concerning the use of a questionnaire and an interview guide. Such instruments rely heavily upon the investigator's ability to engender a co- operative attitude on the part of each subject and to elicit full, accurate responses to the questions posed. Also, a serious effort should be made to ensure the highest possible reliability and validity of the instruments employed. In this instance, a pretest of both the questionnaire and interview guide suggested that these requirements had been fulfilled. Concerning the interview data itself, it is recognized that attempts to analyze this type of subjective material can meet with only modest success. To increase the reliability of this process, the interviewer prepared case notes from electronic tape recordings prior to the application of a content analysis system related specifically to the information sought in the interviews. 14 Definition of Terms Attrition shall be defined for the purpose of this study as all losses from a particular academic program for whatever reason. Dropouts are those students who discontinue their college studies altogether due to academic, health, military or other reasons. Transfers are those students who leave one institution for the purpose of continuing their educations at other colleges or universities in the same or different majors. A major change is the process of switching from one cur- riculum to another within the same institution. Persisters are those subjects in this study who were en- rolled continuously in engineering curricula through the beginning of their junior year. Non-persisters are those subjects in this study who had changed majors to non-engineering curricula during their freshman or sophomore year. An occupation is a category in the social structuring of work. Work activity as seen from the sociological or economic point of view. (62:151) Vocation refers to the person-centered aSpects of work; the psychological conception of work as the behavior of indi- vidual persons. (62:151) Vocational behavior is any interaction between an indi- vidual and his environment which is significantly related to 15 preparation for, participation in, or retirement from work. More particularly, those interactions stimulated by the demands of the vocational developmental tasks. (62:151) Vocational development is the process of growth and learning which subsumes all instances of vocational behavior. The progressive increase and modification of a person's capacities and dispositions for particular kinds of vocational behavior and of his repertoire of vocational behavior. In this sense, vocational development encompasses all aspects of development which can be identified as related to work. (62:151) Overview This study is reported in six chapters to facilitate an orderly consideration of its methods and findings. Chapter I introduces the problem, defines the purpose and goals of the project, suggests the theoretical principles which have under— girded its development, and describes the scope and limitations of the study. In Chapter II the pertinent literature is re— viewed. The design of the study, its methodology and the plan for the analysis of the data are described in Chapter III. The findings based on the questionnaire data and the interview data are reported in Chapters IV and V, respectively. Chapter VI presents a summary of the results, the conclusions drawn and recommendations for further study. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE At the beginning of Chapter I, the background and nature of the problem were thoroughly discussed and documented. Repetition is not warranted here except to re-emphasize that the present study has been delimited to an investigation of the factors associated with the loss of proficient engineering students to other curricula. With the scope of the study carefully defined, the in- vestigator sought to identify previous efforts to understand this problem within the field of engineering education. He met with a singular lack of success. An exhaustive search of the literature revealed no similar studies of changes in major field of proficient engineering students. In light of that development, the present study was con- ceived and guided by relevant theoretical considerations and by the understandings gained through related research. This chapter will treat these contributions in some detail. It is recognized, however, that a far broader range of principles from the behavioral sciences has served as the basic foundation for the present investigation. The role of theory in the evolution of this project has already been discussed in Chapter I. The concepts of 16 17 developmental adjustment and their relationships to vocational decision-making have been studied by Super, Tiedeman, Ginzberg, and others. (60,61,62,65,58,59,67,22) As their work is well known, it is necessary here only to point out that the impli- cations which this theory has for the present study are sug- gested by the eleven propositions stated in Chapter I. Studies of Curricular Change Although few other studies of curriculum changes by engi— neering students could be found, the literature contains re- ports of several general investigations of change in college major. Bereiter and Freedman (9) provide an excellent synthe- sis of the large body of knowledge which has been gathered on students in various fields of study. In considering whether the individual continues in his original major, they state that Only the crudest sort of comparisons of changers and non— changers have been made, showing that changers do about as well academically as nonchangers and that students change mainly because of poor performance or loss of interest in the original field. (9:582) Some noteworthy efforts along these lines have been made, however. Among them is the work being done as part of the Science Manpower Project of Teachers College, Columbia Univer— sity. A longitudinal study of high school graduates in 1957 and a follow-up two years later focused on their plans and attitudes toward careers in science and engineering. Students who abandoned scientific careers exhibited a tendency to question their intellectual ability, and to ask whether the education in science was worth the time and energy required. Career objectives were not firmly established when the students graduated from high 18 school. The majority of the students . . . changed their career objectives after this date. (1:50 ) Also it was discovered that while a substantial number of stu— dents switched majors, "students who had nonscience objectives and expressed no interest in the scientific enterprise in 1957 had contributed no members to the science career group in 1959." (1:50) Finally, the students' comments suggested that increased attention should be paid to motivating students and providing them with informed counsel about the nature and challenges of careers in science and engineering. A study by Rosenberg, Suchman and Goldsen also has added to the understanding of changes in educational objectives of college students. Their report entitled Occupations and Values (49) grew out of an initial interest in the subject of social values. Many of their findings are quite intriguing. Most cogent for the present study, however, is their proposal that three major "value-orientations" or ”value-foci” can be dis- tinguished from the patterns of relative importance assigned by students to a list of occupational values. (49:11) The data suggest that students selecting the values of the "people— oriented" value complex "tend to view work largely as an op- portunity for obtaining gratifications to be derived from interpersonal relations.” Those reflecting the "extrinsic reward-oriented" value complex "tend to view work in instru— mental terms; they tend to emphasize the rewards to be obtained for work rather than the gratifications to be derived fggm work." Students who selected the values of the "self- expression-oriented" value complex tended "to view work chiefly 19 as an end in itself (a goal value), as an opportunity for expressing their talents and creative potentialities." Using the concept of these three value complexes, Rosen— berg and his associates studied curricular choices and changes of the students. They found that various fields could be typified by specific value orientations. Further, they discovered that "occupational values do influence change of occupational choice, but this influence is exercised in terms of the norms of the group, not in terms of specific values." (49:80) These and other insights as to the impact of student attitudes and values provided important assistance in develop- ing the design of the present study. Other investigators such as Pierson (45), Gamble (21) and Grande (25) have studied the curriculum changing of smaller samples of students. Pierson assessed the reasons for the feelings about changes of majors for 405 seniors at Michigan State University. The most frequently checked reasons for changing majors were those items in which lack of information and lack of interest in course content were ex— plicit or implicit factors. Gamble investigated the pre- college experiences of 565 sophomores at The Pennsylvania State University who had enrolled for three consecutive semesters following matriculation. The experiences "included home and family relationship, vocational, religious, peer group, community, co-curricular and social experiences." He found that "attitude of parents toward the son's attending 20 college, . . . and certainty of vocational choice were highly significant variables" when associated with the number of "curriculum changes. Grande studied engineering freshmen-— 45 persisters and 45 changers-—at a private midwestern uni— versity to determine some of the factors which distinguish the two groups. The results supported two hypothesized relationships related to high school rank in class and certain student values and attitudes. The work of two other researchers-—Warren and Holland—- helped in the formulation of the design of the present investi- gation. Warren (69) studied 525 male National Merit finalists to test the following hypothesis: "Changes in college field of Specialization, or college major, are likely to occur when a discrepancy exists between self concept and expected occu- pational role." Although not verified unequivocally, this hypothesis tended to be supported by the data. John Holland in association with Robert Nichols (28) conducted a similar investigation using a sample of 515 National Merit finalists. The major hypothesis tested in this study is that stu- dents will remain in a field of study if they resemble the typical student in that field in terms of aptitudes, achievements, and personality. Conversely, a student who leaves one field of study for another will be un— like the typical student in his field of first choice. They conclude that "the results do lend support to the general hypothesis that students tend to sort themselves into fields which are congruent with their personal traits, interests, aptitudes, and achievements." Further, 21 The results also suggest that change in major field is a function of a rather large number of personal vari- ables and achievements. The counseling of students in conflict about field of study might benefit from a more comprehensive review of self-conceptions, achieve— ments, and personality in addition to information from aptitude and interest inventories. Other Related Studies The research cited above suggests that various occupa- tional fields can be differentiated in many important, and useful, respects. Studies such as the one by Gray (24) report findings that “support the evidence already accumulated, which points toward the existence of substantive psychological dif— ferences between people engaged in different occupations." Other investigators (8,58,52 ) have studied the development and personality of engineers and have identified differences between them and men in the physical sciences. Indeed, the work done by Dunnette and his associates (17) reveals the very substantial differences in abilities, interests and personali- ties which exist among engineers performing four different engineering functions. Faculty members at two of the universities participating in the present project are conducting long—term studies to better understand their respective engineering classes. Professor Lois B. Greenfield (25) at The University of Wisconsin explored the relationships between test performance, achieve- ment records and personal data and attrition among first semester engineering freshmen. At Northwestern University, Professor Gilbert Krulee (55) is concluding a study which had 22 involved questionnairing and interviewing students in engineer- ing, business and the liberal arts. His purpose is to identify those attributes which these students have in common as well as those features that characterize uniquely the stu— dents in engineering. An ambitious project of national scope, referred to in Chapter I, was undertaken by the American Society for Engineering Education (2 ) to gain deeper insight into the engineering enrollment and attrition problem. Some of the findings of this rather broad-gauged study have been impaired by the lack of complete data for many of the analyses. Many researchers have displayed an interest in occupa- tional value formation, time for vocational decision—making and the effects associated with commitment to a field. A number of studies (66,15,70) supports the belief that the characteristics of a vocation which are important to young people may be internalized relatively early in life. Some evidence has been found to suggest that decisions made in the senior year of high school to major in engineering are corre— lated with subsequent departure from that curriculum. The work of other investigators (51,68,65) attests to the impact of family influences on the development of a stu- dent's work values and career plans. Support has been found for the reasonable notion that students committed to a field were less likely to withdraw from college or change majors. Thistlethwaite (64), however, quickly diSpels the possibility that a large percentage of college freshmen have crystallized their career plans. In a study of talented students, he found 25 /that only 57 percent reported they had made a definite and I probably final decision. Another 52 percent had made a tentative but definite decision and 51 percent were still quite undecided as they began their college programs. A word is in order concerning the multitude of studies dealing with the prediction of success in an engineering curriculum. Typically they include in their samples students doing less than satisfactory work and many who drop out of college. As these are not pertinent here, little priority has been accorded such studies in this review of the litera— ture. Some predictive studies were identified (27,45,55,71,75) which had implications for the present study. Collectively they suggested that under certain conditions variables such as aptitude, achievement, interests and attitudes are able to predict rather successfully persistence in engineering. No attention has been given thus far to the broader educational problem of the college dropout and the extensive literature available on that topic. Indeed it is clearly beyond the scope of this review to do so. Nevertheless, the present investigator has found it profitable to familiarize himself with some of the thinking being done in that important but tangential area of concern. General reviews of the problem (57,59) and reports of major conferences on dropouts (40,46) have proved extremely helpful in this endeavor. 24 Discussion of Previous Research The literature search uncovered no studies of changes in educational objectives of engineering students which were delimited in a fashion similar to the present investigation. The absence of such research led to the decision to conduct an exploratory study. Fortunately, writers have devoted con- siderable attention to discussions of theories of occupa- tional choice. The vocational development theory espoused principally by Super appeared to offer most in the way of viable, explanatory principles which could be translated into Operational guidelines. Accordingly, it was adopted to pro- vide the overall framework of the study. To understand why students leave engineering for other curricula, there is a prerequisite question. Why do students choose engineering? The theory and research discussed earlier suggest a multiplicity of possible causal variables which deserve consideration. Some of those variables were chosen for study at this time. They are summarized in the following discussion. A general exploration of student aptitudes, interests, and values seemed desirable to gain a better understanding of why engineering students make the original selection of that curriculum. The research indicates that this should in- clude an assessment of the student's personal, family and school background, his motivations for attending college and the nature of his long—term vocational goals. In addition, 25 his perceptions of engineering should be identified as well as the extent of his initial commitment to the engineering curriculum. Also, insight should be sought as to the processes which guided his consideration of possible edu- cational and vocational alternatives. The professional experience of the present investigator supplemented the research and theoretical considerations which structured his efforts to understand each student's curricular behavior (to leave or remain in engineering). In addition to the variables discussed above and their rela- tionships‘to possible new choices, other factors must also be taken into account. In general, this means the totality of each individual's college experiences--scholastic, intel- lectual, social and personal. What are his feelings about these experiences and his interpretations of their meaning for his life? More specifically, this requires an investigation of possible changes in student attitudes, interests and values. Perhaps tine student has reappraised his aptitudes and goals in light of college-level competition. His changing percep- tions of engineering should be identified as should his in— creasing understanding of the world of work. Finally, the impact of faculty, other students, the curriculum, friends, and the general college environment should be assessed care- fully if a valid picture is desired of the factors affecting 26 the behavior of engineering students. It will become more apparent in Chapter III how the theory and research just discussed has influenced the design of the present study. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY The purpose of the study and a general outline of the plan to be followed were presented as part of Chapter I. In this chapter detailed consideration will be given to a description of the population and sample, the instrumentation, and the procedures to be followed in collecting and analyzing the data. The Population and Sample The population consisted of all the male students who entered engineering at Michigan State University, Northwestern University and the Madison campus of The University of Wisconsin as first-time freshmen in September 1965. The sample was comprised of two groups--the persisters and non- persisters. The non—persisters were those members of the population who had been in continuous attendance from September through June during the 1965-64 and the 1964—65 academic years and who had changed majors during that period to non-engineering curricula at their respective institutions while earning at least a "C" cumulative grade point average at the time of major change. A matched comparison group--the persisters—- was established by selecting students from the population who 27 28 had demonstrated the same academic potential as those chang- ing majors but who had persisted in their original choice of an engineering major at least through the beginning of their junior year. Officials of the three universities agreed that the best single predictor of scholastic success in their engineering programs was quantitative reasoning ability. Overall intel- lectual aptitude was also viewed as predictive of high per— formance in their engineering curricula. Accordingly, the measures of these intellective characteristics already in use at the three institutions were adopted as the basis for consti— tuting the comparison group. At Wisconsin and Michigan State, the individual matching of persisters to non—persisters was based on the numerical and total scores of the College Quali- fication Test. At Northwestern, the mathematics and total scores of the Scholastic Aptitude Test were used for the matching. At Northwestern and Wisconsin, 55 students and 56 stu- dents, respectively, were identified as meeting the criteria for membership in the non-persister group. All of these stu- dents were designated as subjects to be included in the study. At Michigan State, 109 students met the criteria for non— persisters. To reduce this number to one amenable for study, 72 subjects were selected randomly from the 109 students eligible. Equal numbers of persisters were then identified at the three institutions as described above. 