WTQML 9RC‘GRAM EN THE. SCHQGL 6F WWO!!! A? NQRflé TERM STATE LENWERSWY AND @TH‘ER SEtECFEEfi SbéS‘f‘EWT‘éONS may fa? Effie W @9 Ed. D. MQSHEGAK SEQTE UHWERSWY Fat N. Mcieod W61 1:153:13 This is to certify that the thesis entitled DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER SELECTED INSTITUTI ONS presented by Pat N. McLeod has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor degree in Education .A 1’ ' z " . ' .45: ",, M .' . /I I] {‘I'L .k‘lfy / L'I.:" l/llv‘. (- v ‘ r ’ \ ajor professor " Dam August 28, 1961 0-169 LIBRARY Michigan State University - -'V_- a .‘ W‘ I 5 M w ., ABSTRACT DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER SELECTED INSTITUTIONS by Pat N. McLeod This was a study of the practices, procedures, and implementations concerning the organization and adminis- tration of the doctoral program in the School of Education at North Texas State University. Participants in the study were selected from colleges and universities which are members of the National Council for the.Accreditation of Teacher Education. In order to gather data to be used as a basis for comparison with the administrative practices and procedures of North Texas State University, a questionnaire was designed and sent to the deans of the graduate schools of education in the sixty- eight colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. .Areas of graduate programs covered in the questionnaire were selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. Data from the completed questionnaires were computed and tabulated. This compilation was then used as criteria for comparison with the data gathered from the questionnaire Pat N. McLeod filled out by the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at North Texas State University. Similarities and differ- ences were then studied. There were some differences between the administrative procedures prevailing at North Texas State University and the responding members of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Based upon the results of the study, North Texas State university uses less tests in the selection and admission of graduate students than do the majority of the other selected institu- tions. .Also, North Texas State University does not use the medium of the personal interview, whereas the majority of the selected institutions do require a personal inter- view with the prospective graduate student before admission to the program. The data indicate North Texas State Uni— versity has a smaller percentage of failures on the entrance examinations than the majority of the other selected institu- tions. In the area of program planning, there was a high degree of uniformity between the program at North Texas State University and the programs in the other selected institutions. There was some difference in the number of required hours of course work required at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions. .All of the Pat N. McLeod reporting institutions indicated a grade average of "B", or above was required. There were some noted differences in the area of preliminary examinations at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions. These differences were in the reading of the preliminary examinations, the method of evaluating the results of the preliminary examinations, and the lack of restriction of time limits. The only difference discovered with respect to the dis- sertation requirements was in who read the manuscript. The oral examination at North Texas State university was more comprehensive than the examinations given in the majority of the selected institutions. No major differences were discovered between the administrative procedures utilized in the doctoral program at North Texas State University and the programs of the other selected institutions. The most outstanding findings of the study appear to be in the great variation in administrative practices and procedures in the selected institutions. DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN THE SCHOOL or EDUCATION AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND OTHER SELECTED INSTITUTIONS By Pat N. McLeod .A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1961 ’ /, ‘ . \ (1/: / ‘ 1' L "I. ‘1‘;- Pat N. McLeod Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Date of Final Oral Examination: .August 28, 1961 Dissertation: Doctoral Program in the School of Education at North Texas State University and Other Selected Institutions Outline of Studies: Major area - Counseling and Guidance Minor areas - Psychology and Industrial Arts Biographical Items: Born — June 9, 192h, Florence, Texas Undergraduate Studies — North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1941; Central Missouri State Teachers College, Warrensburg, Missouri, 19h3; North Texas State College, 19h6-h8 (B.S. Degree) Graduate Studies - North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, summers of 19h8-51 (M.S. Degree); North Texas State College, Denton, Texas, 1955—59; Mighigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 19 9-61 Experience: Member United States Navy, 19h2-h6; Dean of Men and Head of Industrial Education Department, Clifton College, Clifton, Texas, 19h8-Sl; Head of Industrial Education Department, Monahans Independent School District, Monahans, Texas, 1951-5h; Industrial Arts Department, School of Education, North Texas State College, 195A'Present; Graduate.Assistant and Assistant Instructor in Counseling and Guidance, Michigan State university, East Lansing, Michigan, 1959-60; Instructor in Counseling and Guidance at Camp Blodgett for Michigan State university, summers 1960 and 1961; Engineer for E. I. duPont and Atomic Energy Com- mission, Savannah River Plant, Aiken, South Carolina, summer of 1952; Standard Oil Company, Royalty, Texas, summers of 1953—54 Membership: American Personnel and Guidance Association, National Vocational Guidance Association, Student Personnel.Association for Teacher Education, American School Counselor.Association, American Industria1.Arts .Association, Texas Industrial.Arts.Association, Ameri- can Council Industria1.Arts Teacher Education, Ameri— can.Association University Professors, Texas.Association of College Teachers, American Vocationa1.Associatth and Phi Delta Kappa ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Buford Stefflre, who served as the Guidance Committee Chairman, for his patience, assistance, suggestions, and constructive criticisms throughout the development and completion of the study. Special acknowledgment is due the members of the author‘s Guidance Committee, Dr. John.A. Fuzak, Dr. John E. Jordan, and Dr. Bill Kell; the members of the Michigan State University staff who offered helpful suggestions which contributed materially to the development of the questionnaire. The author expresses his appreciation to the officials of the forty—four institutimis who returned usable ques— tionnaires which contributed to the body of the study. It would be impossible to express appreciation to each individual who assisted in some way in the development and completion of the study; however, the author is par— ticularly grateful for the continued encouragement of the following people: Dr. Earl B. Blanton, Dr. Jerry C. McCain, and to his wife, Charlene B. McLeod. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION ......o..o..o....oo......... 1 Statement of the Problem ............. h Importance of the Study .............. 5 Role of the Universities in Training College Teachers .................. 8 Limitations of the Study ............. 10 Definition of Terms .................. 10 Method of Procedure .................. 12 Sources of Data for the Study ........ 13 Organization of the Study ............ 1h II. BACKGROUND HISTORY OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS.. 16 Nature of Graduate Education ......... 16 History of the Doctoral Program in United States Colleges and Univer- SILIQS 00000000000000000000000.0000 18 Early history ..................... 18 Later hiStOry ooooooooooooooooooooo 20 Organization and Scope of the Graduate Programs in United States Colleges and UhiVBTSItieS 9.0000000000000000 23 iv CHAPTER Conditions.Affecting Pursuit of Doctoral Degrees in Education ..... III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES IN THE DOCTORAL PROGRNMS or FORTvéroUR SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Selection and Admission .............. Types of evaluative instruments used ........................... Other evaluative instruments used in the selection of doctoral students ....................... Other factors considered in the selection of doctoral students.. Number of students applying for admission to the doctoral program and number of students failing to be admitted to the program ........................ Summary ........................... Program Planning 0.0.0.0....0000000000 Procedures for planning the doctoral program soooooooooooo-oooooooooo Responsibility for planning the dOCtoral program ooooooooooooooo PAGE 28 35 3S 36 37 38 11.2 116 u? u? M9 CHAPTER PAGE Time of planning .................. D9 Policies or responsibilities of the QUIdance committee coon-cocoa... 51 Summary of program planning ....... 53 Course Requirements .................. SS Remedial requirements or removal of deficiencies ................ 55 Completed work expected of the student ........................ 56 Standards for continuation of graduate program study after admission ...................... 59 Summary of course requirements .... 59 Preliminary Examinations ............. 60 Statement of policy ............... 60 Reader of preliminary examinations in major and minor areas of con- centration and systems of evaluating the results ......... 61 Conditions of passing the prelimi- nary examination, percentage passing, alternatives, restric— tions and extensions ........... 63 Summary of data on preliminary examinations ................... 65 vi CHAPTER PAGE Dissertation Requirements ............ 67 Summary of dissertation require- ments OOOOOIOOOOOIOO0.0000...... 69 Oral Examinations .................... 69 Time or approval coo-000.000.0000.. 69 Procedures of the oral examina- tions .......................... 71 Summary of procedures in oral examinations ................... 73 Model Practices in Phases of: Selection and Admission, Program Planning, Course Requirements, Preliminary Examinations, Dissertation Require- ments, and Oral Examination Require- ments ............................. 74 IV. COMPARISON OF.ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES IN THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY WITH LIKE PROCEDURES IN THE SELECTED INSTITUTIONS ......... 77 Program Planning ..................... 82 Course Requirements .................. 86 Preliminary Examination Requirements.. 88 Dissertation Requirements ............ 93 Oral Examination ..................... 9h vii CHAPTER PAGE V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDA- TIONS ................................ 98 Summary .............................. 98 Conclusions .......................... 100 Recommendations ...................... 102 General recommendations for improv— ing the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State University ......... 103 Suggested recommendations for other graduate schools of education ...................... 10h Suggestions for further research .. 106 BIBLIOGRAPHY .o.........o......................... 109 APPENDIX.A ....................................... 113 APPENDIX B ..........o..o......................... 118 APPENDIX C ............o.......................... 127 viii TABLE II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. XI. LIST OF TABLES Major Evaluative Instruments Used ....... Other Evaluative Instruments Used ....... Other Factors Considered in Selection of Doctoral Students .................... Number Of Years of Experience Required in the Field ......................... Importance of Previous Schools Attended.. The Number and Position of School Officials Participating in Interviews .......... Number of Students.Applying for Admission to the Doctoral Program and Number Failing to Gain Admission ............ Factors Influencing.Admission to Doctoral Program ..................... Readmission and Status of Doctoral Students.After Lapse of Time in Course Work ..o.......o...................... Methods Used in Selection of Faculty Chairman ............................. Responsibility for Planning the Doctoral Program 00.0.0.000000000IOOOOOOOOOOOOI ix PAGE 36 38 39 DO lil 112 11:3 LLB 1T6 LIB N9 TABLE XII. XIII. XIV. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. Time of Planning the Doctoral Program ... Number of Committee Members Serving on Doctoral Program ..................... Methods of Selecting Guidance Committees. Evaluation of Transfer Credit by School Officials ............................ Transfer Credits Acceptable for Graduate Program .............................. Remedial Requirements or Removal of Deficiencies ......................... Completed Work Expected of the Student .. Number of Hours Required in Major Area of Concentration ......o.............. Number of Hours Required in Minor.Area of Concentration ..................... Standards for Continuation of Graduate Program ...................o.......... Type of Preliminary Examination Given in the Selected Institutions ............ Evaluation of Preliminary Examinations .. Conditions Affecting Repetition of Preliminary Examinations ............. Data Concerning the Percentage of Students Passing Preliminary Examina- tions the FIrSt Time soooooooooooooooo PAGE 50 51 . 52 53 SH 56 57 58 58 59 61 62 6LT 66 TABLE XXVI. XXVII. XXVIII. XXIX. XXXI. XXXII. XXXIII. Data Concerning the Percentage of Students Passing Preliminary Examina— tions the Second Time ................ Dissertation Requirements Concerning .Approval, Preparation, Publication, and Abstract ......................... The Maximum, Minimum, and Average Time Limit for Oral Examinations .......... Procedures Followed in Oral Examinations. Selection of Doctoral Students at North Texas State university as Compared with the Selection in Forty—Four Selected Colleges and Universities ... Comparison of Data on Time of Admission and ReadmisSion in Forty-Four Selected Colleges and Universities ............ Comparison of Program Planning in the Doctoral Program at North Texas State University and at Forty—Four Selected Colleges and Universities ............ Comparison of Course Requirements in Doctoral Program at North Texas State University and the Selected Colleges and UhIVQFSItIGS .00000000000000000000 xi PAGE 66‘ 68 70 72 78 81 83 87 TABLE PAGE XXXIV. Comparison of Preliminary Examinations in Doctoral Program at North Texas State University and the Selected Colleges and Universities ............ 91 XXXV. Comparison Of Dissertation Requirements in Doctoral Program at North Texas State University and the Selected Colleges and Universities ............ 93 XXXVI. Comparison of Oral Examinations and Time Limit in Doctoral Program at North Texas State University and the Selected Colleges and Universities ... 95 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION There is no known agency, association, or organization, voluntary or otherwise, which attempts to analyze the organization and administration of doctoral programs in the schools of education in the united States. Regional associa- tions and organizations have been formed voluntarily by colleges and universities to promote higher and more uniform standards among the members, and in some cases to accredit some of the schools. Many professional schools have formed associations which developed standards for analyzing the organization and administration of the schools, and for determining the content of many of the professional courses. The establishment of similar agencies for the accreditation of graduate schools has been resisted, in the main, by the graduate schools. This reluctance has been due in part to the fact that in many cases the faculty of the graduate school served as faculty members of the undergraduate school, and any appraisal necessarily would have been in terms of the total program, rather than of the graduate program. The wide differences in the standards of graduate schools previous to 1900 led to several early attempts to arrive at commonly accepted practices and procedures for the graduate programs. An organization known as the Federation of Graduate School Clubs twice urged governing boards to establish common practices and standards for graduate schools. The International Congress on Education suggested in 1893 that a list of American universities quali- fied to confer the doctor's degree be prepared and published by a special committee of university presidents.l The Association of American Universities was formed in 1900 and brought the existing fourteen universities together in an attempt to establish commonly agreed upon standards and practices in graduate programs. The rapid growth of interest in graduate education caused many institutions to establish doctoral programs in education without adequate staff, library, laboratories, or financial resources. There were no minimum criteria available to assist and guide administrators and boards of regents in establishing a doctoral program. ,As a result, there has developed a varied range of doctoral programs and a more varied quality of work offered at the institutions. 1Chester W. Harris, "Graduate Education," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (New York, 1960), p. 597. Continuing interest has been shown in ways to analyze graduate programs of education in American colleges and universities. This interest has taken three directions: (1) publication of a list of graduate schools which have been found to be competent to conduct programs for the doctorate degree; this list was prepared by a vote of outstanding scholars in American education and published by the American Council on Education; (2) self-appraisal by members of the American.Association of Universities which was soon discontinued; and (3) method of indirect control by regional associations which also accredit undergraduate programs and which insist that such institu- tions not establish doctoral programs under circumstances that would weaken the existing undergraduate program. American higher education has been said to be entering a "decade of decision." Prominent among the reasons for this observation has been the growing problem of supplying an adequate number of qualified faculty personnel in colleges and universities to meet the present and projected influx of students. Teacher education, as an integral part of American higher education, has not been exempt from this 2 national concern. 2The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, The Doctorate in Education, The Committee on Studies (WashTfigton, 19607, p. I. It Inherent in this problem has been the question of whether or not the need for faculty personnel will be met in sufficient quantities with qualified doctoral graduates. Here again teacher education has a major role and concern in the results. .Aside from the concern for an ample supply of doctoral graduates for college and university teaching positions for the next decade, the entire field of professional education has looked to the future with reservations regarding the adequacy in both numbers and quality of the persons assuming leadership roles following receipt of the doctorate degree. In this matrix of serious considerations and questions concerning the status of doctoral preparation in education in various areas the basis for this study was found. Statement of Problem The purpose of this study is three fold: (l) to develop a questionnaire which might prove useful to colleges and universities in appraisal Of their graduate programs; (2) to report the administrative practices and procedures in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations in the graduate schools of education in the sixty—eight colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; and, (3) to determine the extent to which the doctoral program in the School of Education at North Texas State University conforms or differs from those programs in the other selected institutions. Importance of the Study The main purpose of any doctoral program in the field of education is to prepare men and women for college and university teaching. While this goal of creathig teachers has always been important, the impending crisis in educa- tion wherein estimated college and university enrollments will be involved in a tremendous increase will make the doctoral programs in the field of education even more important. Statistics reinforce this statement. The estimated college and university enrollment between 1966 and 1971 will be approximately 7,000,000.3 The present corps of college and university teachers, estimated from 150,000 to 268,000,u will have to be expanded by some 25,000 a year for the next twelve years to reach between 300,000 and 500,000 in order to meet the minimum requirements of higher education. Of equal importance in preparing these new teachers are ways and means of maintaining and improving 3American Council on Education,.A Guide to Graduate Study, ed. Fredric W. Ness (Washington, 1960), p. 8. uU. S. Office of Education, Faculty_and Other Profes— sional Staff in Institutions of HTgher‘Eearning, eds. wayne E. Tolliver and Hazel E. Poole (Washington, 1959), pp. 1—6. 