..-, .........,,,', _" w ~r-. L. .. vv.-.r.. ~I COOPERATIVE DEGREE PROGRMS IN AMERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES Thaisforfho Disruoféd. o. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Robert I. Hudson 3955 This is to certify that the thesis entitled COOPERATIVE DEGREE PROGRAMS IN AI'TERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES presented by ROBERT I . HUDSON has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ed.D. (169,66 in Guidance ‘ .74. ll", (‘I [ij ' ‘(4 'IL I o J (2“: \, Major wieswr Date May 12, 1955 0-169 COOPERATIVE DEGREE PROGRAIS IN AKERICAN COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AN ABS TRACT Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services Year 1955 APPROVED W [1% #7 {QVKWW TQW. LI fi«1¥’5:? .2 f 1 ROBERT I. HUDSON ABSTRACT The object of this study was to survey cooperative work-study programs in American colleges. Information on enrollments, operating practices and problems, future plans, and the names of representative employers were obtained through questionnaires sent to 87 colleges believed to have cooperative programs. Seventy replies were received. Of these, 17 had no programs. The analysis of college practices was based upon usable questionnaires furnished by 46 colleges. In com- puting total enrollment figures, data from another study made at the same time were added. Other questionnaires were sent to 125 employers listed by the colleges. Sixty-eight, or 53% of the total, furnished usable replies. They had an average of 12.6 years of experience with cooperative students. Findings Programs were found to exist in 56 colleges, with a total cooperative enrollment of 18,654 students in the Fall Term, 1953. Two-thirds of these were in some type of Engineering. Approximately 621 of the Tngineering students were enrolled in colleges where only cooperative curricula were offered. Cost non-Engineering students were enrolled in Liberal Arts, Business Administration, or Retailing. The colleges were divided into three groups: Engineering, non- Engineering, and ”ixed, the est-named having both types of students. 1r 1,1 'The seven .ixed colleges included 11,759 students, nearly two-thirds ROBERT I. HU SON ALSTRJCT of the total cooperative enrollment. Kost Engineering and Iixed colleges schedule alternate periods of full time work and study, and require at least five years for completion. Ton-Engineering programs are frequently Operated on a part-time basis. Coordinators in the Engineering and fiixed groups tend to devote most of their time to the cooperative program, waile those in the other colleges spend much time in teaching. Host non- “ngineering studentStre placed locally, while the other groups usually place a majority of s‘udents within a fifty mile radius. Student earnings range from 603 to 83% of college costs. Employers prefer to have students spend all of their work periods in one organization, and plan sequences of experiences for them. Hearly all colleges require periodic reports from employers and students. Very few employers pay any part of the cost of coordination or furnish scholarship aid. Employers rated cooperative students as superior to regular workers on four basic characteristics. here than 90% indicated a preference for hiring cooperative graduates because they can be placed immediately on productive assignments. The principal benefits of the cooperative system for students are vocational guidance, I supplementary training in 3he major field, financial aid, personal ROBERT I. HUDSON ABSTRACT development, and job placement. Colleges gain through better relations with industry, increased student motivation, financial savings, curriculum development, and increased stability of enrollment. Employers benefit through improved selection and reduced training costs. Present problems of cooperative colleges and employers are mainly related to a shortage of students. Employers suggested improved counseling and guidance, and better publicity. host colleges reported that they could place more students, and two-thirds of the employers plan to hire more students. wore than 80% of 2-. he employers feel that they would benefit from an increase in the number of cooperative colleges. Conclusions Ample opportunities exist for the expansion of the cooperative system in colleges. Fach institution can accomodate a larger number of students through the alternating schedule. Greater efforts to interest students in the cooperative plan are necessary. Increased employer financial aid for present and future programs is necessary. A preposal for such aid is presented. COOPERATIVE DEGREE PROGRAMS IN AMERICAN COLLECES AND UNIVERSITIES ROBERT II HUDSON A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of.Agriculture and.Applied Science 1n.partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Department of Administrative and Educational Services 1955 ROBERT I. HUDSON Candidate for the degree of Doctor of Education Date of Examination, May 21, 1955, 1:00 P.M., l7 Merrill Hall Dissertation: Cooperative Degee Programs in American Colleges and Universities Outline of Studies: Major subject: Guidance Minor subject: Psychology Biog-aphical Items: Born, March 18, 1925, Minneapolis, Minnesota Undergraduate Studies: University of Minnesota, 1942-16, 19h6-1I7 Graduate Studies: University of Minnesota, 191+8-h9, Michigan State College, 1950-55 Experience: Research Assistant, University of Minnesota, l9h8-h9 Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor, State of Minnesota, 1950, Counselor, 1951, Graduate Assistant, 1951-52, Psychometrist, 1952, Michigan State College, Vocational Counselor, Highland Park Guidance Center, 1952-55 Member of American Personnel and Guidance Association, National Vocational Guidance Association (Professional), American Psychological Asso- ciation, Michigan Counselors Association ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to Dr. Walter F. Johnson, under whose supervision this research.was completed, and to Dr. Frederic R. Wickert for his many helpful criticisms and suggestions. The writer is also indebted to Doctors Raymond N. Hatch and C. V. Millard for reading and criticizing the thesis. Grateful acknowledgment is due to the many college officials and employers whose cooperation.made this study possible, and particularly to Messrs. Arlen E. Hellwarth, w. D. Merrifield, and Donald 0. Hunt, for their helpful criticism.of preliminary questionnaires. Finally, to my wife, for her constant encouragement and inspiration, this thesis is dedicated. TABLE OF CONTEN”S CHAPTER I.THEPROBI_EM................ Importance of the study . . . . . . . . Definition of terms . . . . . . . . . . Review of previous studies . . . . . . . Limitations and scope . . . . . . . . . Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Preparation of questionnaires . . . . . Analysis of the data . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the study . . . . . . . (” II._#,HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY CF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION Growth of work experience in education . Early background . . . . . . . . . . Related programs . . . . . . . . . . . . Work colleges . . . . . . . . . . . . Off-campus terms . . . . . . . . . . Summer work programs . . . . . . . . Interneships . . . . . . . . . . . . Related developments . . . . . . . . . . Evening colleges . . . . . . . . . . Tuition refund plans . . . . . . . . Graduate cooperative programs . . . . High school cooperative programs . . PAGE CD «1 \fi \fi 43‘ h) \C) 11 11 ll 13 13 11+ 15 16 l6 l6 17 18 18 iv CHAPTER PAGE Specialized training programs for industry . . . . . . 19 The development of college cooperative programs . . . . . 2O Herman Schneider and the Cincinnati program. . . . . . 20 The Antioch plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ,aww-“Objectives of COOperative programs . . . . . . . . . . . -26 g III. THE GROWTH AND PRESENT STATUS OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS . . . 28 The growth of cooperative programs . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The present status of cooperative colleges . . . . . . . 28 o o o o o o 0 L0 0\ Control of colleges . . . *Cooperative employers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 IV. ORGANIZATION FOR COOPERATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ho College schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to School periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ho Work schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . hl Total amount of work required . . . . . . . . . . . . A2 Years when work experience is offered . . . . . . . . #8 Length of curriculum.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #8 Credit for work periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A? College coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #9 Position of coordinators in the college . . . . . . . 5O Duties of coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Work loads of coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Employer reports on coordination . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Qualifications of coordinators . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Cooperative Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 CHAPTER Location of Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . Sources of Jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature and duration of placements . . . Cooperative earnings . . . . . . . . . . Cooperative student pay rates . . . . . Proportion of expenses earned . . . . . Job sequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . _a.Employer-sponsored programs . . . . . . nlIntegration of school and work periods . . Student reports . . . . . . . . . . . . ~— Employer reports . . . . . . . . . . . . College reports to employers . . . . . . p-Other techniques of integration . . . . . Orientation classes . . . . . . . . . . Financial administration . . . . . . . . . Student fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employer contributions . . . . . . . . . Scholarships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employer reports of scholarships . . . . J'Special procedures for cooperative students College selection procedures . . . . . . “yr“ Employer selection procedures . . . . . *"Services to students . . . . . . . . . . K~Public relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,v.’ THE VALUE OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAIVIS . . . . . . PAGE .68 CHAPTER _' Employer attitudes toward cooperative students Rating cooperative students . . . . . . ... Retention of cooperative students . . . . . The objectives of college cooperative programs The benefits of cooperative programs . . . . . Benefits to students . . . . . . . . . . . Benefits to colleges . . . . . . . . . . . Benefits to employers . . . . . . . . . . . 