- ,V

A CQ'MWIARATNE DESCRI?TEVE ANALYSIS OF FIRST—YEAR
GRICIUWUREE SH€3RT COURSE AND EEGREE STUDENTS AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Thesis fat the beg!“ of P11. D.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Duane» L. Anderson
1965

  
   

   
  

LIBRARY

Michigan Stave
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
A COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF F IRST—YEAR

AGRICULTURE SHORT COURSE AND DEGREE STUDENTS
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

presented by
Duane L. Anderson
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Education

    

Major professor

Date May 10; 1965 V

0-169

 

 

ABSTRACT
A COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALXSIS OF FIRST-YEAR

AGRICULTURE SHORT COURSE AND DEGREE STUDENTS
AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by Duane L. Anderson

The purpose of this study was to make a comparative descriptive
analysis of first-year College of Agriculture short course and degree
students. Factors thought to be related to educational achievement
and educational and vocational advisement were used to explore the
differences which exist between the two types of students. It was
thought that certain data concerning agriculture short course students
would be helpful in making more accurate and realistic evaluations of
their achievement potential, their occupational aspirations, and their
academic and non-academic needs. Similar data is needed concerning
agriculture degree students; however, the central focus of this study
was upon the characteristics and needs of agriculture short course
students.

The subjects studied were enrolled in the Michigan State Uni-
versity College of Agriculture during the fill of 1961». The short
course population consisted of 176 first-year male students. The
degree population consisted of 199 first-year male students. No fe-
male, transfer, or foreign students were included in the study.

Data were gathered on five psychological and twelve socio-
logical factors. Personality traits were measured by the Sixteen
Personalitz m $22. The Michigan SE22 University M Beliefs
Check-list was employed to reveal work beliefs. The Rokeach Dogmgtism

Scale, Form 1; was used to quantify Openness or closedness of belief

Duane L. Anderson
systems. Level of occupational aspiration was measured by the Qgggpgr
33225;.Agpiration §g§lg. Academic aptitude was determined by the
College Qualification Test, Data concerning the sociological factors
were gathered through the use of a biographical questionnaire develOped
by the investigator.

Significant differences at the .05 level or beyond were noted
on the psychological factors indicating that, when compared to agri-
culture degree students, short course students are: (1) less emotion-
ally.mature or stable and.more apt to be worried or suspicious, (2)
less favorably inclined toward change within occupational roles and
toward physical mobility from one occupational situation to another,
(3) more dogmatic or closed minded in their belief systems, (#) lower
in levels of occupational aspiration, and (5) lower in academic
aptitude.

The following significant differences were noted on the socio-
logical factors analyzed. 'When compared.with agriculture degree stu-
dents, short course students: (1) have fathers who have completed
fewer years of school, (2) have fathers who are more often farmers or
engaged in non-professional occupations, (3) have fathers with less
income if they are not farmers, (4) are more often from farm homes,
(5) have more often made definite occupational career decisions, (6)
have received more parental encouragement to attend either a short
course or a degree program.rather than only a degree program, (7) have
completed more high school vocational agriculture courses, (8) have
had fewer job experiences outside of their field of agriculture study

area, (9) more often prefer to work with.machines instead of people.

Duane L. Anderson

[Assuming that these factors are related to educational achieve-
ment and future vocational adjustment, it was concluded that agriculture
short course students: (1) are more in need of counseling leading to
greater emotional and social maturity than agriculture degree students,
(2) need to be better acquainted with the necessity for changes within
individual occupational roles and the advantages available to those
who are physically mobile in their pursuit of work, (3) require dif-
ferent approaches to classroom instruction than agriculture degree
students, (#) need more vocational counseling than the average student
in order to raise their levels of occupational aSpiration and to assure
that their vocational career choice will be made on the basis of ob-
jective and realistic information, and (5) require different teaching
material and methods, different evaluative processes, and.more educa-
tional advisement than agriculture degree students. It was further
concluded that (6) the educational aSpirations of the sons are sub-
stantially affected by the attitudes and desires of the parents and
the fathers in particular, and (7) that the home location of the agri-
culture short course and degree students is related to their educa-

tional aspirations.

 

A COMPIRATIVE DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FIRST-YEAR
AGRICULTURE SHORT COURSE AND DEGREE STUDENTS

AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

by
. A!"
I

' t
I %
Duane L. Anderson

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
College of Education

1965

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is sincerely grateful to Dr. James W. Costar for
his encouragement, interest, and guidance as Committee and Thesis
Chairman.

The author is indebted to Dr. walter F. Johnson, Dr. Edward B.
Blackman, and Dr. John H. Useem for their valuable contributions as
Guidance Committee members.

Special appreciation is due Dr. Harold A. Henneman, Dr. Harold
J. Ecker, and Mr. Donald H. Shepard of the Short Course Department,
Dr. Richard M. Swenson, Director of Resident Instruction, College of
Agriculture, and Dr. Paul L. Dressel, Director of the Office of
Institutional Research. The support and encouragement of these
gentlemen has made this thesis possible.

The consideration, patience, and inepiration of Bettye,
Melinda, Dane, and.Wynn Anderson, the writer's wife and family, were

indispensable to the writer.

ii

Chapter

I

II

III

IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TIE PROBLm O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Introduction . . . . . .
Need for the Study . . .
Importance of the Study.
Purpose of the Study . .
Statement of the Problem
Factors to be Examined .
Deltmitations of the Study
Limitations of the Study .
Definition of Terms. . . .
smaryoooooooooo

O O O O O O

O O O O O O I 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 O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O O
C O O O O O O O O O
C O O O O O 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 O O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O O 0

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES . . .

overViSWoooooooooooooooooooo
College of Agriculture Students and Rural Youth
Examined in Previous Studies . . . . . . . . .
Short Course Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rural Youth and Related Studies. . . . . . . . .
Psychological and Sociological Factors in
Relation to Educational Achievement. . . . . .
SWryOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

PROCEDURE AND METHOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Preliminary Investigation. . . . . . . . . . . .
POpulations Used in the Study. . . . . . . . . .
Selection of the Populations and Data

Gathering Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Instruments Used in the Study. . . . . . . . . .
Research Hypotheses of the Problem . . . . .
Statistical Procedures for Analyses of the Data.

smary O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
ANan IS OF T HE DATA 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Psychological Factors Examined .
Sociological Factors Examined. .
Psychological Factors. . . . . .
Sociological Factors . . . . . .

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION, AND
RECOMNDATIONS . C O . . . . . . . . . O O 0 . . .

iii

0 O O O O O O O O O

Page
No.

H

HHI—sr—s
WNHOWQDVUWKAH

15
15

16
18

19

25
30

33

33
33

#1
#2

53
70
71

7e

Chapter

SW 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O 0
Purpose and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . .

FindingSooooooooooooooooooo
Conclusions and Discussion. . . . . . . . . . .
Composite Description of A Typical Agriculture

Short Course Stlldento o o o o o o o o o o o 0
Composite Description of A Typical Agriculture

Degree Student. 0 o o o o o o o o o 0
Recommendations for Further Research. .

Bmummlfl. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O
‘PPENDIX ‘0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0
APPENDIX B. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

0 O O O

102

122

Table
No.

10

11

12

13

1#

LIST OF‘TABLES

Mean scores of agriculture short course and
degree students on the Sixteen Personality

Factor. TeSto O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O C O O O 0

Mean scores of agriculture short course and
degree students on the Michigan State University

Work Beliefs Cheek-15.31;. o e e o o o o e o o o e o 0

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Rokeach Dogmatism
scale, Form E. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Occupational
Aspirationscaleeooooooeo'eoooooooo

Mean scores of agriculture short course and degree
students on the College Qualification Test . . . . .

Years of school completed by fathers of agriculture
short course and degree students . . . . . . . . . .

Years of school completed by mothers of agriculture
short course and degree students . . . . . . . . . .

Occupations of fathers of agriculture short course
anddegreeStUdentSooeoeooooeooooooo

Occupations of mothers of agriculture short course
and degree students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Estimated income levels and values of farms owned
by fathers of agriculture short course and degree

StUdentSooooeoooeooooooooooooe

Number of older brothers of agriculture short
course and degree students . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Home locations of agriculture short course and
degrBCStudentSoooooooooooeeoeeooo

Occupational choices of agriculture short course
a-nddegrae3tUdentSoooeeeooeoooooooo

Parental encouragement of agriculture short course
and degree students to attend a short course or

degreeprogran.....o.............

V

Page
No.

#7

#9

51

52

53

55

56

58

59

6O

61

63

65

Table
No.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

2A

25

Page

No.
Years of vocational agriculture courses completed
in high school by agriculture short course and
degree students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Job experiences, outside of major study area, of
agriculture short course and degree students . . . . . 68

Preferences of agriculture short course and degree
students for working with ideas, machines,
animals, people, or plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor A: Cyclothymia

versus Schizothymia, of the Sixteen Personality
FaCtorTQSteooooooooooooooeoooooo 123

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor B: General In-

telligence versus Mental Defect, of the Sixteen

Personality FaCtor TeSte o o e o o o e o e o o o o o 0 121+

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor C: Emotional

Stability versus General Neuroticism, of the

Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor E: Dominance or

Ascendance versus Submission, of the Sixteen

Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor F: Surgency versus
Desurgency, of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test . . 12?

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor G: Positive Character

versus Immature Dependent Character, of the

Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor H: Adventurous

Cyclothymia versus Inherent'Withdrawn, of the

Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Distribution of scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on Factor I: Emotional

Sensitivity versus Tough Maturity, of the

Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . . . . . 130

vi

n < , .
'3 «
v 4
1

 

 

Table Page
No. No.

26 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor L: Paranoid
Schizothymia versus Trustful Accessibility, of
the Sixteen Personality Factor Test . . . . . . . . . 131

27 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor M: Bohemianiem
versus Practical Concernedness, of the Sixteen
Personality Factor Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

28 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor N: Sophistication
versus Rough Simplicity, of the Sixteen Personality
Factor Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

29 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor 0: ‘Worrying SuSpi-
ciousness versus Calm Trustful, of the Sixteen
Personality Factor Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

30 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor Q1: Radicalism
versus Conservatism, of the Sixteen Personality
Factor Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

31 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor Q2: Independent
Self-Sufficiency versus Lack of Resolution, of
the Sixteen Personality Factor Test . . . . . . . . . 136

32 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor Q : Will Control
versus Lack of Character Stability, of the Sixteen
Personality Factor Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

33 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Factor Q4: Nervous Tension,
of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test. . . . . . . . 138

34 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief One: Expressive
versus instrumental value of work, of the Michigan
State University work Beliefs Check-list. . . . . . . 139

35 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief Two: Positive versus
negative evaluation of structured time, of the
Michigan State University work Beliefs Check-list . . 140

Table Page
No. No.

36 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief Three: Positive
versus negative evaluation of physical mobility,
of the Michigan State University work Beliefs
Cheek-liStoeooooooooooooeeooeooo 141

3? Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief Four: Positive
versus negative evaluation of change, of the
Michigan State University Wbrk.Beliefs Check-list. . . 1#2

38 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief Five: Internal
versus external determination of events, of the
Michigan State University‘Wbrk.Beliefs Check-list. . . 1A3

39 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on Belief Six: Positive
versus negative evaluation of deferred gratifi-
cation, of the Michigan State University work
Beliefs Check-list . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14#

#0 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Verbal section of the
COllege qualification TeSt o o o o o o o o e e e e e 0 114's

#1 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Informational section
of the College Qualification Test. . . . . . . . . . . 1A6

42 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Numerical section of
the College Qualification Test . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

43 Distribution of scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the College Qualification
TeSttOtalscoreooooooeooooeooeoeeo 148

4# Second jobs of fathers of agriculture short course
and degree students. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

45 Number of agriculture short course and degree students
not living on a farm who have ever lived on a farm . . 150

#6 Per cent of educational financial expenses paid

by parents of agriculture short course and
dengQStUdentSoeoecoco-00000.00... 151

viii

Table
No.

1+7

49

50

51

52

Three persons most influential to agriculture
short course and degree students in attending

short course or degree program . . . . . . . . . . .

Ages of agriculture short course and degree students

Correlation of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test
‘with work Beliefs, Dogmatism, Occupational Aspira-
tion, and College Qualification Test scores of

agriculture short course students. . . . . . . . .

Correlation of the Sixteen Personality Factor Test
‘with‘WOrk Beliefs, Dogmatism, Occupational ASpira-
tion, and College Qualification Test scores of

agriCUIture degree StlldentSo o e o o e o o e e o 0

Correlation among the Sixteen Personality Factor
Test scores of agriculture short course and
degreSStUdentSOeooooooooooeooooo

Correlation among work Beliefs, Dogmatism, Occupa-
tional Aspiration, and College Qualification
Test scores of agriculture short course and

degreeStUdentSoeooeo000.00.000.00

ix

Page
No.

152

153

154

155

156

157

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Igtroduction

Agricultural education, at the college level, was generally
unsuccessful in the United States prior to the Morrill Federal Land-
Grant Act of 1862. Several colleges attempted to meet the needs of
an agrarian society during the first half of the nineteenth century,
but they lacked '. . . any certain institutional foundations upon
which to erect programs of agricultural and mechanical training as
well as any deeply held reSpect for expertness' (90:2A8). Agricul-
tural societies and proponents of popular technical education were
responsible for the opening of a number of institutions which sought
to promote scientific agriculture. Yale University established a
professorship in agricultural chemistry and animal and vegetable
physiology in 18#6. Yale and other eastern colleges and universities
were the major contributors to agricultural education prior to the
land-grant college movement (90). The first agricultural college in
the agrarian.midwestern United States was chartered in Michigan in
1855 (59). It became Michigan's land-grant college and is now known
as Michigan State University.

Technical training in agricultural and mechanical arts was not
well received by farmers and mechanics. Most of them failed to see
the need for college level training in their fields. Farmers felt that

higher education stressed theory too often and practical applications

2
too seldom. Controversy over whether a college education should em-
phasize teaching students to think and reason or to develop vocational
skills disrupted early attempts to incorporate agricultural and.mo-
chanical training into the curriculum. The prOblems precipitated.by
this divided opinion have not been uniformly resolved even today.
Each institution has resolved the prdblem of balancing and blending
liberal or general education with vocational or practical training in
its own way.

Nineteenth century agricultural education suffered from four
main dilemmas: inept teachers, vague educational objectives, extremely
low enrollments, and little popular support among farmers. Teaching
experience and practical insights into the needs of farmers eventualLy
assuaged the first two and higher crap yields and farm income, as a
direct result of scientific agriculture, helped increase the popular
support. The problem of low enrollments, however, was more difficult
to resolve. Curriculum changes which deleted algebra and classical
studies in Latin and Greek helped increase enrollments, but perhaps
the most effective effort was the almost complete abandonment of tra-
ditional admissions standards ((90:260). This liberalized admission
policy was as much a necessity as a matter of choice. Rural young.men
Were not attending high school in sufficient numbers and college level
education was beyond the reach of most rural school graduates until
admission standards were lowered. Although enrollments increased, the
quality of college course work in agriculture deteriorated correspond-
ingly.

In 1878 Ohio State College attempted to hold winter short courses

for farmers in an effort to gain papular support by meeting the needs

3

of nearby fanmers. The courses were intended to be practical and short
enough to avoid conflict with farm work. Only seven men sought en-
rollment. The University of Wisconsin attempted a similar program in
1885, and.Hichigan Agricultural College began a short course program
in 189h. The Michigan Agricultural College program has continued to
the present. Madison Kuhn, Michigan State historian, credits the in-
novation of short courses as being one of the most important factors
in garnering allegiance and support for the agricultural college among
Michigan farmers (59t178). This loyalty and support seems to be due,
at least in part, to the fact that most short course graduates return
to their home communities and farms, whereas the majority of the four-
year graduates do not.

As short course enrollments at Michigan Agricultural College
grew between 189# and the first world war, it was feared that students
would be attracted from the regular college programs to short course
programs. This fear proved unfounded as enrollments increased in both
programs. In fact, short courses offered a partial solution to the
problem of lower than desirable standards of excellence in the regular
College of Agriculture programs. Parallel programs permitted different
admissions standards without alienating proponents of either the liberal
education phi1050phy or the practical and vocational phiIOSOphy.

Courses leading to various types of degrees in agriculture have
been taught at Michigan State University since 1855. Non—degree short
courses in agriculture have been taught since 1894. They have covered
practically every phase of agricultural endeavor. Until 19#7, most
short courses were less than two weeks in length. In 19h? the Short

Course Department reorganized into two distinct departments. The

4
Continuing Education Department now supervises the administration of
courses less than two weeks in duration, and the revised Short Course
Department assumes responsibility for courses extending eight weeks
or longer.

The Short Course Department programs, since 1947, have been
mostly twoqyear programs in General Agriculture and Agricultural In-
dustries which lead to a certificate of completion rather than a de-
gree. Both the Short Course certificate programs and the College of
Agriculture degree programs are administered by the College of Agri-
culture.

The Short Course Director, however, administers the department's
programs with a great deal of autonomy. He functions almost as a dean,
though he is subordinate to the assistant dean for resident instruction.

The technical agriculture courses in each of the two programs
are taught by the same faculty personnel. Short Course and degree
students are not enrolled in the same classes, however. Each program
has its own separate classes. The class separation has been maintained
largely because of the belief that students entering the two programs
differ in academic ability, personality needs, and vocational goals in
later life which make it inadvisable to merge even portions of the
course requirements for the two programs. Varied opinions have exis-
ted for many years regarding the sociological and psychological dif-
ferences between agriculture degree and short course students. No re-
search which clearly delineates the two groups has been conducted.up

to this time.

Mmmm

Changes in agriculture since 1855 have resulted in changes in
curricula and admissions standards for both the College of Agriculture
degree students and the short course students at Michigan State Uni-
versity. Degree students are admitted by the University Admissions
Office and tested on the same characteristics as all first-year stu-
dents. Short course students are admitted by the Short Course Depart-
ment and are administered a different battery of tests. Whereas data
regarding the abilities and aptitudes of the agriculture degree stu-
dents as compared to other students at the University are available
through the testing program administered.by the Counseling Center,
no such data is available for comparing short course students with
agriculture degree students. A comparative descriptive study utiliz-
ing identical instrumentation is needed to identify similarities and
differences between the two types of students. This research is

based on the assumption that significant differences do exist.

Mémm

The future of young men in agriculture depends upon their own
abilities and aspirations as well as the Opportunities that exist
within the field. Educational training to maximize the students'
personal and professional growth and deve10pment is extremely im-
portant. However, adequate information for initiating and modifying
effective agricultural training programs is often lacking.

The planning of course content depends, at least partially,
upon scientifically reliable data about students. Levels of diffi-

culty in course materials, time sequences and duration, and course

6
objectives are influenced by the abilities, aspirations, and needs of
the students. At present very few data exist about short course
students, upon which decisions regarding these matters can accurately
be made. Some information does exist for degree students.

Student personnel services, such as counseling and guidance,
are influenced by additional considerations. Learning eXperiences
which can correct personal deficiencies acquired in previous environ-
ments should be made available in a program of study and co-curricular
activities. The influence of home and family, previous education, and
certain personality characteristics should be investigated before
planning corrective activities for individual students. The student
personnel services and academic offerings available to short course
students in agriculture are often patterned after the services and
requisites of the degree students in agriculture without regard to
student differences. A study of selected sociological and psychologi-
cal characteristics of agriculture degree students and short course
students should permit more accurate and realistic planning of student
personnel services and academic offerings for both groups.

Thus, there is considerable need for a study of the sociologi-
cal and psychological characteristics of agricultural degree and short
course students in order to ascertain specifically what differences
may exist. The data from which comparisonS'will be drawn in this
study include some of the psychological and sociological factors
thought to be related to educational achievement. It is assumed that
an intensive study of such data will be useful in planning future edu-
cational and vocational advisement programs for both agriculture

degree students and short course students.

ms minim

The purpose of this study is to make a comparative descriptive
study of two types of College of Agriculture students. The investiga-
tion seeks data which.will accurately and clearly identify some of the
psychological and sociological differences that may exist between first-
year degree students and first-year short course students. Only those
factors thought to be related to educational achievement and educational
and vocational advisement are examined. Such data will permit more
accurate evaluations of the relative potential abilities, aSpirations,
and needs of the two groups than are now possible.

This investigation is primarily concerned with discovering in-
formation about agriculture short course students that will be of
value to faculty members offering them educational and vocational ad-
visement. There are also implications for the College of Agriculture
in planning educational programs and student personnel services to
meet the needs of degree students. Although the latter implications
arise logically from a comprehensive study of students and their needs,
they are of secondary importance for this study.

Degree students in the College of Agriculture are regularly
compared to other university students through standard orientation
tests, grades in various classes, and academic progress standards.

All university freshmen are uniformly governed by one set of student
personnel policies and academic performance requisites. Short course
students at Michigan State University are not compared with other

students in the same ways. They are tested separately, attend separ-

ate classes and are evaluated separately in their academic progress.

8

Although universityawide policies govern short course students gen-
erally, the short course director may put his own interpretation on
the policies. In many cases the regulations governing short course
students are established on the basis of current practices for regular
college students. Although both types of students are described
herein, the major emphasis of this research will be directed toward

a study of the characteristics of agriculture short course students

when compared to agriculture degree students.

Statement 2.1: the Problem

The problem investigated in this research is the differences
that exist between the firstqyear degree and firstsyear short course
students in the College of Agriculture. The factors to be examined
include selected psychological and sociological characteristics
thought to be related to educational achievement.

The pertinent literature reviewed in Chapter II does not deal
directly with the subjects studied in this investigation. The studies
indicate, however, that the factors used for comparison in this study
are related to educational achievement and educational and vocational
advisement. The data reviewed deals mostly with subjects similar to
those in this investigation, their home environments, aSpirations,
aptitudes, personalities, and career Opportunities and interests.
Although it is possible to draw on previous research to select fruit-
ful areas to examine, the design of this study evolved from unanswered
questions which do not lend themselves to examination through theory
based hypothesis. This study is essentially exploratory. Comparison
of the two populations on the basis of the selected factors may re-

suit in the observation of differences; but at present no scientific

9
evidence concerning these differences is available for agriculture
students.

The null hypothesis of no difference between groups is used
as the basis for the statistical analysis of the data. The level of
significance for testing the null hypothesis was set at P = .05,
prior to the data gathering process. The selection of a level of
significance is an arbitrary practice where the risks of erroneous
conclusions are carefully considered. The possibility of accepting
the null hypothesis and overlooking a real difference is weighed
against rejecting the null hypothesis when only chance differences
occur. The probability that differences noted in this study may be
utilized in making far reaching changes in academic programs and
personnel services for future students requires minimum precision

at the .05 level of significance.

Factors fig 133 W

The factors to be studied as criteria for comparison are
classified into two categories: (a) psychological factors, and
(b) sociological factors.

The psychological factors which are thought to be related to
educational achievement and educational and vocational advisement
include: (1) personality traits, (2) beliefs and attitudes relating
to work, (3) dogmatism, (h) occupational sepiration, and (5) academic
aptitude.

The sociological factors which are thought to be related to
educational achievement and educational and vocational advisement

include: (1) father's education, (2) mother's education, (3) father's

10
occupation, (h) mother's occupation, (5) father's income, (6) number
of older brothers, (7) home location, (8) occupational choice crystal-
lization, (9) parental encouragement to attend either college or short
course, (10) years of vocational agriculture courses completed in high
school, (11) the student's job experiences, outside of his major area
of study, and (12) student preference for working with ideas, machines,
animals, peOple, or plants.
The instruments employed by the investigator to measure and

record all factors are described in Chapter III.

Delimitations 2; the m

This study is concerned with only two papulations, College of
Agriculture first—year degree students and first-year short course
students who were enrolled at Michigan State University during the
fall term of 196k. There were 213 students enrolled as first-term
freshmen in the College ofrAgriculture and 230 students enrolled as
first-term students in the Short Course Department. Female, transfer,
and foreign students and all students with any previous college or
post high school training experience were eliminated from the study.
The remaining pepulations consisted of 199 degree students and 176
short course students.

The College of Agriculture degree students had selected one
of eleven major areas within the College of.Agriculture. The short
course students were enrolled in the Ybung Farmer program (93), the
Farm Equipment Sales and Service program (21), the Nursery and.Land-
scaping program(26), the Commercial Floriculture program.(1h), and

the Elevator and Farm Supply program (22).

11
The study is limited to examination of the characteristics of
students in the two populations during the initial stages of their
college experiences. No attempt will be made to ascertain if the

subjects remain in the two programs.

Limitations of. the Study

Certain limitations are inherent in the research instruments
used in this study. A comprehensive discussion of the instruments and
their respective validity and reliability coefficients is undertaken
in Chapter III. The measurement of psychological factors such as men-
tal aptitude and personality is widely debated and a conSensus is
noticeably lacking among both educators and psychologists. PhiIOSOphi-
cal consideration regarding the structure or content of instruments
attempting to measure abstract concepts are varied.

For example, the personality theorist thinks in terms of the

organization of id, ego, and superego, the self, personality

syndromes and profiles, trait clusters, and personality

types; the student of ideology can describe such configura-

tions as fascism, . . . and conservatism; cognitive theorists

talk in terms of such concepts as cognitive styles, . . .

and sign Gestalten. . . . During the course of our investi-

gation we have come more and more to view a given personality

as an organization of beliefs or expectancies having a de-

finable and measurable structure (89:6).

There is no reason to believe that any students were overtly
dishonest in replying to the questionnaire, checklists, or testing in-
struments used. However, the possibility of this occurring is always
a limiting factor in studies of this type.

This investigation attempts to make statistical comparisons of
the two groups of students. There is no basis, however, for judging
whether any of the differences noted are good or bad. Evidence that
Significant differences exist must suffice as justification for con-

sideration of the conclusions reached in Chapter V.

12
Definition _Q_f_ 3.3.12.5.

The College 2;,gggiculture gagggg students are all the first-
year male students enrolled at Michigan State University in the fall
term of 196h'who indicated they would undertake a fourqyear degree
program within the College of.Lgriculture. Female, transfer, and
foreign students and students with post high school training of any
type are not included in this population.

The College 93 Aggiculture £1211. £23139. students are all the
firstqyear male students enrolled at Michigan State University in the
fall term of 196% who indicated they would undertake a twoqyear cer-
tificate program.in agriculture within the Short Course Department of
the College of Agriculture. Female, transfer, and foreign students
and students with post high school training of any type are not in-
cluded in this pepulation.

The General Agriculture §hggt_§ggggg includes four eightaweek
terns over a two year period. Two terms are offered during succeed-
ing fall and winter academic terms.

The four types of Aggicultural Industries §h2§t’Courses include
four quarter terms of classroom work and either two or four quarter
terms of on-the-job placement training. These courses are the (1)
Farm.EQuipment Sales and Services, (2) Nursery and Landscaping Manage-
ment, (3) Commercial Floriculture, and (k) Elevator and Farm Supply.

Educational achievement is interpreted here as the progress
noted in an individual's efforts to seek and obtain fonmal education
at some level.

The term.student personnel services refers to personal counsel-

ing, academic and career advisement, and faculty supervised activities

13
which are available to students. Such services as admissions, orienta-
tion programs, health services, religious counseling, housing arrange-
ments, and financial aids and scholarships are not included in the
general term, student personnel services, in this study.

Academic a titude, as used herein, refers to the scores the
students achieved on the College Qualification Test, otherwise re-
ferred to as the CQT.

Personality pppipp'used to describe students' personalities
are those enmmerated and.measured'by the Sixteen Personality Factor
Test.

Occupational aspiration is measured by the Occupational Aspira-
tion Scale. Scores on the Scale are thought to be indicative of the
relative level of occupational aSpiration held by the student.

Dogpgtism is that characteristic measured by the Rokeach Dogma-
tism.Scale, Form E which distinguishes between persons with open or
closed belief systems.

