ORGANIZAHONAL STRUCTURES Ana-cumichum; . COMPLEXITY musing momimgss: V; % é ‘ ' ' * new“ “Wm“ W1 fi j -: ‘ "mm" STATEUNWERW ‘ 15; “ .ROYLsTEPHEN NICHOLSON ~ - Fmatas... »‘ a...“ a -b. 9! 1» "r: '7" .( fl 1’ 1.;IJLJ JV ” ‘\ ..'. Michigan State University 'MF t. .' This is to certify that the thesis entitled ORGAN I ZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND CURRICULUM COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC TWO-YEAR COLLEGES presented by R. Stephen Nicholson has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph- 1). degree in .SnsinlngaL .z-r'rl/ / ’1"- 7 / l [34'4“ (I 214-19,“ lick l y - Date April 6; 1971 i 5—1) r'" ' LI? (3 . C3" ABSTRACT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND CURRICULUM COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC TWO-YEAR COLLEGES BY Roy Stephen Nicholson This exploratory and descriptive study of the organi- zational structures of public two-year colleges is concerned with the relationship between the structural arrangements of these colleges and their functions as indicated by the com— prehensivity of their curricular offerings. The study attempts to utilize data from public docu- ments issued by the colleges and summary reports by The Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Complete information was obtained for 201 (39%) of the 613 public two-year colleges reported in 1968. Organizational charts, catalogues and schedules supplied by the colleges completed the data. Parsons' functional model of organizational activi- ties was used to arrange the variables. Size and age viewed as independent variables were adaptive functions in terms of the Parsons' model. Curriculum size and the percentage of curriculum devoted to career or vocational courses were Roy Stephen Nicholson treated as goal achieving functions or dependent variables. Integrating functions or intervening structural variables focused on centralization and departmentalization. Two indicies of centralization were selected, total administra- tive size and single versus multiple curriculum control positions on the second organizational level. The indicies of departmentalization used were the hierarchical levels utilized by the colleges and the discrete number of depart- ments or divisions formed on the third organizational level. Size and age were established as independent vari- ables. Size was positively and strongly related to the dependent variables. There was a weak positive correlation between age and the dependent variables. Curriculum size and career offerings were positively related to a strong degree. Intervening structural variables representing cen- tralization provided some insight into the activities of two-year colleges. Administrative size is positively, yet modestly related to organizational size, weakly to age, and just above the significance level with curriculum complexity and size. Colleges with a single position or dean offer 10 per cent more vocational programs and have 20 per cent larger curricular offerings than colleges with multiple deans reporting to the chief executive officer. Analysis of the structural variables related to the division of labor or departmentalization indicated a strong Roy Stephen Nicholson positive correlation between the number of hierarchical levels and organizational size. The relation between organizational levels and the dependent variables was positive and only half as strong. The number of departments on the third organiza— tional level is weakly related to size and not significantly with age. There is a very strong positive relationship between an increased number of departments on this level on the career curriculum and size. The strong relationship between organizational size, curriculum size and career curriculum suggests that impact of environmental variables such as population and economic factors should be investigated. When age categories are examined, these colleges appear to maintain slightly more than one third of their curriculum offerings in career or vocational programs. Divisional or departmental autonomy at the third level is strongly associated with a larger more comprehen- sive curriculum. The findings from these data indicate that it is possible to utilize data from the selected sources for organizational studies. The assertion by some authorities that decentralized curriculum control at the second level. is essential to the growth of career curriculum is not supported. The two-year colleges reflect the classical pattern of polarization between professional and bureaucratic Roy Stephen Nicholson authority. Decentralization on the third organizational level where professionals function is strongly associated with increased curriculum size and career offerings. On the second level increased curriculum size and career offer- ings are associated with centralized control positions. Of the four intervening structural variables neither administrative size or levels utilized to organize college activities related strongly with either increased curriculum size or career offerings. On the other hand two variables, centralized control of curriculum at the second level and the number of departments on the third level, were positively and strongly related to the dependent variables, curriculum size and career program size. Analysis of these selected data suggests that there are structural arrangements which correlate significantly with the functional goals of these colleges as expressed by a comprehensive curriculum. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND CURRICULUM COMPLEXITY OF PUBLIC TWO-YEAR COLLEGES BY Roy Stephen Nicholson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1971 Dedication to MOTHER and FATHER who always Keep the Faith ii TO Dr. Wilbur Brookover for his encouragement and experience without which this study could not have been completed. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. IV. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . Outline of the Chapters . . . . . . . THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . Dimensions of the Two-Year Colleges . . . Organizational Studies of Higher Education Organizational Studies of the Two-Year Colleges . . . . . . . . RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . The Sample . . . . . . . . . . . Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE, AGE, CURRICULUM SIZE, AND COMPLEXITY . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . Procedures . . . . . Findings . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . iv Page ii 60 60 61 87 Chapter V. ADMINISTRATIVE SIZE, CENTRALIZATION AND DEPARTMENTALIZATION Introduction Procedures Findings . Summary VI. The Research Perspective Research Questions Findings . Theoretical Relationships Methodological Constraints BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Page 91 91 93 95 129 134 134 136 137 143 151 155 166 Table 1. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Two-Year Public Colleges in Universe and sample 0 O O O O O C O O O 0 Organizational Size Distribution . . . . Distribution by Size and Age . . . . . . Distribution of Organizational Size and Faculty Size . . . . . . . . . Organizational Size and Comparisons of Means of Faculty Size, Student Size with Student-Faculty Ratios . . . . . Organizational Age and Size . . . . . . Organizational Age and Faculty Size . . . Regional Comparisons of Size, Age, Administrative Size, Faculty Size, Curriculum Size and Student-Faculty Ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . Curriculum Size Distribution . . . . . . Organizational Size, Curriculum Size, and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Size and Curriculum Comparisons Organizational Age, Curriculum Size and Complexity . . . . . . . . . . Organizational Size, Age and Complexity of Programs . . . . . . . . . . . Correlating Coefficients of Independent and Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . vi Page 55 57 65 67 68 7O 72 73 76 77 78 80 82 90 Table Page 15. Two-Year College "Ideal Type" Organizational Chart . . . . . . . . . 92 16. Organization Size and Administration Size . . 96 17. Organizational Age and Administrative Size . . 97 18. Administrative Size and Curriculum Size . . . 100 19. ' Administrative Size and Complexity . . . . . 102 20. Organizational Size, Second Level Centralization Curriculum Complexity and Curriculum Size . . . . . . . . . 105 21. Second Level Centralization and Curriculum Size . . . . . . . . . . 106 22. Second Level Centralization and Curriculum Complexity . . . . . . . . 108 23. Organizational Size and Division/Department StruCture O O O O O O O O O O O O 111 24. Organizational Age and Division/Department Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 25. Distribution of Organizational Levels . . . . 115 26. Organizational Size and Structural Levels . . 116 27. Organizational Age and Horizontal Structural Levels . . . . . . . . . . 117 28. Organizational Levels, Curriculum Size and Curriculum Complexity . . . . . . . 118 29. Distribution of Size and Curriculum Size . . . 119 30. Second Organizational Level Departmental- ization Distribution . . . . . . . . . 122 31. Third Organizational Level Departmental- . ization Distribution . . . . . . . . . 124 32. Organizational Size and Second Level Departmentalization . . . . . . . . . 125 33. Organizational Size and Third Level Departl'nentalization o o o o o ' o o o o 126 vii Table Page 34. Third Level Departments and Curriculum Size and Complexity . . . . . . . . . 128 35. Organizational Profile by Size . . . . . . 138 36. Research Variable Correlations . . . . . . 139 37. Intervening Variables Departmentalization . . 140 viii LI ST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education--Higher Education General Information Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 B. Computer Print-Out of Survey Data . . . . . 172 C. Institutional Characteristics of Colleges and Universities as Published in Education Directory 1968-69, Part 3 . . . . 174 D. Report of Employees in Higher Education from Numbers and Characteristics of Employees in Institutions of Higher _ Education . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 E. Coding Sheet for Data of this Study . . . . 179 ix CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM Introduction Increasingly, higher education has become a center of attention and national concern. Several commissions have issued specific proposals for improving the perform- ‘ance of colleges and universities. Social interactions in higher education are among the most complex and SOphisticated behaviors of man. Creating new knowledge and communicating the central societal and cultural knowledge involves the campus in an intricate web of fragile, easily fractured relationships. The continued concern of public, students, and faculty about the structure of higher education has resulted in a flood of articles--polemical, prescriptive, or pejorative in nature. Their oversimplified suggestions lggiorities in Higher Education, Report of the President's Task Force on Higher Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1970); Third Report, National Advisory Council on Vocational Education (WaEhington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, July 10, 1970); The Scranton Report, Presi- dent's Commission on Campus Unrest, "The Chronicle," Vblume V, Number 2, October 5, 1970. often reflect a total innocence of experience regarding the organizational intricacies of higher education. Although the goals of higher education remain diffuse and undefined, colleges and universities continue to be evaluated without considering this limitation. Current proposals to restructure these organizations ignore even the modest knowledge available regarding present structural arrangements. The traditional structure of American higher edu- cation involved either independent colleges, professional schools, or graduate schools which shared a campus with them. Because their resources were relatively stable, growth was a selective process of matching faculty and students to available resources. Organization was simple, and changes evolved as new situations arose. Knowledge created on the campus has generated demands which overreach higher education's traditional capacity. Demand for trained manpower is one of the forces whiCh has brought American higher education to its present size and status. The factors which exponentially expand this demand are growing. A college must organize itself to meet the consequences of its earlier success. Philip Hauser, speaking of the new role in higher education of two-year colleges, views their development as necessary because, "for the first time in our nation's history, public education has failed to prepare adequately a whole generation of urban Americans for the increasingly complex world of tomorrow."2 An ideal college in another century may have been a log with Mark Hopkins one end and a student at the other. Contemporary colleges require a new analogy. They need to be bridges across the chasm between known present problems and unknown conditions for social survival. Their struc- tures must be cantilevers solidly built on present know- ledge, capable of supporting traffic of unpredictable pro- portions into the unknowns of man's future. Accelerating industrialization, urbanization, and technological development generate new categories of employment, expand the division of labor, and escalate the level of training needed to qualify for employment in most occupations. Two-Year Public Colleges have recently evolved within the traditional structure of Higher Education to deal with increased pdpulation of college students, to expand educational opportunity to larger numbers of citi- zens, and to enlarge the scape of postesecondary education to include new careers in new occupations as they develop. The goals of the Two-Year Colleges are more recently formulated, less global, and more specific than those of the older Colleges and Universities. They claim both social and educational relevance because their , 2Philip M. Hauser, "Social Change and The Junior College," in Selected'Papers: 47th Annual Convention (Washington, D.C.: AmeriCan Association of Junior Colleges, 1967) I p0 9. comprehensive curriculum reflects the spectrum of the larger social order. This is an effort to gather, organize, and compare data which accurately portrays existing organizational structure of public two-year colleges in America. Toynbee sees organization as the basis of civili- zation. As the Northern portion of Africa desiccated the Nomads responded by organizing, damming the Nile, irrigat- ing the fields to produce a quality of life never before known on that continent. Present manpower needs threaten to evaporate the economic resources upon which higher education depends. This places man in an environment similar to his nomadic North African predecessors. It is imperative to organize and channel the flow of knowledge for instruction and application to provide a new quality of life for the world in our time. The 2,537 institutions engaged in higher education in the United States are central to the conduct of national life. They constitute man's most sophisticated means for the development and dissemination of knowledge, as the interval between the discovery of knowledge and its appli- cation collapses, their structure and functions becomes Imare crucial and subject to scrutiny. While selectivity and limited enrollments of Planned dimensions have been a characteristic of the majority of colleges and universities, this is not true for the public two-year institutions. An "open door philosophy" is their primary characteristic. Unanticipated growth has been a major consequence of this philosophy. This "enfant terrible" has assumed a major respon- sibility in higher education. No study of their growth and development has provided more than a casual description of their structural arrangements. A secondary characteristic is their functional goals which express a common philosophy. These reflect an adaptation to the community needs--educational, occu- pational, and often social. Linked by proximity, ideology, and economic support to the ebb and flow of community life they represent, in Blocker's terms, a "social synthesis."3 These functional areas are generally considered necessary for their success: 1. Transfer Programs are usually in traditional diSciplines, may be pre-professionally oriented and are accepted for full credit by a university or college. 2. Occupational Programs are aimed at preparation for employment--either directly upon completion of the community college or eventually upon com- pletion of additional education. 3. Developmental Programs for secondary school graduates and adults who lack the necessary preparation to begin either transfer or occupational programs or profitable employment. 4. Community Service Programs for adults for either employment, career retraining, skills updating, or personal growth and enrichment. 3Clyde E. Blocker, Robert H. Plummer, Richard C. Richardson, The Two-Year Colle e (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hal , Inc., 6 , p. 11. 5. Student Services-~testing, counseling, occupational guidance, student activitiesé organizations, and individual appraisals. Outline of the Chapters The purpose of this research is to gather, order, and compare data which accurately reflects the existing organizational structures of public two-year colleges in America. It is a descriptive effort which seeks to analyze the structural division of tasks and power among the organi- zational positions, and attempts to relate and compare organizational effectiveness to the goals expressed. Parsons' provides an analytical model for the larger panorama against which this study presents its data for analysis. His functional analysis of formal organiza- tions, which looks at their activities in terms of adapta- tion, integration, goal achievement, and latency is the basic frame of reference used to organize the variables selected for analysis. The study is directed to the theoretical relation- ship between the structure selected as a strategic device for mobilizing power in a modern society and the functions of adaptation, integration, and goal achievement. A major concern is the structural arrangements of these colleges as they vary with size and age. What are the relationships 4Norman C. Harris, Technical Education in the Junior College (Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1964), p. 53. between various organizational structures and the curri- culum offerings, proxies, used as indicators of goal achievement? Given the goals established by law or tradition, what decisions by Trustees and administrators regarding structural designs enable a college to realize these objectives? Once the prevailing structural models are determined, are there significant differences between them in performance? Does the structural design of the organization of Two-Year Colleges significantly facilitate or inhibit their achievement in offering a larger and more comprehen- sive curriculum? CHAPTER II THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS Introduction Two-year colleges supported by the public were the most striking structural development in higher education during the past decade. Just as the Morrill Act of 1862 involved new people in the land grant colleges and revolu- tionized the curriculum of higher education, these colleges, with their "open door" policy of admissions and compre- hensive curriculum" goal, are reshaping the service phil- osophy of higher education.- These carefully planned organizations have been well researched by psychologists and student personnel specialists. Aside from Burton Clark's work of a decade ago, few sociologists have examined this emerging phenomenon.1 Because they are unique social mechanisms formulated for specific goals the research of scholars of higher education and formal organizations may be directly related to their analysis. 1Burton R. Clark, The Open Door College (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960). Dimensions of the Two-Year Colleges The two-year college's recent development, diverse size, curricular complexity, and social prOximity are stimulating characteristics to a researcher. Their struc- tural behavior may have some relevance for other segments of higher education confronting identical problems. Structures developed in these laboratory like microcosms could be heuristic experiences for the macracosmic univer- sities searching for structural alternatives. During the past sixty years the development of more than 900 two-year colleges has effected a major change in our system of higher education. More than 50 new two-year colleges were organized in 1967. 'Their growth in enroll- ment exceeds even the predictions of the most knowledgeable scholars of community colleges. Harris, in 1964, predicted that by 1970 there would be 600 public two-year colleges enrolling 1.5 million students.2 In 1968 there were 613 in operation; by 1970 there were over 800. The U. S. Office of Education reported that 708 public two-year colleges enrolled 1.7 million students in 1968 and over 2,000,000 in 1970. An increase of 70 per cent is predicted by 1977. Twelve-thousand students enrolled the first day the new community college opened in Seattle. 2Harris, op. cit., p. 18. 10 .The Office of Education defines these organizations as: two years but less than four years of work beyond the 12th grade. This includes junior colleges, technical institutes, and normal schools offering at least a two- _year program of college level studies.3 The egalitarian ideal that equal educational oppor- tunity should be available to every citizen needs little support. The growing needs of a complex society in an industrial nation which requires training far beyond the ' high school level contributed to the development of other functions than mere college transfer programs.4 The older "scholastic" view that higher education exists for the elite has been eclipsed by the "societal" position that opens higher education to all students and seeks a universal higher education. Frankel, in a terse review of the major ideological issues confronting universities, focuses on the need to harmonize the disparate traditions of higher education as well as domesticate them within a mobile, technical demo- cratic system. He considers the undergraduate and graduate sys- tems as essentially different in both function and tradi- tion. The undergraduate college experience focuses upon 3Education Directory, 1968-69, Part III, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Washington: U.S. Printing Office, 1968), p. 6. 4Earl J. McGrath, UniverSal Higher EducatiOn (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966), p. ix. 11 the development of an individual, the furnishing of a person in the Anglo-Saxon traditions. Graduate education in contrast rests upon the German tradition of research and disciplinary development of a few selected scholars whose liberal education has been completed.5 James Conant reinforces these conclusions in the recent Carnegie Commission Report on Community Colleges by calling for an additional 280 colleges by 1980, terms them the "expression of a new social policy."6 Two-year colleges are attempts to meet the needs of individuals and bridge the hiatus between the quest for new knowledge and the application of this knowledge to individual, social, and political community life. This ambitious stance places these organizations at the nexus of social, economic, political, and humanistic conerns. Medskerfs study of the 50's indicated that even these new organizations were weak in achieving their edu- cational goals and were forfeiting their identity by following transfer programs too closely.7 The Vocational Education Act of 1963 was a direct attempt to reverse this trend and expand the scope of their '5Charles Frankel, Issues in University Education (New York: Harper, 1959). p. 152. 6 The Open Door Colleges, Carnegie Commission on Higher Education (Hightstown, New Jersey, 1970), p. 51. 7Leland L. Medsker, The Junior College: Prggress and PrOSpect (New York: McGraw Hill) 1965). 9.4112} 12 curriculum to reflect total community needs. In 1968, this Act was greatly strengthened by amendments.8 The two-year colleges, as presently operated under state, federal, and local sponsorship, are more carefully planned than any previous organizations in higher education. If they are to be successful they must be new structures, experimental in design and not replicas of either secondary or university experiences.9 Clark demonstrated that the location, curriculum control, and funding of these colleges limit their autonomy and frequently force them into traditional patterns.10 Blocker, confirmed this and carefully outlined the multiple external and internal group pressures which must be resolved before a community college is able to adapt to its environment and attain its goals. Twenty-two public and twelve professional community groups or agencies were designated as involved in various ways with the organization and operation of the two-year colleges.ll Astride the anastomotic steam of cultural, social, technical, and economic concerns that comprise a mobile democratic America, their efforts to serve students, 8"Two Legislative Landmarks in One Month," Junior College Journal XXXIV (February, 1964), 4-5. 9Henry Steel Commanger, "Social, Political, and Personal Consequences," in McGrath, op. cit., p. 17. loClark, op. cit., p. 170 ff. llBlocker, et al., op. cit., p. 54. 