V u_.~_‘,l€~ LIBRARY Michigan Stat University This is to certify that the thesis entitled CAREER OUTCOMES AMONG RECENT MSU BUSINESS GRADUATES presented by Robert J. Barbato has been accepted towards fulfillment 1 of the requirements for Ph .D. nge in Management Major professor Date May 1, 1979 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY PER ITEM Return to Book drop to remove this checkout from your record. CAREER OUTCOMES AMONG RECENT MSU BUSINESS GRADUATES By Robert J. Barbato A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Management 1979 ABSTRACT CAREER OUTCOMES AMONG RECENT MSU BUSINESS GRADUATES By Robert J. Barbato The purpose of the research was to illuminate the current con- fusion over the value of the B.A. degree. Preliminary analysis revealed that this complex confusion could best be settled through taking into account a succession of cohorts over a period of years and an in-depth set of measures on each B.A. recipient extending from Pre- B.A. experiences to job success some time after receipt of the B.A., all these measures obtained in order to understand where the B.A. recipient was coming from and where s/he was going. Rather than try out such an in-depth approach over many majors, this exploratory study was limited to 931 recent MSU Business graduates who did not receive a degree higher than a B.A. Question- naires were mailed in December of 1978 and January of 1979, and the usable response rate was 42%. Current job success was measured by income, job status, job potential, and job satisfaction. Seven surveys of college graduates were reviewed in order to form a causal model designed to predict cur- rent job success. Five antecedent variables and the dependent variable comprised the model. The five antecedent variables were: Early Career Robert J. Barbato Choice, The Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Experience Led to a First Post- B.A. Job, Relatedness of Degree to First Job, First Job Success, and Developmental Mobility. Path analysis was the statistical technique used to test the model. The following were the paths with the path coefficients: Early Career Choice causes Relatedness of Degree to First Job (.25), Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job causes Related- ness of Degree to First Job (.13), Relatedness of Degree to First Job causes First Job Success (.59), First Job Success causes Current Job Success (.71), First Job Success causes Developmental Mobility (-.21), Developmental Mobility causes Current Job Success (.38). The obtained path coefficients in general support the original model except for the path, First Job Success causes Developmental Mobility. Developmental Mobility turned out to be internally complex. In brief, the path model analysis provided the in-depth information ‘ needed to clarify the career experiences of the B.A. recipients in the sample and thereby provide a way of measuring the necessary complexi- ties surrounding the value of the B.A. degree for more extensive samples. The particular sample turned out not to bring in as wide a range of cohorts as was initially envisaged; nevertheless, numbers were sufficient to test the general approach. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many people played important roles in the completion of this paper. I would especially like to thank Mr. Jack Shingleton, who provided generous support for this project; Dr. Patrick Sheetz, who gave critical assistance during the early stages of this project, and whose suggestions and criticism were instrumental in the writing of (this paper; and also Dr. Eugene Jennings, whose earlier research provided inspiration for this study and whose sponsorship and support enabled this project to become more than just an idea. A very large thanks is due Dr. Frederic Wickert, who, as dissertation chairman, spent many hours skillfully amending this paper. Without his availa- bility and rapid turnaround time, I would not have met the deadlines for submitting this thesis. I also would like to give a very special thanks to my beautiful and loving wife-to-be, Linda. She spent the past year supporting, begging, cajoling, pleading, intimidating, and typing. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................ LIST OF FIGURES ........................ Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......... Introduction .................... Dependent Variables ................. Literature Review Leading to the Identification of Antecedent Variables .............. Solmon ...................... Harrell ...................... University of California at Irvine (UCI) ..... Young ....................... Titley ...................... Sharp (1970) and Sachdeva (l977) .......... Cohorts and Career Stages .............. Hypotheses ..................... "Relationship" .................. Early Career Choice ................ Previous Work Experience ............. First Full-Time Job ................ DevelOpmental Mobility .............. II. METHODOLOGY ...................... Sample Tested .................... Measures ...................... Construct 1: Time of Career Choice ........ Construct 2: Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job ...... Construct 3: Relation of First Full-Time Job to Business Degree ................. Construct 4: Success of First Full-Time Job . . . . Construct 5: Developmental Mobility ........ Construct 6: Success on Current Job ........ Testable Hypotheses ................. Analysis ...................... Summary ....................... iii Chapter Page 111. RESULTS ........................ 44 Path Diagram .................... 73 Summary ....................... 74 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...................... 75 Sumary ....................... 75 ' Conclusions ..................... 76 Discussion ..................... 78 Implications for Further Research .......... 81 APPENDIX ........................... 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 90 iv Chapter Page III. RESULTS ........................ 44 Path Diagram .................... 73 Summary ....................... 74 IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...................... 75 Smmmw ....................... 75' Conclusions ..................... 76 Discussion ..................... 78 Implications for Further Research .......... 81 APPENDIX ........................... 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................... 90 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 00 w to 0) m N I C I #WN .l Relatedness by Job Satisfaction from Solmon Study . . . . Relatedness by Career Potential from Young Study Relatedness by Earnings Expectations from Young Study . . Job Level by Year of Graduation by Years Since Graduating from Titley Study ............. .1 Summary of Six Constructs and Their Measurement ..... .1 Responses for Early Career Choice ............ Responses for Relatedness ................ Early Career Choice by Relatedness ........... 2 3 .4 Correlations of Earlngareer Choice and Relatedness . . . 5 Dichotomized Early Career Choice by Dichotomized Relatedness ...................... .6 Responses for Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job .............. .7 Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First g9b_by Relatedness .................. .8 Correlations of Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job and Dichotomized Relatedness ...................... .9 Dichotomized Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job by Dichotomized Relatedness ...................... .10 Responses to Four Outcome Measures of First Job Success . .11 Relatedness by Four Outcome Measures of First Job Success ........................ .12 Correlations of Relatedness and First Job Success . . . . V Page 12 13 14 39 45 45 46 47 48 48 49 50 50 51 53 55 Table Page 3.13 Dichotomized Relatedness by Dichotomized First Job Success ....................... 56 3.14 Responses to Four Outcome Measures of Current Job Success ....................... 57 3.15 First Job Success by Current Job Success ........ 60 3.16 Correlations of First Job Success and Current Job Success ....................... 59 3.17 Dichotomized First Job Success by Dichotomized Current Job Success ................. 63 3.18 Responses to Developmental Mobility, .......... 64 3.19 Developmental Mobility by First Job Success ...... 66 3.20 Correlations of Developmental Mobility and First Job Success ....................... 65 3.21 Developmental Mobility by Current Job Success ..... 69 3.22 Correlations of Developmental Mobility and Current Job Success ..................... 68 vi Figure 1.1 1.2 3.1 3.2 LIST OF FIGURES Summary of Seven Surveys Reviewed ........... Causal Model of Current Job Success and Its Antecedents ..................... Path Diagram of Six Constructs with Path Coefficients and Residuals .................... Hypotheses with Decision Statements .......... vii Page 17 23 73 74 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction This research, called the MSU Business Alumni Study, assumed that the current state of affairs regarding the value of a college degree was in a confused state. While some argued about the economic returns of college, others discussed the influences of college which had less measurable benefits for a democratic society. Conflicting arguments were being tossed about, and this posed a difficulty for interested parties in knowing what to believe. A good example of the recent confusion was illustrated by the cover of Newsweek two years ago, which asked the question, "Who Needs College?" The story inside documented some familiar case studies of Ph.D.'s driving taxis and working in restaurants.1 Economists were pointing out that the reason for the decline in value of a college degree was a simple case of supply and demand; i.e., the demand had not kept up with the increasing supply. To see how fast the supply was increasing, one could note that during the late 1950's only 10% of the labor force 25 years and over had four or more years of college. A decade later the figure was almost 14%. If trends in 1978-79 continued, by 1980 it would be 18.5% and by 1990 almost one-fourth of the labor force over 25 would be college edu- cated.2 The decline in value was seen most visibly in the earnings of the college educated as compared with those with less education. While the college educated continued to earn more than those with less education, their advantage diminished recently.3 Others coun- tered with the argument that college had benefits for the individual and for society which were not measured in yearly income.4 There has been some evidence that a college education would result in a more satisfying job, and this seemed to be as true at the time of this writing as it was earlier.5 Still others argued that the "horror stories" of underemployed college graduates were an exaggeration. Their feeling was that when college graduates were surveyed imme- diately after graduation, their career had not had a chance to take shape. More appropriate data could only be gathered after the graduate has had a chance to tap the job market.6 Progress on settling the above conflicting arguments could take place only if an analysis of the value of a college education was made that was based on adequate measurement including the timing of the measures. First, which measures and which combination of sev- eral possible outcome measures should be used? Second, with what frequency should the outcomes be measured and at what points in the graduate's career? Third, how many graduating classes should be studied, and which ones should be included? The approach used here to make progress toward understanding this confused and complex matter was to analyze one purposely limited sample of college graduates on which extensive standard data have been collected. In other words, rather than trying to handle an enormous mass of data covering many majors and many colleges and universities, the author decided to limit himself to the B.A.‘s in business from a large and fairly representative university, Michigan State University. Unusually extensive data on these graduates were available, and it was also possible economically to supplement these already existing data by collectirg additional questionnaire information that included career attainment. The analysis to be discussed would do two things. First, it would present descriptive data by measuring four dependent variables and then describing the various populations in terms of these four variables. This would take us further in answering the question of what was happening to the careers of business graduates. Second, it would help us answer the question of why these outcomes were occurring. It would do this through the technique of path analysis. In this way we could infer causal relationships between career success and its antecedents. Dependent Variables The first of the four dependent variables or measures of career attainment was income. This dependent variable had the advantage of easy measurement and quantifiability. Besides its ease of measurement, income would be an appropriate measure of success in a free market system.7 Another advantage was the high frequency of use of this measure in other reported studies. Income also had some disadvantages. Like all self-reported data, there was a danger of falsification. Speculation would suggest that income was especially vulnerable to fal- sification, because it could be integral to one's self-esteem. Another common outcome measure was job satisfaction. Although in some ways harder to measure, job satisfaction has always been a very important goal for college students,8 and success could at least partially be measured by the amount of satisfaction reported. A third measure of career attainment was the degree to which the graduate perceives his or her job as having career potential. 