'flggg’beliefs are measured by the Michigan State University work
Beliefs Check-list. Attitudes and beliefs related to the value at-

tached to work are recorded in six categories of beliefs.

anew
This study is an attempt to compare agricultural students who
are interested in pursuing either of two different educational programs
which train them for careers in agriculture. One group consists of
199, firstqyear, college degree students, and the other consists of
176, firstqyear, short course students. Both groups were enrolled at

Michigan State University for their first post high school training

in
during the fall of 196#. These students were measured on selected
psychological and sociological factors related to educational achieve-
ment and educational and vocational advisement in order to ascertain
whether significant differences exist between the two types of students.

At present the educational programs for such students are en-
tirely separate. The separation exists because it is thought that
significant differences exist between degree and short course students
which.make it inadvisable to merge even portions of their course work.
This study is designed to determine specifically what differences, if
any, do exist. It was thought that analysis of the data would permit
a more accurate and realistic appraisal of curriculum offerings and
student personnel services provided for such students.

Previous studies dealing with the selected factors utilized as
comparative indices and subjects similar to those examined in this
study are reviewed in Chapter II. The procedures and methodology
used are described in detail in Chapter III. Analyses of the psycho-
logical and sociological data are found in Chapter IV. The fifth
and final chapter contains conclusions drawn from the study along

with recommendations for further research in this field.

CHAPTER II
REVIEH OF’THE LITERATURE AND RELETED STUDIES
Overview

While research related directly to agriculturally oriented
college or short course students is extremely scarce, college students,
in general, have been examined in a multitude of ways. They have been
studied within such groups as the gifted, retarded, and underprivileged.
They have been individually analyzed on general characteristics such as
physical condition, values, academic abilities, attitudes, and other
assorted traits. However, the two groups examined in this study,
agriculture degree and short course students, have been neglected.

The investigator was able to locate only one study which dealt Specif-
ically with either of the two groups. A limited amount of research is
available concerning agricultural short course programs, rural youth,
and college students from rural backgrounds. Most of this research,
although indirectly related, is too broad in scepe to permit valid
generalizations to the subjects of this study.

This review of related research is primarily concerned with
studies which have dealt with subjects similar to those examined in
this study. Some studies are only indirectly related to the subjects
of this thesis. Nevertheless, it seemed more efficacious to discuss
similar subjects than to examine research dealing with the multiple
criteria employed.in this study as they have been employed with other
types of subjects.

15

16

The relationship between educational achievement and a variety
of psychological and sociological factors is well documented in the
literature. The array of studies dealing with the criteria related
to academic success is reviewed in several central sources; therefore,
this review will deal primarily with the more current literature in
the field.

This chapter is divided into four sections. The first section
deals with studies directly related to the subjects of this thesis.
The second area reviews current literature concerning short course
programs. Area three studies are related to rural youth, and area
four gives a brief review of research on the criteria used in this
investigation.

College p£“Agpiculture Students gpd
2.23; m Examined in; Previous Studies

One study, by Freeh (32), used first-year students in the
College of Agriculture as a portion of the sample. Answers to two
questions were sought. ‘Who is enrolling in agricultural curricula?
and.why are they enrolling in agricultural curricula? College fresh-
men from rural and urban homes enrolled in agricultural curricula
and freshmen exclusively from farm homes enrolled in other than agri-
cultural curricula were studied. A total of 339 first-term male
students at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961 were queried
through the use of questionnaires. Emphasis was given to an examina.
tion of students' experience prior to entering college, their attitudes
toward agriculture, their exposure to information about college cur-
ricula and careers, and the sources of influence associated with their

college curricula choice.

17

Freeh found significant differences between farm youth enrolled
in agricultural curricula and farm youth enrolled in other than agri-
cultural curricula and non-farm.youth enrolled in agricultural curricula.
Farm.youth enrolled in agricultural curricula.more often reported: (a)
their parents and guardians were full time farmers; (b) the adults they
admired.most were in agricultural occupations; (c) their closest friends
were aspiring to agricultural careers; (d) they had studied vocational
agriculture in high school; (e) they had participated in FFA and h-H;
(f) they had a good understanding of career Opportunities in agricul-
ture; (g) their first career choice was farming; (h) they had visited
the campus for Future Farmers of America and 4-H activities; (i)
they reported greater access to an extensive study of agricultural
career publications; and (j) they were influenced most in their choice
of curricula by their parents and vocational agriculture teachers as
Opposed to other adults and parents.

Students enrolled in agricultural curricula were divided ap-
proximately equally as to urban or rural home backgrounds. Attitudes
regarding agriculture were not significantly different among students
enrolled in agriculture. However, farm youth who were not enrolled
in agriculture exhibited less favorable attitudes toward agriculture.

This study, while differentiating between agriculture freshmen
from varied backgrounds in terms of past experiences, does not con-
tribute greatly to a knowledge of abilities, attitudes, or traits
which are considered in educational planning. The question of why
students are enrolling in agricultural curricula, one of the ques-
tions pursued in Freeh's study, must be inferentially resolved on the

basis of influences recalled by the students rather than evidence of

student interest and ability or resources at home.

18

mmm ans

Two studies describing the type and extent of short course
programs have been conducted by Larson (60) and Freeh and Henneman
(33). Larson found thirty land-grant universities in the United
States and thirteen schools in Canada which offered short course pro-
grams in 195#. Fourteen additional land-grant colleges indicated
they intended to initiate similar programs. Freeh and Henneman found
forty-six of the sixty-seven landpgrant institutions offer some type
of non—degree or short course program. Among non-land-grant institu-
tions, seventeen colleges or universities, seventy—three junior col-
leges, and eleven technical or vocational institutes offer non-degree
programs in agriculture. The programs and courses vary from home
economics for women to Specialized types of farming for men students.
Over 300 types of short-term conferences were offered by the land-
grant institutions. Twenty-seven land-grant institutions reported
plans to expand their programs in the future.

Typical short course programs have lower entrance standards
than degree programs, a high school diploma being the most common
admission criteria. Short course students Spend.more time per week
in the classroom and laboratory than the degree students. The courses
are usually taught by regular faculty members and are designed.more
for application to problems than for theoretical analysis.

There are no known comprehensive studies of agriculture short
course students. In 1948, a brief study was conducted by the Michigan
State University Short Course Department as a part of a national work.
shop on short courses (68). It was intended to reveal what personal

accomplishments and contributions to society short course graduates

19
have made. Replies from 2,000 graduates indicated they were more
active in governmental office holding, farm organization membership
and other community activities than the control group. However, no
indication was given as to the number in the original sample or the

makeup of the control group.

M M and Related Studies

A limited amount of research is available on rural youth in
general. Three characteristics of this research limit the advisability
of generalizations related to differences between farm and non-farm
youth, between rural and urban youth or between agriculturally oriented
students from predominantly rural backgrounds. First, sample size and
selection methods vary considerably. Second, instrumentation varies
greatly and the reliability and validity of the instruments are not
always indicated in the research reports. Third, none have need be-
ginning agriculture college students from rural backgrounds. Conclu-
sions concerning these students are reached by extracting data from
larger studies where delimitations of categorical parameters are often
vague. Furthermore, the research data available usually report on
only a few aspects of the entire range of factors necessary to establish
whether significant differences exist among rural boys who seek educa-
tion beyond high school. Data on female rural youth, although not
vital to this study, are almost non-existent.

Pepulation statistics for the state of Michigan by Beegle and
Halsted (70) reveal that while the state's population is increasing,
the farm papulation is decreasing. Because the number of fauna in
Michigan is decreasing and the number of farm operators who work 100

days or more a year off the farm.is increasing, indicating a decline

20
in farming as an occupation, these census figures are relevant to
this study. Several other studies by the North Central Regional Ex-
periment Stations (104) and the COOperative Extension Service (71)
(72) corroborate the decline in farms and the trend toward increasing
part-time non-agricultural employment by farmers.

The Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station
has sponsored several studies of rural families and rural youth.

Some of these studies have been directed toward understanding the
processes of choosing careers and the aSpirations of rural people.

According to studies by Bowles and Teauber (11) and Manderscheid
(66), there is abundant evidence that the rural-farm community cannot
supply job Opportunities for all the young people reared there.
Bowles and Teauber reported that 50 per cent of the male farm youth
intend to stay within the community where they were raised. Only 23
per cent of this group plan on attending college. About 10 per cent
indicated that they were seriously interested in farming. The dis-
parity in the figures indicates a number of undecided youth and an
apparent disregard for the limited Opportunity for unskilled labor
in a small town.

Manderscheid (66) has calculated that, on the basis of retire-
ment and replacement rates in 1959, approximately one farm boy in
sixteen will have an Opportunity to farm. Even if all farmers re-
tired at age sixty-five, only one in ten farm boys would have the
opportunity to farm. These figures are based on 1959 census figures.

Burchinal, Heller, and Taves (15), in a parrphlet entitled
m Choices 2; 3333; 322‘. in a Changing Society, stress that

rural youth are being forced to move into urban areas and compete

21

with urban people for jobs. Rural youth are at a disadvantage in this
competition because Of their skills, training, value orientations, and
personality characteristics. They do not have the motivations to ac-
quire information about non-farm related jobs and usually do not aspire
to a college education. The authors point out a need for special edu-
cation programs for rural youth and a need to educate them for mobility.

Studies by Heller (46) and by Haller and WOlff (42) on data
taken from 442 seventeenqyear-Old farm boys in Lenawee County, Michigan,
in 1957, have attempted to explain factors affecting occupational and
aspirational processes. Heller found that farm.boys are limited in
their choices of occupations by several factors. The mere fact that
a farm boy commits himself to farming apparently negates almost all
consideration of attending college. A later study by Haller andfflblff,
an elaboration on the same data, demonstrates that personality orien-
tations are related to residence. Since personality differences exist
between plan-tO-farm farm boys and non-plan-tO-farm farm boys, the in-
fluence of situational factors within the environment is very im-
portant. The home environment, the influence of the parents, the
individual's concept of his own Opportunities, and the Opinions of
other peOple all contribute to the value orientation Of rural youth.
One deduction of Haller and WOlff is that the different socialization
processes, to which rural youth and urban youth are exposed influence
personality, level of aspiration, and ultimately levels of achievement.

Neilson (79) reported that farm family goals, expressed by
farmers in a seven-township study in Michigan in 1959, were about
evenly divided between ”establishing a comfortable living“ and "pro-

viding for family and children.“ Forty-seven percent expressed the

22
Opinion that providing their children with a good education should be
the main family goal.

Rural parents place less value on education than do urban
parents, according to Rogers (87) . Among covert expressions leading
to this conclusion is the desire Of rural parents to retain the sons
of the family as workers on the farm.

A combination of factors involved in the socialization Of rural
youth were cited by Burchinal (16) to explain depressed levels of
educational and occupational aSpirations. Farm parents tend to under-
estimate the value of higher education, lack experience in discussing
educational and occupational plans, and provide less encouragement for
boys planning to farm to go to college.

While Bentley and Hemp (7) list parents and vocational agri-
culture teachers as being very important sources Of influence on a
sample of Purdue University and Illinois University agriculture stu-
dents, Sewell, Heller, and Straus (96) claim that existing evidence
of direct influence by the family and home environment on the level
of a child's academic achievement is weak. They discount much of the
present data as being unreliable because Of poor sampling procedures
and uncontrolled variables in past studies.

Even though faith in education as a means to upward social
mobility is widely shared in the United States, some rural people
have unresolved questions concerning education. Brookover and
Gottlieb (12:60) state that: 7

Still other groups are ambivalent in regard to education.

In some rural communities farm peOple may wish to keep the

boys and girls on the farm, but at the same time they hope

to have their children get ahead through education. Out of

this conflict of desires they may provide the Opportunity
for the youth to go to high school and college, only to be

23

disturbed when the educated son or daughter does not return

to the rural community. The decreasing Opportunities for

farm youth to find employment on the farm obviously compli-

cate the situation.

Haller, _e_t_ 5;. (44) pointed out in a bulletin entitled £1135];
m 39.92. {lg-lg 2.; Choosing Occupations that the level Of Occupation
a person enters is related to his earlier aspiration level. Rural
youth who plan to farm do not usually have high levels of occupational
aspiration and are likely to end up in lower level occupations if they
do not have Opportunities to farm. Heller concludes that the prospects
of rural youth are not as bright as those for urban youth. This con-
clusion is based on several factors such as their generally lower level
of education, their lower aspirations, and the fact that they are less
well prepared to compete for non—farm jobs.

Heller (40) points out, in an address to the 1963 National Con-
ference on Problems of Rural Youth in a Changing Environment, that data
on boys who stay in farming is scarce. There are few data on the
psychological and sociological factors affecting the choice to farm
or not to farm. Haller suggests that some plans to influence farm
youth should be initiated immediately if a number of them are to be
realistically counseled. Possible plans include improving rural
schools, in-school guidance programs to raise levels of educational
and occupational aspirations, or programs reducing the effects of
planning to farm.

A 1959 study of Iowa farm boys by Kaldor, gt 2.3;. (56) revealed
that 38 per cent of 870 farm boys planned to farm. There will not be
room for that great a number to find Opportunities to farm according
to other data. In the Iowa study, as in other studies, the per cent

of boys planning to farm who intend to take college work was very

24

small, only 17 per cent. Also, the parents of boys who plan to farm
had lower educational aspirations for their sons. This is in accord
with previous studies in this regard. Farm boys do not enter farming
purely because of income considerations. There appears to be some
relationship between the income level Of farming and the number of boys
deciding to enter farming, but this is not their only reason. Since
there is also a high correlation between educational achievement and
economic success, it is not readily understandable why farm.youth
negate the opportunities for improved success and status through
education.

Rural schools, although steadily declining in number because
of consolidations, are considered an integral and inseparable part of
rural life by many (20). Whether they are adequate to meet educational
requirements for students desiring higher education is a persistent
and unsatisfactorily answered question. Several studies (15) (16) (21)
(41) (51) (74) show that fewer rural students continue in college
after high school than urban students. Hollinshead (51) revealed that
the two groups least likely to send their children to college were the
urban working class and the small scale farmers. Present research
strongly supports the generalization that farm and rural non-farm.youth
have lower levels of educational aspiration than urban youth (15).
The educational plans Of children appear to be related to the educa-
tional aspirations of parents for their children. Two studies by
Haller (43) and Kaldor (56) reveal that rural youth with aspirations
to high prestige non-farm occupations generally felt that their parents
had also aspired to these occupations for them and had encouraged them

to pursue training to that end.

25

Three studies by Strauss (100), Sewell (96), and Edlefson and
Crowe (26) may possibly account for the relatively fewer rural youth
who do aspire to higher prestige non-farm occupations. Strauss found
that farm boys had more work assigned to them at home, had less out-
side job experience and were less financially responsible for their
own needs. In a summary of this research before a national sociologi-
cal convention Strauss (99) postulated that lower aspirations among
farm boys may be due to the limited sources of occupational informa-
tion they have available. Occupational information acquired and
transmitted by farm parents as a result of their own experience in
the non-farm occupational world is usually very limited.

Sewell found educational aspiration directly related to the
sociO-economic status level of the family. Edlefson and Grows point
out that work experience was the paramount reason given by youth for
occupational choice.

Psychological and Sociological Factors
3.3 Relation t_o_ Educational Achievement

Several criterion have been referred to in previously mentioned
studies. Aspiration among rural or farm youth has been mentioned in
fourteen studies (15) (16) (21) (26) (41) (43) (46) (47) (74) (76)
(96) (99) (101) (109). The relationship between educational achieve-
ment and educational or occupational aSpiration is implied by the
definition of the terms. Some further clarification of what "Level
of Aspiration“ actually is and what appropriate means have been de-
veloped to quantify it are reviewed elsewhere (35) (36) (39) (47)
(52) (76) (94) (101).

26

In a study including rural college freshman as part of the
suple, Lehmann (69) reported that of all freshman at Michigan State
University in the fall term of 1958, those from rural homes scored
lower on the College Qualification Test than those from urban homes.
The College Qualification Test is used as a predictor of academic
achievement at Michigan State University. However, he also reported
no significant differences in critical thinking ability between urban
and rural students. Additionally, males who lived most of their lives
on a farm were markedly more steredtypic and dogmatic, were the poorest
readers, and measured lowest on the College Qualification Test.

Terman's (103) study indicated that urban-reared high school
children have significantly higher intelligence quotients than rural-
reared high school children. Other studies show that rural boys who
plan to farm have lower intelligence scores than those who do not (82)
and agriculture students in college have lower than average intelli-
gence scores when cupared with other college students (61) .

The existence of some type of relationship between personality
traits and academic success is widely accepted. Paradoxically, how.
ever, the specific trait or traits and their effects quantitatively or
qualitatively on academic performance are as yet poorly defined.
Bereiter and Freedman (8: 579) in summarizing the enima conclude,
“Personality measurement at the present time is at a stage of develop-
ment where it is considerably easier to develop reliable measuring de.
vices than it is to find out what they measure." It is predictably
difficult to isolate personality traits and to identify them adequately
for any semblance of universal understanding. Evaluation of a trait

or a syndrome of traits is similarly difficult because the traits

2?
rewarded in one segment of society may not be valued in another (73).
Furthermore, no one is certain which traits are the best or worst
possible traits for any one particular vocational field. The area of
personality research needs further clarification of its nomenclature.
Efforts to measure and investigate objectively basic personality dif-
ferences between students ". . . have succeeded in establishing only
that there exists what for the moment might be called differences in
'adequaoy of psychological adjustment.'” (8.571).

The Michigan study by Heller and Wblff (#2) made of rural high
school students with high_nonefarm occupational aspiration levels re-
vealed several Specific personality characteristics. These students
tended to have more stable emotional characteristics, more confidence
in their social abilities to work and mix with others, a greater
tendency to achieve success in activities, and more self-confidence
in expressing their ideas and feelings. They also expressed a readi-
ness to move from familiar surroundings to take advantage of new
opportunities, positive attitudes toward changes in their patterns of
living, and belief in self determination of events rather than deter-
mination beyond their own control. Rural boys with 19; non-farm
occupational aSpirations tended to have the Opposite characteristics
and attitudes.

Farquhar has recently reviewed.motivational factors and included
personality, aSpiration, and biographical factors as influences related
to academic success (28).

The concept of attitude is closely related to personality and
sometimes included.within the general rubric of personality; Rokeach

(383395) Opposes this common view when he says,

28

The major conclusions to which we have drawn attention thus

far are those that emerge from our findings about the nature

of all belief systems, regardless of the degree to which

they are Open or closed. They are independent of personality.
Rokeach adds that highly dogmatic people would have difficulty synthe-
sizing their beliefs into a £151 m. Regardless of whether attitudes
are considered a facet of personality or an entity in themselves, the
'way a person believes, whatever he believes, affects his ability to
learn new concepts. Di Vesta (2k) and Neel (78) have found that persons
with a high degree of dogmatism are hindered in their efforts to learn
certain types of things. The highly dogmatic or very authoritarian
person would have difficulty in learning ambiguous or unstructured
material or tasks and would find phi1030phical humanitarian ideas diffi-
cult to assimilate, according to these studies.

Frumkin (3“) found that high dogmatism scores as measured on the
Rokeach.Dogmatism Scale, Form B were related to lower socio-economic
groups. Jacob (53) reported that, in general, a college education has
a more liberalizing influence on highly dogmatic students than on less
dogmatic students. The question of whether one can consider or accept
new ideas and beliefs is crucial to learning situations and research
presently available indicates the more dogmatic students would be at
a disadvantage.

Sociological factors related to academic success and occupa.
tional aspiration are documented in numerous sociology and education
sources. The influence of the home environment upon academic achieve-
ment of the child is unquestioned. Only the precise extent and direc-
tion of influence upon Specific individuals is in doubt. Research has
shown socio—economic level to be related in varying degrees to achieve-
ment, intelligence, and aspiration or motivation (2) (#8) (6h) (81)
(96).

29

Family influences have been reported in several studies (15)
(30) (51) (56) (80) (81) (97). In section three of this review men-
tion was made of familial influence in connection with educational
and vocational aspiration. The tendency of rural youth to be given
relatively more responsibility in maintaining the family farm enter-
prise than for urban youth to be involved in earning the basic family
income was noted by Strauss (100). There appears to be a greater
tendency for farm youth and children whose fathers are from lower
status level occupations to follow their parents into similar levels
of employment (9) (91).

The influence of the parents in determining the vocational de-
velopment of their children may depend as much on what they fail to
provide as on what they provide. Strauss reports that farm and rural
youth are at a disadvantage in occupational planning because their
parents lack occupational information. Youth seek guidance in deter-
mining vocational goals and where parents are unable to assist, stu-
dents are found to have had a limited range of choices (99).

Vocational deve10pment theory as eSpoused by leading theorists
gives credence to the concept of a home and family influence on career
selection (15) (37) (86) (102). Roe has even attempted to predict
career choice on the basis of information about a subject's home and
family. Predictability has thus far been unsuccessful.

Intelligence alone does not seem to answer all the questions
related to academic success or educational achievement. Factors such
as personality, aspiration or motivation, and biographical influence,
although very difficult to identify and.measure, must logically be

included within the larger context necessary for analyzing educational

30
achievement. The complexities are increased by these non-intellective
factors, but the rewards are promising. As Brown (14:53?) sums it,
Consider for example, the increased power the educator would
have to maximize the intellectual potential of students if
the contingent relationships of cognitive power, atmOSphere
for learning, social class values, and personal prediSposi-
tions were understood sufficiently to allow bringing each

of these attributes to bear on the educational development
of the student.

mama:

Literature pertaining to this study was reviewed within four
general areas of research. The first area revealed that very little
research has been conducted with agriculturally oriented college
students. Rural youth enrolled in college are atypical and those
planning to farm are significantly different from other rural youth.
Previous studies indicate that rural students who seek post high school
education are different as a group from other rural youth, but little
has been undertaken to ascertain differences among them as individuals.

Short course or non-degree programs are found in 69 per cent
of the land-grant institutions. Over 100 other types of colleges or
vocational institutes have similar programs. Course objectives are
usually directly related to a Specific vocational area. Admission re-
quirements are very liberal. Most short course programs require only
a high school diploma for admission. No scientifically designed.re-
search studies of short course students, that have been published,
are known and other reports available do not give sufficient informa-
tion to be useful and valid.

Research dealing with rural youth thus far varies greatly in

regard to the use of acceptable research procedures. Lack of control

31
over saMple size and selection, unreported validity and reliability
coefficients for the instruments used, and a limited strata of sub-
jects, usually of high school age, make any generalizations from.most
studies of this type inadvisable. There is evidence that farming and
agriculture are becoming more selective by virtue of a.Darwinianatype
survival process. Much of the research available points to the un-
desirable position of those who cannot farm and must compete in the
urban labor market for a livelihood. Rural children are at a disad-
vantage in this competition. Family and home influence is credited
With determining, to a very large extent, how well a rural youth.will
compete in the working world. Farm families are not strong supporters
of higher education according to previous studies. This lack of ac-
tive support for higher education among rural parents is compounded
by lower educational aSpirations for the children and lack of adequate
vocational guidance. Action to influence rural youth to consider post
high school training and vocational counseling is called for in several
studies.

Students in agricultural college degree or short course programs
are chronologically more mature than many of the rural youth previously
studied. Mbst are from farm backgrounds and have marked themselves as
different from the typical farm youth by committing themselves to higher
education in farming and agriculturally related fields. One of the
assumptions of this study was that the different academic requirements
and goals of the two programs of study might reveal differences be-
tween the two groups of students.

The presence of a relationship between aspiration, personality,

attitude, dogmatism, and academic aptitude with educational achievement

32
is unquestioned. The extent and precise influence of the relationship
are, however, still in doubt. Psychological factors are extremely
difficult to identify and quantify for replication and research. In
attempting to delineate degree students from short course students,
clearly significant differences on separate psychological factors or
on patterns of several factors appeared to be most promising with the
following five psychological factors: personality traits, beliefs
and attitudes regarding work, dogmatism, occupational aspiration, and
academic aptitude. Previous research had shown each factor capable
of distinguishing between various types of subjects.

Sociological factors have also been well documented as sources
of influence affecting educational achievement. The socio-economic
level of the family is reportedly related to a variety of psychologi-
cal factors. Participation and responsibility in earning the family
income apparently affects one's occupational and educational aspira-
tions adversely. Similarly, lack of adequate parental vocational
guidance may limit one's occupational aspiration level. Economic
reality is a determining factor in educational achievement for many
students. The literature reviewed indicates farm parents are less
likely to want to support a college student and less able to afford

it.

CHAPTER III

PROCEDURE AND METHOLOGY

Preliminary Investigation

A Lilgt study was conducted during the fall term of 1963. The
pilot study was conducted with essentially the same student popula-
tions and instrumentation as the present study. PrOblems and inade-
quacies revealed during the pilot study resulted in modifications of
some of the instrumentation, methods of collecting data, and the

population selection criteria used in this investigation.

ngulations Used in the Study

 

Two populations of students who were enrolled in the College
of Agriculture at Michigan State University during the fall term of
1964 are included in the study. Only male students enrolled in their
first post high school educational programs were included. Foreign,
female, and transfer students were not included.

One group consisted of 199 students enrolled in a four-year
baccalaureate degree program within the College of Agriculture‘s
eleven major areas of study.

The other group consisted of 176 students enrolled in a two-
year certificate program within the Short Course Department' 8 two
major areas of study.

Data were gathered from every student in both groups. The sta-
tistical analysis of the study is based upon total pepulations rather

than samples of the populations.
33

34

Selection 2.1; the ngulations
ggd_Data Gathering Procedures

 

The investigator sought to compare the two populations of this
study during the initial stages of their first post high school edu-
cational programs. Since transfer and foreign students had been
subjected to influences atypical from the majority of students enrolled
in the two programs, they were not included in the pOpulations. Fe-
male students, who represent less than 10 per cent of all those en-
rolled in either program, were similarly not included.

A letter explaining the study and requesting assistance was
sent to each degree student prior to the 1964 fall academic term.1
Two group meeting sites and dates were designated during the first
two weeks of the term. A second letter was sent later to those who
did not reSpond, indicating a third meeting site and time. Three
data gathering meetings were held during the first month of the term.
A total of 132 or 66 per cent of the students attended. The remaining
Sixty-seven students were sent a third letter and contacted individu-
ally by telephone to request that they appear at the office of the
Director of Resident Instruction of the College of.Agriculture to
complete the research instruments. All but two of the students did
‘so. The two remaining were contacted by the investigator but only
partial returns were obtained from them. They are not included in
the statistical analysis.

All mailed requests for participation in the study were signed
and.mailed by the Director of Resident Instruction, College of Agri-
culture, the administrative officer to whom the degree students were

directlyzresponsible.

.—

1
Cepies of the letters used to contact the students may be
found in Appendix A.

35
The short course population was first contacted at the time of

their orientation tests; one day prior to registration for the fall
term. The eighty-three who enrolled in the Agricultural Industries
courses were tested on September 29, 196#. The research instruments
'were also administered on that date. The ninety-three students en-
rolled in the General Agriculture courses were given orientation
tests on October 20, 1964. The research instruments were also ad-
ministered on that date.

Permission to study and contact the short course students was
given by the Director of Short Courses, the administrative officer to
when these students were directly reSponsible.

Because of omissions on the instruments, portions which were
incorrectly filled out, or late registration, follow-up procedures
were conducted by the investigator. Subjects who had failed to com-
plete the research instruments satisfactorily were requested to do so
by telephone, in person, or by mail. Complete returns were obtained
from over 99 per cent of the subjects in both groups included in the
study.

A cepy of the instruction sheet and four of the instruments
used by the investigator can be found in Appendix A. The Sixteen
Personality Factor Test, Form A, is capyrighted by the Institute for
Personality and Ability Testing, and in order to protect the validity
of the test, it is not included in the appendices. These five instru-
ments were administered and supervised by the investigator.

