AN ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO THE SUBSEQUENT SUCCESS OF STUDENTS READMITTED TO NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOLLOWING ACADEMIC DISMISSAL By Harold Edwin Husa AN ABSTRACT submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate studies of Michigan State university of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education Guidance and Personnel Services 1961 WV 2%? j: //’>~ ~ Harold Edwin Husa An Abstract This investigation was an attempt to discover any significant differences or similarities between two groups of students each of whom was dismissed for academic reasons at Northern Illinois University and allowed to return. The first group, called the successful, was comprised of 57 students, MS men and In women, who after having been dismissed for failure to meet the university's minimum academic standards, was given permission to return and subsequently graduated. The 101 students, 77 men and 2h women, in the unsuccessful group were again dismissed for poor scholarship after being granted the opportunity to re-enroll. The study attempted to determine the relationships of the readmitted students between eventual academic success and each of the following: (1) sex, (2) high school rank, (3) size of high school, (4) age at first admission to any college or university, (5) good standing or academic probation at admission to this university, (6) native or transfer student at admission, (7) grade point average of transfers at their former institutions, (8) health, (9) education of parents, (10) fatherts occupation, (11) entrance test results, (12) first semester grade point average, (13) cumulative grade point average in all courses Harold Edwin Husa 2 at the first or only dismissal, (lu) major field grade point average at the first or only dismissal, (15) residence on campus, (16) total semester hours of failure, (17) semester during which the first or only dismissal occurred,(18) major field of study, (19) total semester hours of credit at the first or only dismissal, (20) months out of school before readmission, (21) experience between dismissal and read— mission, (22) change of major at readmission, (23) marital status at readmission, and (2h) veteran status at readmission. The chi square technique was employed to determine the significance of differences for the discrete variables. The F — test and the t-ratio were used to determine significance of mean differences for the continuous vari— ables. The product moment correlation was used to determine relationships between most of the factors that proved to be significant following the administration of the t-test and (1) first semester grade point averages and (2) cumu— lative grade point averages at graduation or final dismissal. It was found that the following characteristics showed significant differences between the two groups: high school rank by quartiles; transfer status at admission; certain scores on the ACE, the California Test of Per— sonality and the Kuder Preference Record-Vocationa; first semester grade point averages; total grade point averages Harold Edwin Husa 3 and major field grade point averages at the first or only dismissal; experience between dismissal and readmission; campus residence; semester of dismissal; total hours of credit at dismissal; and marital status. Analysis of the correlation results for successful students between first semester grade point average and each of the following factors revealed that in general the relationships were significant: total grade point average at the only dismissal; and total hours credit at the only dismissal. High school rank correlated positively whereas the total hours of credit at dismissal correlated negatively with the total grade point average at graduation. Significant correlations were reported for unsuccess- ful students between first semester grade point average and each of the following factors: total grade point average at the first dismissal; major grade point average at the first dismissal; and total hours credit at the first dismissal. Positive correlations were also reported for this group between total grade point average at the final dismissal and each of the aforementioned factors. AN ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS CHARACTERISTICS RELATED TO THE SUBSEQUENT SUCCESS OF STUDENTS READMITTED TO NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOLLOWING ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BY Harold Edwin Husa A.THESIS Submitted to the School of Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State university of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education Guidance and Personnel Services 1961 ‘/ [57? .5) L; "f/ / Harold Edwin Husa Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Final Examination: February 16, 1961, Room 134, College of Education Dissertation: An Analysis of Various Characteristics Related to the Subsequent Success of Students Readmitted to Northern Illinois university Following Academic Dismissal Outline of Studies: Major Subject: Education, Guidance and Counseling Minor Subject: Education, School Administration cognate Areas: Psychology and Sociology Biographical Items: Born: November 22, 1926, Chicago, Illinois Undergraduate studies: Northern Illinois university, DeKalb, Illinois, 1946—1950. Graduate studies: Northwestern university, Evanston, Illinois, 1950-1951. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1953-1961. Experience: Elementary School Teacher, McKinley School, Elgin, Illinois, 1951-1952; Junior High School Mathematics Teacher, Elmhurst Junior High School, Elmhurst, Illinois, 1952-1953; Graduate Assistant, Department of Guidance and Counselor Training, Michigan State University, 1953-195h; Counselor and Mathematics Teacher, Lee M. Thurston High School, Redford Township, Michigan, 195u-1956; Counselor and Mathematics Teacher, Arlington High School, Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1956- 1957; Assistant Dean of Men, Northern Illinois university, DeKalb, Illinois, l957-present. Member of American Personnel and Guidance Association, Illinois Guidance and Personnel Association, Phi Delta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, American College Personnel Association, Illinois Associa- tion of Deans and Advisers of Men. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the multitude of persons who made this study possible. For his inspiration as a teacher, for his untiring assistance and encouragement as chairman of the writerls committee, an especial appreciation and expression of indebtedness is given to Dr. Walter F. Johnson. Sincere thanks to the other members of the committee, Dr. Raymond N. Hatch, Dr. William Roe, and Dr. James Costar for their suggestions and critical reading of the completed manuscript. .Apprecia- tion is also expressed to Dr. Milton Carlson and Dr. Edwin Shykind for their helpful suggestions during the investigation. To Dr. Ernest E. Hanson special thanks are given for his personal assistance and the many opportunities provided without which this study would not have been a reality. For their omniscience as parents, much of the credit is given to the writerls mother, Hermina S. Husa, and to his late father, James C. Husa. Finally, credit is extended to the writerts wife, Florence, for the typing of the original draft and for her devotion, patience, understanding, and constant encourage— ment. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION ...........................o l The Problem ........................ 1 Statement of the problem ...... A Importance of the problem ..... 6 Background of the study ....... 9 Limitations of the study ...... 12 Definition of Terms ................ 1h Organization ....................... 15 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ................ 16 Introduction ....................... 16 Studies Relating Academic Success to High School Achievement ...... 20 studies Relating Academic success to Scholastic Aptitude .......... 28 studies Relating Academic Success to a Combination of Factors ..... 34 studies Relating Academic Success to Age IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0 37 Studies Relating Academic Success to Residence OOOOOOOOOOOOOOIIOOOO 39 studies Relating Academic Success to Veteran status ............... hi studies Relating Academic Success to Marital Status .00....O....... LL45 r¢< V“ iii CHAPTER Page Studies Relating Academic Success to Native and Transfer Students. E6 Studies Relating Academic Success to Major Field of Study ........ 48 Studies Relating,Academic Success to Parents! Education .......... 51 Studies Relating Academic Success to Occupation of Fathers ....... 52 Studies Relating Academic Success to Int€T€St 00000000000000.0000. 53 Studies Relating Academic Success to sex OOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO0 57 Studies Relating Academic Success to First Semester Grade Point Average OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 60 Studies Relating Academic Success to Motivation and Personality .. 63 Studies Related to the Readmission of Academically Dismissed Students ....................... 74 Summary ........................... 80 III. PROCEDURES AND METHODS .oo.............. 83 Selection of the Samples .......... 83 Sources of the Data ............... 8h Classification of the Data ........ 85 Statistical Design ................ 87 Summary ........................... 92 IV. ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES.ASSOCIATED WITH ACADH/IIC SUCCESS OOOCOOOOOOOCCCOOCOOO 93 Criterion of Success .............. 93 iv CHAPTER Page Factors at Admission .............. 9H Factors at First or Only Dismissal. 130 Factors at Readmission ............ 156 The Relation of First Semester Grade Point Average to Other Variables oooooooooooooooooooooo 163 The Relation of Cumulative Grade Point Average at Graduation or Final Dismissal to Other Variables cocoon-000000000000... 166 Smary O0.000..OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO 171 v. suVIMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................ 173 Summary ........................... 173 The problem .................. 173 Methodology .................. 175 Findings ..................... 176 Conclusions ....................... 186 Implications for Further Research . 190 BIBLICERAPI’IY 0....COOOOO0.00000000000000000COOOOO 192 TABLE II. III- IV. VI. VII- VIII. LIST OF TABLES Incidence of Success for Men and women Readmitted to Northern Illinois University Following Academic DISMISSal coco-o.ooooooooooooooooooooo Relation of High School Rank by Quartiles to Success for Successful and unsuc- cessful College Men and women ........ Relation of High School Rank by Quartiles to success for Successful and Unsuc- cessful College Students Grouped Aficording t0 Sex 0.0000000000000000... significance of Mean Differences in the High school Percentile Rank Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or TraHSfer 0.000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Relation of High School Size to Success for Successful and unsuccessful College Men and women ................ significance of Mean Differences in the Age by Years at Admission to Any College or university Between Success— ful and Unsuccessful College students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or Transfer ..... Relation of Status at Admission (Proba- tion or Good Standing) to Success for Successful and unsuccessful College students Grouped According to 58X o00000000000000000000.0000...oo Relation of Status at Admission (Native or Transfer) to success for Suc- cessful and unsuccessful College Men and WOmen cocooooooooooooooooooocoo... Page 94 96 97 99 101 102 lOLL 106 TABLE IX. XI. XII. XIIa. XIII. XIV. XIVa. Relation of Status at Admission (Native or Transfer) to Success for Success- ful College Men and Women ........... Significance of Mean Differences in the Cumulative Grade Point Averages Earned by Successful and Unsuccessful Men Transfer Students at Their Former Colleges OOOOOOOOOOOOO00.00.000.00... Relation of Health to Success for Suc— cessful and Unsuccessful College Men and Women ooooooooooooooooooooooo Significance of Mean Differences in the Years of Formal Education Acquired by the Fathers of Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to Sex .................... Significance of Mean Differences in the Years of Formal Education Acquired by the Mothers of Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Grouped ACCOFding to Sex cocoon-00.00.00.000. Relation of Fatherls Occupation to Success for Successful and Unsuccess- ful College Men and Women ........... Significance of Mean Differences in the ACE "Q" Score Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired .According to Sex and Initial Enroll- ment as Native or Transfer .......... Significance of Mean Differences in the ACE "L" Score Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or Transfer .... vi Page 107 108 109 110 111 113 111; 115 TABLE XIVb. XVII. XVIII. XIX. Significance of Mean Differences in the ACE "T" Score Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enroll- ment as Native or Transfer .......... Significance of Mean Differences in the Iowa Silent Reading Test Scores Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native 0r TranSfer neocooooooooooooooooooooo Significance of Mean Differences in the Cooperative Mathematics Pre-Test Scores Between Successful and unsuc- cessful College Men ................. Significance of Mean Differences in the Scores on the Kuder Preference Record- Vocational Between Successful and un- successful College Men and Women .... Significance of Mean Differences in the .Scores on the California Test of Personality Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Men and Women .. Significance of Mean Differences in the Scores on the California Test of Personality Between College Men and ‘Women Grouped According to Success .. Significance of Mean Differences in the Sense of Personal Freedom Score on the California Test of Personality Between Successful and unsuccessful College students Grouped According to Success 00.00.00...OGOOOCOOOOOOCOOOO0 Significance of Mean Differences in the Feeling of Belonging Score on the California Test of Personality Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to Success. vii Page 116 119 121 122 12h 127 128 128 TABLE XXII. XXIII. XXIV. XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. Significance of Mean Differences in the Freedom from Nervous Symptoms Score on the California Test of Personality Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to Success 0.OOOOIOIOCOOOOOOOOCOOOIOO Significance of Mean Differences in the Personal Adjustment Score on the California Test of Personality Between Successful Students Grouped According to Success. and unsuccessful College Significance of Mean Differences in the Total Adjustment Score on the California Test of Personality Between Successful and unsuCCessful College Students Grouped According to Success ........ Relation of "C" Average for the First Semester at Northern Illinois university to Success for Successful and unsuccessful College Men and Women 0000000000000...0.00.00.00.00.- Relation of "C" Average for the First semester at Northern Illinois uni— versity to Success for College Men and Women Grouped According to Success ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Significance of Mean Differences in First Semester Grade Point Averages Between Successful and unsuccessful College students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native 0P TranSfer cocoon-0.0.00.0... Significance of Mean Differences in First Semester Grade Point Averages Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to Success viii Page 129 129 130 131 132 133 131; TABLE XXIX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. XXXIV. Significance of Mean Differences in the Cumulative Grade Point Averages Through the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Suc— cessful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or TranSfer ooooouoooooooooooooooooococo Significance of Mean Differences in the Cumulative Grade Point Averages Through the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Suc- cessful and Unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to Success OOIOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.0.0....0. Significance of Mean Differences in the Cumulative Major Field Grade Point .Averages Through the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or TranSfer 0.000000coo-0000000000000... Significance of Mean Differences in the Cumulative Major Field Grade Point ,Averages Through the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Grouped ACcording to success 0.00.0.0...OOCOOOOIOOOOIOO0.0 Relation of Place of Residence at the First or Only Academic Dismissal to Success for Successful and Unsuccess- ful College Men and women ........... Relation of Place of Residence of Unmarried Students at the First or Only Academic Dismissal to Success for Successful and unsuccessful C011€g€ Men and women 0.00.00.00.00.- ix Page 136 137 139 1110 1E1 143 TABLE XXXVI. XXXVII. XXXVIII. XXXIX. XL. XLI. XLII 0 Relation of Place of Residence of Unmarried Students at the First or Only Academic Dismissal to Success for College Men and Women Grouped According to Success. Significance of Mean Differences in the Total Sanester Hours of Failure Through the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Successful and unsuc- cessful College Students Paired According to sex and Initial Enrollment as Native 0r TranSfer ooooooooo0000.00.00.30... Relation of the Semester During Which the First or Only Academic Dismissal Occurred to Success for Successful and Unsuccessful College Men and Women ... Relation of the Semester During Which the First or Only Academic Dismissal Occurred to Success for College Men and Women Grouped According to Success ... Significance of Mean Differences in the Grade Point Averages for the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native OF TranSfeF.......................... Significance of Mean Differences in the Grade Point Averages for the First or Only Semester of Academic Dismissal Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to success 0.0.0.0.........OOIOOOOOOOOOO Relation of Major Field of Study to Success for Successful and unsuccess- ful College Men and Women ........... Significance of Mean Differences in the Total semester Hours of Credit Including Transfer Hours at the First Page um 1115 146 ILL? 1H9 150 151 TABLE XLIII. XLIV. XLV. XLVI. XLVII. XLVIII. XLIX. or Only Academic Dismissal Between Successful and Unsuccessful College Students Paired According to Sex and Initial Enrollment as Native or TranSfer ...OIOOOOOIIOOOOO00000000000 Significance of Mean Differences in the Total Semester Hours of Credit Includ- ing Transfer Hours at the First or Only Academic Dismissal Between Suc- cessful and unsuccessful College Students Grouped.According to Success oooooooooooooooooooooococo... Significance of Mean Differences in the Number of Months Elapsed from Academic Dismissal to Readmission Between Successful and unsuccessful College Students Grouped According to sex OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.00 Significance of Mean Differences in the Experiences from Academic Dismissal to Readmission Between Successful and Unsuccessful College students Grouped ACCOTding to Sex 00000000000000.0000. Relation of Major Fields of Study Changed at Readmission to Success for Success- ful and unsuccessful College Men and Women on0.099000000000000..-coo-o...- Relation of Marital Status at Readmission to Success for Successful and Unsuc— C€SSfu1 COllege Men 00.000.000.000... Relation of Veteran Status at Readmission to Success for Successful and unsuc— CQSSfUI COllege Men ooooooooooooooooo Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Relationships Between Various Factors and First Semester Grade Point Averages for Successful Students .... xi Page IBM 155 157 158 161 162 163 164 TABLE L. Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Relationships Between Various Factors and First Semester Grade Point Averages for unsuccessful Students .. LI. Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Relationships Between Various Factors and Total Grade Point Averages at Graduation for Successful Students. LII. Product - Moment Correlation Coefficients Showing Relationships Between Various Factors and Total Grade Point Averages at Final Dismissal for unsuccessful StUdentS coco-coooooooooocooooooooooo xii Page 165 167 168 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The colleges and universities of the nation are now facing a major crisis. What with the new era of the "satellite age" and an increase in the desire of our youngsters to receive more than just a high school educa— tion, a greater and greater demand is being placed upon institutions of higher learning. Today the need for increased physical facilities in our colleges and univer- sities is already serious and is threatening to become critical. The straining to capacity is evident on most campuses. Recently U. S. Commissioner of Education, Lawrence G. Derthick, in his appearance before the United States Congressional Subcommittee on Special Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor presented a study of enrollment figures that represents the influx of students Who have inundated American colleges and universities in recent years.1 k 1Lawrence G. Derthick, Higher Education and National Affairs, Vol. 9, Bulletin No. 13, March 31,71960, pp. 8L9} In 1939 institutions of higher education provided educational opportunities to 1,365,000 full and part time students. A decade later the figure had risen to 2,457,000 students. By 1959 the enrollment had swelled to 3,402,300. Between 1939 and 1959 the total student enrollment at these institutions increased by 2% times. The projected figure for 1970 is 6,006,000. It is revealing to note that in 1900 approximately 4 per cent of college age youths were in college. In 1958 it was 35.6 per cent. It is estimated that by 1970 the proportion may reach as high as 42 per cent. Evidently more and more of our youngsters look upon college education as being desirable and attainable. This poses a very serious problem for higher education. Our colleges and universities must be prepared to accommodate more and more students. Obviously all students seeking admission will not be accepted by the schools of their choices. Thus institutions of higher education will have to meet a share of this challenge of bulging enrollments by concerning themselves with the determination and implementa— tion of admission policies that will better guarantee that the students admitted will benefit satisfactorily from their training. Every effort must be made to provide educational opportunities beyond high school for all youth capable of profiting from them. 2 Thus one of the answers to the problem becomes one of better prediction of academic success. The question often arises as to why one student will succeed in college and another will not. Just what traits are essential if one is to progress satisfactorily at an institution of higher learning? High school educators, college faculty, student personnel administrators, guidance workers, parents, and students themselves are interested to know what characteristics are of most importance in ensuring the best possible chances of succeeding at the college or university level. This concern is by no means of recent origin. Almost 30 years ago Crawford reported: Reliable estimates of individual students! fitness for college work are obviously important in determining whether or not they should be admitted. In 1893 Salmon remarked: ‘With the germs of organization already existing, it does not seem unreasonable to hope 23. Broward Culpepper, "Who Should Go to College and by What Admission Techniques .Should Such Students Be Identified?" Current Issues in Higher Education, 1958, pp. 79. 