29 Generally, only one persister was identified to match each non—persister on the basis of academic aptitude. At Wisconsin, however, the pool of students eligible for the persister group was large enough to permit the designation of a primary and an alternate subject in 50 instances of the 56 matchings. In those cases when a primary persister did not choose to participate in the study, the alternate persister was then invited to do so. This device was employed to maximize the number of participants. As it develOped, 15 of the alternate persisters subsequently received questionnaires. A pretest group was established to permit sufficient tryouts of the questionnaire and the interview guide. The pretest population consisted of all the male students who entered engineering at Michigan State University as first-time freshmen in September 1962. The non-persisters were those seniors who had been in continuous attendance since their matriculation (excluding summers) and who had changed majors during their freshman or sophomore year to non-engineering curricula while earning at least a "C” cumulative grade point average. Sixty-two students met these criteria for non— persisters. The persisters were chosen from the pretest popu- lation in a manner similar to that described above for the regular study group. Thus, the total pretest group numbered 124 subjects. 50 Instrumentation Two instruments—-a questionnaire and an interview guide—- were designed to gather the data relevant to the purpose and goals of the study as discussed in the first chapter. The following objectives were structured to give direction to the development of these instruments: 1. To assess the nature and importance of each student's pre—college experiences on his educational and vo- cational decision—making: a. the family--its socioeconomic status, parents' attitudes and values, its meaning in the life of the student, the role of siblings, relatives and neighbors, etc. the school--the impact of courses and teachers, guidance counselors, other students and extra— curricular activities work experiences and exploration--part-time and summer jobs; reading about and actively investi— gating possible career opportunities other experiences such as the armed forces, un- usual opportunities to travel, study or engage in some special activity the career literature and the mass media the society in general——its norms and values as seen by the student, the influence of significant others in his life. 51 2. To assess the nature and importance of each student's college experiences on his educational and vocational decision—making: a. the student's initial plans and purposes for studying engineering the student's initial expectations and aSpira— tions as he embarked upon his college career the courses and curricula--the student's feelings about the engineering program and his performance in it as contrasted with his attitudes toward other possible alternatives the faculty--student perceptions of the quality of instruction, the interest of faculty in stu- dents and the opportunity for student—faculty interaction and the meaning of these perceptions to the student the student's peers——their attitudes, values and behavior and their impact on him the academic advising program, the counseling and other personnel services--their nature as seen by the individual student; his use of them and reaction to them the college environment in general——its vital characteristics and its impact on the student out-of—class experiences—-extra-curricular activities, part-time and summer jobs, other activities of a special nature 52 i. Special personal commitments of the student-- marriage, financial obligations, other personal responsibilities. A cover letter for the questionnaire was developed to introduce the study, explain its purpose and invite the student's participation. Each subject received a letter personally signed by his respective engineering dean. The text of this letter appears in Appendix A. The Qpestionnaire The purpose of the questionnaire was to collect certain data from each subject and establish a frame of reference for the interview to be conducted later. The questionnaire ex— plored in a preliminary way the personal, family and educa— tional background of the student. It attempted to elicit information concerning those factors which may have prompted him to choose engineering as his original major and his aspirations and expectations in his chosen field. The follow- ing is a detailed discussion of the rationale underlying the construction of each part of the instrument. Its development was guided by the considerations offered by Mildred Parten in her book Surveys, Polls, and Samples. (42:157-218) A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B. The first section of the questionnaire (items 1—12) dealt with the following demographic data: the subject's age, marital status, educational and family background, and the educational and vocational levels attained by his parents. 55 Item 15 asked the subject to indicate his assessment of his family's socioeconomic status. The four alternative responses presented have been validated by the work of Richard Centers. (11:74-106) Three other items (numbers 16-18) were designed to identify the student's perceptions of his parents' attitudes toward college attendance for their children and the parents' sacrifice made to permit his attendance. In order to gain some appreciation for the student's reasons for coming to college, item 15 was included in the questionnaire. The item was taken from the Personal Infor- mation Inventory used by the Counseling Center with all new students prior to their matriculation at Michigan State University. Theory suggests that the pattern of vocational develop— ment is influenced by the interests and values held by an individual. This proposition is supported by the work of Morris Rosenberg and his associates. (49) A pair of ques- tions from one of their studies bears directly on this matter of value orientations. These two questions were included (with minor modifications) as items 19 and 20 of the question- naire. The subject's aSpirations as to his future income were investigated in items 14 and 21. A series of items (24-27) were devoted to eliciting information concerning his courses, extra-curricular activities, hobbies and other leisure-time activities during the high school years. 54 In items 22 and 25 the student was asked to report when he first considered the possibility of an engineering career and when he actually decided to enroll in an engineering school. Two other questions (items 28 and 29) gave the sub— ject the opportunity to tell about any activities, experiences or people which may have had a significant impact on his edu- cational or vocational planning. Information regarding the student's major and the fi- nancial assistance he received during his freshman and sopho— more years was gathered in items 50 through 55. Finally, the last two items (54 and 55) sought to specify the student's original and present conceptions of his long—range educational goals. A pretest of the questionnaire at Michigan State proved the form to be a satisfactory one for the purpose of this study. Accordingly, no substantive changes were made when preparing it for use with the subjects in the regular study group. The Interview Guide A private, 50-40 minute, in-depth interview was viewed as the principal data gathering technique for the study. In develOping the interview guide, primary recognition was given to the central purpose of the investigation--to discover why proficient engineering students often change majors to other fields. This question inevitably, and appropriately, requires an exploration of why the students chose engineering 55 originally. A semi—standardized interview guide was con- structed to help answer these and other related questions. The thinking of Eleanor and Nathan Maccoby contributed much to the development of this instrument and to the subsequent process of data analysis. (57) Appendix C contains a copy of the interview guide. Only four standardized questions were structured within the framework of the interview guide. This approach provided each student with the full opportunity to respond in a way most meaningful to him. However, there was a need to assure that some common ground would be covered in every interview to provide comparable data for subsequent analysis. As a re- sult, several follow—up questions or probes were developed to be used after the student responded freely to each of the primary or lead questions. Appropriate probes were used whenever he did not discuss a particular subject in the pro- cess of reacting to a primary question. Questions relating to the pre-college period focused specific attention on the possible influences of the family, the school, jobs and summer activities and the unique characteristics of the individual. With respect to his college experiences, attention was given to the student's original plans and expectations, his feelings about his course work, the faculty, the academic advisement program and the possible influences of non-academic personnel such as counselors and members of the residence hall staff. In addition, each student 56 was encouraged to comment upon his outside—of—class experi- ences and special pressures or responsibilities which he may have had to shoulder while attending college. Each subject who had changed majors was asked directly to relate his analysis of the causes which prompted the change. Those who remained in engineering were asked about their present feel- ings toward their engineering programs and the degree to which their experiences in engineering had met their expectations. All students were queried concerning their future plans. Finally, the last section of the interview provided each stu- dent with the opportunity to make any suggestions which might help his university or the engineering profession to better serve the needs of high school and college students. As a result of the pretest at Michigan State, a number of minor revisions were made in the interview guide. This experience also suggested more effective approaches to be used by the interviewer. The alterations in the instrument have been incorporated in the form presented in Appendix C. Data Collection Procedures Following the pretest, the questionnaires were adminis- tered and the interviews conducted at the three campuses according to the time schedule which appears in Appendix D. The deans of engineering used their reSpective letterheads for the cover letter which accompanied each questionnaire. Also enclosed was a stamped, pre-addressed envelOpe to be used by the student for mailing the questionnaire if he agreed to 57 participate in the study. All questionnaires were returned directly to project headquarters in East Lansing and were immediately designated by a subject identification number to protect the anonymity of the respondents. On each campus, a project research assistant was em— ployed who was not otherwise connected with the university. _This assistant telephoned subjects who did not return question— naires by the stipulated due dates to inquire if they planned to participate. Care was taken to avoid pressuring students to do so. However, any questions concerning the project were answered in an interested, positive manner. The research assistant also telephoned the subjects who had returned questionnaires to establish interview appointment times con- venient to them and the project director. Postcard reminders were sent to the students so as to arrive two days in advance of their appointments. The interviews were conducted in quiet, convenient locations on each campus. Electronic tape recordings were made of the interviews to facilitate subse‘ quent analysis of the data. Analyzing the Data The questionnaire was designed so that much of the data it gathered could be quantified and coded for computer analysis. Due to the exploratory nature of the investigation, no hypotheses were stated for testing. However, an implicit hypothesis was formulated to aid in the analysis of the questionnaire data. The operational form of that hypothesis was: 58 There are differences between the persisters and non- persisters with respect to each of the variables included in the questionnaire. The corresponding null hypothesis was: There are no differences between the persisters and non-persisters with respect to each of the variables included in the questionnaire. The chi-square statistic was selected as an appropriate model to test this hypothesis. In this situation the chi— square test enabled the researcher to examine the frequencies of the reSpective contingency tables to determine whether or not the two variables were independent. Careful consideration of the underlying assumptions which restrict the use of chi-square (41:217-219,55) suggested it would be appropriate in this situation. Adequate sample size, independence among the observations, a sound basis for categorizing results and other relevant attributes of the data led to this conclusion. As a result, a computer program was chosen to perform the necessary calculations for each of the variables included in the questionnaire. The data gathered in the interviews were necessarily quite subjective in nature. As mentioned earlier, several steps were taken to maximize the reliability and validity of the analysis of the interview data. First, an electronic tape recording was made of each interview. Case notes were subsequently prepared using the recordings to provide the 59 information required. Finally, the case notes were used as the basis for a content analysis of the interview data. The interview guide served as the format for this analysis. The results were coded and placed on data cards for processing by the computer. Frequency counts and percentage distributions were obtained which enabled the investigator to compare and contrast the interview responses of the persisters and non- persisters. Summary This chapter has identified the 1965 entering engineering classes at Michigan State University, Northwestern University, and the Madison campus of The University of Wisconsin as the population for the study. The criteria for constituting the persister and non-persister groups were also defined. A description has been presented of the two instruments——the questionnaire and the interview guide-—and the methodology em- ployed for data collection. Finally, the procedures and rationale for analyzing the data were described and discussed. ANALYSIS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA This chapter includes a report and analysis of the data CHAPTER IV collected by means of the questionnaire as described in Chapter III. description and discussion of the interview data. The following chapter will be devoted to a The partici- pation of the subjects in both the questionnaire and inter— view phases of the study is summarized in Table 4.1. Table 4.1 A summary of the participation of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) in the questionnaire and interview phases of the study Questionnaires Interviews University N NP P Totals NP P Totals Michigan State University 144 39 SS 94 30 47 77 Northwestern University 70 15 21 36 10 15 25 University of Wisconsin 112 41 SO 91 32 42 74 Totals 326 95 126 ‘221 72 104 176 Pretest group 124 39 44 83 14 18 32 * Total N's are reported for each instituti persisters and non-persisters. 1. These totals each include an equal number of The overall response rate to the questionnaire was 68 percent, varying between institutions from 51 percent to 81 percent. 40 The above-average response at The University of 41 Wisconsin can be attributed to the use of alternate subjects in the persister group who were invited to participate when- ever primary subjects indicated they did not plan to do so. Before turning to the findings, it is appropriate to raise certain questions concerning the representativeness of the 221 subjects who responded to the questionnaire. The de- sign of the study provided for controlling engineering aca- demic aptitude. As explained earlier, numerical aptitude was identified as the best single predictor of success in these engineering curricula. Accordingly, it was deemed most im- portant to compare the respondents with non—respondents in the persister and non-persister groups at each of the three universities with respect to this variable. The results of t tests between the means of the sets of numerical scores are reported in Table E1 in Appendix E. In each case, no signifi- cant difference was found at the .05 level between the aca- demic aptitude of the respondents and non-respondents. Persisters were matched originally with non—persisters on the basis of numerical aptitude. Thus, it is also appro— priate to question whether the persisters who responded typified the non—persisters who responded with respect to this variable. Table E2 of Appendix E reports the values of t obtained when statistical tests similar to those described above were conducted. Again, no significant differences were found in numerical aptitude among the respondents when per- sisters were compared with non—persisters. It was concluded 42 that the respondents satisfactorily represented the sample originally identified for study. Report of the Findings As indicated in Chapter III, certain items were included in the questionnaire only to provide background information for the interview. These items were numbers 24, 25, 27, 28, 52, and 54. As the responses to these items were not tabu- lated, there will be no discussion of them in this chapter. The responses to the remaining questionnaire items were tabulated and all will be reported at this time. In each in- stance when the response rate to a question was sufficient, a chi-square was calculated to test the operational hypothe- sis posed in the previous chapter: There are differences between the persisters and non- persisters with respect to each of the variables in- cluded in the questionnaire. When it was inappropriate to compute a chi-square, a fre- quency count and percentage distribution was obtained. Percentages have been included in all of the following tables to facilitate comparisons between persisters and non— persisters. The Computer Laboratory at Michigan State University prepared the data cards and performed the calculations re- quested with the use of the CDC 5600 computer and ancillary equipment. The programs for computing chi-square (54) and the t tests ('7) alluded to in this chapter were provided by the Computer Library. 45 In Tables 4.2 and 4.5, comparisons are made between persisters and non-persisters with respect to age and marital status, respectively. No significant differences were found for either variable. The null hypotheses were therefore accepted. All but a few respondents were 20 or 21 years of age. Similarly, more than 90 percent of both groups were single. Items 1 and 2 elicited the names of the respondents' home towns and communities in which their high schools were located. This information made it possible to identify their sizes as reported by the Bureau of the Census for 1960. Inspection of the data and the practices followed in the Census report led to the establishment of the class intervals used in Table 4.4. The Census data also made it possible to assess the urban-rural nature of these towns and cities. In character- izing these communities, the following categories were used:‘ central city, suburban community and non-suburban community. For the purpose of this study, the Census Bureau's definition of a central city was adopted. A suburban community was de— fined as one which is located within a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) but which lies outside of the corporate limits of the central city. This included all outlying areas of the counties within a SMSA. Non—suburban communities were defined as those outside of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Research on the suburt>(52.72) suggested the following .ouwuccofiu 44: unusu may cu mucvaOQmuu HmuOu mo pagans .mowwcmsvoum wcflpcommouuou usu GO woman Ohm %howmumu :omcommmh Oz: BOHmn c30£m mum mowwucwuumm .HHQU comm CH "muoz unu a“ mowsucoouoa .moannu ounsvmtuno aH .N .mowocosvouw mauvcommouuoo .Ho>oH no. as ucmunwcme s spawn sabre one newnucooumn .aauu some :H .H “ouoz .zucosvoum cums mucommuaom u m u we .Ho>oH no. as assuamficwwm * mwm.q u «x H u up QNH mm mucopCOQmou Hmuoy oom.o u Nx . wm.~ o~.m ow . NN oNH no muaocconmou Hmuoa m m . H.H uncommon o mm.mm nm.n~ Hm - a z «a ow «H.m ~m.m m use m~.mm N¢.mo on a m e a 2 an me ew.~a we.ea . mamaam em.n no.5 as - ms ASH mm A H m mz m mz Amzv uuouuuuuoa-coa can Amv assuage Amzv muouawuuontcoc use than no usunuu Hauuuaa onu mo conwunasou < m.