13 community, and the traditions of higher education are matters of record. Their adaptive and integrative behavior will be investigated by utilizing statistical records, organizational charts and catalogues. Organizational Studies of Higher Education Any contemporary View of complex organizations incorporates original sociological concerns with social organization. Durkhiem observed that as population grows the complexity of organizational forms increases.12 Spencer and Simmel focused on the complex forms of communications necessary to facilitate the operation and existence of larger organizations.13 Parsons' analysis of formal organizations views them as mechanisms which mobilize powerin modern society 14 Four functions for the attainment of collective goals. are necessary for the organization: 1) Adaptation--inter- action between environment and the organization; 2) Inte- gration-Accordination of internal units; 3) Goal achieve- ment--Objectives defined and resources utilized to attain 12Emile Durkheim, On the Social Division of Labor in Society, translated by George Simpson (New York: MacMillan, 1933), Part II. 13Herbert Spencer, Princi les of Sociology (New York: Appleton, 1898), Vol. I, pp. 525. 14Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Society (Glencoe: Free Press, 1960), p. I7. 14 them: and 4) Latency--sustaining motivation and cultural identity. Organizational technique has far outrun any theo- retical framework.15 Blau and Scott do not view this as a negative state of affairs for the present definitions and theoretical models Often obscure the researcher's view of formal organization and block off the less contrived or natural types of behavioral patterns.16 The inability of much previous research to get at substantive problems in the organization of higher education is a result of models which were not comprehensive enough to be productive when dealing with the existing structural variables.17 There is no general agreement regarding the nature of organization in higher education. Caplow, Etzioni, as well as Blau and Scott, include universities in their com- parative studies of formal organizations. Riesman and Jencks, tend to treat them as institu- tions. Stroup would, on the other hand, call them bureau- cracies. Flexner apparently would agree with Stroup for 15James G. March, Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), p. XIV. 16Peter M. Blau and W. Richard Scott, Formal Organizations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), p. 7. 17Edward Gross, "Universities as Organizations," in American Sociological Review, XXXIII, No. 4 (August, 1968), 518. 15 he believed that a common goal inextricably linked all units of the college.18 Recent studies found that failure to keep pace with society characterized the four-year colleges.19 Graduate schools could not keep curriculum relevant to the expand- 20 'ing knowledge of their field. Unable to meet its varied purposes the two-year colleges had settled into an imita- tion of the four—year colleges.21 The findings are suggestive rather than definitive. Despite an emphasis in recent literature on the "revolution" in higher education, careful reading does not substantiate these claims. Evans found innovations were often widely publicized and as reversion occurred quietly drOpped.22 These sources mention, but seldom confront, the structural design or its relation to their concerns. Research in two-year colleges has concentrated on either student personnel problems, operational problems of finance, community support, legislation, faculty-per- sonnel relations, or instructional effectiveness. The 18Christopher Jencks and David Riesman, The Academic Revolution (New York: Doubleday, 1968), p. 18. 19Nevitt Sanford, ed., The American College (New York: Wiley, 1962), p. 2. 20Bernard Berleson, Graduate Education in the United States (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), p- 18. 21Medsker, Op. cit., p. 112. 22Richard I. Evans, Resistance to Innovation in ggigher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Boss, 68 , p. 154. 16 related literature in the Administration of Higher Educa- tion relevant to an understanding of the two-Year college is anaecdotal or historical in nature. In an age of research and communication we may know more of the organization of higher education past than present. Proposed changes of structure without more con- temporary data may be useless.23 Studies of graduate, professional schools, and universities were undertaken during the late fifties. These findings were precursors of much of the current literature. In general they found a dual faculty-adminis- tration structure which tends to resist change in favor of the status quo. Students were generally disillusioned with the educational system. McGrath found professional schools increasingly offered more liberal arts studies.24 ' Caplow and McGee were generally interested in morale of faculty in relation to the size of universities. They do provide some insight into the problems of structural arrangements and decision making under a section where power is discussed. Their findings are that actual behavior reflected "a kind of lawlessness consisting of vague and incomplete rules and ambiguous and uncodified procedures." In their findings the lack of specificity in structural 23William E. Moran, "The Study of University Organ- izations," in The Journal of Higher Education, p. 149. 24Earl J. McGrath, Liberal Education in the Pro- fessions (New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, —S_"1959 , p. 142. l7 arrangement and definition of position and role behavior accounts for the high incidence of conflict reported.25 Twelve years later little difference is noted between the earlier Caplow-McGee Study and the more defi- nitive study of departments by Dressel, Marcus and John- son. If "loose-lying" power is the best structural state- ment researchers can make about our present colleges and universities, perhaps Jenck and Riesman are correct in considering them as institutions rather than formal organ- izations.26 This unique dualism of control is an entrenched aspect of higher education. No present structural arrange- ments resolve the problem of administrative authority and professional integration in higher education.27 Lunsford concentrates on the study of administra- tors whose time he says is exclusively dedicated to institutional support and coordination of separate groups 28 on the campus. Little research is found on professional roles as related to total college structures. 25Theodore Caplow and Reece McGee, Jr., The Academic Market Place (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1958), p. 142. 26Paul L. Dressel, F. Craig Johnson, and Philip M. Marcus, The Cogfidence Crisis (San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1970Y, p. 248. 27John Carson, Governance of Colleges and Univer- sities (New York: McGraw Hill, 1960), p. 18. 28Terry F. Lunsford, ed., The Study_of Academic Administration (Western Interstate Commission on Higher EducatiOn, Boulder, Colorado, 1963). 18 Historically organization in higher education has been a "post hoc" adjustment to the development of specialities within campus departments. Gouldner's analy- sis Of a small college demonstrated that among professionals there was a genuine bifurcation of interests and identifi- 29 cation within a small supposedly homogeneous faculty. ”,1. In 1933, Charles H. Judd of the University of f "/ Chicago, commented that much of college organization followed no recognized or accepted principles and had been acne "blindly."30 Axelrod proposes that we resolve the dilemma of dual structures and growing complexity by resorting to the medieval device of creating colleges within colleges, decentralized units with high autonomy and great freedom for faculty.31 The present trend to smaller residence colleges on larger campuses as at Santa Cruz and Michigan State follow this pattern. Ayres and Russel, found most universities and colleges operate without organization charts. Those who use them failed to keep them current. Much of the current 29Alvin Gouldner, "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent Social Roles," Administrative Scienceguarterly, l (1957), 281-306 and 2 (I958 , 444-4 0. 30Charles H. Judd, Problems of Education in the United States (New York: McGraw Hill, 1933), p. 65. 31Joseph Axelrod, "New Organizational Patterns in American Colleges and Universities," in Lewis B. Mayhew, Hi her Education in the Revolutionarquecades (Berkeley, California: McCutchan, 1947), p. 174. 19 confusion arises in their evaluation from a basic lack of established channels of information flow and defined responsibility.32 Organizational Studies of the Two-Year Colleges Guidelines for establishing a two-year college published by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, do not mention plans for the internal structure of these colleges.33 Medsker, looks at the comprehensive goals of the two-year college and decides that as Clark suggests, the flood of transfer students distorts occupational programs. Two-thirds of the students in his study were enrolled in transfer programs, but only one-third progress beyond the junior year.34 Studies of social roles in two-year colleges have examined faculty, student, trustee, and president's role performance. Generally these studies assume that proper role performance insures organizational success and ignores structural arrangements. 32Archie R. Ayres and John H. Russel, Internal Structure (Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of HeaItH, EducatiOn, and Welfare Bulletin, No. 9: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 72. . 33D. G. Morrison and S. V. Martorana, Criteria for Establishment of Two-Year Colleges (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960). 34 Medsker, op. cit., p. 112. 20 Garrison's two-year study of faculty in two-year colleges is an impressionistic polemic rather than a substantive contribution.35 The role of the college president is discussed in prescriptive length by Cohen and Roueche without men- tioning how this role relates to organizational structure. Such prescriptive role analysis studies seem to rest on the Confucion dictum that if the leader acts with recti- tude the organization functions smoothly.36 A careful study of faculty found that unless the goals of the two-year college are clearly defined the two-year faculty does not function effectively. Belief and personality characteristics as well as prior training were often antagonistic to goals of the two-year college. Bower demonstrated that Older educational patterns pre- dominate with little emphasis given to innovation or change. She found the activism and specialization of the present campus climate most influential in redefining the role of the faculty in higher education.37 More attention has been devoted to the problem of academic rank for faculty than for any other structural 35Roger H. Garrison, Junior Colle e Facult Washington, D.C.: American Association 0% Junior Colleges,- 1947). 36Arthur M. Cohen and John E. Roueche, Institu- tional Administrator or Educational Leader? (Washington, D.C.: American Association of’JunIor CoIIeges, 1969). 37Florence Bower, Personality Characteristics of College and‘Universit Facult (Washington, D.C.: Ameri- can Association of Junior Co leges, 1968): p. 66. 21 problems. This was in most cases initiated by administra- tors in an effort to gain status for the two-year college.38 A recent study of student roles produced empirical evidence to substantiate the "cooling out" assertions of Clark. Most students came from the second, third and lowest quartiles of high schools. Sixty-three per cent work as opposed to 35 per cent of senior college students and one-third are over 19 years of age.39 Comments regarding the administration of the colleges usually attack problems of facilities, finances, legal relationships, business management, and relations with community groups. I More than 5 per cent of the two-year colleges were found to be without written policies or job descriptions. Sixty-two per cent of the presidents do not make a formal annual report to any group.40 Considerable attention is devoted to a definition of the functional areas which must be provided for in a two-year college organization chart. Board of trustees, financial operations, physical plant, and educational activities were the usual divisions in the earlier 38Clyde E. Blocker and Wendell Wolfe, "Academic Rank in the Two-Year Colleges," in Junior College Journal, 39K. Patricia Cross, The Junior Colle e Student (Princeton: Educational Testing ServiCe, 196%) 40 Cohen and Roueche, op. cit., p. 23. 22 literature.41 No one had seriously investigated the actual behavior of these colleges in structuring their activities until a recent effort by the University of California Research Center. Transfer programs, semi-professional or occupa- tional programs, remedial programs, and community service or adult education programs, are mentioned more frequently in current journal articles reporting functional develOpments.42 A recent study of multi-campus two-year colleges under the direction of the Center for Research anerevelop- ment in Higher Education, provides the clearest expression of organization concern in the literature: Organization is the channel, or series Of channels, through which authority flows from t0p to bottom and_through which information and suggestions flow from bottom to top. Rourke and Brooks, point out that a cabinet type of organization is replacing or altering the traditional 43 As the press for con- executive role of the president. censual decision structures accelerates, Goldhammer argues that an administrator must be a "clinician of human behavior."44 41James W. Thornton, The Community Junior College (New York: Wiley, 1960), p. 128ff. 42Blocker, et al., op. cit., p. l79ff. 43F. E. Rourke and Brooks, The Managerial Revolu- tion in Education (Baltimore: John Hopkins, 1966), p. I12. 44Goldhammer, "Implications for Change in Training Programs," in Knowledge, Production, and Utilization in EducationalAdministration (Cqumbus, Ohio: Center for Advanced Study of Educatibnal Administration) Chapter VII. 23 Originally multi-campus two-year colleges were operated by urban or large school districts. Recently in Pennsylvania, Hawaii, and Virginia a state-wide college is established under a president or chancellor with a director on each campus.45 Presently developing two- year colleges are more centrally organized than the older systems where local colleges were virtually autonomous. Formal Organizational Studies Complex or formal organizational studies focus on organizations deliberately established for stated purposes. Their network of social interactions referred to as struc- ture is a central concern of this study. While there are consistent references to colleges and universities in the organizational literature few empirical studies exist. More studies have been under- taken, "in" higher education than studies "of" higher edu- cation. Its accessibility as a research site rather than a major concern with its total organization explains why the literature is discontinuous. Parkinson's satirical "law" reflects a popular A opinion that the parasitic administrative group increases 45Frederick C. Kintzer, Arthur Jenson, and John S. Hausen, The Multi-Institution Junior Colle e District (Washington, D.C.: American AssociatiOn 0% Junior Colleges, 1969). p. 18. 24 disproportionately with any increase in work or effective- 46 ness. This sort of assumption found some suppOrt in earlier studies which directly related the growth of size 47 A study of school dis- and administrative components. tricts in California confirmed the popular idea that there is a proportionate increase in the growth of the adminis- trative component even though the relation between size and administration growth was small.48 Subsequent research on the phenomenon of bureau- cratization found an inverse relation between size and personnel assigned to administrative functions. Another study of German industrial patterns evidenced the same trends.49 Haire did a quantitative study of four industrial firms and found that total growth resembled a smooth logarithmic curve. By dividing the supervisors from 46C. Northcote Parkinson, Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration (Boston: Houghton MiffIin, I957), p. 8. 47 Seymour Melman, "The Rise of Administration Over- head in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States, 1899-1947," in Oxford Economic Papers, No. 3 (1951) 64-66. 48Frederick W. Terrain and Donald L. Mills, "The Effects of Changing Size Upon the Internal Structure of Organizations," in American Sociological Review, XX (1955), 11. 49Alton W. Baker and Ralph C. Davis, Ratios of §taff to Line Emplgyees (Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1954), p. 15; Richard Bendix, Work and Authority in Industry (New York: Wiley), 22. 25 employees he found that as employee growth increases the 50 ratio of supervisors declined. Subsequently this data was re-analyzed and his findings challenged leaving the issue still clouded.51 Anderson and Warkov found an inverse relation between size of hospital and administrative staff in Veteran's Hospitals. They point out that task complexity and the number of locations where tasks are performed are significant variables when examining structural growth patterns. They suggested that in the Terrian and Mills study, larger school districts, the increased complexity and geographical Spread, were more significant than size increases in increasing administrative size.52 When these concepts were tested in higher educa- tion a curvilinear relationship was observed. In the initial growth of colleges and universities the adminis- trative components increased, decreasing with further 50Mason Haire, "Biological Models and Empirical Histories of the Growth of Organizations," in Mason Haire, Modern Organization Theory (New York: Wiley, 1959), p. 292. 51Jean Draper, et al., "Testing a Model for Organi- zational Growth," in Human Organization, XXII, No. 3 (Fall, 1963). 52T. R. Anderson and S. Warkov, "Organizational Size and Functional Complexity," in American Sociological Review, XXVI (February, 1961), 23-38. 26 growth. When physical facilities are dispersed supervisory personnel increased.53 When the variable of complexity was examined in 54 organizations researchers found that size and complexity were not directly related. They did find an increase in hierarchical levels for larger organizations. Findings here suggested that a decision to increase functional complexity may result in an increase in organizational size rather than complexity being a consequence of growth alone.54 These studies present some methodological diffi- culties in that the measures of size vary between studies. Professional staff and their competence level is another variable which relates with task complexity and need for supervision. Administrative duties of an informal or part-time nature were difficult to measure in smaller organizations. As size increases secretaries and other staff assume duties previously defined as administrative. A re-analysis of these findings by Raphael, sug- gests that when size is held constant variations in com- plexity are directly related to increased administrative 53Amos Hawley, W. Boland, and M. Boland, "Popula- tion Size and Administration in Institutions of Higher Education," in American Sociological Review, XXX (April, 1965), 252. 54Richard T. Hall, J. Eugene Haas and Norman John- son, "Organizational, Size, Complexity, and Formalization," in American Sociological Review, XXXI, No. 4, p. 903. 27 positiOns.55 Lindenfeld's study of national school dis- tricts found that increasing the number of work locations required an increased administrative component.56 Such contradictory findings suggest that size and complexity are not normally distributed in the universe under consideration. More descriptive studies are needed before these hypotheses may be extended. The organizational structures of 40 public univer- sities with enrollments exceeding 10,000 were studied by Anderson and Chambers. Their major concerns were the rewards of title and salary assigned to the various statuses. A secondary objective was to define new areas within the university such as audio-visual, institutional research, and computer services. They conclude that unless the structure is carefully designed some areas or functions clearly evidence neglect and fall behind the national norms when salary levels are used as indicators.57 The significance of new functions and the import- ance of their location in the organizational structure of the two-year colleges is well understood. As these 55Edwin E. Raphael, "The Anderson Warkov Hypotheses in Local Unions," in American Sociolggical Review, XXXII, p. 768. 56Frank Lindenfeld, "Does Administration Staff Grow as Fast as Organizations?" School Life, XXXXIII (1961), 20-23. 57D. J. Anderson and J. A. Chambers, "Planning for Organizational Growth," in College Management (September, 1968) also (University of South Florida, Mimeographed Report, 1969). 28 colleges have grown occupational education, general educa- tion, student personnel services, and remedial programs, have been centers of controversy. Harris, a leading pro- ponent of occupational programs states that unless the occupational dean reports directly to the president the . 58 career program is "second class." Presently unless community service programs have a full-time director or dean who reports directly to the president, funding is difficult. Starbuck considers the problems which an organi- zation chooses to confront to be an excellent indicator of its age and survival capacity. In his view formal organizations do not evolve structures which maximize individual or informal flexibility. In contrast Faunce found more democracy in local unions with large membership when compared to smaller locals.59 Ayres and Russel investigated the span of control of the president in 600 colleges and universities in relation to the functions of the college. They found that the growth of these organizations had not resulted in structural adjustments which were capable of maintaining effective communications. TOO many officers were included in the president's span of control of the two-year colleges. 58Harris, Op. cit., p. 53. 59William Faunce, "Size of Locals and Union Democ- racy," in American Journal of Sociology, IXVIII (1962), 206-298. 29 Academic administration was not clearly identified by colleges in their sample. Important functions in stué dent personnel and planning were Often scattered across several departments. There was a significant difference between between administrative structures of public and private colleges. Public institutions emphasized posi- tions for institutional development and neglected academic affairs. Private colleges emphasized positions in busi- ness affairs and neglected student personnel functions.60 When goal structures of universities were investi- gated, Gross found the mutually exclusive dual goals between faculty and administrators so explicitly stated in the administration of higher education literature did not'exist.61 This contrasts sharply with Lunsford's con- tention that administrators march to a different beat than faculty and are specialists or professionals with diver- gent values.62 Studies concerned with higher education have generally been concerned with administration as a process and ignored organization or structural problems. Studies of the two-year college have followed these concerns and focused upon role and functional analysis studies. When 60Ayres and Russel, op. cit., p. 68-92. 61Edward Gross, "Universities as Organizations," in American Sociological Review, XXXIII, No. 4 (August, 1964), 539. . 62Terry F. Lunsford, "Authority and Ideology," in American Behavioral Scientist (May-June, 1968), 7. 30 organizational designs are studied in the two-year college literature state control and state wide structures rather than college internal structures are under analysis. Formal organization studies of higher education test bureaucratic theories or focus on the ratio of administrative positions for various sizes and types of organizations. No definitive set of findings emerges from these studies of colleges and universities. Complexity is mentioned, but seldom included as a variable under consideration.63 A Theoretical Perspective The growth of two-year colleges and their develop- ment in recent years suggests that size and age are organi- zational variables which must be subject to analysis. Curricular comprehensiveness, which is a common goal explicit in both their legal and philOSOphical founda- tions, may be considered as a measure of complexity or effectiveness. Structurally designed to facilitate the realiza- tion of these goals, they can be investigated for examples of centralization, departmentalization, and task differ- entiation. While there are other organizational variables which could be drawn on for analysis, size, age, 63William A. Rushing, "Two Types of Industrial Administration," in Human Organization, XXVI, 32. 