3A. B. Crawford, "Forecasting Freshman.Achievement." School and Society, Vol. 31, January 25, 1930, p. 125. that in the immediate future some method of relief will be found for the present chaotic method of admittifig students to our colleges and universities. There is a voluminous amount of material in the professional literature relating to prognosis of success in college. However, there is a dearth of studies which attempt to determine the characteristics which will identify the potential academically successful student from among those who seek readmission after having been dismissed for academic reasons. Yet the problem of readmitting students who have failed to maintain minimum academic standards is one which is being constantly encountered by all colleges and universities. This study is an endeavor to fill the gap between the prognosis of entering students to the university and the prognosis of students who seek readmission. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM One of the many problems facing Northern Illinois University is that of selecting wisely those students who are seeking readmission to the university after having been dismissed for scholastic reasons. Some type of screening process is necessary in order that the institution will readmit only those students who can profit by resuming their ”Lucy M. Salmon, "Different Methods of Admission to College." Educational Review,'Vol. 6, October, 1893, p. 241. education. Many factors must be taken into consideration in such a screening process in order to eliminate those individuals who are not likely to succeed. The present investigation is an attempt to discover any significant differences or similarities between two groups of students each of whom was dismissed for academic reasons at Northern Illinois University and allowed to return. The successful group was comprised of 57 students who were dismissed for poor scholarship, were allowed to return and subsequently graduated from the university. The 101 students in the unsuccessful group were dismissed for poor scholarship, were allowed to return and were dismissed a second time for failure to meet the minimum academic standards of the university. The writer proposes to test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between those students who were readmitted to the university and were dismissed for academic reasons a second time and those who were readmitted to the university and subsequently graduated. More specifically, the 158 students were studied to determine what relationships existed between the two groups with respect to each of the following factors and character- istics: A. Factors at Admission 1. Sex High school rank Size of high school Age at first admission to college Good standing or acadamic probation LII-POOR) Native or transfer Grade point average of transfers at former colleges Health Education of parents Father's occupation Entrance test results a. Academic aptitude — American Council on Education Psychological Examination b. Interest - Kuder Preference Record— Vocational c. Mathematics achievement — COOperative Mathematics Pre—Test for College Students d. Personality - California Test of Personality e. Reading achievement - Iowa Silent Reading Advanced Test HOxOO) -\'JO\ 0 0 Pull—4 B. Factors at First or Only Dismissal 1. First semester grade point average 2. Cumulative grade point average in all courses . Cumulative grade point average in major field . Residence Total semester hours of failure Semester during which this dismissal occurred . Major field of study . Total semester hours of credit CON OUT-F— (A o C. Factors at Readmission 1. Months out of school before readmission 2. Experience between dismissal and readmission 3. Change of major 4. Marital status 5. Veteran status IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM Probably the greatest motive to undertake a study of this nature can be found within the framework of the mental health of university students who encounter academic difficulties. Removal from the educational environment can be a traumatic experience for an individual. 4Attempting to prevent a second dismissal is an obligation which must be implemented to the utmost ability of those in whom such responsibility lies. One means to such an objective deals with the identification of the causative factors of failure. From the guidance point of view, a knowledge of the characteristics of students who succeed after having been dismissed for academic reasons is of the utmost value. It is hoped that such information will shed light upon those factors of which the university must take cognizance in order to reduce the student academic mortality rate and assist in the goal toward the better adjustment of its students. Where possible, a student who is deficient in certain areas could improve himself and alleviate these weaknesses so that he could return and succeed. This information could also be used in a preventive way whereby a student could employ cor- rective measures to avoid being dismissed from the university. Hence, not only would we have more productive individuals in our society, but a sizeable amount of money and energy could be conserved. We could more functionally approach the optimum abilities of individuals. Another reason for the need of this study is concerned with the time and energy expended by the faculty of an institution with students who are poor academic risks. It may be a moot question as to whether or not the student who is dropped a second time has gained anything academically or educationally. Yet it seems obvious that the faculty should devote its time to the training and development of those individuals who are most capable of benefiting from the demands required of pursuing a college education. With the deluge of requests for education at institutions of higher learning being augmented yearly, it appears to be an injustice to preclude some of the more capable individuals from obtaining education or preventing them from living and learning under more desirable conditions because the less capable or poor students are occupying seats in classrooms or beds in residence halls and private homes. .Another value in a study of this nature is to aid the university in reappraising the effectiveness of its policy with respect to the readmission of students who have been dismissed from the university for poor scholarship. Finally, the need for undertaking this investigation was manifest in the paucity of research in this particular area. There have been only two studies reported in the literature which bear directly upon the problem of the readmission of academically dismissed students. One dealt with a study of students who applied for readmission to two colleges at Ohio State university and who were referred to the Counseling Center. The only other publication that could be found was a description of a program of the rehabilitation of academic is dropped a second time has gained anything academically or educationally. Yet it seems obvious that the faculty should devote its time to the training and development of those individuals who are most capable of benefiting from the demands required of pursuing a college education. With the deluge of requests for education at institutions of higher learning being augmented yearly, it appears to be an injustice to preclude some of the more capable individuals from obtaining education or preventing them from living and learning under more desirable conditions because the less capable or poor students are occupying seats in classrooms or beds in residence halls and private homes. Another value in a study of this nature is to aid the university in reappraising the effectiveness of its policy with respect to the readmission of students who have been dismissed from the university for poor scholarship. Finally, the need for undertaking this investigation was manifest in the paucity of research in this particular area. There have been only two studies reported in the literature which bear directly upon the problem of the readmission of academically dismissed students. One dealt with a study of students who applied for readmission to two colleges at Ohio State University and who were referred to the Counseling Center. The only other publication that could be found was a description of a program of the rehabilitation of academic Va P\\ 9 failures at the University of Illinois's Galesburg Division. Both of these references will be discussed extensively in the next chapter. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Until 1941, whenever a student was dismissed for academic reasons from Northern Illinois University, he had to remain out of school for one term and then petition the President of the university for permission to re-enter. The President consulted with the Dean of Men or Dean of Women and made his decision accordingly. From 1941 until 1943 the decision to readmit a student was in the hands of the Dean of Faculty. During the years 1943 to 1947 the responsibility for screening applicants for readmission was given to the Dean of Men, who reviewed the cases involving men students, and the Dean of Women, who reviewed cases involving women students. For the next five years both men and women students petitioned the Dean of Men. In 1952 a Reinstatement Committee was formed with the expressed purpose of reviewing the cases of students who had been dismissed from the university and who were requesting permission to be allowed to return. Those members comprising the committee include the Dean of Men, Dean of Women, and three faculty members each representing one of the three colleges on campus: Education, Liberal Arts and Sciences, and Fine and Applied Arts. Each faculty member is elected by all of the faculty members within his own 10 college. The chairman of the Reinstatement Committee is elected by the five members, although neither the Dean of Men nor the Dean of Women is eligible to serve as chairman. This committee is responsible to the Vice President in Charge of Student Personnel Services. .A student who seeks readmission to the university petitions the committee by means of a letter only. Students are never personally interviewed. With respect to the reinstatement of students who have been dismissed for poor scholarship, the university catalog reads as follows: A student who has been required to withdraw from the University for poor scholarship and is petitioning for reinstatement must account definitely for the expenditure of his time in a profitable way since leaving the University and should give good reasons for believing that he will improve upon his previous record if reinstated. Such a student is not eligible to be considered for readmission until after the lapse of at least one semester. It should be understood that each case will be considered on its merits and that in no case may it be assumed that after an absence of one semester any student is automatically entitled to readmission.5 In reviewing each student's petition for readmission, the committee considers the following criteria: 1. Those factors which the student deems to be significant in his letter. 5Northern Illinois University. Northern Illinois university Undergraduate Catalog, 1959—61, DekaIb, Illinois. pp. 68-690 ll 2. High school rank. 3. Credits earned at other institutions if he is a transfer student. 4. Results of his entrance test battery. a. A.C.E. Psychological Examination b. California Test of Personality c. COOperative English: Mechanics of Expression d. COOperative Mathematics Test e. Iowa Silent Reading Test 5. Achievement at Northern Illinois university. 6. Any other significant information which may have come to the attention of the Dean of Men or Dean of Women and had been filed in the student's personnel folder. The committee then reports the action it has taken upon the student's request for readmission to the Vice President in Charge of Student Personnel Services and to the Registrar, the latter of whom notifies the student of the result of his petition. Since the inception of the Reinstatement Committee in 1952, 593 individual cases have been reviewed through September, 1959. Of this number, 234 students were given permission to be readmitted .A follow-up of the 234 students reveals that through January, 1960: , 21 did not re—enter after having been granted permission to do so 32 re—entered and are currently enrolled 21 re—entered but are not now in school, although were not again dropped or graduated 57 re—entered and subsequently graduated 12 103 re-entered and were again dropped for academic reasons (2 of this number are not included in the present study because of incomplete records) LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY Limitations usually prevail in a research project which necessarily restrict the extent to which generaliza- tions may be made concerning the conclusions. 1. This study has been restricted to Northern Illinois University, and therefore, the results are applicable only to this university. The philosophy, admission requirements, standards, areas from which students are drawn, control, faculty, administration, regional and local culture are all peculiar to this institution. 2. The sample in the study does not include individuals who were considered for readmission before the inception of the Reinstatement Committee. 3. The time that the students in the sample were in school, 1953-60, may have some affect upon the findings. These years included the world tensions following the Korean War, the recessional periods, the prosperous times, the fluctuations in the temperatures of the cold war, the "brink of war," the Sputnik, the dangers of fallout, the insecurities and the uncertainties. 4. The results of an English achievement test were not included in the study for several reasons. The Iowa English Training Test was administered to students until the fall of 13 1954, at which time the Cooperative English Mechanics of Expression Test became the replacement. Then, too, transfer students who had received credit in English at other insti- tutions were not required to take the English achievement test. Thus both of these factors considerably reduced the size of the number in each group studied. The author believed that in view of the small sample of students for whom English achievement test results were available, any differences would be invalid. 5. A.follow-up study was not employed to determine what these former students have been doing since they have left the university nor were means taken to pursue the estimate of success these people now have of themselves. Success is defined in this study as graduating from the uni- versity. It is manifest that there are other norms of success, and it is possible that if one were to use various criteria of success, some of the "successful" students in this study may not have been nor may not now be as successful as some of the "unsuccessful" students. 6. No personal contact was made with the students. Hence many of the underlying psychological forces operating within these individuals were necessarily absent from the report. No attempt had been made to measure a multiplicity of adjustment factors: motivation, maturity of goals, study skills, level of aspiration, social adjustment to the 14 university milieu, and mental health. Obviously these have an effect upon academic success. However, since presently some of these aspects are incapable of being measured and others were not available, they have not been included. DEFINITION OF TERMS Successful Student. This term refers to a student who was dismissed for poor scholarship from Northern Illinois university, was permitted to return, and subsequently graduated. unsuccessful Student. This student is identified as one who was dismissed for poor scholarship from Northern Illinois University, was permitted to return, and was dis— missed a second time for poor scholarship. Native Student. A student who entered Northern Illinois University without having been enrolled at a junior college, college, or university is considered to be a "native." ACE, This abbreviation refers to the American Council on Education Psychological Examination which has been one of the most commonly used tests of general academic aptitude for college freshmen. Transfer Student. In this study, a transfer student is one who had enrolled at a junior college, college, or uni- versity for at least one term prior to his admission to Northern Illinois University. a 15 Place of Residence at Dismissal. .A student's campus or school address and not his permanent home address is referred to as his place of residence at the time of his dismissal. Age at First Admission to College. This term refers to a student’s age at his first admission to a junior college, college, or university. ORGANIZATION Chapter 1 introduces the problem. This chapter is concerned with a statement of the problem, the importance of the problem, the background of the study, the limitations of the study, a definition of terms, and the organization of the dissertation. Chapter 11 provides a review of the literature related to the study. Chapter 111 contains the procedures and methods of the investigation. It includes the statistical design of the research and the rationale for the statistics employed. Chapter IV encompasses the analysis of the data relative to the relationships between the two groups studied. Chapter V is a summary of the findings of the investiga- tion, and delineates the conclusions that are deducted from the results. It also includes the implications for further research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE INTRODUCTION The prediction of academic achievement at the college or university level is of significance in two major situa- tions: First, in selecting those students who, by various criteria, are assumed to be capable of profiting from education in institutions of higher learning; and second, the prognosis of academic achievement is important in the screening of students who were dismissed for poor scholarship from a college or university and who are seeking readmission. The professional iterature related to the prognosis of college success is extensive. The prediction studies that have been included in this chapter have been selected on the basis of their relevancy to this investigation. Two studies that are directly related to the problem of the readmission of academically dismissed students will be treated more exhaustively. The number of applications for admission to colleges is rising at an alarming rate because of the increase in the birth rate, the increase in percentage of young people desirous of and going to colleges, and the greater demand for highly educated people. 17 A hundred years ago students were selected for college in an efficient method, whether justly or not. The preparatory school was strictly preparatory for college. If a student wished to go to college, he was enrolled in such a school. Today, however, things are different. The high schools do not preselect college candidates as did the preparatory schools years ago. High schools today are teaching almost everybody. Since we have too many applications and toofew facilities, the problem becmnes one of selecting the appropriate people. However, selecting those people who will profit most is by no means a simple task. The methods of selection are imperfect. .And yet, despite the uncertainties and the dangers of prediction, we must continue to employ prognostic measures. Traxlerl entreats institutions of higher learning to elect its students carefully for in the relentless struggle between the free world and the forces of communism, a decisive factor may well be the quality of the young people who are chosen and trained for leadership . . . There are some people who ascribe to the belief that the selection admission policies of colleges are contrary to the IArthur E. Traxler, "What Methods Should Be Employed in Selecting College Students?" Current Issues in Higher Education, 1955, Associatinn forFHigher Education, washington, Do to, p. 50. l8 democratic ideal of equality of opportunity. Such an opportunity is available to any person only to the extent that he is qualified to make the experience a success. Citizenship in a democracy does not confer an "ipso facto" right to a college degree.2 Commenting on this same issue, Culpepper3 states . . . it appears that not all of the students who desire to go to college can or should be admitted. Living in a democracy does not in and of itself confer the right to a college degree. Ability to do college work and not just the desire to attend college must be recognized more than ever before as a criterion for admission to college. .A lax admissions policy may prove to be a disservice to student, faculty, and public. It appears that we are wasting strength, valuable time, and money upon students who are profiting little by their college experiences. If one takes a frank look at our campuses, he will find far too many students who are motivated only by a vague desire of self improvement and attracted by an illusive prestige of a college degree. 