mmwzmma ‘e‘mmuas 6;»? courses
Amssm aim-1cm

Thesis i‘m‘ the Degzee 02‘ Ed. D;
MKCHESAN STATE UNEVERSEW
DQHAEiJ i1. EORGEEéSGN
196?

 

I‘dhszfz‘

LIBRARY
”Vi/ILLWZI/{flgflm/W _ “gig

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES OF
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS OFFICERS

presented by

Donald D. Jorgenson ; x/

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ed.D‘. degree in Education

A .A//' ',
/' "t/ ..

I l
. . l
(II I. V \‘H/
_‘_,-z~ 7 -, I ;
- ' ' J

Major professor

 

5/1/67

Date

 

0-169

AQSTHACT

INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES OF
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS OFFICERS

by

Donald D. Jorgenson

This study analyzed the extent to which counseling
by an admissions officer was a part of the college admissions
process.

The basic objectives of this research were: (1) to
describe the practices used by admissions officers in order
to determine whether counseling techniques were generic in
the functions performed by an admissions officer, and (2) to
determine whether modifications or adaptations of counseling
techniques in the admissions process resulted in more directive
than non—directive counseling.

The population consisted of the admissions officers
from the twenty—eight four—year public and private colleges
and universities in the State of Wisconsin which offer
liberal arts and teacher education as part of the curricu-
lum. The sample consisted of the chief admissions officers
in these institutions with more than one officer interviewed
from the three schools with enrollments exceeding 10,000
students.

A structured interview designed to elicit responses
about various areas in counseling was held with the thirty-

three admissions officers. Information was gathered to

Donald D. Jorgenson

permit comparisons between admissions officers from various
types of institutions, various educational backgrounds, and
different age levels.

Descriptive statements were taken from the interviews
and categorized according to a taxon of counseling devised
by E. G. Williamson. An inspection of the descriptive state-
ments led to the conclusion that counseling techniques were
used by admissions officers. However, the prime role of
the admissions officer appeared to be involved with the
selection and recruitment of students. It was concluded
that counseling was a very desirable, but relatively infre—
quent secondary role of the admissions officer.

The results of the interviews were also analyzed to
determine whether counseling by the admissions officers was
more directive than non—directive. Using a ten point check—
list, patterned after the scales of Porter and Snyder, three
qualified counselor educators independently rated the inter—
view responses of the admissions officers on a directive to
non—directive continuum. The check~list permitted categori—
zing counselors' responses from one to five as non-directive
and the responses from six to ten as directive. The higher
numbers showed a great degree of directiveness. The mean
score for the group of thirty—three admissions officers was
7.12 which implied that they made more use of directive than
non-directive counseling techniques. The Kendall Coefficient
of Concordance, W, was used to measure the interjudge relia-

bility and a W of .581 was computed which was significant

Donald D. Jorgenson

at the .01 level.

A chi square was calculated in a 2 x 2 contingency
table to determine whether the age of the admissions offi—
cer, the amount of training in counseling, and employment
in a public or private institution had a significant rela-
tionship with the mean rating of each admissions officer
on the directive non-directive ten point continuum. The
only significant relationship was between training in coun-
seling and the mean score from the directive non-directive
continuum. Admissions officers with two or more formal
courses in counseling were likely to be more non—directive
than those officers not trained in counseling.

In summary, it was concluded that counseling was a
relatively infrequent secondary function of the admissions
officer, but inseperable from the total duties of admissions
work. The conclusion was reached that counseling was a
desirable function, but it was often in conflict with the
primary role of the admissions officer which involved an
overriding concern for the selection and recruitment of
students.

There was more interviewing than actual counseling,
and the interviews between prospective students and admis-
sions officers were primarily involved with educational
planning and vocational choice. There was very little per-
sonal counseling. The interview was usually initiated by
a junior or senior in high school and was usually limited

to one contact.

Donald D. Jorgenson

When using counseling techniques the admissions
officers made more use of directive than non—directive
techniques, although admissions officers with two or more
formal courses in counseling were more likely to make
wider use of non—directive techniques than those not

trained in counseling.

INTERVIEWING TECHNIQUES

OF COLLEGE ADMISSIONiOFFICERS

BY

Donald D. Jorgenson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

College of Education

1967

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My deepest appreciation is extended to the many
people who have made the following study possible.

To Dr. Buford Stefflre, my major advisor, for his
invaluable assistance in the editing and synthesis of this
thesis and his advisement throughout my doctoral program.

To the other members of my doctoral committee:

Dr. Walter Johnson for his warm support and assistance;
Dr. Arthur Vener for his guidance in the cognate area of
Sociology; and Dr. Eldon Nonnemaker for his assistance
and his willingness to replace the late Dr. William Finni.

To Dr. Robert Craig for his assistance with the
design of this study.

To my typists, Mrs. Carol Bacheller, Mrs. Margaret
Larson, Mrs. Mildred Kolb, and Mrs. Billie Rennert.

To the thirty—three admissions officers in the State
of Wisconsin who so willingly gave their time for the inter-
views.

To Dr. Joseph Mezzano, Dr. Earl Stahl, Dr. Peter
Glofka, and Dr. Paul Ansfield, all of Wisconsin State
University — Oshkosh for their time and assistance.

To my wife Bea, and children, Bob, Jeff, and

Stephanie whose patience and support were invaluable.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page
I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Purpose 3
Definition of Terms 3
Limitations 4
Objectives 6
Questions to be Answered 6
Overview 7
II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . .
Counseling in the Admissions Office 9
Review of Allied Areas of Admissions 13
History of College Admissions 14
High School and College Relations 16
"Open Door" Versus Selective Admissions 19
Legal Aspects 21
Intellective Criteria for Predicting
Academic Success 23
Non—Intellective Factors in Predicting
Academic Success 26
Society and College Admissions 30
Attrition in College 39
Foreign Students 41
Transfer Students 42
Readmitted Students 43
Scholarships and Financial Aids 44
Summary 46
III. DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sample 47
The Instrument 49
Statistical Techniques 53
Summary 54
IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Taxon — Counseling in the Student
Housing Bureau 57
The Taxon - Counseling in the College
Admissions Office 59
Admissions Counseling - Directive or
Non—directive? 62
Questions to be Answered 05
Summary 72

iii

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . .
Summary 74
Conclusions 79
Recommendations 82
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDICES O O O 0 O O O C O I O O C I O O O O O I O I

iv

Table

4.3

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 contingency
table comparing admissions officers from

public institutions with those from pri—

vate institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 contingency
table comparing the admissions officers over
the age of 40 with those under 40 years of

age . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 71

Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 contingency
table comparing admissions officers trained

in counseling with those not trained in
counseling. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CHAPTER I: THE PROBLEM

Interest in the topic researched in this disserta—
tion was prompted by a paper presented by Dr. E. G. Williamson
at a Student Personnel Workshop at Michigan State University
in the summer of 1964. Williamson's paper was later pub-
lished under the title, "A Modified Taxonomic Classification
of Student Personnel Services" (119). The publication pos—
tulates that counseling is one of the generic taxons of all
student personnel work. Williamson hypothesized that modi—
fications of counseling techniques will be identifiable in
the operations of all student personnel services. Williamson
did not go to direct observations to test this hypothesis,
although he expressed a hope that others might attempt such
appraisals.

An individual conference was held with Williamson
to discuss this problem. He revealed that the Office of
Student Affairs at the University of Minnesota planned to
test this hypothesis, and it was his hope that similar
studies would be made in other areas of student personnel
services.

Other writers have agreed on the importance of
counseling in student personnel services. In determining
what offices normally are included in the area of student
personnel services, Ayers and Russel (6) found that coun—
seling was the common function that bound the various stu—

dent personnel services together.

Parker (90) discussed the place of counseling in
the preparation of student personnel workers. He says
(90, p. 255):

Student personnel work, whatever its present
day form, grew out of dual concerns. The
first was that the individual be given every
possible opportunity and help to reach his
highest potential. This requires help of
various forms from a sound admissions program
to careful keeping of records upon which
graduation might be based. Proper housing,
financial assistance, and individual program
planning are all ways of meeting this one
basic concern. Concern with the "whole man"
has led to an "educational" emphasis in stu—
dent activities, housing, and discipline.
Counseling too has grown out of a concern
that the student "learn to know himself"
which is a basic educational function. If
this were the only concern of student per~
sonnel work, counseling would certainly be
adequate, if not the best, preparation.

Parker adds that the second major responsibility
of a student personnel worker is to enforce certain regu-
lations enabling the institution to be a place where
learning and growth can take place. Parker concludes that
skills essential to the counselor are skills essential to
other specialties in student personnel work.

The admissions office is normally considered to be
a part of the student personnel structure. Since counseling
is a common function of the various student personnel
services, it is important that a study be made of the role
of counseling in the college admissions office. This study
is an attempt to appraise the counseling techniques of the
college admissions officer as suggested by Dr. E. G. William-

8011.

Purpose

This is an exploratory, descriptive study designed
to identify the ways in which counseling techniques are
employed in admissions work in higher education. An analysis
will be made to determine whether an admissions officer
employs some counseling techniques in the admissions process.

Definition of Terms

 

Counseling is defined as a process by which a person,
in this case an admissions officer, assists the students
toward better understanding of themselves and encourages
them to assume responsibility for making decisions which
will lead to satisfactory adjustment or acceptable resolu—
tion of the problem of college admissions (74).

Techniques refers to the methods used in the coun—

 

seling process.

Generic is defined as basic, although it does not
imply that admissions work consists solely of the employ—
ment of formally taught counseling techniques.

Functions of the admissions officer means the duties

he performs.

~College Admissions Services is defined as the ad—

 

missions services offered in each particular college through
the admissions office.

Texan, as used in this study, is defined as a classi—
fication system to show the relationship between counseling
responses and the various dimensions of counseling and stu—

dent personnel services.

Colleges and Universities in the State of Wisconsin

 

refers to the 28 four—year institutions of higher learning
in the State of Wisconsin (21).

Limitations

 

The interview method was chosen because it enabled
the interviewer to answer questions concerning the purpose
of the interview and to clarify anyinterpretations con-
cerning specific questions. The interview method enabled
the interviewer to obtain complete answers to all questions,
a 100 percent return of information, and aided in the estab—
lishment of rapport which might make for better cooperation
and more valid answers. A basic assumption in choosing the
interview was the consideration that admissions officers
receive many questionnaires and therefore might not be
willing to spend an hour completing a questionnaire. How—
ever, despite these advantages, the use of the interview
technique was a limitation of this study because the inter—
viewer had to rely on the admissions officer to describe
how he counseled, rather than actually observing how he
counseled.

The study was limited to the geographical area of
the State of Wisconsin, and representatives of twenty-eight
four year public and private colleges and universities in
the State of Wisconsin were interviewed. Wisconsin was
selected for the study since the writer serves as the
Director of Admissions at Wisconsin State University-

Oshkosh. A personal acquaintance with several Wisconsin

admissions officers and membership in the Wisconsin College
Admissions Counselors Association and Wisconsin Association
of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers helped
facilitate the cooperation of all of the Wisconsin admis—
sions officers interviewed as part of this study.

The fact that not all admissions personnel in the
State of Wisconsin are included in the sample is a third
limitation of this study. In each of the four—year schools,
the person with the major responsibility in the admissions
office was interviewed. There are only three schools in
Wisconsin with enrollments that exceed 9,000 students. Be—
cause of the large size of these three schools, four people
were interviewed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
two people at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, and
two people at Marquette University. Only one person was
interviewed in the remaining 25 institutions of higher
education.

Many of the schools have personnel with part—time
responsibilities in the admissions office. These people
are not included in the sample because admissions work is
not their major responsibility.

Another limitation is the fact that representatives
of the two-year colleges or branch campuses were not in—
cluded in the sample. The University of Wisconsin or State
University branch campuses have a centralized admissions

process which is not typical of the four year institutions.

The private two-year colleges were not included because

they are extremely small. The State of Wisconsin does not
have a community college system in which two-year schools
offer both liberal arts and vocational courses. The only
such school is the Milwaukee Institute of Technology.

The only four—year institutions not included in the sample
are the religious seminaries and the Milwaukee School of
Engineering, a technical institution. Thus the sample is
limited to the four—year public and private institutions
of higher learning in Wisconsin which are not confined

to technical or religious training.

Objectives

 

The objectives of this research are:

1. To describe the practices used by admissions
officers in order to determine whether counseling tech—
niques are generic in the functions performed by an ad-
missions officer.

2. To determine whether modifications or adapta—
tions of counseling techniques in the admissions process
result in more directive than non—directive counseling.

Questions to be Answered

 

How do admissions officers normally respond in an
admissions interview to questions regarding:

1. Vocational choice

2. College information

3. Personal problems

4. Family conflicts

5. Financial aids

6. Information about national tests

How do admissions officers normally respond in an
admissions interview to questions from a person denied ad—
mission to the institution?

How do admissions officers regard confidential
information?

How do admissions officers normally respond in an
admission interview when they suspect abnormal behavior
on the part of the applicant?

Is there a difference in the type of counseling
techniques, directive or non—directive, as used by admis-
sions officers from private or public institutions?

Is the age of the admissions officer a factor in
determining whether he is more directive or non—directive
in his counseling approach?

What effect does formal training in counseling
have on the amount of directive or non—directive techni—
ques used in the admissions process?

Overview

 

A review of the literature will be found in Chapter
2. The design of the study will be explained in Chapter 3,
with an analysis of the data in Chapter 4. The disserta—
tion will conclude with the summary, conclusions and

recommendations for further study in Chapter 5.

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

There is a rapid increase in the number of high
school graduates applying for admission to institutions
of higher learning, and the college and university enroll-
ment in expected to reach 6,900,000 in 1970, 8,600,000 in
1975, and 10,200,000 in 1980 (30), as compared with
3,236,000 in 1960 (109).

Tickton (105) believes the main factors that will
influence the size of the college population of the future
are: the great increase in the number of young pe0ple of
college age; the desire, need, and financial ability of
more young people to get a college education; and automa—
tion that will free more people for further education.

Jaffe (73) examined college enrollment figures and
found that the proportion of high school graduates who
enter college has not changed in the past century; and no
change is predicted. Jaffe says the increase in college
applicants has resulted solely from the larger number of
persons in the college age group and the larger proportion
who graduate from high school.

Despite this enrollment trend, there is room for
all qualified students somewhere, and Bender (12) calls it
one of the recurring miracles of our society that somehow
each year over a million graduates of 25,000 secondary
schools get distributed among 2,500 colleges. No one knows,

of course, how much wastage or inappropriate matching there

is in the process.
Unrealistic admissions requirements, lengthy appli—
cation forms, and inept high school counseling are frequently

mentioned as major problems in the college admissions process

(54).

Counseling in the Admissions Office

 

There is a notable lack of literature dealing with
counseling by the college admissions officer in the process
of enrolling high school seniors. Although research on the
extent and nature of admissions counseling is sparse. the
following writers imply that there should be some counseling
on the part of college admissions personnel.

Hardee (57) views admissions work as the first aspect
of college counseling. Counseling might include a discus-
sion of plans, goals, interests, and achievements with the
students and their parents and information about the college
is also dispensed in this interview. She notes that interest
generated by the counseling session is often continued
through correspondence with the parents or contacts by the
student.

Williamson (120) points out that admissions, in
particular, is an individual matter. At the time of admis—
sion the university appraises the student's academic poten—
tial, his financial resources, and possible emotional un—
balance.

Admissions officers can play a major role in

preventing drop-outs, according to Arbuckle (4) who sees
admissions as a counseling task.

Wrenn (127) states that the admissions officer
should be a scholar, a public relations man, and a coun—
selor.