31 centralization, departmentalization, and complexity provide one baSis for the formulation of an exploratory and descriptive study of their structure and functions. In Parsons' model the variables of size and age represent adaptive functions, proxies for exchanges between the environment and the organization. Integration or coordination of internal units is represented by structural variables; the degree of cen- tralization by the combination or bifurcation of the responsibilities for technical and vocational instruction at the second organizational level; the degree of depart— mentalization at the third level represents the differen- tiation of organizational sub-units or decentralization of tasks being performed. Another aspect of the structural variable is the size of the administrative component pro- vided to support the integrative functions of the college. These positions will be looked at as intervening variables in relationship to both the organizational size, age, and curriculum complexity. Goal achievement functions are represented by two variables--the degree of comprehensiveness of curriculum as stated in the catalog, and the degree of size of curri- culum. The relationship between Parsons' theoretical analy- sis of organizational functions and the selected organiza- tional variables of the two-year colleges may be diagrammed as follows: PARSONS' ORGANIZATIONAL INDEPENDENT FUNCTIONS VARIABLES Adaptation: Age Size Integration: Goal Achievement: Latency:64 64 32 INTERVENING DEPENDENT VARIABLES VARIABLES Centralized Dean Second Level Departmentalization Second Level Departmentalization Third Level Administrative Position Size Curriculum Size Curriculum Complexity Latency or the sustaining of motivation and cultural identity are considered to be a part of this study, but will become investigated at a later time. The study is designed to be a longitudinal one, with the follow-up study comparing administrative and technical structural changes and their relationship to curriculum offerings and complex- ity after a five-year period of growth and development when the data for 1972 are available. 33 In addition to these four functional imperatives, Parsons extends his analysis of organizations to the con- sideration of what he terms "qualitative breaks in the continuity of line structure." Parsons' three levels of hierarchical structure in organizations, institutional, managerial, and technical, may be directly related to the variables under investigation here. The institutional level represented by state and local boards of control have established the goals and Objectives of these colleges 65 The achievement of by law and philosophical statements. these goals is then delegated to the two subordinate levels, which Parsons terms the Administrative and the Technical, the foci of this study.66 Two of the variables here under review relate directly to the administrative level, the size of the administrative component, and the structural centraliza- tion or decentralization of responsibility for the curri- culum and instruction. The divisions of labor and com- plexity at the second and third levels of organization fall under the technical category, where the operations of the organization. 65Donald Singer and John A. Grande, "Emerging Patterns of Governance: Promise or Peril?" in Junior College Journal (March, 1971), p. 38. 66Parsons, Op. cit., p. 61. CHAPTER III RESEARCH DESIGN AND PROCEDURES Introduction The purposes of this chapter are: (1) Establish the relationship between reported research findings and the problems or questions of this study; (2) Describe the research procedures; and (3) Introduce the analytical strategy. Originally conceptualized as a descriptive study of organizational structure as the colleges grow and develop, the Study has been expanded to include the rela- tionships between structural arrangements and the perform- ance of the organizations in developing a comprehensive curriculum. Parsons' view of formal organizations as mechanisms for the mobilization of power in modern society and the four functions which he establishes as organizational imperatives provide a frame of reference for organizing and analyzing the variables of this study.1 lParsons, op. cit. 34 35 Adaptation, which is viewed as interaction between the environment and the organization in this research conceptualized as exchanges between the Two-Year Colleges and their environment as reflected by growth or changes and differences in size and their development or changes across time as indicated by their age. Size and age are treated as independent variables in the formulation of questions addressed to the data under consideration. Initial questions which an exploratory study of this type should relate to the distribution of the size and age in the two-year colleges. What are the distri- butions of size and age of public two-year colleges? Are there regional differences in these distributions? Is there any correlation between size and age distribution? What are the differences between larger and smaller colleges, younger and older colleges, when size and age are compared? Price has developed a series of propositions which represent the core of what is presently known about formal organizations. These will be used to focus the Parsonian theoretical scheme on more specific aSpects of the behaviors under investigation.2 The following propositions are related to the problem under consideration: ‘PrOposition I. Except where there is a high degree of professionalization, organizations 2James L. Price, Organizational Effectiveness (Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, Inc., 1960), p. 8} 36 which have a high degree of size are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of size. Previous studies noted in this context were the Anderson—Warkov series, including the work of Hawley, Boland and Boland as well as the Hall, Hass and Johnson relating size to organizational administrative components in hospitals and colleges.3 Lazarsfeld and Theilens' study of social scientist in colleges and universities tends to support this proposition.4 Co-option is a phenomenon of interaction between the organization and its environment which has received much attention through the work of Selznick and others. It is usually understood as the process of recruiting mem- bers with the goal of increasing institutionalization and increases size as a consequence.5 The "open door" admissions policy, the egalitarian posture of the colleges, their efforts to make post secondary education economically, socially, geographically, and psychologically available involves increasing 3Anderson, Warkov, Op. cit.; Hawley, Boland and Boland, Op. cit.; Hall, Hass and Johnson, op. cit. 4Paul F. Lazarsfeld and Wagner Theilens, Jr., The Academic Mind (Glencoe, 111.: Free Press, 1951), pp. 18-24. 5Philip Selznick, TUA and_£he Grass Roots (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953), p. 18. 37 recruitment from all segments of the community including the elite. A proposition related to this type of adapta- tion formulated: Proposition II. Organizations which have co-option are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which do not have co-option. In this sense size is a variable which indicates the number of members enrolled in the process of the college and represents a measure of co-option and institu- tionalization in its community. The Two-Year Colleges generally consider that the development of a greater number of Career programs requires a larger enrollment, faculty, and capital investment in equipment and buildings. Increases in size are logically related to performance. In the context of these prepositions and related research, the following questions may be explored: Is an increase in organizational size positively related to increased comprehensiveness in curriculum offerings? How is curriculum size related to organizational size? For this study, curriculum Offerings will be viewed as proxies of organizational output or goal achievement that encompass and express organizational goals. A major goal is the development of Career or VOcational curriculum. In this study, curriculum complexity as expressed in percentage of career curriculum will be used as one 38 indicator of complexity since a major organizational goal involves maximizing this proportion. Total curriculum size is also a measure of complexity for both career and transfer programs. Is there any relation between organi- zational size and curriculum size as expressed by the number of courses offered? If the transfer programs are limited to the first two years of baccalaureate programs, should the increase of size merely increase the "general education" sections offered, or do the total courses offered increase? Does complexity increase with either age or size? What structural arrangements, if any, increase complexity? The research by Clark would suggest that as the organization grew older, the need for autonomy became more crucial to its goal achievement. Increasing commun- ity pressures which prevented its altering its goals or methods of attaining them actually diminished the number of technical vocational courses Offered rather than increased them. Price summarizes the research in this area with a prOposition which suggests another question for considera- tion in relation to this data.6 Proposition III. Organizations which have a high degree Of autonomy are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness 6Price, op. cit., p. 96. l". 39 than organizations which have a low degree of autonomy. In looking at the data of this research and the proposition, other questions which should be answered are: Is organizational age negatively related to increased com- prehensiveness in curriculum offerings? What is the rela- tionship between organizational size and curriculum offer- ings or size? There are other studies and data which modify, if not reverse, this position. Many of the two-year colleges begin as subsidiary organizations within local K-12 school districts. Later they are restructured as autonomous organizations under an independent Board of locally elected Trustees. These changes in control Of the colleges are specifically designed to: expand their autonomy, increase the effectiveness of their comprehensive programs of voca- tional and technical education, and in some cases, to relieve the constraints of shared facilities. Some of these changes have come about directly as a result of Clark's findings and the implications of his research. It was previously noted that many of the more recently established colleges were initially controlled centrally by a state system, and gradually assume a more autonomous operation as they grow older. .In order to take into consideration this observed trend to greater autonomy across time, the relationship between organizational age and effectiveness may flow in 40 the opposite direction. Price suggests another proposi- tion which needs to be considered in this context:7 Proposition IV. Organizations which have a high degree of legitimacy are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of legitimacy. Time or age is considered in this instance to be a relatively important variable in the development of community support and legitimacy for these colleges. Survival through time is essential to their existence, since they are directly supported by locally voted tax funds and establishes their legitimacy. Age as an indi- cator of their interaction and adaptability coupled with their philosophical commitment to technical and vocational programs as an organizational goal suggests another ques- tion: Is organizational age positively related to greater comprehensiveness in curriculum offerings? Integration or the coordination of internal units"' is another function which Parsons utilizes in the consid- eration of formal organizations. This research focuses on internal structural arrangements of the colleges as an intervening set of variables related to organizational performance. 7Ibido ' p. 490 41 A major consideration is the division of labor or the degree to which the tasks of a system are subdivided. The allocation of the activities of the organization to various divisions or degrees of departmentalization is often viewed in the perspective of centralized or decen- tralized control systems. Are there structures which either inhibit or facilitate the functions of these colleges and their goal achievement? In the literature of the two-year colleges there are strong proponents for each of the operations of the organization. Librarians, Technical-Vocational Deans, and a number of major divisions or departments content that unless they report directly to the President, their activities and functions are diminished. Does the span of control on the second level continue in present organi- zational patterns? How are the organizational levels structured? Is the number of levels related to size, or to curriculum size and complexity? Several of the pro- positions in the Price inventory are related to the problem of structural design: Proposition V. Organizations which have a high degree of specialized departmentalization are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of specialized depart- mentalization.8 81bid., p. 24. 42 While Simon and those associated with him have made major analytical studies in this area, Chandler explicitly states that the relationship between departmentalization and organizational effectiveness is a causal rather than a correlated relationship.9 In considering all these state- ments and data on two-year colleges, questions related to their structural arrangements and curriculum comprehensive- ness may be formulated. - Centralization of decision making and coordination are other variables related to Integration of an organiza- tion. Departmentalization may also be viewed as a measure of decentralization of functions and decision making regard- ing those operations of the colleges.10 Another prOposition growing out of the research in relation to centralized decision making is: Proposition VI. Except where there is a high degree of complexity, organizations which have a high degree of centralization with respect to tactical decisions are more likely to have a high degree of effec- tiveness than organizations which have a low degree of centralization with respect to tactical decisions.ll 9Alfred D. Chandler, Jr., Strate and Structure (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1962), p. 398. 10Peter F. Drucker, Concept of the Corporation (Boston: Beacon Press, 1960), pp. I21-I27. llPrice, Op. cit., p. 60. 43 The two-year colleges, it may be argued, exhibit a high degree of complexity because they have a high degree of professionalization. If professionalization is understood as a service orientation, which is dependent upon an abstract body of knowledge, then the colleges fall within the complex qualifications of the proposition. Tactical decisions in this sense are decisions which deal with day-to-day activities, which are necessary for organi- zational operation. This question takes into account both the relationship of departmentalization and assumes that, in a professional organization, decision making at the department level by professionals will increase effective- ness or goal achievement. Are two-year colleges with a high degree of depart- mentalization more comprehensive in course offerings than two-year colleges with a lesser degree of departmentaliza- tion? 4 It has been asserted by the proposition that not only is departmental separation related to goal achieve- ment and curriculum comprehensivity, but that these voca- tional and technical departments must have a separate position at the second level where so-called strategic decisions are made. Price draws on the research for another proposition which relates to this problem: Proposition VII. Organizations which have the maximum degree of centralization with respect to strategic decisions are more likely 44 to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which do not have a maximum degree of centralization with respect to strategic decision making.12 Strategic decisions are usually Spoken of as policy decisions. In order to determine whether there is any relationship between a centralized position which is responsible for all college functions or a bifurcation of the functions between a vocational-technical dean and a dean of transfer curriculum, we will seek an anSwer to the question: Do two-year colleges with a centralized instruc- tional dean have greater curriculum complexity than col- leges which have multiple positions of curriculum control? Much attention has been devoted to the relation- ship between the size of the administrative component and organizational size and functions. For purposes of this research, the administrative component of these colleges is considered as an intervening structural variable con- cerned with the integrative functions of the organizations. In one sense the size of the administrative component may be utilized as an indication of the centralization of functions or decision making activities which are not accomplished by the departments. In this context, the relationship of the size of the administrative component to the comprehensiveness of the curriculum needs to be considered. lzIbid., p. 60. 45 Administration activities, as indicated by the number of administrators, may be related to the goal achievement of the colleges. What is the size of this group? Does it relate to organizational size, age, curri- culum growth and complexity? Does administrative size decrease with increased organizational size as Anderson and Warkov suggest; or does it increase with the size of the containing organization as Terrian and Mills found; or is administrative size weakly related to complexity as Hall and Hass suggest? Does the size of administrative component decrease as complexity increases, as Hawley and Boland found in the university?1 Does administrative size pattern in two-year colleges follow the public school or the university findings? If the administrator's functions and decisions are strategic, one_question would be, "In two-year colleges, is there a positive relationship between the size of the administrative component and curriculum complexity?" Summary of Propositions and Research QuestiOns The inventory of propositions formulated by Price encapsulates the research findings from which the ques- tions of this study are formed.. These propositiOns repre- sent what is known or illustrate what is almost known regarding the variables usually considered in organizational studies. The propositions related to size, age, and curri- culum variables are: II. III. IV. The are: 5. 46 Except where there is a high degree of professionalization, organizations which have a high degree of size are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of, Size. Organizations which have co-option.are more likely to have a high degree of effective- ness than organizations which do not have co-option. Organizations which have a high degree of autonomy are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of autonomy. Organizations which have a high degree of legitimacy are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of legitimacy. questions of this study related to size and age What is the range and distribution of size and age in public two-year colleges? What is the range and distribution of curri- culum size and complexity in public two- year colleges? Is an increase in size or age related to an increase in either curriculum size or com- plexity? What is the range and distribution of faculty size and its relation to size and age? Are there regional differences in size, age, and curriculum? Propositions related to centralization and depart-, mentalization are: V. Organizations which have the maximum degree of centralization with respect to strategic decisions are more likely to have'a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which do not have a maximum degree of cen- tralization with respect to strategic decision making. 47 VI. Except where there is a high degree of complexity, organizations which have a high degree of centralization with respect to tactical decisions are more likely to have a high degree of effectiveness than organizations which have a low degree of centralization with respect to tactical decisions. VII. Organizations which have a high degree of specialized departmentalization are more likely to have a high degree of effective- ness than organizations which have a low degree of specialized departmentalization. Questions related to centralization and department- alization are: 6. What is the range and distribution of administrative size, and centralized curriculum control in public two-year colleges? 7. What is the range and distribution of departmentalization and operational levels in public two-year colleges? 8. What is the relationship between admin- istrative size, centralized curriculum control and curriculum size and complexity? 9. What is the relationship between opera- tional levels, departmentalization and curriculum size and complexity? Procedures This is clearly an ex post facto research effort and, as such, needs to maintain safeguards which avoid the inherent possibility of an analysis which falls into the "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.l3 l3Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations Of Behavioral _Besearch (New York: Holt, Rinéhart & Winston, 1965), p. 360. 48 The exploratory and descriptive objectives of this study as well as its ex post facto procedure preclude any "control" in the classical sense as well as any serious statements of casualty. Despite the limitations Of ex post facto prOCedures, when the objectives of this research are considered and the questions posed reviewed, the data is capable of yielding insights into the relationships being examined if proper caution is exercised.14 These findings will provide the same guidelines needed for the development of testable hypotheses. In this way the major objectives of the study reflect the purposes of ex post facto research and studies based upon available materials. Because the variables have already occurred we look at the independent and dependent variables simultaneously and in retroSpect attempt to determine their relationships. Curriculum size and curriculum complexity as dependent variables are investigated and efforts are made to des- cribe and evaluate plausible relationships with the inde- pendent and intervening variables.15 Enrollment size is considered an independent vari- able because of its unique position in the two-year college activities. l4R. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (New York: Free Press, 1949), p. 90-91. 15William J. Goode and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in Social Research (New York: McGraw Hill, 1952), p. 90. 49 Size, as indicated by enrollment, is considered as an independent variable because of its relationship to the fiscal policies and the open door philosophy of the two- year colleges. Usually in Higher Education enrollment size is projected, budget appropriated, faculty hired, and students admitted accordingly. This is not the case in two-year public colleges. Sixty per cent of two-year college income is from a combination of state support and student tuition which is determined on a per capita basis. Open admissions limit these colleges in predicting enrollment size. Gen- erally the admissions door is "open" through the first few days of classes. This, in turn, generates new revenue and part-time faculty are hired as classes are added to accommodate the students. In some cases with new colleges part-time faculty outnumber full-time faculty. In the case of two-year public colleges, enrollment size is clearly an antecedent of budget and employment activities. When enrollment exceeds physical plant Space, interim space is leased or constructed to meet enrollment require- ments. In classical terms, structural arrangements of the traditional bureaucratic type, horizontal and vertical divisions are utilized to determine the degree of depart- mentalization and task differentiation. Measures of centralization and decentralization are sought by looking at the way in which third level functions are 50 departmentalized, and the way in which second level posi- tions are centralized with a combined Dean of Instruction, who is responsible for all curriculum, or a separate Dean of Vocational and Technical Education, who shares these reSponsibilities and is responsible for all non-transfer curriculum. The organizational goals selected are those related to providing a comprehensive curriculum. Two measures of goal achievement indicate the behavior of the organizations in relation to these stated goals: the percentage of curriculum devoted to vocational curriculum and the total size of curriculum. One Of the variables under consideration can be manipulated in relation to the other variables. Centrali- zation of curriculum supervision can be determined from the organization charts and the alternate structural arrangements related to the other variables and these results compared. In this instance the data for this variable allows the consequences and characteristics in the other variables to be reviewed. One objective was to determine the usefulness of national data summaries for research. While there data could have been more effici- ently obtained by a survey questionnaire to the colleges this more restricted method was selected to test the usefulness Of such data required from the colleges. Two of the basic sources were national documents which report on the data gathered in the annual Higher 51 Education General Information Survey conducted by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The Educa- tional Directory, Part 3, 1968-1969, provided the informa- tion on the size of the colleges, faculty size, and the number of colleges as well as names and addresses of presidents and deans to whom requests for other documents were mailed. The size of the administrative component and the faculty size were verified in another document from Health, Education and Welfare, Number and Characteristics of Employees in Higher Education. Because of the elaborate pretesting and definitions developed for the survey and the standardization of responses in these reports, chances for reporting errors are reduced. The problem of the delay in time while these reports are published is an obstacle and a negative factor when utilizing them for research. A number of documents were reviewed to gather the necessary information and formulate these data for the project. Three requests were sent to each of the 613 colleges listed in the 1968 Directory. The President was asked to forward an organization chart for the 1968-69 period. A catalog for the same year was requested from the Academic or Instructional dean. The Registrar was requested to provide a schedule for the fall of 1970 in order to check performance as expressed in the catalogue. The age of the colleges was determined by exam- ining the catalogue. This also provided information on 52 the administrative size and structure which was checked against the organization chart and national reports. In addition, the complexity of the curriculum in relation to the percentage of comprehensiveness was recorded by coding the number of courses listed in transfer and career curri- culum. Schedules provided another type of curriculum data: the actual courses Offered. These were considered (to be performance indicators of the actual complexity or degree of curriculum comprehensiveness offered by the colleges. Each organization chart was analyzed and the data for organizational levels, centralization, or multiple positions for curriculum control identified and the num- ber of departments at three levels recorded. Activities and functions at half levels were considered as part of the lower level. Additional information was available for the sample from state reports in Indiana and Illinois. While there were more than 300 responses available, not all colleges responded with all the documents requested. Some follow-up letters were dispatched and additional documents secured. Full data was finally obtained from 201 colleges, except for the schedules, where 155 of the colleges supplied this information. These proved to be the most difficult data to secure. 