The College Qualification Test is capyrighted by the Psycho-
logical Corporation and is not included in the appendices in order to

protect the validity of the test. This test was administered by the

36
Michigan State university Counseling Center psychometrist and is a
portion of the regular orientation testing procedure for all degree
students. It was administered to the short course students at the
request of the investigator.

The College Qualification Test is a timed instrument which re-
quires approximately one and one half hours to complete. The five
instruments administered and supervised by the investigator were not
timed but required approximately one hour and fifteen minutes to

complete.

Instruments M in the m

The instruction gaggt'which accompanied each set of five re-
search instruments contained a brief paragraph explaining the nature
of the study, a check-list of instruments included, procedural in-
structions, and a paragraph, in capital letters, assuring the students
that their replies to all questions would be regarded as confidential.

The biographical questionnairg_found in Appendix A was deveIOped
by the investigator. It was used in the pilot study during the fall
term of 1963 and subsequently revised for this study. The question-
naire originally consisted of eighty-seven questions, some with several
parts. The revised questionnaire consists of forty-eight questions,
with four requiring two answers.

Because of problems resulting from poorly written answers in
the pilot study, all except two questionnaire items were revised so
that they could be answered by encircling the apprOpriate choice from
several possible answers. Questions found in the original instrument,
but deleted for this study, were either not relevant to the study or

were misinterpreted by the respondents.

37
The questionnaire was developed in consultation with Michigan

State University staff members from the Department of Evaluation Ser-
vices, Office of Institutional Research, Department of Sociology,
Department of Short Courses, Office of Extension Personnel Development,
and the Director of Resident Instruction of the College of Agriculture.

The College anlificatipg Est, Form C, consists of seventy-
five items designed to measure verbal ability, fifty items which
measure skill in interpreting numerical concepts, and seventy-five
items which assess general information from a broad range of subjects.
The three sub scores may be summed to yield a composite score which is
used as a measure of academic aptitude and as a predictor of academic
achievement in college.

Extensive nationwide studies have been undertaken to establish
the validity and reliability of the College Qualification Tests.
Validity studies reported in the COT manual (6), comparing grade
point averages with CQT total scores for 10,571 male students at pub-
lic colleges, reveal product-moment coefficients ranging from .37 to
.72. The average coefficient value for twenty-one different groups
studied exceeded . 50.

Test-retest and odd-even item score comparisons indicate a high
degree of internal consistency or reliability for the OQT total score.
Coefficients reported from studies of 1991+ male college students ex-
°°°d°d .90 (6) . Other studies have reported similarly favorable re-
sults for both validity and reliability (22) (55).

1132 Rokeach DoEtism §_ca_;._g, Egg 1r}, consists of forty items
measuring individual differences in openness and closedness of belief

systems (88:71). The instrument is scored on a six point, I agree

38
Leg m_u_gh_ to _I_ dismee m M, scale with possible scores extend-
ing from 40 to 280. The lower a subject's score, the less dogmatic
he is: and the higher the score, the more dogmatic he is or the more
closed is his belief system. The Scale, developed.by Milton J. Rokeach
of Michigan State University, is an attempt to measure dogmatism as a
relatively closed cognitive framework of beliefs and disbeliefs con-
cerning reality. Dogmatism is interpreted as being a more intellectual-
ized and abstract form of resistance to change than rigidity.

The Form E. Scale was found to have reliability coefficients
ranging from .68 to .93 for samples tested in the United States (89).
A split half reliability coefficient of .76 was reported by Lehmann
(69).

Validity coefficients are extremely difficult to derive from
measuring devices of this type. In discussing studies conducted to
validate two of his instruments, the Opinionation Scale and the Dogma-
tism Scale, Rokeach concluded, ”. . . that it is as yet premature to
say to what extent our measures are general measures of authoritarian-
ism and intolerance.“ (89:108). The Dogmatism.Scale compared favorably
to scales known to measure authoritarianism and intolerance, but no
specific validity coefficient is possible at this time.

The Occupational Aspiration §23l2_is an eight-item multiple
choice instrument. It was designed by Haller and.Miller (47) as a
relative measure of level of occupational aspiration, not as an abso-
lute measure. There are ten occupational choices scaled to span the
prestige range designed by the National Opinion Research Center in
each item. Subjects respond to four questions related to occupational

choices at two levels, realistic and idealistic. There are two short-

range and two long-range questions within each level. Choices within

'39
each item are scored from zero for the lowest prestige level to nine
for the highest. Total scores range from zero to seventy-two.

The results of reliability studies by the authors of the instru-
ment reveal coefficients of about .80. Predictive validity tests which
require long term studies have not been completed as yet. Validity
studies completed thus far indicate promising results. According to
Miller and Heller, it is safe to assume the instrument valid for use
with adolescent males (76).

The Michigan State University 39513 Beliefs Check-List is a
forty-four item instrument measuring attitudes and beliefs regarding
work. Six areas of beliefs are included. They are as follows: (1)
expressive vs. instrumental value of work; (2) positive vs. negative
evaluation of structured time; (3) positive vs. negative evaluation
of physical mobility; (t) positive vs. negative evaluation of change;
(5) internal vs. external determination of events; and (6) positive
vs. negative evaluation of deferred gratification. The check-list is
scored on an aggggrdisagree scale. Sub scores for each area range
from one to eight. Total scores are not calculated.

One of the basic assumptions upon which this check-list is con-
structed is that beliefs concerning work can be arranged on a continuum.
At one end are rural, non-industrialized peeple who belong to extended-
kinship-type families, and at the other end are the urban, industrial-
ized peOple from nuclear-type families.

High scorers on the sub scale I will value work and disagree
with statements implying work is only a means to a financial end.
sub scale II scores depend on the assumption that persons valuing

structured time are more often from urban and industrialized backgrounds.

#0
Sub scale III mentions home and family ties in connection with physi-
cal mobility. The implication is that rural, non-industrialized
peOple from extended-kinship familieS‘will not value physical mObility.
Sub scale IV is related to sub scale III but offers statements concern-
ing conditions other than home and family. Sub scale V is constructed
on the principal that those viewing industrialization favorably will
believe in internal or self-determined causation of events. Broad
middle class values related to extended education, thrift, and hard
work are intended to differentiate between persons on sub scale VI.

An attempt to measure the internal consistency of the instru-
ment through a correlation analysis of the six sub areas revealed that,
except for one area, the check-list "agrees with itself" (23:S#). A
similar internal consistency test was the basis for establishing the
validity of the instrument. Each item was analyzed to determine
whether the items were measuring the variable intended. EXcept for
some qualification for the six items from sub scale III, the area of
lowest agreement with the five other sub scales, the items within the
check-list exhibited a high level of internal consistency and, to this
extent, were thought to measure the intended variable (23).

The Sixteen Personality E39321; lest, £313} A, measures separate
source traits or dimensions of personality. Extensive factor analytic
research has shown these traits or dimensions to be real, functionally
unitary, and psychologically significant dimensions of personality.

The sixteen factors measured by this instrument have been discovered
in questionnaire materials and validated or identified by correlating

them with factors found in observer ratings in everyday life situations.

#1

There are ten questions for eight of the factors and thirteen
questions for the remaining eight factors. Each question has three
possible responses which are weighted from zero to plus two.' Three
extraneous questions, which do not contribute to any factors, are
included in the total of 187 questions. The test is untimed and
usually takes approximately twenty-five minutes to complete.

The split half reliability coefficients on a sample of 200
subjects, corrected to the full number of items in forms A and B,
are as follows for the various factors: A, .84; B, .70; C, .71;

E, .82; F, .85; G, .56; H, .74; I, .54; L, .55; M, .72; N, .65; O, .88;
Q1, .50; Q2, .61; Q3, .53; Q4, .76. Test-retest coefficients have been
determined for Form C of the test, a shortened version of Forms A and
B. Reliability coefficient values average approximately .49 for all
sixteen factors (19).

Eyen though construct validity has been demonstrated by correlat-
ing observer ratings and questionnaire data, predictive validity is
dependent upon the subjects being tested. Questionnaires have been
shown to have their most valid applications with students or coopera-
tive anonymous subjects who completed the test under research conditions.

A brief description of the traits associated with each factor is
included in Appendix.A. The terms, titles, and descriptions are con-
densed from the Sixteen Personality Factor Test Manual and a text by

Dr. Raymond B. Cattell, author of the instrument (17) (19).

Research Motheses _o_i_‘_ thg M
This study originated because of a lack of comparative data con-
cerning the two populations herein examined. Differences between degree

and short course students have been assumed, but no scientifically

42
reliable data has been presented to substantiate these assumptions.
Since exploratory studies are developed and carried out to answer un-
resolved questions, they do not lend themselves to theory based hypothe—
ses. Thus, only two general research hypotheses are investigated in
this study.

1. It can by hypothesized that sociological differences exist
between agricultural short course and degree students.

2. It can be hypothesized that psychological differences
exist between agricultural short course and degree students.

The paucity of Specific research hypotheses is indicative of
the lack of current and valid information which presently restricts
the degree to which one can make accurate comparisons of these two

pepulations.

Statistical Procedures £93; W 9}; t_h_e_ _I_)_a_t__a_

Each student's scores and reSponses from the research instru-
ments were coded and key punched into two IBM cards by the Michigan
State University Data Processing Department. A total of seventy-three
variables were recorded for each student. Data from all 176 agricul-
ture short course students and from 197 of 199 agriculture degree
students who enrolled at Michigan State University during the fall
term of 196h'were used in the statistical analysis. Two degree stu-
dents supplied only partial data and were excluded from the analysis.

The data were processed through the Michigan State University
3600 Computer according to previously prepared.Analysis of Contingency
Tables (ACT II) (98) and CORE (5?) programs. Category or cell group-
ings of the data for chi square analysis were taken from national
normative studies of similar groups or instrument author's suggested

grouping wherever possible. The ACT II program calculated and.printed

l+3

observed frequencies, row means and standard deviations for each pepu-
lation, percentage of cells in row totals, theoretical frequencies,
cell contribution to chi square, chi square with degrees of freedom
and productamdment correlation coefficients. The CORE program.calcu-
lated population means, standard deviations and productqmoment correla-
tion coefficients. Chi Square Tests were used with nominal scale data
and Unit Normal Curve Probability or ”2" tests with cardinal scale data
to determine statistically significant differences between pepulations.

The main statistical hypotheses and the sub hypotheses tested

were as follows;

Ho-l. There are no differences in personality traits between
agriculture short course and degree students as measured

by the Sixteen Personality Factor Test.

Sub Hypotheses

Ho-1.a. Factor A Cyclothymia versus Schizothymia

Ho-1.b. Factor B General Intelligence versus Mental
Defect

Ho-1.c. Factor C Emotional Stability or Ego Strength
versus General Neuroticism

Ho-1.e. Factor E Dominance or Ascendance versus
Submission

Ho-1.f. Factor F Surgency versus Desurgency

Ho-1.g. Factor G Positive Character versus Immature

' Dependent Character

Ho-1.h. Factor H Adventurous Cyclothymia versus In-
herent‘Withdrawn

Ho-1.i. Factor I Emotional Sensitivity versus Tough
Maturity _

Ho-l.l. Factor L Paranoid Schizothymia versus Trustful
Accessibility

Ho-1.m. Factor M Bohemianism versus Practical Concerned-
ness

Ho-1.n. Factor N SOphistication versus Rough Sim-
plicity

Ho-1.o. Factor 0 ‘Worrying Suspiciousness versus Calm
Trustful

Ho-1.q1. Factor Q1 Radicalism versus Conservatism

Ho-1.q2. Factor Q2 Independent Self-Sufficiency versus

Lack of Resolution (Dependent)
Ho-1.q3. Factor Q3 ‘Will Control Versus Lack of Charac-
ter Stability
Ho-1.qg. Factor Qg Nervous Tension

I 7 1.-.
lflr

Ho—Z. There are no differences in work attitudes between agri-
culture short course and degree students as measured by
the Michigan State University work Beliefs Check-list.

Sub~Hypotheses

Ho-2.a. Expressive vs. instrumental value of work

Ho-2.b. Positive vs. negative evaluations of structured
time

Ho-2.c. Positive vs. negative evaluation of physical
mobility

Ho-2.d. Positive vs. negative evaluation of change

Ho-2.e. Internal vs. external determination of events

Ho-2.f. Positive vs. negative evaluation of deferred

gratification

There is no difference in the degree of dogmatism.between

Ho-B.
agriculture short course and degree students as measured
by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form E.

Ho-#. There is no difference in the level of occupational
aspiration between agriculture short course and degree
students as measured by the Occupational Aspiration
Scale.

Ho-5. There is no difference in academic aptitude between agri-
culture short course and degree students as measured by
the College Qualification Test.

Sub Hypotheses
Ho-5.a. Verbal score
Ho-5.b. Informational score
Ho-5.c. Numerical score
Ho-6. There is no difference between agriculture short course

and degree students in regard to the following sociologi-
cal factors:

Ho-6.a. Father's education
Ho-6.b. Mother's education
Ho-6.c. Father's occupation
Ho-6.d. Mother's occupation
Ho-6.e. Father's income

Ho-6.f. Number of older brothers
Ho-6.g. Home location

Ho-6.h.
Ho~6.i.

Ho-6.j.
Ho-6.k.
Ho-6.l.

Occupational choice crystallization

Parental encouragement to attend either a
college or short course program

Number of years of vocational agricultural
courses completed in high school

Number of job experiences outside of the major
area of study.

Preference for working with ideas, machines,

animals, people, or plants.

44

Sampling or inferential statistical tests and criterion of
significant difference are being used even though this study compares
two pepulations. The possibility that these pepulations may be con-
sidered samples of a larger abstract pepulation of past and future
agriculture students make it advisable to use sampling statistics.
The .05 level of significance was selected as the criterion in test-
ing the statistical or null hypotheses. This level will result in
acceptance of the null hypothesis one time in twenty cases purely by
chance. Changes which.may be instituted in the agriculture degree and
short course programs as a result of this study require a minimum pre-
cision at the .05 level in judging whether differences are significant.
All statistical tests of the null hypotheses are recorded on tables in

Chapter Four and in Appendix B.

Summary
This study was designed to compare two populations of agricul-

ture students on selected psychological and sociological factors
thought to be related to educational achievement and educational and
occupational advisement. A pilot study completed in the fall terl.of
1963 resulted in modification and improvement of instrumentation and
data collection techniques used in this study.

Student responses on test and questionnaire instruments were
5°u8ht from 176 firstqyear short course students and 199 firstqyear
degree students. Complete data were gathered from all but two degree
students. Inferential statistics were used in the analysis of popu-
lation data to permit application of the results to a conceptualized
Population. The data were statistically analyzed by means of the

Michigan State University 3600 Computer ACT II and.CORE programs

45
using "2" tests and chi quare statistics to test the significance of
the findings.

The factors studied were thought to be related to educational
achievement and educational and occupational advisement. Studies re-
viewed in Chapter II indicate that these factors are related, in vary-
ing degrees,to educational achievement and advisement. Chapter IV

contains the analysis of the data.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF'THE DATA

This chapter presents the analysis of the data in two sections.
The first section cites the psychological factors examined, and the
second section presents the sociological factors used in comparing the
two populations of agriculture college students. The discussion ac-
companying the data emphasizes the differences between the populations,
since this was the primary purpose of the study.

The statistical hypotheses were tested by use of the Chi Square
(x2) Test and the Unit Normal Curve Probability or 2 Test. The 2 Test
is meaningful only where the data are continuous and parametric. It
is thus limited to testing mean score differences on instruments using
cardinal scale values.

The statistical hypotheses were rejected wherever the chi square

or 2 values indicated a difference significant at the .05 level.

_z.__s__Ps cholo ical fades. W
Personality Factors:

Ho-l. There are no differences in personality traits between
agriculture short course and degree students as measured
by the Sixteen Personality Factor Test.

This general hypotheses was rejected. Mean scores and statisti-

cal test data for each of the sixteen factors are found in Table 1.
More complete data for individual factors can be found in Appendix B,

Table 18 through Table 33.

47

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE 1: Mean scores of agriculture short course
and degree students on the Sixteen
Personality Factor Test
SHORT COURSE DEGREE STATISTICAL TEST
FACTORS STUDENTS STUDENTS VALUES
Mean Mean Z Test Sign. Level
A. Cyclothymia versus
Schizothymia 8.227 8.614 1.206 .23
B. General Intelligence
versus Mental Defect 6.744 7.817 5.531 *.0001
C. Emotional Stability
versus General
Neuroticism. 15.352 16.487 3.234 *.001
E. Dominance or Ascend-
ance versus
Submission 12.489 12.843 .932 .35
F. Surgency versus
Desurgency 14.614 15.381 1.840 .07
G. Positive Character
versus Immature
Dependent Char. 12.767 12.594 .537 .59
H. Adventurous Cyclo-
thymia versus
Inherent withdrawn 11.330 11.553 .454 .65
I. Emotional Sensitivity
versus Tough
Maturity 7.903 7.802 .342 .74
L. Paranoid Schizothymia
versus Trustful
Accessibility“ 9.381 9.421 .125 .90
M. Bohemianism versus
Practical Con-
cernedness 10.693 10.964 .842 .39
N. Sophistication versus
Rough Simplicity 10.523 10.437 .361 .73
O. worrying SuSpicious-
ness versus Calm
Trustful 11.063 10.249 2.293 *.02
Q1. Radicalism versus
Conservatism 9.267 9.157 .401 .69
Q2. Independent Self-
Sufficiency versus
Lack of Resolution 9.636 10.254 1.896 .058
Q3. Will Control versus
Lack of Character
Stability' 10.114 9.970 .500 .61
Q4. Nervous Tension 13.193 12.574 1.328 .18

 

*At or beyond the

.05 level of significance.

4,3

It can be seen that measurements on factor B, General Intelli-
gence versus Mental Defect; factor C, Emotional Stability versus
General Neuroticism; and factor 0, worrying Suspiciousness versus
Calm Trustful exhibit significant differences causing rejection of
sub hypotheses Ho-1.b, Ho-1.c, and Ho-1.o listed on page 43.

On the basis of factor B results, degree students are more
intelligent, more assertive, quicker to grasp ideas, and more likely
to be successful in classroom learning situations than short course
students.1

Factor C contrasts Emotional Stability or Ego Strength with
General Neuroticism. Degree students score higher than short course
students on factor C indicating they are more emotionally mature and
stable, more realistic about life, less worried and less impulsive.

By contrast, short course students are described as less mature, lack-
ing in frustration tolerance, more worrying and more anxious.

From scores on factor 0, degree students are described as more
self-confident, placid, free from suspicion and self-sufficient while
short course students are described as more worrying, anxious, suspi-
cious, lonely, and with greater feelings of inadequacy.

There were no statistically significant reasons for rejecting

the null hypotheses of no differences between the two populations on

sub hypotheses Ho-l: a, e, f. g, h: i, 1, m, n, 91’ 929 Q39 qt:

‘Wbrk Beliefs:

Ho-Z: There are no differences in work attitudes between
agriculture short course and degree students as
measured by the Michigan State University Work Beliefs
Check-list.

1Descriptive terms used are taken from the Sixteen Personality
Factor Test Manual.

49
Mean scores and statistical test data for each of the six areas
of Whrk Beliefs are found in Table 2.
TABLE 2: Mean scores of agriculture short
course and degree students on the

Michigan State University work
Beliefs Check-List

 

 

SHORT COURSE DEGREE STATISTICAL TET

 

 

BELIEES STUDENTS STUDENTS VALUES
Mean Mean Z Test Sign. Level

 

1. Expressive versus

Instrumental 6.773 6.766 .067 .95
2. Positive versus Nega-

tive Structured.Time 6.142 6.051 .611 .54
3. Positive versus Nega-

tive Physical Mobility 3.085 3.650 4.449 *.0001

4. Positive versus Nega-

tive Evaluation of

Change 6.239 6.426 2.101 *.03
5. Internal versus External

Determination of

events 6.108 6.193 .669 .50
6. Positive versus

Negative Deferred

Gratification 5.608 5.731 .969 .33

 

*At or beyond the .05 level of significance.

Short course and degree students differ significantly on Belief
Three, positive versus negative evaluation of physical mobility, and
Belief Four, positive versus negative evaluation of change. Degree
students view physical mobility more positively than short course
students. Similarly, they view change more favorably than short course
students.

More complete data for individual beliefs can be found in Appendix
B, Table 34 through.Table 39. There were no statistically significant
reasons for rejecting the null hypotheses of no differences between

the two papulations on sub hypotheses Ho-2: a, b, e, f.

50
Dogmatism:

Ho-3. There is no difference in the degree of Dogmatism be-
tween agriculture short course and degree students as
measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form.E.

This hypothesis was rejected. Mean scores, standard deviations,
and frequency distributions for the Dogmatism Scale are shown in Table
3.

Short course students are significantly more dogmatic or "closed"
in their belief systems than degree students. Table 3 reveals that
18.75 per cent of the short course students score above 200 while
only about 5.59 per cent of the degree students score that high. The
reverse is true below the 140 score level where 19.29 per cent of the
degree students score that low and only 7.96 per cent of the short
course students. Frequency distributions for both pepulations approxi-

mate normal curve distributions indicating that the differences are not

created by a few extreme scores.

Occupational Aspiration:

Ho-4. There is no difference in the level of occupational
aSpiration between agriculture short course and degree
students as measured by the Occupational ASpiration
Scale.

This hypothesis was rejected. Mean scores, standard deviations,
and frequency distributions for the Occupational Aspiration Scale are
illustrated in Table 4.

Degree students score significantly higher than short course

students indicating that they have higher occupational aspirations.

College Qualification Test:

Ho-5. There is no difference in academic aptitude between
agriculture short course and degree students as measured
by the College Qualification.Test.

51

.aoroa soc. ea reassesnwan

235..” ~80. so c.5335?
.5 n sooooum Ho moonmoo .m:m.on a museum snot

.leaom fl Ni...

 

 

co. o:.~ e~.: as.a an. on. me.“ «o.~ o~.n oo. reason one
co. mm.e Ho.efi ms.~e an.en mm.ne ow.o~ m~.m mm.a oo. .umtm .sotoose
oo. an. mo.“ an.sa ma.am wm.m~ o~.na am.e mm.a oo. unohoa .som
when 8&3... 8. co; 8.3 86m 8.3 8.8 cogs 8d cos 8. nonsense taboo
oo. ea.~ wa.e mn.s an. or. mn.a mm.~ we.” co. chosen are
oo. as.n mm.mH -.mm me.an mo.ae oe.ma mm.e Ne.a oo. .eohm .oohmosa
om.m~ os.oaa. WW” mm.m ma.ea as.w~ as.om No.sm mm.a an. co. co” nMMmessmom
. oo oo om oo we oo we oo an 00 as oo a oo oo cannon steam
.9.» has: 0mm oem omm oom own one and own ooh omo
norm namm uaom name name used rams uHoH name toeo

98m

{ii

em Inch .odoom gapaon scammed 23. no message

cosmos use masses phone 33.3033 we assess Ho cofipgaupmg

an H.549

52

.Ho>oH «coo. pa ssooamdsman .mdo.m u was

 

 

 

 

.Ho>oH «oo. pm psmoHMHsmam .w n Soooomm mo moonmoo .oso.mw u chandm Hoot
an. no.: on.n oo.~ oo. o~.~ me.m so.n ee.m oo. esteem ago
n~.e wo.ma ss.m~ no.o~ om.es oo.mm mm.~n mo.as o~.n oo. .eota .ootoose
oo.: ma.oa ee.na o~.oa mm.mm oo.~a so.o em.~ oo. oo. nnoto< .oom
om.oa on.ne.. oo.o oo.o~ oo.nn oo.om oo.oe oo.m~ oo.oa oo.m oo.H oo. nonsense ornate
sa.n ea.e so.n oo.n so. am.m so.o -.e oo.n oo. season one
Mm.n mm.aa m~.mm mo.nm oo.om om.on on.o~ on.oa we.“ oo. .oommowwumomuw
. ~.m oo. oo.o om.am oa.~m oo.mm oo.o as. oo. .
am.m No.emts oo. oo. . . . . . . . . unconspm
e oo on oo as oo on oo on oo we oo as oo o oo entree spasm
.n.m one: mauao oornn snuos mono: «onem omnan on-m~ euros manna Nauoo
II; museum nun
_.. .odoom oo.—”panama gooapmdsooo one. so monotone common
.93 causes team oasudsowmmo Ho momoom Ho moapgfihsng .5 mafia.

 

53
This hypothesis was rejected. Sub hypotheses Ho-5.a, Ho-5.b,
and Hc-5.c dealing with sub scores on the verbal, informational, and
numerical sections of the CQT were also rejected. 'Mean scores and
statistical test data fer the COT sections and the complete test are
presented in Table 5. Mere complete data for each section can be
found in.Appendix B, Table 40 through Table 43.
TABLE 5: Mean scores of agriculture short course

and degree students on the College
Qualification Test

 

 

SHORT COURSE DEGREE STATISTICAL TEST

 

 

 

SECTION OF TEST STUDENTS STUDENTS VALUES
Mean Mean Z Test Sign. Level
Verbal 28.261 43.883 11.598 *.0001
Informational 36.483 49.193 14.609 *.0001
Numerical 18.943 30.726 14.710 *.0001
331331 Score 83.631 123.802 16.423 *.0001

 

*At or beyond the .05 level of significance.

Degree students score significantly higher on all three aspects

of this measure of academic aptitude.

Sociological Factors Examined

Educational Levels of Parents:

Ho-6.a. There is no difference between agriculture short course
and degree students in regard to the number oflyears of
school their fathers have completed.

Ho-6.b. There is no difference between agriculture short course
and degree students in regard to the number of'years of
school their mothers have completed.

54
Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the comparative educational levels of

the fathers and mothers of the agriculture short course and degree
students in this study.

A significant difference is apparent in the years of school
completed by the farmers. Therefore, hypothesis Ho—6.a was rejected.
The fathers of short course students completed fewer years of school.
Two of the major sources of the Chi square statistical difference are
the larger number of short course students' fathers who drapped out
of school after the eighth grade, 23.3 per cent, compared to only 13.2
per cent of the degree students' fathers and the lesser number com-
pleting four years of college, 9.7 per cent compared to 18.8 per cent.
The mean number of years of school completed was 11.13 for short
course students' fathers and 12.16 for degree students' fathers.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.b was not rejected. The degree
students' mothers' mean number of years of school completed was only
slightly higher, 12.28 years to 11.93 years, than short course students'
mothers'.

The percentages of short course students‘ fathers and mothers
attending at least one year of college were 19.89 and 27.27 per cent
reSpectively. The percentages of degree students' fathers and mothers
attending at least one year of college were 39.08 and 37.05 per cent

reSpectively.

Parents' Occupations:

Ho-6.c. There is no difference between agriculture short course
and degree students in regard to the types of occupa-
tions of their fathers.

Ho-6.d. There is no difference between agriculture short course
and degree students in regard to the types of occupa-
tions of their mothers.