2Reverend Walter T. Pax, "Admissions Procedures," Current Issues in Higher Education, 1956, Association for Higher Education, WaShington, D. C., p. 93. 3J. Broward Culpepper, "Who Should Go to College and By What Admission Techniques should Such students Be Identified?" Current Issues in Higher Education, 1958, P. 79. 19 The remarks of Drasgowu are aimed at the unqualified or unprepared student. Actually we may be fostering an individualis psychological breakdown when we accept him for college and thereby establish for him an environ- mental relationship that may be too much for him to handle. The first systematized investigation of academic prediction was conducted by Alfred Binet in his classical study to identify those children who could not profit from an ordinary type of education. His work provided the founda— tion for subsequent studies of scholastic prognosis. The conventional criteria for entrance to college are: (l) graduation from an accredited high school, (2) measured aptitude and achievement, (3) specified minimum number of subject matter units, (4) average high school grade or rank, (5) recommendation by high school counselor or principal, and (6) personal qualities. A variety of predictors have been subjected to statistical analyses to determine their efficacy for academic prognosis. Which are best may vary from one institution to another and from one college to another college within the same insti— tution. The following summary will reflect findings that have been reported relatively consistently. uJames Drasgow, "Psychological Breakdown Among College Students," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, March, 1957, p. I45. ' r(‘ 1 (I 'L" 20 STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO HIGH SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENT (GRADES AND RANK) It is axiomatic that nothing predicts what a student will do in the future as well as what he did in the past. Writers in the field are practically unanimous to assent that a measure of high school achievement is the best single predictor of college success. ,After reviewing the literature, Pierson5 reported that the authors of 224 studies that were undertaken between 1929 and 1949 found high school achievement to have the highest predictive value of any criteria used. However, the controversy over the superiority of high school rank as opposed to high school marks remains incon- clusive. Snyder's6 review of effective selection methods placed the most value upon high school achievement. High school grades, he claimed, were the best single criterion for predicting success in college. It has its limitations, however. The obvious weakness in using high school grades as a means for selection is the discrepancy caused by varying grade standards and by the differences in curricular patterns. 5Leroy R. Pierson, "High School Teacher Prediction of College Success," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37, October, 1958, pp. 142—145. 6Rixford K. Snyder, "Admissions Procedures; Effective Means of Selection," Current Issues in Higher Education, 1956 Association for Higher Education, Washington, D. C., pp. 87- 92. 21 Also some high schools evaluate their students in relation to one another whereas other high schools appraise students in terms of the ratio of their ability to achievement. Travers,7 in reviewing the literature, cited the results of seventeen studies in which all reported that the average high school grade is the best single predictor of college success. Culpepper8 quoted studies at several institutions which indicated that the high school grade point average appeared to be the best single predictor of college achieve- ment. 9 Stone concurred with these studies as a result of his investigation at Brigham Young university. In attempting to determine whether or not grades could be predicted in sixteen state colleges in Georgia, Franz, Davis, and Garcia10 found the most satisfactory single predictor to be high school average. 7Robert M. w. Travers, "significant Research on the Prediction of Academic success," The Measurement of student AMjustment and Achievement, edited by w. T. Donahue and others, UnTVersity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, l9u9, PP- 1%7-190. J. Broward Culpepper, op. cit. 9Joics B. stone, "Differential Prediction of Academic Success at Brigham Young university," Ihe Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 2, April, 1954, pp._lO9-llUT 10Gretchen Franz, Junius Davis and Dolores Garcia, "Prediction of Grades from Pre-Admissions Indices in Georgia Tax supported Colleges," Educational andAPsychological Measurement, Vol. 18, No-—K, Winter, 1956, pp.’UuI—oufl. 22 Henry11 reported that the most probable relationship between high school grades and first year college achieve- ment was in the range of .50 to .60. Sopchak12 investigated the relationship between first year grade point averages and scores on several tests admin— istered at.Adelphi College. As a result of his findings, he reported that high school grades correlate more highly with college grades than any psychological test. Carter and Mcoinnisl3 evaluated factors which differ- entiated superior and inferior achieving students from among 872 men and women who entered Western Michigan unl— versity. They found that the best predictor of academic success was a combination of high school marks and the estimation of student scholarship by the high school principal. In his review of the literature, PoszuL revealed that, in general, the correlation between high school grades and 11Edwin R. Henry, "Predicting Success in College and University," Handbook of Applied Psychology, V01. 11, edited by D. H. Fryer and E. R. Henry, Rinehart and Company, New York, 1950, p. 450. 12Andrew L. Sopchak, "Prediction of College Performance by Commonly Used Tests," Journal of Clinical Psychology, Vol. In, No. 2,,April, 1955, pp. 19u—197. 13Homer L. Carter and Dorothy J. McGinnis, "Some Factors Which Differentiate College Freshmen Having Lowest and Highest Point-Hour—Ratios," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. no, No. 3, Nov. 1952, pp. 219-226. 14A. Conrad Posz, The Academic Backgrounds of Agricultural Extension Workers.As Related to Selected'AspeEts of Work Adjustment. UnpubliShed doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1952. 23 college grades was higher than the relationship between academic aptitude results and college grades. From this he concluded that the high school average is a better predictor of college achievement than is a test which measures academic aptitude. Worell15 claims that high school achievement is clearly superior to academic aptitude in prediction and feels Ulat very little is gained by combining high school marks with aptitude. The value of high school rank as a predictor of success in college is in all probability a result of the fact that the ability and motivational factors that operated in high school must operate in generally the same way in colleges. Dearborn16 and DeRidder17 stated that rank in high school performance is still one of the best, if not the best, single predictive instrument of college success. 15Leonard Worell, "Level of Aspiration and Academic Success," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 50, April: 1959: Pp' ”7‘5“" alter F. Dearborn, "The Student's Background in Relation to School Success," The Measurement of Student Adjustment and Achievement, edited by W. T. Donahue and others, University of’Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, l9h9, pp. 191-200. 17Lawrence M. DeRidder, Selected Factors Related to the Amademic,Achievement of Probationary Students Graduated in 19h8 from the College of Literature, Science and the Arts of the University of Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dis- sertation, University ofIMichigan, 1950. 24 McQuary18 studied the variables that were assumed to be related to scholastic success of male freshmen at the University of Wisconsin. He combined the variables under seven factors. It was noted with interest that the high school percentile rank variable had the highest weight loading of that particular factor under which it was included. He went on to report that the high school per- centile rank . . . has the largest weight on the multiple prediction equation used at the University of Wisconsin . . . and is the best single predictor ggrgoléege success as reported by many investiga- According to specialists in the field, wrote Snyder,20 the best single instrument for measuring "drive" is high school rank. Yet one major criticism of using this device is that some schools maintain a cumulative grade point average throughout the secondary school experience while others restrict it to the senior year only. Strang21 remarked that high school rank was frequently found to be more significant than the mean of high school marks. 18John P. McQuary, "Some Relationships Between Non Intellectual Characteristics and Academic Achievement," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. uh, No. A, April, {953, pp. 21;”228 (Po 226T. 1911nd, p. 220. 20 21Ruth Strang, Personal Development and Guidance in_ lelege and Secondary’SchooIs. New'York: Harper and Brothers,fil938, p. 99. Rixford K. Snyder, op. cit. 25 Frederiksen and Schrader22 included twelve colleges in their investigation and reported a range of correlations from .h3 to .68 of high school rank with first year grades. The media validity coefficient was .57. They concluded that high school rank was somewhat more accurate in predicting first year grades than was the ACE. 23 As result of Samenfield's investigation, he stated The best zero-order predictor of college marks was found to be the high school percentile rank. Frickenzu reported a correlation coefficient of .67 between high school rank and grades at graduation for the students he studied at Macalester College. Garrett25 reviewed eighteen studies and found a median correlation coefficient of .58 between high school rank and 26 college grades. As a summary of 32 studies, he found a 22Norman Frederiksen and W. B. SChrader, "The ACE Psychological Examination and High School Standing as Predictors of Coflege Success," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 4,.August, 1952, p. 262. 2sHerbert W. Samenfield, "Predicting College Achieve- ment," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 2h, November, 1953, p. h33. 2”C. E. Fricken, "Predicting Achievement in the Liberal .Arts College," School and Society, Vol. B2, Oct. 12, 1935, pp. 518—520. 25Harley F. Garrett, "A.Review and Interpretation of Investigations of Factors Related to Scholastic Success in Colleges of Arts and Science and Teachers Colleges," The Journal of Experimental Education, Vol. 18, Dec. 19h97_5. 96. 26Tbid, p. 93. 26 range of coefficients from .29 to .83 with a median of .56 between high school averages and college scholarship. Fricke27 remarked that the best single predictor of college grade point average is high school rank. The next best predictor, he claims, is usually the average high school grade. In 19112 Emme28 reviewed the literature, up to that year, which contained studies relating to the prediction of college success. He stated that the data in those studies supported the belief that the high school rank is the best single criterion for college prognosis. 29 in view of their study, led them Heaton and Weedon, to accept the conclusion that high school rank was more closely related to college success than the average of high school marks. In his study DeRidder30 found a highly significant relation between quintile rank of men in their high school graduating classes and the incidence of probation at college. 27Benno G. Fricke, "Prediction, Selection, Mortality, and Quality Control," College and University, Vol. 32, Fall, 1956, pp. 34-52. 28Earle E. Emme, "Predicting College Success," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 13, May, 19h2, pp. 263—267. 29Kenneth L. Heaton and Vivian Weedon, The Failing Student, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago,IIlIinois, I;3;, o 286. 30Lawrence M. DeRidder, op, cit. 27 Plumb31 considered the general prediction of academic success and differential prediction of success in specific courses based upon certain criteria of A21 students who entered the Duluth Branch of the University of Minnesota. The best single predictor of both general and differential success in the freshman year was the high school percentile rank. Sanders, Osborne, and Greene32 secured one group of 52 male achievers and one group of 60 female achievers with a corresponding number of non—achievers from among 533 freshmen who entered the University of Georgia. The differ— entiation between achievers and non-achievers was based upon ACE total scores. In their findings the authors reported a significantly higher percentage of achievers than non—achievers were graduated from the upper one-third of their respective high school classes. Brimm,33 delineating a profile which high school students could use as an aid to predict their success in 31Valworth R. Plumb, "Prediction of Academic Success at the University of Minnesota, Duluth Branch," A University Looks at Its Program, edited by R. E. Eckert andIR. J. Keller, Th; University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 195A, pp. 123— 12 . 32W. B. Sanders, R. T. Osborne, and J. E. Greene, "Course Difficulty:.A Neglected Factor in the Registration of Fresh— man Students and in the Prediction of Academic Success," College and University, Vol. 26, April, 1951, pp. 3uO-3h8. 33R. P. Brimm, "Helping High School Students Predict Their Success in College," The Nation's Schools, Vol. 59, NO‘ LI-y April: 1957: PP- 53'55- 28 high, remarked that the high school rank has long been recognized as the best single predictor of success. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE .As a means of selection, scholastic aptitude tests are used by the majority of colleges and universities. Some institutions employ instruments that yield only one score, such as IQ. These tests include the Ohio State Psychological Examination and the Otis Self Administering Test of Mental Ability. More extensive use, however, is being made of tests which yield scores of linguistic and quantitative aptitudes. The most widely used of the latter type of tests are the College Entrance Examination Board Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American Council on Education Psychological Examination, and the Cooperative School and College Ability Tests. The advantage of using these tests as determiants of college fitness is that they provide a standardized basis of ability regardless of the high school or the type of subjects that were pursued in high school. Then too these tests have the advantage of control and uniformity over most other screening devices. They are not without their limita- tions. The validity of such tests is open to question. Also on the negative side are the results of the "test shy" individuals which may not reveal relatively accurate information. 29 In reporting on the literature, Henry31L found the relationship between aptitude tests and achievement to vary depending upon the test used, the college in which it is administered, and the types of students enrolled. The correlations ranged from .22 to .75. Summaries of the studies reviewed indicated the typical correlation was not far from .50. Locally constructed aptitude tests generally yielded higher correlations than the standardized tests develOped for college use. 35 Posz reviewed the literature relating scholastic aptitude scores to college achievement and in fifty—six studies reported a range in coefficients from .21 to .67 with a median correlation of .h5 and a mean correlation of .h3. The comparisons of the ACE with college marks revealed product moment correlation coefficients in the range of .27 to .67 with a median of .hh. In summarizing the literature with respect to the use of the ACE as a prognostic tool, Posz stated36 that the annual editions of this test have been carefully constructed and that considerable research has been done to determine or establish the reliability and validity of the various editions of the examinations. It may be concluded that the ACE is a reliable and valid test of scholastic aptitude. 3EEdwin R. Henry, op. cit., p. A51. 35A. Conrad Posz, op. cit., pp. 7h-75. 36Ibid, pp. 73—75. 30 Even though Posz accedes to the use of aptitude tests when studying groups of individuals, he cautions against the credulity of using them in isolation when predicting college grades for an individual. 37 In appraising the ACE, Hunter claims: With respect to validity, it should be stated that research and practical experience attest to the value the scores of these tests possess in . . . predicting scholarship success in college. Garrett:38 presented a summary of 9h studies which related college success to intelligence and reported that the ACE (average r equals .h9) gave consistently higher correlation coefficients than the other tests studied. According to Garrett, test scores of women correlated more highly with college grades than did scores of men. 39 Brooks and Weynand reported a simple correlation range from .38 to .61 between the ACE and grade point ratios for Texas.A. & M. students in five academic fields. The highest coefficient was yielded by students majoring in liberal arts whereas the lowest was for the physical and biological science majors. The mean for all five areas was .h9. 37—. C. Hunter, "Changes in Scores of College Students on the American Council Psychological Examination at Yearly Intervals During the College Course," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 36, Dec. 19h2, p. 288. Harley F. Garrett, op. cit., p. 106. 39Me1v1n 5. Brooks and Robert 5. Weynard, "Interest Preferences and Their Effect Upon Academic Success," Social Forces, March, 195h: Vol. 32, pp. 281-285. 31 Frederiksen and SchraderbrO reported a median correla- tion coefficient of .h7 for the ACE and first year grades. In an investigation by Berdie, Dressel, and Kelso,l‘Ll thirteen institutions were included to assess the value of Q and L scores of the ACE. In twelve of the thirteen schools, the correlations of L scores with grade point averages were higher than the correlations of Q with grades. The range was from .18 to .65. The L scores were significantly higher related to English and Social Sciences grades than were Q scores. .Although the Q scores yielded higher correlations with mathematics and chemistry grades than L scores, the difference was not significant. They conclude that the implications suggest that the validity of Q, L, and total scores for an institution should not be accepted without determining the predictive power of the local school. A number of studies have been conducted to determine whether or not changes occur in.ACE scores in subsequent college years. 42 Schlesser reported an average gain of twenty—two percentile points on the ACE in twelve weeks during the 1I‘ONorman Frederiksen and W. B. Schrader, op. cit., p. 261. “IR. F. Berdie, P. L. Dressel and P. C. Kelso, "Relative Validity of the Q and L Scores of the ACE Psychological Examination," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 11, No. h,Winter, 1951, pp. 808—809. uaGeorge E. Schlesser, "Gains in Scholastic Aptitude Under Highly Motivated Conditions," The Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, V01. hl, March, 1950, p. 2E1. 32 Navy Pre—Midshipmen Refresher Program at Colgate University. This increase is attributed to the mental growth and the strong motiVation which was manifest. According to the author, the implications suggest that under the proper motivation and working conditions, scholastic aptitude test results can be increased. M3 Hunter retested students at Converse College to deter- mine any changes in ACE scores of college students at yearly intervals. The author discovered significant gains of 23 percentile points in one year, 2h percentile points in two years, 26 percentile points in three years, and 31 per— centile points in four years. Obviously the greatest growth took place during the freshman year. ‘Shuey,u'LL using the ACE, tested 108 students at Randolph Macon Woman's College during their freshman year and then again during their senior year. She reported an increase in percentile points of 5, 13, and 11 for the Q, L, and total scores respectively. In agreement with other writers on the subject, she presented evidence that lends support to the view that mental growth continues during the college years. ESE. C. Hunter, op. cit., p. 290. Audrey M. Shuey, "Improvement in Scores on the American Council Psychological Examination from Freshman to Senior Years," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 39, pp- u17-ueo, 19MB- 33 dAS Samenfiel attempted to determine the validity of using the results of the ACE test taken in the ninth grade as a predictor of college success. In his study he reported the ninth grade ACE correlationswith first year college grades were higher than twelfth grade ACE results. The correlations were .39 and .3A respectively, but the difference was not significant. He concluded that the ACE, whether taken in the ninth grade or twelfth grade, was equally valid in predicting scholastic success. Carlin"6 made a longitudinal study of 312 students who entered as freshmen in 19A6 and who graduated in 1950. He analyzed the relationships between entrance test results and cumulative grade averages in twenty subjects. The L score on the ACE was just as valid a predictor of success in scientific courses as the Q score. The author reported that the L and Q scores of the ACE yielded correlation coefficients with four year achievement of .A2 and .29 respectively. A? Super summarizes his analysis of the ACE in this way: It is a reliable and valid test of scholastic aptitude or general intelligence at the college level. usHerbert'w. Samenfield, op. cit., p. A33. uéLeslie C. Carlin, "A Longitudinal Comparison of Freshman Senior Standing," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. A7, No. A, December, 1953, p. 288. 