ABSTRACT THE NEW UAMPsEIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE DROPOUT ONE To THREE YEARS LATER By George M. Strout The dropout has, for a number of years, been the subject of concern and study. However, few studies have been directed at determining what effect, if any, the dropouts, themselves, later attributed to their "brief" educational experience. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the dropout, in his own estimation, had been affected by his "brief" exposure to post-secondary education at a technical institute. Receiving particular attention in this study were (1) the dropout's original and current Jobs and their relationships to his major field of study, his stated opinions concerning the effect his "brief" educational experience had on both his earning capacity and his obtaining a Job and (2) the dropout's current status relative to furthering his education, his plans for further education, and his general evaluation of his "brief" edu- cational experience. George M. Strout The sample included the entire dropout population from two entering freshman classes (fall, 1965 and 1966) at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord, New Juunpznlirwa. The data-gathering instrument was a mailed question- naire. The questionnaire was developed at the Institute and tested by a sample of ten members of the population. The questionnaire was mailed with a personalized letter. This mailing was followed up with a phone call and two further mailings as necessary. One hundred seventy-six (seventy—five percent) of the population of two hundred thirty-six returned usable responses. The procedure for analysis included tabulating the responses by (l) the dropout's length of enrollment prior to withdrawal, (2) the dropout's reason for withdrawal, and (3) the total drop-out group. The length-of-enrollment categories used were one term or less, two terms, and three or more terms. Reasons for withdrawal were classified as either "academic" and "other than academic." Dropout's response patterns by (1) length of enroll- ment and (2) reason for withdrawal were tested for statis- tically significant differences using the chi-square test. Reliability and validity analyses indicated that consistent and accurate responses were being received on about eighty percent of the tested items. George M. Strout The conclusions were: 1. The statement that students dropped out to accept well-paying Jobs in the field of their education could be applied to less than 30 percent of these dropouts. No statistically significant differences were found between the dropout's length of enrollment and his reported Job-related status and attitudes. In only one of four instances tested was there found to be statistically significant difference between the dropout's length of enrollment and his reported status in, plans for, and attitudes toward further education. No statistically significant difference was found between the reason for withdrawal and the dropout's stated status in, plans for, and attitudes toward further education. These dropouts generally reported that their educational experience was beneficial. Generally, these dropouts have maintained a positive attitude toward and plan to return, within three years, to further education. Thoughtflualength of enrollment for these drop- outs did not appear to be related to their employment status, it was evident that dropout's classmates who graduated received substantial 10. George M. Strout salary and transfer-credit benefits over the dropouts. Therefore, graduation from these programs appeared to have substantial economic value. The demands and pressures of the selective service and armed services, though not easily measurable, were undoubtedly of some significance during the period in which these dropouts were enrolled. Follow-up studies of withdrawal students can be completed with a reasonable rate of response and with reasonable reliability and validity. The use of the telephone for follow-up purposes in studies such as this can be regarded.as.effec- tive and worthwhile. This may be especially true when the forwarding of mailed materials is impor- 1‘ Iln‘, THE NEW HAMPSHIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE DROPOUT ONE TO THREE YEARS LATER By e ‘x(' George M) Strout A THESIS ‘ Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1970 Copyright by (}}£()I?(}IS AA. 1971 STROUT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Chapter I. THE PROBLEM. . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Limitations 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 20 II. RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . 22 Introduction . . . . . . . 22 The Magnitude of the Problem . . . . . 23 Intellectual Factors. . . . . . . . 3O Socioeconomic Factors . . . . 35 Student and College Characteristics as Factors . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . “8 III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . 52 Introduction . . . . . . . . . A 52 Population . . . . . . . . . . 52 Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . 5H Instrument . . . . . . . 55 Procedure for Gathering and Sorting Data. 65 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 67 Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . 69 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 70 IV. FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Returns . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Adjustments. . . . . 73 Length of Enrollment and Employment EffeCtS o o o o o o o o o o 75 ii Chapter Length of Enrollment and Plans for Continuing Education . . . . . Reasons for Withdrawal and Plans for Continuing Education . . . . . Present Status in and Future Plans for Continuing Education. . . . . An Additional Observation on the Reason for Withdrawal . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Study. . . . BIBIJIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Appendix A ENTRANCE PROFILES AND RETENTION DATA OF THE POPULATION . . . . . . . . . . B QUESTIONNAIRE, ACCOMPANYING LETTERS, NEWS RELEASE, AND RATE OF RETURN INFORMATION. C RELATIVE RESPONSE RATES OF DROPOUTS WHOSE CURRENT STATUS WAS CIVILIAN OR ARMED SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . D MISCELLANEOUS TABLES BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL . . . . . . . . . . E MISCELLANEOUS TABLES - CIVILIANS ONLY BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL . . . . . . iii Page 93 107 113 117 121 123 123 125 126 130 132 lul 1A9 166 175 178 Chapter V. BIBLIOG Appendi A Length of Enrollment and Plans for Continuing Education . . . . Reasons for Withdrawal and Plans for Continuing Education . . . . . . Present Status in and Future Plans for Continuing Education. . . . . An Additional Observation on the Reason for Withdrawal . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . Conclusions. . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . Suggestions for Further Study. RAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o o X ENTRANCE PROFILES AND RETENTION DATA OF THE })OPULATION O O O O O O C C C O QUESTIONNAIRE, ACCOMPANYING LETTERS, NEWS RELEASE, AND RATE OF RETURN INFORMATION. RELATIVE RESPONSE RATES OF DROPOUTS WHOSE CURRENT STATUS WAS CIVILIAN OR ARMED SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . MISCELLANEOUS TABLES BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL . . . . . . . . . . MISCELLANEOUS TABLES - CIVILIANS ONLY BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL . . . . . . 111 Page 93 107 113 117 121 123 123 125 126 130 132 1M1 1N9 166 175 178 Table 1.01. 3.01. H. A A.08A. b.088. 01. .02. .03. .0“. .06. .07. LIST OF TABLES Student Attrition at New Hampshire Tech- nical Institute for Freshmen Entering in 1965 and 1966 . . . . . . . Summary of Observed Consistency (Relia- bility) of Response Study . . . . The First Full-Time Activity After N.H.T.I. of All Students Who Withdraw . . . The Current Full-Time Activity of All Students Who Withdrew. . . . . . The Withdrawals' Reported Satisfaction with Their First Full-Time Activity After N.H.T.I. . . . . . . . . Reported Number of Two-Week or More Periods of Unemployment Since With- drawal - All Respondents. . . . . The Withdrawals' Self-Perceived Assis- tance of Their Technical Education - All Lespondents o o o o o o o o o The Withdrawal Students' Self-Perceived Value of Their Technical Education — All Respondents . . . . . . . . . Withdrawal Students' Self-Perceived Effect of Their Technical Education on Their Earning Capacity - A11 Respondents . Reported Current Annual Earnings of All Respondents . . . . . . . . . Reported Current Annual Earnings of Current Civilian Respondents . . . iv Page 61 78 80 81 82 8A 86 87 89 90 Table “.09. ”.10. H.11A. “.17. ”.18, A Comparison of the Reported Annual Incomes of Those Dropouts Entering Programs in 1965 and Remaining Four or More Terms with Those Entering in 1966 and Remaining One Term or Less — Current Civilians. . . . . . Graduates' Entry Level Salaries Compared with the Salaries of Withdrawal Students After One to Three Years on the Job . . . . . . . The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Students Relative to Continuing Their Education " All 0 o o o o o o The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Students Relative to Continuing Their Education - Current Civilians. . . The Withdrawals' Current First Choice of Action if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again — All. . . . . . Present or Future Major Field Choice of the Returning Withdrawal Students as Compared with Their original N.H.T.I. MQJOP "' All. 0 o o o o o o o A Comparison of the Original and the Pre- sent Choice of Major Field of the Withdramfls Who Would Choose to Return to I‘d.f{oTolo - All. 0 o o o o o Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Occupational Goals as a Result of Their N.H.T.I. Experience — All . . Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Attitude Toward Technical Education as a Result of Their Experience at N.H.T.I. - All. . . . . . . . A Summary of the Response Rate Patterns to Items 1(d), “(d and e), and 5(e). The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Students Relating to Continuing Their Education . . . . . . . . . Page 92 93 96 '97 98 100 102 104 106 107 109 Table Appendix A-l. A-2. A-3. A-4. A-5. A-6. A-7. The Withdrawals' First Choice of Action if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again. . . . . Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Occupational Goals as a Result of Their N.H.T.I. Experience - All . Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Attitude Toward Technical Education as a Result of Their Experience at N.H.T.I.. . . . . . . . . A Summary of the Response Rate Patterns to Items 1(d), 4(d and e), and 5(e). Reason Given for Not Selecting N.H.T.I. as the First Choice if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again - All. Reasons Given for Not Selecting N.H.T.I. as a First Choice if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again. . . . Summary of the Characteristics of the Population . . . . . . . . Student Academic Profiles at Entrance Student Academic Profiles at Entrance . Student Academic Profiles at Entrance Entrance Examination Score Profile . . . Summary of the Retention and Withdrawal Rates for Those Students Twenty-One Years of Age and Older Entering N.H.T.I. as Freshmen in the Fall of 1965 or 1966 . . . . . . . . . A Summary of Retention and Attrition of Students Who Had One or More Terms of College Prior to Entering N.H.T.I. . vi Page 110 111 112 113 119 120 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 Appendix Page B—l. A Tabulation of the Rate of Return of the Questionnaires By Various Cate- gories of Dropout Characteristics . . 150 C—1. The Withdrawals' First Full-Time Activity After N.H.T.I.. . . . . . 167 0—2. The Withdrawals' Reported Satisfaction with Their First Full-Time Activity After N.H.T.I.. o o o o o o o o 167 C-3. The Reported Number of Two-Week or More Periods of Unemployment Since Withdrawal . . . . . . . . . . 168 C-4. The Current Full-Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students . . . . . . . 168 C—5. Perceived Assistance of His Technical Education . . . . . . . . . . 169 0-6. The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Students Relative to Continuing Their Education . . . . . . . . . . 170 C—7. Present or Future Major Field Choice of the Returning Withdrawal Student as Compared with His N.H.T.I. Major. . . 171 C-8. The Withdrawal Students' Perceived Effect of Their Technical Education on Their Earning Capacity . . . . . 171 C—9. Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Occupational Goals as a Result of Their N.H.T.I. Experience . . . . . 172 0-10. Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Attitude Toward Technical Education as a Result of Their Experience at N.H.T.I.. . . . . . . . . . . 172 0-11. The Withdrawals' Current First Choice of Action if the Period at N.H.T.I. Coulije Lived Again. . . . . . . 173 vii Appendix C-12. 0-13. A Comparison of the Original and the Present Choice of Major Field of the Withdrawal Student Who Would Choose to Return to N.H.T.I.. . . . . The Withdrawal Student's Perceived Value of His Technical Education . . . . The First Full-Time Activity After N.H.T.I. of All Students Who Withdrew The Current Full-Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students . . . . . The Withdrawals' Perceived Assistance of Their Technical Education . . The Current Full-Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students — Civilians Only. The Withdrawal's Perceived Assistance of His Technical Education - Current Civilians Only viii Page 174 174 176 176 177 179 180 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction Social scientists, educators, and economists, among others, have called attention to the growing need for people to have formal education, even beyond high school, if they are to contribute to and benefit from the economy of the United States. In view of this situation, consid- erable attention has been devoted to studying various aspects of the school-dropout problem. Many, and possibly most, of these studies have related to attempts to identify characteristics of the dropout, his environment, and/or the particular institutional environment that would allow identification of the dropout in advance or allow for corrective action to prevent such drop out from occurring. Studies directed at determining what effect, if any, the dropouts themselves later attributed to their "brief" educational experience seem to be much less common but, nevertheless, worthy of consideration. Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine whether UN? dropout, in his own estimation, had been affected by his "brief" exposure to post-secondary education at a teclnliczrl irnstitnite. Four hypotheses were structured to allow various comparisons. The first hypothesis was structured to allow the comparison of the dropout's length of enrollment with his reported job-related status and attitudes. The second hypothesis was structured to allow comparison of the drop- out's length of enrollment with his reported educationally related status, plans, and attitudes. A third hypothesis was structured to allow comparison of the dropout's stated reason for withdrawal with his reported educationally related status, plans and attitudes. Finally, a fourth hypothesis was structured to allow the subjective evaluation of the overall dropout group's reported educationally related status, plans, and attitudes. The length of enrollment and reason for withdrawal data were obtained from the Registrar's files, while the job and educational status, plans, and attitudes were deter- mined from the dropouts' responses to a mailed questionnaire. The decision to measure the dropout's educational and employment situations was based on the fact that these are directly related to the stated objectives of the Institute's programs. Need The New Hampshire Technical Institute opened its doors in the fall of 1965. The Institute offers two-year V \ Ju‘ pout-secondary programs in Electronic Data Processing, rflectronic Engineering Technology, and Mechanical Engineer- lug Technology. Approximately two hundred freshmen stu- dents registered in the falls of 1965 and 1966 and about eighty—five graduated two years later in June of 1907 and 1968 respectively (see Table 1.01). The attrition problem is consistent with that found nationally in most similar institutions as reported on anCJ 7 and 8 of this chapter. The twenty-three-member full—time faculty, plus a librarian, when combined with a student enrollment of just over 300 in the fall, provides a small student-faculty ratio. Small laboratory sessions assure personal student—faculty contacts. Over ninety percent of the student body comes to the institute from New Hampshire schools. The relationship between the high school counselors and the Institute's admissions officer appears satisfactory. Therefore, informa— tion concerning the admission requirements, the Institute program requirements, the types of jobs graduates receive, and the overall Institute life is or Should be available to most students either from contact with hometown friends who are attending or have attended the Institute, from the high school guidance counselors, from the Institute admis— nions officer or faculty members, who also visit high schools in some instances, or from employees or other friends of the Institute. ./\ S». (U (1) Ln rtj (U Lfl \(J (‘1 (I H ‘b0 "i S. p [ L1 ii i 3 r-i (Ti 1.) O [*- 1966 Att Lf \ \o O‘\ -—'. H Student's 0 jor Department "4| £4 .1-) 4_ \ ri- UV: g'iu. R9. 0 H 4.) $4 0) J-) C I L1 C -H Enter Y‘ LHCGI’ lectronic Data P ’ 50 (“’1 \C) (*3 I“! r"! (TI 10 (‘1 (‘6‘) 60 C!) U\ receSSIng Electronic 110* 58 190* 60 83 107* 60* 56 Engineering Technology chanical Engineering Technology A M 60 106 60 237* 113 58 195 124* 58 21A* Total 409* One was deceased at the time of the study. "\J'i in addition, a concern for the individual student seems to exist among the faculty. A selective admissions policy, plus the well-known availability of good paying jobs, or transfer credit to area colleges, should provide both assurance of capable students at admission and ade- quate motivation throughout the program. Therefore, there have been efforts among many to learn, if possible, more about the student who does not complete the two-year prnvgxninl. A number of the more typical studies comparing aca- demic criterion such as entrance examination scores and high school data of various types with Student retention have been completed (see Tables A-l - A—7). Findings are generally consistent With those in the literature and indi- cate that dropouts, as a group, can be differentiated from the persisting students using certain test data and high school transcripts as criteria. However, the exceptions in individual instances are sufficient in numbers and magnitude to render these findings apparently useless for any additional refinement in admissions. As in most institutions, there is an annual follow— up study concerning the placement of graduates. Continu- ing contact with employers of graduates also provides feed- back to the faculty relative to the on—the-job success of these graduates. The question then arises as to why the same type of follow—up is not done for non—graduates. The results might well provide as much or more information as previous studies in assisting us to better understand and respond to the dropout. Further indications of the need for this type of rtudy are also available. These are evident from the following observations from national statistics and by writers and researchers from social, economic, and educa- tional disciplines. Evidence of the interest throughout America for continued education beyond high school abounds. The American Association of Junior Colleges alone reports annual rates of increase in two-year college enrollments in excess of 12 percent and as high as 23 percent from the fall of 1963 through the fall of 1968, with the 1968 reported enroll- mcnt being in excess of twice the reported 1963 enrollment.l The increasus in enrollment are generally considered as being the result of a number of factors, including a growing college—age population, a growing rate of college-age young people graduating from high school, a growing interest among adults as well as youth in participation in higher education, and a growing need for advanced education for job qualifica- tion and economic security. Relative to the latter reason, lWilliam A. harper, editor, 1969 Junior College Elfigptory, American Association of Junior Colleges (Washing- 1969), p. 6. t'on,'l).(:., {dirhacl Harrington, in writing about the economic needs «Jf ttose in poverty, states " . . . the Senate Manpower .Jub—Committee to the Presidents' Automation Commission now Lnnyclaims that it takes two years of post—high-school Ilwaining to become a successful member of the working 8 “13AM; " One is tempted to View the reported rapid Junior «:ol_lcge enrollment increase as an indication of success ir1 nmeting the need for two years of education requirement How— ikjr' employment as reported in Harrington's article. (”Vtsr, two factors, both of which reflect on the need for this i3L11dy, must be considered. These two factors are the low IDEurcentage of the enrollees that (1) undertake occupa— ’«i«3nally oriented courses and (2) actually complete their 1'3 I‘(;>ggtwlrn;s. The same American Association of Junior Colleges PfSport cited above, and its issues in 1966 and l967,also T“?I)ort a breakdown of the full-time enrollments by fresh- YH€DI1 and sophomore status. The ratio between sophomores and I"Freshmen reported for 1965 sophomores and 196“ freshmen 1:3 almost one to two. A similar one to two ratio is iruciicated between the 1966 sophomores and the 1965 freshmen.3 .~_~‘~_¥ , 11° _ _ 2Michael Harrington, The Dynamics of Misery, Sidney llean Foundation (New York, 1968), p. 8. 3William A. Harper, op. cit., pp. 68—69. while undoubtedly requiring some correction ‘ ‘ldit:st* I'igrlxrw3:,, for those who were enrolled in one—year courses and did zugt plan to return and also, conversely, for those sophomores van) do not graduate, are still indicative of a relatively ltnv rate of program completion. The above figures are consistent with other national [Tatdgfl reported by Thornton, with technical institute rates re1)orted by Righthand,b and with those experienced at the Hovv Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord. The full—time occupational enrollment figures in two- :zecir science and engineering related programs indicate that, irx addition to high attrition, the enrollments in these EJPc>grams are not increasing at the same high rate as are 'Lhcgse in two—year programs generally. Interpolating figures ‘V3FNorted by Simon and by the Engineering Manpower Commission ‘Jf' the Engineers Joint Council,{ a growth rate, using the 1 ‘James w. Thornton, Jr., The Community Junior College, (1“fi.rst ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1960), 913. 156-57. r ‘ JHerbert highthand, "A Comparison of Technical Institute P17C33hmen Dropouts and Persisting Students with Respect to 3C3'-iological and Psychological Characteristics," (unpublished dCJCitoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs, lgsl‘), p0 S. . 6Kenneth A. Simon and w. Vance Grant, Digest of ,‘lCIational Statistics 1968, U.S. Department of Health, 0 --1 ET‘“-- . (Jleggitlon and Welfare, (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ir‘és C>ffice), pp. 77—78. 7Advanced Edition of the 1966 Engineering and Technician ents, A Mimeographed Report Prepared by Engineering firil§<>lllm léirjr3<3wer Commission of the Engineers Joint Council (New York, 963(3 ) number of graduates as a measure, of less than five percent From l963—6d to 1965-66 and from 1966—67 to 1967-68, respectively, was shown. The situation is further compounded by the anticipated (Affects on the individuals concerned and on their future :as well as upon the nation's economic system. In an age (>I' increased automation and a growing need for two—year pcust—sccondary education, we can ill afford these high fitt.rition rates. Grant Venn recently wrote the following relative to {Dexesonal and economic problems of our young: There are now more than one million young men and women under twenty-two who have left school and are not at work. At any given time 30 percent of the high school dropouts will be unemployed; even high school graduates average 15 percent unemployed. The figure for college dropouts is considerably lower, but they share the same problem as those who have dropped out of the system earlier; there is little room in the labor market for the undereducated, unskilled young worker. Instead of initiation they find rejection. ’Lxlcl At the present time only one student in ten leaving the education system without a bachelor's deggee has some specific occupational preparation. This is only a small fraction of the real student potential for occupational preparation within the educational system.9 Norman Harris, using statistics from the U.S. Depart- "“3r1tl of Labor, U.S. Office of Education, and The Center \_____ ) Grand Venn, Man, Education and Work, American Council 1Suucation (Washington, D.C., 1969), p. 12. ()Il lhi(l., p. f?3. 