AN INVESTEGATION CF THE RELATEQNSMP OF EDUCATIONALLY HIGH AND LOW ASPIRENG HIGH SCHQOL SENXQRS TC) SELECTED A'TTiTUDINAL AND ECOLG‘GlCAL VARIABLES Thesis far the Degree of Ph. D. MécHEGAN STATE“. UNWERSHY John W. Cassefi, Jr. @962 This is to certify that the thesis entitled AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATIONALLY HIGH AND LOW ASPIRING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS TO SELECTED ATTITUDINAL AND ECOLOGICAL VARIABLES presented by Iohn W. Cassell, Ir. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for _.Eh..D_.__ degree in mm (l/w 1/19 L4m”% // Mafof/p7essor Date 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATIONALLY HIGH AND LOW ASPIRING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS TO SELECTED ATTITUDINAL AND ECOLOGICAL VARIABLES By John W. Cassell, Ir. It was the purpose of this hypotheses-generating study to contribute to the growing body of research concerning the educationally high and low as- piring high school senior, Selected ecological and attitudinal factors of college and non-college preference seniors and their peer friend, most- understanding teacher, and adult friend choices were explored. A random sample of 2, 031 high school seniors from 34 public high schools within the United States was employed in the study. There is indication from existing research that the students' level of educational aspiration is not only dependent upon intelligence , socio— economic status and parental encouragement but also upon less apparent and yet unidentified sociological and psychological factors . As education- al, business and government personnel learn more about those factors that relate to levels of educational aspiration, they will be better able to meet the intellectual, social and personal needs of both college-aspiring and terminal high school students. John W. Cassell, Ir. It has been shown that Porn 65 to 90 per cent of high school seniors indicating a desire to go to college are enrolled a year later. In this study students were dichotomzed, therefore, into college preference (high level of educational aspiration) and non-college preference (low level of educational aspiration) on the lasis of their college plans. Socio- economic status of the student and of their choices of best friends was measured by the Duncan, Socio—economic Index for All Occupations. Per- sonality classification of the students and of their choices of most- understanding teachers was detcrmined by the Bills , Index of Adjustment and Values. The students' choices of peer and adult friends and most- understanding teachers were obtained from a self-reporting, sociometric questionnaire. A booklet containing the instruments was administered to the students by their classroom bachers under the supervision of Michigan State University, College of Education personnel. The chi-square test of independence x2=zg9f92 was employed in the analysis of the data. The null form of the hypothesis (Ho: a=b) was used. If the null hypothesis was rejected by chi-square analYSiS (9(05) . the alternative form of the hypothesis (H: a b) was tested by inspection of the contingency table for direction and/or source of difference in distri- bution. One hundred fifty-six null hypotheses were tested in the study. Thirty-six were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of confidence . The statistically significant results of the study took the form Of hypotheses for further study and research. It was noted that college John W. Cassell, Ir. preference high school seniors are primarily from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference seniors are from the low classes . College preference senior males chose peer friends from their own grade level, but non-college preference males selected theirs from the 9th, 10th and 11th grades. Senior girls tended to follow the same pattern. College preference students also selected their peer friends from the high socio- economic classes or, at least, one higher than their own, whereas non- college preference seniors chose theirs from the low socio-economic classes or a class lower than their own. It was observed that college preference students selected most- understanding teachers with high socio—economic backgrounds . Non- college preference seniors, however, chose teachers with low socio- economic backgrounds. College preference students also selected most of their adult friends from within the school whereas non-college pre- ference seniors chose theirs from outside the school. These and other significant differences between educationally high and low aspiring high school seniors were noted in the study. Certain implications for educational, business, government and social psychological research personnel working with adolescents were drawn from the study. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATIONALLY HIGH AND LOW ASPIRING HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS TO SELECTED ATTITUDINAL AND ECOLOGICAL VARIABLES By “N” John W.“ Cassell, Ir. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1962 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A special word Of appreciation is extended to Dr. P. O. Rittenhouse, former teacher, personal friend, and president of Andrews University, for his encouragement and understanding in granting a sixteen month leave of absence in order that undivided time could be given to finishing my course requirements . The expert counsel and patience of Dr. Karl T. Hereford, my com- mittee chairman, has been most helpful. His varied academic interests and interdisciplinary approach to education has not only been inspiring but greatly appreciated. The other members of my doctoral committee , Dr. Myrtle R. Reul, 'Dr. Floyd G. Parker and Dr. John X. Jamrich have been extremely gracious and willing to give liberally of their time in counsel and assistance. My fellow graduate students have been of greater assistance than they will ever know. The many informal discussions and emotional sup- port provided by them has been of inestimable value . My wife, Charlotte, has shown her cooperation and understanding in numerous ways . Maintaining a quiet uninterrupted study atmosphere, de- ferring many aspirations for travel and recreation and providing reassurance in times of discouragement have all directly aided in the successful com- pletion of my doctoral study. ii A deep feeling of gratitude is extended to my parents who ever kept before me the value and importance of education. Their continuing interest and pride has been a source of inspiration. My grandmother and late aunt, Dr. Mable E. Cassell, also had a very important part in my decision to con- tinue my professional education. I would also like to express my gratefulness to Mrs. Irma B. Lidner, Assistant Professor of English at Andrews University, for her assistance in teChnical editing and to Mrs . Agnes Andersen for her help in typing the manu- script. Miss Marcia Berg and Miss Diane Lewis, students at Andrews University, also aided in typing rough drafts of the dissertation. iii TABLE OF C ON TE NTS Chapter Page 1. Level of Educational Aspiration: A Current Issue ...... 1 Purpose of the study .................... 1 Importance of the study .................. 3 Delimitation of the study ................. 11 Definition of terms .................... 12 Overview ......................... 15 II. Level of Educational Aspiration: A Background of Research 17 Post-high: school plans .................. 17 Sex factors ........................ 21 Personality factors ..................... 24 Socio-economic factors .................. 26 Peer and adult relationship factors ............ 33 Summary .......................... 36 III. Level of Educational Aspiration: A Nation-wide Sample . . 38 Identification of the sample ---------------- 38 Selection of the schools ---------------- 38 Development of the sample .............. 39 Design of the sample .................. 40 Limitations of the sample ............... 41 Instrumentation ...................... 41 Level of educational aspiration ............ 42 Socio-economic status ................. 43 Personality classification ............... 45 Sex . . . . . ...................... 48 Peer friends ...................... 49 Most-understanding teachers ............. 49 Adult friends ...................... 50 Administration of the instruments ............. 50 Analysis of the data .................... 51 Summary .......................... 59 iv Chapter Page IV. Level Of Educational Aspiration: A Relationship to Selected Variables . . . ................ . . 60 Numerical distribution of the sample ........... 6O Socio-economic status of male high school seniors . . . 62 Socio-economic status of female high school seniors . . 63 Personality classification of male high school seniors . ...................... . . 65 Personality classification of female high school seniors.......... .............. . 66 Ecoloqical characteristics of peer friends of male high school seniors ................ . . 68 Ecological characteristics of peer friends of female ' high school seniors .................. 71 Ecological and attitudinal characteristics of most- understanding teachers of male high school seniors.......... ...... 74 Ecological and attitudinal characteristics of most- understanding teachers of female high school seniors ......................... 78 Ecological characteristics of adult friends of male high school seniors . . . . ...... . ...... 82 Ecological characteristics of adult friends of female high school seniors . ----------------- 84 Summary .......................... 87 V. Level of Educational Aspiration: A Challenge , ,,,,,, 95 Hypotheses requiring further study ............ 95 Implications for education ................. 97 College preference students ............ . . 98 Non-college preference students ........... 102 Implications for business and government ...... . . 108 Implications for further social psychological research . . 111 Concluding Observations ............... . . 113 Bibliography ......................... 115 Table LIST OF TABLES Proportionate, Random Sample of Males ........... Proportionate, Random Sample of Females .......... Significant Socio-Economic and Personality Characteristics of the Sample . . ............. Significant Ecological and Attitudinal Characteristics of the Friend Choices of the Sample by Socio- Economic Status and Personality Classification ...... Significant Ecological and Attitudinal Characteristics of the Friend Choices of the Sample ............ vi 89 90 LIST OF APPENDIXES Appendix Page A. Supplementary Research .................. 130 B. Characteristics of the Schools ............... 146 C. Duncan, Occupational Scale ............... 151 D. Student Booklet ...................... 164 E. Teacher Booklet ...................... 17 2 F . Tables ........................... 17 9 vii CHAPTER I LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATION: A CURRENT ISSUE Each year the number of high school graduates who seek higher education has increased. Large numbers of high school students also either drOp out of school prior to graduation or fail to continue their education beyond high school. Better and earlier identification of psychological and sociological factors differentiating high and low aspiring adolescents is currently needed by personnel in educatiOn, ' industry and government. Increased knowledge can help personnel in these fields to adapt counseling, education, training and recreational programs more effectively to the personal and‘social needs of adoles- cents . Purpose Of them The primary purpose of this study was to contribute to a better understanding of the educationally high and low aspiring student. Spe- cific variables were employed in this task. Sex, socio-economic status and personality classification of college and non-college preference high school seniors were considered. In addition, selected ecological and attitudinal characteristics of their choices of peer friends, adult friends and most-understanding teachers were explored. It was also expected that the results of the study would stimulate further research into the sociological and psychological forces that in- fluence adolescents in the formulation of educational and occupational goals. Personnel in education, industry and government who work closely with adolescents need to know as much as possible about those factors in their environment that relate to their attitudes and values . High school seniors from a random sample of students in selected public high schools throughout the United States were surveyed. It was believed that the information gained from this investigation would produce evidence of significant relationships between level of educa- tional aspiration and certain personal and social factors existing in the individual's environment. Since the study was hypotheses-generating in nature, statisti- cally significant results took the form of hypotheses for further research and study. Relationships that were not statistically significant took the form of null hypotheses with suggestions for additional investigation. The contributions of the study relative to the growing body Of informa- tion regarding the college-aspiring and terminal student were presented in conclusion. Importance of the Study Modern technology demands an ever-increasing number Of well- trained and educated people. Much of the responsibility for better utilization of human resources falls upon the social sciences. Educa- tional administrators and guidance personnel have been alarmed by high attrition rates with attendant loss to society of academically talented students . Along with personnel workers in business, industry and government, educational personnel have also been aware Of a need for improved preparation and training of adolescents who enter the labor market following high school graduation. In recent years an effort has been made to determine the factors which differentiate the educationally high aspiring from the low aspiring student. These studies have been extremely helpful in identi- fying some of the financial, social and cultural differences that exist between the two groups . A number of devices have been implemented in an effort to encourage and assist the educationally high aspiring student. Among these are: Federal and private schOlarships and loans, pressure to reduce racial and religious barriers, community and junior college programs and improved guidance services at the secondary level. In addition, greater attention than before has been given to adult educa- tion, industrial and technical training and distributive education programs in order more effectively to meet the needs Of those adolescents who are unable or unwilling to enter higher education. Efforts to define those factors influencing adolescents' educational goals have not been futile, but neither have they been wholly successful. Many important, possibly less tangible, differences between educa— tionally high and low aspiring youth remain unidentified. Additional re- search into psychological and sociological factors that differentiate college and non-college preference students is necessary. Very little is known about the relationship between the characteristics of signifi— cant peer and adult friends and the adolescent's educational goals . More information than is presently available is also required concerning differences in personality and other basic attitudes and values . Several authors have indicated a need for further, more intensive research into these areas. Miller states that "there is enough sup- porting evidence to suggest that the relations between level of aspira- tion and reference groups may constitute a fruitful area of exploration in seeking to understand some facets of the psychological habitat. ”1 Van Egmond points out that there is little evidence concerning the teacher's influence on students' attitudes: "Considering the central role which teachers occupy in the socialization process, the limited amount of systematic research regarding their impact on the lives of 1Carroll H. Miller, Foundations of Guidance (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), p. 207. youth is surprising. "2 Lipset and Bendix note that "the characteris- tic family experiences in childhood of the upward mobile and his typical personality structure remain still a relatively unexplored area. "3 Wise feels that many educators tend to derive their understandings of college students from stereotypes or from subjective impressions gained from student responses in their courses, personal attitudes to- ward American youth, or recollections of their own undergraduate days. He believes that a broader knowledge of college students is needed for fuller understanding and more effective teaching. He suggests this deeper understanding be gained by exploring their backgrounds: Their homes, their age, ability, sex, race, religion--all these are significant. Their purposes in college and in life, their attitudes and motivation, are keys to understanding. Observation of their behavior, their mores, their reaction to courses, activities, and general college life helps to clarify the impression.4 Miller also maintains that: . . with the exception of delinquency and various other kinds of deviant behavior studies, psychological studies of 2Elmer VanEgmond, "Socialization Process and Education, " Review of Educational Reseafrch, XXI (February, 1961), 'p. 85. 3Seymour Martin Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkley: University of California Press, 1959), p. 250. 4W. Max Wise, They Come for the Best of Reasons (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1958), p. 3. values on the secondary school level are notably lacking. Un- fortunately, there is no counterpart of the Jacob's report; nor is there the range of material out of which could be built a com- parable study. Why this should be is a matter for speculation. . . . Whatever the reason, the values of the non-delinquent, normal student who continues in high school have not received anything like the amount of attention devoted to his collegiate counterpart. Most of the more recent studies have been devoted to some aspect of social class and values, and among these are some yielding interesting insights .5 Havighurst claims that "the earlier simple methods of exploring motivation for college have given way to more sophisticated psychologi- cal methods , which have provided a basis for theories of motivation for college. "5 He believes that there are four major factors which deter- mine whether a student will have the motivation or initiative to do good school work and to go to college. These are: need for achievement, identification with persons who have gone to college, social pressures and intrinsic pleasure in learning. Exploration of these sociological and psychological factors is just beginning and should provide valuable insights into both the well-motivated and poorly-motivated student. Douvan and Kaye believe, however, that there is: . . . little systematic information about the decision to go to college. The current renaissance of research on the college stu- dent has not concentrated on determinants Of college-going, and the Older studies either focused on Objective determinants like family income and residence or stirred motivational variables into 5Miller, p. 385. 6Robert J. Havighurst, "Who Goes to College and Why, " American Association Of College Teachers of Education Yearbook (1960), pp. 103-13. one pot with these so that it is impossible to say anything very clear about the independent Operation of either type of factor. 7 Hollinshead believes that: What moves a young person to want or not to want higher education is our greatest unponderable [sic] . Motivation, or a lack of it, has more to do with college attendance or non- attendance than any other single factor. Yet motivation is bound up with many things . The expression of desire for education or for avoiding it probably more often than not covers some reason hidden far below the surface.8 Some of these reasons hidden far below the surface have not yet been discovered. Available research does seem to indicate that the high school student‘s level of educational aspiration will depend upon many factors, among which are intelligence, socio—economic status, personal incentive and parental influence. Research into subjective factors such as self-concept and characteristics of significant adult and peer friends of college preference and non-college preference stu- dents is scant or non-existent. It seems logical to assume that social contacts outside the home will have a vitally important place in determining the adolescent's educational aspirations. Some students of middle and high class homes do not continue their education beyond high school even though 7Elizabeth Douvan and Carol Kaye, "Motivational Factors in Col- lege Entrance, " ed. Nevitt Sanford, The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1962), p. 199. 8Byron s. Hollinshead, Who Should Go to College? (New York: Columbia University Press, 1952), p. 42. they do not lack financial resources, parental motivation or high in- telligence. On the other hand, students from low socio-economic back- grounds are able to overcome many apparent social, psychological and financial handicaps to go on to college. It may be that these youth tend to choose peer, teacher or adult friends from middle and high socio- economic levels whereas non-college preference youth from the middle and high classes tend to choose their friends from the low classes. Self-concept may also have a relationship to their educational aspira- tions. There is little research available to help answer these questions . Additional knowledge in these areas would be extremely helpful to educational administrators in better understanding students and in tailoring educational programs to meet specific personal and social needs. More systematic information would provide student personnel workers with refined techniques for predicting performance and achievement levels. Business personnel managers and military personnel officers could better select and classify personnel and provide more adequate training and recreational programs . Undoubtedly, educational personnel need to identify and encourage the intellectually capable and well-motivated student, but they must also give recognition to the less talented, poorly-motivated student who will soon terminate his formal education. It is vitally important to understand how and why both educationally high and low aspiring students ultimately make their decision to terminate or continue their education beyond high school. It is also necessary to know whether the adolescent's self-concept and the individuals with whom he identifies are helping or handicapping him in the development of his highest po- tential. Since there is strong indication from research that parental influence, intelligence, motivation and socio-economic status relate to the student's level of educational aspiration, it seems necessary to take a further step and look at other factors that might also pertain to the individual's educa- tional goals. Numerous implications for school administrators and pupil personnel workers from previous research have apparently gone unheeded. For example, it has been shown that teachers largely reflect middle-class values . Higher education as an avenue of upward social mobility seems to be a predominant value with many of them. "These major differences in values result in serious communication difficulties between middle class and lower class people; these are particularly troubling to the re- lations between teachers and lower class children. "9 Educational ad- ministrators could better utilize their teaching staff if they understood the relationship between students and teachers coming from different socio-economic backgrounds. 9Boyd R. McCandless, Children and Adolescents: Behavior and Development (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 484. 10 The intellectually capable high school senior who plans to con- tinue his education beyond high school probably represents a pattern of values different from that of the equally talented, terminal senior. If the goal Of American education is to encourage each student to reach his maximum intellectual capacity, then personnel who work with adoles- cents must know more about those factors in the person's environment that relate to his value system. Otherwise, the educational resources of the nation cannot be effectively utilized. Such knowledge could well require a complete re-evaluation of the present educational process . It is possible that homogeneous grouping and other environmental manipulative techniques may need to be re- studied. Better training, selection and more strategic placement of teachers may be necessary. Teachers may need to gain a greater ap- preciation of and respect for the individual, learn more about children's personal lives and family backgrounds, and re-examine their own per- sonal values, with emphasis on better understanding and communica- tion. Guidance and student personnel workers may need to understand better the student's concept Of himself and how this affects motivation and learning. They may have to develop different personal and group therapeutic techniques that will help the student raise or lower his educational goals . Business and industrial training programs, hiring practices and job assignment procedures may also need to be revamped. . p 1.. 11 It is already known that intelligence, in addition to "many factors such as occupation of the head of the household, family income, educa- tional attainment of parents, sex and color of the student, and place of residence, affect the likelihood of college attendance. "10 It was the purpose of this study to investigate other ecological and attitudinal variables that may help more clearly to define high and low levels of educational aspiration. As educational, business and government per- sonnel learn more about those factors that relate to educational aspira- tion, they will be better able to meet the intellectual, social and per- sonal needs of both college-aspiring and terminal high school students. Dfelimitation of the Study This study was limited to twelfth-grade students from a random sample of students in 34 selected public high schools within the ter- ritorial UnitedStates . Seniors indicating a desire to go to college constituted the high level of aspiration, college preference group, and those not planning to attend college comprised the low level of aspira- tion, non-college preference group. Students in each group were further categorized according to sex, socio-economic status, per- sonality classification, age and years in the school. 10Maxine G. Stewart, "Who Goes to College, " Occupational Out- look Quarterly, VI:2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May, 1962), p. 11. 12 Various ecological and attitudinal characteristics of the student's significant peer, adult and teacher friends were also identified. Peers were classified according to sex, socio-economic status and grade level. Teachers were categorized according to sex, marital status, age, years on the staff, socio-economic background, and personality classification. Significant adults, other than teachers or parents, were classified according to whether they were in or out of the im- mediate school environment. Those who were out of the school en- vironment were categorized according to socio-economic status. Definition of Terms The following definitions were applied consistently throughout the study: 1. Aghievement motivation--the tendency to work with energy and persistence at something deemed important; ambition manifested in action; the desire to be successful in arriving at some predetermined goal. 2. Adult friend--a significant individual, other than a parent or teacher, who is legally and chronologically a mature person whom the student selects as a friend. 3. Attitude--"an enduring, learned predisposition to behave in a consistent way toward a given class of objects; a per- sistent mental and/or neural state of readiness to react to a certain object or class of objects, not as they are but as they are conceived to be. It is by the consistency of re- sponse to a class of objects that an attitude is identified. "11 11Horace B. and Ava C. English, A Comprehensive Dictionaryof Psychological and Psychoanalytical Terms (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1958), p. 50. 13 4. College preference—-any high school senior sampled who indicated a desire to go to college following his graduation from high school. S . High school--a public educational institution which contains either grades nine or ten through twelve. 6. High school senior--a twelfth-grade student in a public secondary educational institution. 7. Level of aspiration--a desire for a future state of affairs along a continuum from a low desire to a high desire. In terms of education, it is a desire for a higher future level: in social position, for a future status; in Occupation, for a future position. 8. Non-college preference--any high school senior sampled who indicated no desire to attend college following his high school graduation. 9. "Membership" wups--"the groups to which the individual actually belongs like the family, play groups, gang or school."12 10. Peer friend-~a significant companion or associate of roughly the same age or grade level whom the student selects as a friend. 11 . "Reference" groupgnthe groups with which a person identi- fies and/or compares himself to such an extent that he tends to adOpt their standards, attitudes, and behaviors as his own. 12. Self-conceptuan individual's view of himself; the fullest description of himself of which a person is capable at any given time. The self-concept results from the organism's interaction with its environment and represents the person's perceptions of the totality of these experiences . 13. Social role--the attitudes, values or behaviors, that are prescribed and expected of the occupant of a particular position in the social group. 128. S. Sargent and R. C. Williamson, Social Psychology (New York: The Ronald Press Co. , 1958), p. 322. 14 14. Social class--an abstract category of persons arranged in levels according to the social rank, position or status they possess. It is a stratum in society composed of individuals and groups of equal standing. Social class may be fixed or identified by family background, education, occupation, financial resources and/or one's political, racial or re- ligious affiliations . 15 . Social gtratification--the arrangement of social classes on continuum from lowest to highest. Any ordering of statuses in terms of varying superiority and inferiority can comprise a social stratification. 16. Socio-economic status--"a person's position and special function as seen and accepted by other members of the social group. The assignment of statuses and the defini- tion of their duties and rewards are crystallized in and sanctioned by the culture. Leadership, dominance, wealth, ability, occupation or other means of recognition desig- nated by title, degree, membership or behavior are criteria by which status is assigned or judged. "13 17. Social mobility--the movement within a given culture from one class to another. This refers especially to movement upward from a class of lower to one of higher status and the degree to which a society permits such movement. 18. Most-understanding teacher--a significant adult employed by a secondary educational institution as an instructor whom the student selects. 19. Value--"a value is a conception, explicit or implicit, dis- tinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences selection between available modes, means, and ends of action."14 Therefore, values l3Henry P. Fairchild (ed.), Dictionary of Sociology and Related Sciences (Patterson, N.J.: Owen, Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1951), p. 263. 14E. Z. Vogt, "Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeo- logy and Ethnology, " Navaho Veterans: A Studyof Changing Values, Xlel (Cambridge, Mass.: The Museum, Harvard University, 1951), pp. 6-7. 15 maybe conscious or unconscious, verbalized or inarticu- late, individual or group, conative or cognitive and explicit or implicit. There is also the element of a standard code, or norm, as well as being a logical construct and not "a thing " in external reality. Overview An effort to define more clearly high and low levels of educational aspiration among high school seniors by the investigation of selected ecological and attitudinal variables was the main concern of the study. Differences between college and non-college preference adolescents have important implications for personnel in education, business and govern- ment. The study was delimited to high school seniors in 34 public high schools within the United States . Socio-economic status and personality classification of the seniors were selected for study in addition to cer- tain ecological and attitudinal characteristics of their choices of signifi- cant peer friends , most-understanding teachers and adult friends . Level of educational aspiration studies are reviewed in Chapter II. It was observed that many variables relating to level of aspiration have yet to be identified. Researchers working in the behaviorial sciences stress the importance of these factors and encourage further research and study. The sample, instruments, statistical methods and hypotheses em- ployed in the study are described in Chapter III. The sample included 2, 031 male and female high school seniors dichotomized on the basis 16 of college and non-college preference. The validity and reliability of the instruments were shown to be acceptable for the purposes of the study. The chi-square test of independence was used to test for dif- ferences between college and non-college preference students. One hundred fifty-six null hypotheses were tested in the study. The numerical distribution Of the sample by sex and the results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. Data relative to the findings were presented in appropriate chi-square tables . Null hypotheses showing statistically significant differences (p <.05) were examined for the source and/or direction of the differences . Hypotheses for further research and testing are included in Chapter V. Implications from the study for education, business and industry and for further social-psychological research are also presented. Some observations regarding the results of the study con- clude the dissertation. Copies of the student and teacher questionnaires, ratings of occupations according to the Duncan Socio-Economic Index, and a list of the schools used in the study are included in the Appendix. CHAPTER II LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATION: A BACKGROUND OF RESEARCH It is the purpose of this chapter to review the results of previous re- search dealing with the variables explored in this study. The validity and reliability of post-high school plans as an indicator of level of educational aspiration is considered. Research studies relative to differences in sex, personality and socio—economic status, and peer and adult relationships between educationally high and low aspiring adolescents are also reviewed. Related research concerning personality development, small group relation- ships and residential factors is presented in Apendix A. Post-High School Plans An individual can aspire to reach numerous goals . He can desire to become a great actor or a major league ball player, or to reach any number of occupational or educational goals . This drive is often defined as achievement motivation, upward mobility or level of aspiration, but basically it refers to the person's desire to reach a future state. This study specifically deals with the levels of aspiration relative to educa- tional goals as determined by the public high school senior's stated 17 18 preference for or against a college education. Those who indicate a de- sire for a college education are representative of a high level of aspira- tion relative to higher educational values and goals whereas those in- dicating no desire to continue their education may be regarded as poorly motivated toward higher educational values and goals . Several general level-of—aspiration studies have used college plans as an indicator. There are numerous references to more tangible barriers to higher education, such as lack of finances, race, creed, sex, and social class, but there are fewer references to obstacles such as devaluating self-concept, poor adult and peer models, low motivation, cultural deprivation and negative educational values . Many authors point out that motivation is clearly a variable factor in the college attendance of boys and girls . A student "depends on his drive for achievement, both conscious and unconscious, on his enjoy- ment of study and on the social pressures which operate on him through his family, friends, teachers, and community. "15 Lack of interest in schooling or motivation toward continued work in college is perhaps the most pervasive barrier to the full education of all young people of college caliber. Some home environments discourage able students from college work; in some communities or groups the prevailing mores are anti- educational. Motivation is one of the salient requisites for 15Havighurst, pp . 