10 In both cases the Cappeto9 used this measure, as did Young. researchers used career potential as a standard by which to compare different graduates, and stated that those having a job with high career potential are on a more advantageous career path than those who see themselves in temporary jobs. A fourth measure was the degree to which the graduate feels underemployed, i.e., the degree to which the skills and knowledge acquired in college were not being fully utilized in the performance of his or her job. Underemployment was a major concern of many who felt that the growing "surplus" of college graduates was forcing many graduates into jobs which did not make use of their college educa- tion.11 Literature Review Leading to the Identification of Antecedent Variables The literature review covers seven surveys of college gradu- ates. These surveys have been selected because they focus on the effect of college on the graduate's current occupation. These sur- veys differed from each other in three ways. First, these seven sur- veys collected data from different cohorts ranging from the class of 1958 to the class of 1977. Second, the seven surveys differed in terms of their populations. Third, the surveys differed in terms of content. The following paragraphs have taken into account the above similarities and differences among the surveys, identified the major variables examined by each survey, and then brought out each survey's conclusions. Finally, the seven surveys were compared with each other in terms of the variables studied and conclusions reached. m This survey Conducted in 1974 involved over 4,000 1961 fresh- men sampled from a population of 125,000 freshmen from 248 colleges. Most had graduated in 1965, and had been employed for nine years. Solmon studied the variable, Relationship. This variable he defined as the degree to which one's work was related to the degree (major) which he or she received. The variable was measured by asking the question, "How closely related is your job to your major field?" Respondents checked one of three responses: "closely related," "somewhat related," "not related." The respondents of this survey indicated that about half of them were working in closely related jobs, 25% were working in jobs that were somewhat related, while 25% were working in unrelated jobs. In analyzing the "relationship" variable in terms of job satisfaction, Solmon concluded at first that "relationship" does little to explain differences in "job satisfaction." However, upon further analysis, when those who were in somewhat related or unrelated jobs voluntarily were separated from those who held somewhat related or unrelated jobs involuntarily, then differences in job satisfaction became evident. Table 1.1 reveals this finding. As can be seen from Table 1.1, of those graduates who held unrelated jobs voluntarily, more than half are very satisfied. How- ever, of those graduates who held unrelated jobs involuntarily, only 26% are very satisfied. Another variable Solmon studied was Time of Career Selection. This variable was measured by asking the question, "At what point in your life did you select your current occupation?" Respondents selected one of the following five responses: "before entering col- lege," "during college," "around graduation time," "within five years after graduation," “more recently." Solmon reported that the time of career selection often played an important role in determining the degree of relationship of current job to major in college. He pointed out that occupations which required specific college training (accounting or engineering, for example) had to be chosen either during or prior to entering college. A third variable studied by Solmon was Recent Inter-Company Mobility. This variable was measured by asking the question, "How long have you been with the same employer?" Respondents chose one of the following four answers: "less than one year," "between one and two years," “between two and three years," "more than three years." When this variable was related to income, it was found that those who had been with their current employer longer were earning a higher salary. Job hopping tended not to increase income. gm RN &m &e New umwwmpumm FF< u< uoz gum Nam Ram Ram flaw emFmeumm umcszom RFm xmm &mm gum Rom vmmwmwumm to> cmumpwm xempczpo> xemuczpo>cH aemucapo> agmp::_o>cH spmmopo umumpmm paczmsom emca_am _F< p< Boz =o_pomcmecam aegmcowum_mm Boa .xuzum coEFom soc; copwommmwpmm now >5 mmmcumumpmmuu.p._ mpamp Harrell This study involved four consecutive cohorts of Stanford MBA's beginning with the graduating class of 1961 and going through the class of 1964. The population studied here was considerably dif- ferent from the population which the MSU Business Alumni Study sur- veyed. However, two aspects of the Harrell study warranted its inclusion in this literature review. First, its purpose was to gather information about those who had chosen a career in management. In this aspect it was closer to the MSU Business Alumni Study than other surveys. Second, several cohorts which Harrell studied allowed for strong inferences to be made about both the effects of a business degree and the effects of later career phenomena. Harrell concluded from his study that the best prediction of success was the personality of the individual. Since the MSU Business Alumni Study did not examine personality variables, this review did not concern itself with these findings. Another variable studied by Harrell was Earnings. He found that first-year earnings was not a good predictor of fifth-year earn- ings. However, fifth-year earnings was a good predictor of tenth-year earnings. A third variable which Harrell studied was Cross-Functional Mobility. Those graduates who had succeeded in achieving a general management position after ten years had changed functional areas twice as often as others. Harrell concluded that this type of mobility was predictive of managerial success. University of California at Irvine (UCI)_ This study surveyed all bachelor's recipients from the UCI beginning with the graduating class of 1967 and ending with the class of 1974, eight cohorts in all. Like the MSU Business Alumni Survey, the UCI study gathered data about both initial full-time employment and current full-time employment. One of the variables studied was Employment Found in Chosen Career Field. This variable could be considered similar to the rela- tionship variable studied by other researchers, although it clearly was not the same variable. For example, a student might not consider his or her major field of study to be a field where he or she would pursue a career. However, it should be noted that students who majored in career-oriented fields such as Engineering or Computer Science reported substantially more success finding employment in their chosen field. This confirmed results reported by other research- ers who showed that students majoring in these fields had more success finding employment related to their major. The same held true at the other end of the spectrum, where graduates who majored in non-career- oriented fields such as fine arts and humanities were involved. At UCI these students had difficulty finding employment in their chosen career, and this finding confirmed the results of other researchers who found that students majoring in these areas also had difficulty finding employment related to their major. The variable was measured by asking the question, "Was this (initial employment) in the career field of your choice at the time you accepted it?" Respondents 1O checked one of three boxes: "yes," "no," "you had not chosen a career field." Results of the survey suggested that the percentage of graduates finding initial employment in their chosen field decreased steadily in recent years. For example, 61% of the 1970 respondents indicated that they found initial employment in their chosen field as compared with only 46% of the 1974 respondents. Another variable studied was Significance of Previous Work Experience. This variable was measured by a question which asked, "To what extent did part-time or summer work experience during the time you were a student contribute to your success in finding a job in the career field of your choice?" Respondents checked one of five boxes ranging from "directly responsible" to "not at all." The results of this question were that recent graduates reported a sig- nificantly greater increase in the importance of previous work experi- ence in finding a job in their career choice. The following numbers indicate the percentage of graduates who said that previous work experience was directly or partially responsible for helping them find a job in their career choice: 1969 - 13.3% 1970 - 22.6% 1971 - 24.6% 1972 - 29.0% 1973 - 32.3% 1974 - 43.7% 11 Young This survey consisted of 873,000 degree recipients who received their degree in June 1972 and who were not enrolled in school by October 1972 when the survey was conducted. Three-fourths of these had received bachelor's degrees, and for the present research we were most concerned about this group. Because of the short time involved between graduation and the survey, most of the conclusions reached had relevance only to the figst full-time employment of college graduates. Young's study examined the variable, Relationship. This vari- able was measured by the question, "We would like to know whether your work on the job you held the week of October 8-14 was related to your major field of study and how much of your training you used." Respondents checked one of the following three boxes: "directly related," "somewhat related," "not related at all." It should be noted that each of the three boxes required the respondent to make a choice between two additional responses. The two additional responses for the "directly related" answer were: "I used much of my training" and "I used some of my training." The two additional responses for both the "somewhat related“ answer and the "not related at all" answer were: "I used some of my training" and "I used little or none of my training." Looking only at those who received bachelor's degrees, the following percentages apply: directly related - 61.4% somewhat related - 15.0% not related at all - 23.5% 12 However, when those who reported that their work was not directly related were asked, "What was the mgjg reason you took a job not directly related to your field?" 49.8% checked the response, "could not find a job in my field." Another variable measured was Career Potential. The question was asked, "Which statement best describes how you regarded that job at the time you accepted it?" Seven choices were given: "job with definite career potential," "job with possible career potential," and other choices which were collapsed into the response, "temporary job." The author then looked at "career potential" as it was affected by "relationship." Table 1.2 shows the percentages that were reported. Table l.2.--Relatedness by Career Potential from Young study. Career Potential P2222? "2:22.28 JOb Potential Potential Directly related 15 30 55 Somewhat related 43 35 22 Not related 71 25 4 "Earnings Expectations" were also assessed by the study. The following question was asked: "How did these earnings compare with the earnings you expected when you received your latest degree?" Five responses were given, ranging from "substantially lower" to 13 "substantially higher." The effect of "relationship" on "earnings expectations" is shown in Table 1.3. Table 1.3.--Relatedness by Earnings Expectations from Young study. Earnings Expectation Relationship Substan- ' About Substan- tial 1y 5333:?“ the Smefigfit tiall y Lower Same 9 Higher Directly related 11 23 53 13 - Somewhat related 24 24 42 8 1 Not related 46 31 14 5 4 Titley This survey was limited to graduates who had received their bachelor's degree in psychology. However, it warranted inclusion in this literature review because it was the only study which looked at graduates at three different points in time, and, also, looked at three different cohorts which represented substantially different economic situations. Specifically, this study looked at the cohort of 1967 graduates one year, five years, and ten years after graduation, and the 1972 graduates one year and five years after graduation, and the 1977 cohort one year after graduation. Respondents were all graduates of Colorado State University and numbered 138. The major variable of interest to the MSU Business Alumni Study measured by Titley was Underemployment. We measured this vari- able by classifying different jobs into three levels. Level 1 jobs 14 included those jobs which required no formal education beyond high school and little training. Some examples of level 1 jobs were: bartender, bookkeeper, fire-fighter, secretary, and waiter. Level 2 jobs were jobs where a college degree would be preferable but not mandatory or where moderate to extensive training would be necessary. Included among level 2 jobs were: library assistant, teacher's aide, insurance broker, executive secretary, and management trainee. Level 3 jobs were those which required a college degree. Some examples were: psychologist, counselor, teacher, account executive, and com- puter analyst. Titley reported the data shown in Table 1.4. Table l.4.