CHARACTERISTICS AND INFILUENCE PATTERNS 6F SYUDEN‘I‘S ENROLLING IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA AT MICHIGAN S‘MTE UNIVERSITY 111953: for the Degree M Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNN'ERQTY LaVom Adam Fa‘eeeh I962. ‘¢ ‘¢ ‘I4 YATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII III” III III This is to certify that the thesis entitled CHARACTERISTICS AND INFLUENCE PATTERNS OF STUDENTS ENROLLING IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ' presented by LaVern Adam Freeh has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D 9 degree in Education 1 Mo Major essor Date M 0469 LIBRARY I Michigan 5““ I Univcrsit)’ ABSTRACT CHARACTERISTICS AND INFLUENCE PATTERNS OF STUDENTS ENROLLING IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By LaVern Adam Freeh Purpose.--To identify and compare some characteristics of farm youth who attend college, and of non-farm youth who attend college and enroll in agricultural curricula. Emphasis is given to the students' attitudes toward agriculture; their exposure to information about col- lege curricula and/or careers; and cognitive factors associated with their college curricula choices. Method.—.Three hundred and thirty-nine first-term, male, freshman students enrolled at Michigan State University in the fall of 1961 were included in the study. They were divided into three groups: (1) farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula; (2) non—farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula; and (3) farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. The students were classified as ”farm" or "non-farm" youth through the use of criteria which were developed specifically for the study. Data for the study were gathered in four one-hour meetings through the use of a questionnaire. The three groups were compared by use of the chi-square and T-test techniques. Findings.-.Significant differences were found among the three groups. Some of these differences are listed. (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula, when compared with the other two groups of students, more often reported that: ‘2 V V V LaVern Adam Freeh The adults they admired most were in agricultural occupations. Their closest friends were aspiring to agricultural careers. They had studied vocational agriculture in high school. They had participated in the FFA and the A-H. Their first career choice was farming. They had a good understanding of career opportunities in agriculture. They had extensively read agricultural careers publications. They had done some reading in publications dealing with agricultural curricula. They had heard a speech about careers and college curricula by a college faculty member. They rated vocational agriculture teachers as having exerted the greatest influence on their college curricula choice, after parents. They rated the vocational agriculture course, speeches and publications about agricultural curricula and agri- cultural careers, visits to the college campus, and ex- periences in the FFA high as a source of influence on their choice of college curricula. Some other significant differences between the two groups of farm youth were: (a) Farm youth enrolled in agriculture more often reported that their parents Were full-time farmers. (b) Farm youth in agriculture reported more exposure to in- formation about agriculture. (c) (d) In 0 a. LaVern Adam Freeh Farm youth in other than agricultural curricula rated teachers (other than vocational agriculture), high school counselors, high school courses (other than vocational agriculture), rank in high school class, publications dealing with non—agricultural careers and curricula and goals and objectives, not directly related to agriculture, higher as a source of influence relative to their choice of curricula. Farm youth enrolled in agriculture more often reported that they felt agriculture was a growing industry and the career opportunities in agriculture were expanding than did farm youth who Were not enrolled in agriculture. (3) Some other significant differences between farm and non—farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula were as follows: (a) (b) (c) (d) Farm youth chose their curricula later in high school than non-farm youth. Non-farm youth more often reported that employers, adults (other than parents or teachers), and college faculty mem- bers had influenced their curricula choice. Non-farm youth more often reported that their father had encouraged them to continue their education and that their parents didn't care what occupation they entered as long as they liked it. Non-farm youth more often classified the career they were preparing for as related to agriculture rather than agri- culture itself. Farm and non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture did not differ significantly with reSpect to their attitude toward agriculture. u LaVern Adam Freeh Likewise, both groups indicated that a liking for plants and/or animals and an interest in working out of doors exerted a high influence on their choice of curricula. All three groups of students reported that the h-H agents, leaders, or eXperiences exerted little influence on their curricula choice. No significant differences were found between the levels of edu- cational and occupational aspiration that the students in each group reported their parents had for them. CHARACTERISTICS AND INFLUENCE PATTERNS OF STUDENTS ENROLLING IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By LaVern Adam Freeh A THESIS Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR 0F PHIIOSOPHY College of Education 1962 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his deepest appreciation and grati- tude to those who contributed to the deve10pment of this study. To Dr. Harold Byram, advisor, for guidance and assistance in conducting the study. To the other members of the graduate guidance committee who pro- vided inspiration and counseling: Dr. Malcolm 5. MacLean, Jr., College of Communication Arts; Dr. James Tintera, College of Education; Pro- fessor Russell J. Kleis, College of Education. To Dr. David N. Hess, Assistant to the Provost, and Dr. Arthur Farrall, Head of the Department of Agricultural Engineering, for writing letters asking students to participate in the study. To the freshman students at Michigan State University who, by their participation, made this study possible. To Dr. Richard.M. Swenson, Director of Resident Instruction, College of Agriculture, for providing assistance, resources and a favorable environment for conducting the study. To Dr. Harold Henneman and Dr. Harold Ecker, Short Course Depart— ment, College of Agriculture, for their constructive comments and assistance. To Dr. Raymond Clark, College of Education, and Mrs. Clark for their encouragement and.warm counseling. To his wife Mabel and children, Lori, Robert, and David for the sacrifices they had to make and the encouragement and assistance they prOVidedo TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNWMNTSO.OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LISTOFTABLE...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LISTOFFIGURFS................... LIST OF APPENDICES o o o o o o 0 0‘0 0 o o o o o o 0 CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Purpose Of the StUdyo o o o o o 0 Background and Need for the Study . . . . Hypotheses. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations Of the SEUdyo o o o o o o e 0 Definition Of Terms 0 o o o o o o o o o 0 Procedure of the Study. . . . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES. . Some Characteristics of YOuth Associated with Occupational and Educational Plans. . . . . . Characteristics of farm.youth . . . . . . . Characteristics of youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. . . . . . . . . . . Cognitive Factors Associatedfwith Enrollment in Agricultural Curricula o o o o o o o o o 0 Summary 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 THE YOUTH STUDIED COMPARED‘WTTH PREVIOUS GROUPS OF STUDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary 0 o o o o o o o e o o o o o o o o PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . Characteristics of the Ybuth Studied. . . Attitudes of Students Towards Agriculture The Nature and Extent of Students Exposure to Information Regarding Careers and College Curricula Cognitive Factors Associated with College 0...... Curricula Choice. 0 o o o e o o e o o o o o o o o 0 iii viii 18 25 29 31 37 A2 A3 61 71 . n — o s a on o n p A n a s A n n a n o n a n 0 ~ . o n p 1 ~ A I o n a n a a n o r n r- . n o a a a Q :- 1 a 1 o I h I A o In a n r . c~ n n a Q n n a a I Q I n n . a g c n v- a a h a A a c- :- n o e n n a I! r n a a o n - r n s n I A a r s n a A o a o ’ o D o a a a a a a w a A n r n a n '- 0 I O a a- n c 1 a I w o a n v- n '\ 7‘ a a q n o- e a a ~ 0 a a I- . 5 a a I n a a I a n a 4- 4 A A s o a a A Q -'\ n a a n 6 a n I I c 5 h Q D p n r- A a n p n A g n . o n o l‘ A o a O a Q :- Q ~ 9 o a n a b c m h a .- Q ~ on r- . a- h u n u . n n R A a C O h R O 0 D F o n '\ A '- n p .. . .. , .. ,. a ,. Q 1‘ n l v‘ Q h n o a . A p g I fl ’ n -\ o a p n -\ A a .- h a a A A u o e n o a n -. F a a a A v- . o ' ~ 0 r I n '- ' II . fl '- n n p . A A A n -. A - e a _, a u n a Q n o n I n - a A a n O o g g A u. a . a g '- - n A n a g a O r a n I- I‘ e a h a u n e A a n o n x o a fi— 7 .— 7—...» CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . Summary of General Characteristics of the Students. Summary of Students' Attitude Toward Agriculture. . Summary of Students' Exposure to Information About Careers and College Curricula . . . . . . . . Summary of Cognitive Factors Associated withCurriculaChOice............... COUClUSionSoooo0000000000000... Implications. O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O BIBLIOGRAPHYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO APPENDICES 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 iv Page 4.. , Table 10 11 12 13 1h 15 16 17 1E3 LIST OF TABLES Standings of Students Enrolled in Agricultural Curricula on English and Reading Orientation Examinations . . . . . Standings of Students Enrolled in Agricultural Curricula on CQR Total in Orientation Examinations. . . . . . . . . Farm and Non~Farm Background of First Term Freshmen Enrolled in Agricultural Curricula. . . . . . . . . . . . First-Term Freshman Students in Agricultural Curricula by Major. 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Freshman Students with FFA and #-H Club Experience Enr011ed in Agricultural CurriCUIao o o o o o o o o o o o Fanming Status of Parents or Guardians of Farm Youth in the Sample a o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Employment Experiences of the Students. . . . . . . . . . Occupational Areas of Adults Most Admired by Students . . Career Aspirations of Friends With Whom Students MOSt Associated o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Number of Students Who Had Studied Vocational Agriculture in High SChOOlo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Number of Students Who Had FFA Experience . . . . . . . . Subject Students Enjoyed Most in High School. . . . . . . Number of Students Who Had 4-H Experience . . . . . . . . Activities in Which Students Participatedehile in High SChOOlo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Year in School in Which Students Reported Decisions to Attend College 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Year in School in Which Students Reported They Selected Their College Curricula. . . . . . . . . . . . . Majors Selected by Farm Youth Enrolled in Other Than Agricultural Curricula o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Student Visitations to MSU Campus 0 o o o o o o o o o o o 39 39 #1 #3 “5 #5 47 “9 50 51 51 52 53 7Table 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Students' Preference Relative to which College Should Offer the Curricula They are Enrolled In . . . . . . . Educational Aspirations That Students Reported Their MOtherS Had for Them 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Educational Aspirations That Students Reported Their Father Had For Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational ASpirations That Students Reported Their Mother Had for Them . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Occupational Aspirations That Students Reported TheirFatherHadforThem00000000000000 Career Area in Which Students Would Most Like LOA‘Jorkooooooooooooooooooooooo How Students Classified the Careers For Which Theyarepreparingooo00000000000000. Degree of Understanding Students Reported They Had of Agricultural Career Opportunities . . . . . . . Student Attitudes Relative to the State of the AgriCUI‘tural IndUStryo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Student Attitudes Relative to Career Opportunities inA-griculture.......o............ Student Attitudes Relative to Social Status Associated with Agricultural Career. . . . . . . . . . Student Attitudes Relative to Opportunities for Advancement in Agricultural Career . . . . . . . . . . Student Attitudes Relative to the Potential for Making Money in Agricultural Careers . . . . . . . . .. Student Response Relative to the Availability of Publications Dealing with Careers and College CurriCUIao00.00.00.00000000000000 The Extent to Which Students Reported They Read Publications Concerned with Careers and College Curricula..............o........ Number of Students Who Heard a Talk About Careers and/or College by a College Faculty Member . . . . . . vi Page 57 58 59 60 6O 61 62 63 6h 65 65 66 69 7O 'Table 35 36 37 38 Page Location or Occasion Where Students Heard College Faculty Member Speak on Agricultural Careers and/or Agricultural CurriCUIa o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 70 Student Rating of People who Influenced College CurriCUla ChOiCe o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 72 Student Rating of Factors Which Influenced College Curricula ChOice o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 7n Comparison of Perceived Factors Which Influenced COllege Curricula ChOiCe o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 75 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Each Year There Are the Following Jobs Open for Agricultural Graduates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . u 2 Comparative trends in Agribusiness Employment and Agricultural College Enrollment for 19h6-58, PrOJGCtedt019653nd197Oococoo.000000.00 6 viii Appendix tfi LIST OF APPENDICES Key for Interpreting Orientation Tests Table Used to Statistically Interpret