The Director of Admissions of Northeastern Univer—
sity reports that in the course of a year he talks to a
great many students who have received inadequate precollege
guidance, and therefore, the task of precollege guidance
becomes the responsibility of an admissions counselor. He
goes on to add (48 p. 36):

Certainly, he must spend more of his waking
hours in personal counseling than in evalua—
ting school credits and test scores. He must
want to know about student attitudes, desires,
sensitivities-~the things which make a teen-
ager tick. The admissions counselor who lacks
the compassion and patience for such time—con—
suming guidance is really not interested in
growing boys and girls and should earn his
bread and butter elsewhere.

Some schools require an interview prior to admis—
sion, and officials of the University of Georgia feel that
this procedure is very successful (91). The objectives of
the interview seem to relate as much to orientation, coun—
seling, and public relations as they do to improving the
selection process.

The Air Force Academy found admission interviews
worthwhile for giving information, and another study at

Harvard showed similar results (84).

The admissions office is also directly involved

_ 11 _

with the college counseling center in many situations and
Farwell (43), Arbuckle (4), and Woolf (126) all advocate
referring borderline admission cases to the counseling
center for further testing.

Admitted students also may be referred to the
center when it appears from available information that
the student might benefit from further counseling.

The national testing programs also have implica—
tions for counseling by the admissions officer. The first
published study of the predictive value of the American
College Test (ACT) came from Indiana University and sug—
gests the value of using ACT results in screening, coun—
seling, and placement (24).

Rowray (95) lists counseling as an admissions
function which should be evaluated when judging the effec—
tiveness of an admissions program.

Perhaps the most extensive nationwide study of the
admissions officer was conducted by Hauser and Lazarsfeld
(59). Completed in 1964, the study was nationwide in SCOpe
and involved the completion of lengthy questionnaires on
the part of the admissions personnel. Guidance courses
were considered as the most valuable phase of their educa—
tion by 70 percent of the participants, and interviewing
applicants in the admissions office was judged as the most
important function of the job. Forty—seven percent felt
that they were at least partly responsible for personal

guidance of students. The same study revealed that 37 percent

_ 1‘ _

of the admission directors considered a high school gui—
dance background as an important criteria in hiring an
assistant.

Andrews (3) sent questionnaires to 185 members of
the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers (AACRAO) in the state of Michigan and
a 70 percent return revealed the most respondents found
high school counselors to be by far the most likely people
to fill future jobs in college admissions; Andrews also
found (3, p. 26):

In commenting on the relationship of formal
education background to present work, most
respondents found courses in counseling and
guidance to be by far the most rewarding,
with courses in psychology, administration,
and general education a distant second.

It appears that courses in counseling and guidance
are closely allied to the function of the admissions office.
There is no specific training available, with the exception
of an occasional workshop, for a person aspiring to a
career in this field. The AACRAO contributes the bulk of
the limited training available, and this organization is
on record as supporting coursework in counseling and inter-
viewing for admissions officers (20).

Klotz (77) discusses the issue of whether an admis—
sions officer recruits or informs the high school student.
Klotz says (77, p. 24):

I prefer to think of the admissions officers'
role in the process of encouraging students

who can benefit from a college education and
assisting them in gaining admission to a

_ 13 _

suitable college as "precollege counseling——
public relations"——something more than
"recruiting" or "informing".

There can be group guidance connotations in connec-
tion with college day and college night visits to high
schools. Amsden surveyed 88 New Jersey High Schools and
noted (1, p. 4):

Twenty—one respondents praised the counseling
or guidance quality in group interview con-
ducted by certain admissions peOple and lauded
the printed materials of certain institutions;
this commendation was contrasted with the re-
cruiting or selling aspect of other group in-
terviews and printed materials.

In summary, there has been very little research on

 

counseling by the college admissions officer in the process
of admitting high school seniors; however, many writers
believe that counseling by the college admissions personnel
should be part of the admissions process (4) (57) (120)
(127).

There are Opportunities for the admissions officer
to counsel the applicant regarding his academic potential,
the appropriate choice of a college, financial resources,
possible emotional unbalance, orientation to college, and
other related admission matters.

When hiring assistants, admissions officers often
look for pe0p1e with a background in high school guidance
(3).

Admissions officers consider formal training in
guidance and counseling as the most valuable phase of their

own education (59).

_ 14 _

Review of Allied Areas of Admissions

 

This section of the Review of Literature is con—
cerned with reviewing several areas of college admissions
which relate to the general topic of counseling in the
admissions office. The section will review the history of
college admissions, high school and college relations,
"open door" versus selective admissions, legal aspects of
admissions, intellective criteria in predicting academic
success, non-intellective criteria in predicting academic
success, sociology as it relates to college admissions,
attrition factors, the admission of foreign students, re-
admitted students and transfer students, and scholarships
and financial aids as they relate to admissions.

History of College Admissions

 

In the 17th, 18th, and most of the 19th centuries,
admission to college depended on the applicant's passing
the examinations administered by the college to which he
was applying. These examinations measured ability in
Latin, Greek, and arithmetic. English grammar and compo-
sition, algebra, geometry, geography, and American history
were added later as a basis for entrance to college. In
1870, Harvard, Syracuse, and a few other colleges began
requiring science for admission; but only 60 of 432 colleges
in the 1800's required a modern foreign language. (19)
(68) (108).

In the latter part of the 19th century, state and

regional accrediting associations were developing standards

_ 15 _

which would enable colleges to know the quality of the work
done in the various high schools.

As the number of colleges increased and the varia—
tion in their admission requirements grew, the need for a
national standardized system of examinations became evident
and to meet this need, the College Entrance Examination
Board was established in 1900.

The Carnegie unit was adopted in 1909 and was gen—
erally accepted as the most important basis of admission
for the next 40 years (106). A high school student who
completes two semesters of a subject is credited with one
unit. Most high schools require completion of a certain
number of units for graduation, and colleges and univer—
sities require a certain number and pattern of Carnegie
units as a requirement for admission. Thus the Carnegie
unit has had the dual role of facilitating college admis—
sion as well as the transfer of pupils from one secondary
school system to another.

A survey in 1963 indicated that the majority of
high schools and colleges still used the Carnegie unit
(106) because no satisfactory substitute had been found.
Most criticism of the unit centers on the argument that
it has aided the college more than the high school. The
number and pattern of units required by the various colleges
to meet admission requirements has had an effect on the

curriculum of secondary schools, and many people feel that

that the secondary school curriculum is dictated by higher

— l6 —

education through the requirements of the Carnegie unit.

Since 1920, principals' recommendations, interviews
with the applicants, and rank in high school class have
gained in importance as admissions criteria and colleges
also started to use tests and measurements to aid in ad—
missions decisions during this time. The controversy over
the reliability and validity of scholastic aptitude tests
divided many pe0p1e on the issue of who should go to college.
This issue was especially prominent following World War I
when the standards of admission were rigid and high in
order to keep out people_of lesser ability (13). Today,
Barclay (9) believes that test-taking has become the chief
means of gaining access to higher education.

The influx of veterans following World War II greatly
affected college admissions and processing procedures were
changed to accommodate the mass influx of students. Admis—
sions requirements were modified because many veterans did
not have the college preparatory high school program.

The tremendous growth of secondary and higher educa—
tion has also altered admission procedures.

In summary, admission to college in the 17th to 19th
centuries depended upon the applicants passing examinations
administered by the college to which he was applying. At
the present time, admission to college is usually based on
the student's rank in his high school class, his score on
a national admissions examination, and the completion of a

certain pattern of Carnegie units.

_ 17 _

High School and College Relations

 

The New Jersey Association of Secondary School Ad—
ministrators surveyed the principals and counselors of 300
high schools in that state to discuss college admission
practices (1). A total of 88 high schools responded to
the survey and listed both desirable and undesirable prac-
tices of admissions officers. The survey showed that the
three most desirable practices were rolling admissions,
the procedure by which desirable students are accepted as
the application arrives in the admissions office; the pub—
lication of freshman class profiles; and visits to high
schools by admission representatives. The principals and
counselors in the New Jersey survey listed the high college
attrition rate as their major concern and indicated that
the use of complex and lengthy admission forms, and the
lack of exchange of information between the college and
the high school personnel were the most undesirable prac—
tices of admissions officers.

The college admissions officer is frequently critized
by high school personnel for failing to provide the infor—
mation needed to enable the high schools to do their own
work efficiently. High school principals and counselors
feel that they provided extensive information to colleges
and in return received inadequate information (1) (27) (34)
(71) (108). '

Stahl (101) devotes an entire thesis to the problem

of developing more effective means of communication between

the admissions office and the high school.

The task of helping the student select a college
is viewed as primarily a high school responsibility by Dyer
(37). He considers this task the major function of the
high school counselor. Dyer also writes that the college
plays a minor role in the distribution of students, and
this role will decrease even further as the number of stu—
dents mounts. The selection of a college is seen by Dyer
as a process of blending self-understanding and information.

Other counselors agree with Dyer that information
is extremely important to help the student in self-appraisal
(55) (102)-

Kerr (76) investigated the perceptions of high school
students in regard to the role of the high school counselor
and college representatives in the college decision-making
process. He studied 1,350 seniors in 33 high school systems
in the state of Iowa. All of the high schools had full—time
counselors and the entire sample of seniors was considered
college bound. Results showed that the assistance of
parents was seen as most valuable in making the college
decision by 66 percent of the seniors and the high school
counselor was seen as most valuable in the college decision
by only eight percent of the sample. The school counselor
was seen as the most accurate source of information about
college by 31 percent of the sample. A weakness of this
study is the fact that several items were omitted or in-

appropriately answered by many students.

Crossland (30) suggests that a central agency might
solve the problem caused by students who apply to several
institutions. He urges that the vast amount of money which
would be saved on application fees, transcripts, recommen—
dations, recruitment and paper work could be better spent
on education, counseling, and instruction.

In summary, an important function of the college
admissions office is establishing strong relations with
the high schools who contribute the members of the college
student body. However, the admissions officer is frequently
criticized by high school personnel for failing to provide
the information needed to enable the high schools to do
their own work efficiently.

"Open Door" Versus Selective Admissions

Among the strongest advocates of the "open door"
admission policy, are the officials of the University of
Kansas who believe that the best predictor of success in
college is the first year grade point average in college
(116). Waggoner (114) does not believe that this non-
selective admissions policy seriously affects the quality
of the student body at the University of Kansas where
nearly 82 percent of the 1965 freshman class ranked in the
upper half of their high school graduating class. He also
says that in the past eight years, graduates of the Univer-
sity of Kansas have won more Rhodes Scholarships than any
other public university; and, in proportion to the number

of graduates, more Woodrow Wilson fellowships than any

_ 20 _

other public university.

Berdie (14) says that the logic underlying selec—
tive admissions is obvious in that only those students who
show the greatest probability of academic success are ad—
mitted. However the predictive procedures are not absolutely
dependable and it is especially difficult to make accurate
predictions concerning those students in the middle range
of ability. Berdie concludes that whenever admissions
standards are raised, an increasing number of students who
would succeed will be denied admission.

A study at the University of Wisconsin by Little
(80) revealed that if only the students ranking in the tOp
30 to 40 percent of the high school graduating class were
admitted, then 10 to 20 percent of the entire college grad-
uating class would never have been admitted to college.

Arbuckle (4) suggests that graduation from high
school should not necessarily qualify a student for college
entrance, and suggests that one of the tasks of an admis—
sions officer might be to help some young people become
happier citizens by staying away from college.

Wilson (124) believes that "open door" admissions
policies have increased the emphasis on solid academic sub—
jects, increased student motivation, and have indirectly
improved the high school guidance programs.

McDonald (83) studied the effects of changing the
admissions policy at Georgia State College from an "open

door" policy to a "selective" policy. He concluded that

while selective admissions can effect dramatic changes in
various characteristics of an institution and could be a

potent force in fulfilling the objectives of an institu—

tion, it does not solve many problems confronting higher

education today.

In summary, the chief arguments in favor of selec-
tive entrance requirements are: quality selection leads
to quality performance; quality selection will help elimi—
nate the "waste" of facilities and faculty personnel by
less able students; and the psychological and emotional
problems will be reduced because poorly quarified students
who are unable to maintain collegiate standards are not
present (70).

The chief arguments in favor of an "open door" ad—
missions policy are: students mature at various times;
even the less able have a right to demonstrate what they
can do and to benefit from whatever advanced education
they can absorb; and tax supported institutions should be
available to the taxpayers and their children (70).

Legal Aspects

 

There is a general misconception that the state
colleges and universities are Open to all citizens of the
state who have completed high school, however Bakken (8)
reports that this is not true in the majority of states.

Only the public colleges and universities in Kansas,
Louisiana, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia are

expected to accept for admission all graduates of the

state's accredited high schools (70). The philosophical
argument that tax supported schools in our democracy should
be available to taxpayers and their children, is supported
by the admissions policies in these six states.

With the exception of racial segregation cases,
college admissions policies have rarely been the subject of
judicial review. Bakken (8) reports that the law now
clearly states that no person may be denied admission to
a publicly supported college or university because of color
or race. He says (8, p. 11):

Publicly supported colleges and universities
may set up rules and regulations for admis—
sion based on the ability to pass tests, on
moral grounds, or on any other reasonable
basis. However, every person, regardless of
race or color, if otherwise eligible, must
be admitted. This appears to be the legal
basis for the admission to a state-supported
university or college.

The first decision in legal annals of a case against
academic admissions standards came in 1963 with Lesser
bringing suit against the Board of Higher Education and
Brooklyn College, a municipal liberal arts institution,
established under New York law with the Board of Higher Edu—
cation granted statutory authority to prescribe the condi-
tions of student admission. The appellate court ruled
(72. p. 434):

Courts may not interfere with the administra-
tive discretion exercised by agencies which
are vested with the administration and control
of educational institutions, unless the cir-
cumstances disclosed by the record leave no

scope for the use of that discretion in the
matter under scrutiny.

A court should refrain from interjecting its
view within those delicate areas of school ad—
ministration which relate to the eligibility
of applicants and the determination of marking
standards, unless a clear abuse of statutory
authority or a practice of discrimination or
gross error has been shown.

In summary, admission to state-supported colleges
and universities is usually dependent on the rules and regu-
lations made by the governing boards of the various insti~
tutions, and the student must meet any reasonable admission
requirements.

The courts have generally granted to the college,
complete power to determine who should be admitted to pri—
vate colleges (8).

Intellective Criteria for Predicting Academic Success

There is a consensus that the best single index to
predict academic success in college is the high school
record. Giusti surveyed the literature and concluded
(52, p. 207):

The most significant conclusion resulting from
the exploration of the field of predictive
studies is the unquestionable superiority and
stability of the high school grade average as

a single source of data for predicting college
success.

Not only is the high school grade average the best
criteria, but Elton (42) found that high school averages
through the eleventh year are virtually as effective as
four-year averages in predicting college grades. He
studied 295 freshmen at the University of Kentucky and

found the three-year high school average as less accurate

_ 24 _

than the four—year average only one time out of one hundred.
This finding supports the current trend in college admis-
sions of accepting students on the basis of their academic
work through their junior year of high school.

Most institutions of higher education today require
some type of scholastic aptitude test as an admissions re—
quirement, and a large number of writers, including Arbuckle
(4), Barclay (9), Baumgart (ll), Berdie (l4), Hills (62),
Reeves (93), and Wrenn (127) state that the best and most
valid indexes for predicting academic success in college
are a combination of high school achievement and aptitude
test scores.

Fishman (96) analyzed 580 studies of a predictive
nature in college admissions. Using high school achieve—
ment and aptitude test scores as the criteria to predict
grade average, he found that the average multiple corre—
lation is .55, and if a personality test score is added.
the gain in correlation is usually less than .05.