--Job Level by Year of Graduation by Years Since Graduating from Titley study. Year of # of Years Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Graduation Since Graduating (%) (%) (%) 36 12 52 1967 5 8 21 71 10 0 21 79 1972 l 62 33 5 5 7 53 40 1977 l 53 33 13 From these data Titley concluded that the outlook for psy- chology graduates was optimistic. He reasoned that the percentage of 1972 graduates who were employed in level 3 jobs jumped from 5% to 40% when they were surveyed five years after graduating. However, he failed to note that 40% is considerably lower than the 71% of 1967 15 graduates who were employed in level 3 jobs five years after gradua- tion. He did not study the reasons behind the lower status of the 1972 graduates five years later. He did mention that 80% of those graduates who were working in level 3 jobs had completed formal edu- cation beyond the bachelor's degree. The fact that so many subjects received higher degrees made it difficult to trace the career attain- ment of these graduates back to their undergraduate degree. We could, however, draw two conclusions from this study. First, the initial employment situation for these graduates changed dramatically between 1967 and 1972. A majority of the 1972 graduates obtained first employment in level 1 jobs. In 1967 the first job of a majority of the graduates was at level 3. The situation had not changed much in 1972 and 1977. Second, we could conclude that the employment situation of college graduates continued to change after their initial employment. We had little information with respect to what might have brought about these changes. Sharp (1970) and Sachdeva (197]) These two studies did not provide a great deal of information on variables pertinent to the MSU Business Alumni Study. They were not selected for that purpose; rather, they were selected to provide further evidence of the changes which occurred during the last two decades and the need to study and compare a wide range of cohorts in order to assess these changes. The first study by Sharp (1970) was a survey of over 20,000 1958 B.A. recipients. These graduates were surveyed in 1963, five 16 years after graduating. From the data Sharp concluded that "business majors are least likely to see a connection between their under- ‘2 This find- graduate studies and the work they do after graduation." ing was a dramatic contrast to more recent surveys. An example was the survey by Sachdeva (1977). This was a survey of 258 business graduates between the ages of 25 and 29. When these individuals were asked about the usefulness of their college degree, 92.5% described it as useful. More than 70% reported that their degree prepared them fer a vocation in the business world. The author concluded that "Most of a sample of former (business) graduates felt that university edu- cation is both essential and useful for their professional career."13 This section of this dissertation considered seven major sur- veys of college graduates. They differed in terms of cohorts studied, output measures, and major conclusions. Figure 1.1 summarizes these studies. Cohorts and Career Stages Many surveys of college graduates occur within one year of graduation. For example, each year Michigan State University surveys their graduates for that year and has been doing this for more than 20 years. Another approach is to survey some one cohort of graduates two or more times during their careers. This second analysis allows inferences about the value of a degree at different stages of the graduate's career. The ideal would be a combination of the above two types of studies; this ideal would survey each of several cohorts who obviously would have graduated at different times when socioeconomic 17 .vmzmw>mg mhm>L=m cm>mm we XLQEEamII.—.p wgsmwm meoocou g.ogu amo— co emu—poo mo Homewu ogu accrue :— uoau>gam memo—poo .ugo>om mounauuea oao_—ou we meopanoucua new so» «moppou muuoaeacm sage mucopawuoe «z» c? mucosa acuuvmvcmpm a n. «cos» ._ we uocoacogu. mmm— cacao: ooc.c~ acugm .h «coacou 5.0:» cc mam—poo mo uuuuuu mg» usage» ssm— cocoa 9:64 .xu—meo>+:= mounavoca mam—Foo mo m:¢.uauugon gen Lam mum—pap :. umxu>eam macaw uvcgovaou seem use a, oucugo u:ou.~.=o.m a m. ages» .— mo uucougoas. o~um~ coma m..<.m mmu:.m:m coo a>ouguom .o muo— Loo» gum.» we. anew; we» canteen :. voxm>eam momuueuev manuauaem mo mauoum non mg» .~ am so .~ .p mouoauuga aupmco>.:= macaw mauuum sop use 39.:: mean —o>o—= ha vocamuoe «sap a ouaecpou soc» m..<.m “new; uewxau use mouaavacm acoooe .— magnum «cosmopqsu .Nsap .umm— xuo—oeuama ~_~ ao_u—h .m copuvmon mmouuam no“ vomoocuc. qu—wacs aeoaomocoe .ococom «so. a mom— .ocovuocsmummoeu mo ueaose cuuuocm a .N co newscvouuu :. coxo>sam mmc.:cau Looxogucou .co.uuuum.uam mouosvocm vomougocp macvccuo Louxugucve Logmpg ._ non .mmc.:eoo vol—co. m.uga co uu:uu.w.=a,m Loumoem u .~ uoxo>eam mupovu vuuupugc: :. anon co.uuoum.uam can moauauacm uu: as» «we?» mcvxau use mouuauuem genome .— ecu mac.eeau csuoomp we mouaauucu pno.~ Ho: .n m=o_uuuuoaxo mmcwccou Loan. usages ummnmeuc. n.gm=¢.uo—og recap; .m Lac» wepu-——:e poogum pavucouon Loosen Num— gonouuo on m=.ca ac: «to: vomooeucp nwgmcovuo_uc Logm_= .~ pawucouog Loueuu c. voxo>c=m use momcuuv vuo=o>uo mv—u,e nouapoeca mmcwccum mouoauucm ecu m.co—osuun =_ anew ocvxmu men mouaavmca “coon; ._ acusxopgew msmp wean vm>pooog oz: ooc.num meao> .N macvcsno vumuucucw xawp—aoe zcoasouneouc_ acoooc .m a_:mcowuopmc commucuc. covuoopom Lootau xpcao no .N cum— momo__ou cowuuoemwuam cowauowmpuam :. voao>cam mew ease :usgmocm new vmmumgucv avgm:o_u~—oc eozmwz .— son a mm:.:gmo :megmogw —ca_ mam—poo coo.m~p cospom .— mco.m:po=ou awn: metamouz “amuse xw>c=m yo came a mucogou toxu>szm cowum—anoa xvaum we «Eu: 18 conditions were markedly different, who would be in different career stages. In addition, this ideal study would survey each of these cohorts upon graduating, and then survey them every year afterwards indefinitely. The ideal study would then allow an assessment of the extent to which and in what dimensions changing socioeconomic condi- tions were impacting career outcomes at different stages in a gradu- ate's career. Including these socioeconomic changes would be especially important given the changes that have occurred since the late 1960's and early 1970's. Freeman14 cites data from the College Placement Council's Salary Surveys that show that this period was the peak in salary offers made to college graduates. Similar data collected by Michigan State University verified this phenomenon for MSU graduates.15 Also, certain previous research studies suggested that the effect of education on one's career was moderated by the career stage of an individual. For example, Blau and Duncan reported that the effect of education on occupational status decreased with the passage of time.16 . . 1 In rev1ew1ng relevant research, Bowen 7 stated that the opposite is true; i.e., the effects of higher education on earnings and occupa- tional status increased over one's lifetime. A second look at three previously cited studies helps us see the different approaches taken by other researchers. Limitations of these three studies will be discussed. Then all seven studies will be compared in terms of the cohort for each study and the number of years since graduation. These will then be compared to the MSU Business Alumni Study. 19 The study which came closest to the ideal was the Harrell study. This Stanford study looked at MBA's who left school five years previously and ten years previously. The surveys began in 1971 and continued at one-year intervals. One limitation of this study was its parochial nature. Clearly, findings concerning Stanford MBA's do not generalize very far. Another limitation was that the sample did not include individuals who were better established in their career. The MBA student who was about 25 years old upon receiv- ing his degree was then 30 or 35 upon being surveyed. Thirty-five might not be far enough along to allow for inferences concerning executives at the peak of their career or beyond. The Sharp study surveyed large groups of bachelors and masters degree recipients from several universities. Questionnaires were sent in 1958 to over 65,000 graduates who received their degree that year. Sixty-five percent returned these questionnaires. A more detailed questionnaire was sent to a stratified sample of the original 1958 graduates five years later in 1963. Of the 23,000 in the stratified sample who received this questionnaire, 83% responded. This survey was valuable in that it made possible inferences about the changes in careers of college graduates. Also, it had very good generalizability. However, it did not go far enough in assessing the value of the degree in the later periods of one's career, and it only gave us information about those who entered the labor force in 1958. The Solmon study was similar to the Sharp study except that the Salmon-study graduates entered the labor force in 1965 and were surveyed at a later stage in their career. Like the Sharp study, this 20 group was a large one with many majors represented and attending many different colleges. This group was surveyed in 1961 as fresh- men, again in 1965, the year of graduation, again in 1971, six years after graduation, and again in 1974, nine years after graduation. The limitations of this survey were that it did not give insights into the value of a degree beyond nine years after graduating, and that it only made possible inferences about graduates who entered the labor force in 1965. Although the MSU Business Alumni Survey was not set up to be an ideal study, it contributed toward progress dealing with the ques- tions that have been raised but not settled by other writers. It did this in three ways. First, it was designed to look at alumni who were just beginning their careers and compared them with those who received their degree 20 years ago. It also looked at several cohorts which received their degree less than 20 years ago so it was in a position to assess the effect of a business degree at several different career stages. Second, it looked at alumni who obtained their degree recently and compared their career beginning to the career beginning of those who graduated when supply and demand of college graduates was more favorable to the graduates. It did this by looking at the first full-time job after graduation. Even though so much has been written about the recent decline of the value of a college degree, no other study reviewed has looked at the career beginnings of such a large range of cohorts in order to determine the extent to which the declining value affected graduates beginning their careers. 21 Third, it synthesized previous research into a causal model which generated hypotheses among the six variables which had not been tested before. The MSU Business Alumni Survey was not able to general- ize to other universities or to other majors. However, it should be pointed out that a large university like Michigan State came closer to representing other graduates than would a small or very selective college. This assertion is supported by data showing that starting salary offers made to MSU graduates did not differ greatly from the average starting salaries of graduates of other universities. Hypotheses In order to reduce the confusion over the value of a college degree referred to at the beginning of this chapter, research that takes into account two sets of factors would appear to be necessary. The first set of factors focused on including in the research the elements of the "ideal model": a long series of cohorts stretching over a long series of years to capture trends in effects of shifting social and economic conditions, and, also, measurements made at dif- ferent intervals in the career of the college graduate. The second set of factors focused on developing a causal model which explains the career outcomes of a college graduate and which is grounded in the research reviewed which is pertinent to the MSU Business Alumni Study. This model would include the following constructs: the rela- tionship of one's college major to the content of his first job after college, the degree to which one's pre—graduation work experience led to a first post-graduation job, an early career choice, the degree 22 of success of one's first post-graduation job and the degree of developmental mobility. It will be seen that the question of rele- vance of college graduation to career success, or value of the col- lege degree, is tempered by other circumstances that should be taken into account. These other circumstances are referred to here as the second set of factors, and are factors that emerged from the survey of literature reported above. Figure 1.2 shows the six constructs which comprise the second set of factors and the manner in which they may be causally related to each other. "Relationship" ' The "relationship" between a graduate's first job and his college degree has been a central concern to many researchers recently. The large survey taken in 1972 by Young showed that many recent graduates, especially social science graduates, were unable to find work directly related to their major.18 While this finding was not greatly different from studies of graduates in the mid-1960's, there was one major difference, that being the increased percentage who reported that they held unrelated jobs involuntarily. The Salmon study (1977) offers a good comparison.19 It will be recalled that, like Young's study, this study surveyed a large group of graduates from many different universities. Of those who reported holding jobs not directly related, 90% said that they held these jobs voluntarily. They checked reasons such as "never planned to take a closely related job" and "prefer line of work not closely related." However, when the Young group was asked why their job was not related, the most often checked answer was, "it was the only job I could find." 23 .mpzmumumucm my? new mmwuusm now «emceau eo quos Pmmzmu--.~.~ mgzmwm new >u_Pwnoz .<.m-umoa on em; paucwsaopm>mo wucmwemaxm xeoz to mucosa .<.m-mta ;u_;= op mmemmo new emcee mmmuosm mmmouzm on mmemm non ucwcezu Am new ume_u m mmmcpmzm em ea mmemma yo mmcmmo . mmmcumumpmm muwosu gmmcmu xpemm 24 Results of the UCI study also confirmed this trend. For example, 61% of the graduates found a first job in their chosen career field. Four years later (1974), only 46% had succeeded in finding a first job in their chosen career field.20 It seems likely that finding a job which is related to one's major field of study would be a desirable thing for a graduate to do. In fact, research supports this notion. Solmon showed that graduates who are involuntarily employed in work not closely related to their major are significantly less satisfied.2] Young has shown that unrelated first jobs lead to lower-salary jobs and jobs with less career potential.22 H1: A graduate whose first full-time job is related to his business degree will tend to be more successful in his first full-time job. Early Career Choice Since the variable, Relationship, is of such practical inter- est, we can then apprOpriately ask what factors affect the relation- ship of a graduate's major to his or her job. Previous research has attempted to answer this question by looking at different majors and concluding that some majors are more likely to lead to a related job than others.23’24 Usually these majors are considered career-oriented and include engineering, business, packaging, etc. Since the MSU Business Alumni Study surveys only those who majored in business, answering this question in terms of the major loses much of its meaning. 