'gvx. PROBIEI-«TS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF “8‘ COOPERATNE mom 0 o o o o O 0 0 . ‘ ° . . . Discontinued programs . . . . . . . . . . . . Disadvantages of the cooperative system . . . College organization and scheduling . . . . Added expenses to students . . . . . . . . Divided loyalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . Finances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marginal students . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present problems of cooperative programs . . . Supply of students . . . . . . . . . . . . Schedules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Coordination and integration . . . . . . . Personnel and finances . . . . . . . . . . Union relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employer suggestions . . . . . . . . . . . . . Counseling and guidance . . . . . . . . . . vi PAGE 78 78 81 82 82 86 91 91+ 9h 95 97 97 98 99 100 101 101 101 102 102 103 CHAPTER Employer publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ Uniform reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VII. THE FUTURE OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . The growth of present programs . . . . . . . . College reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Employer reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The role of the COOperative system.in institutional growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . Savings through the cooperative plan . . . . - Subject areas for Cooperative development . [VI—II. SUWARYANDCONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization for COOperation . . . . . . . . The value of cooperative programs . . . . . Problems in the development and operation of cooperative programs . . . . . . . . . . . . The future of cooperative programs . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for further research . . . . . . Ix PROPOSAL FOR AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PROGRAM . . . . General provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regular students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Contract students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Probable effects of this proposal . . . . . . . BIBIIIOMHY O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 vii PAGE hOh 10h 105 105 105 106 111 111 111 112 115 116 116 117 118 119 119 119 120 122 viii CHAPTER PAGE APPEI‘IDIX A ' Questiomaires o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 12"" APPEI‘IDH B - letters 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 126 ix LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. ENROIIMENT IN COOPERATIVE COLLEGES FALL 1953 Engineer-11.18 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O 0 3O Non-Engineering O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 31 hiixed- O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 32 II. MAJOR AREAS OF STUDY Non-Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Mixed O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 31+ III. ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS IN COOPERATIVE COLLEGES Ewineerj n8 0 C O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O C O O O O 3 Non-Engineer irlg I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1’5 biixed- O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 1+7 IV. EMPLOYER RATINGS OF COOPERATIVE S ENTS . . . . . . . . . . 79 FIGURE I. LIST OF FIGURES PAGE h,OOO-Hour Training Program for Cooperative Liberal Arts, Commerce, Business Administration College Students and Liberal Arts Commerce and Business 63 Administration Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM In the early part of the Twentieth Century, a new type of educational program.involving cooperation between colleges and employers was inaugu- rated. These programs have experienced a slow but steady growth during the first half of this century. It has been generally assumed by those i acquainted with.these programs that they are making a significant contri- bution to the welfare of students, colleges, and employers. Hewever, very little objective evidence is available to support this assumption. It has been suggested that these programs, if more widely understood and A adopted, might play an important role in solving some of the present and future problems facing higher education in the United States. It is the purpose of this study to survey the development, present status, and probable future growth of cooperative work-study programs leading to undergraduate degrees in American colleges and universities. An attempt will be made to evaluate these programs through the opinions of college administrators and employers who have had experience with them, and to explore the potential contributions which they may be able to make to the future growth of higher education in the United States. Impgrtance 2: Egg gtggy. Cooperative work programs may be of great potential value to higher education in the coming years. HOwever, before additional colleges and employers consider the adoption of this system, they must have further information on the "mechanics of cooperation" and a 2 fairly objective appraisal of the benefits to be expected and the problems which.may be encountered. If such information can be assembled, analyzed, and adequately publicized, it may provide college and industrial leaders with the necessary impetus for the development of new programs. Most published studies of cooperative programs have stressed the value of the programs to students and employers. In.this study, an attempt has been made to provide, in addition to an appraisal of these factors, a forecast of the role which the cooperative system.of education could play in helping colleges to prepare for the increased enrollments which are expected in all types of institutions during the next decade. Those colleges which make plans to operate wholly or in part on the cooperative program will be able to serve larger numbers of students without a proportional increase in physical plant expenditures. Definition 9: terms. Two statements may be cited which attempt to define cooperative education. The first was developed by a committee of faculty members at the Rochester Atheneum and Mechanics Institute (now known as Rochester Institute of Technology). Their statement, as quoted by Smith (27), is as follows: By cooperative education or cooperative work program is meant that type of curriculum which includes alternation of regularly scheduled instructional periods in school and periods of employment in business or industry with.definite provision for integrating work experience into the total education of the student. A somewhat more detailed definition of a cooperative college is offered by a committee of the Cooperative Engineering Education.Division of the Society for the Promotion of’Engineering Education.(now known as the American Society for Engineering Education). (9) It shall be one: 1. In which curricula lead to the bachelor's degrees in 3. engineering, or to both.bachelor's and higher degrees. Which requires or permdts all or some engineering stu- dents to alternate periods of attendance at school or college with periods of employment in.industry during a portion or all of one or more curricula. In which such employment is constituted as a regular, continuing and essential element in the educational process. ‘Which requires such employment to be related to some phase of the branch.or field of study in which the student is engaged. Which expects such employment to be variegated in order to afford a spread of experience. ‘Which.specifies minimum.hours of employment, and a minimum.standard of performance in such employment, among the requirements for a degree. Thus we may sum up the essential features of cooperative education in three points: 1. 2. 3. Alternating periods of study and work. Paid work under normal working conditions, preferably providing a progressive series of experiences. Some attempt to integrate school and.work periods. The maintenance of these conditions is dependent upon some type of coordi- nation by a representative of the college. This is the feature which dis- tinguishes cooperative programs from.more casual part-time or summer work programs. Without this service integration of classroom instruction and work experience would be extremely difficult. In selecting colleges for this study, it has been necessary to make some rather fine distinctions. Nearly all of the programs which have been included meet all of the above criteria. A few which fall slightly short have been included so as to present a broad picture of this educa- tional system. Others which bear only a slight resemblance to the great mass of cooperative colleges have been left out, even though they call themselves by that name. Such programs have been discussed in the section on related developments in Chapter II. Review 9: previous studies. The first comprehensive study of COOpera- tive programs was made by Smith (27) in l9h3, as a part of a larger research.project on terminal education sponsored by the General Education Board. He traced the growth of cooperative programs from.their inception in 1906 to l9hl, described the basic philosophies involved, and outlined the operating procedures used by participating colleges. He also sums marized the relative advantages and disadvantages of cooperative programs, basing his information upon questionnaires sent to colleges, and in some cases, personal interviews. Because of its sponsorship, his study included terminal technical institutes below the degree level. However, he did not attempt to survey employer attitudes toward the cooperative system. A similar study was made by Armsby (3) fer the U. S. Office of Edu- cation in l9h9, covering mainly programs in the field of Engineering. A second report by the same author (A) appeared in.l95h. 