10 for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Michigan, cites projections indicating a reduction in the unskilled and the semi—skilled positions open to high (aniool and vocational school graduates or less from nearly FM) percent of the work force in 1930 to 32 percent in 1970, Lfililo the need for persons having post-high school and FDreudominantly two—year education grows from nearly none in J9Zj0 to approximately 50 percent or one-half of the total vubrdi force in 1970.10 " the problem of Norman Harris also listed . . . Pc>lertion and retention of students and the allied problem ll N ()f‘ attrition rates during the two-year program number two among major issues in Junior college tech- 21 S llitjal education. Schultz, writing on the economic value of education t4C) both the recipient and to society, states " . . . the l“ate of return to investment in schooling is as high or tligher than it is to nonhuman capital."l2 He further states tlléit "with respect to growth in the United States, there ifs now a considerable body of evidence which indicates that \ 10Norman C. Harris, Technical Education in the Junior SLEL£;Lege/New Programs for New Jobs, American Association of Llrkior Colleges TWashington, D.C., 196“), pp. 26-28. 'P 11Norman C. Harris, "Major Issues in Junior College (eczfinical Education," The Educational Record, Vol. US, No. (19614), p. 135. ldTheodOPe w. Schultz, The Economic Value of Educa- t ~. t‘iiELLi (New York: Columbia University Press, 1953), p. 11. 11 schooling and university research are major sources of growth." (economic growth)13 The promise and high expectations resulting from the gynowing enrollment in two—year post—secondary programs, vflrile encouraging, is, however, as noted above somewhat blgighted by the dropout problem. Past and present studies arul the future needs in attacking this problem have been :sunumarized by John Roueche in the October, 1967 Junior Qgfillege Research Review as follows: While most of the studies focus attention on reasons for student attrition, little research has been implemented that evaluates the accomplishments of students who leave the Junior college prior to earn- ing a degree or completing a program of instruction. This group, representing the overwhelming majority of Junior college students, has not yet been the sub- Ject of major Junior college institutional research efforts.1 In another article in the November, 1967 Junior SZELLJege Journal, Roueche again reiterates this point and Eigxiin notes that this problem was listed by Peterson as ‘ttlee third most important area requiring further study in C8. lifornia Junior colleges . 15 13Ibid., p. 52. (2 1”John E. Roueche, "Research Studies of the Junior DJC>1J1ege Dropout," Junior College Research Review, Vol. 2, ‘3‘- 2 (October 1967), p. 2. I? 15John E. Roueche, "Gaps and Overlaps in Institutional esearch," Junior College Journal. Vol- 38, N0. 3 (1957): pp - 20-23. l2 Concerning follow-up studies of college dropouts, Dressel stated: A study might well be made of the effect on individuals of an unsuccessful stay in a college or university. We too blithely assume that a tour of a college campus can do no one any harm. It is possible that for some individuals failure in a college may have some permanent effects. On the other hand, we should not too readily assume that this is always the case. In some small communities even a brief attendance at a college or university may make the man of distinction. However, a careful study of a group of academic casualties is difficult; the individuals simply do not respond well to the usual questionnaire. (And who can blame them?) Other types of contact are expensive.1 In the same context Sanford writes: Sometimes counseling will prevent a student's hasty or ill-considered withdrawal, and sometimes a college that is plagued by a high attrition rate has to think of changing itself. But withdrawal is not always a misfortune for the student or for the college. Some- times it is the best way to correct an obvious mistake or to help a student face-reality, and sometimes stu- dents withdraw before graduation because they have already gained from their college all that could be expected. Leaving college, not to enter another, may leave a student with a sense of unfinished business that will, in some cases, make him want to go on learning for the rest of his life.1 {Phatt the dropout is with us appears amply evident; that ‘nirfilous studies of the dropout and matters relating to him aIVE needed is equally evident. Aspects of this problem defiieerving attention appear to include consideration of the drw3130ut after the fact with respect to determining what happens to him economically and educationally. Also needed \ 16Paul E. Dressel, Evaluation in the Basic College at iglchlgan State University (New York: Harper and Brothers, 5 ), pp. 65-66. Joh l7Nevitt Sanford, College and Character (New York: '1 ‘Wiley and Sons, 1964), p. 26. is consideration as to whether or not there appears, in fact, to be any significant effect on the dropout from his brief college experience since, if any effect is observed, there should be further consideration as to how the college experience might be used to the fullest advantage for the droprjmt . The findings from such a study conceivably could have implications for the New HampshireTechnical Institute and possibly other institutions and their relationship with the individual student. These implications could lead to, among other concepts, revised admissions and/or retention policies and procedures, revised counseling policies and/or procedures, as well as providing additional data for counseling use, revised curriculum plans, or new attitudes toward part—time versus full—time programs. Hypotheses As stated earlier, hypotheses were prepared to allow for the comparison of the dropout's length of enrollment with (1) his reported job-related status and attitudes and (2) his reported educationally related status, plans, and attitudes. A third hypothesis was structured to allow comparison of the dropout's stated reason for withdrawal with his reported educationally related status, plans, and attitudes. Finally, a fourth hypothesis was structured to allow the subjective evaluation of the overall dropout group's reported educationally related status, plans, and attitudes. lH The job and educational items were selected since they related directly to two of the major goals of the institute programs in which these dropouts had been enrolled. These two goals as taken from the catalog are: To provide the student with a background that will prepare him or her for placement at a semi—professional level immediately upon graduation.1 {1, mi To provide a broad background to enable the graduate to continue his education formally or informally so that he may adapt to a changing technological, civic, and social environment.1 The hypotheses themselves are: l. [‘0 The longer a dropout was enrolled prior to with- drawal, the more "beneficial" the reported job- related status and attitudes. The length of enrollment had a direct relationship to the dropout's reported educational status, plans, and attitudes. Those who withdrew for other than academic reasons will most often report having returned to or plan— ning to return to and having favorable attitudes toward further education. Failure to complete these two—year programs did not generally mean the end of the road relative to further education for these dropouts. 18New Hampshire Technical Institute, catalog, New Hampshire Technical Institute (Concord, New Hampshire, 1967), p. 6. lglbid., p. 6. 15 The job and educational items were selected since they relate directly to two of the major goals of the institute programs in which these dropouts had been enrolled. Rationale In addition to relating the hypotheses to the goals of the institute in the light of the previously expressed needs, the following theoretical considerations were involved in arriving at the hypotheses and in evaluating these matters as those most suitable for study in a follow- up such as this. The New Hampshire Technical Institute is established and operates on the assumption that data indicating the dual needs of industry for semi-skilled help and the interest and needs of a number of students for this type of educa— tion are, in fact, valid. To now both of these assumptions have appeared to be correct. The need of industry, however, is far greater than the supply of either the Institute graduates or that from other similar sources. This shortage of graduates has forced industry to recruit from sources other than graduates. This has resulted in increased wage scales for many positions in the State. Students frequently leave during, or fail to return to the Institute after the end of, a term with reports that they either accepted a good paying job or that lb they have a full—time job and are not able to maintain a satisfactory academic record and continue to work at their present job . Combining the above and the fact that the longer a student is enrolled the more education he receives toward the development of a saleable skill, one is led to consider whether a relationship does, in fact, exist between length of enrollment and the development of a saleable skill. Furthermore, the deep concern with the dropout is partially based on the assumption that two full years are required to develop the required knowledge and skills for the engineering technician. One should consider equally whether a shorter period might be adequate for many stu- dents particulariy in occupationally oriented programs. The results of findings on this matter could provide data for consideration of curriculum changes, changes of the concept of full—time versus part-time study, and changes in counseling and retention policies and procedures. Results of numerous studies, including one by Iffert,2O indicate that many dropouts from four—year colleges later return to some four-year college to continue their education. Meanwhile, there continues to be significant concern with the "dropout problem" as is evidenced by the many studies 20Robert E. Iffert and Betty S. Clarke, College Applicants, Entrants, Dropouts, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Superintendent of Documents (Washing- ton, D.C., 1965). directed at identifying the dropout or potential dropout in advance. The reports indicating that many dropouts ultimately return to higher education are taken by some as encouraging. On the other hand, the failure to identify and counsel potential dropouts is discouraging. The dis- couraging aspect is no doubt related to the triple assump- tions that (a) the dropout has failed in higher education at a time when higher education is an economic necessity, (b) the best time for the student to receive this education is the time of his current enrollment, and (0) failure is the result of the lack of motivation, or some psychological set toward failure, or some stems from antagonism toward teachers or the educational system. It is with the above and related conflicting evidence from studies showing that many dropouts return to college versus our often bleak assumptions concerning the future and its outlook for dropouts that this current educational status study of dropouts is being considéred.‘ In a similar vein, the lengths of enrollment, even for graduates of two—year college programs, are not great when compared with the total length of the student’s life and previous formal and informal education. Much of the evidence from reports of studies such as those of Pace21 21'Robert C. Pace, They Went to College (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, lQHlF. 18 and Jacobpg indicate that the effects of four full years of college are often not dramatic in terms of certain factors or changes. However, more recent evidence such as that reported by Freedman23 does indicate some apparent changes particularly early in the college student's life. One might then ask whether there is, in fact, any evidence indicating a relationship between the length of enrollment of a dropout and his later actual and perceived status and attitudes. When considering the dropout, the fact that students withdraw for a number of reasons should also be considered. Academic, health, and financial causes are among those reasons stated most frequently. While it is clear that stated reasons and actual reasons are not always identical, it is generally rationalized, and to a degree statistically verified, that the academic withdrawals are related to deficiencies in background and ability. On the other hand, they may be the result of a change of interest or inadequate academic motivation. In any case, these reasons might lead one to expect that the causes of a student's withdrawal might be related to the perceived value of the eduational experience when viewed in the light of his long-range ') ‘2Philip E. Jacob, Changing Values in College (New York: Harper, 1957). ajMervin B. Freedman, The College Experience (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967). l9 aspirations. Therefore, the consideration of plans for and attitudes toward further education and one's reason for withdrawal also appears worthy of consideration. Another aspect of the dropout problem is related to the frequent findings, such as those reported by Newcomb,2u which indicate a major role of the student peer group on the changes occurring during the college years. This, and the effect of parental influences noted by many, including Summerskill,25 might be particularly effective in causing dropouts among commuting students. Not only may the dropout be influenced by his peer groups and/or his parents, but the dropping out process may, in reality, be the result of a very serious choice between dropping out of (or remaining in) college versus remaining in some other grouping. This choice may be necessitated by peer group pressures or by other pressures including economic or health matters. Dropping out, when viewed from this latter perspective, While still serious, is quite a different matter from dropping out due to academic failure, a poor attitude toward education, or Just plain lack of motivation. The PGsponse to the student who enters college and withdraws R‘— . 2MTheodore M. Newcomb, "Student Peer Group Influence," in Nevitt Sanford, Editor, The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196D), pp. N69—U88. 25John Summerskill, "Dropouts from College," in Nevitt Sanford, Editor, Ibid., p. 6U1. because of the above type influences or pressures might be quite different from the present common responses. This dropout may well have actually benefited considerably from his brief experience. He may well leave education only temporarily. The educational institution's responsibility in the counseling situation might, in this instance, be more related to assisting the student to place his problem(s) in proper perspective for decision making and toward visual- izing and planning for his future in light of the problem(s) as well as the ultimate decision that is to be made. Studies cited earlier, and more to be reviewed in the next chapter, provide some evidence supporting the above possibility at least in terms of the numbers of dropouts ultimately returning to college and the attitudes of drop~ outs toward the institution which they left. Measures of student attitudes toward and plans for further education as determined at some time after dropout, while not verifying the above, might well further reflect on their possibilities. Limitations The original sample to which questionnaires (the major measuring instrument) were mailed included two groups of students who entered the New Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord, New Hampshire, in 1965 or in 1966 as freshmen but who were not enrolled when their respective classes graduated in 1967 and 1968. This original sample represents the entire universe with the stated dropout characteristics. The very nature of a study such as this in which one attempts to determine the influence of an experience on an apparently unsuccessful and possibly disgruntled clientele presents an additional survey problem. The proposed study is obviously limited to a degree in applicability, since it involves persons enrolled in only two entering classes and at one institution. The study covers a somewhat atypical period of time during which employment opportunities were very plentiful and a time during which Selective Service demands were both extensive and uncertain. The latter situation had a secondary effect, as a number of the dropouts were in the service, making follow-up difficult. Phone calls aided in reducing this problem somewhat. The validity one can expect from a mailed questionnaire depending upon subjective analysis for response is limited and, of course, by being limited to those responding to a questionnaire, one's data are usually somewhat biased. CHAPTER I I RELATED RESEARCH Introduction The college dropout has been and continues to be the subject of considerable concern and study. Most of the study and concern is related to determining the magni— tude of the problem, or the academic, socioeconomic, personality, and similar characteristics that might aid in early identification of the potential dropout. Some of the more recent studies, in fact, consider the college setting and possible compatible or incompatible relationships between the college environment and identifiable character- istics of persisting students and dropouts, respectively. A few, primarily recent, follow—up studies, including a very few of dropouts from occupationally oriented programs, are available. The findings of some of the more pertinent of these various studies will be reviewed in this chapter. Due to the limited number of these studies directed to the two—year student in general, or to the occupationally oriented student in particular, the review will also include reports of some studies of the four-year college student. The Magnitude of the Problem Evidence of a long—standing national attrition problem has been reported by many authorities. Thornton (1960) used American Association of Junior Colleges data and found sophomore enrollments in 1956 and 1957 to be Just over 50 percent of the previous year's freshman enrollment in each instance.1 Medsker (1960) reported a study indicating that a mean of 35 percent of the 1952 two-year college entrants 2 graduated in two years. Ifferts, in his 195A-l957 study, reported 39 percent of the entering four-year college students graduated in the normal four-year period, with less than 60 percent graduating if more than four years was allowed,3 and Summerskill (196“) reported other studies that tend to verify Iffert's findings.)4 Righthand (1964) reported first-year attrition alone at two Connecticut technical institutes in the three-year period from 1960—61 through 1962-63 ranged from a low of 35 percent to a high of 51 percent.5 The 1967 fall enroll- ment report of the Engineering Manpower Commission of the Engineers' Joint Council showed the freshman enrollment in 1Thornton, pp, cit., pp. 156-157. 2Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College Pro ress and Prospect,(New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,“l 60), p. 91. 3Robert E. Iffert, Retention and Withdrawal of Cgllege Students, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Superintendent of Documents (Washington, D.C., 1958), p. 16. “Summerskill, op. cit., p. 630. 5Righthand, 93. cit. 2N two—year post—secondary engineering technology programs was 6H,76l versus the sophomore enrollment of 3U,912, again indicative of the attrition problem. Eckland, however, challenged attrition figures such as the above when used to indicate the seriousness of the attrition problem. Eckland studied 1,300 dropouts by category of withdrawal. He reported rates of non—graduation for these withdrawals ranged from a low of 27 percent to a high of 71 percent. He further cited long-range studies at both the University of Illinois and at Vanderbuilt University in which well over 50 percent of those withdrawing returned to college and ultimately received their degrees within ten years.7 Supporting Eckland's position were data from a recent study by Hughes, who reported that 80 percent of those dropouts responding (61 responded from 100 questioned) to. his questionnaire eventually returned to college. Hughes further reported that in his study the dropouts varied little from those who continued college without withdraw— . 3 ing. Degrees in Engineering and Industrial Technology 1967-1966, A Report by the Engineering Manpower Commission of Engineers Joint Council, Engineers Joint Council (New Yor<, 1968 [Bruce K. Eckland, "College Dropouts Who Came Back," Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 3“, No. 3 (196“), pp. "02-420. 8Harold G. Hughes and others, "A Follow—up Study on Discontinuing Students at Grossmont College," as reported in Research in Education, U.S. Department of Health, Educa- tion, and Welfare, Superintendent of Documents (Washington, D.C., October 1968), p. 77. 25 Medsker both indicates the magnitude of the dropout problem and adds additional cautions, particularly for those considering this problem in two-year institutions when he says: The fact that only a third of those entering public two—year colleges and slightly fewer than three- fifths of those entering private Junior colleges were graduated provokes questions concerning the holding power oftxmmxtypes of‘Junior colleges. Two—year college personnel have several explanations of the situation. One is that many entering students have definite short-term personal or vocational goals which are satisfied in less than the two—year period. Also, some students transfer to senior colleges before completing the two-year period. A sizable number of students complete two years in the Junior college but do not choose to satisfy the graduation requirements. Matson, in fact, reported the finding of statistical significance between dropouts and graduating students when the educational plan was considered. In her sample of junior college students from one college, the dropouts had a plan of education requiring less time to complete than was true of persisting students. Matson also reported that the withdrawal group tended (statistical significance) to report either undecided or clerical goals.lO Care should be observed in considering the latter finding, as the effect of the clerical group alone might have been responsible for the statistical significance. 9Medsker, op. cit., p. 95. lOJane Elizabeth Matson, "Characteristics of Students Who Withdrew from a Public Junior College,"(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, 1955). 26 Larson, in a recent follow—up study of graduates and nonugraduates enrolled in industrial and technical programs during the l958—l959 Year, reported interesting responses relative to education and employment. Fifty— two percent of the total sample and 66 percent of the graduates reported that they worked part-time while enrolled in college, while 22 percent of the total group and 17 percent of those graduating reported full-time employment. Twenty percent of the dropouts were in educational programs when surveyed, and nearly U0 percent of the dropouts reported that they were working in technical or skilled jobs, while only 40 percent of the graduates reported they were employed in technical jobs. Forty percent of the dropouts, compared with 53 percent of the graduates, reported that they were in jobs closely related to their educational field. Both groups reported nearly the same rates of satisfaction with their jobs, while about MO per— cent of the dropouts and 60 percent of the graduates felt their college education helped them get their first Job.11 Miller found in his study of engineering and technical institute fr>shmen that, of UM dropouts, 13, or 56 percent 11Milton E. Larson, "A Study of the Characteristics of Students, Teachers, and the Curriculum of Industrial- Technical Education in the Public Community Colleges of Michigan,"(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1965). of the 23 that responded (30 percent of the total) to the follow-up letter, reported they had transferred.12 The data related to the numbers of students who drop out of colleges certainly have presented the researchers with challenges. While the magnitude, percentage—wise, appears high, some have been reported as suggesting that the impact has not been as great as might have appeared at first glance due to the reported rates of dropouts who return to college. There does seem to be some suggestion here that a study of the dropout might be expanded also to determine whether, as a group, dropouts tend to be repeating offenders and, as multiple dropouts, raise the dropout rate by virtue of their own frequent in and out behavior. Evidence as to the severity of the problem for drop— outs is generally consistent, but specifics seem to be somewhat meager. Venn, Harris, and Harrington were cited in Chapter One as having indicated the growing need, both by the individual and by our economy, for a minimum of two years of post—secondary education for those employed in many occupational fields. A number of studies, including ’) lLilaron Julius Miller, "A Study of Engineering and Technical Institute Freshman Enrollees and Dropouts in Terms of Selected Intellectual and Non-Intellectual Factors," (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, l966),p. 60, 28 that by Havemann, have provided evidence as to the fact that college graduates as a group report earning well above the reported national average.13 A study completed for the National Science Foundation, in which the status of 40,000 1958 graduates from 1,200 four—year colleges was determined two years after graduation, stated that most felt their education was essential for obtaining and appropriate to their job. Over 60 percent said they make considerable use of their knowledge gained in their specialized field, and most would select the same field again. This latter study also indicated that the remuneration received was higher for those with professional or technical degrees.lu Harris reported realistic salaries for high school graduates employed in semi-skilled Jobs at entry as about $300 a month as compared with entry level salaries of $U2S a month for the highly skilled technician graduates of two—year junior colleges and $490 a month for those graduating as semi—professional engineering tech— nicians.15 Further, the rate of growth both of the general educational level in the United States and of the projected 5” percent increase in the professional, technical, and l3Ernest Havemann and Patricia West, They Went to College (New York: Harcourt, 1952), pp. 178-179. 