6 the present quality of preparation of college and university teachers.5 It is the responsibility of the graduate schools to see that this "tidal wave" of college students does not create a "chaos in which scholarship and scholarly teach- "6 It is also the reSpon- ings...become a mere memory. sibility of any college or university with a doctoral program in education to appraise it in terms of practices and procedures of other institutions with like programs and plan how to produce more people "who are neither mere scholars and unscholarly teachers, but scholar teachers."7 North Texas State University, founded as a state normal school for teachers, has been offering the doctorate in education for only ten years. During this time, forty doctoral degrees have been conferred. The enrollment in this area of the graduate school has been steadily increasing and may be expected to increase more rapidly in the next few years. In planning for this expansion, it is important that an appraisal be made of the present program in com- parison with that of similar programs in other colleges and universities. The purpose of the present study is to make a survey of administrative phases of doctoral programs in 53; F. Wellemeyer, Jr., "Full—Time Teachers in American Colleges and Universities," School and Society, LXXXVIII (June, 1956), 220-221. 6John W. Dystra, "The Ph.D. Fetish," School and Society, Lxxxv1 (May, 1959), 237. 7Ibid., 238. 7 other colleges and universities that are menbers of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education to determine practices and procedures and to compare practices and procedures in the administration of the doctoral program of North Texas State University with that of similar colleges and universities. The Seventh Annual List of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education contains 3h3 colleges and universities, sixty—eight of which offer the doctoral programs in education. Not all of these institutions offering the doctoral program in education have been evaluated by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education; in fact, only thirteen are shown to have been accredited at the present. Cme reason for this situation is that 286 of the institutions listed were transferred from the American Association Of College Teachers for Teacher Education to the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education as late as July 1, l95h. Some of the sixty—eight institutions have been re—evaluated by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, but the majority of them have not. .All of the sixty—eight institutions that have not been re-evaluated have been notified by the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education that it expects to complete the evaluation of all the institutions within the next five years. North Texas State University has been notified that the National Council for the Accreditation of 8 Teacher Education will re-evaluate its doctoral progran in the year of 1962. Role of the Universities in Preparing College Teachers Available statistics show that 60 to 75 per cent of all recipients of the Doctor of Philosophy degree spend the major portion of their productive careers in college teaching and three—fifths of these doctoral graduates teach in the undergraduate programs.8 Currently these statistics do not hold uniformly true for all fields; for example, the majority of doctoral graduates in chemistry, mathematics, and some of the other sciences enter fields apart from teaching. These exceptions in science, however, do not change the fact that the university remains the main source of training for college teachers. With the expansion of college and university enroll- ment, the number of college teachers will of necessity be greatly increased. .At the present time, it is estimated that NO per cent of those teaching in colleges and univer- sities hold the doctoral degree. .At the current rate of enrollment and graduation, it is expected that some 134,000 doctoral degrees will be awarded in the next fifteen years. Since many of these doctoral graduates are expected to enter other fields or professions, the number of college teachers t5Rex C. Kidd, "Improving Pre-Service Training of Undergraduate College Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, 111 (March, 1952), 55- 9 holding the degree may be lowered to 20 per cent or less.9 The role of the university in preparing college teachers is one of increasing importance. Standards of cOlleges and universities are constantly being raised and the doctoral programs in particular are in need of teachers holding the doctoral degree. From a review of literature in the field, it appears that the doctoral degree today is generally a prerequisite for the appointment to the rank Of full pro- fessor. In a survey made by the Research Division Of the National Education.Association, the following findings indicate that a doctoral degree is desirable for employment as a college professor in many institutions: Appointment to the lowest rank, that of instructor, calls for a doctoral degree in 3.1 per cent of the institutions reporting require— ments, for the master's degree plus an additional year in 5.h per cent, and for the master's degree in 67.7 per cent of the institutions. For appointment to a full professorship the doctoral degree is announced policy in 8h.h per cent of the institutions reporting requirements, the master‘s degree plus one year in 9.3 per cent, and the mas$eris degree in 5.8 per cent of the institu- tions. If the standards of the colleges and universities are maintained at present levels, it is apparent that graduate schools must plan programs which are reputable and at the 9Fund for the Advancement of Education, Better Utiliza- tion of College Teaching Resources (New York, I955T, pp. 3E. TUNational Education.Association, Instructional Staff Practices and Policies in Degree Granting InstitutIOns, BulletTn XXXI (Washington,.l95h), 166. 10 same time designed to attract and train as many students as possible. Limitations of the Study The investigation was limited to the colleges and universities which have doctoral programs and are members of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. .A further limitation is that the study was not evaluative but normative and descriptive. No attempt was made to evaluate the validity of the practices and procedures, but a comparison of them was attempted. A still further limitation was that the data were limited to administra- tive requirements rather than techniques and procedures of instruction. Definition of Terms Certain terms are defined in order to clarify the concepts represented by the terms as they are used in the study. They are as follows: A, Am C. T. E. refers to the American Association of College Teachers for Education. Administration is defined as those processes Of con— ducting, operating, and managing an organization so the purposes of the organization may be achieved.11 11J. Don Hull, Will French, and B. L. Dodds, American High School Administration (New York, 1950), pp. 1H-I5. 11 Analysis is defined as an examination of anything to distinguish its component parts or elements, separately 12 or in their relation to the whole. Graduate Program for the purpose of this study is defined as programs of studies leading to degrees beyond the master's degree level. Implementation is defined as those procedures, practices, and aids which are essential to the organization and adminis- tration of a program in order for the stated purposes to be achieved. Institution for the purpose of this study is defined as an institution of higher learning of college and univer- sity status. N. C..A. T. E. refers to the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Organization for the purpose of this study is defined as the executive structure of the college or university which controls the policies and procedures of the graduate progran. Teacher Education has been defined as the program of activities developed by an institution to further the preparation and growth of persons engaging in or planning to engage in the work of the education profession.13 12Carter V. Good, Dictionary of Education, (New York, l9u5), p. 5. . 13Ibid., p. 550. 12 Method of Procedure .As a background for the study, some literature in the field of graduate education was reviewed to determine the history of graduate education, its scope, present status, and projected expansion. The materials gathered were organized and presented in sequence. Participants in the study were selected from colleges and universities which are members of the National Council for the.Accreditation of Teacher Education and have doctoral programs. In order to gather data to be used as a basis for comparison with the administrative practices and procedures of North Texas State University, a questionnaire was designed and sent to the deans of the graduate schools of education in the sixty—eight colleges and universities holding member- ship in the National Council for the.Accreditation of Teacher Education. .Areas of graduate programs covered in the ques- tionnaire were selection and admission, program planning, course requirements preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. Data from the completed questionnaires were computed and tabulated. This compilation was then used as criteria for comparison with the data gathered from the questionnaire filled out by the Dean of the Graduate School of Education at North Texas State University. Similarities and differences were then studied. 13 No effort was made to evaluate the revealed practices and procedures in terms of adequacy. The purpose of the study was to investigate the extent to which the doctoral preram at North Texas State University conformed or differed from those of the sixty—eight selected colleges and universities in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examina- tions, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. A.summary and conclusions were developed from the analysis of the data. The implications of the conclusions for North Texas State University were discussed. Recom— mendations based on the findings of the study were made. Sources Of Data for the Study Data were collected from a questionnaire designed and deveIOped to include the following areas of the doctoral program: selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. The questionnaire was mailed to the sixty-eight colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Eduzation. .A total of fifty—six, or 83 per cent, of the selected institutions returned the questionnaires. Forty-four completed questionnaires were considered usable for the study. 1L1- Also, data were Obtained from catalogs and bulletins published by some of the selected colleges and universities. Other sources of data were reports and other publications of various national organizations, such as the National Education Association, United States Office Of Education, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, American.Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Organization of the Study Chapter I contains an introduction to the study, the statement of the problem, a discussion of the importance of the study, the role Of universities in preparing college teachers, limitations of the study, definition of terms, method of procedure, sources of data for the study, and organization Of the study. Chapter II is concerned with and presents the back— ground Of graduate education in the United States. This Chapter discusses the early and later history of graduate education, the organization and scope of graduate education, and some conditions affecting pursuit of doctoral degrees. Chapter III is concerned with an analysis of the data obtained from the questionnaires returned by the forty-four selected colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Educa- tion. This chapter also treats.the administrative practices 15 and procedures of the forty-four selected colleges and universities in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examina— tions, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. Chapter IV is concerned with a comparison of the administrative practices and procedures used in the graduate schools of education in the forty—four selected colleges and universities with the administrative practices and procedures of the graduate school of education at North Texas State University in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, pre- liminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. Chapter V is concerned with a summary of the findings, some conclusions, recommendations, and suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II BACKGROUND HISTORY OF GRADUATE PROGRAMS Nature of Graduate Education The graduate school in colleges and universities of the United States is the administrative unit which directs programs of nonprofessional studies leading to degrees beyond the master's degree level. The main objectives of the graduate school fall into two classifications: (1) acquiring, preserving, and disseminating advanced knowledge through research and inquiry; and (2) through this activity, developing a continuing company of scholars, scientists, and educators adequate to the needs Of an evolving society.1 The graduate schools of the United States occupy the same position in the field of education as the great universities of Europe do in their particular realms. .Although no one set pattern for graduate schools exists, there are some common characteristics which have developed. Regardless of the type of administration, the graduate school of today usually includes: 1J. Kenneth Little, "Graduate Education," Encyclopedia of Educational Research (NeW'York, 1960), p. 593. l6 17 1. Graduate faculty which constitute the legislative teaching body. 2. .A Dean who coordinates the programs of teaching and research and gives leadership to the total program Of graduate education. 3. .A graduate council, or committee system, through which the graduate faculty administers: admission policies, degree requirements, the awarding of scholarships, fellowships, and assistantships to promising students, the allocation of research funds to professors, and the execution of policies.2 The graduate schools confer both master's and doctor's degrees. Since the annual number of bachelor's degrees now outnumbers the high school graduates of fifty years ago, much Of the selective significance of the degree has been lost. The master's degree, too, has lost much of its earlier distinction through lack of standards and augmented numbers. Therefore, it remains for the doctoral program to "provide a steady stream of scholars needed for the increasingly arduous demands of intellectual leadership."3 The aims and nature Of the graduate school of today, it may be said, center around "acquiring, preserving, and disseminating advanced knowledge" and the "advancement of 2Ibid., p. 593. 3U. S. Office of Education, The Graduate School in American Democracy, ed. John W. Studebaker TWaShington, 1939), P-.5o 18 knowledge through research, its evaluation, and applica- tion."u Graduate schools, in fulfilling their stated Objectives, provide a great variety of professional areas in which work is Offered. Generally speaking, though, the majority of students currently enrolled in the graduate schools of arts and sciences are in one Of the following groups: 8 (1) those who will teach in college or secondary school; (2) those preparing for work in industrial laboratories, research institutions, government agencies, and business; and (3) those preparing for research careers in college and 5 university departments. History of the Doctoral Program in United States Colleges and Universities Early History. The Doctor of Philosophy degree is an import from Europe.6 The first American to earn this degree was Edward Everett in 1817 and he had to travel to Germany for study and completion of the degree. By 1850 some 225 Americans had followed Everett to European universities and uLaurence Foster, The Foundation of a Graduate School in A.Democratic Society, (New YOrR, 1936), p. 1. 3U. S. Office of Education, The Graduate School in American Democracy, ed. John W. Studebaker (Washington, 19397, p. 13. American Council on Education,.A Guide to Graduate Study, ed. Fredric W. Ness (Washington, 1960), p. h. 19 many of them completed the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree there. .As early as 1837 a desire was expressed for graduate schools in the United States. In this year, President Phillip Lindsey of the University of Nashville said: There should be schools in the United States for all the sciences, arts, languages, and profes— sions, so that no youth need to cross the ocean for study and to learn what should be taught much more safely and advantageously at home.7 The fact that authors, historians, scientists, poets, and distinguished scholars had to be trained in schools of other countries was considered a blight upon the pride of the United States. .A felt need, therefore, began to manifest itself for the establishment of institutions which had the type of programs that would make American higher education self-sufficient. The Doctor of Philosophy degree made its first appearance in American colleges and universities through the medium of granting honorary degrees. This practice was begun by Bucknell university in 1852 and became very popular throughout the nineteenth century, and was discon- 8 tinued as late as 19h6. The first "earned" doctor's degree 7Richard J. Storr, The Beginning of Graduate Education in the United States, (Chicago, 1953), p. 6. 8Walter Crosby Bells, "Honorary Ph. D's in the 20th Century," School and Society, LXXXV (March, 1957), 7h. 20 was conferred by Yale University in 1861. Soon afterward Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Syracuse, New York, and Illinois Wesleyan Universities were also confer— ring this degree. In 1876,the time of the establishment of John Hopkins University, only thirteen "earned " doctor's 9 degrees had been conferred by these different institutions. Later history. Before 1876 the graduate work that was offered by colleges and universities was on an individual basis without graduate education being organized into separately administered centers, departments, or divisions. The work was usually directed by a single professor or faculty committee, but as enrollments increased and the activities of the institutions became more complex, a tendency developed for the appointment of a professor or committee to have charge of the graduate work in the different colleges and universities. When John Hopkins University was established in 1876, a graduate school was organized as a part of its adminis- tration. This practice was followed by Columbia university in 1880. Clark university and Catholic university in 1889, Harvard University and University of Chicago in 1890, and Yale university in 1892. Three state universities joined this group of graduate schools before 1900: the University 9Byrne J. Horton, The Graduate School, (New York, 19h0), p. 18. 