Differences Between Sample Groups. . . Research Instrument. o o o o o o o o 0 Letter to Students Involved in Testing Reliability of Instrument. . . . . . . Letter to Students Enrolled in The College of Agriculture . . . . . . . . Letter to Students Enrolled in Agricultural Engineering . . . . . . . Letter to Students Enrolled in Veterinary Medicine or Non-Agricultural Curricula . . Chi—Square Formula Used for Determining Differences Between Sample Groups. . . . . Table of Chi-Squares -- Group Responses Relative to People Who Influenced Their C01lege Curricula ChOice o o o o o o o o 0 Table of Chi—Squares -— Group Responses Relative to Things Which Influenced Their College Curricula Choice . . . . . . . . . ix Page 101 102 103 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 CHAPTER I PURPOSES AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY Introduction An individual makes many decisions in his lifetime. Among the more important are those which relate to his choice of an occupation, and the nature and extent of his education beyond high school. The latter involves not only his decision relative to attending or not attending college, but just as important, his choice of curricflim1if he decides to enter college. To a great extent these decisions are interrelated, are initiated in secondary school and have a definite influence on success attained in later life. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to identify and compare some charac- teristics of youth who attend college and to determine what selected factors are associated with their choice of a particular college cur- riculum. The study is restricted to farm youth who attend college and non-farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula in college. Atten- tion was focused on these groups for two reasons: (1) Recent research has shown that, as a group, fewer farm youth attend college than urban youth; and (2) enrollments in agricultural curricula are steadily de- clining despite a continued and perhaps increasing need for college graduates in agriculture. This is supported by the statements which are recorded under Background and Need For the Stngx.1 1Cf. post, p. 2, et seq. What are some characteristics of farm youth who attend college? 'What are some characteristics of non—farm youth who enroll in agri- cultural curricula? What cognitive factors are associated with the enrollment of farm youth in agricultural curricula? What cognitive factors are associated with the enrollment of farm youth in other than agricultural curricula? What cognitive factors are associated with the enrollment of non-farm youth in agricultural curricula? Does a pattern of influences emerge? Some of these questions and many more have been asked before in other research. However, insofar as it could be determined, they have not been previously incorporated into one study nor have they been treated as in this study. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to identify some charac- teristics of the youth groups mentioned and to determine what factors they feel influenced their choice of college curricula. ngkground agd Need for the Study Agriculture has undergone some tremendous changes in recent years. While once it was viewed almost entirely from the standpoint of farming and ranching, it today is often defined as the ”sum total of all the operations involved in producing a farm commodity and getting it to the ultimate consumer in its final form.”2 In all its ramifications, agribusiness, as it sometimes is referred to, is said to be a 100 billion dollar industry employing 35 percent of the nation's labor force3 and offering 15,000 skilled jobs a year.“ 2John R. Davis and Ray A. Goldberg, A Concept of Aggibusiness (Boston, The Alpine Press, Inc., 1957). 3Davis, 92. git., p. 6. “National Project in Agricultural Communications, I've Found My Futuze In Aggiggltuzg, publication (American Association of Land-Grant Col- leges and Universities, 1958). 3 De<3I‘aff and others5 estimate that as many as one-fourth of all occu- pations can be classified as being related to agriculture, and it is in this broad category that graduates of agricultural colleges may well look for employment. See figure 1. Walden6 states that one might suppose that an industry of these dimensions would attract an abundance of youth, particularly farm youth who have the background, the heritage and tradition of agriculture in their blood. He also feels that considering the opportunities in agri- culture and the availability of education in agriculture, through land— grant colleges in every state, that one might also expect both farm and non-farm youth to be pouring into agricultural curricula in ever increasing numbers. But, he notes this is not happening. Rather, in the face of agriculture's perceived annual 15,000 job demand, agricul- tural colleges in America are currently graduating only enough to fill one-half of the positions. If this trend continues, the agricultural colleges will be graduating barely enough to fill one-fifth of the agricultural positions that will demand trained men by 1970. This represents a deep concern to agricultural educators and to those in agriculture who produce, process and distribute agricultural products. They see an increasing need for well-trained manpower in agriculture and a decreasing interest in this area on the part of youth. See figure 2. 5Herrell DeGraff, "Who is the Farm Worker,” The County Agent, Vo—Ag. T a he , Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1957, p. 16; "In Summing Up," Editorial, The County Agent, Vo-Ag, Teacher, Vol 14, No. 2, February 1958, p. 68 6Howard T. Walden, ”Needed: A Broader Agricultural Education,” Edi- torial, CORN, Vol. XVII, No. 3, Sumner, 1961. .mcowpmoflcsssoo HeASSHSOHam< cw powwonm Hmcowpwz we» hn.oonmwapdd :.ouspasowhm< cw ouspsm h: venom o>.Hc scum nuanced \d ooomnoe mcwwnmcwuopo> moanmvomo> mcmaowpmapmpm macmvasmcoo mpashh mcmwoacnoo» HandeSOfiam< ownuom mcowpmccsom w cogvoo mcofipmuwcmmao handsom wcaomum one Homecoo hpwdmsd mmmnm «mom ocaecmumsv Hmsaca w Snead ceasm mamoweono Hma59HSoHaw< hufimn Lona Iaapuom a poem cause poem w pooh cowpmasmou Hmpocoo w :owpoodmcH mmmmmmmw .Illlmummnmul MCHSAmm Haaspasownm< muse wxnmm omwapafiz swam mamouom owned uoamx. Haom added>nowcom Hmhsuazowuwd mcwmwpho>o< cowmw>oaoe mewouooom added mousvowa cowpoz addmhmOSOnm mocwnmwmz mcoflumowansm was nuaomou nexus» mnodwdmsmz mcwphodoh Shem mamwmmmwmmgmmm HmASSHsofiaw< mshwm mmocwmsm paw Hmowcnoop mowpfiawus sash chowpmcuoch soapmpuoamcmpa wcamso: mofiocomm Ionm3.£ owmuovm wanpmsoCH wcoaums weapmxuaz Iwcmmuo Show wcwaonma a we“ Immxomm .mcwowao moaocowm HavcosEho>oo soapospemcw omoHHoo coamcovxo $335354 Hmasgasowhmd Hmmfimhdnm mama pcosowmces o>wvmuodooo pews Immense Show oocnusmsH 18388, $86 a. $353 Il.cowpmmmmm Headpasowaw< \Ammehomcoo nauseoumlhm mposooum 3oz moonpos use new: 2oz mcammoooum moapaaaps a pcmaaascm mcwhoocfiwco Hmhsvasowhm< moasocoom weapoxuwz cowvospoam nlllmmmmmmmm Headpasowam< haemwoomm hhomhsz mooom oow>nom Hmasp casowawm :mwouoh mmmmmmmm ulllmmmmummm MCflshdh Hansvasoaam< .Emep Haau o» mmsasuaum oom.a peeps sane pap saws scam anon 3mg ooo.na can» whoa maacamua mafiafifim mammmflmmmmmm mcoapmondseaqm fiéaaaoaha. design? compassem Hanspfisownm< Auoscwpcouv H HabcHh mommocwmsp ope>wum moow> them Eouuso mmoCstm thspdsowhm< nauseoud phenom «0333: a. muggfism 9.83 a smashes Ilflulsaedm amnsfisoau? "opoz hMOHoaoom Hmhsm cowpmsmaoom llmolaglm H2333»? .33..