11'Two Years After the College Degree, Prepared by the Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc. for the National Science Foundation, Superintendent of Documents (Washington, D.C., l963l 15 Harris, op. cit” p. 28. kindred Job classifications from l96u to 1975 was noted in the 1966 report of the National Commission on Technology.16 In a pre-World War II (1936-37) study of students who entered the University of Minnesota in 192U, 1925, 1928, and 1929, Pace found that, while graduates tended more to be working in professions than did non-graduates, there was otherwise little difference between the two groups. The slight difference did include a small income differential and the fact that non—graduates were more apt to be unemployed and unemployed for somewhat longer periods than were graduates.l7 Tunis, writing about Ivy League graduates of 1911 and using somewhat subjective data, wrote basically in terms critical of the apparently limited impact made by and the self-satisfaction he observed among this group of gradautes.18 While from an earlier period and concerned with four—year college graduates, the findings of Pace, Tunis, and those of Eckland to be cited later might well lead to further caution relative to a final conclusion of serious concern for the dropout. The above and other evidence suggest the need for further study of the dropout and what happens to him. 16Technology in the American Economy,_Vol. 1, Report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1966), p. 30. 17 18John R. Tunis, Was College Worthwhile?,(New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936). Pace, op. cit., Chapter A. 30 intellectual Factors For admissions purposes, the effort to identify the potential dropout for counseling purposes or to differ- entiate between those with a high probability of success versus those who will probably drop out has focused for many years primarily on the study of various academically related or achievement test data. The findings of these studies have been reported as conSistently showing a statistical significance between "success" in college and such measures as high school class standing, high school grade point average, or achievement test scores. However, the researchers have been equally consistent in reporting that the findings are of little or almost no use in admissions or prediction in the all-important role of identifying individual dropouts. Research related to the two-year technical dropout and involving test or academic data as measuring criteria has been conducted by Greenwood (1963),19 Righthand 21 ') (1965),LO Turner (1966), Miller (1966)22 Anderson 19Leroy Greenwood, "Predicting Success in Technical Programs," Technical Education News, Vol. 23 (1963), pp. 22-23. 2ORighthand, 9p. cit. ZlCharles J. Turner and Others, Differential Identi- fication of Successful Technical Students in Junior College, Central Florida Junior College (Ocala, Florida, 1966). 2 ’3 “Miller, op. cit. 31 (lubb),35 and Taylor (1967).:21I In each of these studies significant differences between dropouts and persisting students were found using achievement test scores or previous academic achievement data when considering groups. Turner, who reported significance at the ~05 level, 3130 stated relative to the value of these findings " . . . but questionable from a practical point of view (since correct predictions were made only 58 percent of the time, compared with a purely chance prediction rate of 50 percent)."25 Two significant studies, done about ten years apart and based on four—year students generally support the above position when one generalizes to the two—year student. Wolfle's (195“) report included a comparison of 137 students who entered college with standings in the upper HO percent of their high school class and in the upper 39 percent I.Q. range with 117 students who entered with standings in the lower 60 percent of their high school class and in the lower 6l percent of the I.Q. range. Of the top 137 who 25Roger Clare Anderson, "A Study of Academic and Bio- graphical Variables for Predicting Achievement in Technical Programs," a doctoral dissertation, University of North Dakota, as reported in Dissertation Abstracts, University Microfilms Library Services, Vol. 27 (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1966), p. 2OU6A. q ‘uRonald G. Taylor, Donald L. Hecker, Interest and intellectual Indices Related to Successful and Non—Successful Male College Students in Technical and Associate Degree Programs, Final Report, Ferris State College (Big Rapids, Michigan, 1967). F 2)Taylor and Others, 92, cit., Po 32' , r) C. entered, 113 graduated, and of the 117 from the lower group, only ”1 graduated. The difference in rate of success is obvious, but also to be considered is the fact that “1 of 113 from the lower group did graduate.26 Seibel's (1966) more recent study of 10,000 seniors and his later follow— up of 2,500 of these involved a similar comparison with that of Wolfle. Seibel compared "high ability" high school seniors with "low ability" classmates. When comparing those from the top and those from the bottom quarters, Seibel found seven percent of the "high-ability" males versus 3” percent of the "low-ability" males either on probation or withdrawn from college after the first year.27 Fishman reported 580 studies in the decade from 19MB- 1958 related to college guidance and selection. He con- eluded: What is the upshot of all of this research on college selection and guidance? Unfortunately it can be summarized rather briefly. The most usual predictors are high school grades and scores on a standardized measure of scholastic aptitude. The usual criterion is the freshman average. The average multiple correla- tion obtained when aiming the usual predictors at the usual criterion is approximately 0.55.2 M—~. 26 Dael Wolfle, editor, AmericaRsResources of Specialized galent (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1953). C{Dean w. Seibel, "The Relationship of Some Academic Ability Characteristics of High School Seniors to College Attendance and Performance," College and University, Vol. U2, No. 1 (1966),pp. u1—52. ’) ‘8Joshua A. Fishman, "Some Socio-Psychological Theory for Selecting and Guiding College Students," from Nevitt Sanford, Editor, The American Colleg§_(New York: John Wiley and Sons, inc., 1953), p._569. 33 'fho nuwwl [VH‘(?XLPPHKf\Hle irillsilugcsven tin} implixxi— tions of relating academic or achievement—type criteria to admissions was further emphasized in findings reported by Eckland. Eckland, in a study of 1,300 dropouts, completed an item analysis by the category of withdrawal versus the success of students who later returned to college. The findings indicate that the usual predictors of success, including rank-in-class and high school grades, were not valid measures of success in the instances of those students who dropped out and later returned.29 The emphasis on and reliability of grades as pre- dictors are challenged even further by Hoyt. After review- ing U6 studies, Hoyt is reported to have found a lack of general correlation between academic brilliance and later "success." Further, Hoyt is said to have related this lack of correlation to the fact that college grades tend to measure knowledge acquired, whereas later success depends on the individual's being able to use the knowledge effectively.30 The above findings relative to the use of "academic" intellectual criteria in admissions to reduce dropout rates 29. . . a . ’hruce K. Eckland, "A Source of error in College Attrition Studies," Sociology of Education, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 60-72. 30Donald P. Hoyt, "The Relationship Between College Grades and Adult Achievement," American College Testing Program, as reported in Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. A7 (1966), p. 66. ‘ 3” wore not encouraging. other findings and philosophical miltors compound the problem even further. Where Eckland wnd Seibel indicated that prediction could be improved when considering the very "top" students as having a high prob— ability of success, Seashore (1958) and Cross (1968) reported that the two—year college enrollees, as a group, are already less academically oriented and able than their four—year college counterp rts. Seashore, after a study of nearly 8,000 junior college students from 20 junior colleges in 1“ states, found the mean college qualification test scores of these junior college students to be at the 25th percentile of the four-year college scores. While some junior college student scores were near the top of senior college range, a general differ— ence in ability level was noted. Seashore also found that within the junior colleges the terminal student group exhibited lower scores than the transfer group.31 Cross, in her report synthesizing data from the past research find— ings, particularly those of the School to College; Oppor— tunities for Post—secondary Education (SCOPE) study of 1967, and using reports by high school seniors in California, lllinois, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, provided data generally supporting that of Seashore. The following from Crrss also related to the study under consideration. jlharold Seashore, "Academic Abilities of Junior College Students,” Junior College Journal, Vol. 29 (1958), pp. 7H—80. The student new to higher education — the student now entering the junior college — is of necessity going to come increasingly from the second, third, and lowest quartiles. According to Turnbull: 'To look at the student body along the narrow dimensions of academic talent is, of course, grossly inadequate. For the students newly represented on 'college rolls, skills and aptitudes of quite differ— ent orders are probably the pertinent dimensions of compariSUn. it is symptomatic of our problem that we do not have the data to show systematically the ways in which the college-going population is chang- ing with respect to dimensions other than scholastic aptitude. Clearly, in education we are moving away from the relatively uniform academic program of earlier decades to a much more diversified assortment of offerings. At the higher education level, the community college in particular offers a ready example of an institution that has accepted just this responsibility.'32 Test and academic data then may apparently, at this point in time, be used as indicators to a degree and be used to distinguish dropouts as a group but are not very useful in predictluns for junior college students. ixuuioeCtWMwnic lolctozfs The report by Cross also provided data on the relative socioeconomic characteristics of the two—year college students.33 These recent data generally confirm the earlier findings reported by Clark3u and Wolfle35 indicating that the two—year crllege students as a group tend to come from homes "’W 5‘K. Patricia Cross, The Junior College Student: A tesearch hescription, Educational Testing Service Tlrinceton, New Jersey, 1968L p. l“. 33lbid, pp. 15—18. 1 34Burton [-1. Clark, rl‘he Open Door College: A C'lse idflfltz (New York: :cGraw—Hill Book Co., 1960). L 3JWoll‘le, op. cit. 36 or lower socioeconomic levels than do four—year students as a group. Highthand reported a household median family income For students in two northeastern public technical institutes as being about $7,200 per year as compared with the $8,H30 overall median for the city in which one of the institutes was located and an estimated median of in excess of $10,000 Ior the entire state in which these institutions were located.36 Figures similar to the above have also resulted in a number of studies comparing retention and the socio- economic status of college students. However, with respect to socioeconomic status and retention, Summerskill points out, "Research findings on this . . . . are equivocal."37 A number of studies do report that socioeconomic factors may well relate to whether or not a student completes high school, whether he attends college, and to which college program he selects. There is, however, little conclusive evidence that socioeconomic status is, per se, a factor contributing to retention or to dropping out of college any more than are certain other factors. Miller, in his study at the Oklahoma State University, found that technical institute students tended to come from 36 37 Righthand, op, cit” p. 96. Summerskill, 9E, cit., p. 188. 37 lower socioeconomic family backgrounds than did engineering students in the same institution. Miller reported no signif— ‘icant difference in retention and attrition by socioeconomic category . 3E5 Berdie, writing on factors associated with vocational interests, states that: "People with technical interests tend to come from low-income families while people with business interests tend to come from high— ~income families. 39 In a similar vein, Slater stated that: persistence would be greater for students enrolled in colleges which prepared them to enter occupations similar to those in which their fathers were employed than for others in EBe same college whose fathers were otherw1se employed. While the above data on the socioeconomic make-up of two—year college student populations had implications for the educational program, per se, there has been little reported of value in terms of differentiating dropouts from other students. There have been some studies, in fact, that have provided indications that there may be a slight selective or inverse relationship in some programs between socioeconomic status and retention. Hakanson (1967) used data from a High School Graduate Study conducted at the University of 38Miller, QR- cit. '3 JgH. F. Berdie, "Factors Associated with Vocational interests," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 3M (1943), p. 274. 1 40J. M. Slater, ”Influences on Students' Perception and Persistence in the Undergraduate College," Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 5M (1960), p. 7. 38 California and, for four years, followed up 1,011 freshmen who enrolled in six public junior colleges in 1959. Hakanson found that 67 and 23 percent of the terminal students came from middle and low socioeconomic class homes, respectively. These data confirmed the previous findings relative to the socioeconomic backgrounds of terminal stu— dents. however, he also found an inverse relationship between the rate of program completion and social class among women. He found further that, for those with medium scholastic aptitude, significantly more middle—class stu— dents completed their "terminal" program than did those students from the upper or lower—class groups. While the number of upper—class students enrolled was not high, it is worth noting that the findings for these medium ability students show a higher rate of lower—class completion (23%) than of higher—class completion (17%).“l hekland commented conversely on a meaningful aspect of the socioeconomic situation that for this study is worthy of consideration but often overlooked. In one instance he noted that, when considering graduates from college and the significance of the college degree, social class was highly relevant. But of equal importance was his ulJohn Warren Hakanson, "Selected Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, and Levels of Attainment of Students in Public Junior College Occupation—Centered Education," doctoral dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, as reported in Dissertation Abstracts, Vol. 29, University Microfilms Library Services (Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967), p. 91A. 39 position that, while all social class persons with a degree competed about equally for high status jobs, social class was important in lesser job level areas. The latter state- ment was based on data showing that high social status people who do not graduate were more apt to get at least middle status jobs than were those from lower status groups. in another report Eckland hypothesized that social class made a difference in college graduation. Eckland then reported he confirmed the hypothesis in a follow—up study. His hypothesis was based on two assumptions he claimed were usually overlooked in dropout studies. The factors related to the failure in most studies to_follow—up those who dropped out and later returned and graduated and to the related fact that, except for the top students in the lower socioeconomic group, the motivation to complete college would be greater for higher socioeconomic background students. Eckland's 10—year follow—up study of 1,332 male drop— outs (1,180 useful responses were received) who had originally enrolled in a mid—western university in 1952 produced figures indicating that over 7A percent had ulti- mately graduated or were expected to graduate. The sta— tistical analysis of the reported status of these former students after 10 years did indicate that, except for those 2Bruce K. Eckland, "Academic Ability, Higher Education and Occupational Mobility," American Sociological Review, Vol. 30 (1965), pp. 735-746. IN) coming from the upper quarter of their high school class, social class did make a difference. Most measures of social class used produced significant differences, indicating that after 10 years those from the upper—class backgrounds had a higher rate of graduation than did those from lower-class back— grxiuruis.ll3 While some interesting reports relating to the drop— out and his socioeconomic position have been made available, the results have, as a group, generally not been of great help in dealing with the dropout. Student and College Characteristics as Factors Student personality and interest factors alone and student personality vis-a-vis the college setting or character have also received attention as possible factors related to student retention and/or success in college. Brown reported findings at Harvard, Yale, and Vassar that indicated that one's home and social and educational background may, at least in group data, be indicative of one's approach to the college situation.uu Summerskill noted that student attitudes I ’3Bruce K. Eckland, "Social Class and College Graduation: Some Misconceptions Corrected," The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 70, No. 1, (1964), pp. 36-50. MlDonald Brown, "Personality, College Environments, and Academic Productivity," in Nevitt Sanford, Editor, The American College, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 196“; Pp- 535-562- Hi i ‘5 and Dressel found may be a factor in probable success, that students characterized as rigid were more apt to with— draw from one college than were students classified as f1exib1e.u6 Miller, in his study of technical institute students, reported that dropouts tended to show characteristics of dependence and irresponsibility as compared with character— istics of independence, desire for self—expression, and “7 Consistent With advancement shown by high achievers. Miller's findings were those reported by Winborn, by Tibbetts as cited in Thornton, and by Peck as reported in Blocker, and by Hall. Winborn, in a study of transfer students admitted on probation, found successful students showed an increase in need dominance as opposed to an increase in need nurturance on the part of unsuccessful students]48 Thornton cited Tibbetts as reporting that the Junior college student was, in the 1930's, more apt to seek immediate than future plea— U9 sures, and Peck is reported by Blocker as noting that )r' l)Summerskill, gp. cit., p. 19. A6 Dressel, 92, cito, Parts 2 and 5. lt- 4(Miller, op. cit., pp. 75-6. “8R. Winborn and K. A. Moroney, "Effectiveness of Short Term Group Guidance with a Group of Transfer Students Admitted on Academic Probationj'Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 58, No. 10 (1965), pp. U63—A65. “9 Thornton, 9p. cit.,p. 157. H2 short—sightedncss was among the traits of low mental health in junior college students.50 Hall was also reported as having found in a study carried on over an ll—year period that " . . . terminal students may place greater emphasis on occupational skills than on earning a degree, and (3) perseverence is a factor which contributes greatly to the average student's chances for success after transfer."51 Summerskill, reviewing primarily studies of four— year college students, reported over—achievers as usually vocationally oriented,52 and Murphy reported the vocationally oriented as rigid and less effected by change in college.53 Heilburn found that, in his matched study of dropouts and non—dropouts from a sample from 2,1U9 University of Iowa students, the dropouts were significantly higher in dominance and aggresion while the non—dropouts were higher in achievement, order, and endurance when only high ability r )001yde C. Blocker, Robert A. Plummer and Richard C. Richardson, Jr., The Two—Year College: A Social Synthesis (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 19657, p. 122. [1' )lLincoln H. Hall, ”Performance of Average Students in a Junior College and in Four Year 1nstitutions," California State Department of Education, Sacramento, 1967, as reported in Research in Education, Superintendent of Documents, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Washington, D.C., 1968), pp. 68-69. ' '7 chummerskill, 92, 913., pp. 639—6U0. f )3Lois Murphy and Esther Rausenbush, Achievement in £2§_College Years (New York: Harper Brothers, 1960). H3 males were considered. Heilhurn then suggested that the independent and bright student tends to drop out when insufficiently challenged.5u The possible impact of these personality factors on persistence of enrollment in the two—year college, while not frequently reported, has been indicated by a number of findings. Wise has reported that students from different economic strata usually have different college and voca— tional expectations.55 The major source of two-year college students from the lower economic strata has previously been noted in this chapter. Consistent with these factors were the findings from Cross which noted differences in self—concept and confidence in leadership ability, as reported by students attending four—year institutions when compared with those attending two—year institutions.56 Cross also stated: Students at private colleges were the most ventur— some, impulsive, ready to commit themselves to courses of action in a variety of situations, and more involved with other students. Junior college students were the most cautious,prudent, and controlled, most apprehensive 5uAlfred B. Heilburn, Jr., "Personality Factors in College Dropout," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. “9, No. l (1965), pp. 1-7. t- JBMaX W. Wise, "Evaluation and Utilization of the informal Education of Students: Student to Student and Teacher to Teacher Relationships on Residential and Non— Hesidential Campuses," Current Issues in Higher Education (1962), pp. 76—78. 56 _ Cross, op. cit., pp. 25—27. l; I; and rigid in their concerns over grades and academic standing.57 59 60 Stewart?8 Taylor, and Turner, all in separate but recent studies, reported that their data allowed them to differentiate between students in different curricula and, in some cases, in different programs. In each instance, among the data involved were interest and/or personality characteristics of junior college occupationally oriented students. Although these studies provided data indicating that students in different programs tended to exhibit differ- ent characteristics, none of the studies provided really useful findings to aid in distinguishing dropouts from persisting students. The studies, while applicable to the consideration of personality and interest factors in college enrollment, in no case actually involved consideration as to whether or not these were useful or desirable character— istics for success in these programs. They were primarily, it appears, status studies, although Turner's findings did result in some suggested possibilities relative to their use in counseling and guidance. The findings from each study also provided useful information relative to the types of 57 Cross, 92° cit., p. 33. 58Laurence H. Stewart, Characteristics of Junior College Students in Occupationally Oriented Curricula, University of California, Berkeley (1966). 