53 Descriptive statistics will be used to indicate the central tendencies, variability, and distribution of the variables under consideration. Sampling statistics will be introduced as needed to indicate confidence inter- vals for generalizations made from the data. Contingency tables are used to present, describe, and compare the profile and relationships of the variables. Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficients will be utilized to indicate the strength and direction of the variable relationships. Some use of rank order corre- lations coefficients will be used to assist in clarifying the organizational profile. The Sample In 1968 there were 613 public two-year colleges in the United States. The Parten formula was used to determine that estimated sample means would be above the .01 confidence interval. According to this formula any sample of more than 92.4 colleges should assure that the sample mean would not deviate more than the estimate standard error from means calculated from a similar sample.l6 All colleges were contacted with requests for schedules, catalogues, and organizational charts. When incomplete responses were eliminated a stratified sample 16 Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls and Sam les: Practical_Procedures (New York: Harper, 195577—g535ter 6, pp. 316-17. 54 of 201 colleges, double the level need for a .01 confidence interval and comprising 32.9 per cent of the universe remains. (Table 1.) Representation by states is relatively even with the exception of North Carolina, Wisconsin and South Carolina, where certain anomalies exist. These are under represented because their two-year colleges are primarily technical institutes and are not comprehensive in their curriculum offerings. Responses from New York and Texas fall below the median of the sample represented. In the case of Washing- ton, Wyoming and Oklahoma the absence of organizational charts reduces the numbers included in the sample. While organization charts were the most difficult to secure in states where two-year colleges are younger, the class schedules proved to be most difficult to secure. Consequently, this is the only information in the sample where full information was not available for all colleges, 155 out of the 201 total. When regional comparisons are made, 62.6 per cent of the sample data is incorporated in the regional statis- tics. The distribution between size levels represents a narrow range with only a 7 per cent difference between size categories. This assures that the comparisons are based on homogeneous size strata (Table 2).17 17Claire Selltiz and Marie Jahoda, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt Rinehart Winston, 1962}. p. 528. 55 0.00 0.« 0 0.H 0H HusommHs 0.0« 0.« m 0.« RH HmmHmmHmmHz 0.0« 0.« m 0.« RH poemmccHz p.00 «.« 0H 0.0 0« . cmmHson s.0« 0.« 0 0.« 0H muummseopmmmz «.mm 0.« 0 0.« «H pamHsumz II II II ll 0 OGHMZ I- u- I- «.0 H pamHmHsoH nu I: u- «.0 H axosucmm «.mm 0.« 0 0.« 0H mmmcms 0.0H 0.H « 0.« 0H mon I- n- 1- «.0 H mcmecH 0.0a 0.mH 0« 0.0 mm mHocHHHH I- -u I- 0.0 « oempH .. 0.0 H «.0 H HHmzmm «.mm 0.« 0 0.« «H mHmpomO 0.«0 0.e 0H 0.0 «« ppHpon .. I- -- «.0 H mHnssHoo Ho OOHHumHo 0.00H 0.0 H «.0 H mpmszma 0.m« m.H m 0.« «H HSOHuomccoO 0.00 0.« 0 m.H 0 opmuoHou «.00 m.0« H0 0.mH 00 chHOHHHmo 0.00 0.0 H 0.0 « mmmcpxua 0.50 m.H m .m.H 0 pecuHHH .. u- n- «.0 H mxmpHm h.mv m.m n v.~ ma . macooad omum>HcD mo mH OHQEmm w .02 w .02 wumum ucmo mom onEmm omum>HcD .mHmEmm one mmuo>flco ca mmmoaaou OHHQom Hmmwuozell.a mamme HON z 56 H.m 5.5 m.NH 0.0m v.6v H.mv m.mm H.m o.ov m.h o.mH m.mm m.~¢ o.ooa m.m. O O O O O O O COCONMOMH CDLDNNt-IWNHO 0000000000.. CNOQWOOHNNOI—‘l Mr-l momooxoxoooooorimm Or-I Maw NI‘OM mcflfiowz camcoomflz mwcwmuw> ummz coumcwnmmz mwcwmnw> ucosuo> noun mmxwa commences muoxmn nuoom mcHHOHmo Busom ocmHmH moonm mwcc>ammccmm commuo maonoaxo OHBO muoxmn nunoz mcflaoumu nunoz xuo» 3oz ovaxmz 362 mmmnon 3oz mnflnmmEmm 3oz mom>mz oxmmunmz mcoucoz 57 TABLE 2.--Organizationa1 Size Distribution. Size N Percent 5000 + 52 25.8 2501 - 5000 43 21.6 1001 - 2500 58 28.8 0 — 1000 48 23.8 Total 201 100.0 Terminology Size Total student enrollment as reported to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare will be used rather than the widely used Full-Time Equivalent figure. This is especially important for two-year colleges that serve large numbers of students who take only one or two courses, yet require an almost equal number of services as a student who carries more courses. 522 This date will be the date they came into exist- ence under their own Board of Trustees. Some were estab- lished earlier under local school boards, but their functions within the full definition were not realized until they were autonomous. This eliminates variance in reporting, noted in the HEGIS reports, and is determined from the college's catalog. 58 Administrative Size As reported on the HEGIS survey, which requires all persons who devote more than 50 per cent of their time to administration, to be listed as administrative personnel. Second Organizational Level The second horizontal level under the chief administrative officer. Third Organizational Level The third horizontal level under the chief administrative officer. Departmentalization The categories or separate groups identified on either the second or third organizational levels. Centralized Curriculum Supervision A combined Dean or Vice President for the Liberal Arts or College transfer curriculum and Vocational Techni- cal Curriculum is assumed by one position, this term will be used. Multiple Curriculum Supervision Separate Vocational-Technical Dean with responsi- bility for the Technical or Vocational program or curri- culum is divided or separate from the Transfer or Liberal Arts curriculum, this term will used. 59 Curriculum Comprehensivity_or Complexiry An index of curriculum composition expressed by percentage of programs which are either Technical or Vocational and are not transfer or Liberal Arts courses per se. Total size is also an indicator of complexity. Effectiveness Is considered to be the degree of goal achievement. In classical studies, this has been a central concern. In this study, curriculum and complexity will be the dependent variables used as a proxies of organizational output.18 Hegis The Higher Education General Information Survey conducted annually by the Department of Health Education and Welfare. 18Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Engle- wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964), p. 8; Peter M. Blau and Richard W. Scott, Formal Organi- zations (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Company, 1962), pp. 3-8. CHAPTER IV ORGANIZATIONAL SIZE, AGE, CURRICULUM SIZE, AND COMPLEXITY Introduction In order to relate the data of the sample to the questions raised in this research, the characteristics and limitations of the variables need to be clearly established. This section focuses on the independent variables of size and age and the dependent variables, curriculum size and complexity. Size and age are capable of being measured in units which provide comparable units for descriptive and analytical efforts to explore some of the organizational characteristics of two-year public colleges. Curriculum size and complexity are believed to be organizational correlates of the independent variables, size and age which represent one qualifiable aspect of goal achieving activity. Size is the most frequently cited characteristic of the two-year colleges by scholars of higher education when commenting on this emerging phenomenon. The tendency 60 61 to equate size and importance, or size as proof of excel- lence, must result from assumptions that increased size is positively related to achievement of the organization's goals. Size is Often an assumed consequence of the internal activities of an organization, an indicator of I I l progress, either a means or consequence of goal attainment. Procedures The information needed to supply answers for the research queries directed to the data of the sample is presented by contingency tables. Descriptive statistical techniques are used to present the data for comparison and correlation. Contingency tables were originally drawn up to provide for seven size categories. When the sample dis- tribution was reviewed, four major categories used by other studies of colleges proved adequate. ' In the case of each variable original contingency tables were drawn up which provided for the widest possi- ble display of the data and then reformed with only the categories necessary to adequately represent the data. One criterion for independent variables is that they have no correlation with one another. When size and 1William H. Starbuck, "Organizational Growth and Development," in March, op. cit., p. 452. 62 age were correlated the coefficient which results (r = .163) is so weak that it can be attributed to chance rather than being assigned any place in the confidence interval. (P .01 = .180.) Organizational studies related to organizational morale and efficiency have elected attitudes, gross sales, or other indices to operationalize a measure of organiza- tional output or goal achievement. Curriculum size and complexity are used more as proxies for organizational goal attainment. The goals of Counseling and Community Services programs are not reflected in either catalogue or schedule course descriptions and are not considered as a part of this study. The proposed courses and courses offered in transfer curriculum, the Liberal Arts and Sciences and Career courses may be used as an operational measure of these two organizational goals. Thus, two of the four goals of two-year colleges may be examined by utilizing courses offered as proxies. These proxies for educational outputs more clearly reflect organizational performance than graduates, certi- ficates granted, or transfer students to four-year col- leges. Two-year college students are eclectic in their choice of courses, completion of graduation requirements, and time Sequences. The courses offered by catalogue statements and schedules are treated as dependent variables related to the growth and development as expressed by size and age in these organizations. 63 When the difference between the number of gradu- ates who actually receive degrees from two-year colleges is considered in relation to the enrollment, less than 10 per cent of the students are granted Associate degrees or one-year certificates. While courses alone do not represent the total output of the colleges they are the best available quantifiable proxies for goal achievement in this instance. Comparative statistics will be used to explore the distribution and differences in course offerings with respect to the percentage of effort directed to the dual goals of supplying transfer and terminal or career pro- grams which require two years or less for completion. Any attempt to define curriculum falters in the face of the vague statements which assume that the near random series of courses and activities constitute a curriculum. Goodlad insists that the curriculum is "a set of intended learnings," which are rationally planned and are capable of being evaluated.2 This is compatible with the idea that formal organizations are rationally established means for achieving stated goals. Curriculum complexity is expressed as the ratio or percentage of the total curriculum devoted to career or vocational programs and by total curriculum size. 2John I. Goodlad and M. N. Richter, The Develop- ment of A Conceptual System for Dealipg_with Problems of CurriculumCTLos AngeIés: University of CalifErnia IDEA, 1966). PP. 13-14. 64 Findings §i£2 Small colleges with enrollments of 1000 or less account for 23 per cent (48) of the sample, while medium size colleges (1001-2500) account for 28 per cent (58) of the total distribution. Medium-large colleges (2501- 5000) are the smallest category of the sample with 21.6 per cent (43), and the largest colleges (5000 +) accounted for the remaining 25.8 per cent (52). These four cate- gories, because of their relative balance, are used for analytical purposes (Table 3). Size as indicated by enrollment ranges from 165 in an Alabama college to 29,375 at Miami-Dade in Florida. The wide range in size, which includes the largest two- year college in the population, is most interesting in the wide variation between the sample mean of 4607 and the median of 2306. Miami-Dade enrolls more students than the first 45 colleges, while enrollment in the largest six colleges, or top 3 per cent, exceeds the total for all colleges below the median. Problems of symmetry and skewness raised by the difference between organizational size median and mean are best examined by utilizing the Pearsonian coefficient of skewness. The distribution tends to be narrow and humped, rather than normally curved, which a value of three would 65 mmm.m mHmOuHoM mmm.mam HOHHm ouoocmpm 000.H00.0 coHpmH>mo pmmeamum 000.000.« cmemz ooo.hmo.v coo: "ONHm 0.00H «.0H 0.H« 0.0H 0.00 Heme Hem 0.0H 0.000.0 0.00H H0« H« 00 00 00H mHmpoe 0.0« «.000 0.0« 00 m 0H « 0« 000.H I 0 0.0H 0.000.H 0.0« 00 0 0 . 0H 00 000.« I H00.H 0.0H 0.000.0 0.H« 00 0 0 0 «« 000.0 I 000.« 0.0« «.000.0H 0.0« «0 0 «H 0H 0H + 000.0 604 ONHm pcmOHmm Hmnoe 00 I 00 00 I 0« 0« I HH 0H I 0 ONHm com: com: I pcoEHHOHcm mm< .om< tom ONHm mo coHquHHumHQII.m mqmde 66 would indicate.3 When the kurtosis or peakedness value Of 5.358 is considered, this is confirmed. One standard deviation to the left includes all of the cases under the mean while three standard deviations to the right account for all except two cases above the mean. A related aspect of the size or growth profile of interest is the way faculty size relates to organizational size (Table 4). ' Faculty size ranges from a low of 15 to a high of 955. The mean Size for the sample is 156.5. In this case there is again a wide range as indicated by the median which is 107. The correlation coefficient (r = .798) indicates that the growth of faculty is positively related to increased organizational size (P.01 = .180). An analysis of the faculty-student ratios by organizational size indicates that there is a much lower faculty-student ratio in the smaller colleges. In colleges enrolling less than 1000 students where the mean size is 659.0, the mean faculty Size is 37.2, and produces a student-teacher ratio of 16.6 students for each faculty member. In contrast, the colleges whose enrollment exceeds 5000 students have a mean size of 10,679 with a faculty mean size of 342.7. This results in a student-faculty ratio of 30.4 (Table 5). - 3M. G. Kendall, The Advanced Theory of Statistics, Vol. I, 5th ed. (London: Charles Griffin, 1952), Chapter 6 O l 67 mwm.m th.o «mm.HH mmoczmxm mHmouHoM HOHHm CHOOQMHm mem.omH cOHumH>wo onocOom ooo.aoa QMHUOS vhm.wma coo: "oNHm muaoomm m.omH Hem 0H pm we mm he HOOOB «.em 00 0H 00 , 000.H I 0 m.mn mm H om h oom.m I Hoo.a H.0mH me N am m m ooo.m I Hom.m n.mem mm OH mm ma 0 + ooo.m m cmoz Hmuoe + com com I I HmH oma I am cm I o ONHm .oNHm mpaoomm pom oNHm HosofloomflcomHo 3| Illlvl co cpoanspmHoII.0 mHmae 68 H.5N ~.mmH oo.hmo.v Hon HuoH m.bm oo.mmm we ooo.H I o Huom o.mn om.omm.a mm oom.~ I Hoo.H Humm H.omH om.omh.m me ooo.m I Hom.~ Huom >.~¢m om.mhm.oa mm + ooo.m owumm ONHm ucwEHHOHcm Hmuoe onwm muHoomqucoooum muaoomm cows coo: - sufl3 oNHm usmooum .ONHm muHoomm mo moods mowuom muaoomqucmpoum mo mSOmHHmmEOO one ONHm HMGOHpoNHcmmHOII.m mange 69 Organizational Age The two-year college is generally believed to be a recent phenomenon. Age distribution indicates that only 10.4 per cent (21) are more than 50 years of age. There are 21.6 per cent (43) over 25 years old. Their youth is confirmed by the finding that 49.7 per cent (100) of the colleges were established within the past decade (Table 6). The age distribution ranges from organizations in their first year to an upper age of 71 years. Some of the older colleges existed as Junior Colleges with pri- mary emphasis on the transfer curriculum and have often been assimilated as enabling state legislations provided support for the two-year comprehensive colleges. While the mean age in the sample was 19.8 years, there was again as with size, a wide difference between this and the median age of 11 years. The distribution of age is bimodal in contrast to the smoother curve of the Size distribution. One hundred and twenty-four colleges are less than 20 years old, while 57 of them are more than 30 years old. Only 19 were established during the 1938 to 1948 period. For colleges established prior to 1938, the mean age is 49.8 years with a median of 47. For the younger colleges established Since 1948, the mean age is 6.2 years and the median age is five years. 70 000.0 000030x0 mom.o mwmounom Hmm.a Honnm oucocmum mm0.mH coaum0>mo oncocmum 000.HH :memz 000.0H new: “60¢ 0.000.0 0.0H H0« . «0 00 00 00 mHmuoH 0.000.« 0.0 00H , 0H «« 00 0« 0H I 0 0.0«0.0 0.0H 00 0H 0 0H « 0« I HH 0.000.0 0.00 00 «H 0 0 0H 00 I 0« 0.H00.0 0.00 H« 0 0 0 0 00 I 00 .604 m 00H0 :00: m 000 ppm: H0000 + 0000 0000IH00« 000«IH00H 000HI0 HmeoHHENHcmmuo muwm accoHumNflcmmHo .mnwm one 004 HmcowumnwcmmHOII.m mqmon onwocmum HOH scape: ~.mma "com: «.00H H0« 0H 0« 00 «0 00 H.0«H 00H « HH 0H «0 H« 0H I 0 H.H0« 00 0 0 «H 0 0 0« I HH 0.00H 00 0 0 0 0H 0H 00 I 0« H.00H H« H 0 0 0 0 00 I H0 mod x 0002 H0000 + 000 000 I 00« 00« I H0H 00H I H0 00 I 0 00H0 muHsomm .mnwm muaoomm pom 0mg HmcowumNHcmmHOII.0 mqmda 73 .mSOHeEone oenoowmnoo m0 ooenIHEeHZ MHe hmH u z 0.0m m.mHm 0.00 o.HbH ma mbm.m hma «Abmmamv $.0N N.NON H.ma m.m~H 0.m 0mm.m mm umewnunow 0.0a m.0om H.0m m.mmH 0.NH Hmh.m mm nnopmem m.HN m.ww~ m.oH m.mmH m.oH Nov.m mm umesowz 0.om 0-000 m.HH m.mom H.0N mma.o mm nneumez Oauem mm ONHm muflm muwm huflooem 004 muflm z eHSOHHHnU .nHEom .moHuem huaooemIpnoooum one euflm EDHSOHHHSU .ONHm manoem .emflm e>0ueuum0nflso< .omd .ON0m mo mnomfinemfiou Hen00momII.m mamma 74 at 3409. On the east coast, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have a mean of 2781. Florida, Georgia, and Alabama, representing the Southeast, have a larger mean which is 3537. If the largest college in the area, Miami- Dade, is considered anomalous because its enrollment represents 35 per cent of the total for the area, the mean for the Southeastern states is 2397. Regional age comparisons indicate that the Western colleges are older with a mean age of 27.3 years. Mid- western colleges are much younger with a mean age of 16.5 compared to the Southeastern mean age of 12.7. Eastern states have the younger colleges where the mean age is 9.7. According to these statistics, most Western states established their two-year colleges in the 1940's, while the Midwest and Southeastern states waited until the early and mid-1950's to initiate their two-year colleges. Eastern region colleges were established in the late 1950's or early 1960's. There is a strong size-age correlation coefficient for the Southeastern region (r = .859, P.01 = .180) and for the Eastern states (r = .577, P.01 = .280). Mean size of faculty for the regional grouping is 171, well over the 156 of the whole sample. Student-faculty ratios increase directly with increases in enrollment. Regional ratios tend to follow the same pattern but there are some differences to be noted. Southeastern regional colleges are 40 per cent 75 smaller than Western colleges, yet their student-faculty ratio is only 9 per cent under the larger Western organi- zations. In contrast, their enrollment is 4 per cent larger than Midwestern colleges yet their ratio is 33 per cent larger. Curriculum Size The range of curriculum size distributes widely between one college which only Offers 47 separate courses to an upper limit of 1,620. Only two colleges offer more than 1,000 courses. The mean curriculum size for the sample is 324.4, with the median at 278. This range is not as wide as it appears, for only 13 units separate the mean score from the mode (Table 9). When one standard deviation (216) is considered only 20.8 per cent of the colleges, 142 fall outside this curriculum size range between 108 and 540. Curriculum size is more narrowly distributed than either age or size. When comparisons are made between organizational size and curriculum size, the small colleges have a mean curriculum size of 204 courses. The largest have 561 courses as their mean curriculum size. Medium Size colleges offer 243 courses, and the medium-large colleges have a slightly larger mean curriculum size of 294 (Table 10). It is interesting to compare the programs offered in the catalogue, the courses proposed to support these programs, and the courses offered as indicated in the schedule (Table 11). 0ma.w mflmouunx 00H.« 00 om~.ma Honnm oneoneum 000.0H« coHum0>mo eupecmum 000.000 :pHemz 000.0«0 new: 6 00H 0.H 0.0 0.0 .«.0H 0.00 0.0« 0H0500 Hence 7 mo unmo Hem 00.0«0 0.000H 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.«0« 0.H0H muHm ESHSOHHHSO new: H0« « 0 «H H0 0HH «0 000wHHoO mo Honfinz + coed oooH I How com I How oom_I Hov cow I How com I o ONHm Seascannno .eoHuanuumHo muHm SSHSOHHHsOII.0 enema 77 0mH.m mHmouHox @00.m mm omo.mHm noHueH>mQ oneoneum omm.mH, Hounm oueoneum ooo.mn~ neHooz omv.vmm new: Hom m.mm m.0m 0.0H m.mH m.vm 0.0mm H.o0 m.mm 0.Hom m we m.mm 0.00 m.mH m.mH 0.0m o.0om m.mm 0.0m 0.0MH oooan m0 m.ov m.mm 0.Hm H.0H m.mm m.m0m H.~m 0.00 H.m0H oomNIHOOH mm m.mm m.0w o.mH m.0H m.0o 0.00m m.mm m.00 0.00H ooomIHomm mm m.~0 0.00 0.0« 0.00 0.0m m.me m.mmH 0.Hm v.0mm + ooom z Heeneu Howmnene .nome mmonHmsm mnq Heboe .nooe mmenHmom mmc opeoneuw o.w>~ nefiooz v.0wm nee: mmH u 2a H.m~ m.o0 m.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm new: o.m~ o.m0 m.mm m.0m 0.00 0.00 coca I o 0.0« m.m0 m.o0 m.mm o.mm o.mm comm I Hooa m.v~ 0.m0 m.mm m.vm o.~m o.mm ooom I comm 0.Hm v.00 m.m0 0.0m 0.0m o.mv + ooom w m m w w 0 exam Hmoneu men Heeueo med Hoeneu med manoenom enmoaeueo oonemmo mEeHmOHm «oeuemmo memunoo oonommo momunou .mnomflnemfiou EDHSOHHHSO one Guam HenoflueufinemHOII.HH mqmda 79 Small colleges state that 60 per cent of their pro- grams will be career oriented, yet their schedules indicate that 72 per cent of their courses are transfer or pre- professionally oriented and only 28 per cent are career courses. A When college program statements are related to size and age, there is almost no difference in program statements by the large colleges between younger and older colleges (Table 12). In the medium size colleges (1000- 2500) the same pattern Obtains, but for small colleges the percentage of liberal arts courses increases with age. Medium large colleges in the 11-25 age category have an almost even distribution (54-46%) between career and transfer programs. Most colleges cluster near the mean distribution with the exception of small colleges in their first 10 years of operation. All two-year colleges, in statements about pro- grams offered, assert that transfer programs comprise 36.5 per cent of their activity and career programs account for 63.5 per cent. In courses offered by catalogue this is reversed; 35 per cent career courses are listed and the remaining 65 per cent are transfer or pre-professional. When schedules are examined career programs drop to 28 per cent and transfer careers increase to 70.9 per cent. Organizational age and curriculum growth or size comparisons indicate that curriculum size increases from a mean of 279 courses for colleges in their first 10 years 80 0MH.O mHmouHox wvH.N mm omm.mH Honnm oneoneum om0.0HN noHueH>oo oueoneum OO0.00N neHooE OO¢.va new: HON m.mm m.vm h.mH m.mH m.0m v.0mm H.00 m.mm 0.HON OOH m.m0 0.0m O.Hm m.HN 0.0m 0.0nm N.HO m.mm O.mmH OHIO 0m 0.00 0.0m 0.0m N.MH 0.0m 0.000 v.NOH N.HO v.0mw mNIHH m0 m.m~ H.00 n.MH N.NH H.00 O.mmm m.mv N.H0 m.00m OmImm Hm m.Hm 0.00 v.0H m.MH 0.mo 0.00m N.OO «.mv v.mmm mnIHm z Hooneo Howmnene HeOHnnooe mmonHmom m4 J _ 5.00.055. .40.2..0 J]. 