“pr nounomom Eoudmpm «condom on? 83 83 swag N03 83 mm? on? $3 mm? and” 33 33 . m a a l I a 4 a a _ J a a a a _ _ a a 4. n a a .- 2: u 32 l a -llllllIl H 3 L ON II’III I lJQllIll . i lllllll .l00 .E O: 1;: #55390 owoaaoo ’11:: o 0 1| I'lll'lll flagngHanw< II, . : ll'llp'" I’l,ll ow 1 'I"" mucocomaoo mega” om 7 _ 30:: a we wmosfimsafid cod ‘ _"“ \ AII|‘|‘|I“ I ONd map—0:09.80 magma; I_.rse_r_uuPLLL~mea._u__L 2.2 a: $3 8 SEE £3.33 more 338% @858 @5823 82 ESE mmmszsmHmoa 2H 82mg Sages". N 95on w. . ."" The seriousness of declining enrollments in agricultural curricula in college is emphasized by the statements of Benedict and McGlothlin. They say, There has been a downward trend in the number of students en- rolling in colleges of agriculture for the past ten years and the number of agricultural students as a proportion of the total land-grant college enrollment has decreased consistently for the last twenty years. It also appears that the caliber of agricultural students is decreasing. These trends are taking place in spite of the increases in the number of employees in the farm supply and crop processing - distribution industries which have offset the decrease in the labor force involved in production. Furthermore, the decrease in number and caliber of agricultural students is taking place in the face of the tremendous world-wide demand for agricultural experts in all fields. This is especially true in the underdeveloped countries where the availability of food and fiber supplies may be criti- cal in determining the economic and ideological future of these countries. Two of the factors contributing to the downward trend in the number of students enrolling in agricultural curricula may be the decreasing number of rural youth and their relatively low level of educational aspirations. Burchinal and others in comparing rural youth to other groups say, Present research clearly supports the generalization that rural youth have lower levels of educational aspiration than urban youth. Generally, proportionately fewer of the rural males or females plan on post high school education than urban males or females. Educational aspiration differences are greatest with respect to plans to attend a four-year college or university. Farm children, regardless of sex, levels of intellectual ability, or family status levels, generally have lower educational aspira- tions than similar children from village homgs and almost always lower levels than comparable urban children. 7Harris M. Benedict and Robert S. McGlothlin, ”College—Trained Manpower for Agribusiness” (A proposal for research, Stanford Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, June, 1960) p. 1-2. 8Lee G. Burchinal, Archibald O. Haller and Marvin Taves, ”Career Choices of Rural Youth in a Changing Society” (Unpublished Agricultural Experi- ment Station Regional Bulletin Number 15, University of Minnesota, 1962) p. 18. Traditionally, rural youth have provided the greatest potential Source of manpower for agriculture. In view of their lower educational aSpirations and declining numbers, agricultural educators question if these youth will continue in this role in the future. Since the trend of the declining numbers of farm youth is likely to continue, there seems to be a need for raising their educational aspirations, not only to meet the manpower requirements of agriculture, but to enable farm youth to com- pete more effectively in the labor market in our complex society. Des Marais says, Current indications are that uneducated and untrained youth will find it increasingly difficult to secure employment in the future. What steps should be taken to increase enrollments in agricultural colleges to the point at which they are proportional to the need for agriculturally trained students, both in number and quality? A statement by Benedict and McGlothlin10 in their proposal of re- search prepared for an agribusiness subcommittee of the American Asso- ciation of land-grant colleges and state universities, offers a sugges- tion. They state, For colleges of agriculture to regain in their preeminent position in supplying agriculture with sufficient high caliber manpOWer, a long-range research program is needed to develop for colleges of agriculture complete information on the fol- IOHing: (1) The type and number of jobs available in all components of a riculture, both domestically and abroad. (2? The type of individual and the type of individual train- ing desired by segments of agriculture, including those in farm supplies, farming and processing—distribution components. 9Philip H. Des Marais, Deputy Assistant Secretary, United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare (Quoted from a talk given at Regional White House Conference, November IA, 1961, Detroit, Michigan). loBenedict and McGlothlin, 92. 213., p. 22-23. (3) The types of new curricula, or revisions of old curricula which are necessary to provide the training required. (4) The various factors that motivate students to select careers. (5) Methods of exploiting these motivating factors so that the desired types of secondary students will select agribusiness as a career and the colleges of agriculture as the institutions in which to obtain training for that career. In other words, there is need for study in many areas. This study is related to the need identified in item number four above. For the most part, studies in agricultural education, with implications for the guidance of farm youth, have been in the nature of follow-ups relative to their educational achievements and occupa- tional placement and success. Sociological studies in this area have centered around the educational and occupational aspirations and achieve- ments of youth. Much is known about the numbers and kinds of youth who attend college. Less is known about the characteristics of farm.youth who attend college in relation to their choice of college curricula. And even less is known about the sources and experiences which are associated with the choice of college curricula by both farm and non- farm youth. This information should prove valuable for counseling purposes; for planning and conducting programs designed to stimulate more farm youth to attend-college and/or to provide them with information about agricultural curricula and the occupational opportunities in agriculture. prgtheses Based on a study of related research, and the observations and experiences of the author, the following hypotheses were made and tested by this study: 10 (1) Farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report more influence from sources and experiences supporting agriculture than do farm.youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula or non-farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula. (2) Farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report less frequently that their parents have high levels of gducationgl aspira- tions for them than dofarm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula. (3) Farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report less frequently that their parents have high levels of ogcupational aspira- tions for