The great growth of the College Entrance Examina-
tion Board and the American College Testing program exem-
plifies the increased use of testing in college admissions.
However, Brim (17) found that approximately 50 percent of
a representative group of Americans over the age of 18
oppose using intelligence tests for college admissions
purposes. His survey showed that the criticisms of tests
were: test scores may be misinterpreted, testing is an

invastion of privacy; tests determine a person's life

_ 25 _

chances; tests do not measure creativity, ambition, honesty,
or concern for others; and tests are not valid for the cul—
turally deprived.

Educational and psychological testing was reviewed
for the period July 1, 1961 through June 30, 1964 by the
Review of Educational Research (58) and no major break—
throughs were reported in any of the areas of general men—
tal ability tests, special ability tests, educational
achievement tests, vocational interest tests, personality
measures, or statistical methods.

Lavin (79), a sociologist, did a complete theore-
tical analysis and review of the research concerning the
prediction of academic performance. He reviewed nearly 300
sources, most of them published during the period from 1953
through 1961, and found that ability measures are presently
the best single type of predictor. However, they account
for less than half of the variation in academic performance.

Some colleges and universities are now requiring
low ranking students to attend summer school to qualify for
admission. At this time, there is insufficient evidence to
evaluate this trend (49) (112). The University of Georgia
admitted 85 low ranking students in the summer of 1962.

The students carried three courses and were required to

earn at least a C average to qualify for admission in the
fall. Nearly half of the students succeeded. Of the 42
successful students admitted in the fall, 18 were in good

academic standing two quarters later; 11 were still in

college but on probation; and 11 had withdrawn (25).

In summary, there is a consensus among researchers
that the best single index to predict academic success in
college is the high school record, and the best and most
widely used indexes are a combination of high school achieve—
ment and aptitude test scores from a national standardized
admissions examination.

Non-Intellective Factors in Predictinngcademic Success

 

Barclay (9) feels that there is a general consensus
among researchers that we have reached a plateau in terms
of using intellective factors in forecasting success in
higher education, and Barclay writes that non—intellective
factors should play a more prominent role in the prediction
of academic success, although much more research is needed.

Fishman (9) reviewed 26 studies that had utilized
the Rorschach, the Minnesota Multiphasic Scale, The Manifest
Anxiety Scale, and other personality measures. However, he
concluded that comparatively little was added to the pre—
diction of academic success during the decade of 1950 to
1960 by the inclusion of these non—intellective predictors.

Lavin (79) found the relationship between personality
characteristics and academic performance to be quite weak
and the findings often quite inconsistent.

Messick (85) discusses personality measurement and
college performance and concludes that a special problem in
using personality tests to predict academic performance is

a distorted performance because of deliberate attempts at

faking to make a favorable impression. He believes that

the record of past performance, plus a measure of scholastic
aptitude, are the only quantitative evaluations we can trust
in college placement. However, Messick does suggest looking
into non—intellectual factors.

Stein (103) describes a trend toward the use of per—
sonality factors in predicting academic succeSs. He found
that the academicallysuccessful students were less mal—
adjusted in terms of how far they deviated from the normal
range on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Stein proposes a clearinghouse for research regarding per—
sonality factors as predictors of academic success.

There is some question concerning the validity of
recommendations written by the high school. Mueller (87)
suggests obtaining the endorsement of both the principal
and the counselor, although she feels that the counselor
should have a more intimate knowledge of the student.

Farwell (43) found the results of testing and coun—
seling far superior to recommendations of high school offi-
cials in terms of predicting academic success for lower
ranking high school students. In contrast, Ebel (38) feels
that the high school recommendation might be one of the
best measures of college capability, although he admits
his hypothesis has not been tested.

Another approach is concerned with self-predictions.
It was discovered that college freshmen tend to overestimate

their performance in college, and more able students

_ 28 _

predicted their performance better than the less able.
However, the self-predictions were found to be less
accurate predictors than the School and College Ability
Test (SCAT) (35).

Lavin (79) summarized the research concerning self
predictions and found that the studies suggest that a posi—
tive self-image is associated with higher performance. On
the college level, Lavin reports Brim's findings that stu—
dents with high self—estimates of intelligence had higher
grade point averages than students of equal measured in—
telligence, but lower self-estimates of intelligence.
Another study reviewed by Lavin showed that among female
college students, overachievers exhibited greater self—
confidence than underachievers.

There is a trend away from using a required pre—
admission interview as part of the admissions process.
This is partly because increasing enrollments have made
interviews more time consuming and partly because pre—
admissions interviews have added very little in terms of
predicting academic success (91) (94).

Astin (5) attempted to provide a comprehensive
plan for learning about colleges. He studied 127,212
freshmen at 248 colleges in the fall of 1961 to determine
the nature and extent of the variations in student popu—
lations at various college campuses. Astin asked the
participating students to provide information regarding

their potential in academic, scientific, artistic, and

_ 29 _

social fields and obtained data on the student's socio—
economic background, educational aspirations, and career
plans. Astin also compiled information on 1,015 indivi—
dual colleges and concluded that the characteristics of
the entering freshmen classes are highly related to cer—
tain characteristics of the college.

Trow and Clark (32) examined biographical and
attitudinal characteristics of college students and found
the following four basic student subcultures: the academic,
where students are concerned with their intellectual de-
velopment; the vocational, where the drive is for learning
a profession or acquiring a specific way to make a living;
the collegiate, where emphasis is on the social and group
experience; and the nonconformist, where the concern is
with questions of self—identity. This system helps explain
the different sources of student motivation for attending
college and also emphasizes that different programs within
a college may satisfy different needs.

Pace and Stern (32) devised instruments to formulate
and assess descriptive dimensions of the college environment.
Both students and faculty were involved, and the reports
were statistically analyzed to determine the "press" of
the campus environment. As an illustration, the instrument
might show that the emphasis is on scholarship at a par—
ticular campus. In general, the instrument helps charac-

terize the interests of the student body.

In summary, there is a consensus among researchers
that a plateau has been reached in terms of using intellec—
tive factors to predict academic success in higher education.
However, a great amount of additional research is needed
before greater use can be made of non—intellective factors.

The most promising non—intellective factor appears
to be personality measures, and much work is presently being
done with self—predictions and with instruments to study
the characteristics of college students and various college
environments.

Society and College Admissions

One sociological approach to college admissions is
concerned with the relationship of college success to varia-
bles such as parents' socioeconomic status, professional
status, education, or urban—rural residence.

Lavin (79) and Stein (103) both reviewed the litera-
ture concerning the sociological approach to predicting
success in college.

There is a large quantity of research concerning
socioeconomic status,and this research shows that socio—
economic status is usually positively related to academic
performance. Stein (103) cites five studies showing that
academically successful students tend to come from families
where fathers hold upper level occupations, generally pro—
fessional or managerial.

Lavin (79) found that the level of academic perfor—

mance of females is higher than males; however, many of the

studies reviewed were at the elementary and secondary
education level. Stein (103) found that there are too
many different variables to accurately predict differences
in academic achievements between males and females.

Neither Lavin (79) nor Stein (103) found that a
generalization was possible in regard to the effects of
age on academic performance.

Both Lavin (79) and Stein (103) reported mixed
findings concerning the achievement levels of students
from large versus small high schools, private versus public
schools, or rural versus urban schools. Presently we do
not have enough data to make generalizations regarding the
academic performance of students from these subcultures.

Lavin (79) reports evidence that Jewish students
outperform non-Jewish students, but other factors such as
socioeconomic status, might distort these findings. How—
ever, studies do show many Jewish students are high
achievers.

Lavin (79) says that research on student-teacher
relationships does suggest that the more the student's
attitudes and values coincide with those of the teacher,
the higher his academic performance will be.

Family life does seem to be an important factor in

 

school achievement, although all of the findings are not
consistent. Lavin (79) writes that a general picture seems
to emerge showing that the student who does well in school

comes from a family which has a relatively small number of

_ 32 _

children, in which the parents exhibit warmth and interest,
where the child has a relatively high degree of power in
decision-making and where the family is able to arrive
with relative ease at consensus regarding important values
and decisions.

Another concern of sociologists is the matter of
who goes to college. In 1954, Berdie (l5) reached several
conclusions regarding this question. Berdie found that a
larger proportion of high ability high school graduates
went to college. He also found that more boys than girls,
more children of professional men, more children from homes
where parents had attended college, and more children from
homes where finances were not a problem, went to college.
Berdie also found that a greater percentage of those stu-
dents going to college had participated in extra—curricular
activities in high school.

Bowles (17) summarized several studies on talented
students who did not go on to college. He found that the
major reasons were a lack of motivation and a lack of
finances.

A study in Colorado showed that the major reasons
high ability high school graduates did not go to college
were lack of finances, marriage, selection of a vocation
not requiring college, lack of interest, indefinite plans,
and entrance into the armed forces (23).

Finni (45) studied the reasons for not attending

college offered by high ability high school graduates in

_33_

Michigan, and also found that the financial problem is the
single most important reason. Two other factors were the
educational and occupational level of the father. About

80 percent of the group had fathers in unskilled or skilled
labor occupations.

Seibel (99) analyzes the three major studies by
Wolfe, Cole, and Mollenkopf which tried to assess what pro-
portion of our high school students of high academic ability
were not going on to college. Seibel concludes that a
larger percentage of the most able students are going on to
college. Nearly 93 percent of those in the top five percent
of ability, as measured by the College Board examinations,
went to college in 1961. However, over 30 percent of those
students in the tap 20 percent of ability did not attend
college. It should be pointed out that only students con—
sidering college take the College Board Examinations.

Trent (109) helped conduct a five—year longitudinal
study of 10,000 high school seniors in 37 high schools
across the country in 1959. He found that socioeconomic
status was more important than ability in determining
college entrance. Students know little about the colleges
they selected, choosing first for proximity, second because
of p0pu1arity of the college among their peers, and third
from notions about the institution’s prestige. The presence
of a public college in a community influenced the number

attending college, and the effect was most pronounced in

the middle and lower socioeconomic level. The presence of

_ 34 _

a junior college as compared with no college in the community
raised the percentage entering college from 34 to 54 percent.
At the lower socioeconomic level, the percentage entering
college was raised from 16 to 38 percent if a junior college
was present.

Hilsinger (64) attempted to interpret college selec—
tion patterns. Reviewing the literature, Hilsinger found
that the most important factors influencing students in
the selection of a college were parental influence, influ—
ence of friends, influence of high school and college per-
sonnel, influence of alumni, size of the college, location,
reputation, religious affiliation, course of study offered,
physical facilities, social life, and costs. Hilsinger
found the three most frequently mentioned reasons for
selecting a particular college were the course of study
offered, costs, and high educational standards.

Wise (125) found a definite increase in the number
of older and married students attending college. Wise's
study showed that one of four students is married, and
nearly half of the college student body is not included
in the 18 to 21 year old age group. There also seems to
be an increase in the number of students earning their way
through college, having more money to spend, coming from
"working class" families or lower socioeconomic levels,
and being members of a racial or religious minority group

(125).

A study at the University of Michigan analyzed the
motivational factors behind why people go to college, and
concluded that we know little about why people choose a
college education and even less about how they select a
particular school (36).

Gordon (51) discusses the opportunities in higher
education for socially disadvantaged youth. He defines
this group as usually including the Negro, Puerto Rican,
the American Indian, the Mexican American, and some whites
from mountain and rural areas. Gordon writes that the
movement has been greatly aided by the civil rights move—
ment and poverty revolution. Reviewing the literature on
the education of socially disadvantaged youth he says
(51, p. 61):

There are opportunities in higher education for
socially disadvantaged youth, but these oppor-
tunities are neither adequate nor freely accessi—
ble. The characteristics of youth handicapped
by economic and social status differences indi—
cate special needs in connection with college
admission and maintenance of status through
graduation. Guidance around problems of college
admission will require stimulation of interest
in continued education, development of positive
social peer group norms relative to higher edu-
cation, and positive intervention in the college
planning and application procedures.

To insure success in college, the guidance func-
tion must be expanded to include concern with
financial support, academic readiness, curricu-
lar modification, attitudinal readiness and
social reference group support. If higher edu—
cation is to be available to large numbers of
our less privileged youth, new institutional
forms will have to develop. The community
college, modified admission practices, ex—
tension services, and greatly varied curricu—
lums of quality are but a few of the emerging

_ 36 _

models. Given the concern of dedicated guidance
and other educational specialists and the demands
of a rapidly advancing society, higher education
for disadvantaged youth is not only possible but
necessary. It is our responsibility to help

meet this social need.

There is much concern today about equalizing educa—
tional opportunities in higher education for members of
minority groups, particularly the Negro. It was estimated
that there were 180,000 Negro undergraduate students in
1964 and nearly two—thirds of these are enrolled in all
Negro colleges (33).

Socially disadvantaged youth who do enter higher
education are often at a severe handicap because of un—
equal educational backgrounds. Colleges that use scholastic
aptitude tests as admissions criteria often penalize these
youth because of the cultural biases of the tests. In
Florida in 1962, only seven percent of the Negroes passed
the Florida Achievement Test to qualify for admission to
the state universities as compared to 64 percent of the
whites (18).

Kurland (78) and others feel that college and
university officials should accept more Negroes. Kurland
suggests lowering entrance requirements for Negroes, pro—
viding them special help, financial aid, and an acceptable
social climate. He has a formula which suggests a way to
determine the minimum number of Negroes a college should

enroll.

In summary, at the present time there is a great

_ 37 _

amount of research concerned with the sociological approach
to predicting success in college. However, mixed findings
make it very difficult to make generalizations regarding
the academic performance of students from various socio—
economic or religious backgrounds or urban-rural residences.
Socioeconomic background is a strong influence in
determining who will go to college and also a strong deter—
minant of which college a person will attend.
Currently there are more older and married students
attending college and more students from lower socioeconomic
levels and racial minority groups.

The sociologist is also concerned with the role of

 

higher education in social mobility. Warner (115) and West

 

(118) are among several sociologists who feel that more
peOple now move to higher positions in society through
education than any other route.

Eckland (39) found that a college diploma almost
guarantees a person a non—manual occupation regardless of
academic ability or class background. The presence of a
degree is more important than ability. Ability does affect
the choice of major fields and the opportunity for post-
graduate work, but low ability college graduates did better
than high ability college dropouts in Eckland‘s study.

Ellis and Lane (41) studied lower class youth who
enrolled at Stanford University and tested Merton's ref—
erence group theory of mobility to see if persons who are

upwardly mobile adopt the attitudes, values and judgmental

_ 38 _

standards of the higher strata to which they aspire but do
not belong. They found that the lower class youth does
take on middle class values in college which helps him to
overcome the social handicaps. A weakness of the study is
the fact that they had a difficult time finding a represen-
tative sample of lower class youth at Stanford. They drew
a 14 percent sample of the freshman class and found only
one student with a lower class background.

Herriott (61) says that there is a need to increase
the educational aspirations of talented high school students
from lower class backgrounds. He proposes to counteract the
negative family and peer influence by providing this group
with summer school opportunities within a network of college-
bound peers.

Colleges are a social organization and many schools
seek a highly diversified student body. The influx of stu—
dents from lower class backgrounds has helped many institu—
tions achieve diversity. Barton (10) writes that there has
been relatively little systematic research on the college
as a social organization.

In reviewing the research, Barton concluded that to
achieve certain kinds of student attitudes, the most impor—
tant attribute of the incoming students may be their diver—
sity of background rather than commitments to goals. A
college which draws all of its students from a local area,
from a very limited cultural and economic range, or from

a single religious denomination, cannot produce the same

effects as one with a highly diversified input from dif-
ferent regions, creeds, and classes.

It is not known,however, exactly how a student body
should be composed to best increase learning or positive
interaction among students.