'While this report presumed to include cooperative programs in all fields, and enrollments were reported for the current school year, the content was largely the same as that of the 19h9 report. In.neither case was any attempt made to survey employer opinions and attitudes. A more specific study, concerned with the value of work experience in career planning and vocational adjustment, has been reported by Baskin (6). He compared matched groups of graduates from.two liberal arts colleges, Antioch and Oberlin, in terms of their vocational adjustment 12-lh years after graduation and their attitudes toward their college emerience. He found significant differences beWeen the two groups with regard to certainty of their occupational plans at yaduation, the "time" of their choices, and their satisfaction with the career planning contributions of their college program. Differences in median salaries were also noted, although these were not reported to be sigiificant. In all cases, differences favored the Antioch students, who had obtained work experience as a part of their college program. The main conclusion of the study was that non-cooperative graduates had usually made satis- factory career choices after a number of years of "reality—testing work experiences," while the work-study graduates had been able to work out satisfactory plans as a result of their college experiences. The present study, in addition to including a larger number of colleges than those mentioned by Armsby, makes a distinct contribution to the literature because of its survey of the attitudes and experience of employers who have worked with cooperative students. Limitations and scope. This study is confined to programs leading to undergraduate degrees. Graduate programs have been eliminated because they are few in number. High school and junior college programs were considered to be worthy of separate study. A few technical institutes below the degree level were also left out. This was a rather arbitrary decision, and was based upon their small number and highly specific programs. Procedures. The first step in a study of this type required the compilation of a list of colleges offering cooperative curricula. This presented some difficulty, since Armsby's second report had not been issued, and the only previous comprehensive study was more than ten years old. Starting with the schools listed by Smith (27) ,8 and in Armsby's first study (3), additions were made by searching entries in several directories, including those published by Lovejoy (19) and the American Council on Education (13). Further names were obtained from.a directory published by the American College Retailing Association (1). 'The current membership lists of the COOperative Division, American Society for Engineer- ing Education, as published annually in the Journal of Engineering Educa- tion, were consulted, as well as numerous other educational publications. ‘When.Armsby's second report (A) was issued, the new programs listed were added to the list. In this manner, a list of eighty-seven colleges believed to have cooperative programs was developed. A.questionnaire, a covering letter, and a stamped return envelope were sent to each college.1 In some cases the name of the program coordinator was not available, and questionnaires were directed to the president or dean of the college. After a follow-up had been mailed, a total of seventy replies were received. They were divided as follows: ‘Usable questionnaires #6 No cooperative program 17 Refused to complete questionnaire 3 New program a Total 70 Since seventeen colleges reported that they were not now operating cooperative programs falling within the definition used in this study, subsequent analysis of data has been based upon returns from 93 percent of the colleges known to have programs of sufficient age to permit adequate replies. It is impossible to determine how many of the seventeen which failed to reply are now operating cooperative programs. HCwever, the‘three 1See Appendix for copies. 7 ‘which refused to complete questionnaire are known from other sources to have such.programs, and.were included in the complete list of cooperative colleges in Chapter III. Each college was asked to furnish the names of five companies with which it was currently placing students. Preference was to be given to those with at least five years' experience. Although some colleges failed to supply names, a total of one hundred and twenty-five companies were included in the final list. Of these, eighty-three replied. Their replies were distributed as follows: USable questionnaires 68 No cooperative program 8 Some information, no questionnaire 7 Colleges were also asked to list companies which had discontinued cooperative relationships for any reason other than a shortage of avail- able students for placement. Only two colleges furnished such names. Letters were sent to these companies asking for information on the reasons for discontinuance of the programs. Both colleges and employers were asked to supplement their replies with catalogues and other publications relating to the cooperative programs, forms used, and, in the case of employers, sample job sequences. The response to this request was so great that it was impossible to include all of the materials received in the report of the study.' Informa- tion received, and samples of forms have been included at appropriate points in the study for purposes of illustration. Preparation 2: questionnaires. The data to be collected were divided into two major categories: (1) factual information on the number of students included in programs, and various aspects of the operating 8 procedure, and (2) expressions of attitudes toward various parts of the programs and suggestions for their improvement. For the more factual items, objective questions were developed, while open-end questions were used to elicit responses on matters involving attitudes and opinions. Both questionnaires were reviewed and discussed with college and employer representatives who have had considerable experience with cooperative programs. Their suggestions were incorporated in the final questionnaires which are found in Appendix A. ,Analysis 9: pp; dgtg. For the purpose of analysis, the colleges have been divided into three groups. These are: (A) Colleges having engineering programs only; (B) Colleges having non-engineering programs only; and (C) Colleges having both types of programs. In each case, the responses to objective items on the questionnaire were tabulated and expressed as a percentage of the particular group from.which they were derived. Differences between percentages were analyzed to determine whether any significant differences existed. ‘Where such differences were fOund, an attempt was made to relate them.to the nature of the programs involved. Open-end responses were analyzed.and arranged in general categories. Employer responses will also be presented in tabular form.and analyzed as percentages of the total group. Open-end responses will be summarized. Examples of employer suggestions and.criticisms will be quoted wherever appropriate, since they represent the principal source of evaluative material. In keeping with assurances given to employers at the time the data were collected, no companies were identified. HOwever, the original list included both.private industry and government agencies. Organization 2; the study. Chapter II traces the historical and philosophical antecedents of cooperative education, discusses related programs and developments, and defines the general objectives of coopera- tive education. Chapter III presents details of the present status of cooperative colleges and their enrollment, and describes typical colleges in each of the three categories mentioned above. Chapter IV is concerned with the organization of cooperative prog- rams, with particular reference to the college and its role. The duties and qualifications of coordinators, the nature and location of coopera- tive jobs, and means of integrating school and work periods will be analyzed, as well as any special services provided for cooperative students and methods used to publicize cooperative programs. Chapter V takes up the positive side of the evaluation of present programs, citing reports from college administrators and employers, as well as a limited number of student reactions quoted from other sources. Chapter VI discusses the negative aspects of the cooperative system, including the problems encountered in the inauguration and operation of programs, the weaknesses noted by employers, and the changes which have been required in college organization and.procedure. In Chapter VII, the future growth of cooperative programs is dis- cussed in the light of intentions stated by colleges and employers, and the needs of higher education. Special attention will be given to the role which cooperative programs may play in aiding colleges to meet the demands of expanding enrollments without prohibitive capital expenditures. Chapter VIII summarizes the principal findings of the study, and.makes recommendations for future research. Chapter IX presents a proposal for an employer-sponsored program which reflects some of the implications of the study and the features of some related programs. 11 CHAPTER II HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF COOPERATIVE EDUCATION In order to understand the cooperative education.movement, one must first examine its historical and philosophical antecedents. In this chapter the role of work experience in education has been traced from.its earliest beginnings to contemporary higher education in America. Various related programs have been described, and the points at which they differ from.cooperative education have been noted. The development of the present system.is discussed, as well as the basic philosophies of coopera- tion now prevalent. Finally, the objectives of present programs, as reported in the literature, have been outlined. Growth.of“Work Experience in Education Early background. From the earliest periods of recorded history, work has been a part of the educational process. It is ondy in more recent years that there has been a tendency to separate it from.more formal learning processes. Among the ancient Jews, parents were impressed with the value of work. Leipziger (17) quotes the Talmud, or book of the Law,as stating: "He who does not have his son.taught a trade prepares him.to be a robber" and "As it is your duty to teach your son the Law, teach him.a trade." In this instance instruction in.a manual trade, through training on-the-job, was considered to be a social obligation l2 aimed at preparing the boy to become a useful citizen of the community. In later years, when all education.came under the control of the Church, students were required to devote a considerable amount of time to manual labor. The Rule of St. Benedict, for example, enjoined students to spend seven hours a day in.menual labor and two hours in reading (21:331). ‘With.the growth of the apprentice system, a.minimum.of general education.was combined with training for each specific trade. During the 18th Century, educational philosophers, beginning with Rousseau, raised the issue of experience as a.means of education. Fol- lowing his lead, and that of Pestalozzi, von Fellenburg established the Institute at Hofwyl in Switzerland. According to Meyer (20:1h), this school possessed "work shops for the manufacture of tools and clothing; an agricultural school for the education of farm labor as well as teachers of rural schools; and a lower school for the teaching of crafts and the middle-class vocations." This movement was brought to its logical conclu- sion by Herschensteiner, who developed the Arbeitsschule, or activity school in Germany in the l9th.Century. Here, the goal of education.was the selection of an appropriate vocation, and the curriculum_was oriented accordingly (20:12h). I The.Mechanic's Institute movement in Great Britain provided another example of the developing relationship between education and manual labor. According to Bennett (7:302), this movement is said to have been started by Dr. George Birkbeck, who began by giving science lectures to workers in Glasgow. He later moved to London, and established the London.Mechanic's Institute in 182%. By 18h1, there were more than two hundred and sixteen similar institutions in Great Britain. They