7Donald E. Super, Appraising Vocational Fitness. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19A9. 3’4 STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO A COMB INAT I ON OF FACTORS Numerous studies have been reported in the professional literature relative to the use of several factors in a com— bination of prognosis. Although there are some variances, the expression by Garrett1+8 following his extensive review of the literature appears to be generally accepted by most writers. He con— cluded that the best prognosis of college success is a com- bination of high school achievement and an aptitude test. Adding a third variable, he reported, was of little value in predicting success. ,After reviewing several hundred studies, Travers”9 concluded that the combination of high school grades and a scholastic aptitude test is probably the best selective device that can be found at the present time. DeRidderSO stated that high school achievement and a measure of intelligence appear to be the best two variable combinations of multiple correlation for predicting college success. Fricke51 held basically the same belief but modified the use of the combination. He reviewed studies that have LLBHarley F. Garrett, op. cit. ugRobert M. W. Travers, op. cit. 50Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 51Benno G. Fricke, op. cit. 35 compared the accuracy of clinical and the actuarial- mechanical (formula) methods of predicting behavior. He revealed that the latter method is clearly superior. According to him, other studies have shown that counselors who have extensive information concerning students could predict freshmen grade point averages with less accuracy than the mechanical use of a combination of high school per- centile rank and an academic aptitude test. Fricke sug- gested that colleges should select students on the basis of a College Qualification Rank (COR). The sum of a student's high school percentile rank multiplied by two and his per- centile rank of an aptitude test (the norms of which would be established from the scores of all graduating senior high school students in the state)divided by three would be considered the student's CQR. 52 Strang found the most reliable index of college scholarship to be a combination of high school marks and intelligence test scores. 53 studied the college adjust— Frederiksen and Schrader ment of veterans and non—veterans at twelve institutions. The study involved the identification of validity coefficients for high school standing and the ACE. The authors found median multiple correlations for veterans and non-veterans 52Ruth Strang, op. cit. 53Norman Frederiksen and W. B. Schrader, op. cit. , p. 2&4- 36 to be .60 and .68 respectively. Thus they felt that the two criteria should be used as a team of predictors rather than as competitors. A combination of the two predictors is of more value than the use of either individually. Others have reported satisfactory results using additional variables. StoneSLL developed multiple regression equations for use as differential predictors of scholastic success in four colleges at Brigham Young university: (1) commerce, (2) elementary education, (3) physical scialces, and (A) social sciences. He reported that a student's college grade point average could be predicted with considerable accuracy by using the student's high school grade point average, ACE total score, and the Literature and General Science scores of the Cooperative General Culture Test. The best predictive combination at the University of Minnesota's Duluth Branch, as investigated by Plumb,55 was the high school rank and the C00perative General Culture Examination. The R was .69 for men and .81 for women. In reviewing what he terms a mass of research, Johns56 stated that the best predictor of college success was a 5Ll’Joics B. Stone, op. cit. SSValworth R. Plumb, op. cit., p. 12A. 56Kingston Johns, Jr., "The Quality of Secondary School Teaching,As,A Factor in the Prediction of Academic Success," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. A8, No. 3, November, 195A, pp. 219%223. 37 combination of high school achievement, achievement tests, and mental tests. STUDIES RELATING-ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO.ACE .A number of investigators have attempted to study the effect of age at entrance to college. The results are not conclusive. 57 Carter and McGinnis reported that age was not a significant factor in predicting college success. Plumb58 found no significant relationship between age and success in the freshman year of work at the Duluth Branch of the University of Minnesota. Among both males and females, Sander, Osborne, and S9 Greene revealed achievers were only slightly, but not significantly, older than non—achievers. In his study DeRidder60 revealed that on the average, men on academic probation were younger at admission than were non-probationary men. There were no significant differ- ences in the average age of entering women. 61 Dwyer's concluding remarks of the relationship between age and college success were the result of his review of 57Homer L. Carter and Dorothy J. McGinnis, op. cit. 58Valworth R. Plumb, op. cit. 59W.B. Sanders, R. T. Osborne and J. E. Greene, op. cit. 60Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 61Paul S. Dwyer, "The Correlation Between Age at Entrance and Success in College," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 30, April, 1939, pp. 251—26A. 38 twenty—nine studies pertaining to this question and the findings of his own analysis conducted at the University of Michigan. He reported a negative relationship up to the age of twenty—one and a positive trend from age twenty-two. A median correlation coefficient of —.095 between age and college success was reported by Garrett62 in his review of approximately twelve studies. He remarked that his findings substantiated the belief of the academic superiority of younger students. Correlations of ~.25 between age at admission to college and subsequent achievement appeared to be typical in the studies reviewed by Henry.63 While making no claim that such results were significant, the author nevertheless remarked that younger students obtain higher marks than do older ones. Pierson156u study at Michigan State University was an attempt to test the assumption that there is a positive correlation between the age of college students and their academic achievement. He found that the highest grades were made by students under 18 and those older than 25. Accord- ing to his results Pierson concluded that a student's age 62Harley F. Garrett, op. cit., p. 118. 63 Edwin R. Henry, op. cit., p. A52. 6"Rowland R. Pierson, "Age Versus Academic Success in College Students," School and Sociepy, Vol. 68, 19A8, pp. 9A-95. 39 at entrance to Michigan State was of little significance to academic success. 65 Heaton and Weedon reported a negative correlation between chronological age and academic success. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO RESIDENCE Reviews in the literature have been contradictory in the attempt to determine whether or not a significant cor— relation exists between student housing and scholastic success. In his study to learn what differences in achievement are made by students in variOus types of housing, Butts66 reported that students who lived in organized group housing achieved higher grades than those living in unorganized groups. However, his findings showed that students living in private homes made better grades than those living in University dormitories. At the University of California's College of Agriculture, Peterson67 found the average student does better scholastically by living in a dormitory than by living in a fraternity. 65Kenneth L. Heaton and Vinan Weedon, op. cit. 66Porter Butts, "Some Implications of Housing," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 8, January, 1937, pp. 27-32. 67Basil H. Peterson, "The Scholarship of Students Housed in Various Living Quarters," School and Sociepy, Vol. 57, February 20, 19A3, pp. 221—22A. A0 DeRidder68 concluded on the basis of his research that the majority of investigators found conclusive evidence that there exists a correlation between housing and college success. However, in his own study, he reported that the effect of housing on student scholarship was relatively small. 69 Van Alstine, Douglass, and Johnson conducted an investigation of students in six colleges of the University of Minnesota to determine the effect upon scholarship of living at home, in dormitories, in fraternity and sorority houses, and in private residences. A significant difference between scholarship and place of residence was found only in one college. The students enrolled in the College of Pharmacy who lived in private residences earned significantly higher marks than the pharmacy students who lived elsewhere. There were no significant differences reported for students enrolled in the other colleges. Residence in a dormitory or private home has no predictive 70 value according to Carter and McGinnis. 66Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 69F. L. Van Alstine, H. R. Douglass, and P. 0. Johnson, "The Relation Between the Housing of Students and Their Scholarship," School and Society, Vol. 56, October, 2A, 19A2, pp. 388—392. 70Homer L. Carter and Dorothy J. McGinnis, op. cit. A1 The survey conducted by Alexander and Woodruff71 to consider those factors responsible for academic success revealed no significant correlation between student residence and the quality of his achievement. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO VETERAN STATUS The majority of investigators who studied the scholastic progress of veterans have found that veterans generally made slightly, though significantly, better grades than non- veterans. After comparing 100 veteran students with 6A non—veterans, Epler72 reported that the veterans achieved higher scholastic marks than did the non-veterans. Garrett73 concluded that veterans generally were doing more satisfactory work than the average college student. Clark's7h study of freshmen at Northwestern University revealed that with scholastic aptitude being equated, veterans made slightly though significantly better grades than the non-veterans. 71NormanAlexander and Ruth J. Woodruff, "Determinants of College Success," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 11, December, 19A0, pp. A79FA85. 72Stephen E. Epler, "Do Veterans Make Better Grades Than Nonveterans?" School and Society, Vol. 66, October A, 1914-?) P. 270. 73Harley F. Garrett, op. cit. 7"Edward L. Clark, "The Veteran as a College Freshman," School and Society, Vol. 66, September 13, 19A7, pp. 205—207. A2 Welborn7S undertook a comparison of veteran and civilian scholarship at a teacher’s college. The men were matched as much as possible except the veterans were three and one half years older, and many more of them were married than were the civilian students. The average scholarship in seven subjects was only slightly higher for the veteran than for the civilian. 76 The study by Garmezy and Crose was conceived for the purpose of determining the academic achievement of two groups of matched students, veterans and non—veterans. The variables held constant were sex, marital status, age, race, and academic aptitude. As in other studies cited by Garmezy and Crose, their results indicated a small difference between first year grade point averages of veterans and non—veterans. 77 Thompson and Pressey made an analytical study of 2,1AA veterans at Ohio State university, 1,035 of whom had returned to school after the war. They reported that the postwar academic records of the returning students showed improvements over their prewar records. It was also noted 75E. L. Welborn, "The Scholarship of Veterans Attending A Teachers College," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. A0, No. 3, November 19A6, pp. 209-21A. 76N. Garmezy and J. M. Crose, "A Comparison of the .Academic.Achievement of Matched Groups of Veteran and Non— Veteran Freshmen at the University of Iowa," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. A1, March, 19A8, pp. 5A7—550. 77Ronald B. Thompson and S. L. Pressey, "An Analysis of the Academic Records of 2,1AA'Veterans," College and University, Vol. 23, January, 19A8, pp. 2A2-252. A3 that the veterans achieved slightly higher grades than did non-veterans of equal ability and of the same age. These authors concluded that the favorable record of the veterans was probably the result of maturity, motivation, experience, and freedom from financial worries. In reviewing studies concerned with veterans, Harris78 reports that most studies seem to agree that the veteran who has completed high school generally does better academically than the non-veteran. 79 Kvaraceus and Baker reported no significant difference in achievement between veterans and non-veterans who were enrolled in an educational measurements course at Boston University. The trend in achievement favored the veterans and the difference approached the 5 per cent level of significance. Thus they concluded that the veteran was doing at least as well if not better scholastically than the non—service man. According to Tibbitts and Hunter,80 who studied certain characteristics of veterans and non—veterans at the University 7BChester W. Harris, Encyclopedia of Educational Research. New York: The MacMiIlan company, 1960. ‘William C. Kvaraceus and James Baker, "The Achieve- ment of Veterans and Non-Veterans in One Required Course at Boston University," School and Society, Vol. 6A, November 30, 19A6, pp. 38A-385. OClark Tibbitts and W. W. Hunter, "Veterans and Non— Veterans at the university of Michigan," School and Sociegy, Vol. 65, May 10, 19A7, pp. 3A7-350. ALL of Michigan, the academic performance of the former was equivalent to that of the latter. Several writers could find no basis for substantiating the belief that veteran status is correlated positively with academic success. 81 Plumb reported that veteran status was not closely related to academic success in the freshman year. The study by Sanders, Osborne, and Greene82 of achievers, first quarter students whose grades were "C" or better, and non-achievers, students who earned less than a "C" for the first quarter, showed no reliable differences of comparisons based on military service. IOther studies reviewed related academic aptitude tests to grades of veterans and civilians. The ACE in the inves- tigation of Frederiksen and Schrader83 yielded a higher correlation with college grades of veterans than non-veterans, the median coefficients being .A9 and .A5 respectively. The authors explain that such results are reasonable because veterans are more highly motivated than non-veterans. .Accord- ing to the authors, this is plausible since both intellectual and non—intellectual factors would presumably have changed more for veterans than non-veterans because of the difference 8VlValworth R. Plumb, op. cit. 82W. B. Sanders, R. T. Osborne, and J. E. Greene, op. cit. 83Norman Frederiksen and W. B. Schrader, op. cit., p. 262. AS in time lapse between high school and college for the two groups. Employing the two criteria as predictors of college 8A success, Frederiksen and Schrader obtained median multiple correlation coefficients of .60 for veterans and .68 for non—veterans. In September 19A6, Osborne, Sanders, and Greene85 reviehed ACE scores of 958 entering freshmen at the Uni— versity of Georgia. They found that the.ACE yielded no significant differences between veterans and non—veterans. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO MARITAL STATUS There is a prevailing assumption that married students generally do better academically than single students because the responsibilities of marriage tend to make them more motivated to succeed. Jensen and Clark86 conducted a study to appraise this postulation. The population of the investigation was comprised of 36 married men and 36 single men whose marital status remained as such for the four years during their enrollment at Brigham Young university. The Bulbid, p. 26A. R. T. Osborne, W. B. Sanders, and J. E. Greene, "The Differential Prediction of College Marks by ACE Scores," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. AA, No. 1, September, 195(7) 8Pp° 107—115- . H. Jensen and M. H. Clark, "Married and unmarried College Students: Achievement, Ability, and Personality," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 37, October, 1958, pp. 123—125. A6 two groups were equated as to age. Their findings revealed no significant difference of scholastic ability in terms of the ACE. Although the single students achieved a slightly higher grade average than the married students, the difference.was insignificant. In view of these results, Jensen and Clark rejected the hypothesis that married students achieve at a higher level than single students. Marital status had no affect upon differences between achievers and non-achievers in the investigation conducted by Sanders, Osborne, and Greene87 at the University of Georgia. V STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO NATIVE AND TRANSFER STUDENTS In general, the reviews which have compared transfer students to natives have shown that the former do as well, if not better, than the latter. Grossman88 reported that transfers to the University of Illinois pursued advanced work with equal or superior achievement to those who entered the university as freshmen. 89 Congdon concluded that transfers showed marked superiority over a comparable group of native students. ____ 67W. B. Sanders, R. T. Osborne, and J.E. Greene, op. cit. 8D. A» Grossman, "Junior College Transfers at Illinois," Junior College Journal, Vol. A, March, 193A: PP» 29H-3O3- 59W. H. Congdon, "Do Junior College Transfers Succeed?" Junior College Journal, Vol. 2, January, 1932, pp. 209—215v A? In his study, DeRidder90 found that the average number of hours transferred had no significant relationship to probationary status, although the average grade for the hours of advanced credit transferred was significantly higher for the nonprobationary student than for the one on probation. He also reported that a significantly larger number of men students who entered the University of Michigan as freshmen became subject to probation than did transfer students. There was no difference for wwnen students. 91 Siemens studied the records of native and transfer students enrolled in engineering at the University of California at Berkeley. On the basis of the results of his comparisons, he stated that the transfers do as well academically as do the native students. Eells92 studied 317 students who transferred from junior colleges to Stanford University. He found that the transfers were markedly superior in academic aptitude to students who entered Stanford as freshmen. The former achieved higher marks than the natives, received a higher 90Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 91Cornelius H. Siemens, "Predicting Success of Transfer Students," Junior College Journal, V01. 1A, September, 19A3, pp- 2A-28- 92Walter C. Eells, "Records of Junior College Transfers in the University," The School Review, Vol. 37, March, 1929, PP- 187—197. A8 percentage of honors at graduation and had more of its students enter the graduate school. In his study of the students who graduated from the College of Literature, Science and the Arts of the University of Michigan, williamsg3 reported that the transfer students had a grade average of 1.75, native students earned 1.6A, based on C = 1.0. He states that such a difference is probable since the transfer student is selected for admission on the basis of previous work. Thus the native can often remain in college while a transfer would not be admitted on the basis of the same type of record. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO MAJOR FIELD OF STUDY There are relatively few studies comparing departmental majors with scholarship. DeRiddergl1L found a considerable difference of opinion during his investigation of the literature related to departmental majors and academic success. Most of the writers, however, "were in general accord that modern and classical languages were usually in the top scholastic ranking, that majors in journalism and chemistry were in 93Robert L. Williams, "A Partial Analysis of the Academic Records of June, 1938, Graduates of the University of Michigan," School and Review, Vol. A8, December 3, 1938, PP- 729-732- 9”Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit., p. 2A. 1+9 the middle group and that majors in economics, business administration and physical education ranked lowest." Sibley95 obtained comparative data for approximately 2,000 outstanding, superior and mediocre students at Amherst, Antioch, Brown, Chicago, Harvard, Iowa, Oberlin and Reed. The purpose of his study was to determine the rankings of major subjects in samples of recent graduates from the aforementioned institutions. His findings revealed that those students who majored in mathematics and the physical sciences were the most highly selected and tllat business administration majors made the poorest showing academically. Early studies of prediction were largely centered around over-all scholastic success. More recently attempts have been introduced to measure differential success by measuring specific aptitudes for specific areas. After 96 surveying the literature, Travers reported that predicting success in certain subject matter fields can be done with greater accuracy than over—all scholastic predictions. The utilization of high school grades and entrance test 97 data in multiple regression equations by Stone revealed 95Elbridge Sibley, "Scholastic Ranks of College Students in Relation to Their Fields of Specialization in College and Afterwards," College and University, Vol. 23, January, 19A8, pp. 19A—200. 96Robert M. W. Travers, op. cit. 97Joics B. Stone, op. cit., p. 110. 