 

55

 

.HoboH «o. as paedmwgdm .a u Seesaw. .«o moomwoo .msmom u summon .30...
~m.~ oo. oo. mo.a no. so. on. mo.m oo.~ or. chosen one
Nn.o~ on.n ~m.mn mo.aa on.ne Ho.n ma.ma no.o om.mn on.o .eonm .oohoooe
ma.oa em.~ oo.o NH.o ~m.¢m mo.n oo.m mo.n o~.nn oo.: anono< .oom
oa.ma oo.on oo.n oo.oH oo.oa oo.oo oo.o oo.oH oo.~ oo.o~ oo.o nonsense cosmos
~o.~ an. oo. no.“ no. so. No. oo.n on.~ or. chosen “so
os.n~ om.n oo.ma om.oa on.no oa.m mo.on na.o Ho.sn oo.m .eonm.sonooee
oo.o ea.n oo.m as.n oo.om so.~ om.e n~.o om.m~ o~.~ onoooa .som
mH.HH oo.an oo.~ oo.oa oo.o oo.no oo.m oo.ma oo.HH oo.ae oo.: uncover»
omhsou spoon
one: one: m N H NH «H 0H m m mimosa

no # mm<mw

lll!‘
jlllrl

a.evsoo59m commoo use ommsoo
omens omsvHsonwd Ho uuompmm no oopoaoaoe Hooncm Ho endow “w mqmda

56

4...: on. o.

osmoamwsmfim .m u monsoon Ho coohmoo .mmm.oH n shadow anon

 

 

mm. mm. no. ms. nu. mm.m NH. «0. No. «0. endedm ago

on.- oo.o oo.oa an.oa oo.oo oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.om oo.o .eonm .sonooea

oo.oa oo.o ma.oa oo.o oo.o: mo.a oo.o oo.o oo.o“ mo.“ noono< .oom
o~.~H oo.om oo.o oo.om oo.oH oo.eo oo.o oo.oa oo.o oo.om oo.~ unconsom sonata

on. oo. oo. no. om. oo.o no. oo. «o. Ho. onnsom ago

mm.o~ ma.n mm.ma no.éa nm.mu oo.m No.m mo.m 0:.ma mm.“ .aonm .aohoona

wo.m on.“ mo.m mm.w no.5: ww.m mm.m H:.m ow.o~ SH.“ moaned .pom
no.HH oo.oa oo.o oo.os oo.mn oo.:o oo.o oo.n oo.o oo.om oo.~ nonoosom

. ommsoo vuomm

one: one: m N a «a an on o o mutton

to e amass

 

 

n.uusoo=pm oomwoo one causes
shone campasoamwm we escapes an oouoaosoo access no nude» «m mqmda

57

Tables 8 and 9 contain classifications of the occupations of
fathers and mothers respectively.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.c was rejected. The major differ-
ence between pepulations results from the proportions of fathers
following professional occupations. Sixteen per cent of the fathers
of degree students are employed in a profession as compared to 4 per
cent of fathers of Short course students. A disproportionately higher
number of fathers of short course students who are farmers also con-
tributed to the significant chi square values.

The fathers of both pepulations are predominantly blue collar
workers. In table 8, blue collar occupations are those classified
under farmer, factory worker, and carpenter category captions.

There are 73.85 per cent of the short course students' fathers em-
ployed in blue collar occupations and 55.33 per cent of the degree
students' fathers.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.d was not rejected. Statistical
evidence does not warrant the conclusion that the mothers' occupations
were significantly different between the two pOpulations. Over 70

per cent of the mothers of both pOpulations are primarily housewives.

Income:

Ho-6.e. There is no difference between agriculture short course
and degree students in regard to the level of income
of their fathers.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.e was rejected. Table 10 illus-

trates the relative income levels of the fathers in two categories,

farmer and non-farmer.

58

.Hoboa Hoo. so pedodudcmam .a u monsoon Ho moohmoo .anm.mm u common «no

 

 

on; no. 3. oo. oo.o , oo.o. on; so. and S. choose as
om; oo.o 8.3 when oo.om oo.: 8.3 to 8.8 3.3 doom .oonooea
«m4 oo.: oo.o in? 8:8 oo.o 3.5 mm; 3.8 a: nachos zoom
oo.m oo.o 8.3 8.3 oo.mm 8.8 8.1: oo.o 8.8 8.3 noeoooom 8.38
~13 8. on. on. tog oo.o on; 8. oo.o on. tomato no
no; oo.o 8.2 3.8 8.2 oo.o 3.2 oo.o 8.8 8.3 .8& Status
wow” on; 3% 3.2 oo.o Sod no.2 on; 9.8 no“: nmmmwufim o

oo m oo o oo Hm oo N. co m oo mm oo n oo so oo o Shoo shone

owsoamsom oohoaasm .opoa.pooam .mooz accede oohoadsm gonzo seesaw mosmo noose
oohwpom .eow .QESHm homosms nmomomm .msm .msn moanmm mosmmh no
I.dumu .uexaoz HHmsm Hanan oonsooon
Sign bosons

20Ha<msooo 2H<S m.mmmeafi

lllllI-Ill-.l. I‘rt‘ vl.:

 

Inv' ail 1||tltll.0, 1 DIII’JII 1 .Ir‘ll".

.oosoosoo
commas use omasoo phone onsoasoaamm no onenpsm Ho esoaoodsooo

”w mqm<a

59

.Hmbod on. Pd pcmoamacwam .m u sodomy“ mo noohmmv .Hwo.m u muuuwm H£o*

 

NH. 8. an. 8. no. 8. 3. 84.. 8. i. 98: Eu
8”» Si 3 .m 8.: $.N 8;: mm . H 2.9 8.2: mm... 60¢ me85
8% 8:0. R. an; an; 86 84 8.8 no.8 $8 883 $8
8 2 8.: 84 8.m 8.n 8.8 8.m 8.2 889 8.“ 3888 3&8
ma” H00 00. 30 no. 30 NH. WNQN BO. 0d. OoHdflng 30
No.0 us.m aw.a mm.m mm.m ¢B.NH m#.a mN.NH mm.mmd un.n .vvnh .¢¢uoona
8.m 84.. 84 8.~ $4 mné R. 88 8.8 on.“ 323 Jon
8 N. 8... 88 88 8.~ 8.2 84 88 8.84 88 3:358

onuflou phonm

 

guano omnsz cusp: .uum noxupz. madam Amxhoz. «madaaafi honodca chasmmsom ummdooon

 

 

1.56Hgsm man moammo pawnddpm¢m
«Ham
ZOHBambooo m.mmmaoz
ll. ‘HHuuununnnnnuuuuuuununuuuuuuuu
.w :0 a m oonmcu nun
» u p .m uqm<a

onusoo phone ouspaaoaumm Mo uuonpqa Ho «:0fiadmsooo

60

TABLE 10: Estimated income levels and values of farms
owned by fathers of agriculture short course
and degree students

 

 

 

 

 

 

WARM-FATHERS **NON-FARMER-FATHERS
Estimated Fathers of Fathers of Estimated Fathers of Fathers of
W Short Course Degree £39953... Short Course Degree
Students Students ‘ Students Students
Less-10.000 1 o Less-2,000 3 0
10.000-29.999 12 9 2,000-3,1199 3 2
30.000.49.999 13 7 3,500.11,999 15 4
SUMO-69.999 13 11+ 5,000.6,999 21 21
70.000-89.999 9 12 7,000-8,999 12 28
90.000-109,999 13 7 9,000-10.999 ' 8 18
110,000-129,999 4 6 11,000-1u,999 5 1?
BONGO-1119.999 11 2 15,000-19.999 4 4
150.000.4330“ 11:, 7 20,000.1bove 7 11
N0 Reply o 1 No Reply 0
*“Total '56 33 73 11%
*Chi Square = 11.47, degrees of freedom.= 9, significant at

.30 level.

**Chi Square = 30.4h, degrees of freedom = 9, significant at
o 00 1 level 0

***Eight fathers of short course students and eighteen fathers
of degree students who were retired, pensioned or deceased
are not included in this table.

Estimates of fathers' incomes by students are admittedly not
entirely accurate. However, there is no reason to believe that one
group would be less accurate than the other. Income estimates were
grouped according to whether the father's main occupation was farming
or non-farming.

The mean estimated value for farms of short course students'
fathers was $85,388 while farms of degree students' fathers were esti-
mated to average $78,281. The mean estimated gross income of short

course students ' fithers who were non-farmers was $8, 359 85 compared

t° $10,129 for degree students' fathers. The major source of the

61
difference between the two papulations is due to the higher estimated
income of non-farmer fathers of degree students. Here, as in the
fathers' education level average, the larger preportion of profes-

sional fathers among degree students offers an explanation for the

difference.

Number of Older Brothers:

Ho-6.f. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the number
of older brothers.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.f was not rejected. Table 11

shows the number of older brothers of short course and degree students.

 

 

 

TABLE 11: Number of older brothers of agriculture
short course and degree students.*
None One Two Three Fbur Six Mean
Short Course
Students 105.00 49.00 16.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 .585
Pct. Across 59.66 27.84 9.09 2.27 .57 .57
Theoret. Freq. 112.30 43.41 15.57 3.77 .47 .47
Chi Square .47 .72 .01 .01 .59 .59
Degree Students 133.00 43.00 17.00 4.00 .00 .00 .451
Pct. Across 67.51 21.83 8.63 2.03 .00 .00
Theoret. Freq. 125.70 48. 59 17.43 4.23 .53 .53
Chi Square .42 .64 .01 .01 .53 .53

 

*Chi Square = 4.548, degrees of freedom = 5, significant

at .50 level.

Less than 12 per cent of all 373 subjects in both papulations

had more than one older brother.

This factor'was included because it

was thought that the number of older brothers was related to a student's

attendance at college.

One assumption was that several older brothers

might cause a subject to leave the farm.because of a lack of future

62
opportunity. Significant evidence that older brothers either hinder
or facilitate attendance at college or short course programs is not

available in this study.

Home Location:

Ho-6.g. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the loca-
tion of their homes.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.g was rejected. Table 12 presents

the home locations of short course and degree students.

The major sources of the significant chi square value are the
higher proportion of degree students who come from cities of over
10,000 papulation and the lower proportion who come from farm.homes.
It can be seen from Table 12 that the majority of degree students do
not come from active farms. Only 42 per cent of the degree students
come from farms as compared to 68 per cent of the short course students.
When asked whether they had ever lived on a farm, 48 per cent of the

degree students and 16 per cent of the short course students indicated

they had not.1

Occupational Choice Crystallization:

Ho-6.h. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to occupational
choice crystallization.

Table 13 illustrates the proportion of students who have def-

initely decided or crystallized their occupational choice.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.h was rejected. Chi square values

indicate significant differences between the papulations in regard

 

1Data related.to this question can be found in Table 45,
Appendix B.

63

.Ho>oH Hoo. as undefimacmam .m u sopooum Ho mooamoc .mhm.a¢ n chosen “new

 

mm. mm.“ ma.n oo. as. es. es.“ en. Ha.n museum ass
mm.” mm.m~ as.ms as.e am.e oa.m ma.s as.ms me.woa .aoha .souooea
Hm. «m.am ma.ea nm.m oo.o en.~ No.a 08.0a Ne.as amouo< .pom
oo.o oo.~s oo.m~ 00.5 oo.m oo.m oo.~ oo.a~ oo.mw manqeasm cosmos
aw. em.n oo.o oo. am. am. mm.“ mm. mm.o sheave aeu
me.H ~:.m~ an.ea oo.o no.0 om.m m~.e “n.0a an.mm .wonm .oouoona
oo.o no.“ He.m ae.n em.~ so.“ ma.m ma.a ma.me mucosa .oom
oo.~ oo.sa oo.o oo.o oo.m oo.~ oo.a oo.ea oo.oma useoeaom
ounsoo enema

 

sauce osoo< 888.8: mmm.m 888.: eam.a ooo.a anamaeoz scam
oz uooo.on uooo.oH -ooo.n -ooo.~ -Hoo.a teens auseaoo

20Ha<ooq mzcm

 

 

*.mpcouopn oonwou
use ceases phone ousuasoauwd no usedasooa ego: «Na Hands

64

.Hobod «oo. am vcdoamwswflm .m u Bouoohm Ho moohwov .H¢«.nm n museum anus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

me” a~.n mo. mm.~ as.“ ee.n so. am.“ am.o~ season «so
no.n Hw.mn em.ma om.ae mm.m oo.o” ma.ma Ho.ma sm.ns .uosa .uonooea
No.a ow.nN mw.m amfim mw.w $.m 00.0 ow.© H75 macho.‘ team
co m oo.an oo.ea oo.am oo.ea oo.ma oo.na oo.m. oo.sa speoesom common
as” ae.n no. as.~ No.s .a.s so. m..~ ma.- ...aaa ass
ms.~ an.nn me.ss cm.sm No.8 as.a am.~. aa.ea es.am .essa .sosmoae
.2. .2.
o. o e o e e o e

em co as oo am oo as N as no oo mm oo o oussoo phone

thom cadmwoon .ooamlcoz .km< .th .osfim .bhom .msm modanmh
oz 02 non Assoc :02 .uwd .hw< .umd
«penance
onasmpooo zo moHomo meHZHmmn
NHL «thlllllllllll nHunnuuuuuuunuuuuuunnuuunnuuu
11:!
. 8
* masseuse oonmou v «ma mgmde

ouusoo phone caspasounma mo moodono Hanoaomosooo

65
to the types of occupations selected as well as a definite occupa-
tional decision. The major sources of the chi square values were
found in the short course population where a larger proportion has
decided to be farmers and a smaller prOportion has decided upon a
non-agriculturally related occupation. A comparatively large per-
centage of students in agricultural programs could be empected to
have made a choice of occupation since the curricula are usually

vocationally oriented. Short course programs are particularly voca-

tionally oriented.

Parental Encouragement:

Ho-6.i. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the parental
encouragement they received to attend either a short

course or degree program.
Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.i was rejected. The students'
opinion of whether they felt their parents encouraged them to attend
either a short course or degree program is tabulated in Table 14.

TABLE 14: Parental encouragement of agriculture short
course and degree students to attend a

short course or degree program.*

 

 

 

Encouraged Short Course Program. Yes Yes No No

and and and and No
Encouraged Degree Program Yes No Yes No R3931
Short Course Students 69.00 55-00 5.00 14.00 33-00
Pct. Across 39.20 31.25 2.84 7.95 18.75
Theoret. Freq. 38.69 26.42 77.38 14.16 19.35
Chi Square 23.74 30.90 67.71 .00 9.64
Degree Students 13.00 1.00 159.00 16.00 8.00
Pct. Across 6.60 .51 80.71 8.12 4.06
Theoret. Freq. 43.31 29.58 86.62 15.84 21.65
931 Square 21.21 27.61 60.49 .00 8.61

 

*Chi Square = 249.912, degrees of freedom.= 4,
significant at .001 level.

66

Several studies reviewed in Chapter II note that parental
aspirations are related to the educational aspirations of their chil-
dren (15) (41) (51) (56) (80). Parents of short course students were
favorable to both programs. Parents of degree students encouraged
entrance into a college program'by an overwhelming preportion.

A more covert expression of encouragement is the amount of
financial aid the parents are willing to supply their sons. Approxi-
mately one-half of the short course students report their parents
supply less than 30 per cent of their expenses as compared to one-
third of the degree students receiving less than 30 per cent from
their parents. Table 46 in Appendix.B reveals the extent of parental

support in greater detail.

Vocational Agriculture Courses:

Ho-6.j. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the number
of years of high school vocational agriculture
courses completed.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.j was rejected. Table 15 shows
the past vocational agriculture course enrollments for short course
and degree students.

The major source of the significant chi square value is the
prOportion of students who have had no vocational agriculture courses.
Only 25 per cent of the short course students have had no vocational
agriculture courses in high school while 62 per cent of the degree

students have had no such courses.

Job Experiences:

Ho-6.k. There is no difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the number
of job experiences, outside of their major area
of study.

67

 

 

 

TABLE 15: Years of vocational agriculture courses
completed in high school by agriculture
short course and degree students.*
YEARS COMPLETED No
1 2 3 4 0 Reply’ Mean
Short Course
Students 13.00 9.00 15.00 94.00 44.00 ‘1.00 2.56
Pct. Across 7.39 5.11 8.52 53.41 25.00 .57
Theoret. Freq. 9.91 7.55 12.74 65.12 78.80 1.89
Chi Square .96 .28 .40 12.81 15.37 .42
Degree Students 8.00 7.00 12.00 44.00 123.00 3.00 1.19
Pct. Across 4.06 3.55 6.09 22.34 62.44 1.52
Theoret. Freq. 11.09 8.45 14.26 72.88 88.20 2.11
Chi Square .86 .25 .36 11.45 13.73 .37

 

*Chi Square = 57.260, degrees of freedom = 5,
significant at .001 level.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.k is rejected.

data related to job experiences.

Table 16 presents the

Jobs which require knowledge and

skills not normally associated with the occupations within the stu-

dents major area of study are useful in acquiring information con-

cerning future occupational choices.

The mean number of job experiences reported by both groups was

2.08 jobs; however, a larger prOportion of degree students had two or

more jobs.

The percentage of boys in the General Agriculture short

course who live and work on farms probably limits the number of ”out-

side of the area” jobs the short course pepulation can undertake.

Farm boys enrolled in the General Agriculture short course who work

for other farmers or in farm related enterprises would not be working

outside of their area of study.

Boys whose fathers are not farmers,

even among short course students, are more likely to have wider job

experience than are farmers' sons.

68

.Hobod No. He pgoamwcwwm .m u acumen.“ no 8980.0 .5928. u shadow .20...

 

 

 

 

am.« we.” mm. an. we. as. mo.~ oo.o on. as. season «so
me.«n oo.o mm. Ha.~ ma.s mm.m ma.~m ma.me mm.~e oa.n .uonm .vouooee
ma.~a oo. oo. ~n.« mm.” mm.m Hm.o~ ee.a~ mm.m~ mo.a smouo< .oom
8.~ 8.8. 8. 8. 8.m 8.m 8.x. 8.3 8.8 8.8 8.~ 3888 8.88
8s m... an. a... a. a... Rs 8.. 8. as. . .88 as
an.m~ ea. as. 88.. m~.s No.8 m~.a~ mm.ms we.mn omum asumouwumwmuw
. me.o~ a... an. an. He.n we.m «a... 88.8. ~m.am sm.~ messages
we m oo.on oo.~ oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o. oo.a~ oo.mm oo.mn co m cannon steam
one: finned m N. o m +~ m N H 282
oz
.11 mmozmHmmmxm mos _nun
*.epceuspe seamed use commas phone caspasowmmm
mo .dond hfisvm genes we ovampso .mooooanodwo new ”we mqm<e

Preference in work:

Ho-6.l.

Statistical hypothesis Ho-6.l is rejected.

the preferences of both populations.

There is no difference between agriculture short

course and degree students in regard to preference
for working with ideas, machines, animals, people,

or plants.

Table 1? reveals

The major sources of the sig-

nificant chi square value were the differences in the preferences to

work with peOple and machines.

 

 

 

TABLE 17: Preferences of agriculture short course
and degree students for working with ideas,
machines, animals, peOple, or plants.*
Ideas Machines Animals PeOple Plants Eggly
Short Course
Students 19.00 37.00 41.00 20.00 14.00 45.00
Pct. Across 10.80 21.02 23.30 11.36 7.95 25. 57
Theoret. Freq. 19.35 28.78 48-83 32-56 16-04 34-45
Chi Square .01 2.35 .33 4.84 .26 3.23
Degree Students 22.00 24.00 54.00 49.00 20.00 28.00
Pct. Across 11.17 12.18 27.41 24.87 10.15 14.21
Theoret. Freq. 21.65 32.22 50.17 36.44 17.96 38.55
Chi Square .01 2.10 .29 4.33 .23 2.89

 

*Chi Square = 20.859, degrees of freedom = 5, significant

at .001 level.

The proportion of short course students preferring to work with

machines is greater than the proportion of degree students.

Similarly,

there are preportionately more degree students who prefer to work with

peOple. ‘Working with ideas was preferred by only 11 per cent of both

groups. The highest percentage of those reporting from both groups

indicated a preference to work with animals.

70

Psychological Factors

This section presented data from the agriculture short course

and degree student pepulations in regard to selected psychological

factors thought to be related to educational achievement and educa—

tional and occupational advisement.

results were discussed briefly.

The data were tabulated and

Statistical tests of the null hypothe-

ses revealed the following significant findings:

1.

3.

There are significant differences between agriculture short

course and degree students on three personality factors

measured by the Sixteen Personality Factor Test. Short

course students scored lower on (B) General Intelligence

versus Mental Defect and (C) Emotional Stability or Ego

Strength versus General Neuroticism. They scored higher

on (O) Wbrrying Suspiciousness versus Calm Trustful.
There are significant differences between agriculture short

course and degree students on two sub scales of the work

Beliefs Check-list. Short course students scored lower on

Positive versus Negative Evaluation of Change and Positive

versus Negative Evaluation of Physical Mobility.

There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in their degree of dogmatism as
measured by the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form E. Short
course students are more dogmatic than degree students.

There is a significant difference between agriculture short

course and degree students in their occupational aspiration

level as.measured by the Occupational L5piration Scale.

5.

71
Short course students do not hold aspirations as high as
degree students.
There are significant differences between agriculture short
course and degree students on College Qualification Test

scores. Short course students score lower on all three sub

scores, verbal, informational, and numerical.

Sociological Factors

This section presented data from the agriculture short course

and degree student populations on twelve selected sociological factors

thought to be related to educational achievement and educational and

vocational advisement. The data were tabulated and the results dis-

cussed briefly. Statistical tests of the null hypotheses revealed the

following significant findings:

1.

3.

There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to their fathers' level
of education. Fathers of short course students complete
fewer years of school.

There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students' fathers in regard to their occu.
pations. Over one-half the fathers of short course students
are farmers and only 4 per cent are professionals while only
one-third of the fathers of degree students are farmers and
16 per cent are professionals.

There is a significant difference between the agriculture
short course and degree students' fathers in regard to their

income levels. Non-farmer fathers' incomes differ; degree

students' non-farmer fathers have more income.

4.

5.

72
There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the location of
their homes. More short course than degree students live
on farms.
There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to their occupational
choice crystallization. More short course than degree stu-
dents have made a definite decision about their future
occupations.
There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in the perceived encouragement
they received from their parents to attend either a short
course or degree program. Degree students receive almost
no encouragement to attend short courses and are greatly
encouraged to attend degree programs while short course
students are encouraged to attend both programs.
There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the number of years
of vocational agriculture courses completed in high school.
Short course students average almost three years completed
while degree students average one year of vocational agri-
culture.
There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to the number of job
experiences they have had outside of their major area of
study. Degree students have had more varied jobs than short

course students.

9.

73

There is a significant difference between agriculture short
course and degree students in regard to their preference

for working with ideas, machines, animals, people, or plants.
Working with animals is most favored by both groups. More
short course than degree students prefer to work with ma-
chines while prOportionately more degree than short course

students prefer to work with people.

CHAPTER V

smear: CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION, AND RECOlfl/IENDATIONS

Summggx

Purpose and Procedure

The purpose of this study was to make a comparative descriptive
study of two types of College of Agriculture students. Agriculture
short course students and agriculture degree students were studied
using selected psychological and sociological factors as indices of
comparison. Only those factors thought to be related to educational
achievement and educational and vocational advisement were employed.
Valid up-to-date information concerning short course students should
facilitate more accurate and realistic evaluation of their potential
abilities, aspirations, and academic and non-academic needs than was
previously possible. Such data relevant to degree students is also
needed to maximize their growth and develOpment during the years they
are in college. However, the central focus of this study was upon the
characteristics and needs of agriculture short course students.

The subjects studied were agriculture students enrolled in the
Michigan State University College of Agriculture during the fall of
1964. They consisted of two papulations of students. The short course
population consisted of 176 firstqyear students. The degree papulation
consisted of 199 firstqyear students. No female, transfer, or foreign
students were included in the pepulations. Only students enrolled
during the fall term.of 1964 for their first post high school educational

74

75
experience were included.

Data were gathered from the students on five psychological and
twelve sociological factors. Personality traits were measured by the
Sixteen Personality m “1‘_e_§_t. The Michigan S3552 Universitz H9335
Beliefs Check-list was employed to reveal beliefs and attitudes con-
cerning work in the urban-industrial world. The Rokeach.Doggatism
M9 $2121. I; was utilized to quantify the degree of Openness or closed-
ness of the individual's belief system. Level of occupational aspira-
tion was measured by the Occupational hepiration §gglg. .Academic
aptitude was determined by the College Qualification Eggt. Data con-
cerning the sociological factors were gathered through the use of a
biographical questionnaire developed by the investigator.

Data collection meetings were held during the first few days
the students were on campus. Persistent follow up procedures during
the first seven weeks of the fall term resulted in obtaining complete
data from all 176 short course students and from 197 of 199 degree
students.

Student scores and responses were coded and recorded on IBM
cards. The data were then processed through the Michigan State University
3600 Computer according to previously prepared.Analysis of Contingency
Tables and Correlation programs. The Chi Square Test and the Unit Ner-
mal Curve Probability or '2” Test were used to determine whether differ-
ences noted reached the .05 level of significance.

Even though this study dealt with two complete populations,
sampling statistics were used to test significant findings in the hope
that the results of the study would prove more useful when the conclu-

sions reached could be generalized to a larger population.

76
The problem of comparing the two populations was approached by
employing forty-two statistical or null hypotheses. The instruments
used did differentiate between the two populations. Significant dif-
ferences were revealed in the data related to all five psychological
factors and in nine of the twelve sociological factors. Certain
limitations inherent in the instruments were identified and caution

was used in drawing conclusions from the findings.

Findings

The data reveal the following significant findings related to
the psychological factors:

1. Significant differences between agriculture short course and
degree students are apparent on three traits measured by the Sixteen
Personalitz‘gggtg£_22§t, Short course students, when compared to de-
gree students, scored lower on General Intelligence versus Mental Defect
and on Emotional Stability or Ego Strength versus General Neuroticism.
They scored higher on worrying SuSpiciousness versus Calm Trustful.

2. Significant differences between agriculture short course and
degree students exist in their beliefs regarding work. Short course
students neither value physical mobility in a work career nor do they
appreciate change from Old ways to new ways within the world of work
as much as degree students.

3. Agriculture short course students are significantly more
dosmatic or closed-minded in their belief systems than degree students.

4. Agriculture short course students hold significantly lower
levels Of occupational aspiration than degree students.

5. Agriculture short course students have less academic aptitude

than degree students.

77

The data reveal the following significant differences related

to the Eggiolggical_factors:

1. Fathers of agriculture short course students complete fewer
years of school than fathers of degree students.

2. Fathers of agriculture short course students are more often
engaged in farming or non-professional occupations than fathers of
degree students.

3. Non-farmer fathers of agriculture short course students have
less income than non-farmer fathers of degree students.

4. Significantly more agriculture short course students than
degree students reside in rural homes, and more degree students than
short course students reside in cities over 10,000 in population.

5. Significantly more agriculture short course students than
degree students have made a definite occupational choice by the time
they enroll in college.

6. Agriculture short course students receive parental encour-
agement to enroll in either a short course or college degree program
while degree students only receive encouragement to enroll in a college
degree program.

7. Agriculture short course students enroll in vocational agri-
culture courses while in high school more often than degree students.
8. Agriculture short course students have significantly fewer
job experiences outside their study area in the field of agriculture

than degree students.
9. Although both.agriculture short course and degree students
indicate a primary preference for working with animals, short course
students exhibit a stronger secondary preference for working with

machines instead of people than degree students.

78

Conclusions and Discussion

It seems evident from the findings of this investigation that
the two types of students studied are from distinctly different popu-
lations. Significant differences between agriculture short course and
degree students extend from home and parental influences to personality
structures and academic aptitudes. In addition to the differences ad-
judged significant at the .05 level, there are several other compari-
sons which indicate strong possibilities of important differences. The
statistical evidence and tendencies, related to the psychological and
sociological factors are discussed below.

Although this study was not conducted in order to suggest
specific and detailed suggestions dealing with student personnel
policies, curricular offerings or teaching methodology, some general
conclusions related to these tOpics seem apprOpriate. The major em-
phasis will be directed toward the short course population in drawing
conclusions from the data.

1. égriculture _s_hg_rt g_o_1_1_r_§_§_ students $13 £1952 i3 _n_e_<_e_d_ 9_f_‘ m.
m leading 3.2 greater emotional and flu; maturity thag agricul-
Lugg @8222. students. This is concluded from the statistical differences
between scores on factors B, C, and 0 of the Sixteen P_ersonality m
M found in Tables 19, 20, and 29 of Appendix B which show that
agriculture short course students have less general intelligence than
degree students, less emotional stability or ego strength and are more
likely to be worried, anxious, and suspicious.