21 of Wisconsin in 1892, University of Nebraska in 1895, and University of Kansas in 1896.10 .After 1900 the expanding industrial and economic needs and developments of the United States brought new demaids upon colleges and universities, both old and new. The graduate schools were quick to respond and the modern graduate school, with its emphasis upon the pursuit of truth as well as the dissemination of knowledge evolved. Gradually, the graduate school in the colleges and univer- sities has achieved status with the longer established professional schools in law, medicine, and theology. Some idea of the tremendous growth of the graduate schools can be found in growth statistics. In 1876, when the first graduate school was established, twenty-five institutions offered some type of graduate program. By 1920 the number had increased to 270; and in 1955, 615 institutions offered graduate programs. The increase in students attending these schools also indicates the rapid growth—~for example, in 1871 there were forty-four students enrolled in graduate schools; in 1920 there were 15,612, and by 195A the number had increased to 278,261. The recent growth in graduate school enrollment is illustrated by the fact that between 1930 and 1950 the number of graduate 22 students increased by h00 per cent, while the number of undergraduate students increased by 131 per cent.11 The doctoral programs are, of course, the summit of the graduate school. From 1861 through 1958, 157,650 doctoral degrees have been conferred by the different institutions.12 Up to WOrld War I, however, the American doctorate was considered inferior to that earned at German universities. With the expansion of the graduate schools and the increasing demand for Doctor of Philosophy degrees in industry, government, and teaching, the degree has now attained a place of distinction as a symbol of academic excellence. Comparisons are frequently made between American colleges and universities and European colleges and uni- versities. The differences in philosophies and purposes make this comparison pointless. The colleges and univer- sities in Western Europe admit relatively fewer students than do American colleges and universities. The people admitted have a stronger background or preparation in language, literature, mathematics, history, and philosophy. The scholarship Of the average undergraduate student ITNational Science Foundation, Graduate Student Enrollment and Support in American UfiiversitIes and Colleges, (Washington, 1957). 12Eells,p_p. Cit., 93. 23 surpasses that of the average undergraduate student in the American colleges and universities.13 The individual who earns a doctoral degree in the major colleges and universities in America, however, can hold his own with the products of the universities of any nation in the world. The fact that over 15,000 doctorates had been conferred up through 1958 does not mean that every college conferred doctorates; between 1861 and 1958, thirty-seven institutions in the United States had been responsible for 78 per cent of the doctorates awarded.lu These institutions have developed strong programs. In fact, movements are underway in Europe, England, France, and other countries to adopt such characteristics of the American schools as extension of educational opportunity, less emphasis upon comprehensive examinations, and greater emphasis upon occupational skills and technical knowledge. Organization and Scope of the Graduate Programs in United States Colleges and universities One distinguishing mark of the graduate program in the colleges and universities of the United States is their diversity and freedom of action. In general, it may be said that graduate schools are loosely organized and con- trolled. The departments typically have much freedom and 15Ioid. 1Lilbid. 2’4 responsibility for developing and administering their own program of graduate studies. Graduate education, and the whole Of higher education in the United States, has never been guided or directed by a single philosophy of education. From the beginning, there have been diverse viewpoints, different schemes of organization and control, and various plans of support for the colleges and universities. Autonomy or self-government in graduate education is probably more complete than in any other segment of higher education. There appear to be three distinct patterns of adminis- trative organization of graduate schools.15 The first of these views the graduate program as the responsibility of a few separate schools which would be the repositories of all human knowledge. Distinguished professors in all basic disciplines and the libraries and laboratories needed for study and experiment would be concentrated in a few institutions. Students would be recruited through offering stipends as incentives for advanced study. In general, this plan has not been widely used. John Hopkins university has followed this plan and has no undergraduate students. Clark University, which was first organized on this plan in 1887, soon abandoned the idea. .A second plan emphasizes the simultaneous development of graduate and undergraduate studies in a single institution T5Little, pp. Cit., 95. 25 such an organization is Characteristic of the university of Chicago. Under this type of organization the faculty is organized into five different divisions: humanities, social sciences, physical sciences, biological sciences, and the college. The college devotes itself to the early and general education of the undergraduate students but grants no degrees; degrees are granted only upon recom— mendation of one Of the four upper divisions, each of which is devoted to advanced study and research in its field. The third plan, the pattern usually followed by most universities in the united States, sets up the graduate school as a separate division from the undergraduate college. The dean or administrator of the graduate school has supervision of all graduate work, but each department has autonomy in its own field. The dean of a graduate school coordinates the graduate work in the different departments, approves the research conducted, and in general acts as administrator of the graduate program. The nature and scope of graduate work is defined primarily by the college or university which offers the work. At the undergraduate level, many of the colleges and universities are dividing their work into departments or fields, a tendency which is spreading into graduate education. Wide differences sometimes exist between institutions in the organization of the subject-matter fields and instructional departments. 26 The scope of work in the doctoral programs is evidenced by a breakdown of data regarding the fields in which doctorate degrees were granted in 1955—56. Of the 8,903 degrees granted, almost one-half, or Uh per cent, were conferred upon students who had majored in six fields. These fields and the per cent of students were Chemistry, 11 per cent; education, 10 per cent, psychology, 7 per cent; engineering, 7 per cent; physics, 5 per cent; and English and literature, A per cent.16 The doctorate in education, it is indicated, may fill a felt need. Data have already been presented regarding the need for training of more college teachers. Specializ- ing in a narrow field has not always produced good teaching personnel. .A commission of thirty distinguished educational and civic leaders appointed by President Truman in 19h6 to survey higher education reported that "graduate education has responsibilities other than training Tesearch specialists."17 The commission charged that the most serious inadequacy of the graduate school was in the preparation of college teachers and stated that the "single minded emphasis on the research tradition and its purpose of forcing all students into a mold of narrow specialization does not produce college teachers of the kind we need." The commission recommended 16U.S. Office of Education, Earned Degrees Conferred by Higher Educational Institutions, eds. M.C. Rice and Hazel E. PoOIeTTWaSthngn, 1957), p. U9. l7President's Commission on Higher Education, Hi her Education for American Democracy, (New York, l9h7), p. I0. 27 that graduate schools devise new patterns of organization and programs of instruction designed to accomplish three objectives: (I) maintain basic research and the training of research personnel; (2) train needed experts for non— academic fields; and (3) train teachers adequately for all levels of higher education. The doctorate in education is designed specifically for meeting this third designated need. .A committee appointed by President Eisenhower in 1956 to survey the needs of higher education reinforced the findings of the Truman Commission. The committee in its report to the President was chiefly concerned with the impending shortage of qualified teachers. Recommendations concerning the graduate school were: (1) that the facilities of every college and graduate school join with national educational organizations in a nationwide effort to recruit high talent for college teaching; (2) that universities expand and strengthen their graduate schools in all major fields of learning; (3) that graduate schools make special efforts to create interest in teaching on the part of their best students; (D) that graduate schools devise new programs for the preparation of college teachers; (5) that facilities and administrators Of graduate schools make vigorous and Objective exploration of methods to improve the effective- ness and productiveness of the teacher; and (6) that 28 faculties earnestly review the curriculum and course 18 Offerings in light of on-going educational needs. Conditions Affecting Pursuit of Doctoral Degrees in Education As the graduate program in the colleges and univer- sities expanded, considerable concern began to be manifested over the diversity of activities and the absence of any agency for evaluation of flieir adequacy. However, the rapid increase in enrollment in graduate schools, the increase in numbers Of institutions offering graduate work, and a greatly expanded curriculum have resulted in more attention being given to the establishment of some standard or criterion whereby the graduate work can be evaluated. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, a voluntary organization, has done much work in this field, not in the evaluation of the graduate programs specifically, but in making a survey of conditions affecting pursuit Of the doctoral degree in the field of education.19 The need for the survey grew out of the realization that the number of doctoral degrees in the field of education falls far short of the annual needs for teachers and other 18President’s Commission on Higher Education, Education Beyond the High School,(Washington, 1957), p. 10. The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, The Doctorate in Education, The Committee on Studies (Washington, 1960), p. l. 29 professional workers in the field of education. The survey was divided into two fields: (1) the doctoral graduates and (2) the institutions offering the doctoral degrees. Data were gathered through.means of a questionnaire sent to people who received their doctoral degrees in the field of education between September, 1956, and September, 1958, and to institutions granting doctoral degrees during this period. Information gathered from the doctoral graduates included the distribution of the Doctor of Philosophy degree and the Doctor Of Education degree, reasons for choice, conditions affecting pursuit of the degree, and general attitudes. Information gathered from the institutions granting doctoral degrees included general information pertaining to the institutions, entrance requirements for doctoral students, curricular requirements, and specific procedures. The survey revealed that approximately 3,h00 doctorates had been awarded in education during the two-year period covered by the study and that ninety~two institutions had offered doctorates in this field during that period of time. .A total of 2,5u2 usable responses were received from the graduates, and eighty-one responses were received from the institutions. The study was not evaluative in nature but was a field study designed to gather descriptive data and to find similarities and dissimilarities between the different programs. 30 Major outcomes of the survey on doctoral recipients can be listed as follows: l. 10. 11. Of the approximately 3,h00 doctorates awarded in the field of education, two Doctor of Education degrees had been awarded for each Doctor of Philosophy degree. There were four male graduates for every female graduate. The proportion of graduates from rural and village origins was much greater than one would expect on the basis of population in the United States. Undergraduate preparation had been principally in education, social studies, and humanities. These men and women had not committed them- selves to the pursuit of the doctorate until sometime during or after the completion of their master's programs. Institutional choice for doctoral study had been greatly influenced by the factor of proximity. Four out of each ten had concentrated all of their academic work in summer sessions. Approximately two—thirds of the entire group had considered temporary interruptions at some time in their study. One—half of the graduates had ten years of professional experience by the time they received their degrees. .As the candidates proceeded toward their degrees, they became less and less involved in classroom teaching. Eighty per cent had been married, and three— fourths of the couples had children. 31 12. Four of every ten had depended upon veteran's benefits of one kind or another to finance some part of their graduate study. 13. One-fourth of the graduates were more than forty-three years old when they received their degree. 1h. Eighty—four different fields of concentration were reported. 15. The median number of years required to complete the doctoral program was five; the modal point exceeded eight years. 16. One—fourth of the graduates had not associated themselves with teacher-education activities after receiving their degrees. In the survey of the institutions granting the doctorate in education, many differences as well as similarities were found. Some of the major outcomes may be briefly summarized.21 Ninety—two universities in the United States Offered either the degree of Doctor of Education or the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in education from 1956 to 1958. In all there were seventy-five Doctor of Education programs and sixty—five Doctor of Philosophy programs. More than one—half of the universities offered both programs. 2OJ. Marlowe Slater, Doctoral Programs-~The Graduates, Thirteenth Yearbook of the American.Association of COIleges for Teacher Education, (Chicago, 1960), pp. l3h—135. 21John H. Russel, Doctoral Programs—~The Institutions, Thirteenth Yearbook of The AmerTCan.Association of’Colleges for Teacher Education, (Chicago, 1960), pp. l38-1h3. 32 Preponderantly, administrative control of doctoral degree programs in education was in the graduate school; only twenty—six Doctor of Education and Doctor of Philosophy programs were controlled by the college Of education. Fifty-one Of the eighty-one participating universities were publicly controlled; thirty were privately controlled. Slightly more than 50 per cent of the graduates came from the private institutions. Five institutions were respon- sible for more than one-third of the graduates. Sixty— eight per cent of the degrees granted were DoctOr of Education degrees, and 37 per cent were Doctor of Philosophy degrees. The Doctor of Philosophy degree was granted mainly in the field of psychology and the Doctor of Education degree in the area of educational administration. Fifty—six "fields" or areas of concentration in professional education were listed with one or more graduates from each field. Twenty—two per cent of the doctorates were in school administration; 10 per cent in guidance and coun— seling. The three other areas with the next highest per- centages were educational psychology, elementary education, and secondary education. In these top five areas, the Doctor of Education degree was preponderant except in the area of educational psychology. Most institutions had admission requirements relating to grade point average, entrance examinations, and letters of recommendation. The most favored entrance examinations 33 were the Miller Analogies Test, the Graduate Record .Aptitude Test, and the Graduate Record.Advanced Tests in Education. Various types Of curriculum requirements were found to be similar in many respects but the requirements themselves tended to differ widely from one institution to another. Most universities required a fixed number of hours beyond the master's degree for completion of the doctoral degree and a fixed number Of hours in residence. Three out of 'four institutions set a time limit for completing work on the doctoral degree, and the limits were lower in the universities granting the most degrees. The number of hours required in professional education beyond the master's degree varied widely. Fifty-eight institutions reported a core requirement, with educational measurement and research being the one most frequently required. Statistics was a close second in the required core of programs. Most Doctor of Education programs required no foreign language, and most of the Doctor of Philosophy programs required at least one foreign language. Most universities required a "B" average for all courses at the doctoral level. All institutions in both types of programs required an admission examination of all students as well as a final oral examination. Almost all of the Doctor of 31+ Philosophy programs required a formal dissertation, while four out of five Doctor of Education programs had this requirement. In most instances where deviation in this requirement was found, the control of the program was vested in the college of education rather than in the graduate school. Differences in this terminal research project, too, were more often found in the private colleges than in the publicly controlled ones. The results of this survey provide a fairly compre— hensive picture Of graduate education as it exists today. The present study is, in some ways, an extension in that a survey is made of administrative phaSes of the doctoral programs of a selected number of colleges and universities. The present study is similar also in that no evaluation of the programs themselves is attempted. The main differences between the survey and this study are that a "norm" of selected conditions and requirements in the participating colleges and universities has been attempted in the present study and a comparison made with this "norm" and the administrative phases of the doctoral program of North Texas State University. CHAPTER III ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES IN THE DOCTORAL PROGRAMS OF FORTY-FOUR SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES This chapter is conCerned with the administrative procedures governing the doctoral programs in the forty- four selected colleges and universities which are members Of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education and which returned usable questionnaires. It includes a report of methods and procedures used in selection and admission of students, program planning, course requirements, and oral examinations. Data were gathered through the use of a questionnaire sent to officials of sixty—eight colleges and universities having doctoral programs in education. .A total of fifty- six of the sixty-eight institutions returned questionnaires. Forty—four completed questionnaires were considered usable for the study. Data taken from these questionnaires provide the information on the different administrative procedures. Selection and Admission Forty-one, or 9h per cent, of the selected institutions use some type of evaluative instruments in the selection of doctoral students. Three of the institutions, or 8 per cent, 35 36 reported no specific evaluative