25 Other factors besides major have been studied. For instance, Solmon studied the impact of when a career is chosen with graduates, surveyed in 1974, who were freshmen in 1961.25 He found that graduates working in unrelated jobs were more likely to have chosen their career after college. Two explanations exist in this case. First, in order to acquire a job which makes use of specific college training, there needs to be a choice of enrolling in that particular degree program. The second explanation is that a graduate who obtains work after receiving his degree could then choose his current occupation as a career. At any rate, it has been shown that those choosing a career before graduation are more likely to find a first job in a field which is related to their major. H2: An early career choice will lead to a first full-time job which is related to the business degree. Previous Work Experience Along these same lines, other researchers attempted to deter- mine the factors which will increase the graduate's chances of finding work in his chosen field. The UCI study determined that between 1967 and 1974 there was a significant increase in the importance of previous work experience in securing a job in one's chosen field.26 H3: A graduate whose pre-B.A. work experience led to his first post-B.A. job will tend to have a first post-B.A. job which is related to his major. Besides understanding the factors which will contribute to a related job, the MSU Business Alumni Study sought to determine the 26 effects of a related job on the graduate's career. The MSU Business Alumni Study attempted to show that landing a first job which was related to one's major will have an indirect effect on a graduate's later career success. It will indirectly affect the graduate's cur- rent job success through two factors: first job and "developmental mobility." First Full-Time Job Research has suggested a strong link between first full-time job success and current job success. Harrell has pointed out that certain entry-level jobs for MBA's but not others will tend to result in general management positions within ten years.27 Other studies have shown that salary in the first job can be a 28 predictor of salary in later jobs. However, still others have shown that salary during the first year does not predict salary five years later.29 H4: A successful first full-time job will lead to current job success. DevelOpmental Mobility Previous research carried out on MBA students has suggested that certain routes through the organization will result in a higher level of career success. In particular, starting out in certain func- tional areas is advantageous, as is rotating across functional areas. It was found that general managers ten years out of school had changed their functional field twice as often as non-general managers who remained functional specialists.3O 27 Other research carried out among executives reached similar . 31 conclu510ns. H5: DevelOpmental mobility will lead to current job success. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY This chapter includes the following sections: sample tested, measures used, research design, testable hypotheses, analysis, and summary. Sample Tested The population from which this sample came is the bachelor's recipients from the MSU College of Business during the years 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1975, and 1977, who had not subsequently received a higher degree and who were employed full-time in December of 1978. The number and percentage of all bachelor's recipients for the years of interest are shown in the following tabulation: 1958 = 767 (15.6%) 1963 = 533 (10.8%) 1968 = 780 (15.9%) 1973 = 814 (16.6%) 1975 = 843 (17.1%) 1978 = 1112. (24.0%) Total = 4916 (100%) The Alumni Association had a record of the addresses for 2,572 of the 4,916 graduates. The following figures indicate the 28 29 percentage of graduates for whom current addresses were available by year of graduation. 1958 = 3.2% 1963 = 2.8% 1968 = 2.1% 1973 = 26.1% 1975 = 26.5% 1977 = gggg% 99.9% Two hundred twelve names were eliminated from the list of 2,572 names because records showed that these graduates had also obtained a higher degree from MSU. An initial mailing was sent to the remaining 2,360 graduates during the first week of December, 1978. Each graduate was sent an explanatory letter and a return envelope printed on one side of a sheet of paper with the printed questionnaire on the other side. (See Appendix.) A second mailing was sent out during the first week of January, 1979, to all those who had not yet responded to the first mailing. The second mailing included a slightly different letter (see Appendix) and as before a copy of the questionnaire. 0f the 2,360 questionnaires sent out, 144 were returned as bad addresses. Another 226 were unusable for one of the following three reasons. The graduate indicated that he had received a higher degree (179), was not currently employed (32), or returned the questionnaire after the analysis had been performed (15). A total of 931 questionnaires were usable. The 30 total return rate was 52.2% with the usable response rate at 42% of the 2,216 graduates who were sent the questionnaire. The 931 respondents who make up the sample for this study range in age from 22 to 52. The percentage of the total for each graduating class is as follows: 1958 = 1.6% 1963 = 1.6% 1968 = .5% 1973 = 18.8% 1975 = 22.6% 1977 = 37.8% Did not specify = 17.1%* Total = 100% They received their degrees in the following major areas: Accounting = 22.8% Finance = 3.7% Hotel & Restaurant Management = 14.3% Business Education = 2.1% Economics = 4.0% Marketing & Transportation = 10.1% General Business & Office Administration = 18.9% Personnel = 4.6% *A number of graduates removed the address label from the return envelope. This label contained information about their year of graduation and their major. Consequently, this information was not available for these graduates. The responses of this group, fortu- nately for this study, did not differ in any way from the responses of those graduates who left their address labels intact. 31 Operations Research = 1.9% Did Not Specify = 17.6%* Total = 100% Ninety-seven and one-half percent were white and 74.3% were male. The graduates described their current occupation as: Educator = 1.7% Other Professional = 3.5% Administrator = 13.9% Sales Representative = 14.9% Accountant = 25.7% Mathematician, Scientist, Analyst = 4.5% Office Employee = 5.9% Other 29.8% 99.9% Total In summary, the sample consists of 931 graduates representing nine different majors within the MSU College of Business. Three- fourths of these were male and approximately 95% graduated after 1972. Because of the low percentages of graduates who received their degree in the graduation years prior to 1972, strong inferences can be made only for the more recent graduates. *A number of graduates removed the address label from the return envelope. This label contained information about their year of graduation and their major. Consequently, this information was not available for these graduates. The responses of this group, fortu- nately for this study, did not differ in any way from the responses of those graduates who left their address labels intact. 32 Measures The basic model tested consists of six constructs. Each of these constructs is measured by one or more questionnaire items. For each construct the item(s) will be listed, reliability estimates will be reported, and, if any items were derived from previous research sources, those sources will be identified. Since the first two constructs could be measured easily, only one item was necessary to measure these constructs. However, in the case of the other constructs, at least two items were used in order to try to obtain greater measurement accuracy. Construct 1: Time of Career Choice This construct was measured by one item from the UCI study: At what point in your life did you select your current occupa- tion or career? _____ Before entering college ____ After starting college, but before senior year of college _____During senior year _____Within one year of graduation _____ Later than five years after graduation Construct 2: Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job This construct was measured by one item, and this also was from the UCI Study. 33 To what extent did your work experience during the time you were in college contribute to your success in finding your first job after graduation? _____Did not have work experience in college ____ Very great effect I____ Significant effect _____Some effect _____Very little effect _____No effect Construct 3: Relation of First Full-Time Job to Business Degree These three items have a standard score coefficient alpha of .87 and are from the Solmon Study. 1. My business degree was useful in that it gave me knowledge and skills which I used in my first job. _____Strongly agree _____Agree _____Neither agree or disagree _____ Disagree ____ Strongly disagree 2. I used the content of my major course in my first job: ____ A great deal __ Frequently _____Sometimes _____Very little __ Not at all 34 3. How closely related was your first job to your degree in business? _____Very closely related _____Closely related _____Somewhat related _____Slight1y related ____ Not related Construct 4: Success of First Full-Time Job These four items have a standard score coefficient alpha of .68, and are adapted from the Young study and the Solmon study. 1. How much potential for career success did your first job offer? __ A great deal __‘__A fair amount _____Some ____.Little _ None 2. During your first job, did other employees doing jobs similar to yours have a degree as high as yours? _____All or almost all had a degree as high or higher than mine ____.More than half had a degree as high as mine ____ About half had a degree as high as mine ____ Less than half had a degree as high as mine Few or none had a degree as high as mine 35 3. All in all, how satisfied were you with your first job? __ Very satisfied __ Satisfied __ Somewhat satisfied __ Neither satisfied or dissatisfied __ Somewhat dissatisfied _ Dissatisfied __ Very dissatisfied 4. What was your starting annual salary before taxes in your first job job? __ More than $60,000 __ $40,000-60,000 __ $35,000-39,999 _ $30,000-34,999 __ $25,000-29,999 __ $20,000-24,999 __ $17,000-l9,999 __ $14,000-16,999 __ $12,000-13,999 __ $10,000-11,999 _$ 8,000- 9,999 ___$ 6,000- 7,999 __ Below $6,000 36 Construct 5: Deve10pmental Mobility The two items in this construct have a standard score coef- ficient alpha of .70. After receiving your degree from MSU: 1. How many times have you changed your functional area (sales, personnel, etc.)? 2. How many promotions have you had (including changing companies which resulted in a higher position) ____ ___ More than 10 ____ 8-10 ____ 6-7 ____4-5 Construct 6: Success on Current Job The four items in this construct have a standard score coeffi- cient alpha of .63, and are adapted from the Young study and the Salmon study. 1. How much potential for career success does your current job offer: _____A great deal _____A fair amount _____Some Little None 37 In your current job, do other employees doing jobs similar to yours have a degree as high as yours? All or almost all had a degree as high or higher than mine More than half had a degree as high as mine About half had a degree as high as mine Less than half had a degree as high as mine Few or none had a degree as high as mine All in all, how satisfied are you with your current job? Very satisfied Satisfied Somewhat satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Somewhat dissatisfied Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied What was your starting annual salary before taxes in your current .199? More than $60,000 $40,000-60,000 $35,000-39.999 $30.000-34.999 $25,000-29.999 $20,000-24,999 $17,000-19.999 $14,000-16,999 38 __ $12,000-13,999 __ $10,000-11,999 _$ 8,000- 9,999 ___$ 6,000— 7,999 _____Below $6,000 Table 2.1 summarizes the six constructs and their measure- ment. Testable Hypotheses This section will list the hypotheses to be tested in both written and symbolic form. Hypothesis 1: An early career choice leads to a first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree. Symbolically: T + R Legend: T = Time of career choice. R = Degree to which a graduate obtains a first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree. Hypothesis 2: Pre-B.A. work experience which aids the graduate in obtaining a first post-B.A. full-time job will lead to the graduate obtaining a first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree. Symbolically: P + R Legend: P = Degree to which previous work experience aided the graduate in obtaining a first full-time job. 39 cospom a o==o> mm. o mmouoom goo pomecou u PPBLLBI om. N aoepeaoz Pmocmerpm>ma a cospom a mooo> mm. o mmoooom goo umcwu d oocmmo mmocwmom op :oEFom um. m ooo omemm eo cowuopom m poo .<.m-pmoo “move op coo mocoweooxm xcoz Ho: oo._ p .<.m-oco goes: op mocmoo o Ho: oo.F F oowogu cooeou eo me?» A mEopH eo—Pswm Lo Amogopg8223m--.~.m mpnoh 40 Hypothesis 3: A first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree will lead to first job success. Symbolically: R + F Legend: F = Degree of initial job success Hypothesis 4: A successful first full-time job will lead to job success in the current job. Symbolically: F + C Legend: C = Degree of current job success Hypothesis 5: A successful first full-time job will lead to a greater degree of developmental mobility. Symbolically: F + 0 Legend: 0 = Degree of developmental mobility Hypothesis 6: A greater degree of developmental mobility will lead to job success in the current job. Symbolically: D + C Analysis Path analysis will be used to test these hypotheses. As stated by Billings and Wroten, "Path analysis is a technique that uses ordinary least squares regression to help the researcher test the consequences of proposed causal relationships among a set of vari- ables."32 It should be noted that path analysis does not employ an ’ experimental design, and therefore, cannot "prove" that one variable causes another. Rather, it is used to determine the extent to which data involving several variables fit a proposed causal model. 