Tyler (111) believes that findings of recent be—
havioral science research on college students and college
environments indicate how complex the processes are by which
young people secure a college education. The studies show
that the "best" student body for a given college must be
determined by taking into account variables related to the
college as well as a larger number of variables related to
the applicants, their home backgrounds, and the school from
which they come. He concludes that the issues and problems
faced in college admissions result from the changes taking
place in American society. To realistically solve these
problems, Tyler believes that most admissions policies are
too rigid and that more experimentation should be done with
students from various ethnic, religious, personality, and
social backgrounds.

In summary, many sociologists today believe that
education is the major means of achieving social mobility
in this country, and that lower class youth assume middle
class values when they attend college.

Most colleges and universities seek students from
various areas and socioeconomic backgrounds to help diver—

sify their student bodies. It is not known though how to

_ 40 _

account for the many variables related to the college en—
vironment and the student body to determine the ideal stu—
dent body.

Attrition in College

Summerskill (104) made a comprehensive summary of
the research concerned with drop—outs at the college level.
He found that the average college loses about 40 percent of
its student body. Another 40 percent graduate on schedule,
while 20 percent drop out but return at a later date to
graduate.

Summerskill (104) found that while one of three
students dr0p out for academic reasons, the majority of
students dr0p out because they failed to meet psychological
or sociological demands. Financial difficulty is rated as
the third most important reason for leaving college.

Iffert (69) conducted research on the retention and
withdrawal of college students in 1958, and found that lack
of finances was the number one reason at that time. Other
reasons listed by Iffert were academic difficulty, dissa—
tisfaction with the curriculum and the college, marriage,
military service, and illness.

Nelson (89) recently studied the characteristics
associated with freshman attrition and attempted to show
that peOple ought to be concerned with characteristics of
both the student and the school. Nelson found that schools
with a higher proportion of men had a higher drop-out rate;

schools with selective admissions had a lower drop-out rate;

_ 41 _

and smaller schools had a lower drop—out rate.

Marsh (82) reviewed college drop—outs and concluded
that the problem remains unresolved. Marsh found that there
was very little information about drop—outs who had achieved
satisfactory academic work.

Kauffman (75) suggests that any college concerned
with its drop—out rate should begin by re-examining its
admissions policies.

In summary, the major reasons students drop out at
the college level are that they fail to meet psychological
or sociological demands, fail to meet academic standards,
or encounter financial difficulty.

Foreign Students

 

The students in this category require special con—
sideration. It is not within the province of this disser—
tation to go into detail in this area, although counseling
may be an integral part of their adjustment.

Foreign student enrollment is increasing rapidly,
with about half of these students undergraduates (53).

Some of the factors involved in admitting foreign
students include academic proficiency, educational goals,
English proficiency, physical and mental health, and finan—
cial responsibility, and special problems in housing and
orientation (57).

Sasnett (93, p. 24) attempts to point out the great
importance attached to the admission of foreign students,

stating:

_ 42 _

A foreign student admissions officer is in the
position of helmsman. When you sign a small
piece of paper, a Certificate of Admission,

you may be altering the lives and direction of
a thousand or more people and their futures.
You are most certainly wresting a young, imma—
ture person from his own cultural matrix and
setting him in the midst of new conditions and
challenges. You are deeply affecting his per-
sonal life, his family life, and ultimately the
lives of all who come in contact with him. You
have no way of knowing whether for good or for
ill. I believe we would all agree that this is
a responsibility not to be entered into casually
or to be delegated to others less dedicated and
concerned.

Most schools have one or more foreign student ad—
visors who assume a responsibility for counseling and ad—
vising.

A study at Brooklyn College in 1962 compared the
achievement of foreign and non-foreign students. There was
no difference reported in the mean overall performance after
five terms of work (23).

In summary, the number of foreign students enrolling
in American colleges is rapidly increasing, and foreign stu-
dents present many special problems in terms of admission,
financial responsibility, housing, and orientation.

Transfer Students

The research is somewhat limited regarding transfer
students except in the area of academic success. Most re—
search is concerned with the transfer from the two—year
junior college.

(Hills (63) reviewed the studies from 1910 to 1963

and found that students who transfer from a junior college

_ 43 _

to a four—year institution experience an initial drop in
grades, recover in varying degrees, but are not as likely
to graduate as are native students. Another study on
junior college transfer students show that they do about
as well as they did in the previous college (65).

Iffert (69) listed several reasons to explain why
students transfer from one institution to another. He
found the following reasons: a general dissatisfaction
with the previous college; a change in curricular interest;
a lack of interest in the studies; a desire to be closer
to home; a desire to attend a less expensive school; low
grades; and dissatisfaction with the size of the institu—
tion.

In summary, although the research is limited, most
transfer students from a junior college experience an initial
drop in grades, recover in varying degrees, but are not as
likely to graduate as those students who started in the
four—year school.

Readmitted Students

 

Hansmeier (56) investigated the relationship between
several variables and successful achievement after readmission
following academic failure. He studied 213 men and 81 women
at Michigan State University and found that the grade point
average prior to withdrawal was the only significant pre—
dictor of academic success after readmission. He concluded
that it is difficult to predict the academic success of a

readmitted student.

_ 44 _

A study at Northern Illinois University by Husa (67)
reported that high school rank and college grade point
average were the most important factors in predicting
success of a re-admitted student. He also found that stu—
dents who transferred to another institution following
withdrawal and then were re-admitted to Northern Illinois,
were better risks than non—transfers.

In summary, although it is very difficult to predict
the success of a re-admitted student, the most important
factor is his previous college grade point average.

Scholarships and Financial Aids

 

Most colleges and universities have a separate
office for scholarships and financial aids, although the
admissions officer must obviously be knowledgeable in this
area. The literature frequently shows that financial con—
siderations are important in determining who goes to college
(2) (14) (23) (26) (60) (64)-

Bowles (17) lists location of the nearest college
and lack of money as the two major reasons that qualified
students do not attend college.

Another related factor is part—time employment. It
appears that part—time work does not adversely affect grades
or participation in extracurricular activities (7) (60).

In summary, the field of college admissions is in

 

a state of change. Historically, the field has progressed
from a situation in which each college or university con—

ducted its own admissions examinations to the current

_ 45 _

situation in which two major testing companies conduct na-
tional college admissions testing programs (9) (19) (68)
(108).

Because of the many changes in American society,
college admissions has become more complex. As a result
of this complexity, colleges have had to greatly improve
communication and relations with high schools (1) (27) (34)
(71) (101) (108).

Public colleges and universities are no longer able
to deny admission to an applicant because of race or color.
However, the student may be expected to meet any other
reasonable admission requirements as prescribed by the
governing boards of the various public institutions (8) (72).

Colleges and universities continue to base their ad—
missions decisions primarily on the high school record and
the scholastic aptitude test score of the applicant. Cur-
rent research supports this traditional approach showing
that the high school record and a scholastic aptitude test
score are the two best criteria for predicting academic
success (4) (9) (11) (14) (42) (52) (62) (93) (96) (127).

There is a general consensus among researchers that
a plateau has been reached in terms of using intellective
factors in predicting academic success (9). Up to this
time, very little has been gained in the prediction of
academic success by adding non—intellective factors. How-
ever, several researchers believe that much more study

Should be conducted using non-intellective factors,

_ 46 _

particularly personality measures and socioeconomic back—
grounds (9) (79) (85) (103).

There is still much concern over the question of
who goes to college and why a person selects a particular
school. Most studies show that the influence of the parents
and peer group and the socioeconomic background of the
parents are powerful factors in determining if a person
will attend college (14) (45) (64). The location and cost
of the college, the prestige, and the curriculum are often

found as the reasons a person chooses a particular college

(64) (109).

Summary

Based on the preceding review of the literature, it
is evident that there has been very little written concerning
counseling by the college admissions officer in the admis—
sions process. A thorough search reveals not a single study
that is germane to this subject.

There is sufficient evidence in the literature to
indicate that counseling is a desirable function of the
admissions officer. Experience in high school counseling
and formal coursework in guidance and counseling are the
major criteria that admission directors look for in hiring

admissions counselors.

CHAPTER 3: DESIGN

Sample

The population studied in this research consisted
of admissions officers in the four—year public and private
colleges and universities in the State of Wisconsin. The
1964 directory, American Universities and Colleges, was
used to identify the institutions included in the popula-
tion (21).

This reference lists all of the accredited institu—
tions of higher education in the nation. It was necessary
to modify the list in three instances. Milwaukee Downer
College merged with Lawrence University after the publica—
tion of this directory, and St. Francis Seminary no longer
exists. In addition, Milton College was added to the popu—
lation. Milton is the only four-year liberal arts institu-
tion in the state of Wisconsin which is not accredited.
However, credits from Milton College are accepted by all
other schools in the state and Milton holds membership in
the Wisconsin Association of Collegiate Registrars and
Admissions Officers.

The complete population included the following in-
stitutions: Alverno College, Milwaukee; Beloit College;
Cardinal Stritch College, Milwaukee; Carrol College, Waukesha;
Carthage College, Kenosha; Dominican College, Racine; Edge—
wood College, Madison; Milton College; Mount Mary College,

Milwaukee, Northland College, Ashland; Ripon College;

_ 47 _

_ 48 _

St. Norbert College, Green Bay; Stout State University,
Menomonie; University of Wisconsin, Madison; University of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Viterbo College, La Crosse; and
Wisconsin State Universities at Eau Claire, La Crosse,
Platteville, River Falls, Stevens Point, Superior and
Whitewater. Wisconsin State University—Oshkosh, the
largest of the nine state universities, was not included
in the population because of the researcher's affiliation
'as Director of Admissions.

The sample consisted of the chief admissions officer
in each of these twenty—eight institutions. Normally this
was the person designated as Director of Admissions. How—
ever, there are three exceptions. At Carthage College the
interview was held with the Assistant to the President, who
had been Director for Admissions for several years and was
elevated to the President’s office in the fall of 1965
when this research was inaugurated. However, he still
supervises the entire admissions operation and a new Dir-
ector of Admissions had not been named. At Wisconsin State
University—Superior the interview was held with the Director
of Field Services who actually supervises the admission of
in-state students. At Stevens Point the interview was held
with the Admissions Counselor since he is responsible for
the admissions program. A Registrar still carries the dual
title, but his responsibilities are limited to the Registrar's
office and the person interviewed is expected to be officially

named as Director of Admissions in the near future.

_ 49 _

The Instrument

 

The instrument employed in this study consisted of
a structured interview form. (See Appendix A) The inter—
view method was chosen for several reasons. It insured a
return of 100 percent which was extremely important in
this study since only 28 schools and 33 admissions officers
are involved. It enabled the interviewer to establish rap—
port, as well as to obtain more complete and, it is hoped,
more valid answer than a survey would. Finally, the inter—
view made possible a clarification regarding any misunder—
standings on a specific question.

The Opening question, “What do you do in your work
in admissionsfl'was,designed to learn the functions of the
admissions officer. The opening question was followed by
ten case studies prefaced by the remarks, "I will present
ten very brief case studies or situations. We will assume
that in all of these situations the student is visiting
your campus and that you are talking to him in your office."

1. "As you discuss your school with the first pro—
spective student, it becomes very apparent that he is con—
cerned about selecting a major. He finally asks, 'What do
you think I should major in?’ How would you normally reply
to this type of question?" The purpose of this question
was to gain a counselor's response in the area of vocational
guidance. Following each question the admissions counselor
was asked how frequently this particular kind of question

was asked.

_ 50 _

2. "The second prospective freshman admits that he
is looking at various colleges. He asks a lot of questions
about (name of school). He appears concerned about (various
factors such as size which pertain to that school). You are
well aware that he isn‘t sure of where he wants to go to
school. How would you normally reply to him?" This question
was designed to see how the admissions officer responds in
a discussion concerning educational guidance.

3. "Another prospective student indicates that he
is all set to come to (name.of school), except he expresses
just one concern, 'I know I'll have trouble making friends
here just like I did in high school.’ How would you nor—
mally reply?" This question was intended to see how the
admissions officer responds in a discussion of personal
problems.

4. "A high school senior tells you of a family con—
flict. The mother wants her to go to college, but the father
is opposed. The reasons aren't given. At any rate, the
conflict has disrupted the family life, and the girl appears
deeply concerned about her future education. How would you
handle this situation?" This situation was concerned with
how the admissions counselor handles personal problems in
the interview process.

5. "The next student says, 'I want to come to
(name of school), but I'm not sure I can afford college.’
What is your usual reply?" A question concerning financial

aids is very common in the admissions interview.

6. "The sixth case involves a freshman enrolled
in your school. You had interviewed him a year ago when
he visited your campus. Now he stops in your office and
asks to talk to you. There apparently are some personal
problems involved. His grades are falling and he suggests
that he may drop out of school. How would you handle this
situation?" This situation was also designed to see how
the admissions officer handles a discussion of personal
problems.

7. "In this case, a prospective student asks you
about the college admissions tests. The question concerns
how well he did on the (College Boards or ACT). How would
you reply?" The purpose of this question was to see how
the admissions officer handles test interpretations in the
admissions process.

8. "I am assuming that you reject students by
letter? All right, a rejected applicant appears in your
office. 'I received your letter of rejection. What can
I do?’" The purpose of this question was to see how the
admissions officer responds to a student denied admission
to the institution.

9. "This question concerns the use of confidential
information. It may involve information received from the
high school record or information revealed to you by a stu—
dent in an interview. How do you regard confidential infor—
mation in your job?"

10. "In the last situation you have received an

application that appears quite good. However, before
acceptance, the person stops in to visit your campus.

You have no prior indication of any problems, but during
the interview you observe some very abnormal behavior
which leads you to believe that he has problems. What
would be your course of action in such a situation?" This
was planned to check the responses of admissions officers
concerning the specific question of suspected abnormal
behavior.

The final page of the interview form was used to
collect personal information about each admissions officer.
These data were used to analyze responses regarding differ—
ences or similarities between officials from private versus
public institutions, and to answer questions about the edu—
cational backgrounds, vocational backgrounds and age factors
of the admissions officers.

To test the structure of the interview form, meetings
were held with two members of the admissions staff of Michigan
State University in 1964. The form was then revised in a
doctoral committee meeting resulting in the present struc-
ture. The appendix contains a copy of the interview form.
(See Appendix A)

The first of the thirty—three interviews was con-
ducted in October of 1965, and the final one in late May of
1966. The large majority of interviews were held on the
campuses of the admissions officers, although it was possible

to obtain an occasional interview at conferences or group

meetings. The reception in each instance was very warm
which made it relatively easy to establish rapport. The
interviews ranged in time from one to two hours with the
average interview lasting about one hour and twenty minutes.
The length of time seems significant since it is unlikely
that busy admissions officials would have spent this much
time completing a survey.

The responses were typed the same day of the inter—
view to help facilitate the retention of all of the informa—
tion raised in the interview.

Statistical Techniques

 

This descriptive study was concerned with the extent
to which counseling was a part of the admissions process,
and the extent to which this counseling was directive or
non—directive.

It was not possible to measure exactly the amount
and type of counseling that occurred because the data was
obtained by relying on the admissions officers to describe
how they behaved in the admissions process. Descriptive
statements describing the reported behavior were placed in
a taxon of counseling devised by E. G. Williamson (119).
This taxon was concerned with how the counseling service
was initiated, the content, the perceived role of the coun—
selor, action taken regarding problems, the duration of
counseling, the desired outcomes of both student and coun—
selor, the termination, and the kinds of student clientele.

(See Appendix B) Conclusions regarding the role of

_ 54 _

counseling in the admissions process were drawn by analyzing
the descriptive statements in this taxon.