20.4.... 20:02.52. 29.4.5.9. 024 [—1 232384 a 220.5252. .20.... .0 24... 34.0054 «20.5.34... 34.0054 5.2.0.9... 024 h 29.45.2204 .0 24... J— _ 360.026.. .0 24... — 20:03.52. .0 2...; r 52.35 .0 24.0 — .285... J .2. 9 2.45.54 F 093‘ J— E a 3 _J «.uumnu HmcowumecmmHO gmmma ammng mmmaaoo Humano3anl.ma mamas 93 Centralization is considered in relation to admin- istrative size and second level curriculum supervision. The size of the administrative component is used in the usual sense of centralized efforts to coordinate activities and allegedly requires a greater proportion of organiza- tional resources (time, energy, i.e., positions) as organ- izational size increases. Another prescriptive or theoretical position con- siders the organizational commitment of time to planning, organizing, and supervising, as indicated by administrative positions, to have a relationship with the achievement of organizational goals. On the second organizational level the centrali- zation of curriculum control in a single positionor dean is alleged to influence or inhibit the development of career programs or complexity. Centralization is asserted to reduce curriculum complexity or inhibit achieving the goal of greater career offerings. Departmentalization will be considered in terms of the number of levels and units on each level utilized by the colleges in relation to size, age, curriculum size and complexity. Third level discrete functional units as dif- ferentiated and identified by the organizational chart will be the major variable representing departmentalization. Procedures Centralization is represented in this study by two variables or indices, administrative size and the control 94 position for instruction and curriculum on the level imme- diately under the chief executive officer. Administrative size is represented by the number of organizational positions devoted to planning, organiz- ing, and supervising Operations. Any position which involves more than half of its functions with these acti- cities is assigned to the administrative component. Centralization of curriculum and instructional control in a single position, or dividing these functions, is a second variable used to indicate alternate structural strategies in the two-year colleges. Both of these structural variables are assumed to be related to both the size of the curriculum and the com- plexity of the curriculum. Percentages and Pearson pro- duct moment coefficients are used to describe the strength and direction of these covariations. A The division of labor, or departmentalization of these colleges, is viewed in terms of two variables, (1) the number of hierarchical levels used to organize activities and, (2) the number of separate units on each level. The number of levels for each college was deter- mined from their organization chart. Departments or units~ on each level were identified from the same document. These structural arrangements are often considered in classical bureaucratic studies as related to organiza- tional effectiveness or performance. In this study, the 95 number of levels and units on the various levels are related to both the independent variables of size and age and the dependent variables of curriculum size and complexity to determine the strength and direction of their relation- ships to organizational goals. Findings Centralization: Administrative Size and Second Level Curriculum Control Administrative Size.--Size of the administrative component ranges from 2 to 99. Mean size for the sample is 14 with a median of 11. Only 32 or 16 per cent of the colleges reported more than 20 administrators. When con- sidered in relation to size, the mean for the small colleges is 7.7, with a high for the largest college at 20.2. Medium size colleges fall near the mean for all colleges at 14.9 (Table 16). Administrative size does not relate very closely with age. Colleges over 50 years of age have a mean of 11.1, almost the same as the next younger age group (26-50) mean of 12.0. Colleges under 10 years old have a mean administrative size of 12.9. Size-mean more than doubles between this and the 11-25 year old group where the mean is 27.1 administrators for these colleges (Table 17). 96 mH.m mmmcsmxm vm.wH mwmounsx om. Houum cumocmum «0.HH soflumw>mn pumocmum NH 000: m.HH sawomz m.vH c002 Huoem Hum m.¢a How 0 mm Hm om H0005 mamao. Humm mmm. Hue m.n we. ma mm ooo.auo momoo. Huoaa oom. Hum m.va mm o mm on oom.mnaoo.a mmvoo. Hummm Had. Hum m.mH me m ma ma ooc.mnoom.m umaoo. Huvmm mmo. Huna ~.om mm 0 Ha mm m + ooo.m 0H... c.0m2 cams .muoe + om om-.. mm-.. oauo m... cowumuumflaflsv4 auasomm nuzmcsum . .504 .wuflm cofiumuumwsflscd cam mNfim coflumNasmmHoul.wH mqm¢a 97 mm. Honnm oumosmum mv.HH co«00fi>mo cumccwum NH 000: mH.m mmmcswxw m.HH Guava: wm.ma wwwouusx m.vH s00: n.0H How 0 Ha pH on om m.~a ooa h m me me OH I o H.5m mm N v m HH NH mm I Ha o.~H me a m 0H mm cm I ow H.HH Hm H N HH 5 m5 I am mmfl mmmaaou 0mm m mamuoa OOH I am cm I Hm cm I am on I Ha OH I o mnwm m>wumnuwflcflenm 0mm Hmsowpmecmmuo .wnwm w>wumnumwcwsvd was 004 Hmcofium~wsmmHoII.hH wands 98 There is a positive correlation (r = .415) between the size of the colleges and administrative size. Age is less strong but positively related (r = .261). It is difficult to relate these findings to the Hawley and Boland conclusions that in the universities administrative size tended to decrease at the larger insti- tutions. Administrative size followed a logarithmic curve in relation to enrollment size. In contrast, the Terrian Mills study found that in California public schools, the number of administrators increased as the size of the containing organization increased. The original data sources were re-examined and compared in an effort to clarify these statistics. Do the two-year colleges follow the findings in higher education or those for the public schools? Upon reexamination it was apparent that in the Higher Education General Informa- tion Survey data the larger institutions under-reported their administrative positions when listing them for that publication. They reported only their upper-level posi- tions and failed to record levels which the smaller col- leges included. A check of organization charts and catalogues con- firmed this. No attempt was made to go back and add supplementary data since the Higher Education General Information Survey data was selected as the source for this information. The Higher Education General Informa- tion Survey instrument on this response required the name 99 and title of administrators rather than a mere report of numbers and this liSting was tedious for larger colleges. However, when the mean from these supplementary sources (30.2 for largest colleges) is considered, the two-year colleges' administrative size appears to resemble the public school pattern. When size and age are controlled and administrative size is related to curriculum size, there is a very limited range from the mean of 814. Administrators in the colleges with less than 250 courses number 13.7; 18.7 administrators in colleges with more than 500 courses; and 15.8 in col- leges between these two sizes. For the organizations with under 10 administrators, the curriculum mean is 252 and there are 6.2 administra- tors. When the number of administrators increases to a mean of 32.3 for colleges with 26 to 50 administrators, the curriculum mean increases to 320 (Table 18). These modest covariations raise problems about this centralizing variable and its intervening relationship to curriculum size. There is a very modest position correlation (r = .218) between administrative size and increased curriculum size. The relationship is just over the .01 level of significance (.180). The rank order correlations are considerably stronger (Rho .357). Administrative size is much more positively related to organizational (r. 415) than to curriculum 100 «a a... a... s.m. coaumuumwcflsom uh m... m.mm a... aosusnfiuumfio usaoumm o.ooa Ho. .vmm am we ooa mamuos ~.. m... cm H.~m~ a. an m. oauo m... m.ov Hm o.¢~m «H mm .m m.... H.om 5... mm o.o~m 4 v ma om-.. n.m. o.m . o.HH¢ . + om 5:00... 20.025.05.55... use... .+ com oomIHmm ommuo m... coflumuumwcwsod IE§HDOHHH:U m>wumnumwcwao¢ x wwwm Esasowuusu .onwm Enasoflnusu was ouflm w>wumuumwcwEU¢II.mH Hands 101 size. Again the rank order correlation is stronger (Rho .558) than the product moment coefficients. When the strong (r = .769) relationship between size and curriculum size is considered the relation of admin- istrative size to curriculum which is just above the .01 significance level is obviously not very important. In contrast the stronger relation to total organizational size may suggest administrative size is a dependent and not an intervening variable. I The relationship between age and administrative size (r = .261) is only half that of size. While increases in either age and size have some impact on administrative size, increased size relates almost twice as strongly with increases in curriculum size. The relationship between size of the administra- tive group and the development of career, occupational and technical curriculum is of major interest. The percentage of curriculum devoted to these programs of study is dis- cussed in this study as curriculum complexity. When the smaller colleges are compared with the largest, the complexity of curriculum offerings increases from 32.5 per cent to 42.3 per cent (Table 10). Mean administrative size for these colleges increases from 7.9 in the smallest to 20.2 in the largest. However, the correlation between administrative size and curriculum complexity (r = .133) is below the .01 level P = .180 or the .05 level P = .140 of significance (Table 19). 102 oN¢.HH cofi00fl>mo unaccusm Na.” . m mmmEsmxm NH 5.2002 se.... mflmouusx m... 20.2 mom. Honum onwonmum mm omcmm huwxoamsou How u z m... o... m... noflusnfluumfle 0:00... 5... m... m... cums muflxmamsoo o... a... m... m.a w... o>wumuumwswso< c002 Hom o... «n ma. .4 dance 0... cm ~.. o.Hm . a. mm oauo m.o. H. m... m.o. cm on H. mm-.. a... mu ..om m... . om m cm... o.~ . ..m. h.mm v + on sumo... .0509 m m 7+.on_ om-.. mmuo m... m>flumuumflzfis04 . Sung.“ “quhmm mufixmamsoo mufixwamsou Esasowuuou .muwxoamfioo was muwm m>flumuumwcfleowq pcoowm .mNHm HmcoHumuHcmmHOII.om mqmda ~.Hom ~.Ho. 5.... ...mm o.... m... ssHsoHnuso and: mo. . .H mm m. ammo .0000... M. .45 5mm. 2mm. mémm .53 3...... 5.3.0.80 1 :00: mm . o. 0. mm .m... moH> .aHss4 HO ammo ©0NHHmHusmU amassz + Hm. om. I Ho. com I Hm. cm. I o .GNflm Egflfioflhhfiu Gad COflHflNflHflHHGGU H0>0Q UGOOUWIlcflm mqm49 107 45.6 centralized) there is a tendency for the larger colleges to centralize curriculum control. These data may be summarized thus by percentages of the total sample: Curriculum Multiple Control Curriculum Centralized Control Larger College 26.8 20.4 Smaller College 18.8 34.0 Totals 45.6 54.4 If size is controlled and the colleges are compared on the basis of similar complexity or per cent of career curriculum categories, the two smaller categories are virtually identical when complexity is considered (Table 22). If curriculum size is considered, colleges with a centralized position have larger curriculum except in the category for less than 20 per cent career offerings. If the percentage of career programs or complexity is examined, similar relationships exist (Table 22). Colleges with a centralized control position report 41.8 per cent career courses, while those with multiple posi- tions have almost 10 per cent less or 31.4 per cent. With the exception of the smallest colleges, those with central- ized positions have greater curriculum complexity than those with multiple arrangements. When a comparison is made between colleges larger than 2,500 students, and those which are smaller, only 18.8 per cent of the smaller colleges use a single position 8 .0 1. 0000H00Hm 00H> Ho 0000 000H0m0m mm.mm 0.Hm N.Hom «v.00 m.Hv 0.Hmm m c.00H moH o.OOH mm o.m~ mm 9.MH m.v~m 0.0 m m.MH H.m>H cm I o o.m~ mm m.mm m.~m~ H.m~ 9m m.m~ a.~Hm on I Hm m.m¢ mm H.0m m.mmm H.m~ pm ~.mm 9.9mv ow I Hm m.vm mm H.mv m.mhm m.mm mm m.mm o.mmv + ov 0000000 H0009 0m00s0on0m 0NHm 000000m H0009 0m00s0ou0m 00Hm >0HX0HQEOU 00H000H000Ho 000000 EsHsoHnuso coH000HH00Ho 000000 EsHsoHHHsU EstoHHHsU H0009 M0Hx0HmEoo x H0009 >0Hx0HQEoo x #fiOUHmGHm GUH> HO Gmmn ”QCHQEOU .m0Hx0HmEOU.ESH50HHuso 0:0 00H00NHH0H000U H0>0H 00000mII.- mnmda 109 while 34.0 per cent of the smaller colleges use multiple curriculum control positions on the second level. Among the larger colleges (over 2,500) 26.8 per cent use a centralized dean or position, and 20.0 per cent of the larger colleges use multiple positions (Table 20). Colleges in the medium large category evidence the greatest preference for a centralized dean of curri- culum and instruction, with 15.5 per cent of the sample utilizing this structure. Again the relationship may be summarized by per cent of curriculum devoted to career programs and mean curriculum size. Centralized Multiple Curriculum Curriculum ContrOl Control Complexity Percentages Larger Colleges 44.4 31.9 Smaller Colleges 39.3 36.1 Curriculum Complexity 41.8 31.4 Curriculum Size 8 361 301 The relation between career programs or complexity of curriculum, or centralized versus multiple control positions, is in the opposite direction predicted by Harris. These data suggest that centralized positions relate more positively, with greater complexity and curri- culum size than multiple positions. The percentage dif- ferences are supported by the rank order correlations which 110 indicate‘that the centralized colleges not only have larger curriculum and greater complexity, but that the proportion of career programs in these colleges is more consistent. Departmentalization Organizational Levels and Number of Units on Each Level The two-year colleges, with four or five excep- tions, use the traditional bureaucratic organizational charts to represent the relationship between various functions. Those who do not have three-dimensional models which represent a wider series of relationships and incor- porate multi-structural designs rather than the unitary two-dimensional traditional model. Divisions and Departments In structuring their operations, 20.3 per cent of the colleges utilize both departmental and divisional sub-units. Others use either a division or a department title to designate their subordinate operational units. Divisional nomenclature is preferred in 45.4 per cent of the sample, while 34.3 per cent choose the departmental designation as their sole title for sub-divisions within the college (Table 23). Among the smaller colleges 37.5 per cent use a combination of departmental and divisional structural arrangements. The larger colleges choose either a divi- sional or departmental title and only 15.3 per cent of the 111 TABLE 23.--Organizational Size and Division/Department Structure. Organizational ' Div./Dept. Size Division Department Combined 5,000 + 52 21 23 8 2,500 - 5,000 43 24 10 9 1,001 - 2,500 58 30 22 6 0 - 1,000 48 l6 14 18 201 91 69 41 Percent 45.3 34.4 20.3 112 larger colleges utilize the combination to designate sub- units, with 14.8 per cent of the medium and intermediate colleges adopting the combined arrangement. In the case of the medium and medium-large colleges, 53 per cent prefer the divisional title, while the largest colleges divide terminology almost equally between the two. As size increases, the department or division term pre-l dominates, and only 14 per cent of the largest colleges utilize multiple terminology. When differences in these departmental and divi- sional patterns are combined in relation to age, 22 per cent of the colleges under ten years elect a divisional structure with 19 per cent of this age category electing departments and 8 per cent using a combination (Table 24). Among the older colleges the division structure predomi- nates. No strong relationships were found between the colleges nomenclature and the variables under consideration. Organizational Levels A review of data from organizational charts supplied by the colleges provides information on the horizontal designs of the colleges. The chief executive level is considered as the first level and successive levels identi- fied. Half levels or intermediate levels were generally ignored when a review of these revealed them to be auxili- ary, subordinate functions of another level, often indica- tive of status or compensation differences rather than TABLE 24.--Organizational Age and Division/Department 113 Structure. Division/ Organizational Department Age Division Department Combined Totals 50 - 75 16 2 3 21 26 - 50 20 16 7 43 ll - 25 9 13 15 37 0 - 10 46 38 16 100 Totals 91 69 41 201 Percent 45.3 34.4 20.3 100.0 114 a true organizational level with separate function (Table 25). Horizontal or hierarchical levels as determined from the colleges' organizational charts range from 2 to 7. The mean, median, and mode are singularly in agreement with 45.3 per cent or 91 colleges utilizing a four-level type of structure. Fifty organizations use a three-level pattern and 41 use a five-deep series of horizontal levels. There is a strong correlation between size and the levels used to organize college activities. The smaller colleges use three levels; medium and medium-large col- leges use four levels, and the largest prefer a five design (Table 26). The correlation coefficient between size and horizontal divisions is very strong. (r = .866) When age is considered, there is no difference between age categories of the levels used to structure the colleges' activities (Table 27). The relationship between structural levels and curriculum size is of interest because these are viewed as intervening variables. Findings relating levels to size and age have been presented. Table 28 presents the data profile when curriculum size and career curriculum or complexity relationships are considered. When organizational size and mean curriculum size for the four size categories are reviewed (Table 29), the range is from 204 courses in small colleges to 561 courses in the larger colleges. When curriculum size is 115 TABLE 25.--Distribution of Organizational Levels. -‘u—L. Relative ' Organization Absolute Frequency Cumulative Adjusted Levels Frequency Percent Frequency Percentl 2 7 3.24 3.2 3 50 24.9 28.3 4 91 45.3 73.6 5 41 20.4 94.6 6 11 5.5 99.5 7 l .5 100.0 201 Range 13 Mean 4.00 Median 3.97 Standard Deviation 1.21 Standard Error .085 Skewness 1.503 Kurtosis 15.125 116 TABLE 26.--Organizational Size and Structural Levels. Levels Size 2 3 4 5 6 Totals Mode 5,000 + 1 22 25 4 52 5 2,501 - 5,000 8 24 7 4 43 4 1,001 - 2,500 20 28 8 1 58 4 0 - 1,000 7 21 17 l 2 48 Totals 7 50 91 41 11 201 N = 201 Mean 4.00 Median 3.97 Mode 4.0 Standard Deviation 1.21 Standard Error .086 117 TABLE 27.-~0rganizational Age and Horizontal Structural Levels. Levels fa. Age 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Mode T: 51 - 75 3 12 4 2 21 4 ‘ 26 - 50 13 16 ll 2 l 43 4 J 11 - 25 7 18 9 3 37 4 0 - 10 7 27 45 17 4 100 4 Totals 7 50 91 41 ll 1 201 N = 201 Mean 4.00 Median 3.97 Mode 4.0 Standard Deviation 1.21 Standard Error .086 1Ll8 m.mm m... m.m~ ..GH 0.. m.mH m.mm a... z 00 0000000 9.0. o... o... m..H 9.0. .sumeHmsoo \0NHm x o.ooH Hom m.mm mm mm .0 mm .qmm a mm «9 0. H0009 v.m 9 o.Hv m N H H .HoHH .HHH H N v m a... om «.mm 0H 0H HH m .mmmH .VHN H MH mm m m... H. m.mm mm 0H mm mH .vmmm .mnm m mm 00 v ..o~ H. v.mm HH mH HH . .mmH. .N9. 0 NH MH m m o.. NH 9.0m m m m m .5... .0mm H m 0 m + 0 000000. 20 H0000 H.meHdsoo + H. ovIHm OMIHN omIo m 0.0m 0.0m + om. omnIoom oomIomm omNIo mHm>0H 00HODQHHO0HQ x 0m0HHOU x >0H20HQEOU EsHsoHHHSU 0NHm ESHSOHHHSU .x0Hx0HQEOU ESHDOHHHSU 0:0 0NHm EdHDOHHHDU .0H0>0H H0GOH00NHc0mHOII.mN mqm<9 119 _3JH! 0.H.N .mmcsmxm NmH.. .Hmo0uss mmN.mH . 00000 0000200. .mo..HN coHumH>0o 0000000. o..NN 000002 ...N. 2002 «.0Nm HON m NN o. .9 NH H0000 o..oN m. m . mm m coo.H I o ..m.N mm 5N NN 0 oom.N I Hoo.H c.0mN m. H .N HH m Hom.N m.H.m N. m HN mH m + so... x :00: H0000 + Hm. om. I Ho. com I HmN omN I HoH oOH I o 0.H. .0NHw EsHsoHHHSU 0:0 00Hm mo 00H000HH00HQII.mN mqm<9 120 related to organizational levels, the range is 171 for colleges with only two levels and 536 for colleges with six or more levels. Organizational size is related to hierarchical level as the strong positive correlation coefficient (r = .866) demonstrates. Curriculum size is also related or organizational levels, but to a less imposing degree, as indicated by the coefficient (r = .341) expressing this relationship. This is considerably over the .01 level of significance of .180. The relationship between organizational size and structural levels is the strongest correlation between variables found in the study. This was true for adminis- trative size and as in that case the correlation with curriculum size is weak. In the case of organizational levels and curriculum size, it is less than half of the strength for size correlation with administrative size. When the contingency tables relating this inter— vening structural variable to career curriculum or com- plexity is reviewed, there does not appear to be any covariation between these variables. When the pairs of data are correlated, a very modest coefficient (r = .240) just over the P.01 = .180 significance level results. This is not strong enough to suggest that these structural arrangements are very important in this measure of organ- izational goal achievement. 121 Departmentalization Another measure of departmentalization or special- ization used in classical organizational studies has been the number of discrete units on each horizontal level. Second Level An examination of the organizational charts for these details finds that, on the second level of two- year colleges directly under the chief administrative officer, there is a range from 1 to 6 units (Table 30). Thirty-three colleges (16.4%) have a single posi- tion, while 29 (14.4%) bifurcate their activities on this level. Seventy-seven (38.3%) utilize three units on this ' second level, and the remaining 63 (30.1%) use 4 to 6 units. Seven colleges (3.5%) have only a two-level , organizational structure and everyone reports to the president. A mean of 3.1 units for the sample is virtually identical with the mode and median of 3. There is a low correlation between size and the number of departments on the second level, r = .256 with a confidence interval of (P.01 = .180). The mode for all sizes does not vary. At this level the colleges are similar regardless of size or age. _Correlation coefficients are very low when the number of units on this level are related to curriculum size (r = .269) and complexity (r = .199). Evidently, the range here is too small to influence either size, 122 TABLE 30.--Second Organizational Level Departmentalization Distribution. ‘ Relative Cumulative Absolute Frequency Frequency Value Frequency (Percent) (Percent) l 33 16.4 16.4 2 29 14.4 30.8 3 77 38.3 I 69.2 4 26 12.9 82.1 5 19 9.5 91.5 6 16 8.0 99.5 6+ 1 .5 100.00 201 100.00 Mean 3.1 Median 3. Mode 3. Standard Deviation 1.6 Standard Error .114 SK 1.27 Kurtosis 5.816 123 curriculum size or complexity, while there is no relation with age (Table 32). The present evidence of centralization at this level is in sharp contrast with an earlier study by Ayres and Russel, which reported a much larger number of units, reporting to the chief administrator (8-10) on this organi- zational level. Third Level The third organizational level has an increased range from 1 to 29 units. The mean number of departments hi or the third organizational level is 9.09. Only 20 col- leges (9.9%) use more than 15 units, the rest are distri- buted close to the mean for this level. On this level the correlation between organiza- tional size and increased departmentalization is not as strong and reflects the increasing span or alternatives elected by the colleges. The correlation coefficient between size and department size drops (r = .216) but is still positive and significant when the (P.01 = .180) confidence interval is noted (Table 31).) The small colleges have a mean of 7.7 departments on the third level; medium-size colleges have 8.9 depart- ments, and the largest colleges have a 9.7 mean (Table 33). 124 TABLE 31.--Third Organizational Level Departmentalization Distribution. Relative Cumulative Absolute Frequency Frequency Value Frequency (Percent) (Percent) N/A 7 3.5 3.5 l 1 .5 4.0 2 3 1.5 5.5 3 8 4.0 9.5 4 23 11.3 20.9 5 21 10.2 31.3 6 7 3.5 34.8 7 11 5.5 40.3 8 18 ' 9.0 49.3 9 12 6.0 55.2 10 19 9.5 64.7 11 15 7.5 72.1 12 17 8.5 80.6 13 3 1.5 82.1 14 6 3.0 85.1_ 15 10 5.0 90.0 16 5 2.5 92.5 17 l .5 93.0 18 3 1.5 94.5 19 2 1.0 95.5 20 4 2.0 97.5 21 l .5 98.0 23 l .5 98.5 24 l .5 99.0 29 2 1.0 100.0 201 100.0 Mean 9.09 Median 8.62 Mode 4. Standard Deviation 5.23 Standard Error .369 SK .880 Kurtosis 1.290 125 mHm.m 0H000HSM oo.m 0002 9mN.H Mm oo.m 00H00z «HHo. Hounm 0000000m mHH.m 000: HHw.H 00H00H>0Q 0000000m HON z OOH m. o.m m.m m.NH m.mm v.0H «.mH 0:0000m m HON H mH mH 0N 99 mm mm H0009 9m.N m mv H m w mH m m oooHIo 0m.N m mm m m m mN m 0H oomNIHooH Nm.N m m0 N N m mH 9 m ooomIHomN v9.m m Nm OH m m mH m m + ooom m 0002 H0009 +0 0 m 0 m N H 00Hm 0:0E0H0m0a .00H00NHH0000E0H0Q0Q H0>0H wsoo0m 000 0NHm H000H00NH00000II.NM mamm9 TI omN.H mHmo000M OOO. Mm m m O . 