instruments were used in the selection of doctoral students. Two of those three institutions reporting that no specific evaluative instru- ments were used in the selection of doctoral students indicated the past academic performance of the student, the institutions previously attended, experience in the field, and comprehensive examinations in the major and minor fields Of concentration were the criteria considered in the selection of students for the doctoral programs. In the other university not requiring the use of evaluative instruments in the selection of doctoral students, the only specific requirements mentioned were a grade average of "B", personal interview, and graduation from an accredited institution. Types of evaluative instruments used. As shown in Table I, the most frequently employed evaluative instrument TABLE I MAJOR EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS USED Evaluative Instrument Reporting Per Cent Institutions Miller Analogies Test 25 57.0 Cutting score 16 37.0 Local norms 7 16.0 Graduate Record Examination 16 37.0 Cutting score 11 25.0 Local norms 6 1h.0 37 in the forty-four institutions that required such instru— ments was the Miller Analogies Test. More than one-half of the institutions used this examination. With regard to the Miller Analogies Test, approxi- mately 17 per cent Of the selected institutions used local norms, with two respondents indicating the use of national norms. .A cutting score was used in sixteen of the institu— tions, or 37 per cent. Fourteen of the sixteen institutions reporting cutting scores used the fiftieth percentile, one reported using the forty-second percentile, and one reported using the thirty-fifth percentile. In sixteen of the selected institutions, or 37 per cent, parts of the Graduate Record Examination were used, while only four of the institutions reported use Of the entire examination. Thirteen Of the selected institutions, or 30 per cent, used the.Aptitude Test section of the Graduate Record Examination; eight of the selected institu— tions used the Advanced Education section Of the Graduate Record Examination; and four of the selected institutions used the Verbal and Quantitative Tests section of the Graduate Record Examination. Other evaluative instruments used in the selection of doctoral students. .A number of evaluative instruments other than the Miller Analogies Test and the Graduate Record Examination was reported. .As shown in Table II, the list 38 TABLE II OTHER EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS USED Number of Evaluative Instruments Reporting Per Cent Institutions Individual School Tests 10 22.0 Cooperative English Tests 6 lh.0 Oral and Written Examinations 2 5.0 American Council on Education Quantitative Section 1 2.0 Rating Sheets by Faculty 1 2.0 Guilford—Zimmerman Temperament Survey 1 2.0 Otis Self-Administering Tests of Mental Ability 1 2.0 Terman Concept Mastery Test 1 2.0 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2.0 National Teacher Examination 1 2.0 Strong Vocational Interest Blank l 2.0 Sequential Test of Educational Progress 1 2.0 varied widely as did the number of reporting agencies. In listing the different evaluative instruments, one of the respondents indicated that the Terman Concept Mastery Test was being used in some institutions to replace the Miller Analogies Test and the Graduate Record Examination. Lack of uniformity in the use of evaluative instruments is indicated by the number and variety of tests mentioned by the respondents. Other factors considered in the selection of doctoral students. A number of factors other than evaluative instru- ments was reported in the selection of doctoral students. 39 These factors include past academic performance, experience in the field, recommendations of previous instructors, deans, heads of departments, schools attended for under- graduate work, personal interview, and biographical self- data sheets. Data concerning these other influential factors in the selection of doctoral students are shown in Table 111. TABLE III OTHER FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE SELECTION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS W Number of Other Factors Reporting Per Cent Institutions Past academic performance uh 100.0 Experience in the field nu 100.0 Recommendations of previous instructors, deans, etc. ho 91.0 Schools attended for undergraduate work 35 80.0 Personal interview 31 70.0 Biographical self-data sheet 2 5.0 The past academic performance of an applicant for admission to a doctoral program is of prime importance. .All of the participating institutions indicated this factor was one of the points used in judging applications. Twenty- four, or 55 per cent, indicated a grade point average of "B", or above, was required for all previous academic work. hO Experience in the field for which the doctorate would be granted was also found to be an important factor in the selection of applicants for the doctoral program. .All of the reporting institutions were in agreement on this factor. The average length of experience required was between two and five years. Not all of the respondents listed any required number of years of experience, but the periods listed and the number of respondents are shown in Table IV. TABLE IV NUMBER OF YEARS OF EXPERIENCE REQUIRED IN THE FIELD Years of Experience Number of Required in the Field Reporting Per Cent Institutions 2 years 10 23.0 3 years 6 lu.0 7 years 1 2.0 1 year 1 2.0 6 months 1 2.0 varies l 2.0 One respondent mentioned "two years of successful teaching experience." Two other respondents indicated experience in the field was required only in the Doctor of Education programs. Recommendations Of previous instructors, deans, heads of departments, and various officials were shown to be important factors in the selection of doctoral students. Forty of the selected institutions, or 91 per cent, repo‘ted the use of this criterion. hl The college or university previously attended by the applicant also had a bearing on the approval or disapproval of an applicant for the doctoral program. Thirty-five, or 80 per'cent, of the selected institutions indicated that consideration was given to the school previously attended by the applicant for admission to the doctoral program. The degree of importance attached to the institutions previously attended, however, differed widely with most emphasis being placed on accreditation of the school pre- viously attended. The different values assigned to the schools previously attended are shown in Table V. TABLE V IMPORTANCE OF PREVIOUS SCHOOLS ATTENDED Degree of Importance Number of .Attached to Institutions Reporting Per Cent Previously Attended Institutions School accreditation required 8 18.0 Carries little importance 3 7.0 Less important than academic record 3 7.0 General reputation of school 2 5.0 Used to substantiate other value judgments 1 2.0 .Arranging a personal interview with prospective doctoral students was the practice in thirty—one, or 70 per cent, of the selected institutions. .A number of other respondents D2 indicated a personal interview with the prospective doctoral student was optional. The number and positions of the individuals participating in these interviews are presented in Table VI. TABLE VI THE NUMBER AND POSITION OF SCHOOL OFFICIALS PARTICIPATING IN INTERVIEWS m =__ m Number and Position of Number of Participating Personnel Reporting Per Cent Institutions Graduate Education Committee 8 19.0 2 to 5 staff members 7 16.0 5 to 7 staff members A 9.0 Administrative staff 3 7.0 Graduate Dean 1 2.0 Dean of School of Education 1 2.0 Major and minor advisors l 2.0 Some respondents listed personal interviews with the prospective doctoral students but did not specify the number and position of the participants. No one particular practice prevailed, but the most common procedure was participation of the graduate education committee. Number of students applying for admission to the doctoral program and number of students failing to be admitted to the program. Eighteen of the selected institu- tions, or hl per cent, did not provide any information on the number of students admitted to the graduate program. U3 In most instances the notation was made that data were not available without expenditure of much time and effort. In the instances where data were supplied, the statistics here approximated for the reason stated above. In two instances students were reported as being admitted as candidates for the doctoral degree when airolling in the graduate program. Data in Table VII indicate that a large number of students fail to be admitted to the graduate program. TABLE VII NUMBER OF STUDENTS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION TO THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM AND THE NUMBER EAILING TO GAIN ADMISSICN Number Failing To Be Admitted to the Per Cent Graduate Program Number of Students ,Applying for Admission To the Graduate Program 100 90 90.0 167 28 60.0 2,200 1,250 57.0 1,000 500 50.0 500 250 50.0 20 10 50.0 88 no no.0 700 225 42.0 150 35 N2.0 3,600 1,500 h1.0 75 30 no.0 300 100 33.0 115 20 17.0 800 100 12.0 h3 5 11.0 2,500 250 10.0 288 15 5.0 NE The difference in the number of students applying for admission to the graduate program and the number Of failures points up the fact that many students do not complete their doctoral degrees. Percentages of failure were high in most instances. In the university where 90 per cent of the students applying for admission failed to be admitted to the graduate program, the explanation was that one hundred students applied for admission and then all except ten were screened out. The doctoral program was thus limited to ten students at any one time. In most instances, completion of the Master's degree did not automatically admit a student to the doctoral program. .Almost 60 per cent of the respondents indicated other requirements aside from completion of the Master's degree were necessary for admission to the doctoral program. The "other" requirements and the number of respondents reporting them are shown in Table VIII. Once again the diversity in requirements to the doctoral program is emphasized in these data. Some of the selected institutions require doctoral students to take course work in a sequence or be dismissed from the program. "In sequence," in this instance, means without any lengthy period of time elapsing during courses. Fourteen, or 32 per cent, of the respondents stated that students would not be readmitted after a specific period of AS TABLE VIII FACTORS INFLUENCING ADMISSION TO DOCTORAL PROGRAM W NUmber of Other.Admission Factors Reporting Per Cent Institutions Completion of Master's degree 16 36.0 Examination 6 lD.0 Recommendation by committee 2 5.0 Baccalaureate degree 2 5.0 Master's degree plus 12 hours 1 2.0 30 to D8 hours graduate credit 1 2.0 Master's degree plus 2D hours of education 1 2.0 Completion of 6th year certificate 1 2.0 Master's degree plus 60 hours and an examination 1 2.0 Master's degree plus 75 hours and an examination 1 2.0 Completion of course work for doctoral program 1 2.0 time had elapsed without course work. Data on readmission and status Of the students after being readmitted to the doctoral program are presented in Table IX. Four respondents stated that after a lapse of six years without any course work being completed by the student, the admission examinations would have to be taken again. One Of the institutions indicated the student was allowed one year beyond the stated time limit for completion of course work. D6 TABLE IX READMISSION AND STATUS OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS AFTER LAPSE OF TIME IN COURSE WORK W Conditions Concerning Number of Readmission and Status Responding Per Cent of Doctoral Student Institutions Readmission after specific period of time without course work necessary 27 61.0 Status of readmitted student Regular 15 30.0 Provisional 12 27.0 Readmission not necessary after specific period of time without course work 1D 32.0 Summary. .A high percentage of the institutions use some type of evaluative instrument in the selection and admission of doctoral students. The Miller Analogies Test was the most common evaluative instrument used. The Graduate Record Examination was used in 37 per cent of the institutions, but only four respondents reported using all parts of the Graduate Record Examination. The parts of the Graduate Record Examination most used were the aptitude tests, advanced education tests, and the verbal and quantitative tests. Other evaluative criteria used were various types of tests such as the Cooperative English Test, local tests, and reference letters. There were a number of factors other than tests used in the selection of students for the doctoral program. The past academic performance of the student was considered in D7 all of the institutions. Experience in the field was con- sidered a desirable asset by all of the responding institu- tions. Personal interviews, recommendations of previous instructors, heads of departments and other school officials, and the accreditation of the previous schools attended for undergraduate work were other factors considered in the selection Of doctoral students. .A high percentage of the students applying for admisdon to the doctoral program failed to be admitted. The completion of a Master's degree program, in more than 60 per cent of the selected institutions, does not automatically provide admission to the doctoral program; other requirements, principally advanced work and examina- tions, were required by many of the institutions. Program Planning Procedures in planning the student's doctoral program, the policies or recommendations of the Committee, modifica— tions, and transfer of graduate credits were included in the study of program planning in the selected institutions. Procedures for_planning the doctoral program. The chairman or major professor in the student's doctoral program supervises his work and is an important factor in the success or failure of the program. Methods used in the institutions in selecting the chairman are presented in Table X. he TABLE X METHODS USED IN SELECTION OF FACULTY CHAIRMAN =============== Method Used in Selection Number of of Chairman Reporting Per Cent Institutions Chairman appointed 31 70.0 Chairman selected by student 19 D3.0 Chairman has a choice as to committee on which he will serve 35 79.0 Chairman selected cooperatively D 9.0 .According to U18 respondents in this study, the most common procedure in selecting a Chairman for a studeit's doctoral program was by appointment; that is thirty—one institutions, or 70 per cent of the institutions, followed this practice. In nineteen, or D3 per cent, of the report- ing institutions, the students were allowed to select the professor they preferred as their Chairman, while in four, or 9 per cent, of the selected institutions, the selection was a cooperative affair between the student and the department in which he was majoring. In the majority Of the cases, or 79 Per cent, the appointed chairman had some voice as to whether or not he would serve on a particular committee. Another finding regarding this area was that a change in chairman could be made in forty—one, or 93 per cent, of the institutions if the conditions warranted such a change. 1+9 Responsibility for planning the doctoral program. The importance of the chairman Of a student's doctoral program is indicated by the fact that in twenty—eight of the selected institutions, or 6D per cent, the chairman was given the responsibility for planning the program. .As shown in Table XI, the chairman's responsibility over- shadowed that of all others concerned. TABLE XI RESPONSIBILITY FOR PLANNING THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM . Number of Source of Responsibility Reporting Per Cent Institutions Faculty chairman 28 6D.0 Guidance committee 11 25.0 Head of department 7 16.0 Other D 9.0 The "Others" were usually combinations of the three basic sources mentioned in Table XI. The faculty chairman, it is quite obvious, carried the major responsibility in planning the student's doctoral program. Time of planning. In thirty of the institutions, or 68 per cent, the doctoral programs are planned at the time of admission to the program, but in fourteen, or 32 per cent, of the institutions, the programs were planned either after a specific number of hours had been completed, 50 or after entrance examinations had been successfully completed. The data indicate that many institutions delay planning the doctoral program until they have some tangible evidence that the student has the ability and the will to do successful work in his field. Data pertaining to the time of planning the doctoral program are presented in Table XII. TABLE XII TIME OF PLANNING THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM Number of Time of Program Planning Responding Per Cent Institutions .At admission to the graduate program 30 68.0 .After specific number of hours have been completed 1D 32.0 After entrance examinatimis have been successfully completed 1D 32.0 Typically, a committee of staff members worked with the faculty chairman in the guidance and supervision of a student's doctoral program. The numbers serving on these guidance committees varied, but the numbers five and three were predominant. .According to the respondents to the questionnaire, the number of members on the guidance con- mittees varied from one institution to the other as is shown in Table XIII. 51 TABLE XIII NUMBER OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS SERVING ON DOCTORAL PROGRAM 1 -:-—— r —__J Number of Number of Committee Members Responding Per Cent Institutions 5 21 D8.0 3 12 27.0 3 to 5 2 5.0 3 tO D 2 5.0 7 2 5.0‘ 2 5.0 6 to 8 l 2.0 D to 6 1 2.0 D to 5 l 2.0 Data in Table XIV show the manner in which these guidance committees were selected. Predominantly, the Dean of the Graduate School, the Dean of the School of Education, and the faculty chairman and student perform this function. In only a few instances did the heads of the department, the faculty chairman, or student Working alone, carry out this procedure. In eight instances, or 18 per cent, the student's guidance committee was reported as being selected cooperatively. "Others" listed were various combinations or different officials. Policies or responsibilities of the guidance committee. The guidance committee as appointed was reported as having full authority to make all necessary decisions about the student's program and status in twenty-two, or 50 per cent, of the selected institutions. In twenty institutions, or D5 per cent, the guidance committee planned the program, 52 TABLE XIV METHODS OF SELECTING GUIDANCE COMMITTEES I Method of Selecting Number of Guidance Committee Reporting Per Cent Institutions Dean of Graduate School 13 30.0 Faculty Chairman and Students 13 30.0 Dean of School of Education 12 27.0 Cooperation between staff and student 8 18.0 Faculty Chairman 5 11.0 Head of Department 5 11.0 Others 5 11.0 and, in two instances, the student planned the program with the approval of the committee. Except for one institution, transfer credits were accepted from other schools. The committee on graduate credit passed on the eligibility Of these transfer credits in seventeen, or 39 per cent, of flue institutions. There here many variations concerning the evaluation of transfer credit as is shown in Table XV. In two instances, no reply was given to the question regarding responsibility for evaluating advanced graduate credit from other institutions. The amount of credit acceptable on a transfer basis varied widely. In fourteen institutions, or 32 per cent, no specific number of credits was specified. Nine institutions, 53 TABLE XV EVALUATION OF TRANSFER CREDIT BY SCHOOL OFFICIALS School Officials Number of Evaluating Transfer Reporting Per Cent Credit Institutions Committee on graduate credit 17 39.0 Dean of Graduate School 6 1D.0 Chairman of graduate committee and student's advisor D 9.0 Major professor 3 7.0 Admissions Office 3 7.0 Dean and Committee 3 7.0 Director of graduate school 2 5.0 Dean of School of Education 2 5.0 Registrar 1 2.0 or 20 per cent, accepted thirty credits. The number Of transfer credits accepted by the institutions is shown in Table XVI. These data again emphasize the many differences in the administrative procedures and requirements in the selected institutions. Summary of programyplanning. In the majority of institutions, the faculty chairman for the student‘s doctoral program was appointed. Generally, he was given a choice as to the committee on which he would serve and a change could be made in 93 per cent of the reporting institutions. 