The results of the interviews were analyzed to deter—
mine whether the counseling was directive or non—directive.
Peter Glofka, Ph.D., University of Illinois; Joseph
Mezzano, Ed.D., Michigan State University; and Earl Stahl,
Ph.D., Ohio State University; all counselor educators at
Wisconsin State University-Oshkosh, independently rated the
responses made by the admissions officers in the interviews.
The responses were rated using a ten point directive non—
directive check-list adapted from similar check—lists de—

signed by Porter and Snyder (91).

The ratings were averaged to give each admissions
officer a mean score and a specific place on a directive
non-directive continuum. Kendall's Coefficient of Concor-
dance was used to test the relationship of the ratings of
the three judges.

Information from the interviews was used to answer
several questions concerning the role of the admissions
officer in counseling prospective students. A chi square
was calculated in a 2 X 2 contingency table, using Yate’s
correction for continuity, to determine whether the age of
the admissions officer, the amount of training in counseling,
and employment in a public or private institution had a
significant relationship with the mean rating of each ad-

missions officer from the ten point scale.

Summary

The population consisted of the admissions officers
in the four-year public and private colleges and univer-
sities in the State of Wisconsin. The sample consisted of
the chief admissions officers in these institutions.

A structured interview was held with thirty—three
admissions officers in twenty-eight institutions. The
interview was designed to elicit responses about various
areas in counseling such as vocational guidance, educational
guidance, personal problems, financial aids, testing, abnor—
mal behavior, and confidential information. Information
was gathered to permit comparisons between admissions offi-
cers from various types of institutions, various educational
backgrounds, and different age levels.

An inspection was made of statements describing the
counseling behavior of the admissions officers to determine
the extent to which counseling was a part of the college
admissions process.

Three qualified judges independently rated the inter—
view responses and placed each admissions officer at a speci-

fic point on a directive non-directive continuum.

CHAPTER 4: ANALYSIS OF DATA

A major objective of this study was to describe the
practices used by admissions officers in an effort to deter-
mine whether counseling techniques are generic in the func—
tions performed by an admissions officer.

In an attempt to describe the general counseling
behavior of an admissions officer, a generalization and
synthesis of their counseling behavior was made, and placed
in a framework devised by Williamson. (See Appendix B)

Williamson (118) hypothesized that counseling is
one of the generic taxons of student personnel work, and
that modifications in counseling techniques and objectives
could be identified in many areas of student personnel work.
He attempted to classify separate areas of student personnel
services to see if counseling was related to the service.

Williamson began his study by identifying the essen—
tial dimensions of the counseling process. He then catego-
rized counseling responses under the following dimensions
of this taxon: Initiation of service, content, perceived
role of counselor, action regarding problems, periodicity
of service, desired outcomes by student and by counselor,
termination, kinds of student clientele, and limiting per—
ceptions and responsibilities by students and/or counselors.

Williamson did not study the work of the Admissions

Ofifice, but he did study other areas in student personnel

—56—

work. For example, in a seminar meeting, members of the
student housing bureau at the University of Minnesota iden—
tified the relationship of the counseling process to their
work in the housing bureau. The responses were placed under
the basic taxon of counseling (118, p. 9) in the following
manner:

THE TAXON — COUNSELING IN THE STUDENT HOUSING
BUREAU

 

INITIATION OF SERVICE

 

In addition to self-initiated use of the service,
householder, parents and fellow students refer
students for services. Some students (e.g.
minors) were required to come to the office.

CONTENT

Content of service relationship: students were

iven information about available facilities
%cost, location, conduct rules, price, etc.).
Most were also aided in evaluating the signifi—
cance for academic and personal problems of
available facilities, preparatory to their
choice. Other conferences were concerned with
alleged misconduct in housing facilities, con-
flicts with householders, racial discrimination,
religious conflicts, cultural deficiencies or
health deficiencies.

Note that the first rubric resembles the pro-
cedures of generic counseling, while the second
rubric resembles disciplinary counseling on the
one hand; and, secondly, the generalized coor—
dinating responsibility of identifying situa—
tions and problems that need to be referred to
or at least to require consultation with experts
in other specialized services (e.g. at some
point of intensity, disciplinary conflicts may
need to be referred formally to the service of
the disciplinary office while sanitary and
safety conditions need to be referred, or at
least require consultation, determination or
rulings as to acceptable standards by sepa—
rately organized environmental sanitary experts).

PERCEIVED ROLE OF COUNSELOR

Perceived role of staff: helpful information
concerning available facilities, advantages
and disadvantages preparatory to choice by
students; information concerning students
obligations to observe regulations of house-
holders and university. Again, these per-
ceptions resemble those identified in coun—
seling.

ACTION REGARDING PROBLEMS

Techniques used extend beyond the personal
interview to correspondence, telephone, joint
conferences of students and householders, and
conferences with community agencies involved

in maintenance of housing facilities and stan—
dards of sanitary,safety,and moral conditions.
In addition, as sometimes is the case in family
conflicts over choice of a vocation or of aca-
demic difficulties (such as alleged insuffi—
cient study effort and time), the housing staff
is required to attempt the mediation of con—
flicts with householders over deferred payment
of rent, violation of contract, damage of
prOperty or excessive noise.

PERIODICITY OF SERVICE

 

Contrary to the voluntary nature of counseling,
supervision of housing involves both an annual
audit for each student’s housing followed by
periodic visitation by staff, as well as fre—
quent telephone consultation with both house-
holder and student. But the use of facility
information and consultation is voluntary, as
in the case of counseling.

DESIRED OUTCOMES BY STUDENT AND BY COUNSELOR

 

The desired outcomes are, of course, satis—
factory facilities as to cost and distance
from the campus, as well as satisfactory re—
lationships between students and householders
and avoidance of or easing of tensions and
conflict (e.g. similar to conflicts between
parents and students over grades).

TERMINATION

 

In a sense, this service is terminated only
seasonally and temporarily, since students

change residences frequently —— e.g. from

an approved to a disapproved facility. While
specific discipline or conflict situations
are terminated, new manifestations may arise
calling for new relationships.

KINDS OF STUDENT CLIENTELE

 

All students are involved in this service
unless administratively exempted from appli—
cation of the University's requirements con—
cerning living in approved facilities.

LIMITING PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
gr STUDENTS AND/OR COUNSELORS

 

Limitations, as in the case of other require—
ments upon students, are sometimes resisted
and "tested." Information about facilities
are welcomed but are limited in usefulness

by the currency of the bureau’s information
of changing sanitary, safety, and other con—
ditions -- especially in old and often de—
teriorated housing facilities.

The Taxon — Counseling in the College Admissions Office

 

In the present study, the results of the interviews
with the thirty three admissions officers were analyzed to
identify the counseling objectives and techniques the offi—
cers claimed to use in the admissions process. Both the
demographic data and the admissions officer's responses
to the typical cases presented to them in the interview
were analyzed. (See Appendix D) Williamson's counseling
taxon was then used as the framework to describe the coun—
seling practices of the admissions officers.

Initiation of Service

 

The admissions officers interviewed in this study
agreed that the service was usually intiated by the student.

Some of the students were referred to the admissions office

—60--

by high school counselors, teachers or administrators; or
by parents, alumni of the college, or faculty members. A
few students were required to visit the admissions office
for an interview prior to admission to the institution.

Content of the Interviews

 

The admissions officers agreed that the interviews
were primarily involved with educational planning and voca-
tional choice, and there was a great amount of information
given concerning admission to the college, the curriculum
and financial aids. The admissions officers agreed that
they were seldom involved in personal counseling. When
the situation seemed to call for personal counseling, they
usually referred the student to another office, normally
the college counseling center.

Perceived Role of the Admissions Officer

 

The majority of admissions officers interviewed
stated that their role was to provide information, and a
personalized opportunity to review and discuss all aspects
of admission to college. Many officers remarked that they
often gave the student reassurance and support. A few
officers commented that their role was to convince the
students of the advantages of their respective institu—
tions and enroll them as students.

Action Regarding Problems

A considerable number of admissions officers stated
that they assessed the students chances for admission and

academic success at the specific college. All officers

—61—

agreed that they provided information to the student, and
sometimes the student was stimulated to explore new areas
of study or possibly different colleges. Some admissions
officers were able to identify problems and referred the
students to other services. The most frequent problems
were in the area of financial aids. Many officers stated
that the techniques used extended beyond the personal
interview, and that frequent use was made of correspon—
dence or telephone conversations with high school coun—
selors, students, and parents.

Periodicity of Service

 

The officers agreed that most students came to the
admissions office before enrolling in the college, most
often during the junior or senior year in high school.
Occasionally, the student visited the admissions office
after his enrollment in the college, but this did not
occur frequently.

Desired Outcomes Hy Student and By Admissions
Officer

 

The admissions officers frequently stated that they
sought to locate the best possible school for the particu-
lar student and hoped that the student was satisfied with
his choice of college. A few officers implied that they
considered the enrollment of the student in their school
as the desired outcome. Students most often sought solu—
tions to specific problems such as financial needs, choice

of a major, choice of a career, or personal problems.

-62-

Termination of the Counseling Process

 

Termination usually occurred with the selection of
the college and took place at the discretion of the student.
In nearly all cases, an interview with the student was held
just once, although some officers reported correspondence
or telephone conversation with the student up to the time
of enrollment in the college.

Kinds of Student Clientele

 

The officers agreed that the greatest proportion
of students they talked to were high school seniors. They
also reported discussing admissions with other high school
students and with various levels of college students in
the case of transfer students. All incoming students were
involved with the admissions office, although not all stu-
dents necessarily came in for an interview.

Based on the practices described in these inter—
views, it appeared that counseling techniques were fre—
quently used in the functions performed by an admissions
officer. There was remarkable agreement among the officers
that the admissions interviews were primarily concerned
with educational planning and vocational choice, and in—
volved much information giving on the part of the admissions
officer. There was very little counseling of students with
personal problems.

Admissions Counseling - Directive or Non-directive?

 

A second major objective of this study was to deter—

mine whether modifications or adaptations of counseling

—63—

techniques which resulted in more directive than non—
directive counseling were necessary in the admissions
process.

Porter and Snyder (91) devised check—lists to assist
in classifying responses made by counselors in counseling
interviews. In their studies judges listened to recordings
of interviews, or analyzed typescripts of the interviews
and assigned each counselor response to a position on a
continuum. Highly directive responses were placed at one
end of the continuum and highly non-directive responses at
the other end. A pattern of counselor responses emerged
so that the judges were able to determine a counselor's
position on the directive to non—directive continuum.

In the present study, a check-list was developed to
assist the judges in categorizing the individual counselor
responses to the typical cases presented to them in the
interviews. (See Appendix D) The judges evaluated each
response on a directive to non—directive continuum according
to the following ten point scale, modified from the scales
devised by Porter and Snyder (91):

l. Counselor indicates he would use non—
directive counseling.

2. Counselor indicates that he would listen
to student's problems.

3. Counselor indicates that he would ask
how a person feels about the situation
or problem.

4. Counselor indicates that the decision on
the matter is up to the student.

_ 04 _

5. Counselor clarifies the situation with—
out evaluation.

6. Counselor gives information.

7. Counselor offers reassurance.

8. Counselor probes or asks student for
more information or gives facts to stu—
dent through test interpretation.

9. Counselor offers suggestions or recommen—
dations or points out problems needing

correction.

lO. Counselor commands or tells student what
he should do.

Using this check—list, three qualified judges in—
dependently rated the interview responses made by each ad—
missions officer. Responses assigned to categories one
through five were termed non-directive, and the responses
categorized from six to ten were termed directive. The
higher numbers showed a greater degree of directiveness
and conversely the lower numbers showed a greater degree
of non-directiveness.

The Kendall Coefficient of Concordance, W, was used
to measure the interjudge reliability. A W of .581 was com—
puted which is significant at the .01 level. Thus we could
conclude with considerable assurance that the judges' ratings
were related, and that the agreement among the three judges
is higher than it would have been by chance.

The mean score of the group of 33 admissions officers
was 7.12. If the modified check-list was valid it would
appear that the admissions officers made much wider use of

directive techniques than non-directive techniques.

_55_

Placing the non—directive and directive responses
at opposite ends of a continuum it was possible to show the
range of responses made by each admissions officer. The
numbers on the continuum correspond to the numbers on the
check-list. A line below the number indicates that the
admissions officer utilized the counseling response. The
mean score of each admissions officer was depicted by an
X on the scale. (See Appendix C)

Questions to Be Answered

 

In addition to the two major objectives, a number
of questions concerning counseling in the admissions process
were explored. There was a certain amount of necessary over—
lap between the answers to some of the questions and the
material previously presented concerning the major objectives
of the study. A general synthesis was made in this section,
and quantitative data were placed in the appendix. (See
Appendix D)

1. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview to questions regarding vocational
choice?

Most admissions officers provided information and
advice about vocations and discussed interests and voca—
tional goals with the prospective student. Many officers
said they suggested liberal arts so that the student could
postpone the choice of a major until a later date. Some
officers said they referred the student to an advisor or

the counseling center. Some reassured the student that

-66_

it was very common to be concerned with vocational choice.

2. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview to questions concerning college in—
formation?

Most admissions officers provided information about
their own schools. Many admissions officers agreed that
they offered guidelines for selecting a college and dis—
cussed the advantages and disadvantages of their own and
other institutions. A few officers replied that they tried
to promote attendance at their own school. All of the offi—
cers presented the student with literature to read, and
recommended a tour of the campus. A few admissions officers
suggested that the visitor talk to other faculty members or
to students at the college.

3. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview to situations regarding personal
problems?

No precise answer emerged concerning the handling
of personal problems. Most officers said they referred
them to the office of the dean of students, to the coun—
seling center, or to members of the clergy. Many officers
said they discussed the problems and often gave reassurance
and advice. Some officers reported they attempted to coun—
sel, while others listened to the problems of the prospec—
tive student. A portion of officers said they wrote to
the high school for more information and then added a note

to the student's file for possible future use in the

—67—

residence hall or other campus agency.

4. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview to a situation involving a family
conflict which threatened the educational future of the
student?

Although this was not a common situation in most
schools, many officials reported situations in which a
father was opposed to a college education for his daughter.
If the student wanted an education and was qualified, the
admissions officer normally encouraged a college education.
Often the admissions officer discussed the problem, although
a few officers stated that they did not become involved in
a situation where the parents were in conflict with the stu-
dent.

5. How did admissions officers normally respond to
a question concerning financial aids?

This question was very common to the admissions inter—
view and a great amount of information concerning financial
aids was normally given. Most officers placed a high value
on a college education with the result that all qualified
people were urged to go to college. Several admissions
officers gave a very general picture of financial aids and
then referred the student to the financial aids officer for
specific information.

6. How did admissions officers normally respond to
a question regarding national tests such as the Scholastic

Aptitude Test or American College Test?

-68—

Most of the admission officers attempted to present
a general interpretation of the test results in relationship
to the local college norms. Often this interpretation in—
cluded an appraisal of the student's chance for admission
to the specific college or his chance for success in that
college. A small number of officers said they would inter—
pret tests only for those who scored well, and some officers
agreed that they reassured the person that tests were not
as important as the high school record. A few officers
said they would not reveal test information to the student.

7. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview to questions from a person denied
admission to the institution?

A considerable number of officers said that this
situation was more often handled by telephone or correspon—
dence than by an actual visit to the admissions office. The
admissions officer normally explained the reason for denial
and usually recommended some other educational institution
or post high school training. Often this recommendation
took the form of a less competitive college, a technical
school, a junior college, or the College Admissions Center,
an agency specializing in college placement. Some officers
said they gave the student making an appeal an opportunity
to attend summer school for a trial and sometimes the stu—
dent was referred to the dean of students, the counseling

center, or to the student's high school counselor.