103-13 . .s 19 success in higher education; where motivation is not developed latent ability is too frequently not educated. 16 Achievement motivation is frequently determined by the student's stated educational objectives . These indicate the individual's level of educational aspiration. There is strong indication that a student's as- pirations are a relatively reliable predictor of his future. educational preference and achievement. Goldberg found that high school students' plans for work, military service, marriage and college are related to subsequent behavior. 17 Berdie noted that approximately 64 per cent of the students he studied actually realized the plans which they had made the year before as high school seniors. 18 Although Roper's study didnotactually fol- low up the students who indicated a deSire togo to college, he did find that 72 per cent of the college preference group did receive acceptances from an institution of higher education; a strong indication that they would follow through with their plans .19 16"Higher Education in a Decade of Decision, " Edugational Policies Commission National Education Association of the U.S. and American Asaogiatign of Sghogl Administrators (Washington, D.C.: 1957), p. 28. 17Isadore Goldberg, "The Relationship of Personal History to Plans of High School Students " (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Universit of Maryland, 1959). ~ 7. . y ‘ 18R. P. Berdie, After High School What? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954), pp. 196-97. 19Elmo Roper, Factors Affectingthe Admission of High School Seniors to College (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1949), p. xxxii. 20 In 1957 the research staff of the Educational Testing Service con- ducted a similar study. A follow-up study to see how students carried out their college plans showed that 65 per cent were in attendance at college a year later. 20 Outright questioned 8, 500 students in nine northern Illinois high schools in the fall of 1957 as to their college plans. In thespring of 1959 he conducted a follow-up study which showed that two-thirds of the college preference students were actually attending college. 21 Little conducted a similar survey of Wisconsin youth on a state- wide scale in 1956 and 1957. He found that 90 per cent of the students who had indicated a desire for a college education were in attendance at an institution of higher education the next year. Even some graduates who had not planned to attend college did so. 22 Since 64 to 90 per cent of the high school seniors sampled realized their educational aspirations, these studies give support to the belief that stated educational plans are a relatively reliable predictor of sub- sequent behavior . 20"Background Factors Relating to College Plans and College En- rollment Among Public High School Students" (Princeton, N.J.: Educa- tional Testing Service, April, 1957) . 21Phillip Cutright, "Student's Decision to Attend College, ” Journal of Educational Sociolo , XXXIII (February, 1960), pp. 292-99. 22J. Kenneth Little, "Post-High School Plans of Wisconsin Youth, " film Education, XV (December, 1958). pp- 67-69. 21 Sex Factors Sex typing and sex roles play an important part in the personality development of the child. Each culture has certain role prescriptions and expectations relative to sex that influence the values and attitudes of its members . Some studies have endeavored to identify these values as they pertain to the individual's occupational and educational aspira- tions. Havighurst notes these differences: Women and men are subject to very different economic and idealogical pressures in our culture. . . . The much smaller attendance of women in college is related to the difference be- tween male and female roles in American society. The feminine role is primarily that of wife and mother, and only secondarily that of worker. Consequently, after about age eighteen, women drOp out of the educational system much more rapidly than men and enter the working force in much smaller proportions . 23 McCandless maintains that: Whatever sex differences exist in school achievement anxiety probably vary with the age of the child. It is possible that, in elementary school, boys do not experience the same subjective pressure to achieve that girls do; but, by junior high and second- ary school, the prospect of independence and responsibilities in- tensifies the pressure on boys . During college, it may be pre- dicted that boys will have more achievement motivation and achievement anxiety than girls . 24 Some studies dealing with the occupational aspirations of the sexes have been undertaken and tend to show that during the preadolescent 23Robert J. Havighurst, American Higher Education in the 1960' 5 (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1960), p. 14. 24McCandless, p . 422 . 22 years boys as a group progressively narrow the range of their Occupa- tional preferences, While girls seem to have a more limited range Of choices through all age and grade levels . For example, Menger found that in her total sample of 19, 000, boys chose 199 different occupations and girls only 113. 25 Boynton noted the same sex differences in a similar study showing that four Occupations accounted for 75 per cent of the girls' choices, but eleven occupations were needed to account for the same percentage of boys' choices. 26 Studies by Bedford27 and Woodruff28 also indicate that girls more frequently than boys have reached no occupational choice by late high school years . Tyler, in a study of interests of first-grade children, observed sex differences in enough single items to make it possible to construct an index of masculinity. She also found sex differences in the organization 25Clara Menger, Ihe Signifigange of Vocational Qhoiges of Sghool Children and College Students (New York: Private Printing, 1932) . 26F. L. Boynton, "The Vocational Preferences of School Children, " PedagJ- Seminary and Journal of Genet. Psychology, XXXIX (1936), pp. 411-25 . * 271. H. Bedford, Youth and the World's Work (Los Angeles: Society for Occupational Research, 1938). 28Katherine Woodruff, "A Study in the Occupational Choices of High School Girls, " Vocational Guidance MaLazine, V (1927), pp. 156—59. of interests . 23 By the time the children were ten years Old a follow-up study indicated that sex differences were still evident, but that more complex differences were involved. 30 Tyler's findings show that the development of interests is related to the sex roles being learned and that these roles do not exist in isolation from the beginning of other roles and attitudes . Stivers found that the motivation of able girls for high school and college is a more complex matter than that Of boys.31 It is well known that girls achieve better in relation to their ability in school than boys do, up to the last year or two of high school. At this point the bright girl begins to face what seems to her to be a choice between being a wife and mother and becoming a career woman. . . . Consequently, while more girls graduate from high school than boys, the situation is re- versed for college going . More boys enter college than girls . 32 Recent surveys by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, 33 the Educational 29L. E. Tyler, "The Relationship of Interests to Abilities and Reputa- tion Am0ng First-Grade Children, " Educational Psychology Measurements, II (1951), pp. 225-64. 30L. E. Tyler, "The Development of Vocational Interests, Part I, The Organization Of Likes and Dislikes in Ten-Year-Old Children, " lournal of Genetic Psychology, LXXXVI (1955), pp. 33-44. 31E. H. Stivers, "Motivation for College in High School Girls, " School Review, LXVII (1959), pp. 320-34. 32Havighurst, American Higher Education in the 1960's, p. 14. 33Stewart, p. 13 . 24 Testing Service34 and the American Council on Education35 all indicate that more boys than girls state a desire to continue their education be- yond high school. Even at all levels of ability, a higher percentage Of boys than girls either plans to go to college or actually enrolls. Boys are more likely to carry out their college plans than are girls. These studies clearly indicate that level of educational aspiration is affected by sex differences. Personality Factors Very little research has been conducted to determine the relation- ship Of personality factors to level of educational aspiration. Douvan and Kaye report, however, that "boys who plan to attend college have greater autonomy vis-a-vis their parents and are more self-reliant in issues involving values and personal controls-—compared to boys who do not intend to go to college. "36 They also noted that with working- class boys the decision to attend college signaled intense motivation and a high degree of personal integration. NO comparable differences were found among girls . College-bound girls were overtly no more in- dependent Of parental control or self-reliant than other girls. There was 34"Background Factors Relating to College Plans and College En- rollment Am0ng Public High School Students, " p. v. 35ROper, pp. 17, 143. 36Douvan and Kaye, p. 210. 25 some indication, however, of latent desires for detachment and inde- pendence at possibly a fantasy level among educationally high aspiring girls. Stiver's research tends to support the fact that college preference boys have a significantly greater need for achievement than boys who plan to terminate their education. He also found that college-bound boys had a higher score on the communality scale of the California PersonalitLInventory. Students who score high on this scale are con- sidered to be more successfully socialized, more mature and more responsible. The college preference boys also had higher scores on the "achievement-via-independence" scale Of the Inventog. Students who score high tend to be seen as mature, forceful, strong, dominant, demanding, foresighted, independent, self-reliant and superior in in- tellectual ability and judgment. On an eight-item check list developed by Strodtbeck, ,Stivers discovered that educationally high aspiring boys felt free Of the kind of family loyality and responsibility that might in- hibit mobility in the occupational system, preferred working for them— selves to working in a group enterprise, and believed in postponing immediate pleasures for the sake of long-term goals, such as an educa- tion or career. 37 37Eugene Stivers, "Motivation for College in High School Boys , " Scholastic Review, LXCI (September, 1958), pp. 341-50. 26 Strang believes that: Educational plans , like vocational development, depend on the adolescent's self-concept which is a product of the interaction between his environment and all that he is at a given time. The expectations of his parents and the values and goals of his peers are among the most important environmental factors . 38 Socio-Economic Factors Considerably more research has been centered on the relationship of socio-economic factors to level of educational aspiration. Havig- hurst notes that: From 1920 to 1940 the various social classes approximately doubled their proportions who entered college. Since 1940 there has been little increase in college-going among upper and upper— middle class youth, because they had already reached the 80 per cent level in 1940. However, there has been a sharp increase in the proportions of lower-middle and Working-class youth entering college . 39 Research strongly supports the idea that the parent's position in the prevailing social hierarchy, the social class status of the family, is influential in forming the adolescent's basic attitudes, aspirations, goals and values. Centers points out that an individual's strength of membership feeling in a social class either in itself or as an index to 38Ruth Strang, "The Adolescent Views Himself, " A Psychology of Adolescence (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1957), P. 428. 39Havighurst, "Who Goes to College and Why, " p. 104. 27 some more fundamental determinant is widely involved in his responses to his social world.40 Social stratification studies by Warner and Lunt, 41 Davis and the Gardners,42 the Useems and Tangent,43 J. West44 and the Bureau of Agricultural Economics45 clearly indicate the importance of social class influences on the individual. As Warner points out: Recent scientific studies of social class in the several regions of the United States demonstrate that it is a major determinant Of individual decisions and social actions, that every area of American life is directly or indirectly influenced by our class order and that the4r6najor decisions Of most individuals are partly controlled by it. 40Richard Centers, "The Intensity Dimension of Class Conscious- ness and Some Social and Psychological Correlates, " Journal of Social Psychology, XLIV (1956), pp. 101-14. 41W. A. Warner and P. S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Com- munity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941). 42A. Davis, 8. B. Gardner and M. R. Gardner, Deep South (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941). 43J. Useem, P. Tangent and R. Useem, "Stratification in a Prairie Town, " American Sociological ReviewJ V11 (1942), pp. 331-42. 44L West, Plainville, USA (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954). 450. C. Taylor (ed.), "Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community, " Rural Life Studies, Nos. 1-6 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1942). 46W. L. Warner, M. Meeker and K. Eells, Social Class in America (Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1949), p. 6. 28 Several studies have focused more specifically upon the effects of class on the personalities and behavior Of its membership. Studies by Hollingshead,47 Allison Davis, 48 Ericson49 and Brown50 tend to give further support to the belief that socio-economic status limits and defines the social contacts a child will have. Sargent and Williamson state that "it affects mainly the aspects of his personality that develop through social interaction--namely, attitudes, interests, values, and habits. Before a child is born his socio-economic status is pretty clearly defined by the position which his parents hold in society. "51 Hollingshead clearly indicates the effect of sociO-economic class upon the individual's perceptions when he points out that: As the child participates in successive social situations, he learns to act in certain ways, to regard himself as a valued member of the group or as an unwanted person. Unconsciously, he is being molded into a personality that is simultaneously a 47A. B. Hollingshead, Elmtown's Youth (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949). 48A. Davis, "Child Training and Social Class, " Chapter XXXIV in @ild Behavior and Development, eds. R. Barker et al. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1943) . 49M. C. Ericson, "Social Status and Child-Rearing Practices, " American Journal of Sociology, LII (1946). 50F. Brown, "A Comparative Study of the Influence of Race and LOcale upon Emotional Stability of Children, " Journal of Genet. Psy- g—‘LIQQI. XLIX (1936), pp. 325-42. 51Sargent and Williamson, p. 129. 29 creature of his experiences and a creator of new situations in which he will act as a molder Of conduct.52 Klavsner found in a study of 27 adolescent white boys that "there are modally different self-concepts between members Of difference socio- economic groupings and that members of the same sociO-economic grouping tend to have a more homogeneous self-concept. "53 Loeb states that each social class develops a pattern of behavior and a system Of values which differentiates it from the Others due to the prolonged and intimate relationships that are developed during childhood.54 Centers, 55 Ausubel56 and Kohn57 Observed wide value differences between social classes in some of their studies. A number of other studies have also clarified the relationship of 52Hollmgsheed. p. 445. 53Samuel S. Klavsner, "Social Class and Self-Concept, " The Journal of Social Psychology, XXXVIII (1953), pp. 201-05. 54Martin B. Loeb, "Implications Of Status Differentiations of Personal and Social, " Harvard Educational Review, XXIIl;-;2 (1953), p. 168. S5R. Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1959), pp. 151-59. 56David R. Ausubel, Varying Problems of Adolescent Development (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954), pp. 327-28. 57Melvin L. Kohn, "Social Class and Parental Values, " American Iglmal of Sociology, LXIII (January, 1959), pp. 589-92. 30 aspiration, values, goals and attitudes to social class sta- tus.58’ 59' 60 Both Douvan61 and Leshan62 noted a difference in intermediate and deferred goal gratification orientation among the various social strata. Later studies by Rosen,63 Schwarzweller64 and Brim and Forer55 tend to support the fact that adolescents from the higher social classes are more future oriented, individualistic and prone to plan their lives ahead. 58Leonard Reissman, "Levels of Aspiration and Social Class, " American Sociologal Review, XVIII (June, 1953), pp. 233-42. 59w. H. Shoule, A. O. Haller and M. A. Straus, "Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspirations," American Sociological Review, XXII (February, 1957), pp. 67-73. 60J..Stubbens, "The Relationship Between Level Of Vocational Aspiration and Certain Personal Data, " Genetic Psychology Mono- graphs, XLI (February, 1950), pp. 327-408. 61Elizabeth Douvan, "The Influence of Social Class Memberships on Reactions to Failure " (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951). 62L. L. Leshan, "Time Orientation and Social Class, " Iournal of Abnormal Social Psychology, XLVII (195 2), pp. 589-92. 63Bernard C. Rosen, " The Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho- cultural Dimension of Social Stratification, " American Sociological Review, XXI (April, 1956), pp. 203-11. 64H. K. Schwarzweller, "Values and Occupational Choice, " S_ocia1 Forces, XXXIX (December, 1960), pp. 126-35. 550. G. Brim and R. A. Forer, "A Note on the Relation of Values and Social Structure to Life Planning," Sociometpy, XIX (1956), pp. 54-66. 31 Douvan and others observed significant differences in the general achievement orientation of children coming from different social clas- see.66 In a more recent study with Adelson of the relationship of levels of aspiration, social class and various personal traits, she found that early adolescent urban boys from the lower class were more upwardly mobile than boys from either the middle or upper classes . 67 Beilin supports these findings by his observations that upward mobile boys from the lowest socio-economic groups showed rejection of their parents' social status and social environment, identification with a different social class and introjection of different social values. A boy from this social background also tended to identify strongly with the upward mobile peer group. 68 Youmans found that an individual's position in the social structure is most important in formulating occupational aspirations. 59 Seidman also discovered that the occupational aspirations and expectations of 66Elizabeth Douvan, "Social Status and Success Strivings, " loumal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LII (1956), pp. 219-23. 67Elizabeth Douvan and J. Adelson, "The Psychodynamics of Social Mobility in Adolescent Boys, " Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVI (1956), pp. 31-44. 68Harry Beilin, "The Pattern of Postponability and Its Relation to Social Class Mobility, " Journal of Social Psychology (1956), pp. 33-48. 59E. Grant Youmans, "Occupational Expectations of Twelfth-Grade BOYS. " Journal of Experimental Education (195 6), pp. 259-71. 32 adolescents are significantly related to their socio-economic back- grounds but that their expectations are more similar to their father's occupations than are their aspirations. 70 A later study by Stephenson would support the fact that occupational aspirations are not so greatly differentiated by social class as are occupational expectations.71 Empey studied the occupational aspirations of senior high school boys from different social classes. He noted Significant differences between social classes.72 A study by Hieronymus indicates that the individual, as a result of experiencing his class culture, tends to internalize limits on his aspirations and expectations . He also found that high socio-economic status, favorable attitudes toward education and high socio-economic expectations all continue to assist the student in doing well academi- cally. Consequently, he believes his findings support the hypothesis that socialized anxiety (ambition) is a factor in the selective process 70J. M. Seidman, "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Aspirations, Expectations, and Socio-economic Backgrounds of Male High School Juniors and Seniors " (unpublished Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1953) . 71R. R. Stephensen, "Mobility, Orientation and Stratification of 1.000 Ninth Graders, " American Sociological ReviewJ XXII (195 7), pp. 204-12. 72L. T. Empey, "Social Class and Occupational Aspirations: A Comparison of Absolute and Relative Measurement, " American Socio- l_Ogical Review, XXI (December, 1956), pp. 703-09. 33 of American education.73 Phillips supports these findings by her Ob- servations that students with high socio—economic backgrounds tend to have high educational aspirations.74 These studies clarify the influence of the person's social-class status upon his basic values, goals and attitudes. As Reissman points out: Class in short, creates a significant social milieu in which the individual moves and thereby predetermines a wide range Of what the individual sees, experiences and does. . . . Class makes a difference for the attitudes and behavior the individual exhibits and, furthermore is a feature of the most formative years of personality develOpment. 75 His educational aspirations and expectations are thus influenced by the various social stratifications and the mores and standards of the culture to which he is exposed. Peer and Adult Relationship Factors There is little systematic research available regarding the influence of significant peer and adult friends, other than parents, upon the ado- lescent's level Of educational aspiration. There are a few exceptions 73A. N. Hieronymus, "A Study of Social Class Motivation: Re- lationship Between Anxiety for Education and Certain Socio-economic and Intellectual Variables, " Journal of Educational Psychology, XLII (1951), pp. 193-205. 74Florence L. Phillips, "A Socio-economic Study of College Women" (unpublished Doctoral thesis, Indiana University, 1958). 75Reissman, pp. 233-49 . 34 to this general state Of affairs. For example, Havighurst has demon- strated the force of peer values in determining whether lower-class youths decide to go to college.76 Stivers found that "boys who were well motivated for college had had certain experiences with parents, teachers, classmates, and others who as early as elementary school days set college as a standard of achievement for them. "77 This is in line with McClelland's assertion that motivation for high achievement develops when a child can compete successfully with standards of excellence that people important to him set, often beginning early in life.78 Douvan and Kaye state that: Experienced counselors report with some agreement that choice Of college as well as the decision to go is influenced in particular cases by any or all of the following classes of in- dividuals: a. parents, b. teachers, c. counselors, d. unrelated adult acquaintances, e. peers, f. close friends, and 9. older siblings and their contemporaries.79 76R. J. Havighurst and R. R. Rodgers, "The Role of Motivation in Attendance at Post-high School Educational Institutions" in Byron S. Hollinshead, Who Should Go to College? (New York: Columbia Uni- versity Press, 1952). 77Eugene Stivers, "Motivation for College in High School Boys, " pp. 341-50. 78David C. McClelland et a1. , The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1953), pp. 63-66. 79Douvan and Kaye, pp. 199-224. 35 Little discovered that teachers were credited with stronger influences on post-high school plans by college-going graduates than by those getting jobs or attending other types of schools.80 There is some in- dication from these few findings and observations that peer and adult friends do have an influence upon adolescents' educational values and plans. Although the studies reviewed in this chapter noted some signifi- cant differences among college-aspiring students compared with terminal students, they did not explore in depth. They present valuable objective and descriptive data on both the high and low aspiring student, but they fail to look closely at the deeper, more intrinsic, social-psychological differences between the two groups . For example, they do not investigate differences in concept of self and others or identify characteristics Of significant peer and adult friends. These factors could help to define better the psychological and sociological forces at work on the adolescent as he plans for his future. The purpose Of this study is to carry these studies one step further into an investigation of some Of these less tangible but vitally important factors . 80Little, p. 68 . 36 Summary Level of educational aspiration can quite reliably be measured by the adolescent's stated post-high school plans concerning higher educa- tion. It has been shown in several studies that 65 to 90 per cent of high school seniors indicating a desire to attend college are actually in institutions of higher education the following year. It was on this basis that high and low levels of educational aspiration were determined in this study. More boys than girls continue their education beyond high school. Sex differences in regard to level of educational aspiration are apparent from many previous studies . Although research is limited, there is also reason to believe that personality factors have an important relation- ship to adolescents' future educational goals. Level of educational aspiration is closely related to socio-economic status. Adolescents from the higher socio-economic classes attend col- lege in far greater numbers than youth from the lower classes. Studies support the belief that social class limits and defines the person's educational values and aspirations. Significant peers and adults, other than parents, appear to have an important relationship to the adolescent's level of educational aspira- tion; although little systematic research has been conducted in this area at the high school level. Because there is inadequate information 37 from research regarding social-psychological factors relating to level of educational aspiration, studies dealing with attitudinal variables are especially necessary and valuable to the behavioral sciences. In the next chapter procedures are defined relative to selection of the schools and students involved in the study and the instruments and statistical methods employed in the measurement of the variables . CHAPTER III LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATION: A NATION-WIDE SAMPLE This study was made possible through a research project conducted by the College of Education'at Michigan State University. The project was sponsored by the United States Office of Education, Department Of Health, Education, and Welfare as Project 918, Contract SAE 8687. The director of the project was Dr. Karl T. Hereford with Dr. Floyd G. Parker, Dr. Stanley E. Hecker, and Dr. Donald J. Leu as co- investigators. The fundamental purpose Of theresearch was to study the relationship between school building design and the social inter- action patterns Of the student and staff personnel as well as certain attitudes of students and teachers and their'evaluat'iOn of their physi- cal environment. Identification of the Sample Selection of the Schools The educational institution population in this study was delimited to high schools. All Schools had been constructed since 1954. Schools with a minimum of 150 students per grade were selected. The sampling procedure reflected the interest of the sponsored research out Of which 38 39 the data for this study were obtained, An effort was made to Obtain a nation-wide sample and to select schools with interesting design and utilization features which would increase the likelihood of Obtaining valid differences in social interaction patterns. Both of these con- siderations also contributed to the purpose of this study. Thirty-four high schools were chosen on the basis of the total in- formation gained in the preliminary, selective phase Of the study. An effort was made to select schools that were comparable in per pupil expenditure, size of the administrative staff and pupil-teacher ratio, and that were representative of various types Of communities. Certain characteristics of the high schools used in the study are presented in Appendix B . DevelOpment of the Sample Data from the 34 public high schools were collected from approxi- mately 37,000 high school students, 2,100 teachers, and 300 adminis- trative officials including principals, vice-principals, librarians and full-time pupil personnel workers. Completions averaged 96 per cent. A 25 per cent stratified, random sample Of 9,000 students was extracted. The sample was stratified by sex, grade level, years in the school, IQ and socio-economic status of the student body. The sample of 9, 000 students contained approximately 2, 031 twelfth- grade students who were 16 to 18 or more years of age and had been in the 40 school from two to four years . These students were selected for use in this study. They were further stratified by sex and level of educational aspiration (college and non-college preference). To control for any inherent differences and variations in sampling, an additional proportionate, random sample of 696 males and 725 fe- males was extracted from the above 2, 031 high school seniors. The sample was proportioned by personality classifications with sex, level of educational aspiration and socio-economic status controlled. Design of the Sample Both the twelfth-grade student sample and the smaller proportion- ate, random sample were stratified by sex and level of educational aspiration. These control variables were employed in a comparative design with selected ecological and attitudinal characteristics of the students themselves and Of their peer, teacher and adult personnel choices . Symbolically the sampling was designed as follows: A. Twelfth-grade student sample stratified by sex and level of educational aspiration A1. Proportionate, random sample of A B. SociO-economic status Of the students C. Personality classification Of the students D. Selected ecological characteristics of peer friends 41 E. Selected ecological and attitudinal characteristics of most-understanding teachers F. Selected ecological characteristics of adult friends Control Analysis of A B A C A (B) D, E, F A (C) ‘ D, E, F A D, E, F A1 D, E, F Limitations of the Sample The study included only public high schools with a bias toward those in the Northeast seaboard states . High schools located in suburban-type communities were also over-represented in the sample. Instrumentation The instruments used in this study were largely sociometric in nature. The reliability and validity of this type of instrument was difficult to establish. In evaluating a self-reporting sociometric questionnaire administered in test-retest fashion to a large group of high school boys, however, Moreno noted that "the first and second choices appear to have a high degree of validity--92 per cent of the first choices made remainingunchanged and 82 per cent of the second 42 choices remaining unchanged after a period of three months. "81 In a similar validity test with girls, he found that after a period of 90 days they "maintained their original choices of responses to the extent of 95 per cent. "82 Since the instruments represent a rather simple self-reporting pro- cedure, it was also assumed that they reflected honest responses . Actual observation might have been preferable, since validity and reliability would have been improved. This was impossible, however, owing to the number and geographical distribution of the sample. Level of Educational Aspiration Students were asked whether they planned to go to college. Those checking "yes" comprised the college preference group while those checking, "no" comprised the non-college preference group. A student's stated expectation relative to college attendance fol- lowing graduation from high school has been shown by Cutright, 83 Little84 and others to be a relatively reliable indicator of level of edu- cational aspiration and predictor of future behavior. It was noted that 81J. L. Moreno, Who Shall Survive (New York: Beacon House, Inc. , 1953), p. 639. 821bld., p. 242. 83Cutright, pp. 292-99. 84Little, pp. 67-69. 43 from 65 to 95 per cent of the seniors stating they were planning to attend institutions of higher education were actually in a college a year later. It was also shown in a nation-wide survey and follow-up study of high school seniors by Educational Testing_Service that: Most of the family background and other factors which had been found to be related to college plans were found to be re- lated even more closely to actual college attendance. That is , if a factor is related to plans, it can usually be used also to predict which students will carry out their plans.85 Socio-Economic Status The socio—economic status of personnel was determined by the Duncan ratio of the income and education levels of occupations . In validation studies, Duncan found a correlation of .72 between income and education indicators for 45 National Opinion Research Center Occupations and a coefficient of the regression of income on educa- tion of . 6O . The partial correlation of .61 and . 65 of occupational prestige with each predictor (income and education), holding constant the other, was substantial and highly significant. Combining the two predictors in a linear multiple regression equation produced a multiple correlation of .91 and .83, which was appreciably larger than either zero-order correlation. Duncan concludes that: 85"Background Factors Relating to College Plans and College En- FOllment Among Public High School Students, " p. v. 44 The case for "validity" of the socio-economic index rests primarily on the evidence just presented together with the earlier arguments for the suitability of education and income as indicators of "socio-economic status, " quite apart from their correlation with occupational prestige. Four occupational classifications were made in the study, the occupation of: l. The student's father 2. The peer friend's father 3. The most-understanding teacher's father 4. The adult friend's occupation Individuals were asked in the questionnaire to indicate the occupa- tion of their father and if deceased, to indicate what it had been. The father's occupation was classified according to the scores on the Duncan Socio-Economic Index for All Occupations . Socio-economic status was divided into three classes: high, middle, and low. The three classes were arbitrarily determined by drawing the boundaries one-half standard deviation above and below the mean of 46. Occupa- tional scores from 0 to 31 comprised the low socio-economic classes; 32 to 56 included the middle classes: and 57 and above represented the high classes. Occupational scores are presented in Appendix C. Occupation has been shown to be a valid indicator of socio- economic status in America. Newcomb states that: 86Otis D. Duncan, A Socio-Economic Index for All Occupations, POpulation and Research Training Center (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1960), p. 19. 45 The significant fact, particularly as disclosed by Warner's studies, is that peOple fall into about the same categories whether we classify them by wealth, education, and income, by sense of belonging or by actual association. Since these different indicators all point in the same direction, the groups to which they point must be of some importance in the lives of their members . 87 Hollingshead believes that "status of the white male in America de- Pends primarily on occupation. "88 Personality Classification Degree of self and peer acceptance of college and non-college preference high school seniors and of their most-understanding teacher choices was determined by Bills' Index of Acyustment and Values . This instrument, an objective, multiple-choice type questionnaire, was designed to reflect the cumulative effects of inter-personal relations and to assess the current status of the perceptions of self and other significant peers. Bills believes that "although suffering the imperfections of all paper and pencil measuring devices and especially those to which self-rating devices are prone, the EV has demonstrated its usefulness for the purposes implied above. "89 87T. M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Dryden Press, 1950), p. 562. 