41 Billings and Wroten have listed several assumptions of a path analytic technique. These assumptions will be discussed here with the purpose of identifying potential limitations of this model, as well as points of departure for further research. A primary assump— tion is that the residuals of all endogenous variables in the model are uncorrelated. It is an impossible task to examine all possible causes of each variable in order to test for correlated residuals. A more practical approach is to consider experiences with any vari- ables which have been explored in previous similar studies and have been identified in these studies as potential cuases of more than one endogenous variable. In Harrell's study of MBA's33 he found that personality variables were predictive of earnings five years after graduation and also ten years after graduation. This finding suggests that per- sonality variables could also be residuals for both first full-time job success and current job success in the MSU sample. If the gradu- ate's personality was a residual for both initial job success and current job success, then the path between these two might we weakened. Harrell's study also f0und that second-year GPA was predictive of both five-year earnings and ten-year earnings. Thus, GPA might be a pos- sible residual for both first job success and current job success and the link would be further weakened. Another possibility of two variables containing correlated residuals is the case involving the relation of the business degree to first job content and success on the first job. It has been shown that a graduate's major affects the relation between his first job and his 42 major.34 Also, major affects earnings.35 In the case of the MSU sample, all graduates were members of the College of Business; how- ever, they received different majors within the College of Business. It will be recalled that Sachdeva36 examined business graduates who were working and who majored in business education versus more tradi- tional majors such as accounting and marketing. He found little dif- ference between the "education" group and the "business" group. This finding of Sachdeva provides some evidence that the major of a busi- ness graduate is not a residual of the Relation variable or the degree of first job success. This finding, of course, adds strength to this assumption of the proposed path model. Another central assumption of path analysis was one-way causality. Although the data were collected at one point in time, the variables in the MSU model were time-ordered, and therefore this assumption was not violated in the model. A third assumption of path analysis was that the relation- ships among the variables were linear. There have been no studies examined which have found a curvilinear relationship among the vari- ables studied. (In the case of the MSU sample, however, scattergrams of relationships were examined as a precaution against non-linearity and none was found.) A fourth assumption was that variables in the model were additive. Again, no studies have been found which report an inter- active effect among variables in affecting a third variable, so that there is no reason seriously to question the additivity assumption. 43 The final assumption, according to Billings and Wroten, was that interval measures be used to describe variables. As is the case with most psychological measures, this assumption was a difficult one to meet. It should be noted, however, that during the construction of the measuring instrument there was a conscious attempt to logically construct items so that this assumption would not be stretched too far. More positively, however, Billings and Wroten report that the path analytic technique is robust in regard to this assumption. Summary Nine hundred thirty-one graduates from the MSU College of Business, most of whom graduated later than 1972, made up the sample for this study. Fifteen items from a questionnaire made up the six variables which reflected the thrust of this study. These variables are arranged into a set of non-recursive structural equations. This Developmental ' Mobilit Current Job Success The assumptions underlying the applicability of path analysis to model is duplicated here. . Success 0 ' Time of Career Choice Previous Work Experience these equations were identified and discussed in terms of this study. CHAPTER III RESULTS In this chapter the six hypotheses are stated and now, for the first time in this paper, tested. In each case the frequencies for each item are reported and then a table making the appropriate comparison is presented. Also, both chi square and correlational analysis is applied, and then an accept or reject statement is made in regard to the hypothesis. In addition, some items are collapsed so that the information can be presented in a more concise and com- prehensible way. Finally, the path model, essentially a multiple regression technique, is presented with the path coefficients and residuals included. Because of the low percentage of graduates who received their degree in the graduation years prior to 1972, strong inferences can be made only for the more recent graduates. Hl: An early career choice will lead to a first full- time job which clearly uses the business degree. The 931 respondents made their career choice at the times shown in Table 3.1. The 931 respondents answered the "relatedness" question as shown in Table 3.2. 44 45 Table 3.1.--Responses for Early Career Choice. . Number Choosing % Choosing This Early Career Ch01ce This Response Response Before entering college 163 17.5 After starting college but before senior year 350 37.6 of college During senior year 84 9.0 Within one year after graduation 184 19°8 Within five years after graduation (but more than 128 13.7 one year after graduation) Later than five years 22 after graduation Total 931 100.0 2.4 Table 3.2.--Responses for Relatedness. Degree of Relatedness Number Choosing % Choosing This This Response Response Closely related 400 43.0 Related 207 22.2 Somewhat related 155 16.6 Slightly related 105 11.3 Not related 64 6.9 Total 931 100.0 46 When the Early Career Choice is compared to the relatedness of the first-full-time job to the graduate's major, Table 3.3 results. Table 3.3.--Early Career Choice by Relatedness. Relatedness Early . Some- Ver Career Choice R #0: d :IIQQtéy what gl?si]fi Closgly Total e a e e a e Related e a e Related Before entering college 4 13 22 26 98 161 Before senior year 11 27 41 83 188 350 During senior year 6 7 20 23 28 84 Within one year after graduation 26 38 41 44 35 184 Within five years after graduation 16 19 26 26 41 128 Later than five years after 1 l 5 5 10 22 graduation — —- — —— —— —— Total 64 105 155 207 400 931 Raw chi square = 123.65171 with 20 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0001. Correlations between the Early Career Choice variable and the three Relatedness items are shown in Table 3.4. Taken together, the correlation between the variable Egyly, Career Choice and Relatedness is .24 (significant at .01 level). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .26 (significant at .01 level). Accept H1. 47 Table 3.4.--Correlations of Early Career Choice and Relatedness. Business Degree Content of Gave Useful Major Courses JoboWganglgted Knowledge and Was Used on De ree Skills Job 9 Early Career .]5* .2]* .28* Choice *Significantly different from 0 at the .01 level. The Relatedness variable can be dichotomized* into the follow- ing parts: related and not related, with the responses very closely related and closely related forming the first part, and the responses somewhat related, slightly related, and not related forming the second part. Likewise, the time of career choice variable can be dichotomized into the following parts: before senior year and after senior year, with the first two responses forming the first part and the last three responses forming the second part. This will result in Table 3.5. Categorizing the data in this way reveals that of those whose first job was related, 65% had chosen their career before their senior year. However, of those whose first job was unrelated only 33% had chosen their career before senior year. *All variables in this thesis are dichotomized in such a way that a 50-50 split is obtained, or the closest possible to 50-50. 48 Table 3.5.--Dichotomized Early Career Choice by dichotomized Relatedness. Early Career Choice Relatedness Total Not Related Related Before senior year 118 395 513 After senior year 206 _2_l_2_ £8 Total 324 607 931 H2: Pre-B.A. work experience which aids the graduate in obtaining a first post-B.A. full-time job will lead to the graduate obtaining a first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree. The 931 respondents indicated the degree to which previous work experience led to their first job. (See Table 3.6.) Table 3.6.--Responses for Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job. Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to a First Number Choosing % Choosing This Post-B.A. Full-Time Job Th's ResP°"se RESP°"59 Very great effect 150 16.1 Significant effect 158 17.0 Some effect 194 20.8 Very little effect 173 18.6 No effect 256_ 27.5 Total 931 . 100.0 49 When the Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job is compared to the relatedness of the first full-time job to the graduate's major, Table 3.7 results. Table 3.7.--Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job by Relatedness. . Relatedness WorErgxgggience Not Slightly 352:- Closely CYggzly Total Related Related Related Related Related Very great effect 12 7 16 27 88 150 Significant effect 3 15 34 43 63 158 Some effect 10 20 32 50 82 194 Very little effect 10 23 34 33 73 173 No effect 29 4O 39 54 94 256 Total ET TEE Ts? 5 T66 '93? Raw Chi Square = 53.81 with 16 degrees of freedom. Significance = .0001. Correlations between the Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experi- ence Led to First Post-B.A. Full-Time Job variable and the three relatedness items are shown in Table 3.8. Taken together, the correlation between Degree to Which Previous Work Experience Led to First Full-Time Job and Relatedness is .14 (significant at .01). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .15 (significant at .01). Accept H2. 50 Table 3.8.-—Correlations of Degree to Which Pre—B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job and dichotomized Relatedness. Business Degree Content of Gave Useful Major Courses J020w335§:;2:9d Knowledge and Was Used on De ree Skills Job 9 Previous Work .09* .]5* .]4* Experience *Significantly different from O at the .01 level. The Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job variable can be dichotomized into the following parts: significant effect and little effect. The Relatedness variable can be dichotomized in the same way as was done for the Time of Career Choice variable. This resulted in Table 3.9. Table 3.9.-~Dichotomized Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job by dichotomized Relatedness. Previous Work REIEtEdHESS Total Experience Not Related Related Significant effect 149 353 502 Little effect 115_ 254. 429 Tota1 324 607 931 Categorizing the data in this way reveals that 70% of those graduates whose previous work experience helped them land their first job began their career in a related job. However, only 59% of those 51 graduates whose previous work experience had little or no effect on obtaining their first job began their career in a related job. H3: A first full-time job which clearly uses the business degree will lead to initial job success. Four measures of initial job success were taken: career potential, job status, job satisfaction, and salary. The 931 respon- dents formed the distribution among these items as shown in Table 3.10. Table 3.10.--Responses to four outcome measures of First Job Success. Outcome Measure Number ChOOSIDQ % Choosing This This Response Response Career Potential A great deal 360 38.7 A fair amount 241 25.9 Some 155 16.6 Little 117 12.6 None .EEI 6.2 Total 931 100.0 Job Status Almost all had a bachelor's degree 434 46.7 More than half had a bachelor's degree 98 10.5 About half had a bachelor's degree 93 10.0 Less than half had a bachelor's degree 96 10.3 Few or none had a bachelor's degree 210_ 22.6 Tota1 931 100.0 52 Table 3.10.-~Continued. outcome Measure Number Choosing % Choosing This This Response Response Job Satisfaction Very satisfied 213 22.9 Satisfied 246 26.4 Somewhat satisfied 177 19.0 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 56 6.0 Somewhat dissatisfied 94 10.1 Dissatisfied 75 8.1 Very dissatisfied 70 7.5 Total 931 100.0 Salary_(in 1978 dollars) $70,000 1 .1 $50,000 0 0 $37,500 0 0 $32,500 2 .2 $27,500 9 1.0 $22,500 25 2.7 $18,500 99 10.6 $15,500 238 25.6 $13,000 254 27.3 $11,000 146 15.7 $ 9,000 97 10.4 $ 7,000 41 4.4 $ 5,000 _13 __2._0 Total 931 100.0 When the relatedness of the first job to the graduate's majoris compared to these four measures of first job success, Table 3.11 results . Soc. .1. mucmuwwwcmwm Eovwmgn— mo mmmgamu 2. 5.2.3 N.N¢_. n wgmacm Eu :3. _mm eme mm mm om opm .Booe “mm. mM.. Na. Wm. .ma .mml u688_mc 86: mo_ mm 5_ N_ N_ Am ompa_mc »_peoe_m mm, om om NN me we omo8_mc paezoeom how _o_ m_ mm mm Ne ompa_oc spamopo ooe «em me mm mm Fm 8688282 »_mmo_u stm> now: go; Popoh magnum mmoooouopom 3 5 Fooo. u oucoowepcmwm sooooem wo momemoo m_ saw: c.mo~ u ogooom qu 3mm .mm com Fem mm_ N__ mm Pooch 58 m m mmw. mum. .mm empapmc ooz mo_ mm om om «N N_ 5588.62 Appgme_m mm, 05 he an op N_ ompapmc omezmeom Rom mo .N mm mm m ompepmc apmmopo ooe MNN em me PM a ompw_me »_mmo_u scm> puma pcoos< Pooch pomew < Loom < meow onpwo mooz mmocoopopom Pmepcmpoa .mmouoom non “mew; mo monomoos oeoouoo Lace an mmoooouopoxuu.__.m opooh 54 Nooo. u oocoopwpcowm scoops; eo mooemmo co sup: oo.mm u oeooom New 3oz NOO N N O ON OO ONN OON OON NO NO ON NOOON «OI O1 OI H1 m: M. : ON ON O O O .5322 ooz OON N N O N N ON NN NN ON ON N OOOONOL NNOOONNO OON O O N O ON ON NO NO O. O N OOOONOL OOOzOeOm NON O N N O NN NO OO ON ON O N OOOONOL ONOAONO OOO O O N ON HO NNN OON NO OO O NN OOOONOL NNOOONO NNOO .OOON ON O.NO O.NN O.NN 0.0_ 0.0N O. NN O N m mmOOOOOONON Nm.OOOO NOONOO pooo. u $230chum Eocwwgm we momgmmu em 5:: me— n 9535 Eu 33— _OO ON ON OO Om NNN OON ONN NOOON me. mm. .mu .m1 Um. mw1. mm». .MHl OOOONOL OOz ON ON 2 ON N S 2 S 38.22 .2225 mm. NN OO Om NN NN NN ON OOOONOL OOOOOOOO NON Om NO OO ON ON NN ON OOOONOL ONOOONO OOO OON OON NO NN ON ON ON OOOONOL ONOOONO NNOO OONNANOOO OONNONOOO >go> -mro pouch Agm> mmmcumuopmm OONOOOLOVOOO .OOOONOOOO--.N_.O ONOON 55 Correlations among the three relatedness items and the four measures of first job success are as shown in Table 3.12. Table 3.12.