—69—

8. How did admissions officers regard confidential
information?

There was unanimity that most of the information se—
cured in the admissions office had to be kept confidential.
Normally this information was shared only with the dean Of
students’ office, the counseling center, or the registrars’
office. There was a great awareness of keeping confidential
the information sent by the high school.

9. How did admissions officers normally respond in
an admissions interview when they suspected abnormal be—
havior on the part of the applicant?

The admissions officers agreed that it was very rare
when they detected abnormal behavior in an admissions inter—
view. Abnormal behavior was normally noted by the high
school or was part of the medical record required by most
colleges, and most admission officers checked back with the
high school for further information if abnormal behavior
was noted. Clearance by a psychiatrist was often required
in such situations. That is, the student was required to
present a statement from a psychiatrist which indicated
that the student was able to attend college. A few ad-
missions officers stated that if they suspected abnormal be—
havior they referred the student to the dean of students or
to another office for a second Opinion before any further
action was taken.

10. Was there a difference in the type of counseling

techniques, directive or non—directive, used by admissions

_ 70 _

Officers from private or public institutions?

In the population Of 33 admissions officers, 14 were
from public institutions and 19 from private institutions.
The group mean rating on the ten point directive non—direc—
tive check-list scale was 7.12. The 18 admissions Officers
rated above the grand mean were classified as more directive
and the 15 officers whose mean scores were below the grand
mean were classified as more non—directive.

Table 4.1 Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 Contingency Table
Comparing Admissions Officers From Public Insti-
tutions With Those From Private Institutions

Observed Frequencies

Public Private

 

 

 

Directive 7 ll 18
Non-directive _ 7 _ 8 15
14 19 33

The chi square was not significant and we assume
that there was not a significant relationship between the
type of counseling techniques used by the admissions offi-
cers and the type Of institution, public or private, in
which they worked.

11. Was the age of the admissions Officer a
factor in determining whether he was more directive or non-
directive in his counseling approach?

In the population of 33 admissions Officers, 18
were under 40 years of age and 15 were over 40 years Of

age.

_ 71 _

Table 4.2 Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 Contingency Table
Comparing the Admissions Officers Over the Age
Of 40 With Those Under 40 Years of Age
Observed Frequencies

Under 40 Over 40

 

 

 

Directive 9 9 18
Non—directive _ 9 _ 6 15
18 15 33

The chi square was not significant and we can assume
that there was no significant relationship between the age
of the admissions Officer and the extent Of directiveness in
the counseling techniques utilized in the admissions process.

12. What effect did formal training in counseling
have on the extent Of directiveness in the counseling tech-
niques used in the admissions process?

If the admissions Officer had taken two or more grad—
uate courses in counseling he was placed in the category of
trained counselors. A total Of 15 Officials had taken two
or more graduate courses in counseling and were placed in
the trained category, leaving 18 categorized as non—trained.
Table 4.3 Chi Square Analysis in a 2 x 2 Contingency Table

Comparing Admissions Officers Trained in Coun—
seling With Those Not Trained in Counseling

Observed Frequencies

Non—
TrainediTrained

 

Directive 4 14 18

Non—directive ll 4 15

15 18 33

 

_ 72 _

Calculation of the chi square showed a contingency
coefficient of .410 between the variables trained versus
non-trained and directive versus non-directive. This score
was significant at the .01 level for one degree Of freedom.
Thus, we could conclude with considerable assurance that an
admissions Officer trained in counseling was likely to be
more non-directive in his admissions counseling approach
than those admissions officers not trained in counseling.
SUMMARY

The results of the study seemed to indicate that
counseling techniques were used by admissions Officers. How—
ever. counseling appeared tO be a secondary function and the
prime role Of the admissions Officers appeared to be the
selection and recruitment Of students. There was more inter-
viewing than actual counseling, and the interview was usually
initiated and terminated by the prospective student during
his junior or senior year of high school. The interviews
were primarily involved with educational planning and voca—
tional choice, and there was a large amount of information
giving on the part Of the admissions Officer. There was
little personal counseling involved and the admissions offi—
cer usually sought to locate the best possible school for
the student, although some Officers strongly encouraged
attendance at their own institution.

The counseling techniques employed in the admissions

process appeared to be more directive than non—directive.

_73_

Neither the age of the admissions Officer nor the
type Of institution, public or private, were significant
factors in influencing how directive or non-directive the
Officer was. However, there was a significant relationship
between training in counseling and the mean score on the
directive non—directive ten point continuum adapted from
the check—lists of Porter and Snyder (91). Admissions Offi—
cers with two or more formal courses in counseling were
likely to be more non—directive than those Officers not

trained in counseling.

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

This study analyzed the extent to which counseling
by an admissions Officer was a part of the college admissions
process.

The basic objectives of this research were:

1. To describe the practices used by admissions
Officers in order to determine whether counseling techni-
ques were generic in the functions performed by an admis—
sions officer.

2. To determine whether modifications or adapta—
tions of counseling techniques in the admissions process
resulted in more directive than non-directive counseling.

The population consisted of the admissions Officers
from the twenty-eight four-year public and private colleges
and universities in the State Of Wisconsin which Offer
liberal arts and teacher education as part of the curricu—
lum. The sample consisted of the chief admissions Officers
in these institutions with more than one Officer interviewed
from the three largest institutions, the University Of
Wisconsin — Madison, the University Of Wisconsin — Milwaukee,
and Marquette University.

A structured interview was held with thirty—three
admissions Officers. The interviewer explained to each
admissions Officer that the purpose of the interview was

tO gather material for a doctoral dissertation concerned

_ 74 _

_ 75 _

with student personnel services in higher education. There
was no indication that an appraisal Of counseling techniques
was a concern, although the interview was designed to

elicit responses about various areas in counseling such as
vocational guidance, educational guidance, personal problems,
financial aids, testing, abnormal behavior, and the use of
confidential information. Information was gathered tO permit
comparisons between admissions Officers from various types of
institutions, various educational backgrounds and different
age levels.

The average interview lasted about one hour and twenty
minutes, and the responses were typed the same day of the in—
terview to help facilitate the retention of all of the infor—
mation raised in the interview.

Descriptive statements were taken from the thirty-
three interviews and placed in a taxon of counseling devised
by Dr. E. G. Williamson (118). The taxon was concerned with
how the admissions counseling service was initiated, the con—
tent of the interview, the type of action taken regarding
problems, the duration of the counseling process, what the
student and the admissions Officer perceived as the desired
outcomes, how the service was terminated, and the kinds Of
students who used this service.

An inspection of the descriptive statements in the
counseling taxon led to the conclusion that counseling tech-
niques were used by admissions Officers. However, the prime

role Of the admissions Officer appeared to be concerned with

_76_

the selection of students. It was concluded that counseling
was a secondary function Of the admissions officer, and the
Opportunity to use counseling techniques in the interviews
varied between institutions.

The results of the interviews were also analyzed to
determine whether counseling by the admissions Officers was
more directive than non-directive. Porter and Snyder (91)
devised check-lists to assist in identifying responses made
by counselors in a counseling interview as directive or non—
directive. Using a ten point check-list, patterned after
the scales of Porter and Snyder, three qualified judges in—
dependently rated the interview responses of the admissions
Officers to cases typical of those they might confront in
their work. The check—list categorized counselors' responses
from six to ten as directive. The higher numbers showed a
great degree of directiveness. The mean score for the group
of thirty—three admissions Officers was 7.12.

The Kendall Coefficient Of Concordance, W, was used
to measure the interjudge reliability and a W Of .581 was
computed with considerable assurance that the judges' ratings
were related, and that the agreement among the three judges
was higher than it would have been by chance.

The mean score Of 7.12 implied that the admissions
Officer made more use of directive than non—directive coun—
seling techniques.

A chi square was calculated in a 2 x 2 contingency

table, using Yate’s correction for continuity, to determine

_ 77 _

whether the age of the admissions officer, the amount of
training in counseling, and employment in a public or private
institution had a significant relationship with the mean
rating Of each admissions Officer on the directive non—direc—
tive ten point continuum. Neither the age Of the admissions
Officer nor the type of institution in which he was employed,
public or private, were significant factors in influencing
how directive or non—directive the Officer was in his coun—
seling. However, there was a significant relationship be—
tween training in counseling and the mean score from the
directive non-directive continuum. Admissions Officers with
two or more formal courses in counseling were likely to be
more non-directive than those Officers not trained in coun—
seling.

In summary, the analysis of the data permitted the
following findings.

1. Based on this study, it appeared that the major
function of an admissions Officer was the recruitment and
selection of students. Counseling was a relatively in—
frequent secondary function, but inseparable from the total
duties Of admissions work.

2. Interviews between prospective students and ad—
missions Officers were primarily involved with educational
planning and vocational choice; there was more interviewing
than personal counSeling carried on.

3. The counseling technique most Often used by the

admissions Officer was information giving.

_ 78 _

4. The interview between the admissions Officer and
the prospective student, usually a high school junior or
senior, was normally initiated by the student and was most
Often limited to one interview.

5. The desired outcome of the admission interview
for both the student and the admissions Officer was normally
to locate the best possible school for that particular stu—
dent. Occasionally, the admissions officer encouraged
attendance at his school as the desired outcome of the inter—
view.

6. When counseling was involved, the admissions
Officers made more use of directive counseling techniques
than non—directive.

7. The age of the admissions Officer was not signi—
ficant in influencing how directive or non—directive he was.

8. The type Of institution in which the admissions
Officer was employed, public or private, was not signifi—
cant in determining how directive or non—directive he was.

9. There was a significant relationship between
the amount Of training in counseling and the use Of directive
or non-directive techniques. Admissions Officers with two
or more formal courses in counseling were more likely to
use non-directive techniques than those Officers not trained
in counseling.

10. Based on this study it was recommended that
training in interviewing and counseling be a part Of any

workshop or training program for admissions officers or

_ 79 _

people aspiring to careers in admissions work.

Conclusions

 

The conclusion was reached that the major function
of admissions Officers was the selection and recruitment of
students. Every college is concerned with the quality and
quantity Of the student body. College admissions has be—
come more complex because Of the many changes in American
society and most colleges seek a highly diversified student
body composed Of students from different regions, creeds,
and classes. There are still many high ability high school
graduates not going on to college, particularly from the
lower socioeconomic levels.

A few admissions Officers admitted that they attempted
to convince all eligible candidates that they ought to enroll
in that particular college. It was impossible to determine
how many Officers were unwilling to admit this admissions
policy. Perhaps the State Of Wisconsin is different from
other states in that 11 four year public universities and
13 two year branch campuses compete vigorously for Operating
and building funds which are allocated in proportion to en-
rollment figures. The activities of one large private
university and 17 small private liberal arts colleges have
added to the competition for students in the state.

It was concluded that counseling was a relatively
infrequent secondary function Of the admissions Officer,

but inseparable from the total duties of admissions work.

_ 8O _

Counseling was a very desirable function of the admissions
officer but there was a role conflict between the primary
role in the selection and recruitment of students and the
secondary role as a counselor.

The work of the admissions Officer involves more
interviewing than actual counseling. Interviewing visitors
to the campuses was reported as a major duty by the majority
of the admissions Officers.

The opportunity for counseling varied among the in—
stitutions but most Officers spent much time talking to
groups of high school students and this duty implied a need
for group skills. They reported a great deal Of involvement
in educational and vocational planning and in providing infor—
mation to prospective students. Much use was made of referrals
which implied a need to be able to identify students with
problems and refer them to the appropriate Office on campus.

It was concluded that not enough counseling was made
available to those students denied admission to the institu—
tion. Private colleges with selective admissions tended to
refer poorer students to less competitive private schools.
The large public universities tended to refer poorer students
to smaller public universities or the less competitive pri-
vate schools, and the smaller public universities usually
Offered the poorer students a summer school trial enrollment.
Most of these referrals to other colleges were handled

through the mail and were usually limited to those students

_81_

who contacted the college for advice after being denied
admission.

The second major Objective of this study was con—
cerned with the type Of counseling techniques used by ad—
missions Officers, and it appeared that wider use was made
Of directive than non—directive counseling techniques.

This was expected since the student usually visited the
admissions Office only once and then for a short duration.

In addition, the student was often accompanied by his parents
or other prospective students. It was concluded that coun—
seling of a directive nature was more suitable under those
conditions. Information giving was the counseling techni-
que used most Often and was classified as a directive tech—
nique. It was impossible to determine exactly how much and
what type of counseling was involved because the data in

this study were Obtained by relying on the admissions officer
to describe his behavior in the admissions process.

It is recommended that training in the use of inter—
viewing and counseling techniques be a part Of any workshop
or training program for admissions Officers or peOple as—
piring to careers in admissions work. This training should
attempt to help the admissions Officers acquire the basic
interviewing and counseling skills sO that they can better
assist the student in making intelligent decisions regarding
education or vocational problems. It is recommended that
directive counseling techniques should not be de—emphasized

as they Often seem to be in regular counselor training

programs. It is suggested that this admissions training
include work with group and individual interview skills,
test interpretation, the general concept of financial aids,
general occupational and educational information, and the
art of making referrals.

Furthermore, there seems to be a strong public re—
lations aspect in the role of the college admissions Officer.
He has to accommodate a variety of publics including students,
parents, taxpayers, local citizens, alumni, fellow faculty
members and administrators, high school counselors and ad—
ministrators, and governing boards.

The issues and problems faced in college admissions
result from the changes taking place in American society
and admissions officers have had to assume a public relations
role to help solve some Of these problems.

College enrollment is expected to double in the next
ten years primarily because Of the expanding population and
the increasing pressure in our society to Obtain a college
education. Higher education has become the major means Of
moving to a higher position in society, yet not all people
of high ability go to college. The admissions Officer must
Vstill be concerned with enrolling those of high ability and
those from backgrounds of lower socioeconomic status.

The public seems very concerned today with the cul-
turally disadvantaged student. There is a demand for tests
that are valid for the culturally deprived and a desire for

tests that measure creativity, ambition, honesty, or a

_ 83 _

concern for others. There is a need to study the relation—
ship Of college success to such variables as parent's socio—
economic status, professional status, education, Or urban—
rural residence. Connected with this current social concern
to assist the culturally deprived student, there exists a
pressure on the admissions Officer to enroll a more diverse
student body in order to improve the institution. This
implies that admissions policies must be flexible to permit
the admission of students from various ethnic, religious,
personality, and social backgrounds.

The fact that admission to college is becoming more
complex intensifies the need for the admissions Officer to
establish good relations with the high schools. The high
school counselor is a major force in determining who goes
to college and in disseminating information about the
various institutions Of higher learning.

Perhaps the most vital role in public relations in—
volves the relationship of the admissions officer to the
financial support of the inStitution. The admissions officer
in the private school must be concerned with the enrollment
of a minimum number of students, as well as the prestige of
the institution to assure continued financial support from
several sOurces. The admissions Officers in the public school
must be primarily concerned with the taxpayer, and the amount
of financial support is usually in direct proportion to the

Size and prestige of the institution.

_ 84 a

The final conclusion is that an admissions Officer
must be a recruiter, selector, and public relations man to
help the institution reach its Optimum development. How—
ever, when the roles do not conflict, it is also very de—
sirable for the admissions Officer to be a counselor to
help the individual student reach his Optimum development.

Recommendations

 

It is suggested that the study be replicated to fur—
ther test the hypotheses that counseling is generic in the
functions performed by an admissions Officer, and that more
directive counseling techniques are used by admissions offi-
cers than non-directive techniques.

Additions to the present study which are suggested
for future researchers are:

1. Increase the size Of the sample.

2. Increase the sample or include a wider geogra—
phic area than the State Of Wisconsin.

3. Include two year colleges in the sample.

4. Tape record interviews between each admiSsionS

Officer and students and analyze the results.