88August B. Hollingshead, "Class Differences and Family Stability, " The Annals of the American Academy of Social Sciences, CCLXXII:ii (November, 1950), p. 39. 89Robert E. Bills, Index of Adjustment and Values Manual: fliult and Hifl School Senior Form (Auburn, Alabama: Department of Psychology, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1951), p. 5. 46 He also claims that "continued research has shown that the 1951 form , of the _Ifl is a reliable and valid instrument expecially useful for ob- taining measures of acceptance of self, beliefs about other people's acceptance of themselves and discrepancies between self and ideal self concepts . "90 Bills and his associates found corrected split-half reliability coefficients of .91 and .88 for a group of 231 students. Test-retest reliability coefficients of .83 and . 87 were obtained for a group of 175 students over a Six-week period. 91 Concurrent validity studies on the _IA_V were conducted using the Phillips Attitudes Toward Self and Othersfluestionnaire, The California Test of Personality and the Washburn S-A Inventory. Acceptance of self validity coefficients of . 24, . 23 and -.04 were obtained. Bills points out that "although the coefficients are small, statistically significant relationships appeared between the acceptance of self measure of the E! and both the Phillips self score and the total scores on the California. "92 In further validation studies it was found that "the Rorschah, thus, 90Robert E. Bills, Index of Adjustment and Values Manual: Ele- mentary, Junior High School and High School Form (Auburn, Alabama: Department of Psychology, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1959), p. 5 . 91Robert E. Bills et a1. , "An Index of Adjustment and Values, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, XV (1951), pp. 257-61. 92131119., Adult and High School Senior Form, p. 64. 47 at least partially validates the acceptance of self scores as a measure of adjustment. The Rorschachs also partially validate the mean ac- ceptance of self score as an important dividing point. "93 Bills con- cludes that "the data which have been collected indicate that the Index is valid. "94 Phillips, in discussing instruments for measuring attitudes toward self and others, asserts: It is apparent from these results that the self-others attitudes as measured in terms of an objective, multiple-choice question- naire Show substantial relationships far above that expected by chance. The results show also that the observations of clinicians in regard to self-others attitudes hold for normal or non-clinical populations; these attitudes are not therefore, a function of clinical status, maladjustment, or the like. 95 The IA! contains 49 trait words selected from Allport and Odbert's list of 17, 953 trait words. The 124 initial words chosen were repre- sentative of those occurring most frequently in client-centered defini- tions. The 124 words were then used with a sample of college students in test-retest fashion covering a period of three weeks . "Those words showing greater variation from test to retest than was shown by the average subject on the average word were excluded. The remaining 49 words became the basis of the Adult Form of the Index. "96 93Ibld., p. 260. 94rh1d., p. 261. 95E. L. Phillips, "Attitudes Toward Self and Others, A Brief Question-Report, " Journal of gensulting Psychology, XV (1951), pp. 79-81 . 95131113, Adult and High School Senior Form, pp. 5-6. 48 M scores are expressed in the following typological arrangement using plus and minus attitudes toward self and significant others. Classification Interpretation ++ ‘ High valuing of self; high valuing of others +- High valuing of self; low valuing of others -+ Low valuing of self; high valuing of others -- Low valuing of self; low valuing of others Column two of the "self" and "other" sections of the M are totaled separately in the scoring process. Individuals totaling 170 points or more on either of the sections are considered to be plus in concept of self or others, while those scoring less than 170 points are judged to be minus in concept of self or others . For example, a person scoring 182 on column two of the "self" section and 130 on the "others" section is considered high valuing (+) of self and low valuing (-) of others. The Index of Adjustment and Values is con- tained in portions of the Student and Teacher booklets attached as Appendix D and B, respectively. Sex There is considerable indication from research that more boys than girls go to college. Since sex differences appear to play an im- DOrtant role in college plans and attendance, boys and girls were differentiated throughout the study. Sex was determined by the in- dication of "male" or "female" on the student and teacher question- naires . 49 Peer Friends Since the school frequently functions as the social center for many adolescents, it was expected that peer friendships would often be formed within the educational milieu. The student's peer friends were measured by a self-reporting instrument in which he was asked to list the name of his best friend of his own age group. As previously noted, the validity (and reliability of self-reporting, sociometric instruments has been shown by Moreno to be relatively acceptable. Data were collected in such a way that the sociometric choices of students could be matched directly with the peer friend chosen. Sex, socio-economic status and grade level of the student's peer friends were explored in the study. Most-Understanding Teachers Students usually have strong likes and dislikes for various members of the instructional staff. The teacher they most admire is frequently the one who they feel knows and understands them the best. In self- reporting fashion, students were asked to indicate which teacher in their school they felt knew them the best. Since the data made it pos- sible to match the sociometric choices of students directly with their most-understanding teachers, information regarding certain significant characteristics of the teacher chosen was readily available. Sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, personality classification and 50 childhood socio-economic status of the most-understanding teachers of college and non-college preference students were explored. Adult Friends Significant adults, other than parents, in the adolescent's life can be found both inside and outside of the school environment. As a result, students were asked to name the adult they liked best, ex- clusive of parents or relatives. The name was of no particular interest except as it served to focus the student's attention on a specific per- son. They were then asked where they became acquainted with this person, whether in or out of school. In order that socio-economic status might be determined, they were also to indicate what the person did for a living. Whether the student's adult friend was in or out of the immediate school environment was explored as a variable. In addition, the socio-economic Status of the out-adult was investigated, since the in-adults were mostly teachers, administrators, counselors or service personnel whose social status was relatively fixed. Administration of the Instruments All of the instruments were administered to students and teachers in booklet form. The portions of the booklet containing the instruments are attached as Appendix D and E. Classroom teachers administered the tests and questionnaires under the supervision of a Michigan State University faculty member 51 while simultaneously completing the teacher's form of the booklet them- selves. This was done in the classrooms between the opening of school in the morning and noon, and during the months of November and December of 1960. The booklets were then returned to the College of Education, Michigan State University, for coding and processing. Analysis of the Data The inventory booklets for the students in the 25 per cent strati- fied, random sample, and the most-understanding teachers they named were coded, tabulated, and key punched for International Business Machine analysis. A chi-square statistic x2= 2 W2 was used to test the significance of the differences between the college and non-college preference groups with respect to the previously mentioned variables . This test was used throughout the study, with exact probability tests being used for cells containing fewer than five cases. The chi-square test of independence was used upon the following assumptions: 97 1. Data must be classified into categories . 2. There must be a valid or logical basis for categorizing data into observed frequencies and for setting up ex- pected frequencies. K 97Robert H. Koenker, Simplified Statistics for Students in Educa- Liopand Psychology (Bloomington, Illinois: McKnight and McKnight Publishing Co., 1961), p. 122. 52 3. The same person must not be used in more than one group in the comparison of two or more groups . These assumptions were met in the study since the data were classified into valid and logical categories and classificatiOns of: Categories Classifications 1. Sex Male : Female 2. Level of Educational College preference : Non- Aspiration college preference 3. Socio-economic status High : Middle : Low 4. Personality classification ++ : +- : -+ : -- 5. Age levels 16-18 or more (students) and 20-29 : 30-39 : 40-49 and 50 or more (teachers) 6. Grade levels 9th : 10th : 11th : 12th 7. Years on the staff 0-2 : 3-9 : and 10 or more 8. Marital status Married : Single 9. Place of employment In-school : Out-school No individual was used more than once in the analysis of each group. In the process of IBM summarization of each of the variables, some cases were lost because of incomplete or invalid information. Cases were also lost by the extraction of the proportionate, random sample. Consequently, numerical totals of student, peer, teacher and adult variables of the prOportionate, random sample were arranged in chi-square contingency tables by sex and level of educational aspiration. The chi-square test of homogenity was used to determine if significant differences had occurred as a result of the sampling procedure. Probability of a significant difference among males was p <. 20 and was p <. 98 among females. Both the male and female samples were considered to be sufficiently homogenous 53 for the purposes of the study. Data relative to this analysis are pre- sented in Tables 1 and 2. The null form of the hypothesis (Ho: a=b) was employed. The alternative form of the hypothesis (H: a b) was accepted or rejected depending upon the test of the null form. The following null hypo- theses were tested in this study: A. Socio-economic status of high school male and female seniors H01: H02: There are no differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college and non-college preference students by socio-economic status There are no differences between college and non- college preference students by socio-economic status Personality classification of male and female high school seniors H01: H02: There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference students by personality classification There are no differences between college and non- college preference students by personality classifi— cation Ecological characteristics of peer friends of male and female high school seniors H01: There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference students and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status c. grade level 54 TABLE l.--PrOportionate, random sample of males Total Out- Sample Peers Teachers Adults adults Total College (536.48) (391.57) (393.11) (511.05) (269.78) Preference 534 401 399 516 252 2102 Non-college (159.52) (116.43) (116.89) (151.95) (80.22) Preference 162 107 111 147 98 625 Total 696 508 510 663 350 27 27 x2=6.74765 d.f. =4 p<.20 TABLE 2.--PrOportionate, random sample of females Total Out- Sample Peers Teachers Adults adults Total College (474.35) (368.35) (363.12) (463.88) (177.31) Preference 474 372 358 469 174 1847 Non-college (250.66) (194.65) (191.88) (245.12) (93.69) Preference 251 191 197 240 97 976 Total 725 563 555 709 271 2823 x2=0.64628 d.f.= 4 p<.98 H02: H04: H06: 55 There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference stu- dents and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status 0. grade level There are no differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college preference students and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status c. grade level There are no differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference stu- dents and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status c. grade level There are no differences between college and non- college preference students and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status 0. grade level There are no differences between college and non- college preference students from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of peer friends by: a. sex b. socio-economic status c. grade level d. higher, same or lower socio-economic status Attitudinal and ecological characteristics of most-understanding teachers of male and female high school seniors H01: There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference students and their choice of most-understanding teachers by: a. sex b. marital status c. years on the staff H02: H03: HO 56 (:1. age e . socio-economic background f. personality classification There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference students and their choice of most-understanding teachers by: a. sex b. marital status c. years on the staff d. age e. socio-economic background f. personality classification There are no differences among ++, +- , -s+, and -- personality classification college preference students and their choice of most-understanding teachers by: a. sex b. marital status 0. years on the staff d. age e. socio-economic background f. personality classification There are no differences among ++, +— , -'+, and -- personality classification non-college preference stu- dents and their choice of most-understanding teachers by: a. sex b. marital status c. years on the staff d. age e . socio— economic background f. personality classification There are no differences between college and non-college preference students and their choice of most- understanding teachers by: a. sex b. marital status 0. years on the staff d. age e. socio-economic background f. personality classification H06: 57 There are no differences between college and non- college preference students from a prOportionate, random sample and their choice of most-understanding teachers by: a. sex . marital status . years on the staff . age . socio-economic background . personality classification b c d e f 9. higher, same or lower socio-economic status E. . Ecological characteristics of adult friends of male and female high school seniors H01: H02: H03: H04: H05: There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference students and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults There are no differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference students and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults There are no differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college preference students and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults There are no differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference stu- dents and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults There are no differences between college and non- college preference students and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults 58 H06: There are no differences between college and non- college preference students from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of adult friends by: a. place of employment b. socio-economic status of out-adults c. higher, same or lower socio-economic status It was determined that the null hypothesis would be accepted if p) . 05 . Eight null hypotheses were tested in the analysis of the socio- economic status of high school seniors. The null hypotheses were accepted in 4 categories and rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of con- fidence in the other 4. Ten null hypotheses were tested in an examination of the persona- lity classification of the sample. Three of these were accepted while 7 were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Thirty-eight null hypotheses were tested in a study of the ecologi- cal characteristics of the senior's peer friend choices. Twenty-six of these were accepted while 12 were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Seventy-four null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of the atti- tudinal and ecological characteristics of the most-understanding teacher choices of the sample. The null hypotheses were accepted in 70 cate- gories and rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence in 4. Twenty-six null hypotheses were tested in an examination of the ecological characteristics of adult friend choices of high school seniors. Seventeen of these were accepted while 9 were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. 59 A total of 156 null hypotheses were tested in the study. Summary The high school senior sample used in this study was extracted from a 25 per cent stratified, random sample taken from Project 918, a larger national study conducted at Michigan State University. Thirty- four high schools representing a nation-wide sample were chosen for study. The sampling procedure was designed so that significant re- lationships between selected variables could be ascertained. The Bills, McLean Index of Adjustment and Values, the Duncan Socio-Economic Index for All Occupations, and sociometric, self- reporting type instruments were employed in the study. The chi-square test of independence was used in the analysis of the data. One hundred fifty-six null hypotheses were tested in the study. It was determined that the null hypothesis would be accepted if p> . 05. Results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. Conclusions were based upon an acceptance or rejection of the null hypotheses . The criterion for rejection of the null hypothesis was p <. 05 . If the null hypothesis (Ho: a=b) was rejected by chl-square analysis, the alternative hypothesis (H: a b) was tested by inspection of the chi- square table for direction and/or source of difference in distribution. Hypotheses for further research and analysis were also formulated from the results of the study. Data relative to the variables tested are presented in apprOpriate tables. CHAPTER IV LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATION: A RELATIONSHIP TO SELECTED VARIABLES Two thousand thirty-one high school seniors were investigated in this study relative to selected variables. One hundred fifty-six null hypotheses (Ho: a=b) were tested. One hundred twenty were ac- cepted while 36 were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Those that were rejected (H: a b) were tested by inspection of the chi- square table for direction and/or source of difference in distribution. Numerical Distribution of the Sample Numerical data regarding personal ecological and attitudinal characteristics of the sample are shown in Appendix F, Table 1:1. Since the sample was stratified by level of educational aspiration, it was interesting to note that students who planned to go to college com- prised 1,434 or 71.7 per cent, while those who did not plan to go to college comprised the remaining 597 or 28.3 per cent of the student population. Of the total male population, 761 boys indicated that they planned to go to college, whereas 233 voiced no plans to seek higher education. Six hundred seventy-three of the girls indicated positive 60 61 plans for college attendance and 364 signified that they did not plan to continue their education. Boys were in. an average ratio of 77 . 2 per cent college preference and 22.8 per cent non-college preference whereas girls averaged 66.1 per cent college preference and 33. 9 per cent non-college preference. This sex difference in college preference and attendance is in accord with the latest United States Bureau of the Census statistics. In discussing census statistics, Stewart states that "more boys than girls indicated their intention to enroll in col- lege, despite the predominance of girls among the high school seniors of 1959-60. "98 The numerical distribution for high school senior males and fe- males of the proportionate, random sample is shown in Appendix F, Table 1:2. Six hundred thirteen cases were lost in the process. The majority of these were from the high socio-economic classes, since a large number of the respondents in this class were college preference students. Numerical data concerning the senior's choices of significant peer, teacher and adult friends are presented in Appendix F, Tables 2:1 and 2:2. In the process of IBM summarization of each of the significant friend groups, some cases were rejected because of incomplete or 98Stewart, p. 13 . 62 invalid information. The total number of cases examined, relative to each variable, is shown in the appropriate chi-square table. Socio-Economic Status of Male Hifigh School Seniors Four null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of the socio- economic status of male high school seniors. Two were accepted and two rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Data relative to these variables are presented in Appendix F, Tables 3:1 through 4. There were significant differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- college and non-college preference males from the high socio- economic classes . More of the high socio-economic status college preference males were +- than expected whereas more non-college preference males were ++ and -- than anticipated. This trend did not continue for middle and low socio-economic status senior boys. Even though there were no statistically significant differences among these groups, there was a tendency for college preference males to be pre- dominantly ++ and non-college preference males to be -+. Personality characteristics significantly differentiate college and non-college preference males from the high socio-economic classes. The extreme self-confidence of these educationally high aspiring boys may well reflect complete acceptance of the educational values and security in the advantages of their social position. The personality extremes of their educationally low aspiring peers may be indicative 63 either of parents who are accepting by reason of their higher educa- tional level in the case of ++ boys, or of parents who are very class conscious and ambitious in the case of -- boys. There also seems to be some indication that the personality characteristics of college and non-college preference boys differ somewhat among socio-economic classes. Significant differences were observed between college and non- college preference males by socio-economic status. College pre- ference senior boys came predominantly from the high socio-economic classes whereas their non-college preference peers came from the low classes. Cultural, financial and educational advantages that vary with the adolescent boy's position in the social class hierarchy appear to have a significant relationship to his level of educational aspiration. For boys, the extremes of socio-economic status also appear to be highly indicative of their post-high school plans . Socio-Economic Status of Female HighySchool Seniors Four null hypotheses were tested in an examination of the socio- economic status of female high school seniors. Two of the hypotheses were accepted but two were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of con- fidence. Data concerning the variables are presented in Appendix F, Tables 5:1 through 6. 64 There were significant differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- col- lege and non-college preference females from the low socio—economic classes. Low class college preference females were +— whereas their non-college preference peers were primarily ++ with some being -+. Even though there were no significant differences among high and middle socio-economic status college and non-college preference senior girls, there was a tendency for college preference girls to be ++ whereas non-college preference girls were -+. Significant differences in personality patterns between college and non-college preference girls from the low socio-economic classes could well reflect cultural deprivation and lack of parental motivation. Since sex and socio-economic status also relate to college attendance, the low class college preference girl may have to be especially aggressive and confident of her own abilities if she is to continue her education. Educationally low aspiring girls from this class, however, either appear to be satisified with their present status or to lack confidence in them- selves. Personality characteristics differentiating levels of educational aspiration seem to vary less for girls than boys among socio-economic classes. Significant differences were noted between college and non-college preference females by socio-economic status. College preference senior girls were decidedly from the high socio-economic classes r W" my» oil, .14. cup ' I Q out. cal 65 whereas non-college preference girls were primarily from the low and middle classes . Socio-economic status also significantly differentiates educa- tionally high and low aspiring girls. Less cultural and parental pres- sures on girls to attend college, however, may account for the fact that non-college preference girls are from the middle as well as the low socio-economic classes . Personality Classification of Male High School Seniors Five null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of the personality classification of male high school seniors . One was accepted while four were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Data con- cerning the results of this analysis are presented in Appendix F, Tables 7:1 through 8. Significant differences were observed among high, middle and low socio-economic status, ++, +-, and -+ college and non-college pre- ference males . More college preference ++ males than expected were from the high socio-economic classes, with some from the middle clas- ses, whereas non-college preference ++ boys were largely from the low classes . College preference senior boys within the +- and -+ person- ality classifications were chiefly from the high socio-economic classes, their non-college preference peers being primarily from the low classes, with some from the middle classes . Even though the trend for -- boys 66 was similar to the ++ boys, the differences were not statistically sig- nificant. The socio-economic differentiation between educationally high and low aspiring boys is not as extreme when viewed by personality classi- fications. Socio-economic status, however, continues to have a sig- nificant relationship to the male senior's level of educational aspira- tion, regardless of his personality classification. There were also significant differences between college and non- college preference males by personality classification. The majority of college preference senior boys were ++ with some being +-. Non- college preference males were both —+ and -- to a greater degree than expected. Educationally high aspiring boys appear to have a great deal of confidence in themselves. Academic success, cultural and educa- tional advantages and parental encouragement all may directly relate to the self-confidence of the college-bound boy. The devaluating self-concept evidenced by educationally low aspiring boys , however, could well be an important factor in their plans not to seek higher education . Personality Classification of Female High School Seniors Five null hypotheses were tested in a study of the personality classification of female high school seniors. Whereas two of these 67 were accepted, three were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of con- fidence. Data relative to the results of this analysis are shown in Appendix F, Tables 9:1 through 10. Significant differences were noted among high, middle and low socio-economic status, ++, +-, and -+ college and non-college pre- ference senior girls. College preference females within the ++ and -+ personality classifications were mainly from the high socio-economic classes whereas their non-college preference peers were primarily from the low classes with some from the middle classes. College pre- ference +- girls were also chiefly from the high classes, but their non- college preference peers were largely from the middle and low classes . The trend for -- females was similar but with a larger concentration of the college preference girls coming from the high socio-economic clas- ses and the non-college preference girls coming from the middle clas- ses. However, these differences were not statistically significant. In the case of girls, personality classifications again seem to have little effect upon the relationship of socio-economic status to level of educational aspiration. Regardless of a female senior's per- sonality characteristics, she will probably plan to attend college if She is from a high socio-economic class and plan to terminate her education if she is from a low or middle class. There were no. significant differences between college and non- college preference females by personality classification. There was 68 a tendency for college preference girls, however, to be principally +- whereas non-college preference girls were -+. Personality characteristics do not seem to have as strong a re- lationship to level of educational aspiration for girls as for boys. Although college preference girls also tend to be overly self-confident and non-college preference girls tend to be devaluating of self, girls do not appear to depend as heavily as boys upon these personality characteristics in formulating their post-high school plans . Ecological Characteristics of Peer Friends of Male High School Sepiors Nineteen null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of the eco- logical characteristics Of peer friends of male high school seniors. Ten of these were accepted; nine were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of confidence. In Appendix F, Tables 11:1 through 16:4, data are pre- sented regarding the variables tested. There were significant differences among high, middle and low college preference males and their choice of peer friends by socio- economic status. Senior boys from each of the three socio-economic classes chose the majority of their peer friends from their own class. There was some indication that high and low class college preference boys were considerably more conscious of choosing peer friends from within their own socio-economic class, since middle class boys' choices reflected more even distribution between classes . Even 69 though the differences were not statistically significant, there was a tendency for high and middle class senior boys to select their peer friends from their own grade whereas low class boys chose theirs from the 9th, 10th or 11th grades. No significant differences were noted among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference males and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level. A trend was noted, however, in the direction of middle class boys' choosing more male peer friends and low class boys selecting more female ones . There were no significant differences among ++, +-, -+, and -- college preference males and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level; however, ++ college preference boys tended to pick more female peer friends, whereas -+ and -- boys chose more male peers than expected. College preference ++ boys were inclined to select considerably more of their peer friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas -+ boys tended to choose theirs from the middle classes. It was also noted that +- boys chose considerably more of their peer friends from the 12th grade whereas -+ and -- boys selected theirs from the lower grades . No significant differences or trends were observed among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference males and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level. 70 Significant differences were noted between college and non- college preference males and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status and grade level. College preference senior boys selected predominantly more male, high socio-economic class and 12th grade peer friends whereas non-college preference boys primarily chose female, low and middle socio-economic class and 9th, 10th and 11th grade peer friends . The direction of all of these trends was readily discernible. Statistically significant differences were noted between a pro- portionate, random sample of college and non-college preference males and their choice of peer friends by sex, soclo-economic status, grade level and higher, same or lower socio-economic status. College pre- ference senior boys continued to pick male, high socio-economic class and 12th grade peer friends whereas non-college preference boys mainly chose female, low or middle class, and 9th, 10th and 11th grade peer friends. There were also significant differences between college and non-college preference senior boys and their choice of peer friends by higher, same or lower socio-economic status . The direction of these differences was clearly toward college preference males' choosing most of their peer friends from a higher socio-economic class and non-college preference males' selecting theirs from a lower class than their own. Ecological Characteristics of male seniors' peer friends have a significant relationship to their level of educational aspiration. Boys, 71 for example, choose peer friends who most likely reflect their own educational values as evidenced by their social mobility patterns and their selection of peers by socio-economic status and grade level. Since educationally high aspiring boys are planning to attend college, they select male peer friends in preference to attachments with girls that might lead to marriage. The non-college preference boy's interest in marriage, however, is probably reflected in his choice of female peer friends . = Ecological Characteristics of Peer Friends of Female High School Seniors Nineteen null hypotheses were tested in a study of the ecological characteristics Of peer friends of female high school seniors . Fifteen of these were accepted and four were rejected at the . 