59Taylor and Hecker, gp. cit. 60Turner and Others, op. cit., p. 27. students that appear to be entering these occupational programs. With possible implications for the above was Berdie's suggestion that interests may be regarded as one phase of a personality matrix, and he stated that " . . . people with technical interests tend to come from low income families . . ."61 Pervin has suggested that students should select their colleges on a different basis and that more attention should be devoted to consideration of the interaction between the student and his environment. He proposed that college was a social system and that too often the parts, including students, faculty, and administration, were studied independently rather than as a system. In a study of 20 colleges selected from across the country, Pervin used TAPE (Transactional Analysis of Personality and Environment) as an instrument for student testing. Among his findings was the fact that at one college dissatisfied students saw the college in quite a different way than did satisfied students. Further study indicated that on yet another campus the satisfied students and disSatisfied students saw things in the reverse situation from that seen by their counterparts at the first campus.62 6lBerdie, 92. cit., p. 2714. 62Laurence A. Pervin, "College as a Social System," Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 38, No. 6 (1967), pp. 317- 322. A6 Stern observed the results of a classroom situation involving an "authoritarian" group and another involving an "antiauthoritarian" group and concluded that: the same educational ends can be achieved by very different types of students if the environment is appropriately modified for each type.63 Fishman, while holding out hope for the ultimate use of personality factors in admissions and in guidance and counseling, was simultaneously skeptical as to their use- fulness at least for the time being. He indicated that generally prediction has been improved by a factor of only about .05 when "nonintellective" factors have been added to high school grades and test results in the admissions process. Fishman suggested at least two reasons for this. one was related to his view that little real creative energy was being devoted to relate this personality factor to college success. The second reason concerned his feel— ing that these ”nonintellective" predictors actually were only different measures of the ability to get along in and with the school system, and he wrote: High school grades reflect nonintellective factors to a much greater extent than has been commonly appreciated. They are very frequently indices of how closely the student's personality agrees with the model of the preferred personality of the middle- class academic world. High school grades (and scholastic aptitude test scores) are also indices of 63George G. Stern, "Environments for Learning," in Nevitt Sanford, Editor, College and Character, op. cit., p. 226. A7 important social variables, a number of which have been revealed by the Elmtown studies (Hollingshead, 19N9). Since college grades are also indices of many of these very same personality and social preferences, it is scarcely surprising that high school grades should be the best predictors of college grades. What is more surprising, however, is that educators and social scientists tend to regard this as intellective prediction solely or primarily. Perhaps it is indicative of the state of our social sciences that so many have been 'talking social psychology' for so long without actually being aware of it. A Therefore, while student personality and college climate studies show promise as providing useful information to assist students in effective college selection and colleges in effective student selection, the results to now appear at best to be promising and worthy of further study. Student personality factor and college characteristic factor findings, while promising, have not been generally useful in detecting the dropout. A number of outcomes have seemed to provide direction for further study, and at the two—year occupational level there have been indica- tions of student origins, characteristics, interests, and aspirations in general. Nadier65 and Highthand66 among others have expressed the urgent need for more adequate early counseling of the d f”ii‘ishman, op. cit., p. 676. r 6)h‘ugcne Hadler, Gilbert K. Krulee, "Personality Factor Among Science and Technology Freshmen," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 52 (1961), pp. 223-231- 66Righthand, op. cit. (\ - ~—- ’- v potential student. The need to provide accurate informa— tion relative to the programs and the ultimate expected outcomes of the programs might well assist students in selecting their program and, at times, their college more effectively. Summary in summary, the aspects of student and college charact— eristics that have received significant attention in rela— tionship to the dropout problem include: 1. The determination of the extent, and by implica— tion, the seriousness of the problem. Most reports indicated that in all aspects of undergraduate collegiate education the attrition is high. However, the exact seriousness of the problem remains open to question, as many follow—up studies have provided information indicating that many dropouts not only return but ultimately complete their degree requirements. Few, if any, other than Pace and Larson have followed up and reported on the employment, social, cultural, or other status of dropouts after leaving college. face's report was not indicative of as serious a situation for the drOpout as is often assumed, and Larson's report indicated that many vocational-technical dropouts were using their educational background and doing well. 2. High school academic and achievement test results have been the object of many comparisons with dropouts versus graduates or persisting students. The results of [19 these studies consistently indicated a significant correla— tion between student "success" versus the dropout. The results were even more dramatic in studies of the top tenth or quarter of the students versus the lower tenth or quarter. However, the results have, with equal consistency, been found to apply only to group analysis and have not. been useful in selection except in the high prestige private colleges. Criticism of these studies has been focused in a large measure on the fact that few of them involved more than a study of the freshman class. Further, few have involved any follow—up to determine how many leave for another college or similar change. For the purpose of this study and the two—year college program, however, the consistent reports that students in these programs are generally of lesser academic ability than the four—year student are significant. The signif— icance is not related directly to identifying the dropout but rather to a realistic focus on the student and the educational programs. 3. Concern with the effects of one's socioeconomic background as related to attrition has led to many studies. The assumption behind these studies has been related to the middle-class structure of most colleges and the middle- 01ass origins of most of the faculty, with the expectation that this middle—class orientation would lead to higher than ‘50 usual dropout rates among those with values gathered from living in lower—socioeconomic environments. Findings have generally been inconclusive, but there have been indica— tions that socioeconomic factors were related to the probability of a student entering college and to the type of program he would select when entering. Once enrolled, however, the evidence of the effect, if any, of socio— economic background on retention has not been definitive. A recent challenge to the conclusion on persistence has been raised. The challenge is based on the fact that the reported studies have been primarily concerned with first-year students only and have also ignored the student who returned and/or received his degree from another college. The contention, verified in one study, is based on an inter—relationship between social class and motivation. Just as was the case relative to the academic back— grounds of students, so too have been the findings relative to socioeconomic class and the two—year college student. Predominantly, the two—year student and, particularly, the occupationally oriented student has come from a lower socioeconomic background than has his four—year college counterpart. U. Considerable evidence supporting relationships between personality and "success” in college has been reported. Some of this evidence has related to matching the student to the college as recent findings pointed also to distinctive college personality types. 51 Concrete and long-lasting research has not yet brought these findings to real fruition in predicting dropouts or in the selection process generally. In fact, some students in the field have proposed that, since generally the addition of personality factors to academic and test data added little to prediction of retention, these personality factors, or many of them, were also measures of the middle— class social and cultural value system in education. Again, certain interest patterns and personality characteristics have been reported as more common among two-year than among four-year college students, and some have been found to distinguish as a group those enrolled in particular two-year programs. 5. Generally, then, the research concerned with the dropout has been extensive. However, whether due to the lack of coordination, the proper measuring tools, the needed creativity, or to the complexity of the human, results have not been definitive enough to more than scratch the surface in prediction. There does not seem to have been adequate consideration, however, of determining what happens to the dropout in terms of his future as related to the effect on him of the educational program in which he was enrolled. CHAPTER III METHODS AND PROCEDURES Introduction Consideration of the previously stated hypotheses, comparing the dropout's reported status plans and attitudes relative to employment and education with his length of enrollment or reason for withdrawal, directs attention to a number of specific matters. These matters, including the definition of the population and the terms to be used, the source of criterion data, including the instrumentation and the means of evaluating the final data, will be dis- cussed in this chapter. Population The dropout subjects selected for this study were the entire population of students who entered the New Hampshire Technical Institute as freshmen in 1965 and 1966 but who were not enrolled when their classes graduated in 195?? and 1968. This population of 237 included 22 females. One ihundred and twenty—four of these former students entEEred in the fall of 1965, and 113 entered in the fall or 3L966. In each instance, they represent 58 percent of ikfi?fi_r entering classes, which included 21“ and 195, respectively . 52 While the age range of these entering students was between 17 and 35, most (88 percent) of these entering freshmen were in the l7 to 21 age group. These students were high school graduates (two held equivalency diplomas), and all but about five percent had been evaluated as acceptable on the basis of the general entrance criteria. These criteria included: For Electronic Data Processing - one year of algebra as a minimum, recommendation from their high school guidance counselor, their overall high school record, and their success on the Programmer Aptitude Test; For the Engineering Technologies - two years of algebra and a year of geometry or its equivalent, their Score on parts I, 2, and A of the Engineering Physical Science Aptitude Test, their overall high school record, and the recommendation from their high school guidance counselor. Physics and/or chemistry were recommended but not required. Considerable emphasis was placed on the guidance Counselor recommendations. In some instances (less than Five percent per year), students who appeared to be poor PiSks based on their high school records and entrance exami- nation scores were accepted on the basis of very positive COrlfidential counselor recommendations. Among the find- in5§s5<3f the early retention studies was the fact that thfiaiSe few "special" acceptances achieved a retention and graduation rate equal to or slightly better than did the 5U overall student body. The practice has, needless to say, been continued. A listing of selected student characteristics in profile form has been placed in Appendix A. These character- istics by curricular grouping include: High school class standing, high school program, high school mathematics and science backgrounds, and entrance examination scores. These students, with very few exceptions, were graduates of the public or parochial schools of New Hampshire. Eighty-three of the ninety—one public and parochial secondary schools in New Hampshire were represented by one or more of these students. Definitions The above population of dropouts has been subdivided at times during the study into distinct categories in accordance with the following definitions. Length of Enrollment (A "term" as used here represents a typical quarter Or ten—week period). One or less terms = those students who registered as .freshmen in the fall term but who did not complete the firlal examinations for the second (winter) term. Two terms = those students who completed at least tWCD full terms but who did not complete the final examina- t1Ons for the third (spring) term. 55 flbxee or more terms = those students who were enrolled at the end of their first year (spring term). Type of Withdrawal Academic.--The student withdrew voluntarily following the receipt of a ”warning" letter as a result of low grades, or was suspended by action of the Institute Academic Standing Committee. The Academic Standing Committee, during the period involved in this study, consisted of the Dean of Admissions and Instruction and a faculty representative from each of the five Institute academic departments. This committee met at the end of each term and considered each student with a "deficient" academic record and then made recommendations as to the student's academic status at the Institute for the following term. A suspended student could apply for readmission after a period of six months. cher.—-All withdrawal categories other than those related to academic reasons. Instrument Eaggstionnaire The follow-up information relative to determining the? status, plans, and some attitudes of the dropout was ctrtggined by a questionnaire. This questionnaire was, as “Gilead earlier, mailed to the entire defined population of 237'. The questionnaire was selected as the data gathering instrument following an extensive review of the literature concerning the use of questionnaires and interviews. Considered in determining the type of instrument to use were the probable status, geographic location, and avail- ability of those in the population, as well as the relative merits of each type of instrument in this type of situation. Some writers suggested that when considering question— naires, "don't" (use them). However, others, including Walsh,l found that the questionnaire seems to elicit as accurate a self—response as does the interview (specifically, neither method is more accurate). Others, to be reported later, provided evidence supporting the reasonable validity of responses to questions such as those with which this study is concerned. The limited population size and the fact that a number of the male students would undoubtedly be in the service, with another few being out-of—state, led to further considerations. A random sample would, due to the small Size of the population, require that a fair proportion of the population be included. A sample of fifty, for example, WOLtld represent one-fifth of the population, and the inability to interview those in the service or out-of—state would undulybias a small interview sample, as it will, to a deEglr‘ee, the questionnaire sample. Further, the reports Cm'ICerning the use of interviews were weighed relative to \ C 1W. Bruce Walsh, "Validity of Self—Report," Journal of weling Psychology, Vol. 114 (1967), pp. 18—23. 57 the tendencies of those interviewed to respond in the direction of socially accepted norms and to be influenced by the interviewer who, in this instance, would be both known, and known to be directly associated with the institution being evaluated. These facts might well have led to unacceptable bias in an interview situation. The questions were generated using principles sug- gested by CantriL? Good,3 and Travers.” Interest, to the point, avoidance of ambiguity, clear directions, simpli— city of response, clear purpose, attempt to avoid leading the respondent, either by the question itself or by the preceeding question, use of understandable words, rela- tively few but comprehensiveness of possible responses, along with pretrials using a sampling of the total popula— tion followed by a personal interview were considered and pursued throughout the process of development. Further, the follow—up studies by Time, which were 5 reported by Babcock and by Havemann,6 the National Science ——_._ 2Hadley Cantril and Associates, Gauging Public Opinion, (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 19AM), pp. 1-83. 3Carter V. Good and Douglas E. Scates, Methods of 饥§earch, Appleton—Century-Crofts, (New York, 195“), pp. 60“— 34. “Robert M. W. Travers, Educational Measurement, (New York: The MacMillan Co'., 1955), pp. 251—287. 5F. Lawrence Babcock, The U.S. College Graduate, (New YOI“L<: The MacMillan Co., 1951). 6Havemann and West, op. cit. hmundation Study,7 and Pace's8 follow—up studies were all reviewed. In addition, a study of high school graduates from trade and industrial programs was considered9 as was a nationwide study then underway of both graduates and drOpouts from academic and from vocational programs in secondary schools and in colleges.10 The questionnaire went through three major revisions after the initial development. These revisions included attention to comments resulting from: 1. A review by members of the faculty and staff at the Institute. 2. A test run during which the second form of the questionnaire was sent to a sample of ten former students. These ten were selected as a reasonably representative sample of the population. They were called in advance and asked to complete the questionnaire and return it. Each person was also interviewed personally after the question— naire was returned. 7Two Years After the College Degree, op. cit. Pace, op. cit. ) 9Max U. Eninger, Project Director, The Process and Lfisuduct of T & I High Schog; Level Vocational Education £fl~_§pe United States,’Américan Institute for Research (1965). 10Richard Whinfield, Vocational Education Programs in %E£2~_gnited States (and associated materials), Center for the 0tleies in Vocational and Technical Education, University “f ‘Visconsin, Madison, Wisconsin (1968)- 59 3. The questionnaire in a further revised form was reviewed by the candidate's doctoral com- mittee. The resulting questionnaire, while restricted to the objectives of this study and to those of a concurrent self- evaluation at the Institute, was consistent generally with those items mentioned above. A final usable response was received from 176 members, or 75 percent of the population. Heliability.-—The reliability of the questionnaire was evaluated first by comparing the responses from the pilot group on the two questionnaires submitted by four of the group (the original pilot questionnaire and the final questionnaire were administered at an interval of about two months). The question by question (items 1 through 15 except numbers 2 and 3, which were not on the pilot instrument) comparison, in which only identical or identifiably similar responses were considered as correct, provided a range of reliability from a low of 20 percent on number 7 to 100 percent on numbers 1, 5, 8, ll, 13, and 1A. The low rate reported on number 7 was due, in large measure, to ‘the fact that one—half of the group failed to respond to this item on the pilot form. The overall comparison by this method found 52 of the 65 :responses as the same. Based on this, the responses “ex“G? the same (directly comparable) on 80 percent of the items . E i E a 60 A second method of evaluating the reliability of the test instrument involved comparing the responses to certain questions or parts of questions for consistency. The following table (3.01) indicates the method used and the results. The range of the rate of consistent responses on comparable items was from a low of 68 percent to a high of 100 percent. The overall average rate of consistency from the A8 questionnaires reviewed was 85 percent. Validity.-—Estimates of the validity of the question- naire are difficult due to the effects of the non—respondents, the known tendency for people to overreport in the direction of social acceptability, the uncertainty of the frankness of responses from such a population, and the uncertainty for common question interpretation by all respondents. However, personal interview verification of data on the earlier (pilot) questionnaire testing indicated that, at least for those interviewed, the indications on the Questionnaire of anonymity, along with the desire to assist in improving a situation (assist in this evaluation), led these people to answer honestly and frankly. Further, this gPCHJp of ten indicated both good recall and reasonable Pationale for their recall on both factual and attitudinal IPESI>onses. A reasonably common interpretation of questions W353 also noted. (There were some indications of misinterpre- tation. When these were noted by more than one person, they wepeg’ hopefully, adequately revised in the final form). Er . \ . u 1hm.’$w€fl'li— m: u oocHmeo mosHmCCOHpmoso Hmpoe mm mm meH Hopes Mm MI MH ocoeeo so HH mH mm o om m :H me o MH e NH om m om OH .m Hoe to AoVHH Hm m mm m m mm H HH How so Hove Hove OCH 0 s Hos to .Hov .Hovo .: s0\ocm H Hovm mm m OH : s0\ecm H How so Hovm opmm momcoomom momcommom AmVEopH m> mmvsooH socoomHmnoo ocmpmHmcoocH pcopmHmcoo ous: m> osHm: m m« oowosm m< powwow |QOHumoso ICOHpmosa .moSom cocoon mm mo AsoHHHpmHHmmv mosopmHmcoo oo>somno e0 assessmul.Ho.m mqm< 4. LL The validity of the instrument was further evaluated using two other methods and the final response data. First, when over 50 percent of the non—graduates had responded, the questionnaires were reviewed to determine those who checked item 5(e) stating that they had received transfer credit to another college. The Registrar's file was then used to determine whether these former students had transcripts of their records mailed to another college. It was noted that all 17 respondents did have verifiable records of transcripts being mailed or other data supporting their statements. While this method of evaluating validity obviously does not assure us that all of those actually receiving transfer credit so responded, it does provide an indication of the veracity of the responses actually received. It further should indicate the dependability of other responses to questions concerning employment, armed service, and similar status condition items. Secondly, questionnnaires from the 1966 group were reviewed to determine the care of response and attention to detail in responses. Question number 36 on the second part of the questionnaire was used for this. The coding system was such that, with very few, if any, exceptions, students within certain number ranges would not have taken Some of the courses. Of A8 questionnaires reviewed, there were only two in which responses were shown where none would usually have been indicated. It is even possible that tlwse tww Wrrv legitimate, as there were instances in which a student received transfer credit for certain courses, yet elected other courses not usually considered a part of his or her regular program. This attention to detail, while not verifying the correctness of the response, was, however, certainly an indication of careful reading, rea— sonable thought, and a good degree of accurate memory. The general validity and reliability estimates of the responses involved in questions 1 through 15, which are those with which this report is concerned, were further supported by the literature. Walsh reviewed 3“ previous studies concerning the relative validities of questionnaires and interviews. In addition, Walsh carried out his own research project using university sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Walsh concluded: No one method elicits more accurate self—report than another. In general the subjects gave quite accurate reports to most of the informational items.11 Dole noted conflicting reports on the accuracy of retrospective self—reports. However, in his own study involving 520 college seniors, he concluded that, while one's recall relating to value and influence items was apt not to be highly accurate, the recall of factual and personal information and recollections of previous educational and llWalsh, op. cit., p. 22. 