10.

ll.

12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amsden, Robert L., "Good and Bad Admission Practices
as Seen by High School's," The Journal of the Associa—
tion Of College Admissions Counselors, Summer, 1963:

 

Andrew, D.C., and Stroup, Francis, "College Attendance
Of High-Ability High School Seniors," The Educational
Record, July, 1960.

 

Andrews, Paul E., "Where are the Future Admissions
Officers?," The Journal of the Association of College
Admissions Counselors, Winter, 1965.

 

Arbuckle, Dugald S., Student Personnel Services in
Higher Education, New York: PMcGraw—Hill Book 00.,
Inc., 1952.

 

 

Astin, Alexander W., Who Goes Where to College?
Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1965.

 

Ayers, Archie H., and Russel, John H., Internal
Structure, Organization and Administration Of Institu-
tions Of Higher Education, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1963.

Babbidge, Homer D., "Student Financial Aid: Manual
for Colleges and Universities," The American Collegg
Personnel Association, 1960.

Bakken, Clarence J., The Legal Basis for College
Student Personnel Work, Washington, D.C.: American
College Personnel Association, Student Personnel
Series NO. 2, 1961.

 

 

Barclay, James H., Testing for Higher Education,
Washington, D.C.: The American College Personnel
Association, Student Personnel Series NO. 6, 1965.

 

Barton, Allen H., "The College as a Social Organiza—
tion," in The Behavioral Sciences and Education, New
York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.

Baumgart, Norbert K., and Martinson, William 0., "A
Descriptive Profile Method for Predicting Academic

Achievement," Journal of College Student Personnel,
June, 1961

 

Bender, Wilbur J., "Crisis in College Admissions and
the Selective Colleges, "Speech at Washington Univer—
sity," 1962.

14.

15.

16.

17.

l8.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Bentley, Joseph C., "The 'Child Mind Myth‘ and College
Admissions: A Historical Perspective," College and
University, Winter, 1964.

 

 

Berdie, Ralph F., After High School,_What?, Minneapolis:
The University of Minnesota Press, 1954.

 

Berdie, Ralph F., "Some Principles and Problems Of
Selective College Admissions," The Journal Of Higher
Education, April, 1960.

 

 

Bowles, Frank H., Admission to College: A Perspective
for the 1960's, New York: COIlege Entrance Examination
Board, 1960.

 

 

Brim, O.G., "American Attitudes Toward Intelligence
Tests," American Psychologist, February, 1965.

 

Broom, Leonard, and Glenn, Norvall D., The Transfor-
mation of the Negro American, New York: Harper and
Row Publishers, 1964.

 

 

Broome, Edwin C., A Historical and Critical Discus—
sion of College Admission Requirements, New York: re—
printed by College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.

 

Burns, Gerald P., Administrators in Higher Education,
New York: Harper and Bros., 1962.

Cartter, A. M., American Universities and Colleges,
Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education,
9th Edition, 1964.

 

Cass, Dal Holden, A Study Of Upper Quarter High School
Graduates for 1956 Who Did Not Enroll in College From
Three Colorado Counties, DoctoraI'Dissertation, Univer~
sity of Colorado, 1957. (Published in Dissertation
Abstracts, NO. 5, 1958)

 

Catlin, Louella C., "Comparison Of the Achievement
Of Foreign and Non-Foreign College Students," The
Journal of College Student Personnel, Oct., 1962.

Chase, Clinton I., et al., Predicting Individual Course
Success for Entering Freshmen, Bloomington, Indiana:
Bureau of Educational Studies and Testing, Indiana
University, 1963.

Chiders, Perry R., "A Two Phase Analysis Of the Summer
on Trial Program at the University of Georgia," The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, May, 1965.

26.

27.

28.

290

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

Cohen, Wilbur J., "Demand for Higher Education," The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, March, 1963.

College Entrance Examination Board, "A Statement of

College Admissions Principles and Procedures," College
Board Review, Winter, 1964-65.

 

College Entrance Examination Board, Counseling in
School and College: College Admissions, I96I}

 

Crocket, David S., "A Training Program for the New
Admissions Counselor," The Journal Of the Association
of College Admissions Counselors, Fall, I963.

Crossland, Fred E., "Politics and Policies in College
Admissions," Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1965.

 

Davis, Junius, "The Criterian Problem in College Ad-
missions Research," from Research in Higher Education,
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965.

Davis, Junius, "Nonintellectual Factors in College
Student Achievement," from High School to College,
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1965.

 

Dennis, Lawrence E., "Equalizing Educational Oppor—
tunity in Colleges and Universities," Phi Delta

Kappan, May, 1964.

 

Dillenbeck, Douglas D., "Facing College Admissions
Pressures Professionally," The School Counselor, March,
1963.

Doleys, Ernest J., and Renzaglia, Guy A., "Accuracy
of Student Prediction of College Grades," The Per—
sonnel and Guidance Journal, February, 1963.

 

Douvan, Elizabeth, and Kaye, Carol, "Why People GO
to College: Motivational Factors," from College and
Character, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

 

 

Dyer, Henry S., "Changing Roles in College Admissions,"
Phi Delta Kappan, March, 1965.

 

Ebel, Robert L., "Admissions Criteria Reconsidered,"
College Board Review, Spring, 1960.

 

Eckland, Bruce, "Academic Ability, Higher Education,
and Occupational Mobility," American Sociological
Review, Oct., 1965.

 

Educational and Psychological Testing, Review of
Educational Research, February, 1965.

 

 

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

530

Ellis, Robert, and Lane, W. Clayton, "Social Mobility
and Career Orientation," Sociology and Social Research,
April, 1966.

Elton, Charles, "The High School Grade Average: When
is a Difference Different?," College and University,
Winter, 1966.

Farwell, Gail F., An Analysis of Factors and Criteria
Related to the Admissions Of Borderline Cases at
Michigan State College, Fall Quarter, 1952, Doctoral
Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1954.

 

Fine, Benjamin, How to be Accepted by the College of
Your Choice, Manhasset, N.Y.: Channel Press, Inc.,

1963.

Finni, William L., A Study Of the Reasons Offered by
Students Graduating in the Top Quartiles of Michigan
Public High Schools for Not Continuing in Formal
Education, Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1960.

 

 

Forrest, Aubrey, "Counseling Talented Students on
College Choice," The Personnel and Guidance Journal,
September, 1961.

 

Fowles, Lewis F., Evaluation of Readmission Policies
of the University of NebraSEa, Doctoral DissertatIOn,
University Of Nebraska, 1962. (Published in Disser-
tation Abstracts, Part 5, 1962)

 

 

Garland, Gilbert C., "Admissions Counseling in the
Large University," College and University, Fall, 1964.

 

Garrett, Thomas A., "College Admissions Studies,"
College and University, Summer, 1961.

 

Girod, Raymond, "Problems in Admissions," College and
University, Summer, 1963.

 

 

Gordon, Edmund W., "Opportunities in Higher Education
for Socially Disadvantaged Youth," from High School
to Colleg%,_New York: College Entrance Examination
Board, 19 5.

 

 

Guisti, Joseph P., "High School Average as a Predictor
of College Success: A Survey of the Literature,"
College and University, Winter, 1964.

 

Haglund, Natalie, "The Foreign Admissions Officer as
a Skeptic," Paper for Education 982-7, Michigan State
University, March 9, 1964.

 

54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

Hanford, George H., "A New Rx For Our Admissions
Ills," College Board Review, Fall, 1965.

 

Hansen, Lorraine S., "How DO They Choose a College,"
College Board Review, Fall, 1965.

 

Hansmeier, Thomas W., An Investigation of Factors
Related to the Success After Readmission or Rein-

 

 

EIatement Of College Stuaents AOademicaIIy DismisSed,
Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, 1963.

 

Hardee, Melvene, Counseling and Guidance in General
Education, New York: World Book CO., 1955.

 

 

Harris, Chester W. (ed), Encyclgpedia of Education
Research, New York: The Macmillan CO., 1960.

 

 

Hauser, J.Z., and Lazarsfeld, P.F., The Admissions
Officer in the American College: An Occupation Under
Change, New York: College Entrance Examination Board,

 

 

Henry, Joe 8., "Current Issues in Student Financial
Aid," The Journal of College Student Personnel,
December, 1963.

Herriot, Robert, "Some Social Determinants of Educa—
tional Aspiration," Harvard Educational Review,
Vol. 33, 1963.

 

Hills, John R., et al., "Admissions and Guidance
Research in the University System Of Georgia," The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, February, 1961.

 

Hills, John R., "Evaluating Transfer Applications,"
College and University, Spring, 1965.

 

Hilsinger, Roderick, A Multiple Agreement Analysis
and Interpretation of College Selection Patterns,,
Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University,
1963.

 

 

Holmes, Charles H., "A Case Study of the Four—Year
Transfer Student," College and University, Spring,
1961.

 

Hoyt, Donald P., "Junior College Performance and Its
Relationship to Success at Kansas State University,"
College and University, Spring, 1960.

 

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

77.

78.

79.

Husa, Harold E., An Analysis Of Various Characteris-
tics Related to the Subsequent Success Of Students
Readmitted to Northern Illinois University Following
Academic Dismissal, Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1961.

 

Hutson, P.W., "Carnegie Units Required for College
Admission," The School Counselor, December, 1963.

 

Iffert, Robert E., "Retention and Withdrawal Of
College Students," U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Bulletin NO. l, 1958.

 

 

Illinois State Chamber Of Commerce, State College
and University Admission and Tuition, Chicago, Ill.,
1958.

 

 

Jackson, Marguerite L., "Needed: Some New Rules in
the College Admissions Game," Phi Delta Kappan, March,

1965.

 

Jacobson, Sol, "Judicial Review Of College Admissions
Policies," The Journal Of Higher Education, November,
1963.

Jaffe, A.J., and Adams W., "Trends in College Enroll—
ment," College Board Reviey, Winter, 1964—65.

 

 

Johnson, Walter F., Stefflre, Buford, and Edelfelt,
Roy A., Pupil Personnel and Guidance Serviceg, New
York: McGraw Hill Book 00., 1961.

 

Kauffman, Joseph, Speech to Wisconsin Association of

College Admissions Counselors, Carroll College, May,
1966.

Kerr, William D., "Student Perceptions Of Counselor
Role in the College Decision," The Personnel and
Guidance Journal, December, 1962.

 

Klotz, Richard H.,"Recruiting or Informing the College
Bound?," The Journal of the Association of College
Admissions Counselors, Vol. 11, 1966.

 

 

Kurland, Norman D., "More Negroes in College: A
Program for Action Now," School and Society, Jan.,
1966.

 

Lavin, David, The Prediction Of Academic Performance,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965.

 

80.

81.

82.

83.

81*.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93.

Little,J. Kenneth, "The Persistence of Academically
Talented Youth in University Studies," The Educational

Record, July, 1959.

 

Lounsbury, Jerald, "The Admissions Counselor," Paper
For Education 982, Michigan State University, March,
1964.

 

Marsh, Lee M., "College DrOpouts - A Review," The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, January, 1966.

McDonald, Thomas F., An Investigation of the Effects
of a Rapid Transition From "Open Door" to "Selective"
Admissions, Doctoral DIssertation, Michigan State
University, 1966.

 

Meade, Martin, "Applicant Interview-Psychology and
Techniques," College and University, Summer, 1963.

 

Messick, Samuel, "Personality Measurement and College
Performance," Invitational Conference on Testing
Problems, Princeton, 1964.

 

Mouly, George J., The Science of Educational Research,
New York: American Book Company, 1963.

Mueller, Kate H., Student Personnel Work in Higher
Education, Boston: Hbughton—Mifflin Co., 1961.

 

 

Mulligan, Michael, "Admissions Policies of our Colleges
and Universities Today," Paper for Education 815—9,
Michigan State University, December, 1963.

 

Nelson, Gordon A., "College Characteristics Associated
with Freshmen Attrition," The Personnel and Guidance
Journal, June, 1966.

 

Parker, Clyde A., "The Place Of Counseling in the
Preparation Of Student Personnel Workers," The
Personnel and Guidance Journal, Nov., 1966.

Phelps, M. Overton, "The Interview: An Admissions
Requirement for a State University," College and
University, Fall, 1962.

 

 

Porter, E. H., An Introduction to Therapeutic Counsel—
ing, Boston: The Houghton Mifflin Co., 1950.

 

Reeves, Floyd W., and Russel, John D., Admission and
Retention of Students, Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1933.

 

 

 

94.

95.

96.

97.

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

Rose, Harriett A., "The Effect of the Preadmission
Interview on Students of Doubtful Academic Ability,"
College and University, Fall, 1965.

 

Rowray, Richard D., The Develppment of Standards for
Evaluatipg an Admissions Program and a Proposed Instru-
ment for the Evaluation of the Admissions Program at
Ball State Teachers College, Doctoral Dissertation,
MIchigan State‘UnIversity,_I962.

 

Sanford, Nevitt, College and Charactep, New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Sanford, Nevitt, The American College, New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

 

Sasnett, Martena, "Updating Foreign Student Admissions,"
College and University, Fall, 1963.

 

Seibel, Dean W., "We're Cutting Back Our High School
Talent Waste," College Board Review, Spring, 1966.

 

Smith, George B., "Who Would Be Eliminated?," Univer-
sity Of Kansas Publications, December, 1956.

Stahl, Earl, Communication Between High School Coun-
selors and College Admissions Officers, Doctoral
Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1965.

 

Steel, Carolyn, "Who Can Help the Student in the
College Admissions Process," The School Counselor,
March, 1963.

 

Stein, Morris, Personality Measures in Admissions,
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.

 

Summerskill, "Dropouts From College," College and .
Charactep, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

 

 

Tickton, S. G., "The Enlargement of Opportunity in
Higher Education," The Educational Record, Winter,
1964.

 

Tompkins, Ellsworth, and Gaumnitz, Walter, "The
Carnegie Unit: Its Origin, Status and Trends," The
Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary—
School Principals, January, 1964.

 

 

Travers, Robert M.W., An Introduction to Education
Research, New York: The Macmillan Co., 1964.

 

 

108.

109.

110.

111.

112.

113.

114.

115.

116.

117.

118.

119.

120.

121.

122.

Traxler, Arthur E., Improving Transition from School
to College, New York: Harper and Bros., 1953.

 

 

Trent, James W., "A New Look at Recruitment Policies,"
College Board Review, Winter, 1965—66.

 

Twentieth Century Fund, USA and Its Economic Future,
New York: MacMillan Co., 1964.

 

Tyler, Ralph W., "Social Change and College Admissions
from The Behavioral Sciences and Educatlon, New York:
College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.

 

Varner, Kenneth "Other Institutions Enrolling Over
3,000 Students," College and University, Summer, 1963.

 

Vroman, Clyde, "Junior-Senior College Relationships,"
College and University, Summer, 1963.

Waggoner, George R., "The Open Door Admissions Policy
at the University Of Kansas," Phi Delta Kappap, April,
1966.

 

Warner, W. Lloyd, Who Shall Be Educated?, New York:
Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1944.

 

Wescoe, W. Clarke, "Open Door vs. Selective Admissions,"
School and Society, March, 1963.

 

West, Elmer D., "Financial Aid to the Undergraduate:
Issues and Implications," College and University,
Winter, 1964.

 

West, Patricia, "Social Mobility Among College Gradu—
ates," from glass, Status, and Power, Free Press Of
Glencoe, 1953.

 

Williamson, E. G., "A Modified Taxonomic Classifica-
tion of Student Personnel Services," ODS Staff Papers
Number 5, the University of Minnesota, January, 1962.

 

Williamson, E. G.,Student Personnel Services in Colleges
and Universities, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.,
1961.