511 TABLE xv1 TRANSFER CREDITS ACCEPTABLE FOR GRADUATE PROGRAM Number of Transfer Credits Acceptable for Graduate Program NUmber of Reporting Institutions Per Cent Varied Thirty hours Twenty-four hours Eighteen hours Twelve hours Eleven hours Ten hours Six hours Forty-eight hours Forty—five hours Thirty-eight hours Thirty-five hours Twenty-five hours H HHHHHHHHHHN\OF’ NNNNNNNNNNU‘LON OOOOOOOOOOOOO Responsibility for planning the doctoral program rests largely in the hands of the committee chairman. The per- centages represented by other sources of reSponsibility were small, being less than 25 per cent in all instances. The most commonly mentioned time for planning the prOgram was on admission to the doctoral program. Other times mentioned were after the completion of a specific number of hours and after successful completion of entrance examinations. Membership of the graduate committee was usually vested in five members as indicated by the fact that twenty—one, or D8 per cent, of the reporting institutions used this procedure. 55 Typically, the graduate committee was selected by Dean of the Graduate School, Dean Of the School of Educa- tion, or by the committee chairman and the student. Some overlapping of methods in this area was noted. In all instances but one, credit from other institu- tions was accepted on a transfer basis. No one pattern was found in the number of credits accepted by the different colleges and universities responding to the questionnaire. Course Requirements The section of the questionnaire pertaining to course requirements included questions on remedial requirements, what is expected of the student in terms of work to be completed, and standards for continuation of the graduate program. Remedial requirements or removal of deficiencies. Four- teen, or 32 per cent, of the selected institutions required that deficiencies be removed as a prerequisite to admission to the doctoral program. No student could be accepted in the doctoral program in thirty, or 68 per cent, of the represented institutions, until deficiencies had been removed. .At the same time, only three, or 7 per cent, of the respondents stated that credit was given for remedial work. One of these respondents stated the maximum amount for 56 which credit could be given was six semester hours, while the others simply stated "very small, but varied." Data on the number and per cent of institutions specifying the different practices are shown in Table XVII. TABLE XVII REMEDIAL REQUIREMENTS OR REMOVAL OF DEFICIENCIES Policy Concerning Require— Number of ments or Removal of Responding Per Cent Deficiencies Institutions Remedial work must be completed as a pre- requisite to further graduate study 1D 32.0 Remedial work must be completed prior to acceptance to candidacy 30 68.0 Credit given for remedial work 3 7.0 Completed work expected of the student. Phases of the completed work expected of the student included the number of course hours or courses required, the amount of credit allowed for the dissertation, and the specific number of hours required in the major and minor areas of concentration. Data on these different items are presented in Table XVIII. Six of the respondents did not answer the question regarding the requirement of certain hours or courses. Sixty—one per cent of the selected institutions granted credit for the dissertation. The amount of credit granted 57 TABLE XVIII COMPLETED WORK EXPECTED OF THE STUDENT Policy of Institution Con— Number of cerning Work Expected of Responding Per Cent Student Institutions Requires certain number of hours or courses 38 86.0 Credit given for dissertation 27 61.0 Specific number of hours required in major area of concentration 21 D8.0 Specific number of hours required in minor area of concentration 17 39.0 for the dissertation varied; the maximum number of hours reported was fifty; the minimum number of hours reported was five; the average number of hours granted ranged from five to thirty—six. Differences were found in the requirements for specific hours in the major and minor areas of concentra- tion. Twenty-one, or D7 per cent, of the selected institu- tions require a specific number of hours in the major area of concentration. Seventeen, or 39 per cent, of the selected institutions require a specific number of hours in the minor area of concentration. Data shown in Tables XIX and XX indicate the specific number of hours required by the selected institutions in the major and minor areas of concentration. 58 TABLE XIX NUMBER OF HOURS REQUIRED IN MAJOR AREA OF CONCENTRATION Number of Required Hours Number of in Major Area of Responding Per Cent Concentration Institutions Forty hours 2 5.0 Thirty-six hours 2 5.0 Twenty-four hours 2 5.0 Eighty-fiVe hours 1 2.0 Seventy hours 1 2.0 Sixty—five hours 1 2.0 Thirty-three hours 1 2.0 Thirty hours 1 2.0 Twenty-one hours 1 2.0 Twenty hours 1 2.0 Fifteen hours 1 2.0 Twelve hours 1 2.0 TABLE XX NUMBER OF HOURS REQUIRED IN MINOR AREA OF CONCENTRATION Number of Required Hours Number of in Minor,Area of Responding Per Cent Concentration Institutions Twenty-four hours Thirty-six hours Twelve hours Forty hours Thirty hours Fifteen hours Nine hours I—bi—nl—tI-ammm NNNNU'LU‘LN OOOOOOO These variations in the number of hours required in major and minor areas of concentration further emphasize the lack of uniformity in requirements for doctoral degrees in the selected institutions. 59 Standards for continuation of graduate program study after admission. Eighty—two per cent of the selected institutions require a specific grade point average for continuation of the graduate program after admission. Data concerning this requirement in the major and minor areas of concentration are presented in Table XXI. TABLE XXI STANDARDS FOR CONTINUATION OF GRADUATE PROGRNW Jfi—FW Number of Item or Standard Reporting Per Cent Institutions Specific total grade point average required 36 82.0 Specific grade point average required in major area of concentration 36 82.0 Specific grade point average required in minor area of concentration 18 Dl.0 The requirements for specific grade point averages were not as great for the minor areas as for the major areas of concentration. .Although no data were requested concerning the required average in the major area of con- centration, many respondents wrote in "A" average. In the minor area of concentration, ten respondents listed "B" average as the required grade point average; four specified "B+", and four Specified "A" averages. Summary of course requirements. -The majority of the selected institutions require remedial work or deficiencies 60 to be completed or removed before acceptance to candidacy is granted. Credits are not given to any appreciable degree for this remedial work. .A high percentage Of the institutions require a certain number of hours or courses to be completed, but there is no uniformity of practice in the requirements. Differences were also discovered in the requirements for hours in the major and minor areas of concentration and in the specific grade point averages required. Preponderantly, the specific grade point average required was "B" or above. Preliminary Examinations The essay type examination was the one most commonly used in the preliminary or qualifying examinations. Thirty- four of the selected institutions, or 77 per cent, favored this type of examination. Twenty—seven, or 61 per cent, of the selected institutions also used the Objective type examination. An oral examination in the major area of concentration was reported by twenty-seven, or 61 per cent, of the institutions, and in nineteen institutions, or D3 per cent, in the minor area of concentration. Data on these phases of the preliminary examination are shOwn in Table XXII. Statement of policy. Not all of the institutions were specific in their statements regarding the policy of the institution in regard to the doctoral program. Twenty-four, 61 TABLE XXII TYPE OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION GIVEN IN THE SELECTED INSTITUTIONS Type of Examination Number of Required Reporting Per Cent Institutions Essay Type - both major and minor 3D 77.0 Objective Type - both major and minor 27 61.0 Oral Type 27 61.0 In major area 27 61.0 In minor area 19 D3.0 or 5D per cent, of the respondents stated that a statement of policy was available to the student. .All of these respondents mentioned "general information" as being available, while only eight respondents mentioned "specific information." Reader of preliminary examinations in major and minor areas of concentration and Systems of evaluating the results. In twenty—eight, or 6D per cent, of the institutions, all of the committee members read and passed upon the preliminary examinations. The faculty chairman, in fifteen, or 3D per cent, of the selected institutions is responsible for this task. In the minor area of cmicentration, either the com- mittee member from the minor area or the faculty member teaching the minor subject read and evaluate the preliminary 62 or qualifying examination. "Pass" or "fail" is the most common method of evaluating the results of the examination, with signed_statements to the dean ranking second in use. Data concerning these different phases of the examination are shown in Table XXIII. TABLE XXIII EVALUATION OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS Official Reading Preliminary Number of Examination Responding Per Cent Institutions Major.Area: All committee members 28 6D.0 Faculty chairman l5 3D.0 Minor.Area: Committee member from area 11 25.0 All committee members 3 7.0 Faculty member from area 1 2.0 Method of Evaluating Results Number of -Of Preliminary Examination Responding Per Cent Institutions "Pass" or "fail" . 11 25.0 Signed statement by committee 6 1D.0 By score 3 7.0 Student record 1 2.0 Progress record form 1 2.0 Profile sheets 1 2.0 .All committee members read the preliminary examination in twenty—eight, or 6D per cent, of the institutions. 63 Conditions of passing the preliminary examination, percentages passing, alternatives, restrictions, and extensions. No set policy on many phases of passing the preliminary examinations was revealed. In eighteen instances, the respondents stated that the preliminary examination was an "all or none" situation wherein the student had to pass all major and minor areas of concentration. In twelve instances, however, it is possible for students to fail in one area, pass in another, and still remain in the program. In all but fourteen instances, the student who failed in one area has to repeat the entire examination. Six of the selected institutions limited the examination, in case of failure, to the subject or area in which the failure occurs. The institutions are lenient with the students in permitting them to repeat the examination in event of failure; thirty-two respondents, or 73 per cent, of the institutions reported this practice, and nine stated "possibly" to the question. Three institutions gave a decisive "no" to the question. Only five of the institutions permitted a student to retake the examination more than one time. Restrictions on the period of time for taking the preliminary examinations were reported by seventeen of the institutions, with a maximum of two to three years betheen the time of admission to the graduate program and the date 6L1 of the preliminary examinations. Extenuating circumstances could operate to secure an extension of the time limit in nine of the responding institutions. Data on these phases of the preliminary examinations are shown in Table XXIV. TABLE XXIV CONDITIONS AFFECTING REPETITION OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS W Number of Condition or Practice Responding Per Cent Institutions Student must pass all phases or areas of concentration 18 D1.0 Student may pass in one area and fail in another area 12 27.0 Number of Condition or Practice Responding Per Cent . Institutions If student fails: Repeats entire examination 1D 32.0 Repeats area failed 6 lD.0 Permission to repeat examina— tion usually given 32 73.0 No definite policy "possibly" 9 20.0 Definite "no" 3 7.0 65 TABLE XXIV (continued) Number of Condition or Practice Responding Per Cent Institutions Number of times student may repeat examination: One time 2D 55.0 Two times D 9.0 No repeat of examinations D 9.0 Maximum time between admission to graduate program and date of preliminary examinations 17 39.0 Possible to obtain extension of time - 9 20.0 Information pertaining to preliminary examinations was not complete, as several of the respondents did not reply to the questions. Table XXV presents data concerning the percentage of students usually passing preliminary examina- tions first time; Table XXVI presents data concerning the percentage of students usually passing the preliminary examinations the second attempt. Summaryyof data on preliminary examinations. The essay type examination was the most used Of preliminary examina- tions; thirty—four institutions, or 77 per cent, used this type of examination. Twenty—seven, or 61 per cent, Of the selected institutions used the objective type examina- tion. Some of the selected institutions used a combination 66 'LABLE XXV DATA CONCERNING THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PASSING PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS THE FIRST TIME Per Cent of Students Passing Number of Preliminary Examinations Responding Per Cent the First Time Institutions 75 to 80 per cent 1D D0 to 65 per cent 7 95 per cent 60 per cent 50 per cent 65 per cent D0 per cent H60 HHNCJJE NNUINOCPN OOOOOOO TABLE XXVI DATA CONCERNING THE PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS PASSING PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS THE SECOND TIME Per Cent of Students Passing Number of Preliminary Examinations Responding Per Cent the Second Time Institutions 5 to 25 per cent 12 27.0 25 to 50 per cent 7 16.0 75 per cent 3 7.0 100 per cent 1 2.0 of essay, objective, and oral examinations. Statements of policy exist in fifty—four per cent of the selected institu- tions, but for the most part, the information was Of general nature rather than specific. The most typical procedure for reading the preliminary examinations was to delegate this task to the committee. "Pass" or "fall" was the 67 predominant method Of evaluating the results of the pre- liminary examination. No set policies are followed in regard to failures and permission to repeat the examina— tion, but the most typical procedure is to permit the student to repeat the examination one time. Some institu— tions placed restrictions on the time limit for taking the preliminary examinations, but the percentage was less than D0 per cent. Dissertation Requirements In the majority of the selected institutions, all committee members approve the dissertation before it is presented to the graduate dean. Thirty—six, or 82 per cent, of the selected institutions follow this procedure. The faculty chairman approved the dissertation in eight of the reporting institutions; in two of the institutions a majority of the committee members approve the disserta— tion. Other procedures mentioned by the respondents were to submit the dissertation to the head of the graduate department, to additional faculty members, and to the coordinator of graduate research. The different practices and procedures of the selected institutions concerning dissertation requirements are shown in Table XXVII. More general conformity in practice was found in the preparation and method of publication of the dissertation 68 TABLE XXVII DISSERTATION REQUIREMENTS CONCERNING APPROVAL, PREPARATION, PUBLICATION, AND ABSTRACT Practices and Procedure Number of Concerning Approval, Reporting Per Cent Preparation, Publication, Institutions and Abstract of Dissertation .Approval of dissertation: All committee members 36 83.0 Faculty chairman 8 18.0 Faculty chairman and majority of committee members 2 5.0 Other procedures D 9.0 Preparation of the dissertation: Standard form used D0 91.0 Format D0 91.0 Margins D0 91.0 Footnotes 36 82.0 Typing Required type of paper D2 95.0 Required type of carbon D2 95.0 Standard binding used D2 95.0 Method of publication: Typed copies required D2 95.0 Microfilmed 21 D8.0 Abstract: Abstract required D1 93.0 Number of copies of abstract: 2 copies required 16 36.0 1 copy required 15 3D.0 5 copies required 3 7.0 3 copies required 1 2.0 than in other practices investigated. Percentages of more than 90 per cent were reported in most phases of the dis— sertation preparation except in the use of footnotes. Forty-two, or 95 per cent, of the selected institutions 69 require typed copies of the dissertation while twenty-one of the institutions require microfilming of the disserta- tion. Much variation was found in the requirement governing the number of copies of the abstract required by the selected institutions, but the most common requirement was two copies of the abstract. Summary of dissertation requirements. The most commonly used procedure in approving the dissertation was for the members of the committee, and the faculty Chairman to read the dissertation before it was presented to the Dean of the Graduate School. Few differences were found in the preparation and typing of the manuscript; standard forms and procedures were used preponderantly. Microfilming of the dissertation was reported in D8 per cent of the responding institutions. Oral Examinations Time of approval. There appeared to be some mis- understanding or lack of clarity concerning the question on the maximum period of time between approval of the dissertation by the committee and the time of the oral examination. One respondent listed the maximum time as six years, and another listed the time as five years. Length of the doctoral program, it is believed, was being referred to in these answers. Eight of the respondents 70 failed to answer the question. Four respondents stated there was no set time limit, while two institutions reported that the length of time depended upon the con- venience of the student and the committee. The diversity of time reported by the selected institutions is shown in Table XXVIII. TABLE XXVIII THE MAXIMUM, MINIMUM, AND AVERAGE TIME LIMIT FOR ORAL EXAMINATIONS W Maximum period of time between Number of approval of dissertation and Responding Per Cent date of final oral examination Institutions 1 month 2 5.0 2 M>3dmm 1 2D .A few weeks 1 2.0 2 to D weeks 1 2.0 3 weeks 1 2.0 6 years 1 2.0 “- c:— _—'__ ‘7— Minimum period of time between NUmber of approval of dissertation and Responding Per Cent date of final oral examination Institutions 2 weeks 6 1D.0 1 day 2 5.0 1 month 2 5.0 3 weeks 1 2.0 l meek l 2.0 71 TABLE XXVIII (continued) I 1— Average period of time between Number of approval of dissertation and Responding Per Cent date of final oral examination Institutions D weeks 16 3 1 month 1 No specific time limit Several months 2 years rel-arc). The most commonly used practice, as shown by the data presented in Table XXVIII, was to permit an average time of four weeks between the time of approval of the dis- sertation and the date of the final oral examination. In fact, many of the respondents marked only the average time required by that specific institution. Procedures in the oral examination. The data in Table XXIX indicate that the most common practice followed concerning oral examination was for the candidate's doctoral guidance committee to examine him. Thirty—eight of the respondents, or 86 per cent, reported that this procedure was used in their specific institution. Data on the different phases of the oral examination are shown in Table XXIX. Twenty-three, or 52 per cent, of the respondents stated that the oral examination included general information from 72 TABLE XXIX PROCEDURES FOLLOWED IN ORAL EXAMINATIONS Procedures Followed in Number of Oral Examination Responding Per Cent Institutions Participants in oral examination: Committee members 38 86.0 .All department members 12 27.0 Other specific partici- pants 15 3D.0 Limitation of oral examination: Dissertation only 21 D8.0 Includes general informa— tion from major area 23 52.0 Includes general informa- tion from minor area 9 20.0 Other areas 6 1D.0 Any questions the com— mittee desires 5 11.0 Student permitted to repeat examination in event of failure 32 73.0 Definite time limit for Obtain- ing degree from date of admission to date of completion 21 D8.0 the major area of concentration. In twenty-one of the selected institutions, or D8 per cent, the oral examina- tion is limited to the dissertation only. Nine of the respondents indicated that questions in the minor area of concentration might be included, while five of the selected institutions stated that any questions at the convenience of the committee could be included in the oral examination. 