them than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula. (A) Farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report greater exposure to information about agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula or non-farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula. (5) Non-farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report factors as having influenced their choice of college curricula which are significantly different from those reported by farm youth as having influenced their choice. (6) Non-farm youth.who enroll in agricultural curricula and farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula, as a group, re- port a less favorable attitude toward agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula. (7) Non-farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula and farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula less frequently report goals and objectives directly related to agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula. Some Basic Assumptions The following basic assumptions serve as foundations for the hypotheses established in this study: (1) First term freshman students in college can and will accurately report factual information about themselves. (2) First term freshman students in college have perceptions relative to the sources and experiences which influenced their choice of college curricula and they can and will accurately report these perceptions. (3) First term freshman students in college have developed some attitudes relative to agriculture and they can and will accurately report these attitudes. (4) First term freshman students in college have goals and objec- tives which influenced their choice of college curricula and they can and will accurately report these goals and objectives. (5) The students in a random sample of students who are classified as ”farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula” will be representative of all farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula at Michigan State University. nggtations of the Study This study was limited in that it was confined to a selected number of male freshman students in a particular term at Michigan State University. Data compiled in Chapter 11111 indicate however “or. post, p. 37, et seq. 12 that there is no significant difference between the students who were included in the study and similar groups of students who enrolled as freshmen at Michigan State University in recent years when they are compared relative to choice of major; FFA and 4-H Club experience; and home background. The study was confined to certain characteristics and cognitive factors associated with the college curricula choice of individuals. The data are limited in that they only identify some of the charac- teristics of the students studied and a selected group of cognitive factors associated with their choice of college curricula. Definition of Terms For the purposes of this study, the following definitions are assumed to be pertinent and relevant. Farm Youth Male students who meet two or more of the following criteria: (1) Have lived on a farm for three or more of the eight years (1953-61); (2) Have worked on a farm for three or more of the eight years (1953-61); (3) Have parents or guardians who presently live on a farm. Non-farm Youth Male students who gg_ggt,meet two or more of the above criteria. Agricultural Curricula Academic programs which specifically pre- pare one for a career in farming, agri- cultural education, agricultural business and industry, agricultural service, in- spection and quality control, agricultural Figst-term Freshmen Fall term Statistically Sigpificant 13 research, agricultural communications, con- servation and resource development are classified as agricultural curricula for the purposes of this study. The following academic programs offered at Michigan State University are so designated: Agricultural Business, Agricultural Communications, Agri- cultural Education, Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural Me- chanics, Agricultural Science, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Production, Farm Crops, Fisheries and Wildlife, Food Science, Forestry, General Agriculture, Horticul- ture, Pomology and Vegetable Crops, Poultry Science, Resource Development, Soil Science and Veterinary Medicine. Students enrolled as first term freshmen at Michigan State University during the fall term of 1961 and.who have not pre- viously been enrolled in any college. The academic period between September 28, 1961 and December 10, 1961 at Michigan State University. For this study, statistically significant means that the factors are significant at the 1% or 5% level as determined by the Chi Square test of independence. Agriculturp Ocpppational Prestige Feelings Ocpupational Aspirations 14 1% level - Significant at the 1% level means that the observed difference would not be likely to occur by chance more than once in 100 instances. 5% level - Significant at the 5% level means that the observed difference would not be likely to occur by chance more than five times in 100 instances. The term agriculture as used in this study refers to farming plus those occu- pational areas which are directly involved in the processing, distribution and mar- keting of farm products; those occupational areas directly involved in supplying the farmer with services, equipment and ma- terials used on the farm; and the areas of forestry, fisheries and wildlife and conservation. This term is interpreted as the regard that peOple have for an occupation and those engaged in it. This is used to denote an expression of the attitudes that an individual has towards something. As used in this study, the term refers only to educational and occupational aspirations, and includes responses 15 secured from the instrument relative to the educational and occupational levels the students believe their parents would like them to attain. ngpitive Factops This refers to factors which are perceived by students as having influenced their choice of college curricula. Procedure of the Study The procedures used in this study developed as a result of three agricultural education seminars at Michigan State University during 1958, 1959 and 1960, and through independent study under the guidance of an advisory committee in 1961. After studying the techniques and procedures which had been used for securing data in related studies, a preliminary instrument was de- veloped. The instrument was administered to 15 freshman college students who were then questioned relative to its clarity and structure. The comments of those students, along with suggestions from the author's guidance committee, formed the basis for Some minor changes which were made in the instrument. In its final form, it was coded so that the data could be analyzed by electrical tabulating equipment. Since the instrument was patterned after those used in other accepted studies of a similar nature, but representative of different populations, it was not felt necessary to test its validity further. Reliability of the instrument was determined by the test-retest method. It was first administered to a group of forty prospective freshman college students who attended a counseling clinic during the month of July, 1961. Retesting was done after an interval of six .0! 