50 the following results: Using high school grade point average and ACE total scores, correlation coefficients were .63 for commerce students and .73 for elementary education majors. The battery of ACE total scores, high school grade point average, and the literature and general science tests of the Cpoperative General Culture Test yielded an R of .73 for students in the physical sciences. The same battery with the exception of the literature test was used to predict the success of social science majors. The R reported was .50. 98 undertook a study at the University of ‘Wallace Michigan to determine the value of certain tests used for the differential prediction of course grades and total grades for the first year. In addition to using three local tests, the ACE, Cooperative English Reading Compre- hension, and the Iowa Foreign Language Aptitude Examination were administered. The average correlations of the tests selected for particular areas of study proved to be reasonably related to grades. The multiple correlation coefficient between first term grades and the test battery variables was .55.99 The author noted that this relationship was 96W. L. Wallace, "The Prediction of Grades in Specific College Courses," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. AA, 991bid, p. 597. 51 reasonably high in view of the unreliability of grades and the non-intellectual factors which affect achievement. The range of correlations between ACE scores and first term grades in basic freshman courses at the university of Georgia was reported from .18 to .57 by Osborne, Sanders, and Greene.100 They were all significant with the exception of Art and Physical Education. Thus they concluded that success in certain subject matter areas can be better predicted than in others. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO PARENT53 EDUCATION Very few studies were found in the literature which attempted to determine whether or not a relationship exists between the education of parents and scholastic success. As reported by Carter and McGinnis,lOl the factor of parents! education cannot be used to predict student success or failure. 102 In his review of the literature, DeRidder stated that the education of oneis father and mother was of negligible value in influencing the student's grade point average. .As a result of his own study, DeRidder103 found that parents I00 101 102 103 R. T. Osborne, W. B. Sanders, and J.E. Greene, op. cit. Homer L. Carter and Dorothy J. McGinnis, pp. cit. Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. Ibid. 52 of probationary students averaged slightly more than a high school education, whereas the parents of nonprobationary students averaged slightly less. The difference was not significant. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO OCCUPATION OF FATHERS In his review of studies pertaining to the relationship between the socio-economic occupational level of fathers and their children's educational achievement, Henrylou reported equivocal results. Some of the studies revealed that children of fathers engaged in professional occupations earned better marks than students whose fathers were employed in other categorized occupations. Others recorded no relationships while still others obtained inverse results. 05 Nemzek,106 Snyder,107 the According to Harris,1 relationship between father's occupation and academic success was insignificant. Sandiford108 found a relationship between the intelligence of children and the occupations of their fathers to be highly To“Edwin R. Henry, op. cit. 105Chester W. Harris, op. cit. 106Claude L. Nemzek, "The Value of Certain Non—Intellectual Factors for Direct and Differential Prediction of Academic Success," The Journal of Social Psychology, XII, August, 19A0, pp. 21—30. 107 108Peter Sandiford, "Paternal Occupations and Intelligence of Offspring," School and Society, 232117—119, January, 1926. Rixford K. Snyder, op. cit. 5.3 evident at the elementary level, considerably smaller at the high school level and negligible at the college level. 109 there was In the studies reviewed by Garrett, little if any relationship found between the occupation of parents and scholastic success. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO INTEREST One would assume that interest is positively related to academic success. The fact that, in general, studies have resulted in a contraction of such a premise may not necessarily indicate a repudiation of it but rather may reveal a weakness on the part of currently used instruments to identify actual interests. Sonnekus110 found a low insignificant correlation between Kuder Interest Inventory scores and grades at South. African Universities. ,A correlation of only .03 for four year engineering grades and scores on the Strong Vocational Interest Blank were reported by Long and Perry.111 109Harley‘F. Garrett, op. cit. 110M. C. H. Sonnekus, "The Standardization and Predictive Value of a Battery of Academic Achievement Test for the Pur— pose of Academic Counselling at South African universities," The British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 29, Pt. II, Jfine, 1959, PP-IT36-1A3. 111L. Long and J. D. Perry, "Academic,Achievement in Engineering Related to Selection Procedures and Interests," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1953, V01. 37, pp. A68—A72. 5'4 The study of Brooks and Weynand112 was undertaken to determine the utility of the Kuder Preference Record— Vocational as a predictor of academic success. The data were collected from 622 entering freshmen at Texas A. & M. College in 19A7. From among five academic fields—-agriculture, business, engineering, liberal arts, and natural science—~Brooks and Weynand113 reported the measured interests of only one as showing a relatively significant relation to academic grades. A partial correlation of .56 was found between grade point ratios and computational interest scores of business students. The low partial and simple correlations led the authors, to conclude that:llu the Kuder Preference Record possesses little utility for predicting the academic success of students in most broad academic fields. As a result of his studies of this problem, Travers115 concluded that interests have been found to be as significantly related to academic success as aptitude tests. 112Melvin S. Brooks and Robert S. Weynard, op. cit. 113lbid. 111iIbid, p. 282. 115Robert M. W. Travers, op. cit. 55 Harris116 reported on a study undertaken at the University of Minnesota which revealed that achievers had interest patterns in the social welfare field, while under— achievers tended to have interest in business areas. 17 Crosby1 administered the Kuder Preference Record to a group of 1A0 sophomores enrolled in general psychology in an attempt to identify a relationship between interest and achievement. Students whose scores on the Scientific Interest exceeded the 90th percentile were compared with those who scored below the 10th percentile. He reported significant differences in biology and chemistry course grades between the two groups studied. These results led him to conclude that a positive relationship exists between certain interest scales on the Kuder and academic achievement in certain courses. However, the conclusion must be inter— preted with caution since only the extremes of the group were included and furthermore the interest inventory was administered after the students had completed their science courses and not before. 116Chester W. Harris, op. cit. 117Richard C. Crosby, "Scholastic Achievement and Measured Interest," Journal of Applied Psychology, 27, 56 Hewer118 summarized twelve studies and reported correlations between scholastic performance and Strong Interest scores ranging from -.15 to +.33. 119 Darley and Hagenah stated that from all accumulated research literature . . . there is a low relation between measured interests and measured ability or scholastic achievement. Darley and Hagenah,120 Strong,121 and Super122 all have come to the conclusion that interest has a very low relationship to college achievement. Interest obviously is related to achievement but not in as direct a way as it had been expected. In summarizing the findings relating occupational inter- est scores to scholarship, StronglE:5 reports: The reported correlations between our occupational interests and scholarship in general or in the related field are all low, the highest being .3A with engineering. IiltflVivian H. Hewer, "Vocational Interesthchievement- Ability Interrelationships at the College Level." (Un- published doctoral dissertation, university of Minnesota, 195A.) Quoted in J. G. Darley and T. Hagenah, Vocational Interest Measurement. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minn., 1955, p. 279. 119John G. Darley and Theda Hagenah. Vocational Interest Measurement. university of Minnesota Press, 1955, Minneapolis, Minn., 1955, p. 57. 120Ibid, pp. 56—58. 121Edward K. Strong, Jr. Vocational Interests of Men and Women, 19A3, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CaTif., pp- SIELSA9- 122Donald E. Super, op. cit., pp. A2A—A28. 123Edward K. Strong, Jr., op. cit., p. 521. 57 Stronglgu writes that it is not surprising that interest scores do not correlate significantly with scholastic achievement. .After all, he continues, the inter— est scales were designed to differentiate between interests in different occupations, not to identify degrees of academic achievement. If a student has sufficient interest to elect a course, his grade will depend far more on his intelligence, industry, and previous preparation than on his interest.12 STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO SEX In all of the studies reviewed, the evidence revealed the greater accuracy in predicting success for women than for men and the apparent higher incident of actual success of women. 126 Fricken reported on the extreme differences (in favor of women) in scores on the Minnesota College Aptitude Test between men and womend 127 studied the grades of the undergraduate Byrns students at the University of Wisconsin over a period of eight semesters. She reported that the averages during every T2I‘I'Ibid. 12 lb d, p. 529. 1260. E. Fricken, op. cit. 127Ruth Byrns, "Concerning College Grades," School and Society, V01. 31, May 17, 1930, pp. 68A—686. 58 semester were significantly higher for women than for men. DeRidder128 stated that in terms of incidence of failure, men were more likely to encounter academic dismissal than women. In their evaluation of the ACE, Berdie, Dressel, and 129 Kelso demonstrated what they report as the trend toward the greater predictability of college scholarship for females than for males. The results of the study by Carter and McGinnis130 indicated that sex differentiated between good and poor students, the direction being in favor of the women. Abelson131 presented data from seven colleges in test- ing the hypothesis that there is no difference between the true standard error of prediction for men and women. He found significant sex differences when using high school grades as a predictor and when using a combination of high school grades and aptitude test scores. There was no differ— ence for aptitude test scores when used independently. In 126Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 129R. F. Berdie, P. L. Dressel,.and P. C. Kelso, op. cit. lsOHomer L. Carter and Dorothy J. McGinnis, op. cit. 131Robert P. Abelson, "Sex Differences in Predicability of College Grades," Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, Vol. 12, No. A, Winter, 1952, pp. 63886AA. 59 light of his findings he suggests that in predictive studies, men and women should be considered as two different populations and the test data should be analyzed separately rather than being combined. Osborne, Sanders, and Greenel:52 reported that in using the ACE the success of females was predicted with greater accuracy than for males. Plumb133 found a marked relationship between scholar— ship and sex at the Duluth Branch of the university of Minnesota. The correlations between the predictive instru- ments he used and first year honor point ratios are signifi- cantly higher for women than for men. In the combined study of the U. 5. Office of Education and 25 participating universities as reported by McNeely,13u a greater percentage of men than women students were dis— missed for academic reasons. The figures were 21 and 11 per cents, respectively. 135 found in their study of four Heaton and Weedon colleges in Michigan that men had a greater chance of failure than women. 132R. T. Osborne, W. B. Sanderszand J. E. Greene, 02- Cit- 133 Valworth R. Plumb, op. cit. lquohn H. McNeely, College Student Mortalipy. U. S. Office of Education, Bulletin No. 11, 1937, p.TTl2. 135 Kenneth L. Heaton and Vinan‘Weedon, op. cit. 60 STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO FIRST SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGE Most studies of prediction use grades received during the first term or first year as the criterion for success. The major reason for doing so has been to avoid the long delay that would be required in waiting for longer term criteria. It is also true that the courses taken during the freshman year are more nearly alike than the programs taken later as upperclassmen. There have been few studies where validities of tests for freshman grades have been compared with validities for four year grades. In reviewing the literature relative to this, Frenchl:56 reported that, in general, four year cumulative grade point average validities do not differ significantly from freshman grade average validities. In his own findings of the study of the Scholastic Aptitude Test and a group of experimental tests, French supported the viewpoint that the freshman grade point average is a satisfactory substitute for the four year cumulative average. At first one may wonder why first term grade point averages are relatively valid in predicting success for four years. ‘When one thinks of the adjustments that have to be 136John‘W. French, "Validation for New Item Types Against Four—Year Academic Criteria," The Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. A9, No. 2, April, 1958, pp. 67—76. 61 made during the first term, such a conclusion appears unwarranted. .And yet perhaps the student who eventually becomes successful in terms of graduation can adjust rapidly enough so that he does well academically during his first term, whereas the student who eventually becomes unsuccessful in terms of falling from college is unable to become adjusted during that formidable but paramount first term. DeRidder137 found that more students incurred probation during their first semester in college than at any other time. Strang138 reported evidence to indicate that four year success was best predicted by first year grades. Osborne, Sanders, and Greene139 stated that their own evidence as well as many previous studies indicated that first term marks predicted any subsequent term marks better than did the ACE. MungerILLO studied the relationship between first semester grades and the "staying power" of the 7A8 students who entered the University of Toledo. These students were 137Lawrence M. DeRidder, op. cit. 138 Ruth Strang, op. cit. 139 R. T. Osborne, W. B. Sanders, and J. E. Greene, 0 .cit. l)‘l'OPaul Munger, "Student Persistence in College," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 35, December, 1956, pp. zuI-ZIIS. 62 categorized into upper third, middle third, andlower third of their respective high school rank for comparison with first semester grade point averages. Based on an honor point ratio of C = 1.0, the mean first semester college grades for the upper, middle, and lower third students were 1.25, .07, and ~.A6 respectively. Of those students who graduated, the mean cumulative honor point ratios were 1.9A for those whose high school rank was in the upper third, 1.A0 for those in the middle third, and 1.26 for those in the lower third. All of these differences were significant. The author concludes his report by stating:lL|'1 As a result of this information, it seems possible to estimate the persistence of a student from any third through knowledge of the first semester point average. In an attempt to obtain information with reference to the relationship of grade averages made in various semesters, ReadlLL2 analyzed the scholastic averages of 350 seniors at the University of Wichita. Finding an arithmetic average of 8A.30 for the first semester and 8A.97 for four years, based on a scale of 100, he stated that the first semester average agreed with the four year average about as well as any other semester average. As a further note of interest, mllbid, p. 2A3. luaCecil B. Read, "The Relationship of Scholastic Ayerages in Various Semester," School and Sociepy, 52, November 9, l9A0, pp. A68—A69. 63 Read revealed the following correlations with first semester averages over a period of years at Wichita: .66 with high school averages, .A6 with a psychological test, and .AA with an achievement test. STUDIES RELATING ACADEMIC SUCCESS TO MOTIVATION AND PERSONALITY We collect entrance aptitude test scores, high school marks, etc. It takes more than this to succeed in college. Yet the academic criteria remain not only our main concern but in many cases our only concern. Factors other than intellectual capacity alone must be assessed if the margin of predictive error is to be reduced drastically. Admission policies must be improved to take into con— sideration such things as student motivation, his stability, his intellectual curiosity, and other factors that perhaps are significant but more difficult to acquire than academic aptitude and achievement test scores. ,As a result of the limited predictive value of con— ventional criteria, more and more interest has developed in the value of non—intellectual factors in prognosis of academic success. Johnsm'3 reported that one factor which merited extensive investigation with respect to prognosis was that of appraising personality traits. rusKingston Johns, Jr., op. cit. 6A According to Jones,l)‘l'LL of three major areas of difficulty accounting for students failing in college, the least serious is lack of ability; the most serious is poor motivation or attitude. In reviewing the literature related to the variables which influence scholastic success, DeRidderlus concluded that "The results suggest that non-intellectual factors play a large part in conditioning scholastic success." .According to Summers,lb’6 traditional tests for deter- mining academic aptitude appear to have reached the limit of their usefulness. We are now attempting to measure motivation and drive or the components of them. We are concerned with attitudes, interest, maturity, and fitness. in his review of the literature, Newzele? found the correlation between intelligence test results and academic achievement is approximately .50. Thus he points out non— intellectual factors must play a large part in conditioning academic success. There currently appears to be greater interest in the role of motivation and personality with respect to academic quEdward S. Jones, "Why Students Fall in College," Association of American Colleges Bulletin, Vol. 39, No. 2, May 1953. lusLawrence M. DeRidder: 02- 9£E°’ P’ 5' luéR. E. Summers, "Some Thoughts on Prediction of .Academic Achievement," College and university, Vol. 26, Januar , 1951, pp. 228-235. 1 7Claude L. Nemzek, op. cit. 65 success. Unfortunately, the results have not been grati— fying. WorrelllLL8 reports . . . the findings of available studies dealing with "non-intellectual" variables do not seem to contribute appreciably to . . . the practical aim of improved prediction. . . Parrish and Rethlingshaferlug found no significant differences in measured achievement motive between achievers and non—achievers who were equated for intelligence and certain other factors. Fishman remarked:150 . . . it is very seldom that we encounter a non- intellective predictor which can dependably and substantially raise the multiple prediction of course grades that is already attainable from such intellectual indices as high school grades and ability or achievement test scores. According to Henry,151 attempts to show a significant relationship between personality scores and college marks have generally been unsuccessful. He cited several studies which indicated some relationship but in concluding remarked about the variance in results from school to school and noted 1Llfileonard‘Worrell, op. cit., p. A7. lLl’gJohn W. Parrish and D. Rethlingshafer, "A Study of the Need to Achieve in College Achievers and NonnAchievers," Journal of General Psychology, 50: 195A, pp. 209-226. ISOJoshuaA. Fishman, "Unsolved Criterion Problems in the Selection of College Students," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 28, No. A, Fall, 1958, pp. 3A6-3A7. IslEdwin R. Henry, op. cit. 66 the many cases of contradiction. Hence, he claimed that personality inventories are "nonpredictive." Garrett,152 as a result of his review of the literature, stated that factors of personality and character appear to be equally distributed among the academically successful and unsuccessful students. No personality test has yet been developed which will predict scholastic success. Roth153 reported that differences between successful and unsuccessful students with respect to personality traits measured by personality inventories are not statistically significant in most cases. Many colleges are recognizing applicants of greater promise among those who are emotionally balanced and who exhibit desirable personal qualities. Yet the schools are aware of the difficulties in appraising personal traits. 15LL According to Traxler: In general, personality tests are of doubtful validity. Even inventories of interests and attitudes have little value as entrance measures because it is possible for an applicant to slant his responses in what he believes to be a desirable direction . . ." 152Harley F. Garrett, op. cit. 153Julius A. Roth, "The Study of Academic Success and Failure," Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. 35, No. 7, October, 1956, pp. 176-182. 15"Arthur E. Traxler, OP- QLE" p. 52' o7 Ahmann, Smith and Glock155 used five prediction variables at Cornell University, one of which was the Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes. The scores yielded by this device failed to correlate significantly with first semester grade point averages and the addition of it to a battery of tests was of no contribution. 