73 Permission to repeat the oral examination in the event of failure was granted by thirty-two, or 73 per cent, of the institutions. In twenty-four of the responding institutions, a limit of one repeat examination was specified. In four of the institutions, the examination cannot be taken more than two tunes. In four of the institutions, the examination cannot be taken more than one time. .A definite time limit for Obtaining the doctoral degree was specified in twenty—one, or D8 per cent, of the report— ing institutions. The possibility Of an extension Of the time limit was reported in all of the selected institutions with varying reasons being advanced for granting the extensions. Extenuating circumstances were the most commonly reported reason. Summary of procedures in oral examinations. No one specific practice prevailed in the time between approval of the dissertation by the committee members and date of the final oral examination, but the most commonly mentioned period of time was an average of four weeks. Predominant participants in the oral examination were all members of the committee. Areas covered in the oral examination were not limited to the dissertation in the majority of the instances. In case of failure of the oral examination, 7A thirty—two, or 73 per cent, of the reporting institutions permit the examination to be repeated. .A very small percentage reported that a third attempt was permissible. Model practices in phases of: selection and admission, progpam planning, course requirements, preliminapy examina- tions, dissertation requirements, and oral examination requirements. Forty—one of the forty-four selected institutions use some type of evaluative instrument in the selection of doctoral candidates. Twenty-one of the institutions use the Miller Analogies Test. Experience in the field and past academic performance was mentioned by all of the institutions as being an important factor in the selection and admission of doctoral candidates. .A high percentage of doatoral students who applied for admission to the graduate program failed to gain admission to the program or to complete the doctoral degree. Thirty-one of the selected institutions indicated the most common procedure in selecting a chairman for a student's doctoral program is by appointment. The respon- sibility for planning the student's doctoral program rested with the faculty chairman in twenty-eight of the forty-four reporting institutions. Twenty—one, or D8 per cent, of the selected institutions reported that the graduate committee consisted of five members. This graduate committee was usually selected by the Dean of the Graduate 75 School, Dean of the School of Education, or by the faculty chairman and the student. . Thirty—eight, or 86 per cent, of the selected institu- tions reported that a certain number Of hours was required in Course work, but there was little conformity in practice in this requirement. Twenty-seven, or 61 per cent, of the forty-four selected institutions grant credit for the dissertation. Twenty-one, or D8 per cent, of the institutions require a specific number of hours in the major area of concentration. Seventeen, or 39 per cent, require a specific number of hours in the minor area of concentration. The typically accepted grade point average for all course work was "B" or above. Thirty—four, or 77 per cent, of the forty—four selected institutions favored the essay type preliminary examination, and twenty—seven, or 61 per cent, of the institutions used an objective type preliminary examination. Twenty—four, or 5D per cent, of the institutions indicated that a state- ment of policy was available concerning general information but only eight of the institutions stated a Specific state- ment of policy concerning what was expected of the student was made available. In twenty—eight, or 6D per cent, of the selected institutions all of the graduate committee read the preliminary examinations. "Pass" or "fail" is 76 the most typical method of evaluating the results of the preliminary examination. Thirty—two, or 73 per cent, of the institutions permit the student to repeat the pre- liminary examinations in event of failure. In thirty-six, or 83 per cent, of the selected institu- tions, all members of the graduate committee approve the dissertation before it is presented to the graduate dean. .A high degree of conformity existed with respect to preparation of the dissertation in all of the selected institutions. Forty—one, or 93 per cent, Of the selected institutions require an abstract with the most typical practice being two copies of the abstract required. Twenty- one, or D8 per cent, of the institutions require the dis- sertation be microfilmed. The most frequently mentioned period of time between approval of the dissertation and the date of U18 final oral examination was four weeks. The doctoral committee participates in the oral examination in thirty-eight, or 86 per cent, of the Selected institutions. Twenty—three, or 52 per cent, of the institutions reported that general information from the major area of concentration was included in the oral examination. Thirty—two, or 73 per cent, of the institutions grant permission to repeat the oral examination in event of failure. CHAPTER IV COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES IN THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY WITH LIKE PROCEDURES IN THE SELECTED INSTITUTIONS The purpose Of this chapter is to compare the data on administrative procedures of the doctoral program of North Texas State university with the summarized findings of administrative procedures in the selected colleges and universities participating in the study. It should be emphasized that no effort has been made to evaluate the procedures used at North Texas State university or in any of the selected colleges and universities in the study. .A comparison of administrative practices and procedures, not evaluation, was the stated purpose of the study. For this reason, the findings from the data Obtained from the selected colleges and universities are not set up as criteria, but essentially as check list data. Comparing North Texas State University's doctoral program in its administrative phases with the check list then becomes a comparatively simple operation. For the purposes of discussion and greater clarity, the comparisons are broken down into sections as divided 77 78 in the original questionnaire. The check list for evalua- tive instruments is presented in Table XXX. TABLE XXX SELECTION OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AS COMPARED WITH THE SELECTION IN FORTY—FOUR SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Evaluative instruments used Yes D1 9D.0 Miller Analogies Test Yes 25 57.0 Local norms Yes 7 16.0 Cutting score Yes D 9.0 .All Parts of Graduate Record Examination No D 9.0 Parts of the Graduate Record Examination No 16 36.0 .Aptitude tests No 13 29.0 .Advanced education No 8 18.0 Verbal and quantita— tive No 8 18.0 Other evaluative instru— ments used Individual school tests Yes 10 22.0 Cooperative English Test Yes 6 1D.0 Other factors considered in the selection of doctoral students: Past academic perform- ance of the student Yes DD 100.0 Experience in the field Yes DD 100.0 Recommendations of previous deans, instructors,etc. Yes D0 91.0 Schools attended for under- graduate work Yes 35 80.0 Personal interview No 31 70.0 79 North Texas State university reported the use of evaluative instruments in the selection Of doctoral students, and forty—one, or 9D per cent, of the selected institutions followed this practice. North Texas State university used the Miller Analogies Test, and twenty- five, or fifty—seven per cent, of the selected institutions used the Miller Analogies Test. North Texas State Uni- versity used local norms, and seven, or 16 per cent, of the other selected institutions followed this practice. North Texas State University used a cutting score, and four, or 9 per cent, of the selected institutions followed this procedure. The range of tests used by the selected institutions was more extensive in the summarized data; North Texas State university used only two tests, but the same was true for the majority of the other selected institutions. North Texas State university used a locally developed test of writing ability which none of the other institutions used. North Texas State university also differed from the responding institutions in that no personal interview with the applicant was held, whereas thirty~one, or 70 per cent, of the other selected institutions followed this procedure. North Texas State University required a specific grade point average of "B" or above for course work completed 80 as did twenty—four, or 55 per cent, of the other institu- tions. The major difference found between North Texas State university and the other selected institutions concerning the selection and admission of doctoral students appears to be in the use Of fewer tests and the lack of personal inter- view with the applicant. Because Of inconclusiveness or lack of responses, the data on the number of students applying for admission to the graduate program and the number failing to be admitted are not altogether representative. Some of the respondents listed the number of students applying for admission but did not indicate the number of failures, while others merely listed the percentages of failures. Eighteen, or D0 per cent, of the selected institutions provided sufficient information for obtaining percentages. When these were treated, it was found that DO per cent of the students applying for admission to the graduate program failed to be admitted to the program. North Texas State university, in this respect, reported that 686 students had applied for admission to the graduate program, and 230 of these students failed to be admitted to the program; this is approximately one—third of the students applying for admission to the graduate program in the School of Education. 81 North Texas State University, in this phase, had a lower percentage of failures than the average responding institu- tions providing data in this area. Time of admission to the graduate program and require— ments for readmission are presented in Table XXXI. TABLE XXXI COMPARISON OF DATA ON TIME OF ADMISSION AND READMISSION IN FORTY—FOUR SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Time of admission: Completion of Master's degree No 16 36.0 Completion of specific number of hours beyond bachelor's degree N0 9 20.0 Other requirements Yes 17 39.0 (12 hrs. beyond master's) Readmission after a specific period of time has elapsed without completion of course work: Student has to apply for readmission Yes 27 61.0 Status of readmitted student: Regular Yes 15 3D.0 Provisional No 12 27.0 82 North Texas State university appears to be in agree- ment with many of the responding institutions concerning the time of admission and other requirements. Seventeen, or 39 per cent, of the responding institutions had "other" requirements. North Texas State university required re- application of students after a specific period of time has elapsed without completion of course work. North Texas State University grants regular status to the student upon readmission. In contrast, 61 per cent of the selected institutions reported reapplication necessary for admission to the graduate program, and twelve, or 27 per cent, gave provisional status to the students. Program Planning The check list for the comparison of policies and procedures regarding program planning at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions is presented in Table XXXII. Some differences concerning practices at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions in regard to planning the student's doctoral program were discovered. At North Texas State University the faculty chairman was selected by the student whereas only nineteen, or D3 per cent, of the selected institutions reported this 83 TABLE XXXII COMPARISON OF PROGRAM PLANNING IN THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM .AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND AT FORTY-FOUR SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Procedures in arranging for faculty chairman and committee members: Faculty chairman selected by student Yes 19 D3.0 Faculty chairman appointed No 31 70.0 Faculty chairman has choice as to what committee he will serve on Yes 35 79.0 Faculty chairman can be changed Yes D1 93.0 Responsibility for planning graduate program: Faculty chairman Yes 28 6D.0 Guidance committee No 11 25.0 Head of department No 7 16.0 Time of planning program: On admission to the graduate program Yes 30 68.0 After specified number of hours completed No 1D 32.0 .After entrance examina- tions are successfully completed No 1D 32.0 Number of committee members 3 or D Average 5 Method of selecting com- mittee members: Faculty chairman and student Yes 13 30.0 Dean of Graduate School No 13 30.0 Dean of School of . , Education No 12 27.0 Faculty chairman NO 5 11.0 Department head NO 5 11.0 Other procedures NO 5 11.0 811 TABLE XXXII (continued) Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Policies or responsibili- ties of the committee: Faculty chairman and student plan the program Yes 22 52.0 Committee plans the program No 20 D5.0 Student plans program with approval of chairman No 2 5.0 Modifications of program possible Yes 21 50.0 Transfer credit accepted from other institutions Yes D3 98.0 practice. The most common procedure in the latter institu- tions was the appointment of the faculty chairman. Responsibility for planning the graduate program was placed in the hands of the faculty chairman at North Texas State university, and this practice was followed in twenty- eight or 63 per cent of the institutions responding to the questionnaire. Major agreement on the time of planning the graduate program and admission to the program was indicated by the responding institutions. Some differences in the number of guidance committee members was noted. North Texas State university reported three or four members; the average number of guidance members reported by the other selected institutions was five. 85 In respect to selection of the guidance committee, North Texas State university indicated that the guidance committee was selected by the faculty chairman and the student. Thirty-one, or 70 per cent, of the selected institutions used this method Of selecting the guidance committee. Regarding the responsibilities of the guidance com- mittee, North Texas State university indicated the student and the faculty chairman plan the program and submit it to the guidance committee for their approval. The selected institutions reported varying procedures with the majority being in favor of the committee-planned programs and programs planned by the faculty chairman and students and submitted to the guidance committee for approval. North Texas State university reported transfer credit was accepted from other institutions, and forty-three, or 98 per cent, of the selected institutions did likewise. The Dean of the Graduate School at North Texas State university determines the eligibility of transfer students; in the selected institutions this responsibility was most commonly placed in the hands of the guidance committee. The amount of transfer credit acceptable also varied. North Texas State university indicated the maximum number of credits acceptable from another institution was twenty-four. 86 Course Requirements Removal of deficiencies is a prerequisite to admission to the graduate program at North Texas State university. North Texas State university is in agreement with thirty, or 68 per cent, of the selected institutions in this practice. North Texas State university indicated that removal of deficiencies must be completed as a prerequisite to continuing in the graduate program as did fourteen, or 32 per cent, of the selected institutions. No credit is given at North Texas State University for remedial work and only three, or 7 per cent, of the selected institutions reported this practice. Data concerning Genrse requirements are shown in Table XXXIII. A high degree of uniformity exists between North Texas State University and the other selected institutions con- cerning the requirement of a certain number of specified courses for the graduate program. Data on the amount of credit allowed for a dissertation was so varied that sound comparisons were not possible. North Texas State university reported that a maximum of twelve hours of credit is granted for the dissertation. No specific number of hours in the major area of con- centration is required at North Texas State university. This practice is followed by twenty-one, or D8 per cent, of 87 TABLE XXXIII COMPARISON OF COURSE REQUIREMENTS IN DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Responding Per Cent Institutions Removal of deficiencies: Must be removed prior to admission to graduate program Yes 30 68.0 Must be removed as a prerequisite to continuing graduate program Yes 1D 32.0 Credit granted for remedial work No 3 7.0 Course credit policies: Certain number of hours of course work Yes 38 86.0 Amount of credit granted for the dissertation: Maximum 12 Median 50 hours Minimum 12 Median 25 hours Average 12 Median 36 hours Specific number of hours required in major area of concentration Yes 21 D8.0 Specific number of hours required in minor area of concentration No 17 39.0 Standards for continuation of graduate program after admission: .A specific grade point average required Yes 36 82.0 In major area of con- centration Yes 36 82.0 In minor area of con- centration Yes 18 Dl.0 88 the selected institutions. Likewise, North Texas State university requires no specific number of hours in the minor area of concentration while seventeen, or 39 per cent, of the selected institutions follow this procedure. No specific grade point average is required in the major and minor areas of concentration at North Texas State university, but an over-all "B" average is required. Thirty-six, or 82 per cent, of the selected institutions, however, require a specific grade point average in the major area of concentration, and eighteen, or D0 per cent, require a specified grade point average in the minor area of concentration. Preliminary Examination Requirements North Texas State university is in agreement with the mode of the selected colleges and universities in the use Of essay tests, objective tests, and oral examinations. Likewise, there is agreement between the practice at North Texas State University and the mode of the institutions in providing a general statement of policy for the students as to what is expected of them. Specific information is provided also, whereas only a small percentage of the selected institutions provide such information. Some differences were apparent concerning the respon- sibility for reading and evaluating the preliminary 89 examinations in the minor area of concentration. North Texas State University placed this responsibility in the hands of the committee chairman, whereas the mode of the selected institutions favor reading of the preliminary examinations by all committee members. Likewise, respon- sibility for reading the examinations in the minor area of concentration is placed in the hands of the departmental faculty at North Texas State university. This phase of work is handled by the committee members from the minor area of concentration by the majority of the selected institutions. Major differences were also reported in methods of evaluating the results of the preliminary examinations. The mode of the selected institutions use "pass" or "fail" as a method of evaluating the test results, while North Texas State university uses a notation on the permanent record of the student. .At North Texas State university a student has to pass all areas of the preliminary examination, but he may fail in one area and repeat the examination in the one area, at a later date. In the other selected institutions, eighteen, or D1 per cent, TOIIOW’thIS procedure. In four- teen, or 32 per cent Of the institutions, the student repeats the entire preliminary examination in the event of failure in one area. 90 North Texas State university reported that approxi- mately 75 per cent of the students pass the preliminary examination the first time it is taken, and approximately 10 per cent of the students pass the preliminary examina— tion on the second attempt. Data for the selected institu- tions were inconclusive due to lack Of replies, but the mode of the selected institutions, both in the number of passing the preliminary examinations the first time, and also on those passing the second attempt. .Agreement between North Texas State university and the mode of the institutions was reported concerning the number of times an examination could be repeated. No restriction was placed on the length of time before taking the preliminary examinations by North Texas State university. In seventeen, or 39 per cent, of the selected institutions, an established policy had been set concerning a specific period of time between date of admission to the graduate program and date of preliminary examination. NO requirement for extension of time limits on the preliminary examination is reported by North Texas State university, but nine, or 20 per cent, of the other institutions restrict the time limit. Data concernblg the preliminary examinations are presented in Table XXXIV. 