614 vocational plans, especially when considered in group form, were acceptable with reasonable confidence.12 Smith concluded, in a study based on the responses of only 50 persons using estimates of such things as the length of a line, the number of beans in a jar, that validity of responses related to factual data was better than that requiring responses in which opinion and judge— ment were involved. He also stated that validity could be improved by using group data and large groups.13 In studies involving the reporting of grade point averages by college seniors and of pay by insurance company employees, Dunnette and Hardin, respectively, found generally accurate reporting of such data.lu’15 Keating, in a study of the unemployed, used interview data and, verifying the reported data with employer records, reported a ”surprisingly high” validity. The validity 12Arthur A. Dole, "Accuracy of Retrospective Self— Heports by College Students,” Vocational Guidance Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. l (1968), pp. 3343U. l3Francis F. Smith, "The Direct Validation of Question- naire Data,” Educational Administration and Supervision, Vol. 21, No. 8 (1965), pp. 561—575. 2 11Marvin D. Dunnette, "Accuracy of Students' Reported Honor Point Averages," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 1 (1952), pp. 20-22. 15Einar Hardin and Gerald L. Hershey, "Accuracy of EImployee Reports on Changes in Pay," Journal of Applied Bargaalasx, Vol. AM, No. A (1960), pp. 269-275. ’remained high even when job histories of up to six years prior to the interview were considered.16 The assumption, then, was that the validity of the responses to those questions relating to facts such as employment status, attending another college, military I'service, present salary, and unemployment should be adequate. The validity of the other responses was very difficult to determine, as responses undoubtedly would often vary with one's emotional and mental condition when responding. Since only group data was being considered, and since it 1 ‘1'- r_‘ if : was the intent to determine self—perceived attitudes in these instances, the validity should be adequate in light of the means of generating the questionnaire. Procedure for Gathering and Sorting Data The necessary data on each student were gathered from the Registrar's records and from the questionnaire. The data in each instance were ultimately coded and placed on standard, 80-column data processing cards. Anonymity was maintained by assigning students a coded number such that at no time was a student's name associated with the corresponding data. However, the student characteristics, Such as reason for withdrawal and length of enrollment, were associated with the corresponding questionnaire response Patterns. x 16Elizabeth Keating, Donald G. Paterson, and C. Harold Stone, "Validity of Work Histories Obtained by Interview," QEQgrnal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 3m, No. 1 (1950), pp, 6- 11, 6 f) The questionnaire mailing and follow-up procedures included the use of personalized letters as done success- fully by Dressel.17 The first follow~up was done three weeks after the first mailing and included a personal phone call to as many non—respondents as could be located by phone. A second follow—up mailing using a letter and a third copy of the questionnaire was completed about six weeks after the first mailing. The telephone follow-up was done using the lnstitute's Wide Area Telephone Service, or WATS, line. This procedure appeared to be quite useful. Many questionnaires had not been forwarded by parents or spouse, particularly when the former student was overseas on an armed forces assignment. The telephone call, in these instances, usually elicited the new address or led to the questionnaire being forwarded directly. in other instances, the questionnaire had been put aside for completion at a "convenient" time. In these latUH'instances, the phone call frequently stimulated a reasonably prompt response. An effort to adjust for the effect of non-responses by evaluating the late responses separately was planned. However, due to the large number in the armed services l7 Dressel, op. cit., pp. 73‘7“. 67 overseas and the delays of parents and others in forwarding the questionnaire even to those away from home working or at college, this effort was abandoned. Approximately two months after the first mailing, the rate of receipt of the responses indicated that few, if any, additional returns would be received. At this time, the response patterns were tabulated for each of the questionnaire items by categories of length of enrollment, reason for withdrawal, and the total group. Tabulation was done using an lBM lUOl computer. Additional tabulations relative to the questionnaire return rates for varying student characteristics were also run. These included the student's year of enrollment, major department, high school class standing, high school program, age, and whether the student had previous military experience. These tabulations allowed an evaluation of the reSponses relative to determining whether any group with these characteristics was over— or under-represented in the final data. The response rates for each of these groups (except for those with previous military experience) were considered to be quite similar, ranging from 60 to 80 percent (see Table 8—1). Hypotheses Null Hypothesis_l_ The drOpout's length of enrollment prior to with— drawal had no relationship to his reported job-related 68 status (i.e., job satisfaction, persistence of employment, salary, and the relationship between his education and his employment) and attitudes at a time of from one to three years after withdrawal. Alternate Hypothesis I The longer a dropout was enrolled prior to with— drawal, the more beneficial the reported job-related status and attitudes. Null Hypothesis lI The dropout's length of enrollment was not related to his status in, plans for, and attitudes toward con- tinuing his education as reported at a time of from one to three years after withdrawal. Alternate Hypothesis II The length of enrollment had a direct relationship to the drOpout's reported status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education. Null Hypothesis III The reason for withdrawal was unrelated to the drop— out's status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education as reported at a period of from one to three years after withdrawal. Alternate Hypothesis III Those students withdrawing for other than academic reasons will more often report having returned to or plan- ning to return to and having favorable attitudes toward education than will those who withdrew for academic reasons. Null. Hyfwfljiesims lV These withdrawal students will generally report alienation from higher education. Alternate Hypothesis IV Failure to complete these two~year programs did not gene»ally mean an end of the read relative to further education itnéllnxxe dropouts. Analvsis Hypotheses one, two, and three were evaluated on the basis of chimsquare tests applied to response patterns of selected items from the questionnaire. The chi—square values were computed using the program on the G.E. 625 computer at Dartmouth College, while the response patterns were accumulated from a sorting program on an IBM lUOl installed at the institute. The use of the chi~square test involved the assumption that those responding were adequately representative of the entire N.H.T.I. dropout ptqiulzltlxin. Hypothesis one was analysed using the responses to questiOns l, 2, l, U, 5, 8, lb, and 15 versus the length of enrollment categories of one or less terms, two terms, and three or more terms in chi-square tests appropriate to the respective configuation; i.e., U x 3 in questions 1, U (d and e were combined in U), and 15 (in 15, items d, e, and f were combined), 2 X 3 in question 2, 3 x 3 in questions 3, 8, and 1“ (in lN, c and d were combined), and 6 X 3 in question 5. 70 Hypotheses two and three were analyzed by comparing the length of enrollment categories of one or less terms, two terms, and three or more terms or the reasons for withdrawal using "Academic" versus ”Other” with the responses to items number 6, 9, 10, and 11. The appropriate chi— square test was again used; i.e., 3 x 3 for length of enrollment and 3 x 2 for reasons for withdrawal in ques— tions 9, and 10, 5 x 3 and 5 x 2 in question 6, and, similarly, 7 x 3 and 7 x 2 in question 11. Also considered in each instance were the distributions by length of enroll- ment and by reason for withdrawal to items l(d), U(d), and (e), and 5(e), respectively. Hypothesis four was subjectively evaluated consider— ing the distribution of responses to questions l(d), U(d) and (e), and 5(e), 6, 9, 10, and 11. Summary The purpose of this study was to determine whether the dropout, in his own estimation, had been affected by his brief exposure to post—secondary education at a technical institute. Data were obtained from the Registrar's file relat— ing to the length of enrollment and to the reasons for withdrawal. In addition the entire dropout pOpulation (237) from the 1965 and 1966 freshman classes was mailed a questionnaire designed to elicit a number of responses. 71 These responses related to the status, plans, and attitudes of these dropouts as reported by the dropouts, themselves, via the questionnaire. The resulting information from the Registrar's file and from the returned questionnaires was placed on coded 80-column data processing cards. The numbers of responses to various status, plans, and attitude questions were sorted on a computer against the student's length of enrollment and reason For withdrawal. Three hypotheses relating job or educational status, plans, and attitudes, as reported on the questionnaires, with length of enrollment or reason for withdrawal were tested using Pearson's chi—square test. The fourth hypo— thesis was examined subjectively by evaluating responses related to the dropout's status in, plans for, and attitudes toward further college education. (HiAPTTHi lV FINDINGS Returns The questionnaire was mailed to 237 former students who had entered the New Hampshire Technical Institute as Freshmen in 1965 or 1966. The figure of 236 was used as the basis of possible responses, however, since one reply indicated a former student was decreased. Usable responses were received from 176 dropouts, or 75 percent of the population at the time the responses were analyzed. Five additional responses were received after the data were analyzed. Two responses were not usable, and six of the former students could not be located. A number of comparisons were made to determine whether any one or more of a number of categories of stu- dent backgrounds was over- or under-represented in the response group. These comparisons, shown in Table B-1 of the appendix, included the following: A. Length of enrollment at N.H.T.I. prior to withdrawal. B. Reason for withdrawal. C. N.H.T.I. curriculum major. 72 Yi N. High school class standing. E. Those with military service prior to N.H.T.l. enrollment. F. Those with one term or more of college prior to N.H.T.i. enrollment. ‘\ b...’ . W 0 me n . A total of 35 separate questionnaire return rates were involved in the above comparisons. Of these, 29 were within 10 percent of the overall rate, and in only one instance did the rate differ by over 15 percent from the overall rate. The one exception was that group of with— drawals who had military experience prior to enrollment, and there were only a total of five in this group from which two responded. Based on these results, it was reasoned that no major group was seriously over— or under—represented. Adjustments Seventy-two, or Al percent, of those responding reported themselves as being in one of the armed services at the time of response. This indicated a drastic change in the status of a large percentage of the group in this study. it was thought this effect might conceivably affect the patterns of response to questions of status, plans,and attitudes involved in this study. Therefore, a comparison of "civilian" versus "service" response patterns was made for each question, and chi-square values were computed for questions 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, and l“ (sec tables in Appendix C). Chi-squares were not computed for questions 1, U, 5, 6, and 15, since each of these involved responses obviously directly related to the difference being tested and, therefore, would not meet the characteristics of independence. A significant chi—square value at .05 was obtained for this data only in questions 7 and 8. The responses to question 7 indicated that servicemen returning to continue their education would select the same field 5A percent of the time (see Table C—7 in the appendix) versus a rate of 37 percent for those not in the service. Conversely, 37 percent of those not in the service reported they would select a "quite different" program, compared with only 17 perCent of the servicemen. The significant difference reported in question 8 could have been the result of a misinterpretation of the question by a very few of those dropouts in the armed services. The question as stated was, "As a result of your H.H.T.l. education, has your earning capacity: (a) Remained the same, (b) increased, (c) Decreased." Only six responded to the item "Decreased," and all six were in the service at the time of response. Whether they read the question with its intended meaning or read it as relating to their actual earning capacity at the time of response is uncertain. 75 However, this item with six responses was the major contri- butor to the large chi—square value, and the possibility of misinterpretation cannot be ignored. Since in six of the eight comparisons the results were not found to be significant, there was no further major analysis of the response rates by "civilians" or "service" categories. in arriving at the response rates, those reSponses listed as "Other" were individually evaluated by the researcher. 0n the basis of the statement written in support of the response, "Other," the response, if feasible, was recorded in one of the more specific categories. In many instances, a reassignment of the response was clearly possible and, therefore, few "Other" responses remained llil;Li}EBilZil()(1. hengtn_of Enrollment and Employment Effects Hypothesis one in null form was: The dropout's length of enrollment prior to withdrawal had no relation— ship to his reported Job-related status (i.e., job satisfaction, persistence of employment, salary, and the relationship between his N.H.T.I. education and his employ— ment)and attitudes at a time of from one to three years zifter wiidwirawal. 76 The alternate hypothesis, which proposed a relation- ship between length of enrollment and job—related status and attitudes, was based on the assumption that, since the institute programs were occu,ationally oriented, the longer a student was enrolled the better prepared he should be for a job in the field for which he was studying. The criteria data for evaluation were derived from the Withdrawal's responses to questions concerning his first full—time job status upon leaving the Institute, his Job status at the time of responding, the level of his satisfaction with his first job, his frequency of unemploy- ment, his perception of the assistance of his N.H.T.I. education in obtaining a job or other assignment for him, his perceived effect of his education on his earning capacity, his perceived general value of his educational experience at N.H.T.I., and his reported annual, regular- time salary at the time of response. Specifically, responses to questionnaire items 1, 2, 3, u, 5, 8, 1H, and 15 were considered in the evaluation of this hypothesis and the ibove mentioned factors. The response patterns to these questions were tabulated by the student's length of enrollment prior to withdrawal. Length of enrollment categories of one term or less, two terms, and three or more terms were used. Chi—square tests were applied, as appropriate, to the response patterns of each question. None of the eight 77 tests indicated statistically significant differences at or beyond a significance of .05. Hypothesis one in null form could not, therefore, be rejected. Tables “.01 through “.08 show the response rates for the items involved in the analysis of this hypothesis. Table “.09 was prepared to allow a comparison of reported salaries for two groups having enrollment rates in the shortest (one term or less) and the longest (three or more terms) categories and also having about equal length periods of employment. Table U.lO provides a comparison of the entry level salaries as reported at graduation by the graduating classmates of those withdrawals with the salaries as reported by those withdrawals whose period of employment would be up to almost two years longer. Table H.01 does indicate that those enrolled for the longest period did report (1) entering jobs similar to their major more often than did those enrolled for shorter periods, (2) that they tended to enter jobs related to their major more often than did they enter jobs in other fields, and (3) they were more apt to continue their educa- tion. However, none of theSe differences was sufficient to indicate statistical significance at .05 in a chi- square test. A relatively uniform rate of entering the service was reported fYn“(wach group. (I) I"\ r I l"! r— . r1; E. 4 (6—4 :1: O ‘7 é‘u' o 4.. U lment a- '-1 \ A"...O-L.-L. “ y I ter rol “4 S'I LU "-1 {-4 C.) (I) I S: #3 ['4 O U) V 94 514 U) Ti (1) ‘14 H; >—_. ,, K- d "7 \T A i OL-o Related to b v U0 A 23 (\J m (V l I —1 LIN r4 (”\J 13 Unrelated to 010 A Job E“- 0 W 614 pa (\l 20 H UN 19 Lf\ jor 4a 1‘ N.H.T tered the Armed ervices En 27 C O 53‘ 9‘ (\J [\a (\J 10 (I) 12 21 on ati Educ Continued 101* 175** 99* 75 C) r—i 101* 37 63 Total .05 and 6 d.f. ficant at Signi ot 9.38227 n *Due to rounding. **0ne did not respond. Chi-Souare 7' 9 The response rates of the Withdrawal's reported status at the time of completing the questionnaire were somewhat different from those reported for their first full—time experience. Table H.02 shows that, of those responding to the question, UM percent were in one of the armed services. Again, the rate of service connection was relatively uniform. Further, there was no clear pattern of response rates associated with the length of enrollment versus either job status or continuing education status. The withdrawal students enrolled for the longest peri- ods did report a somewhat higher rate of satisfaction with their first job. However, the rates were not sufficiently different to provide statistical significance. In each category, and overall, about one—half of those responding reported they were satisfied with their first full—time experience, and about one—half reported they were not satisfied (see Table U.03). As is shown in Table H.0u, the former students with the intermediate length of N.H.T.I. enrollment reported the lowest rate of one or more periods of unemployment, with only i of 36 respondents reporting such periods of unemploy— ment. however, statistical tests on the response patterns did not indicate differences of statistical significance at .05. .mmflaowmpmo Lonpo msoocmaaoomfle was amo>fi3omsog bongo .oo%0HQEoc: 03p omUSHocH :Lozpo: Loos: momcoommp omone** .wCHUCSOL ow msox .ooomHQEoo mos mpflwccoflpmoso one mEHp map p<+ .%.0 O ocm mo. pm pcOoHMHcmHm poo nmw:m.z ”opmsomlflno 80 OOH **OOH OOH He *OO Om OOH Om Hmpoe NH ON ON :H HH O NH OH OOHsaosem mcHschcoo a: me a: Hm s: OH ms Om OOOH>LOO omega one pogmpcm mm Om HO OH mm OH OH HH LOOO: .H.e.m.2 Op OmpOHmccs OOO O OH em OH HH HH O HO OH goOO: .H.e.m.z o» OmpaHmm OOO a a z m z m a O m HOMOH mnpoH meow mELms oz» mELoh mmou Aofiflblaajmv so vmpgw Lo one pcoficwflmmd +pcmgp3p pmmeHHopum .H.h.m.z mo camcoq mmHLowopmo mmcoomom .H.H.w.m.: Om pcmeHH0hem LOHLO mo rpmcmH :OO .3OOOOOH3 one mpcmOSOO HHO mo sOH>Hpoa meHuuHHzm pempsso One--.mO.s momma + .EopH mHsp ou ocoomop poo OHO coe** .H.O m use OO. Hm HOOOHHHc mHm Ho: mOmmO.m ”msmzemquO OOH **OOH OOH mm OOH Om OOH mO Hmpoe mm HO HO ms Om OO Om HO Om OmHomeOm Hoz m: mm Om mm :3 OH m: Om Oonmemm H 2 H 2 O O O z HHHsHpoa Hmpoe wEHmB egos mEHoB 039 mesoe mmoH oEHBIHHsm Lo mouse 90 mco HmHHm op o>HpmHom pcoEHHopcm .H.U.:.z mo Qumcoq moHHomono OOQOQmom .H.H.s.m.z Hm HCmEHHoacm mngm H0 cpmcmq mp mpCmOSHM HHmv .H.H.m.2 pm+Hm so H>Hpo.. mEHenHHsm Hm gHm HHoCH :pHs coHpomOmemm Ompaoomm .mHmzmpongz orbit. mO. : m3 ;m¢ of \7. number A. I’ltS. ted desponde per 1 E Ee Al YT“ AH OT En lhree th of beng . OP one or{ (‘4 (U 4,.) O --4 erms mwm m -. L (l) [— 4 U) U) (1) L—l eriods of P Unemployment 1... ‘ , {:3 P"? p—Za % N O\ G) U\ H H O\ 97 1Q on (1.) (\J L('\ None ‘7 KC) Lf\ (:3 CO '-_ [‘r r‘i ‘ Lf\ r4 ' C’) O") I O H ‘ O) Q r—'i Lfl KC | (1) L Q L 0 CD 0 C 3 O E 100 l68** 99* 100 100 36 63 Total .05 and A d.f. 8.2M787 not significant at *Due to rounding. Chi-Square **Eight did notVrespond to this item. 83 The employment situation in New Hampshire, where many of these former students reside, had been very favorable to the employee during the entire period with which this study was concerned. Therefore, the fact that there had been very little unemployment among any of the length of enrollment groups is understandable. As shown in Table 0-3 in the appendix, the effect of armed service personnel on the unemployment rate, while noticeable in the rate of returns, was not of statistical significance. The drOpouts responded to two separate questions relative to their perception of the value of their less than ”complete" educational experience at N.H.T.I. In neither instance did the response distributions result in statistical significance at .05 when tabulated on the basis of length of enrollment and perceived values. on an overall basis (see Table “.05), 2” percent reported they felt their educational experience assisted them in obtaining a job related to their major field of study at N.H.T.I., six percent felt they were aided in obtaining a job in other than their field of study area, and about 1/3 (32 percent) of the total group reported assistance in obtaining a service or apprentice school assignment (Table C~5 in the appendix shows that, for servicemen, the response rate to this latter item was 57 percent). Seventeen percent felt there was no benefit from .mmOCOQOmH HOHOH Ho>o m.z HOHOH one .OOH Ho>o on OHsos mmwmpcmoamd HOHOH .mgommsoge .maommpmo :pcmEHHopcm .H.B.m.z mo commoqz an mucoocoomom Hmooe mo mHmmo one so OmHSQEoo wchn mommpcoosmo zeHz EooH omCOQOmH deHpHSE ¢* .m.o OH Ocm mO. Hm osmonHcmHm Ho: Omomm.s HmpmzomlHno * *OOH * *mw * *Om * *zm kuoe HH Om OH HH OH H OH OH OHOO o: Om OO HO OO O: OH Om Om pmmbchH Omcmemosm O OH OH O O O H m OHOOLO Lowmcmpe Low mem Om OO Om Om Om HH Om Hm Ocmscmema Hoogom OOHucmsdd< Ho ooH>Lom OOHOHOHOO cH OOOHO O OH O a O O O O mesa OHmHm LOHOO a cage Lasso cH OOO a OOHOHOOOO 2H OOOHO Om OJ ON ON HH O OO OH mesa OHOHO tona OH new a OOHOHOHOO cH OOOHO * x O a O n O O O H OOHOmOsOO szob meats whom mLLoh orb mELoH Owed .H.H.m.? no so oopgb no ego msHmt oosHmoHom pcmbHHogtm .H.b.m.> mo :wwcmH mmHmowoamO mmciommm .AucoeHHobcm mo downed mmv .mpcmmcommmm HHI I :oHpmosmm HechcOmn mHmOu mo mocoomHmml 3m>Hmopmm|HHmm .mHmsmso1HH; mgwnl.m3.a mammh 85 their educational experience at N.H.T.I. as far as the items shown in Table “.05 were concerned. The second opportunity to respond concerning the per- ceived value of the dropout's educational experience con- sidered the relative value of his N.H.T.I. education as viewed in retrospect. In this instance, 3U percent reported the experience as very beneficial, 58 percent reported a worthwhile experience, and 8 percent reported no value or a negative value (see Table H.06). Both the dropout's perceived effect of the N.H.T.I. education on his earning capacity and his actual regular- time earnings at the time of completing the questionnaire were assessed. Again, in neither instance did statistical significance occur when the response patterns were compared by length of enrollment categories. Just over one—half of the group reported they felt this education had no effect on their earning capacity, while UN percent did feel their earning capacity had increased as a result of this educational experience. Four percent, all of whom were in the armed services, reported that they felt their earning capacity had decreased (see Table “.07). The reported annual earnings of the dropouts were compared in three tables, using separate criteria for length of enrollment, and were also compared with the entry level salaries reported at the time of graduation by the class- mates of these dropouts who completed their two—year program and entered full-time employment. .EepH chH OH peedmes poc OHO eco** .m.e 2 use mO. um HCOOHHHcmHm Hos mmm::.m "epmsomanO 86 OOH **OHH OOH OH OOH HO OOH HO Hapoe O OH 3 ml OH ml HH HI OOHO> m>HOmwmz so OHHOHH Oo OO HOH HO O: OO mm OO Hm mHangpwoz Om OO Om Om Om HH HO Om HOHOHHOQOO Ohm» H 2 O a H 2 H z OOHOOOsOm Hmuob mEpeH one: mELeB osh mELeB mmo .H.B...z mo so eegch Ho e20 esHmp ee>HeoHem wcmEHHoHcm .H.h.m.: mo npmceq meHnoweemo emceemmm mceH mmv .mpceOQOQwem mp oe>HeoHemlmHem .muce T3 r4 b-: U) H 3 mflhll.mo.m mumwh .EepH man op ocodmem Hos OHO e>Heze** .wCHecsop ow coax .meOH>Hem omega esp CH egos HH<* .O.O O Oca OO. HO OOOOHHHOOHO Hoe OHOOm.m ”OHOOOOIHOO OOH OszH OOH OO OOH mm *HOH OO Hepoe O *O O *3 m *H m mH Oommepoem 7. 8 i an mH O: me m: mH mm mm UeOOeHoCH mO OO O: mm HO OH HO HO manage 02 O 2 O r H 2 O z HHHanmO OOHOHOO Hmpoh wanes ego; mEseb osh meneO mmeH :o COHpmosem we so coach He ego poemmm Oe>HeoHem pcmEHHoscm .H.w.x.: mo gpwceq meHgomeoOO ownedmem .