05 or lesser levels of confidence. Data relative to these findings are found in Appendix F, Tables 18:1 through 22:4. There were significant differences among high, middle and low College preference females and their choice of peer friends by socio- economic status. High, middle and low class girls all chose the majority of their peer friends from their own socio—economic classes, rtespectively. However, middle class girls did choose a few of their Deer friends from the low classes whereas low class girls chose some of theirs from the middle classes. While it was not statistically sig- rlificant, it was observed that middle class senior girls tended to Select considerably more of their peer friends from their own grade 72 level, whereas high and low class girls chose theirs from the three lower grades. No significant differences were noted among high, middle and low non-college preference females and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level. There was a trend, how- ever, in the direction of senior girls' choosing peer friends from their own socio-economic class. High and middle class girls also tended to choose their peer friends from the three lower grades whereas low class _Senior girls chose theirs from their own grade. There were no Significant differences among ++, +-, '-+, and -- college preference females and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level. There was a tendency for ++ girls, however, to select peer friends from the three lower grades Whereas +- girls chose theirs from the 12th grade. Similarly, no significant differences were observed among ++, +-, -+, and -- non-college preference senior girls and their choice of peer friends by sex, socio-economic status or grade level. A trend toward +- girls' choosing middle class peer friends and -+ girls' Selecting high class peer friends was noted. There were significant differences between college and non- COllege preference females and their choice of peer friends by socio- economic status. College preference senior girls selected most of their peer friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference girls chose theirs principally from the low classes, with some choosing from the middle classes. A trend to- ward college preference girls' choosing more male, and non-college preference girls more female peer friends, was noted. There were significant differences between college and non— college preference females from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of peer friends by socio-economic status and higher, same or lower socio-economic status . College preference girls chose their peer friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference girls selected theirs chiefly from the low, and some from the middle classes . Significant differences were also noted between college and non-college preference females in their choice of peer friends from higher, same or lower socio-economic classes than their own. College preference girls chose considerably more of their peer friends from a higher socio-economic class than their OWn. Non-college preference senior girls selected their peer friends primarily from Socio-economic classes lower than their own. Even though the differences were not statistically significant, there was a tendency for college preference senior girls to select more peer friends than expected from their own grade whereas non-college preference girls selected more from the three lower grades. Ecological characteristics of peer friends also have a significant relationship to female high school seniors' level of educational 74 aspiration. Girls appear to choose peer friends whose educational values are similar to their own as evidenced by their social mobility patterns and their selection of peers by socio-economic class. They do not seem to be as rigid as boys, however, in their choice of peer friends by sex or grade level. This may reflect greater emotional and sexual maturity on the part of girls and less tendency to see a rigid dichotomy between higher education and marriage. Ecological and Attitudinal Characteristics of Most- Understanding Teachers of Male High School Seniors Thirty-seven null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of eco- logical and attitudinal characteristics of most-understanding teachers of male high school seniors. Thirty-six of the null hypotheses were accepted and one was rejected at the . 01 level of confidence. Data regarding the variables are presented in Appendix F, Tables 23:1 through 28:7 . There were no significant differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference boys and their choices of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality classification. However, it was noted that high socio-economic status college pre- ference boys were prone to select more single teachers than expected whereas middle class boys chose more married teachers. High and low class boys also tended to choose more teachers who had been employed 75 3-9 years whereas middle class boys chose more teachers than ex- pected with 0-2 and 10+ years experience. No significant differences or trends were observable among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference boys and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality clas sification . No significant differences were found among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college preference males and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality classification. There was a tendency for ++ boys to select more male teachers and for +- and -+ boys to choose more female teachers than expected. Boys who were ++ also were inclined to select more teachers who had been on the school staff 0-2 years whereas the other boys chose teachers who had been employed longer. It was noted that ++ boys tended principally to choose teachers in the 30-39 age group, with some choosing those in the 20-29 group; +- boys were inclined pri- marily to choose those in the 50+ age group, with some choosing those in the 30-39 group; -+ boys tended to select teachers in the 40-49 age group; and -- boys were prone to select from both the 20—29 and 40-49 age groups . College preference ++ males also tended to select +- teachers and -+ boys chose ++ teachers to a greater degree than expected . 76 There were no significant differences or major trends among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference boys and their choice of most—understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality classification. No significant differences were noted between college and non- college preference males and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio- economic background or personality classification; however, several trends were observable. College preference boys were prone to choose more single teachers whereas non-college preference boys chose more married teachers than expected. College preference males also tended to pick more teachers who had been on the staff from 0-2 or 10+ years whereas their non-college preference peers selected teachers who had been employed from 3-9 years . It was further noted that college preference boys were inclined primarily to select teachers in the 40-49 and some in the 30-39 age group whereas non-college preference boys largely selected those in the 20-29 age group. College preference boys also tended to choose more +- teachers whereas non-college preference boys primarily chose more ++ and some -+ teachers than expected. There were significant differences between college and non-college preference males from a proportionate, random sample and their choice 77 of most-understanding teachers by socio-economic background. Col- lege preference boys chose more teachers from high socio-economic backgrounds whereas non-college preference boys selected more from both middle and low class backgrounds. Even though there were no other significant differences , there were several observable trends . College preference boys tended to choose teachers who had been em- ployed from 0-2 years with some choosing teachers in the 10+ years group whereas non-college preference boys chose teachers who had been on the staff from 3—9 years . College preference boys also were inclined to select more teachers in the 40-49 age group whereas non- college preference boys selected more in the 20-29 age group than expected. Teachers' socio-economic backgrounds appear to have a signifi- cant relationship to male seniors' level of educational aspiration. Boys may select most-understanding teachers whose socio-economic background is more in accordance with their own educational values . Teachers from high socio-economic backgrounds, however, apparently relate better to educationally high aspiring boys whereas teachers from low or middle class backgrounds seem to have greater under- standing of educationally low aspiring boys . 78 Ecological and Attitudinal Characteristics of Most- Understanding_Teachers of Female IiipLh School Seniors Thirty-seven null hypotheses were tested in a Study of ecological and attitudinal characteristics of most-understanding teachers of female high school seniors. Thirty-four of the null hypotheses were accepted and three were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of confidence. Data concerning the variables are presented in Appendix F, Tables 29:1 through 34:7 . There were significant differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference girls and their choice of most-understanding teachers by age. High socio-economic status college preference girls principally chose teachers in the 40-49, and some in the 30-39, age bracket; middle class girls selected those in the 30-39 age group; and low class girls primarily chose teachers in the 20-29, and some in the 50+ age group. Although no significant differences were noted among the other variables, several trends were observed. High socio-economic class college preference females were inclined to select more male teachers whereas low class girls chose more female teachers than expected. High class college preference girls also selected more teachers with high socio-economic back- grounds whereas middle and low class girls chose more with low class backgrounds. It was further noted that high class girls were in- clined to pick mainly +- teachers; middle class girls picked ++ teachers and low class girls picked both +— and -+ teachers. 79 No significant differences were observed among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference females and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality classifi- cation. There was a tendency for high class non-college preference girls to select teachers who had been employed either 0-2 or 3-9 years; for middle class girls to select those employed 3-9 years; and for low class girls to select teachers who had been on the staff 0-2 years . There were significant differences among ++, +-, -+, and —— personality classification college preference senior girls and their choice of most-understanding teachers by marital status. It was noted that ++, -+, and -- college preference girls chose more married teachers whereas +- girls selected more single teachers than ex- pected. There were no other significant differences among the varia- bles tested, but a tendency was observed for ++ and -+ girls to choose ++ teachers; for +- girls to choose +- teachers; and for -- girls to choose -+ teachers . No significant differences were found among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference females and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio-economic background or personality classi- fication. There was, however, a tendency for ++ non—college 8O preference girls to choose more male teachers and for girls within the other personality classifications to choose more female teachers than expected. It was also noted that ++ girls were inclined to select teachers with low socio-economic backgrounds; +- girls chiefly selected those with high class backgrounds; and -+ girls primarily chose those with middle class backgrounds . No significant differences were noted between college and non- college preference senior girls and their choice of most-understanding teachers by sex, marital status, years on the staff, age, socio— economic background or personality classification. College preference girls were inclined to select more male and more married teachers whereas non—college preference girls selected more female and more single teachers than expected. College preference girls also tended to choose teachers who had been employed from 3-9 years whereas their non-college preference peers chose those who had been on the staff 10+ years . There was also a tendency for college preference girls to pick teachers who were in the 30-39, and some in the 40-49, age ranges whereas non-college preference girls mainly picked those in the 50+, and some in the 20—29, age groups. There were significant differences between college and non- college preference females from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of most-understanding teachers by socio-economic background. College preference girls predominantly chose teachers 81 from high socio-economic backgrounds whereas non-college preference girls chose those from low, and some from middle, class backgrounds. Though the other variables were not statistically significant, it was found that college preference senior girls were prone to pick married teachers whereas non-college preference girls picked single teachers. College preference girls also tended to select teachers within the 40-49, and some within the 30-39, age ranges whereas their non- college preference peers largely selected those within the 50+, and some within the 20-29, age brackets. The socio-economic backgrounds of teachers also have a signifi- cant relationship to female high school seniors' post-high school plans. College preference girls seem to relate better to teachers from high socio-economic backgrounds whereas non-college preference girls feel more comfortable with teachers from low or middle class back- grounds. It could well be that a teacher's socio-economic background so strongly influences his own values that he can only relate effectively to adolescents with educational values similar to his own. Teachers from high socio—economic backgrounds apparently place so much empha- sis on college attendance that they can best relate to, and thus attract, the educationally high aspiring student. Teachers from low and middle class backgrounds, however, seem to be more accepting of the educa- tionally low aspiring student. 82 Ecolgglcal Characteristics of Adult Friends of Male High SchooLSeniors ’ Thirteen null hypotheses were tested in an analysis of the ecologi- cal characteristics of adult friends of male high school seniors. Nine of the null hypotheses were accepted and four were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of confidence. . Data relative to these variables are presented in Appendix F, Tables 35:1 through 40:3. No significant differences were found among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference males and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio-economic status of out- adults . High socio-economic status college preference boys, however, were'inclined to choose high class out-adults, and low status boys mainly chose low, and some middle, class out-adults. There were no significant differences or trends among high, middle and low socio-economic status non-college preference senior boys and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio-economic status of out-adults. Significant differences were observed among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college preference males and their choice of adult friends by place of employment. It was found that ++, -+, and -- college preference boys chose adult friends largely from outside the school whereas +— boys chose those from within the school. Even though it was not statistically significant, there was a tendency for ++ 83 college preference boys to select middle class out-adults; for -+ boys to choose low class out-adults; and for +- and -- boys to select high class out-adult friends. There were no significant differences or trends among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference males and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio-economic status of out-adults . Significant differences were found between college and non-college preference students and their choice of adult friends by place of employ- ment and socio-economic status of out-adults. College preference boys selected more of their adult friends within the school whereas non- college preference boys selected more of theirs outside. College pre- ference boys chose principally high socio-economic status out-adults whereas non-college preference boys chose their out-adults from the low classes . There were significant differences between college and non- college preference senior boys from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of adult friends by place of employment. College preference boys picked their adult friends from within the school whereas non-college preference boys picked theirs from outside the school. Even though the differences were not statistically signifi- cant, college preference boys were inclined to choose their out—adult 84 friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference boys chose theirs from the low classes. Whether adult friends are employed by the school or elsewhere and the socio-economic status of those employed elsewhere have a signifi- cant relationship to male seniors' level of educational aspiration. College preference boys apparently find similar educational values and greater acceptance among teachers, guidance personnel and adminis- trators. Educationally low aspiring boys, however, seem to find the friendship and understanding they need among low socio-economic adults outside the school. It would appear that educational personnel are failing to communicate successfully with non-college preference boys. Ecological Characteristics of Adult Friends of Female High School Seniors Thirteen null hypotheses were tested in an investigation of the ecological characteristics of adult friends of female high school seniors. Whereas eight of these were accepted, five were rejected at the .05 or lesser levels of confidence. Data concerning the results of the investigation are given in Appendix F, Tables 41:1 through 46:3. There were significant differences among high, middle and low socio-economic status college preference females and their choice of adult friends by socio-econom ic status of out-adults . High, mid- dle and low socio-economic status college preference girls decidedly 85 chose their out-adult friends from their own classes, respectively. While it was not statistically significant, it was noted that high status college preference girls tended to choose adult friends from outside the school whereas middle and low status girls chose adults from in- side the school. No significant differences or trends were noted among high, mid- dle and low socio-economic status non-college preference females and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio- economic status of out-adults . There were also no significant differences or trends among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification college preference girls and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio-economic status of out-adults. No significant differences were found among ++, +-, -+, and -- personality classification non-college preference females and their choice of adult friends by place of employment or socio-economic status of out-adults. However, ++, -+, and -- non-college pre- ference girls were inclined to select adult friends inside the school whereas +- girls selected theirs outside the school. Significant differences were found between college and non- college preference females and their choice of adult friends by place of employment and socio-economic status of out-adults. College preference girls chose predominantly more in-adult friends whereas 86 non-college preference girls chose more out-adults than expected. College preference senior girls also selected more of their out-adult friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference girls chose theirs primarily from the low, and some from the middle, classes. There were significant differences between college and non- college preference senior girls from a proportionate, random sample and their choice of adult friends by place of employment and socio- economic status of out-adults. College preference girls chose more in-adult friends whereas their non-college preference peers selected more out-adults than expected. College preference girls selected their outAadult friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference girls chose theirs chiefly from the low, and some from the middle, classes. Even though the differences were not statistically significant, it was noted that college preference girls tended to choose their out-adult friends from their own socio- economic class although some chose out-adults from a higher class than their own. Non-college preference girls were inclined to select their out-adult friends from a class lower than their own. The ecological characteristics of adult friends also have a signifi- cant relationship to senior girls' post-high school plans. College pre- ference girls select their adult friends from among educational personnel whereas non-college preference girls find their adult friends among low 87 socio-economic adults outside the school. This could well reflect the fact that educational personnel are not effectively meeting the personal and social needs of educationally low aspiring girls. Teachers, guid- ance personnel and administrators apparently are concentrating atten- tion on college-bound boys and girls to the exclusion of those who plan to terminate their education. As a result, non-college preference students do not seem to regard educational personnel as adult friends . Summary It was the purpose of this chapter to present the results of the study. In order to identify the sample population clearly, a numerical distribution by sex was presented. The study involved 2, 031 high school senior males and females from 34 selected high schools within the territorial United States. Girls comprised l, 037 and boys, 994 of the total student population. It was also noted that l, 437 of the students stated that they planned to go to college and 597 indicated that they did not desire further higher education. Information con- cerning the statistically significant results of the study is summarized in Tables 3, 4 and 5. A (1) signifies the primary direction of the dif- ferences and a (2) denotes any secondary difference. It was found in an investigation of the socio-economic status of the student population by level of educational aspiration that the fol- lowing factors were statistically significant: 88 mechom 00:00“ 105 0002001202 m0~m80L 00:93 10C 000200 mg 22 00:0..3 10E 0o02001coz 0032 0020c 3 1.1.. .m 0.00200 'II +l 1+ ++ 33 .22 :05 L 264 .32 S15 +3 33 .22 SE 1+ 33 .22 SE ++ iiuutfi c03c3coo .0383 05 mo moflmtgocuoco >u=cc0mu0o ccc 38980010800 Ecmoaflcoflm 11. m ”named. mofichm oococow 10cm 0002001coz m0~chm 00:98 105 000200 modflz 00x08“ 10cm 000200 1:02 m2 22 00:98 10E 000200 30A . 32 29m +Il ill 30A I 4H 1+ ++ 11 2252 +1 1+ ++ 11 +1 1+ ++ zoom hr Lullllfllll 03800 05 Lo moflmtouomfico DEMCOmcoo com 28950010800 “ccoflflcmfim 11. m ”.5me 89 +1 1+ ++ 304 20022 :20 00~ 08 0h 00: 0c 000:0 000200 ++ Bog 000:2 :93 00202 00:93 0.5 000200 33 .32 :90 0:08 00 0m .5 cm 100 tom 004. ma 0 2 1cm 038.0 20:82 33 .32 00.5 333 0000000. 0.000 H :030030003 520000.00 0:0 0330 280000012000 >0 03800 05 00 003050 0:05 05 00 003000808000 #050333 0:0 #0202000 8023:0511. v mam/Z. 90 00: 0:00 0:0 000200 1:0 Z 00: 0:00 0:0 000200 03800 800: 00 .a:0 00:0:000:0 000200 1:0 Z 00: 0:00 0:0 000200 0020800 00: 0:000:0 000200 1:0 2 00:00“ 0:0 000200 020800 800: 00 . 3:0 00: 0:0: 0:0 000200 1:0 Z 00: 0:00 0:0 000200 00202 26.: .32 c9): SO :2 33.32 8:: 00020 00020 00020 :033 0800 0:020 000:0 000 0:0 52 52150 SQH . 022 292 02 xom 0:30: 0:0:0000. 0:000 020800 0:: 00 000:0:0 0:020 05 00 0020230998 20503220 0:0 2002002000 8002802011. 0 mama. 91 1. High socio-economic status college preference males were more +- than expected whereas non-college pre- ference boys were both ++ and -- to a greater degree than expected. 2. College preference males came predominantly from the high socio-economic classes and non-college preference males from the low classes . 3 . Low socio-economic status college preference females were +- whereas their non-college preference peers were primarily ++ with some being -+. 4. College preference females came principally from the high socio-economic classes and non-college preference females from the middle and low classes . In an exploration of the personality classification of the two groups, it was observed that: 1. College preference ++ males were chiefly from the high, with some from the middle, classes, and non-college preference ++ males were from the low classes. College preference +- and -+ males were largely from the high, and non—college preference +- and -+ males were from the low, with some from the middle, classes. 2. College preference males were predominantly ++, with some being +— whereas their non-college preference peers were both -+ and --. 3. College preference ++ and -+ females were mainly from the high socio-economic classes and non-college pre- ference ++ and -+ females were primarily from the low, with some from the middle, classes. College preference +- girls were also usually from the high classes, but their non-college preference peers were largely from the middle and low classes. Significant ecological characteristics of the peer friends of college and non-college preference males and females were discovered in the study: 10. 92 High, middle and low class college preference males selected their peer friends chiefly from their own socio- economic class. College preference males chose the majority of their peer friends from the male group whereas non-college preference males selected theirs from the female group. College preference males selected more of their peer friends from the high socio-economic classes whereas non-college preference males selected theirs from the low, with some from the middle, classes. College preference senior males chose their peer friends mainly from their own grade whereas non-college pre- ference seniors chose theirs from the 9th, 10th and 11th grades. The significant factors noted in 2, 3 and 4 were sup- ported by an identical investigation using a proportion- ate, random sample. College preference males selected peer friends who were higher in socio-economic status than themselves and non- college preference males chose those who were from a lower, and some from their own, socio-economic status. High class college preference females selected their peer friends from their own socio-economic class whereas middle and low class females chose theirs from both of the other classes. College preference girls selected peer friends from the high socio—economic classes whereas non-college pre- ference girls primarily selected them from the low, and some from the middle, classes. The significant factors noted in 8 above were supported by an identical investigation using a proportionate, random sample. College preference females chose peer friends from their same, or a higher, socio-economic class whereas non- college preference females selected those from a lower class than their own. 93 In an investigation of selected attitudinal and ecological charac- teristics of most-understanding teachers some statistically significant factors were noted: College preference males from a proportionate, random sample chose most-understanding teachers with high socio-economic backgrounds whereas non-college pre- ference males chose teachers from low, and some from middle, class backgrounds. High class college preference females selected most- understanding teachers from the 30-39 and 40-49 age groups; middle class females, those in the 30-39, and some in the 50+, age brackets; and low class females, teacher friends from the 20-29, and some from the 50+, age groups . College preference ++, —+, and -- females predominantly selected married teachers whereas +- females chose single teachers. . . College preference senior girls from a proportionate, random sample selected most-understanding teachers with high socio-economic class backgrounds whereas non-college preference girls chose those with low, and some with middle, class backgrounds. Some statistically Significant factors were also revealed in a study of the ecological characteristics of adult friends. For example: 1. College preference ++, -+, and -- males chose chiefly out-adult friends, but +- males selected in-adults . College preference males selected in-adult friends, whereas non-college preference males chose out- adults. College preference senior boys chose out-adult friends from the high socio-economic classes, but non-college preference boys selected those from the lower classes . 94 4. The significant factor noted in 2 above was supported by an identical investigation using a proportionate, random sample. 5. College preference females from the three socio-economic classes chose out-adult friends from their own classes, respectively. 6. College preference senior girls selected in-adult friends, whereas non-college preference girls chose out-adult friends . 7 . College preference girls picked their adult friends from the high socio-economic classes, but non-college pre- ference girls picked theirs from the low, and some from the middle, classes. 8. The factors noted in 6 and 7 above were supported in an identical investigation using a proportionate, random sample. Statistical data concerning the results of the study were presented in appropriate tables in Appendix F. In the next chapter hypotheses are presented for further exploration and testing. Certain implications, drawn from the study, will also be suggested for personnel in education, business and government and for further social psychological research. Observations regarding the purpose and value of the study and future trends relative to similar studies, conclude the dissertation. CHAPTER V LEVEL OF EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATION: A CHALLENGE Projected college enrollment figures indicate that an increasingly larger number of high school students will seek higher education in the years to come. Educational administrators and student personnel workers at both the secondary and collegiate levels need to understand the college aspiring student better. Labor and management executives and personnel workers should also know more about the attitudes and values of the high school terminal student. Level-of-aspiration studies can provide valuable information to these individuals, as well as fruit- ful areas for further research by behavioral scientists. Hypotheses Requiring Further Study Some of the findings of this study warrant further research and analysis. Since the study was hypotheses-generating in nature, con- clusions were drawn from the statistically significant outcomes. The following hypotheses are suggested for further study: H01: High class college preference senior males are high valuing of self and low valuing of others . H02: High class non-college preference males are either ++ or -- . 95 H03: H04: H05: H05: H07: H08: H09: H0102 H011: H0123 H013: H014: H015: H015: 96 Low class college preference senior females are high valuing of self and low valuing of others. Low class non-college preference females are either ++ or -+. College preference males are high valuing of self, either ++ or +-. Non-college preference males are low valuing of self; either -+ or --. College preference high school seniors come from the high socio-economic classes. Non-college preference high school seniors come from the low socio-economic classes . College preference senior males choose male peer friends . Non-college preference senior males choose female peer friends . College preference high school seniors select peer friends from the high socio-economic classes. Non-college preference high school seniors select peer friends from the low socio-economic classes. College preference high school males choose 12th grade peer friends . Non-college preference high school males choose peer friends from the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades. College preference high school seniors select peer friends from a higher socio-economic class than their own. Non-college preference high school seniors select peer friends from a lower socio-economic class than their own. H017: College preference high School seniors choose most- understanding teachers with high socio-economic back- grounds. H0183 Non-college preference high school seniors choose most-understanding teachers with low socio-economic backgrounds . H019: College preference high school seniors select adult friends from within the school. H020: Non-college preference high school seniors select adult friends from outside the school. H021: College preference high school seniors choose out-adult friends from the high socio-economic classes . H022: Non-college preference high school seniors choose out- adult friends from the low socio-economic classes. Among the null hypotheses that were accepted, some contained trends that were sufficiently significant to warrant further investigation. Con- sequently, it is suggested that the following null hypotheses receive additional study: H01: There are no differences between college and non-college preference girls by personality classification. H02: There are no differences between college and non-college preference girls and their choice of peer friends by grade level. Implications for Education The results of the study contain certain implications that might prove of value to educational personnel. To get a clearer picture of the college preference senior as Opposed to his non-college preference peer, the two levels of educational aspiration are presented separately. 98 College Preference Students It was found that college preference high school seniors pri- marily: 1. Are from the high socio-economic classes 2. Select peer friends from the high socio-economic classes 3. Select peer friends from a higher socio-economio class than their own 4. Choose most-understanding teachers with high socio- economic backgrounds 5. Pick adult friends from within the school 6. Choose out-adult friends from the high socio-economic classes ' It was also observed that college preference males chiefly: 1. Are high valuing of self, either ++ or +- 2. Choose male peer friends 3. Select peer friends from their own grade level Furthermore, it was found that college preference females from the 1CW socio-economic classes are principally high valuing of self and 10W valuing of others. These findings present a composite picture of the educationally high aspiring student as being relatively self-confident, socially and economically privileged, and well accepted by peers, teachers and adults with values and attitudes similar to his own. There are several impOI‘tant implications from these observations for educational personnel. 99 Educational administrators need to give more attention to the socio- economic status of the student body. Schools located in suburban areas that serve students from high socio-economic classes will need to pro- vide educational programs that prepare students for college. This does not mean that high school terminal curriculums are not necessary, for some students in these schools will not be intellectually capable of a four year college program. Administrators in schools serving predominantly low socio-economic communities will have to be even more conscious of the educationally high aspiring student. These students may need special encouragement and assistance if they are to be adequately prepared for college. Equally important to meet the needs of the college aspiring student, is the selection and assignment of good teachers . Ginzberg believes that: The more parents are handicapped in guiding their offspring because of their own deprived backgrounds, the more important is the role of the school in helping to develop and direct young people. The school should be able to guide these youngsters with or without the formal testing programs which are used to identify high potential. More important than testing instruments or other guidance techniques is the contribution the school can make by providing able teachers. A good teacher serves as a model of excellence and can thereby capture the imagination of the young . 99 99311 Ginzberg, Human Resources: The Wealth of a Nation (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958). p. 83. 100 It was observed that college preference students choose adult friends from within the school and select most-understanding teachers with high socio-economic backgrounds. There is an indication that students are able to identify and select teachers with values similar to their own. It may be necessary to take a closer look at the teacher's system of values, especially in reference to educational goals. Possibly, closer screening and selection and more strategic placement of teachers within a school system would be expedient. and Wise. In-service training programs to help teachers more fully recognize their relationship to the level of educational aspiration of their students might also be advisable. Guidance personnel might note that college preference students are upwardly mobile in regard to their choice of peer friends . These students chose peer friends from their own grade level and from socio- economic classes higher than their own. Females and especially males tend to be high valuing of themselves. The educationally high aspiring student appears to be very status conscious, confident of his abilities and highly upwardly mobile. It is especially in- teresting to note the personality pattern of the college aspiring low SC>Cio-economic girl who is high valuing of self and low valuing of Others. These upwardly mobile girls may be extremely ambitious, p03Sibly to the point of being neurotically agressive in their efforts 101 to achieve education and social status. Many of these girls may need intensive counseling help with such apparently strong success strivings . Guidance personnel may also face difficult problems with the educationally high aspiring senior who is not intellectually capable of a four year college program or who is determined to attend a pres- tige college when he should settle for less. Conant notes: ”The main problem in wealthy suburban schools is to guide the parent whose college ambitions outrun his child's abilities toward a realistic picture of the kind of college his child is suited for. "100 One cannot escape drawing from the study the impression that the college preference student finds the school, the educational pro- gram, and the staff well geared to his personal and social needs . This supports the contention that the American high school exempli- fies and perpetuates high socio-economic values. The socio- economic cleavage between educationally high and low aspiring seniors was quite evident throughout the study. College and university administrators and student personnel workers may also find in the results of the study some implications for higher education. College students will apparently tend to be upwardly mobile in the choice of their peer friends . Residence hall, \ 100Iames B. Conant, Slums and Suburbs (New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 1961). p. 144. 