91 TABLE XXXIV COMPARISON OF PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS IN DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES W Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent ' Institutions Essay type examinations used Yes 3D 77.0 Objective type examina- tions used Yes 27 61.0 Oral type examinations used Yes 27 61.0 In major area of concentration Yes 27 61.0 In minor area of concentration Yes 19 D3.0 .A statement of policy of what is expected of the student available Yes 2D 5D.0 General information Yes 2D 5D.0 Specific information Yes 8 18.0 Reader of preliminary examinations .All committee members No 28 6D.0 Faculty chairman Yes 15 3D.0 Other staff members Yes 7 16.0 In minor area of concentration Member of committee from minor area of concentration Yes 11 25.0 .All committee members NO 2 5.0 Faculty member from the minor area NO l 2.0 Departmental staff No l 2.0 Method of evaluating the results of the prelimi- nary examinations "Pass" or "fail" No 11 25.0 Signed statement by all committee members No 6 lD.0 Student records Yes 2 5.0 By rating device No 2 5.0 Profile sheets No l 2.0 92 TABLE XXXIV (continued) Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Preliminary examination in "all or none" situa- tion Yes 18 D1.0 Student must pass all phases of the prelimi— nary examination (major, minor, cog- nate) Yes 16 36.0 Possible to pass in one area and fail in another Yes 12 27.0 In the event of failure in one or more areas Repeat all areas No ID 32.0 .Area failed Yes 6 lD.O Percentage of students usu- ally passing the prelimi- nary examinations The first time taken: 75 per cent Yes ID 32.0 D0 to 60 per cent No 7 16.0 95 per cent No D 9.0 The second time taken: 5 to 25 per cent Yes 12 27.0 25 to 50 per cent No 7 16.0 75 per cent No 3 7.0 90 per cent No l 2.0 Student permitted to repeat examinations in event of failure Yes D1 93.0 Number of times the examinations may be repeated: One attempt Yes 2D SD.O Two attempts No S 11.0 Preliminary examinations restricted to a specific number of years from date of admission to graduate program No 25 57.0 No time requirement Yes 19 D3.0 2 to 5 years No 8 18.0 93 Dissertation Requirements Major agreement was reported in all areas of the dissertation requirements between North Texas State .University and the other selected institutions. .A high degree of uniformity exists in the areas of approval, preparation, standard form, typing, binding, method of publication, and abstract. The data in Table XXXV reinforce the above statements. TABLE XXXV COMPARISON OF DISSERTATION REQUIREMENTS IN DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions .Approves of the disserta- tion before it is pre- sented to the Dean of the Graduate School .All committee members Yes 35 82.0 Faculty chairman Yes 8 18.0 Other procedures (Dean of School of Educa- tion) Yes D 9.0 Preparation of the disserta— tion Standard form used: Format Yes DO 91.0 Margins Yes DO 91.0 Footnotes Yes 35 82.0 Typing: Required weight of paper Yes D2 95.0 Required type of carbon paper Yes D2 95.0 91L TABLE XXXV (continued) Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Standard binding used Yes D2 95.0 Method of publication: Typed copies Yes D2 95.0 Micofilmed Yes 21 D8.0 Abstract: Abstract required Yes Dl 93.0 Number of copies required: 2 copies No 16 36.0 5 copies No S 11.0 D copies Yes D 9.0 3 copies No l 2.0 Oral Examination No set practice exists in the period of time between approval of the dissertation by the committee menbers and the date of final oral examination. A small percentage of the selected institutions mentioned an "average" time limit without specifying what this "average" comprised. North Texas State University, in this respect, was similar to the other selected institutions. .A high degree of uniformity or agreement is shown in the selection of participants for the oral examination. The guidance committee members had this responsibility at North Texas State University, and this procedure was followed 95 in thirty-eight, or 86 per cent, of the selected institu- tions. Some differences, however, were discovered in the limitations of the oral examination. At North Texas State University the oral examination is not limited to the dissertation, but included general information from the major and minor areas of concentration. Twenty-one, or D8 per cent, of the selected institutions confine the oral examination to the dissertation and only nine, or 20 per cent, of the institutions include general information from the major and minor areas of concentration. Table XXXVI presents the different practices and procedures concerning oral examinations. TABLE XXXVI COMPARISON OF ORAL EXAMINATIONS AND TIME LIMIT IN DOCTORAL PROGRAM AT NORTH TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY AND THE SELECTED COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES W Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Participants in the oral examination: All guidance committee members Yes 38 86.0 All department members No 12 27.0 Other specified partici— pants Yes 12 27.0 Limitations of the oral examination: Includes information from major area of con— centration Yes 32 52.0 96 TABLE XXXVI (continued) Check List of Practices Number of and Procedures NTSU Reporting Per Cent Institutions Dissertation only No 21 D8.0 Includes information from minor area of concentration Yes 9 20.0 Is student permitted to repeat oral examination in event of failure Yes 32 73.0 If so, how'many attempts are premitted: 1 attempt Yes 2D 5D.O 2 attempts No D 9.0 Is a definite time limit specified for obtaining degree from date of admission to date of completion Yes 21 D8.0 Students are permitted to repeat the oral examination one time in the event of failure at North Texas State University, and this procedure is followed in twenty—four, or 5D per cent, of the selected institutions. .A small percentage, 9 per cent, of the selected institutions permit a student to repeat the oral examination two times. North Texas State University is in agreement with the majority of the responding institutions concerning a definite time limit from date of admission to the graduate program to the date of completion of the degree. Twenty—one, '97 or D8 per cent, of the selected institutions set a definite time limit from date of admission to date of completion of the degree. North Texas State University indicated that no extension of time beyond the specified time limit was permissible. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Sometimes, because of the expediency of the situation, changes are made in graduate programs based largely on untested hypotheses. In some cases, these tend to become permanent though they are not founded upon the results of actual study. There is reason to believe that some of the changes affecting the organization, administration, and implementation of the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State university have been based upon a number of untested hypotheses, rather than on the results of research related to the particular problem which prompted changes from time to time in the graduate program. Summary This was a study of the practices, procedures, and implementations concerning the organization and administra- tion of the doctoral program in the School of Education at North Texas State University. It was presupposed that in order to conduct the study, some knowledge of the administrative practices and procedures followed in the 98 99 other colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education would need to be known to guide the study. The purpose of the study as stated in Chapter I was three—fold: (l) to develop a questionnaire type of instrument which would prove useful to colleges and universities in appraisal of their graduate program; (2) to report the administrative practices and procedures of the selected graduate schools of education in the sixty—eight colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations; and (3) to determine the extent to which the doctoral program in the School of Education at North Texas State University conforms or differs from those programs in the other sixty-seven selected colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. .A copy of the questionnaire that was designed and developed for this particular study is included in Appendix B of this study. It is hoped this instrument may be of use to the administrative officials interested in appraising graduate programs. 100 The administrative practices and procedures of the graduate schools of education in the forty-four sekacted colleges and universities which returned usable question— naires were reported in Chapters III and IV. There appeared to be a reasonably high degree of uniformity or agreement in the administrative practices and procedures of the selected institutions in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation require- ments, and oral examinations. The Graduate School of Education at North Texas State University was found to have a high degree of agreement, in most phases, with the administrative practices and procedures as followed and reported by other members of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Conclusions There are sane differences between the administrative procedures prevailing at North Texas State University and the forty-four responding members of the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. Based upon the results of the study, North Texas State University uses less tests in the selection and admission of prospective graduate students than the majority of other selected 101 institutions. Also North Texas State University does not use the medium of the personal interview, whereas the majority of the selected institutions do require a personal interview with the prospective graduate student before admission. The data indicate North Texas State University has a smaller percentage of failures on the entrance examination than the majority of the other selected institutions. In the area of program planning, there is a high degree of uniformity or agreement between the program at North Texas State University and the programs in the forty-four selected institutions. There are some noted differences in the course requirements at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions; these differences are in the areas of required hours and grade point averages. There are some noted differences in the area of preliminary examinations at North Texas State University and the other selected institutions. These differences were in the reading of the preliminary examinations, the method of evaluating the preliminary examinations, and the lack of restriction of time limits. The only differ— ence discovered with respect to the dissertation require- ments is in who reads the manuscript. The oral examination at North Texas State University is more comprehensive than 102 the examinations given in the majority of the selected institutions. No major differences were discovered between the administrative procedures utilized in the doctoral program at North Texas University and the programs of the other selected institutions. The most outstanding findings of the study appear to be in the great variation in adminis- trative practices and procedures in the selected institu- tions. It would have been improbable for North Texas State University, or any other institutions, to be in complete agreement with all of the selected institutions. It appears most encouraging for the program in the graduate 'school of education at North Texas State University as a high degree of uniformity exists between the organization, administration, and implementation of the program at North Texas State University and the programs in the other responding members of the National Council for the.Accredi— tation of Teacher Education. Recommendations One of the basic purposes of this study was to ascertain the most commonly practiced administrative procedures in the graduate school of education in the selected colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher 103 Education. Another purpose of the study was to compare the administrative practices and procedures of the graduate school of education at North Texas State Univer- sity with those of the other selected institutions. The results of these comparisons could be used to offer suggestions to those responsible for the organization, administration, and implementation of the graduate schools of education. Based upon the aforementioned stated purposes and the results of the study, several recommendations emerged. These recommendations are divided into three categories: (1) general recommendations for improving the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State University; (2) suggested recommendations for other graduate schools of education; and (3) suggestions for further research. General recommendations for improving the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State university. l. A detailed study of the organization, administra— tion, and implementation of the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State University should be made, using an appropriate instrument to identify the particular strengths and weaknesses of the program for remedial purposes. 10D 2. The over-all objectives of the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State University should be identified, stated, and generally agreed upon by all the personnel involved in the graduate program. 3. The organization and administration of the graduate program should study the possibility of revising the current testing procedures with respect to selection and admission of students to the graduate program. D. The results of this study indicate consideration should be given to the possibility of using the personal interview as a part of the selection and admission procedure of the Graduate School of Education. 5. Consideration should be given to the possibility of raising the cut-off score on the Miller Analogies Test as a smaller percentage of failures were reported at North Texas State University than in the majority of the selected institutions. 6. The organization and administration of the graduate program in the School of Education at North Texas State Uni- versity should develop a system of continuous study and appraisal of the total program in an effort to develop a more adequate graduate program. Suggested recommendations for other graduate schools of education. l. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the terminology 105 used in describing the different phases of graduate educa- tion. 2. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing evaluative instruments used in the selection and admission of graduate students. 3. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the readmission policies and procedures of the graduate schools. D. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the amount of trans- fer credit acceptable by the graduate schools. 5. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the amount of credit granted for completion of the dissertation. 6. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the practices and procedures for continuation of the graduate program after the student has been admitted to the program. 7. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the statement of policy available to the students concerning what is expected of them. 8. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the type of preliminary 106 examinations and the method of evaluating the preliminary examinations. 9. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the practices and procedures concerning the repeating of the preliminary examinations in the event of failure. 10. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the practices and procedures concerning the approval, preparation, and publication of the dissertation. 11. The administration of the graduate schools should study the possibility of standardizing the practices and procedures concerning the oral examination. Suggestions for further research. The results of this study indicate that some differences exist in the prevailing administrative practices and procedures in the forty-four colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education in the areas of selection and admission, program planning, course requirements, preliminary examinations, dissertation requirements, and oral examinations. The following sug— gestions for further research are offered for consideration: 1. .A replication of this study might be made in other colleges and universities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education 107 to compare the prevailing administrative practices and procedures of the respective institutions with those of the other institutions holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. 2. A replication of this study might be made in private institutions granting the doctorate degree in education to compare the prevailing administrative practices and procedures of the respective institutions with those of the institutions holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. 3. .A replication of this study might be made in public colleges and universities granting doctorate degrees in education but who do not hold membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education with the expressed purpose of comparing their respective programs with those that have been accredited by the National Council for the,Accreditation of Teacher Education. This study was concerned with the prevailing adminis- trative practices and procedures of the colleges and uni- versities holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. It appears that similar studies might be conducted concerning the graduates of these institutions, rather than the institutions, per se. Some possible areas of study might be: H o \o a) ~d (m U1 T? 0: re 108 Personal background of graduates. Environmental background of graduates. Occupational background of graduates. Circumstances and events leading to doctoral study. Pursuit of the degree. Attitudes toward total degree program. Period of residency. Sources of finance during pursuit of degree. Positions held since graduation. 10. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bowman, Isaiah. The Graduate School in American Democraqy, Washington, D. C.: Government PrTntTng Office, U. S. Office of Education Bulletin No. 1D, 1939. Brown, Laurence D., and Marlowe J. Slater. The _rotorate in Education, Washington, D.—C:} voTume 1, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960. Brumbraugh,.A. J., and Morris W. H. Collins. The University of Georgia Study, Athens, Georgi : University of Georgia, 1958. Capps, Marian P., and Frank A. Decosta. Contributions of the Graduate Record Examination andfitheTNational Teachers Examination to the Prediction of Graduate SchooT Success, Orangeburg, South CaroTina: South Carolina State College, 1957. Curti, Merle, and Vernon Carstenson. The University of Wisconsin: .A History, Madison, WTSconsin: University of Wisconsin, l9D9. Dystra, John W. "The Ph. D. Fetish," School and Society, LXXXVI (May 2D, 1958). Edwards, Marcia. Studies in American Graduate Educa- tion: .A Report'to the Carnegie FoundatTon, New Ybrk: CarnegiE Foundation, 19DD. Eells, Walter Crosby. "Honorary Ph. D's in the 20th Century," School and Society, LXXXV (March 2, 1957). Foster, Laurence. The Function of a Graduate School in a Democratic Society, New York: Huxley House Publishers, 1936. Fund for the.Advancement of Education. Better Utiliza- tion of College Teaching Resources, NewIYork? December, 1955. 109 11. 12. 13. 1D. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 110 Garrison, Lloyd Lee. .A Follow-Up Study of Doctoral Graduates in Education, Columbia, Missouri: University of’Missouri, 195D. Good, Carter V. Dictionany of Education, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1959. Griggs, Charles M. Who Wants to Go to Graduate School and Why, TaIlahassee, Florida: Florida State University, 1959. Grooper, George L., and Robert Fitzpatrick. Who Goes to Graduate School, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: AmeriCan Institute for Research, 1959. Harris, Chester W. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960. Hofstadter, Richard, and C. DeWitt Hardy. The Develop— ment and Scope of Higher Education in the United States, New York: Cqumbia University, 1952. Hollis, Ernest V. Toward Improving Ph. D. Programs, Washington, D. C.: AmerTcan CouncTI on Education, 1945. Horton, Byrne J. The Graduate School, New York: New York University Press, 19D0. Hull, J. Don, and B. L. Dodds. American High School Administration, Neijork: RinehartTand Company, 1950. Josephs, Devereux C. President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School, Second Report to the President, washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1957. _ Kidd, Rex C. "Improving Pre—Service of Undergraduate College Teachers," Journal of Teacher Education, (March, 1952). Little, Kenneth J. "Graduate Education," Encyclopedia of Educational Research, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1960. 23. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 111 Monroe, Walter S. "Graduate Education," Enc clo edia of Educational Research, New York: The MacMIIIan Company, 1950. Moore, Harold E., John H. Russel, and Donald G. Ferguson. The Doctorate in Education, Washhigton, D. C.: Volume II, American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960. National Education Association. Instructional Staff Practices and Policies in Degree Granting Tnstitutions, Washington, D. C.: Bulletin XXXI, 195h. National Science Foundation. Graduate Student Enroll— ment and Support in American Universities and' Colleges, Wasthgton, D. C.: GovernmentTPrinting Office, 1957. Ness, Fredric W. .A Guide to Graduate StuQY: Washington, D. C.: American CounciTion Education, 1960. Patrick, David L. Proposed Revisions of Admissions Requirements at the University ofTArizona,.Arizona State University, and Arizona State ColTege, Tucson, .Arizona: IUniversity of'Arizona, T958. Rice, M. C., and Hazel Poole. Earned Degrees Conferred in Educational Institutions, Washington, D. C.: GOvernment Printifig Office, 1957. . Riddles, Willard Parker. The Doctoral Program in Education at the University of’CoTOrado, Boulder, Colorado: PUniversity of'Coloradb, T958. Rosenhaupt, Hans, and Thomas J. Chinlund. Graduate Students Experience at Columbia University, New York: Columbia UniversTty, 1958. Russel, John H. "Doctoral Programs-~The Institutions," Thirteenth Year Book, Chicago, Illinois: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, 1960. Slater, J. Marlowe. "Doctoral Programs--The Graduate," Thirteenth Year Book, Chicago, Illinois: American .Association of ColIeges for Teacher Education, 1960. 112 3D. Storr, Richard J. The Beginning of Graduate Education in the United States, Chicago, Illinois, University of Chicago Press, 1953. 35. Wellemeyer, J. F. "Full-Time Teachers in American Colleges and Universities," School and Society LXXXVIII (June 23, 1956). 36. ‘Williams, Oliver Hoyt. Criteria for Admission to the Graduate School of the university of Texas in Relation to the Aptitude TeSt‘ofwthe Gtaduate Record Examination, Austin, Texas: University of Texas, 1959. APPENDIX.A LIST OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HOLDING MEMBERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION 113 11D LIST OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES HOLDING MEMBERSHIP IN THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE ACCREDITATION OF TEACHER EDUCATION Institution .Auburn University University of Alabama .Arizona State University University of.Arkansas Stanford University University of California %*University of California at Los Angeles University of Southern California Colorado State College %*%University of Colorado %%*University of Denver *University of Connecticut *George‘Washington University Florida State University University of Florida University of Georgia %%%Northwestern University Participated in the study *Did not return usable questionnaire Auburn, Alabama University, Alabama Tempe,.Arizona Fayetteville, Arkansas Stanford, California Berkeley, California Los Angeles, California Los Angeles, California Greely, Colorado Boulder, Colorado Denver, Colorado Storrs, Connecticut Washington, D. C. Tallahassee,iFlorida Gainesville, Florida .Athens, Georgia Evanston, Illinois **Returns received after study was completed *fixDid not participate in the study 115 Institution ***University of Chicago *fiUniversity of Illinois Indiana University %**State University of Iowa University of Kansas %%%University of Kentucky Louisiana State University University of Maryland *Boston University *Harvard University *%%Springfie1d College Michigan State University University of Michigan fi**Wayne State University *%*University of Minnesota University of Mississippi Saint Louis university University of Missouri Washington university Montana State University Participated in the study *Did not return usable questionnaire Location Chicago, Illinois Urbana, Illinois Bloomington, Indiana Iowa City, Iowa Lawrence, Kansas Lexington, Kentucky Baton Rouge, Louisiana College Park, Maryland. Boston, Massachusetts Cambridge, Massachusetts Westfield, Massachusetts East Lansing, Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan Detroit, Michigan Minneapolis, Minnesota University, Mississippi St. Louis, Missouri Columbia,.Missouri St. Louis, Missouri Missoula, Montana %*Returns received after study was completed *fifiDid not participate in the study 116 Institution Location University of Nebraska Lincoln, Nebraska Rutgers University New Brunswick, New Jersey university of New Mexico .Albuquerque, New Mexico *Columbia University New York, New York Cornell university Ithaca, New York New York University New York, New York Syracuse University Syracuse, New York ***University of Buffalo Buffalo, New York *Duke University Durham, North Carolina %University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina fiefiUniversity of North Dakota Grand Forks, North Dakota *fifiOhio State University Columbus, Ohio A University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio uOklahoma State University Stillwater, Oklahoma University of Oklahoma Norman, Oklahoma Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon *xUniversity of Oregon Eugene, Oregon Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania Temple UhiverSity Philadelphia, Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Participated in the study *Did not return usable return *fiReturns received after study was completed ***Did not participate in the study Institution university of Pittsburgh George Peabody College for Teachers University of Tennessee North Texas State university University of Houston University of Texas University of Utah Washington State University West Virginia university aUniversity of Wisconsin University of wyoming Participated in the study xDid not return usable return Location Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Nashville, Tennessee Knoxville, Tennessee Denton, Texas Houston, Texas Austin, Texas Salt Lake City, Utah Pullman, Washington Morgantown, West Virginia Madison, Wisconsin Laramie, wyoming exReturns received after study was completed **%Did not participate in the study APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE 118 119 QUESTIONNAIRE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICES AND THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE ORGANIZATION.AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AT NORTH TEXAS STATE COLLEGE. 1950-1960 I. SELECTION AND ADMISSION .A. Selection of students 1. .Are evaluative instruments used? Yes No If yes, please answer the questions _"' _— below. a. Miller Analogies Yes No I. tLocal norms Yes__No__ 2. Cutting score Yes—_No-— If yes, what is the cutting '—_ '—_ score? b. Graduate Record Examination Yes No I. Local norms Yes“_No_~' 2. Cutting score Yes__No__ If yes, what is the cutting ——' —_' score? 3. .All of the Graduate Record Examination Yes No D. Part of the Graduate Record '__ '__ Examinatiml Yes No If yes,TWhat parts of the Graduate Record Examination are used? c. Other evaluative instruments used in the selection of graduate students. 1. 2. 3. D. 2. Other factors considered in the selection of graduate students a. Past academic performance Yes No 1. General grade point average of '__ "—— past academic performance (2.5, 3.0 etc.) Yes No 120 2. Is a specific grade pdnt average required? If so, what average is required? Yes_;No__ b. Personal interview 1. Number of staff included Yes No 2. Power of intervening agentf (committee or some designated individual) to make decisions or recommendations c. Recommendations of previous instructors, department heads, deans, etc. d. Schools attended for under— graduate studies If yes, please explain how this information is weighed Yes No e: Is experience in the field con- sidered desirable? f. Is experience in the field required? Yes No Yes No If yes, how many years, etc.? Admission of students to the advanced graduate program 1. Number of students admitted between 1950-1960 2. Number of students admitted to the program between 1950—1960, but who failed to be admitted to candidacy 3. When is the student admitted? a. .At the completion of the. master's degree program? b. At the completion of a specific number of hours beyond the baccalureate degree? c. Other (requirements) Yes No Yes No 121 D. Re-admission--after a Specific period of time has elapsed without course work, is it necessary for the student to apply for re- admission? Yes No 5. Status of.student upon admission '__ '__ a. Regular Yes No b., Provisional Yes__No—_ c. Other -_' —_ II. PROGRAM PLANNING .A. What procedures are followed in arranging for a faculty chairman or committee and the student to plan the program? 1. Is the faculty chairman selected by the student? Yes No 2. Is the faculty chairman appointed? Yes—”No_—' 3. Does the faculty chairman have a '—_ '—_ choice as to what committee on which he will serve? Yes No D. Is it possible to change a chairman? Yes::No:: B. Who is responsible for planning the program? Head of the department Yes No 1. 2. Faculty chairman Yes—"No—-' 3. Guidance committee Yes No—— D. Other "‘ ‘— C. .At what time in the student's program is planning undertaken? 1. On admission to the graduate program? Yes No 2. After a specific number of hours have been completed? Yes___No__ 3. After completion of entrance examinations? Yes No D. Committee 1. Number of committee members 2. How is the committee selected? a. By the Dean of the Graduate School , Yes__No b. By the Dean of the School of '__ Education Yes No c. By the head of the department Yes—-No__' d. By the faculty chairman Yes_—No—_' e. By the student Yes—7N6"— f. By the faculty chairman and “' '— the student Yes No 9. Other 122 3. Policies or responsibility of the committee a. Does the committee plan the program? Yes No b. Does the student plan the '__ '—- program with the approval of the committee? Yes No c. Does the student and the "‘ '__ faculty chairman plan the program and submit it to the committee for approval? Yes__No__ D. .Are modifications possible? Yes No If yes, what modifications are possible? __ '__ 5. Is advanced graduate credit completed at other institutions acceptable? Yes No a. If yes; who evaluates this credit? b. What is the maximum number of transfer credits acceptable? III. COURSE REQUIREMENTS .A. Remedial requirements or removal of deficiencies 1. Must be completed as a prerequisite to further graduate study? Yes NO 2. Must be completed prior to acceptance '__ "—- to candidacy? Yes No 3. Is credit given for required remedial '__ '__ work? Yes No *— If so, what is the maximum amount? B. What is expected of the student in terms of work to be completed? 1. .A certain number of hours or courses required? Yes No 2. How much credit is allowed for the dissertation? a. Maximum b. Minimum c. Average IV. 123 3. Is the above credit in: a. Term hours b. Semester hours c. Quarter hours D. Is a specific number of hours required in the major area of concentration? If yes, hOW'many hours are required? 5. Is a specific number of hours required in the minor area of concentration? If yes, how many hours are required? Standards for continuation of advanced study after admission 1. Is a specified grade point average required? 2. Is a specific grade point average required in the major area of concentration? 3. What grade point average is required in the minor area of concentration? PRELIMINARY OR QUALIFYING EXAMINATIONS A, B. C. Are objective type examinations given? Are essay type examinations given? Is an oral or qualifying examination required? 1. In the major area of concentration 2. In the minor area of concentration Is any specific statement of policy available to the student as to what is expected? 1. General information 2. Specific information Who reads the preliminary or qualifying examinations? 1. Faculty chairman 2. .All committee members 3. Other staff members Yes No__ Yes No__ Yes__No__ Yes__No__ Yes__No___ Yes__No___ Yes__No___ Yes__No__ Yes__No___ Yes__No___ Yes__No__ Yes__No___ Yes__No___ Yes No__ Yes__No__ Yes__No__ Yes No Yes__No::: 12D Who reads the preliminary examinations in the minor area of concentration? What system of recording is used in recording the results of the preliminary or qualifying examinations? Is the preliminary or qualifying exami— nation an "all or none" situation? Yes__No___ 1. Does the student have to pass all preliminary (major, minor, cog- nate, etc.)? Yes No 2. Is it possible to pass in one area .—_ '__ and fail in another? Yes No 3. In the event of failure in one or '_- '__ more areas, does the student repeat the area failed, only, or repeat all the areas of concentration? What percentage of students usually pass the preliminary or qualifying examinations? l. The first time 2. Repeat 3. What are the alternatives if the student fails to pass the pre— liminary or qualifying examina— tions? a. Is the student permitted to repeat the examinations? Yes No b. If yes, how many times may the '__ '__ examinations be repeated? .Are preliminary or qualifying examina- tions restricted to a specific number of years from the date of admission to the advanced graduate school? Yes No If yes, how many years? '—_ '__ Is it possible to obtain an extension of time on the preliminary or qualifying examinations? Yes No If so, under what conditions? 125 V. DISSERTATION REQUIREMENTS .A. Who approves the dissertation before it is presented to the Dean of the Graduate School? 1. Faculty chairman Yes No 2. .All committee members Yes_—No‘_' 3. Faculty chairman and majority of '_- "‘ committee members ' Yes No D. Other procedure _"' _—' B. Preparation of the dissertation 1. Is a standard form used? Yes No a. Format (title page, etc.) Yes No::: b. Margins Yes_;No__ c. Footnotes Yes__No__ 2. Typing a. Is there a required type of paper for the original cop of the dissertation (20 1b.)? b. Is there a required type of paper for the carbon copies (16 1b.)? Yes No Yes No 3. Is a standard binding used? Yes No C. Method of publication 1. Student presents typed copies 2. Student presents printed copies 3. Student has dissertation microfilmed Yes__No___ D. Abstract 1. Is an abstract required of the dis— sertation for filing? Yes No___ 2. If so, how many copies of the '—- abstract are required? VI. ORAL EXAMINATION A. Period of time between approval of the dissertation by the committee members and date of final oral 1. Maximum time 2. Minimum time 3. Average time B. Who participates in the oral examination? 1. Committee members Yes No 126 2. .All department members Yes No___ 3. Other specific participants Yes__No___ If yes, please list participants Limitations of the oral examinations 1. Examination over the dissertation only Yes No 2. The examination may include general 1 information from the major area of concentration Yes No 3. The examination may include general information from the minor area of concentration Yes No D. Other areas "‘ "—- Is the student permitted to repeat the examination hi the event of failure? Yes__No__ 1. If yes, how'many times? 2. Is a specific time limit assessed in the event of failure? Yes No If yes, what is this time limit? '__ '_- Is a definite time limit specified for obtaining the advanced degree from the date of admission to date of completion? Yes__No___ 1. .Are extensions of time limit available under certain conditions? Yes__No 2. If yes, under what conditions? '__ APPENDIX C LETTER SENT WITH QUESTIONNAIRE 127 128 March 30, 1961 I am making a survey to ascertain prevailing practices in advanced graduate schools of education holding membership in the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education. The prevailing practices as found in the afore— mentioned institutions will be used to evaluate the Graduate School of Education at North Texas State College, Denton, Texas. . Because of your interest in improving the organization, administration, and implementation of graduate programs in education, I would like to secure your help in UIis study. .As dean of your graduate School, will you please participate in this study by completing the enclosed questionnaire and returning it to me in the envelope provided. ,As you will note from the questionnaire, the study will involve the following aspects of a graduate school. (1) selection and admission, (2) program planning, (3) course requirements, (D) preliminary or qualifying examinations, (S) dissertation requirements, and (6) oral examination requirements. I wish to assure you that all information will be treated confidentially and impersonally. Any supplementary comments that you desire to make will be greatly appreciated. This study is being conducted under the direction of Dr. Buford Stefflre, Professor of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. When the study has been completed and approved, you will receive a copy of the findings. Very truly yours, Pat N. McLeod, .Assistant Professor North Texas State College r {I fj: gs 1 {135 GI’IY Iii . _. a! "‘ ”I ~-. 1 2" A O “.pr z). I\JV ”W4 3'3 /