--Corre1ations of Relatedness and First Job Success. Job Job Job Potential Status Satisfaction Salary Business degree gave useful knowledge and .40* .35* .37* .10* skills Content of major courses * * * * was used on job .36 .35 .31 .13 Job was related to .4], .37, .30, .09, business degree *Significantly different from O at the .01 level. The correlation between Relatedness and First Job Success as measured by the above items is .46 (significant at .01). The esti- mated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .59 (significant at .01). Accept H3. The four measures of job success can be dichotomized as fol- lows: a great deal or a fair amount of career potential = high potential; some, little, or no career potential = low potential; more than half had a bachelor's degree high status; about half or less than half had a bachelor's degree low status. (Very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with job = job satisfaction. (Not satisfied or dissatisfied with job = job dissatisfaction. 56 (More than $15,000 in salary high salary. (Less than $15,000 in salary - low salary. Dichotomizing Relatedness and First Job Success in this way produces Table 3.13. Table 3.13.--Dichotomized Relatedness by dichotomized First Job Success. Salary Satisfaction Status Potential Total Low High Dis. Sat. Low High Low High Related 336 271 145 462 198 409 150 457 607 ”0' 221 103 150 174 201 123 182 144 324 Related __ __ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ Total 557 374 295 636 399 532 330 601 931 Organizing the data in this way shows that 45% of those gradu- ates who are in related jobs are earning a high salary, while only 31% of those who are in unrelated jobs are earning a high salary. The figures for job potential, job status, and job satisfaction are even more striking. For those graduates whose first job was related, 75% had a job with high potential, 67% had a job with high status, and 76% said they were satisfied with their job. However, of those graduates whose first job was unrelated, 44% had a job with high potential, 37% had a job with high status, and 46% said they were satisfied with their job. H4: A successful first full-time job will lead to current job success. 57 The four measures of current job success are the same measures as first job success, but, of course, for the current rather than the first job. The graduates in this study f0rmed the distributions among the four measures of job success as shown in Table 3.14. Table 3.14.--Responses to four outcome measures of Current Job Success. Number Choosing % Choosing This Outcome Measure This Response Response Career Potential A great deal 322 46.9 A fair amount 118 17.2 Some 88 12.8 Little 69 10.1 None _£¥l 13.0 Total 686* 100.0 Job Status Almost all had a bachelor's degree 413 60.2 More than half had a bachelor's degree 189 27.5 About half had a bachelor's degree 47 6.9 Less than half had a bachelor's degree 20 2.9 Few or none had a bachelor's degree 17 2.5 Total 686* 100.0 Table 3.14.--Continued. 58 Outcome Measure Number Choosing % Choosing This This Response Response Job Satisfaction Very satisfied 227 33.2 Satisfied 285 41.5 Somewhat satisfied 99 14.4 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied 12 1.7 Somewhat dissatisfied 37 5.4 Dissatisfied 15 2.2 Very dissatisfied _11_ __l;6_ Total 686* 100.0 Salary (in 1978 dollars) $70,000 4 0.6 $50,000 10 1.5 $37,500 9 1.3 $32,500 18 2.6 $27,500 48 7.0 $22,500 122 17.8 $18,500 139 20.3 $15,500 155 22.6 $13,000 70 13.1 $11,000 53 7.7 $ 9,000 10 1.5 $ 7.000 12 1.7 $ 5,000 _;Hi __2;§_ Total 585* 100.0 *Because 245 respondents were still currently working at their first full-time job, they were eliminated from this analysis. Their inclusion would obviously have introduced a degree of spuriousness. 59 When these four current job measures are compared to the four first job measures, Table 3.15 (p. 60) results. Correlations among the four measures of current and first job success are as shown in Table 3.16. Table 3.16.--Corre1ations of First Job Success and Current Job Success. Current Job F‘rSt J°b Job Job Job Potential Status Satisfaction Salary Job potential .35* .09 .25* .17* Job status .13* .44* .09 .16* Job satisfaction .25* .14* .27* .16* Salary .21* .08 .17* .42* *Significantly different from O at the .01 level. The correlation between First Job Success and Current Job Success is .43 (significant at .01). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .63 (significant at .01). Accept H4. Collapsing these items in the same way as before gives the figures shown in Table 3.17 (p. 63). Nooo. u mocoowmwcmwm Eooomem mo Noocmmo ON sup: m.mN~ u oeooom Ngu 3oz ONO NNN NNN NN NO ON NOOON «NH .mw. .mm. .MH .mfl Hm. zoo NN ON NN ON ON N NN NN ON ON ON O NN NN NN N N N NNN OON NN NN ON NN OON: OON: 3O; NNNON NONONN OOO NOOLLOO NONOON OOO ONLNN “w NOOO. n OOOOONNNOONN EOOOOLN NO NOOLOOO ON OON: N.NON OLNOON NOO NON ONO NNO NNN NO ON NN NONON .le mum. mmw. Mm. Mm. mm. OOOZ ON OO ON NN O N NNONNO NNN NO NO ON N N NOON ONN ON ON N N N NOOOOO LNON < NNN OON NN N N N NOOO NOOLO O NOOO NOOOsO NEON O NNNO OOO ON OO O NONON NOOLO < LNOO O N z MOONNNHNH Nowucouoo coo Homecoo .Nmoouom goo ucoNNoo an mmouuom now umswuuu.mp.m opnoh 61 NOOO. n NOOOONNNOONN soowwNN No Nwwcmwo om :NNz O.O- u weooom Ngu :Nm Owe NNN NNN mm NN mN mN NN NNNoN Mm1. .MHI .mm: .m1 mm. mm. Nu. .m: OONNNNNONNNO NOON NO N om NN O m m N owNNNNNNNNNo owNNNNNNNNNo mN NN NN mN N m N o Nogzweom owNNNNNNNNNo co: NON mm NN mm N m N N owNNNNNNN Nogzweom NNN NO mm ON N N N N owNNNNuNm NNN Nm mm NN o m N N owNNNNNNN Ngw> . .NNm .NNNNNQ .NNNNNQ . pom . . . . NNNNNo New NON Nos: Loz pom “we: NONNNo New coNNuo NNNN FGHOP > IOEOW chm—Lu. mmz IwEOW > @094 “.mpme :oNNooNNNNNm goo poweeou .OOOONNOOO--.ON.N ONOON 62 Nooo. u wocwoNNNcmNm EoowwNN No Nwwgmwo NN nNNz N.NoN u weooom NnN 3mm NNN O oN N NN NO NNN NNN NNN om NN oN NN NN NONoN .mm. NO. mm. mm. Na. NO. nw1. MOI. Nwl. mm. n». nw. mm. mm. OOO.O NN o o N o o N N N N N N N o ooo.N NN o o o o o O N NN NN NN O N N ooo.m NNN o O N O O NN NN ON NN N N N N coo.NN NNN o N o N N NN NO NN mN NN N N N ooo.NN NNN N N N N NN NN NO NN N N o N O NNN.NN ON o N N N NN NN NN N N o o o N ooN.NN NN o o o N N N N N o N o o o oom.NN N o o o N N N N o o o o o o NNN.NN N o N o o N o o N o o o o o NNN.NN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o NNN.NN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooo.oN o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ooo.oN ON ON N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN NN NN m N N NNNNON NNNoN NN.ooov NNNNNN now Nowecoo now NNNNN .OOOONNOOO--.NN.N ONOON 63 Table 3.17.--Dichotomized First Job Success by dichotomized Current Job Success. Current Job Total Low Potential High Potential First High Potential 23 399 422 J°b Low Potential g 203 391 Total 84 602 686 Current Job Total Low Status High Status , High Status 72 287 259 F1rst 40b Low Status ljgl 153_ 327_ Total 246 440 686 Current Job Total Low Salary High Salary First ngh Salary 21 226 247 00" Low Salary L60 27_9_ Q Total 181 505 686 64 H5: A successful first full-time job will lead to a greater degree of developmental mobility. The number of vertical moves (promotions) and the number of functional moves were the measures used to test this hypothesis. For this measure the respondents formed the distributions shown in Table 3.18. Table 3.18.--Responses to Developmental Mobility. Number Checking % Checking This This Response Response Number of Vertical Moves More than ten 5 .5 Eight through ten 2 .2 Six or seven 17 1.8 Four or five 116 12.5 Three 160 17.2 Two 177 19.0 One 265 28.5 None 189 20.3 Number of Functional Moves More than ten 2 .2 Eight through ten 0 0 Six or seven 5 .5 Four or five 3 3.3 Three 85 9.1 Two 120 12.9 One 196 21.1 None 492 52.8 65 When comparing measures of First Job Success to the number of vertical and functional moves, Table 3.19 (p. 66) results. Correlations among the four measures of First Job Success and the three measures of Developmental Mobility are shown in Table 3.20. Table 3.20.--Correlations of Developmental Mobility and First Job Success. Developmental Mobility First Job Success Number of Number of Functional Moves Vertical Moves Job potential -.20* .02 Job status -.20* .03 Job satisfaction -.19* 0 Salary -.07 .08 *Significantly different from O at the .01 level. The correlation between First Job Success and Developmental Mobility is -.15 (significant at .01). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is -.21 (significant at .01). The correlation between First Job Success and the number of functional moves is -.23 (significant at .01). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is -.27 (significant at .01). Reject H5. 66 Table 3.19.--Developmental Mobility by First Job Success. Number of Vertical Moves 0 1 2 3 4 Sor 6 7or 8 {SN NEE: Total First Job Potential A great deal 75 105 70 60 42 6 0 2 360 A fair amount 39 69 45 47 33 4 l 3 241 Some 32 44 29 28 20 2 0 O 155 Little 30 29 24 16 14 3 1 0 117 None 2 n _9 .9 .1 _2 .9 .9 .59 Total 189 265 177 160 116 17 2 5 931 Raw Chi Square = 16.9 with 28 degrees of freedom Not Significant First Job Status High 92 120 85 73 55 8 0 1 434 13 30 17 16 14 4 O 4 98 12 32 19 21 7 l l 0 93 19 29 20 16 ll 1 O 0 96 Low .59 .59 .39 n .29 _3 .1. .9 219 Total 189 265 177 160 116 17 2 5 931 Raw Chi Square = 49.39 with 28 degrees of freedom Significance = .01 First Job Satisfaction Very satisfied 52 56 35 37 28 4 0 l 213 Satisfied 45 79 46 38 3O 5 O 3 246 Somewhat satisfied 30 44 45 33 23 2 O 0 177 antennas? 1. 12 9 . s i 1 o 5. Somewhat dissatisfied 18 35 12 18 8 2 0 l 94 Dissatisfied 12 21 13 13 9 l 1 O 75 Very dissatisfied :4- 3 _12 _l_2_ _12 _2 _(_l_ _0 _70 Total 189 265 177 160 116 17 2 5 931 Raw Chi Square = 43.63 with 42 degrees of freedom Not Significant 67' Table 3.19.--Continued. Number of Functional Moves More Total 0 1 2 3 4 or 6 or 8 Thru Than S 7 10 10 First Job Potential A great deal 236 60 27 23 12 2 0 0 360 A fair amount 124 50 35 23 6 3 0 O 241 Some 67 47 23 14 3 0 0 l 155 Little 44 30 25 14 4 O O 0 117 None .29 _9 9 9 9 9 9 9 .59 Total 492 196 120 85 31 5 0 2 931 Raw Chi Square = 83.3 with 24 degrees of freedom Significance - .0001 First Job Status High 278 81 35 28 9 3 O 0 434 45 27 15 2 l O O 98 40 25 17 7 4 O 0 O 93 37 19 19 15 5 l 0 0 96 Low .92. .29 99 2.7 19 9 9 .2. 219 Total 492 196 120 85 31 5 O 2 931 Raw Chi Square = 67.4 with 24 degrees of freedom Significance = .0001 First Job Satisfaction Very satisfied 147 32 16 ll 6 l O 0 213 Satisfied 142 46 27 24 6 l 0‘ 0 246 Somewhat satisfied 91 38 25 15 6 2 O 0 177 1333:8332? w n 9 n 4 o o o 5. Somewhat dissatisfied 41 30 14 7 2 0 0 O 94 Dissatisfied 27 20 16 8 2 l O l 75 Very dissatisfied _2_5_ l _l_3_ _9_ i _0_ _O _1 fl Total 492 196 120 85 31 5 O 2 931 Raw Chi Square = 81.6 with 36 degrees of freedom Significance = .0001 68 H6: A greater degree of developmental mobility will lead to current job success. When the number of vertical and functional moves is compared to the measures of Current Job Success, Table 3.21 (p. 69) results. Correlations among the four measures of Current Job Success and the two measures of Developmental Mobility_are shown in Table 3.22. Table 3.22.--Correlations of Developmental Mobility and Current Job Success. Current Job Success Developmental J b J b J b Mobility o o 0 Potential Status Satisfaction Salary Number of functional moves -.O7 -.09 O 0 Number of vertical moves .23* .16* .17* .32* *Significantly different from O at the .01 level. The correlation between Developmental Mobility and Current Job Success is .16 (significant at .01). The estimated correlation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .24 (sig— nificant at .01). The correlation between vertical mobility and Current Job Success is .32 (significant at .01). The estimated cor- relation between these two variables when corrected for measurement error is .39 (significant at .01). Accept H6. No. u wocooNNNcmNN sowwch No Nwwcmww NN nNNz o.NO u wcooom Nnu INN 69 .rNb E E IE 5 ME. NONON NNN NN ON ON NN NO o NNN NNN OO NN NN NN N NNN NN oN NN NN NN N NNN NN NN NN NN ON N NNN NN oN NN NN N N no O NN NN N N o N N no N N N o N o o oN sen» N N N o N N o oN :NnN wcoz NNN: 33 85: NNNoN NNoNNcw> mDHfiHW DOE. “CwLL—NU $0 LGQEDZ Nooo. u wocOoNNNcmNN soowch No Nwwcmww NN nNNz N.ON u wcwzom Nnu zNN NNN. Elm .N1O.w PN. NM an :38 NNN No OO NN ON NN o NNN NON NN NN N oN N NNN ONN NO NN N N N NNN NNN NO N N N N NNN NN ON N N o N co O NN NN N N o o N co N N N o o o o oN ocnu N N O N o o 0 ON conu wcoz Nan NOOOEO wso w N woo Nw>o2 NEON OSLO N .E O N NNN. O z N839; NNNNOwNOO now Newccoo No cwnEOz .waooom now pcwccoo Nn1xuNNNnoz Noucwamon>wonu.NN.N wNnoN NNNN. u wocwoNNNcNNN sowwwem No Nwchwo ON nNNz N.NNN u wcooom NnN zom 7O NNN H1 E E. E. .N.N NNN NIIN E NNN mm. B .NIN .OIN. NEON NNN N N N N N NN NN NN NN NN NN N NN N NNN N N N N N NN NN ON NO NN N N N N NNN N N N N NN ON NN NO ON N N O N N NNN N N N O N NN NN NN NN NN N N O N NNN N N N N NN NN NN NN O O N N N N co O NN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N no N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN oan N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN :NnN wcoz . . . . . . Nw>oz NNNON NN NN N NN N NN N NN N NN N NN N NN NN NN N N N NNuNNcw> NN.OOON NNEON OOO NONLLOO NO LOOeOz NNN. u wocooNNNONNN soowwew No NwwNNww NO nNNz N.NN u choNN NnN 3oz Fm NNN .OINN N.NN. .P N.NN NNN. NW NEON NNN NN NN NN N NN NN N N NNN NN NN NO O NN N N N NNN NN NN NN N NN N N N NNN NN NN NN N O N N N NNN NN NO NN N N N N N co O NN N N O N N N N N co N N N N N N N N N NN ocnu N N N N N N N N N NN :OnN wcoz . .NON .NNNNNN .NNNNNN . NHMM .NNN NNN: coz .NNN Non: .NNNNNN NMWWMN Nw>oz NONON -wEom cwnNNwz -wEoN NNoNNNw> :oNNOONNNNNN now NOwNNON No cwnENz .OOOONOOOO--.NN.N ONOON NNNN. u wocmoNNNcNNN eoowwem No Nwwero ON npNz N.NN u weooom NnN 3mm 71 NNN ONO NNN NNN NN NNN NNNoN 1N1O.O. N.Oum OIOI $1 mm MOI O NNN NN NO NN NN NN N NNN NO NN NN NN NN N NN NN NN NN N NN N NN NN NN O N N N eo O N N N N N N N eo N N N N N N N NN zen» N N N N N N N NN can» weoz 9 a 8.2. NNNoN n .z n NoooNNocou NNNNNN now neweeou No ewnsoz ucooNNNONNN Noz soowwee No Nwwerw ON nNNz N.NN u wewoom NnN 3oz .Nmm .Nmm .mww .ph .mw mm. NNNoN NNO NNN NNN NN NN NN N NNN NNN NN NN N N N NNN NN NN N N N N NN NN NN NN N N N NN NN NN N N N N eo O N N N N N N N eo N N N N N N N NN Nenu N N N N N N N NN con» weoz NNwN pcooe< weo w w o Nw>oz NNNoN NoweN < eNNN < N NNNNn : z NocoNNUNNN NNNNNwNoN now poweeoN No ewnsoz .OOOONNOOO--.NN.N ONOON 72 NNNUNNNNNNN Noz Eocmmgw No Nmmgmmc NN NNN: N.NN u NNNNNN NNN 3mm Fm. .OIENINENMMMNEEPNINMMEEMH N33 NNO N O O O Nm mm mm NNN NN mm NN N NN N NNN N m N N NN Nm NO NO Nm ON N O m N NNN N N N N N NN NN Nm NN NN O N N N mm N N N O m mN mN NN N N N N N m Nm N N N N m N N O N N N N O N no O m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Lo N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN 3L2“ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NN cusp wgoz . . . . . . mm>o2 NmpoN NN Nm m Nm m Nm m NN m NN N NN m mN mN NN N N m choNuuczm NN.NNNV NNNNNN non ucmsgau No Nmassz NNNONNNNNNN Noz Eoummgm No mmmNNmu NN NNN: N.NN u NNNNON NNN 3mm .Nmb .th .Nlm.m .NINF ININ. B Mm .NIN. N30... NNO NNN NNN ON N NN NN N N NNN NN NN NN N NN N O N NNN NN NN NN N N N N N NN Nm Nm NN N O N N N NN NN NN N N N N N N No O N N N N N N N N N No N N N N N N N N N NN NNNN N N N N N N N N N NN NNNN NNN: . .NNN .NNNNNN .NNNNNN . NHMN .NNN NNN; Noz .NNN NNN: .NNNNNN NMMWNN mm>oz NNNNN > -meom NmsuNoz -mEoN > choNNuNNN No ansaz coNuumNNNNNN noN pcmggau .ONNNNNNNN--.NN.N NNNNN 73 Path Diagram The reproduced correlations among the six main variables yield the following path diagram (Figure 3.l): 137 Early I ~54 .25 Developmental came" \il ‘ Mobilit Choice v, _ y ' ‘Relation of .59 First /77 .08 Business Degree .5}, Job . 