 

Williamson, E. G., Trends in Student Personnel Work,
Minneapolis: The University Of Minnesota Press, 1949.

 

Willingham, Warren W., "Evaluating the Academic Poten—
tial of Transfer Applicants," College and University,
Spring, 1963.

 

123.

124.

125.

126.

127.

Wilson, Eugene S., "The Art of Predicting a Student's
Success," from The Behavioral Sciences and Educatiop,
New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1963.

 

Wilson, Eugene S., "What's Ahead in the College Admis—
sions Scramble?," The Bulletin Of the National Associa—
tion of Secondary—School Principals, April 1, 1961.

 

Wise, W. Max, They Come for the Best Of Reasons —
College Students Today, WaShington, D.C.: American
COuncIl on Education, 1958.

 

Woolf, Maurice D. and Woolf, Jeanne A., The Student
Personnel Program: Its Development and Integration
in the High School_pnd College, New York: McGraw—Hill
Book CO. Inc., 1953.

 

 

 

 

Wrenn, Gilbert, StudentiPersonnel Work in College, New
York: Ronald Press, 1951.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE INTERVIEW FORM

Date

 

Name School

 

 

A. What do you do in your work in admissions?

I will present ten very brief case studies or situa—
tions. We will assume that in all Of these situa—
tions, the student is visiting your campus and that
you are talking to him in your Office.

1 0

As you discuss your school with the first pro—
spective student, it becomes very apparent that
he is concerned about selecting a major. He
finally asks, "What do you think I should major
in?" How would you normally reply to him?

The second prospective freshman admits that she
is looking at various colleges. She asks a lot
of questions about (Name of School). The student
appears concerned about the (size, costs, unique
factors about the particular school). You are
well aware that she isn't sure of where she wants

to go to school. How would you handle this situa—
tion?

3. Another prospective student indicates that he is
all set to come to (Name of School) except he
expresses just one concern, "I know I'll have
trouble making friends here just like I did in
high school." How would you normally reply?

4. A high schOol senior tells you of a family conflict.
The mother wants her to go to college, but the
father is Opposed. The reasons aren't given. At
any rate, the conflict has disrupted the family
life, and the girl appears deeply concerned about

her future education. How would you handle this
situation.

5.

The next student says, "I want to come to (Name
Of School) but I'm not sure I can afford college."
What is your usual reply?

The sixth case involves a freshman enrolled in
your school. You had interviewed him a year ago
when he visited your campus. Now he stops in
your Office and asks to talk to you. There are
apparently some personal problems involved, his
grades are falling, and the student suggests that
he may drop out of school. How would you handle
this situation?

In this case, a prospective student asks you about
the college admissions tests. The question con—
cerns how well she did on the (College Boards or
ACT). How would you reply?

8. I am assuming that you reject students by letter?

Alright, a rejected applicant appears in your
Office. "I received your letter Of rejection.

What can I do now?"

10.

This question concerns the use Of confidential in—
formation. It may involve information received
from the high school record or information revealed
to you by a student in an interview. How do you
regard confidential information in your job?

In the last situation, you have received an appli—
cation that appears quite good. However, before
acceptance, the person stops in to visit your
campus. You have no prior indication of any prob—
lems, but during the interview, you Observe some
very abnormal behavior which leads you to believe
that he has problems. What would be your course
Of action in such a situation?

Date

 

Name Age

 

School Title

 

To Whom DO You Report

 

Enrollment Type Of School: Public Private
CO-Ed Liberal Arts
Comprehensive Womens

Beginning with your present job and regressing, what is your
vocational background?

Colleges Attended Major Degrees Obtained

Formal Graduate Courses

Introduction to Guidance

 

 

 

 

Counseling Techniques

Counseling Theory

 

 

 

 

Counseling Practicum

{Pests and Measurements

 

 

 

 

()ccupations

Iridividual Differences

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

WILLIAMSON’S COUNSELING TAXON

THE TAXON--COUNSELING

 

INITIATION OF SERVICE

 

Self or voluntary, except for a small number referred or
"advised" to initiate the interview.

CONTENT

Educational planning; academic progress; vocational choice;
social and emotional conflict.

PERCEIVED ROLE OF COUNSELOR

 

"Teaching role"; "supporting" the student as he seeks rele—
vant information; personalized Opportunity to review and
discuss any aspect of his "problems".

ACTION REGARDING PROBLEMS

 

Opportunity to discuss; information provided; develop skills;
aid in self-interpretation of data; stimulation to explore
new data; refer to other services and sources Of data.

PERIODICITY OF SERVICE

 

Most student clients come twice the first year of counseling
and once or twice the following year. Initiated at any time.

DESIRED OUTCOMES BY STUDENT AND BY COUNSELOR

 

Selection Of "realistic" goals and satisfaction with decisions;
improved grades; satisfaction with interpersonal relationships;
reduction of behavior symptoms. Students relate counseling to
their particular problems and desire solutions Of them.

TERMINATION

 

Voluntarily as determined by student, but may be suggested
by counselor.

KINDS OF STUDENT CLIENTELE

 

Proportionately more freshmen than upperclassmen; propor—
tionately more "failing" (studies) students.

LlMITING PERCEPTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES BY STUDENTS AND/0R
QOUNSELORS

 

 

Students perceived counseling as needed only by "failing"
students; limitation on content by limited interviews and

counselor's competency; resistance to change; sometimes
limited to being informed what tests mean concerning possi—
ble choices and decisions; seeking counseling sometimes
perceived as intrusion into privacy and confidential infor—
mation thus may be revealed to others. These perceptions
are usually the initial ones, rather than those at the
termination Of the counseling relationship.

APPENDIX C

COUNSELING CONTINUUMS

The continuums which follow show the range of re—
sponses made by each admissions Officer. The mean score

of each admissions Officer is depicted by an X on the scale.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NUMBER 1
Non—Directive Directive
,l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,
‘-—— 3%
Age 48 Guidance Training None
Type of College Private Mean Rating 8.06
NUMBER 2
Non—Directive Directive

[ l

V
It

Age 27 Guidance Training Two Courses

 

Type of College Private Mean Rating 6.92

 

 

NUMBER 3

 

Non—Directive Directive

L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10_,
I 1

:14

Age 25 Guidance Training None

 

Type of College Private Mean Rating 6.5

 

flMBER 4
Non—Directive Directive

[ —1

Age 25 Guidance Training One Course

 

Type Of College Private Mean Rating 6.78

 

 

NUMBER 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non—Directive Directive

, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,

r* .

Age 55 Guidance Training One Course

Type of College Private Mean Rating 7.5
NUMBER 6

Non—Directive Directive

p} 2 3 4 5 (3 7 8 9 194

-—x:

Age 52 Guidance Training None

Type Of COllege Private Mean Rating 7.89
NUMBER 7

Non-Directive Directive

,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,

—X

Age 30 Guidance Training None

Type Of College Public Mean Rating 5.5
NUMBER 8

Non—Directive Directive

._1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10,,

r" 1

x, 1
Age 47 Guidance Training Master's Degree

 

 

Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.0

NUMBER 9

 

 

 

Non-Directive Directive

,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 104
«fix

Age 44 Guidance Training None

 

Type of College

NUMBER 10

 

Non—Directive

 

Private

 

Mean

Rating 7.33

Directive

 

 

,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 19,
fit
Age 61 Guidance Training Two Courses

 

Type of College

 

 

Private Mean

 

Rating 6.83

 

 

NUMBER 11
Non—Directive Directive
L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19,
I ___ v ‘
Age 42 Guidance Training One Course

Type of College

NUMBER 12

 

Non-Directive
,1 2 3

Age 30

Type Of College

 

Private Mean

 

4 5 6 7

3L
1‘

Guidance Training

Rating 7.18

Directive

s 9 10J

Master's Degree

 

Public Mean

 

Rating 7.15

NUML‘} ER. 1 3

 

Non-Directive

Directive

 

 

 

 

 

 

,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 19,
4%
Age 35 Guidance Training Four Courses
Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.17
NUMBER 14
Non—Directive Directive
,1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9

10J

 

I

Age 43

Type Of College Private

Guidance Training

Two Courses

 

Mean Rating 6.51

 

NUMBER 15

 

Non—Directive

Directive

 

 

 

 

L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,
l 1,, '
Age 41 Guidance Training None

Type of College Private Mean Rating 7.15

 

NUMBER 16

 

 

 

Non—Directive Directive
L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,
l x 1
Age 27 Guidance Training None

 

Type of College Private

 

 

Mean Rating 7.62

NUMBER 17

 

Non-Directive

,_12 3

Age 30

 

Type of College

NUMBER 18

 

Non—Directive

L 1 2 3
[

Age 55

Type of College

 

Directive

4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
yr I
Guidance Training One Course

Private Mean Rating 7.69

 

Guidance Training

Directive

4 5 6 7 8 9 104
1

— v

None

 

Private Mean Rating 7.31

 

 

 

NUMBER 19
Non-Directive Directive
l_l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1
l I 1
Age 27 Guidance Training Master's Degree

 

Type of College

NUMBER 20

 

Non-Directive

LI 2 3
I

Age 28

 

Type of College

 

Public Mean Rating 7.12

 

Guidance Training

Directive

4 5 6 7 8 9 10,

X
Four Courses

Public Mean Rating 7.39

 

NUMBER 21

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Non—Directive Directive

Ll 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IOJ

ri' ___ X5 .

Age 33 ' Guidance Training None

Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.93
NUMBER 22

Non—Directive Directive

Ll, 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I

If ___ 9%. '

Age 35 Guidance Training One Course

Type of College Public Mean Rating ,Z,9§,
NUMBER 23

Non—Directive Directive

,1 2 3 I. 5 6 7 s 9 10,
I I

v
n

 

 

 

 

Age 30 Guidance Training One Course

Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.38
NUMBER 24

Non-Directive Directive

L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 1_0_,
I l

 

Age 31 Guidance Training Master's Degree

 

 

Type of College Public Mean Rating 6.76

 

NUMBER 25

 

Non-Directive

L1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l

 

 

 

Directive

s 9 101

j

 

 

 

Age 35 Guidance Training Two Courses

Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.62
NUMBER 26

Non—Directive Directive

[L1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,

Age 41 Guidance Training None,

 

Type of College Private

 

NUMBER 27

 

 

Mean Rating 7.33

 

 

Non—Directive Directive

,1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lg,
11;;

Age 41 Guidance Training None

 

Type Of College Private

 

NUMBER 28

 

Non—Directive

L1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I

V
11:

Age 31

 

Type Of College Public

 

 

Mean Rating 6.78

Directive

s 9 10,

I

Guidance Training Master's Degree

 

Mean Rating 6.92

NUMBER 29

 

Non—Directive Directive

, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10,
l I

:14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Age 60' Guidance Training Three Courses

Type Of College Private Mean Rating 6.84
NUMBER 30

Non-Directive Directive

Ll_ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10,

l ____ ____ Y '

Age 51 I Guidance Training One Course

Type of College Private Mean Rating 7.42
NUMBER 31

Non—Directive Directive

._1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 103‘

I X

Age 37 Guidance Training Two Courses

Type of College Private Mean Rating 6.76
NUMBER 32

Non-Directive Directive

L12 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 193

I y '

Age 38 Guidance Training None

 

 

Type of College Public Mean Rating 7.58

NUMBER 33

 

Non—Directive Directive

11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. 9 10,]
1

I

Age 37 Guidance Training None

 

Type of College Public , Mean Rating 6.61

 

APPENDIX D

QUANTITATIVE DATA

Data on Admissions Officers N = 33

433 242
61 35
60 35
59 35
55 33
55 31
52 31
51 30
48 3°
47 3o
44 30
43 2s
42 27
41' 27
41 27
41 2'5
38 25
37

Vocational Background Prior to EnteringAdmissions Work

 

Enrolled in graduate school

High school counselor

High school principal

High school teacher

Enrolled in undergraduate school
Personnel work — industry
Elementary school teacher

College teacher

Counselor state employment service
Telephone company service consultant
Elementary school principal
College alumni work

College Registrar

Public relations - industry

Sales work

Public relations — college

o—u—u—u—u—awc---aIn:mm«mayhem.1.~

Undergraduate Majors

History

Psychology

English

Elementary education
Philosophy

Speech

Geology

Political science
Economics

Personnel management
Physical education
Business education
Social science
Recreation

Japanese

Latin

Journalism

Business administration

Graduate Degrees

NO earned graduate degree
Master's Degree
Doctor's Degree

Majors in Graduate School

Guidance and counseling
Psychology
Administration

Latin

Philosophy

History

Elementary education
English

HHHHHHHHHHHr-Iwmwwuw

17
l4

Hrarnwraulw~a

Duties

Process admission applications

Recruit students

Interview visitors to campus
Correspondence concerning admissions
Administer and direct program

Publish Admissions brochures, profiles
Assist with financial aids

Registrar duties

Counsel students

Evaluate transcripts

Help determine admissions policies
Attend meetings and conventions
Conduct research concerning admissions
Conduct orientation programs

Report to:

 

President

Academic dean or academic vice—president

Dean Of students or vice-president Of
student affairs

Director of admissions

Registrar

Vice-president for development

wkmmmONCh-xlko

mxo

IONUIN

Responses to Questions
Involving Test Information

Gave a test interpretation

Told them the score

Gave them reassurance

Would not tell them score

Told them score if they scored
well

Referred to another Office

Responses to Questions
Regarding Denial of Admission

 

Recommended or suggested other
schools

Counseled

Handled through correspondence
or telephone

Offered a summer school trial

Referred to another Office

Responses to Problems
Regarding Abnormal Behavior

 

Contacted high school for more
information

Referred to another Office

Required psychiatric clearance

Counseled

Miscellaneous Information

 

ION) UUOI—l

19
10

15
12

Frequency Of Case
Of This Type

 

Very frequent 1
Frequent 9
Not frequent 19
Rare 4

Frequency of Case
of This Type

 

Very frequent l
Frequent 6
Not frequent 25
Rare 1

Frequency Of Case
Of This Type

 

Very frequent O
Frequent 0
Not frequent 10
Rare 23

All thirty-three admissions Officers regarded the informa—
tion contained in the application or discussed in the inter—

view as confidential.

NO school required an admissions interview for all applicants.

Ten of the Officers reported that a student visited them after

enrollment in the school, but such a visit was described as

being very infrequent.

Responses to Questions
Concerning Vocational Choice

 

Provided information

Suggested or explained liberal arts
Discussed interests and aptitudes
Gave reassurance

Referred to another Office

Gave advice

Responses to Questions

Concerning Educational Information

 

Provided information

Suggested or discussed other
schools

Offered guidelines for instruction

Promoted attendance at own school

Suggested they talk to others on
campus

Encouraged liberal arts program

Responses to Questions
Concerning Personal Problems

 

Referred to another office
Discussed the problem

Gave reassurance

Gave advice

Counseled with the student
Listened to the problem

Responses to Problem
Involving Family Conflict

 

Discussed the problem
Encouraged college attendance
Referred to another Office

NO involvement

Responses to Questions
Regarding Financial Aids

 

Provided information
Referred to financial aids Office
Encouraged attendance at college

21
2o
14

I"? \lCDa)

26
23
10
10

23
17

31
12

Frequency of Case
of This Type

 

Very frequent 7

Frequent 15
Not frequent 10
Rare 1

Frequency Of Case
Of This Type

 

Very Frequent 7

Frequent 15
Not frequent 11
Rare 0

Frequency Of Case
of This Type

 

Very frequent O

Frequent 0
Not frequent 19
Rare 14

Frequency of Case
of This Type

 

Very frequent O
Frequent 5
Not frequent 22
Rare 6

Frequency of Case
Of This Type

 

Very frequent 26
Frequent 6
Not frequent 1
Rare 0