0000a 0.009000% mm.m 00H00H>0n 0000:00m OO.m 00H00z mO.m 0002 OOH m.N 9.9 m.mN 0.0m m.ON 0000000 ,omO.m va mH Hm 90 mm H0009 2 .lllll llll .IllI 9.9 00 0 OH OH MH OOOHIO m.m 9m 0 9H OH 9H oomNIOOOH O.m .0 v 9 mH NH ooomIoomN 9.m Nm m 9H 4H 4H + ooom m 0H0009 OmIHN ONIOH mHIHH OHIO mIH 0~Hm 00005000000 .co0umNHHmucmsuummmn Ho>mH 00000 0:0 0.H. HmaoHumu0qmmuoII.mm 00040 127 Fourth Level and Beyond Contingency tables for fourth levels and beyond were prepared from the sample data. Although many colleges utilize more than three levels, the number of subunits or departments decreases at the fourth and successive levels. All efforts to correlate these with the independent or dependent variables are not significant at either the .01 or .05 level. Departmentalization and Curriculum '4 According to the analysis of these data, the third 5i organizational level is most representative and consistent when these subunits are considered. Consequently, the relationships between the independent variables size, age, and the dependent variables curriculum size and complexity can be investigated on this level. Contingency tables have been constructed to inves- tigate the relation between the number of departments on the third organizational level, curriculum size and com- plexity (Table 34). There is a slight increase in curriculum size as the number of third level departments increases. Except in the case of colleges with 16-20 departments on this level, curriculum size is closely related to the number of departments. There is a very weak, yet significant, relationship between organizational size and departmentalization on this 128 . IN, m.mm .VNm . 2 How :00: 0.00H HON OO NO Ov mm O ON O9 mm 2 N.ON OO 0.0N OH OH HH HH .va H O ON ON OIH O.vm O9 9.0N NN OH MN OH .mvm O O ON ON OHIO m.ON Hm 9.0N OH NH HH NH .90m OH MN OH -OHIHH 0.0 HH v.vv O m N .HNN H N O ONIOH O.v O 0.0v m m H .N9O m m H N OmIHN z 00 z >0Hx0HmEou + ow OvIHm OMIHN ONnO ESHSUHHHSU + OO9 OO9|HOO OOOIHON OON|O H0>0H UHHnB 0c0ou0m m 0NHm m m0c0E0ucm0Q >0Hx0HmEoo EDHDUHHHSU 0NHm ESHDUHHHDU .m0Hx0HQEOU paw 0NHm EDHDOHHMDU cam m0c0E0nmm0Q H0>0H pHHSBII.vm mqm¢e 129 level (r = .216). There is no significant relation between age and departmentalization. In sharp contrast to the size-department relation- ship, a positive and strong covariatiOn (r = .748) exists between the number of departments and curriculum size. A much stronger relationship is found between the number of m departments and career courses or curriculum complexity . 'i (r = .822). x E 5 Summary 9) ' Findings regarding the profile and relationship of tJie intervening structural variables representing central- ization and departmentalization were outlined in this chapter. These structural variables were related to the ssi.ze, age, curriculum size and curriculum complexity. In this way, the two-year public colleges' existing patterns ch' organization and correlates of various structures were explored. Centralization was represented by two variables, administrative size and a single or multiple curriculum control pattern on the second organizational level. Administrative size is moderately related to both independent variables, size and age. It is not significantly related to the dependent variable curriculum complexity, the index of Career programs offered. Administrative size is Weakly related to the other dependent variable, curri- culmn size. The relationships between there intervening 130 variables, organizational size and age, are moderate and even weaker or insignificant when related to curriculum size and complexity and suggests that this type of centralization is not a strong factor in the performance of two-year colleges. It is of interest that administrative size is positively and most strongly related to faculty size. Second level centralization of curriculum control represented by single or multiple positions is not signi- ficantly related to any of the organizational variables when either Rank Order correlations or Pearson's R coefficients are considered. There is a greater curri- culum complexity associated with the centralized control position, and there are also larger curriculum size when control is centralized. The assertion that multiple curri- culum control positions under the chief executive officer are essential to greater Career offerings is not supported, but contradicted, by these findings. Colleges with a single position for curriculum supervision and control offer a larger percentage of their curriculum in Career fields. As intervening variables, administrative size is modestly related to age and size, and less strongly to increased curriculum size. It does not correlate with curriculum complexity. The relationship between size, age, and centralized or multiple second level curriculum control is less strong, but positively related to both 131 curriculum size and complexity. Colleges with a central- ized curriculum central position have both a larger curriculum and greater complexity than those utilizing multiple control positions. Departmentalization was investigated by looking at both horizontal hierarchical levels and the vertical units on these levels in relation to size, age, curriculum size and curriculum complexity. : There is a very strong relation between organi- 2- zational size and the number of levels the colleges J utilize to structure their activities. No significant relationship exists between age and these levels. A posi- tive, but weak, relationship between the number of levels and curriculum complexity was found. The correlation with curriculum size is stronger, but very much less than the relationship between levels and organizational size. The relationship between size and levels is almost three times as strong as the relation with either curri- culum size or complexity. Because this modest relation- ship with organizational outputs as indicated by the dependent variable curriculum size and complexity is not strong, additional effprts were made to examine this difference. The most plausible suggestion arises from a review of the strong relationship between size or faculty size. While curriculum size reflects the richness of curriculum offerings, not sections offered, organizational size represents students and in another manner, faculty to 132 be served. The hierarchical structure strongly relates to the number of faculty and students contained in the organization, but does not correlate in the same way with curriculum size and complexity. An analysis of third level differentiation of units or departments found relationships which were in F: the opposite direction. These were more positively and ‘1 strongly related with the dependent variables. Third level differentiation or the number of units or departments identified at this level is weakly related éj to organizational size. However, the relationship to curriculum size and complexity is so strong that it is among the highest found for all variables. At the third level, there is a very strong relationship between a high degree of departmentalization and a higher degree of curriculum size and complexity. According to these findings, the intervening vari- ables of centralization do not strongly relate to either dependent or independent variables. Administrative size tends to be positively associated with increased curri- culum size, but the failure of larger colleges to identify all their administrators poses questions about the corre- lations ineffective and renders some of the data suspect. The variables representing departmentalization ‘were divided in the strength of these correlations. Levels were strongly related to organizational size, an independent variable. Discrete units on the third level 133 were just as strongly related to both curriculum size and complexity, dependent variables. According to these findings, a centralized or single dean, or position for curriculum control relates most strongly to the organizational goals of comprehensive curriculum. Third level departmentalization also strongly relates with a more complex and larger curriculum. While some authorities assert that multiple or decentralized positions on the second level are necessary for greater curriculum complexity, these findings suggest that third level departmentalization or separation is more positively related to these organizational goals. Neither adminis- trative size or the number of organizational levels, although strongly related to organizational size, is as significantly related to curriculum size or complexity. Thus one of the variables representing centrali- zation, and one of the variables representing departmental- ization, relate most strongly with the dependent variables. Two variables representing these intervening structural strategies are most strongly related to the independent variables. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A theoretical orientation which involves Parsons' analysis of organizational functions and the classical structural concerns with centralization and departmental- ization provides the conceptual panorama against which J the data of this study is viewed. A major question in this research is related to the organizational profile of the public two-year colleges. Once these data were available, the other questions were directed to the organizational correlates of goal achieve- ment as represented by curriculum size and complexity. Two independent variables, age and size, were outlined and the relationships between curriculum size and complexity. The dependent variables were investigated. Intervening variables, representing centralization and departmentalization, provided additional information regarding the structural profile and its relation to the major variables. The Research Perspective This research is an exploratory or reconnaissance effort conceptualized as the first step in a longitudinal 134 135 study of the two-year colleges. The study seeks to establish a profile of these colleges structurally and functionally for the 1968-69 period so that at subsequent five-year intervals, their growth and development may be compared as an ex post facto study. A decision was made to use existing documents and reports of summaries of ~ national surveys to explore their usefulness as a source F11. of research data. There were no problems with the independent vari- able size. In some instances the data relating to age # became difficult to code, especially in the case of older junior colleges which became a part of the newer two-year college state-wide systems and the date of their colleges emerging from local K-12 public school district control. Curriculum size and curriculum compexity, the independent variables, were relatively easy to code and tabulate. As the analysis proceeded, it became evident that in addition, the actual number of sections offered or the actual enrollment in each section expressed in credit hours would provide a more powerful statistical tool. These would provide more precise measures of both curriculum complexity and comprehensibility. The intervening variables divided in their rela- tionship to the major variables. Two of the four, administrative size and hierarchical levels, were more strongly associated with size, while centralized curriculum control and third level departmentalization most strongly 136 related with curriculum size and curriculum complexity. Age did not prove to have strong relationships with the key variables. Research Questions Several research questions, based on propositions encapsulating what is known or exemplified by past organizational studies, were posed to guide this study. They were: 1. What is the range and distribution of size and age in public two-year colleges? 2. What is the range and distribution of curriculum size and complexity in public two-year colleges? 3. Is an increase in size or age related to an increase in either curriculum size or complexity? 4. What is the range and distribution of faculty size and its relation to size and age? 5. Are there regional differences in size, age, and curriculum? 6. What is the range and distribution of administrative size, and centralized curriculum control in public two-year colleges? 7. What is the range and distribution of departmentalization and operational levels in public two-year colleges? 137 8. What is the relationship between admin— istrative size, centralized curriculum control, and curriculum size complexity? 9. What is the relationship between opera- tional levels, departmentalization and curriculum size and complexity? F} Findings Analysis of the sample data was successful in that once the organizational profile was established it waS' a possible to establish some organizational correlates of curriculum size and complexity (Tables 35, 36, and 37). These findings provide some suggested answers for the research questions and pose other questions for exploration and the development of hypotheses to be tested. Organizational means for the colleges of the sample indicate that along with a size of 4067, there is a mean age of 19.9 years. Faculty mean size is 156, and the administrative mean size is 14.3. Most of the colleges use four hierarchical levels to structure their activities with three divisions of departments on the second level, nine on the third level, and 13.9 on the fourth level. Curriculum size and complexity vary with ¢organizational size and, to a small extent, with age. Curriculum mean size is 324 courses, and the complexity of career mean is 35.5 per cent. 138 “Jar. «NJ SN; TH min... «mm 282 OHuH NOuH qu .Nm vON OOOHIO ONuH OHHuH OuH .Ov mvN OOONIHOOH ONuH OONuH OuH .Om vON OOOOIHOON OOuH «mmuH 9HuH .Nv HOO + OOOO 0H00m 0H0mm 0H0mm 0:0000m 0NHO 0:0650m 0c0©50m >0Hsomm >0Hx0HmEou EstcHHusO >0Hsomm .cHE@¢ .cHavm 85H50HHHSU OH O O O m.vH N.OOH 0.0H 900¢ 0.00H HON mH00oa ps0 msm0z HH 9 m m 9.9 N.9m 0.0N OOO O.mN Ov OOOH|O NH O, m « O.NH 0.09 O.¢H OOOH 0.0N OO OOONIHOOH OH O m w N.HN H.OOH v.OH OO9m m.HN me OOOOIHOON OH OH O O N.ON 9.Nvm O.vN O9OOH ON NO + OOOO 0coz 0Uoz 0602 0ooz x 0NHm x muHm x 0O¢ x 0NHO 0:0ou0m z c0usom UHHAB pcou0m .mH0>0H quEcm OMHsomm I I .0m0n .0m0n .0m0o .cmmuo J .mNHm an 0HHmoum HmcoH0muHamOuouu.mm mamas 139 Willis? .onm 00m OHN. u HO. O .0 Mom OOH. u OO. m .0 How OOH. u HO. O >0Hx0HmEoo EDHSOHHHDU 9ON. H uuv . u. son OmO. OOH. n H WQb . I OQW h 0 0 O99. u Cam AW lllllv OO9. u H m0HQMHHm> 0c0cc0m00 m0HQMHHm> 0c0cc0m0ch .mcoH00H0uuou 0HhmHum> nouwmmmmnl.Om mqm Ezmnzmmma OHN. u HO. m .0 00% OOH. onfidNHA¢MBZMU 0>H0000 $205.0 0NHO mamfiuas H000cou T EsHsoH0Hsu 0Hmch HmcoH0 :0N00000O mH0>0H .m0m0n mo 000852 H0>0H ©0009 ZOHBdNHH UZHZN>MWBZH .0 00% OOH. u HO. m mWHMde¢> BZMQmemQZH mean0m> OdHc0>000cHnn.9m 00009 141 Organizational size and age in these colleges do not correlate significantly. In these organizations size and age are independent variables. Age was not as power- ful as size in its relationships to the organizational variables and frequently failed to be significant. Burton Clark's finding that across time the liberal arts or transfer programs eclipse the career or technical programs is not supported. Clark points out that in the college at San Jose the relatively low degree of autonomy realized by the college limited its ability to achieve its goals. Established to provide technical and vocational programs of study, the college found that between 1953 and 1956 these actually decreased from 48 per cent to 26 per cent; and the four-year transfer program had increased from 52 per cent to 74 per cent of all classes. He strongly suggests that this limitation of autonomy contributed to the failure of the school to effectively increase its technical and vocational effectiveness.l This type of goal displacement is not evident when the performance of the colleges across more than 70 years is considered. It should be pointed out that Clark's study and findings involved one college in San Jose for only three years. This finding that the colleges are maintaining a high level programs across time is perhaps an important 1Clark, op. cit., pp. 102-130. 142 product of this analysis. Hypotheses should be developed and tested relating to the reasons why this emphasis is being maintained contrary to Medsker's and Clark's findings. Size is positively related to increased curriculum size and more strongly related to complexity or career offerings. Age is associated with increased curriculum size and complexity to a significant degree, but the value of the correlation coefficients between age and curriculum are only half those for size and curriculum. Centralization is represented by two variables, administrative size and the second level curriculum con- trol positions. Both variables are significantly related to size. Administrative size is related to both size and age to an almost identical degree. Second-level curri- culum control positions are not related to age, yet have a moderate significance when correlated with size. Administrative size is positively and weakly correlated with curriculum size and complexity. The findings are contrary to the prescriptive statements by Harris that unless colleges provide separate second-level positions for career curriculum they do not grow and that the colleges which provide a second level centralized dean or curriculum control position exhibit greater curriculum complexity. Colleges with a central position offer more career programs. Departmentalization, as indicated by the levels, is strongly correlated with organizational size and 143 moderately related to curriculum size and complexity. On the third level the number of separate units is moderately related to size and very strongly related to both curri- culum size and complexity. The relationships between variables representing centralization and the major variables were not as strong as those relating to departmentalization. Regional comparisons indicate substantial differ- ences in size and age between the older, larger colleges in Western states and the younger, smaller Eastern and Southeastern colleges. Curriculum complexity does not vary between regions to the degree that size and age do. Student-faculty ratios are not consistent with size, age regional variations. Theoretical Relationships Parsons' functional imperatives for formal organi- zational activities proved to be a useful analytical tool when the variables in this study were related to his model. The adaptive functions of the Two Year Colleges which were indicated by changes in Size and Age point clearly to the importance of environmental variables. Clark indicated in his study these have great significance in relation to the maintenance of a comprehensive curri- culum. The integrative functions indicated by the vari- ables relating to centralization and departmentalization divided in their relationship with the dependent and 144 independent variables. Administrative size and the hier- archical levels utilized related most strongly and posi- tively with the size of the colleges. The other two variables used as indices of centralization and depart- mentalization were less strongly related to size and age and most strongly related to size of curriculum and larger career programs. fl Goal achievement as indicated by the curriculum —.—__..'_ -. J.""."-". 3 size and complexity most positively related to the size of the organization, centralized curriculum control 9, positions and increased departmentalization on the third ' organizational level. This effort is related to Starbuck's appeal for more data based on studies of organizations of similar characteristics. These data allow the profile of the Two Year colleges to be examined. The longitudinal aspect of these data is not yet available but should allow for comparative study of their actual growth and opera- tional or goal achievement across time. When viewed from the perspective of the theoretical concerns with goal achievement and organizational effecP tiveness some insight into the performance of colleges which by law and explicit philoSOphical statements have established some goals as their operational objectives is provided. These goal statements represent values but whatever their implications they do provide some indices which this study attempted to relate to organizational 145 structural arrangements. Clark's classical study and Medsker's further assertion that these colleges are not meeting their goals is brought into question by these data. The older colleges are only slightly less effective in offering career programs than the most recently estab- lished colleges. Previous studies by Carson, Stroup, Flexner, Caplow and Millet do not agree on whether colleges and universities are bureaucracies or formal organizations in the classical sense. Parson's contends for a view of higher education from the standpoint of a social institu- tion rather than the complex or formal organizational conceptualization. The strong and formal statements of goals, often established by law for the Two year colleges identifies them as formal organizations. These data fail to establish the direct relation- ships between size, structure and functions found in the public schools, however, the high identification of departmentalization with curriculum size and complexity and the casual relationship between administrative size and these variables appears to follow the pattern of higher education. While these are not bureaucracies in the tra- ditional sense they are formal organizations. When the curriculum of these colleges, as reported here, is viewed in relation to future occupational trends which indicate a growing number of technical or parapro- fessional openings, the slow progress of the two-year 146 colleges in developing these areas reminds one of the Nevett Sanford findings in 1962 that four-year colleges also failed to keep pace with social developments. Berle- son found this was also a problem in graduate departments. This "organizational lag" calls attention to the older concerns with the division between professional and bureaucratic or authority patterns in formal organizations. Blau's earlier observations and the recent Dressel, Craig, Marcus report point out the problems growing out of this duality. The present study which indicates a strong correlation between size, faculty size, and administrative size as well as organizational levels would seem to indi- cate that there are these elements of traditional bureau- cracy in the colleges. However, the strong correlation between departments and curriculum size and complexity also indicates a strong professionalization of faculty and development of these interests in two-year colleges. This recapitulates the trends Dressel, gt_§l, pointed out in the universities. Parsons and a newly formed group reviewing higher education consider this as a major problem yet to be resolved. These data indicate a strong relationship exists between second level organizational patterns and central- ization and control with the classical variables of size and age. Third level decentralization or departmentali- zation is strongly related in the opposite direction and these findings reflect several theoretical concerns. 