¢ manna Amv muoumfimuod mo moms unu mo nomwuunaou < N.e manna 45 rationale for this classification system. The lives of people residing in metropolitan counties are oriented principally by the influences exerted by the nearby central city. It was reasoned that these people would resemble sub- urbanites far more frequently than non—suburbanites in their attitudes, values and life styles. As is evident from Table 4.4, there were no significant differences between persisters and non—persisters in terms of the sizes of their home towns and communities in which their high schools were located. In Table 4.5, no signifi— cant difference was found in the urban-rural nature of the home towns of the two groups. All of these null hypotheses were therefore accepted. However, the chi-square test dif- ferentiated persisters from non-persisters with respect to the urban-rural character of their high school communities at the .05 level of significance. Therefore, this null hypothesis was rejected. A disproportionate number of per— sisters was found to have been graduated from suburban high schools. Item 5 secured information concerning the sizes of the reSpondents' high school graduating classes. These data are compared in Table 4.6 but no significant differences were identified between persisters and non-persisters. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Respondents were asked to provide the ages of their brothers and sisters in items 6 and 7. In Table 4.7 compari— sons are made between persisters and non-persisters with 46 I:_1coem5utou t:_;; :Io;m .anm moxtscouun; .~_55 :u:. :H ._L>L~ .mu_u:;:U3tw ".5 Lace” mo. .: 5:15_~mcumm h n at A . at “0°C.” - NX MMQ.W H NZ on. mo ow. no m.:occo;nou LnsoH cw.o_ NM.ON mN.x_ Nfi.CN h_H:_:E:o ccnuec:mucox mm mm MN mm 00.no o_.nc Nm.om c_.m¢ ;_m:::ECo chu3£sm as —Q mm _< mN.®_ mm.OM NN.NN nm.0m luv—u Hmuucuu MN mN mm om L L2 .— L2 sum—5.5.00 :30. use: goose. emu: vounuo— who! uqoozuu me; uwm:u :u«;3 cw mowuuc5FEOU can canon use: uuosu mo nouuawuuuunumsu _mu:uucmaus 9:5 0. .ooan ton sue: Amzv abounfiouuatcoc can any anon-muuoa we cauuumaeoo < m.« edema mcwcCOQmouLOu woawn csozm one mmwmucwopmo .Hamu some CH .mowocosomuw "ouoz .Ho>oH mo. om ucmowwwcwwm . 5‘ m u up 0 n we mmw.~_ n Nz rHo.m v mm rm. mo om_ mo mocvccoambu HmDOH .:.oe qw.efl qw.or qm.cL . q OH AN O~ Com N hUUCS mm.mm mo.mL mc.oN on.q~ . . Ou mm mg cm «A ooo o 00m m mo.r_ mo.HN om.qL cm.oH . _ Ou Em ON wfl ed omo am one OE mm.w~ mo.mg mm.mH an.qH . t o . u mm NE mm qfi ooo o\ 000 mm c”.q am.q~ oh.¢ em.¢~ . . s «I c «L ooo oo on one 0m HH.HH hq.o HE.HH mm.oH . . on o” o «L oi ooo oofi ooo OOH do.“ mo.m~ HH.ML mm.~H . uu>o cm . OH NE «a ~H c 000 no~ m mz a 22 humanc?00 czbu oEo: Loo:um rmw: poumuofi one: afloocoa gm“; ufiogu sous: cw mowuwcsesoo van ocsou use: saucy we «and» «Lu cu -uu cum: Amzv uuounuauuatcoc can any uuouuu-uoa we co-wu yuan. 40500 c ‘- J OdAUu. 47 Table 4.6 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to the sizes of their high school graduating classes NP P 17 30 1 ' 99 17.89 23.81 27 43 100 - 249 23.42 34.13 34 38 25° ' 499 35.79 30.16 17 13 50° ' 749 17.39 10.32 - 2 750 or more _ 1.59 Total reSpondents 95 126 x2 = 5.774 df = 4 * Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. respect to the numbers of their brothers and sisters. A comparison of the number of older and younger siblings for the two groups is provided in Table 4.8. None of the chi- squares calculated in either table were significant. Thus, all of the null hypotheses were accepted. 48 .msmucu:oouw xcwccoemouuou 3:~oc :2:_m sec msmtscsuLue .__;5 :utn :H "950% ...ur.:so;u L or..~ ml,:smsun?sm - .~.5>.3_ mfiv. .: .51umom:m_m u:_vcoamoutou wagon c30:m sum moumocoouua .Lfiou :uco :H .mmwocosouuu "ouoz .~u>o~ mo. on EccUAmwcmwm # m u up n u a: m I _: n n L: mn¢.o v Nx mum.w 7 NR qcc.q 1 mm mrc.m - mm om. mo cm. mo :N_ no :M_ ao w_cacco;nuu .722a m_.m :_.o :N.c . mo.a _~.c N~.m m:._ xmm . vau:9 q m c - m a q _ Mm.w mm.c Mm.x c_.m cw.m rc.m_ cm.q Na.“ n39 __ c ~_ m m m_ : h mm.m~ mm.mm cc.mm c_.mm mm.xm mm.:m mm._m :_.mm 5:: mm cm mm mm cm am an an mm.oc c_.mc __._c nc.mN :o._: o\.wm mm.3: mq.x; 5::A cm or AK Om mm mm :A a; . nfi :2 L 27. ._ L2 __ Ln.“ mh;.mmm mu;_m_m mustLSLL mu;:_:ur newczs> LL:_C usxszt> u;1_: m - as m H as om_ ma cm_ ma msseecsamut sauce n2.n no.1 mm._ 2..“ cusam - u>su a I m m . a_.m mc.~ mm.~ _I.N tnoa q I m N ma.w -.e mm.o . or.n so» 22 a m m :e ca.~2 mm.e mo.mi r~.q~ nap c. c oi mm No.qm mm.oq mo.4m mo.nn use as as am mm om.am mo.se Na.aM sa.sm ocoz as on as mm a an a ez muaumwm neurosum ALZV mt..,m_mtse-P::_ 7:1 Amv muo.m_muua u: mu:__bwn houcsoz cc: use—3 co tsrc_: or. a: commercEOu < m.q sdzmh Amzv muounuuuuaueo: vce Amy muuomLmusn no mwcwfinwm mo census o;u mo candy-naou < ~.¢ can-H 49 Table 4.9 has also been constructed on the basis of the responses to items 6 and 7. This table permits the compari— son of birth order of persisters and non-persisters. The chi-square test indicated there is no significant difference between the two groups with respect to this variable. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Table 4.9 A comparison of the birth order of per- sisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) NP P 9 10 No other children 9 47 7 94 42 3S Oldest child _ 44 21 30 16 _ 19 35 A middle child 20 00 27 78 24 41 Youngest child 25 26 32 54 One of twins, etc. 1 05 1.59 Total respondents 93 126 x2 = 5.533 df = 4 Significant at .05 level. Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. Items 8 and 11 elicited information concerning the years of formal schooling of the respondents' mothers and fathers. In Table 4.10, comparisons are made between 5C) Table 4.10 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) with respect to the formal educations of their fathers and mothers Father Mother NP P NP P 4 1 - - Some elementary school 4.21 0.80 - - 8 14 8 11 Elementary graduate 8.42 11.20 8.42 8.73 ' 6 14 7 8 Some high school 6.32 11.20 7,37 6,35 . 37 24 42 39 ngh school graduate 38.95 19.20 44.21 30.95 12 23 19 37 Some college 12.63 18.40 20.00 29.37 17 35 17 27 College graduate 17.89 23,00 17,89 21,43 6 7 2 4 Master's degree 6.32 5.60 2.11 3.17 Doctorate or 5 7 - - professional degree 5.26 5.60 - - - 1 - - No response _ O 8 - - Total respondents 95 126 95 126 x2 = 15.706 x2 = 5.129 df = df * Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note} 1. 2. In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. In chi-square tables, percentages in the "No response" category are based on the number of total respondents to the questionnaire. 51 persisters and non-persisters with reSpect to these vari- ables. No significant differences were found. Therefore, the null hypotheses were accepted. Each respondent was asked to report his father's present occupation, his father's occupation at time of respondent's birth and his mother's present occupation in items 9, 10 and 12, respectively. Numerical prestige ratings were assigned to these jobs in accordance with the occupation- al prestige rating scale developed by the National Opinion Research Center and reported by Albert J. Reiss, Jr. (47) Comparisons of these occupational prestige ratings between persisters and non-persisters are provided in Table 4.11. "No responses" reported for father's occupation at respondent's birth exceeded 25 percent due to the temporary military service required of many of them in the mid-1940's. Two- thirds of the mothers' occupations were included in the "no response" category primarily because their occupations were reported as housewives. The chi—squares calculated for both of these variables were not significant. The null hypotheses were therefore accepted. However, a significant difference was found between persisters and non-persisters with respect to their fathers' present occupations. Therefore, this null hypothesis was rejected. Persisters more frequently have fathers whose occupations are ranked at the lower and upper extremes of the occupational prestige scale. As the father's occupation 532 Table 4.11 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) with respect to the prestige ratings of their fathers' present occupations (FPO), fathers' occupations at respondents' births (FRB), and mothers' present occupations (MPO) FPO FRB HPO NP r NP 9 NP P , - - 1 1 - - 40 ‘ “A - - 1 43 1.09 - - ‘ 45 ' 49 I Z : I : I 4 15 6 19 2 3 50 ' 5“ 4.44 12.93 8.57 20.65 6.45 7.14 3 4 2 7 - 3 55 ' 59 3.33 3.45 2.86 7.61 - 7.14 , 1 3 2 5 - 1 6° ' 6“ 1.11 2.59 2.86 5.43 - 2.38 65 _ 69 19 16 14 14 7 8 21.11 13.79 20.00 15.22 22.58 19.05 70 _ 74 27 20 23 13 15 16 30.00 17.24 32.86 14.13 48.39 38.10 75 _ 79 17 16 10 8 6 11 18.89 13.79 14.29 8.70 19.35 26.19 , 17 31 10 17 1 - 80 ' 8“ 18.89 26.72 14.29 18.48 3.23 - 2 11 2 8 - - 85 ' 89 2 22 48 2.86 8 70 - - N S 5 10 25 34 64 84 ° re 9°“se 5.3 7.9 26.3 27.0 67.4 66.7 Total respondents 95 126 95 126 95 126 x2 = 16.131* x2 = 16.556 x2 = 5.231 df = 7 df = 8 df = 6 ul— " Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note: 1. In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 2. In chi-square tables, percentages in the "No response" category are based on the number of total respondents to the question- naire. 55 is perhaps the most important determinant of a family's socioeconomic status, it can be said that working class and upper middle class students tend to persist in engineering curricula more often than do lower middle class students. Item 15 requested each subject to indicate in which of four groups he considered his family to be: upper class, middle class, working class or lower class. A comparison of the responses of persisters and non—persisters is provided in Table 4.12. No significant difference was found. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Table 4.12 A comparison of the perceived socioeco- nomic status of the families of persis- ters (P) and non-persisters (NP) NP P 6 2 Upper class 6.32 1 63 . 76 90 .1 (t: Miudi class 80.00 73.17 . 13 31 Working class or lower class 13.68 25.20 No response - 3 - 2.4 Total respondents 95 126 x2 = 7.065 df = 2 * Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note: 1. In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 2. In chi-square tables, percentages in the "No response" category are based on the number of total respondents to the ques- tionnaire. 54 Item 16 elicited information concerning the parents' attitudes toward the college attendance of the respondents during their high school years. The comparison between per— sisters and non-persisters is shown in Table 4.15. As the results of the chi—square test were not significant, the null hypothesis was accepted. It is noteworthy that more than 90 percent of the respondents came from homes where college attendance was expected or encouraged. Item 17 explored parents' attitudes toward college at- tendance for their sons and daughters. Table 4.14 provides a comparison between persisters and non—persisters with respect to this variable. No significant difference was found. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Each respondent was asked in item 18 to assess the sacrifice made by his family to permit his college attendance. In Table 4.15, a comparison is made between the persisters and non-persisters in terms of their responses to this ques- tion. The chi-square computed was not significant. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. In item 15, respondents were presented with twelve pos- sible reasons for coming to college. Each subject was asked to rank the five reasons which seemed most important to him. Table 4.16 permits comparisons to be made between persisters and non-persisters with reSpect to each of these twelve variables. As indicated in the table, it was appropriate to calculate seven chi—squares. None were statistically 55 .oumeCoHumoso ecu Cu nuCopComnou Huang «0 Hopes: 055 cc comma cum Acomoumo :omcoamou oz: may Ca mowMucwouma .mufinmu ohmsow1wcu CH .N .moAUCmsowuw wCawCOQmouuoo soaon anon» one mcwmucoonmn .HHuo some CH .H "0502 .Aucosoupu oumu mucumwuaom 1 .Ho>o~ mo. um ucwumecwfim s .oumeCOAumuso use cu m u we mucoecoamou Hmuou «0 Cohen: oru C0 comma mum xuowoumu :umCOQmmC oz: ecu Cw mowwucouumd .moflnmu ohmsom1wru CH .N .mowucosoouw «me.o u «x mCHpcoamuuuoU zofloc Cacrm cum mowmucouuma .HHoo some CH .H "ouoz .Zucosomum 0Com mucomoudmm 1 oNH mo masocCOCmmu HMSOH .~o>oH no. no EchMWLCwfim s ~.- N.m uncommon 02 N n we ed M 3.2 3.2 646:8 3 om 2:2. mm cm coupwmru HEN umzu noesmmm mus DH omH mo mosspcoomou annoy .mucouwd . . mg: no .CmEowmunooco ozu unozuws m.o 1 be 5 mm e um uses on o>nz n~103 uwofifioU A 1 uncommon 02 m c on ow on ocean: or: csnpfiwcu ozu mo me Loss noEDmmm mn3 UH .oucmpcoouw owvHEOU wommpaoo oe.o o~.m 1mwp mocohmd 84L Co ummHaoU . . .om ow ou powmudouco w n on ow Uflso3 concfiwro ecu Ham on mm no Om m w 1 . on paworm o oHHoQ oo 0 Cu nouns? Bozo coesmmm 50c mm: ow Cozuwm No be 023 cocpfiwcu Sass coesmmw was DH .ow pfisoz Lam Bozo possmma Doc 1 1 .owowfiou on ow UHsOZ oo.w¢ o_.me mm3 BA 53b .om on ob omoHHou 1 1 .mxon orb Aywummmoooc uoc can oc Ho on om on coucmt 0:3 Coucfiwro .mfiumw 525 euro cmECmmm mm: DH omo:o commusouco mucoumm . . .omoafioU 0“ cm pgaos oo.m¢ mm._m .omoHMOo 05 on p~303 Coupfifizu «A n 05 m .mfiuww 9:5 xfiwummmwuoc 50C “an mm oe org fifim our“ coouvdxo was uH m o .mxon orb guru pussmmm mm3 uH m 52 m CZ munch ouuuswsuc was acoa ham:u Cow oocmpcmuom umoHfioo Hoozum zww; .mucmpcodmuc madcap oucmccooom uonHoo chosen novsuuuua .oucouad sauce 05 commas» sows Amzv ecwsoo muesswuua .mucouma sworn on Sesame» zuw3 Amzv ouuuoaouun1coc one Amy nuouawouma uo conflusaeou < q~.¢ edema muoumwmumd1coc ecu Amv muoumfimpoa mo cowwcmdeou < m~.q edema 56 Table 4.15 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to their assessments of their families' sacrifices made to permit college attendance NP P 12 15 No sacrifice 12.63 11.90 39 36 Small sacrifice 41.05 28.57 38 65 Moderate sacrifice 40.00 51.59 Great sacrifice or 6 10 very great sacrifice 6.32 7.94 Total reapondents 95 126 x2 - 4.267 df - 3 * Significant at .05 level. Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. significant. Therefore, the seven null hypotheses were accepted. Most noteworthy is the pervasive vocational orientation found among both persisters and non-persisters. Suggestive of a possible difference between the two groups-- not confirmed by the statistical analysis--is the greater importance attached by non-persisters to getting a liberal education. Item 19 questioned respondents concerning their views as to what the ideal job should be like and what requirements 57 .ondoccouuaoau or» o. uuCquoa-ou “case we scans: on» so son-A on. uneasy-u :u-eonnou 02: on» :. caucus-onus .oo~aou cacao-1050 an .n .uuaucusvouu madness-ouuou segue e105. on. nonsucouuon .uuou £90. an .u «Uno- .xueosvouu on.» cue-consul 1 .~o>o~ no. u. accouuuaouu a e I as e I up 0 I up a u up a a «v c I at c I av son.“ a «x onn.q - ~x 0nn.¢ . Nx oh~.o 1 Nx 0no.0 a ax Nom.n I ~x m~_.~ - Nx on. mo oN— wo o~_ no o- no o~_ no o~_ no on_ no o- «0 c- no ow. no cwfi no o- no nucovconoou Hausa o.o_ _.- o.an 0.00 0.05 o.nm n.~m n.na ~.no 0.mo 0.05 u.~o 0.0” 0.00 a.mn n.00 0.00 0.00L m.nn o.- _.n o.n_ ¢.~m ~.¢e oncoaoou 02 an .N 50 no mo mm .0 no w__ .o oo so oo 05 no No q~_ no no 00 a m~ 00 me e0.n_ o~.~_ 00.0 a0.c. ~m.0_ no.0n «o.~_ mo.n~ ¢.~ _.~ m_.m¢ on.ma s.- 0.—_ _._~ _._ 0._ . n.0— n.o -.¢ n~.o nn.n~ no.0 :uudm . o. o a 0 m n_ ._ - n ~ n_ m_ o. .L a~ H N 1 n. o m m e_ m nu.- 0~.~_ n_.n~ qw.~_ -.- o_.o~ mo.n_ «q.n~ 0.. _.~ ao.ou n0.o~ ~.n ~.a m.o ¢.n 1 1 ~.~ o.~— oo.n mn.n~ no.- -.n~ ransom n~ o 0— 0‘ o ._ n. N N ~ 0 o q q ~_ A 1 1 0 Na 5 L. n— A o~.n~ nq.~n nn.mn mo.o~ no.m~ No.0 00.o~ mm.0~ ¢.~ 1 __.~_ 00.0 c.n _.~ ~.n ~.n 1 1 c.~ n.o so... n~.~_ 00.n— 00.n_ thunk «N c~ o~ o. n q A. m. n 1 n n A w a n 1 1 n o q- o o 0 0~.o~ 00.n~ n~.0~ ~n.0~ ~m.o_ oo.__ he.on mn.m_ 1 . .~.__ no.0 1 _.~ 0.0 ~.~ 1 1 a.~ ~._ an.n_ n~.n~ so.- 00.~n vacuum 0n 0— n_ n. n m _n w 1 1 n n 1 N ~ N 1 1 n ~ w~ 0— n— A. «0.5 an.n_ n0.n_ «0.a~ .o.¢~ n¢._~ qo.~_ n~.o_ 1 . 1 n~.n 1 1 1 - 1 . . _.~ on.~o no.no nn.o~ 0—.0n uouum a n. n. m a o __ o. 1 1 1 _ 1 1 1 1 1 . 1 _ an on - o— n a: a a: m a: a a: a a: m 02 a a: m a: m 02 m a: a n: a a: zucc- noq ugh voco¢.oo:c nauoansa :a_.«veh. 60:0.uu :00“; awe—.00: acoguuoCCOu ancosuu ~oo;uu uocwav ow-—Ou coda-90> I coda-uses UCOI can! 0. I nc.uuou no co>oc aco.-s_u :«a.usu uo >_.E-u no mucus-n “Seesasaco usun_oz pen ode an“: up Oh I no omLSuuca new 0513050 on ~ouona— cl o—noco __«3 occurs one— as .COu occasuOu shoe Cuna— OH unsufla ch ~aaoon con uvcuacu 01-! 0h any you I you Oh oboe. .ac«:«o.u .09 0. near“ one—nan .3059": as. no) nu sue—.0u o. mc—EOu no. accuse» vogue—o- u>~aiu .0 zuuo «o nuc‘xc-n hung“ 05 avenue» cu“: Amzv nuo.-0ucon-coc vac nhv ououo¢ouoa no ocean-glue < o~.¢ can-h 58 it should satisfy. They were asked in item 20 to indicate the degree to which they realistically expected to find these characteristics in the careers they had selected. Reactions were elicited in each item to ten job characteristics. Table 4.17 permits comparisons between the persisters and non— persisters with respect to each of the ten characteristics from the two items. Of the twenty chi-squares calculated, seventeen were not significant. In those cases the null hypotheses were accepted. As indicated in Table 4.17, the chi-square values com- puted in three instances proved to be significant at the .05 level. Therefore, these null hypotheses were rejected. Non- persisters attached significantly more importance to consider- ations of social status and prestige than did persisters. Also, those respondents who had left engineering were far more anxious to have the opportunity to work with people rather than things. Not surprisingly, these non-persisters also indicated more frequently that they expected to find jobs in which they would work with people rather than things. In item 14, each respondent was asked to estimate his future income as compared with his family's income. A com- parison of persisters and non-persisters with respect to their responses to this question is presented in Table 4.18. As no significant difference was found, the null hypothesis ‘was accepted. 59 .ou.accodunusv Isa ou Iucovcoauo» fluuou uo hogan: Icy co van-p can uuowuuau :IncOQIIh oz: IL“ :0 IoqucouIIa .Ioaaq. IIIIoI1izu CH .~ .Ioiucoaaohw mc.vc0anouIOu 36003 zinc. o»- Iowaucouuoa .afiou £0II ca .0 "Iuoz .xucoawouu OIII Inca-ounom 1 .~o>o_ «0. HI accuuuacuam I .en.n 1 «I nan.~ 1 ~x noo.o 1 ~x cn¢.~ 1 Nx o_¢.~ 1 Nu 1n~c.u_ 1 Nx o_o.~ 1 N1 moo.o 1 Nx aao.o 1 «x ¢o~.~ 1 «x. Ia. no on. no o~_ no .~_ mo o~_ «a o~i no o~a mo o- no ON. no o~i no ..c.ncoa.11 .IHoP o.o _.~ o.. _._ o.— _._ o.o _._ - _._ a.o ~._ o.o _.~ o.o ~._ - ~.i . . _._ 11coa11. oz _ ~ ~ _ N _ _ . . _ _ _ a n _ _ - r . _ 60.6- an.h 0N.~n c61In o¢.o. nm.o oo.0~ 00.0_ o«.— n..~ 00.0 ~n.n 00.4 m4.o 0~.n hm.MM on.~ an.m on.o 1 woesm—Ixig I~uuau n. s cc NH n— o o~ n_ ~ N - o o o o oo._c .o.ne I..~c on.on on.I4 an.~¢ oq.nm Nn.mw as... n¢.q~ oo.oq aq.q~ ou.0n 01.“. o~.rn .~.OM as.h~ .o.~n ¢¢.ai om... «n as an an o» as n. N“ - nN no n~ _. w. .0 an an .n m~ q_ voo;_r.xa_ 1.1.111: oo.un O_._n Qn1- _~.o~ 50.nn on.0n O¢.0_ _~.o~ no.nm o_.nm 00.nn on.om oo.mn 40.04 0~._n oo.~n no.nm cu.m4 00.0m ~n.mm ooo:.~01.~ “Iona he an nn O- ne sn MN 0. me On Na an «c On on in no no no um . O£.°_ n~.w. ~¢.~ On.o cu.“ _n.n Od.~ mn.o wo.o~ _~.0~ 00.0 oo.n~ oo.a no.0 oo.0_ ao.u_ nw.n_ 0n._— um.o~ on.o~ voo:._uxu_ “Iowa AII> n- u— n o o a n o «n 0— ~_ o~ o 0 m0 N“ ON - mm mm au..nwuuquuI;u ucvvcuu no veazu~oxuu nun.o 1 «I one.o . ~x _oa._ . «x .n~.n . ax on_.a 1 ~x 1._q.o 1 Nx 1woo.o 1 ~x no~._ 1 Nx «No.n 1 ~x _o~.o 1 «x o~_ no In. a. .~. no o~_ no o~_ «a a“. no .~_ no o~_ mo oN. a. o~— no ..coocoa.1. _1.o~ I.o _.~ 1.. _._ -.o _._ - _.~ . _._ 1.~ _.~ o.o _.~ . . o.o ~.n . . IIIOIIII oz 1- N N 1- 1— .- I N I .— n —I .1 N I I .— H I I a... a... nn10- to... o... ~n.o an.o_ no.0 n_.n IN. an.¢~ ao.n. 00.¢~ no.n_ ~—.n ~n.o o~.n nn.¢ nn.~ 1 an o In s— __ 0 _~ 9 o On o~ _n n~ e o 4 c n 1 s, Q IuIquoII. I—uuua 6Q1Qn no.nn 0—.hn on.on Oo.oa o~.o~ o¢.oe on.on €0.0— o~._~ on.0n s¢.a~ o~.~n oo.¢¢ an.o~ an.s~ o¢.¢n on.¢n o~.~g oo.n~ Iucquoola IuIIIvol HQ an 00 NM we o~ .a an an Ow nq an Io _I us ca na um I” n— , 00100 on1on _C.nu 00.nu 00.nn no.e¢ 0—.0n o_._n I~.n¢ no.0n ~o.o~ n—nan oo.o~ nn.nn on.nn 05.nn 0~.~n n~.¢n nn.o~ ~_.~¢ IucIquoI. III-o no In an In a: «I on ow «a ¢~ «n In o~ gm no In «I on ha 00 OI1ON nn.o_ O~.~_ O.1¢_ 06.0. 001n_ o~.~_ on.- n~._n ~o.nc ~o.n_ 0¢.n~ o~.n 00.0 0—.0n no.0n 0~.~_ In.—~ 0n.nn .~.¢¢ oucquosIu .III. huI> In I- an I— .N n. 0— _~ 0c _I I. - o 0 on ea «0 0~ on «I I II I I! I I: I I: I In I I: m I: I I: I I: I 0: 40a ~III¢ II no IoquuuoquIIau IIIaoI IIIIIIIII ,IasIIIIII_ II_u Iutguo so Inauau IIIoII Incas. chu Inauaoua .Icsnauo III mogul no .III Iovnuuuan II .IuI—Ig I: II.) II II_IIIL 1IIII I. Inchu coaI_>.Ia:I uo .I~AI.I I Inca-I I.aoua Ic- Iaunun I>.uIIIu on Icon I :III no Iqua—unI _ . In uuulluuosso I II Iqu Iqu »_I>..I_II o. IIIILOu :00. cu.) sue) .nuuoI II o>uu 0» II quuII on ochgu I .quILI al In: , . II II Ibuu II I>IIa I. II I—nIcu ou guacauuoaao cad) II IvdIoIL on zudcsuuoaao II II I>ao :- II Iva>bum . IIIIIIIIIIII non ouaIu—III Ingu «I III sea :.III.: In. no Iu‘IIdquuIIIzu cI. no Incaqu uaIgu cu yuan-I. cud: Anzv IIIquIIII1I0c III any III.I_IIII no cquuIaIOI < s..c I~nIu 60 Respondents' expectations of annual earnings ten years after completion of their formal educations were explored in item 21. Table 4.19 permits a comparison of persisters and non-persisters with respect to this variable. The chi- square computed revealed no significant difference between the two groups. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. In item 26, respondents were presented with a list of eleven extra—curricular activities commonly available in most high schools. They were asked to indicate all activities in which they had participated during their high school days. Table 4.20 provides comparisons between persisters and non- persisters with respect to each of these eleven variables. In ten instances it was appropriate to apply chi-square tests. None of the results were significant. Therefore, the ten null hypotheses were accepted. Each respondent was asked to report in item 22 the age at which he first considered the possibility of a career in the area of science or engineering. In Table 4.21 a compari- son is made between persisters and non-persisters with respect to this variable. The chi-square value approached significance. However, as the result was not significant at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was accepted. Item 25 was a companion question to item 22. Each sub- ject was asked to report the age at which he actually decided to enroll in an engineering school. Table 4L22 permits a comparison of their responses. No significant difference ‘was found. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Gil .uuHICCOMu 1ao=u ozu cu nucupcoammu HIIOu mo panes: mcu co pmnmn III muowouuu :Imcoaauu oz: ocu :0 nmwmucoouoa .IIHAIu ouaaco1wco :H .N .Iuwucuscoum wcwvcoauouuoo Scamp cacao mun Iowaucouuoa .HHuu Luau :H .fi "muoz .mucosvmuw oumn mucomwudwm .Ho>uH mo. um “caoauucwam « mu OmH1m H NX oNH mo mucmpcoamup Hmuoe o.H H.H mmcoammu 02 N H ~¢.~ m¢.m uu>o no 000.0mw m n o~.0~ H~.o~ mam.mfim - ooo.miw nu ma ~m.¢o am.am ooo.saw - ooo.on on on oo.- NN.NH am¢.mm - ooo.mm 0H Na H H mmo~ ho 000.0w 0 m2 Amzv nuouawaumn1coc new Amy Iuounwuuva mo newumuspw HmEqu mo coHuoHaaoa noumm mpmwx cmu wwcwcumw HIIIII mo occuuuuumaxw mo acmwumaaoo < 00.0 magma .muwmccofia 1mmsv «so Cu mucwpcoammp Hooch mo umnenc «:0 co woman mun myommumu :wmcommou oz: mcu :0 wwwmocwupwa .mmfibmu mpmovm1wro CH .N .mowocmscouw wcflpcoammpuoo 30Hwb EsoLm who mommucmuuwa .Hku Loam CH .H "muoz .Ho>mH mo. um ucmowuwcwflm k . N up 0H0.~ Nx QNH m0 mucmpCOQmmu Hmboe 0.0 H.H wmcndmmu oz H H O©.H mm.m oEOu5w poxoq N m om.¢~ 00.0w mecca“ mama mzu ufiOb< Hm mm 001nm mo.wo ueoocw uwzww: Na Io m mz mmwfiwamu uwocu mo mmEOucH m:o o. pmudeou mm mmeouc0 muzusw uwwru we mocmEmmommm uwozo 0o Humamwu :bwz Amzv muwumwmuma 1:0: paw Amy mumumwmuma mo :Omwumaeou < ©~.* \ m~am~ 62 Table 4.20 A comparison of high school extra-curricular activities of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) NP P x2 df Individual sports 25.26 23.65 0.057 1 Team sports 2? 05 3:.29 0.243 1 Science clubs 3: 79 g; 30 0.053 1 JETS club $.11 2.76 1.096 1 Musical organizations :2 74 53.68 0.565 1 Dramatics 33.05 13.05 0.137 1 Publications (newspaper, 29 31 0 961 1 year-book, etc.) 30.53 24.60 ' Egzich and/or debate igog4 i: 08 0.126 1 Foreign language clubs is 37 g: 43 1.048 1 Student government 22.42 g; 30 2.748 1 Other 3;.6 $2.9 Total respondents 95 126 * Significant at .03 level. Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. EXS Table 4.21 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to the ages when they first considered the possibil- ity of a career in science or engineering NP P 2 5 Ages 2 ' 9 2.27 3.97 6 13 Age 10 6.82 10.32 3 1 Age 11 3.41 0.79 10 26 Age 12 11.36 20.63 7 18 Age 13 7.95 14.29 13 23 Age 1“ 14.77 18.25 17 14 Age 15 19.32 11.11 18 13 Age 16 20.45 10.32 10 11 Age 17 11.36 8.73 2 2 Ages 18 ' 20 2.27 1.59 No res 013e 7 - p ‘ 7.4 - Total respondents 95 126 x2 . 14.446 df = 9 * Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note: 1. 2. In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. In chi-square tables, percentages in the "No response" category are based on the number of total respondents to the ques- tionnaire. 64 Table 4.22 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to the ages when they decided to enroll in engineer- ing schools NP P - 3 Ages 12 - l3 _ 2 38 4 4 Age 14 4.21 3.17 3 12 Age 15 3.16 9.52 14 29 Age 16 14.74 23.02 52 45 Age 17 54.74 35.71 20 28 Age 18 21.05 22.22 2 Total respondents 95 126 x2 12.657 df * Significant at .05 level. - Represents zero frequency. Note: In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding frequencies. 65 To understand better the factors which influence stu— dents to choose engineering, an effort was made to find out whether subjects had any personal contacts with people in the engineering field prior to entering college. This question was posed in item 29. The responses of persisters and non—persisters are compared in Table 4.23. The chi— square calculated was not statistically significant. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. Table 4.23 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to the inci- dence of personal contacts with people in the field of engineering prior to their entering college NP P Y s 51 71 e 54.26 58.20 N 43 51 ° 45.74 41.80 No ans 4 '85P e 1.1 3.2 Total respondents 95 126 x2 = 0.336 df = 1 Significant at .05 level. Note: 1. In each cell, percentages are shown below corresponding frequencies. 2. In chi-square tables, percentages in the "No re5ponse" category are based on the number of total respondents to the ques- tionnaire. In item 50, respondents were asked to report their Eicademic majors at the time of their matriculation. 66 Table 4.24 permits comparison of the responses of persisters and non—persisters with respect to this variable. A chi- square test revealed no significant difference. The null hypothesis was therefore accepted. The N.O.R.C. occupational prestige ratings (used previously for the analysis in Table 4.11) were employed to analyze the occupational goals of the persisters and non- persisters. Table 4.25 provides a comparison between these two groups with respect to the occupational prestige of their original curricular choices. The range of these prestige ratings was insufficient to warrant the use of a chi-square test. In item 51, non-persisters were asked to report their present academic majors or departments. A summary of their responses is provided in Table 4.26. Although business has attracted the largest proportion of these students, it is noteworthy that the students who leave engineering change to a wide variety of other fields. Item 55 secured information concerning the respondents' sources of financial assistance used during their freshman and sophomore years of college. Subjects were asked to indi- cate all applicable resources on a list containing eight alternatives. Table 4.27 provides comparisons between pere sisters and non-persisters with respect to each of these eight variables. It was appropriate to compute chi-square tests in seven instances. Six of the values calculated were €37 .mofiocosuoum wcflocoooonuoo soHon csosm mun nownucoonoa .HHoo Loom oH "ouoz .mocoovoum ouou oucoooumom 1 spawn csozn .mowocoauouw wcwocoomouuoo mum mowoucouuom .Haou Loom cH "ouoz .H6>1H mo. “1 ucmuamncmnm I oNH n0 oucmpcoamou Hooch n.0H «.mw co>om1>u w ma NN : on n.0a 0.n~ o>a uxu m mm nfi .w 5 am 1 H.M noon-mucwfim m.m0 0.0m own u1u w Ow ¢m S L am m mz Amzv ououowmuoo1coc can Amy Iuouououun mo unanoe moguomcchm 06:“ 1&«HO HO owcuuuu owwumoum mo comwudeOo < mm.q ofinmh H6 H¢N1N fl NX QNH m0 mucoocoomou Houoe mn.w 0N.m wcfiuoocchm posuo HH m 00.5H 0n.mH wcauomc w: madam om NN mH . H m H . L E mm.mm ~¢.w~ manhoochc noauooo N0 RN . . m H . Hm ~00H wo.mH we hoocawc H>a NH Ma w . m H. .U no.0H HH.NN we now: ma moHEo #N HN w H m a . £0 HH.HH «5.0H we nomcaw: ounce QH QH H . m H O m m2 Amzv mumumwmumd1coc can Adv mnmumwmuwa mo cowumfioowuune coo: mnemme mo comwnmdeoo < ¢~.¢ 0H can 68 Table 4.26 A summary of present departments or majors of non-persisters (NP) NP 6 Packaging 6.3 3 Other Agriculture 3 2 5 Arts and Letters 5 3 7 Economics 7.4 26 Other Business 27.4 2 Communication Arts 2 1 Education 1 1 7 Mathematics 7 4 Physics : 6 Chemistry 6.3 8 Other Natural Science 8.4 7 Psychology 7.4 9 Other Social Science 9 5 4 Other 4 2 4 No response 4.2 Total respondents 95 Note: Represents zero frequency. corresponding frequencies. In each cell, percentages are shown below 69 Table 4.27 A comparison of persisters (P) and non-persisters (NP) with reSpect to their sources of financial assistance during freshman and saphomore years in college NP P X2 df Parents 23.47 12; 33 1.693 1 Relatives 2.32 5.56 0.057 1 Scholarship 23.00 51.59 1.550 1 Your savings 22.21 3;.22 17.735* 1 Your part-time job 36.84 g: 92 0.087 1 Your summer job 73.68 182.92 4.289 1 L°an i§.63 15.03 0'269 1 Other 2.1 2.0 Total respondents 95 126 * Significant at .05 level. Note: frequencies. In each cell, percentages are shown below correSponding 70 not significant. In these cases, the null hypotheses were accepted. The independent variable in the seventh compari— son was "respondent's savings." As the chi-square value indicated a significant difference at the .05 level, the null hypothesis was rejected. This result was unexpected and is somewhat puzzling. The final item of the questionnaire dealt with the long— term educational goals of the respondents. In item 55 they were asked whether their goals held originally as freshmen had changed. The responses of the persisters and non- persisters to this question are compared in Table 4.28. The percentage distribution confirms about what one would expect to find: 80 percent of the non-persisters reported having changed their educational goals while somewhat more than one—half of the persisters did so. Table 4.28 A comparison of persisters (P) and non- persisters (NP) with respect to the inci- dence of change in their long-range edu- cational goals 76 73 YCS 80.0 57.9 14 48 14.7 38.1 No response Total respondents 95 126 Note: In each cell. pertunlaues are shown below corresponding {reQUvncies. 71 The initial analyses of the questionnaire data have been reported above. In some instances the chi-square values ap- proached significance or suggested possible directional rela- tionships between the variables under study. While the theory underlying statistical inference required the acceptance of these null hypotheses, the investigator conducting an explora- tory study must be most careful not to overlook indications of potentially meaningful relationships. Accordingly, further efforts were made to explore the correlation between certain. independent variables and persistence in engineering curric- ula. It was appropriate to employ the point biserial cor— relation technique for this purpose. The values calculated by the appropriate computer program ('7) are reported in Table E5 of Appendix E. In Table 4.10 the data suggest that parents of persisters more often had engaged in college study than the parents of non-persisters. The chi—square value in the case of the father approached significance. Two point biserial correla- tions were computed between years of schooling of mother and father and persistence in engineering programs. Neither co- efficient was significant at the .05 level. A statistically significant relationship is reported in Table 4.11 between the prestige rating of the father's present. occupation and engineering persistence. Also, the chi-square value for father's occupation at respondent's birth approached statistical signifiCance. Thus, point biserial correlations 72‘ were calculated to assess the strength of the relationships which exist between these variables. The two coefficients were not significant at the .05 level. In Table 4.21 and 4.22 both chi-square values approached significance, suggesting a possible relationship between age of educational decision-making and persistence in engineer— ing curricula. Two point biserial correlations were computed. The first--between persistence and age when respondents first considered the possibility of a scientific career--resulted in a coefficient of -.23. It was significant at the .05 level. The second correlation--between persistence and age when respondents decided to enroll in an engineering school—- did not prove to be statistically significant. One final statistical analysis was performed which did not relate to the questionnaire data. A comparison was made between the academic achievement of the 163 persisters and the 163 non—persisters originally identified for study. The grade point averages of the non-persisters at the time of their departure from engineering were compared with the averages of the matched persisters at similar points in their academic careers. A t test was used to determine whether there was a significant difference between the means of the two groups. It was hypothesized that the non-persisters would have a significantly lower grade point average than would the persisters. The t value obtained for the indi- vidual school groups and the regular study group are reported. 73 in Table E4 of Appendix E. The results for the pretest group (62 persisters and 62 non-persisters) are also reported in that table. Significant t values were found for the regu— lar study group, the Michigan State group, and the pretest group. The Wisconsin t value approached significance. Thus, the primary hypothesis was confirmed with support for the trend being found in all but one of the groups. These data suggest that those students who leave engineering are doing less well academically than their counterparts of similar ability who remain in the engineering curriculum. Discussion The data elicited by the questionnaire have been care- fully analyzed to identify variables which may be causally related to persistence or change in major field of study of engineering students. Interpretation of the findings must take into account the considerable homogeneity of the sample. All subjects chose engineering majors at the time of their matriculation. In addition, the selection criteria restricted the non-persister group to those students who had "C" or better grade point averages at the time of major change. Also, persisters were matched with non-persisters on the basis of academic aptitude. These requirements substantially reduce the likelihood of finding significant differences between persisters and non-persisters. The problem is further compli- cated by the use of a questionnaire which was intended only to appraise global characteristics of the respondents. 74 No claim is made for its sensitivity as an instrument for personality assessment or other sophisticated measurements. In light of these limitations, it is perhaps not surprising that only a few variables were isolated which were related to persistence in engineering curricula. In Table 4.11, it was found that persisters more fre- quently have fathers whose occupations are ranked at the lower or upper extremes of the occupational prestige scale. These data suggest three socioeconomic class groupings: working class, lower middle class, and upper middle class. In Table E5 of Appendix E these groups are defined and typical occupations of respondents' fathers are listed for each group. Hence, it is the lower middle class students who are most in- clined to change majors out of engineering. The results reported in Table 4.17 indicated that non- persisters accord far more importance to social status and prestige than do persisters. As those who leave engineering are more frequently lower middle class students, one might suspect that they hold this value more strongly than members of the other social class groups. This turns out to be the case. Table E6 of Appendix E reports the responses of sub— jects according to the three socioeconomic class groupings defined above. This trend is particularly clear within the lower middle class group. Of these students, 41 percent of the non—persisters attach great importance to social status and prestige while only 23 percent of the persisters hold this value. 75 These findings lead to the formulation of an hypothesis regarding the motivation of young men from lower middle class homes. The need for upward social mobility may be a primary factor underlying college attendance for these students. If so, they might well be most concerned with earning a col— lege degree as the means for realizing this goal of upward mobility. The engineering degree is not an essential element in this plan. This rationale serves as a partial explanation‘ for the high proportion of lower middle class students who leave engineering. However, this is not to suggest that the non—persister concerned with social status is seeking a more prestigeful occupation than engineering. He may simply feel more free to change majors providing he continues to maxi— mize the chance to achieve his primary goal: that of secur- ing a college degree irrespective of field. A word should be said concerning the social mobility needs of students from working class and upper middle class homes. The findings of this study suggest they play a less influential role for these students than for those from lower middle class families. It can be reasoned that the social status of the upper middle class student is almost assured by virtue of his birth. Therefore, a college degree pg; g3 may have less importance for him and a specific field of endeavor may be of much greater importance. He is "free” to choose a major based on the substantive nature of the cur- ricula available. Working class students also attach little 76 importance to occupational social status and prestige. It is likely that the subculture from which they come does not assign status primarily on the basis of occupational roles. Therefore, this consideration is of less concern to the work- ing class student. In Table 4.5, it was found that students from suburban high schools were more inclined to persist in engineering curricula than students from high schools located in central cities or non—metropolitan communities. This is due prin- cipally to the fact that two-thirds of the upper middle class respondents were graduated from suburban high schools. This pattern is indicated in Table E7 of Appendix E. However, the tendency for suburban high school students to persist in engineering cannot be explained entirely on this basis. A disproportionate number of working class and lower middle class students also come from suburban high schools. It is hypothesized that suburban high schools--more frequently than city high schools and non-metropolitan schools-—have teachers, curricula and facilities which stimulate a deep interest among students for the scientific enterprise and prepare them well for their studies in this area. From Table 4.17, it was noted that non-persisters attach more importance than persisters to the opportunity to work with people rather than things. Changes of "people-oriented" students out of engineering are consistent with the research findings reported by Rosenberg, Holland and others as cited in 77 Chapter II. It is believed that students make changes in their fields of study which result in greater consonance between their personal values and the values held by those al- .ready in their chosen fields. Further efforts by the present .investigator to employ Rosenberg's concept of value complexes 'to help explain the findings of this study were only partially successful . The data suggest that early consideration of a scientific a.deeper commitment to his choice. Also, due to the ef- IiEects of anticipatory socialization, the student cannot "see" 3baimself in any other occupational role. Thus, he is more :likely than the less committed student to persevere in an Gengineering curriculum even though his academic program may ‘loecome quite rigorous. In analyzing the questionnaire data, many of the results showed no significant relationships between a variety of in— dependent variables and persistence in engineering. Of these, the findings reported in Table 4.20 are particulary note- worthy. This table summarizes the participation of persisters and non-persisters in several high school extracurricular activities. One might find it especially surprising that 78 equal proportions of both groups were active in science clubs and JETS (Junior Engineering Technical Society). It was ex- pected that more persisters would have been involved in such science-related organizations. Conversely, certain activities \Nere viewed originally as having less attraction for scien- *tifically-inclined boys: dramatics, publications, speech, :student government, and foreign language clubs. However, no :significant differences were found between persisters and Inon—persisters with reSpect to their participation in any of 1ihese activities. One must observe that there is a remarkable saindlarity among these students in terms of their high school iatctivity patterns. One wonders whether this holds true for =Eitudents in other academic disciplines. Summary In this chapter, a report and analysis of the questions Jraaire data have been presented. Of the 326 students invited 1:0 participate, 221 or 68 percent returned usable question- Inaires. Appropriate statistical analyses indicated that the :respondents were representative of the sample originally identified for study. The relationships between a variety of independent vari— ables and persistence in engineering curricula were explored. Contingency tables were constructed and, where the data permitted, chi—square tests of independence were used to test the respective operational hypotheses. A significant dif- ference between persisters and non—persisters was found with 79 reSpect to each of the following variables: 1) urban—rural characteristics of high school com— munity, 2) prestige rating of father's present occupation, 3) importance of "social status and prestige" as a job characteristic, 4) importance of ”the chance to work with people rather than things" as a job characteristic, ()1 likelihood of finding a job providing “the chance to work with people rather than things," and 6) the student's savings as a source of financial assistance during the freshman and sophomore years of college. Additional statistical analyses were performed to further investigate those relationships where chi-square‘values approached significance. This effort proved fruitful in one important instance. A significant point biserial correlation of -.23 was found between engineering persistence and age when respondent first considered the possibility of a career in the area of science or engineering. The discussion included a consideration of the limita— tions of the instrument and the implications for interpreta— tion of the findings posed by the homogeneity of the sample. Hypotheses were offered concerning the possible influences of social mobility needs, occupational values, high school atmos— pheres, and age of career decision—making. Noteworthy inci— dences of lack of significance were also discussed. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE INTERVIEW DATA In this chapter a description and discussion of the inter- view data will be presented. The extent of participation of the subjects in the questionnaire and interview phases of the project has already been reported in Table 4.1 (page 40). As indicated in that table, 326 junior level students at the three universities were invited to participate in the study. Inter- views with this investigator were successfully scheduled for all but six of the 221 subjects who returned questionnaires. A total of 34 subjects did not appear for their appointments because of the following reasons: forgetfulness, part-time work, the need to prepare for classes, and other unknown causes. Five interviews could not be analyzed due to low tape recording volume and loss of certain tapes through theft. ’Thus, usable interviews were conducted with a total of 176 students--104 persisters and 72 non-persisters. The interviews were structured in accordance with the semi-standardized interview guide described in Chapter III and included as Appendix C. The report of the findings which follows is an attempt to summarize qualitatively the feelings, attitudes and reactions of the students to their pre—college and college experiences. It is based on the original comments 80 81 of the students and the results of the content analysis per- formed. (3) Tests of statistical significance have not been used nor does this report limit itself to describing only those views held by a large number of students. Rather, its purpose is to highlight potentially meaningful factors and attributes—-suggested by only a few students or many--which may be of interest to those concerned with the problem of engineering attrition. Report of the Findings Reasons for Choosing Engineering An important aspect of the study was the effort made to understand why students select engineering as their major. Such an understanding provides the necessary frame of refer- ence for interpreting their subsequent behavior. When this question was posed in the interview, almost all of the students Inentioned the influence of science and mathematics. Proficiency éand interest in these high school courses were clearly primary :factors leading them to study engineering. Only a few re- .spondents cited shop courses, mechanical drawing or occupations <:ourses as having been influential in their decisions. Teachers and counselors apparently played a minor role in influencing the students toward engineering. While many of the respondents described warm, positive relationships with some of their teachers, only a small proportion of them indi- cated that these teachers had a significant impact on their 82 engineering plans. Of these, mathematics and science teachers were the most influential. Of note is the small number of students who volunteered comments on the role of their guidance counselors. A very few respondents perceived their counselors as having been helpful in their career planning. Students reported that counselors "assumed I would go into engineering because of my high grades in math and science. They said, 'Engineering is meant for you!‘ My teachers and everybody seemed to feel the same way, so that's what I did." Aptitude and interest tests were seldom seen as useful. ”They just told me math and science were my strong points." Through the use of a specific follow-up question, it was learned that many students had no assigned adviser during the first three years of high school. Even then, the senior year guidance program, as described by one student, sometimes amounted to no more than the question, "Where are you going to college next year? I have some cata— logs if you want to look through them." Frequently, students ihaving assigned advisers throughout the four years of high school saw their lack of availability as an indication of their lack of genuine interest in providing needed counsel. Unfortunately, a large number of students reported that ”only a few teachers or counselors seemed to know what engineering really was about." Many students admitted, "I really didn't know what I was getting into, but it sounded like the right thing to do.” 83 High school students perceive engineering in a variety of ways and embark upon their degree programs for a number of different reasons. Many students mention the monetary gains which they believe can be realized from an engineering career. Others emphasize the financial stability and secur— ity which come from having a high-paying engineering job. Other students admit that they are attracted to the field due to the prestige which it confers. A few students frankly reported that they were attracted by the mystique and glamour of engineering. It is noteworthy that a larger percentage of non-persisters mentioned these job characteristics than did persisters. The subjects' comments also made it clear that a significant proportion of engineering freshmen simply in— tended to use their engineering training as a background for careers in other fields. These students are much more likely to change out of engineering if they do not find that it is interesting and meets their expectations. As might be expected, the strength of commitment to an engineering major appears to be related to persistence in the jprogram. Students who reported they "had little (occupational) information, but knew I could change majors if it didn‘t go ‘well" were seen as less committed than those who said, "It was a logical choice, the thing to do," or that they "had never considered anything else." A substantially larger proportion of non-persisters than persisters was classified on this basis as being among those who were less committed. Conversely, a 84 larger proportion of persisters than non-persisters offered comments that indicated they were quite committed to engineer- ing. Hobbies and leisure-time activities also distinguished students who left engineering from those who remained. Persisters tended to report more frequently that they had en— gaged in mechanical or scientific hobbies during their high school days. These activities included such things as science club undertakings and individual projects initiated and carried out at home. Further exploration of this matter re- vealed another pattern of behavior uniquely different from that of pursuing a hobby. Many students reported an inclina- tion “to tinker around the house." It is noteworthy that persisters, far more frequently than non-persisters, said they enjoyed repairing things and thinking about how they worked. 'While persisters described such spontaneous activities in a variety of ways, it was evident that they possessed an attribute--perhaps curiosity-—not characteristic of most non— persisters. The role parents have played in the educational decision— making process of these students is not altogether clear. The comments leave little doubt that the father, rather than the mother, typically takes the lead in opinion—setting in this matter. A substantial proportion of the respondents said that their families supported college—going, in general, with- out indicating a strong preference for a specific field. 85 Students whose fathers are engaged in engineering frequently reported receiving encouragement to choose a scientific or engineering major. These students seemed to have discussed their future plans in detail with their fathers, reviewing a number of educational and career alternatives. Almost every one of these respondents indicated that his father was pleased he had decided to study engineering. The dynamics of the family's involvement appeared to be quite different in those instances where respondents' fathers are not engaged in engineering-related work. These students report less frequently that they discussed their future plans with their mothers and fathers. Their comments suggest a less specific involvement on the part of the parents in the career decision-making process. Frequently, the extent of their participation was to simply encourage their children to go to college. For example, one student reported receiving the following advice from his father, I‘Just get that degree: Then you'll be all set." In comparing the responses of the per- sisters and non-persisters, it appears that students from ”engineering homes" tend more frequently to "stick with" their engineering programs. A majority of the students interviewed reported that relatives, friends and community influences were important in their choice of an engineering major. Many of the re- spondents said that brothers, uncles and cousins exercised great influence on them in favor of that decision. Often these 86 relatives themselves were engaged in engineering work. Sometimes they were completing engineering degrees during that period when the respondents were finalizing their edu- cational plans. Without doubt, in this study the influence of students' relatives was substantial-—perhaps more so than that of the fathers. A word should be said concerning the influence of other factors which one might expect would aid a student in clarify- ing his educational and vocational objectives. Somewhat sur- prisingly, respondents only infrequently indicated that part- time and summer jobs, science and engineering institutes, and club activities led them toward the choice of engineering. It must be recognized, however, that few subjects had the opportunity to engage in work related to engineering prior to beginning college. Also, only a small number of respondents actually attended summer institutes for the science—minded high school student. Those who did found them very helpful and enthusiastically recommend the expansion of such programs. At the conclusion of the first part of the interviews, students were asked what prompted them to select their re— spective universities. Their most frequent reply was "the quality of the academic program." Another influential factor was their familiarity with the school due to their parents, friends or relatives having once been in attendance. As has been found in other studies, financial considerations, geo— graphic location and physical facilities were viewed with 87 varying degrees of importance. A significant proportion of the respondents indicated their choice of institution was heavily influenced by such factors as a nice campus, modern facilities and an evident interest in the individual student. Reactions to Engineering Programs The second part of the interview provided each student with the opportunity to discuss the experiences he encountered during his engineering program. Respondents were first asked to describe their general recollections of the freshman and sophomore years. Then, specific attention was focused upon the curriculum, the courses, instruction, academic advising, and life outside of class. The reasons for leaving engineer- ing were explored with non-persisters and the current attitudes of both groups toward their present academic programs were reviewed. In commenting upon their freshman year, many students exclaimed, "Hectic—~a rude awakening!" The question frequently triggered a flood of memories of a period in the student's life which was pregnant with meaning for him. It had been a time of excitement, of challenge, of doubt and of question- ing. New friends, new demands, new ideas, new values—- traditional standards, old loyalties and deep-seated aspira- tions all crowded into one terrifying, wonderful year! For many the transition to college was difficult and threatening. For others it was relatively easy--almost a letdown. But in one matter they almost all agreed: the engineering curriculum 88 was an excruciating and relentless taskmaster. Over and over again the students recalled how they spent night after night "grinding out" solutions to their mathematics, chemistry and physics problems while their dormmates "took off" for coffee dates, intramural sports, concerts or just a "night out with the boys." Some of the respondents frankly admitted that they had to learn how to study (for the first time!) and how to organize their time effectively. Many were particu- larly chagrined that the demands of their studies severely limited their social lives. Beneath the surface of the pleasure and excitement of the freshman year, a thread of anxiety and tension was identified. Persisters and non-persisters commonly remarked that they were worried about grades and that they feared ”flunking out right off the bat." Students were angry and frustrated with the seemingly unrealistic demands which were made of them in many of their courses before they even had time to get their feet on the ground. The scholastic efforts required of them ap— peared even more incongruous when compared with the demands faced by their roommates and friends in other curricula. Although they undoubtedly did not let on at the time, many engineering students found the freshman year a period of self- doubt and deep discouragement. A small number of respondents made the candid admission that they had felt very unhappy, lost, or lonely that first year. Conversely, about one-third of the persisters (and fewer non-persisters) reported that 89 they were basically happy or satisfied during their freshman year. Considering the responses in toto, it is noteworthy that such a small proportion of those who remained in engineer- ing recall having enjoyed their first year in college. The sophomore year was a better one for most all of the students. Persisters reported being happier and better ad— justed than as freshman. They enjoyed their courses more, broadened their extra—curricular life and, in some cases, did better academically. Persisters were gratified to finally get to some engineering courses while non-persisters often became quite discouraged with their engineering programs. As their course work became more difficult and more demanding, the non- persisters began giving more serious consideration to the possibility of changing majors. As they left engineering, it is not surprising to find that they began to see their new programs as being more attractive and less demanding. Their comments suggested the welcome emotional release which they experienced at making the change. Quite clearly, the pres- sures which had built up during their stay in engineering had approached their maximum tolerance levels. Similar pressures were evident among persisters, but they had found effective ways of coming to grips with these tensions of the freshman year. It is the ability to meet these demands successfully which differentiates persisters from non-persisters. The engineering curriculum came in for criticism by those who remained in engineering as well as by those who left. 90 A significant proportion of both groups saw the curricula at their reSpective universities as being too narrow and too inflexible. They felt that little opportunity is provided to adapt the curriculum to an individual's needs and desires. Typically, it was the successful student who felt most con- strained and frustrated by the rigid sequences of prescribed courses which confronted him at the outset of his college career. These better students indicated they would have pre— ferred greater freedom to choose a few courses of particular interest to them. The opportunities for electives were "too few and far between." Honors programs, advanced placement, and credit by examination provided welcome, but insufficient, relief from the stifling rigidity of their engineering pro- grams. Another dimension of the curriculum problem is the delay perceived by students before they are able to enroll in "real" engineering courses. A large number of respondents mentioned the frustration of "always preparing for something which you never seem to get to." The problem here lies in the fact that students do not view mathematics, chemistry, and physics as engineering courses, but rather as somewhat peripherally— related preparatory activities. Indeed, this is the case. The students long for the opportunity to begin their engineer— ing work in the electrical circuits course, the mechanics sequence, or the electromechanics course. However, all of these build from the foundation laid by mathematics and the 91 engineering sciences during the first year of study. Hence, the frustration of delayed gratification in engineering edu— cation. More will be said concerning these and other prob- lems which seem to arise from the unique nature of the engineering curriculum. Respondents were next asked how they felt about the individual courses required of engineering students. A majority of the persisters replied that most or all of these courses seemed appropriate and relevant. However, a significantly smaller proportion of these students indicated that they found their courses enjoyable or interesting. Conversely, only a small percentage of the non-persisters found their engineering courses meaningful and enjoyable. Students also appraised the quality of instruction provided by professors and recitation instructors. A majority of the persisters felt that most of their teachers should be rated from good to excellent. Only a few non—persisters held this view. In addition, the respondents pointed out several problems of instruction which bothered them. Some indicated their "professors knew the material but couldn't get it across.” Others said their professors appeared to be more interested in research than in students. Large classes were seen as being detrimental to learning as were foreign in— structors who had not successfully coped with the English language barrier. Mathematics, chemistry and physics drew the largest number of Specific reactions from the students interviewed. 