were designed to promote 13 technical training and some measure of general education for workers. Their American counterpart was found in schools like the Gardiner Lyceum, opened at Gardiner, Maine in 1823. Here, a full-tm program emphasizing technical and scientific subjects was offered. It remained for the Worcester County Free Institute of Industrial Science, later Worcester Polytechnic Institute, to combine scientific training and shop experience in a program of Mechanical Engineering. In the course of three and one- half years, each student was expected to work a total of Wenty-three hundred hours in shops operated by the school which manufactured goods for the open market. Although this work was a required part of the course, students were not paid. It was considered sufficiently rewarding that they should have acquired the appropriate machine skills. This program appears to be more closely related to the present cooperative system than any of the other schemes described in this section. It is significant to note that when the first college cooperative program was established, it was again in the field of Engineering. II Related Programs Work colleges. Institutions requiring on-campus work of all students are quite closely related to the cooperative movement. Such programs may be said to have originated with a manual labor "experiment" at Andover Theological Seminary in 1826. In this program, described by Bennett (7:183), a workshop was established where students spent one and one-half hours each day, all working together. The object was not to impart know- ledge of mechanical skills, but primarily to improve the health of the 11+ students. Although a number of institutions developed similar programs, the whole movement died out in about ten years (7:182). Present day examples of work colleges are probably best exemplified by Blackburn College, Carlinville, Illinois. Ivins and Runge (15) have described the program inaugurated by President William H. Hudson in 1912. It called for the school to become a self-contained unit, with a farm, a dairy, carpenter and paint shops, et cetera. As the college is now operated, every student, regardless of financial means, is required to defray a part of his expenses by working at some job for the college. Student leaders assign jobs and supervise their performance, with minimal assist- ance from full-time employees of the college. Since 1912, a sixty acre farm has been operated, and much of the work on construction of college buildings has been done by students with the cooperation of local building tradesmen. Similar programs are in operation at a number of colleges, including Park Berea, Marysville, and William Penn. In most cases, on- campus work, which began as a financial necessity, has become an integral part of the college program. Work experiences offered are not directly related to specific parts of the curriculum, but are considered to be a part of general education. gig-m m. This device hasbeen used by some colleges to enable students to supplement their regular program of studies with work or other specialized experience off campus. Probably the best known programs of this nature are found at Bennington and Sarah Lawrence Col- leges. They differ from the cooperative system in that there is only one off-campus period per year, usually in the winter between two school terms, jobs may be paid or voluntary, and in the Bennington plan, as 15 described by Jones (16), the off-campus period may in some cases be devoted to specialized study or research in libraries or museums not readily accessible during the balance of the school year. While such programs undoubtedly add greatly to students' growth and understanding, they cannot be expected to provide all of the benefits expected of a cooperative program. They do, however, recognize the value of work experience in general education. Summer work progams. Since a large number of college students find it necessary to work during the summer vacation to obtain money for their college expenses, a number of colleges have organized summer work programs. In some cases, these are merely supplementary placement ser- vices, while in others, a definite attempt is made to help students locate Jobs which are related to their course of study. In these cases, a conflict is sometimes presented beWeen the potential value of a parti- cular type of experience and the increased financial return which may be received from some other Job. One of the most highly developed schemes of this type is the Work Training Program of the New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell University. Because of the nature of the curriculum, a substantial amount of field work has been considered essential to effective professional training (25). Students are normally expected to have some work experience before entering col- lege. In addition, they are required to complete approximately thirty weeks of work-training during three. summers. The first work period is usually spent in basic work, and is considered to be of only general value. Subsequent periods are devoted to Jobs more closely related to the field of Industrial Relations. An effort is made to give students experience 16 in both business and labor organizations. Although they are urged to locate their own Jobs wherever possible, students are assisted by Placement Counselors from.the School. Reports are required from.students and employers for each.work period. This program.resemb1es the cooperative system.at several points, but falls short of the total number of weeks required in.most programs. It would seemtthat the nature of the curriculum at this institution would make it advisable to provide more work experience, and that a five-year cooperative program could be established without greatly altering the course of study. Interneships. For many years it has been customary for students in Medicine, Education, Dietetics, Occupational Therapy, and.other fields of work to serve an.interneship at the end of their formal training before attaining full professional status. Some similar programs on an optional basis have been developed in Accounting and other phases of Business Administration. Internes are usually unpaid, or receive only nominal compensation and, possibly, maintenance. Since there is only one work~ period, the mutual stimulation of alternating work and class periods is lost. “While such work is essential in these programs, and does not dis- rupt college schedules in any way, it fails to act as a substitute for a , cooperative program. III Related Developments Evening colleges. In the course of this study, several colleges which were contacted reported that, although they did not have cooperative prog- rams, evening classes were maintained for employed persons. One of these, 17 The Cooper Union in.New York City, reported in a personal communication to the author that complete employment records were maintained for all students and efforts were made to place them in engineering work paral- leling their studies. Similar reports were received from.oarnegie Insti- tute of Technology, American University, and the School of’Engineering, University of Pittsburgh. The last-named institution was included by Armsby in his second report on COOperative colleges. However, in the present study, the school declined to complete a questionnaire and furnished information which indicates that students spend thirty to forty hours a week in industry, and only ten hours per week in class. Therefore, this must be considered as primarily a.part-time program, Students receive scholarships from.participating companies, but are not granted any credit for work experience. ‘Although information was not sought from.all of the ninety-two colleges which.make up the Association of University Evening Colleges as to their relationship with business and industrial firms, it has been reported at a recent conference that the association is attempt- ing to establish an EducationéBusiness Center to study means of relating their programs to the needs of business (18). Tuition refund plans. A number of companies have, in recent years, sought to encourage employees to further their education by offering to pay all or part of the tuition costs for part-time courses related to their work. In most cases, payment is made after successful completion of each course. According to a recent survey (23), refunds usually cover at least one-half of the tuition. Some companies pay on a sliding scale ranging from.one-fourth to all of the tuition, depending upon the grade received. 'While these programs do not bear any direct relationship to the 18 cooperative system, they indicate to some extent the willingness of employers to give financial support to employee education apart from.in- service training programs. Graduate copperative prOgrams. Some employers have established subsidized educational programs for employees who are interested in training beyond the bachelor's degree. Although a few of these are based upon alternating school and work periods, most of them.involve evening classes, often given at company plants or offices. One of the most widely known examples of this type is the Westinghouse Graduate Training Program. Classes are conducted at all plants, and, in some cases, company executives have been given faculty appointments in cooperating colleges so that they may assist in.instruction. Arrangements have been made whereby students, usually scientific and technical workers, may perform.research for the company, and receive credit for this work toward an advanced degree. A few true cooperative programs are operated by colleges which offer under- graduate programs in Retailing. These are intended to supply intensive training and experience for persons with no previous background in the field. ‘With these exceptions, most so-called graduate c00perative programs do not actually meet the definition of cooperative programs set forth earlier. High school cooperative programs. These may be said to have had their origin in the school for retail sales girls founded by Mrs. Lucinda Prince in Boston in the year 1905. By 1912, similar classes were being offered in some public high schools. Cooperative work-study courses were established in the Cincinnati Public Schools in 1910, following the lead set by Dean Herman Schneider at the University of Cincinnati. These 19 programs have multiplied rapidly, and in l9h7, Ivins (1%) reported that twelve hundred and eighty-nine high schools were offering some type of cooperative program. A part of this growth may be attributed to the fact that Federal aid was made available for the support of cooperative programs under the Smith-Hughes and George-Dean Acts. High school programs, as described extensively by Ivins and.Runge (15), are frequently offered on a split day basis, with one-half devoted to work and the other to related training and general education. This arrangement, plus the limita- tions upon child labor imposed by state and federal laws, raises a number of problems with which the college coordinator need