16 weeks with the same group of students. Thirty-five of the original forty students took part in the retest. For the instrument as a'whole, it was found that 80 percent of the questions were answered the same way in the retest as they were in the original test. In 95 percent of the questions where answers were changed, the difference between the response in the test and the response in the retest represented a minor shift in the degree of em- phasis rather than a complete change in answers. The data for this study were gathered from first term male fresh- man students at Michigan State University during the fall term of 1961. The students in the sample were divided into three groups: (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula; (2) Non-farm youth enrolled .in agricultural curricula; and (3) Farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. All of the students in the first two classi- fications were included in the study, while a random sample (one out of three) of the students in the third classification was included. The students were classified as being farm or non-farm youth on the basis of their answers to the following questions: (1) Have you lived on a farm for three or more of the last eight years (1953-61)? (2) Have you worked on a farm for three or more of the last eight years (1953-61)? (3) Are your parents or guardians presently living on a farm? If a student answered affirmatively two or more of these questions, he was classified as a "farm youth" for the purpose of this study. This method of classification was developed for this study and.was motivated by dissatisfaction with the techniques used by others in related studies for distinguishing between farm and non-farm youth. 17 Too often the methods used for the classification of farm youth Were vague, inaccurate or inappropriate. In some studies, the investigator relied upon the individuals in the sample to classify themselves as farm or non-farm youth. The data were gathered in four, one-hour meetings during November, 1961. Letters Were sent by the Director of Resident Instruction, College of Agriculture, to those in the sample who were enrolled in the College of Agriculture, asking them to attend one of four scheduled meetings to fill out a research instrument. Similar letters were sent to those enrolled in Agricultural Engineering by the department head and to those enrolled in Veterinary Medicine or in other than agricul- tural curricula, by the University Provost's office. A total of 349 instruments were completed, of which 10 were dis- carded as incomplete. Three hundred and thirty-nine instruments were used in summarizing the data. The data were analyzed by the use of electrical tabulating equip- ment. Cards were prepared for each of the 339 students who completed an instrument. All of the data pertaining to a particular respondent were punched on a separate card. The cards were then processed by the ”101 IBM” machine which sorts, totals and records the tabulations ac- cording to a prearranged wiring system. The results are presented in terms of whether or not the differences which were found are significant. A table developed by Cuthbert Daniel,12 the Chi-Square technique and the "T" test were used to test the differ- ences. A copy of Daniel's table is found in Appendix B. 12Cuthbert Daniel, ”Statistically Significant Differences in Observed Percents," Journal of A lied Ps cholo , Vol. 24, 1940, pp. 826-830. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND RELATED STUDIES It is the purpose of this chapter to review selected literature which is concerned directly, or indirectly, with factors similar to those of this study. No attempt has been made to include a large num- ber of studies in this review of literature. Those which are included have been reviewed because they lay the foundation for research deal- ing with characteristics of youth, and cognitive factors associated with their educational plans. The related research studies have been divided into two categories: (1) Some characteristics of youth associated with occupational and edu- cational plans; and (2) Cognitive factors associated with enrollment in agricultural curricula. The first part of the chapter is concerned with literature having an indirect relationship to this study. The latter part presents literature which is closely related. nge Characteristics of Youth Associatsg With Ocpupatipnsl and Educational Plans From the beginning of time, societies have often been concerned with their youth. Burchinal and others emphasize the importance of this concern when they say, Youth are the most precious asset in any community. They represent the future of our communities, states and nations. 18 19 Maximum develOpment and utilization of their potentials represent a challenge in the educational and vocational counseling fields.1 Educators and others concerned.with youth have a responsibility for helping youth move easily and surely into occupations where they can make their best contribution to society and achieve their greatest sense of personal satisfaction. But successful entry into a useful and enjoyable occupation is not always easy. Haller and others2 point out that the act is part of a larger system of influences which includes: (1) occupational decision; (2) the changing occupations in a changing society; (3) the immediate situation of youth, including available facilities and the expectations of others; (4) the youth's life deci- sions in areas other than occupations; and (5) the youth's personality. They also state that the ties between occupations and education are becoming increasingly close and that youth who aspire to high-level occupations must go to college if they are to attain them. When do youth make their occupational decisions? Ginzberg and his co-workers3 divided occupational decision making into three periods: the period of fantasy choice; the period of tentative choice; and the period of realistic choice. Each period corresponds roughly with the ages of pre-adolescence, adolescence and early adulthood. 1Lee G. Burchinal, Archibald O. Haller and Marvin Taves, “Career Choices of Rural Youth in a Changing Society” (Unpublished.Agricultural Experi- ment)Station Regional Bulletin Number 15, University of Minnesota, 1962 ’ p. 1. zArchibald O. Haller, Lee G. Burchinal and Marvin Taves, Choosing an Opcupatipp, A Report Prepared for the North Central Regional Research Committee, Sub-committee on Youth and the Family, 1961, p. 21. 3Eli Ginzberg, et al., Opcupational Choice, An Approach to a Genersl Tpsppy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951 pp. 56, 60, 271. 20 Other researchers, such as Strong,“ MacKaye,5 and Hartson,6 have found that occupational choice tends to crystallize in late adolescence or early adulthood. With respect to the type of occupations chosen by youth, Stephenson observed that they tend to restrict their occupational choices to a very few within a narrow range. He stated, A comparison of students' occupational orientation with studies of adult ratings of the desirability of occupations show a close correspondence between youth's most frequent vocational choices and occupations rated high on a prestige scale by adults. Since such a distribution of choice bears little relationship to the actual occupational structure, the conclusion has been that youth's vocational orientation is grossly unrealistic.7 Carter,8 in developing a theory of occupational choice proposes that a young man identifies with a person or group; consequently, he be- comes interested in the occupational field of that group. 