102 fraternity and sorority personnel may find this information of value in the administration of college or university housing. Academic failure may present serious problems to students who tend to be high valuing of self. These experiences can have traumatic effects upon these students, requiring intensive counseling assistance. Since the majority of college students are from the high socio- economic classes, those coming from the low socio-economic classes will probably require additional support from counselors and instructors in adjusting to a different socio-economic status with new role expectations . Non-College Preference Students Certain factors pertaining to non-college preference students were revealed in the study. It was found that educationally low aSpiring high school seniors largely: 1. Are from the low socio-economic classes. 2. Select peer friends from the low socio-economic classes 3. Select peer friends from a lower socio-economic class than their own 4. Choose most-understanding teachers with low socio- economic backgrounds S . Pick adult friends from outside the school 6. Choose out-adults from the low socio-economic classes 103 Non-college preference males were low valuing of themselves, -+ and --, and principally selected female peer friends from the 9th, 10th and 11th grades . Females tended to follow the same personality classification pattern and to select peer friends from the three lower grades . It would appear that the non-college preference student tends to be low valuing of himself, selects his friends" from the low socio- economic classes, and must look outside the school environment for significant adults with whom he can identify. Rarely do educational personnel need to be encouraged to give more attention to the educationally high aspiring student. Instead, they have frequently been criticized for their lack of concern for the educationally low aspiring student. Hodgkinson'even suggests that: As more and more students prepare for college, we may ex- pect that even less concern will be exhibited for motivating the non-college group, many of whom are now graduating from high schools with reading skills equivalent to those of normal fourth and fifth grade students . . . . The investment of time, money, and talent in motivating the college preparatory students may be far greater than that invested in the student with no clearly defined goals . 101 The findings of this study would also support the belief that educa- tionally high aspiring students, who are chiefly from the low secio— economic classes, will need more attention from school personnel than 101Harold L. Hodgkinson, Education in Social and Cultural Per- m (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1962), pp. 164-65. 104 they are presently receiving. It was noted that these students .chose most-understanding teachers with low socio-economic backgrounds. It is very possible that they receive more help and encouragement from these teachers who, although upwardly mobile themselves, may have a deeper understanding of the problems these youngsters face. Non-college preference students must also turn outside the school for their adult friends . Apparently they are not able to establish rapport with most educational personnel who hold predominantly middle or upper class values. They must instead find their adult friends among persons in the community from the low socio-e‘c'o‘nomiC classes . It is doubtful that they find much encouragement toward high educational aspirations from these individuals. Educational administrators must assume much of the responsibility for solving these problems . They may find that teachers‘with low soCio— ' economic class backgrounds are far more effective as teachers and counselors in slum and low socio-economic area schools. Revised curriculums that are better adapted to the communities and socio- economic classes which the school serves and that will more ade- quately prepare high school terminal students for a highly competitive 1abor market may be necessary. More funds may need-to be channeled into educational programs for these students . Conant notes: -'?The con- traSt in the money spent per pupil in wealthy suburban schools and in slum schools of the large cities challenges the concept of equality Of 105 opportunity in American public education. More money is needed in slum schools . "102 Much of this money may need to be spent in adult education, technical training and industrial education programs that can better serve students who following high school frequently marry and immediately seek employment. Educational personnel have tended to permit extra-curricular activities to evolve instead of assuming responsibility for the goals and implementation of the programs. Consequently, a selective process has occurred in which these activities become dominated by college aspiring students whereas those who need the social con- fidence and exposure to new values and social customs provided by these activities do not participate. Again Hodgkinson notes that: College preparatory students dominate extra-curricular activities; participation in these activities is one of the necessary prerequisites for social mobility. The non—college students, however, see the same activities as meaningless and frivolous, because the activities are not seen as ways of gaining social status both in the present and in the future. 103 It was observed in this study that educationally low aspiring seniors select their peer friends from the low socio-economic classes, fYOTU grades lower than their own, from socio-economic classes lower than their own and tend to be low valuing of themselves . Even though \_ 1 02Conant, p. 146. 103Hodgkinson, p. 82. 106 it might be expected that non-college preference seniors, who are themselves principally from the low classes, would tend to choose peers from the same classes, it is quite evident that these students are still not finding satisfaction within their contemporary peer cul- ture. Otherwise they would not select peer friends from lower socio- economic classes than their own nor would they need to turn to stu- dents in lower grades to find their friends . The extra-curricular program could serve as an opening wedge for the student who finds the activities of the class- room (such as memorizing a list of Presidents) totally un- related to his life. By allowing the student to develop a loyalty and involvement in an extra-curricular activity, the chances of his becoming involved in the classroom activities of the school are increased. 104 Educational personnel should not perpetuate class structures them- selves nor should they permit the dominant college aspiring group to do so through extra-curricular programs . Studying, playing and Working together can help to reduce prejudice and misunderstanding between groups . It was noted that male non—college preference seniors chose female peer friends . Since these boys are planning to terminate their education at the high school level, they are more interested in mar- riage than college aspiring boys . Early marriages, however, not only can prevent many students from reaching their academic potential but \ 104Ib1d., p. 84. 107 also can cause serious personal and social problems for the com- munity. Administrative personnel may need to take a new look at present social regulations . Guidance personnel are presented with a real challenge in regard to the intellectually bright but educationally low aspiring student. These students, who are primarily from the low socio-economic clas- ses, will require special counseling if they are to be encouraged to achieve their potential. Stewart states: Teachers and counselors by early identification and en- couragement of bright young people who are not planning to attend college, can help prevent the great loss to the indi- vidual and to the Nation [gig] when such students terminate their formal education upon graduating from high school. Counselors, therefore, will need to direct their attention in- creasingly to able children who are less likely to be motivated to attend college because of their socio-economic background. 105 Guidance personnel may have to assume more responsibility for aiding non-college preference students who are often ill prepared for the problems they will face in an extremely competitive labor market. Conant recognized this problem and even went so far as to suggest that "the schools should be given the responsibility for educational and vocational guidance of youth after they leave school until age 21. "106 These students may marry early, as noted in the non-college 105Stewart, p. 14 . 106Conant, p. 146. 108 aspiring boy's preference for female peer friends, but may also desire to get additional part-time technical and vocational training while they are employed. It was noted in the study that non-college preference students tend to be low valuing of themselves and find their adult friends out- side the school. Guidance personnel may have to contact these stu- dents on a strictly developmental basis since many will not volun-~ tarily seek help with personal, social and scholastic problems. Implications for Business and Government Business, industry and government personnel administrators are frequently the first to come into contact with the educationally low aspiring student after his graduation from high school. Some of these youth go into military service either by enlistment or selective service, although the greater prOportion seek jobs in business and industry. The results of the study may have important implications for personnel in these fields . The majority of those entering military service or seeking employ- ment will be from the low socio-economic classes. Since many’of them marry young, their economic and social needs will be basic. Technical training or other educational programs that provide on—the- 10b advancement will probably not be of interest to them until they are C>1C1er. Food, clothing, housing, an automobile and certain luxury 109 items will take most of‘their time and money. Those who go into military service may show more interest in advanced training as specialists and technicians, since they will probably be single and more concerned with gaining prestige among their peers . Because they tend to be low valuing of themselves, they will probably be relatively easy to train and manage. As they come to a full realization of the competitive nature of labor and industry, how- ever, they will seek for ways to advance themselves up the economic and social ladder. According to Ginzberg: While the vitality of our educational effort is grounded in the quality of our public schools, colleges, and universities, an increasingly important part is being played by the armed services, business and adult education, which provide Oppor- tunities for millions of our citizens to develop their skills and talents. Many young people who learn little in school just start to study seriously when they enter the armed services and recognize for the first time the relation between education and rewards. Others who may have been supercilious about learning while they were in high school are eager to participate in industrial training when they realize that their advancement depends on their adding to their skills . Others attend night school or enroll in correspondence courses .107 With the average work week about 40 hours and being lowered, With the two—day week-end firmly established, and with three and four Week paid vacations increasingly in effect for workers with ten years' Service, the constructive use of leisure time is no longer a problem just for the white—collar worker and professional. It has become a ‘ 107Ginzberg , p. 145 . 110 challenge to the entire population. Consequently, government and industry, along with education, will have to provide more self- improvement and meaningful recreation programs for these youth. Many high school terminal students because of low socio- economic status, lack of educational drive, or ethnic factors may 1 meet discriminatory practices in labor and industry that will cause serious personal and social problems for them. Personnel adminis- trators can better meet these problems if they have a clear definition of the non-college preference student. Conant recognizes the diffi- culties that these youth face and suggests: "Employment oppor- tunities in the large cities must be promptly Opened on a non- discriminatory basis . Because of the attitude of management and labor this can be done only through the use of federal funds . "108 Many educationally high aspiring students who complete college and graduate programs will also seek employment in government, busi- ness or industry. Their self-confidence, upwardly mobile attitudes, and high socio—economic values probably will fit them for the higher status they will occupy by virtue of their education and training. Pos- sibly they are well suited for the titles of "organization men" and "status seekers . " 108Conant, p. 146 . lll Implications for Further Social Psychological Research Public and private educational systems provide lucrative fields for social psychological research into adolescent behavior. In their efforts to salvage intellectually capable but educationally low as- piring students, educational personnel are anxious to find how adoles- cents are motivated. McClelland, Havighurst and other behaviorial and social scientists are currently giving much attention to this problem. The results of this study offer some challenges for further re- search. It was noted that educationally low aspiring students tend to be low valuing of self whereas educationally high aspiring students are inclined to be high valuing of self. Additional study using projective techniques might show significant patterns in personality differences between college and non-college preference adolescents . The dis- tinction between levels of educational aspiration relative to socio- economic status requires further research in which intelligence, aca- demic performance, ethnic differences and/or place of residence are controlled. Follow-up studies to check further the predictive re- liability of college plans and to determine differences in college attrition rates between socio-economic classes could make valuable contributions . It was found that college preference students mainly choose adult friends from within the school and most-understanding teachers 112 with high socio-economic backgrounds whereas non-college preference students select adult friends from outside the school and most- understanding teachers with low socio-economic backgrounds . Further research into the role that teachers and other adults play in encouraging adolescents toward high or low levels of educational aspiration would be meaningful. Relatively little is known about the impact of the peer culture upon value development. The findings of this study would indicate that the choice of peer friends is significantly related to the students' educational values. Further investigation is needed of social mobility patterns among adolescents and other factors in the peer culture that influence educational goals . Exploration of the relationship of religious, personality, coun- seling, mass media and other variables to the formulation of educa- tional values could have valuable implications for educational per— sonnel and others working With adolescents. Even though a knowledge of the factors that influence students to have a high need for academic achievement is important, it may be more important to know the specific subject area in which the adolescent feels this motivation. It may also be of value to know whether the college preference adolescent is highly motivated to get into college, get out of college with a degree that will get him a good job, or go to college to learn something. 113 Research is providing personnel in education, sociology and psychology with a clearer definition of the educationally high and educationally low aspiring adolescent. Further research and theory, however, is needed in better understanding psychological and socio- logical factors that influence and motivate the individual. Wisely put into practice, this knowledge can provide more meaningful educa- tional programs that could alleviate personal and social problems presently facing many adolescents. Concluding Observations It was the purpose of this study to explore certain variables that might show significant differences between high and low levels of educational aspiration. College and non-college preference seniors from 34 selected high schools within the United States were employed in this study. Some statistically significant relationships were discovered; how- ever, such studies probably raise more questions than they answer. Hypotheses for further investigation resulting from the study do present some challenges to those with an interest in motivational research. Some of the findings also contain information that can be helpful to personnel working with adolescents . Results of the study relative to the socio-economic status of college and non-college preference seniors tend to support previous 114 research. Personality differences between the two groups indicate that educationally high aspiring seniors tend to be high valuing of themselves, either ++ or +-, while educationally low aspiring stu- dents are low valuing of themselves either -+ or -- . Further research into the causal relationships of these differences seems warranted. Some notable differences were found in the peer, teacher and adult choices of college and non-college preference students. The tendency toward upward mobility of college preference seniors, as evidenced by choice of peer friends from their own grade level and from a higher socio-economic status than their own is significant. Educational personnel might also View with some concern the fact that educationally low aspiring seniors chiefly find in teachers with low socio-economic backgrounds and adults outside the school the understanding and friendship they need. High attrition rates, juvenile delinquency, discriminatory practices and poor mental health all give indication of a need for better understanding of psychological and sociological factors that influence people's values, attitudes and goals. Level-of—aspiration studies can provide valuable information that will help leaders in education, business and government meet these serious problems. Survival in today's world will depend largely upon the best and fullest utilization of all human resources. The knowledge gained in this study may make a small contribution in meeting this challenge. BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Allport, Gordon W. The Nature of Personality: Selected Papers . Cambridge, Mass .: The Addison—Wesley Co. , Inc. , 1950. Argyris, Chris. Personality and Organization. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957 . Ausubel, David R. Varying Problems of Adolescent Development. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1954. Background Factors Relating to College Plans and College Enroll- ment Among Public High School Students. Princeton, New Iersey: Educational Testing Service, April, 1957. Bailey, Wilfrid C. et a1. Bibliography on Status and Stratification. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1952. Barber, B. Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1957. Barker, R. G. and Wright, H. F. Midwest and Its Children. Evanston, IllinOis: Row, Peterson, 1956. Becker, Howard. Through Values to Social Interpretation. Durham: Duke University Press, 1950. Bedford, I. H. Youth and the World‘s Work. Los Angeles: Society for Occupational Research, 1938. Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour M. (eds..) Class, Status and Power. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953. Berdie, R. F. After High School What? Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1954. Bills, Robert E. Index of Adjustment and Values Manual: Adult and High School Senior Form. Auburn, Alabama: Department of Psychology, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1951. 115 116 Bills, Robert E. Index of Adjustment and Values Manual: Elementary, Iunior High School and High School Form. Auburn, Alabama: Department of Psychology, Alabama Polytechnic Institute, 1959. Blaine, Mercer E. and Carr, Edwin R. Education and the Social Order. New York: Rinehart, 1957. Brookover, Wilbur B. , et al. A Sociology of Education. New York: American Book Company, 1955 . Centers, R. The Psychology of Social Classes. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959. Combs, Arthur W. and Snygg, D. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1959. Conant, Iames B. Slums and Suburbs. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , Inc. , 1961. Cooley, Charles H. Social Organization. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956. Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the Social Order. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922. Counts, G. S. The Selective Character of American Education. Chicago: Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1922. Cunningham, Ruth, et al. Understanding Group Behavior of Boys and Girls. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951. Dahle, H. Ott. Values in Culture and Classroom. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Davis, A. , Gardner, B. B., and Gardner, M. R. Deep South. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Davis, Allison. Eight hundred forty-third Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Part I. "Socialization and Adolescent Personality. " Chicago: Distributed by the University of Chicago Press, 1944. Davis, Allison. Social Class Influences on Learning. Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1949. 117 "Motivational Factors in College Douvan, Elizabeth and Kaye, Carol. The American College. New Entrance. " In Sanford, Nevitt. York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Duncan, Otis D. A Socio-Economic Index for All Occupations. Chicago: Populations and Research Training Center, University of Chicago, 1960. English, Horace B. and Ava C. A Comprehensive Dictionary of Psycho- logical and Psychoanalytical Terms. New York: Longmans, Green and Co. , 1958. Fairchild, Henry F. (ed.) Dictionary of Sociology and Related Sciences . Patterson, New Iersey: Owen, Littlefield, Adams and Co. , 1961. Ford Foundation. Parents' College Plans Study. New York, 1959. Ginzberg, Eli. Human Resources: The Wealth of a Nation. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1958. Golden, Clinton S. and Ruttenberg, H. The Dynamics of Industrial Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1942. GOldfield, Edwin D. Statistical Abstract of the United States . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census , 1957 . Gordon, C. Wayne. The Social System of the High School. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. Hall . Calvin S. and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Personality. New York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1957 . I{avemanm Ernest and West, Patricia Salter. They W81“t to 0011699- New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. , 1952. H . avlghurst, Robert I. American Association of Colleges for Teacher "Who Goes to College and Why? " Education Yearbook. 1 3th Yearbook , 1 960 . Washington, D . C .: H . avlghurst, Robert I. American Higher Education in the 1960's. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1960. H . avlghurst, Robert I. and Newgarten, B. L. Society and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc. , 1957. 118 Havighurst, R. I. and Rodgers, R. R. "The Role of Motivation in Attendance at Post-High School Educational Institutions . " In Hollinshead, B. S. Who Should Go to College? New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1957. Higher Education in a Decade of Decision. Washington, D.C.: Educa— tional Policies Commission, National Educational Association of the U.S. and American Association of School Administrators, 1957. Hilgard, Ernest R. Theories of Learning. 2nd ed. New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts , Inc . , 195 6 . Hinsie, Leland E. and Campbell, Robert I. Psychiatric Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press, 1960. Hodgkinson, Harold L. Education in Social and Cultural Perspectives . Englewood Cliffs, New Iersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 1962. Hollinshead, Byron S. Who Should Go to College. New York: Columbia University Pres s , 195 2 . Hunter, Floyd. Community Power Structure. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953. Iames, William. Pragmatism. New York: Longmans, Inc., 1907. Iames , William. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1890. I‘i-‘l’sild, Arthur T. The Psychology of Adolescence. New York: Mac- millan Co. , 1957. lung . Carl G. Psychological Types . New York: Harcourt and Co. . 1923. Ka hl . Ioseph A. The American Class Structure. New York: Rinehart and Co., 1957. K Oenker, Robert H. Simplified Statistics for Students in Education and Psychology. Bloomington, Illinois: McKnight and McKnight Pub- lishing Co. , 1961. K retSczhmer, Ernst. Physique and Character. Translated by W. I- Sprott. New York: Harcourt, 1925. 119 Kroeber, A. L. (ed.) Anthropology Today. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953. Lecky, Prescott. Self Consistency: A Theory of Personality. New York: Island Press, 1945. Lewin, Kurt. A Dynamic Theory Of Personality, Selected Papers . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1935. Lewin, Kurt; Dembo, Tamara; Festinger, Leon and Sears, Pauline Snedden. Personality and the Behavior Disorders . ”The Level of Aspiration Today. " Part I. Edited by I. McV. Hunt. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1944. Lindzey, Gardner. Handbook of Social Psychology. Cambridge, ‘ Mass .: Addison-Wesley Co. , Inc. , 1954. Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality. New York: ~ Appleton—Century-Crofts, Inc. , 1945. Lipset. Seymour Martin and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkley: University of California Press, 1959. Maslow’ A. H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1954. Mayo, Elton. The Social Problems of an Industrial Civilization. Boston: Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1945 . IVICCaIldless, Boyd R. Children and Adolescents: Behavior and Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. IVIC:C-"lelland,iDavid C., et al. The Achievement Motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. , 1953. eclelland, David C. , et al. Talent and Society. Princeton, New Iersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. M . ead. George Herbert. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934. M Sad. Margaret (ed.). Cultural Patterns and Technical Change. New York: New American Library, 1955 . 120 The Significance of Vocational Choices of School Menger, Clara. New York, Private Printing, Children and College Students . 1932. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, Revised 1957. Merton, Robert K. , et al. (eds.) Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, Inc. , 1959. Miller, Carroll H. Foundations of Guidance. New York: Harper and Brothers , 1961 . Moreno, Zerka T. Who Shall Survive. New York: Beacon House, Inc. , 1953. Moustakas, Clark E. (ed.) The Self. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. IVIurphy, G. Culture and Personality. "The Relationship of Culture and Personality. " Edited by S. S. Sargent and M. Smith. New York: Viking Fund, 1949. Newcomb, T. M. Social Psychology. New York: Dryden Press, 1950. ReisSman, Leonard. Class in American Society. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959. Rogers, Carl R. Counseling and Psychotherapy. New York: Houghton- Mifflin Co. , 1942. Rogers, Carl R. Client—Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co. , 1951. , E. M. Social Change and Rural Society. New York: Appleton- ROg SIS Century-Crofts , Inc . , 1 960 . Roper, Elmo. Factors Affecting the Admission of High School Seniors to College. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1949. S arlf0rd, Nevitt. The American College. New York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Culture, Language and Personality. Edited by David Sapir, Edward. Berkley: University of California Press, 1958. G. Mandelbaum. Sargent, S. S. and Williamson, R. C. Social Psychology. New York; The Ronald Press Co., 1958. Sheldon, W. H.: Stevens. S. S. and Tucker, W. B. The Varieties of Human PhySJque. New York; Harper and Sons Co. , 1940. Sherif, Muzafer and Cantril, Hadley. The Psychology of Ego- lnvclvement. New York; Iohn Wiley and Sons. Inc. , 1947. Sherif, Muzafer and Carolyn W. An Outline of Socral Psychology. New York; Harper and Brothers, 1956. Snygg, Donald and Combs, Arthur W. Individual Behavior. New York. Harper and Brothers, 1949. SOrOkin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture and Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947 . SOrOkin, Pitirim A. Social and Cultural Dynamics. Boston: Porter Sargent Publisher, 1957. Stendler, Celia B. Children of Brasstown. Urbana: University of Illinois. Bureau of Research and Service of the College of Educa- tion, 1949. Strang . Ruth. The Adolescent Views Himself-—A Psychology of Adoles- cence. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. s . ulllVan, Harry Stack. Conception of Modern Psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1953. S ymonds. Percival .. The Ego and the Self. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc.. 1951. To . rlr11ers... F. Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft. Edited by c. P. Loomis as Fundamental Concepts of Sociology. New York: American Book Co. , 1940. vs blen. Thorstein. The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: New American Library, 1953. Warner, W. 1.; Meeker, M. and Eells, K. Social Class in America. Chicago; Science Research Associates, 1949. Warner, W. L. and Lunt, P. S. The Social Life of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941 . Warner, W. Lloyd and Warner, Mildred Hall. What You Should Know About Social Class. Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1953. Warner, W. Lloyd, et al. Who Shall be Educated? New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. West, I. PlainVille, USA. New York: Columbia University Press. 1954. VVhyte, William F. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955. Wise, W. Max. They Come for the Best of Reasons. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1958. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln: Burns and MacEachern, University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Articles and Periodicals Asch . Soloman E. ”Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority, ” Psychological Monographs, LXX, No. 91 (1956). Atkinson, I. W. ,. et al. ”The Achievement Motive, Goal Setting, and Probability Preferences, ” Iournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LX (1960). Ausubel, D. P. , et a1 "Perceived Parent Attitudes as Determinants of Childrenzs Ego Structure, ” Child Development, XXV (1954). B ark>er, Leroy E. "Why Some Able High School Graduates Do Not Go to College, " School Review, LIX (February, 1951). B _ ellln, Harry. "The Pattern of Postponability and Its Relation to Social Class Mobility, " Iournal of Social Psychology, XLIV (195 6). 123 Berdie, Ralph 1‘. ”Why Don‘t They Go to College? ’* Personnel and Guidance Iournal, XXXI' (March, 1953). Berger, E. M. "The Relation Between Expressed Acceptance of Self and Expressed Acceptance of Others, ” Iournal of Abnormal and Soc1al Psychology, XLVII (1952). Bills, Robert B. ”About People and Teaching, " Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, XXVIII (December, 1955). Bills, Robert E.; Vance, Edgar L. and McLean, Orison S. ”An Index of Adjustment and Values " Iournal of Consulting Psychology, XV (1951). Bills, Robert E. "Attributes of Successful Educational Leaders " in Robert L. Hopper (ed.) Interdisciplinary Research in Educational Administration, Bulletin of the Bureau of School Service, College of Education, University of Kentucky, XXVI (December, 1953). Bills . R. E. ”Rorschach Characteristics of Persons Scoring High and Low in Acceptance of Self, " Iournal of Consulting Psychology, XVII (195 3) . Bordau, D. I. "Educational Aspirations and Parental Stress on College, ” Social Forces, XXXVIII (May, 1960). Boynton, P. L. IiThe Vocational Preferences of School Children, " Pedag, Seminary and Iournal of Genet. PsycholOgY. XLIX (1936) . Bum O. G. Ir. and Forer,. R. A. ”A Note on the Relation of Values and Social Structure to Life Planning, ” Sociometry, XIX (1956) . B urton' W. H ”Education and Social Class in the United States, " Harvard Educational Review, XXIII (Fall, 1953). C enters, Richard. “The Intensity Dimension of Class Consciousness and Some Social and Psychological Correlates, " Iournal of Social Psychology. XLIV (1956). l‘ltright, Phillip. "Student‘s Decision to Attend College, " Iournal of Educational Sociology, XXXIII (February, 1960). avie, Iames S. "Social Class Factors and School Attendance, " Harvard Educational Review, M111 (1953). 124 Douvan, Elizabeth. "Social Status and Success Strivings, " Iournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LII (195 6). Douvan, Elizabeth and Adelson, I. "The Psychodynamics of Social Mobility in Adolescent Boys , " Iournal of Abnormal and Social PsychologY. LVI (1958). Dynes, R. R.; Clarke, A. C. and Dinitz, S. "Levels of Occupational Aspiration: Some Aspects of Family Experiences as a Variable, " American Sociological Review, XXI (April, 1956). Empey, L. T. "Social Class and Occupational Aspiration: A Comparison of Absolute and Relative Measurement, " American Sociological Review, XXI (December, 1956). "Equalizing and Expanding Individual Opportunity, " Report of the Presi- dent's Commission on Higher Education for American Democracy, " II (December, 1947). Peldrnesser, Robert A. "Social Status and Access to Higher Education-- A Comparison of the United States and the Soviet Union, " Harvard Educational Review, II (Spring, 1957). Grigg, C. M. and Middleton, R. "Community Orientation and Occupa- tional Aspirations of Ninth-Grade Students, “ Social Forces, XXXVIII (May. 1960). Hagerneyer, Richard H. "Socio-Economic Background of Full-Time Male Students in Henry Ford Community College, " Iunior College Iournal, XXIX (February, 1959). Hallel‘. Archie O. "Planning to Farm: A Social Psychological Interpreta- tion, " Social Forces, XXXVII (March, 1959). Heller, A. O. and Shoule, W. H. "Farm Residence and Levels of Educa- tional and Occupational Aspiration, " American Iournal of Sociology, LXII (Ianuary, 1957). H . avlghurst, Robert I. "Social Class and Basic Personality Structure, " Sociology and Social Research, XXXVI (Iuly, 1952). elDér, M. M. "Learning Theory and the Self Concept, " Iournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, L1 (1955). 125 Hieronymus, A. N. "A Study of Social Class Motivation: Relationships Between Anxiety for Education and Certain Socio-Economic and Intellectual Variables, " Iournal of Educational PsychOIOQY. XLII (1951) . Hilgard, E. R. "Human Motives and the Concept of the Self, " American Psychologist, IV (1949) . Hill, G. E. "College Proneness, A Guidance Problem, " Personnel and Guidance Iournal, XXXIII (1954). Hill, Thomas I. "Attitudes Toward Self, An Experimental Study, " Iournal of Emotional Sociology, XXX (1957). Hollingshead, August B. "Class Difference and Family Stability, ” The Annals of the American Academy of Social Sciences, CCLXXII ii (November, 1950). Humphreys, Lloyd G. "Characteristics of Type Concepts with Special Reference to Sheldon's Typology, " Psychological Bulletin LIV (May, 1957) . HurlOck, E. B. and Iansing, C. "The Vocational Attitudes of Boys and Girls of High School Age, " Pedag, Seminary and Iournal of Genet. PsycholOQY. XLIV (1934). Hymen' Herbert H. ”The Psychology of Status, " Archives of Psychology, CCLXIX (Iune, 1942). Ionietz, Alice K. "A Study of Achieving and Non-Achieving Students of Superior Ability. " Urbana: Student Counseling Service, University of Illinois, 1959. IObS and Occupations: A POpular Evaluation, " National Opinion Research Center, Opinion News, IX (September, 1947). Kagan, Ierome. "The Choice of Models: A Developmental Analysis of Conflict and Continuity in Human Behavior. " Reprint' of a speech given at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Con- vention, Chicago (April, 1962). Kahl . I. A. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Comman Man' Boys, " Harvard Educational Review, XXIII (Summer, 1953). 126 Klausner, Samuel Z. "Social Class and Self-Concept, " The Iournal of Social Psychology, XXXVIII (1953). Kohn, Melvin L. "Social Class and Parental Values, " American Iournal of Sociology. LXIV (Ianuary, 1959). LeShan, L. L. "Time Orientation and Social Class, " Iournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. XLVII (195 2). Little, I. Kenneth. "Post-High School Plans of Wisconsin Youth, " Higher Education, XV (December, 1958). Little, Sue W. and Cohen, L. D. "Goal-Setting Behavior of Asthmatic Children and of Their Mothers' For Them, " Iournal of Personality, XIX (1951). Loeb, Martin B. "Implications of Status Differentiations of Personal and Social, " Harvard Educational Review, XXIII, No. 3 (1953). Mason, B. and Anmons, R. B. "Note on Social Class and the T.A.T. Perceptual Motility Skills, " (195 6). Mitchell, Iames V. Ir. "The Identification of Items in the California Test of Personality That Differentiate Between Subjects of High and Low Socio-Economic Status at the 5th and 7th Grade Level, " Iournal of Educational Research, LI (1957). Mulligan, Raymond A. "Social Mobility and Higher Education, " Iournal of Educational Sociology, XXV (1952). Mulligan, Raymond A. "Socio-Economic Background and College Entrance, " American Sociological Review, XVI (1951). Poters, E. F. "Factors Which Contribute to Youthis Vocational Choice, " Iournal of Applied Psychology, XXV (1941) . Phearman, Leo T. "Comparisons of High School Graduates Who Go to College With Those Who Do Not, " Iournal of Educational Psycho— logy, XL (November, 1949) . Phillips, E. L. "Attitudes Toward Self and Others, A Brief Questionnaire Report, " Iournal of Consulting PsychologY. XV (1951). Raimy, V. C. "Self Reference in Counseling Interviews, " Iournal of Consulting Psychology (1948). 127 Reeves, Floyd W. "Barriers to Higher Education, " Phi Delta Kappan, XXXI (Ianuary, 1950). Reissman, Leonard. "Levels of Aspiration and Social Class, " American Sociological Review, XVIII (Iune, 1953). Roberts, G. E. "A Study of the Validity of the Index of Adjustment and Values, " Iournal of Consulting Psychology, XVI (1952). Rosen, Bernard C. "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural Dimention of Social Stratification, " American Sociological Re- view, XXI (April, 1956). Rosen, Bernard C. and D'Andrade, Roy. "The Psychosocial Origins of Achievement Motivation, " Sociometry, XXII (1959). Schwarzweller, H. K. "Values and Occupational Choice, " Social Forces, XXXIX (December, 1960). Sears, R. R. "Projection of Self Attitudes on to Others. Experimental Studies of Projection: I. Attribution of Traits, " Iournal of Social PsychologY. V11 (1936) . Sewell, William H. and Haller, A. O. "Social Status and the Per- sonality of the Child, " Sociometry, IX (Iune, 1956). Sherif, Muzafer. "A Study of Some Social Factors in Perception, " Archives of PsychologY. XXVII (Iuly, 1935). Shoule, W. H.; Haller, A. O. and Straus, M. A. "Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspiration, " American Sociological Review, XXII (February, 1957). Slocum, W. L. "Educational Planning by High School Seniors, " Iournal of Educational Research, XLII (1958). Stagner, R. "Homostasis as a Unifying Concept in Personality Theory,‘ Psychological Review, LVIII (1951). Stephensen, R. R. ”Mobility, Orientation and Stratification of l, 000 Ninth Graders, " American Sociological Review, XXII (1957) . StEwart, Maxine G. "Who Goes to College? " Occupational Outlook Quarterly, VI, No. 2 (May, 1962). 128 Stivers, E. H. "Motivation for College in High School Girls, ” School Review, LXVII (1959). Stivers, Eugene H. "Motivation for College in High School Boys, " Scholastic Review, LXVI (September, 1958). Strodtbeck, Fred L. and Hare, Paul A. "Biblioqraphy of Small Group Research, " Sociometry, XVII (1954). Stubbens, I. "The Relationship Between Level of Vocational Aspiration and Certain Personal Data, " Genetic Psychology Monographs, XLI (February, 1950). Taylor, C. C. (ed.) "Culture of a Contemporary Rural Community, " (Rural Life Studies, Nos. 1-6, U.S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Washington, D.C., 1942). Toops, Herbert A. "The Prediction of College-Going, " School and Society, LI (March, 1940). Tyler, L. E. "The Development of 'Vocational Interests', " Part I in "The Organization of Likes and Dislikes in Ten-year-old Children, " Iournal of Genetic Psychology, LXXXVI (1955) . Tyler, L. E. "The Relationship of Interests to Abilities and Reputation Among First—Grade Children, " Educational Psychology Measure- ments, XI (1951). Useem, I.,° Tangent, P. and Useem, R. "Stratification in a Prairie Town, " American Sociological Review, VII (1942) . VanEgmond, Elmer. "Socialization Process and Education, " Review Of Educational Research, XXI (February, 1961). VOQI. E. Z. "Navaho Veterans: A Study of Changing Values, " XLI, NO. 1 (1951) . (Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaelogy and Ethnology, Harvard University Museum.) WOOdrUff. Katherine. "A Study in the Occupational Choices of High School Girls, " Vocational Guidance Magazine, V (1927). Youmans, E. G. "The Educational Attainment and Future Plans of Kentucky Youth, " Bulletin 664, Kentucky Agricultural Experi- ment Station, University of Kentucky, Lexington, XXV (1959). 129 Youmans, E. Grant. "Occupational Expectations of Twelfth Grade Boys, " Iournal of Experimental Education, XXVII (195 6). Unpublished Material Douvan, Elizabeth. "The Influence of Social Class Memberships on Reactions to Failure. " Unpublished dissertation, University of Michigan, 1951. Goldberg, Isadore. "The Relationship of Personal History to Plans of High School Students . " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1959. Klett, Carroll I. "A Study of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule in Relation to Socio-Economic Status . " Dissertation Abstracts , 1956-16, 1947—Abstract. McGuire, Iohn Carson. "Adolescent Society and Social Mobility. " Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Chicago, 1949. Phillips, Florence L. "A Socio-Economic Study of College Women. " Unpublished Doctoral thesis, Indiana University, 1958. Raimy, Victor C. "The Self Concept As a Factor in Counseling and Personality Organizations . " Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1943. SChUtZ. R. A. "The Relationship of Self-Satisfaction to Stated Vocational Preferences. " Unpublished Doctoral thesis, University of Minnesota, 1959. Seidman, I. M. "An Investigation of the Relationship Between Aspira— tions, Expectations, and Sociochonomic Backgrounds of Male HiQh School Iuniors and Seniors . " Unpublished Doctoral dis- sertation, New York University, 1953. Young, D. R. "Parental Influences Upon Decisions of Scholastically Talented Youth Concerning Higher Education. " Unpublished D0ctoral thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1959. APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTARY RESEARCH The results of previous research studies that deal with the spe- cific variables investigated in this study were reviewed in Chapter II. Supporting theory and research, although not directly related, is important to a concise understanding of those factors that influence adolescents in formulating educational values and goals . Conse- quently, personality development in terms of perceptual theory is re- viewed along with research into the relationship of small groups and place of residence to level of educational aspiration. Personality Development Level of educational aspiration refers to the individual's desire to achieve a future educational state. Being a value or attitude, it is a Personal orientation to action with respect to a social object. A value, as defined by the Howard project for the Comparative Study of We Cultures, "is a conception, explicit or implicit, dis- thtiVe Of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable 130 which influences selection between available modes, means and ends of action. "1 The conceiving of any particular object as desirable may result from physiological or psychological need, but need is not the only source of values . Values also stem from: . the kind of relationship which the individual experiences with other persons , particularly with significant persons such as parents, siblings, peers, and teachers . Values may result from the process of enculturation by which the individual learns to accept certain behaviors as desirable. Such values have little relation to the special needs of a particular individual, in the sense that they did not grow out of his own needs. They existed prior to the individual as the right and proper modes of behavior-- right because the culture has so defined them.2 Social psychologists have long recognized that people differ in regard to drive and motivation. Some individuals show extremely strong needs to reach certain educational, social, or occupational goals, while others seem content with minimal standards of achieve- ment. This difference in the achievement motivation of individuals is frequently referred to as "level of aspiration. " The high school student's stated expectation relative to college attendance, his level of educational aspiration, represents a value 113. Z. Vogt, “Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeo- logy and Ethnology, " Navaho Veterans: A Study of Changing Values, XLI:1 (Cambridge, Mass.: The Museum, Harvard University, 1951), pp. 6-7 . 2Carroll H. Miller, Foundations of Guidance (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1961), p. 208. 132 that he places on higher education. His statement of intentions is based on both expectancy and his self-concept. His personal educa- tional goals represent values , attitudes, standards and beliefs that have become a part of his basic personality structure. Barker and Wright point out that. the individual develOps in a "psychological habitat. " They define this’as “the psychological context of behavior which lies at the intersection of the behaving person and the milieu. The habitat is a dynamic system within which the person and the environment are interconnected. "3 This concept affords a means of conceptualizing the behavioral context of the in- dividual and of reconstructing his experiences in his habitat without slipping into the solipsism of complete subjectivity. Thus, it is pos- sible to identify the person, the milieu and certain standing behaviors within the psychological habitat. The dynamic interaction of the organism, the environment and standing behavior patterns , or cultural learnings , results in the de- velOpment of a concept of self. Rogers , Lewin, Combs and Snygg, and other "field theorists, " in describing the self-concept, assert that "the self develOps out of the organism's interaction with the en- Vironment. " They also state that the: 3R. G. Barker andH. P. Wright, Midwest and Its Children (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson, 1956), p. 11. e. 133 Self may introject the values of other people and perceive them in a distorted fashion. Self strives for consistency. Organism behaves in ways that are consistent with the self. Experiences that are not consistent with the self-structure are perceived as threats . Self may change as a result of maturation and learning.4 The self-concept, being a product of the dynamic interaction of the person with his own special world, thus represents the totality of his life experiences at any given time. Snygg and Combs claim that "the self is composed of perceptions concerning the individual and this organization of perceptions in turn has vital and important effects upon the behavior of the individual. "5 Miller also points out that: While the child is develOping a concept of himself as he actually is, he is also developing a concept of an ideal self; as he wishes he may become. Freud referred to this as the ego-ideal and be- lieved it first developed from the child's identification with a par- ental figure. In non-Freudian terms the ideal self is more apt to be regarded as an integrated set of values and aspirations .6 Consequently, it is relatively easy to understand the influence that the milieu, with its significant peers and adults, membership 4Calvin S. Hall and Gardner Lindzey (eds.) , Theories of Person- ality (New York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1957), p. 478. 5Ibid. , p. 470 6Miller, p. 233. 134 and reference groups, socio—economic classes, culturally defined sex roles and other environmental factors, has upon the self-concept, the ideal-self, and, in turn, the behavior of individuals. Berdie believes that "the family influence upon the development of an individual's value orientation is undoubtedly of prime importance. "7 Ausubel and others studied the effects of parental attitudes on children's self-concepts . Their findings support the hypothesis that the child's self-concept develops according to the pattern of parents' rewards and punishments . 8 Sherif and Cantril define the child's ego, or self, as a cluster of attitudes and values derived from identification with his membership and reference groups . Membership groups are those to which he actually be- longs, such as the family, play groups, gang or school, while reference groups are those to which he psychologically relates himself and by which he judges himself, which may or may not be the same as the membership groups . 9 Motivated by the desire to belong and to gain prestige among his peers, a child learns or “introjects” the group's norms or standards. A 7Ralph F. Berdie, "Why Don't They Go to College ? , " Personnel and Guidanceburnal, XXXI (March, 1953), pp. 352-56. 8D. P. Ausubel et al. , " Perceived Parent Attitudes as Determi- nants of Children's Ego Structure, " Child Development, XXV (1954) , pp. 173-83. 9Muzafer Sherif and Hadley Cantril, The Psy'Cholggy of Ego- Involvement (New York: Iohn Wiley and Sons, Inc. , 1947), p. 4. 135 great deal of shifting of reference groups occurs in the normal process of growing up as the child's psychological habitat expands. The norms of these groups, in large part, determine the structure of his self- concept and the nature of ego-involvements which, in turn, affect his personality and his relationship to other persons and groups . Hymen found that the standards peOple set for themselves are de- termined largely by reference groups to which they related themselves . 10 There are numerous studies supporting the hypothesis that membership groups also exert strong influences upon the perception, values, atti- tudes . and judgments of individuals . 1 1 r 1 2' 13 Any individual in the course of his life experiences develops a pattern of values which, to some extent at least, is unique to him. No other person has had quite the same concatenation of relations with parents, siblings, relatives, peers, teachers, neighbors, townsfolk, and others, or has had quite the same vicarious ex- periences through newspapers , magazines , books, sports , radio programs, television programs, religious services, and the like. The pattern of values which the individual learns is therefore idiosyncratic to some considerable extent. On the other hand, 10Herbert H. Hymen, "The Psychology of Status, " Archives of Psychology. CCLXIX (Iune, 1942), p. 49. 11Solomon E. Asch, "Studies of Independence and Conformity: A Minority of One Against a Unanimous Majority, " Psychological Mono- graph, LXX:9 (1956), p. 416. 12Muzafer Sherif, "Study of Some Social Factors in Perception, " Archives of Psychology,-XXVII (Iuly, 1935), pp. 50-60. 13Fred L. Strodtbeck and Paul A. .Hare, "Bibliography of Small Group Research, " Sociometry, XVII (1954), pp. 107-93. 136 any individual shares many experiences with other by reason of participation in common culture and common groups , and he will accordingly share many values with others . l Sherif and Sherif, in discussing the differential effects of group interaction on members , also believe that man's socialization is re- vealed mainly in his attitudes formed in relation to the values and norms of his group or groups. 15 His conception of the scope of his world, his standards of living, or his aspirations toward wealth, women, and status are well regulated. His goals are set by the pre- vailing hierarchy of social organization and norms of his group. Theory and research indicate that the child's environment molds and shapes his personality. His values are largely introjected from the significant peer and adult models with whom he identifies. It is from these experiences that he forms his concept of himself, of others and of the ideal self that he would like to become. Thus , his person- ality structure, containing his system of values , largely determines the goals toward which he will strive. Kagan adequately sums up this process by his statement that: The core of the child's value system, the foundation of his ideal model--is derived from his identification with adult figures. In general there are two major sets of forces that are responsible for the establishment of those behaviors , attitudes, motives , and self labels the individual gradually acquires during development. 14Miner. p. 208. 15Muzafer and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline of Social Psycholggy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), pp. 160-62. 137 The first set involves the direct reward and punishment of specific habits by a social object. . . . The second set of forces involves the child's identification with real and fancied role models. 1 Small Group Relationships The term " level of aspiration" (Anspruchsniveau) was first used by Dembo to explain the individual's tendency to set for himself cer- tain goals-to- be-realized. 17 A series of experiments , starting with the work of Hoppe, Frank and others, showed that: Setting aspiration levels or goals for oneself and for others with whom one stands in definite relationship (as friends, loved ones, competitors , enemies) implies judgement of future attainment. In shaping such judgements, it has been found that past levels of per- formance in the task in question, the general state of one's self- esteem, one's sensitivity in respect to his own successes and failures, the place of the task in one's scheme of personal values, the positive or negative interpersonal relationship with other peo- ple involved, the level of achievement and goals of one's group all may come into the picture. 1 Schutz studied 135 boys who were above the national average in intelligence, socio-economic status and educational aspirations. He 16Ierome Kagan, "The Choice of Models: A DevelOpmental Analysis of Conflict and Continuity in Human Behavior'I (Reprint of a speech given at the American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention, Chicago, Illinois, April, 1962), p. 8. 17Kurt Lewin, Tamara Dembo, Leon Festinger and Pauline Snedden Sears , "The Level of Aspiration Theory, " Pt. I of Personality and the Be- havior Disorders, ed. I. McV. Hunt (New York: The Ronald Press Com- pany. 1944), pp. 333-78. 18 Sherif and Sherif, pp. 160—62. 138 concluded that "one's level of occupational aspiration is in part a function of his evaluation of and satisfaction with his perceived self. "19 Sherif and Cantril in summarizing several studies of level of as- piration concluded that "unless and until there is some ego-involvement no level of aspiration is set and the individual has no concern about his own status. "20 Ego, or self-involvement, results from the social interaction of the child with his various membership and reference groups containing significant peer and adult models . General level-of-aspiration studies indicate that a child's desire to succeed is decidedly influenced by the demands of parents. For example, Little and Cohen noticed that children's aspiration patterns tended to follow those of their mothers . 21 They felt this perhaps in- dicated that the child's level of aspiration was molded after what he thought his mother expected of him. Lewin also found that “a level of 19R. A. Schutz, "The Relationship of Self— Satisfaction to Stated Vocational Preferences" (unpublished Doctoral thesis , University of Minnesota, 1959), Dissertation Abstracts,»XX, p. 2148. ' 20Sherif and Cantril, p. 4. “Sue w. Little and L. D. Cohen, "Goal-Setting Behavior of Asthmatic Children and of Their Mother's for Them, " Journal of Per- sonality, XIX (1951), pp..376-89. 139 aspiration decidedly above (or below) a child's real ability may be pro- duced by the demands of adults and by the performance of comrades. "22 Helper studied the development of both the self-concept and the ideal self as a problem in learning. He found that children's ideal- self concepts were as similar to ideal-child concepts held by randomly selected parents, as to ideal-child concepts held by their own parents and that self-concept modeling for boys was positively correlated with parental reward for similarity to the father. 23 Early studies by Hurlock and Iansing24 and Peters25 indicated that the individual's occupational choices are strongly influenced by parents and other significant persons in the individual's life. In more recent studies Dynes and his associates noted that the experiences children have in the family have a positive relationship to their occu- pational aspirations. 25 Hill believes that: 22Lewin, Kurt, A Dynamic Theory of Personality, Selected Papers (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc. , 1935). 23M. M. Helper, "Learning Theory and the Self Concept, " Iournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LI (1955), pp. 184-94. 24E. B. Hurlock and C. Iansing, "The Vocational Attitudes of Boys and Girls of High School Age, " Pedag, Seminary andjournal of Genet. Psychology, XLIV (1934), pp. 175-91. 25E. F. Peters, "Factors Which Contribute to Youth's Vocational Choice, " Iournal of Applied Psychology, XXV (1941), pp. 428-30. 26R. R. Dynes, A. C. Clarke and S. Dinitz, "Levels of Occupa- tional Aspiration: Some Aspects of Family Experiences as a Variable, " American Sociological Review, XXI (April, 1956), pp. 212-15. 140 The most potent determinants of college proneness are in the cul- tural and educational traditions, ambitions and hopes of the family. A history of college attendance in the family, friends in college or going, identification of college education as a means of improving one's lot--all are strong determiners of proneness. 27 The attitudes of parents relative to educational and occupational choices has also been shown to be influential in the later educational and occupational aspirations of their children. 28 Kahl discovered that with lower-middle class boys some subtle irritation of the parents due to a dissatisfaction with their own lot is the critical family feature that distinguishes educationally high aspiring boys from low aspiring boys . 29 These parents apparently translate their personal dissatisfaction into a mobility quest as they communicate it to their sons . Another study con- ducted with children of approximately the same mental ability and achievement showed that plans to attend college are determined by parental factors . 3O 27c. E. Hill, "College Proneness, A Guidance Problem," Personnel and Guidancejournal, XXXIII (1954), pp. 70-73. 28D. I. - Bordau, "Educational Aspirations and Parental Stress on College," Social Forces, XXXVIII (May, 1960), pp. 262-69. 29]. A. Kahl, "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys , " Harvard Educational Review, XXXIII (Summer, 1953), pp. 186-203. 30D. R. Young, "Parental Influence Upon the Decisions of Scholastically Talented Youth Concerning Higher Education" (unpublished Doctor's thesis , University of Wisconsin, 1959) . 141 Ionietz found that the differences between achieving and under- achieving college freshmen were partly attributable to differences in family background, even very largely of differences in values and in self-perception. 3 1 Cunningham notes that "identification, the psychological merging of one's self with another or group, seems to carry with it the accept- ance of the goals of the person or group. "32 These studies would indicate that the beliefs and attitudes held by the individual's member- ship and reference groups have a relationship to his own values and, subsequently, to his level of educational and occupational aspiration. Re side ntial Relationships Sociologists have long recognized that an individual's cultural environment has a tremendous influence upon his personality develop- ment. Cooley and others have made various distinctions between the 31Alice K. Ionietz, A Study of Achieving and Non-Achieving Students of Superior Ability (Urbana, Illinois: Student Counseling Service, University of Illinois, 1959). 32Ruth Cunningham et al. , UnderstandinggGroup Behavior of Boys and Girls (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1951). p. 74. 142 structures of primary and secondary groups, but one of the most inter- esting has been the distinction made between the urbanized, rational- istic society and the folk community.33 Tonnies was the first to identify the values, mores and role expectations of the Gemeinshaft, or folk community, as opposed to the Gesellschaft, or urbanized, rationalistic society where the person may pursue individual ends . 34 The American sociologist, Becker, further investigated these concepts distinguishing the two cultures as sacred and secular. He defines a sacred society as one that is reluctant to accept and initiate social change, while a secular society is one that exhibits readiness for change.35 Sargent and Williamson point out that "in the casual, fleeting contacts of modern urban culture, man has come to depend increasingly on secondary groups for his norms, his motivation, and the satisfaction of his affiliative needs. "36 Could it not be that the closer association with primary groups so prevalent in rural life af- fects the educational values of the child? 33Charles H. Cooley, Social Organization (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1956), pp. 23-31. 34F. Tonnies, Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft as Fundamental Concepts of Sociology, ed. C. P. Loomis (New York: American Book Co. , 1940). 35Howard Becker, Through Values to Social Interpretation (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press , 1950) . 363. S. Sargent and R. C. Williamson, Social Psychology (New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1958), p. 319. 143 A child growing up in rural America could well have experiences by reason of his geographical residence that would cause his system of values to be vastly different from that of a child living in a highly urbanized area of the country. Level- of-aspiration research lends some support to the hypothesis that ecological factors play a part in the de- velopment of educational values and goals . For example , Slocum sur- veyed two thousand high school seniors relative to their post-graduation plans. He found that 36 per cent planned to attend college , that these tended to be from the high socio-economic levels and that they were from urban rather than rural areas .37 Both ROper's38 national survey and follow—up studies , such as Berdie's, 39 tend to support Slocum's findings on the relationship of residence to educational aspirations . An initial study by Counts“)0 and a later follow- up study included in the National Survey of Education showed that urban children attend high school in higher proportions than do rural children, 58 per cent 37W. L. Slocum, "Educational Planning by High School Seniors, " Iournal of Educational Research (1958), pp. 583-90. 38Elmo Roper, Factors Affecting the Admission of High School Seniors to College (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1949) . 39R. F. Berdie, After High School What? (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, ”1954) . 40G. S. Counts, The Selective Character of American Education (Chicago: Department of Education, University of Chicago, 1922) . 144 as against 39 per cent, an indication of different values toward educa- tion by rural and urban populations . Centers also noted rural-urban related differences in values associated with occupations .41 Haller and Sonia,42 Heller,43 and Grigg and Middleton44 noted that students reared in rural areas have lower educational and occupational goals than do students reared in urban centers. Even though Youmans con— sidered educational aspirations and plans to attend college as separate dimensions , he also found many of the same urban-rural relationships to exist")5 There is also an indication from research that rural groups in gen- eral, and particularly farm groups, tend to place a lower value on 41Richard Centers , "The Intensity Dimension of Class Conscious- ness and Some Social and Psychological Correlates , " Igurnal of Social Psychology. XLIV (1956). pp. 151-59. 42A. o. Heller and w. H. Soule, "Farm Residence and levels of Educational and Occupational Aspirations , “ Americanjournal of Sociol- ogy, LXII (Ianuary, 1959), pp. 404-11. 43Archie O. Haller, "Planning to Farm: A Social Psychological Interpretation," Social Forces, XXXVII (March, 1959), pp. 263-368. 44C. M. Grigg and R. Middleton, "Community Orientation and Occupational Aspirations of Ninth- Grade Students," Social Forces, XXXVIII (May, 1960). pp. 303-08. ‘ 45E. G. Youmans, "The Educational Attainments and Future Plans of Kentucky Rural Youth, " Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 664 (Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1959). 145 higher education than do urban groups .46 Mulligan surveyed the student body at Indiana University and found that white-collar groups were over represented, whereas the farming, unskilled and semi-skilled groups were under represented. He believes that failure to attend college is largely due to cultural factors in the case of farm and lower-class groups and to economic factors in the middle and upper-class groups .47 In a survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, it was found that 54 per cent of the total sample expressed a need for a college education as compared to 47 per cent of the farm sample.48 A similar nation-wide survey of the high school seniors of the class of 1959-1960 was conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It showed that only about a third of the seniors from farm homes reported college plans, whereas about half the seniors from urban and rural non- farm environments indicated their intentions of attending college the following year . 4 9 46E. M. Rogers, Social Change and Rural Society (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1960), p. 50. 47R. A. Mulligan, "Socio-Economic Background and College Enrollment, " American Sociological Review (April, 1951) , pp. 188-96. 48National Opinion Research Center, "Iobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation, " in Class , Status , and Power, ed. Bendix et al. (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1953), pp. 411-26. 49Maxine G. Stewart, "Who Goes to College," Occupational Out- look Quarteply, VI:2 (Washington, D.C.: U.S.‘Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics , May, 1962), p. 11. 146 agnomou mchmoa icoz muonommm. Icoz can. tom NH NH ma can. «mm mm oo oo mm mm 2 m2 :3 ocoo 8a SEED 5 mfioonom scam oo ooQESZ mm lemm mm mm mm om mooZoO 95393 .5500 cmnoD 3.25m Show icoz . 2.386 = Umm .. cashew -- vmm «- .838 = nmm .- .7465 .Ufimom moumsomhw 3338800 “:00 com mo 69¢. NHIH mvmioom warm mmvloov warm omm Nana Omv NHIM omm «Him vmv 3.3530 G“ Emacs dose Ba mocoaw oasuflocodxm mAOOmOm mm; MO mOHHmHmmaong m NHQmeBN om mm mm mm ooeasooO 36:8 mpoO anew Hoosom 147 N N m o H N N o a H 0 Ho mm m o a mm m m . v m m m H H H m m m H H m w m o H o x. mm H 8235 ochmoH mchmmH 5 L52 icoz memcomoe mHoonom 9:2. 08:“ E 22 :mHm Ho tom Sam “:60 com Moo—8:2 .38 N v :95 553. . HmsccH mm . 25¢ m 0 Hanna m crow 3H0 .cHnom m N .oesnsm . 08.22 @3300 m A cone: .nesnsm m m Loom _. .HmscaH . “E m w 2 fimm .- mmoHHoO mcHocmfi< moumscmow fiHcHSEEoO ucoO com Ho page NHIH NHIVH NHim NHIN. NHioH NHIVH NHIm NHIVH 8320 :H unmade cum mm 3 Nvm mm 2 vmm mm NH vmm Ham HH mmmiomm mm H: omm Loncb mm m mmm mm m com mm .\. 629500 Zoom can 8625 coco mecca mcaHHccooxm coo» Hoonom 148 5H NH ochomoH mchmoH icoz meoaomoe 1:02 as; Luca NH oH osfl mm. no mm Hm me we we mm 2 22 so» a co com SEED 5 mHoocom :05 Ho 39:32 .3365 mm .noanam . phenom o m zoom .. . Emma m m . 0.5on 8509 3 ram . 32.65 m m . chmm :vmm .- N A . 088800 . nasnsm m v 3 U3 _- EsoH. . 3305 o m . cued. oaoHHoO 059834 mmumsomamv fiHcDEEoO HcoO com Ho on? NHIm NHlm NHIM NHIVH NHIH NHIM NHIVH NHIH eczema CH comics m on EU oLBHcconm onm va mmmlcmm mmmnomm mvmloom mmmlomm \rmm omm mm mm mm HN om om mm 2 mm mH mm AH mm 3 mm 2 coHozooO :95 com 3825 oooo anew Hoonom 149 .833 zoom: H m no H mm cons; Ste omm. on on .9386 o 0 mm N mm ..com.. NHim ONHV on N .HHHHSH smoob N v mm N om Hmasm NHiH ovN mm \N concD o Ho mo N om Hmasm NHIVH mNm mm 3. .emsccH :55. m m mm H m.wH Hmosm NHIM mmmtomm mm mm .9386 m m mm m WK :UQm: NHIH OWN mm VN :anD v v Nu N no Hmasm NHIVH va \rm .mN 8:35 @5339 mchmou cH omoHHoO 8265 £82 1:02 maocomme mHoocom ochcofi—d 5 939600 9:3. 9:3. .222 :93 Ho moumocmemu EHCSEEOO Emsme Hand com @5325 @300 tom HHsm “coo com 89:32 «coo com mo wanna moccaw ocseHccooxm com.» Hoozom 150 @8328“ 1:02 88E. fimm mH MN @530on 8 H mm H 3. N cm H 8330 5 1:02 28:88.. mHooaom 8&2. 222 8on Ho :3» “coo 8m 8n832 Hem mm om Hm 808200 088832 82:5 8:5 38:00 .836 ..oom .. 8880 8083 .838 : Umm = mmumsomamv 3238800 880 8m Ho 89$. N H ivH com um Him N H to. mHm mm mm NHioH omNHm mm Nm N H H m m N mm H m HpomHQ 5 839600 Hcooce :95 Ba 882% ocoo moccaw maHHHHHocooxm 88> Hoocom APPENDIX C DUNCAN, OCCUPATIONAL SCALE Professionalp Technical, and Kindred Workers Accountants and auditors Actors and actresses Airplane pilots and navigators Architects Artists and art teachers Athletes Authors Chemists Chiropractors Clergymen College presidents, professors, and instructors (n.e.c.) Dancers and dancing teachers Dentists Designers Dietitians and nutritionists Draftsmen Editors and reporters Engineers, technical Aeronautical Chemical Civil Electrical Industrial Mechanical Metallurgical and metallurgists Mining Not elsewhere classified Entertainers (n . e . c .) Farm and home management advisors Foresters and conservationists 151 Socio-economic index 78 60 79 90 67 52 76 79 75 52 84 45 96 73 39 67 82 85 87 90 84 84 86 82 82 85 87 31 83 48 152 Socio-economic index Funeral directors and embalmers 59 Lawyers and judges 93 Librarians 60 Musicians and music teachers 52 Natural scientists (n.e.c.) 80 Nurses, professional 46 Nurses, student professional 51 Optometrists 7 9 Osteopaths 96 Personnel and labor relations workers 84 Pharmacists 82 Photographers 5 0 Physicians and surgeons 92 Radio Operators 69 Recreation and group workers 67 Religious workers 56 Social and welfare workers , except group 64 Social scientists 81 Sports instructors and officials 64 Surveyors 48 Teachers (n.e.c.) 72 Technicians, medical and dental 48 Technicians , testing 53 Technicians (n.e.c.) 62 Therapists and healers (n.e.c.) 58 Veterinarians 78 Professional, technical, and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 65 Farmers and Farm Managers Farmers (owners and tenants) 14 Farm managers 36 Managers, Officials, and Proprietors, except Farm Buyers and department heads, store 72 Buyers and shippers, farm products 33 Conductors, railroad 58 Credit men 74 Floormen and floor managers, store 50 Inspectors, public administration 63 Federal public administration and postal service 72 153 Socio-economic index State public administration 54 Local public administration 56 Managers and superintendents, building 32 Officers, pilots, pursers, and engineers, ship 54 Officials and administrators (n.e.c.) public administration 66 Federal public administration and postal service 84 State public administration 66 Local public administration 54 Officials, lodge, society, union, etc. 58 Postmasters 60 Purchasing agents and buyers (n.e.c.) 77 Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.)