147 The colleges evidently reflect and these data do not resolve the theoretical problem of professionalization and administrative control as indicated by the bifurcated relationship between the variables on the second and third levels of the organizations. There is also support for the prOpositions advanced by Price based on empirical data from other organizational studies related to decision making. The position that strategic decisions if centralized contribute to increased effectiveness would be supported by the finding that a centralized control position on the second level for curriculum related strongly to a larger and more complex curriculum in this case. The proposition that tactical decisions which are decentralized contribute to organi- zational effectiveness is supported by the findings that third level increased departmentalization is strongly related to increased curriculum size and especially to increased complexity. The proposition that organizations with a high degree of size are more effective than organizations with a low degree of size is supported by the positive high correlation between size and complexity and curriculum size. This proposition was qualified by the introduction. of professionalization as an exception to this tendency. If the relatively strong association found can be inter- preted to mean that these are not professionalized organ- izations an interesting counter trend to those mentioned above is present and should be subsequently looked into. 148 Ayres and Russel in an earlier study of the presi- dential span of control found that in two-year colleges, the chief executive officer had from 7 to 10 administra- tors reporting to him. This study found a mean of three administrators in this span of control. Anderson and Chambers found that separate depart- ments appeared to facilitate the development of new func- tions in colleges and universities. The high correlation between the number of third level departments and curri- culum complexity found here suggests that this is also the case in two-year colleges. Several questions may be considered relative to Parsons' "adaptive" functional category regarding size and age findings in this study. Frequently in organizational studies size and age correlate, while here they do not. Age is generally seen as an adaptive response, learned behavior requiring time, and older organizations are assumed to have "survived" and are better able to cope with the environment. Size is growth, a consequence of decisions, a symbol of achievement or even an organizational goal. Size is generally viewed as closely related with goal achievement. Because age and size do not correlate, is there a possibility that there is now a new type of organization which does not involve age or time in relation to its growth or size? Is it possible that these colleges 149 represent a new organizational phenomenon? What do we know about new organizations which use knowledge, technology, and personnel appropriated from older organizations to achieve their goals without ever eXperiencing an organiza- tional growth cycle? Are these organizations able to "skip" some development phases and follow new patterns as some developing nations do when appropriating models for economic, political, and social programs? What are the organizational patterns, problems, and variables unique to this type of structure, virtually without age but involving great size dimensions? In these cases, what are the internal or "integrating" variables; are they significantly different from traditional organi- zations? Clark introduces the idea of goal displacement or change across time. While this study does not support the idea that complexity or career programs decline as colleges get older, the question of environmental exchanges is a viable center of interest. How do these colleges adapt, integrate or co-opt other organizations in their community? Specifically, what are their relationships with the public schools private business colleges, business, industry, and the universities? A major present concern in higher education is how goals are determined. In the case of the two-year colleges, their goals are the result of legislative acts. Across time, how are these either articulated or changed by 150 bargaining and coalitions of groups and other organizations within and outside the colleges? Are the two-year college goals true organizational goals, or are they goals of other political, educational, or economic organizations? Is it possible that the most significant organizational variables in these colleges may be found outside the organizations, but those tradi- tionally looked for inside organizations? Lazarsfeld and Theilens suggest public colleges are greatly influenced by political and legislative action, when compared with private colleges. Studies of these are needed in two-year colleges. These questions regarding the possibility of new functional relationships and variables logically introduce the structural system of organizations. Multiple struc- tural arrangements have been suggested as most appropriate to modern organizations by a number of authors. Do these new organizations within higher education adopt new systems of communication, work flow, authority, and responsibility? If every structure is a theory, then what is the theory of these structures? Are the "open systems" without walls, or well-defined boundaries between them and society as Birenbaum urges and Parsons advocates? Does the relatively weak correlation in this study between most structural arrangements and goal achievement suggest that other variables may be more closely linked to 151 organizational goals or does this suggest their growth and lack of formalization or bureaucratization? Of interest then is an older question regarding professionalization. Is the decision making and bureau- cratic structure in the two-year college considerably less important than in other organizations? What are appro- priate measures of professionalization for these organi- zations? Can some of these questions be operationalized in relation to Parsons' "latency" or maintaining organi- zation goals and motivation across time? Methodological Constraints The decision to use data from a number of sources did not prove to be economical in either respect to the time required for assembling or analysis. Follow-up requests and slow reSponses to direct inquiries to colleges for information were major obstacles. Some docu- ments were out of print and reduced the sample size because only partial data was available for many colleges. Data could be verified from original sources in the case of catalogs and schedules, but apart from a few statistics, the Higher Education General Information Sur- vey data had to be accepted "as is," and in the case of under-reporting for administrative size was a definite limitation. Although the exploratory and ex post facto research design inherently involves limitations on the manipulation of the intervening variables and hypotheses development 152 and testing, the desire for more powerful proof and more certainty tempts the researcher to claim more than the data sustains. Regression coefficients did not prove as useful as Pearson product-moment correlations and Rho coefficients. This Opened the question of variable selection in the case of several of the intervening variables. Were there other variables which were overlooked that would have been more efficient and descriptive, more closely related to the major variable? Considerable effort was expended in an effort to analyze the statistics through multivariate technique analysis. Operationalizing centralization by using adminis- trative size as an index did not prove to be as strong as expected in relation to curriculum performance. While curriculum size and complexity were used with some success to represent goal achievement, other indicators must be considered. The number of terms or semesters a student was retained may have proved more discriminating. Perhaps a greater effort to incorporate an economic indicator, such as cost per student, should have been made. Data for this were requested but eliminated on two counts, its sparsity and general unreliability. The impact of formula budgeting or Cost Benefit Budgeting was evident in the California data. This type of central control of funds determines the ratio of faculty and administration to students and homogenizes the data. 153 The colleges in this case are not autonomous. This prac- tice is spreading and will greatly influence any follow-up effort as various states adOpt a ratio formulae and colleges are forced to comply. Age as an independent variable related so weakly with the intervening variables that efforts expended in analysis of this aspect of the colleges only succeeded in establishing that age was far less significant than size in these organizations. In view of these limitations and the questions raised, any future study of two-year public colleges as organizations needs to incorporate the following concerns: 1. The relationship between size and population of the geographic area served. 2. The relationship between size, curriculum size, curriculum complexity and economic resources available. 3. A review of state coordinating and con- trols, and their influence on local organizational structures. 4. How and when subunits are formed and located in the organization structure. 5. The exchanges between these organizations and their communities, and the parties involved in both instances. 154 6. What alternative or multiple structures exist within the colleges, senates, unions, committee structures? 7. Goals of these organizations need to be seriously studied. How are they estab- lished, changed, or ignored? How are they perceived by faculty, students, community, and administrators, to name a few groups? The limited objectives of this study have been realized in the develOpment of the organizational profile and the establishment of some structural correlates of the Public Two Year Colleges pattern of growth and develop- ment. However the questions which logically arise in efforts to analyse these data suggest other and perhaps more important variables to be included in any future study of these organizations. These findings do provide a mini- mal benchmark against which follow up or future studies of the changes across time and in size of these colleges may be compared. BIBLIOGRAPHY 155 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Association of Governing Boards, Bibliography on Institutional Governance, January, 1969. Anderson, D. J. and J. A. Chambers. "Planning for Organi- zational Growth." College Management (September, 1968). Anderson, T. R. and S. Warkov. "Organizational Size and Functional Complexity." American Sociological Review, XXVI (February, 1961). Argyris, Chris. Integrating the Individual and the Organizatibn. New York: Wiley, 1964; , Organizations and Innovations. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press,*19’ . Axelrod, Joseph. "New Organizational Patterns in American Colleges and Universities." In Lewis B. Mayhew, Higher Educatign in the ngglutionary Decades. Berkéley: McCutchan, 1947. Ayres, Archie R. and John H. Russel. Internal Structure. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare Bulletin, No. 9, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962. Baker, Alton W. and Ralph C. Davis. Ratios of Staff to Line Employees. Columbus: Bureau of Business Research, Ohio State University, 1954. Bendix, Richard. Work and Authority in Industry. New York: Wiley, 1956. Berleson, Bernard. Graduate Education in the United States. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960. Bidwell, Charles E. "The School as a Formal Organization." In J. March, Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965. Blau, Peter M. "Structural Effects." American Sociological Review, XXV (1960). 156 157 Blau, Peter M. and Richard W. Scott. Formal Organizations. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962. Blocker, Clyde E. and Wendell Wolfe. "Academic Rank in the Two-Year Colleges." Junior College Journal, XXXIV (April, 1964). Blocker, Clyde E.; Robert H. Plummer; and Richard C. Richardson. The Two-Yep; College: A Social Synthesis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1965. Boulding, Kenneth. The Organizational Revolution. New York: Harper, 1953. . "Theory of Growth." Canadian_Journal of Economics and Political Science, XIX (1953). Bower, Florence. Personality Characteristics of College and University Faculty. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1968. Brubacher, Johnson S. and Rudy Willis. Hi her Education in Transition. New York: Harper, 58. Burnett, Collins and Donald Beal. "An Organizational Chart with Interest." The Ohio School Board's Review, XII, No. 1 (1968). Byrne, J. C. "Report on the University of California and Recommendations to the Special Committee of the Regents of the University of California." May 7, 1965, Reprinted in the Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1965. Caplow, Theodore and Reece J. McGee. The Academic Market Place. New York: Basic Books, 1958. . Principles of Organization. New York: Har— court Brace, 1964. Carnegie Foundation. Fiftyesixth Annual Report. New York: The Foundation. Carzo, R. and J. Yanouzos. Formal Or anization. Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1967. Chandler, Alfred D. Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966} Chronicle of Higher Education, Vol. III, No. 16 (April, 1969). 158 Clark, Burton. "The Open Door College." New York: McGraw Hill, 1960; Klosche, J. Martin. The Urban Univer- sity and the Future of Our Cities. New York: Harper Row, 1966. Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960. Clinchy, Evans. A College in a City. New York Educational Facilities Laboratory, 1969. Cohen, Arthur M. and John E. Roueche. Institutional Administrator or Educational Leader? Washington, D.C.: AmeriCan AssociatiOn of Junior Colleges, 1969. College Management, November, 1968. Commanger, Henry Steel. "Social, Political, and Personal Consequences." In Earl J. McGrath, Universal Higher Education. New York: McGraw HiII, I966. Corson, John C. TheGovernance of Colleges and Universities. New York: McGraw Hill, 1960. Cross, K. Patricia. The Junior College Student. Prince- ton: Educational Testing Service, I968. Dodds, Harold W. The Academic President--Educator or Caretaker. New York: McGraw H , . Draper, Jean, et al. "Testing a Model for Organizational Growth." Human Organization, XXII, No. 3 (Fall, 1963). Dressel, Paul L.; F. Craig Johnson; and Philip M. Marcus. The Confidence‘Crisis. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass, Inc., 1970. Drucker, Peter F. Concept of the Corporation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1960. Durkheim, Emile. 99 the Social Divisiop of Labor in Societ . Translated by George Simpson. New York: MacMi an, 1933, Part II. Educational Directory, 1968-69, Part III. U. S. Depart- ment of Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Edgar, Earl E. Social Foundation of Education. New York: Center for Applied Research, 196 . 159 Ells, Walter Crosby. The Junior College. Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin, 1931. . American Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1940. Etzioni, Amatai. "Authority Structure and Organizational Effectiveness." Administrative Science Quarterly (June, 1959). . Complex Organizations. New York: Free Press, 1961. 4__. Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Evans, Richard I. Resistance to Innovation in Higher Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss, 1968. Faunce, William. "Size of Locals and Union Democracy." American Journal of Sociology, XXVIII (1962). Folger, John K. "Urban Sprawl in the Academic Community." The Journal of Higher Education. Ohio State University Press, November, 1963. Frankel, Charles. Issuesjin University Education. New York: Harper, 1959. Frantzreb, Arthur C. "Pressures of Necessity." In G. Kerry Smith, et al., 1966 Currep£_Issues in Higher Education. Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher Education, 1966. Freedman, Mervin B. "Pressure of Necessity." In Smith Erhard and MacGuiness, Current Issues in Hi her Education, 1966. Washington, D.C.: Association for Higher Education. Garrison, Roger H. Junior College Faculty. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967. Goffman, Erving. "On the Characteristics of Total Insti- tutions." In David Cresey, ed., The Prison. New York: Holt, 1961. Goldhammer, A. J. "Implications for Change in Training Programs." Knowledge Production and Utilization in Educational Administration. CEIumbus, Ofiio: Center for Advanced Study of Educational Adminis- tration, 1968. 160 Goode, William J. and Paul K. Halt.’ Methods in Social Research. New York: McGraw Hill, 1952. Gross, Bertram M. Organizations and Their Managing. Glencoe: Free Press, 1968. Gross, Edward. "Review of Herbert Stroup's Bureaucarcy in Higher Education." American Sociological Review, XXXIII. . "Universities as Organizations." American Sociological Review, XXXIII, No. 4 (August, 1968). Hage, Jerald. "An Axiomatic Theory of Organization." Administrative Science_guarterly, 10 (1965), 289-320. Haire, Mason. Modern Organization Theory. New York: Wiley, 1959. Hall, Richard T.; J. Eugene Hass; and Norman Johnson. "Organizational, Size, Complexity, and Formali- zation." American Sociological Review, XXXI, No. 4. Harper, William Rainey. The Prospects of a Small College. Chicago, 1900. Harris, Norman C. Technical Education in the Junior Colle e. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1964. Hauser, Philip M. "Social Change and the Junior College." Selected Pa ers: 47th Annual Convention. Wash- ington, D.C.: American Association of Junior Colleges, 1967. Havinghurst, Robert J. "The Response of Education to Society's." The North Central Association Quar- terly, XL (Spring, 1966). Hawley, Amos: W. Boland; and M. Boland. "Population Size and Administrators in Institutions of Higher Education." American Sociological Review, XXX (April, 1965). Henderson, Algo. Policies and Practices in Higher Educa- tion. New York: Harper, 1960. . "Higher Education as a Field of Study. In D. Dadson, On Higher Education. Toronto, 1966. 161 Hillway, Tyrus. The American Two-Year COllege. New York: Harper, 1958. Hitch, Charles J. Decision Makipg for Defense. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965. Hofstadter, Richard P. and Walter P. Mertzer. The Develop- ment of Academic Freedom in the United States. New York, 1965. , Hollis, E. V., et a1. Survey of State Legislation Relate ing to Higher Educatibn. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Hutchines, Robert M. "Doing What Comes Scientifically." The Center Magazine, II, No. 1, January, 1969. Jencks, Christopher and David Riesman. The Academic Revolution. New York: Doubleday, 1968. Judd, Charles H. Problems of Education in the United States. New York: McGraw Hill, 1933. Junior Cglleges: 50 States/50 Years. Washington, D.C.: The American Association of Junior Colleges, 1969. Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Kintzer, Frederick C.; Arthur Jenson; and John S. Hausen. The Multi-Institution Junior College District. Washifigton, D.C.: AmeriCan AssociatiOn of Junior Colleges, 1969. Klosche, J. Martin. The Urban University and The Future of Our Cities. New York: Harper Row, 1966. Lazarsfeld, P. F. The Organization of Educational Research. New York: Bureau of Appliéd Social Science, Columbia University, 1960. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. and Theilens, Wagner. The Academic Mind. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1951. Lindenfeld, Frank. "Does Administration Grow as Fast as Organizations?" School Life, XXXIII (1961). Litchfield, Edward H. "The University: A Congeries or an Organic Whole?" AAUP Bulletin, XLV (September, 1959). 162 Lunsford, Terry, ed. The Study of‘AcademiC‘Administration. Boulder, Colorado: Interstate Commission on Higher Education, 1963. . "Authority and Ideology in the Administered University." The American Behavioral Scientist (May-June, 1968). Maning, John. "Conflicting Views in Education." Journal of Higher Education, XXI (1950). March, James G. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rank McNaIly, 1965. March, James G. and Herbert Simon. Organizations. New York: Wiley, 1958. Martorana, S. V. "The Legal Status of American Public Junior Colleges." In Edmund Gleazer, ed., American Junior Colleges. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Free Press, 1949. McGrath, Earl J. Liberal Education in_the Professions. New York: Teacher's Coilege, C61umbia University, 1959. . The Evolution of Administrative Offices in Institutions of’Higher Education{_1860-l933. Chicago, 1938. . Universal Higher Education. New York: McGraw Hili, I966. McKinney, John C. Constructive Typology and Social Theory. New York: Appleton-Croft, i966. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Pro ress and Prospect. New York: McGraw Hili, i860. Melman, Seymour. fiThe Rise of Administration Overhead in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States, 1899-1947."‘ Oxford Economic Papers, No. 3 (1951). Millett, John D. :The Academic Community. New York: McGraw HilI,’I962. Moran, William E. "The Study of University Organizations." The Journal of Higher Education. 163 Morrison, D. G. and S. V. Motorana. Criteria for Estab- lishment of Two-Year Colleges. Washington,’ D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1960. Parsons, Talcott. (Structure and Process in Modern Societies. Glencoe: Free Press, I960. Parsons, Talcott, et a1. Working Papers in the Theory of Action. Glencoe: Free Press,’I963. Parsons, Talcott. "The Academic System." The Public Interest, XIII (Fall, 1968). Parten, M. Surveysnyolls and Samples: Practical Pro- cedures. New York:. Harper, 1950. Parkinson, C. Northcote. Parkinson's Law and Other Studies in Administration. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1957. Perkins, J. A. "The New Condition of Autonomy. " In L. Wilson, ed., Emerging Patterns in Higher Education. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1965. Pinner, Frank. "The Crisis of the State Universities." In Nevitt Sanford, The American College. New York: Wiley, 1962. Price, James L. Mg anizational Effectiveness. Homewood, Illinois: Irwin, Inc., 1960. Priorities in Higher Education. Report of the President's Tas Force 1n Higher Education. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Printing Office, 1970. Projections of Educational Statistics 39 1977- 78. Wash- ington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1969. Raphael, Edwin E. "The Anderson Warkov Hypotheses in Local Unions." American Sociolggical Review, XXXIII. Redfield, Robert. The Little Communit . Chicago: 'Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 195 ‘ Riesman, David. "Planning in Higher Education. Human Organization, XVIII (1958). Roethlisberger, F. J. and William J. Dickson. Management and the Worker. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Press, 1939. 164 Rourke, F. E. and Brooks. The Manager1al ReVolution in Education. Baltimore: J6hns Hopkins, i966. Rudolph, Fredrick. The American College. New York: Knopf, 1962. Ruml, Beardsley and Donald H. Morrison. Memo to a College Trustee. New York: McGraw Hill, 1959. Sanford, Nevitt. The American College. New York: Wiley, 1962. Second Report to the President. President's Committee on Education Beyond High School. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957. Seltiz, Claire; Marie Jahoda, et a1. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York: HEIt, Rinéhart & Winston, 1962. Selznick, Philip. TUA and The Grass Roots. Berkeley: University of Ca1if0rnia1 Press, 1953. Simon, Herbert A.; D. W. Smithburg; and Victor A. Thompson. Public Administration. New York: Knopf, 1950. Simon, J. C. Administrative Behavior. New York: MacMilIan Company,gi9612 Sinclair, Upton. The Goose Step, A Study of American Educational Procedures. Pasadena, 1923. Spencer, Herbert. Principles of Sociology. New York: Appleton, 1898. Volume 1, p 52 Starbuck, William A. "Organizational Growth and Develop- ment." In James G. March, Handbook of Organiza- tions. Chicago: Rand McNain, 1965. Stinchcombe, Arthur L. "Bureaucratic and Craft Administra- tion of Production." Administrative Science Quar- terly, IV (1959). Stroup, Herbert. Bureaucracy in Higher Education. New York: Free Press, 1960. Terrian, Fredrick W. and Donald L. Mills. "The Effects of Changing Size Upon the Internal Structure of Organizations." American Sociological Review, XX (1955). 165 The Assembly on Universipy Goals and Governance. Cam- Bridge, MassaChusetts: iThe AmeriCan Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1971. The Open Door Colleges. Hightstown, New Jersey: Carnegie CommiSsion on Higher Education, 1970. The Scranton Report. President's Commission on Campus Unrest. The Chronicle." Volume V, Number 2, October 5, 1970. Third Report. National Advisory Council on Vocational EdECation. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Educa- tion, July 10, 1970. Thornton, James W. The Community Junior College. New York: Wiley, 1960. "Two Legislative Landmarks in One Month." Junior College Journal, XXXIV (February, 1954). Udy, Stanley H. "Bureaucracy and Rationality in Weber's Organizational Theory." American Sociological Review, XXIV (1959). vonBertalanffey, Ludwig. General Systems Theory. New York: Braziller, 1968. Waller, W. The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley, 1932. Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organiza- tion. Translated by A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press, 1947. Whyte, William Foote. Street Corner Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1943. Wilson, Logan. "Form and Functions in American Higher Education." Educational Record, XXXXV, No. 3 (Summer, 1964). APPENDICES 166 APPENDIX A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, OFFICE OF EDUCATION-- HIGHER EDUCATION GENERAL INFORMATION SURVEY INSTRUMENT 167 taxman“: ’lwau.‘ 5.45211.- -. anus: rust-v.4“ - 1".mm'wrfiwu'nm f. - n-r' - _ w 3I. Ch: EF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS (If one power: pvt/arms more than one lune-tion. LIST ”I'M ONLY ONCE. in his more Impamml function, (0min; the line: for his lesser [uncn‘ons blank.) ‘3‘ L ' \‘fim' ‘ J t\ TOIIH' 1'.¢‘¢- ‘ taut-3.02“." rut". .. FUNCTION OF OFFICIAL (a) FIRST NAME MIDDLE INITIAL (6) LAST N AME EXACT TITLE 1:) (I) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF FICERfQ‘. President. Chancrllor, Dincaor) (2) CHIEF ACADENIC OFFICER (0.; Dean. Puma. I’Ice-Pnsidenfl (3) CHIEF BUSINESS OFFICER (4) REGISTRAR (S) ADMISSIONS OFFICER (6) DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY (7) DIRECTOR OF SUMMER SESSION (8) DIRECTOR OF EXTENSION (9) EIIIEF smosm PERSONNEL OFFICER (10) DEAN OFNEN (II) DEAN OF IONEN (12) RESEARCH ADHINISTRATIVEOFFICIAL (Research Contracts) (13) DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RE- SEARCH (Stacie: of the instiuu'aa) (14) DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS (IS) DIRECTOR OF ALUMNI ASSOCIATION (I6) DIRECTOR OF STUDENT FINANCIAL AID (I7) DIRECTOR OF PLACEMENT SERVICES (18) DEANS OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES (19) (10) (21) (22) ( 23) l 1") (25) (26) (27) Fa) I29) v.-arl-\x'-' W' a.