4E. K. Strong, Chspge of Intsrest With figs (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1931 . 5D. L. MacKaye, “The Fixation of Vocational Interest," Amsrissn JQHIEEI 9£;§92121221. xxxIII (192?). p. 353-370. 6L. D. Hartson, “Vocational Choices Before and After College,‘ 0993, natisne. xvI (1937). pp. 138-142. 7Richard M. Stephenson, "Realism of Vocational Choice: A Critique and an Example.” Pspsoppsl and Guidance Jouppsl 35 (April 1957) pp. #8201188 0 8Harold B. Carter, “The Development of Vocational Attitudes,“ £93233; 9: Cpnsultipg Pszppplogy, IV (September-October, 1940) p. 186. . , . . o Q . \ u ‘ r I O . . 1 . . f I a o ' " -' t t . , a. t l O I n " n p f . t . I a V O I 9 O b o t " t . 21 As to how youth make their occupational choices, Porter9 and Samson and Stefflre,10 emphasized that children are not independent in making their occupational choices and that their occupational choices are significantly related to their fathers occupation. Borden,11 however, stresses that dynamically the relationship between a father's occupation and the son's interest type is related to the degree of identification of the son with the father. Samson and Sterrlre12 in further examining the relationship be- - tween a child's occupational choice and father's occupation found that children of parents working at a professional or semi-professional level over-select professional objectives and under-select “manual“ objectives, while children of parents who are engaged in service or agricultural occupations tend to over-select service and agricultural objectives and under-select professional objectives. Grim13 reports a distinct relationship between the occupational and educational aspira- tions that parents have for their children and the educational and 9Richard J. Porter, "Vocational Plans and Preferences of High School Senior Boys in Relation to Mental Ability, Ehmtional Adjustment and Prestige Level of Fathers Occupation" (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1951) pp. 57. 1oRuth Samson and Buford Stefflre, ”Like Father - - - Like Son?“ P r can and 'dance J urn , October 1952, pp. 37-38. 11Edward S. Borden, "A Theory of Vocational Interests as Dynamic Phenomena,” Edupapional and Psychological Messurspenps, III (Spring 1943 , p. 60. 12Samson and Stefflre, 92. £13., 38. 13Edgar L. Grim, "A Study to Determine the Probability of Relation- ships Between the Educational and Vocational Goals of Tenth and Twelfth Grade Boys and Girls in Oakland and Macomb County Public High Schools and the Expressed Educational Goals of the Parents of these Children," (Unpublished Dectoral Thesis, Michigan State University, 1956). 22 occupational aspirations of the children. Edlefson and Grows,14 in contradiction to the findings cited above, found that parents did not seem to be an important factor in a youngster's choice of occupation. Further, the degree of parental influence decreased as the years in school of the youngster increased. Work experience was the paramount reason given by youth for occupa- tional choice. Super15 suggested that vocational choices are the outcome of individual needs and the way in which an individual perceives himself in relation to his environment. As such, vocational choice is com- pounded in varying degrees of: The desire for prestige, security or affluence; family influence; romantic conceptions of actual working conditions in a specific job; frequently inaccurate self appraisal; and probably inaccurate estimate of the needs of the labor world. Heller and others,16 in a review of research in this area, classi- fied two broad factors in the environment of youth as having the greatest influence on the total process of entering occupations. These are: the facilities available to youth; and the expectations other people have for them. Under facilities, they include the accessibility and quality of high schools and the financial resources available to youth. 1“John B. Edlefson and Martin Jay Crows, "Teen-agers' Occupational Aspirations," “fishingtgn %g;igult§;§l Egpgziment Station Bulletin filfi, Pullman, Washington 2&31960 . 15Donald Super, T P h C (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957 g p. 362. 16Heller, Burchinal and Taves, 92. 911., p. 6. at 23 Under expectations of others for youth, they list those of parents, acquaintances of his own age, teachers and (where they exist) school counselors, as being the most important. These people and others he comes in contact with help the individual mold his self-concept. It is largely through certain other persons that he learns what is avail- able and appropriate for him. The literature indicates that the characteristics of an individual, both inherent and acquired, his self-concept, and external factors are all associated with his occupational planning and occupational choice. The factors cited as being associated with occupational choice are similar to those associated.with educational plans. French and his colleagues,17 using a selected nationwide sample of 35,000 twelfth grade students from 516 representative high schools, pointed out that factors which relate to college attendance more closely than expressed plans are: professional nature of father's occupation, extent of father's education, number of friends going to college, class stand- ing, high school program, proportion of college expenses which family is able to pay, professional aspirations and academic reasons for college attendance. It was found that the high school programs in which students are enrolled did not closely match plans to attend or not to attend college. Good grades in high school were seen to have a particularly high relationship with plans for college. In 1950,‘White18 made a study of 1,053 high school students from 37 different high schools in Ohio and found a definite relationship 17John‘W. French, et al., “Background Factors Relating To College Plans and College Enrollment Among Public High School Students,“ Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, (April 1957). 183. Clyde White, “Future Demand For Admissions to College: How Many and Who?“ College and University, Vol. 29, No. 1 (October 1953), PP. 5‘13. 2# between the social class position of students and attendance at col- lege. Ninety-two percent of those who came from the upper social class enrolled in college as compared to only 1# percent of those in the lower social class. Sewell, Haller and Strauss19 reported that status made a contri- bution to educational and occupational aspirations independent from intelligence. A study by Crawford?0 indicates that there is a relationship be- tween the initial enrollment of high school graduates in college within six months after their graduation and such factors as: sex, courses of study pursued in high school, greater educational attainment levels of parents, higher scholastic achievement in high school, degrees of expressed certainty of attending college, plans made for college en- rollment, and occupations of the heads of households. Edlefson and Crows21 called attention to the fact that as the number of children in the family increased, the percentage that did not plan to attend college also increased. Lack of money for advanced education may be the main factor involved here. They also found that the eldest and the youngest children had the most certainty concerning college plans. 