not be concerned. Also, since college students often travel out-of-town to cooperative Jobs, numerous problems are raised which are peculiar to these programs. As the organization and operation of these programs has been so thoroughly developed by Ivins and Runge (15), no further reference to high school COOperatives will be made in this study. Specialized training pgggggmg for industry. In recent years, many companies have made use of the facilities of local colleges and universi- ties in the training of employees at all levels. Short, intensive programs have been developed for all types of positions, ranging from.Hospital Housekeepers at Michigan State College to top business executives in Harvard's Advanced.Management Course. A recent survey (2%) lists fifteen universities which offer concentrated courses for executives. Many others offer training for foremen, technicians, and other workers through extension or continuing education divisions. Although such programs are not directly related to the cooperative system, they represent a degree of employer-college cooperation which.might be applied to the programs covered in this study. A proposal for improving present cooperative programs through a greater degree of employer participation will be outlined in Chapter II. IV The Development of College Cooperative Programs Herman Schneider and the Cincinnati Program. The original idea of cooperative work-study programs for college students is generally attributed to Dean Herman.Schneider of the School of Engineering, University of Cin- cinnati. Park, his biographer (26), has given us a very lucid picture of the life of Dean.Schneider and the way in which he first conceived the idea of cooperative programs. As a young man, the Dean was employed in the offices of an architect while attending Lehigh University. After graduation, he worked as an architect in private practice, and as a bridge construction engineer for a railroad. He then returned to Lehigh as an instructor in Civil Engineering. In the course of his teaching, he became interested in reviewing the basic concepts of engineering education. Recognizing through his own experience the value of some practical experience for engineering students, he was not satisfied with the usual engineering shop courses, as taught in most colleges at that time. He soon realized that such shops, even if they were expanded to include production of goods for sale, would be restricted in the scope of their operations. Their equipment would tend to become obsolete, since the volume of production would not Justify frequent purchase of new and up-to-date machinery. He came to the conclusion that the best place for students to secure expe- rience was in industry. His problem was to discover a way in which 21 theoretical knowledge and first-hand experience could be combined. Park's description of the way in which the idea came to him reads as follows: One evening after teaching hours Herman.Schneider was pondering this question while he walked across the Lehigh University campus. Suddenly he was startled out of his reverie by the blast of a Bessemer converter at a near-by steel plant. In that moment an idea came to him that offered a possible solution to his problem. Here was a huge modern industry existing side by side with a university---a vast industrial laboratory filled with the latest, most expensive equipment made to order for his scheme of training. At the end of their college course many young men now studying in Lehigh‘University would find employment in.these steel mills, as other graduates had done before them. ‘Why not have this employment begin on a part-time basis while they were still in college, and make the work a recognized part of their training? Swiftly his imagination followed out the possi- bilities of the scheme. He went home in an exalted frame of mind.and sat up late, mapping out details of an educational project that became increasingly absorbing as he considered‘ its far-reaching implications. (26:hh). In subsequent discussions with his colleagues, Schneider encountered many objections, but maintained his interest in what was to be known as the cooperative plan. At this time one of his friends introduced hum to the writings of.Marcus'Vitruvius Pollio, a Roman architect and engineer. He found in these writings considerable support for his ideas. Although they were directed to architects, they seemed to have merit for engineers as well. He was known to quote‘Vitruvius in.Book I of his writings, as saying: "It follows, therefore, that architects who have aimed at acquiring manual skill without scholarship have never been able to reach a.position of authority to correspond to their pains, while those who relied upon theories and scholarship were obviously hunting the shadow, not the substance." (26:h8). Before making a direct application of his idea to engineering education, Schneider made a study of Lehigh graduates who had shown.marked engineering 22 ability soon after completing their college course. He found that nearly all of them had done one or more of the following: 1. Worked while attending college; 2. Worked during vacation; or 3. Stayed out of college a semester or a year and worked in order to obtain money to continue their studies (26:50). During the Fall of 1901, Schneider developed a detailed plan for his new system.of education. He envisioned a new institution, sponsored by industry, which.would offer engineering education on.a purely cooperative basis. Although this scheme, which he later outlined in a paper entitled "A Communication on Technical Education:" was received with interest by a number of industrial executives in the Pittsburgh area, no support was found for such a college. It was not until he moved to the University of Cincinnati in 1903 that Schneider found an opportunity to try out his scheme. Soon after his appointment as Assistant Professor of Civil.Engineer- ing, he presented a copy of his paper on technical education to the new president of the University, Dr. Charles W. Dabney. At the same time, he was engaged in presenting his idea to industrial groups in.Cincinnati. Although he failed to win.immediate approval from.a local trade associa- tion because of the disparaging remarks of another educator, many individual employers expressed interest in the pr0posal. Since two of these individ- uals were members of the University's Board of’Directors, the idea soon received support and encouragement at the highest levels. Having satis- fied his colleagues on the faculty that the preposed program would not result in any reduction of academic standards, Schneider was given.permission 23 to go ahead. In September, 1906, the first group of twenty-seven young men began their training under the cooperative system. They were divided into two groups, with one unpaired, and alternated every other week between shop and classroom. Professor (now Dean) Schneider assumed the responsibility of coordination, visiting the students at work and Sunday conferences with them.when necessary to avoid interfering with.work or class schedules. By the second year, enrollment had grown to seventy, selected from.over four hundred applicants. Since space requirements threatened to halt further expansion of the program, new buildings were planned. At this point the chief financial advantage of the COOperative system.was noted by university authorities. In estimating the cost of new buildings, they were able to limit their proposed classroom and laboratory space to that needed for one-half of the proposed enrollment. This discovery had far—reaching implications which have never been fully realized. They will be explored in.more detail in a later chapter. By 1912, a total of fifty-five firms were cooperating with the University (26:37), while cooperative enrollment had risen to two hundred and ninety-four. Some companies were located outside Cincinnati. From this point the cooperative plan grew by leaps and bounds. In 1919 a cooperative curriculum in Commerce was established, and the following year, the four-year curriculum in.Bngineering was abandoned and the entire school.p1aced on the cooperative plan. By this time, one hundred and thirty-five firms were participating in the program, and a centralized Department of Coordination was established to handle relations between the University, students, and employers. This department was able to draw upon 21+ information collected by Dean Schneider during the twelve years when he coordinated the program. These data included: (a) Plans for sequential training in.practica1 work; (b) Methods of acquainting the students with.phases of engineering outside of their particular branch; (c) Stages of development to be expected in the successive years of study and practical experience; (d) Types of problems and reports to be looked for in various industries; (e) Occupations and working conditions best suited to the educational purposes of the cooperative course; (f) Types of industry most likely to provide steady employ- ment, and hence to insure smoothness and continuity in the operation of the course (26:195). Using this information, the Department of Coordination.was able to systematically grade experience and plan work sequences for students in specific curriculums. ‘When at a later date a School of Applied.Arts was established, the cooperative systemvwas again used, and coordination was provided through the centralized department. One may note in the development of the cooperative system at the University of Cincinnati the basic features which characterize nemy'present- day programs. These may be summed up as: 1. Experience directly related to the curriculum. 2. .A progressive sequence of experiences. 