92 Mathematics proves to be the nemesis of a majority of the freshman and sophomore engineering students. A sub— stantial proportion of both persisters and non-persisters perceived their calculus courses as inappropriate and of little relevance to their future needs in engineering. Many students expressed the view that mathematics was not an en- joyable experience for them, that it was uninteresting and unnecessarily rigorous. A large proportion of these students rated their mathematics professors as very poor while only a few judged them to be good or excellent. Frequently, criti— cism was leveled at the lack of applications used to illus- trate the theoretical principles being studied. Although students generally did not mention the quality of instruction provided by recitation instructors, a notable exception was mathematics. A significant number of respondents indicated that it was frequently the recitation instructor who "got them through" a mathematics course taught by an indifferent or ineffective professor. Proportionately more non-persisters indicated that these courses were extremely difficult for them while more persisters directed their criticism to the irrelevancy of the material covered. Chemistry and physics also played a critical role in a student's decision to remain in or leave engineering. It was interesting to note the variability of their reactions to these courses from school to school. Apparently student Opinions of these areas of study are conditioned principally 93 by the personalities of the professors rather than the sub- stantive content of the courses. The enthusiasm and interest of a skillful teacher often taps a reserve of boundless energy which the student happily directs toward the learning process. Such vital relationships between students and faculty were evident at all three institutions, but in dis- appointingly small proportions. The persisters more frequently expressed satisfaction with their chemistry and physics courses while non-persisters tended to find them uninteresting or unnecessarily rigorous. Students commented only infrequently about the other courses studied during the freshman year. Few positive or negative reactions were offered by respondents with respect to their general education courses and engineering drawing. Freshman English elicited few expressions of satisfaction but drew the hearty disapproval of a significant proportion of the students, especially the persisters. Sophomore engineering courses--such as statics, dynamics, electrical circuits, and electromechanics--played an important role in the lives of the students interviewed. Substantial differences can be seen between persisters and non-persisters with respect to their reactions to these academic experiences. A large number of the students who remained in engineering were enthused by their first technical courses. A significant percentage of these students said their courses were interest— ing and enjoyable. Although some felt they were quite 94 rigorous, the persisters generally found the material appro- priate and challenging. Many of these students also rated their professors in these sequences as good or excellent. Few of the non-persisters reported similar positive reactions to their sophomore technical course work. It appears that for those students who made it into their second year, the engineering courses then provided the basis for deciding whether to change majors or continue with their original plans to secure an engineering degree. Students apparently relied little upon the guidance of their academic advisers during their freshman and sophomore years. Only a few students reported having an active, close relationship with their advisers. As one student commented, "He's never around when I need him and, when we do meet, we end up reading the catalog together." Dissatisfaction with the academic advising program ran high among both per— sisters and non-persisters. Most students indicated that their relationships with their advisers could be best described as passive, distant, and procedural in nature. In fact, some students felt that their academic advisers were indifferent to their needs and problems. At one of the universities, students indicated that a new approach to academic advising may provide the means for overcoming some of these problems and stimulating greater enthusiasm for and commitment to their educations. (50) It is significant that, while few students from the participating institutions found their advisers 95 helpful in dealing with the various problems of college life, an equally small proportion sought out other university resources such as the counseling service and other members of the faculty. Where then did these students go to seek guidance and support? The interview data reveal, not surprisingly, that the respondents most frequently turned to their friends and roommates for advice and understanding. As a result, acquaintances established through a student's living arrange— ments exercised great influence in the formation of the student's occupational and life values. Fraternities and other extracurricular activities were cited by some as having prompted their decisions to change majors. Other students, however, cite these same influences as supportive of their plans to remain in engineering. This evidence reinforces the belief that a student's social milieu has a significant im— pact on his total development, particularly with respect to his educational and career goals. Summer jobs often aided students in clarifying their occupational objectives. Those who were able to find work related to engineering during the summers following their freshman and sophomore years reported almost unanimously that these experiences had proved very worthwhile. As one student put it, "It was great just to find out what engineers do all day!" Both persisters and non—persisters said their jobs helped them to reassess their future plans. Some concluded 96 that they should change majors before "getting in any deeper." Those who remained in engineering returned to their studies with a new enthusiasm and dedication. The same phenomenon was observed operating with the Northwestern engineering stu— dents who were following the c00perative work—study curricu— lum. All of these men were outspoken proponents of getting some "on—the-job experience." Many said, "It really helps a lot to see how all that theory is used to get a job donei" These students returned from their work assignments not only with a deeper appreciation for the engineering field, but refreshed due to the break from classes and the opportunity to fend for themselves. The final portion of the interview was devoted to explor- ing student reactions to their engineering programs and identifying the perceived reasons non-persisters changed majors. As mentioned earlier, a majority of all the students interviewed found the curricula far too specialized and in— flexible. They felt that the "narrowness" of the programs carries over into the image of the stereotyped engineering student as one who only sleeps, eats and "books it.” These impressions, coupled with the desire to explore the world of ideas more thoroughly, accounted for the attrition of many of the subjects interviewed. A large proportion of the respondents expressed surprise at the content of the individual courses required in engineer- ing. Their high school work and the people with whom they 97 had discussed their plans had provided no clues as to what they would encounter. Similarly, students reported that their preconceptions of the engineering field were equally inaccurate and ill-founded. As they became better informed, many students altered their educational plans. It is note- worthy that these decisions were often made before they had taken any engineering courses. A significant number of the non—persisters changed majors simply because they found the technical courses too difficult for them. Although all of these students were earning above “C" averages when they left, they frequently commented that their performance had not met their own expectations. Some felt they did not possess the necessary ability or preparation to succeed in their engineering programs. As suggested earlier, engineering serves as an I'under— graduate training ground" for many students who plan to go on to careers in a variety of other fields. Management, sales, law and medicine are but a few of the goals toward which some engineering students aSpire. Should their expectations be violated and should they find their engineering courses uninteresting or irrelevant, it is not surprising that they shift the field in which they do their preparatory work. In a similar vein, some students originally committed to engineer- ing develop the desire to explore other career opportunities. This is frequently the natural outgrowth of their expanding knowledge of the world of work. Such patterns of vocational 98 behavior might well be viewed with less concern by engineer- ing educators than at present. High percentages of both persisters and non-persisters expressed satisfaction with their academic programs at the beginning of their junior year. Those who remained in engi— neering were happy that they did so. They seemed particularly enthused because of the advanced engineering course work upon which they had recently embarked. Those respondents who had changed majors displayed equal enthusiasm for their new en- deavors. Large proportions of both groups said they hoped to go on to graduate study at the earliest opportunity. The long-range occupational plans of students reflected a diversity of fields encompassing private industry, education, govern- ment service, the military and several professional careers. Discussion and Summary The complexity of educational and vocational decision— making is widely recognized. The interviews conducted as part of this study have had the modest objective of suggesting some of the feelings, attitudes, and reactions experienced by students during the early years of their engineering programs. Further, it was hoped that a more sensitive understanding of the needs and problems of engineering students would result and that the causes of engineering attrition would become more clearly apparent. 8 The present investigator interviewed a total of 176 students--104 persisters and 72 non-persisters; 99 A semi-standardized interview guide provided the amount of structure desired to facilitate subsequent analysis of the interview data. The findings reported in this chapter are based on a content analysis of the case notes prepared from electronic tape recordings of the interviews. Many influences impinge upon high school students as they choose their college majors. Respondents almost unani- mously reported that their choice of engineering was prompted principally by the success and interest which they had demonstrated in their high school mathematics and science courses. Teachers, guidance counselors and parents frequently reinforced the belief that this was a "sure fire" indication of the appropriateness of engineering. Students were troubled, however, by the realization that they knew little or nothing about the career upon which they presumably were embarking. Their confusion was heightened by the encouragement of ad— visers who themselves "didn't know what engineering really was about." It appears that eventually the students succumbed to the many urgings and plunged ahead, hoping for the best. Students told of family influences which directed them toward engineering. Fathers, brothers and other male rela- tives frequently played a critical role. There is a tendency for students whose fathers are engaged in engineering to per— sist in their engineering programs. The converse also appears to hold: students whose fathers are not engaged in engineering-related work but who attributed great influence 100 to their fathers tend more frequently to change majors. Perhaps this is a function of the better-informed counsel which is provided by fathers who are engineers. Also, this may be further evidence that social mobility needs prompt students from lower middle class families to prioritize most highly the securing of a college degree pg; g3, regardless of field. Respondents who had pursued mechanical or scientific hobbies more frequently remained in their engineering pro- grams. Also, it was discovered that "tinkering around the house" was related to persistence in engineering. It was the persisters--more often than the non-persisters--who said they enjoyed repairing things and thinking about how they worked. Research reviewed earlier has suggested that commitment to an engineering major should be related to persistence in the program. The interview and questionnaire data both sup— port this belief. Many of the persisters offered comments indicating they were rather deeply committed to engineering at an early age. Conversely, the non-persisters more fre- quently explained the choice of engineering as an exploratory venture or a convenient decision. The questionnaire data also provided evidence that early consideration of a scientific career is associated with remaining in an engineering cur— riculum. If indeed early consideration leads to deeper com— mitment, these findings complement each other and provide further support for the theory that persistence is a function of commitment. 101 A variety of other considerations sometimes plays a role in the decision to study engineering. Respondents reported that monetary gains and the prestige and glamour of the field influenced their planning. Also, it was established that, as freshmen, a substantial prOportion of the respondents had intended to use their engineering training simply as a background for careers in other fields. It would seem appro- priate for engineering educators and counselors to give greater cognizance to initial plans of students when assessing causes of engineering attrition. In discussing their reactions to their engineering pro- grams, students recited vivid accounts of their freshman and sophomore years. Many recall their first year as "hectic--a rude awakening." They found it a turbulent, exciting and challenging period full of new friends and new experiences. The demands of the engineering curriculum were a sobering influence in this free-wheeling, socially-minded atmOSphere. Engineering students felt tense and anxious as they would drop further and further behind in many of their class assign- ments. The frustration was often intensified by a friend's or roommate's freedom from comparable requirements in some other curriculum. Mathematics courses and professors con- tributed significantly to the frustration and anguish of these early years in engineering. Depending upon the institution, chemistry or physics might further contribute to the student‘s dissatisfaction with his academic program. For many students, 102 the freshman year was one of doubt and discouragement. It is noteworthy, and should be of some concern to engineering edu- cators and others, that fewer than one-third of the students who had remained in engineering reported they had been basic- ally happy or satisfied during their first year of college. Almost all of the respondents indicated an improvement in their social and academic lives during the sophomore year. Although persisters and non-persisters shared a keen distaste for their highly—structured, inflexible curricula, those stu- dents who persisted in the program apparently came to accept this as a "fact of life." Non-persisters, on the other hand, grew more and more disenchanted with their engineering pro— grams and eventually made the decision to change majors. The sophomore engineering courses proved to be critical turn- ing points for members of both groups. Persisters were grati- fied to finally get to the courses for which they had been preparing. The lack of satisfaction experienced by non— persisters confirmed their inclinations to leave engineering. The interviews revealed additional influences which af— fected the students' educational and career plans. Summer jobs related to engineering helped students to clarify and reassess their future goals--prompting some to change majors while confirming the plans of others. Similar advantages were realized from the cooperative work-study program at North- western University. Students not only learned what realistic requirements they would have to meet on the job but they 103 consistently returned from their work assignments with heightened enthusiasm for their studies. The lack of influence of the academic advisers was strik- ing. Persisters and non—persisters alike criticized their unavailability, their lack of relevant and current information and their frequent lack of interest in the advising task. A large proportion of the students reported the relationships with their advisers as passive, distant and procedural in nature. An experimental advising program using full-time guidance personnel at one of the schools elicited favorable comments from many students. Respondents indicated that they turned most frequently to other students for advice and understanding. Individual friends and peer groups played an important role either in sustaining interest for engineering or prompting changes of major. As a result, the full impact of the primary friendship group within the residence hall, the fraternity, the student engineering society and other extracurricular activities came to be appreciated more completely. Extensive consideration was given to the reasons expressed by non—persisters for leaving engineering. A majority of all the respondents found the curriculum far too Specialized and inflexible. This view was held frequently by the superior students. They seemed to feel constrained intellectually and longed for the opportunity to partake of the "academic smorgasbord” available at their respective universities. 104 Some did so by changing majors. Other students altered their educational plans due to the violation of their ex- pectations concerning the course content of the engineering curriculum and the nature of the work encompassed by the engineering profession. A significant number of non- persisters left engineering simply because they found the technical courses too difficult for them. They admitted they "just couldn't cut it!" Finally, it was recognized that be— cause engineering serves as an "undergraduate training ground" for several other fields, engineering educators might well expect students oriented in those directions to change majors more frequently than students dedicated to the engineering profession. It should also be expected that major changes will naturally occur as students decide to explore and verify their expanding knowledge of the world of work. Both persisters and non—persisters expressed widespread satisfaction with the academic programs they were pursuing as juniors. While virtually all of the respondents were under— standably concerned with their draft status, many said that impending military service had not influenced their previously- formed plans to engage in graduate study. The students inter— viewed saw themselves in a variety of work situations in the future ranging from private industry and government service to education and the legal and medical professions. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Problem and Methodology Decreasing engineering enrollments and increasing attri- tion of talented engineering students have attracted the concern of government and industrial leaders, engineering educators and others interested in the Nation's scientific manpower needs. An extensive review of the literature re- vealed little research which has contributed insight to the causes of these increasing attrition rates. As a result, this exploratory study was conceived to identify factors causally related to persistence and change in major field of academic— ally proficient engineering students during their freshman and sophomore years at Michigan State University, Northwestern University and the Madison campus of The University of Wisconsin. The population consisted of all the male students who entered engineering at the three universities as first-time freshmen in September 1963. The sample was comprised of two groups--the persisters and non-persisters. The non- persisters were those members of the population who had been in continuous attendance since their matriculation and who had changed majors to non-engineering curricula during the 105 106 freshman or sophomore year while earning at least a "C" cumulative grade point average. A comparison group of per- sisters was established by individually matching students from the population who had demonstrated the same academic potential as the non-persisters but who had persevered in the pursuit of their engineering degrees. A questionnaire and an interview guide were deveIOped to assess the nature and im- portance of each student's pre-college and college experiences that influenced his educational and vocational planning. During the fall of 1965, following the administration of the questionnaires by mail, the present investigator conducted the 30-40 minute, in-depth interviews on the respective cam- puses. Electronic tape recordings were made to facilitate subsequent analysis of the interview data. Findings and Conclusions Of the 326 students invited to participate, 221 (68 per- cent) returned questionnaires. Due to the exploratory nature of the study, no hypotheses had been formulated for testing. However, the comparison of the responses of persisters and non-persisters to various questionnaire items implied the following operational hypothesis: There are differences between the persisters and non- persisters with respect to each of the variables in- cluded in the questionnaire. Primarily the chi-square statistic was used to determine whether the respective independent variables were related to 107 persistence in an engineering curriculum. The following re- sults were found to be statistically significant. 1. Subjects from working class and upper middle class homes tend to persist in engineering curricula more frequently than those from lower middle class homes. 2. Non-persisters attach proportionately more importance to social status and prestige than do persisters. Further analysis revealed that lower middle class students are those who predominantly hold this value. These findings and the interview results suggest that upward social mobility may be a primary factor underlying college attendance for lower mid- dle class students. If so, they may be concerned most with securing a college degree p§£_§g_regardless of field. 3. Non-persisters attach proportionately more importance than persisters to the opportunity to work with people rather than things. 4. Non—persisters, more often than persisters, believe they will find jobs which will provide the opportunity to work with people rather than things. These findings that "people- oriented" respondents change out of engineering appear to be consistent with the evidence gathered by Rosenberg, Holland. and others (cited earlier) that students make changes in their fields of study which result in greater consonance between their personal values and the values held by those already in their newly chosen fields. 