“HcmEHHoHcm mo newton :mv .mpfimocom HHq I HOHomeO wcHsmmm HHeih co LOHHOosom HOOHccomw.HHecw mo ooeHmm om> moOIMHmm .mpcmo3um HOSOMOCHH2|1.HO.H MHmmU Neither of the two comparisons of the response rates by rate of earnings and length of enrollment category indicated statistically significant differences at .05 with a chi—square test. The first comparison shown in Table H.08A related the response rates of all respondents to the item on their regular full—time annual earnings by the length of enroll- ment categories. Approximately 50 percent in each length of cnrcllment category reported earnings of under $0,000 a year, as compared with an approximate 15 percent in each category reporting earnings of $6,000 or more a year. Length of enrollment then appeared to have no relationship to annual regular—time earnings. Since so many were in the armed services with a known low rate of pay, a tabulation was completed for this earn- ings item by “civilians" only. This tabulation, as expected, revised the reported annual full—time earnings distribution upward, but the similarity in rates of returns by length of enrollment categories changed only slightly. in this instance, about 17 percent of each length of enroll- ment group stated they were earning under $4,000, and about 25 percent reported annual full—time earnings of $6,000 (or more (see Table H.088). An attempt was also made to account for the possible effect of those who had been enrolled for the shortest periods having had more opportunities for salary increases I? 4;) (ii) (p rm} (f! L4 \ 4.. men V 1" J. J. Enro of ill] (1) y—l (I) gorie ponse Cate T. :fes ,_. #— U Q Three or D ‘ “v neo Leported Curren Annual 0 '7’" (a 1: c: 7 - ‘-' .A. _. Q] r" 4 r*1c: i .Lc‘-'v all- }1 p——4 N d U\ ((3 \.C) 51 $4,000 Under CH {.4 (\1 t3 \ r—4 [\\_ 4,999 {9- $u,ooo - [‘7‘ r—{ ex (\J H 9 22 ll 35 E3 ,3 (3 (J {3 " :3 E3 3'99 S9 S9 LI”\’ \1?) (1:)‘ $6,000 and over 100 32 100 53 100 135 100 50 Total and 6 d.f. .05 -r-i 2.82606 not r‘ square: Chi— (I) h; m o ) /‘\ 4) (L) 4 v L: .esponse A Three or Current L Reported Annual otal to Time Full- t» .\T 17 (\J [—1 Lf\ 12 (T\ su,000 'nder YY U O\ (\l [\_ \f) O‘\ (*0 Li'\ 99 $5,000 - $5,999 u,000 - $u,9 4‘. V 31 (I) (‘1') 41 r4 r4 CO c—{ [0 (\J [\ 31 LI\ 0] (U \Q $6,000 and Over 100 16 99* 28 101* 101* 91 due to Length of employment than did those enrolled for the longest period. This was done by comparing the reported swilaries of those who enrolled as freshmen in 1965 and who fund been at the institute three or more terms with the :uilaries of those who enrolled as freshmen in 1966 but who ie ft after one term or less. Each of these groups should inivc represented drOpouts who had been employed for about (”19 year and four to eight months at the time they res- ymunded to the questionnaire. Further, only "civilians" at true time of response were included. A chi-square test could not be used due to the few rwasponses unless the data were reduced to a 2 x 2 table, wiiich would have changed the format. Therefore, no istatistical test was used with this study. However, as Serniirilhhle “.09, the distribution of responses, particu- lzirly when considering the small number involved, did not Eleear to support rejection of the hypothesis that there vnas no difference due to the length of enrollment. Using data available from annual placement studies ‘Jf‘ graduates, a comparison was made of the entry level 53€llaries reported by the classes of 1967 (entered in 1965) FirM11968 (entered in 1966) with the salaries reported by tide ”civilian" dropouts at the time of response to the CQuestionnaire. Since the questionnaire was mailed to the dl"<:>pouts at from one to three or more years after their hGiving left the institute, their salaries could have included PELises due either to merit or cost of living adjustments. 92 TABLE U.09.——A Comparison of the Reported Annual Incomes of Those Dropouts Entering Programs in 1965 and Remaining Four or More Terms with Those Entering in 1966 and Remaining One Term or Less — Current Civilians. Number Reporting Income Ibinual Income Enter 1966 and Enter 1965 and (iategories One Term or Less Four Terms or More Total N % N % N % Lhider $U,000 U 31 2 22 6 27 $11,000 — $“,999 0 0 l 11 l 5 $5,000 — $5,999 5 38 2 22 7 32 $63,000 and Over U 31 fl UH 8 36 Total 13 100 9 99* 22 100 (Hui-Square not computed due to the inadequate numbers involved. *Due to rounding . The chi—square test applied to these data comparing Erwiduate's entry level salaries with dropout's salaries irujicated a difference significant beyond .01. Where only th> percent of the graduates reported entry salaries of urujer $u,000, 17 percent of the dropouts reported incomes irl this level at from one to three years after withdrawal. CCHiversely, while 75 percent of the graduates reported entry lGEVel salaries of $6,000 or more, only 25 percent of the dI"Opouts report such salaries (see Table “.10). Reviewing all of the data presented relative to hyDothesis one, it was not possible to reject the null hy'Dothesis as there were no statistically significant differ- er1Ces contradicting the statement that the dropout's length 93 of enrollment prior to withdrawal had no relationship to his reported job-related status and attitudes at from one to three years after withdrawal. The one comparison of the earnings of graduates and their dropout classmates did indicate that a length of enrollment through and including graduation resulted in a statistically significant higher entry salary for graduates than the regular salary of drop— outs after one to three years of employment. TABLE H.10.—-Graduates' Entry Level Salaries Compared with the Salaries of Withdrawal Students After One to Three Years on the Job. (Annual Full—Time Salaries for Current Civilians). . ~ .— Annual Income Number Reporting Income Categories Graduates Withdrawals Total N % N % N % Under $U,000 2 2 l2 17 1M 8 $U,000 — $u,999 7 7 19 27 26 15 $5,000 — $5,999 16 16 22 31 38 22 $6,000 and Over 77 75 _18 ._EE -‘9§ __E§ Total 102 100 71 100 173 100 Chi-Square: “6.1993 significant on 3 d.f. at beyond 0.01. Length of Enrollment and Plans for Continuing Education The second hypothesis in null form was: The drop- out's length of enrollment was not related to his status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education as reported at a time of from one to three years after withdrawal. 9“ The alternate hypothesis, which proposed a direct relationship between length of enrollment and the dropout's status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education, was based on the assumptions that a short edu— cational experience, ending in drOpping out, was psycho— logically demoralizing and, the converse, that the longer the enrollment prior to dropping out, the greater the desire for further education and the greater the probability of later return. The dropout student's present status in, future plans for, and attitudes toward higher education, as reported in his responses to selected questionnaire items, were the basis for this analysis. The response patterns to these selected questions were tabulated by the same three length of enrollment categories as were used in hypothesis one; namely, one term or less, two terms, and three or more terms. Questionnaire items number 6, 9, 10, and 11 along with the particular distribution to items l(d), M (d and e), and 5(e) were considered in this analysis. Questions number 6 and 11 were the most directly involved in obtaining indications of future plans, present status, or attitudes relative to continuing education. The response rates to question number 6 (see Table U.11A) concerning the present status or future plans of these withdrawals did indicate that the group enrolled the longest prior to withdrawal had both the lowest rate (12 percent), indiciting they had no plans for further educa— tion, and the highest rate (21 percent), reporting that they were now attending college. However, the chi—square test indicated the reported differences were not significant at .05. Table H.115 indicates the same situation when only "civilians” were considered but did indicate a much higher rate of present full—time attendance, just as one would expect. A number of the “Other” responses (15 of them) to question 6 were difficult to place in any one of the specific categories. Generally, the ”Other" reponse was supported by a statement such as ”would like to return but am a housewife and mother and present plans are uncertain" or "am now attending a service school.” All of these "other" responses did indicate a desire to continue their education, however. The second qU?stion of this type, number ll (see Table “.12), asked for an indication of the student's choice of action if the period of his life in which he was enrolled at N.H.T.I. could be relived. In this question, the with— drawal was asked to assume there were no financial obstacles involved in his choice. The chi—square test in this instance was significant at .05. The rates of response reporting they would elect to go directly to work or to enter the armed services were quite similar for each length of .wsfloczos on ozox .Amhmzvmnflno pom pom: poo :sosuozv .m.o m use mo. om osmoflmflcmfim no: :mwm.ma Homeowmlflzo *OO OOH OOH Os OOH Om OOH OO Hmpoe OH OH HH O O O O O smnpo OH Om HO OH HH 3 OH O msHeuHHsm OcHecmpOO 302 O OH O m mm O O O meHenprO OcHOcmpu< 202 mm Om Om OH OH O OO OH msmmw Omega cngHs ,m mEfiBIppmm Chopmm OB em Os em Om em OH Om OH mtmmw mmsge canHs meHeuHHsm assume oe OH em OH O OH O OO OH OmccOHO mcoz ti 2 O H O z e z :OHpmozem ano4 mesob msom mhmou one mesmh mmoq mwoaaoo so ommza so moo sogpszm Low mcmam womEHHoscm .H.H.m.m mo newcmg mowsommomo omcoommm .Aoumfiaaohcm mo hemmed rmv .Ham I eoflpmoswm Leone OzHOnstOO ow O:HpmHmm muemezum Hmsmseane was O0 mcmHm OmpmpO meeuu.OHH.O mHOOe ’10 U) (\i t‘ i ()4 1(5 of Length (By M p (U C ) T3 [11 $1 #4 ,CI E-I (I) 02 $4 0 r‘ i LU i) (' J E a O» _ r-v ,5. ‘74 1“! CU r“| ’3 C) '6 IL] 0\ Fl 12 '0 C. C 4 Q) (A) F? Return Full-Time To 11 H H 11 L;’\ 10 (‘J 0') <1) . ,)—4 H ‘0 -ilme Part to Return 23 Cd 25 11 ’) . ,1 n . I.— I 21 10 LIN 2M 1 me ing Part-T’ low Attend I\ (\J 16 19 Attending Full—Time 1 ‘l 1 .Jo 10 1M H on Other 101* 21 101* U“ 100 10“ 101* 39 Total (a, b and c, d and e were .05 and h d.f. 5.9081 not significant at -Square: Chi tested). *Due to rounding. ; ) (U l(j o M (I) 1 1| (1) 41 or[ H n1 (1) til I r‘" I - ~* m p‘ ‘ V.--.-.... \ O l O E3 54 r4 C) O (1) $4 (1) S: fin LIJ A? E4 Q) (J m .C? L‘ C-) . C) 9+) U) U) (1) $4 0... orl ill 1 i m i-) ( l [L‘ (I) (I) p p ’i) h C) [1 (1) Ll l 3 C) q ‘3‘\ 1 1'. g a!) ) \ ’ r L 'f" (H h” '(3 (1) 'r i L—c UN ( V ) (.L) U ‘\ fi. (1”) (V) (\J (*1 [.0 rd 7'1 1 0 fi 'Qr‘n".r‘ z fir, -‘v V‘J.‘l.—’-\.*(i,+ no one? .I (1‘ ‘1') \L) 0) v .1 +3 «.4 +) H tend [8t t». (\J r'l (\J 16 10 Institute are, “ttenc Colleg l [1. \O \C) ("\ J (Y l 23 LT 27 0) ice an Apprent .ttend a. ‘ 12 on L0 Program Full—lime Seek Employment Cl CI "1 “I Services Enter the Armed 71 99* 168 lOO 100 100 36 61 al To 2u.9935 significant beyond .05 and 12 d.f. *Due to rounding. Square Chi— 99 r:nrwillxnexd, rnw>u{). Wile rnajtir (lit'feiwencmgs :ippuiaimxl rmrlaix3d to the tendency of those enrolled the longest prior to with- drawal to either return to N.H.T.I. or to attend another technical institute, whereas those enrolled for the shorter periods would have been more likely to choose to attend a four—year college or a vocational program. The tendency for the group enrolled for the longest period to be more likely to return to N.H.T.I. or another technical institute was consistent with the response patterns to two questions concerning the selection of a major program for those continuing their education. These related directly to questions 6 and 11 and were, therefore, reported here by length of enrollment although they applied, only obliquely, to this hypothesis. in responding to question 7, the drOpout who stated in question 6 that he was continuing or was planning to continue his education reported whether he would select the same, a somewhat different, or a quite different program major. The chi—square test was significant at .05. Those enrolled for the longest periods were more likely to again select the "same” major (55 percent for the longest to 28 percent for the shortest enrolled groups). Similarly, the group enrolled for the shortest period reported they were more likely (U0 percent to 21 percent) to select a program that was ”quite different" from their N.H.T.I. program (see Table “.15). .0.0 O Ocm OO. Om OOOOHOHOOHO OOOHO.O newssemquo 100 OOH OOH OOH NO OOH Om OOH mm Hmooe m m: Hm OH mm O OO Hm psopomOOQ mOst Om O: Om OH mm O mm OH pcopomOHQ pmzsoEom O: OO OO Om OO OH Om OH OEOO wee O 2 O 2 O 2 O z woOms .H.e.z.z HOoOB OELOH who; mEpoH 03B mesoe mmoq HmchHsO mompm> so moseb so moo Lemma owzusm so powwowm wcoeHHoscm .H.H.m.z mo someom mm.mowmpmo mmCodmmm . A “CmEHHOcHQM Mo somcoq Om, .HHO : Loewe .H.H.w.m HmchHpO sHocu noHs OohmoEoo mm mecoosuw phi: ./ I i... )4aldl1qi \J.; )4 \l :1) \I) 4. JI. .4 J .a . 4 .1. a) \I/ C .\III \lll" Hmzusrrowa acqitswqu «Li e< QQHo.O oHown sowmr opspsh to ocamqsnsl.nr.n quit 101 The chi—square test applied to the second of these program choice items did not indicate statistically significant differences at .05. The pattern was, never— theless, similar to that of question 7 when only the longest rind shortest enrolled groups were considered. This item .involved the responses of only those who would elect to return to N.H.T.l. Those enrolled for three or more terms xvould select the same major 87 percent of the time and a «lifleient major only 13 percent of the time versus rates <>f 72 percent and 28 percent, respectively, for the group Cnarolled for one or less terms (see Table u.1u). Since only those choosing to return to N.H.T.I. ITBSpOnded to question number 12, a possible rationale for tide significant findings in question number 7 versus less trian significant findings in number 12 could relate to the Iklct that there were only three possible curricular pro— Efiruums;n;lLlLTKI. Two of the programs are very similar, 1xhus makins it necessary for those desiring certain "quite (Jihfferent programs" to plan to attend other institutions. .J Iq€u1y or most of those desiring a quite different program, then, would not have responded to question number 12. Two questions concerning the dropout's perceived ‘ltLtitude changes as a result of his period at N.H.T.I. 'rEElated in a way to further higher education. The first of these related to whether the dropout 1hit his occupational goals as measured by the amount of neocoomos omHm oOHooo .OoozHosH omHm oss momcoomos sHoco one .EoOH mHQo on cocoon sHozp mm .H.B.m.z oo wcHssSpos Oopsoqos ops oEom* .0.0 m sea OO. Om OOOOHOHOOHO so: OOOOO.O ”Osmsemquo 102 OOH Om OOH Om OOH Om Hmpoe OH mu Om HI Om OH OcmsmssHO Om 2m mm mH mm Om oEmm ooh O 2 O 2 O z OOHOOO HmcHOHsO mEsoH osoz mEsoB 039 mEsoH mmoq moose» so mosoe so moo ooHosO psomosm psoEHHossm .H.B.:.z mo sewsoq moHsowome oms0dmom H 0 .H ’C J. 4,) hi) C ‘r’ J 5-] 'U («H £4 (H \H/ C) (l) C) r-i .ApcoEHHoscm .m.z oo cssomn op mmoonO OH303 on: m msmsoonE ego m osg who saw HmchHsO ego mo comHstEoO mll.xH.q mama r _. _ H o 103 education needed to reach his goal had been raised, remained the same, or had been_lowered. A chi—square test on the response patterns to these items by length of enrollment categories indicated the differences were not statistically significant at .05. Those enrolled for three or more terms reported raised goals 68 percent of the time to 6“ percent for the group enrolled for two terms and 5H percent for those enrolled for one term or less. Overall, only 12 percent reported their goals as being lowered (see Table “.15), and 37 per- uent reported their goals as unchanged. The second of these two ”self—perceived attitude izcward education” questions concerned the withdrawal 8t;udent's change in attitude toward technical education it:self. The change in attitude was to be evaluated on true basis of their experience at N.H.T.I. Again, when the data were categorized by length of <3r11wollment and as to whether there was no attitude change, ‘1 rnore critical attitude, or a more favorable attitude, flkles chi—square test indicated the differences were not :StLEHtistically significant at .05. The distribution among the possible responses was much nnCDlre complete in this item than in previous items relative t3<> changes in occupational goals. Again, those enrolled I§C>1r the longest period most frequently responded with a I ' rmore favorable" listing, with 55 percent indicating this Enrollment .; 7" "7 T 'onoioio ‘. $0 of ength H T All. prerience y— N.H.T.I. Y) ‘ Thei tesponse D l Result of lo“ 331': (\l H ['1 \O (Ii 4,) O [‘4 :32 [\ (\J C) H m L; firs; \I) C) 0 $4 \0 (1) (1) E4 (1) L (1) £3 £4 E4 O :2: C) Q L; m (I) E B 1 :r 0 S4 ‘0 G) [-4 O 31 is m Q E1 (\1 U) i—j s3 :r on $4 $4 LI\ 0 (1) [-4 (I) f: (n O (I) (1) L. if (\I .q rm U) CH rr) r—4 04 "C O 'U G) at O (1) (D at) 0 $4 U) L c: (,3 m H E °rl as E :3 L. :3 £1 I: 54 U‘ (1) O‘ O H (l) (1) El (1) El LE Di C C C H C or—l O O °r—'| 'U "—1 Tip Qip (1) CU L4 (U (I) O (1) O or! 75 3 I3 (U 'G O '0 {Li L2] [—1 LI] 173 100 100 7U 100 36 100 .05 and 4 d.f. 63 5.5U939 not significant at Total Unchanged Chi-Square: 105 change to U7 percent of those enrolled for two terms and U3 percent of those enrolled for one or less terms. Questions 1, U, and 5 included response items l(d), “(d and e), and 5(e) associated with student's status in or perceived benefits from his education. A review of the response patterns to these items in Tables U.lO, “.11, and “.15 indicates (1) that in none of the questions were the differences of statistical significance when considered by length of enrollment and (2) that in the specific items } (see Table H.17) the group enrolled for three or more apfi "Au-1- .~ I ternm (the longest) most frequently reported the highest [mercentage of their group as enrolled in or receiving LIVlnSYCP credit toward continued education. However, the orns—or—less term group (the shortest enrollment) reported a frigher percentage actually continuing their education [liarl did the two—term group (intermediate length). The analysis of data relative to hypothesis two Shcwved only one response area with statistically significant difikzrences at .05 when response items and length of enroll— xmnit categories were considered. Therefore, it was not feaeaible to reject the null hypothesis that the dropout's 1€TH§t11 (1) hi) I l £1 4) (1) .ki 'C ..§] (1) (f) :4 {—3 L t3 32 O L0 m 03 . r‘i (3 $4 m F‘i LO 2:: [I] r—‘l (l) 0 -~ 0 (1) El L ‘ Si (1) £3 £4 (1) (1) ° LL] L: 31—4 'Ci .A-l E4 0 '7. (\J {—1 H .3 v i ‘ T: N (“4 :1” w ~41 H q! o J) I ‘1 J“ o -I.‘ - t'. m H - E2 5% U'\ CO t\ C - 7 52—. m (\J :7 "—1 [-4 (D 0 '4»! (t4 (I) 11 O (1‘ - O tn; ,1 - .C. 3 2; ON C) [\ it »"~ 43 E4 H H (K'- 4-3 1») (AU 1.: (U :1 a: -) (l) (1) Q) L !—] (I) '0 C) H {3 as m :r m (1) II t—4 £4 $4 m (\J :r +3 (1) O O (1) (U "—4 LI ["4 +3 £4 5.: (I) U) G) [Ll C (D Q. C) U) ~ N (I) I: H L0 [\~ (I) LLJ y—J (\J r—i (\J J) 5.3 $4 (1) W4 'U Q) :5 II p f’ 4 fr} CH (0 r—l O 0) (ti 4 3 4—) £4 OJ #4 0 $4 :3 ’10 'C '0 (1) (D £2 (1) 4—) "U (f) 4-) :3; rd :5 (l) °r4 C.) 4—) b0 :f’. CU 'rdl C (1) I (1) p v.6 H H | :0 (I) 4.) I: (U ,Q . Cd C1 ~‘J' a Q) £1 £4 Cd 1) {1; (U 0 LL. [Q m £3 l—J C) C.) (1) Q) m 'J :4 g. r.‘ '6 O O O [—4 {1] Z 5': 2:3 100 173* 7“ 100 100 36 .05 and U d.f. 100 63 item. A. u.027uu not significant at did not respond to this quare: e C? Total hre A hi- ~T C s 107 TAHLH U.l7.——A Summary of the Response Rate Patterns to Items l(d), “(d and e), and 5(e). (1n Percentage By Length of Enrollment). Length of Enrollment Group Response One or Three or Total Jtcm Category Less Terms Two Terms More Terms Group l(d) Continued Education as First Full— Time Activity 11% 8% 15% 12% U(d) Continuing and Education at (e) ther'fime ()f heSponse 17% 11% 20% 17% 5(e) Received Transfer Credit % 8% 15% 8% Reasons for Withdrawal and Plans for Continuing Education In addition to considering the effects of the length ()I' enrollment on the dropout's plans for future education, th was felt that the reason for withdrawal might also affect L116} dropout's plans for continuing his education. In this -1ri:stance, the anticipated result was that those who with— (11“<:w for academic reasons would be less likely to continue trllceir education, due to the general academic demands of ‘30 illege, than would those who withdrew for other than ’1Clademic reasons. The null hypothesis in this instance was: The rea— ESOn for withdrawal was unrelated to the dropout's status 108 in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his educa- tion as reported at a time of from one to three years after withdrawal. The same items were used in this analysis as in the analysis of hypothesis two. These were questionnaire questions 6, 9, 10, and 11 along with the particular dis— tribution to l(d), “(d and e), and 5(e). However, in this analysis the items were considered by the response cate- gories of reason for withdrawal. The reasons for withdrawal used were ”Academic” and "Other,” with the latter covering all reasons other than academic. In no instance were the reported differences statis- tically significant at .05 based on chi-square tests for the responses to questions 1, U, 5, 6, 9, 10, or 11 when listed by reason for withdrawal. The rates of response did indicate that, among the groups responding, those who withdrew for academic reasons were less likely to report no plans for continued education (13 percent to 23 percent), while those who withdrew for other reasons reported a higher rate of full-time attend— ance at the time of response to the questionnaire (see Table “.18). Those withdrawing for reasons other than academic more frequently reported a first choice to return to N.H.T.I. if they could relive the period at which they Were originally enrolled at N.H.T.I. The rate was nearly 109 50 percent greater in this instance, being “6 percent for "Other” to 31 percent for "Academic." However, the reverse was true in the response rate for the choice to attend a four-year college. In the latter instance, the rates were “3 percent for those withdrawing for academic reasons, which was more than a 50 percent higher rate than the 27 percent reported by those withdrawing for other reasons (see Table “.19). TABLE “.18.——The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Students Relating to Continuing Their Education. (By Reason for Withdrawal). ‘ hesponse Categories Reason for Withdrawal Plans for Further Academic Other Total College Education N % N % N % Ncnae Planned 17 13 10 23 27 15 1%) Return to Full-Time Vtithin Three Years 3“ 26 1“ 32 “8 27 1k) Return Part—Time Wixthin Three Years 32 2“ 7 16 39 22 thaw Attending Part—Time 1M 11 2 5 16 9 Menu Attending Pull—Time 20 15 9 20 29 16 0tfuér** 15 11 _§ 5 .11. lg— 'fotal 132 100 an 101* 176 99* Chin—Square: 5.lO“62 not significant at .05 and “ d.f. ('WJther" not included in chi—square calculations). In“? to rounding. ** o 0 Nirua listed undeCided, six were involved in service schools, aPprentice programs, etc., two were no response. 110 TABLE “.19.—-The Withdrawals' First Choice of Action if the Period at N.h.T.1. Could Be Lived Again. (By Reason For Withdrawal). Response Categories First Choice if Period Reason for Withdrawal at N.H.T.l. Could Be Academic Other Total Lived Again N % N % N % Return to N.H.Thl. 39 31 19 1H3 58 35 Attend Another Technical Institute 7 6 2 5 9 5 Attend a Vocational Institute 6 5 6 15 12 7 Attend a Four-Year College 55 “3 11 27 66 39 Attend an Apprentice l rwngranl IO 8 2 5 12 7 {Secdt Pilll—innré ifimployment 3 2 O 0 3 2 Ifinter the Armed fksrvices 7 6 l 2 8 5 Total 127 101* “l 100 168** 100 h Cfii-Square: 10.5931 not significant at .05 and 6 d.f. *TJue to rounding. 96““All six responding to "Other” would have been involved in ssome form of education. Both groups reported nearly identical perceived effects (”1 their occupational goals resulting from their N.H.T.I. ‘3Xpfléidence. Sixty—two percent of those who withdrew for ”<3atjendc reasons reported raised goals as compared with a (:3 {Eertent rate for those withdrawing for other reasons. H '. r3 .. o o o o e‘Ll.ly all oi the remaining respondents in each instance 111 (;8 percent of the ”Academic" withdrawal group and 35 percent of the ”Other” group) reported no change in (wxcupational goals as a result of their educational (Experience (see Table “.20). 'PAHLH “.20.——Withdrawa1 Students' Stated Changes in Occupa— t ional Goals as a Result of Their N.H.T.I. Experience — All. (By Reason for Withdrawal). Heeponse Categories Reason for Withdrawal Changes Academic Other Total in Goals N % N % N % Thiised 80 62 27 63 107 62 I.()uncrwul 1 1 1 2 2 1 “richanged “9 38 ii 35 6“ 37 Total 130 101* “3 100 173** 100 Cili—Square: 0.75“103 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *I)ue to rounding. is*"1‘hrc.=e did not respond to this item. Approximately one~ha1f of each of these two groups 3 ridieated they had a more favorable attitude toward technical “’Ciueation as a result of taeir N.H.T.I.educational experi— <>r1eo than theylndcjbefore entering the Institute. Simi- l-Eirly, about 20 percent of each group reported a more C3T‘itical attli.ie toward technical education following 1'lxeir N.H.T.I. enrollment (see Table “.21). Whether'annnwiderdrnrzill wjtflrdrawal staxknits or 'I C31v111ans" only, the fir“t full—time activity, the full—time :lc:tivity at the time of completing the questionnaire, or the 'tAth 'I‘<\\v.‘11°(l “ W 0C. at Technical N.H.T.I. .