Factors F and Q2, although differing at only the .07 and .06
levels of significance, show that short course students also tend to

be desurgent, glum, silent, and incommunicative as well as dependent,

79
conventional, and cautious.1

Support for the notion that agriculture short course students
are less emotionally mature and lack self-confidence is also found in
other Sixteen Personality Eggtgg.gg§3.data. Short course students,
while chronologically older than degree students, the mean ages are

2 are not as socially mature.

18.4 years and 18.1 years respectively,
The difference in emotional maturity may be explained by seemingly
related factors such as the degree of dognatism, parental educational
and vocational influence, and access to occupational and social ex-
periences in urban-industrial situations away from the farm or small
city.

The process of maturation involves establishing a degree of
independence in social interaction, and short course students do not
appear to have the ability to establish themselves as independent
social participants to the extent that degree students do. Therefore,
the need for guidance in developing greater social maturation is more
crucial among short course students than degree students. This is
supported by the fact that short course students score lower on mea-
sures related to socialization skills such as independent self-
sufficiency, frustration tolerance, and ego strength.

2. Aggiculture ghgy’g m students 932g 1.3 _b_e_ b31333}; acguainted
333$ £13 necessity £9}; changes 31% individual occupationgl 59292 £n_d_

th_e_ advantgges available 1:3 those Egg _a_r_e_ yhysically mobile it; their

pursuit 2_f_ work.

_

1Descriptive terms taken from the Sixteen Personality Factor
Test Manual may be found in Appendix A, pages 119 through 121.

2Table 48 on page 153 of Appendix B contains data about the ages
of both pOpulations.

80

Short course students seem to have acquired the work beliefs
most typical of extended-kinship type families in differing on two of
the six work beliefs areas.1 They look less favorably upon physical
mobility, the ability and willingness to move from one's home situa-
tion to obtain employment elsewhere, and upon change, the acceptance
of new or different methods of accomplishing work. Since the Oppor-
tunity to enter farming is becoming less available, and since most new
jobs are now found in urban-industrial areas, short course boys who
live on the fanm should be encouraged to re-evaluate the concept of
physical mobility.

Among those who enter farming and related occupations, a posi-
tive attitude toward technological change is also essential. Society
is oriented to progress and change and whenever certain.members of
society such as farmers fail to accept and even encourage change, they
are in a disadvantageous position to compete economically in urban-
industrial society.

Short course and degree students who negate the value of physi-
cal mobility and change apparently consider the advantages of formal
education more important than their Opposing beliefs. These opposing
beliefs limit the learning of new ideas or new ways of doing ordinary
tasks. Courses featuring expanded programs of vocational information
and advisement and modern techniques within agriculture industries are
needed. Negative attitudes toward change in general, and physical

mobility, or leaving familiar surroundings, seem to be consistent with

1The extended-kinship versus nuclear type family continuum.of
beliefs is explained on page 39 of Chapter III.

81
immature and dependent personality characteristics. Personal counsel-
ing and selective extra curricular activities to develop mature
participants in society should contribute to removing fears and fixa-
tions which limit the work.potential and adjustment of short course
students.

3. Agiculture E11213: M £12 m students rgguire Q1333-
ggg approaches §g_classrocm instruction.

Dogmatism or closedness of the mind affects a person's ability
to learn certain types of information according to studies reviewed in
Chapter II. Short course students have a group mean score higher than
any student group mean score reported.by Rokeach (89) or in the studies
reviewed in Chapter II. This can be interpreted to mean that agricul-
ture short course students are highly dogmatic and prObably unable to
evaluate new ideas objectively.

The ability or the willingness to learn theoretical or philo-
SOphical ideas is hindered by a closed.mind. Dogmatic persons are
most able to learn factual materials from concrete illustrations and
demonstrations. Subject matter will determine to some extent the
selection of the best method of teaching; however, the lecture method
seems less likely to be successful with short course students than with
degree students. Similarly, argumentation, debate, and class discus-
sion would have less value for short course students.

Agriculture short course and degree students do not prefer to
‘work with ideas but rather with animals, machines, and people which
seem to be more directly related to their vocational goals than ideas.

The preferences to work with animals and machines can be ex-

plained in part because the agriculture degree and short course programs

82

are vocationally oriented toward these types of work. The relatively
small preportion of each group, only 11 per cent, who favored working
'with ideas is noteworthy. It seems to support the concept that closed
minded peOple will be averse to new ideas and beliefs. ‘While such
aversion to new ideas seems to be a more antithetic view of degree
programs, which attempt to broaden student perspectives through pre-
scribed basic courses, than it does the short course programs,it would
seem to require some remedial efforts with both types of students to
promote enjoyment and appreciation for work dealing with ideas.

College education is a liberalizing experience for most peOple.
Since short course students are more dogmatic and are in coursework
for only four academic terms or less, it is reasonable to conclude
that such a short college experience cannot entirely offset the effects
of previous environments. Courses directed toward opening and broaden—
ing the perSpectives of short course students seem likely to have a
profound effect upon their intellectual develOpment.

4. Agriculture M 293333 students p_e_eg m vocational
counseling _t_h_ap_ 213 average student is; 9532; 39 gig; 2131; m
93; occupational aspiration a_n_d_ _tg m that 3.12.2 vocational m
choices will; PE m_a_c_1_§ 23 the; basis pf objective and realistic information.

Studies reviewed in Chapter II indicate that the number of farms
and the size of the rural population is declining. It is reasonable
to assume that at least some of the short course students aspiring to
farming careers will not be able to farm. Because of lower aspiration
levels and lack of training in other occupations, these students will
be unemployable or in a very disadvantageous position in the urban-

industrial labor market.

83

In view of the findings related to academic aptitude and the
association of prestigeful occupations with educational achievement,
lower aspiration levels ameng short course students are not unexpected.
However, some researchers and theorists who have studied level of
aspiration, in general, have cepoused the view that it is actually a
personality trait. This is postulated because of the strong degree
of ego involvement inherent in the level of aSpiration. The lower
level of occupational aSpiration and relatively less ego strength of
short course students lends some support to this hypothesis.

Other theorists maintain that vocational aspirations are the
result of work experience, Observation, and expectation. The fewer
number of job experiences, the limited Occupational observation possi-
bilities on the farm or in the small city, and the parents' lower
educational aSpiration for the short course students add credence to
this theory.

More short course students have made a decision concerning
their occupational choice prior to enrollment in their college program.
These decisions may be untried fantasies rather than rational choices.
They may be the result of the limited scope of tentative occupational
roles which were available on a farm or in a small town.

Studies reviewed in Chapter II indicate that farm reared boys,
68.18 per cent of the short.course students come from farm homes, do
not receive parental vocational counseling or varied work experience
to the same extent that urban reared‘boys do. Job experiences which
contribute to a knowledgeable basis for making occupational choices
are fewer among short course students. The responsibilities on a

family farm often preclude adequate trials of non-farm jabs by farm

84
boys. Although they may work at a variety of jobs on the farm, the
lack of off-the-farm job experience impairs comparative occupational
choice possibilities. The comparison of work experiences points out
the need among short course students for vocational advisement and
information concerning possible occupational Opportunities.

Lower levels of occupational aspiration, whether caused by
personality constructs or environmental conditions, restrict the
range of occupations which short course students will consider for
careers. Similarly, educational goals or skills training which seem
acceptable to short course students.may be limited by a narrow per-
spective of future occupational choices. Vocational advisement and
information to elevate aspirations and broaden occupational perspect-
ives is needed.

5. I; 93.3 _a‘l_s_o_ p3 concluded 291?. because 93 the substantial
differences between agriculture shog§_gpp£pp_gpg;gpgppp.students 33
Egggpd_pp_academic aptitude, phppp_pppp§p.students require different
teaching materials gpg methods, different evaluative processes, ppd
ESE: educational advisement ppgg_gpgppp'students.

Since the two student pOpulations differ significantly in terms
of their academic aptitude, adjustments should be made in their aca-
demic programs. In coursework where competition and progress are
gauged by means of skills measured by the College Qpalification Test
the short course student cannot compete on an equal basis with the
degree student. Therefore, it seems unreasonable to include both
types of students in the same class.

Several explanations for the academic aptitude differences be-

tween the two groups are possible. University admission requirements

85
restrict the range of scores for degree students. Although degree
students are not usually given the College anlification Leap until
after they arrive on campus, the screening procedures which include
emphasis on high grades, counselor recommendations, and other test
scores, have eliminated many potentially low scorers. The short
course population range is usually not similarly restricted. The
minimum admission requirement in most cases is a high school diploma.

The educational preparation of short course students in high
school may be partially reSponsible for the academic aptitude differ-
ences which appear on the College anlification pppp. Conflicts in-
volving vocational agriculture courses and college preparatory courses
are not uncommon in smaller urban and rural high schools. In electing
to take vocational agriculture courses short course students may have
precluded the possibility of qualifying for admission to a degree pro-
gram. However, the greater number of years of high school vocational
agriculture completed by short course students as compared to degree
students, 2.56 years to 1.19 years, should be considered in teaching
basic agriculture theory and skills. Short course students are more
advanced in basic subject material and coursework for them should
begin at an advanced level.

Less ability to read and understand tests, deficient educational
backgrounds, lower parental aspiration for their children, higher de-
grees of dogmatism, and restrictive attitudes toward learning new
ideas have all probably contributed to the lower academic aptitude of
short course students. Studies reviewed in Chapter II revealed these
factors have adversely affected educational achievement among similar

subjects.

86

6. I; §_e_e_m_§ reasonable tp conclude 3133; 3:3 educational Eli-£5"
mg 2; LE §_O_:_1_s_ .a_r_g substantially affected ‘py pp; attitudes 21d
desires p; 21.9. parents £151 1,113 fathers 1.31 particular. Fathers and
mothers rank first and second respectively in the amount of influence
students attribute to their closest adult contacts.1

The educational levels and occupations of the fathers of agri-
culture short course and degree students are related to the educational
program selection of the sons. The educational levels and occupa-
tions of the mothers apparently have no association with the sons'
program selections. Since educational program selection is directly
concerned with occupational career choices, the influence of the
father may again be the crucial factor in choosing to follow an agri-
cultural career. Evidence partially supporting the theory that sons
follow their fathers into similar occupations was discussed on page
82 dealing with the occupational aspirations and choices of students.

The income of fathers of agriculture short course and degree
students who do not farm is also related to the educational program
selection of the sons. However, the values of the farms Operated by
fathers who farm apparently has no effect on the educational program
selection of the sons.

Income differentials indicating ability to give financial sup-
port are not necessarily indicative of willingness to give financial
support. Degree students' fathers are more able and willing to
support sons in post high school educational training than short

course students' fathers. Almost one half of the short course students

_-_

15cc Table 4?, page 152 for data on influences.

87
received less than 30 per cent of their educational expenses from
their parents as compared to about one-third of the degree students.

Farmer fathers of both pOpulations were approximately equally
able to support sons in either short course or degree programs if
Operating farms of equal value is indicative of equal income. How-
ever, 59 per cent of their sons chose a short course program which
indicates that variables other than money influence the choice of
which program to follow.

The overwhelming support of degree programs among degree stu-
dents' parents as compared to the almost total lack of support for a
short course program presents a vivid example of parental influence
and parental aspiration. Only 7 per cent of the degree students'
parents encouraged their sons to attend short courses while 87 per
cent encouraged attendance in a degree program. The relatively lower
value degree parents place on short courses is a reflection of their
aSpirations for their sons to achieve a higher prestige level occupa.
tion than short course training Offers.

7. _Iignp locations p_f_ agpiculture gag; w _a_n_g_ 533.852 £22.“
ggppglgyp related 32 educational aapiration.

The location of a student's home affects his choice of a voca.
tion which in turn affects his educational plans. Fifty-nine per cent
of the students living on a farm or who have lived on a farm elected
to pursue a short course program. It is reasonable to conclude that
educational and vocational aspiration are similarly affected by home
location. A farm background apparently contributes to lower educational
aspirations. From studies reviewed in Chapter II, residence is also

related to personality and in the case of farm youth.may contribute to

a lack of emotional or social maturity.

88

ngposite Description.2£,A Typical
Agriculture Short Course Student

A brief composite description of a typical firstqyear agricul-
ture short course student and a typical first—year agriculture degree
student will serve to illustrate some of the similarities in and dif-
ferences between the two pOpulations examined in this study.

The typical first-year short course student is the oldest boy
in his family and lives on a farm. His father earns a living operat-
ing the farm.which is valued at approximately $85,000. His mother is
a housewife. Both parents are high school graduates. His parents
encouraged him to enroll in either a college degree or short course
program and are contributing about one-third of the money required
for him to attend.

The typical first-year short course student had previously
enrolled for two and one-half years of vocational agriculture course-
work in high school and has already decided to be a farmer or to go
into some agriculturally related business. He prefers to work with
animals, machines, and people, in that order.

‘When the short course student is compared with agriculture de-
gree students, several different psychological characteristics are
noticeable. The most distinctive difference is that the typical short
course student is comparatively immature. He depends upon others
for help in making decisions. Even though he needs help from others,
he is likely to view advice suspiciously or reject it altogether be-
cause he tends to have a mind which is closed to new ideas and theories.
This may account in part for the fact that he scores lower on scholas-

tic aptitude tests than do agriculture degree students.

89

By the time he enrolls in college he has decided to be a farmer
or work with farmers. Perhaps because he has made up his mind so early
in life, and so firmly, he now dislikes change. Change or physical
mobility'which would take him away from.what he knows are not rated
highly in his value system. Long range financial goals are not as
desirable to him as immediate gratification. His vocational plans
include rather low prestige but rewarding and useful occupations.

Composite Description 931 _a Typical
Agriculture ngppp_§ppgppp

The typical firstqyear agriculture degree student is the oldest
boy in his family and lives in an urban or suburban area. His father
earns about $9,876 per year in a non-farm occupation. His mother is
a housewife. Both parents are high school graduates and prObably have
had some college experience. The parents encouraged attendance in a
college degree program but did not support a short course program.
They contribute more than one-half of the money for his college ex-
penses.

The firstgyear degree student had enrolled for one year of
vocational agriculture in high school. He had not made a definite
occupational decision at the time he first enrolled in college. He
will likely not choose farming but will choose an occupation related
to agriculture in some fashion. He prefers to work with animals,
people, and machines, in that order.

‘When first-year short course students are used as a group
with which to compare the firstqyear degree student, several different

psychological characteristics are noticeable. Degree students are

90
more emotionally mature. They have at least a modicum of self-confi-
dence and independence. The degree student is relatively more adaptable,
enthusiastic, and imaginative than the short course student. He is
assertive but not highly dogmatic. New approaches to problems, new
ideas, and new theories are viewed with less prejudice and are less
likely to be rejected because they entail change.

The degree student views change Within occupations and physical
mobility to new occupations favorably. Perhaps because of a more
open-minded approach to life, he has delayed.making a definite occupa-
tional choice. He has eliminated several occupational choices, such
as farming, but is still in doubt as to the final choice.

The typical degree student measures higher on academic aptitude
or intelligence tests than the short course student. He also will
score higher on measures of relative maturity, occupational aspirations,
and positive evaluation of change and physical mobility. He scores
lower on measures of dogmatism. Further efforts to understand the
relationships of these factors and the differences between short course

and degree students are suggested in the following recommendations.

Recommendations £03; W w

This study has analyzed a variety of psychological and socio-
logical factors thought to be related to educational achievement and
education and vocational advisement in an effort to describe differ-
ences between agriculture short course and degree students. Research
which might further advance the description of these differences and
clarify their causes would be most useful. In addition, the number
of psychological and sociological factors in need of further study
is by no means exhausted. The findings of this study suggest con-

sideration of further research in this area.

 

1.

91
Some way should.be developed to establish clearly why farm
and rural youth have lower levels of academic aptitude,
lower occupational aspirations, higher levels of dogmatism,
and Opposition to changing ways or locations of work.
Efforts to study remedial processes dealing with the un-
favorable characteristics among farm and rural students
described in the above recommendation would contribute to
the extension and conduct of other studies, teaching methods,
and techniques of counseling with these students.
Because parents are acknowledged to be influential with
their children, efforts to study the effect of parental
encouragement should be made.
Vocational counseling for both types of students is appro-
priate. In the case of short course students varied coun-
seling methodology should be tried and evaluated.
Instructional techniques, materials, and course objectives
and evaluative processes should be critically examined to
determine which types will best suit the abilities and needs
of both student pOpulations.
Historical research to evaluate the efficacy of both agri-
culture degree and short course programs should be undertaken
through follow-up studies of graduates and drapouts.
Further study of the two populations may be particularly
useful where additional groups are included for comparation.
High school classmates of the agriculture degree and short
course students would be an example of one group with which

useful comparisons could be made.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10.

11.

12.

13.

93

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aiton, Edward W. ”Myth and Myopia -- Blocks to Progress,”
Extension Service Review, XXXIV (1963), 140-1h1.

Allport, Gordon W., P. E. Vernon, and G. Lindsey. _A_ Study of
Values. Third edition. Boston: Houghton.Mifflin, 1§Zb.

Anderson, Richard C. "Learning in Discussions: A Resume of the
Authoritarian-Democratic Studies," Harvard Educational
Review, XXIX (1959). 201-215.

Anderson, Robert C. "Parents are the Key to Productive Youth De-
velopment,” East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University Extension Demonstration Sub-Project III, 1964.
(Mimeographed)

Beers, Howard W. "Rural Differences from Public Opinion Polls,“
Rural Sociology, XVIII (1953). 1-11.

Bennet, George K., pp pal. College Qualificatigp Tests, Manual
1262. New York: The Psychological Corporation, 1962.

Bentley, Ralph P. and Paul E. Hemp. "Factors Influencing Agri-
cultural College Students to Choose Their Fields of
Specialty,“ Agricultural Education Ma azine, XXX (1958),
257‘2590

Bereiter, Carl and Mervin B. Freedman. "Fields of Study and the
PeOple in Them," T_h_g American Colle e, ed. Nevitt Sanford.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

Bournazos, Kim. A Comparative Study of the Effects of Vocational
Training on the Career Patterns of High School Graduates.
Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1963.

Bowers, Norman D. "Psychological Forces Influencing Curriculum
Decisions,” Review _o_f_‘ Educational Research, Chapter 1+,
XXXIII (1963).

Bowles, Gladys K. and Conrad Teauber. "Rural Farm Males Entering
and Leaving Working Ages, 19lI~O-5O and 1950-60," Farm Po u-
lation Series Census, A.M.S. No. 22, (August, 1956).

Brookover, Wilbur B. and David Gottleib. A Sociolo 9_f_ Education.
New York: American Book Company, 1967;.

Brown, Donald R. and Denise Bustrum. "College Environment, Per-
sonality, and Social Ideology of Three Ethnic Groups,”
Journal pf Social Ps cholo , XXIXIV (1956), 279-288.

1#.

15.

16.

1?.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2#.

25.

26.

9#

Brown, Donald R. ”Personality, College Environment, and Academic
Productivity," Thg.American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford.
New Yerk: John'Wiley and.Sons, Inc., 1962.

Burchinal, Lee 0., pp .a_l. Career Choices 2; Rural Youth 3; 5
Changing Society. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of
Minnesota, Bulletin 458, 1962.

Burchinal, Lee G. "Differences in Educational and Occupational
ASpirations of Farm, Small-town, and City Boys,” Rural
Sociology, XXVI (June, 1961), 107-121.

Cattell, Raymond.B. Personality gpg;Motivation Structure gpd
Measurement. Yenkers-on-Hudson, New Ybrk: ‘World Book

Company a 1 957 .

. 16 P. F., Form A, Champaign, Illinois: Institute
for Personality and Ability Testing, 1962.

. 2p2.5ixteen Personality Factor Manual, Champaign,
Illinois: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing,

1962.

Cooper, Shirley. "Schools in Rural Areas," Thp.School Executive,
LXXIV, (1955). 57.

Cowhig, James, gp_§l, Orientations Toward Occupation gpd Residence.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Special

Bulletin 428, 1960.

Cummins, Emery J. Selected Affective and Cognitive Characteristics
of Student Disciplinary Offenders. Unpublished Ph.D. dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, East LanSing, Michigan,

1964.

De Hoyos, Arturo. Occupational and Educational Aspiration Levels
of Mexican-American Youth. Unpublished Ph. . dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1961.

"Meaningful Learning; Motivational, Personality,

Di Vesta, Francis J. Review 22 Educational

Interpersonal, and Social Variables,"
Research, Chapter 6, XXXI (1961), 515.

d
Drews Elizabeth M. and John E. Teahan. ”Parents Attitudes an
, Academic Achievement," Journal g£,Clinical Psychology,

XIII (1957), 328-332-
tional
Edl f John B. and.Martin J. Crows. Teen:ggers Occupa
e sézé irations. Pullman, Washington: ‘Washington.Agricultural
Experiment Station Bulletin 618, 1960.

2?.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

37.

38.

39.

95

Egner, 1:.dE. and A. I. Obelsky. "Effects of Stereotyped Atti-
u es on Learning," Journal at Educational Psychology
mm (1957) 207-212“. _""’ '

Farquhar, William W. Motivation Factors Related t_o. Academic
Achievement. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1963.

Fisher, Seymour. “An Overview of Trends in Research Dealing with
Personality Rigidity," Journal 31; Personality, XVII (1948),

342-350 -

Fishman, Joshua A. "Some Social-Psychological Theory for Select-
ing and Guiding College Students,” 115 American Colle e,
ed. Nevitt Sanford. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1962.

Ford, Thomas R. "Social Factors Affecting Academic Performance:
Further Evidence,” School Review, va (1957). 415.422.

Freeh, L. A. ”Characteristics and Influence Patterns of Students
Enrolling in Agricultural Curricula at Michigan State Uni-
versity,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962.

Freeh, Laverne A. and H. A. Henneman. Non—Degpee _o_r_ Less Than
B.S. Degpee Programs-"Offered _by Agricultural Colleges 9_r_

Their Eguivalent _ip Land Grant Colleges and Universities.
Chicago: Farm Foundation, 1%3.

Frumkin, Robert M. “Dogmatism, Social Class, Values, and Academic
Achievement,“ Journal 93; Educational Sociology, XXXIV
(1961), 398-k03.

Gardner, J. W. ”The Relation of Certain Personality Variables to
Level of Aspiration,” Psychological Bulletin, XXXVI (1939),
540.

Gardner, J. W. "The Use of the Term ‘Level of Aspiration',"
Psychological Review, XXXXVII (1940), 59-68.

A_r_l_ Approach to a

° 1 t al. Occupational Choice __ _
GinSberg, E1 ’ 9- — ’ University Press, 1951.

General Theogy. New York: Columbia

”Occupational Values and Anticipated Occupa-
tional Frustration of Agricultural College Students," '_r_h_e.
Personnel §._n_d Guidance Journal, XLII (1964), 674-679.

Gould, Rosalind and Norman Kapean. I"The Relationship of 'l'evel
of ASpiration' to Academic and Personality Factors,

Journal pf Social Psycholog, XI (1940), 31-40.

Glick, Peter, Jr.

40.

41.

42.

43.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

96

Haller, A. 0. ”Educational and__0ccupational Choices of Farm
Youth,“ Speech before the National Conference on the
Problems of Rural Youth in a Changing Environment,
Stillwater, Oklahoma, September, 1963.

, and W. H. Sewell. "Farm Residence and Levels of Occu-
pational and Educational ASpiration," American Journal _o_f_
Sociolo , LXII (1947). 407.411.

, and Carole E. Wolff. "Personality Orientations of
Farm, Village, and Urban Boys," Rural Sociolog, XXVII
(1962). 275-293.

. ”Research Problems on the Occupational Achievement
Levels of Farm Children," Rural Sociolo , XXIII (1958).

355-362.
, L. G. Burchinal, and M. J. Taves. Rural Youth Need

 

Help _ip Choosing Occupations. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, Circular Bulletin 235, 1963.

 

"The Influence of Planning to Enter Farming on Plans

to Attend College," Rural Sociology, XXII (1957). 137-141.

"The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm-Reared

Youth in Urban-Industrial Society,” Rural Sociology, XXV

(1960). 321-333.
, and I. W. Miller. 1112 Occupational Aspiration Scale:.

 

Theopy, Structure, p._r_1_d_ Correlates. East Lansing, Michigan:
Michigan State University, Technical Bulletin 288, 1963.

Harris Chester W. (ed.) Encyclopedia pf Educational Research.
’Third edition. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1960.

Hensel, James W. "High School Influences on the Occupational
Choice of Farm Reared Boys," Agricultural Education M a...
zine, XXXII (1960), 256-

Holland John L. "The Prediction of College Grades From the
California Psychological Inventory and Scholastic Aptitude
Test,“ Journal of Educational Psychology, L (1959), 135-142.

Hollinshead, Bryon S. W_h_g Should _G_o_ lg Colleg . New York:
Columbia University Press, 1952.

Ambition or Def ease?“

. w 1 f As iration:
Holt, Robert R Love 0 P XXXVI (1946), 398-416.

Journal pf Eerimental Psychology,

Jacob, Philip E. Changing Values i3 Gellege. New. Haven: The
Ward W. Hazen Foundation, 1957.

55.

56.

57.

580

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

97

Judge, Homer V. "Work Experience of Michigan High School Students
of Vocational Agriculture and Their Relation to Occupational
and Educational Plans,” unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962.

Juola, Arvo E. "The Differential Validity of the College Qualifi-
cation Tests for Diverse Curribular Groups,” 1p2.Personnel
gpd’Guidance Journal, XXXIX (1961), 721-724.

Kaldor, Donald R., 23.51, Occupational Plans pf_Iowa Farm Boys.
Ange, Iowa: Iowa State University, Research Bulletin 508,
19 2.

Kiel, D. F. and W. L. Ruble. 23.9.. pi; 213 Core Routine pp Calculate
Sipple Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, Moments,
Variances gpd Covariances p£.Variable gpd_Sums pf Squares
and Cross-Products gg,§§g.ggg 3600. East Lansing: Michigan

State University Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.

Knight, William H. "Factors Associated with the Vocational Choices
of High School Students of Vocational Agriculture," Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University,

East Lansing, Michigan, 1958.

Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State ppg_First Hundred Years. East
Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1955.

Larson, Vernon C. ”A Survey of Short Course Programs in the United
States and Canada," Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan

State College, East Lansing, Michigan, 1955.

Lehmann, Irvin J. "Rural-Urban Differences in Intelligence,"
Journal g§.Educational Research, LIII (1959). 62—68.

Lewis, David M. "The Acceptance of Work-Related Values by Young
Rural Japanese,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1963.

Lipset, Seymour M. “Social Mobility and Urbanization," Rural
Sociology, XI (1955), 220-228.

McDonald, Keith H. "The Relationship of Socio Economic Status to
an Objective Measure of Motivation,” Thg_Personnel 59g
Guidance Journal, XLII (1964). 997-1002.

McNamar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. Third Edition. New
York: John‘Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.

" Michigan
Manderscheid Lester V. "Fan: Careers for Farm Youth,
Farm Economics, East Lansing, Mdchigan: Michigan State
University, Service Publication 244, 1963.

98

67. Michigan State College. Former Short Course Students Servipg
Michigan Agpiculture. East Lansing, Michigan, 1955.

68. . Short Course WorkshOp. East Lansing, Michigan, 1950.

69. Michigan State University. Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and
Values ip Higher Education, by Irvin J. Lehmann and-Stanley
O. Ikenberry. Paul L. Dressel principal investigator, A
preliminary report. East Lansing, Michigan, 1957.

70. Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station.
Michigan's Changng Population. Special Bulletin 415,

East Lansing, Michigan, 1957.

71. Michigan State University COOperative Extension Service. Michigan
Agyiculture County Data gp_d_ State Trends. Miscellaneous
Series Circular E-22, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962.

72. . Michigan Farms Characteristics ‘py Area, Type, and
Economic Class. Miscellaneous Series Circular E-18, East

Lansing, Michigan, 1961 .