5. Proportionately more subjects from suburban high schools persist in their engineering studies than do those 108 graduated from central city and non-metropolitan high schools. This finding and discussions with the students suggest that high school climates may have distinctive characteristics which intensify student interests in specific fields. If so, certain influences may be at work which give suburban high schools a more pronounced "scientific orientation" than the high schools found in the central city and in non-metropolitan areas. Research similar to the work of Pace and Stern with college environments might prove fruitful in understanding better the characteristics and impact of high school climates. 6. The age at which respondents first considered the possibility of a career in science or engineering is inversely related to persistence in an engineering program. Taking this evidence and the comments of students into account sug- gests that early consideration of a career leads to a deeper commitment to the field. The results of this study and other investigations indicate that the highly committed student is more likely to persevere in his decision even in the face of formidable obstacles. 7. Persisters, more frequently than non-persisters, used their own savings to finance their freshman and SOphomore years in college. This result was unexpected and is somewhat puzzling. Its appearance is perhaps simply a chance occur- rence. 8. Non-persisters have significantly lower grade point averages at the time of departure from engineering than do 109 their matched persisters at similar points in their college careers. It might be reasoned that the non-persisters experienced greater anxiety in connection with their academic programs and questioned more frequently their possible chances of eventual success in both their engineering curricula and in the field itself. These less successful students may have found themselves in an atmOSphere of impending scholastic danger, thus prompting them to change their majors. An equally plausible explanation is the assumption that while in engineer— ing, non-persisters found their courses of little interest or challenge. Lacking enthusiasm for their studies, these stu- dents failed to mobilize their full intellectual resources and consequently earned significantly lower grades than their counterparts. Both explanations may have merit depending upon the individual student. 9. Of the 73 chi-square analyses, 67 of the values ob- tained did not reach statistical significance. As they have been reported in Chapter IV, only those negative findings which are considered to be most noteworthy will be mentioned here. It was expected that more persisters than non-persisters would have been involved in science clubs and JETS organi~ zations (Junior Engineering Technical Society). This did not prove to be the case. Nor were differences found between persisters and non—persisters with respect to their partici— pation in dramatics, publications, speech, student government, and foreign language clubs. The findings indicate a remarkable 110 similarity among these students in terms of their high school activity patterns. Interviews were conducted with a total of 176 students-- 104 persisters and 72 non-persisters. The findings reported below are based on a content analysis of the case notes pre— pared from electronic tape recordings of the interviews. 10. Although students choose engineering majors for a wide variety of reasons, the following are among the most com- mon for the respondents in this study: a) success and interest in high school science and mathe- matics courses, b) the encouragement toward engineering received from fathers, brothers, relatives and friends, c) the interest developed while pursuing mechanical or scientific hobbies and leisure-time activities, d) extrinsic features such as the monetary benefits, prestige and glamour of the field, and e) the belief that an undergraduate engineering program would provide a sound background for a career in some other field. These findings dramatize the intricacies of the educational decision-making process and suggest that the explanations for changes in these decisions may be even more complex and dif- ficult to identify. 11. High school students, teachers, guidance counselors and parents evidently know little about the work of the 111 professional engineer or the nature of the educational pro- grams leading to such careers. As a result, it appears that many of the decisions to enter engineering are based on limited or inaccurate perceptions of the field and curricula. 12. Respondents indicate that the early years of their college programs are often frustrating and anxious periods during which they must work out a multitude of personal and social problems while clarifying their educational and career goals. 13. There is widespread dissatisfaction among students interviewed with the highly structured, inflexible engineering curricula. These feelings are expressed frequently by both persisters and non-persisters. 14. Certain required courses, especially mathematics, antagonize many students and reinforce misconceptions of the nature of engineering work. One concludes that many non- engineering personnel play significant roles in determining the early attitudes and opinions of freshman and sophomore engineering students. 15. Sophomore engineering courses are welcomed and en- joyed by most students. Both persisters and non-persisters report that these courses were helpful to them in deciding whether to remain in engineering. 16. Friends and acquaintances of respondents play im- portant roles in their decisions to continue their engineering studies or change to other curricula. 112 17. Large proportions of both persisters and non- persisters report passive, procedural relationships with their academic advisers as being typical throughout their college years. Students apparently made little use of other resources such as the counseling center and other members of the faculty. 18. Engineering—related work experience provided by summer jobs and cooperative work-study programs helps students determine whether they are best suited for and most interested in an engineering career. Both persisters and non-persisters enthusiastically support summer job programs and ask that their universities aid them in finding relevant work situ- ations. These results correspond to the wholehearted endorse- ment given summer technical work in a recent survey of stu- dents, engineering colleges and employers. (56) 19. Non-persisters cite a variety of reasons for changing out of engineering. Those most frequently mentioned include: a) Students had mistaken impressions of the engineering field. b) Students were dissatisfied with the content of the required courses. c) The student's scholastic performance did not meet his self—expectations. d) Students adopted new career goals. e) Students felt they could find more appropriate routes to the non-engineering career goals they had originally established. 113 f) Students wanted to explore other career opportunities. These findings suggest that an unwarranted number of curricu— lum changes may be caused by misconceptions of the engineering program and the engineering field. On the other hand, much of the switching being done is probably a result of students mak» ing positive, healthy reassessments of their personal interests and aptitudes. Recommendations The following recommendations have evolved from the find- ings of the study and take into consideration many of the sug— gestions offered by the students interviewed. (4,5,6) 1. Engineering educators and professional engineering societies should undertake serious efforts to communicate more widely and more clearly the nature of the work performed by engineers and the content of engineering curricula. These ef- forts should reveal the great diversity of activity within the engineering profession verified in recent national studies. (18,34,68) 2. The various professional engineering organizations should give serious consideration to centralizing and unifying the primary responsibility for guidance activities on behalf of the profession. Given the necessary support and c00pera— tion, the Junior Engineering Technical Society (JETS) could perhaps serve effectively in this role. 3. High schools should assess their total programs to en- sure that all available opportunities are realized for helping 114 students to better understand the world of work. In particular, efforts should be made to utilize all resources which aid both students and staff in gaining a deeper appreciation for the nature of engineering. The work of the high school counselor should be integrated with the roles played by mathematics and science teachers in guiding students toward careers in the physical sciences and engineering. COOperation between high schools and nearby universities, such as the program sponsored by The University of Wisconsin (51), should be promoted to en- rich the guidance services available to students. 4. Engineering schools should attempt to clarify for po- tential students the types of engineering programs which they offer and the responsibilities which their students assume upon graduation. 5. Engineering schools should recognize the unique needs of their freshman students and provide specific programs to meet these needs. A carefully considered freshman curriculum and a qualified counseling staff can promote important indi- vidual contacts with students which aid them in identifying with engineering and adjusting to their chosen majors. Some schools have already made progress in these directions. (44,50) 6. A sound, responsive academic advising program should be provided at all levels of a student's formal education. Advisers must be readily available and give evidence of their genuine interest in their advisees. Their work should be recognized and supported by all members of the faculty. 115 7. Engineering educators should be alert to the possi— bilities of reinforcing the commitment freshmen and sophomores have made to the program. Earlier introduction of academic work taught by engineering professors, greater flexibility in course scheduling, efforts to reveal the future possibilities of an engineering career, and activities which help the indi- vidual student identify with the engineering school and other engineering students all deserve serious consideration. It is recognized that these suggestions have been offered by others before. (26) 8. Engineering schools should initiate or intensify their efforts to maintain complete records of student turnover if meaningful data are desired to assess trends in engineering enrollments and attrition. Studies of an intercurricular nature are needed to place engineering data in perspective, as is being done in an investigation now underway. (14) Implications for Further Research The findings and conclusions stated above suggest ques- tions which merit the attention of future investigators. These questions, outlined below, could be readily translated into operational hypotheses for use in their research. 1. Are the motivations of students from different social class backgrounds related to distinctive patterns of per- sistence or change in educational objectives? 2. Do students characterized by different value orien- tations tend to change majors within and between principal 116 disciplines so as to increase the consonance between their value systems and those of the people already in their newly chosen fields? 3. Does early serious consideration of an engineering career result in a deeper commitment to the field which is later manifest by persistence in an engineering program? 4. Can high schools be identified with respect to the ascendance of distinctive intellectual climates which then predispose graduates to persevere in those college disciplines most closely related to the ascendant characteristics of the respective high schools? REFERENCES Allen, Hugh. The High School Seniors: Two Years Later. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1961. American Society for Engineering Education ECAC Committee for the Analysis of Engineering Enrollment. Factors Influencing EngineeringgEnrollment. Washington D. C.: American Society for Engineering Education, October, 1965. Augustine, Roger D. "Progress Report No. 13." One of a series from A Study of Factors Related to the Retention and Attrition of Engineering Students at Three Mid— western Universities. ’East Lansing, Michigan: Michi— gan State University, July 6, 1966. Augustine, Roger D. "Transcripts of the Suggestions Of— fered by Students from Michigan State University." One of a series from A Study of Factors Related to the Retention and Attrition of Engineering Students at Three Midwestern Universities. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, March 21, 1966. Augustine, Roger D. "Transcripts of the Suggestions Offered by Students from Northwestern University." One of a series from A Study of Factors Related to the Retention and Attrition of Engineering Students at Three Mid— western Universities. East Lansing, Michigan: Michi- gan State University, March 17, 1966. Augustine, Roger D. "Transcripts of the Suggestions Offered by Students from the University of Wisconsin." One of a series from A Study of Factors Related to the Retention and Attrition of Engineering Students at Three Midwestern Universities. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, March 9, 1966. Ball, F. J., Ruble, W. L., and Kiel, D. J. Calculation of Basic Statistics on the BASTAT Routine. (STAT Series Description No. 5) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 'January, 1966. 117 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 118 Beall, Lynnette, and Bordin, Edward S. "The Development and Personality of Engineers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43, No. 1 (September, 1964), 23-32. Bereiter, Carl, and Freedman, Mervin B. "Fields of Study and the People in Them," in The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), 563-596. Bridgman, D. S. "Engineering Student Dropouts," Journal of Engineering Education, 50, No. 8 (April, 1960), 611-619. Centers, Richard. The Psychologygof Social Classes. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1949. David, Heather M. "Scientist/Engineer Shortage Worsens," Missiles and Rockets, 10, No. 1 (January 1, 1962), 12+. Davis, D. A., Hagan, N., and Strouf, J. "Occupational Choice of Twelve—Year—Olds," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 40, No. 7 (March, 1962), 628-629. Davis, James A. Undergraduate Career Decisions. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965. Demand for Engineers--1962. New York: Engineering Man— power Commission, July, 1962. Dunham, Ralph E. "Engineering Degrees (1964—65) and Enrollments (Fall 1965) in Institutions with One or More ECPD—Accredited Curricula," Journal of Engineer- ing Education, 56, No. 6 (February, 1966), 181-197. Dunnette, Marvin D., et al. "Further Research on Vocational Interest Differences Among Several Types of Engineers," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42, No. 5 (January, 1964), 484—493. Endicott, Frank S. Trends in Employment of College and University Graduates in Business and Industry. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University, 1965. Engineering Student Attrition. New York: Engineering Man— power Commission, April, 1963. Foecke, H. A. The Engineering Manpower Situation--Present and Future. New York: Engineering Manpower Com- mission, July, 1962. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 119 Gamble, Glenn W. "Pre-College Experiences and Curriculum Changes by College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 40, No. 6 (February, 1962), 561-564. Ginsberg, Eli, et al. Occupational Choice. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. Grande, Peter W. "Persistence and Change of Educational Objectives of Engineering Freshmen," Journal of College Student Personnel, 6, No. 2 (December, 1964), 98-101. Gray, James T. "Needs and Values in Three Occupations," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42, No. 3 (November, 1963). 238—244. Greenfield, Lois B. "Attrition Among First Semester Engi- neering Freshmen," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 42, No. 10 (June, 1964), 1003-1010. Hall, W. A. "Scholastic Failures and Superior Students," Journal of Engineering Education, 49, No. 8 (April, 1959), 699-703. Hammond, Marjorie. "Attitudinal Changes of 'Successful" Students in a College of Engineering," Journal of Counseling Psychology. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1959), 69-71. Holland, John L., and Nichols, Robert C. "Explorations of a Theory of Vocational Choice: III. A Longitudinal Study of Change in Major Field of Study," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43, No. 3 (November, 1964), 235—242. Investing in Scientific Progress 1961-1970. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, 1961. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rineholt and Co., 1964. Kinnane, J. F., and Pable, M. W. "Family Background and Work Value Orientation," Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 9, No. 4 (Winter, 1962), 320-325. Korn, Harold A. "Differences Between Majors in Engineering and Physical Sciences on CPI and SVID Scores," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 9, No. 4 (Winter, 1962), 306-312. Krulee, Gilbert, and Baker, Frank. "Engineers at North- western," Northwestern Engineer, March, 1963, 20-21+. LeBold, William, K., et al. "The Engineer in Industry and Government," Journal of Engineering Education 56, No. 7 (March, 1966), 237-274. ' 35. 36. 37. 58. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 120 Lewis, Don, and Burke, C. J. "The Use and Misuse of the Chi-square Test," Psychological Bulletin, 46, No. 6 (November, 1949), 433-489. The Long-Range Demand for Scientific and Technical Person— nel--A Methodological Study. Washington, D.C.: National Science Foundation, 1961. Maccoby, Eleanor E., and Maccoby, Nathan. "The Interview: A Tool of Social Science," in The Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge, Massa- chusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Inc., 1954), Vol. 1, 449-488. MacCurdy, Robert D. "Engineer or Scientist?" Journal of Counseling Psychology, 8, No. 1 (Spring, 1961), 79—81. Marsh, Lee M. "College Dropouts-~A Review," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, No. 5 (January, 1966), 475-481. Montgomery, James R. Proceedings of the Research Confer- ence on College Dropouts. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee, 1964. McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Parten, Mildred B. Surveys, Polls and Samples. New York: Harper and Row, 1950. Pierson, Rowland R. "Changes of Majors by University Students,” Personnel and Guidance Journal, 40, No. 5 (January, 1962), 4585461. Rabins, Michael J. "Teaching Engineering to Freshmen-- A Favorable Experience at NYU," Journal of Engineering Education, 56, No. 10 (May, 1966), 345-347. Reid, John W., et al. "A Four—Year Study of the Character- istics of Engineering Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 41, No. 1 (September, 1962), 38—43. Reik, Louis, Dalrymple, Willard A., and Pervin, Lawrence A. The College Dropout and the Utilization of Talent. A Report of the Princeton Conference on College Drop- outs conducted in October, 1964. (In Press.) Reiss, Albert J., Jr. Occupations and Social Status. New York: The Free Press, 1961. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 121 Robinson, Edward J., and Lerbinger, Otto. The Engineer Today. New York: Esso Research and Engineering Company, [1963]. Rosenberg, Morris. Occupations and Values. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. Ryder, J. D. "Motivation and Counseling of Engineering Students," Journal of Engineering Education, 56, No. 7 (March, 1966), 287—289. Sanborn, Marshall P., and Rothney, John W. M. ”Wisconsin's Research—Through-Service Program for Superior High School Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, No. 7 (March, 1966), 694~700. Schnore, Leo F. "Satellites and Suburbs,” in The Sub- urban CommuniLY. ed. William M. Dobriner (New York: G. P. Putnam‘s Sons, 1958), 109-121. Scientists, Engineers, and Technicians in the 1960's-- Requirements and Supply. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, 1963. Sim, F. M., Widmayer, L. C., and Lesgold, A. M. Analysis of Contingency Tables (ACT) for the CDC 3600. (Technical Report 18--Revised) East Lansing, Michigan: Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, August 17, 1965. Stielstra, William. "A Study of the Beliefs and Academic Behavior of Freshman Engineering Students at Purdue University." Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961. Summer Employment of Engineering Students. New York: Engineers Joint Council, December, 1965. Summerskill, John. ”Dropouts from College," in The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), 627-657. Super, Donald E., et a1, Career Development: Self—Concept Theory. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Super, Donald E. ”Goal Specificity in the Vocational Counseling of Future College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43, No. 2 (October, 1964), 127-134. Super, Donald E. The Psychology of Careers. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 122 Super, Donald E., and Bachrach, Paul E. Scientific Careers and Vocational Development Theory. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957. Super, Donald E., et g1, Vocational Development. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1957. Super, Donald E., and Overstreet, Phoebe L. The Vocational Maturity of Ninth-Grade Boys. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1960. Thistlethwaite, Donald L. Recruitment and Retention of Talented College Studentg, Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University, 1963. Thompson, 0. E. I'Impact of Commitment Upon Performance of College Students," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, No. 5 (January, 1966), 503-506. Thompson, 0. E. "Occupational Values of High School Stu- dents," Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, No. 8 Tiedeman, David V., and O'Hara, Robert P. Career Develop- ment: Choice and Adjustment. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963. Two Years After the College Degree. Washington, D. C.: National Science Foundation, 1963. Warren, J. R. "Self Concept, Occupational Role Expectation and Change in College Major," Journal of Counseling Psychology. 8, No. 2 (Summer, 1961), 164-169. Watley, Donivan J. I'Time of Decision to Study Engineering,’ Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, No. 1 (September, 1965), 63-67. Willingham, Warren W. "Freshman Grades and Educational Decisions," Journal of EngineeringgEducation, 54, No. 10 (June, 1964), 329-332. Wissink, G. A. American Cities in Perspective. Assen, The Netherlands: Royal VanGorcum Ltd., 1962. Zimmerer, Ann Morgan. "A Study of Selected Variables for Predicting Success in a College of Engineering," Dissertation Abstracts, 24, No. 2 (August, 1963), 842. APPENDICES 123 APPENDIX A COVER LETTER FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE Note: This cover letter used at Michigan State University is typical of those sent by the deans of engineering at Northwestern University and The University of Wisconsin. 124 125 October 28, 1965 The College of Engineering has a continuing interest in the academic progress of all of its students, those who have remained in engineering as well as those who have changed to other majors. We are cooperating with two other universities-- Wisconsin and Northwestern--in a study intended to explore some of the influences on students who remain in engineering as well as those who transfer to other fields. I hope you will help us by participating in this study. A grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation has made it possible for us to explore with the 1963 entering engineering classes many of the questions of vocational choice faced by every student in high school. In addition to this concern, we are anxious to learn of the effect which your freshman and sophomore experiences have had upon your educational and voca- tional planning. We would like you to complete the enclosed questionnaire and follow through with a short interview at a later date. Mr. Roger D. Augustine of our University is serv- ing as the project director and will contact you during the next week or two to arrange this interview at your convenience. I hope you will be frank in discussing your experiences here at Michigan State. I assure you the information you pro- vide in the questionnaire and interview will be held in the strictest of confidence by Mr. Augustine. He will integrate the comments of all the students in order to identify signifi- cant trends and problem areas. These general interpretations will help us to serve better those high school and college students who are considering entering the engineering profes- Sion. I encourage you to participate in this study. If you de- cide to do so, please fill out the enclosed questionnaire and return it at your earliest convenience to Mr. Augustine in the addressed, stamped envelope provided. Thank you very much for your c00peration. Sincerely yours, J. D. Ryder, Dean JDR/gf APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE 126 A STUDY OF THE 1963 ENTERING ENGINEERING CLASSES AT THREE MID-WESTERN UNIVERSITIES To the student: Your cooperation in filling out this questionnaire completely and promptly will help your University to serve better the students who are following in your foot- steps. Although the questionnaire is six pages long, you will find it requires only a short time to complete. This results from the frequent use of multiple-choice responses. Please feel free to elaborate upon any question if you wish. You may use the back of the questionnaire whenever necessary. The information you provide will be held in the strictest of confidence. As we are most anxious to have your individual opinions, please do not discuss your responses with other people. Thank you very much. Please mail this questionnaire no later than . Name Marital status (Last) (First) (MI) School address Phone (Number) (Street) (City) 1. What is the name of your home town? (City) (State) 2. What is the name and location of the high school from which you were graduated? Name: City: State: 3. What was the approximate size of your graduating class? (Circle the appropriate response.) 1. 1-99 2. 100-249 3. 250-499 4. 500-749 5. 750 or more 4. Please specify your age to your nearest birthday. years 5. Do you have any brothers or sisters? Circle one: Yes No If yes, please answer questions 6 and 7 when appropriate. 6. Circle the ages of all your brothers (to the nearest birthday). 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 If others, specify ages: 10. ll. 12. l3. 14. Circle the ages of all your sisters (to the nearest birthday). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 If others, specify ages: r . 1 What was the highest level of education attained by your father? (Circle the appropriate number or, if he engaged in graduate study, circle the appropriate phrase. Consider any part of a year a full year for this purpose.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -13 14115 16. Elementary school High school College, business school, etc. Graduate school: Masters or Doctorate or Other (specify): What is your father's present occupation? (Be Specific; for example: Pipe . fitter, civil engineer, etc. If deceased or retired, specify last occupation.) " 'Graduate school: ‘Masters or Doctorate or Other (specify): —7— fi' What was your father's occupation at the time you were born? What was the highest level of education attained by your mother? (Circle the appropriate number or, if she engaged in graduate study, circle the appropriate phrase. Consider any part of a year a full year for this purpose.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Elementary school High school College, business school, etc. What is your mother's present occupation? (Be Specific; for example: Housewife, stenographer, high school teacher, etc. If deceased or retired, specify last occupation.) In which of these four groups do you consider your family to be? (Circle the appropriate response.) . Upper class . Middle class . working class . Lower class 4‘me In the future, how do you expect your own income to compare with that of the family in which you were brought up? (Circle apprOpriate reaponse.) 1. Higher income 2. About the same income 3. Lower income 15. 16. 17. 18. Students usually have many good reasons for coming to college. Rank in order the five reasons that seem most important to you, using "1" to indicate the most important, "2" to indicate the second most important, etc.. Ybu may add others or explain. 1. ___ To get a liberal education 2. ___ To prepare for a vocation 3. ___ For the prestige of a college degree 4. ____To be with old school friends 5. ___ To make friends and helpful connections 6. ___ For social enjoyment; "College Life" 7. ___ To please parents or friends 8. ___ Family tradition 9. ___ To learn more of certain subjects 10. ___ It was the thing to do, foregone conclusion; I never questioned why 11. ‘___ Without college training, there is less chance of getting a job 12. ‘___ Will enable me to make more money Explanation: which of the following best describes your parents' attitude, in general, when you were in high school? (Read the alternatives carefully and circle the number of the most appropriate response.) 1. It was expected that all the children would go to college. 2. Parents encouraged those children who wanted to go to college to do so, but it was not assumed that all would go. 3. It was not assumed that all the children would go to college. 4. Parents discouraged college attendance. Sometimes parents have different attitudes toward a college education for their sons versus a college education for their daughters. Which of the following best describes your parents' attitudes when you were in high school? (Read the alternatives carefully and circle the number of the most appropriate response.) 1. It was assumed that the boys, but not necessarily the girls, would go to college. 2. It was assumed that the girls, but not necessarily the boys, would go to college. 3. It was assumed that children who wanted to go to college should be encouraged to do so. 4. It was assumed that any of the children who wanted to go to college would have to make it without the encouragement of his parents. 5. It was assumed that all children should go to college. In most families, some sacrifice is necessary to make it possible for children to attend college. Looking back, what statement best describes the sacrifice made in your family to permit you to attend college? (Circle the number of the most appropriate reSponse.) no sacrifice small sacrifice moderate sacrifice great sacrifice D~uahara I O Most students have some opinions of what their ideal job ought to be like and what requirements it ought to satisfy. Some of these characteristics are listed below. As you read the list, consider to what extent a job or career would have . to satisfy each of these requirements before you would consider it ideal. Indicate its importance for you by circling "VGI" forv very great importance, "GI" for great importance, "M1" for moderate importance and "LI" for little importance. The ideal 192 for me would have to: 1G; §_]_I _M_I_ L; a. Provide me an opportunity to use my . Special abilities or aptitudes. VGI GI M1 L1 b. Provide me with a chance to earn a good deal of money. VGI GI MI LI c. Permit me to be creative and original. VGI GI M1 L1 d. Give me social Status and prestige. VGI GI M1 L1 e. Give me an opportunity to work with people rather than things. VGI GI MI LI f. Enable me to look forward to a stable, secure future. VGI GI M1 L1 g. Leave me relatively free of supervision by others. VGI GI MI LI h. Give me a chance to exercise leadership. VGI GI M1 LI 1. Provide me with adventure. VGI GI MI LI j. Give me an opportunity to be helpful to others. VGI GI MI LI Realistically, the job or career one actually selects may not meet all one's requirements for an ideal job. Indicate the degree to which you expect realis- tically to find these characteristics in the career you have selected or intend to select by circling "VGL" for very great likelihood, "GL" for great likelihood, "ML" for moderate likelihood and "LL" for little likelihood. I realistically expect the job that I select to: XE; ‘QL ML_ LL a. Provide me an opportunity to use my Special abilities or aptitudes. VGL GL ML LL b. Provide me with a chance to earn a good deal of money. VGL GL ML LL c. Permit me to be creative and original. VGL GL ML LL d. Give me social status and prestige. VGL GL ML LL e. Give me an Opportunity to work with people rather than things. - VGL GL ML LL f. Enable me to look forward to a stable, secure future. VGL GL ML LL 3. Leave me relatively free of supervision by others. VGL GL ML LL h. Give me a chance to exercise leadership. VGL GL ML LL i. Provide me with adventure. VGL GL ML LL j. Give me an opportunity to be helpful to others. VGL _ GL ML LL 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. About how much money do you expect to earn per year about 10 years after you have completed your formal education--assuming the buying power of the dollar continues at the present level? (Circle the appropriate reSponse.) 1. $ 4,999 or less 2. 5,000 - 9,999 3. 10,000 - 14,999 4. 15,000 - 19,999 5. 20,000 or over How old were you when you first considered the possibility of a career in the area of science or engineering? years How old were you when you actually decided to enroll in an engineering school? years What courses did you most enjoy during high school? What courses did you least enjoy during high school? In what extra-curricular activities did you participate in high school? (Circle all appropriate responses and add any activities you wish.) 1. Individual sports 7. Publications (newspaper, yearbook, etc.) 2. Team Sports 8. Speech and/or debate team 3. Science clubs 9. Foreign language clubs 4. JETS Club 10. Student government 5. Musical organizations 11. -0ther: 6. Dramatics What hobbies or other leisure activities have you engaged in over the past several years? Briefly describe any activities or experiences which you had during or after high school which you feel had a significant effect on your educational or vocational plans. These might include part-time or sumer jobs, special science or engineering institutes, other unusual Opportunities for study or travel, etc. - 6 - 29. Prior to entering the University, did you have any personal contacts with people in the field of engineering? Circle one: Yes No If yes, describe brief- ly their relationship to you (e.g. Uncle, friend of family, etc.) and the nature of their work. 30. What was your department or major in engineering when you entered the University in September, 1963? 31. What is your present department or major? J—‘ 32. If you changed your department or major, when did you do so? (Month) (Year) 33. What sources of financial assistance did you have during your freshman and sophomore years: (Circle all appropriate responses.) 1. parents 4. your savings 7. loan 2. relatives 5. your part-time job 8. other (Specify) 3. scholarship 6. your summer job 34. Please briefly describe your long-range educational goals when you entered the University as a freshman. 35. Have these changed? (Circle one) Yes No If yes, how? APPENDIX C THE INTERVIEW GUIDE 155 154 THE INTERVIEW GUIDE Question 1. Let's start off by getting down to a very im— portant matter. Would you try to describe, as specifically as possible, what led you to choose engineering as your college major? Follow-up questions to question 1. 1a. 1b. 1c. 1d. 1e. 1f. lg. 1h. Question Follow-up 2a. 2b. 2c. 2d. 2e. 2f. 29. 2h. Question Question Question What about the school? . . the teachers, the counselors? How about your family? . . parents, relatives, friends? What about you as an individual? What about jobs and summer activities? What else had you been doing? How about society in general? When did you actually decide on an engineering major? What prompted you to attend this University? 2. Moving now to your college days, how do you feel about the experiences you had during your first two years of school? Would you describe them for me a little? questions to question 2. What were your plans originally? What did you expect? How about your courses? . . your View of their relevance in your curriculum? What about the faculty? . . the quality of instruction? How about the academic advising program? How about the non-academic personnel (counselors, residence hall staff, etc.)? What about life outside-of-class? Any Special pressures or responsibilities on you? '3a. For those who changed majors: Would you try to tell me why, exactly, did you change to ? (his new major) How do you feel about your present course of action? 3b. For those who remained ig_engineering: How do you feel about your engineering program right now? In what ways has it met or exceeded your expectations? In what ways has it not? 4. What suggestions would you like to make that would help the University and engineering better serve the needs of high school and college students? APPENDIX D TIME SCHEDULE FOR DATA COLLECTION 135 156 TIME SCHEDULE FOR DATA COLLECTION Fall, 1965 M.._SU_ 912 yr 1. Questionnaire to be posted Oct. 28 Oct. 24 Nov. 8 2. Student deadline for posting return of questionnaire Nov. 5 Oct. 29 Nov. 18 3. Begin follow-up phone calls to subjects not returning questionnaires* Nov. 6 Nov. 2 Nov. 22 4. Begin phone calls to subjects to set appointments* Nov. 8 Nov. 5 Nov. 18 5. Interviews Nov. 9-50 Nov. 17— Dec. 1—4 20 Dec. 12-15 * Phone calls placed by the three project research assistants at the respective universities. APPENDIX E MISCELLANEOUS TABLES 137 158 Table E1. t values obtained when comparing respondents with non-respondents in persister and non—persister groups with respect to numerical aptitude t Values T University Test Used df Fersisters‘Nen—persisters Michigan State CQT-Numerical 70 1.40 -O.47 Northwestern SAT-Mathematics 55 -O.26 1.45 Wisconsin COT-Numerical 54 -O.18 -O.4O T These values are not significant at the .05 level. 159 Table E2. t values obtained when comparing persisters with non-persisters in the respondent group for each university with respect to numerical aptitude University Test Used df t Values T Michigan State CQT—Numerical 92 0.94 Northwestern SAT-Mathematics 54 -0.59 Wisconsin CQT-Numerical 89 0.72 T These values are not significant at the .05 level. 140 Table E5° Point biserial correlationsibetween_persistence and selected independent variables Variable r pb Prestige rating of father‘s present occupation .05 Prestige rating of father's occupation at respondent's birth -.05 Years of schooling of father .09 Years of schooling of mother .08 Age when student first considered possibility of a career in science or engineering -.25* Age when student actually decided to enroll in an engineering school -.09 Degrees of freedom 219 * Significant at .05 level. 141 Table E4. Comparisons of the grade point averages of non- persisters at time of departure from engineering and their matched persisters at similar times in their academic careers Non-persisters Persisters Obtained Mean and S.D. Mean and S.D. df t value Regular study group 2.55 i 0.46 2.75 i 0 54 524 -4.08* Michigan State 2.51 i 0.45 2.86 i 0.55 142 —4.51* Northwestern 2.51 i 0.46 2.58 i 0.42 68 -0.72 Wisconsin 2.56 i 0.49 2.72 i 0 58 110 -1.55 Pretest group 2.45 i 0.56 2.64 i 0.50 122 -2.54* * Significant at .05 level. 142 Table E5. Typical occupations of respondents' fathers in three social class groups * Automobile Mechanic Baker Barber Farmer group: Bakery Foreman Bricklayer Superintendent High School Teacher Master Electrician Motel Owner Owner of a Grocery Store Owner of a Tavern Refrigerator - Air Conditioning Technician Salesman Service Manager - Automobile Repair Tool and Die Maker Wholesale Beer Distributor Typical occupations of respondents' fathers in upper middle class group: Accountant Airline Pilot Attorney Chemical Engineer Civil Engineer Electrical Engineer Industrial Engineer Mechanical Engineer Metallurgical Engineer Plant Manager President of Insurance Company Production Manager Purchasing Agent Sales Engineer Surgeon Vice President of Production Typical occupation of respondents' fathers in working class group: Typical occupations of respondents' fathers in lower middle class * For the purpose of this study, the three social classes have been defined as follows: Working class: 50-64 on N.O.R.C. occupational prestige scale Lower middle class: 65-79 on N.O.R.C. occupational prestige scale Upper middle class: 80-89 on N.O.R.C. occupational prestige scale 145 Table E6. Breakdown of responses by social class: importance of social status and prestige as a characteristic of an "ideal" job NP P Totals WORKING CLASS Very great importance 1 1 2 N (N 0'1 Great importance Moderate importance 5 11 14 Little importance 2 6 8 No response _;_ _1, '_1 Totals 8 22 50 LOWER MIDDLE CLASS Very great importance 5 2 7 Great importance 21 10 51 Moderate importance 28 27 55 Little importance 8 15 21 No response _;_ ._; ._1 Totals 65 52 115 UPPER MIDDLE CLASS Very great importance - 1 1 Great importance 7 12 19 Moderate importance 9 19 28 Little importance 2 10 12 No response __1 ._: ._1 Totals 19 42 61 144 Table E7. Breakdown of responses by social class: urban- rural characteristics of community in which respondents' high schools are located NP P Totals WORKING CLASS Central City 2 5 7 Suburb 2 7 9 Non-suburb ‘4 ._Q .14 Totals 8 22 50 LOWER MIDDLE CLASS Central City 17 9 26 Suburb 27 55 62 Non-suburb 19_ _8. ._21 Totals 65 52 115 UPPER MIDDLE CLASS Central City 7 7 14 Suburb 10 51 41 Non-suburb 2 -_4 ._§ Totals 19 42 61 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 3 1193 03082 4910