——Withdrnwal Students' Education HS 112 Stated Changes in Attitude a hesult of Their Experience (By Reason for Withdrawal). husponse Categories Reason for Withdrawal Attitude Academic Other Total Changes N % N % N % Eh) Change M1 2 11 26 52 30 thlre Critical 28 22 8 19 36 21 “More Navorahle 61 “7 2“ 56 85 “9 Total 130 101* M3 101* 173** 100 {WIi—unare: l.03“09 not significant at .05 and 2 d.ffl *IJUC txiiroundirwm *99Fhree did not res ond to this item. tIr'finr-zf'er credit received, those withdrawing for "Other" rW9nsmns reported a higher rate of return to continued 'Trhication than did those who withdrew for ”Academic" rea— 0' ‘irl ‘3()f18. J‘CNPOHCCS in rates were not large (see Table “.22). Y." ‘ .1 «.1 l) 1(>:3 17-1 , ‘- r1 1,, i re !‘r- L\_' o" V ‘~ 1 f) C; 1 .. . . . 'k1(3 JVELllffllle c3lelern:e, in t-fles ~‘joct Based the i}... r.) on the null E—l, L: h—3, 1fifim:thesis data in each instance). iata considered, there that the reason was 1’10 reason However, since only 28 former students were involved these comparisons (9 "Other" and 19 "Academic"), the dif- (See and E~2 in the appendix for the to for withdrawal unrelated to the actual or perceived value of the <~i11(:al,i()r1a l .4" in). (~Xperience. FY’,‘ I k I 4f u I I For this group of dropout students, , supports the null hypo— 113 'rARhR “.22.—-A Summary of the Response Rate Patterns to Items l(d), “(d and e), and 5(e). (In Percentage By Reason for VLitlnirenvai.). Reason for Withdrawal item Response Category Academic Other Total l(d) Continued Education as the First 1N111~Time Activity 11% 1“% 12% ’l(d & e) Continuing Eduration (All) at the Time of ReSponse 15% 22% 17% "((l & er) (hintiriuirig lfliucan;ior1 at (Civi— the Time of Response 25% 31% 27% linns) [>(e) heceived Transfer Credit 7% 12% 8% ‘)(e) leceived Transfer Credit 2% 17% 13% (Clivi— 1 inns) ‘ “ *- Present Status in and Future Plans For Continuing Education The final hypothesis was subjectively evaluated. The llypothesis itself was: Failure to complete these two—year F31“ograms did not generally mean an end of the road relative t«() further education for those dropouts. The rationale I‘Cpr this position was based on reports from many colleges Lflat i—Q. 'requently dropouts were returning later to continue 1411eir education, with a fair percentage ultimately receiving t'l‘ieir degrees. The analysis for this part of the study was based (Jr) the total response patterns to selected questionnaire JVtems which have, earlier in this study, been reported in II“ the tables hut not considered in the discussions. Selected total response items in questions 1 and “ and the responses to questions 5, 6, 9, 10, and 11 were evaluated in this analysis. These response patterns are shown in the total «wwlunnns ol"?ablw:s 11.01 , “.(12, ’l.OE), “.lnlA, 14.1111, ’l.15, “.lh, and “.12. Appendix Tahles C—l, C—“, C-5, and C—6 will also be referred to as the response rates of "Civilians ‘lnly" and should he considered when analyzing present status .responses and certain perceived responses. The first aspect considered was the initial full-time aictivity of the withdrawal student after dropping out of 1.he institute. Twelve percent of the total group immed— iately continued their education, and seventeen percent (it those who were not in the service at the time of response Iwéported this same action (see Tables “.01 and C—l). These fiigures certainly did not indicate a tendency of the drop- (DLit to immediately continue his education after withdrawal. At the time of response to the questionnaire, a I“€)riod or from one to three years after withdrawal, these ffifirrcentages of both the "Total" and the "Civilian Only" Fir'oups were reported to be 16 percent and 27 percent, respec— téivelj/ (see Tables “.02 and C—“). These rates were sub- S"tantiated in question 6 to which the response rates to the 1t0m"am now attending college full—time" were also 16 per— CC3‘r1t for the "Total” group and 28 percent for the "Civilian ()1) 15/" group (see Tables “.11A and “.118 or C-G). lib Those dropouts indicating they had received transfer credit represented 8 percent of the "Total" group and 13 percent of the "Civilian" group (see Table “.05). These response rates, while indicating that some dropouts were actually continuing their education, indi— cated that many more had not yet returned even when allowing tor those in the armed services. A somewhat different pattern occurred when the dropout's perceptions and attitudes toward his education were considered. in question 9, the dropout indicated his perception of the effect of his N.H.T.I. experience on his occupational goals as measured in terms of the amount or education required. As shown in Table “.15, over 60 percent of those responding indicated these goals had been raised, and 37 percent stated their goals remained the same. Similarly, in question 10 (see Table “.16), in which the drOpout indicated his attitude toward technical edu— cation itself, “9 percent reported a more favorable attitude, and 30 percent reported no change in attitude. The responses, then, relative to the dropout's per— ception of higher education in his life indicate that a considerable majority, indeed, in terms of occupational goals and educational requirements, almost all, felt equal 0r increased educational needs and expressed equal or more positive attitudes toward higher education after their N.H.T.l. experience than they did prior to this experience. lib When considering the drOpout's status in and plans for continued education and his first choice of action if he could relive the period during which he attended N.H.T.I., there was further verification of a positive attitude towaiwlliigher’euhication. The dropout stated his plans for or status in higher education in question 6 (see Tables “.11A and “.118). Here, 25 percent of the "Total" group and 38 percent of the "Civilian Unlf'group reported they were continuing their education on either a full— or a part—time basis. Another “9 percent of the "Total" group, or 3“ percent of the "Civilian" group, reported plans to return to college full— or part—time within three years. These totals, then, indicated that 7“ percent, or about 3 out of “, of the entire dropout group and 71 percent of the civilian group ultimately, within three years, would, hopefully, have continued their education. Similarly, in question 11 (see Table “.12), 93 percent of the dropouts stated that, if they were to relive the period during which they attended N.H.T.I., they would choose as their first choice to continue their education. The breakdown was: “0 percent would again select a tech— nical program, 1“ percent would select a vocational or apprentice program, and 39 percent would, if there were no financial obstacles, select a four—year program. 117 A subjective evaluation of the data relative to null hypothesis four concerning the dropout's possible alienation from further education then resulted in a somewhat equivocal situation. The actual reported present status in higher education for these dropouts was less than 30 percent, even when only civilians were considered. This was cer— tainly not favorable to acceptance of the hypothesis that dropping out did not mean the end of the road relative to continuing his education. However, when attitudes toward and plans for con~ tinued education were considered, the results were very much in the direction of acceptance of the hypothesis. An Additional Observation on the Reason for Withdrawal No clear pattern relating reason for withdrawal to specific future plans, reasons for not returning to N.H.T.I., or present or initial full—time activities appeared to develop in this study. However, whether by chance, by the format involved, or because of actual connection, one relationship seemed to stand out more than some others. This relationship concerned the fact that, Ufinsistentiy, a reasonably large percentage of these drop— outs indicated a change of interest or at least direction factor that could explain the reason for their withdrawal. The reason for this may have been related to necessity, but the pattern did seem to deserve attention. 118 in response to questions 1 and U, most dropouts indicated that after withdrawal they became occupied in fields other than that in which they were studying. While this could have been related to job availability or effected by the numbers in the service, it was difficult to assume this was universally or near universally true. in responding to questions 7 and 12 relative to their choice of program if they were to continue their education, about one—quarter indicated they would select quite differ- ent or different programs, respectively. The responses to question 13 (see Tables “.23 and H.PH) indicated that, regardless of the length of enroll- ment or the reason for withdrawal, the most common reasons for not choosing to return to N.H.T.I. as their first choice if they could relive their original period at N.H.T.I. were related to curricular or program matters. It would appear, therefore, that significant addi— tional attention should be devoted to determining more effective and adequate means of (l) assessing each pro- spective student's interests and capabilities prior to admission or (2) informing each prospective student of the goals and content of the programs. 0n the other hand, until one or both of these methods can be improved, it may be necessary and important to consider the fact that frequently the dropout learned a lesson concerning his abilities and goals during his brief educational experience. .mempwooo nmomnnsoo oooao UH303 hoop ooQHmHoxo momcoomoo :oocpoz omoE** .wcHoGSOL ow coax .oopSQEoo poz Hongdmlflco ll‘) 00H eHH *HOH a OOH mm OOH m: Hmpoe :m **mm om mem :m wwml WM! MMWM xxhogoo em om om m em m em ma empomaxm we p.emm3 Empmopm e e s m m m a m seem semespm saecmacccp me o o o o c o a o memeamoeoa fimcmcmo wee s m ma m m m o o oaoocommooc: mmz gonzoma mpzuapmeH age a m m H o 0 ea e pa30flcoao ooe mm; eatmotm a fl 0 o o o w H menu 00% mm» Emhmopm H H o o o o m H oopflmom coflpmozem emceepfleoq oz NH mm mm OH ma m ma s oopommo poz oooflmom Ezazoflggso ofimflooou HM ma ea m as m s m moaogo umtflm Hmcamflto one poz .H.e.m.z .Q M. m m m m u a moflono owcfim a Htuow munch one: magma can magma mmon mm .H.e.m.z weapomawm no women no mco Gamma ooz pom mcommom lamrflfiomam .H.w.m.: mo :wmcmu moflgowoomo omcoqmom .2 D5 H...W.$.i Pm MUOHCHQW zag gamete--.mm.q woman 7 O 4) 4) {oi-«40.- ,1... I. II .' 'r 190 TABLE H.2H.-—heasons Given for Not Selecting N.H.T.I. as a first Choice if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again. (By Reason for Withdrawal). Response Categories Reason for Withdrawal Reason for Not Again Selecting N.H.T.1. As Academic Other Total A First Choice N % N % N % N.H.T. I . Not the Uriginal First Choice 10 11 3 12 13 11 Specific Curriculum Hesired Not Available 12 13 8 32 2O 17 Pk) Achiit,iornil hdtuwitirui Desiawed 1 l O O l 1 Program Was Too Easy 1 l O O l 1 Program Was Too hifficult 6 7 2 8 8 7 The Institute Faculty Was Unreasonable 8 9 O O 8 7 The General Atmosphere 0 O O O O 0 An Unfriendly Student Body 5 5 2 8 7 6 Program Was Not As Expected 25 27 5 2O 3O 26 Other** 23 25 _§ 20 28 2“ Total 91 99* 25 100 116 100 Chi—Square: Not computed. *Due to rounding. **The responses to ”Other" varied with eight specifically mentioning a desire to attend four—year institutions. if this latter lesson can be effective and valuable, then the educational experience of the drOpout will not be as wasteful as we have often thought. §ummary Seventy-five percent (176) of a sample of 237 drop— outs returned completed questionnaires. The responses to these 176 returned questionnaires were analyzed by (1) comparing the response patterns of those enrolled for one or less terms, two terms, or three or more terms on certain questions relating to (a) employment and (b) continued higher education; (2) comparing response patterns on cer— tain questions relating to continued higher education versus the reason for withdrawal; and (3) evaluating the responses on questions relative to determining the stu— dent's status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continued higher education. The chi—square test of statistical significance was applied to the findings on those sets of data tabulated by (1) length of enrollment and (2) reason for withdrawal. Of 16 sets of data, only one was found to have differences of statistical significance at .05. Therefore, the follow- ing null hypotheses could not be rejected: 1. The dropout's length of enrollment prior to withdrawal had no relationship to his reported job—related status and attitudes at from one to three years after withdrawal. 12’? 2. The dropout's length of enrollment was not related to his status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education as reported at from one to three years after withdrawal. 3. The reason for withdrawal was not related to the drOpout's status in, plans for, and attitudes toward continuing his education as reported at a period of from one to three years after with— drawal. A fourth hypothesis was subjectively evaluated on the basis of the total response patterns to selected questions relating to status in, attitudes toward, and plans for continued higher education. It was subjectively concluded that, generally, these dropout students had maintained a relatively positive attitude toward and had planned, within three years, to return to higher education. It was also concluded that, in spite of the failure to reject hypothesis one concerning length of enrollment and employment factors, the dropout, in terms of earnings, was at a very significant economic disadvantage when compared with his classmate who graduated. CHAFHHNR V FHHMWARY 1H“) CONtHJfiSlONS Summary The dropout from higher education h.s been of some (:cgncern to college officials and researchers for much of 1,!)c twentieth century. Studies of the dropouts have §ttcrmining how many return to college after withdrawal. llcgwcvnr, little or no effort appeared to have been directed tog) determining what effect, if any, the dropouts themselves 1 alter attributed to their "brief" educational experience. 17k1e purpose of this study was to determine whether the (ltéopout, in his own estimation, had been affected by his "}>rief" exposure to post—secondary education at a technical iristitutc. A questionnaire follow—up study was completed with 11 {group of students who had withdrawn from a two—year post- ‘3fiheondary technical institute. Questionnaire responses were received and analyzed from 176 (75 percent) of a pOpulation of 236 students. These students had withdrawn PI‘0m their program within a period of from one to three and ‘9rle-half years prior to their receipt of the questionnaire. 123 l?“ The response patterns to applicable questionnaire i.te‘ms were analysed by various categories, including clenagth of enrollment and reason for withdrawal. Length (31‘ enrollment categories of one term or less, two terms, uJ1r the "civilians." With the exceptions of the obvious a111opm Aemavm ma Asomvm ma mcmpopo> E Imufl m S slam H83. Aaoqu m Aasmv: m :zocxcs Aaomvm o Aaaevea 3m gasses flammvmm Hm Aammvm: as space Axomvmm em Aemmvaz ms ocooom Aasqvmfi m: Aemmvsfi mm doe whoppmsa an meaesmpm mmmao Hoocom swam Ammmwmaa mma Awmmvmma mflm Hmpoe Ago so m Age as m tm>o new mm Aemmvs om Aemmve mm mmufim gammvssa sea Aammvmfia mag salsa omg 2m AammMMHH mam Aanmwsma BMW Hmsoe Agowvma om flammvofi ma madame Aammvaoa mefi Aammvzfia mad mama xom mpsomdnm mmmao Hmpou mpSOQOQQ mmmam Hobo mowcmfimmpompmgo mead .mpmm wSOQomQ esp opmoaosH mamocpconmm Q4 m .COHpmHsaom one mo mofipmfipopompmco one mo apmfifism11.4|¢ mqmww .pmoe weapflpq< noesmnmopm * Wmmmvmm lbw ”mmmyam mm Hmpoe Ago so 0 AROQHVH H czocxc: flammva : Aaomom OH o Amoevofl em Amamvafi mm o flammvma mm Aaemvm 3H m use a whOom. COHUQCHEMNM A*..H...<..mv mocmhpcm ”mmmwmm mm mammvam mm deuce Aaomvzfi mm Aammvma mm pzom “Ramos 3H Aaomvm ma emcee gassvm a gases: m 029 flammvm m Aaomvm OH mco moamemflumz Hoocom swam mo whoow ”mmmwmm mm “mmmwam mm Hmsoe Ago so 0 Ago so 0 Hmcoasmoo> geomoa m Agemvm a HmEmCme 3 SS; 2 SS5 2 $3858 .M flammvmm m: Aasmvmfi mm stosmsaamtm mwmaaoo Emprhm Hoonom swam hammwmm mm ”mmmwam mm Hmpoe Ago so o “SQOHVH H czocxcs “.mmva m Aaooavm m seepage cusses “games a gammvflfl ma postage space Aawmvmfi mm geomem ma passage ecoomm Ammqooa am gammoe ma wastage doe wcaecmpm mamas Hoonom swam modOdOhQ mwmao kuoe musommna wmmHo Hence mofipmfipopompmno mama 1moma .mpmm DSOQOLD map mmeHHoCH munmmflpcmcamm CH mmhdmfim .mmma 03m mme .H..H..m.z AWCHmmmoohm mum/.1. owfiofipomflm.’ mofimhpmm pm mmafimofim OflEmUmod pfimfldpmll.ml¢ Mdmdrw fl. . . ..I..IIIl.I.l.-1.IrlflI-. . 1 IL: 0 cm “amass Aaamomm Aammvmm 0 cm Ago so Aaooavm flammoaa Ago so Aaomvam 11M hMImpbm Asomvm Aaomva Agaeomfi amoosm m :om o OJWKDEQ em: “mmmwom Aaomvfi Aaqmvsm Aammvmm ”mmmwom Aaomvfi Aaomvfl Agsmvma Ago so A&mmvo: z’\/\/\ R0k0})\0\ [\mo (\1 \O mkoq) Ln vx/givv LON NW: C (\l r-‘ir—i N O H NOLfl mm [\ O H MON-LON (\l [\ Fe. O H r~\o O m 10 H or) m H Hopoe ponpo 950m cease mOHmeocpmz Hoonom swam mo memo» Hmpoe .Q.m.o Hmcofipmoo> Hmpocoo HmfionmEEoo SLOpmpmaopm owoaaoo sapwopm Hoozom swam Hmsoe czochD hopnmsa gppsom Loopwza peace soppmsa ocooom pmpnmsa doe mcwecapm mmmfio Hoogom swam mosoaonm mmmao Hmoow mmmao Hm one cowoaocH mam manpomcamsm oficon_ mmma was not ocm moma. mopfimapopompmso .H. H. ..n mrm OHOCComB p m U. 11) ))| 4 a1 4UI .ml m hpqu '3’ . r) Rate. Dropout I! ' .- ‘, -- . r-J. . .ioéiod. o \ / chnology O x. m .L l o O‘\ r-I In KO 0\ r1 (.0 LU r-‘l CU E4 Characteristics High School Class Standing 1N5 AAAA NRR‘DRR NOKOOO L“ a) vvvv UNOKOO H (\J m [x (‘WCU H mm 30P~HN r‘Jr-i LO :1“ Ln m,~\r\¥35{/~\ AAA/N IKBQYROEQ’Q SQBQRR&° (DH'Wt‘t-OOV'J OOHLflr-i (\JLRCIDr-i [\- :TN moor—4000 (Y‘)O[‘~mm r“{(\l m (\J m Qmonr-«Ir—l mowqf—r r’ir’an m m H L!“ >5 E51. (:30 $44.) bqtti $4 $4 0&4 (1)5140) hm p'vp D—oQ. LhUS-c G) (DCULICU v—ii-u—i r—l «D'JCU'J 0(1ch CU £40233 O or! C1 CG CG’ (3 .CIGJOr—io 2313 £13 ObOLm-r—i CFC'UJJO mmmfip <3L4L§3H H Eaxmrd QO-HSXCU .Cr—i Com OmQOCP bOOOQ)O-LJ Bcneau.3 o inCJCJ> O H I. E4 Years of High School AAA EQB‘QBQ Nwo O \OU\\O vvv mmMI—‘I r—ir—i m HOLDN (\JN Ln Three Four Other Mathematics Total ‘7 1: .' . ‘5"‘7 . ‘ I’IO II I '” m I?) AAAAAA 4.) AAA/\AAA '.7 t;‘-’.JQBSB\°.I~}QESE.Q :3 BR$§RRBQBQ 0 gnome-JO O Namooooo C). (D-‘3‘Om\Or-IO Q. \D\OMI\-Ln (I) () \-"~—~"~A '\—/\’\-/ U) Q \/vvvv\_/ 4-) SI O\u—I{\~CIJ-II'r—IO 4) S... \OJMP-r—IOI—I "I 5:: (J: H r-‘I Ln {2 Q ,—{ m ‘1 ‘I (I) Q) H) '0 KO 'U \0 (1) :3 k0 :3 k0 ‘ 1) G\ 4-) C\ I’ U) H U) H ‘1 (n U) (II :)3 U) >). U) 5' I10 U" I20 LU JI O r'I L) H {'u r—I C) r-II.(\L(\O’\\L)I\~(YI rd 0 monmmmonl O F‘I (\I (\I I) C) (\j Ln ‘1 C: F4 5.: H "i C C" .C (J C) I‘ C) i.) '1) (1) (3 (D O 0.) E4 [-1 E4 8* $4 1‘ no b0 to - at 2 WI (1) °r‘I "—4 II. p :4 :4 m (I) (I) <1) (I) L; Q) J.) AfoA/"x/‘x Q) 4) AAA/\r-xr-x ° C :5 ts ts: ts: ts\°. be ts». t? C. :3 5°. tx" tsa ts\° ea R E? (II I) °r’I O C) In 0\ [\- (\J (10.0 W4 0 O (D :r 3- :- Ln (“1 . I :i (10 Q. :T :r [\.\o\o (Y'ILfl b0 Q, :r mn-xoxo [\ ’f‘I () C: (\ \"-"--" \/\”V C O \- VVVVV (OI Q. [n] L. (Ur/WLfloomr—IO m 3.. mwwr—Imem (.1 () CI r"I r‘i t‘I Q ,_.| on $1 $4 C) H n. If.) 'r-I Ln 0;; Ln L: KO c) kc) 0.) I 0 ON ".4 o, S" A”: 4 f’" C H () 4-?) 4-3 (I) (U U) U C) (I) .5: (r) U) (I) (1) GI Q (U 4) F'I 1‘4 (1) ,—1 f! m LL] C) O C) C). [\ng m rm :5-1 0 moo Ln ,_7 H :3- (I (I (\J (Y) r-I (\l (j) H H ,_{ m 'r'I -r'I r-I r-I r—I I.) "(i (15 us {II $1 +7 p 1;: I- I (I Q °r‘I I I E" £3 LII x III Q) I'D {:1 LS 534 I) (I? III (I) Q) I III) ()0 g”. c ' M (6 In (L; (I; I 4-) p -.x: U) U) lflkO UNIT 00 (I) Lfl\D ON-IT CD (1) II] manNt—Itflr—I mmmmr-IE—Ir—I ;J l l l l I (U l l I I I (U n] [\OLflONOO-I—D NOLflChOOJJ q: (rztfimr—I ZO mmmc—I 20 [4 E4 E‘ Science lim‘ mat—vii”! 7:5 ._ '3 Nrwm neering l and III of the Eng , TT J-‘. The raw score of Parts I, Aptitude Test. 1H7 TAHLE A—h.—-Summnry of the Retention and Withdrawal Rates for Those Students Twenty—One Years of Age and Older Enter— ing N.H.T.l. as Freshmen in the Fall of 1965 or 1966. Figures in Parenthesis Indicate the Dropout Rate. Ages 21-25 Major Entered Graduated Withdrew EDP 12 6 6(50%) EET 23 18* 5(22%) MET 8 _6 2(25%) Total U? 3 13(30%5 Ages 26 and Over Entered Graduated Withdrew EMF 3 3 O EET 2 2 O MET 2 2 Q Total 7 7 0 Total 21 and over 50 37(7H%) 21 or Over and a Veteran Entered Graduated Withdrew EMF 7 6 1(1H%) rwn' 19* 16 3(16%) MET 3 _; O( 0%) 'Potal 29* 25 Hiln%5 __A__ * Two of these had graduated at the time of the study but had graduated one year after their respective classes. [”8 TABLE A—Y.--A Summary of Retention and Attrition of Students Who Had One or More Terms of College Prior to Entering N.H.T.I. Figures in Parenthesis Indicate the Dropout Rate. .l _. _ -. _. .-__- --._ --_.___,_-. —___...__ _' 1965 Major Entered Graduated Withdrew EMT 12 7 5(A2%) MET 3 _3 1(33%) Total 53 12 12ZSO%5 1966 Entered Graduated Withdrew EMF 6 5 l(l7%) EFT 10 7* 3(30%) MET _§ 0 5(100%) Total 21 12* 9 3 * Two required three years to graduate. APPENDIX B QUES“IONNAIRE, ACCOMPANYING LETTERS, NEWS RELEASE AND RATE OF RETURN INFORMATION JUQ .01 .- fi t ‘r | 5:..‘Jct run-am E E H38 mm 5 czocxcs om NH poppmsa nppsom :5 Ho poppmsa chase mm mm Loppmsa ocooom op mm nmpnmso ace mcflacmpm mmmfio Hoosom swam K E E B m. B. :38 ms m: :m mm ow mm swoaocsome wCHpoocchm HmOHcmnooz ow mm om o: om a: mmoaocsome mcfipmocamcm cacoppomam mm H: mm om mm om mcfimmmoopm mama oacoppomam homo: ESHSOHALSQ .H.B.:.z K E wt .6 K B 389 we a: me mm ms ma coamcmamsm Lo QHEmomo< cone ponpo as mma mg as as as coamcmamsm no OHEmamoa Hmzmpo3paz pom commom mt PE mt mm m... R H38. m6 mm we mm **mm m: memoe snow to omhce ma am we ma mm ma magma 039 mm aw mu mm mm mm Ehoe ogo Lo oz pcmeflflomcm .H.B.m.z do gpmcma m z m z a : Hmpoe mocwppcm mmma mpcmmpnm tmmfl mpowmpmo wcpzuom mo comm ocm mCLSpmm Hmpow .Awdsopm m>Hpoodmom who mo mmtodmmm mo mmpmm map omeflocH mop:Mfim mwmwcmopmmv .mofipmfipopompmso paedopm mo mmfipomopmo macanmh no mmmfimgCOHummsw map mo campmm Mo wumm map on camouflsomh «1|.H1m mmmwh 151 .ocoopmd om BOHmQ sodomy do comp m ow: moflpowmomO omonp mo oco afico .psoopmd mm ocm mo Cmmzuoo ohm: Shanon mo mmump m: onp mo Ammv pcoopod mm .pcoopmd mm u om mo m: asthmp to moon oomflpommme amonmfim** .pcmopmd o: u m no N .csspop mo moon umozoq* up ma :oE03 on ma owmaaoo m50fi>mpm *0: m oofi>pmm auspfiaflz msow>mhm moflpommpmo msoocmaaoomflz ox .4 P. , n.\ 74 I 7 E L Mo » . Hooch mothpcm mmma mpcmppqm mmma anowopmo mcmupm: mo mpmm ocm mCLSpmm am oh nmscflpcoouu.fium mamam 15? NEW HAMPSHIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE Concord, New Hampshire NEWS RELEASE For Release Wednesday,iMarch 12, Concord: Each person who was enrolled as a full—time freshman in l965 or l966 at the New Hampshire Technical Institute will be mailed an evaluation questionnaire this week. The theme of this evaluation effort is "Toward Continued Improvement." This is both part of a thorough follow—up and self-evaluation study underway at the Institute and part of a doctoral study. The results will, therefore, be significant both in improv- ing the programs at the Institute and in reflecting in technical institute education on a much broader basis. Mr. George Strout, Director of the Institute, stated that a major focus of this study is on the student who attended the Institute for less than the full two years. The Director and others on theInstitutestaff are interested in hearing from every one of these former students whether they attended for only a few weeks, for a few terms, or graduated. In fact, the study will provide useful data for evaluation only if all of these students are fully represented in the responses . Information provided by this follow-Up study will be carefully evaluated and considered as a basis for continued program improvement with the student in mind. linunnwm‘n—m- 153 The questionnaire has been carefully planned to use only a short period of the former student's time and yet to provide current and useful information. While each response may be made by use of a check-mark, the former student is invited to add his or her own comments on a number of topics. Prompt response by each of these former students will be of significant assistance and will lead to an early evaluation of the findings. -End— GMS:prs E 3/6/69 For further information call or write George M. Strout, Director, New Hampshire Technical Institute, Fan Road, Concord; {Hunu3 271-7531. 15” A Copy of the Letter Mailed with the Initial Questionnaire George m, Strout Alfred L. Fillion Director Dean of Admissions Phone 271—2531 And Instrution NEW HAMPSHIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FAN ROAD, CONCORD, N.H. 03301 March in, 1969 Dear Mr. Stewart: Your college—related experience as a student at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in Concord and afterward is of interest to us. I am conducting a doctoral study with the hope of learning from you, the former student who did not complete his or her work at the Institute, as much as I can that will enable us to better meet the needs of future stu- dents. In fact, in some instances I hope that we may be able to provide programs or information that will assist you. Your attention to and cooperation in completing the enclosed confidential questionnaire will be appreciated. It has been prepared to be completed in a short time. I should appreciate your attention to this today and your returning it tomorrow in the enclosed returnuaddressed, postage-paid envelope. Please feel free to come in for a talk should you desire. I will arrange to be at the Institute at a time mutually con- venient to us both should you desire to come in, and would look forward to visiting with you. Remember, we need your frank answers now to assist us in making decisions. Yours very truly, George M. Strout Director GMS:cac Enclosure: P.S. The confidential questionnaire requires less time to complete than appears from its length. The length is to increase the convenience for you. A Copy of the Second Letter — First Follow—up Letter George M. Strout Alfred L. Fillion Director Dean of Admissions Phone 271—2531 and Instrution NEW HAMPSHIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FAN ROAD, CONCORD, N.H. 03301 April 7, 1969 f l)ear Former NHTI Student: /\ questionnaire identical with that enclosed was mailed to Azou just over two weeks ago. While we have received " IreSponses from approximately one—half of the group, we had F riot received your response as of this mailing. ;A. Edour frank and honest response is needed if we are to have :1 real cross section for evaluation. Remember the informa- tsion will at no time be associated with you as an individual. [\lso remember that the information received is part of an c3va1uation aimed at continued improvement at the Institute. 