73. Middelton, George, Jr. and George M. Guthrie. ”Personality
Syndromes and Academic Achievement, " Journal pf Educational

Psychology, L (1959). 66.69.

74. Middleton, R. and C. M. Grigg. "Rural-Urban Differences in ASpira-
tions,” Rural Sociology, XXIV (1959), 347-354.

75. Miller, Delbert C. and W. H. Form. Industrial Sociolog. New
York: Harper and Brothers, 1951.

76. Miller, I. w. and A. o. Haller. "A Measure of Level of Occupa-
tional Aspiration,“ T113 Personnel 51ng Guidance Journal,

XLII (1964) . 448-455.

77- Munson, Byrant E. “Personality Differentials Among Urban, Subur-
ban, Town and Rural Children,” Rural Sociology, XXIV

(1959), 257-264-
78. Neel, Ann F. ”The Relationship of Authoritarian Personality to

learning: F Scale Scores Combined to Classroom Performance,"
Journal _o_f. Educational Psychology, L (1959), 195-199.

79. Nielsen James. The Michigan Townshi Extension _Ellperiment; 1132
Farm Families. . . Their tti udes, G033, a Achieve-

ment. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
Technical Bulletin 287, 1962.

80.

81.

82.

83.

85.

86.

87o

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

94.

99

Peters, E. F. "Factors Which Contribute to Youth's Vocational

gain,“ Journal p_f_ Applied Psycholog, XXV (1941), 428-

Phipps, Lloyd J. "Agricultural Education," Review 21: Educational
Research, Chapter 3, XXIII (1962).

Pihlblad, E. T. and C. L. Gregory. "Selective Aspects of Migra-
tion Among Missouri High School Graduates," Aperican
Sociological Review, XIX (1954), 314-324.

Plant, Walter T. “Changes in Ethnocentrism Associated with a Two
Year College Experience," Journal g Genetic Ps cholo ,
LXXXXII (1958), 189-197.

Purdue University. Factors Influencing 3.113 Vocational Choices 9};
Agpiculture College Freshmen. Studies in Education Number
4. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1963.

Riesman, David, _e_t_ 31; £13 Laney Crowd. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1953.

Roe, A. _Thg Psycholog pf Occupations. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1956.

Rogers, Everett M. Social Change i_n_ Rural Society. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts , Inc. , 1960 .

Rokeach, Milton J. ”The Nature and Meaning of Dogmatism,"
Psychological Review, LXI (1954), 194-204.

 

. The @en 5513 Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books,
Inc., m0.

Rudolph, Frederick. 223 American College 92d University. New
York: Alfred A. Knapf, 1962.

Samson, Ruth, and Buford Stefflre. ”Like Father . . . Like Son?"
The Personnel £22 Guidance Journal, XXX (1952), 35-39. ,

Sanford, Nevitt. (ed.) Colle e 99; Character. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1 .

Sanford, Nevitt. (ed.) 1113 American College. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1 2.

Some
Sears Pauline S. ”Level of Aspiration in Relation to
’ Variables of Personality: Clinical Studies,“ Journal _o_f;

Social ngchology, XIV (1941), 311-336.

95-

96.

97-

98.

99.

100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.

106.

107.

100

Sells, S. B. 'Structured.Measurement of Personality and.Motiva-
tion: A Review of Contributions of Raymond B. Cattell,"
Journal 9}; Clinical Ps cholo , XV (1959), 3-21.

Sewell, W. H., A. O. Haller, and Murray A. Straus. "Social Status
and Educational and Occupational Aspiration," American
Sociological Review, XXII (1957). 67-73.

Shepard, Donald H. "How Farm Sons Become Established as Farmers,"
Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State College, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1950.

Sim, F. M. and M. J. Beech. Analysis pf Contingency Tables £02 _I_;
f2; 23 E £00. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State

University Computer Institute, 1964.

Straus, Murray A. "Farm Boys Have Low Level of Vocational Aspira-
tion,” Study reported to the joint meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society and the American Sociological Associa-

tion, Los Angeles, 1963.

Straus, Murray A. “Work Roles and Financial Responsibility in
Socialization of Farm, Fringe, and Town Boys,“ Rural
Sociology, XXVII (1962), 257-274.

Stubbins, J. "The Relationship between Level of Vocational Aspira-
tion and Certain Personal Data," Genetic P§ycholog Mono-
gpaphs, XXXXI (1950), 327-408.

Super, Donald E. 1132 Psy‘ cholog pf Careers. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1957.

Terman, Lewis M., cited by Hollinshead, Byron S. 11113 Should 92
1‘2 College. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952.

University of Wisconsin. Pepulation Characteristics, Resources,
and Prospects i_r_1_ _t_k_1_g North Central Region. Research Bulle-
tin 209, Madison, Wisconsin, 1959.

Van Dalen, Deobold B. Understanding Educational Research Ag Intro-
duction. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1962.

Vars, Gordon F. and W. T. Lower. "Societal Forces Influencing
Curriculum Decisions,“ Review 9}; Educational Research,

Chapter 3, XXXIII (1963).

e Measurement of

. thodolo ical Problems in th
Watts, Henry J "Me g Michigan State

Values,” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1962.

101

108. Wise, Max. They. Came £9; 2;; Best pf Reasons. Washington:
American Council on Education, 195 .

109. Woull, Leonard. ”Level of Aspiration and Academic Success,"
Journal 9; Educational Pflchology, L (1959). 47-54.

APPENDIX A

103

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ammo

 

comes 0! AGRICULTURE . OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENT INSTRUCTION

September 15, 1964

Dear Student :

We have underway a research project designed to study freshmen and short course
students enrolled in the College of Agriculture. We are seeking reliable infor-
mation about our students, from our students, so that decisions on the policies
and practices of the College, in regard to your educational training, may be of
the greatest benefit to you.

Your help will involve the completion of questionnaires and will require about
one hour of your time. I realize the demands of time and effort that are made
upon students during their first few weeks in school. However, this is of the
utmost importance to you and to us.

Two meetings have been scheduled for those who have been to a summer counseling
clinic and you are asked to report to the appropriate ppg.

According to your last name:

Boye—Lowet)
and ) 8:15 a.m., Monday, September 28, Anthony Hall, Room 110

Rolg-Seyk

)
A-Boyd )
and )
Mar-Rolf ) 2:15 p.m., Monday, September 28, Anthony Hall, Room 110
and )
Seyl-Zz )

Should you find it impossible to attend the designatedbne, you may attend the one
for all non-counseling clinic students on Tuesday evening, October 6, at 7:30 pm
in Room 110 Anthony Hall. In any research study it is important to get a true
Picture and this can only be accomplished by responses from all of our students.
Thank you for your c00peration. Your contribution will aid us, yourself, and
future students.

Sincerely,

Dr. R. M. Swanson
Director of Resident Instruction
College of Agriculture

10#

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY mummo

 

W O! AGIICULTUIE 0 OFFICE OF THE DILECTOR OI' RESIDENT INSTRUCTION

OctOber 12, 1964

T0: New Freshmen and Transfer Students in the College of Agriculture

FROM: Richard M. Swenson

Dear Student:

‘We need.your help. It is of the utmost importance togypu and to the College

of’Aggiculture research project that everyone selected in the research sample

participate in the project. Two meetings have been held previously. Perhaps
you did not receive a notice of the meeting, or due to other commitments, were
unable to keep the appointment.

The information needed will not require an excessive amount of your time.

The resulting data will ultimately contribute to your education through a
better understanding of all students among the faculty and staff.

I sincerely hepe that you can see the importance of this research and will
be present at the meeting scheduled for Thursday, October 15, at 7:00 p.m.,
in Roam 110 Anthony Hall. Off-campus students and anyone who cannot attend
because of class conflicts may come to Room 120 Agricultural Hall between
8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 16, or Monday, October 19.

Again, all Freshmen and Transfer Students who have not attended and partici-
Pated in the College of Agriculture Research Project meetings will meet - -

Thursday, October 15, 196h
7:00 p.m.
Room 110 — Anthony Hall

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,

Richard H. Swenson
Director

RMS:b

v9.70 R him“

m1.m.uhm.m.0.nu

 

105

IIICIEHSAJJ STAUFE [UNIVTERSITYTnmntammmz

 

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE 0 OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENT INSTRUCTION

Nave-her 5, 1964

T0: New Freshmen Students in the College of Agriculture

FROM: Richard M. Swenson

Dear Student:

we need your help. It is of the utmost importance to you and to the College
0f.lgriculture research project that everyone attending Michigan State Uni-
versity for the first time participate in this project. Three previous meet-
ipgs have been held. Perhaps you did not receive a notice of the meeting, or
due to other commitments, were unable to keep the appointment.

The information needed will not require an excessive amount of your time.

The resulting data will ultimately contribute to your education through a
better understanding of all students among the faculty and staff. I sincerely
hope that you can see the importance of this research, and will come to my
office no later than Friday, November 20 and complete the required question-
naires.

I trust that you will attend to this matter as soon as possible. 'We need
100% participation in this project, if we are to secure meaningful and
accurate results.

Thank.you for your cOOperation.
Sincerely'yours,

Richard M. Swenson

Director

RMS:b

tab

1
A

Lam

:r 0.

ii!

 

2:310

'3

W

 

3!
| the

“L
Q

 

106
College of Agriculture Research Project

In all aspects of education there must be a conscientious and continuous
effort to improve. You as a student have recognized this need. Your college
has also recognized that it must keep abreast of new trends and new students.
this project is a part of a continuous evaluation process. Here wears seeking
reliable information and honest Opinions. The decisions resulting from the
consideration of your replies will be of benefit to you and future students.

Instructions

You should receive a copy of :
l. Biographical Information Blank
2. Occupational Aspiration Scale

3. 14811 Work Beliefs Checklist

1.. A 40 item Opinion List (6 point agree to disagree scale)

5. 16 PF Booklet and answer sheet (there is a limited number of these
and you may share a booklet or receive one after someone else
finishes with one).

Each instrument has specific instructions at the top of the first page.
W. Be sure to pop your name gpd student pumbgr gt Eh: mg of
each instrumen . They are needed to identify those who have not completed the
instruments ang for no other reason. (See capitalized paragraph below)

Read all questions completely; some have two parts.

Decide on the best answer you can give and put it down. There are no right
or wrong answers.

There is no time limit. Don't rush yourself needlessly. It is more important
to do a complete job than to finish fast. when you think you are through, check
to see if you have omitted any responses.

YOUR ANSWERS TO ALL QUESTIONS ARE ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL NEVER BE
RELEASED TO ANYONE IN A FORM UHICH COULD POSSIBLY BE IDENTIFIED WITH YOU. THE
DATA IS TREATED AS RESEARCH DATA AND WILL BE PUBLISHED IN THE FORM OF GROUP NORMS,

PERCENTAGES, AND FREQUENCY TABLES.

If you have specific questions, need a pencil, or need information, please
“1“ Your hand and the supervisor will assist you.

he booklet
16 Pg, Reed instructions on front of booklet. Do not mark on t
or tear off the smaple answer sheet. Your 200 item answer sheet is nor the t (2‘
official copyrighted answer sheet. Substitute the letters from the book at (f’B' ,
for whatever three letters you find on your answer sheet. There is no space or

the ample questions so disregard marking them.

M Place an x on the blank to the left of your occupational choice.

.49.,item minion ngt. Place the number of the answer from the key on the
blank to the left.

mu Work algefg fishnet. Circle agree or disagree.

When you have completed all the instruments and carefully chec
3"” may turn in your papers and leave.

ked them over,

107

STUDENT NUMBER

 

‘7 W

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORIATIOI‘Y BLANK

THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT. MAD ALL QUESTIONS CAREFULLY AND COMPIETELY. ANSWER
THEM AS ACCURATELY AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN. ALL OF YOUR ANSUERS WILL BE TREATED AS
STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL PESEARCB DATA.

DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THE WORD ANSWER OR NUMBER IN FRONT OF THE ANSWER YOU
CHOOSE FOR MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS OR WRITE IN AMUERS WHERE BIANRS ARE PROVIDED.

 

09 Nfl Q-IIT All! QUE§IIONS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE ASK THE SUPERVISOR.
4. Year graduated from.high school: '64, ’63, '62, '61, '60 or before
5. Age: 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, over 24
6. What is your father's or guardian's main occupation? (circle one number)
1. Farmer - owner (owns most of acreage farmed)
2. Farmer - employee or renter
3. Small business owner
4. Small business employee
5. Professional - such as teacher, lawyer, etc.
6. Factory worker, trucker, mechanic, etc.
7. Carpenter, plumber, electrician, construction worker, etc.
8. Governmental employee
9. Retired, pensioned
0. Deceased or other
7. Father's second job
lo NOIle
___, Number of classification from question 6 above
__l If not readily comparable to 6 above write in
exact descriptive title of second job.
8. If your father farms: Estimated total 9. If your father does not farm:
3. ‘ '. farm'value Estimated yearly income before taxes
.1. less than $10,000 1. less than $2,000
2. $10,000 00 29,999 2. $2,000 to 3,499
3. $30,000 to 49,999 3. $3.500 to 4.999
A. $50,000 to 69,999 4. $5,000 to 6:999
5. $70,000 to 89,999 5. $7,000 to 8,999
6. $90,000 to 109,999 6. $93000 to 109999
7. $110,000 to 129,999 7. $11,000 to 14,999
8. $130,000 to 149,999 8. $15,000 to 19.999
9. $150,000 and above 9. $20.000 and above
10. What is your mother‘s main occupation?
l. housewife 6. day worker (house work,etc.)
2. teacher 7. self employed business woman
3. restaurant employee 8. nurse
4. office worker 9. other
5. salesmen 10. deceased

11. Father's education: circle years of school completed

9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 less than 8

12. Mother‘ 0 education:

8

9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 less than 8

13. Circle the number of older brothers you have:

1

2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 0

14. Do your parents: own their home, rent, other

15.

16.
17.

18.
19.
20.
21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.
28,

29.
30,

31.
32.

 

.2. 108

If your parents own their home, circle its approximate value.
1. under $4,999 5. $12,500 to 14,999
2. $5,000 to 7,499 6. $15,000 to 17,499
3. $7,500 to 9,999 7. $17,500 to 24,999
4. $10,000 to 12,499 8. $25,000 and above
00 you own (or now buying) your own car? YES NO
What is the location of your home?
1. farm 5. town 2,000 to 4,999
2. in country - non farm 6. city 5,000 to 9,999
3. town under 1,000 7. city 10,000 to 49,999
4. town between l,001-l,99$ 8. city 50,000 and above
If you are not living on a term 233, did you ever live on a farm? YES NO

Did your high school have a full time counselor? YES N0

00 you think he or she had an accurate and realistic picture of the opportuni-
ties in your chosen field? YES NO .AD NONE (FULL TIME)

How much help was your counselor to you in supplying you with information
related to your chosen occupation? -

great help some help little help no help
What thggg_persons influenced you most in your decision to come to college?

1. father close relative

2. mother 7. county agent or staff
3. vocational agriculture teacher 8. clergyman

4. high school counselor 9. high school teacher
5. a friend or friends 10. college teacher

Have you decided definitely on an occupational career?

1. yes~o farming 5. yes - non-agriculture related

2. yes - agriculture business 6. yes - agriculture related but odaer
3. yes - agriculture services 7. yes - but not definite field

4. yes - agriculture education 8. NO

If you are not sure of an occupation career, what are your first two possible
choices in order of preference.
1. 2.
Did your parents encourage you to attend Short Courses? YES NO
Four year college? YES NO
What per cent of the expenses for your college training are being supplied by
your parents?
less than 30% 31-49% 50-742 752-842 85-94% over 95%
Do you plan to work.with your parents after you finish college? ?38 NO
Have you a definite agreement to do so? YES NO
What level of education do you feel farmers need today?
1. college degree 4. high school
2. some college 3. other
3. Short Course type of training

 

 

Should Short Course and Regular College students be together in the same
classes? YES NO DON'T KNOW

Fron*what you have been told or superienced, do you think Regular College
students feel or act as if they thought they were better than Short Course
students? YES NO DON'T KNOW

What one person influenced you the most to come to college?

 

 

EIEEie the number of years of vocational agriculture taken in high school:
1 2 3 4 none

 

'

Irv In? HMw

36.
37.
38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

45.

46
A? o

1:09

Are you thinking or planning on getting more education after you complete
your present program? ‘33:; NO DON'T KNOW

Do you think that your parents will help you in getting your first job?

YES NO DON'I’ 3110??

What do you think the average man in your occupation will be earning in 1970?

1. under $5,000 5. $8,000 to 9,000

2. $5,000 to 6,000 6. $9,000 to 10,000
3. $6,000 to 7,000 7. $10,000 to 15,000
4. $7,000 to 8,000 8. $15,000 and above

How many kinds of jobs have you had, for at least a sunset, which were
different from your major area of study? 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8

Do you know someone on the faculty to whom you can go for help if you have a
problem? YES NO

Do you think that the information you received about 1.230 was:

1. very accurate 4. not generally right
2. generally right 5. all wrong
3. ’1 right and -’§ wrong 6. don't know

would you consider enrolling in extension courses of the some context, hught
by competent instructors, if they were offered near your home? YES NO
DON’I 8H0“

Assuming the courses were the some, the instructors equally capable, and

the expenses equal which would you prefer?

I. attending conmmity college and living at hose

2. attending eomunity college and living away from home

3. attending extension classes and living at home

4. attending USU and living at home

5. attending 1180 and living on campus

Do you think that having an orientation day, specially for new students
entering your program, during the sumer would be:

1. very good idea 4. unecessary

2. undecided 5. bad idea

3. a good idea 6. don't know
what is your first impression of 1130?

1. like it very much 4. dislike it

2. like it 5. dislike it very much
3. undecided 6. don' t knot-.7

Does your father feel he has enough educational training for his occupation?
YES NO Do you agree with him? YES NO

What suggestions do you have for the University or the College which would
help you during your first few days on campus?

p I. A
' " ' v—w—

would you classify farmers as:

1. liberal thinkers 2. moderates 3. conservatives

Should teachers unionise? YES NO Should femurs unionize? YES NO
Do you prefer to work with: ideas, machines, animals, people, plant;
110 you think that your friends approved of you coming to college? YES no

DON’ 1‘ KNOW

110

Occupational Aspiration Scale

The Occupational LSpiration Scale is copyrighted by Dr. Archibald
0. Heller. It was reproduced and used in this study with Dr. Heller's
permission.

The scale has eight questions which are scored the same. There

are ten alternatives for each question, and only one alternative may

be checked. The scores for each alternative are as follows:

Alternative Score
1 7
2 4
3 8
4 2
5 9
6 0
7 6
8 3
9 5
10 1

The total score is the sum of the scores for each of the eight

questions. A cepy of the Scale follows on succeeding pages.

‘fig CH9
'1

_‘Q .1
:1 W.
I

l
.n In! I
:u .3».-

w“ 'IC‘I
“but:

Elli.

1525:1011

 

.zstie

 

1 "61:11

' l 1 1
YOUR IMW Student Number

 

WV WW

CECUPATIOI‘YXL ASPHATION SCALE

THIS SET OF QUESTIOI‘IS CGCBRHS YOUR II‘T’I’EI‘EST IN DIFFEI‘dEi'IT KINDS OF JOBS. THERE ARE
EIGHT QUESTIONS . EACH ONE ASKS YOU TO CHOOSE 0133 JOB OUT OF TEN PRESENTED.

as sure your. we 18 on me rep or nus mas.
ma sacs Quss'rma CAREFULLY. may ARE ALL sarcasm.
Austen race are m: ass-r YOU can. now r omr ANY .

Question 1. 0f the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are
REALLY SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER?~
ll Lawyer
12 Welfare worker for a city government

 

 

13 , United States representative in Congress
14 Corporal in the Army

15 United States Supreme Court Justice

16 Night watchman

17 _ Sociologist

18 Policeman
19 - County agricultural agent
110 Filling. station attendant
Question 2. Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you
were FREE TO CHOOSE MW of them you wished when your $011001.an IS OVER?
21....“ I-Ietnber of the board of directors of a large corporation
22 .. Undertaker
23 Banker
24 -- Machine opera tor in a factory
25 Physician (doctor)
26 Clothes presscr in a laundry
27___ Accountant for a large business
28 Railroad conductor
29 Railroad engineer
210 - Singer in a night club
Question 3. 0f the jobs listed in this question which is the BEST ONE you are REALM
SURE YOU CAN GET when your SCHOOLING IS OVER?
31____ Nuclear physicist

 

 

 

 

32 Reporter for a daily newspaper
33 County judge

34 Barber

35 . State governor

36 Soda fountain clerk

37 .. Biologist

38 Mail carrier

39____ Official of an international labor union
310 Farm Hand
Question 4. Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose if you
were FREE TO CHOOSE ANY of then you wished when your SWING 18 may

 

 

 

41 Psychologist

42 Manager of a small store in a city

43 Head of a department in state government
44 Clerk in a store

 

45_ Cabinet member in the federal governmnt
46 Janitor

47 Musician in a symhony orchestra

48 Carpenter

49 Radio announcer

410 __ Coal miner

Ligation

ixstio

 

Q‘rxsti

 

 

is“ 112

Question 5. Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are
REALLY SURE YOU CLO HAVE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD?
51 p. Civil engineer
52 Bookkeeper
53 Minis ter or Priest
54 ‘Hu Streetcar motorman or city busdriver
55 Diplomat in the United States Foreign Service
56 ._ Share croppcr (one who owns no livestock or farm
machinery, and does not manage the farm)
57 Author of novels
58 Plumber
59 Newspaper columnist
510.. Taxi driver

 

Question 6. Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you chocnexto have
when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you

 

 

 

 

 

 

wished?
51 Airline pilot
62 Insurance agent
33 ‘.Architect
64 Milk route man
65*“ Mayor of a large city
55 , Garbage collecter
67;._________Captnin in the army
58 Garage mechanic
59 Owner-operator of a printing chap

i

61Q__ Railroad section hand

Question ,7. Of the jobs listed in this question, which is the BEST ONE you are
REALLY SURE YOU CAN HAYE by the time you are 30 YEARS OLD?

 

 

 

 

71 Artist who paints pictures that are exhibited in gallero
72 ' Traveling salesman for a wholesale concern ies
73 Chemist

74 Truck driver

75 College professor

76 Street sweeper

77 Building contractor

78 Local official of a labor union

79 Electrician

710 Restaurant waiter

 

Question 8. Of the jobs listed in this question, which ONE would you choose to have
when you are 30 YEARS OLD, if you were FREE TO HAVE ANY of them you

wished?

 

 

 

81 Owner of a factory that employs about 100 people
82 Playground director

83 Dentist

84 Lumberjack

8S Scientist

86 Shoeshiner

87 Public school teacher

88 miner-operator of a lunch stand

89 ._ Trained machinist

810 Dock worker

‘f' \1' 1'".
1,: “mi

 

“mount
duo‘-

Tiis the
...;.}.1 ,
4 Add.

23218:

2t ::1t

 

 

 

113

‘HIR.NAME

The MSU Work Beliefs Check-List and Key1

Instructiona:

This check-list is made up of statements peOple often say they believe.
probably find that you agree with some and disagree with others.

You will

If you agree with

a statement, circle Agree; if you disagree with a statement, circle Disagree. Do

not omit any.

Be sure your name is on the top of this sheet.

ii The only purpose of working is to make money.

12 I believe a man needs to work in order to feel that he

has a real place in the world.

13 I feel sorry for people whose jobs rem-Ike that they
take orders from others.

14 Every man should have a job that gives him a steady
income.

15 The happiest men are those who work only when they need

money.

15 Doing a good job day in and day out is one of the most

satisfying eXperiences a man can have.

17 A regular job is good for one.

18 I feel sorry for rich peeple who never learn how good

it is to have a steady job.

11 I don't like peeple who are always right on time for
every appointment they have.

22 I feel sorry for people who have to do the same thing

every day at the same time.
23 I don't like to have to make appointments.

2" I believe that promptness is a virtue.

—_

1
Scoring Key (Tentative 19 57-1960. Underlined responses are scored 232 point;
is a score for each sub-area, six scores

{:1 afiéthers are scored zero points. There

Agree

asses

Agree
e529.
Agree

Agree

 

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

2152222

Disagree
Disagree
Disagree
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Disagree
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

25
26

27
28

31
32
33

34
35
36
41
42
43
44
45
46

47
51

52

53

54

114

-2.

I usually schedule my activities.

I‘d rather let things happen in their own way rather
than scheduling them by a clock.

It makes me feel bad to be late for an appointment.

I.expect people who have appointments with me to be
right on time.

I would be unhappy living away from my relatives.
I hope to move away from here within the next few years.

Peeple who can't leave their hometowns are hard for we
to understand.

A.mnn's first loyalty should be to his home community.
When a boy becomes a man, he should leave home.

I like to see new things and meet new peOple.

I like to try new things.

do the whole, the old ways of doing things are the best.
life would be boring without new experiences.

I like people who are willing to chancfl.

On the whole, most changes make things worse.

The happiest people are those who do things the way
their parents did.

New things are usually better than old things.

I believe that a person can get anything he wants if
he a willing to work for it.

Mon should not work too hard, for his fortune is in the
hands of God.

A.mnn shouldn't work too hard because it won't do him
3“? 800d unless luck is with him.

With a little luck I believe I can do almost anything
I really want to do.

 

 

 

 

 

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree
Disagree
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

3': l W

 

 

 

55

57

58
61
62
63

64

65

66

67

115

-3-

A person shouldn't hope for much in this life.
If a man can't better himself it's his own fault.

Practically everything I try to do turns out well for
me.

I usually fail when I try something important.

I would rather work than go to school.

Money is made to spend, not to save.

I think there’s something wrong with peOple who go
to school for years when they could be out earning

a living.

One gains more in the long run if he studies than if
he gets a job.

The more school a person gets the better off he is.

Generally speaking, things one works hard for are the
best.

When I get a little extra money I usually spend it.

Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree
Agree
Agree

Agree

Agree

Agree

 

egree

Agree

Disagree
Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

 

Disagree

 

Disagree

 

Disagree

 

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

 

 

 

I
,__-
t?)
I‘ n

116 .‘
ROKEACH DOGMATISM SCALE, FORM E1

Name

the following is a study of what the general public thinks about a number of impor-

tant social and personal questions.
your pe:rsonal Opinion.

The best answer to the statements below is
we have tried to cover many different and opposing points

of view; you may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements, dis-

agreeing just as strongly with others, and. perhaps uncertain about others.

Who the!

you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure that many other peeple
feel the same way you do.

In the blank column to the left of each statement, mark each statement according
to how much you agree or disagree with it according to the following key:

Key: 1. I AGREE VERY MUCH 4. I DISAGREE A LITTLE
2. I AGREE PRETTY MUCH 5. I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH
3. I AGREE A LITTLE 6. I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

Please mark.every one.

“.9.

“10.

....__11.

“12.
-—_._130
.____l¢.

‘

1

Example:

College students should not be allowed to drive cars on campus.

If you.AGREE VERY MUCH, you would write in a "l" in the blank at the left:

1 College students should not be allowed to drive cars on campus
A person who thinks primarily of his own happiness is beneath contempt.
The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important.

In a discussion, I often find it necessary to repeat.uysslf several times
to make sure I amkbeing understood.

Most peOple just don't know what's good for them.

In times like these, a person must be pretty selfish if he considers his
one happiness primarily.

A man who does not believe in some great cause has not really lived.

I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my
personal problems.

Of all the different philosophies which have existed in this world, there
is probably only one which 1. correct.

It is when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that his life
becomes meaningful.

In this complicated world of ours, the only way we can know what is going
on is to rely upon leaders or experts who can be trusted.

There are a number of persons I have come to hate because of the things
they Stand for.

There is so much to be done and so little time to do it in.

a
It is better to be a dead hero than/live coward.