3. Coordination by a centralized agency within the University. Although, as we shall see in subsequent chapters, most of the existing programs, including all of the Engineering colleges, are patterned after the Cincinnati Plan, a slightly different type of cooperative program.has been developed for use in liberal arts colleges. While retaining many of the features of the Cincinnati Plan, it makes certain.modifications to fit the somewhat different mission of the institution. Such a program is now in operation at Antioch College, Yellow Springs, Ohio. 25 The Antioch Plan. ‘Work experience as a part of general education is the main theme of the program.at Antioch. This system, which has become more widely known than the original, was instituted by Arthur E. Morgan when he became president of the college in 1920. In reviewing its basic purposes in a speech thirty-four years later, Mr. Morgan said: In the original formulation of the present Antioch program.as a whole, the underlying aim.was the development in good proportion of the entire personality. The work program is an.integral part of that over-all purpose. It is in the very nature of the human species that much of our growing and learning must be through acts of doing, and not Just by reading and thinking about doing. we recog- nize this truth in learning to play baseball or in learning to play a.musica1 instrument, and in the sciences by laboratory work. ‘We do not see it so clearly where the abilities to be developed are less tangible, as in economic life in learning to Judge issues, to weigh circumstances, to appraise values or to develop the emotional stamina necessary for making hard decisions. (22). ' In his original plan President Morgan included several small campus industries as a nucleus for the work program. ‘While these were estab- lished and, for the most part, have survived, they have never been a maJor source of employment. In the present program, as described by Henderson and Hall (10), freshmen are given a vocational orientation course, and are required to spend ten hours a week for twenty weeks on a paid Job at the College. They also write a Life Aims paper in which they describe their present occupational interests and goals. The first few off-campus placements are made with the intention of letting students try out dif- ferent types of work, and are aimed at furthering their personal develop- ment. Students are normally expected to keep subsequent Jobs for a year (two work periods), and the average student works for five different employers during his college period. No attempt is made by the college to keep the same Jobs intact, to be filled year after year. For example, 26 in l9h0-h1, 2h% of the employers were new (10:129). This is in marked contrast to the Cincinnati program, in which the main purpose was to provide work experience which would be closely related to the classroom program, often involving all work periods in one company. At Antioch all work programs are individually p1anned.with the assistance of the Personnel Department, and are intended to fit the student's personal needs as well as his intended field of concentration. In some cases, conflicts arise between a student's desire to obtain only specialized experience and the Personnel Counselor's desire to arrange a broader variety of experiences. In most cases, the latter prevails. The Antioch adaptation of the cooperative system appears to be highly suited to the needs of a liberal arts college, in which curriculums are not as often occupationally oriented. However, this example has not often been followed. Although.most programs tend to follow more closely the Cincinnati Plan, the Antioch modification remains a challenge to scores of liberal arts colleges who might benefit by its adoption. Further reference to this point will be made in a subsequent chapter dealing with the future of cooperative programs. Objectives of Cooperative Programs In this chapter, the development of cooperative programs has been traced. In the course of this discussion, a number of objectives may be noted as common to all programs. These may be summarized as: 1. ‘Work experience directly related to the student's major field of study. 2. ‘Vocational guidance. 27 3. Personal and social development. h. Financial aid to students. Although.most cooperative colleges would probably claim to achieve all of these objectives at some point in their programs, some differences in emphasis may be expected. It may be readily seen that in the Antioch modification of the Cincinnati Plan, the second and third objectives listed above take precedence over the first. Some colleges may place the fourth objective first in their programs. One of the purposes of this study is to establish the relative importance of these objectives in each program» as defined by college administrators. An attempt will also be made to examine the possible consequences of over-emphasizing any one objective to the detriment of the others. 28 CHAPTER III THE GROWTH AND PRESENT STATUS OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS The growth 3: cooperative programs. Even before the success of the Cincinnati program had been fully recognized, otha colleges began to adopt the cooperative plan. According to Armsby (3:6), two other colleges joined Cincinnati by 1910, six between 1911 and 1920, six more beWeen 1921 and 1930, four from 1931-11-0, ten from l9’+l-50, and six since 1950. One of the original three, the University of Pittsburgh, discontinued its program in 1930, and has now re-established it in a limited form, as described in Chapter II. Six programs were suspended during World War II, and nineteen colleges which conducted c00perative programs during the years 1919-1952 have discontinued them. During the preparation of this study, four colleges began cooperative degree programs, all in the Fall Term, 1951+. Two of these, Pennsylvania Military College and Purdue University, were in the field of Engineering. A third, Colorado State College of Education, offered a program in Busi- ness Education, and the fourth, Rochester Institute of Technology, added an additional year to some of its present terminal cooperative courses. The present status 9; c00perative colleges. In this study, completed questionnaires were received from forty-six colleges which offer coopera- tive programs. One other sent supplementary material, but did not complete 'a questionnaire. Adding nine other colleges listed by Armsby (1+) , a total of fifty-six colleges offered cooperative programs leading to undergraduate 29- degrees in the Fall Term, 1953. Most of the colleges listed by Armsby were contacted in the course of this study. Two refused to complete the questionnaire because of the press of business, three stated that their programs were too new or too small for responses, and the others did not respond. These colleges have been divided for the purpose of analysis into three groups (See Table I). The first group is composed of colleges offering cooperative programs only in the area of’Engineering. In a few cases, other programs are offered, but are coordinated separately and are entirely independent. There are twenty-four colleges in this group. With.one not reporting, they have a total enrollment of 5,071 students, or an average enrollment of 221.4 students per college. The second group is composed of twenty-five colleges offering coopera- tive courses in areas other than.Engineering. They have a total enroll- ment of 182k students, with.an.average of 82.9 per college. Twelve of these colleges offer courses in.Betailing, eleven in other phases of Business Administration, and smaller numbers in.Bducation, Liberal Arts, Physics, Chemistry, Commercial.Dietetics, and.Mechanical Industries (See Table II). The third type of institution, offering both.Engineering and.Non- Engineering courses centrally coordinated, includes only seven colleges. However, their total enrollment is 11,739 students, nearly twice as many as the other two groups combined. The enrollment is divided into 7,3h5 Engineering and h,39h Noanngineering students, and the average enroll- ment is 1,677 students per college. In subsequent discussions, these colleges will be referred to as the Mixed group. In combining the figures from all types of institutions, a total of 30 TABLE I ENROIIMENT IN COOPERATIVE COllEGES FALL 1953 ENGINEERING Cooperative Type of College Enrollment Control * University of Akron . . . . . . . . . . 101 . . . . . . . . . . Public Bradley University . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . Private University of California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Berkeleyooooooooooooooo36000000000000. ,3}.- Los Angeles 0 C O O O O O I O O O O O O 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O CornellUniverBity oooooooooo 390.coooooooPrivate # University of'Delaware . . . . . . . . 2O . . . . . . . . . . Public UniversityOfDenver...c..... BooooooooooPri-vate * UniverSity Of DEtrOit o o o o o o o o .1330 o o o o o o o o o 0 Private University of Florida . . . . . . . . . Few . . . . . . . . . . Public # Georgia Institute of Technology . . . . 905 . . . . . . . . . . Public # University of Houston . . . . . . . . . (l) . . . . . . . . . . Public Illinois Institute of Technology . . . 90 . . . . . . . . . . Private Ighigh university 0 I O O O O O O O O O 12 O O O O O O O O O O Prj-va'te * University of Louisville . . . . . . . #50 . . . . . . . . . . Private # Marquette University . . . . . . . . . lbs . . . . . . . . . . Private Massachusetts Institute of Technology . 205 . . . . . . . . . . Private MiChiganStateCOllegeoooooooo sooooooooooPublic University of Minnesota . . . . . . . . 91 . . . . . . . . . . Public * NorthweStem univerSity o g g o o g g g 813 o o o o o o o o o 0 Private Remselaer POWCMiC InStitu‘be o o o 1+8 0 o o o o o o o o 0 Private * Southern.Methodist University . . . . . 1&9 . . . . . . . . . . Private University of Tennessee . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . . . Public # Virginia Polytechnic Institute . . . . 318 . . . . . . . . . . Public Wayne‘University . . . . . . . .-. . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . Public (1) Enrollment not available * Cooperative required # Data from Armsby Tetalooooooooo 00000005071 Public'le Private- 12 TABLE I ENROIIMENT IN COOPERATIVE COLLEGES FALL 1953 NON-ENGINEERING 31 Cooperative College ‘ Enrollment Type of Control Adej-Phi (3011-889 0 o o o o o o o o o o 1 o o o o o o o * AntiOCh College 0 o o o c o o o o o o &)O o o o o o o 0 Bradley University 0 o o o o o o o o LI'O o o o o o o 0 University Of Buffalo 0 o o o o o o o (l) o o o c o o 0 City 0011886 or New york 0 o o o o o (1) o o o o o o 0 University Of Dayton 0 o o o o o o o 25 o o o o c o o Drake university 0 o o o o o o o o o 130 o o o o o o 0 Fairmont State 0011889 0 o o o o o o 3 o o o o o o o # Univer81ty Of Georgia 0 o o o o o o o 6 o o o o o o o HOfStra 0011986 0 o o o o o o o o o o 1‘5 o o o o o o 0 LOB Angeles 8133138 0011683 0 o o o o o 99 o o o o o o o Marquette University . . . . . . . . 26 . . . . . . . MarSha-ll (1011886 0 o o o o o o o o o w o o o o o o 0 University Of Michigan 0 o o o o o o 7 o o o o o o 0 North Texas Stage College . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . University Of Oklahom o o o o o o o 20 o o o o o o 0 University of Omaha . . . . . . . . . l8 . . . . . . . Sta JOSEPh'B (2011886 0 o o o o o o o 30 o o o o o o o # JOhn B. Stetson UIliverSity o o o o o 50 o o o o o o 0 Syracuse University . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . * makeegee InStitute o o o o o o o o o 83 o o o o o o o ‘Washdngton‘University (St. Louis) . . A5 . . . . . . . Wayne University 0 o o o o o o o o o 75 o o o o o o 0 Western 1410111ng 0011883 0 o o o o o 30 o o o o o o o Wilijlg'bOn 0011889 0 o o o o o o o o 200 o o o o o o o (l) Enrollment not available f Cooperative required # Data from Armsby To tal O O O O O O .0 O O O O O O O O 1821‘ O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Private Private Private Private Public Private Private Public Public Private Public Private Public Public Public Public Public Private Private Private Private Private Public Public Private Public - 11 Private- 1% 32 TABLE I ENROLLMENT IN COOPERATIVE COHECES FALL 1953 MIXED Cooperative Enrollment Type of College Engineering NonsEngineering Control Alabama Polytechnic Institute . . . . 238 . . . . 