'Fherefore, your prompt (this week if possible) completion (of the enclosed questionnaire and your returning it in the eenclosed postage—paid envelope will be very helpful and a3ppreciated. Sincerely yours, George M. Strout Director G MS : c ac liriolosure: 156 A Copy of the Third and Final Follow-Up Letter George M. Strout Alfred L. Fillion Director Dean of Admissions Phone 271-2531 and Instruction NEW HAMPSHIRE TECHNICAL INSTITUTE FAN ROAD, CONCORD, N.H. 03301 April 2A, 1969 IJear Former Student: Bflore than two of every three former 1965 or 1966 N.H.T.I. i“reshman students like yourself (non-graduates) have already xreturned their completed questionnaires. However3 yours is sstill needed to provide an even more complete representation. It ”SF-”:0“; (If. . I *{our time, an estimated 30 minutes, and efforts in honestly {and frankly completing the enclosed questionnaire will be zappreciated and will be very helpful. 'Phis is the last call. I will not bother you again with this Inatter, but remind you that if we do not have your response, gyour contribution will be missing. Very truly yours, George M. Strout Director G M3 : p rs LCrielosure: 157 THEAED CONTINUED IMTROVEMENT Questionnaire Your thoughtful and frank responses are requested. They will be significant in providing information that should aid us in .improving the programs at the New Hampshire Technical Institute. ASSURANCE: At no time will your responses be identified \Nlth you as an individual. The coded number on the question- Iaaire is for two purposes: I) To enable the receptionist ‘Lo determine who has and who has not answered. This will be clone using a report of numbers only returned by the keypunch (sperator and 2) To allow the keypunch operator, who has no rdames available and who will open the envelope, to match 'these responses with already available and similarly coded Iinformation. the data from coded cards will be analyzed by a computer in ggroup form only. Comments will be accumulated and will at 110 time be identified with any one person. J N[J‘J‘RUC'I‘il'CthJ: I’lease place a check (/6 before the phrase that indicates jyour personal attitude or status relative to each of the .fcdlowing applicable questions or statements. 1.. What was your first full—time assignment after leaving N.H.T.l? a) A job in a field similar to your major at N.H.T.I. b) A job in a field different from your N.H.T.I. major. c) Entered the armed services. d) Continued your education at another college. e) Other (Please list) — - Were you satisfied with this first full—time experience after leaving N.H.T.l? a) Yes. b) No. i3 - Have you been unemployed and looking for a job for periods of two successive weeks or more since leaving N.H.T.I? a) No. b) Yes once. 0) Yes two or more times. Please Continue Na \V (i. What is Did your education at N.H.T.I. a)“____ n) d) m ——__———-— e) f) s) h) ———-——_— -_—.——_ your present full-time education or employment A job in a field similar to your major at N.H.T.I. A job in a field different from you N.H.T.I. major. Entered the armed services. Continued your education at another college. Returned to N.H.T.I. Other (Please list) Obtain a job in a field similar to your N.H.T.I. major. Obtain a job in a different field. Receive assignment to an armed services school of your choice. . Pass tests leading to a service or apprentice A school assignment. A Receive transfer credits to another college. Broaden your interests. No help. Other (Please list) What are your plans for continuing your college education? A 1) ) ——.——— No further college education planned. Plan to return to college full-time within three years. Plan to return to college part-time within three years. Am now attending college part-time or taking a correspondence course. Am now attending college full-time. Other (Please list) if you are now (or plan to) continuing your college educa- tion is a) b) C) As a result of your N.H.T.I. it (will it be)? In the same field as your N.H.T.I. Somewhat different. Quite different. major. education, has your earning capacity: a b) C) Remained the same. Increased. _ Decreased. Please Continue help you (Check each item F“” that applies): ! JO. 159 As a result of your experience at N.H.T.I. have your occupational goals been: a) Raised in terms of the amount of education required to achieve the goals. b) __ Lowered. c) Unchanged. Would you describe your attitude toward technical educa- tion as now being: a) - The same as that held prior to entering N.H.T.I. b) More critical. c) _ More favorable. ‘ if you could relive the time spent at N.H.T.I., which of the following would you select to do (assume there were no financial obstacles to your selection)T—TList first and second choices, using I for first and 2 for second.) a)_ Attend N.H.T.I. again. : b) Attend another technical institute. § c) Attend a vocational institute. 3 d)__m__ Attend a four-year college. _ e) Attend an apprentice-type program. f) Seek full-time employment instead of continuing your education. g) Enter the armed services (or remain in if you were a veteran). Other (Please list) l l h) If you checked item (a) as your first choice in number 11 above, would you have selected the same program? a) Yes. D) No. If you checked any item other than (a) as your first choice in number ll above, please check the reason you would not choose to attend N.H.T.I. again. (If more than one applies, please list I, 2, 3 in order of importance.) a) lt was not your first choice to start with. h)—__’“ The programs did not include a curriculum of real interest to you. You were not really interested in additional education. The Institute programs were too easy. The Institute programs were too difficult. The Institute faculty and staff were unreasonable. The Institute student body was unfriendly. The general atmosphere bothered you. The program was not what you expected. Other (Please list) 0) d e ‘I r—o. .4“) Hill! I! we“ t—J‘ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C—lof-b ——-.——-——-—. Please Continue l6. 17. 18. 160 in your estimation was your experience at N.H.T.l. Very beneficial. “flue-— a) b) .___ Of some benefit (Worthwhile). c) d) Of little or no benefit. 0f negative value. Comments invited: — _————a—_ if you are now employed full-time, what is your base pay? (no overtime) a) - Under $4,000 per year. b) Between $U,000 and $4,999 per year. c) Between $5,000 and $5,999 per year. d) Between $6,000 and $6,999 per year. e) Between $7,000 and $7,999 per year. f) $8,000 or over per year. Were the general education courses (English, social science, math, physics, accounting) a) Valuable to you as a person. b) Valuable to you on your Job. c) _ Of little or no value. M Why did you decide to attend college? (Check the one most applicable reason.) a) * To help assure a creative and challenging job. b)_~__h_io help you receive a better salary. c) To learn more about a subject of interest to you. d) '— Your friends were going. e) Parents or others urged you to go. f) _ Other (Please list) m Why did you select N.H.T.I? (If more than one applies, please list 1,2,3, etc. in order of importance.) a) Near home. b) Low cost. e) Had the program you wanted. HI d) Had a good reputation. 0) Only college that would accept you. f) ‘— A friend was to be there. g) A representative of the Institute spoke to me. h)—' Other (Please list) You a) were, b) were not satisfied with your education at N.H.T.I. Please Continue 1!‘ ..- 90. NJ. 161 I if you were not satisfied with your education at N.H.T.I. which of the following best explains why? (If more than one applies, list 1,2,3, in order of importance) a)_ Not enough shop or laboratory time. b) You selected the wrong program for your interests. c) _ The mathematics was too difficult. d) Courses were too easy. e) Requirements were too stiff. f) You Just weren't interested. g) __ The program had too few elective courses. h)____ Other (Please list) When you first enrolled at N.H.T.I., would you classify yourself as having been: a) Confident of your success at N.H.T.I. b) Uncertain but hopeful. c) Worried. , d) “ Didn't really care. E Would more financial aid have been of significant assis— ' ' tance to you? (Please note how much more aid you would have needed.) a) None. b) Up to $200 a year. c) $201 to $600 a year. d) $601 to $1,000 a year. e) Over $1,000 a year. While attending N.H.T.I., would you say the time you devoted to studying_was: a)' Above average for N.H.T.I. students. b) Average. c) Below average. d) Almost none. in your efforts as a student at N.H.T.I., did your parents (family): a) Encourage you. b) Remain neutral (show very little interest). c) Discourage you. d) __ Push you too much. While you were at N.H.T.I., were your closest friends (Check only two): a) Also at N.H.T.I. b) At another college. c) Working. d) In the service. e) Other (Please list) Please Continue r.) f) . 1" .f. 99, 162 Please check the level of formal education completed by your father or your legal guardian. a)_ _fl“ Less than eighth grade. b) Eighth grade. c)_ Between nine and eleven years. d) High school graduation. e) One to three years of college. f) Four years of college or more. Do you feel that you generally received fair treatment while at N.H.T.I. a) Yes. b)_w__: No. if you answered no in number 27, please note the reason/s for your response. a) Grading was too difficult. b) Faculty was too demanding. c)_ ~ Administration was not understanding. d) Requests for assistance were ignored. e) Other (Please list) How well did your high school background prepare you for the program at N.h.T.I? a)_ Very well. b) .__ Batisfactorily. c) Poorly. ~—_ (1): Other (Please list) Were you provided with adequate information in high school to enable you to select the college of your choice? a)_ Yes, excellent information. 1)) Yes, but only fair. (1 ) No . Would more counseling or other assistance have helped you at N.H.T.I? a) Yes, by faculty. b) Yes, by administrators. c) No, there was adequate counseling. d) Other (Please list) Please Continue lmd .~ 163 32. During the majorit of the time spent attending N.H.T.I., did you live {please check only one): a) At home or with relatives. b) In the dormitory. c) At the Y.M.C.A. or in a private home in or near Concord. 33. If you normally commuted daily, how far did you drive one wa to N.H.T.I? Under 15 miles. 1 b) 15 - 29 miles. c) 30 - UM miles. ' d) “5 or more miles. f 3”. if you commuted, would you have lived in the dormitory had there been room available? a) Yes. b) No. i5. If you lived in the dormitory, do you feel that (check ~ each that applies): ‘ ; a) The hall atmosphere (friendliness) was good. The hall atmosphere was poor. The hall was too noisy. The hall condition was conducive to study. You were allowed too much freedom. You were too restricted. 36. Please list your attitudes toward each of the following courses that you took. For Each Course Please’Check: One of These and One of These Very WorthI‘Too Too Just Good Good Poor less Diff- Easy Right Boring cult English Mathematics Physics Accounting Graphics Social Science ‘4‘“ -‘~1-*JM~ Majors l Other Comments Invited: Please Continue 38. 101: (For_those not graduating) The few weeks prior to with— drawing were you: a) interested in your academic work. b) Bored with your academic work. c) Interested more in matters conflicting with your academic work. (For those not graduating) As you look back, what was the primary reason for your withdrawal (or academic problem)? (If more than one applies, list 1,2,3, etc. in order of importance .) a)_ __m The courses were too difficult. f b) ._ Inadequate high school background. f c) _ The program was not what you expected. ? d)_____ You were pushed into the program by your parents 5 or by someone else. i e)_____ You Just didn't study enough. i f) You had to work too many hours a week at an é outside job. E g) Unrealistic academic requirements at the ; Institute. ' h)___;” Illness. ’ Inadequate finances. j)_' You were not really interested. k) _ You did not like the general atmosphere at the Institute. 1) Other (Please list) If you withdrew or were suspended from the Institute for academic reasons, which of the following would have contributed most in assisting you to overcome the cause of your difficulty? (If more than one applies, please list them 1,2,3, etc., in order of importance.) a) A better high—school preparation. b) More faculty assistance at N.H.T.I. More counseling by the Dean or others in similar positions. d)_____ A less—demanding course load (fewer courses). e)_ More challenging courses. f) More interest by your parents and/or your friends. g) The opportunity to transfer to a different program. h) _ Better advising prior to entering. 1) Nothing, because I didn't want to continue. 3) A room in the residence hall to save time needed to travel. k) Other (Please list) Please Continue 165 Please add any additional comments you feel would be helpful. A letter, personal visit to the Institute, or phone call will be welcomed. 1 will be happy to call those of you who live in New Hampshire if you would like. a) I would like to discuss this further by phone. b)_ Please call me, , at phone number THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION APPENDIX C l'.hll_,A‘.i‘LVl£ HILII‘ONSE RAT CS OI“ DROPOUTS UllOtll'l CURRENT :‘J'V'I'E‘UIJ WALL ClVlLlAN OR ARMED SERVlCES 166 JOY TABLE C~l.~—The Withdrawals' First Full—Time Activity After N.H.T.I. (By Current* Status m Civilian or Armed Service). Response Category of Current* Status First Full—Time Activity Civilian Service Total After N.H.T.l. N % N % N % A Job Related to N.H.T.1. Major 32 31 10 1U “2 29 ll tlcvl) [1111"c> lLllL63tl l)() 1% .11 .‘l‘. 1.. Major A7 A5 17 2A 6A 36 Entered the Armed Service 6 6 “2 58 A8 27 Continued hducation 18 17 3 A 21 12 Other 1 1 1 1 Total 10A 100 72 100 176 100 (nil—JLQLulre: Ntd, C(flanNUELI. _ *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. ‘PABLR C—R.»—The Withdrawals' Reported Satisfaction with Their Ifirst Full—Time Activity After N.H.T.I. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Relative to First Civilian Service Total Full—Time Activity N % N % N % Lintisfied 51 A9 31 A3 82 A7 11.3t Satisfied A5 A3 39 5A 8A A8 IJr) Response 8 8 2 3 10 6 Total 10A 100 72 100 176 101** \ girli—Square: 1.26537 not significant at .05 on 1 d.f. ‘éstatus at the time the questionnaire was completed. 96Due to rounding. 168 TABLE C—3.~—The heported Number of Two-Week or More Periods of Unemployment Since Withdrawal. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Two—Week or More Periods Civilian Service Total of Unemployment N % N % N % None 82 79 68 9A 150 85 One 9 9 1 1 10 6 l 'l‘Wo (11‘ More 6 6 2 3 8 5 8 1h) Respuuune 7 7 l 1 8 5 Total 10A 101** 72 99**176 101** ; § Chi—Square: 5.82231 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. "No 3 Response" not included in test.- *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. **hue to rounding. TARLB C~A.~—The Current* Full—Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Current* Full—Time Civilian Service Total Activity N % N % N % A Job Related to N.H.T.I. Major 27 26 o o 27 15 A Job Unrelated to N.H.T.l. Major 38 37 O O 38 22 hntered the Armed Service 0 O 72 100 72 Al Continuing Education Hull—Time 28 27 0 0 28 16 Other or No Response (includes Housewife and _ Unemployed) ll 11 0 0 ll 6 Total 10“ 101** 72 100 176 100 R Chi-Square: Not computed. iStatus at the time the questionnaire was completed. **Due to rounding. TABLE C—5.—-Perceived Assistance of His 169 Technical Education. ;. 14:11. 12'11 n if ‘I‘I‘X" (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Perceived Value of Civilian Service Total N.H.T.l. Education N % N % N % Aided in Obtaining a Job in Major Field Area 30 29 l2 17 A2 2A Aided in Obtaining a Job in a Field Unrelated to H.H.T.l. Major 9 9 l 1 10 6 Aided in Obtaining a Service or Apprentice _ School Assignment 15 1A Al 57 56 32 Basis of Transfer Credit 1A 13 0 0 1A 8 hroadened Interest A5 A3 23 32 68 39 No Help 23 22 7 10 30 17 Total 10A - 72 — l76** - Chi—Square: No chi—square computed. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. **A multiple response item and percentages will not add to 100 or responses to totals. u I‘LL; .4 170 TABLE C—6.——The Stated Plans of the Withdrawal Relative to Continuing Their Education. Civilian or Armed Service). Students (By Current* Status — Response Categories of Current* Status Plans for Further Civilian Service Total College Education N % N % N %v None Planned 2O 19 7 10 27 15 To Return Full—Time Within Three Years 11 ll 37 51 A8 27 To Return Part—Time Within Three Years 2A 23 15 21 39 22 Now Attending Part-Time 10 10 6 8 l6 9 Now Attending Full—Time 29 28 0 0 29 17 other or No Response (9 were undecided, 5 appeared to be planning apprentice or armed services education). 10 10 7 10 17 10 Total 10A 101** 72 100 176 100 Chi—Square: No chi-square computed. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. **Due to rounding. [7| TAbLE C—7.——fresent or Future Major Field Choice of the Returning Withdrawal Student as Compared with His N.H.T.I. Major. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Present or Future Major Vs.Civilian Service Total original N.H.T.I. Major N % N % N % The Same 31 37 35 5A 66 A5 Somewhat Different 21 25 19 29 A0 27 Quite Different 31 37 ll 17 A2 28 Total*** 83 99** 65 100 1A8 100 Chi-Square: 7.79231 significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. **Due to rounding. ***All withdrawals did not indicate plans to return to college. Therefore, totals will not equal the usual 10A, 72, and 176, respectively. TABLE C~8.—-The Withdrawal Students' Perceived Effect of Their Technical Education on Their Earning Capacity. (By Current* Status - Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status Effect of Education on Civilian Service Total Their Earning Capacity N % N i N NO Change A8 A6 38 53 86 A9 increased 50 A8 22 31 72 A1 Decreased O O 6 8 6 3 No Response __6 __6 __6 __8 '_12 ._;1 Total 10A 100 72 100 176 100 Chi—Square: (With "No Response" omitted) 12.2751 significant at .01 and 2 d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. 172 TABLE C—9.~—Withdrawai Students' Stated Changes in Occupa— tional Goals as a Result of Their N.H.T.I. Experience. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories Current* Status of Changes Civilian Service Total in Goals N % N % N % Raised in Terms of the Amount of Education Required 62 60 A5 63 107 61 Lowered in Terms of the Amount of Education Required 2 2 O O 2 l Unchanged A0 38 2A 33 6A 36 No Response .__9 __9 __3 __A .__§ __2 Total 10A 100 72 100 176 100 Chi—Square: 1.68915 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. TABLE C~lO.——Withdrawal Students' Stated Changes in Attitude Toward Technical Education as a Result of Their Experience at N.H.T.l. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories Current* Status of Civilian Service Total Attitude Changes N i N % N % No Change 28 27 2A 33 52 30 More Critical 25 2A 11 15 36 20 More Favorable 50 A8 35 A9 85 A8 No Response 1 1 2 3 3 2 Total 10A 100 72 100 176 100 Chi-Square: 2.18386 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. 173 TABLE C~1l.—-The Withdrawals' Current* First Choice of Action if the Period at N.H.T.I. Could Be Lived Again. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). Response Categories of Current* Status First Choice if Period at Civilian Service Total NJLIT. Could Be Lived Again N % N % N 7 Return to N.H.T.l. 31 3O 27 38 58 33 Attend Another Technical institute A A 5 7 9 5 Attend a Vocational Institute 7 7 5 7 12 7 Attend a Four—Year College A3 A1 23 32 66 38 Attend an Apprentice lfirogruun 8 8 A 6 12 7 Seek Full—Time Employment 2 2 l 7 3 2 Enter the Armed Services 2 2 6 8 8 5 other or No Response 7 7 l 1 8 5 Total 10A 101** 72 100 176 102** Chi—Square: 6.581A not significant at .05 and 6 d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. **Uue to rounding. 17A TARLE C—Ifl.-—A CompariSon of the Original and the Present Choice of Major Field of the Withdrawal Student Who Would Choose to Return to N.H.T.l. (By Current* Status - Civilian or Armed Service). Response Category of Current* Status Present Choice Versus Civilian Service Total Original Choice N ' % N i N %— The Same 37 7A 38 81 75 77 Different 13 26 2 19 g3 23 r“ Total 50 100 A7 100 97 100 Chi~Squarez 0.6A89A3 not significant at .05 and l d.f. *Status at the time the questionnaire was completed. TARLE C—13.——The Withdrawal Student's Perceived Value of His Technical Education. (By Current* Status — Civilian or Armed Service). ”3 Response Categories of Current* Status Perceived Value of Civilian Service Total N.H.T.I. Education N % N % N % Very Beneficial 37 36 23 32 60 3A Worthwhile 56 5A A5 62 101 57 of Little or Negative Value ' 10 10 A 6 1A 8 No Response 1 1 _g 0 1 1 Total 10A 101** 72 100 176 100 Chi—Square: 1.59A73 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *Sgatus at the time the questionnaire was completed. **Due to rounding. ALTHQVDIX 1) MISCELLANEOUS TABLES BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL 175 TABLE D—l.——The First Full—Time Activity After N.H.T.I. of All Students Who Withdrew. (By Reason for Withdrawal). Response Categories of Reason for Withdrawal First Full-Time Academic Other Total Activity, N % N % N % Related to N.H.T.l. Major 32 2A 10 23 A2 2A Unrelated to N.H.T.1. Major A9 37 15 35 6A 37 Armed Services 36 27 12 28 A8 27 Continued Education 15 ll 6 1A 21 12 Total 132 99* A3 100 175** 100 Chi—Square: 0.2A3602 not significant at .05 and 3 d.f. *Uue to ro unding . **Une did not respond to this. TABLE D—2.»'The Current* Full—Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students. (By Reason for Withdrawal). IMF"? can-m .. -nJ-DRH"! Aq Response Categories of Reason for Withdrawal Current* Full—Time Academic Other Total Activity N % N % N % Related to N.H.T.l. Major 17 1A 10 2A 27 16 lhlrelgltetl to lJ.R.Kf.l. Maj or 31 25 7 1.7 38 23 Armed Services 57 A6 15 37 72 AA Continuing Education 19 15 9 22 28 17 Total 12A 100 A1 100 165** 100 Chi-Square: A.A0803 not significant at .05 and 3 d.f. *At the time the questionnaire was completed. **Those eleven responses to "Other" included two unemployed, three housewives, and other miscellaneous categories. 176 177 TABLE D-3.-—The Withdrawals' Perceived Assistance of Their Technical Education. (By Reason for Withdrawal). Response Categories of Reason for Withdrawal Perceived Value of Academic Other Total N.H.T.l. Education N %7 N % N Z Aided in Obtaining a Job ‘ in Major Field Area 26 20 16 36 A2 2A Aided in Obtaining a Job in Other Than Major Field Area 8 6 2 5 10 6 Aided in Obtaining a Service or Apprentice School Assignment A6 35 10 23 56 32 Basis for Transfer Credit 9 7 5 12 1A 8 Broadened interest 50 38 18 Al 68 39 No Help 3; _1_7_ .1. lg _3__0_ _1:/_ Total 132 ** AA ** 176 ** Chi-Square: 6.0A638 not significant at .05 and 5 d.f. **This was a multiple response item and no column should necessarily add to the total. APPENDIX E MISCELLANEOUS TABLES - CIVILIANS ONLY BY REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL 178 ot‘li'g‘v‘kbg— t, A 'W‘vgfll It I “’1 is!" TABLE E~1.——The Current* Full—Time Activity of the Withdrawal Students « Civilians Only. (By Reason for Withdrawal). {esponse Categories of Reason for Withdrawal Current* Full—Time Academic Other Total Activity N % N if N % {elated to N.H.T.I. Major ' 17 23 10 3A 27 26 Unreltdxxi to N.liflf.1. Major 31 A1 7 3A 38 37 Armed Services —- -- —— -- -— -- Continuing Education 19 25 9 31 28 27 other _8 11 _3 lg 11 11 Total 75 100 29 99**10A 101** Chi—Square: 3.06AA7 not significant at .05 and 2 d.f. *At the time the questionnaire was completed. **hue to rounding. 179 180 TABLE E—2.~—The Withdrawal's Perceived Assistance of His Technical Education - Current Civilians Only. (By Reason for Withdrawal). Response Categories of Reason for Withdrawal Perceived Value of Academic Other Total N.H.T.l. Education N % N % N % Aided in Obtaining a Job in Major Field Area 17 23 13 A5 30 29 Aided in Obtaining a Job in other Than Major Field Area 7 9 2 7 9 9 Aided in Obtaining a Service or Apprentice School Assignment 13 17 2 7 15 1A Basis for Transfer Credit 9 12 5 17 1A 13 Broadened interest 32 A3 13 A5 A5 A3 No Help £1 g_;_3_ _§_ 3; _2_3_ Q Total 75 ** 29 ** 10A ** Chi—Square: Not Computed. **This was a multiple response item, and no column should add to the total . l l 365 I...“ L m v. "4| N6 “4 V “1 m m3 u "0 E m3 mg “2 III N ll”