156 As a summary of Stagner's review of the literature, it is noted that (l) objective measures of personality show a very little relationship to academic aptitude or achieve— ment, and (2) maladjusted students do less well in proportion to their intelligence than do those well adjusted which suggests a strong relationship between adjustment and achieve- ment. He found that personality157 . . influences achievement in an indirect way, by affecting the degree to which use is made of the individual's potentialities. This fact explains the uniformly low linear correlations found. . . between personality inventories and achievement. 155J. Stanley Ahmann, W. L. Smith, and M. D. Glock, "Predicting Academic Success in College by Means of a Study Habits and.Attitude Inventory," Educational and Ppychological Measurement, V01. 18, No. A, Winter, 7958, pp. 8533857. 156Ross Stagner, "The Relation of Personality to Academic Aptitude and Achievement," Journal of Educational Research, V01. 26, May, 1933, pp. 6A8-660. Ibid, p. 655. 68 Gould and kaplan,158 Holt,159 Schulty and Ricciuti160 were unable to uncover significant relationships between level of aspiration to academic success. .Although Worell161 reported findings that were contrary to the aforementioned studies, he did qualify his results to be of an empirical nature rather than providing a practical instrument for selection. Many attempts have been made to determine the predicta- bility of academic achievement through the study of non- intellectual factors. Two factors which have been thought of as important are study habits and attitudes. Through the years a number of tests attempting to measure attitudes, study habits, and motivation have been constructed. Yet the validity of these tests has either not been carefully established or the validity has been reported low. 156R. Gould and N. Kaplan, "The Relationship of lLevel of Aspiration' to Academic and Personality Factors," Journal of Social Psychology, V01. 11, 19A0, pp. 3l-A0. 159R. R. Holt, "Level of Aspiration: Ambition or Defense?" Journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 36, 19A6, 160D. G. Schulty and H. N. Riccuiti, "Level of .Aspiration Measures and College Achievement," Journal of General Psychology, Vol. 51, 195A, pp. 267—275. 161 Leonard Worell, op. cit. 69 According to Garcia and Whigham,162 one which shows promise is the Brown—Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes. It was constructed by selecting items that reflected study methods, motivation for study and attitudes toward scholastic activities believed to be important in the classroom. Although at Emory University, the SSHA seems to correlate more highly with grades than intelligence, it does not add substantially to indices of prediction already in use. It was thought that since pre—college testing of SSHA would reflect high school habits, perhaps the test should be administered after college work has begun to reflect college habits. Thus the SSHA was administered a second time to a random group of students who had completed two quarters of work. However, Garcia and Whigham reported that the results did not reveal any conclusive differences of predictability between the administration of SSHA before college experience and after college experience. Using a multiple choice group Rorschach, Clarklé‘r5 tested four classes consisting of 127 freshmen and SOphomore students at Brigham Young University to evaluate its use as a predictor I62Dolores Garcia and Neil Whigham, "Validity of SSHA Administered Before and After College Experience," Educa— tional and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 18, No. A, Winter, 1955, PP. 8A5—851. 163Selby G. Clark, "The Rorschach and Academic.Achieve— ment," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, Vol. 36, January, 1958, pp. 3AI. 70 of college success. The correlation of .10 was obtained between the Rorschach and cumulative grade point averages. The Rorschach and ACE yielded a correlation of —.05. Clark concluded that there was no significant relationship between the Rorschach and grade point averages nor was there any significant improvement in academic prediction when the multiple choice Rorschach was added to the multiple prediction of the ACE and the Purdue English Test. Cooperléu administered the group Rorschach to students at San Francisco State College but found it to be of ques— tionable value for predicting academic success there. Sopchak165 found low correlations between honor point ratios and Rorschach variables; hence concluded that the value of using the Rorschach as a predictor of academic success is very doubtful. Carlin166 compared four year cumulative grade point averages with Self Adjustment and Social Adjustment scores of the California Test of Personality but found no differences, the correlations being .20 and .30 respectively. 16"James G. Cooper, "The Inspection Rorschach in the Prediction of College Success," Journal of Education Research, Vol. A9, No. A, December, 1955, pp. 2754282. 165An 166 drew L. SOpchak, op. cit. Leslie C. Carlin, op. cit., p. 288. 71 67 Traversl noted the importance of the role that nonintellectual factors play in academic achievement but realized that many of them have been neither identified nor measured. The studies of social adjustment that he reviewed indicated insignificant relationships to scholastic success. However, he was encouraged by the results of 168 several studies concerned with student persistence. But more promising than the inventory type of approach are the attempts to develop tests of persistence. Such tests seem to contribute something to the prediction of academic success which is quite independent of scholastic aptitude. 169 Roth suggests that we undertake a study of successful and unsuccessful students by relating their characteristics to the academic milieu of which the students are a part. 170 "the interaction between We must learn to understand society - in this case the academic society — and the individual personality." Drasgow171 feels that in the screening of applicants we should include a very important but neglected considera- tion into admissions procedures — the personality. Ié)ngobert M. W. Travers, op. cit. 16 Ibid, p. 172. 169JuliusA. Roth, op. cit. 170Ibid, p. 182. 171James Drasgow, "Psychological Breakdown Among College Students," The Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 28, No. 3, March, 1957, pp. lA3-1A6T 72 He suggests administering a personality test comparable to the MMPI. Students whose scores arouse suspicion should be referred to a psychologist for a personality screening. The study by Giesecke and Hancock172 led them to believe that there is a fairly direct relationship between academic and emotional adjustment. Lehman173 tested 110 women entering Ohio State as freshmen who were majoring in home economics to determine in what ways other than psychological test scores did the superior students differ from the low achieving students. She concluded that: (1) Those who do poorly may be weak in the fundamentals needed for success in home economics, e.g., reading and arithmetical competence and/or because they may have many serious personal problems. and (2) Those who succeed have learned sufficient fundamentals or are capable of doing so. They may have no serious problems but if they do, they are capable of handling them. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule and a picture story device developed by McClelland and others are two recently devised instruments used to measure motivation. 172G. F. Giesecke and John W. Hancock, "Rehabilitation of Academic Failures," Coflege and university, Vol. 26, October, 1950, pp. 72-78. 173Ruth T. Lehman, "Forecasting the Academic Achieve— ment of College Freshmen," Educational Research Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 5, May 12, 195A, pp. 113AI2I. 73 McClellandl7" reported a correlation of .51 between college grade point averages and his measure. Lowell, however, using the same instrument found a zero order correlation coefficient of only .05. 175 Weiss, Wertheimer, and Grosbeck administered the Personal Preference Schedule and McClellandls Picture Story measure to 60 male students in an introductory psychology class in an attempt to predict grade point averages. The correlations were .A2 and .3A respectively. A locally constructed academic aptitude test combined with the Personal Preference Schedule yielded a multiple R of .6A. The same academic aptitude test combined with the Picture Story instrument resulted in a multiple R of .63. The authors conclude that176 . . . a combination of ability and motivation measures seems to be a powerful predictor of academic performance . . . especially since the criterion measure, grade point average, is of dubious reliability and validity. 17HD. C. McClelland, J. W. Atkinson, R. A, Clark, and E. L. Lowell, The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton— Century—Crofts, 1953. 175P.‘Weiss, M. Wertheimer, and B. Groesbeck, "Achieve— ment Motivation, Academic Aptitude and College Grades," Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 19, No. A, 1959, pp. 663—666. 176Ibid, p. 665. 7A STUDIES RELATED TO THE READMISSION OF .ACADEMICALLY DISMISSED STUDENTS The following two reports are the only studies found in the literature that are directly related to the problem of the readmission of students who have been dismissed from college for failure to maintain satisfactory academic achievement. Thus they are reported more extensively than previous studies reviewed. This study by Warman177 is a follow-up report of students who were academically dismissed from Ohio State University and who sought readmission to two colleges of the university. These students were referred to the univer— sity Counseling Center for counseling, diagnosis, and prog- nosis. The counselor's prognostic report, records of grades and activities, statements from the student, from parents, from employers and any other significant informa- tion were presented to the petitions committee of the college in which the student wished to enroll. This com— mittee determined the final outcome of the studentis request for readmission. The author attempted to answer the following questions:178 (a) To what extent do the prognoses of the . . . counselors agree with the petitions committee action? 177Roy E. Warman, "A Study of Applicants for Readmission to College," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 1956, pp. 5535558. 17 Ibid, p. 533. 75 (b) Do readmitted students make academic records good enough to permit them to stay in school? (c) How well are these records predicted by the counselors! prognoses? (d) What is the relationship between these variables and the applicants' scores on a test of general scholastic ability? It was believed that counsehng under these conditions posed two major problems. First of all, it is obvious that the student being considered for readmission would be compliant and amenable to any suggestions. However, at the same time such a student would be on the defensive and fearful to reveal anything which may be used to deny him the Opportunity to return. Secondly, the counselor usually has a responsibility to the student first and to the institution second. Yet under these circumstances it was understood that the counselors! primary responsibility was to submit a report to the members of the petitions com— mittee which would assist them in determining the studenUs chances to succeed if he were readmitted. The records of 77 students who were readmitted to College A.and A0 students who were readmitted to College B were reviewed to determine the following: (a) Academic aptitude based on the Ohio State Psychological Examination (b) .Academic record at time of dismissal (c) Academic record after readmission (d) Counselor's prognosis of academic performance 76 It is interesting to note that, although the minimum time gap between the reinstatement of a student and the time of this study was three quarters, about half of those students who were readmitted were dismissed for poor scholar— ship a second time. ‘Warman found that both colleges lost about one-third of those readmitted after one quarter. Counselor prognosis and committee action on petitions correlated equally well for both colleges, .A8 and .A6. The relationship between these two items was moderately significant. One must take note, however, that the counselor prognosis and committee action were not independent variables since the latter based part of its decision upon the counselor's recommendation. The biserial r between the scholastic aptitude test and subsequent academic achievement was .20 for College A and .23 for College B, neither being significant. The results of the study, according to the author, reveal that too much weight had been given to the scholastic aptitude test when considering the petitions of academically dismissed students. An examination of the author's data reveals a low correlation between counselor's prognosis and subsequent academic achievement. In explaining this outcome, Warman remarked that the counselors were generally successful in identifying those students who would make satisfactory records but were less successful in identifying those who would not. 77 Warman apparently was thinking of non-intellectual factors when he concluded his report with the following remark:179 Other probably less objective factors are particularly important and need to be brought into sharper focus when dismissed students are being considered for readmission to a college in the University. In the fall of 19A6 a student advisory program was developed at the Galesburg Division of the university of Illinois with the expressed purpose to individualize student experience. The authors, Giesecke and Hancock,180 evaluated the university's readmission policy in an attempt to substitute a constructive rehabilitation program for the one concerned primarily with rules only. The student who sought readmission to the Galesburg Division was interviewed by one of the authors, then Assistant Dean of Men, who estimated the student's chances of succeeding on the basis of test results, achievement and other records that were available. .A student was not eligible for readmission until the lapse of at least two semesters. Those who were allowed to return were required to carry a reduced academic load. There was practically no follow—up of the returning students. 179Ibid, p. 558. 180G. F. Giesecke and John W. Hancock, op. cit. 78 Giesecke and Hancock were not satisfied with such an arbitrary system. In writing of their concern, the authors stated:181 A.more meaningful formulation of the problem, consistent with the avowed aim of the institution to educate individuals, seemed rather to involve such considerations as these: Is it to the student's best interests to be readmitted now, or at some later date? Or is he likely to benefit more from counseling toward some plan of action in which the University of Illinois does not have a part? If readmitted now, is he ready to accept counsel based on tests and the best judgment of the several persons connected with his welfare? Is it possible, or likely, that he can change his habits and personality characteristics sufficiently to make further academic endeavor honestly worth his while? Thus was a more individualized policy adopted during the spring term, 19A8. This new approach consisted of a preliminary interview by the Assistant Dean of Men to familiarize the student with the procedure and philosophy. Following this and prior to the administration of a battery of tests, including special tests when indicated, the clinical counselor conducted a diagnostic interview with the student. The counselor estimated the student's chances of success and established a tentative program of rehabilita— tion if he were to be readmitted. .A second interview was held by the Assistant Dean of Men to determine to what extent the student had gained insight and self understanding. The Dean and the counselor then pooled their sources of information and arrived at a decision. 18 llbid, p. 73. 79 During the Dean's final interview with the student, all evidence was reviewed and discussed frankly. The authors believed that by this time, most students would have understood themselves and would have been guided toward a decision in such a way that they would have assumed a major role in the determination of it. Obviously some had accepted the decision intellectually but not viscerally. However, the authors reported that only in rare instances did they have to terminate a final interview in an authoritarian manner. Not every candidate was permitted to return to the university. Approximately half of the people readmitted failed to meet the standards governing their readmission. The reasons for their failure, according to the authors, were that they either failed to recognize their emotional ‘ disturbances or they failed to adhere to the prescribed therapy. In view of their findings, Giesecke and Hancock believe that a fairly direct relationship exists between the qualities of academic and emotional adjustment. Of the half who were scholastically successful during the first term, about 50 per cent fell below the minimum academic standards after the second term and were placed on academic probation. The authors contribute this regression to a termination of rehabilitation after one term. 80 In the spring of 19A9, after two semesters and one summer session of operation, the Galesburg Division was closed thus preventing a more thorough study. In concluding their report, Giesecke and Hancock urged that institutions give serious consideration to the following principles: 1. The utmost attention to be given to those seeking readmission. 2. The practice of denying admission for a specified period of time is open to question. 3. It is not possible to expect every readmitted student to overcome his deficiencies after one term. A. Therapeutic assistance by a counselor should not be terminated immediately after the readmitted student removes his probation. The student must be made aware of his emotional disturbance and must achieve insight into it. Following this, he must become sensitized to regressions but sustain positive action. SUMMARY Selection is a cooperative effort to place the student in the best possible college environment. The participants in this venture include the student, his family, his high school, and the college. With respect to this selection we are still at the very beginning. We must broaden our concepts of what it takes to get through college and what kind of an individual will get the most out of a college education. 81 None of the criteria can predict with exact certainty an individualis success in college. Perhaps the greatest weakness of predictability lies in the customary criterion of success, namely, academic grades. The low validity and the unreliability of academic grades is generally accepted. These restraints will always have a tendency to reduce the effectiveness of prognosis. Yet it is on the basis of these very same grades that students are dismissed for poor scholarship or are graduated. Although there are variances in the efficacy of prediction from one institution to another, in general the results are as follows: 1. High school achievement (grades or rank) is the best single predictor of college success. Correlation coefficients between high school achievement and college achieve— ment have averaged about .55. 2. The superiority of high school rank over high school grades or vice versa remains inconclusive. 3. Correlation coefficients have averaged approxi— mately .A5 based upon college achievement and standardized scholastic aptitude tests. The ACE has been consistently reported as being one of the best tests for this prognosis. A. .A combination of the two aforementioned will usually yield a multiple correlation coefficient of .60. 5. The results of studies that have attempted to relate academic success to a student's age at the time he enters college have been contradictory. 10. ll. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 82 Inconclusive results have been reported in those studies which attempted to determine whether or not any significant relationship exists between student residence and academic success. In studies predicting scholastic success from veteran status, it has been reported that veterans do only slightly, though significantly, better acadanically than non—veterans. In the studies reviewed, it was reported that marital status had no effect upon academic success. The studies reviewed which compared the relative success of native and transfer students revealed that the latter achieved as well, if not better, than the former. There was found to be no relationship between success and a student's major field of study. The literature produced no evidence to show that academic success is related to the education of onets parents or the occupation of one's father. It was generally conceded by the writers reviewed that interest measured by currently used inventories is insignificantly related to scholarship. With respect to sex, the studies reviewed revealed the greater accuracy in predicting success for women than for men. Of the few studies which have correlated first term grades to four year grades, it is generally accepted that the former is a satisfactory substitute for predicting success. The importance of motivational and personality factors as related to academic success has been generally accepted although instruments for the identification of the relevant elements have not, as yet, been devised. CHAPTER III PROCEDURES AND METHODS SELECTION OF THE SAMPLES This investigation includes two groups of students who after having been dismissed for poor scholarship at Northern Illinois University were allowed to re-enter the university. In 1952 a Reinstatement Committee was formed to review the cases of students who were dismissed for failure to meet the minimum academic standards and who were requesting permission to be readmitted. The study includes all but two (their records were incomplete) of the students who were readmitted between 1952 and January, 1960, and who were again dismissed for poor scholarship or were subsequently graduated. The successful group, students who were graduated, was comprised of A3 men and 1A women for a total of 57. Twenty- seven successful men and four successful women were trans— fer students. The unsuccessful group, students who were again dismissed, was cmnprised of 77 men and 2A women for a total of 101. Twenty-five unsuccessful men and one unsuccessful woman were transfer students. SOURCES OF DATA Reinstatement Committee File. The names of all students, both men and women, who petitioned the Reinstatement Committee was obtained from a file of requests and disposition of cases which is maintained in the Office of the Dean of Men. Personnel File. Information concerning men and women is kept in the Dean of Men's Office and the Dean of Women's Office, respectively. These files contain the results of the entrance tests; place of residence at time of dismissal; the studentls letter petitioning reinstatement which includes his experience following dismissal from the university and marital status; the student's application for admission which includes sex, age at admission to the first college or university attended, father's occupation, education of parents, health, high school attended from which the size was determined, marital status and veteran status. Official Educational Record. This all—inclusive abstract of academic achievement is maintained in the Office of the Registrar. From it the following information was obtained: high school rank; grades at former institutions for transfer students frmn which the grade point average at other institutions was determined; grades at Northern Illinois University from which was determined grade point average in major field at the time of first or only dismissal, total grade point average at the time of first or only dismissal, the grade point average for the first semester at Northern, the grade point average for the semester of dismissal; total hours credit including transfer hours at the time of the first or only dismissal, total hours of failure at Northern at the time of the first or only dismissal; how many terms the student remained in school before the first or only dismissal; how many months the student remained out of school before being readmitted; whether the student changed his major field upon readmission; whether the student entered as a native or transfer; whether the student entered in good standing or on academic probation. CLASSIFICATION OF DATA Entrance Tests (Raw scores used unless otherwise indicated): ACE (American Council on Education Psychological Examination). The Norms Bulletin1 was used to equate the raw scores for the various editions of the test that were used. 1American Council on Education Psychological Examina- tion for Coiiege Freshman, 195A Edition, Norms Bulletin (Revised),7EdficationaI Testing Service, Princeton, N. J. 86 Iowa Silent Reading Tests (New Edition). The total reading raw scores of this test were used. Cooperative Mathematics Pre—Test for College Students. Kuder Preference Record — Vocational. California Test of Personality. (An inquiry was made to the California Test Bureau to deter- mine the equivalency of several different forms that were administered. It was recommended that percentile rather than raw scores be used to achieve equivalency. Father's Occupation: These were classified in seven categories according to the Dictionary of Occupational Titles - professional and managerial; clerical and sales; service; agricultural, fishery, forestry, and kindred; skilled; semi-skilled; and unskilled. Size of High School: Schools having enrollments of less than 500 were classified as small, 500-1,000 were considered medium, and over 1,000 were classified as large. Experience between Dismissal and Readmission: These were classified in five categories - school full time, school part time, reading clinic and employment, armed services, and full time employment. Education of Parents: This was based on the highest grade completed as was indicated by the student on his application for admission. 87 Health: This was classified in two categories - excellent and average, and was obtained from the studentls application for admission. Place of Residence at Dismissal: This was studied under two categories, the first of which was in three classifications: own home, private home, residence hall; and the second category was studed in two classifications: own home, private home. Grade Point Averages: These were obtained by dividing the total number of honor points earned by the total number of semester hours undertaken. The letter grades and their honor point values per semester hour at Northern Illinois University are as follows: AF3, B=2, C=1, D=0, F= —1. STATISTICAL DESIGN The writer proposed to test the null hypothesis that there are no significant differences between two groups of students each of whom was dismissed from Northern Illinois University for academic reasons and was allowed to return; one group was dismissed for academic reasons a second time - the other group subsequently graduated. The chi square technique was used to determine significance of differences for the following discrete vari- ables: 88 Whether or not a student had a "C" average for his first semester at Northern Illinois University ‘Whether or not a student had a "C" average for the semester during which he was dismissed Size of high school Major - specific field Major — broad field Health Whether or not a student changed his major after being readmitted Marital status at readmission Veteran status at readmission Status at admission — native or transfer Status at admission - probation or good standing The semester during which a student's first dismissal occurred High school rank — quartiles Place of residence at dismissal Experience between dismissal and readmission Father's occupation Chi square was computed by the following formula2 when it was applied to a fourfold contingency table: 2 = N(AD - Bo)2 (A#B} (CiD) (AdC) (B+DT' X 2J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, Third Edition. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956, p. 236. 89 ‘When any one expected frequency was less than 10 but more than A in a fourfold contingency table, an allowance for discontinuity was made by applying Yates correction for continuity formula:3 N N (1 AD - BCl - 2)2 Tara) ( croflmci (Bi—DT x2 = In a fourfold contingency table, if any one expected frequency was less than 5, Fisher‘s exact probabilities A formula was used: P = (Ara): (0+0): (AdC)! (3+0): NIEAI'BI'CT’DT The computation of the separate P's was facilitated by the use of the logarithms of factorials. The calculation of chi square for 2 by k tables was computed by means of the formula:5 2 “TEE? —— Bt A A.i + Bi .At i Bt The t - ratio technique was employed to determine significance of differences for the following continuous variables: 31bid, p. 237. "Quinn McNemar, Psychological Statistics, Second Edition. New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1955, p. 2A1. 5Ibid, p. 233. 90 Grade point average for the first semester at Northern Illinois University Grade point average for the semester of dismissal Total grade point average through the semester of the first dismissal Major field grade point average through the semester of the first dismissal Total semester hours credit including transfer hours at the first dismissal Total hours of failure at the first dismissal High school percentile rank Months out of school before readmission Father's education Motheris education Age at first admission to a college or university ACE Q, L, and T scores Iowa Silent Reading Test scores Cooperative Mathematics Pretest scores Kuder Preference Record - Vocational scores California Personality Test scores Grade point average at former schools for transfer students Before the t-test was made the F — test6 for homogeneity of variance was computed: where S the larger of the two sample variances S = the smaller of the two sample variances. HN HR) 6N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods. Harper & Brother, Publisher,7New'York, 1959, p. I 91 If the F — test did not produce a value that was significant at the 5 per cent level, the Student's t — test7 was used to compute the significance of the difference in means: K .2 l 2 (..- ll 2 2 2 2 20(1) - E>_<_1_)_ + axe) - Exp N N 1 2 ZIH ZIP- N1 + N2 - 2 If the F was found to be significant at the 5 per cent level, the following formula8 was used to test the significance of differences in means for use on samples that are not homogeneous with respect to variance: Y’ -.X t = l 2 2| U) Hm 2| U) mm 1 [\J The following factors were correlated with first semester grade point averages and with total grade point averages at graduation or at the time of final dismissal: High school rank I Total grade point average at the only or first dismissal 7lbid, pp. 133-135. Ibid., p. 13A. 92 Major field grade point average at the only or first dismissal Total hours credit at only or first dismissal .ACE "T" score California Personality Test - personal adjustment The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient 9 was computed with the formula: NEXY - (Ex) (EY) \/sz2 - (EM-2] [m2 - (8)2] SUMMARY The two groups in the study were selected from among those students who were dismissed for poor scholarship and petitioned a committee for permission to return to the university. The students in one group returned and were again dismissed for failure to meet the minimum academic standards. Students in the other group returned and subsequently graduated. Data relevant to this study were obtained from the Reinstatement Committee file, the Dean of Men‘s and Dean of Women‘s personnel files, and the official educational record. The bases for the statistical design were described according to the methodology of Downie and Heath, Guilford, and McNemar. 9Quinn McNemar, op. cit., p. 118. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF VARIABLES ASSOCIATED WITH ACADEMIC SUCCESS This chapter is concerned with the analysis of data studied to determine group similarities and differences of readmitted students who subsequently graduated or were again dismissed from the University for poor scholarship. Caution must be exercised when applying these findings to individual cases. CRITERION OF SUCCESS Success and failure were dependent upon grades only. Those students whose academic grades were sufficient to allow them to graduate were termed successful, whereas those whose academic grades failed to meet the university standards were dismissed and were termed unsuccessful. While weaknesses in academic grades are apparent, they are, nonetheless, used by the university as the criterion of success. The various data were analyzed by the three statistical procedures previously described.’ 911 FACTORS AT ADMISSION Sex of the 158 students who were readmitted to the university after having been dismissed for poor scholarship, 120 or 75.9 per cent were men and 38 or 2A.l per cent were women. Of the 57 successful students, A3 or 75.5 per cent were men and 1A or 2A.5 per cent were women. The Chi square test was applied to determine whether the sex ratio in the successful group was typical of that in the unsuccessful one (Table I). Since the value of chi square was not significant at the 5 per cent level, it appears that the sex ratios of the two groups were comparable. TABLE I INCIDENCE OF SUCCESS FOR MEN AND WOMEN READMITTED TO NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY FOLLOWING ACADEMIC DISMISSAL Classification Successful Unsuccessful Total X2 Men A3 77 120 0.012 ‘women 1A 2A 38 Total 57 101 158 X2 is not significant at the 5 per cent level. Thus the readmitted women students were no more or no less successful than the men students. 95 High School Rank Chi square was used to determine the significance of relationship between the quartile rank in the high school graduation class and academic success at the university. The high school rank was not available for seven men in the study. Two of these students graduated from high school on the basis of the General Educational Development (GED) tests, one student attended high school in a foreign country. In replies to letters sent from the author requesting high school rank to the high schools of the four remaining students, two principals reported that they did not rank mid-year graduates and two reported that the rankings were not available for summer school graduates. The high degree of relationship between high school rank and college success was reviewed in Chapter II. The findings in Table 11 support previous evidence. Seventeen per cent of the successful men completed their high school education by ranking in the top quarter of their classes. Only 5 per cent of the unsuccessful men were ranked in the same quarter. The difference was not significant for the women students, however. Before the men and women could be combined into total successful and unsuccessful groups, it was necessary to determine whether or not the men and women within each group 96 Ho>oH booo coo H mcp om pconmHCQHm as 1 «act: Hm>oH Sumo pod m on» pm pconGACmHmk so :m 3m :H ma 0: Hobos m: :2 c m cm 22 3 mm um ob c as mu m um 02 c n ma a m sacc.mu c a sac. m m amm.w : s A use use use use boo Ado immoooomcb lwmmoosm Immooosmca Immooosm Immooosmcb Immooosm Amofifiaomsov mx Hobos mx dose: mx do: scam ZMZOB.QZ¢ ZME MOMAAOU ADmeMUUDmZD QZ< ADmeMOODm mom mmMOODm OH mMAHHmm xZ¢m JOOIUm Imam m0 ZOHH¢Jmm Ha mqmmH Sumo coo m map on pconmHCmHm ma X mo mmsfim> can go oCoZ m mo cm :m :~ :~ m: Hobos as :H m m :H as Madam mm nu m 6 am m assoc: NA.H o: mm 31.m cu m do.m mm mm omuou sac boo Hoe use use sou immooosmcz 1mmmoosm immooosmCD 1mmmoosm immooosmCD Immooosm x Hobos x coed: x no: ooum N N N ZMZOZ QZ¢ 2M2 MOMAAOO #DmmmMUUDmZD QZ¢ JDmeMUODm mom wmmoobm OH MNHm doomom IOHZ m0 ZOHH<4mm > mqmoH homo cod m ocp pm pamonHcQHw ma m Lo NX go mosfim> ocp mo odoz Scubaoooooo Sodas one no a boa Am Am :H NA m: Hobos mm om om mu no no sea locmgm 6000 Ho. as A be. : H mu. :2 c dauboooua Sac use use use use use ImmOOOSwCD lmmmOOSm ImWOOOdwCD lwwOOOSm ImmOOOSmCD lmmOOOdm mx Hobos a dose: mx do: meadow Xmm OH OZHQmOOO< QmmDOmO mezmmbhm MOMAAOO AbmwwMOODmZD 02¢ Abmmmmooam mom mmMOODm OH AOZHDZ mgm<8 105 successful men, women, men and women combined, entered the university on academic probation. For unsuccessful students, the respective percentages were 18, 17, and 17. Thus the factor of admission with respect to entering the university in good standing or on academic probation appeared to have little effect upon subsequent success. Native or Transfer Reference to Table VIII provides an indication of the relationship between admission as a native or transfer student and success. Sixty—two and eight-tenths per cent of the successful men were transfers as compared to 32.A per cent of the unsuccessful. Chi square was signifi- cant at the l per cent level. For these samples, it appears that the transfer male student who had once been dismissed for academic reasons had a better chance to graduate than the native male student. There may be several explanations for this occurrence. First, the transfer generally has more hours to his credit and hence is closer to his goal of graduation than the native. Motivation may be stronger for the former than the latter. Concomitant to this drive is the fact that the transfer has proved himself to be more capable of success over a longer period of time than has the native student. Finally, the transfer may not have as much difficulty in adjusting to the academic situation since he has had more 106 TABLE VIII RELATION OF STATUS AT ADMISSION (NATIVE OR TRANSFER) TO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE MEN AND WOMEN Men X2 Women P Status of Success— Unsuccess- Success— Unsuccess Admission ful ful ful ful Native 16 52 10.3"" 10 23 .051 Transfer 27 25 A 1 Total A3 77 1A 2A P is the exact probability *%Significant at the 1 per cent level experiences in learning to make social and academic adjust— ments. He may have been more familiar with demands made upon students by college professors. He may have had greater opportunity to evaluate himself in the peculiar environment of higher education. In other words, he may have gained the requisite maturity of a successful college student. No difference was found for the women students. Table IX presents the comparison between successful men and successful women. Since these two groups were statis- tically different, it was not possible to combine and then 107 TABLE IX RELATION OF STATUS AT ADMISSION (NATIVE OR TRANSFER) TO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESSFUL COLLEGE MEN AND WOMEN Status at Successful P Admission Men Women Native 16 10 .027* Transfer 27 A Total A3 1A P is the exact probability isSignificant at the 5 per cent level compare all successful students with all unsuccessful students. Grade Point Ayerages of Transfers at Former Colleges As can be seen in Table X, the cumulative grade point averages of male transfer students at their former institu- tions were comparable. These averages were computed on the basis of Northern Illinois University‘s honor point system to assure uniformity. Both groups transferred to this university with less than "C" averages. Under present regulations, only four of the 27 successful men and six of the 25 unsuccessful men would be eligible for admission. The p_value was not significant at the 5 per cent level. 108 TABLE X SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGES EARNED BY SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL MEN TRANSFER STUDENTS AT THEIR FORMER COLLEGES _No. of, The Group Cases Mean p Successful men (transfers) 27 .772 .13 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 25 .699 The p is not significant at the 5 per cent level No attempt was made to compare transfer grades of women students because the samples were too small. Health The admissions application asks the student to indicate the degree of his health in one of three categories: excellent, average, poor. Since only two students indicated that they were in poor health, the categories for comparison were reduced to the first two. Table XI reveals no values of significance. There was no evidence that health was of any consequence to those students included in these samples. .Education of Parents Tables XII and XIIa show the results of the comparison of the parent‘s education with respect to final achievement. 109 Ho>oH pooo Loo m ocp um pcmoHMACmHm mH m co mx mo mosflm> one mo ocoz abouuooooua sodas ecu no a Sou Am :m :u mp m: Hobos m: wfi NH m on mH ommoo>¢ :m.u am on on. mu SH as. A: mm pcoauooxm use use see Hao Mao use X immooosmcb Immooozm m immoooswcb imwooosm X ImmmoosmCD 1mmmoodw cpfimo: W HWPOH COEWB N COS ZMZO3 QZ< ZMZ momAAOO AbnmmMOODmZD QZ< AbmmmMOODm mOm mWMOODm OH mhq¢mz LO ZOHfidgmm HX m4moH booo poo m ofip pm wcmonHCmHm ma JMVMQ mosfim> oEBIMO mooz O am mm um ma cc o: Hobos m m H o A m cousaxndp A m m o m m oosuaxouSEom om mu 3 m cs OH oouuuxm m c m m m m oopodux ocm Sopmocom .Suocmflm .HmLSpHsoHom¢ OH m m o m m oofi>oow SH SH m H mu os bosom a Hooauooo am.m um mu :o.m : m H:.H mu m Hoauomodoz a Hoocfimmohoom Ede use use use use use ImWOOOSmCD lmwOOij lwmmOUSmCS ImmOUOSm lmmmOOdmdD lmeOOSW mx Adobe mx dose: mx do: coupooaooo III] III ZMSOZ 02¢ Zmz momJJOO ADmeMOUszb QZ< HammmMOODm mom mmMOODm OH ZOHHmH Sumo pom H. map Sm pcmoHCHCmHmkk. m ASHHHQmQOLQ 88828 8:8 8H m Hon Am .jm :H AN m: H8888 mm mm Hm 8 mo 88 mmmtw>m =6: swap wmmq .**mo.oH m8 mm 808. m m ***OS.SH m8 :m mmwtm>w :6: 8:8 Hue Hag 3:8 Hug Hug X IwmmUUSmcD Imwmoosm m 1mmmooswc3 Immmoosm X ImmmUUSmCD Immmoosm mmwpmk< oompo N Hmpoh CmEb3 N GO: ZMZOE QZ<.ZMZ momAAOo 43mmmmoUDmZD QZ< Hammmmoobm mom mmmoobw OH >HHmmm>HZD mHOZHAAH memhmoz H4 mMHmMEMm HmmHm MZH mom mo< :0: m0 ZOHHXX mqmfiH 132 although, as a whole, the successful students were able to achieve the "C" grade in a higher proportion than were the unsuccessful students. Table XXVI reveals that there was no significant difference between men and women within the successful and unsuccessful groups. Thus it was possible to combine the scores for men and women. TABLE XXVI RELATION OF "C" AVERAGE FOR THE FIRST SEMESTER AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY TO SUCCESS FOR COLLEGE MEN AND WOMEN GROUPED.ACCORDING TO SUCCESS Grade Average Successful X2 Unsuccessful P Men Women Men Women "C" average 28 5 .997 15 3 .191 Less than "C" average ‘19 9 62 21 Total 83 18 77 28 P is the exact probability Neither X2 or P is significant at the 5 per cent level Inspection of Table XXVII indicates that in the <31assifications the successful students had a higher grade point average for the first semester than did the unsuccessful students and the differences were significant for all but ‘transfer men students. Table XXVIII shows that it was possible TABLE XXVII SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN FIRST SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGES BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS PAIRED.ACCORDING TO SEX AND INITIAL ENROLLMENT AS NATIVE OR TRANSFER 133 The Group No. of Cases Mean 'E Successful men (natives) 16 1.158 8.77*** Unsuccessful men (natives) 52 .539 Successful men (transfers) 27 .897 1.78 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 25 .658 All successful men 83 .993 8.56%*% ,All unsuccessful men 77 .577 ,All successful women 18 .775 2.17% All unsuccessful women 28 .868 Total successful men “w” and women 57 .939 8.98mm Total unsuccessful men and women 101 .551 TSignificant at the 5 per cent level *%*Significant at the .1 per cent level 1311 TABLE XXVIII SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN FIRST SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGES BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED .ACCORDING TO SUCCESS The Group No. of Cases Mean t All successful men 83 .993 1.82 All successful women 18 .775 All unsuccessful men 77 .577 1.05 All unsuccessful women 28 .868 Neither 3 value is significant at the 5 per cent level to combine men and women scores since the two sexes achieved comparable first semester grade averages. The men who eventually graduated earned considerably higher grades in their first semester than did the unsuccessful students, the nman grade being almost a "C", .993 for the former and .577 for the latter. The total successful group earned slightly less than a "C" for the first semester, .939. From these results it would appear that the factor of first semester grade point average would be relatively significant in the determination of academic success for :students who have once been dismissed. 