- salaried 68 Construction 60 Manufacturing 79 Transportation 71 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 76 Wholesale trade 70 Retail trade 56 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailing 50 General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 68 Apparel and accessories stores 69 Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores 68 Motor vehicles and accessories retailing 65 Gasoline service stations 31 Eating and drinking places 39 Hardware, farm implement, and building material retail 64 Other retail trade 59 Banking and other finance 85 Insurance and real estate 84 Business services 80 Automobile repair services and garages 47 Miscellaneous repair services 53 Personal services 50 'All other industries (incl. not reported) 62 Managers, officials, and proprietors (n.e.c.) - self employed 48 Construction 51 Manufacturing 61 Transportation 43 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 44 Wholesale trade 59 Retail trade ‘ 43 Food and dairy products stores, and milk retailing 33 General merchandise and five and ten cent stores 47 154 Apparel and accessories stores Furniture, home furnishings, and equipment stores Motor vehicles and accessories retailing Gasoline service stations Eating and drinking places Hardware, farm implement, and building material retail Other retail trade Banking and other finance Insurance and real estate Business services Automobile repair services and garages Miscellaneous repair services Personal services All other industries (incl. not reported) Clerical and Kindred Workers Agents (n.e.c.) Attendants and assistants, library Attendants, physician's and dentist's office Baggagemen, transportation Bank tellers Bookkeepers Cashiers Collectors, bill and account Dispatchers and starters, vehicle Express messengers and railway mail clerks Mail carriers Messengers and office boys Office machine operators Shipping and receiving clerks Stenographers, typists, and secretaries Telegraph messengers Telegraph operators Telephone operators Ticket, station, and express agents Clerical and kindred workers (n.e.c.) Sales Workers Advertising agents and salesmen Auctioneers Socio-economic index 65 59 70 33 37 61 49 85 76 67 36 34 41 49 68 44 38 25 52 51 44 39 40 67 53 28 45 22 61 22 47 45 60 44 66 40 155 Socio-economic index Demonstrators 35 Hucksters and peddlers 8 Insurance agents and brokers 66 Newsboys 27 Real estate agents and brokers 62 Stock and bond salesmen 73 Salesmen and sales clerks (n.e.c.) 47 Manufacturing 65 Wholesale trade 61 Retail trade 39 Other industries (incl. not reported) 50 Craftsmen, Foremen, and Kindred Workers Bakers 22 Blacksmiths 16 Boilermakers 33 Bookbinde rs 3 9 Brickmasons, stonemasons, and tile setters 27 Cabinetmakers 23 Carpenters 19 Cement and concrete finishers 19 Compositors and typesetters 52 Cranemen, derrickmen, and hoistmen 21 Decorators and window dressers 40 Electricians 44 Electrotypers and stereotypers 55 Engravers, except photoengravers 1 47 Excavating, grading, and road machinery operators 24 Foremen (n.e.c.) 49 Construction 40 Manufacturing 53 Metal industries 54 Machinery, including electrical 60 Transportation equipment 66 Other durable goods 41 Textiles, textile products, and apparel 39 Other nondurable goods (incl. not specified mfg.) 53 Railroads and railway express service 36 Transportation, except railroad 45 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 56 Other industries (incl. not reported) 44 156 Forgemen and hammermen Furriers Glaziers Heat treaters, annealers, and temperers Inspectors, scalers, and graders, log and lumber Inspectors (n.e.c.) Construction Railroads and railway express service Transport, exc. rr. , communication, & other public util. Other industries (incl. not reported) Iewelers, watchmakers, goldsmiths, and silversmiths Iob setters, metal Linemen and servicemen, telegraph, telephone and power Locomotive engineers Locomotive firemen Loom fixers Machinists Mechanics and repairmen Airplane Automobile Office machine Radio and television Railroad and car shop Not elsewhere classified Millers, grain, flour, feed, etc. Millwrights Molders, metal Motion picture projectionists Opticians, and lens grinders and polishers Painters, construction and maintenance Paperhangers Pattern and model makers, except paper Photoengravers and lithographers Piano and organ tuners and repairmen Plasterers Plumbers and pipe fitters Pressmen and plate printers, printing Rollers and roll hands, metal Roofers and slaters Shoemakers and repairers , except factory Stationary engineers Stonecutters and stone carvers Socio-economic index 23 39 26 22 23 41 46 41 45 38 36 28 49 58 45 10 33 25 48 19 36 36 23 27 19 31 12 43 39 16 10 44 64 38 25 34 49 22 15 12 47 25 157 Socio-economic index Structural metal workers 34 Tailors and tailoresses 23 Tinsmiths, c0ppersmiths, and sheet metal workers 33 Toolmakers, and die makers and setters 50 Upholsterers 22 Craftsmen and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 32 Members of the armed forces 18 Operatives and Kindred Workers Apprentices 35 Auto mechanics 25 Bricklayers and masons 32 Carpenters 31 Electricians 37 Machinists and toolmakers 41 Mechanics, except auto 34 Plumbers and pipe fitters 33 Building trades (n.e.c.) 29 Metalworking trades (n.e.c.) 33 Printing trades 40 Other specified trades 31 Trade not specified 39 Asbestos and insulation workers 32 Attendants, auto service and parking 19 Blasters and powdermen 11 Boatmen, canalmen, and lock keepers 24 Brakemen, railroad 42 Bus drivers 24 Chainmen, rodmen, and asmen, surveying 25 Conductors, bus and street railway 30 Deliverymen and routemen 32 Dressmakers and seamstresses, except factory 23 Dyers 12 Filers, grinders, and polishers, metal 22 Fruit, nut, & vegetable graders & packers, exc. factory 10 Furnacemen, smeltermen, and pourers 18 Heaters, metal 29 Laundry and dry cleaning operatives 15 Meat cutters, except slaughter and packing house 29 Milliners 46 Mine Operatives and laborers (n.e. c.) 10 158 Socio-economic index Coal mining 2 Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 38 Mining and quarrying, except fuel 12 Motormen, mine, factory, logging camp, etc. 3 Motormen, street, subway, and elevated railway 34 Oilers and greasers, except auto 15 Painters, except construction and maintenance 18 Photographic process workers 42 Power station operators 50 Sailors and deck hands 16 Sawyers 5 Spinners, textile 5 Stationary firemen 17 Switchmen, railroad 44 Taxicab drivers and chauffeurs 10 Truck and tractor drivers 15 Weavers, textile 6 Welders and flame-cutters 24 Operatives and kindred workers (n.e.c.) 18 Manufacturing 17 Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products 7 Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work 7 » Miscellaneous wood products 9 Furniture and fixtures 9 Stone, clay, and glass products 17 Glass and glass products 23 Cement, and concrete, gypsum, and plaster products 10 . Structural clay products 10 Pottery and related products 21 Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products 15 Metal industries 16 Primary metal industries 15 Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills 17 Other primary iron and steel industries 12 Primary nonferrous industries 15 Fabricated metal industries (incl. not spec. metal) 16 Fabricated steel products 16 Fabricated nonferrous metal products 15 Not specified metal industries 14 Machinery, except electrical 22 Agricultural machinery and tractors 21 159 Socio-economic Office and store machines and devices Miscellaneous machinery Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies Transportation equipment Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Aircraft and parts Ship and boat building and repairing Railroad and miscellaneous transportation equipment Professional and photographic equipment, and watches Professional equipment and supplies Photographic equipment and supplies Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Food and kindred products Meat products Dairy products Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods Grain-mill products Bakery products Confectionery and related products Beverage industries Miscellaneous food preparations and kindred products Not specified food industries Tobacco manufactures Textile mill products Knitting mills Dyeing and finishing textiles, except knit goods Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings Yarn, thread, and fabric mills Miscellaneous textile mill products Apparel and other fabricated textile products Apparel and accessories Miscellaneous fabricated textile products Paper and allied products Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Paperboard containers and boxes Miscellaneous paper and pulp products Printing, publishing and allied industries Chemicals and allied products Synthetic fibers Drugs and medicines Paints, varnishes, and related products Ede—x 31 22 26 23 21 34 16 23 29 23 40 28 16 16 16 22 9 14 15 12 19 11 19 2 6 21 8 14 2 10 21 22 17 19 19 17 19 31 20 9 26 15 160 Socio-economic index Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products 23 Petroleum and coal products 51 Petroleum refining 56 Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products 14 Rubber products 22 Leather and leather products 16 Leather: tanned, curried, and finished 10 Footwear, except rubber 9 Leather products, except footwear 14 Not specified manufacturing industries 16 Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) 18 Construction 18 Railroads and railway express service 15 Transportation, except railroad 23 Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services 21 Wholesale and retail trade 17 Business and repair services 19 Personal services 11 Public administration 17 All other industries (incl. not reported) 20 Private Household Workers Housekeepers, private household 19 Living in 10 Living out 21 Laundresses, private household 12 Living in -- Living out 12 Private household workers (n.e.c.) 7 Living in 12 Living out 6 Service Workers, except Private Household Attendants, hospital and other institution 13 Attendants, professional and personal service (n.e.c.) 26 Attendants, recreation and amusement 19 Barbers, beauticians, and manicurists 17 Bartenders 19 Boarding and lodging housekeepers 30 Bootblacks 8 161 Charwomen and cleaners Cooks, except private household Counter and fountain workers Elevator Operators Firemen, fire protection Guards, watchmen, and doorkeepers Housekeepers and stewards, except private household Ianitors and sextons Marshals and constables Midwives Policemen and detectives Government Private Porters Practical nurses Sheriffs and bailiffs Ushers, recreation and amusement Waiters and waitresses Watchmen (crossing) and bridge tenders Service workers, except private household (n.e.c.) Farm Laborers and Foremen Farm foremen Farm laborers, wage workers Farm laborers, unpaid family workers Farm service laborers, self-employed Fishermen and oystermen Garage laborers, and car washers and greasers Gardeners, except farm, and groundskeepers Longshoremen and stevedores Lumbermen, raftsmen, and wood choppers Teamsters Laborers (n . e.cp) Manufacturing Durable goods Sawmills, planing mills, and misc. wood products Sawmills, planing mills, and mill work Miscellaneous wood products Furniture and fixtures Stone, clay, and glass products Socio-economic index 10 15 17 10 37 18 31 9 21 37 39 40 36 4 22 34 25 16 17 11 20 17 22 10 11 ll \IUTNOOOO 162 Glass and glass products Cement, and concrete, gypsum, and plaster products Structural clay products Pottery and related products Misc. nonmetallic mineral and stone products Metal industries Primary metal industries Blast furnaces, steel works, and rolling mills Other primary iron and steel industries Primary nonferrous industries Fabricated metal industries (incl. not spec. metal) Fabricated steel products Fabricated nonferrous metal products Not specified metal industries Machinery, except electrical Agricultural machinery and tractors Office and store machines and devices Miscellaneous machinery Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies Transportation equipment Motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment Aircraft and parts Ship and boat building and repairing Railroad and miscellaneous transportation equipment Professional and photographic equipment, and watches Professional equipment and supplies Photographic equipment and supplies Watches, clocks, and clockwork-operated devices Miscellaneous manufacturing industries Nondurable goods Food and kindred products Meat products Dairy products Canning and preserving fruits, vegetables, and sea foods Grain-mill products Bakery products Confectionery and related products Beverage industries Miscellaneous food preparations and kindred products Not specified food industries Tobacco manufactures Textile mill products Knitting mills Socio-economic index 1"“ OVVmbLDVVU‘IVU'IUTb r—‘P—‘H t—‘D—‘t—‘U—‘I—‘l—‘t—‘H i—I moi—'mwai—IJSOVJSHLD i—‘ N 163 Socio-economic index Dyeing and finishing textiles , except knit goods Carpets, rugs, and other floor coverings Yarn, thread, and fabric mills Miscellaneous textile mill products Apparel and other fabricated textile products Apparel and accessories Miscellaneous fabricated textile products Paper and allied products Pulp, paper, and paperboard mills Paperboard containers and boxes Miscellaneous paper and pulp products Printing, publishing, and allied industries Chemicals and allied products Synthetic fibers Drugs and medicines Paints, varnishes, and related products Miscellaneous chemicals and allied products Petroleum and coal products Petroleum refining Miscellaneous petroleum and coal products Rubber products Leather and leather products Leather: tanned, curried, and finished Footwear, except rubber Leather products, except footwear Not specified manufacturing industries Nonmanufacturing industries (incl. not reported) Construction Railroads and railway express service Transportation, except railroad Telecommunications, and utilities and sanitary services Wholesale and retail trade Business and repair services Personal services Public administration All other industries (incl. not reported) Occupation not reported H H H N |--‘ i—Ir—I r—‘ NN N LOOUVUWQONCDLDOJV\ICDNONCWNWOUNCDCDNQCDWCDOCDVmi-‘Lomt-‘bto H Student Booklet APPENDIX D U. S. Office Project 918 College of Education Michigan State University ...About Project 918 Your school has been chosen as one of 30 representative new high schools niche United States. Each of these schools will be studied by a research team frmnlfichigan State University. Funds for the project are provided by the Congress of the United States through the U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of Project 918 is to see if there are any real differences in the way teachers and students work and study together in different kinds of high school buildings. If such differences can be found, it will point the way to the design of better high school buildings, and consequently better high school teaching and learning. In the next two-hour period, would you please help in this important study by carefully and honestly completing each of the following questionnaires and Inventories. Each questionnaire is self-explanatory. You should proceed from ("m to the other without waiting for additional directions. All information Will be kept in strictest confidence. Your responses will be seen only by a research team at Michigan State University. Thank you for your cooperation. K. T. Hereford Project Coordinator Michigan State University 164 +\ 0 GENERAL INFORMATION Name Last First Middle Number of years in this school (count present year as one) (check) 1 2 3 4 Age Grade (check) 9 w__ 10 ll 12 (Check one) Male Female Number of brothers sisters What is your father's occupation (if deceased, what was it)? a. Does he get paid by salary? Yes No b. If yes, who does he work for? c. Does he own a business? Yes No d. Does he have any people under him? Yes No e. If yes, about how many? Do you plan to go to college? (check) Yes No Do your parents hope you will go to college? (check) Yes No Of the following subjects, which do you find easiest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art Of the following subjects, which do you find hardest? (check one) English Mathematics History Science Art Do you have a hobby? Yes No If yes, what is it? If you have more than one, give the one in which you are most interested. Name the teacher whom you feel knows you best. (Please Print) 165 SOCIAL SCALE List the names of your two best friends that are of your own age group. (Please Print) 1. Where did you get to know this friend? (check one) Last name First name Classes together Live in my neighborhood Church School club or activities Out-of-school club Other (name) 2. Where did you get to know this friend? (check one) Last name First name Classes together Live in my neighborhood Church School club or activities Out-of-school Other (name) Information concerning the class in which you are presently located. 1. How many students are there in the class you are taking this hour? number 2. How many of these students do you generally think of as a good friend? number 3. 0f the remaining students, how many would you be willing to have as a good friend? number List the names of two adults you like best. Not parents or relatives. (Please Print) 1. Where did you get to know this person? (check one) Last name First name In-school activities Out-of-school activities What does this person do for a living? 2. Where did you get to know this person? (check one) Last name First name~ In-school activities Out-of-school activities What does this person do for a living? List the names of the two outstanding student leaders in your school. (Please Print) Check the grade in which each student leader is enrolled. 1. Sex M F 9 10 11 12 Last name First name (Circle one) Grade (Circle one) 2. Sex M F 9 10 ll 12 Last name First name (Circle one) Grade (Circle one) How frequently do you get to talk with each of the following persons about your school work or personal problems? (check one response for each person) 166 167 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST Teachers and students have many different personal traits. It ‘would help us develOp a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. On the next two pages are 49 words which are commonly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. ;g_Column I, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. 12 Column II, indicate for each of the 49 words how you feel about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column I: I am an academic kind of person a good deal of the time (4); and in Column II: I like myself in this respect. (4) Please proceed to complete Columns I and II for each trait word 168 TRAITS: Column _I_ Column I_I How much of the time How do I feel about being am I this kind of person? this kind of person? RESPONSES: 1 . Seldom l . Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like EXAMPLE: academic 4 4 l. acceptable 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying 6. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent ll. confident 12. considerate 13., cruel 14. democratic 15. dependable 16. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful 19. friendly 20. fashionable 21. helpful 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4o. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 169 CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST Since a high school is made of people who work and study together, our understanding of your school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of people in your school. Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends may be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the "average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general." Then try to put yourself in the place of this "average friend" and fill out the same two column check-list that you completed for yourself. TRAITS: Column I Column II How much of the time do your How do'yfifif'"fflends "friends in general" believe in general" feel about themselves to be this kind themselves in this of person? respect. 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5. Most of the time 5. Very much like 1. acceptable 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying 6. busy 7. calm 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent ll. confident 12. considerate l3. cruel l4. democratic 15. dependable 16. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful l9. friendly l70 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. fashionable helpful intellectual kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 171 Teacher Booklet APPENDIX E U. 8. Office Project 918 College of Education Michigan State University ...About Project 918 Your school has been chosen as one of 30 representative new high schools in the United States. Each of these schools will be studied by a research team from Michigan State University. Funds for the project are provided by the Congress of the United States through the U. S. Office of Education. The purpose of Project 918 is to see if there are any real differences in the way teachers and students work and study together in different kinds of high school buildings. If such differences can be found, it will point the way to the design of better high school buildings, and consequently better high school teaching and learning. In the next two-hour period, would you please help in this important study by carefully and honestly completing each of the following questionnaires and inventories. Each questionnaire is self-explanatory. You should proceed from one to the other without waiting for additional directions. All information will be kept in strictest confidence. Your responses will be seen only by a research team at Michigan State University. Thank you for your cooperation. K. T. Hereford Project Coordinator Michigan State University 172 Name (Please Print) 1. 03 10. ll. 12 GENERAL INFORMATION Last First How many years of teaching experiences have you had? (check one) less than 1 l 2 3 4 5-9 10-15 16-20 21 or more What is your age? (check one) 20-24 ___ 25-29 ___ 30-34 ___ 35-39 ____40-44 ___ 45-49 ___ 50-59 ___ 60 or more ___ A. What is your sex? Male ___ Female ____ B. Are you married? Yes ___ No ____ How many years have you been employed on this high school staff? less then 1 1 2 3 4 5 6-9 lO-15 16-20 21 or more What is the highest academic degree that you hold? Bachelors Masters 'Doctorate Others (specify) If you teach: List those subjects and grade levels that you are now teaching. Subject Grade Level What is your father's occupation? (If deceased, what was it? Please be precise.) If you are married:' What is your spouse's occupation? Which of the following tasks involved in teaching do you find most difficult? (check one) l. preparing lesson plans 4. working on faculty committees evaluating student performance 5. being accepted by student body introducing new teaching techniques 6. relating yourself to the staff Which of the following tasks do you find to be easiest? (check one) 1. preparing lesson plans - _ 4. working on faculty committees 2. evaluating student performance 5. being accepted by student body 3. introducing'new teaching techniques 6. relating yourself to the staff In what state were you born? What is your best estimate of the total number of different students which you now have enrolled in all of your classes? different students (number) 173 174 PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS CHECK-LIST Teachers and students have many different personal traits. It would help us develop a better understanding of your school, if you would describe yourself as you believe you really are. Please remember that all of your responses are kept in strictest confidence. 0n the next two pages are 49 words which are commonly used to describe people. Try to describe yourself as accurately as possible by completing the two columns of words. IEDColumn I, please write by each word how much of the time you believe that you are this kind of person. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your belief about yourself. When you have completed all 49 words in Column I, then go to Column II. lg Column I_I, indicate for each of the 49 words M m feel about yourself in terms of each trait. Choose the one response (1 through 5) which best describes your feeling. In the example, the person responding has said in effect: In Column I: I am an academic kind of person 3.6229.§Efll.2£ EES.E$EE.(4)3 and in Column II: I like myself in this respect. (4) Please proceed to complete Columns I and II for each trait word 175 mm: M 1 M 11 How much of the time How do I feel about being am I this kind of person? this kind of person? ifiSPONSES: 1. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5 . Most of the t ime 5 . Very much like EXAMPLE: academic __ 4 l . acceptable __ __ 2 . accurate __ __ 3 . alert __ __ 4 . ambitious _ __ 5 . annoying __ _— 6 . busy __ __ 7 . calm __ __ 8 . charming _ __ 9 . clever __ __ lO . competent __ __ 11 . confident __ __ 12 . considerate __ __ 13 . cruel __ ___, 14 . democratic __ __ 15 . dependable _ __ 16 . economical __ __ 17 . efficient __ __ 18 . fearful __ __ 19 . friendly __ __ 20 . fashionable __ __ 21. helpful 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal Optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive faultefinding 176 .CHARACTERISTICS OF OTHERS CHECK-LIST Shme a high school is made of people who work and study tOgether, our understanding of your school would be more complete if we could have your beliefs about the kinds of people in your school. Please think about the persons whom you feel are your friends. Although your friends may be somewhat different in many ways, try to think of the "average person" among your friends; or think of "your friends in general." Then try to put yourself in the place of this "average friend" and fill out the same two column check-list that you completed for_yourse1f. TRAITS: Column I Column II How much SI-EHE-Flme do your How do‘yfifi?‘"f?1ends "friends in general" believe in general" feel about themselves to be this kind themselves in this of person? respect. ‘ l. Seldom 1. Very much dislike 2. Occasionally 2. Dislike 3. About half the time 3. Neither like nor dislike 4. Good deal of the time 4. Like 5 5. Very much like . Most of the time 1. acceptable " 2. accurate 3. alert 4. ambitious 5. annoying _____ _____ 6. busy _____ .___. 7 . calm _ __ 8. charming 9. clever 10. competent ll. confident 12. considerate l3. cruel l4. democratic 15. dependable 16. economical 17. efficient 18. fearful 19. friendly 177 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. fashionable helpful intellectual kind logical meddlesome merry mature nervous normal optimistic poised purposeful reasonable reckless responsible sarcastic sincere stable studious successful stubborn tactful teachable useful worthy broad-minded businesslike competitive fault-finding 178 APPENDIX F TABLES TABLE 1:1.--Numerica1 distribution of the sample Level of Educ. Socio-economic Personality Aspiration Status Classification C.P. N.C.P. High Middle Low ++ +- -+ -- Males 761 233 336 384 274- 357 435 151 51 Females 673 364 363 366 308 480 376 149 32 Total 1434 597 699 750 582 837 811 300 83 TABLE l:2.--Numerical distribution of the proportionate, random sample Level of Educ. Socio-economic Personality Aspiration Status Classification C.P. N.C.P. High Middle Low ++ +- -+ -- Males 534 162 130 348 218 253 294 109 40 Females 474 251 166 326 233 327 278 100 20 Total 1008 413 296 . 674 451 580 572 209 60 179 180 of sum com 3m 3m 3 en 3m mmm mmv mum mum mmm mmm mmv omm H93. mm mm: 21 mum 3m n we mvm mom 2m mam mmm :2 m2 :m o2 monEom m: omm mm: mmv com 5 mm mmm mmm mmm om: omm mm SH mmm o2 $522 33 6:2 :93 “:0 E 11 +1 1+ ++ 304 .32 :93 908 we mm mm msbmam .EonEm cofimoflfimmflo museum so om 134 1cm 1cm .coom1omoom Lo oomE cfiflmcoflom .coom1omoom woe. upcoflm 3164. ooscficoO .muocoooe ofiocoemuoocb 1302 ooscficooiénm mama: mom mom mom mum mom 2m :0 coma omm mmm mmm mmm umm mmm “mucus m: mum at omm smv oov now So m2 mmm Sm mom 0: mm momsfiom mm mam m2 0: :v 2N mow mmm mg mg EN SN 2: Em 9232 906 m1m N10 m. E m 2 NH 3 304 6:2 59m m 2 so 2 macaw. S . m 2.59% $65 so mummy H3222 xom Hoe/o4 oomuU .coomdfioow xom muoeomom. geocmumuoocb 1302 monomer.“ some Boson of Ho mooflono mama: 05 Ho coflsegflo ButcEsZiéuN 5mg. 181 o: mmm 3N 3m mmv 3 so mow mam mum mmv mom mmH mvm m; 3m :38. mm m: 2: omv mam m mm omm mom and omm «2 m: Hm.” com o: momofiom mm om: m: 3v com m mm 3N mmm 0: m2 v: 2. A: 2m 3: mommE 38 6:2 same 30 E ..1 +1 1+ ++ 23 .22 €15 805 me mm mm msomum .EcnoEEm cofimomfimmmao 939m c0 om 1S» 1am 1am .coom1oaoom “0 002m kfizccofiom .c00m660m mg mocoEm :33. ooscficoO . muocomoe geocmumuoocb 1302 oozeflcoO11.Num mama: 53 one New mam emu mmm mmm mvm mum mew mmm mmm mmm m3 #909 mm :m m: 3H Sm Nmm mom m3 mm m2 omm va mam we moisten mm mam m: 8H own 02 mmm mom 0: o: 2: v: as one mofimz Poe Tm To m 2 a 2 .2 S 33 .22 em? a 2 Lo 3 macaw 0H .m 25on “HEM co memo» 3:62 xom 3.23 oomnO .coomdaoom xom whoaomofl mcficmumuoocb 1502 momma comm 038mm Eoocmu .ouocofluoooa 05 «0 wooeono comma 05 mo coflsfibmfio ~moEoEsZ11.~”~ ”Ems: 182 TABLE 3:1.--Personality classification of high socio-economic status males ++ +- -+ -- Total (122.14) (133.90) (33.48) (14.48) College Preference 119 140 34 11 304 (12.86) (14.10) (3.52) (1.52) Non-college Preference 16 8 3 5 32 Total 135 148 37 16 336 x2=12.65288 d.f. =3 p<.05 TABLE 3:2.--Persona1ity classification of middle socio-economic status males ++ +— -+ -- Total ' (98. 93) (125.36) (49.84) (15.86) College Preference 106 126 45 13 290 (32.07) (40.64) (16.16) (5.14) Non-college Preference 25 40 ‘21 8 94 Total 131 166 66 21 384 x2=6.10389 d.f. =3 p>.05 183 TABLE 3:3 .--Personality classification of low socio-economic status males ++ +- -+ -- Total (55 .46) (73.75) (29. 26) (8.53) College Preference 58 74 28 7 167 (35.54) (47. 25) (18.74) (5.47) Non-college Preference 33 47 20 7 107 Total 91 121 48 14 274 x2=1.1413s d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 4.--Socio-economic status of males High Middle Low Total (257. 24) (293. 99) (209.77) College Preference 304 290 167 761 (78.76) (90.01) (64.23) Non-college Preference 32 94 107 233 Total 336 384 274 994 x2=73.69277 d.f. =2 p<.01 184 TABLE 5:1.--Persona1ity classification of high socio—economic status females ++ +- -+ -- Total (143.31) (108.74) (46.36) (7.59) College Preference 146 108 44 8 306 (26.69) (20.26) (8.64) (1.41) Non-college Preference 24 21 11 1 57 Total 170 129 55 9 363 x2=1.25975 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 5:2.-—Personality classification of middle socio-economic status females ++ +- -+ -- Total (105.92) (69.25) (29.10) (8.73) College Preference 112 68 26 7 213 (76.08) (49.75) (20.90) (6. 27) Non-college Preference 70 51 24 8 153 Total 182 119 50 15 366 d. f. = 3 p >. 05 x2 = 2.49903 185 TABLE 5:3.--Persona1ity classification of low socio-economic status females ++ +- -+ -- Total (64.00) (64.00) (22.00) (4.00) College Preference 56 74 18 154 (64.00) (64.00) (22.00) (4.00) Non-college Preference 72 54 26 154 Total 128 128 44 308 x2=8.57954 d.f. 3 p<.os TABLE 6.--Socio-—economic status of females High Middle Low Total (235.58) (237.53) (199.88) College Preference 306 213 154 673 (127.42) (128.47) (108.11) Non-college Preference 57 153 154 364 Total 363 366 308 1037 x2=97.20575 d.f. =2 p<.01 186 TABLE 7:1.--Socio-econ0mic status of ++ males High Middle Low Total (101.34) (98.34) (83.32) College Preference 119 106 58 283 (33. 66) (32.66) (27.68) Non-college Preference 16 25 53 94 Total 135 131 111 377 x2=45.59184 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 7:2.--Socio-economic status of +- males High Middle Low Total (115.68) (129.75) (94.57) College Preference 140 126 74 340 (32. 32) (36.25) (26.43) Non-college Preference 8 40 47 95 Total 148 166 121 435 x2=44.39286 d.f. =2 p<.01 187 TABLE 7:3.--Socio-econ0mic status of -+ males High Middle Low Total (26.22) (46.77) (34.01) College Preference 34 45 28 107 (10.78) (19.23) (13.99) Non-college Preference 3 21 20 44 Total 37 66 48 151 x2=11.79713 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 7:4.--Socio-econ0mic status of -- males High Middle Low Total (9.73) (12.77) (8.51) College Preference 11 13 7 31 (6.28) (8.24) (5.49) Non-college Preference 5 8 7 20 Total 16 21 14 51 x2=1.10102 d.f. =2 p>.05 188 TABLE 8 .--Personality classification of males ++ +- -+ -- Total (273.32) (333.03) (115.60) (39.05) College Preference 283 340 107 31 761 (83.68) (101.97) (35.40) (11.95) Non-college Preference 74 95 44 20 233 Total 357 435 151 51 994 x2=11.89621 d.f. =3 p<.01 TABLE 9:1.--Socio-economic status of ++ females High Middle Low Total (111.21) (119.06) (83.73) College Preference 146 112 56 314 (58.79) (62.94) (44.27) Non-college Preference 24 70 72 166 Total 170 182 128 480 x2=59.23488 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 9:2.--Socio-ec0n0mic status of +- females 189 High Middle Low Total (85.77) (79.12) (85.11) College Preference 108 68 74 250 (43.23) (39.88) (42.89) Non-college Preference 21 51 54 126 Total 129 119 128 376 x2=26.18450 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 9:3.--S0cio-econ0mic status of -+ females High Middle Low Total (32.48) (29.53) (25.99) College Preference 44 26 18 88 (22.52) (20.47) (18.01) Non-college Preference 11 24 26 61 Total 55 50 44 149 x2=l7.01064 d.f. =2 p<.01 190 TABLE 9:4.--Socio-economic status of -- females High Middle Low Total (5.91) (9.84) (5.25) College Preference 8 7 21 (3.09) (S. 16) (2.75) Non-college Preference 1 8 11 Total 9 15 32 x2=4.84717 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 10.--Personality classification of females '———'F——___———_= ___ = ++ +- -+ -- Total (311.51) (244.02) (96.70) (20.77) College Preference 314 250 88 21 673 (168.49) (131.98) (52.30) (11.23) Non-college Preference 166 126 61 11 364 Total 480 376 149 32 1037 x2=2.91138 d.f. =3 p>.05 191 TABLE 11:1.--—Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference males by sex Males Females Total (198.99) (29.00) High 200 28 228 (192.01) (27.99) Middle 190 30 220 (102.99) (15.01) Low 104 14 118 Total 494 72 566 x2=0.29284 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 11:2.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference males by socio-economic status T: 4: :1:— High Middle Low Total (93.05) (79.36) (55.59) High 108 76 44 228 (89.79) (76.57) (53.64) Middle 89 80 51 220 (48.16) (41.07) (28.77) LOW 34 41 43 118 Total 231 197 138 556 X2=l6.45289 .=4 p<.01 ‘ 192 TABLE ll:3.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference males by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (51.56) (176.44) High 47 181 228 (49.75) (170.25) Middle 47 173 220 (26.69) (91.31) Low 34 84 118 Total 128 438 566 x2=3.30486 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 12:1 .--Peer friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by sex Males Females Total (17.81) (5.19) High 17 6 23 (45.68) (13.32) Middle 51 8 59 (56.52) (16.48) Low 52 21 73 Total 120 35 155 x2=4.50878 d.f. =2 p>.05 193 TABLE 12:2.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by socio-econ0mic status High Middle Low Total (4.45) (9.50) (9.05) High 2 12 9 23 (11.42) (24.36) (23.22) Middle 12 27 29 59 (14.13) (30.14) (28.73) Low 16 25 32 73 Total 30 64 61 155 x2=4.26532 .=4 p>.05 TABLE 12:3.--Peer friends of socio—economically classified non-college preference males by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (8.01) (14.99) High 7 16 23 (20.55) (38.45) Middle 19 40 59 (25.43) (47.57) Low 28 45 73 Total 54 101 155 x2=0.77334 d.f. =2 p>.05 194 TABLE 13:l.--Peer friends of personality classified college preference males by sex Male Female Total (177.18) (25.82) ++ 172 31 203 (227.80) (33.20) +- 229 32 261 (68.95) (10.05) -+ 71 8 79 (20.07) (2.93) -- 22 1 23 Total 494 72 566 x2=3.17630 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 13:2.--Peer friends of personality classified college preference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (82.85) (70.66) (49.49) -++ 92 61 50 203 (106.52) (90.84) (63.64) +— 106 94 61 261 (32.24) (27.50) (19.26) -+ 27 34 18 79 (9.39) (8.00) (5.61) -- 6 8 9 23 Total 231 197 138 566 x2=8.30116 d.f. =6 p>.05 195 TABLE l3:3.--Peer friends of personality classified college preference males by grade level 9,10,11 12 Total (45.91) (157.09) ++ 47 156 203 (59.02) (201.98) +- 53 208 261 (17.87) (61.13) -+ 21 58 79 (5.20) (17.80) -- 7 16 23 Total 128 438 566 x2 =2.34046 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 14:1.--Peer friends of personality classified non-college preference males by sex Male Female Total (41.81) (12.19) ++ 42 12 54 (48.77) (14.23) +- 49 14 63 (20.13) (5.87) -+ 20 6 26 (9.29) (2.71) __ 9 3 12 Total 120 35 155 x2=0.05239 d.f. =3 p>.05 196 TABLE 14:2.--Peer friends of personality classified non-college preference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (10.45) (22.30) (21.25) H- 14 22 18 54 (12.19) (26.01) (24.79) +- 10 27 26 63 (5.03) (10.74) (10.23) -+ 5 9 12 26 (2.32) (4.95) (4.72) -- 1 6 5 12 Total 30 64 61 155 x2 = 3.79590 d.f. = 6 p>.05 TABLE 14:3.--Peer friends of personality classified non- college preference males by grade level 9,10,11 12 Total (18.81) (35.19) ++ 18 36 54 (21.95) (41.05) +— 21 42 63 (9.06) (16.94) -+ 13 13 26 (4.18) (7.82) -- 2 10 12 Total 54 101 155 x2=4.49106 d.f. =3 p>.05 197 TABLE 15:1 .--Peer friends of males by sex Male Female Total (482.00) (84.00) College Preference 494 72 566 (132.00) (23.00) Non-college Preference 120 35 155 Total 614 107 721 x2=9.36479 d.f. =1 p<.01 TABLE 15:2.--Peer friends of males by socio-economic status -—-—_ High Middle Low Total (204.89) (204.89) (156. 22) College Preference 231 197 138 566 (56.11) (56.11) (42.78) Non-college Preference 30 64 61 155 Total 261 261 199 721 x2=26.77540 d.f. =2 p<.01 198 TABLE 15:3.