38 to First Job Success ~55: ' pegree to 4p Which Pre-B.A. - Current Job Led to First Success Post—B.A. Job l .44 The sum of squared deviations is .ll. Figure 3.l.--Path diagram of six constructs with path coefficients and residuals. In summary, significant relationships were found among all six main variables. In the case of a related first job causing first job success, and also the case of first job success causing current job success, the relationships are very strong (path coefficients = .59 and .71, respectively). In the case of Pre-B.A. work experience which led to a first Post-B.A. job causing the first job to be related, the relationship is not as strong (path coefficient = .13), but is posi- tive and statistically significant. The two factors which make up developmental mobility (functional mobility and vertical mobility) worked in opposite directions. A successful first job had a negative 74 effect on functional mobility and no effect on vertical mobility. Also, vertical mobility had a positive effect on current job success, but functional mobility had a slight negative effect. The findings suggest that further research would benefit by not combining these two factors into one construct. m statement about each. Hl: H2: H3: H4: H5: H6: An early career choice tends to lead to a first full-time job that clearly uses the business degree. Pre-B.A. work experience which aids the graduate in obtaining a first Post-B.A. full-time job will tend to cause the graduate to obtain a first full-time job which is related to the busi- ness degree. A first full-time job which is related to the business degree will tend to lead to initial job success. A successful first full-time job will lead to a successful current job. A successful first full-time job will lead to a greater degree of developmental mobility. A greater degree of developmental mobility will lead to current job success. Figure 3.2.--Hypotheses with decision statements. Figure 3.2 summarizes the hypotheses along with the decision Accept Accept Accept Accept Reject Accept for Vertical Mobility but not for Functional Mobility “fl CHAPTER IV SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary This study hypothesized that the value of a college degree has changed in very recent years. Evidence of this change comes from economic analysis of supply and demand for college graduates, salary 37 Because of the obviously surveys, and alumni follow-up surveys. changed college graduate supply and demand situation, there is a need to answer the following two questions: (1) What are the "career out- comes" of recent college graduates, and (2) What are the antecedents of these outcomes? Four measures were used to assess career outcomes: salary, job satisfaction, job status, and job potential. A review of seven studies which surveyed college graduates uncovered evidence which supported five antecedent variables of possible career success. These antecedent variables were: Time of Career Choice, Degree to Which Pre-B.A. Work Experience Led to First Post-B.A. Job, Relatedness of Degree to First Job, First Job Success, and Developmental Mobility. The dependent variable, Current Job Success, and its five antecedent variables then formed a causal model. This model was tested by a sample of MSU Business graduates who received a B.A. degree, but not a higher degree. The sample of graduates was made up of the following 75 76 cohorts: l958, 1963, l968, 1973, 1975, l977. The 93l graduates who made up the sample were 42% of those to whom the questionnaire was sent. Three-fourths of the respondents were male, and approximately 95% of the 93l graduated after 1972. The list of hypotheses and the causal model are summarized at the end of the preceding chapter. Conclusions The major findings of this study were: l. In this study the average business college graduate's starting salary (in l978 dollars) upon graduation was $13,482. He/ she was satisfied with his/her current job (three out of four said they were satisfied or very satisfied). He/she had a job with rela- tively high status (50% were working in jobs where all or almost all their peers were college educated, while only one out of four said that fewer than half their peers were college educated). He/she had a job with career potential (85% said that their job had a great deal or a fair amount of career potential). 2. Those graduates whose first job was successful were much more likely to have a current job which was also successful. For example, of those graduates whose current salary was in the top one- third, more than half started their career with a salary which was in the t0p one-third. Of those graduates who reported that they were at least somewhat satisfied in their current job, two-thirds started their career in a job in which they said they were at least somewhat satisfied. Of those graduates who were currently in a job with a 77 great deal or a fair amount of potential, two-thirds started in such a position. 3. Functional mobility did not increase the graduate's chances of current job success. However, vertical mobility increased the degree of current job success in each of the four outcome measures. 4. Those graduates who landed a first job which clearly used the business degree achieved a significantly higher level of success in the first job. Of those graduates whose jobs were closely related or very closely related, 45% earned more than $l5,500 in the first job. This compares to 30% of those in unrelated or slightly related jobs who are earning this high a salary. Of those graduates whose first job was closely related or very closely related, 75% had a job with a great deal or a fair amount of potential, 67% worked with peers of whom more than half were college educated, and 58% said they were satisfied or very satisfied with their job. These figures compare with those who said their first job was unrelated or slightly related. Only 34% had a job with a great deal or a fair amount of potential. Only 28% worked with peers more than half of whom were college edu- cated, and this same percentage (78%) was satisfied or very satisfied with their job. 5. Choosing a career before graduation helped a graduate obtain a first job which clearly used his business degree. Also, obtaining Pre-B.A. work experience which led to a first job helped a graduate obtain a first Post-B.A. job which clearly used the business degree, but this strategy did not have as great an effect as an early career choice. Of those graduates who chose their career before senior 78 year of college, more than three out of four landed a first job that was closely or very closely related to the business degree. Of those graduates whose previous work experience had a very great or significant effect on obtaining their first job, 72% began their career in a closely or very closely related job. However, only 59% of those graduates whose previous work experience had little or no effect on obtaining their first job began their career in a job which was closely or very closely related to the business degree. Discussion Contrary to findings by Solmon,38 the relationship between a graduate's degree and his job had importance for job success. These 39 40 however. One findings are not contrary to those of Young and UCI, possible reason why this conclusion was different from Solmon's is that the MSU Business graduates were more recent entrants into the labor pool. Most of Solmon's group entered in l965 when the demand for graduates was not as saturated by the supply. It will be remem- bered that only l0% of the graduates in Solmon's sample who took unrelated jobs did so because they were unable to find related jobs. This is contrasted to Young's sample of more recent graduates, more than half of whom were unable to find related jobs. This would sug- gest more recent graduates were not able to use their diplomas in the same way as graduates of the sixties could. That is, the diploma of today needs to represent skills and knowledge which are useful on the job. It is not as valuable when it is used to represent general knowledge. Another possible explanation is the more select sample 79 used for the MSU study, i.e., business graduates only rather than graduates of all disciplines. An unrelated business degree may be less valuable than a related business degree; however, an unrelated education degree may not be less valuable than a related education degree. A third possible explanation is that Solmon measured the relationship of the graduate's current job to his degree, while the MSU study measured the relationship of the graduate's first job to his degree. Since most of the graduates in the Salmon sample had been working for up to nine years when they were surveyed, it is possible that the effect of the college degree had been weakened over the pas- sage of time, i.e., that other factors (such as mobility) explained the level of job satisfaction or income. The importance of a successful first job for the graduate's current job was demonstrated by the strength of the relationship between a graduate's first job and his current job. It should be pointed out, however, that most of these graduates had been working for no more than six years and, therefore, the influence of their first job on their current job was greater than if they had been working for a longer period of time. This finding was predicted by other researchers such as Harrell.4] A finding that was not predicted was that functional and vertical mobility do not act in the same way. Vertical mobility is developmental in the sense that it leads to a better job. Func- tional mobility, however, does not have this effect. Those graduates who made one or more functional moves did not currently have a better job than the graduates who made no functional moves. Once again, the 8O fact is that most of these graduates had been working six years or less, and possibly this relatively short time period was not long enough for any positive effects of functional mobility to material- ize. In Harrell's study42 the graduates who benefited from func- tional mobility had been working for ten years. Also, the graduates in Harrell's study were MBA's rather than bachelor's recipients, and this difference may account for the increased importance of functional mobility, since entry-level positions for the MBA are at a higher level in the organizational hierarchy than entry-level positions for the B.A. Another unexpected finding was that those graduates who landed a successful first job did not necessarily enjoy more vertical mobility. Evidently those graduates who happened to get the better first jobs were not necessarily promoted any faster than those who didn't do too well with respect to the first job they landed; the study provides no data to tell why such results emerged. A most important question in light of the previous discussion is, "What makes some graduates land first jobs which are related and others do not?" This study provides some answers to this question. As predicted, both an early career choice and obtaining the first job through Pre-B.A. work experiences helped the graduate obtain related work. However, neither of these strategies is a particularly powerful predictor of obtaining related work. Other studies have usually focused on the graduate's major as a primary factor in obtaining related work; i.e., some majors like engineering tend to lead to engineering work but other majors like liberal arts have few jobs that 81 specifically call for liberal arts to apply for. Because this study involved only business graduates, the student's major could not be an element in this study. Implications for Further Research Further research could improve on this study by extending the sample in two important ways: First, the sample needs to include a greater range of cohorts. Since almost all the graduates in the MSU study were recent graduates, inferences cannot be made about the dif- ferences which have occurred since the sixties. Second, the sample needs to represent a broader sampling of majors, especially those less vocationally oriented, e.g., liberal arts, social science, and others, vocationally oriented in as much or greater demand, e.g., engineering graduates, if the study is to meet the ambitious goals stated on the first page of Chapter I. There are several issues that could not be adequately explored in this study, but which would offer valuable insights into the pro- cess of the attainment of career outcomes. One of these issues is the different ways of attaining mobility. Jennings43 and others have explored this question but did not specifically focus on the recent college graduate. It would be especially illuminating to determine the influences of vertical mobility on graduates in the first few years. Personality variables as well as situational variables (for example, organization size, industry, and so forth) would be factors worth exploring. Finally, the question of what strategies should be followed (in order to obtain a related first job) is partly answered. As was 82 shown, an early career choice and obtaining pre-B.A. work experiences which then led to a first post—B.A. job were two strategies which are effective. However, more progress needs to be made on this very important question. As was suggested before, the graduate's major should be factored into this answer. Further research should look into the feasibility of ordering different majors along a continuum, perhaps from very career-oriented to not career-oriented, in order to incorporate it into the model developed in the MSU study. {Hl: “Kr In conclusion, this study has proposed and then tested a model which accounts for some of how college graduates obtain career outcomes. Careful and systematic research could further develop this model as well as retest it among broader samples of college graduates. Path analysis turned out to be an effective statistical technique. The successful experience with this technique in this study points the way for its use in future studies of college graduate career development over time and with a series of cohorts. References 1"Who Needs College?" Newsweek 87 (April 26, l976): 60-64. 