A.group which tolerates too much difference of Opinion among its own
members cannot exist for long.

mna- :_-i_“_--i 4.4 _-l an». n +itla when it was completed'bv the students.

Key: 1. 1.Acnns VERY MUCH 4. I DISAGREE a LITTLE
2. I AGREE PRETTY HUGH

5. I DISAGRER PRETTY HUGH
3. I . REE A LITTLE 6. I DISAGRBE VERY HUGH

15. It is only natural that a person should have a much better acquaintance
with ideas he believes in than with ideas he opposes.
16.

While I don't like to admit this even to myself, I sometimes have the

ambition to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare
17.

Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is
unfortunately necessary at times to restrict the freedom of certain
political groups.

If a can is to accormlish his mission in life, it is sauntimas necessary
to gamble "all or nothing at all.“

”.19. Host people just don't give a "damn" about others.
cumin—.20.

Any person'who gets enthusiastic about a number of causes is likely to be
a pretty'wishyuwashy sort of person.

______21.

To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usually
leads to the betrayal of our own side.

If given the chance, I would do something that would be of great benefit
to the world.

In times like these, it is often necessary to be more on guard against
ideas put out by certain people or groups in one's own camp than by those
in the opposing camp.

In a heated discussion I usually become so absorbed in what I am going to
883' that I forget to listen to what the others are saying.

Once I get wound up in a heated discussion. I 308': can't 80°F.

There are two kinds of peeple in this world; these who are on the side of
truth, and those who are against it.

~27 .

use on his own is a helpless and miserable creature.
~28 0

The United States and Russia have just about nothing in common.
.._.._.29.

In the history of mankind there have probably been just a handful of really

great thinkers.

-—.__30. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form.of
democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent.

..___§1. The present is all too often full of unhappiness; it is the future that
counts.

“32. Unfortunately, a good many peOple with whom I have discussed important
social and moral problems don‘t really understand what is going on.

...._§3. Fundamentally. the world we live in is a pretty lonely place.

118

.3:-

Key: 1. I AGREE VERY MUCH 4. I DISAGREE A LITTLE
2. I AGREE P'.‘.ETTY MUCH I DISAGREE PRETTY MUCH
3. I AGREE A LITTLE I DISAGREE VERY MUCH

34. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what’s going on until
one has had a chance to hear the opinions of those one respects.
35. The worst crime a person can commit is to attack publicly the peOple who
believe in the same thing he does.
36. In the long run, the best way to live is to pick friends and associates
whose tastes and beliefs are the same as one's own. .-
37. Host of the ideas that get published nowadays aren't worth the paper they ‘1
are printed on. g .
_____38. It is only natural for a person to be rather fearful of the future. E
_____99. my blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. '
___n,40.

‘When.it comes to differences of Opinion in religion, we must be careful
not to compromise with those who believe differently from the way we do.

The following scoring system is used to determine a total score from the

alternatives selected for forty questions.

§gg£g. Alternative
7 1. I agree very much
6 2. I agree pretty much
5 3. I agree a little
3 h. I disagree a little
2 S. I disagree pretty much
1

6. I disagree very much

Total scores range from no to 280.

tute for Personality and.£bility Testing.

119

SIXTEEN PERSONILITY FACTOR TEST

The Sixteen Personality Factor test is copyrighted by the Insti-

The test instrument is not

included.here; however, a brief description of the traits associated

with each factor of the Sixteen Personality Factor test is included

The terms, titles, and descriptions are condensed from the 16

P.F. Manual and a text by Dr. Raymond B. Cattell, author of the instru-
ment (19) (1?).

Factor A. Cyclothmia (high score) versus Schizothymia (low score)
easy going, good natured. Obstructive, Spiteful
adaptable in habits inflexible, rigid
‘warm.hearted, attentive cool, aloof, indifferent
to peOple
coOperative hostile
work dealing with people work dealing with things
or words

Factor B. General Intelligence versus Mental Defect

smart, assertive dull, sluggish
perservering quitting
quick to grasp ideas slow learner
successful in exams and

less successful
classwork
Factor C. Emotional Stability or Ego Strength versus General
Neuroticism
emotionally mature lacking frustration tolerance
realistic about life evasive, immature
emotionally stable changeable
placid, unworried worrying, anxious
active in leadership roles

impulsive channels of action

Factor E. Dominance or Ascendance versus submission

assertive, self assured

submissive
aggressive, pugnacious complacent, quiet
hard, stern kindly, soft hearted
attention getting

self sufficient

120

Factor F. Surgency versus Desurgency

enthusiastic glum, silent

cheerful, joyful depressed, pessimistic

energetic, quick and alert subdued, languid, slow

frank, expressive incommunicative, smug

occupations without preci- occupations requiring close,
sion or detail accurate work

Factor G. Positive Character versus Immature Dependent Character

conscientious ‘weakness of character
perservering, determined quitting, fickle
responsible frivolous, immature
attentive to peOple neglectful of social chores
honesty in schoolwork unscrupulous

Factor B. Adventurous Cyclothymia versus Inherent Withdrawn

like meeting peOple withdrawn
adventurous shy, timid
gregarious, genial aloof, self contained
friendly' hostile

tends to be leader recoils from life

Factor I. Emotional Sensitivity versus Tough.Maturity

demanding, impatient emotionally mature
dependent independent

kindly, gentle hard, cynical
aesthetically fastidious lacking artistic feelint
imaginative introspective set, smug

Factor L. Paranoid Schizothymia versus Trustful Accessibility

suspicious trustful

jealous free of jealous tendencies
hard and unconcerned concerned about people
short tempered, critical easy going, genial

self Opinionated composed

Factor M. Bohemianism versus Practical Concernedness

unconventional, eccentric conventional .
sensitively imaginative practical and logical
undependable conscientious

anxious to do right thing

not rou artici ant
g p p p poised, tough control

occasionally'upset

121

Factor N. SOphistication versus Rough Simplicity

polished, socially skillful socially clumsy

cool, aloof attentive to peOple
exacting mind vague sentimental mind
insightful regarding others naive

insightful regarding self lacking self insight

Factor 0. 'Worrying SuSpiciousness versus Calm.Trustfu1

'worrying, anxious self-confident, placid
suspicious, brooding free from suspiciousness
lonely, discouraged self-sufficient, Spirited
feeling of inadequacy self-confident

Factor'Ql. Radicalism versus Conservatism
introspective self satisfied and cautious
intellectual interests not intellectually inquisitive

inclined to experiment in life Opposed to change

Factor Q2. Independent Self-Sufficiency versus Lack of Resolu-
tion (Dependent)

independent, resolute dependent, non-decisive
makes own decisions prefers shared decisions
originating actions conventional, cautious

Factor Q3. ‘Will Control versus Lack of Character Stability

High scorers tend to have strong control of emotions and be-
havior, to be considerate, conscientious, and careful but
occasionally obstinate. There are indications that high
scorers have more mathematical interests than others. Effective

leaders score higher.

Factor Q4. Nervous Tension

High scorers tend to be tense, restless, fretful, excited,
and impatient. They can perhaps best be characterized as
hypertensive since they are Often fatigues but unable to re-
main inactive. They take a poor view of group unity, order-

liness, and leadership.

APPENDIX B

123

.Hossa mm. as pesoaoacmau .eom.a a N..
.Hosoa no. as psaoaaacmam .m u seasons no ”saunas .mao.e u unseen ago.

 

 

I'll

mm. «a. as. «o. om. oo. no. as. Na. Ho. nausea ago
an. mm.a m~.s me.aa oa.om n~.~e so.an mo.am am.ea m~.: .uosa .aososea
oo. mo.a sn.~ oo.o as.aa Nm.am ~m.a~ «a.na He.a mo.~ oaoso< .som
mo.n He.m.. oo. oo.~ oo.m oo.~H oo.mm oo.~s oo.mn oo.a~ oo.ma oo.: saucepan acumen
an. as. ea. so. am. oo. mo. ea. ma. so. masses ago
as. me.a as.m mn.oa oa.e~ ma.am em.om mm.n~ me.sa aa.n .eona .pouooea
an. an. oa.a mo.m om.ma an.am Ha.om am.ma mo.m a~.~ usono< .pom
NH.m m~.m.. oo.H oo.a oo.n oo.oa oo.- oo.wm oo.mm oo.w~ oo.ea oo.: masseuse
omth vuonm
.o.m ease owned sauna enuma sauna Nana“ cans m.a can sum mac
. ,. mmmoom

 

4"»

 

*.poos uoaoom huwadsonaom coopxam on» ma .mdsbnpouazom
nouns» «Headboaohu

season phone caspasoammo HO nouooa mo coaponanvman

«4 nopooh no success» oopmoo one

“ma mqm<a

124

.Ho>ma see. as oeaoaoaeoau .Hmn.n n Nl.
.Hosoa «oo. as pcaoaoaeoam .m u gouache so «echoes .oao.am u season egos

 

 

oo. oo. oo. oo. ms.o so.o ma. so.m no. mm. unseen ago
oo. oo. oo. oo. oa.n aa.om om.~a No.~n ms.aa mm. .oosa .oouooae
oo. oo. oo. oo. no.n so.om mm.~m Ho.o~ as.a oo. soooo< .oom
am.a so.a.. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.o oo.aa oo.mo oo.as oo.:« oo. usaooeom smooch
oo. oo. oo. oo. so.“ oo.m so. om.~ on. om. unseen ago
oo. oo. oo. oo. om.m mo.ss so.eo on.as an.na as. .eosa .oosoeeo
oo. oo. oo. oo. an. so.ma no.0: mm.nm oo.oa an. uncao< .ooa
an.” sa.o.* oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.o oo.:m oo.oa oo.on oo.o“ oo.a masseuse
cahfiOU tonm
.o.m ego: omusm nmuau omuoa sauna .sauma ad's one cum sum mouoo

mmmoom

*.omsa bosons spasm
snowmen smog»... on» no 500qu Hence: nouns» oooow
undone—H flamenco «m noooom no 35945 seamen one
season phone 055.30% .«o 3.33 «o 5359.333

 

 

 

 

«ad wanda

125

"‘

.Ho>oa no. pm pcmowmacwwm .m n sooommm mo woodwoo .wmwnma n cummdw Hams

 

~e.~ Ha.a No. oh. ms. no.a no. oo.” mm. mm.
o~.n ao.os mo.se aa.mn sa.oe me.os am.m oo.H mm. mm.
am.e ao.e~ sn.- om.aa am.oa oo.o oo.o oo. oo. oo.

chosen Ago
.vonm .vonooga
hooped .pom

36 aligns... oo.o 00.0.: 00...} ocean coon Goad oo.NH oo. oo. oo. mvcodovm cannon

na.~ am.a .mo. as. me. No.“ ma. oH.H an. on.

ma.: nm.on Ha.os mo.~m om.mm am.oa me.m so. as. as.

an. am.na on.m~ mm.ma ma.- om.~H as.m as.“ an. an.
m~.n mm.na.. oo.“ oo.w~ oo.as oo.:m oo.o: oo.- oo.o oo.~ oo.“ oo.“

.n.m ado: QNImN NNImH mans: wanna sauna Nun: oHIm mun 0...: monoo
Anumgoom

stance hovodm hvwadoomaom soookam one no .smwoaaoasoz
Thence macho» hoganopm #30305 no nooodm co mucous:
common use oohooo phone caspasowpwo no nonooo Ho coavspfloman «ow mama.

season .30
.doum 3.9392.
3984 .uom
uncommon
ooaooo amonm

126

 

 

oo. so. as. mg. mo. om. cg. we.” go. so. season ago
oo. mo.gg gm.ag no.am so.mg eo.gm oo.om oa.ag gm. oo.g .ooga .oogooga
oo. ao.o oo.Og sa.mg no.g~ a~.mg s~.og oo.o no.n No.g nuance .oom
ga.m so.~g.. oo. oo.og .oo.g~ oo.gm oo.o: oo.om oo.~n oo.~g oo.o oo.o mogoosgm oogoon
oo. oo. mg. mg. mo. mm. go. H~.~ go. as. season ago
oo. gm.m og.ag mm.n~ og.am gg.gn oo.on so.og og.m gm. .ooga .oosooga
oo. as.“ mo.m go.mg ma.- gm.ng og.mg om.~g go.~ oo. omosog .oom
on.n mg.mg*. oo. oo.m oo.og oo.:m oo.o: oo.om oo.~m oo.- oo.n oo. mogmosom
mousse pecan
.n.m gums” omunm mason oases manna sauna «Hung cans one egg nao
‘ mggoom

 

 

 

 

I'H

Al"

I]
'1

*.vooe moaoom hnaaocomuom compxam oh» no .cowm

unannom nacho» oocdocoomd no cocooason «m nopoom so npnoospm

common one oomsoo phone caspasowamo Mo momoom Ho soapsnaupmdn

«am mamda

127

.gosog og. as oceanoggogm

.m n soooomm mo mooamoo .mmm.o a meadow anon

 

 

ma. on. go. oo. oo. so. o~.g em. mm. mm. museum ago
oo.: eo.sm on.am mm.~m am.mm a~.nm gn.m no.“ ma.e on.g .assa .aogoogo
no.n om.o~ m~.mg s~.og ma.og g~.sg no.n mn.n oo.o gm. unsung .oom
o~.g on.ng.. oo.o oo.o: oo.oa oo.~m oo.nn oo.om oo.o 00.5 oo.o oo.g mogooggm cocoon
no. no. «o. oo. oo. ea. mg.g am. an. go. cause» ago
aa.n sg.gm om.nm oa.o~ ma.m~ ma.m~ as.o mg.“ m~.g ms.g .ooga .oogooga
gs." ma.sg ma.og os.og mo.ag ao.mg oo.o a~.~ oa.g eg.g uuosog .oom
no.m no.sg.* oo.~ oo.om oo.mn oo.om oo.on oo.om oo.o oo.: oo.n oo.~ sogoogom
onuooo vhonm
.n.m _gaogfl omsnm «mums manna ogumg sauna «gags ognm mum on: muo
mmgoom

 

 

can no .hocowusmoo nsoao> hocowhdm

*.pmoe nopodm haddoconnom cooeudm
”a nopoom so sensuous

oomwoo.ucd cameos phone caspasoaswd Ho momooo MO soapsnamvoan

«NN mqmda

128

me. so. so. mo. am.~ go. Hg.~ mg.g mm. oo. seesaw ago
oa.m ao.om so .gm mm.ng mm.on mm.gm mm.ng oa.m mm. oo. .oase .oogooge
sm.~ oo.og am. mg gm.mm ~a.gg aa.ag oo.0g mo.m oo. oo. muonog .gom
on. m an. «as co. m oo.g~ oo.om oo.:g oo.m~ oo.nm oo.g~ oo.o oo. oo. nonsense cocoon
n. no. so. mo. mo.~ go. on.~ go.g an. oo. ossaom ago
on. m no.5g eg.gm no.gs aspen ao.om oo.mg oo.o as. oo. .oona .oogooga
en. a oo.m no.ag mg.g~ oo.mm no.5g no.: am. an. oo. mmogoq .oom
so.~ oa.~g.. oo. N oo.ag oo.om oo.ng oo.:g oo.om oo.o oo.g oo.g oo. mogoegom
omusoo vhosm

 

.nwm can: omlmfi manna manna :alma Ndlaa Gala min can sin «to
mmmoom

 

 

 

*.pnoa nopodm.hedaocomaom coooxam on» no .aopoonono essence
Ion ousedssH nouns» novoaacgo o>fipamom «a mousse co uvcoosvo
common one ommooo phone caspasowamo no mouoom no soapsnaapmwn “mm mqm<a

129

 

 

no. on. so. go. an. mm. as. oo. mg. no. season ago
so.~ mo.gg o~.gg gg.o~ s~.m~ nm.gm og.gm g~.m~ ma.g~ gm.m .oaga .oogooga
mn.g Hg.a go.a ga.mg se.m n~.mg ma.og oo.gg oo.gg oo.o smogo< .oom
mm.s nn.gg.. oo.o oo.:g oo.ng oo.a~ oo.mg oo.om oo.on oo.om oo.m~ oo.og mogoogom cocoon
no. no. so. go. no. go. NH. oo. mg. no. museum ago
oo.o ga.m ga.~g om.n~ ea.o~ ao.om so.a~ oa.o~ ao.og mg.o .osna .oogooga
eg.g om.n oo.o ao.ng o~.gg ao.ma ma.eg ma.gg oo.o mm.g noono¢_.oom
asp: mn.gg.. oo.o oo.a oo.~H oo.m~ oo.n~ oo.om oo.om oo.g~ oo.ag oo.o nogoogoo
09300 orgasm
.n.m geog_ emsnm mmnmg manna ogung sauna «snag cgum mum on: one
mmgoom

 

 

nachos—n.” moons» dgpoaoho uncapcoeod

to»: Sofia agaigostm gscfiam ago so stage“:

an nepodm co apnooopu

common 93 causes phone 9333an «o 3.30» no oo.—"39233

3N H.349

130

 

 

oo. oo. as. oo. oo. as. no. no. mg. museum ago
oo. oo. ag.m aa.mm oo.:g. mm.gm am.om mo.g~ ma.g .ooga .oosooge
oo. oo. mo.g ao.mg mm.n~ om.mm m~.mg og.~g oo.o uuouoq .gom
so.~ oo.a.. oo. oo. oo.~ oo.mm oo.o: oo.on oo.om oo.:m oo.: mogmogom mucosa
oo. oo. we. no. no. as. no. om. mg. chosen ago
oo. oo. mo.~ n~.g~ so.on ao.ms mo.nm mn.mg n~.e .oogm .oonoogo
oo. oo. a~.~ om.gg an.gm oo.om og.og oo.m so.~ nuance .gom

no.~ oo.a.. oo. oo. oo.:. oo.om oo.om oo.em oo.~m oo.ag oo.n sogoogom
onusoo pecan

.o.m gasg_ owuag oases ogumg sauna «Hugs ognm one oum gum Nuo
mggoom

 

 

gwsoa nouns» hofi>apwmcom Hdcoapoem

*.puoa uopodmnhvwadoooaom sooaxam on» no .hpaaspdz

«H mopeds co evacuees

cannon can ommsoo phone caspasoaawo HO nouoom mo coavondmpmwn

«mm mqmda

131

 

00.

£0

 

mm. mg. No. oo. mg. oo. oo. an. museum ago
oo. oo.g ms.o oo.om mm.mg oo.on mm.mg. go.o~ ao.o Hg.~ .oaga .gogooge
oo. mo.g oo.n go.m oo.mm oo.mg mo.g~ ga.mg mn.n mm.g uaooog_.gom
g~.n ~g.m.. oo. oo.o oo.0g oo.ag oo.ag oo.am oo.ng oo.a~ oo.a oo.m nonsense oogoen
oo. ea. on. eg. no. oo. gm. oo. oo. mg. season ago
oo. go. mn.a og.og mo.gg ~m.gm no.gg oo.:m mg.o mo.g .ooga .oogooga
oo. oo. Hg.m on.gg ma.mm mo.mg oo.m~ so.mg Hg.m am. umogog .oom

om.~ on.a.. oo. oo. oo.o oo.om oo.o: oo.mn oo.:g oo.gm oo.o oo.g uggoogom
onusoo phonm

.o.m gaog. owumg oguag sauna sauna «Hugs ogno o-a o.m gun «no
mmgooo

 

III-l

 

.ll

*.vooa novoom_hnfiaanommom coopxam one no .huaaanammoood

Houpooua menus» odshgpoufieom odoconom «A monocm no nonsense

common one chance phone caspasoaawo no mouooo no coaponauymwn

 

 

«0N mqm<e

 

 

oo. oo.o go. on. gg.g oo. ea. mg. oo. mg. ogogoo ago
oo. on.g so.“ oo.og oo.om _go.ng eo.gg oo.oo go.ng no. .ooga .oogooge
oo. oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.om mo.g~ on.g~ mo.ng mg.o go. unsung .ooa
o» ego.n oo.ognn oo. oo.o oo.o oo.og oo.o: oo.o: oo.o: oo.on oo.og oo.o saucepan cocoon
oo. Ng.g go. en. e~.g mo. go. eg. oo. es. ogagoo ago
oo. oo.o oo.o gm.og oo.oo og.en oo.o: oe.oo og.gg eg. .ooge .oogooge
oo. oo. go.~ oo.0g so.og oe.~o ogpgo go.eg ne.e oo. ooogog .ooe

oo.o eo.0g.. oo. oo. oo.o oo.eg oo.:o oo.o: oo.o: oo.go oo.gg oo. nogoogom
oonsoo phonm

.o.o gaog oonou «oneg ogneg ognmg agnog mango cane one on: one
omgooo

 

 

lobes mousse hawddonuom coofifim on... «o .omoc

noogoocoo 7030.95 some: sagasonom «z mouooh co 3:0ng

common one season too» Onondaga? Ho mooooo Ho 33333.5

«mm 93:.

133

 

 

oo. ~:. oo. ma. ow. No. 0:. no. ma. oo. ohmsam ago
oo. mm. mm.“ mm.n~ mm.nm on.fio 0:.nw Hm.m mm. oo. .vmum .pouooga
co. «m. oo.: H~.ad m:.m~ mm.fim :n.nd sm.¢ an. oo. amouod .aom

oa.~ 3:.o«.. oo. oo.“ oo.o oo.m~ oo.om oo.mo oo.Hm oo.¢ oo.“ oo. upcouspm acumen
oo. 5:. oo. ma. 0a. no. an. no. 5:. oo. ouauum ago
oo. 5:. mo.m NH.m~ No.mm fi~.nn :m.:~ m:.m 5:. oo. .uoum .pouoona
oo. oo. mm.n mm.fifi mn.on mw.om mm.aa Ha.m oo. oo. uuouo< .aom
«~.~ ~n.od.. oo. oo. oo.n oo.H~ oo.:m oo.:m oo.a~ oo.o oo. oo. oucouspm
cannon auoam
.num aaox. omamd mfiumfi manna :Huma ~Hnfid ofinm mum wum :am «no
mumoom

 

 

.haaoaagawm Amsom sauna» :oaadoagmanaom

*.pmoa havodh_hnaadconnom noopxam ong no
“2 uo»oum so mvnmuspn

oouwou dad nausea guano ounpazoauwd no mmuoom no coavanaupuan

«mm Hands

134

 

 

mm. mm. o~.H Hm. mm. mm. :m. ow. ma.“ :H. ouasum ago
mm. on. ~m.n :m.nd Hm.mm m~.~: wo.mn ofi.on ow.o~ mm. .uoum .pouomna
oo. oo. mn.n ow.o am.mfi om.md m~.mfi “p.5fi Hm.nd :m.m uuouo< .pom
em.n m~.od.. oo. oo. oo.Hfi oo.o“ oo.Hm oo.om oo.om oo.mm oo.n~ oo.m evacuapm acumen
an. on. 3m.d mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. n~.~ 0H. onaaum “nu
ma. 5:. mo.m oH.:H mo.~n mn.mn mm.:m om.o~ 0:.wH nu.m .uoum .vauooga
mm. mm. mm.~ oo.a mo.HN on.m~ an.a~ om.~H ~m.o op.“ umopo4 .pom
am.n oo.HH.. oo.“ oo.a oo.: 00.5“ oo.nm oo.“: oo.mm oo.- oo.~H oo.m avaouupm
condoo phonm
.n.m ado: mmunm Nana“ manna oflsmfi :asnfi ~H-HH oaum mun mg: muo
mmmoom

 

L

 

undo usnuo> mmocusoaoaamsm m§n03

..»aoa hopoam hadauconnom coopuam oz» mo .Hsmpmaua

.0 banana so mucouuvu

cognac new cannon anon» caspasodnwd Ho nonoom no soapsnauvmaa

.mm mamas

135

 

oo.

 

~:. mo. ao. m:. 55. mo. mo. oo.a ~:. ou:swm ago
oo. on. oo.o oo.~a oo.om ma.5n O5.on oo.:m m5.: mm. .uoao .aouooga
oo. an. :m.~ oo.o 55.5a on.mn :m.- oo.oa mm.n am. ”mouoa .aom
m5.~ wa.5** oo. oo.a oo.n oo.na oo.mm oo.oo oo.:: oo.n~ oo.5 oo.a macouaam omuooo
oo. 5:. No. ao. o:. oo. 55. No. 5a.a 5:. ouasum ago
oo. 5:. «5.: an.aa «5.:n no.5m om.m: a5.a~ mm.: 5:. .uono .aouoone
oo. oo. :o.~ no.0 oa.mm :a.om nm.o~ no.aa :a.a oo. nacho: .aom

:m.~ 5~.o.. oo. oo. oo.n oo.aa oo.om oo.o: oo.on oo.a~ oo.o oo. naccosam
09300 foam

.n.m cums“ omuma oau5a manna :auma Nanaa oauo oa5 mun :nm mac
momoom

II

«0 33350300 «.993» 83163

 

 

Hill
[H

*émoa .aovodm 53.33am.“ 503m 23

. ad .aopomm no 35.03.».

0863 and 3.33 93%.. 93350.3? no «933 me 533.2pr

«cm mamqa

136

o~.a mm. oo. oo. ao. no. 55. 55. ma. N:. oamgvm ago

on.a n5.: oo.o mn.m~ ::.oa ~o.~m 5o.o: oa.- o5.m mm. .uogg .aogooga

«n.a mo.n 5n.: a~.:a o5.oa m5.o~ 55.5a :a.5 mm.a an. unogoa .agm

oo.o nN.Oa.* oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.om oo.5n oo.5m oo.om oo.oa oo.o oo.a magmosam oogooo

~:.a 5n. oo. an. ac. 5n. oo. oo. ma. 5:. ogagco ago
~:.a oo.: ~o.o mo.~m on.mm oa.5: oo.om oo.oa oo.o 5:. .wopo .aogooga
oo. O5.a mn.: on.aa ma.oa m:.:~ oo.om :o.na 5~.~ oo. uuogo< .apm
~o.m «0.5.: cc. oo.o oo.o oo.om oo.~m oo.o: oo.o: oo.:o oo.: oo. nagougam
3.300 .faonm

 

.n.m 50: ONImH wanna vain." :almH Nun: Calm mum. elm inn Nlo
£00»...

.3309 .aoaodh 3.3.38qu conga on» .ao .aoavdaomom .3 £03
2590» hocoaoammdmluaom 33.5935 «Nd .aoaowm no upcovgm
00.53 9.3 3.38 9.8.3 0.39.3033 no 3.83 no Sana—£2939 ”an mam:

 

I I III"ull.lllll II II

137

 

oo. ac. No. ma. 50. oo. oo. mo. og. mg. magnum ago
oo. aa.~ on.Oa ~o.g~ 5o.og g5.oo m~.~g No.aa 05.n mm. .oogm .aogooga
oo. mo.a om.m oo.aa oo.ma om.am mm.a~ om.m oo.o an. moouog .aom
oo.o o5.a.. oo. oo.o oo.aa oo.m~ oo.om oo.mo oo.o: oo.aa oo.m oo.a mggoogam oouocg
oo. ac. mo. ma. oo. oo. oo. go. an. 5:. ouggam ago
oo. 5w.a gg.o ma.~m mm.om o~.gn m5.5m mm.oa oo.o 5g. .uogm .aouooga
oo. Aga.a aa.n go.na an.a~ nn.m~ om.a~ m~.o ga.a oo. anogoa_.gog

n5.~ aa.oa.. oo. oo.o oo.o oo.:m oo.on oo.om oo.om oo.aa oo.o oo. magoogam
3.300 ghoagm

 

.96 50: omlmd main." calm." glam.“ N72: 07.0 min. wan :Im N10
ngammoom

*.ammo_uoaoag agaaagomgom gooaxam egg ac .hgaaagaam
909330 mo x03 mamuvb Houpcoo H55 and uovofim co 3:33...»
0953... 98 3.300 9.8% cuspgoahwa no mouoon .ao 532$.»va «Nm mama.

138

 

NN.