135 It is evident that the transition from high school to college is one which involves considerable adjustment. Perhaps the transfer students, having already gone through the transitional phase, required less of an adjustment than the native. Apparently the student who was successful was able to achieve a satisfactory adjustment within the first semester, whereas the unsuccessful student generally failed to attain a satisfactory academic adjustment during his first semester and again in subsequent semesters. This would seem to indicate that, in general, the once dismissed student who did well in his first semester in college would achieve a more creditable academic record than the once dismissed student who achieved poorly during his first semester. Cumulative Grade Point Average in All Courses Table XXIX reveals that, as was true with first semester averages, the successful students had considerably higher cumulative grade point averages at the time of their dismissal than did the unsuccessful students. Only in the case of transfer students was the difference found to be non—significant. Since the means of men and women were comparable as is evident in Table XXX, their scores were combined. TABLE XXIX SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGES THROUGH THE FIRST OR ONLY SEMESTER OF ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESS- FUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SUCCESS 136 The Group No. of Cases Mean '3 Successful men (natives) 16 .983 3.93*** Unsuccessful men (natives) 52 .507 Successful men (transfers) 27 .785 .95 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 25 .656 All successful men 83 .819 3.96.x ' .All unsuccessful men 77 .556 All successful women 18 .810 2.97*% All unsuccessful women 28 .516 Total successful men ”‘u and women 57 .817 8.93mew Total unsuccessful men and women 101 .587 **Significant at the 1 per cent level ***Significant at the .1 per cent level 137 TABLE XXX SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE CUMULATIVE GRADE POINT AVERAGES THROUGH THE FIRST OR ONLY SEMESTER OF ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SUCCESS The Group No. of Cases Mean t All successful men 83 .819 .13 .All successful women 18 .810 .All unsuccessful men 77 .556 .82 .All unsuccessful women 28 .516 Neither 3 value is significant at the 5 per cent level Understandably the grade point averages are more favorable for the successful students. This group did not have to make up as many honor points to meet the minimum standards upon readmission as did the unsuccessful students. This nmy'have had its effect in several ways. First of all time successful students may have been within attainable (iistance of raising their grades to the "C" level. Second, assnuning this level was within their reach, perhaps they wexwe more highly motivated knowing that their chances of succeeding were considerably in their favor. I38 Cumulative Grade Point Average in Major Field Significant differences in mean cumulative grade point averages in major fields can be seen in Table XXXI for all groups with the exception of transfer students. In most cases the successful students had "C" averages in their major fields of study. Table XXXII shows no significant differences between men and women which allowed them to be combined. The difference between means of the total successful and the total unsuccessful samples are highly significant. This would suggest that the individuals in the former sample had selected major fields of study that were compatible with their abilities and interests. Another factor that may have been operating was that the successful students were generally dismissed after more semesters had elapsed than was the case for the unsuccessful students. Therefore, it's probable that the unsuccessful individuals had less of an opportunity to be enrolled in as many semester hours in their major fields as did the successful ones. In this respect the former group would have had fewer opportunities to improve upon their major field grade point averages. Residence on Campus The relation of a studentts place of residence at the time of dismissal to success may be found in Table XXXIII. The classification of "own home" in this table only includes TABLE XXXI SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE CUMULATIVE MAJOR FIELD GRADE POINT AVERAGES THROUGH THE FIRST OR ONLY SEMESTER OF ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS PAIRED ACCORDING TO SEX AND INITIAL ENROLLMENT .AS NATIVE OR TRANSFER I39 The Group No. of Cases Mean .8 Successful men (natives) 16 1.025 3.16** Unsuccessful men (natives) 83 .878 Successful men (transfers) 27 .898 .61 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 28 .802 All successful men 83 .983 3.09%* Allunsuccessful men 67 .598 All successful women 18 1.226 2.12“ All unsuccessful women 28 .858 Total successful men and “v" women 57 1.012 3.52www Total unsuccessful men and women 91 .668 *Significant at the u n 7“: Significant at the \r so so 7W5??? Significant at the 5 per cent level 1 per cent level .1 per cent level 180 TABLE XXXII SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE CUMULATIVE MAJOR FIELD GRADE POINT AVERAGES THROUGH THE FIRST OR ONLY SEMESTER OF ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUC- CESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SUCCESS The Group No. of Cases Mean .8 ,All successful men 83 .983 1.68 .All successful women 18 1.226 .All unsuccessful men 67 .598 1.86 All unsuccessful women 28 .858 Neither t value is significant at the 5 per cent level _ 181 Hm>oH pamo Ema m ng pm pamonHCQHm mH X mo mmsHm> on“ Co mcoz m Hos Am Am :8 AN 81 88889 as mH A 3 EH 8 Sam: mommvfimmm Hm mm :H A mm Sm 828: mbm>fitm @@.N Nm HH mom. m m NF.: 0N m 0E0: QSO Hue Hug Hug Hug Hug Han X Immooodmdb 1mmmoozm X 1mmmooswc3 tmwmoosm X memoodwfla Immmoodm modmofiwom N N N (memh :mEo3 Coil ZMZOZ QZ< 2m: MOMAAOU AbmwwmoobeD QZ¢ AmemMUODm mom mmmoubm Oh AAZO m0 HmmHm Mme H¢ mozmmHmmm m0 mu<4m LO ZOHH¢Amm HHHXXX mgm8H 8:88 888 H 8:8 88 Samosuncmnme. Ho>oH Sumo Lon m 0:“ pm pamofimficmfim* sbfisfianOLQ somxm 8:8 ms 8 HA mm NH as :m mm Hence a: 8m :8 A :m mm 828: 888>Htm 2N8. mm : SAN. m m **moo. cm H 828: 830 Ham Hug Hug Hug Hug H88 1mmmoosmc: nwmmoosm 1mmmooswfl3 Iwmmoosw IwwmooswCD Immooosm m Hmpoh m dose: m cm: modmvflmmm zmzoz DZ< 2m: MOMAAOU HammmMUUDwZD QZ< AbmmmMUODm mow mmmoobm OH AdWmHEmHQ UHEMQ¢U¢ >AZO m0 HmmHm NEH H< whzmmbhw QmHmm¢ZZD m0 MUZMQHmmm LO mo<4m mo ZOHHHXXX MAN¢H 1118 TABLE xxxv RELATION OF PLACE OF RESIDENCE OF UNMARRIED STUDENTS AT THE FIRST OR ONLY ACADEMIC DISMISSAL TO SUCCESS FOR COLLEGE MEN AND WOMEN GROUPED ACCORDING TO SUCCESS Residence Successful P Unsuccessful P Men Women Men Women Own home 1 3 .072 20 3 .130 Private home 22 7 38 18 Total 23 10 58 17 P is the exact probability Neither P is significant at the 5 per cent level Total Semester Hours of Failure The number of hours of failure at the time of the first or only dismissal was not of significant consequence. Table >OCQVI reveals that the hours of failure were comparable between each group of successful and unsuccessful students. It can be concluded that there is very little, if any, relertionship between hours of failure at dismissal and success. Semester During Which This Dismissal Occurred The semester in which students were dismissed is reviewed irl’Table XXXVII. .A comparison of sexes in Table XXXVIII revemals no significant differences and allows the men and \vmnen to be combined. TABLE XXXVI SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS OF FAILURE THROUGH THE FIRST OR ONLY SEMESTER OF ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS PAIRED ACCORDING TO SEX AND INITIAL ENROLLMENT AS NATIVE OR TRANSFER ILLS The Group No. of Cases Mean t Successful men (natives) 16 5.56 .12 Unsuccessful men (natives) 52 5.38 Successful men (transfers) 27 8.19 .75 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 25 3.20 .All successful men 83 8.70 .05 .All unsuccessful men 77 8-68 ,All successful women 18 2.07 1.78 All unsuccessful women 28 8.25 Total successful men and ‘women 57 8.05 .58 Total unsuccessful men and women 101 8.55 None of the E values is sigmficant at the 5 per cent level 186 Hm>mH Sumo Ema H. map Hm HcmonHCmekkk H8>8H Same 888 H 8:8 He SeeoHHHemHmsz HoH mm :m :H AN n: Heeoe H m o o H m m o e o m o s A m s o o m s e s e H s m m m mH 0H s o m 0H : mm mH m 3 AH @ m :m HH 0H m :m m m eeemm.mm mm m LN.HH : H **8~.Hm Hm : H HeH HsH Hue HsH HeH Hue X lwwOOOSmCD [wwwOOdm VA lmwwOOSwCD ImmNUOSW X ImeUOSwCD .1me00de .prmwfimw N Hmpoh N CmEOS N Emil 73203 Q24 2m: MONAAOU Smmmm003m§ QZd. .SmwmmUODm mom wmmoobm OH Qmmmbooo 4420 mo HmmHm mmh monz oszDm mmemmzmm mme mo ZOHHXXX mgmD3Hw mo QAMHm mOwdz mo ZOHHmH Haoo Log m sap Hm pconmHamHm mH X mo wmsHm> on» mo maoz m m8 8m :m :H 88 m: Hence m H o o m H Hoeeam 0H s o o 0H : eueeHom HeHoom A o o o A o Hmeon _1momopm1mnm H o o o H o onmsem HH A m o e A eoHHeosem HeeHmsem H H o o H H onsz HsH HsH HSH HsH HsH HsH X Immmooswcs Immooosm X 1mmwoosmc3 1mmmoosm X nmwmoosmdb Iwmmoosm Loam: m H8888 11 m 88283 m em: 1111111 HeeseHScoov HHx MHmew 153 Total Semester Hours of Credit The relationship between the total number hours of credit at the first or only dismissal and success is expressed in Table XLII. Earlier in this chapter it was reported that successful students were dismissed from the university after having completed more semesters than had the unsuccessful ones. It is not surprising then to find the eventually graduating students to have earned more hours of credit at the time of dismissal than the students with whom they were being compared. At the time of dis- missal the successful natives had completed five semesters compared with only slightly over two for the unsuccessful. All successful men completed a little over five semesters whereas the unsuccessful men received credit for three semesters. The successful women were dismissed after having completed almost five semesters compared with just over two semesters for the non-graduating women. .Again no difference of significance was found for men who transferred to the university. Since a significant difference existed between unsuccessful men and unsuccessful women (Table XLIII), it -was not possible to compare the successful men and women ivith the unsuccessful men and women. It is understandable that the closer a student is to satisfying graduation requirements, the better are his 1511 TABLE XLII SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS OF CREDIT INCLUDING TRANSFER HOURS AT THE FIRST OR ONLY ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS PAIRED.ACCORDING TO SEX AND INITIAL ENROLLMENT AS NATIVE OR TRANSFER The Group No. of Cases Mean 3. Successful men (natives) 16 80.88 5.37*** Unsuccessful men (natives) 52 37.18 Successful men (transfers) 27 86.13 1.78 Unsuccessful men (transfers) 25 70.78 All successful men 83 88.16 5.91%** All unsuccessful men 77 88.05 ,All successful women 18 72.61 3.33** All unsuccessful women 28 36.86 "*Significant at the l per cent level Nil-i? Significant at the .1 per cent level 155 TABLE XLIII SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE TOTAL SEMESTER HOURS OF CREDIT INCLUDING TRANSFER HOURS AT THE FIRST OR ONLY ACADEMIC DISMISSAL BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SUCCESS The Group No. of Cases Mean 3 All successful men 83 88.16 1.18 ,All successful women 18 72.61 .All unsuccessful men 77 88.05 2.18.:. All unsuccessful women 28 36.86 *Significant at the 5 per cent level chances for graduating. As was mentioned earlier, the factor of motivation appears to be significant in this respect. It also seems probable that since the successful student was further along toward his degree at dismissal than was the unsuccessful student, he had satisfactorily completed most of the general education requirements and ‘was able to concentrate in his major field. The unsuccessful student generally still had to overcome the obstacles of studies of which he may have had neither the interest or the ability. 156 FACTORS.AT READMISSION Months Out of School Before Readmission .After a student has been dismissed for poor scholar- ship from the university, he must remain out of school for at least one semester, excluding the summer session, before he is eligible to return. Readmission then is dependent upon approval of the reinstatement committee. Table XLIV shows whether or not the factor of length of time before being readmitted was related to eventual graduation. Inspection of the table reveals that men remained out of school for a longer period of time than did the women. The men averaged a leave of one year compared to half that time for the women. However, no differences of significance were found between the successful and unsuccessful groups. In fact, the length of time that the students were not enrolled at the university was practically identical within the groupings. Experience Between Dismissal and Readmission One of the factors which the reinstatement committee reviews whenever a student petitions for readmission is his experience since he has left the university. The relationship between this experience and success is shown in Table XLV. The only significant difference was found between the two groups of men students. Attending another 157 TABLE XLIV SIGNIFICANCE OF MEAN DIFFERENCES IN THE NUMBER OF MONTHS ELAPSED FROM ACADEMIC DISMISSAL TO READ- MISSION BETWEEN SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE STUDENTS GROUPED ACCORDING TO SEX The Group No. of Cases Mean t All successful men 83 12.37 .05 All unsuccessful men 77 12.27 All successful women 18 6.21 .32 All unsuccessful women 28 7.33 Total successful men and women 57 10.86 .15 Total unsuccessful men and women 101 11.10 None of the t values is significant at the 5 per cent level _ 158 Hm>mH Sumo Hon m map Hm pamonHamHmk HoH Am :m 3H up n: H8885 88 mm NH 8H m: 8H eeHe HHse pawskoHaEm N w o o w m wmoH>me DmEL¢ HH : m m m m eeHS HHSH HGmEAOHQEo w OHGHHU mcHUwom OH 8 m o m e eeHH Shea Hoeeom N~.H H OH 8:.H m m twm.oH : m meHe HHSH . . Hooeom HsH HsH HsH HsH HsH Hue . X ImmmoosmCD Immooodm X Immooodmcz 1mmmoosm X ImmoooswCD 1mmmoosm N Hmwnw, N CmEOB N am: mocmHHmaxm me OH GZHQmOUQ< Qmmbomo wfizmmbhm MOMAAOO Hammmmuobwza QZ<.AmemMUUDw ZMMBHMN ZOHmmHZQ¢mm OH A¢mmHEmHQ UHEMQ¢Q< 20mm mmozmHmmme mrh ZH mmozmmmmmHQ ZAX mgmfih 159 institution appears to be important to eventual success. Twenty per cent of the successful men enrolled as full time students at other schools compared with 5 per cent of the unsuccessful men. Thirty-three per cent of the former were in school either full or part time whereas only 15 per cent of the latter group were so enrolled. More than half of the unsuccessful men, 68 per cent, were employed full time while 88 per cent of the successful men were so employed. Evidently there are a number of reasons concomitant to the degree of relationship between certain types of experience and academic success. It may be that since a higher proportion of successful students went to school elsewhere, they were more interested in completing their education. Since fewer individuals of this group were employed in full time capacities, they may have had fewer financial worries while enrolled as students. .Also the role of motivation may have been operating more favorably for the successful men because the additional educational experience and credit made their final objective less remote. Change of Major It would seem that once a student is dismissed for ICNM scholarship, one of the things he would reconsider or eNJaluate would be his choice of a major field of study. 160 That this would occur is evident to a certain extent by the individuals in this study. Twenty—one per cent of the successful men experienced a change compared to 15 per cent of the unsuccessful men. The ratio in terms of per cent for successful and unsuccessful women was 18 to 13. Over—all, the successful group made 19 per cent changes whereas the unsuccessful group made 18 per cent changes. Table XLVI reveals that none of these changes were statistically significant. The changes were generally made to a less difficult field. For example, some of the changes were from mathematics to business, physics to physical education, pre-engineering to industrial arts, social science to elementary education. Marital Status In Chapter II it was reported that no evidence could be found to show that the married student achieved at a higher academic level than the single student. The results of this study are contrary to the research previously cited. IWen.students only were included because all of the women in this sample were single during their enrollment at the Luiiversity. Table XLVII reveals that marital status was .significantly related to academic success. Thirty-one per cenlt of the successful men students were married at Tweadmission while slightly less than half of that proportion, 161 Hm>oH Hdmo Lon m one am HcmoHLHCme wH L Lo NX Lo mosHm> map Lo muoz HHHHHemeoea Somxm 8:8 8H m HOH Lm em 3H we e: Hesoe em 8: Hm NH me :m teams mmcmeo Hod GHQ mm. mH HH 8:. e m Hm. NH 8 poems vmmcmco Ham Ham Ham H59 Hum Hum dofip X 1mmm003mc3 Immooosw L ImmooosmCD Immooosm X IwmmOOSmCD Iwmmoosm Two wmm O N HMfiOH AHMED; N am: HrHH H ZMZOB QZ< 2m: momqqoo ADmemooDwZD QZ< ADmemUODm mOL mmmoobm OH ZOHmmHZG¢Mm H< Qm02Dbhm LO mQAmHL mOhdz LO ZOHH¢AMN H>AX made 162 TABLE XLVII RELATION OF MARITAL STATUS AT READMISSION TO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE MEN Men 2 Marital Status Successful Unsuccessful X Single 29 63 H 22% Married 13 11 Total 82 78 *Significant at the 5 per cent level 15 per cent, of the unsuccessful men were married. No attempt was made to determine to what extent this success was due to the increased responsibilities of marriage which may have tended to motivate these students to succeed. Veteran Status At the time of readmission, 82 per cent of the suc- cessful men were veterans. Thirty-five per cent of the unsuccessful men had military experience. Table XLVIII shows that the difference in veteran status between the two groups was not significant at the 5 per cent level. Thus whether or not a student was a veteran appeared to have little effect upon his academic success. No attempt was made to compare academic achievement before and after military service because only eight of the successful men 163 TABLE XLVIII RELATION OF VETERAN STATUS AT READMISSION TO SUCCESS FOR SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COLLEGE MEN Men 2 Veteran Status Successful Unsuccessful X Veteran 18 27 .58 Non—veteran 25 50 Total 83 77 X2 is not significant at the 5 per cent level and seven of the unsuccessful went into military service after their dismissals. THE RELATION OF FIRST SEMESTER GRADE POINT AVERAGE TO OTHER VARIABLES The product moment correlation was used to determine relationships between most of the factors that proved to be significant following the administration of the "t" test and first semester grade point averages. Table XLIX provides these relationships for successful students. Table L furnishes the relationships for unsuccessful students. First semester grade point averages were highly cor- related with the total grade point average at final dismissal .for all of the unsuccessful students. For these students there was very little improvement in grades from their first 168 Ho>oH psoo Lou H. 05H Hm choHHHCQHw Ho>mH Hamo Lon H map Hm choHLHCQHw Ho>mH Hamo Hon m one am HcmoHHHCme *wxm *1“. a. omH.1 opoom HCmEHmshU¢.HchmHoL Hmoh XHHHchmHoL wHCHomHHmo *Nom. . mNN. mnoom =H= mu< .....mmo . 2.2.0:: . we: . ...H m: . Hem m Hem H 8 HHS :: =:: : Hm HHvoHo mesa: HmHoH tamow. tmLm. moo. :LHm. HmmeemHe sHee He :: : : mmmno>m HcHoa ovam Comm: sum:. 0N3. eskbom. :mmm. 3*kHHm. HmmmHEva XHco Hm . ::: : : : mmmnm>m choa ouwpm Hmpoh mLH. was. mmm. emH. *mmm. Heme Hooeom 88H: :mo.u esem. 0mm. mmo.- mew. eOHHeSUeem Se ommpo>m HcHoa unopm HmHoH do: do: amE03.w do: coEoz do: Hmmwcmph m>HHmz IHWMQH I 1 whzmmbbm ADmeMOODm mOL mmudmm>< HZHOL madmo mmemmEMm HmLHL QZ¢ mmOHQ.zmm38mm mLHmmZOHH¢Jmm OZH3OIm wHZmHUHLLMOU ZOHHoH peso Hon H. map Hm HcmonHamHm :3 Hm>mH Sumo Hon H man Hm HdmoHLHCQHmm:: Ho>oH Hamo Hon m one am HcmoHLHCQHmW. Nom.l mjo.l whoow =H= mu< ununuwjmnw . ....LCerm . younummuiw . 23.38000 . Hmwm HEW H U #wh HM ::: ::: --. ::: Hm HvaLo whoa: HmHoH hPhPIoPmNNL O thPbA-NNO o MPLF.:H@ 0 haerONQ o HmmeEWHU #mrHfirH gm ::: :z. :: ::: mmmnm>m HdHoa woman Howe: mwmwmo uwunuwmtmmu . 2.2.quan . ..okWHO o uvueurjmnw o HmmeEwwD #WLHM 9m ::: ::: :: .:: mmmpm>m HGHQQ mumpm Hmpoe 88H.1 8:0. Hmo.n wmo.1 mmo.1 same Hooeom emHm **mom. seHdd. sssmwd. ***mww. seemed. HmmmHEmHu Hmch Hm . mmmpm>m HcHoa mvmom Hmpoh do: do: doEoB a do: amEoz do: memcmnh m>HHmz Hmnoh mHZMQDHm ADmemooDmZD mOL mmu¢mm>< HZHOL mm¢mo mmemmzmw meHL QZ¢ mmOHQ.me39mm mmHmmZOHHmH Sumo own H. onp Hm chonHCme 8 a. a. 3.1131 "a H8>8H Sumo Hon H map Hm HamonHCQHm 4: EH. H8>8H Sumo emu m 85H um HcmoHLHCmHm* moo. mnoom HCmEHmSWUw Hchmnma Hmwh AHHHmcowLoL chLomHHmo mso. moo. Am:.- mHm. 88888 :9: mo< me. 33:03:.t kkbom.r kqmm.1 HemeEmHu XHco ::: :: : Hm HHvoHo mnson HwHoH ONN. @No. :Ho. omo. HmmeEva XHCQ Hm mmwnm>m HcHoa mvmnm Hahmz :mH. @mm.1 HHN. HmmmHEmHv XHCO Hm mmmpo>w HcHoa 868nm HmHoH 8:888. gimme. wmo... tfigm. 8888 H8288 88% do: Co: dose: a C82 c8803. :82 Hommcmph 8>Hpmz Hmpoe mHZMQDHm ADmeMUQDm mOL ZOHH<§Q¢LO H<.mm0< HZHOL madmo HdHOH 02¢.mmOHQ ZMMBHMN mLHImZOHH¢Jmm OZHZOrm mHZmHUHLLMOU ZOHH8H Sumo Hon H. 8£p Hm HcmoHLHCmHm Hm>mH Hcmo Hma H meg Hm pamoHHHCQHmkt FIAFEF o «a 3 J! to cfl Ho>mH pdmo Hog m 83H #8 HcmoHLHamHm* TENS... omH. mmo. mmH. 8.88 ...H... no.8. esteem. Etemm. ......28. teemwm. 18882838 8883 ‘ototo son's: loads: ttoco pm “Humho m'HdeIH HmvaH‘ tram». $838. 2.3m. 87.51.05. 888228 888: 88 . :. 8mmH8>m HcHoa mumpm Lama: .1133. 2.5.85. 3.88;. HemeemHe 8.883 88 ::: ::: ::: mmwnw>m HcHoa mnmnm HmHoH eeemms. L8H. 380.- 888m. 8:88 Hooeew 28H: C82 do: :mEoz e do: c8803 G82 Howmcmefi 8>HHmz HmHoH whzmmbhm ADwaMUODmZD LOL A< HZHOL mm zmm3Hmm mLHmeOHH