“ 168 169 (A... 20. PREDOMINANT CALENDAR SYSTEM AT YOUR INSTITUTION ‘——fi- ‘- (1) SEMESTER (2) QUARTER (3) TRINESTER (‘1 OTHER (Specify) 21. LEVEL OF OFFERING ("X” an that apply) (1) LESS THAN ONE YEAR OF (9) OTHER (59“‘77/ WORK BEYOND GRAD: u (5) FIRST-PROFESSIONAL LEVEL (2) AT LEAST I OUT LESS THAN 2 ‘ (6) MASTER'S AND/OR WORK BEYOND ”0) YEARS OF WORK BEYOND GRADEI: THE FIRST-PROFESSIONAL DEGREE (3) AT LEAST 2 BUT LESS TRAN I (7) WORK BEYOND THEMASTER'S LEVEL I“) YEARS OF WORK BEYOND GRADE I2 BUT NOT AT ooc'roa's LEVEL (4) 4- OR s-YEAR BACCALAUREATE (8) DOCTOR OF RNILOSOPIIY OR (”I DEGREEGRANTING PROGRAM EQUIVALENT LEVEL 22. TYPEOF PROGRAM (“x" at! :qu OPPI'I') (I) TERMINAL-OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING AT THE CRAFTSMAN/CLERICAL LEVEL (Below the level of technician) (4) LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL i“ (2) TERMINAL°OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING AT THE TECHNICAL OR (5) TEACHER PREPARATORY SEMIPROFESSIONAL LEVEL (3) 2 YEAR PROGRAM ACCEPTABLE FOR FULL CREDIT TOWARD A (6) PROFESSIONAL BACCALAU REATE DEGREE 23. DOES YOUR INSTITUTE CONDUCT A SUMMER SESSION OFFERING COURSES CREDITABLE TOWARD A DEGREE? [3 YES [3 No 24. DOES YOUR INSTITUTION HAVE A SEPARATELY ORGANIZED EVENING COLLEGE OFFERING COURSES CREDITABLE TOWARD A DEGREE? :3 YES [I] no 25. DURING THE FALL TERM (I967). HOW MANY WERE ENROLLED IN YOUR INSTITUTION 25. 'N THE PROGRAMS SHOWN BELOW? NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO WERE NUMBER OF STUDENTS ENROLLEO GRADUATED LAST YEAR FROM A PROGRAMS m,“ ”me: “Rm”: POST SECONDARY PROGRAM 0F (0) (b) (e) (d) (1) LESS TRAN ONE YEAR (1) OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAMS (2) ONE BUT LESS THAN Two ACADEMIC YEARS (2) PROGRANS LEADING To A BACCALAUREATE DEGREEHOFSyear) 3) A ’ Two BUT LESS TH N 3) PDSTBACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS ‘ ( (Master’s, First-Professional, and Doctoral FOUR YEAR‘ only; repon Postdoctoral Program: under "0"!""l (4) FOUR OR FIVE YEARS (4) OTHER (Specily) (Baccalaureate) (5) POSTBACCALAUREATE 27. NAME OF AGENCY BY WHICH YOUR INSTITUTION IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE A PROGRAM OF EDUCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHC’I. 23. WHAT IS THE USUAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR ADMISSION TO YOUR INSTITUTION AS A FIRST-TIME STUDENT IN YOUR LOWEST POST- SECONDARY SCHOOL PROGRAM (Check all Uta! WPIY) (I) ONLY THE ABILITY TO PROFIT FROM ATTENDANCE (2) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION OR RECOGNIZED EQUIVALENT (3) HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION, PLUS AN INDICATION OF SUPERIOR ACADEMIC APTITUDE (Class Standing, grades, curriculum, particular school. test scores, etc.), (4) TWO-YEAR COLLEGE GRADUATION (5) FOUR‘YEAR COLLEGE GRADUATION (6) OTHER (Specify) M 29. NAME AND TITLE OF RESPONDENT 30. AREA CODE-TELEPHONE NUMBER- EXTENSION IDENTIFY CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS ON PAGE 4 “W.“ 170 AS HAVING SATISFACTORY ASSURANCE OF ACCREDITATION WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME BY A NATIONALLY KNOWN ACCREDITING AGENCY. GIVE NAME OF AGENCY OR ASSOCIATION (See Item: l3 and I4) IF YOUR INSTITUTION IS NOT ACCREDITED. GIVE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF AT LEAST 3 INSTITUTIONS ACCREDITED BY NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED ACCREDITING AGENCIES AT WHICH CREDITS EARNED AT YOUR INSTITUTION ARE AND HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS IF EARNED IN AN ACCREDITED INSTITUTION (NOTE: On a separate Sheet. (I've name: and date: of transfer of at least 3 of your Student: or graduate: who have Grins/erred h each of the institutions listed below.) NAME OF INSTITUTION ADDRESS (Number. Street. City, State, and ZIP Code) (a) (b) INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL DR AFFILIATION (“x" all appiopn'ate) VUBLIC PUDLIC PRIVATE I) FEDERAL (4) SCNOOL DISTRICT (8) INCORPORATED AS PROFIT NIAIIING (2) STATE (5) COUNTY (9) INDEPENDENT, IIOIIPIIOFIT (3) TERRITORIAL (6) TOwNSIIIP {10) RELIGIOUS GIIOUP (specify) (7) CITY SEX OF STUDENT SOOY I9. IF YOURS IS A COEDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION, ARE ENROLLMENTS IN ANY OF YOUR IOONMLE'N COED LEVEL or PROGRAM SCHOOLS. COLLEGES, OR CURRICULUMS RESTRICTED TO ONE SEX? m (c) (0 U V" U "° . (I) “noun”?! NEN ITOIIIEN IP ”YES". IVIIICII SCHOOLS. COLLEGES OR CURRICULUMS . . (a) (b) (c) (2) UNDERGRADUATE (I) (2) (3.) GRADUATE (4) PROFESSIONAL (3’ 171 m 5 “0“!“ 5' DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION IASHINGTON. D.C. 20202 HIGHER EDUCATION GENERAL INFORMATION SURVEY INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ._ ,h— .- on.“ w-—“ .vv-ui BUDGET OUREAU No. SI-Rosso APPROVAL EXPIRES: Dan-7o I. INSTITUTION CODE REPORTING DATE NUMBER NOT LATER THAI JULY 15. 1963. 2. CORPORATE NAME OF INSTITUTION (Covered by this report) —_ 3. ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 4. AREA CODE - TELEPHONE NUMBER (Olinett'tation) 5. COUNTY 6. U.S. CONG. DIST. 7. NAME OF PARENT INSTITUTION (Ila branch 0! another ind-l S. ADDRESS (City. State, and ZIP Code) 9. LIST MAIN CAMPUS. ALL BRANCHES AND OTHER CAMPUSES. CHECK UNIT COVERED BY THIS REPORT. Check MAIN CAIPUO Check NOTE: USENUIIERICS 10. NO. YEAR II. DATE =OST SEECON- MO. YEAR 12. DATE DEGREES OR MO. YEA ONLY FOR DATE INSTITu- DARY OR COLLEGE OTHER COMPLE- DATES TION ESTABLISHED WORK FIRST TION AWARDS OFFERED FIRST GRANTED I3. ‘IS YOUR INSTITUTION ACCREDITED BY ONE OF THE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED REGIONAL ACCR EDITING ASSOCIATIONS? [:1 YES D NO (If "YES”. check below. the regional association that accredit: your institution.) [(1) NE! ENGLAND ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND (4) NORTNIIEST ASSOCIATION OF SECONDARY AND HIGH ER SECONDARY SCHOOLS (E) SCHOOLS. COMMISSION ON HIGHER SCHOOLS (N! m NIDDLE STATES ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS. CONNISSION ON INSTITUTIONS (5) SOUTHERN ASSOCIATION or COLLEGES AND SCHOOLS ($1 or HIGHER EDUCATION (I!) (3) NORTH CENTRAL ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGES AND (6) :ggTEgNTASSOgATIgggr SSHOSOELSOARNCJOECLLELGEEgzs R IING MMI INFR NI SECONDARY “mom" cwmss'o" o" COLLEGES N AND UNIVERSITIES AND ACCREDITING CONNISSION "‘9 ”N'VERS'T'E“ ( ) FOR JUNIOR COLLEGES (I? IA. OF THE NATIOMLLY RECOGNIZED PROFESSIONAL ACCREDITED PROGRAMS LISTED BELOW, CHECK ALL THOSE WHICH ARE ACCREDITE AT YOUR INSTITUTION. (I) ARCHITECTURE: National Architectmai Accrediting Bed. MEDICAL: American Medical Aeeociation. Council an (2) ART: National Aeeociatjon o! Schoole of Art Medical Education (3) BIBLE: Acctediting Aeaociation of Bible Coilegee (l7) MflfiClI Recon! Libtariane “1 BUSINESS: Accrediting Commieaion (or Busineee Schoole (18) Medical Record TechnIcIm. (4) junior College (19) Medical Technology (5) Specialized College of Busineee, Degtee Granting (20) Occupational Therapy (5) BUSINESS A-eeicaa Aaaociation of Collegiate Schooie (21) Phyeical Therapy 0! Bimini. (22) X-Ray 'l‘cchnoiogy (7) CHEMISTRY: Mode-n Chemical Society. Committee on (23) MEDICINE and BASIC MEDICAL SCIENCES: American mac-I Profeeaional hm AeSociation and Aeeociation of American Hedical Collegea. ,-< " ' flcdicai Education g;- 7 Dune-nu; Anal-lean Dental Aeaociation. Comcil ca Li'i'” cm‘m'" °" 46‘ MU Mid“ (24) MUSIC: National Association of Schools at nueic (8) Dental Hygiene (35) NURSING: {zational Lengoe for Nursing (9) Dentistry (26) OPTOMETRY: America'- Optometric Association. Comet! (10) EDUCATION: Nauona Comcil lot Accnditation oi °n OPWMU’“ Educ “1°- Teacher 34"“ (27) OSTEOPATHY: Ametlcan Oeteopathic AeeocIaLIOD ENGINEERING: hem-t": Con-cu tat Proton-loud (28) PODIATRY: American Podiatry Aeeociation. Council on Development Education (11) Engineering! A (29) PHARMACY: American Council on Pharmaceutical Education ( 1” 3"¢“‘“"“! T!"'°°‘°¢’ (30) PUBLIC HEALTH: American Public Health Assocuuoa (l3) FORESTRX; Society oi American Foreatere (31) SPEECH and HEAMNO: American Speech and Hearing “4) JOURNAUSIII Anode-I Come” on Education to: A"°¢""°‘ L 1° ie- . . (32) SOCIAL WORK: Commiaeion on Accreditation a! the Council (15) LAD: American Du Aeeoeiation. Section at Legal on Social work Education Education “‘4 Adnieeione .9 the 3- (33) THEOLOGY: American Association of Theological Schoole (16) LIBRARIANSEIIP: Mel-lean Libmy Aeeociation. (34) VETERINARY MEDICINE: American Vetetinaty Hedical Committee on Accreditation Aaeociation. Council on Education OE FORM 2300ol, T43 REPLACE! OE FOR“ IND-1.0. 1967. WHICH IS OISOL IT! APPENDIX B COMPUTER PRINT-OUT OF SURVEY DATA 172 urmu O - Wflm prawn Inn tun-I ""1. 5! 9.1.3.9231. VBLOSLL. I. 015 ! L 5"" :1 C258 4003; "autumn qua.“ I g". Sogkt'ff ~_ -m— ——-—.._ .._..._... .. Clio .8 VOLS Jl-SI _."¢:.__'"_v__¢3.°_‘_-!:1.°.!' -._-__ -- 3.155.! 92°§_.__1I.°°_u_ -_-._ . -9." 01 con ”M ._ :I" Ion-AL n c C 0-4 up 1:0“ um _ -H __ _ _ _. __,._.__.. -3!" '2. 1:0". ‘3'”. ..---_. 22333?" gum- ... .C.‘_*°...9_!_¢_°t.‘__"'.'! .- --.__ ICCUINH'IYION Haunt In" tantrum no co 5 a.” YIIF FIT” (7" G; 1 IT ("I “U" i“) What!“ (”I ‘ mu an (an on (an aunt ”.1" at UM on us: (91))___ __ _ __, I var —r‘ ‘- “ FY nur—flswna- What—r _ _‘ n— — III an (”I no ("I LII (ti—5) u an '00 47) VI»! «BI _-__ 3 Tu W!- TNT‘“"‘T‘I- ‘UI "" in" (n I! ‘“ "" " a nu us an I: a um mu (3)) nus (an .I an tau-u u- suau sum" onus “gum u con «as .V' .t.“'“ 'PWI|& Tl a“ in __.. o sun 12 RE I on1u300,01I '“Tllut UI'TTITt—IWI'UCII u nussfii “Praia: w. lufltht‘tu! Own-Piaf" 21 "MIMI!“s-UMVFIISIHQV OJ .- . ‘1‘ ATTE" JIY'YAIWS W4: nun cnuouc JO mu.- nu mvsmsvs 95 m")!"' "fitfi’. "ET" P113)" _- -___- _.- snug! my ":3! «In 1'51“" gun as Cm a non: __ o mu‘—"“r“——“_‘“"—“‘—*"“ ”"' "- mu“m1' Whith— “" ‘— ‘—’ (iii—6‘33"?“ or *"""""‘“ o SIIISYUO 1 $01!!!! I 'l'ks'g‘ 3 ______-___...-_ _.-_ -_ Mir 1 _.__ .--- _.__ _ m3 “TI "— '—"" — ' " ""' " "'_n'l‘r0'f"CUl-‘b ,._._.. ~_'"’- kiss um- I In! I I in" Its: nus z Ens w t In! uss nun a has I _____ -____ -__ ___ C o- VWII‘IWIORFNFWEETIRWFIGSIIH l —— ' I as! '“o’l‘S!OIuL agent: 9 . ill‘WioS , . - guano “new: not us! mu nova-An: , 16min" I m— IIITIL'FTIYIT -ewnnvtol -"" ""—‘ “'—"."——'.‘_~ "‘ """’~" 0 insult-AI. occouvIouAL-clnrrutwcLE-ICAL can 08 cm. 0 _ __ - LWEWWROVESWUFAL‘-‘ "' "‘ " Club 63 ”C 20'! ACtEvhl 5 Vol V HIEDJI tonne OACCILAU'EHS 6030 OJ C "l . ctnfi I! ESL“ 7!! o Incur- ntunnouv ’ cum 0: COL 1L_'_ _H mustn‘t“. “— ' ’ "’”' ' “CERF 03—1530. *4" WW nu .31 an ‘ ‘— "”"‘ _..__ " " EIMTW‘EUIK YS’JF" malt-"null" orrIce-s at an o nun an so am qunIsunIve nus unIcIou; _ nus: um: I] Llit ms Ugh-s5» snceq a}: in um '73: um LnnL n anti LI-un WWW New 9 W I7 fifl mm Fifi! Wu mam LMWET I M1153; W T“ m inc—u— Li? 1 W Lia-nu- W h WV W #3?“ ‘3]: or m If“. W W Lia-4 NW Wfi um - MET)? Iv "I mmmv I'LL)" i fib’m ‘—!l— W "W 'fi'Ev I Lune—Io fifi-mr—m‘m-cu W i m3; T—Tr—mmnrim um. i ram. :1 at W m‘mn W‘s ”r—W’ "mvr‘ur mitt u KW "“ —“—“ Is —‘lfi mm Emir, I W“, W “In". 1 W —-.——-.-— --..-~.————— ——.—.-_—- 173 APPENDIX C INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AS PUBLISHED IN EDUCATION DIRECTORY 1968-69, PART 3 174 HICNIGAN (Continue!) LIBRARIAN COORDINATOR STUDENT AFFAIRS CHARIMAN CF RESEARCH DIRECTOR OF DEVELCPMENT ALUMNI SECRETARY MARGARET A DONNEY ALICE M PHELPS IRVING E SIGEL EDHARD A HDHELL ANNABELLE HIGGINS HIGHEST OFFERING- TYPE OF PRCGRAP- ENRCLLNENT- PRESIDENT DOCTORATE OCCUPATICNAL‘TECHNICAL/SCNI-EROFESS] LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL TEACHER PREPARATONY PROFESSIONAL A0200 RAYPCND L sfilru INSTITUTION NANE- FICE INST CODE- CITY ADDRESS- lIP CODE- TELEPHONE. ACCREDITATION. AFFILIATION. STUDENT BODY- CALENDAR SYSTEN— HIGHEST OFFERING“ TYPE OF PROGRAN- ENROLLNENT- PRESIDENT ACADEMIC DEAN MICHIGAN LUTHERAN CCLLEGE 002209 OE INST CODE- DETROIT A0202 SIS 073 A320 320397 LUTHERAN CHURCH-MISSOURI SYNOD COED QUARTER A 0R 5 YEAR BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PROGRAN OCCUPATIONAL-TECHNICAL/SEMI-PROFESSIDNAL 2-YR ACCEPTABLE CREDIT FOR BACCALAUREATE LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL 732 JOHN F CHOITl DAVID FRIEDRICHS VIC PRES ACADEMIC AFF CONTROLLER AND TREASURER REGISTRAR AND DIR STUDENT SERV ASST DIR OF ADMISSIONS DIRECTOR LIBRARY DIRECTOR SUPPER SESSION DIRECTOR DIV CONT EDUC DEAN OF STUDENTS DIRECTOR RESEARCH DIR INSTITUTICNAL ANALYSIS ASST TO PRES DIR INST RELS EXEC SEC ALUFNI ASSOC FINANCIAL AIDS OFFICER DIRECTOR PLACEMENT DEAN OF ENGINEERING DEAN N STEBBINS ERNEST J TChNSEND THOHAS C SERHCN ERNEST R GRIFF MICHAEL V KRENITSRY TPCFAS G ELLIS G RALPH NOBLE HAROLD REESE THCPAS P EVANS DOUGLAS A STUART RICHARD T CUNNEBACKE TFCHAS F HRUBY DCNALD S HOLHAN JCHN R GCOCH JAHES A RENT BUSINESS MANAGER ADMISSIONS COUNSELLDR LIBRARIAN ' DEAN OF STUDENTS LARRY HARABADIAN CHRISTOPHER NELIRAN EVELYN GUTONSRE RICHARD KRENNING INSTITUTION NAME- INSTITUTION NANE- FICE INST CODE- CITY ADDRESS- ZIP CODE- TELEPHONE- ACCREDITATION- CONTROL. STUDENT BODY- CALENDAR SYSTEN~ HIGHEST OFFERING- TYPE OF PROGRAN- MICHIGAN STATE UNIV 002290 OE INST CODE- EAST LANSING A0023 SIT 355 I055 320AIO N BUS CHEN TED ENG FOR JOUR NUS NUR SH VET STATE COED QUARTER DOCTORATE OCCUPATIONAL-TECHNICAL/SEMI-PROFESSIONAL LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL TEACHER PREPARATORV MICH TECH UNIV LAKE SUPERIOR STATE I FICE INST CODE- 002293 OE INST COCE- 329I35 CITY ADDRESS- SAULT STE NARIE lIP CODE- A9703 TELEPHONE- 906 B32 GBAI ACCREDITATICN- N TECH CONTROL- STATE STUDENT BODY- COED CALENDAR SYSTEM- QUARTER HIGHEST OFFERING- TYPE OF PROGRAM- A OR 5 YEAR BACCALAUREATE DEGREE PRC OCCUPATIONAL‘CRAFTSHENICLERICAL OCCUPATIONAL-TECHNICAL/SENI-PRCFESSI Z-YR ACCEPTABLE CREDIT FOR BACCALAUE LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL PROFESSIONAL ENROLLNENT- IoASA CHANCELLOR KENNETH J SHOULDICE VICE CHANCELLOR KENNETH F LIGHT CONTROLLER LYLE F SHAH REGISTRAR DUANE R GRAHAN ADMISSIONS OFFICER DIRECTOR OF LIBRARY JAHES E HCNKANEN ANN E PATTERSON DIRECTCR REGIONAL SERVICES HALTER N GENDZHILL PROFESSIONAL ENROLLNENT- 30.750 PRESIDENT JOHN A HANNAH PROVDST HOHARD R NEVILLE V PRES BUSINESS PHILIP J MAY REGISTRAR HORACE C RING DIR ADNISSIONS DIRECTOR LIBRARIES DIR CONTINUING EON SVC V PRES STUDENT AFFAIRS ASSOC DEAN STUDENTS DIR PLACEMENT BUREAU ASST DEAN STUDENTS DIR OFC OF INSTNL RES DIR UNIVERSITY RELATIONS DIR ALUHNI RELATIONS DIR FINANCIAL AIDS DEAN COLL NATURAL SCIENCES DEAN COLL SOCIAL SCIENCES DEAN COLL ARTS AND LETTERS DEAN HORRILL COLLEGE DEAN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DEAN COLL HUNAN NECICINE DEAN COLL VET NEDICINE TERRENCE J CAREY RICHARD E CHAPIN ARMAND L HUNTER HILTON B DICRERSON ELDON R NONNAMAKER JOHN D SHINGLETON LAURINE E FITZGERALD PAUL L DRESSEL JANES H DENISON JOHN R RINNEY HENRY C DYRENA RICHARD U BYERRUM C LELAND HINDER PAIR. A VARG D GORDON ROHNAN EDUARD A CARLIN ANCREH D HUNT JR HILLTS N ARMISTEAD DEAN OF STUDENTS DEAN OF ICHEN DIRECTOR CCLLEGE RELATIONS DIRECTOR PLACENENT BERNARD N SNITH NARGARET F NONE PAUL E RIPLEY NILLIAN T HUNSELL INSTITUTION NAME- FICE INST CCDE- CITY ADDRESS- lIP CODE- TELEPHONE- ACCREDITATION- CONTROL- STUDENT BODY- CALENDAR SYSTEN- HIGHEST OFFERING- TYPE OF PROGRAP- ENROLLNENT- PRESIDENT MID MICHIGAN CMTY COL 006760 OE INST CODE- GLADNIN 5062A SI7 A26 BSAS 320AI3 LOCAL COED SEMESTER 2 BUT LESS THAN A YEARS LIBERAL ARTS AND GENERAL EUGENE H GILLASPY CURTIS S FURTCN DEAN COLL DEAN COLL DEAN COLL ENGINEERING AGRICULTURE BUSINESS LAURENCE VONTERSCN THOMAS R COHDEN ALFRED L SEELYE DEAN ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION DIRECTOR BUSINESS AFFAIRS DEAN STUDENT AFFAIRS LAURA J FINUCANE ALLEN T NICHOLS DEAN COLL EDUCATION DEAN COLL CONN ARTS DEAN COLL HOME ECDN DEAN BRIGGS COLLEGE DEAN NADISDN COLLEGE INSTITUTION NANE- JOHN E IVEY JR JACK M BAIN JEANETTE A LEE FREDERIC 0 DUTTON HERBERT GARFINREL HICH TECH UNIV MAIN CAMPUS FICE INST CODE- 002292 OE INST CODE- 320600 CITY ADDRESS- HOUGHTON ZIP CODE- 6993I TELEPHONE“ 906 A02 I000 ACCREDITATIDN- N CHEN ENG CONTROL- STATE STUDENT BODY- COED CALENDAR SYSTEN- GUARTER DEAN INSTRUCTIONAL DEAN APPLIED ARTS INSTITUTION NAHE' FICE INST CODE- CITY ADDRESS- llP CODE- TELEPHONE- ACCREDITATION- CONTROL- STUDENT BODY- CALENDAR SYSTEN- HIGHEST OFFERING- TYPE OF PROGRAN- 175 DAVID YOUNG FRANCIS J NITCHELL NATERIALS FONROE COUNTY CHTY COL 00229A CE INST CODE- NONROE 40I6I 313 2A2 7300 SZDAIA SEMESTER 2 BUT LESS THAN A YEARS OCCUPATIONAL-TECHNICALISEHI-PROFESI 2-YR ACCEPTABLE CREDIT FOR BACCALAL APPENDIX D REPORT OF EMPLOYEES IN HIGHER EDUCATION FROM NUMBERS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF EMPLOYEES IN INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION 176 177 TABLE 5.-- HORSSIONAL AND KONPROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES, BY "I”? MTION, IDIOT“ TOTAL NtHBER or EMPLOYED PERSONNEL InortssxoxAL 3:510:31 INSTRUCTION AND DEPARTXZNTAL ORGszzzO E3 lzssAncu PROFESSIONALS NONPROFESSIOSALS “:3 ST‘TE ‘5D SENIOR 633103 ’ a! msnwnox "A" 30111011 mm sun 303103 TOTAL PERSONS TOTAL PERSONS -_—H‘ rrz or IT! or A _ w» nu» vm- 3:: 313:: 3:: :20: TIME Trix 71“; TIME TIM: 71“: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 1o 11 12 13 14 2 r JO~~ SOS-3 CIIVEISTTT 39 1O 3 101 3 1 37 I I I I 2 r LxTTLE 9:04 CNIVERSITY 65 91 24 36 6 4 70 I I I I 2 9 00404174 BAPTIST 011v 69 72 21 2 0 I 67 0 6 I I 2 r PuILA~0E= S-xTu CJLLFJE 67 14 4 33 216 55 39 0 0 I I 1 T PHILLIPS CO chv COLLEGE 14 2 1 7 0 I 13 I I I I 2 F ShOnTE- CC..2;: 11 6 3 7 4 2 9 0 I I I 2 T SOUTHER\ aAoTTST COLLEOE 34 4 1 1 0 0 32 I I I I 1 r SOUYNE°\ STATE CCLLEG: 132 12 4 77 474 156 96 I I I I 1 u UNlVERSlTY or ARKA\SAS 1.731 696 262 2.066 642 263 476 106 444 190 153 TOTAL PUBLXC 2.609 956 263 2.626 3.070 959 1.209 106 467 199 153 TOTAL PRIVATE 710 245 67 459 745 202 517 . 10 4 1 STATE TOTAL 3.319 1.201 350 3.265 3.615 1.161 1.726 106 705 203 154 CALIFORAIA 1 7 CALIFORNIA ST COL HAYhIRD 310 112 39 291 60 24 262 2 25 3 I 1 T ANYELO9E VALLEv COLLEGE 66 63 24 37 100 35 40 0 0 I I 2 E AzOSA 6ACIEIC CcLLESE 54 14 7 29 30 11 33 3 3 I I 1 T 6A4665r1E10 COLLEGE 212 6 5 II 156 52 192 I 0 I I 2 E BETHANV axa.E COLLEGE 46 4 1 16 6 2 46 0 0 I I 2 r IIOLA COLLEGE 64 17 6 94 299 146 70 2 4 I I 2 7 823045 1~ST PHOTOGHAPHY 24 5 1 7 1 I 13 4 I 3 I 1- T CASRILLC COLLEOE 66 31 13 59 135 34 60 0 15 I I 2 r CALIF aAPTTST T*EOL saw 16 2 1 21 7 4 10 0 I I I 2 r CALIPGEVIA BAPTIST COL 30 27 13 32 64 27 27 I I I I 2 F CALIF COL OF ARTS I CRAFT 40 45 16 24 5 3 27 I I I I 2 r CALx'GRVIA PoozATRT COL 24 13 4 15 2 1 2O 1 I 2 I 2 T CALIFORhIA CO\:OQSIA COL 21 5 2 0 6 1 15 0 I I I 2 r CALlroanxA INST or TECN 3.462 406 149 2.723 366 95 460 0 343 2.044 I 2 r CALIVOQNIA LUTHEIAN COL 79 19 4 63 206 39 59 0 1 I I 1 r CALernaxA HARTTer ACAO 24 0 0 0 0 I 22 I I I I 2 F SIN FRISCO AIT 195T COL 36 27 9 16 15 5 30 I I I I 1 F CAL sT COL 513 EERNA:JXNC 62 10 4 66 12 5 4! I I I I 1- 9 CAL STATE chv S» LOTS 09 537 36 13 555 67 33 454 o 14 0 I I 7 CAL 3T POLY COL “CRCNA 351 63 24 326 730 147 299 0 2 I g E CALIFORNIA SESTERS 091v 101 27 5 166 1 I! I I I I 2 T CENTER 702 EARL” £000 1 25 6 2 0 I I I 0 I I 1: T CERRTTOS COLLEE; 231 66 40 126 69 22 202 0 0 I I 1 T CHAdDT COLLEGE 155 151 39 99 162 33 124 I I I I 1 T CHAFFEY chLEOE 136 94 26 :02 121 32 116 I I I I 1. r CHICO STATE COLLEOE 446 962 235 365 50 22 415 0 600 I I 2 r CALIF INST or THE ARTS 15 64 27 27 2 1 13 I 0 I I 1 T CITRUS an CoL 100 156 41 60 16 6 II 0 I 1 I 1 T chv coL of SI\ anxcxscc 320 37 11 110 10 4 264 0 I I I 2 r CLAREHCNT wass COLL:SE 66 17 6 72 0 0 50 I 12 0 I 1 T COALlnSA COLLEGE 41 I 0 36 42 17 39 0 6 1 I 1; T COLLEGE or THE OESEaT 70 24 4 16 0 I 47 I 0 I I 2 r COL OF THE noLv 11355 67 47 16 30 25 6 54 I 1 I I 2 r LOIA LIVCA “9:05:5377 566 364 129 566 249 92 176 I2 16 19 II 2 r COLLEGE Cr chaé DA‘E 61 65 22 31 _61' 19 35 .I. L .0. .1 2 r COL Or OOR LACT CF 'ERCY 12 22 9 14 37 9 3 I I I I 2 0 UNIVERSITY 0: Tue IACIFIC 236 317 90 303 16 4 217 0 73 I I 3 T COLLEGE OF sn HATE; 336 274 99 259 94 27 307 I I 1, I 1 T COLLESE Or Th5 515(1'835 46 50 16 1 I I 32 I C I I 1 T 00'7734 Oxsvazcr 49 33L 65 92 26 72 14 7 II I I I I 1’ T CONTRA CCSTA COLLEGE 159 60 15 91 2 1 144 0 I I I 1 T CYPRESS COLLESE 53 25 6 17 77 27 51 0 I I I 2 T OEEO 5623335 0:1LEOE 10 0 0 o 1 0 4 I I I I 1 T ITAaLO VILLEY CCLLESE 225 99 29 216 9 1 214 0 0 0 I 2 r DO'I\XCA\ :01 SAY 217AEL 59 40 13 6 2 1 49 I 2 I I 1 T EAST LOS IVJELES chLEO: 177 346 104 c I I 173 I I I I 1 T EL CAnxso COLLEGE 341 96 34 247 2 0 323 I I I I 1 T POOTdXLL COLLEGE 540 36 10 52 I 0 236 0 I I I 1 I FRESNO ST 25L 575 130 42 431 566 112 442 32 13 I I '1 T TOLLEaTOV J: c:LLE:5 316 62 32 156 66 39 290 0 0 0 I 2 r IEPasasxxa COLLEGE 79 146 54 65 15 7 59 0 0 I I 1 T 0LE6OALE CC.LEOE 135 15 6 66 22 7 109 0 0 I I 2 r COLON OATE 619T TrEJL SE" 27 3 1 16 34 13 16 0 I I I 2 7 001051 017E CCLLEGE 32 134 36 19 20 10 17 I 21 I I 1 T GOLDEV uEST COLLECE 77 0 0 0 0 0 41 I I I I 1~.T 023556067 COLLEGE 122 149 45 I I I 1II I I I I 1 T NART\ELL COLLEGE 95 49 15 51 I 0 92 0 I I I 2 r w1nvsv r333 ::LLEJE 54 15 6 36 63 20 40 3 1 I I 2 F MEAL: ENS? COLLEGC 54 3 1 I I I 92 1 3 I I 1 r NufiezLOT STATE CC.LECE 267 109 46 163 340 61 217 1 39 I I 2 r [HHICULITE H5491 CCLLEOE 74 31 12 46 7 2 56 0 1 1 I 1 T TN'EREAL VALLEY COLLEGE 45 14 3 1 1 I 43 I I I I 1 T LIVE' COLLEOE 155 11 5 53 3 1 126 0 0 I I 2 7 LA STEaaA 2:1L555 139 32 16 46 16 9 44 4 0 I I 1 T LASSéN COLLEGi 21 6 2 1 I 0 20 I I I I 2 7 LA 95222 :;.LESE 44 16 6 27 34 4 36 0 0 I I 178 STATUS, CORTROL AND LEVEL OF INSTITUTION, ITATS, AND INSTITUTION: TIA?! {SEARCH LISRARY EXTENSION AND PUBLIC SERVICE CAI? PROFES- SIGNAL LIBRA— BIANS OTHER PROFES— SIGNALS CEREAL IS- STRIC- TICN CONSUL- TATION OTHER AUXILI- ESTER- PRISFS SCHOOLS OPER- ATED BY THE ELEVEN— TART INSTITUTION SECOND— ABY OTHER FES- 8 10:;- PER- SON- NHL star: AND INSTI‘I'O‘I'ION PART- TIME TOLL- TIN! PULL- TIES FLIJr TIES FULL— TIME FULL- TIME CULL» TIflE ”LII— TIES FULL- TIME FULL» TIME LIYELZI 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 N O N .3 N 00°... 90.99 .0099 .GQCO BGOQO C-.°° DOOOO 0.0.. -0000 0...” 999°- 00°60 . p p III-5‘5“” ”.0...“ .HNN” FO‘H‘J‘I O‘DODN “NF... I‘D-0V...“ “Out... VNV.’ H000!“ ”HUGO-D ”MNUO “H0“.- .4 p N.“ OOO‘O ONOOC'I .“O‘NO 00°99 ”099° OOOO. OQVOO OHOOO @0000 a p ”0°00 .OCOO OPOO. ovuoo cocoa 909.0 09000 “O“ ”COO 0050’ 900°C 00°09 H.000 QOWOO ”GOOD 000°C 90°00 600040 000°C 00°C. DOOO‘D 00°00 0 00°00 0‘00. 0°... 00.90 9°09. 90°00 .HNOO 009°." 000°C 00006 0°00. 0 00.000 00.00 Q0000 99°90 “00°C 9°C.- OFOOO 00°00 OFHOO 90°90 DOOOO “000° O’COO O DPOPO .00 45 56 16 72 9.0.3qu “0000 O p N O .- u n alumna "“C‘DO 006009 ”“000 0060.0 coma” ”“900 01.994: “9°00 PN‘F” °”°.° (Al “no 0°00 000°C 1. 00°00 00°00 cocoa CONDO 600°C -9090 .ODOOO -6900 .°.fl° -0000 -009“ 00°90 09°00 o p U“ OOO'JQ 0°C.- 00°00 0-000 -0.-- -0999 00°90 00.00 .9990 OCONO .0099 90.60 D C3000“ 27 64v GHwIdII 649 .HO.. “.HNN . JOHN 32043 u4IvEISITY LITTLE ROCK UNIVERSITY OOACIITA BAPTIST UNIV FuILANOEI SMITH COLLEGE PHILLIPS CO CHTY COLLEGE SHORTEG COLLEGE SOUTHERN BAPTIST COLLEGE SOUTHERN STATE COLLEGE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS. TOTAL FUSLIC TOTAL PRIVATE ITATE TOTAL CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA ST COL NAYNARO ANTELOIE VALLeT COLLEGE AzusA IACI'IC COLLEGE IAKERI?IELG COLLEGE OETHANI CIILE COLLEGE IIOLA COLLEGE IROOKs INsT PHOTOGRAPHY CAIRILLO COLLEGE CALIF IAFTIST TNEOL GEN CALIFORNIA BAPTIST COL CALIF COL OF ARTS I CAAFT CALIFORNIA FOOIATIT COL CALIFORNIA CONCORDIA COL CALIFORNIA INST OF TGCH CALIFORNIA LUTHERAN COL CALIFORNIA MARITIME ACAO SAN FRISCO ART INST COL CAL OT COL CAN BERNAROINO CAL STATE POLY SN LUIS OO CAL CT POLY COL PONONA CALIFORNIA HESTERN UNIV CENTER FOR EARLY EDUC CERRITOS COLLEGE CNAOOT COLLEGE CHAFFEY COLLEGE CHICO STATE COLLEGE CALIF INST OF THE ARTS CITRUS JG COL CITY COL OF CAN FRANCISCO CLARENONT HENS COLLEGE . COALINGA COLLEGE COLLIGE OF COL IF THE LOHA LINDA COLLEGE OF COL OF OUR UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SAN HATEO COLLEGE OF THE SIIKITOUI COMPTON DISTRICT 4! COL CONTRA COSTA COLLEGE CYPRESS COLLEGE DEEP OFRINSS COLLEGE OIAILI VALLEY COLLEGE OO'INICAN COL 3AM RAFAEL IAIT LII ANGELES COLLEGE THE DESERT HOLY NAMES UNIVERSITY NOTOE DANE LADY OF MERCY OF THE PACIFIC EL CARING COLLEGE FOOT-ILL COLLEGE FRESNO sf COL FULLERTON JR COLLEGE FEFFEROI\E COLLEGE GLENDALE COLLEGE GOLON GATE OAPT THEOL SEN GOLDEN GATE COLLEGE GOLOEN NEST COLLEGE GROSSNONT COLLEGE HA'TVELL COLLEGE HARVEY PJDO COLLEGE HEALG ENOQ COLLEGE uC'SzLCT STATE COLLEGE IHNACULITE HEA'T COLLEoE INFEIIAL VALLEY COLLEGE LANEY COLLEGE LA SIEGQA COLLEGE LAISEN COLLEGE LA VENNE COLLEGE cues qunw vwanfi.‘q4‘4,1 436‘ ‘4 ‘ .~rp‘l'rw .wnuvmw-I ~0w-mn‘u :w-oa-tq As-rw-an wonhodna c4woamac: uqnqq-‘swaq 44‘V4 awn»! nuns» ”bunk aha»! pun.» anuvu Dunn» ”up”. ”pupa ifinnn Piano wanna Dunn» u “PM” F~N- APPENDIX E CODING SHEET FOR DATA OF THIS STUDY 179 DATA SHEET Two-Year College Structure and Function Name Code _/_/_/_/_/_/ Enrollment Size _/_/_/_/_[_/ Age _/_/ Faculty Size _/_/_/_/ Administrative Size _/_/ Budget _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Voc. Programs ‘_/_/ Transfer LAS _/_/ Total Programs _/_/ Tech. Voc. Courses _/_/_/;/ Bus. Courses _/_/_/ LAS Courses _/_/_/_/ Total Courses _/_/_/_/_/ Organization Levels _/_/ Horizontal Div. 2nd Level _/_/ Horizontal Div. 3rd Level _/_/ VP Instructional Division Voc. Tech. Combined Level _/_/ Voc. Tech. Dean Separate Level _/_/ Highest Sep. Level Business _/_/ Highest Sep. Level Technical _/_/ Division Organizational Level _/;/ Department Organizational Level _/_/ Community Service Adult Educational Level _/_/ Director, Dean of Evening College ‘_/_/ LRC Level _/_/ Library Volumes / / / / / (6) (6) (2) (4) (2) (8) (2) (2) (2) (4) (3) (4) (5) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) ‘ (5) All digits will be punched right justified, fill remaining spaces with zero. 180