 

aa. am. :5. mg. ga. mm. mm. mm.a mo. ogagam ago
5a.n ~m.na ma.a~ nn.gn am.mm mm.5~ ~o.g~ oo.oa n5.ma O5.n .oogg .aouomge
no.~ aa.5 oo.o om.o~ oo.oa o~.ma oo.0a oo.0a ga.m oo.o amouog..aom
o5.g 5m.~a.. oo.: oo.ga oo.5a oo.o: oo.~m oo.om oo.a~ oo.a~ oo.oa oo.: magoogam acumen
gm. ma. oo. no.a mg. ma. oo. aa.a mg.a no. onagom ago
oo.o oo.na 5m.oa 5o.om 5o.~m ao.m~ ma.~N oa.na 5~.~a oo.o .oouo .aogooga
ga.a ~n.o 5o.na o~.ga mg.o~ gm.ma 55.ga n~.o mm.g o5.a unouog .aom
an.g ma.na** oo.~ oo.na oo.m~ oo.n~ oo.om oo.5~ oo.om oo.aa oo.o oo.n nagooggm
09300 team
.a.m ggog_ wanna --ma mau5a wanna gauna Nasaa oaum o.5 on: «no
mwgoom

 

 

3.3m .3355 23 no 53289 25:62
ooumou was 3.800 9.35 0.3.53an mo 3.33 Ho 3332me

.333. nonoah .3358...
3.0 .aopodm co «pagoda—pm

«an mqm<a

1 |l|l|||l~ Ill IIIII |

I IIIIII l Ill Ill

139

 

 

 

 

og. 5m. aa. ao. ao. mg. mg. oo. oo. onasom ago
mg.mg ga.5o go.mg 5n.oa 5a.n an. mm. oo. oo. .uoum .aogoaga
mm.mm ao.og mm.n~ ma.o ~m.a an. an. oo. oo. nooaoa .aom
mo.a 55.o.* oo.on oo.oo oo.og oo.oa oo.m oo.a oo.a oo. oo. magoogao oouooa
«n. oo. Na. ao. ao. 5g. 5:. oo. oo. ogagom ago
om.og oo.55 oa.5m oo.:a no.5 5g. 5:. oo. oo. .ooym .aoueoga
mg.o~ oo.og mo.a~ mm.o o5.a oo. oo. oo. oo. noogoa..aog

no. 55.o.. oo.on oo.no oo.5n oo.ma oo.o oo. oo. oo. oo. uagoogam
oannoo phonm

.n.m gang o 5 o n g n a a o
mmgoom
E
*.amHH

.googo aaoaaom gggztaaangopago madam gamagoazfloga no .ggos.ao
ouaub prcoashvmca mango» obamuoumxm «0:0 Hoaaom no mpcocapm

ooummc and ompuoo phonm caspasoanma mo mouoom mo coaasnaupman ”gm mqm<a

140

 

go. oo. mo. oo. oo. a0. a0. :o. m:. ogggom ago
on.m~ :5.oo mm.m: mm.:m om.5a m5. aa.~ oo.a mm. .oogm .aouooga
~5.:a oo.om :o.- o~.5a :a.o :m.~ No.a ~o.a an. «manna .gom
an.a mo.o.. oo.om oo.ao oo.o: oo.:m oo.oa oo.n 00.5 00.5 oo.a nagooggm acumen
ao. oo. mo. oo. oo. ao. ao. :m. 5:. onggum ago
~:.o~ oo.:m no.a: 5o.om :o.oa n~.: oo.a :m. 5:. .ooag .aogooga
:n.na oo.on oo.m~ ao.5a oo.o 5m.~ :aua oo. oo. umogo< .aom
on.a :a.o.. oo.5~ oo.:m 00.5: oo.an oo.oa oo.: oo.o oo. oo. aagooggm
09350 tosm
.n.m .gaozfl m 5 o m : n m a o
mmgoom

 

 

..amaa-googo umaaa

.8 :3: 33.85% 33h gauagoaz oga ac .33 8.366...» ...a

53¢qu obapdmo: 96.3» obapamom

«one mmaaom co manavavm

0933 v5. 3.33 9.85 0.33539 no «939... mo coavspflana

«mm and“.

lfil

mm.g

 

on.g oo. mg.m mm. oo. mgmgum ago
mm.m~ ou.om mg.go -.~m o~.ng oo. .aoug .gouooga
mm.gg mm.m~ mg.gm gm.m mo.n oo. mnogqg .gom
~N.g nm.mg* oo.nn oo.on oo.mo oo.mg oo.o~ oo. mggmuggm oogman
mg.~ mn.g cg. no.0 mm. oo. ogagum ago
Ng.n~ om.mg “n.5m mu.m~ ow.gg oo. .aogm .gogooga
mo.m No.g~ mo.gm gm.n~ Nn.m oo. mnogog .gom

g~.g mo.n** oo.og oo.nm oo.oo oo.~g oo.ng oo. aggougpm
onusoo phonm

.n.m n g n N a o
mmgoom

 

 

«moans madamm_:o upcovupm

*.pmHHaxooao nmcaaom
g3: afiagofié 33m gamggodg mg» go .3338 H833; no
coaeanaupo obapummc mango» obauamom

nonwov and nausea when» mhdeaOHuwd Ho nouoom mo cadpnnauvudn

”mm mqm<a

142

 

on.

 

 

 

ugoaaom g8: maaagago 33m fimagoag egg .8 .oofigo .ao

noanunampo abanamo: mumnob o>avawom «Adam moaamm co mucouapm

conned dad ouhsoo guano onnpauoauwd mo mauoom no aoaagnanamao

No. on. mm.a om.a mg. oo. oo. magnum ago
ma.oo am.oo om.na mo.g mm.a no. oo. oo. .oogm .gmgooga
on.an mo.ag oo.o mo.a oo. an. oo. oo. uaogoa .aom

an. mg.o** oo.~0a oo.oo oo.oa oo.o oo. oo.a oo. oo. magoogam gunmen
cg. No. no. an.a um.a 5:. oo. oo. ogugam ago
oo.no ma.~m oo.aa oo.: Ng.a 5:. oo. oo. .uogm .aogooga
mg.ng gn.og mn.o oo.o on.a oo. oo. oo. uuogo<_.aom
mo. :~.o** oo.oo oo.am oo.na oo.o oo.o oo. oo. oo. magoogam
06.250 vhonm
.n.m gums“ n o m g m N a o
mmmoom
..amaaugoogo

«mm mgm<a

116

 

 

 

mucflom vies hpaauobficb 3.5% 5330.“: 23 mo .35.: Ho no.3

35m Hoflnom no 3:359»
00.53”. can 3.300 guano 0.39.?an no mouoom mo coapsafinauan

0.3333 15093 25.8» 1835

_g:. oa. oo. oo. ma. ao. oo. oo. oo. ogagom ago
om.m~ oo.om mm.ao oo.:m ~m.na aa.~ oo.a oo. oo. .oogm .aogoogo
an.ma mg.am ag.m~ om.ua oo.o mo.a an. oo. oo. uuogog_.aom

n~.a aa.o** oo.om oo.oo oo.:n oo.on oo.ma oo.o oo.a oo. oo. aggoogam acumen
mg. mm. oo. oo. am. ao. oo. oo. oo. ouggom ago
m~.a~ on.~n oo.:n ga.am oo.na mo.a gm. oo. oo. .uouo .aogooga
oo.oa go.m~ m~.mm oa.oa oo.o :g.a on. 00. oo. uuoaoa .gom
ma.a aa.o*. oo.oa oo.o: oo.~o oo.om oo.~a oo.o oo.a oo. oo. magoogam
onHfiOO team
dd 5»: o a. o m g n N g o
mggoom
*.amagsgomgo

«on H.549

 

144

 

oo. on. ag. mg. om. om.a oo. oo. ogagum ago
oo. a~.oo am.on oo.o: am.- om.a oo.a oo. .oagg .aogoogo
oo. mo.~m ma.m~ gm.~m .oa.a ~m.a an. oo. aaogog .aom
:~.g mn.n*. oo. oo.oo oo.on oo.o: oo.oa oo.o oo.a oo. magoogam oogoon
oo. mg. Na. mg. mo.a Ng.a oo. oo. onagom ago
oo. mm.nn oo.on ag.ng oo.om ~:.a oo. oo. .oagm .aogooga
oo. go.om oo.om m~.u~ o~.ga oo. on. oo. ooogog .aom
pa.a ao.n** oo. oo.o: oo.o: oo.o: oo.m~ oo. oo.a oo. uagoogam
unudoo vuonm
.ngm gang m u o n g m a o
mmgoom

ill [Ill-ll: "ll

coaedfiflabo o>apdwon msmuo> o>apamom

*.puaauxoogo umoaaom x993.
huaanopacp madam namagofiz on» no .coapaoauapdum weapouoo mo

“Ham «maaom co «unmodpm

moaned can omufioo when» ohspHsoahmd no mouoou mo coaunpangman

 

1*

“mm mqmda

145

 

 

 

 

o~.aa ma.Ma no. ~a.a ma. oa. om.n am.~ oo.o no.na ogasom ago
ma.- ca.om oo.om oo.oa mo.a~ oo.:a «p.ma mo.a~ ao.oa :~.m~ .uogg .aogooge
m~.ma om.n~ oo.aa aa.o ma.Oa ma.m mm.m aa.o on.n mo.~ uuoaoa .aom
mm.ga oo.ng** oo.on oo.om oo.m~ oo.ga oo.om oo.oa oo.o oo.:a oo.aa oo.: magoogam oogoon
mo.~a on.ga oo. n~.a aa. aa. oo.o oo.o on.m no.5a ogaaom ago
~o.aa om.o~ no.5a gg.m mm.ma a~.ma n~.~a mm.ma oo.oa oo.oo .oogm .aogooga
oo.o oo.o oo.o aa.m mm.aa oo.o oo.Oa gm.na o~.ga nn.- noogo< .aom

no.aa oo.o~.* oo.: oo.“ oo.na oo.o oo.a~ oo.ma oo.ma oo.om oo.n~ oo.o: magoogao
omudoo whoam

.nxm gums. moaom onus: manag canon mmsgm mnuan omumm oungm mmama oauoo
mumoom
*.auoa

aoapdoahaadsa 30.38 on» «o «8.300.
cognac wad ouuuoo phone ouspadoahwd mo

HdpAo> on» no manouspo

mouoom Ho soapsnaupman

no: mqmqe

 

 

1k6

 

 

.a~.n~ oo.o on. ma. om. gm.m oo.o oo.o oo.o mg.o ogagom ago
om.mn -.~n mm.m~ ~o.g~ oo.oa g~.n~ no. on.0a om.0a oo.o .oogm .aagooga
. ao.gm mo.g~ am.na oo.aa oo.o oo.n an. an. No.a oo. aaouq< .aom
oo.o oa.m:** oo.oo oo.o: oo.am oo.m~ oo.ma oo.oa oo.a oo.a oo.o oo. magoogam oouoon
om.n~ oo.o on. ma. ao.a :g.o oo.o mo. on. oo.o «hogan ago
on.nm oo.ou ao.n~ oa.- oa.na oo.om oo.: gg.m oo.o no.“ .oogm .aouocga
oo.o oo.o oo.oa ao.na oo.oa ~m.ma any: oo.oa oo.oa oo.o «gonna..aom

gg.o oo.omgg cop: oo.~a oo.- oo.g~ oo.ma oo.:n oo.o oo.aa oo.oa oo.oa magoogam
annuao phonm

.nam gang” hogan «nuog_ ogngg mono: amumm mango mason annom omnoo nmuoo
magoom

 

 

§.pmoa coquOHHdHQAG owuaaoo

on» no :oapooa HanoaedauomcH 03p :0 ascovapn oouwov
was ouuaoo anon» ouspHsoauwu no nouooa no noapsnauvaaa

«a: mqm<a

147

 

3.3

 

oo.oa aa.~ oo. ao. m:.m oo. oo.o oo.o mm.m~ onugcm ago
~5.aa mm.an ~m.ma oo.oa am.m oo.mm oo.o m~.g oo.oa :g.om .aoum .aogooga
no.nn ag.m~ oo.oa oo.n no.m aa.n oo.o an. nm.n nn.a «gonna .aom
gg.o no.0mgg oo.om oo.om oo.a~ oo.0a oo.o oo.:a oo.: oo.a oo.o oo.o nagoogam genome
om.ma oo.oa oo.o oo. ao. ca.o om. oo.o oo.o no.o~ ogagom ago
o~.mm oo.on oo.ma oo.o ma.m Na.nm oo. oo.o ca.na om.~m .uogo .aogooga
oo.o oa.m may: aa.m oo.o mo.ma nn.g oo.o o~.ga n~.nm uaogoa .aom
No.5 ga.oa** oo.oa oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.om oo.o oo.o oo.n~ oo.oo uageogam
ouHfiOU team
.a.m can: onngn nnnoo mason monam nmumm mmaom mauoa manoa Fauna mauoo
mmgoom

 

fl

 

 

 

on.» 3.93

guano ouapaaaoaumd Ho uonoou .ao coapzpaupaan

LII

 

 

4

“I

.3309 53333.95
omoaaoo on» no coavoou Hdoauoazz on» no 330.05....» ooumou

«N: H.549

148

 

 

 

 

oo.om ma.ga on. am. ag.a oo.a mo.a ma.n oo.o am.a~ ogagom ago
om.nm m~.mm n:.na ma.- mg.o mo.aa mo.oa an.ga um.oa mn.m~ .oogo .aouoogo
mo.nn oo.om ,na.oa ma.0a gm.~ oo.o mo.n oo.: gm.~ No.a auogo<_.aom
mm.m~ oo.m~a*. oo.oo oo.om oo.om oo.om oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.o oo.n oo.o nagoosam oouooo
mo.m~ oo.ma mg. gm. om.a oo.o No.a o:.m oo.o oo.:o ouuaom ago
on.mn mm.m~ on.na ~o.ma mm.o oo.oa oo.o a~.ma mo.aa no.- .oogm .aouooge
ga.a nn.a on.“ on.~a oo.o oo.o oo.o on.aa no.3a ga.o~ noogo<_.aom
oo.a~ mo.ao** oo.o oo.o oo.na oo.om oo.a oo.na oo.ma oo.om oo.om oo.o: nagoogam
3.300 foam
l.n.m goo: 8m :9 o: 833 manna «mumo 8.3 oo.? know 8.8
umma unaa smoa mgmoom
*.onoou

Havoa pace coaeaoamaadac.omoaaoo can no nvcovspu ooumov
and nausea when» ousvHsoaumu no nouoom no coavdnauuuan on: Hands

1#9

 

 

ga. Na. oo. aa. on. ma. og.a an. up. ogagom ago
n~.a oo.: mo.aa on.a aa.m oo.o ua.m ~o.g~ gm.aga .aoum .aouooga
oo.o mo.~ oo.: No.a an. mm.a am. oo.Oa oa.nn umogoa .aom
oo.o oo.: oo.o oo.o oo.a oo.o oo.a oo.a~ oo.oma nagoogam .ogmon
oa. ma. om. Na. oo. ma. oo.a oo. oo. ouugom ago
oo.o m~.g ao.a og.a mo.a om.n no.~ oa.- og.o~a .vogo .aogooge
on.a oo.o on.“ on. on.a. oo.o oo.o on.ga aa.mo umogoa_.aom
oo.o oo.o oo.ma oo.a oo.o oo.: oo.o oo.oN oo.oaa magoosam
onusoo phogm
oohdaqam .xnwpunoo .ovo..noozv Hucoau oohdagsm gonzo popcom gonzo ocoz
.phoo ..pooam .noxodha launchm .mspeam .nfipeam Maegan uoauam
.uonsaam .hoxuoz
..nudo huovowh

 

 

*.upcovspm omnmov

can onusoo phonu ohspasoapMd Ho uncapau Ho mach vacuum

a:: mqmde

150

.Ho>oH aoo. pd pcdoawacmam
.m u_aovooum mo moopmmfi .mdo.w: u mpwscm d£o*

 

 

oo.a oo.o mo.ma ma. oggggm ago
oo.a mg.~m oa.go oo.om .umgg .aogomgo
oo om.mm oo.og oo.oa mmogog .apm
oo. .oo .na .on gagoogam aogoog
oa.a og.o nn.ma ma. ogggum ago
gm. on.~o go.om mgpgn .gogg .aogooge
ga.a mm.ao aa.ma mo.a~ nuogoq .aom
oo.m .QOH .mm .mm upcmuspm
cognac phonm
anamom opaaugouagd no>oz mow
oz aoz

 

*.a§dm a so um>aa nm>o mpg; on: Show a no wcabaa
no: mucmospm oohwou dad cannon yuan» ondpflsoauwd Ho umgggz «mg mqmde

151

r‘." r

vc

“'i‘q

Vcc C!

 

 

 

 

 

 

*.opcouupm oopwoo nag cannon when» enapasoauwd no
apnonam an.vada noncoguo Haaonacam Haaoaadonuo mo anon ham

ao. aa.~ on. ma.m ga. oo. no. on.~ magnum ago
aa.~ aa.~ oo.on oo.om oo.~a oo.n~ go.ma m~.mo .uogg .amgooga
,No.a oo. no.am a~.ga aa.m o~.ma oo.o oo.~n uuogoa .aom
oo.o oo. oo.o: oo.oo oo.gav oo.om oo.aa oo.oo uagoggam oogoon
ao. oo.o .gg. am.n ma. oo. oo. oo.o ogagom ago
mo.a oo.a mm. no.5a mm.aa ma.n~ oa.ga oo.ou .aogg .aogooga
ga.a oo.o ao.ma oo.o oo.o oo.ma oo.o oo.og aaogoa .aom
oo.o oo.: oo.an oo.oa oo.oa oo.m~ oo.aa oo.no nagoogam
mandou puonm
hagog gogao no gm-mo goumo gn-om mgaan goo
oz nope mama

 

 

«w: Mnmda

.-

3.1.

n u I \ Il.‘

l. c I O 0 I

-.. - u u.|c
.

‘nIC‘

152

.Hoboa no. as vcdoamacwan .o« n abuoohm no noonuou .ga.am n ohdnum «no;

 

 

mg a n m cm mm mm ow am no no agoo gag
manouzpm acumen
om m a m on mm ma ma mg no am 9:00 ham
manovspm
nausea vuonm
hHmom .AOdoa ohmuoao .pwd o>ap mocoaum keno uoaom .wdto> nonpo: Masada
oz .HHou .oo [daam . nova Icfioo

 

 

* ouHGoHMOHQ
oohuod no ounuoo pagan «cauzupud ca upcoUSpa oopmod dam
nuance anon» caspasoanwu op adapcosawna woes mnomyon conga an: wands

153

.Ho>oH aoo. aw pcaoamacmam .m u addooam no noonwod .mma.:m u onusum «ao*

 

 

oo. oo.a aa. mg. mo.a an. oo.o ma.a gg. ogagom ago
oo.a oo.a on.a mm. go.~ oo.o oa.mm mn.mma on.m~ .ucgg .aogooga
an. oo. mo.a an. an. gm.m oo.o ga.om am.na «gonna .gom
no.oa oo.a oo. oo.o oo.a oo.a oo.o oo.oa oo.oma oo.oo magoggam oogoon
oo. ma.a ma. mg. ga.a on. oo.o an.a mg. caugvm ago
go. gm. Ng.a mg. oo.o ma.o Noama oo.oma n~.am .oogo .aogoogo
on. ga.a an. oo. oo.o mn.g oa.oa on.~o n~.oa «mogog .aom
oo.oa oo.a oo.o oo.a oo. oo.g. oo.o oo.om oo.oaa oo.oa uagaogam
acknoo phonm
guano hagog go mm mm am om oa oa ma
ado: oz hobo

 

 

*.up:ocgpa ounwou cad cannon guano mugvagoauwd mo now<

E

«m: Handy

154

ma.n

 

go. oa.a no. .oa. aa.u oo. oo.- oo. oo.- ao.- ao.- om. ao.- no. ga.- aoaoo Boo
no. oa.u oo. go. oo.- no. oo.- ao.- ao.- oo.- oo. oo.- aa. oo.- om. ma.- agoagoagz aoo
mo. aa.u nu. ma. oo.- mo. Na.a ao. oo.- ma.- oo.- go.- ga. oo.- ga. «a. goaagagoaga goo
no. ma.s on. ma. aa.- ao. oo. Na. oo. oa.u oo.- go. om. no. oa. oa.- agggpo ado
oo.- oo.- oo.- na.- oo.- no.3 oa. No. Na. o. no. go. oo. no. go. ga. .goa .ggooo
ma. oo.- ~o.u ao.- oa. no. «a. oa. oo. oo.- oo.- ao.- oo.- g~.u ma.s aa. nuaau-oog
no. ao. oo.- oo. ga. mo. aa.a oo. oo.- mo.. «a. mo. go. oo.- «a. oo. o
oo.- oo. oa.- oo.- oo.: aa. ma.- ma.- ao.- oo. oo. Na. go. no. ao. go. o
oo. oo.- oo.- oo. oo.- oo. oo.- oa.n ga.u oo. oo.- aa. oo.- ao.u oo. ao.- g
~o.- oo. oo.- no. ma.a oo.- oa. no. oa. ma. Na. oo.- oa. oa. no. oo. m
oo.: oo. aa.u ma. no. oo. oo.- oo.- oo.: oo. mm. aa. go. no. no. No. N
go.- oo. no. «o. oo. oo. oa.- oo.- ao. oo.- oo. ao. ma.- oo. oo.- oo.- a oaoaaom gags.
go no «a ac o z z. a a g o o g o m a

$5.85“ Eizommnmm

 

 

upcoonvu ooudoo
phone ouupfluoauwd no mouoon puma coaadoamaaund vmeHoo

ogg .goaaagaooa aggoaaaggooo .aoaaggoon_.maoaaom ggoz.gaaz

nouoon puma nopodm.hpafldcoonmm nomvxam on» no :oapwaouuoo

”a: Handy

155

. I
.
... 41
iii,

 

 

 

 

 

.nmmo.
no.1 oo. om. ma. ma.n no.3 ma. no. 30.! mo.1 ma.| Na.| na. :0. mm. ma.l advoa ado
oo.- no. oo. ma. oa.u oo.: go. oo.- ga.- ao.u mo. oa.a oo. oo. no. oa.n aaoagoagz aoo
mo. go. go. Na. oo.: oa.: no. no. mo.: oa.u oa.- oa.s go. oo.- gm. oa.u goaagagoaga goo
oo.- oo.- ma. ma. oo.- oo.- ma. oo. oo. oo.- ma.u oo.- ma. no. go. ~a.- aggnoo aoo
oo. oo. 5a.: ao. ~a.- oa. ga. go.u go. oa. oo. oo. oo. oa. mm. oa. .oua .ogooo
ao. oo.- ao. oa.- an. go.u ma. oo. oo.: ga.- oo.- oo. oo.- am.- oo.- ma. auaagaoon
ma.a oa. ma.n ga.u ma.u ma. ga.u aa.n oo.: oo. om. oo. ga.n na. no. ao.u o
oa.u oa. oo.- oo. oo.- oa. Na.- oo.- oo.- mm. oo. oo. oo. ma. oo. ga. m
oo.- oo. ma.n oo. oo.- mo. oa.a oa. ma.u oa. oo. oa. oo.-. ao.- aa.- oa. g
oo.- _oo.a go. oo. oo.- ao. oa. oa. oo.- oo. am.- no. oa. aa.a ma. go. n
ma.n oo.. oo.- oo. oo.- ma. aa.- oo.- go.u ma. am. oo.: ma.u aa. go.. no. o
oo.- ao. oa.u oo.- oo.- no. oa.u oo.: ao.- ao. oa. aa. oa.- ma. oa. ~a.- a uaoaaomogggz,
go 0o oo ao o z z a a g o o a o m a
mgoooam aomagzomgum
.nacoduvn ooumov oasaasoauMd Ho mmuoom puma uoapdoamafidqd
ouoHHoo Una .coapdhamnd choavoasooo .amaaaswon .ommaaom gun:
Apa3_uouoom puma uoaoah haaflaconuom coovxam on» we goapaaouuoo ”om mqmda

156

 

 

 

 

ng.- no. ao.a on. oa.u on. . . .
.u . .a . og aa og.a an.a gg.- no.a on.- oo.- no u go
mm. go. oo. oo.: mo”: na. na.u on.n no.n no. an. no.u oa.a oo. oo.: na. no
mHol “do o “No 00. H00... “H0 MD. mo. 00.!- ac- Who-I Nflo' “00' go..- mNo-I Nd
nn. g .- aa. . no. oa. oa. oo. no. no. oo.- no.- oa. go. ao.- no. ao
oa.- an. oo. na.- . ao. oa. on. no.- og.- oo.- ao.- no.- og.- oo.- oo.- o
oo. .1 no. oa. na . . ao.- aa.- oo.- oa. oa. oo.- oo.- oo. no. oo. 2
on. oo.- ma. am no. ao.- . no. ao. oa.u .no.- oa.- na.- ao.- no.- ao.t g mozmooom
. oa. na. no . oa. oo.- oo.- . oa. nn.a on.- no. go.- gg.- oo.- ao. a
oo. oo.- oo ao.- oa. no. ma. oo.- . no.- oo. oo.- no.- ga.- oo.- na. a ongooo
ao . oo og.- go.- oo.- oo. oo.- na.- ao.- . oo. og. no. gg. no. oo. o
oo.- no. na.- oo.- go.- no. ao.- oo.- oo.- oa. . go. oa.- oo. na. oa. o ogogm
oa. na.- og.- aa.- oo.- oo.- go.- oo. na.- og. oo. . gg. oo. oo. go. o
no. oo.- go.- ao.- oo.- ao. oo. oo. oa.- ao. no.- oo. . ga. oo. na. m
on.- oo. aa.- na. on.- ao. oo.- no.- oa.- go. nn. no. oo.- . oo.- oo.- o
go.- no. na. oo.- oa.- go. oo. oo. oo. oa.- ao. na.- no.- oo. . ao. m
4

no. no.- go.- aa.- ao. na. na. na. oa. nn. go. oo. oo. oa.- oa.- .

 

go no oo ao o 2 g a a g o .g m o m a

 

 

mazmmbam mmmwmn

 

 

69:35? 03on .38 0933 Paogm ogpnsoanwa .ao
«cocoa goon goaoao naaaagomgom gomaxao egg ogogg goaggaoggoo .gn mango

157

 

 

 

 

 

 

mazwnaam madman

.3595» «women. on.» 3.900 9.8:» 0.3.3823
no oonoom anon. :oapdoamadood owodnoo 93 53.5334
aagoaagogooo .goagggooo .oaoaaom ggoz,ogoso goaagaoggoo

«mm H.549

o m o o o a ll:
0 mm 8 +~o mHo' no. ON. HH. CO. @00 0°. 30H. 88
N“. o o 0
ng oo oa.- no.c oo. oo. no. go.- oo.- no. aaoauoagz aoo
No. 0 o o 0
mm go mm. o “H. 0H0- NO..- HN. 500 $0. OH. 00.... Hdphfl> so
oo. oo. oa. no. . na.- oa. go. oa.- oo. oa. go. .gna .ogooo
oo.- no.: oo.: oo.. oo. . oo. no.n oo.- ao.- no.- oa. amaaggooo
aa.n oo.: no.u gg.- go. no. . go. ga. no.- oo. an. o
na. no. oo. ga. ao. ao. na. . no. oa.- aa. oo. n
. . oozmooom
oa . ao na.- ga.n go. oo. no. go. . oo. oo. oo. g
omoooo
oa. oo.: na. oo. oa. na. no.u oo.- no. . ao.s na.- n .Iunuu
oooom
na.u oo. aa.- oa.u aa. oa.- oo. ao. oa. oo.- . ga. o
oo.: oo. oo.- no.- ao. go. ao. oa. oo. ao.n na. . a nocaaom guns.
n z a o .a.o .ooo m n g n o a

sill .
1|. . .0
F iiiil. A.