2Denis F. Johnston, "Education of Workers: Projections to l990," Monthly Labor Review, November l973, p. 23. 3Robert B. Freeman, "Decline in the Economic Rewards to College Education," Review of Economies and Statistics 59 (February l977): 18-29. 4Richard Freeman and J. Hubert Hollomer, "Value of a College LN1 Education," Condensed in Education Digest, February 1977, pp. l9-2l. I 5R. P. Quinn, 6. L. Staines, and M. R. McCullough, ng_ ; Satisfaction: Is There a Trend? (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ée. of Labor, 1974). 6M. Cappeto, "The Placement Game," Washington & Lee Alumni Magazine, July l978, pp. 6-8. 7Thomas W. Harrell and Margaret S. Harrell, "Stanford MBA's Ten Years Out,“ Stanford Business School Alumni Association Bulletin 44,l (l975): l3-l5. 8H. S. Astin and A. S. Bisconti, Trends in Academic and Career Plans of College Freshmen (Bethlehem, Pa.: The CPC Foundation, l972). 9Cappeto, op. cit. 10A. M. Young, "Employment of Recent College Graduates," Monthly Labor Review, October l974. 1IJ. O'Toole, "The Reserve Army of the Underemployed: II--The Role of Education," hange 7,5 (l975): 26-33, 60-63. 12Laura M. Sharp, Education and Employment. The Early Careers of College Graduates (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, l970). 13D. Sachdeva, "College Education as Viewed by Some Former Graduates," Psychological Reports 4l (l977): l39-42. 14R. B. Freeman, The Over-Educated American (New York: Academic Press, l976), p. ll. 15R. Barbato, J. Kirksey, and H. Zoccoli, "The Value of the B.A. in Business for MSU Graduates" (unpublished paper). 83 84 16P. M. Blau and O. D. Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: Wiley, l967). 17H. Bowen, Investment in Learning (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, l977). 18Young, op. cit. 19 L. C. Solmon, A. S. Bisconti, and N. L. Oschner, Colle e as a Training Ground for Jobs (New York: Praeger Publishers, I877). 20UCI Alumni and Their Careers (University of California, Irvine, l977). 2‘Solmon et al., op. cit. 22Young, op. cit. 231bid. 24 UCI, op. cit. 25Solmon et al., op. cit. 26 27 UCI, op. cit. Harrell and Harrell, op. cit. 28M. H. Brenner and H. C. Lockwood, "Salary as a Predictor of Salary: A 20 Year Study," Journal of Applied Psychology 49 (1965): 295-98. 29M. S. Harrell, T. H. Harrell, S. H. McIntyre, and C. B. Weinberg, "Predicting Compensation Among MBA Graduates Five and Ten Years After Graduation," Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (1977): 636-40. 30 31E. E. Jennings, The Mobile Manager (Ann Arbor: The Univer- sity of Michigan, 1967). 32Robert S. Billings and Steve P. Wroten, "Use of Path Analy- sis in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Criticisms and Sugges- tions," Journal of Applied Psychology 63,6 (1978): 677-88. 33 Harrell and Harrell, op. cit. Harrell and Harrell, op. cit. 34Solmon et al., op. cit. 85 35 36 Ibid. Sachdeva, op. cit. 37 38 Freeman, op. cit. Solmon et al., op. cit. 39 40 4] 42 Young, op. cit. UCI, op. cit. Harrell and Harrell, op. cit. Ibid. 43Jennings, op. cit. APPENDIX 86 87 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PI u Hll\l SHAH rs - OFFIH OF IMF DIMHIOR EAST LANSING - IllCHIGAN - mu Ha'i “HMO December 6, 1978 Dear MSU Alumnus: The Placement Services and the College of Business at Michigan State University are seeking information on the career experiences of business graduates. This information will be used to help us better understand the whereabouts of our alumni and their career successes. The final results of this study will be used to guide current and future students in their career planning and Job cam- paign efforts. This study will also be used as a model for studying the career experiences of graduates of other colleges at Michigan State and other univer- sities throughout the United States. All the information collected from this survey will be kept strictl confiden- tial and will only be reported in summary. statistical form. nal report of these results will be published by Placement Services and distributed to staff and academic advisors at Michigan State. Since we have selected a rep- resentative sample of business graduates. a high response rate is necessary to give us confidence in our results. Your cooperation with this survey will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely. John D(;E:::gleton Rich d J. Lewi Director of Placement Dean, llege of Business JDS/psc 88 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Pl ACPMENT SFRVICFS - OFFICE OF INF DIRECTOR ”I" “SJ“[O EAST LANSIM ' MICHIGAN ' an January 5, l979 NOTE: Please do not remove this label. Thank you. Dear MSU Alumnus: About two weeks ago we sent you a survey which will provide us with information on the career experiences of our business graduates. If you have already re- turned this survey. we thank you. As we mentioned in our earlier letter, this information is crucial to our re- search effort. He need your response. along with the responses of other selected alumni, to confidently implement the findings of this study. Our pilot tests indicate that it will take about five minutes to complete this sur- vey. If you have not already done so. please return the questionnaire within the next few days so we can include your response in our analysis. Thank you. Sincerely, John DZhingleton Rich d J. Lewi Director of Placement Dean. llege of Business JDS/psc Please ears an I beside the answerisl that hst describes your situation. i. hich one of the following occioations or careers best describes your gum position: _I“ator _Dt~r Professional (doctor. lawyer. etc.) hainistrator Sales lepresentative Accountant |latheeatician. Scientist. Office {Qloyee Other (specify l Analyst At what point in yOur life did you select your current occupation or career? _Defore entering college __Mter starting college. but before senior mr of college During senior year within one year after graduation within five years after graduation Later than five years after graduation 3. which of the following work experiences did you have while in ll 7 (Check all that aeoly __ Io wort eloerience at all ___ Sinner Jobis) Part-ti. 100(5) __ Internship Volunteer __ Other (specify ) d. have you woo-ted at a full-tine 109 since eradueting fro. MSU? ies (continue) ___ho (ship to guestion 29) in. following ouestions refer to your first fgll-tiao job since graduating fro- . 5. that was the title of your first jog? (specify _. . ) b. To what extent did your wort experience during the tine you were in college contribute to your I2. 7 Id. 89 be closely related Ins your firs; .13 to degree in business? I). how closely related is your grrent M to your degree in business? ‘- Very closely related __ Closely related __ Suwhat related _ Slightly related ht related If your first ob was n35 closely related to your s ness degree why is this? Milli—"5.; IS. l5. if your current ob is hit closely related to your bus ness degree why is this? L My Job is closely related or very closely related to ny business degree _ I didn't want a Job closely related to oy business degree __ I wanted a closely related Job. but wasn't able to find one _ I wanted a closely related Job and probably could have found one. but taking one would have eeant using other sacrifices which I didn't want to use lesw Inch potential for career success did first job offer: If. new ouch potential for career success does your cum; Ilob offer: _ A great deal __ A fair mt Sole __ Little m During your MEM- did other aloyees 90W Jobs siwilar to yours have a degree as high as yours’ l9. In your c¥rrent Iioo. do other euloyees doing Jobs sin ar o yours have a agree as high as yours? __ All or al-sst all had a degree as high or higher than nine _ lore than half had a degree as high as wine _ About half had a degree as high as nine _ _ Less than half had a degree as high as nine success in finding your first 100. after graduation’zo' firs! job? ____Did not have wort e-oerience in college ___Very great effect _Significant effect _So~ effect "Very little effect he effect 7. what is the title of your t ob? ismify_ ) My business degree was useful in that it gave Ile knowledge and stills nich. h. I used in Iy gram. 9. I use inwy surrent ioo. _ _ “MI! 00"“ _ Mirna _ leither agree or disagree __ Disagree __ Strongly disagree lo. I used the content of toy lejor courses in a, first Iwe. ii. I use the content of IyIaJor towns in ey grr_e_nt_1_o_b. __ _ A great deal _ _ frequently sou-tines __ Very little __ hit at all _ few or none had a degree as high as nine All in all. how satisfied were you with your zl. All in all. how satisfied are you with your cgrmt job? _ Very satisfied _ Satisfied __‘ Solewhat satisfied _. heither satisfied or dissatisfied _. Sue-hat dissatisfied ._ Dissatisfied Very dissatisfied After receiving your business agree fm MSU: 22. how lohy full-U? gobs have (inclun;ng dif erent o n the a: had crrpany ? .lelllllfi‘” II‘IIIII 23. lbw eeny “as have the your);mctidnal aroa (seldom. person-tam 1. c. 24. how eeny prontions have do had (including changing cmnIes which resuitad in a higher position! 25. low any years have you went Lo; sorting fullotl-‘I O I 2 J d-S ,__ 6-7 _ I-ID _ M then l0 lllll lllll‘ bte: All salary infer-tion will be but ri l confiantial and will ”for! r on y n s-ry. statistical ts. iihat was your starting annual salary pforo tones in your MI 27. Diet is the annual salary before u” I. 1" MI ‘— Ielow SS.” Sta-7.”! _ _sa.ooo-s.sss __ _sio.ooo-ii.sss __ _siz.ooo-is.sss _ _sia.ooo-is.sss __ __sn.ooo-is.sss szo.ooo-2a.sss _ _ses.ooo-es.sss _sn.im-ss.sss _ _sss.ooo-ss.sss _ _sao.ooo-so.ooo bro than “0.!” 2e. um die you start your um a? _ma _issa sss _isra _ms in _ms __isn me ___im I97! __I I 2’. Sea: file to. Race: mite F-le __Ii nri ty Jl. lesias your bachelors degree in business. what other degrees have you earned? __ lone __ Other bachelors Ill Other hsten M or other professional agree 3!. If I were Just raduati I “I“ IIJer in the'saee «3!. 33- N “Veer ress i i result of g, g... ' forts.‘ ”1 the 3‘. fly career progress is gi ly the result of luck and other is:- c:ntrollable events. _ _ Strongly agree _ llsm _ _ neither agree nor disagree __ Disagree _ _ “MI! fluoroe father's education level: !- Ether's eacation level: _ Does not apply __ Ira. school only _ 5- Msh school _ mph schul gegagu __ S- college _ Colleen Create _ Bradiaate or professional .gree fr- high school . llllIIIFe‘illll! 37. In mt year were you born? liter you have c-leted this Survey. lease refold it. staple or tape it. and drop'it in a eailbox at your earliest convenience. Thane you very uch for helping with this researchi BIBLIOGRAPHY 90 BIBLIOGRAPHY Astin, H. S., and Bisconti, A. S. Trends in Academic and Career Plans of College Freshmen. Bethlehem, Pa.: The CPC Founda- tion, l972. Barbato, R.; Kirksey, J.; and Zoccoli, H. "The Value of the B.A. in Business for MSU Graduates." Unpublished paper. Billings, Robert S., and Wroten, Steve P. "Use of Path Analysis in Industrial/Organizational Psychology: Criticisms and Sugges- tions," Journal of Applied Psychology 63,6 (l978): 677-88. Blau, P. M., and Duncan, 0. D. The American Occupational Structure. New York: Wiley, l967. Bowen, H. Investment in Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, l977. Brenner, M. H., and Lockwood, H. C. "Salary as a Predictor of Salary: A 20 Year Study." Journal of Applied Psychology_49 (l965): 295-98. Cappeto, M. "The Placement Game." Washingtpn & Lee Alumni Magazine, July I978: PP. 6-8. Freeman, Robert B. "Decline in the Economic Rewards to College Edu- cation." Review of Economies and Statistics 59 (February l977): l8-29. . The Over-Educated American. New York: Academic Press, l976. Harrell, M. 5.; Harrell, T. H.; McIntyre, S. H.; and Weinberg, C. B. "Predicting Compensation Among MBA Graduates Five and Ten Years After Graduation." Journal of Applied Psychology 62 (l977): 636-40. Harrell, Thomas W., and Harrell, Margaret S. "Stanford MBA's Ten Years Out." Stanford Business School Alumni Association Bulletin 44,l (l975): l3-l5. Jennings, E. E. The Mobile Manager. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, l967. 91 92 Johnston, Denis F. "Education of Workers: Projections to l990." Monthly Labor Review, November l973, p. 23. O'Toole, J. ”The Reserve Army of the Underemployed: II--The Role of Education." Change 7,5 (1975): 26-33, 60-63. Quinn, R. P.; Staines, G. L.; and McCullough, M. R. Job Satisfaction: Is There a Trend? Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, l974. Sachdeva, D. "College Education as Viewed by Some Former Graduates." Psychological Reports 4l (l977): 139-42. Sharp, Laura M. Education and Employment. The Early Careers of College Graduates. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,*T970. Solmon, L. C.; Bisconti, A. 5.; and Oschner, N. L. College as a TrainingyGround for Jobs. New York: Praeger Publishers, l977. UCI Alumni and Their Careers. University of California, Irvine, l977. "Value of a College Education," by Richard Freeman and J. Hubert Hollomer. Condensed in Education Digest, February l977, l9-2l. ”Who Needs College?" Newsweek 87 (April 26, l976): 60-64. Young, A. M. "Employment of Recent College Graduates." Monthly Labor Review, October 1974. .‘s. "'Iliifiiiilflilfllill(Ilflfllliilfliflllllles 93