58 . . . Public * university Of Cincmati o oo o o o o 1371 o o o o 1.671" c o 0 Public (l)Drexel Institute of Technology . . . 11+8o . . . . 633 . . . Private Evansville College . . . . . . . . . 126 . . . . 2 . . . Private * Fenn College . . . . . . . . . . . . h2h . . . . 386 . . . Private # General.Motors Institute . . . . . . 1673 . . . . 175 . . . Private (2)N0rtma8tern univerSity o o o o o o o 2033 o o o 0 1,466 o o 0 Private (1) Cooperative required in Engineering and.Retail.Management (2) Cooperative required in Engineering * Cooperative required # Data from.Armsby TOtalso00000000000000.73’45gg h391+ Pub110-2 Beth...000000..coo0.00.00.00.011739Pr1vate-5 Grand Totals Type of Control Type of College Cooperative Enrollment Public Private Engineeringoooooooooooo50710000000012.0012 Non'Engineerj-Ilg o o o o o o o o o o 1821" o o o o o o o o 11 o o o 11" Mixed-o00.000000000001173900oooooo20005 TOta1-000000000000001863h’o0000000250003]- Type of Student Enrollment Engineering . . . . . l2h16 Nonilngineering . . . . . . . . 6218 TOtal O O O O O O O O O O O O 1‘863’I+ O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O N O 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O H O O O O O O O O o O O 0 0 O O K O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O O x O O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O O O O O O O O N I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O H O O O O I O H O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I N I O O O O O O O O 0 O O O N O O 0 O O O O O 0 N O 0 O 0 O I x O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O O x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O x O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O I R O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 0 O O O x O O O O O O N O 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 0 O O K O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I N O 0 O O O O x O O O O I MONO» O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O H O O O O O O O O O O 0 O I O O O O O O 0 O O I O O O O O O O N C O 0 O O O N O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O C O O O C O O H O O O I O O O O O O O O O . . . nonwssflaz nomEofiE gopmmz o o o 0 0D. 85.33 messes .smv .o cosmonaut: opspapwaH mowooxmsa . . . .D.mmsosshm . nonempm .m 50H. . . m.£mmmoh. .9m 0 O O Ego “0 OD . macadaao mo .5 opspm mounts mpaoz . ssmEoE no .o o o o o HHEQHGE . . 4D wppdesmz spasm moaomq< mom 0 o o o o “HPm.HCm . . sfimaooe mo .3 . spasm poogsom O O O 0 OD ”Um-ma . . soprano .8 .9 3oz mo owed—moo hen—”o . . OHdMHDM .H0 .D o O O o o thchm o o o o o fiHOOHPg . . . . . Easter moaupdecH decadence: soaocsoao Hmsosmasoo Cameraman 3.2 soasnosem wfiflcscm cospoficssefia no mofimmsmwassopwg mmoqamsm sma< omoHHoo I I ' amafiadquqnoo UszmuBaHuzmuzOz I Em .mo mag meg HH Emdn. 3h mpfipfipmaH mp0poE.Hwhmam0 .b.aampmamApaoz O O O O 0 2mm . . mHHH>mnd>m hmoaocnoma mo .pmcH memhm 33588 mo .2 . . . . 330338 «53.02 .mqm eamzo a. Epmamfi £93 a 3.3 3393. moflnoaoom maom 3:3 8385323 Hahmnfiq mmmaamdm dmhd mnfihmmdawqm mmmaaoo mmwmgqoo QMNHE I MDDBm ho m.ocan...coco-cocoo-oocooooooooooooooooooAHV0.0.0559 “Hflm «bug «980m mQHoooooocoooooooPNcoooooNNoocooooPNoooooooPNooooooooococoooooHW$HGSG QQHHG>.oooooooooocoooooooooococoooooooooococo.AHVcocooooooooooooooooofgwm QP OQQOQOwNooooooWNococoowmcooooooocococo.0000.00.00.00000000000M3 MH mp cocoa-@NoooooowmoooooammooooocooooooooooooooooooooooAom>¢v ome MH 0: 0.0.0.0....OOOOMOOOOOOmH...O...00.0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOIOmM3 wt” in ooooooocoooooomHoooooomHooooooomfloooocooococo...oooooooooooooOQEwm ”N 000000cocooooommoooooowmooooocomma.oooocooooooooooooooooooooomqa m NF cocoooNHoooococo.coo-come.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooomx3 NH\OW OPIQMooooooQHooooOMlONooooOMlONooocoo...ooooooooooococooooooooooomxp OH Hopoe Mosh new noon :9: now» ohm pooh dam pooh pma xnoz tease. . . . . . 3e: 2955 mppmsesi C cmM3.HHooooooooooomHHHPGfisog MO 0D prhwfidoooooooooohpfimhmpfiub.gmfigmg ammo: :Qonmeome mo mpsflpmfi 305a: 28mm......aoumsom mo apamnobfisb nopHmsa..sooB mo oompfipmsH sngoooAmv eaom......sdfinoah Mo hpampobfinDAmV as: 3.....5338 mo $3853 .mx3 HH.......uoesmn Mo hpflmnobfisb .3? 9......zéfimhm5a: 38.80 GammoooooooOoOOQQOoMGHqu¢ mOH AMV .008 m ococoonooooooooooothmMHQM safiofiio so 53.35am .mxw ma.........hpfimhobanp hmadshm .mxk oa........donxd_mo hpamgobfigp ’ mmwao omoaaoo dmswfimmd Mao; mo mxooz. moofiuom mo npmsoq OZHmMHZHUZM "mmwmuuoo m>H9 0.00.0000...coco-cocooooooooooOooooooooooooocooAHvooooomQam#\mm oQQSM#\WMooooooocooooohpfimhmpfigp mph“: :Qfllmm coco-000.00...ommlwfloooonooooommocoocomm.cocoooowmoooooohmpfiflfid ngfidfidoooopqu OHQQOQFBHOW_GHGHWHH>AMV dm coo-00.0.0.0...o.aim...cooooo0#NooooooimooooooooNHooooooocMQfi m oDQE Moocooommmmmdgwa MO hpfimhmbfigp mm oooooomfloooooooooommoooocooocowNoooooomNoooooooooococooooomM3 w 0mg? moo-cocooos.fideQgflmz.gHMQ950m 6 OOOOOOdlfiO00.0o...0+~nfi000OOOOOOOQHOOOOOOQHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOQM3 QHI:H 0mg: @HOODVQHHH GHEompbfiom “gnfimmgwm QP cocooOMHooooooooooWNcoooooooooWNocoo.oMHooooooooooooooooHUPHQSG HUPHQSGoooooothQHMVHQD.gfimpmngPHOz 8 000.com“...cocoooommoooooooooowmococooooococooooooooooochmpfisd “mgpadaoooooogommgz Mo hvfimhmpgp QJ coco...ocooooocoocdmooooooocoofimooocoo...QOOOOQOOOOOooooHUPHQSG “mphflsaoocoooommmflHoo mpnpm gdmfl£OHz PW ooooooMNooooooooooNNoooooocoooNNoococooooocooooocoooococo.005 d omoa #oooooooooonome HO oPmGH ommflzANv my mofiho> .mxs :QH moahnb .maz ma mofiad> .me: om .mx: #:H .mhn ooom nooqfi .mxs mm .mas :0 .mp3 mm mmfinsb .33 mm .mxz OmandQH .95 0mm cocoa.oooooooooooooooooflmvcoo.oooooooooooooooOoooooooooooomQE w omxx wfloooooommmHHOO mpwpm deQB SPHOZ ooowfloo.o.ooooOMoooOQQQHOOOOoOMOOOOOOOQHOQooooooooooooooomx3 QH omxs @HooooooooocdmfiSOfiznho hpflmhm>HQD coco-00.000000000000000.Amycocooooooooooooooooo.one.ooooomM3 0H 0mg: wfloofiflvoooooooooommmflHOQ HHGSQHGZ coo...oooQOOoomHomafiylHHSM 980m H HO mafiplpfidm 980m N I oQM’ “H omxg “Hoooooococochpfimkwbflgp mpPQSUHmz cocoooooooooooooooocoooOANvcoo-cocoooxmm3 “mm omhg mH\® omx3 ON om¥3 ONOOOAHVWWQHHOO mpdpm MQHme¢ Gog oooo...oooo.o.OMoooooocoo-000.000...coo-cocooncocoooooooomx3 0H omxg wflooaAHvcocooooooommmHHOO flhpmMom .:N.Hsmh n90 #NooooooCosimo.ocoofimoooooJNooncocoodmooooQOQOOoooQMM3 NH\HH H®PHG50000A#V¢OOO$H®HO®U MO hPHmHmbflgD cocooooooooomhdog OONIOQHooococoo...cocoooooooooooooooooomx3 mH om“: QHOOOAHVOOOUmmHHOU mpdpw “goshfidh coo.ocoooooooowMOoomdapmHHQU Pd QEHPIHst WM003 Mn+ Mm03\mhdd N oQM? QHOOOAHVcocoooooohpflmhwbflab.mxdpg oo.ocoooooooooNMooooooNMoo-ooooooooooccoco-cocooooooooooomx3 0H 00x3 WHoQOAHVooooonOPhdg “0 hpfimhm>HGD coo...ooooooooNM00000000000000ooooooooooooooAmhddlMHflgv omM3 WH oQM? WHoooAHVoMHOW zmz.%o QWQHHOO MPHU cocooooocoooocooooooooooANVcoococo-coooooooooooocooOOOOOOMM3 @H 0mg? QHOOQAHVOOOQOHGHM5m HO hpfimhmbflgp oooNMoooooooooooocoooocoo-000000.00...oooooo...0¢0¢000000@¥3 0H 0mg; WHoooAHVcacoocohPHMHmbfidD.hmflddhm ooommoooooooommooooooowmooooooWNoooooooQNlOooocoo-cocoomx3 NH\® omxg NH\®oooooooooooooooowmmfifloo MOOHPd< oooooocoooomhg ONMoooococooooooooooocoooooooooooMHSQfl MHOPQ OWH oMM3 “HoooAHvcoco-cocoomwMHHOU H£QH®d¢ asses Hook nan hook my: now» dam nook dam too» and dmowfimmd #33 Mo mama: #903 mde0 mmmaaoo meofiumm mo spasms .02Hmmm2HQZanoz "mmUmHHOO m>HB¢mmmOOo 2H mzmmaedm mbHademHZHznd HHH mHm .mxs am .93 com hnmahd 809% spam sz ssnmoum chMASosoo pooh m we pamsomssoz amanpdeqH .haco sofipsQSdm HoaupmddsH nachos span AmV accoflpao ma asawonm o>fipoammooo yo mafia msfipnspm Amy meHnom HOOAom and Moos pGoHASodoo Adv 0000000000000000wM00000QM0000000WM00Mhdd 09H“ I 0mg: mH 0mM3 ®H00AHV000000000000®W®HHOO gopmaflaHfig. om 00000000000000000 OOO00®H0000000®H000000wH0000000me3 ®H 0mM3 ®H00000000000mmmflnfi00 gmgofizgmpmmz 0000000000000000NM00000.0000.000NM000000000000000mM3 wH 0mg: mfl00AMV00000000000000thme>HgD ugh“; ............oafle Has“ apnea oso.+.Mmo3\mmse m n .mxs ma .mxz ma..nav......an:oq .pmv.b.dopwaanmu3 om 0000000000000000JW000001N0000000@H000000WH00000000003 W 0WQE NH0000000000000000$P§PHPQGH mmmmmxmde 00000000000000000M00000000o00000000M003\0@H§ m 00M: @H 0QM3 ®H000hHV0000000000thmH0>HnD.UQSOQHKW 000000®H000000000N000000®H00000000N00000®H000000M3 ®H\® 00M; ®H\®000AJV0000000000005 dompmpm 0m.q£0h 00o0000000.0000000000000000ANV0000000000000000000mM3 NH 0mg: 0H0000000000000000mmflfloo MfgmmmOh 0pm 000000.000000000NM000000NM00000000000000000000000mM3 WH 0mx3 WH000AHV0000000000QSQEO MO hpfimhmbfigp 0000000000H5Q£ OOM0000000000000000000000000000000MM3 QH 00M? ®H000AHV0000000QEQQQHMO M0 hPHmHGPHGD .70 0 O h? sea 04H sea em a 8 a: .......wm.......wm.......wm........wm...................mM3 QH\m .......::.......em.......:m........am.........:m.........ma3 ®\: .......mH.......wm.......mm........mm.........ma..........mM3 ma .......NH.......:N.......:m........em.....................mg3 NH COO...0S0...OOOJN.0.0.0.:NOOOOOOOOJNO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOmVH3 Nfi 00.0.0030...OOOwN...O00.6NOOOOOOOOWMNOOOOOOOOOQ OOOOOOOOQMS :IH.\~£ oofimoogmh £90 +~N0000000+~N0000000+~N00000000+~N000000000+~N0000000000mvm3 Nufl apmaaa;aogm span adv .mx3 0H\m........hpfimno>fisb.dhopmsospnoz .83 w}: 3 twpfiflmfi 28.02 Stems .exa ma...................mmmaaoo doom .mxs ma.............omoaaoo maafibmsdbm .mxs ma.......noma mo opdpfipmsH Hoxona as: fi\e.......3nqfiofio mo 3333a: .33 «1......35 393328 sauna: Hopoe Adah nan Hash me: soon ohm Hook dam use» pad I'll". M903 mdeo ommHHoo docmfimmd anoz ho maomz mefiuom no npmsoq QHNHE "mmumnqoo m>HB¢mmmooo 2H mzmMBBdm MbHB < m ’1 no (N (D E G B 0" <0 '1 O "h m 5 ’0 5—4 0 a: (D >1 m a O b ('9‘ so a (‘9' (p Q- I: E m ... ,_. t< 0‘ << (I: a) 0 =7 «a CD a: w ’0 m -1 o m D a, O ..., 1+ H- E a: Q 0 o o 0 >1 :2. H- D m er 0 "l U) U: ’G n: :1 Q. 0 m H, o ’C r: m “x: Are coordinators responsibilities assigned on the basis Dig: ----- student's major field loeation of job type of business or industry other (specify) F C. Cooperative Jobs 1. Are most students paid a special cooperative rate according to the job held Other (specify) ________ 2. Are most students placed in pairs? 3. What percentage of the Jobs filled are ---------------------- on a seasonal basis?_ 4. What percentage of job assignments are:- 1 100~500 miles away more than 500 miles away our :38. principal sources of job openings ? please rank in ____within 100 miles 5. What are order 0 Direct requests from employers Personal contacts by faculty members Coordinators’ visits Former students Present students locating their own jobs Other (specify) H!!! D Integration of School and Work Periods 1. What reports on work length and frequency) a. From students periods are required? (please indicate PLEASE ENCLOSE SAMPLES 0F FORMS USED. ______ 2. S ed te t 00]. W0 k peliences? What techniques 8.! e 1! to in gra e sch and X' ex _ ‘ ' swap Sessions” faculty plant visits faculty work periods other (specify) coordination classes work syllabus III. Administrative Details A. Financial Arrangements 1. Do co-operative students pay any additional fees? 2. D;';;;21;;1;';;;';;223;;'3;}1;;';;;;';;;i;;;; """""""""""" Z. 2:8 company scholarships available to freshmen?::---Olniers? -------- ‘ ...: assets: 3.2135233522352222.