--Peer friends of males by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (142.87) (423.13) College Preference 128 438 566 (39.13) (115.87) Non-college Preference 54 101 155 TOtal 182 539 721 x2=9.62937 d.f. =1 p<.01 TABLE 16:1 .--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of males by sex Male Female Total (339.43) (61.57) College Preference 346 55 401 (90.57) (16.43) Non-college Preference 84 23 107 Total 430 78 508 x2=3.93202 d.f. =1 p<.05 199 TABLE 16:2.--Peer friends of a prOportionate, random sample of males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (137.28) (152.27) (110.45) College Preference 157 143 100 400 (36.72) (40.73) (29.55) Non-college Preference 17 50 40 107 Total 174 193 140 507 x2=2o.78146 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 16:3.--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of males by grade level 9, 10, ll 12 Total (110.51) (290.49) College Preference 102 299 401 (29.49) (77.51) Non—college Preference 38 69 107 Total 140 368 508 x2=4.2947o d.f. =1 p<.05 200 TABLE 16:4.--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of males by higher, same and lower socio-economic status Higher Same Lower Total (149. 90) (153.06) (97. 04) College Preference 162 152 86 400 (40.10) (40.94) (25.96) Non-college Preference 28 42 37 107 Total 190 194 123 507 x2=1o.61357 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 17:1 .--Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference females by sex Male Female Total (24.12) (219.88) High 29 215 244 (16.21) (147.79) Middle 14 150 164 (11.67) (106.33) Low 9 109 118 Total 52 474 526 x2=2.10788 d.f. =2 p>.05 201 TABLE 17:2.-—-Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (107.16) (90.46) (46.39) High 131 77 36 244 (72.02) (60.80) (31.18) Middle 60 72 32 164 (51.82) (43.75) (22.43) Low 40 46 32 118 Total 231 195 100 526 x2=20.57463 d.f. =4 p<.01 TABLE 17:3 . --Peer friends of socio-economically classified college preference females by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (41.29) (202.71) High 46 198 244 (27.75) (136.25) Middle 19 145 164 (19.97) (98.03) Low 24 94 118 Total 89 437 526 x2=4.94655 d.f. =2 p>.05 202 TABLE 18:1.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by sex Male Female Total (2.55) (38.45) High 3 38 41 (7.60) (114.40) Middle 10 112 122 (6.85) (103.15) Low 4 106 110 Total 17 256 273 x2=2.1574o d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 18:2.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (9.16) (17.87) (13.97) High 14 17 10 41 (27.26) (53.18) (41.56) Middle 27 54 41 122 (24.58) (47.95) (37.47) Low 20 48 42 110 Total 61 119 93 273 x2=5.15166 d.f. =4 p>.05 203 TABLE 18:3.--Peer friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (7.36) (33.64) High 11 30 41 (21.90) (100.10) Middle 25 97 122 (19.74) (90.26) Low 13 97 110 Total 49 224 273 x2=5.53346 d.f.=2 p>.05 TABLE 19:1 .--Peer friends of personality classified college preference females by sex Male Female Total (23.92) (218.08) ++ 21 221 242 (19.77) (180.23) +- 20 180 200 (6.72) (61.28) —+ 10 58 68 (1.58) (14.42) -- 1 15 16 Total 52 474 526 x2=2.41124 d.f. =3 p>.05 204 TABLE 19:2.--Peer friends of personality classified college preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (106.28) (89.71) (46.01) ++ 106 88 48 242 (87.83) (74.14) (38.02) +— 84 77 39 200 (29.86) (25.21) (12.93) —+ 31 26 11 68 (7.03) (5.93) (3.04) -- 10 4 2 16 Total 231 195 100 526 x2=3.02700 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 19:3 .--Peer friends of personality classified college preference females by grade level 9,10,11 12 Total (40.95) (201.05) ++ 47 195 242 (33.84) (166.16) +. 29 171 200 (11.51) (56.49) -+ 11 57 68 (2.71) (13.29) -_ 2 14 16 Total 89 437 526 x2=2.16023 d.f. =3 p>.05 205 TABLE 20:1 .--Peer friends of personality classified non- college preference females by sex Male Female Total (7.97) (120.03) ++ 9 119 128 (5.60) (84.40) +~ 4 86 90 (2.99) (45.01) -+ 4 44 48 (4.36) (6.56) -- 0 7 7 Total 17 256 273 x2=1.46275 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 20:2.--Peer friends of personality classified non-college preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (28.60) (55.79) (43.60) ++ 30 56 42 128 (20.11) (39.23) (30.66) +- 15 45 30 90 (10.73) (20.92) (16.35) -+ 16 14 18 48 (1.56) (3.05) (2.39) -- o 4 3 7 Total 61 119 93 273 x2=9.35480 d.f. =6 p>.05 206 TABLE 20:3.--Peer friends of personality classified non- college preference females by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (22.97) (105.03) ++ 23 105 128 (16.15) (73.85) +- 17 73 90 (8.62) (39.38) -+ 7 41 48 (1.26) (5.74) _- 2 5 7 Total 49 224 273 x2=0.95563 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 21:1 .--Peer friends of females by sex Male Female Total (45.42) (480.58) College Preference 52 474 526 (23.58) (249.42) Non-college Preference 17 256 273 Total 69 730 799 x2 = 3.05305 d.f. =1 p>.05 207 TABLE 21:2.--Peer friends of females by socio-economic status If High Middle Low Total (192. 23) (206.71) (127.06) College Preference 231 195 100 526 (99.77) (107.29) (65.94) Non-college Preference 61 119 93 273 Total 292 314 193 799 x2=41.69420 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 21 :3.--Peer friends of females by grade level 9,10,11 12 Total (90.85) (435.15) l College Preference 89 437 526 (47.15) (225.85) Non-college Preference 49 224 273 Total 138 661 799 x2=0.13326 d.f. =1 p>.05 208 TABLE 22:1 .--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by sex Male Female Total (31.72) (340.28) College Preference 33 339 372 (16.28) (174.72) Non-college Preference 15 176 191 Total 48 515 S63 x2=0.16646 d.f. =1 p>.05 TABLE 22:2.--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by socio-economic status == 1' High Middle Low Total (128.18) (151.97) (91.84) College Preference 152 146 74 372 (65.82) (78.03) (47.16) Non-college Preference 42 84 65 191 Total 194 230 139 563 x2=23.95221 d.f. =2 p<.01 209 TABLE 22:3.--Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by grade level 9, 10, 11 12 Total (58.15) (313.85) College Preference 51 321 372 (29.85) (161.15) Non-college Preference 37 154 191 Total 88 475 563 x2=3.07189 d.f.=1 p>.05 TABLE 22:4.-~Peer friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by higher, same and lower socio-economic status Higher Same Lower Total (134.79) (153.29) (83.92) College Preference 148 156 68 372 (69.21) (78.71) (43.09) Non-college Preference 56 76 59 191 Total 204 232 127 563 x2=12.84169 d.f. =2 p<.01 21 0 TABLE 23:1.--Most-understanding teachers of socio- economically classified college preference males by sex 1 Male Female Total (111.31) (59.69) High 109 62 171 (128.89) (69.11) Middle 132 66 198 (63.79) (34.21) Low 63 35 98 Total 304 163 467 x2=0.38033 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 23:2.--Most-understanding teachers of socio- economically classified college preference males by marital status Married Single Total (127.79) (43.21) High 121 50 171 (147.97) (50.03) Middle 154 44 198 (73.24) (24.76) Low 74 24 98 Total 349 . 118 467 x2=2.43146 d.f. =2 p>.05 211 TABLE 23:3.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified college preference males by years on the staff 1 0-2 3-9 10 or Total more (39.55) (103.62) (27.83) High 36 109 26 171 (45.79) (119.99) (32.22) Middle 53 110 35 198 (22.66) (59.39) (15.95) Low 19 64 15 98 Total 108 283 76 467 L x2=3.93072 d.f. =4 p>.05 TABLE 23:4.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified college preference males by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 . Total _\ more (29.66) (70.67) (43.94) (26.73) High 29 75 43 24 171 (34.34) (81.83) (50.88) (30.95) Middle 36 75 54 33 198 (17.00) (40.50) (25.18) (15.32) LOW 16 43 23 16 98 \ Total 81 193 120 73 467 \ QZ=L98836 d.f. =6 p>.05 212 TABLE 23:5.--M0st-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified college preference males by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (61.88) (52.00) (57.12) ingh 62 56 53 171 (71.65) (60.21) (66.14) Middle 70 62 66 198 (35.46) (29.80) (32.74) Low! 37 24 37 98 Total 169 142 156 467 x2=2.44660 d.f. =4 p>.05 TABLE 23:6.--Most-understanding teachers of socio—economically classified college preference males by personality classification 1 =5 M ++ +- -+ -- Total (86.78) (75.06) (6.96) (2.20) High 91 70 8 2 171 (100.48) (86.92) (8.06) (2.54) Middle 100 91 5 2 198 (49.73) (43.02) (3.99) (1.26) Low 46 44 6 2 98 Total 237 205 19 6 467 x2=3.93945 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 24:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of socio- 213 economically classified non-college preference males by sex Male Female Total (16.21) (7.79) . High 17 7 24 (37.82) (18.18) Middle 39 17 56 (49.97) (24.03) Low 48 26 74 Total 104 50 154 x2 = 0.47116 d.f. = 2 p>.05 TABLE 24:2.--M0st-understanding teachers of socio- economically classified non-college preference males by marital status I Married Single Total (19.01) (4.99) High 23 1 24 (44.36) (11.64) Middle 42 14 56 (58.62) (15.38) Low 57 17 74 Total 122 32 154 x2=4.84727 d.f. =2 p>.05 214 TABLE 24:3.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (4.36) (16.99) (2.65) High 2 20 2 24 (10.18) (39.64) (6.18) Middle 12 40 4 56 (13.46) (52.38) (8.17) Low 14 49 11 74 Total 28 109 17 154 x2 = 4.27779 d.f. = p) .05 TABLE 24:4.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total (6.08) (9.19) (4.83) (3.90) High 7 12 3 2 24 (14.18) (21.46) (11.27) (9.09) Middle 14 20 14 8 56 (18.74) (28.35) (14.90) (12.01) Low 18 27 14 15 74 Total 39 59 31 25 154 x2=4.40324 d.f=6 p>.05 215 TABLE 24:5.--M0st-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by socio-economic background f High Middle Low Total (7.95) (6.86) (9.20) High 5 9 10 24 (18.55) (16.00) (21.45) Middle 16 19 21 56 (24.50) (21.14) (28.35) Low 30 16 28 74 Total 51 44 59 154 x2=5.24301 d.f. =4 p>.05 TABLE 24:6.--M0st-understanding teachers of socio-economically Classified non-college preference males by personality classification ' A ++ +— -- Total (13.40) (8.88) (1.56) (0.16) High 10 13 0 24 (31.27) (20.73) (3.64) (0.36) Middle 31 ‘ 21 0 56 (41.33) (27.39) * (4.81) (0.48) Low 45 23 1 74 Total 86 57 1 154 1‘ x2=5.12699 d.f. =6 p>.05 216 TABLE 25:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference males by sex Male Female Total (113.27) (60.73) ++ 122 52 174 (131.49) (70.51) +- 126 76 202 (44.92) (24.08) —+ 42 27 69 (14.32) (7.68) -- 14 8 22 Total 304 163 467 x2=3.l4881 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 25:2.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference males by marital status Married Single Total (130.03) (43.97) ++ 128 46 174 (150.96) (51.04) +- 155 47 202 (51.57) (17.43) -+ 50 19 69 (16.44) (5.56) -- 16 6 22 Total 349 118 467 x2=0.78909 d.f. =3 p>.05 217 TABLE 25:3.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference males by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (40.24) (105.44) (28.32) ++ 47 103 24 174 (46.72) (122.41) (32.87) +_ 43 126 33 202 (15.96) (41.81) (11.23) -+ 12 44 13 69 (5.09) (13.33) (3.58) —~ 6 10 6 22 Total 108 283 76 467 x2=6.25969 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 25:4.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference males by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total (30.18) (71.91) (44.71) (27.20) ++ 32 78 40 24 174 (35.04) (83.48) (51.91) (31.58) += 33 85 49 35 202 (11.97) (28.52) (17.73) (10.79) -+ 12 22 24 11 69 (3.82) (9 09) (5.65) (3.44) -- 4 8 7 3 22 Total 81 193 120 73 467 x2=6.38807 d.f. =9 p>.05 218 TABLE 25:5 .--—Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference males by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (62.97) (52.91) (58 12) ++ 67 52 55 174 (73.10) (61.42) (67.48) += 67 65 70 202 (24.97) (20.98) (23.05) -+ 30 19 20 69 (7.96) (6.69) (7.35) -- 5 6 11 22 Total 169 142 156 467 x2=5.84094 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 25:6.--Most-understand1ng teachers of personality classified college preference males by personality classification ++ +- -+ -- Total (88.30) (76.38) (7.08) (2.24) ++ 79 85 7 3 174 (102.51) (88.67) (8.22) (2.60) +- 103 89 8 2 202 (35.02) (30.29) (2 81) (0.89) -+ 42 24 2 1 69 (11.16) (9.66) (0.90) (0.28) —- 13 7 2 0 22 Total 237 205 19 6 467 x2=7.95368 d.f. =9 p>.05 TABLE 26:1 .-—Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference males by sex Male Female Total (34.44) (16.56) ++ 39 12 51 (42.55) (20.45) +~ 40 23 63 (16.21) (7.79) -+ 17 7 24 (10.80) (5.19) —- 8 8 16 Total 104 50 154 x2=4.70613 p>.05 TABLE 26:2.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference males by marital status Married Single Total (40. 40) (10. 60) +7“ 41 10 51 (49.91) (13.09) +— 48 15 63 (19.01) (4.99) *+ 19 5 24 (12.68) (3.32) "- 14 2 16 Total 122 32 154 x2=l.05689 p>.05 TABLE 26:3.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference males by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (9.27) (36.10) (5.63) ++ 10 35 6 51 (11.45) (44.59) (6.95) +- 13 43 7 63 (4 36) (16.99) (2 65) -+ 4 18 2 24 (2.91) (11.32) (1.77) -- 1 l3 2 16 Total 28 109 17 154 x2=2.17419 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 26:4.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non—college preference males by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total (12.92) (19.54) (10.27) (8.28) ++ 15 18 7 11 51 (15.95) (24.14) (12.68) (10 23) +- 16 24 15 8 63 (6.08) (9.19) (4.83) (3 90) -+ 5 11 5 3 24 (4.05) (6.13) (3.22) (2 60) —- 3 6 4 3 16 Todd 39 59 31 25 154 x2=4.57988 d.f. =9 p>.05 221 TABLE 26:5.-—Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference males by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (16.89) (14.57) (19.54) ++ 19 14 18 51 (20.86) (18.00) (24.14) +' 22 20 21 63 (7.95) (6.86) (9.19) -+ 6 4 14 24 (5.30) (4.57) (6.13) r- 4 6 6 16 Total 51 44 59 154 x2=6.05745 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 26:6.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference males by personality classification ix ++ +- -+ -- Total (28.48) (18.88) (3.31) (0.33) ++ 25 23 3 0 51 (35.18) (23.32) (4.09) (0.41) +- 41 18 4 0 63 03.40) (8.88) 0.56) (0.16) -+ 14 8 1 1 24 (8.94) (5.92) (1.04) (0.10) -- 6 8 2 0 l6 Toufl 86 57 10 1 154 x2=1l.68065 d.f.=9 p>.05 222 TABLE 27:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of males by sex Male Female Total (306.82) (160.18) College Preference 304 163 467 (101.18) (52.82) Non-college Preference 104 50 154 Total 408 213 621 x2=0.30469 d.f. =1 p>.05 TABLE 27:2.--Most-understanding teachers of males by marital status Married Single Total (354.20) (112.80) College Preference 349 118 467 (116.80) (37.20) Non-college Preference 122 32 154 Total 471 150 621 x2=1.27443 d.f. p>.05 223 TABLE 27:3.--Most-understanding teachers of males by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (102.27) (294.79) (69.94) College Preference 108 283 76 467 (33.73) (97.21) (23.06) Non-college Preference 28 109 17 154 Total 136 392 93 621 x2=5.3l349 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 27:4.--M0st-understanding teachers of males by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total College (90.24) (189.51) (113.55) (73.70) Preference 81 193 120 73 467 Non-college (29.76) (62.49) (37.45) (24. 30) Preference 39 59 31 25 154 Total 120 252 151 98 621 x2=5.57822 d.f. =3 p>.05 ; TABLE 27:5.--Most-understand1ng teachers of males 224 by socio-economi c backgrbund High Middle Low Total (165.44) (139.87) (161.68) College Preference 169 142 156 467 (54.56) (46.13) (53.32) Non-college Preference 51 44 59 154 __ Total 220 186 21.5 621 x2=1.24427 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 27:6.w-Most-understanding teachers of males by personality classification ++ +- —+ '“- TCtal l College (242.90) (197.03) (21.81) (5.26}- Preference 237 205 19 6 467 Non-college (80.10) (64.97) (7.19) (l. 74) Preference 86 57 10 l 154 Total 323 262 29 7 621 x2=3.75702 d.f. =3 p>.05 x TABLE 28:1.--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate random sample of males by sex Male Female Total (260.02) (140.98) College Preference 257 144 401 (71.98) (39.02) Non-college Preference 75 36 111 Total 332 180 512 x2=0.46019 d.f. =1 p>.05 TABLE 28:2.--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of males by marital status Married Single Total (302.25) (94.75) College Preference 301 96 397 (83.75) (26.25) Non-college Preference 85 25 110 Total 386 121 507 x2=0.09982 d.f.=1 p>.05 TABLE 28:3.~~1\/1cst-understandlng teachers of a proportionate, random sample of males by years on the staff ~ 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (90.75) (249.57) (58.68) College Preference 95 242 62 399 (25.25) (69.43) (16.32) Non-college Preference 21 77 13 111 Total 116 319 75 510 x2=2.83256 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 285:4 -=Most-understandlng teachers of a proportionate, random sample of males by age 50 or __ 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Tot") College (81.41) (166.73) {91.59: (60.27) Preference 74 167 98 61 400 N0n~ccllege (22.59) (46. 27) (25 . 42) (16.73} Preference 30 46 19 16 111 Total 104 213 117 77 511 x2=5.20779 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 28:5.~=lxlostwunderstanding teachers of a proportionate random sample of males by soc1o-econom1’c background High Middle Low Total (137.28) (152.27) (110.45) College Preference 157 143 100 400 (36.72) (40.73) (29. 55) Non-college Preference 17 50 40 107 Total 174 193 140 507 x2=20.78146 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABIE 28 g6.«--—Most-—understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of males by personality classification ++ +~ -+ —- Total. College (200.08) (164.13) (21.88) (3.91) Preference 196 168 21 5 390 Nonmcollege (55.92) (45.87) (6. 12) {1.09) Preference 60 42 7 0 109 Total 256 210 28 5 499 x2=2.35440 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 28:7.--=»Most-wunderstanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of males by higher, same and lower socio-economic status Higher Same Lower Total (128.37) (123.73) (95.89) College Preference 129 125 94 348 (37.63) (36. 27) (28.11) Nonmcollege Preference 37 35 30 102 Total 166 160 .124 450 x2=0.23544 d.f.=2 p>.05 TABLE 29:1.--Most-understanding teachers of socio- economically classified college preference females by sex ====1 Male Female Total (77.10) (108.90) High 83 103 186 (55.96) (79.04) Middle 56 79 135 (43 94) (62.06) Low 38 68 106 Total 177 250 427 x2=2.14271 d.f. =2 p>.05 229 TABLE 29.2.—-M0st-understanding teachers of socio- economlcally class1fied college preference females by marital status Married Single Total (126.32) (59.68) High 129 57 186 (91.69) (43.31) Middle 92 43 135 (71.99) (34.01) Low 69 37 106 Total 290 137 427 x2=o.56748 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 29:3.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified college preference females by years on the staff ‘ ‘- 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (47.92) (108.90) (29.19) High 47 111 28 186 (34.78) (79.04) (21.18) Middle 33 83 19 135 (27.31) (62.06) (16.63) Low 30 56 20 106 l__ Total 110 250 67 427 x2=2.15014 d.f. =4 p>.05 TABLE 29:4.-~t-~Most--understanding teachers of socio~economlca11y classrfied college preference females by age 50 or “1 20=29 30~39 40-49 Umfle Tenn (35.28) (63.16) (51.84) (35.72) lhgh 30 68 57 31 186 (25.61) (45.84) (37.62) (25.92) lfliddle 21 52 35 27 135 (20.11) (36.00) (29.54) (20.36) Low 30 25 27 24 106 Total 81 145 119 82 427 x2=13.27758 d.f. = p<.05 TABLE 29:5.“Most-understanding teachers of sociot-economically classified college preference females by socio—economic background High Middle Low Total (71.00) (54.89) (60.11) ihgh 78 56 52 186 (51.53) (39.84) (43.63) hixhhe 46 41 48 135 (40.46) (31.28) (34.26) LOW? 39 29 38 106 Total 163 126 138 427 x2=3.49882 d.f. =4 p>.05 231 TABLE 29:6.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified college preference females by personality classification ++ +- -+ -- Total (101.06) (69.26) (13.07) (2.61) High 95 76 11 4 186 (73.35) (50.27) (9.48) (1.90) Middle 84 41 9 1 135 (57.59) (39.47) (7.45) (1.49) Low 53 42 10 1 106 Total 232 159 30 6 427 x2=7.35565 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 30:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of socio— economically classified non-college preference females by sex Male Female Total (11.66) (20.34) High 14 18 32 (36.81) (64.19) Middle 38 63 101 (37.53) (65.47) Low 34 69 103 Total 86 150 236 x2 = 1.32167 d.f. =2 p>.05 232 TABLE 30:2.--Most-understanding teachers of socio- economically classified non-college preference females by marital status Married Single Total (19.93) (12.07) High ,. 19 13 32 (62.91) ‘ (38.09) Middle 61 40 101 (64.16) (38.84) Low 67 36 103 Total 147 89 236 x2=0.60216 d.f.=2 p>.05 TABLE 30:3.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by years on the staff 10 or 0- 2 3-9 more Total (8.27) (17.22) (6.51) High 9 18 5 32 (26.11) (54.35) (20.54) Middle 21 59 21 101 (26.62) (55.43) (20.95) Low 31 50 22 103 Total 61 127 48 236 x2=3.16343 d.f.=4 p>.05 233 TABLE 30:4.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total _ (7.46) (8.95) (7.59) (8.00) High 5 11 10 6 32 . (23.54) (28.25) (23.97) (25.25) Middle 24 27 19 31 101 (24.00) (28.81) (24.44) (25.75) Low 26 28 27 22 103 Total 55 66 56 59 236 (‘\ x2=5.94384 d.f.=6 p>.05 TABLE 30:5.--Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically Classified non-college preference females by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (12.88) (8.95) (10.17) High 13 7 12 32 (40.66) (28.25) (32.10) Middle 41 30 30 101 (41.46) (28.81) (32.73) Low 41 29 33 103 1\ Total 95 66 75 236 \— x2=1.00245 d.f. =6 p>.05 L\ 234 TABLE 30:6.-=-Most-understanding teachers of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by personality classifica- tion ++ +- -+ -- Total (17.63) (12.20) (2.03) (1.36) High 17 13 l 1 32 (55. 64) (38.52) (6.42) (0.43) Middle 55 40 6 0 101 (56.74) (39. 28) (6.55) (0.44) Low 58 37 8 0 103 Total 130 90 15 1 236 x2=0.89586 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 31:1.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference females by sex Male Female Total (83.32) (117.68) ++ 88 113 201 (66.74) (94.26) +- 63 98 161 (21.56) (30.44) -+ 22 30 52 (5.39) (7.61) -- 4 9 13 Total 177 250 427 x2 = 1.43462 d.f. = 3 p>.05 235 TABLE 31:2.--Most-understanding teachers of personality ClaSSlfled college preference females by marital status Married Single Total (136.51) (64.49) ++ 139 62 201 (109.34) (51.66) +_ 98 63 161 (35.32) (16.68) -+ 43 9 52 (8.83) (4.17) -- 10 3 13 Total 290 137 427 x2=9.49625 d.f. =3 p<.05 TABLE 31:3.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference females by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (51.78) (117.68) (31.54) ++ 54 116 31 201 (41.48) (94.26) (25.26) +~ 45 90 26 161 (13.40) (30.44) (8.16) -+ 9 . 35 8 52 (3.35) (7.61) (2.04) -- 2 9 2 13 Total 110 250 67 427 x2=3.57096 d.f. =6 p>.05 236 TABLE 31:4.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference females by age 50 or 20-29 30-39 40-49 more Total (38.13) (68.26) (56.02) (38.60) ++ 39 65 58 39 201 (30.54) (54.67) (44.87) (30.92) +— 29 60 40 32 161 (9.86) (17.66) (14.49) (9.99) -+ 8 18 17 9 52 (2.47) (4.41) (3.62) (2.50) -- 5 2 4 2 13 Total 81 145 119 82 427 x2=6.34187 d.f. =9 p>.05 TABLE 31 :5.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified college preference females by socio—economic background High Middle Low Total (76.73) (59.31) (64.96) ++ 75 60 66 201 (61.46) (47.51) (52.03) +- 63 45 53 161 (19.85) (15.34) (16.81) -+ 19 17 16 52 (4.96) (3.84) (4.20) -- 6 4 3 13 Total 163 126 138 427 x2=1.07555 d.f.=6 p>.05 237 TABLE 31 :6.--Most-—understanding teachers of personality classified college preference females by personality classification ++ +- -+ -- Total (109.21) (74.85) (14.12) (2.82) ++ 116 71 12 2 201 (87.48) (59.95) (11.31) (2.26) +- 80 68 10 3 161 (28. 25) (19.36) (3.65) (0.73) -~+ 31 15 5 1 52 (7.06) (4.84) (0.91) (0.18) -- 5 5 3 0 13 Total 232 159 30 6 427 x2=10.74666 d.f. =9 p>.05 TABLE 32:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by sex Male Female Total (38.63) (67.37) ++ 46 60 106 (30.61) (53.39) +- 29 55 84 (14.94) (26.06) -+ 10 31 41 (1.82) (3.18) .. 1 4 5 Total 86 150 236 x2=5.49631 d.f. =3 p>.05 238 - TABLE 3212.--—Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by marital status Married Single Total (66.03) (39.97) ++ 67 39 106 (52.32) (31.68) +- 56 28 84 (25.54) (15.46) -+ 22 19 41 (3.11) (1.89) =- 2 3 5 Total 147 89 236 x2=3.07339 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 32:3.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (27.40) (57.04) (21.56) ++ 21 60 25 106 (21.71) (45.20) (17.08) +- 27 42 15 84 (10.60) (22.06) (8.34) —+ 13 21 7 41‘ (1.29) (2.69) (1.02) -- 0 4 1 5 Total 61 127 48 236 x2=6.71413 d.f. =6 p>.05 239 TABLE 32:4.--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by age 20—29 30-39 40-49 50 0’ Total more (24.70) (29.64) (25.15) (26.50) ++ 23 33 27 23 106 (19.58) (23.49) (19.93) (21.00) +- 23 20 14 27 84 (9.56) (11.47) (9.73) (10.25) -+ 8 12 12 9 41 (1.17) (1.40) (1.19) (1.25) -- 1 1 3 0 5 Total 55 66 56 59 236 x2=10.78386 d.f. =9 p>.05 TABLE 32:5 .--Most-understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (42.67) (29.64) (33.69) ++ 41 24 41 106 (33.81) (23.49) (26.69) +- 40 25 19 84 (16.50) (11.47) (13.03) -+ 11 16 14 41 (2.01) (1.40) (1.59) —- 3 1 1 5 Total 95 66 75 236 x2=10.69609 d.f. =6 p>.05 240 TABLE 32:6.—-Most=understanding teachers of personality classified non-college preference females by personality classification ++ +— -+ -- Total (58.39) (40.42) (6.74) (0.45) ++ 61 39 5 1 106 (46.27) (32.03) (5.34) (0.36) +- 46 31 7 0 84 (22.59) (15.64) (2.61) (0.17) -+ 21 17 3 0 41 (2.75) (1.91) (0.32) (0.02) -- 2 3 0 0 5 Total 130 90 15 1 236 x2=3.81368 d.f. =9 p>.05 TABLE 33:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of females by sex Male Female Total (169.38) (257.62) College Preference 177 250 427 (93.62) (142.38) Non-college Preference 86 150 236 Total 263 400 663 x2=1.59620 d.f. =1 p>.05 TABLE 33:2.--Most-understanding teachers of females by marital status Married Single Total (281.45) (145.55) College Preference 290 137 427 (155.55) (80.45) Non-college Preference 147 89 236 Total 437 226 663 x2=2.14060 d.f.=1 p>.05 TABLE 33:3.--Most-understanding teachers of females by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (110.13) (242.80) (74.07) College Preference 110 250 67 427 (60.87) (134.20) (40.94) Non—college Preference 61 127 48 236 Total 171 377 '115 663 x2=2.48250 d.f. =2 p>.05 242 TABLE 33:4.--Most-understanding teachers of females by age 50 or 20—29 30-39 40-49 more Total College (87.59) (135.89) (112.71) (90.81) Preference 81 145 119 82 427 Non-college (48.41) (75.11) (62.29) (50.19) Preference 55 66 56 59 236 Total 136 211 175 141 663 x2=6.49587 d.f.=3 p>.05 TABLE 33:5.--Most-understanding teachers of females by socio- economic background High Middle Low Total (166.16) (123.66) (137.18) College Preference 163 126 138 427 (91.84) (68.34) (75.82) Non—college Preference 95 66 75 236 Total 258 192 213 663 x2=0.30696 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 33:6.--Most-understanding teachers of females by personality classification ++ +-— -+ - Total College (233.14) (160. 37) (28.98) (4.51) Preference 232 159 30 427 Non-college (128 .86) (88 . 63) (16.02) (2.49) Preference 130 90 15 236 Total 362 249 45 663 x2=1.53322 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 34:1 .--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by sex Male Female Total (132.90) (227.10) College Preference 136 224 360 (73.10) (124.90) Non-college Preference 70 128 198 Total 206 352 558 x2=0.32302 d.f. =1 p>.05 244 TABLE 34:2.--Most—understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by marital status Married Single Total (224.82) (126.18) College Preference 233 118 351 (126.18) (70.82) Non-college Preference 118 79 197 Total 351 197 548 x2=2.30302 d.f. =1 p>.05 TABLE 34:3.--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by years on the staff 10 or 0-2 3-9 more Total (94.18) (204.48) (59.34) College Preference 93 . 208 57 358 (51.82) (112.52) (32.66) Non-college Preference 53 109 35 197 Total 146 317 92 555 x2=0.47226 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 34:4.-=Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by age 50 or 20—29 30-39 40-49 more Total College (70.70) (128.55) (84.20) (74.56) Preference 69 131 89 69 358 Non-college (39.30) (71.45) (46.80) (41.44) Preference 41 69 42 47 199 Total 110 200 131 116 557 x2=2.17161 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 34:5 .--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by socio-economic background High Middle Low Total (128.19) (151.97) (91.84) College Preference 152 146 74 372 (65.82) (78.03) (47.16) Non—college Preference 42 84 65 191 Total 194 230 139 563 x2=23.93815 d.f. =2 p<.01 246 TABLE 34:6.--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by personality classification ++ +- -+ -- Total College (199.24) (127.20) (25.31) (3.25) Preference 198 129 24 4 355 Non-college (107.76) (68.80) (13.69) (1.76) Preference 109 67 15 1 192 Total 307 196 39 5 547 x2=0.77893 d.f.=3 p>.05 TABLE 34:7 .--Most-understanding teachers of a proportionate, random sample of females by higher, same and lower socio-economic status Higher Same Lower Total (124.03) (107.80) (81.17) College Preference 121 108 84 313 (66.97) (58. 20) (43.83) Non-college Preference 70 58 41 169 Total 191 166 125 482 x2=0.49353 d.f.=2 p>.05 247 TABLE 35:1. --Adult friends of socio—economically classified college preference males by place of employment In- school Out-school Total (108.78) (147.22) High 110 146 256 (101.98) (138.02) Middle 104 136 240 (55.24) (74.76) Low 52 78 130 Total 266 360 626 x2=0.42380 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 35:2.-—Out-adult friends of socio-economically classified college preference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (52.32) (64.48) (29.20) High 59 65 22 146 (48.73) (60.07) (27.20) Middle 49 57 30 136 (27.95) (34.45) (15.60) Low 21 37 20 78 Total 129 159 72 360 x2=6.23695 d.f. =4 p>.05 248 TABLE 36:1.w-Adult friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference males by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (4.32) (17.68) High 6 16 22 (12.58) (51.42) Middle 10 54 64 (17.10) (69.90) Low 18 69 87 Total 34 139 173 x2=1.53047 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 36:2.--Out-adult friends of socio—economically classified non- college preference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (4.03) (7.02) (4.95) High 7 3 6 16 (13.60) (23.70) (16.71) Middle 12 25 17 54 (17.37) (30.28) (21.35) Low 16 33 20 69 Total 35 61 43 139 x2=5.40587 d.f. =4 p>.05 249 TABLE 37;1.--Adult friends of personality classified college preference males by place of employment In-school Out—school Total (98.16) (132.84) ++ 94 137 231 (119.40) (161.60) +_ 134 147 281 (36.54) (49.46) -+ 27 59 86 (11.90) (16.10) -- 11 17 28 Toufl 266 360 626 x2=7.86006 d.f. =3 p<.05 TABLE 37:2.--Out-adult friends of personality classified college pre- ference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (49.09) (60.51) (27.40) ++ 46 67 24 137 (52.68) (64.92) (29.40) +~ 56 61 30 147 (21.14) (26.06) (11.80) -+ 18 25 16 59 (6.09) (7.51) (3.40) -~ 9 6 2 17 Total 129 159 72 360 x2=6.04560 d.f. =6 p>.05 2 50 TABLE 38.1 . --—Adu1t friends of personality classified non— college preference males by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (11.01) (44.99) ++ 13 43 56 (13.95) (57.05) +- 12 59 71 (6.68) (27.32) —+ 8 26 34 (2.36) (9.64) .. 1 ll 12 Total 34 139 173 x2=2.08711 d.f. =3 p>.05 TABLE 38:2.--Out-adult friends of personality classified non-college preference males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (10.83) (18.87) (13.30) ++ 12 17 14 43 (14.86) (25.89) (18.25) += 14 29 16 59 (6.55) (11.41) (8.04) -+' 7 11 8 26 (2.77) (4.83) (3.40) —- 2 4 5 11 Total 35 61 43 139 x2=2.20471 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 39:1 .—--Adult friends of males by place of employment In—school Out-school Total (235.04) (390. 96) College Preference 266 360 626 (64.96) (108.04) Non-college Preference 34 139 173 Total 300 499 799 x2=30.15730 d.f. =1 p<.01 TABLE 39:2.--Out-adult friends of males by socio-economic status - High Middle Low Total (118.32) (158.72) (82.97) College Preference 129 159 72 360 (45.68) (61.28) (32.03) Non-college Preference 35 61 43 139 Total 164 220 115 499 x2=8.67029 d.f. =2 p<.05 TABLE 41L;1.~--=Adult friends of a proportionate, random sample of males by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (160.33) (355.67) College Preference 187 329 516 (45.67) (101.33) Non-college Preference 19 128 147 Total 206 457 663 x2=29.03030 d.f. =1 p<.01 TABLE 40:2.-~Out—adult friends of a prOportionate, random sample of males by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (82.80) (108.00) (61.20) College Preference 88 109 55 252 (32.20) (42.00) (23.80) None-college Preference 27 41 30 98 Total 115 150 85 350 x2=3.44259 d.f. =2 p>.05 253 TABLE 40:3.-=Cut-adult friends of a proportionate, random sample of males by higher, same and lower socio-economlc status Higher Same Lower Total (105.22) (96.57) (56.21) College Preference 108 94 56 258 (40.78) (37.43) (21.79) Noni-college Preference 38 40 22 100 Total 146 134 78 358 x2=0.51060 d.f. =2 p>.05 TABLE 41 :1 .--Adult friends of socio—economically classified college preference females by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (99.32) (103.68) High 91 112 203 (72.90) (76.10) Middle 75 74 149 (55.78) (58.22) Low 62 52 114 Total ' 228 238 466 x2=2.84115 d.f. =2 p>.05 254 TABLE 41:2.--=L)ut--adult friends of socio—economlcally classified col- lege preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (52.24) (45.18) (14.59) High 60 44 8 112 (34.51) (29.85) (9.64) Middle 31 34 9 74 (24.25) (20.97) (6.77) Low 20 18 14 52 Total 111 96 31 238 x2=14.02325 d.f. =4 p<.05 TABLE 42:1 .--Adult friends of socio-economically classified non-college preference females by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (9.04) (17.96) High 10 17 27 (30.48) (60.52) Middle 30 61 91 (29.48) (58.52) Low 29 59 88 69 137 206 x2=0.17634 d.f. = p>.05 255 TABLE 42:2.m—Cut-adult friends of socio-economically classified non- college preference females by socio—economic status High Middle Low Total (3.97) (7.57) (5.46) High 4 10 3 17 (14.25) (27.16) (19.59) Middle 14 25 22 61 (13.78) (26.27) (18.95) Low 14 26 19 59 Total 32 61 44 137 x2=2.36765 d.f. =4 p>.05 TABLE 43:1 .--Adult friends of personality classified college preference females by place of employment In-school Out—school Total (110.09) (114.91) ++ 112 113 225 (84.64) (88.36) +- 87 86 173 (27.40) (28.60) —+ 25 31 56 (5.87) (6.13) —- 4 8 12 Total 228 238 466 x2=1.77l47 d.f. =3 p>.05 256 TABLE 43:2.—~Cut-adult friends of personality class1fied college pre- ference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (52.70) (45.58) (14.72) ++ 49 48 16 113 (40.11) (34.69) (11.20) +- 42 33 11 86 (14.46) (12.50) (4.04) ~+ 15 13 3 31 (3.73) (3. 23) (1.04) -- 5 2 l 8 Total 111 96 31 238 x2=1.88471 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 44:1.--Adult friends of personality classified non— college preference females by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (32.49) (64.51) ++ 38 59 97 (25.46) (50.54) +- 18 58 76 (8.71) (17.29) -+ 9 17 26 (2.34) (4.66) -- 4 3 7 Total 69 137 206 x2=6.47547 d.f. =3 p>.05 l\') (fl \1 TABLE 44:2.-=Cut-adult friends of personality classified non-college preference females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (13.78) (26 27) (18.95) ++ 13 28 18 59 (13.55) (25.82) (18.63) +- 13 26 19 58 (3.97) (7.57) (5.46) -+ 6 6 5 17 (0.70) (1.34) (0.96) -- 0 1 2 3 Total 32 61 44 137 x2=3.55189 d.f. =6 p>.05 TABLE 45:1 .--Adult friends of females by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (205.96) (260.04) College Preference 228 238 466 ‘ (91.04) (114.96) Non-college Preference 69 137 206 Total 297 375 672 x2=13.78771 d.f. 1 p<.01 U) as TABLE 45:2.-~Out-adult friends of females by soc1o-economic status High Mlddle Low Total (90.76) (99.64) (47.60) College Preference 111 96 31 238 (52.24) (57.36) (27.40) Nonucollege Preference 32 61 44 137 Total 143 157 75 375 x2=28.56542 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 46:1 .--Adult friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by place of employment In-school Out-school Total (144.87) (324.13) College Preference 168 301 469 (74.13) (165.87) Non-college Preference 51 189 240 Total 219 490 709 x2=15.78589 d.f. =1 p<.01 259 TABLE 46:2.-~~>'Out=adult friends of a prOportionate, random sample of females by socio-economic status High Middle Low Total (64.85) (73.84) (35.31) College Preference 76 71 27 174 (36.15) (41.16) (19.69) Non-college Preference 25 44 28 97 Total 101 115 55 271 x2=11.12418 d.f. =2 p<.01 TABLE 46:3.-=Out-adult friends of a proportionate, random sample of females by higher, same and lower socio-economic status Higher Same Lower Total (70.61) (63.67) (39.72) College Preference 72 70 32 174 (41.39) (37. 33) (23.28) Non-college Preference 40 31 31 102 Total 112 101 63 276 x2=5.83724 d.f. =2 p>.05 . ) ' ‘ . “ . . .. 5 1.. 7“}!- 715%); n