“as ““5913?"— 5. (7" IV. 9 E. B. Employer—sponsored Programs 1. Do you participate in any program in which students are sponsored by an employer and are considered as employees throughout their college career?___ 2. Do you consider such programs desirable? ____________________________ Reasons__ Selection of students What requirements, other than college admission, have been established for entrance into the academic phase of your program? 2. Are students in the co-operative program required to maintain a higher scholastic average than that required for graduation? _______ If so, please indicate requirements ________________________________ Special Services for Co—operative Students 1. What services are provided by the school in connection with work periods? Please check those provided. Travel arrangements Housing near work location, or aid in locating same. Recreation Medical care other (specify) ----------------------------------------------- 2. Are any special arrangements necessary for the regulation of student conduct during work periods? _______________________________ Public Relations 1. What methods are used to publicize your program ? Publications (please enclose samples ____ Talks by coordinators ____ Talks by students I , ____ Other (specify) ______________________________________________ 2. Do you have an advisory committee compased of employers? ___________ If so, what use is made of it? d in curriculum planning. Aid in screening and assigning students to jobs Development of new job openings. ____ Other (specify) _______________________________________________ Objectives and Effects of the Co-operative Program A. Objectives Which of the following do you consider to be the most important ONLY ONE ob ective of your program? Please check 1 Better student orientation and vocational guidance Supplementaty training in students major field Financial aid to students 2. What additional goals do you feel that you are attaining? H B. Effects . 1 What changes has the co—operative program produced in school operations ? Please check those no e . ‘ . More complicated scheduling and registration More efficient use of physical plant Modified course content Reduction or elimination of inter—collegiate athletics Other (specify) _______________________________________________ 2. What do you consider to be the principal benefits of the co—operative system to your institution? 3. What were the principal problems encountered in the establishment and operation of your program. _-'__‘ 4. What do you consider your most pressing unsolved problem? __________ 5. Has any attempt been made to equate the direct cost of coordination with identifiable savings in college costs? _______________________ 6. Have any evaluative studies of your program been conducted?_ _____ 131251;?iaéi'clié'E‘rERExé'e's,’ ZiE'BiBi‘iéfiéétiffi'iaifi"86558561]; """ V. Future Plans A. Immediate 1. could you place more students than are now at work ? 2. no you expect to expand your program in the near future? _____________ In number of students? In subject fields covered? __________________________________________ 3. Do you feel that a moderate economic recession would have a serious effect upon your program ? B. Long Range 1. Do you feel that a considerable increase in the number of co-operative schools would have an adverse effect upon your operations? ____________________________ 2. te the co-operative system of education, rather than as a basis for inter- To facilitate this portion of the study, school comparisons. following names: please attach the ... At least five companies representative of those with whom you are now placing students (prefer ably those with whom you have had at least five years experience) [0 At least three companies which have discontinued co-operative relationships with your institution for reasons other than a shortage of available students. i;.Tflch hool on from agrams. a system ‘arisons. mach the you lave ;ive l a j. Ill-’3‘) '1‘ n -1 N'DI‘X (‘- 12h L II. III. COLLEGE COOPERATIVE STUDY Enployer information Form Basic Information Nweomepmy_ How many students are normally employed each year? _ H0w many colleges do they represent? What percentage are employed in alternating pairs? How long has your company been hiring cooperative students?_ "lessee H0w did your company first become interested in cooperative programs? Enployment Procedure A. HOW are cooperative students selected (check methods used) Accept all those sent by colleges Interview (s) with whom?_ Tests Review of school records __‘_ Review of personal data on application blank Other (specify) B. What percentage of the students hired are men_ _ _ _ _women_ _ _ _ _ C. What major fields of study are represented (give approximate % of each) ____ Engineering ____Liberal Arts ____ Business Administration ____Retailing __-_ Education ____0ther (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ Coordinat ion A. Personnel 1. What official is responsible for cooperative students in your Comp- any? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _____ 2. Are Collegefibordinators' visits sufficiently frequent to handle all problems which arise?_ _ ‘ 9“ Reports L Are report forms furnished by colleges generally adequate? ' _ How could they be improved? _ _ _ _ 2. Do you receive reports from colleges on students' grades and activities? _ _ _ _ _ 3.1f not. would such reports he of value to you?— - - — - - — - - — - C. Job Planning 1. Is a sequence of experiences in various jobs planned for each student_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ 2. May students choose jobs within the company? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IV. Financial Arrangements A. Payment of students ,4 ____ Training Department ____ other department (specify) B. Company Contributions L ion to their wages? 2. Does your company make any general contributions to colleges from Department in which they work which you receive cooperative students? V. Relations with Organized Labor A What is the average rate of pay for cooperative students? Who bears the cost of their payroll? Do any students receive financial aid (scholarships,etc.) in addit— 3 Do you pay any part of the colleges’ cost of coordination?_ Are cooperative students permitted to join a union?_ Are they required to join? _ What is the attitude of the union t students?_ _ _ VI. EValuation A. N w .9 students 1 How would you rate the average cooperative student, in comparison with your regular employees? Factor Attendance Quality of work Quan;ity of work Ability to get along with others company after graduation? What percentage of students usually Would you prefer to have students spend all your company? other qualifications being equal, would you graduates? _ _ Why? -2- Rating Good Average Poor receive job offers from your of their work periods in prefer to hire cooperative H B. Programs L What are the operation of VII. Future Plans A. Immediate 1 Do you plan to expand your utilization of cooperative students in the near future? in numbers of students in other plants or branches 1‘ wrn *1 1 1181’ $1334.41.“ in types of students principal weaknesses which you have observed in the cooperative programs? 2. Have current economic conditions caused any reduction in your employ— ment of cooperative students? _ B. Long Run 2. Do you feel L 3 Do you have plans for the eventual increase of your company's participation in cooperative programs? cooperative Do you feel programs would be of any benefit to your company? that an increase in the number of colleges operating . . . 9 for the usual college graduate orientation program in your company. that cooperative work periods can, in any way, substitute 6“" 8‘ s” 126 APPENDIX B - COLLEGE LETTER Highland Park Guidance Center Highland Park Junior College Third Avenue Entrance Highland Park 3, Michigan , 19__ Dear : Cooperative work-study programs are a comparatively recent addition to American higher education. ‘We have generally assumed that these programs are making a significant contribution to the welfare of students, colleges, and employers. Their continued development must depend, to a considerable extent, upon the verification of this assumption, and upon the amount of information about the "mechanics of cooperation" which is available to college administrators and employers. In an attempt to make such information available, and to test the above assumption, a study of the operating procedures and problems of cooperative colleges is now under way. It would appear that many of the methods and techniques which have made cooperative education successful have been developed by administrators to meet immediate needs. Their experience would be of immeasurable value to college and industrial leaders who are considering the establishment of a cooperative program. As a leader in the field of cooperative education, your assistance is requested in fUrnishing information on your program. All information obtained will be confidential, and a summary of the results will be sent to each participating college. A form.is enclosed for your convenience in supplying the necessary information. Please return it in the enclosed envelope, for which no postage is necessary. In addition, a copy of your current catalogue and any other publications relating to your cooperative program will be of great assistance. Very truly yours, Robert I. Hudson Study Director 127 APPENDIX B EMPLOYER LETTER Highland Park Guidance Center Highland Park Junior College Third Avenue Entrance Highland Park 3, Michigan , 19— Dear Mr. : Cooperative work-study programs are a comparatively recent addition to American higher education. 'We have generally assumed that they are making a significant contribution to the welfare of students, colleges, and employers. Their continued development must depend, to a considerable extent, upon the verification of this assumption. A key factor in the evaluation of these programs is the attitude of employers who have had experience with cooperative students. One of the more than forty colleges participating in a current study has listed your company as a representative employer. It is hoped that you will find it possible to furnish information on your experience. In addition, your comments and suggestions for the improvement of these programs will be welcome. A form.and a stamped envelope are enclosed for your convenience in replying. All information received will be confidential. You are invited to supplement your answers with any publications, forms, or materials used in working with cooperative students. Sample work sequences will be particularly appreciated. Your assistance will be of great value to educators in planning for the future development of cooperative programs. Very truly yours, Robert I. Hudson Study Director ROOM 352 Gigi! "Circulati'" 7»? Feb 14 ’57 f8” L7 '57 May 2 '57 c9- Mflla 0'58 Aug 7 '5? HM 141960‘3: nICHIan STnTE UNIV. LIsRnRIEs [IHIWIIWVIIIHININIWWI"IllIWIINIHWIH1| 3129310 390 2090