19William H. Sewell, Archibald o. Haller and Murray A. Strauss, ”Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspirations," American Sogig- logigal Rgzigw, Vol. 22, No. 1 (February 1957). pp. 72-73. 20Ferris N. Crawford, “A Study of Selected Factors Relating to College Enrollment of Public High School Graduates Within Six Months After Graduation,“ (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, ”East Lansing, Michigan, 1960). 21Edlefson and Crowe, 92. git., p. 62. 25 ‘Wilson and Buck22 report that the young people who attend college as compared to those who don't are more likely to: have a higher average IQ; have a better personality adjustment; be slightly younger; come from smaller families; belong to more formal organizations; hold more positions of organizational leadership; read.more books; and more non-fiction; have a father who is a white collar worker; prefer white collar employment and think it has the highest status; come from fami- ‘lies who are most successful, active and prestigeful in the community. Characteristics ofifarm_youth An analysis of farm.youth relative~to their occupational choices and educational plans is revealing. Slocum23 studied the occupational plans of high school seniors from farm and non-farm homes and found, in regard to educational plan- ning, that there was a somewhat greater tendency for seniors from urban areas than those from rural areas to plan on immediate college entrance. Nearly all seniors who planned to attend college considered themselves to be average or above average students and eight out of ten indicated that the most important reason for attending college was occupational preference. Edlefson and Crowezl+ found that youth living on farms preferred 22Paul B. Wilson and Roy C. Buck, ”The Educational Ladder," Rural Sociology, Vol. 25, pp. #04-413, (December 1960). 23w. L. Slocum, "Occupational and Educational Plans of High School Seniors From Farm and Non-Farm Homes," State College of Washington Bulletin 56E, Pullman, Washington, (February 1956 . 2[+Edlefson and Crowe, op. cit., p. 63. . O ' 26 a type of work involving things while those living in towns or cities preferred those types of work involving people. Burchinal and othersz5 carry this comparison of farm and non-farm youth further and state that studies, with but one exception, show that farm or rural youth have lower levels of occupational and educational aspiration than urban youth. Haller26 states that the parents of farm boys who plan not to farm tend to have higher levels of educational and occupational as- piration for their sons than do parents of those who plan to farm. A study of rural youth by Youmans27 adds to existing evidence that differences in socio-economic status are associated with differ- ences in educational attainments. He found that youths from rural families of higher socio-economic status groups made better use of opportunities than did youths from lower socio-economic status groups. The home, the school, and the community tended to reinforce this sys- tem of privilege. He concluded a higher percentage of rural youth could be influenced to obtain the benefits of at least a high school education if: (1) Parents and youths could be influenced to adopt more favorable attitudes concerning the value of formal education; (2) YOuths could be relieved of some unpaid work at home; (3) The 25Burchinal, Heller and.Taves, 22. 213., p. 7. 26Archibald O. Haller, ”Planning to Farm: A Social Psychological Interpretation,“ Social Forggs, Vol. 37, No. 3, (March 1959). 27E. Grant Ybumans, “The Educational Attainment and Future Plans of Kentucky Rural Youths,” Kentucky Aggicultural Egpgriment Statigg Bulletin 664, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, January 1959, pp. 144-155. e 27 community could provide more part-time paid work for students during the school term; (h) School personnel would assist lower socio-economic status youths in finding acceptable roles in extracurricular activities; and (5) Teachers would deliberately encourage youths to remain in school. Haller28 found that farm boys in the final year of high school who intend to farm, plan to attend college less frequently than those who do not plan to farm. But, he concluded that this did not neces- sarily mean that planning to farm directly influenced college plans. There is considerable evidence that each of these variables, plans regarding farming and plans regarding college, is related to intelligence. 'While the evidence is conflicting, most studies indi- cate that the more intelligent farm boys tend to leave the farm to enter non-farm occupations.29 Moreover, other researchers including Berdie,30 Kahl,31 and Livesay32 state that the more intelligent persons are disproportionately represented among those planning to attend col- lege. By inference, one might assume that planning to farm does not inhibit the desire to attend college, but that both are due to low intelligence. 28Archibald O. Haller, "The Influence of Planning to Enter Farming on Plans to Attend College,“ R ral Sociolo , Vol. 22, No. 2 (June 1957). 29C. T. Pihlblad and C. L. Gregory, "Selective Aspects of Migration Amon Missouri High School Graduates," American Sociolo ical Review, m June 1954), pp. 311t-32lt. 30Ralph F. Berdie, "Why Don't They Go To College?“ Pgrsonnel and guidance Journal, (March 1953), pp. 352-356. 31Joseph A. Kahl, ”Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys,” Haggard Educational Revigw XXXIII, (Summer 1953). pp. 186- 203. 32T. E. Livesay, "Test Intelligence and College EXpectation of High School Seniors in Hawaii,” Jgurnal of Educational Reseaggh XXXV, (January 1942). PPo 334-337. 5-13.!“ .31“! h’ '-.--_'T-g',:3r 1':- : .fl o ,. ' I P u ' o ‘ . y —- ' I V O . e ' a e p a . . V r e o . . O “ o C Q o 0 “ . ' ' i I ' e . 0 v I o . O . -- . . 28 This assumption however, is not supported by Bjoraker33 who found no significant association at the five percent level between mental ability, size of family, level of formal education attained by the parents, farm ownership by the parents and the son's level of desire to remain on the farm. Deyoe34 in a study of Michigan farm youth, found factors such as: number of years of vocational agriculture taken by the student; the quality of the home farm; recency of leaving high school; and the degree of participation in the work of the home farm as being associated with the student's likelihood of farming. Salmela,35 in a study of farm reared boys, noted a significant relationship between the student's occupational choices and the size of the family, education of parents, amount of discussion of plans with parents, and participation in 4—H Club, Boy Scout, and church activities. Hensel36 found no significant differences between the occupational choices of youth who had and those who had not been enrolled in 33Walter T. Bjoraker, "Factors Associated.With Vo-Ag. Students' Desire To Remain on the Farm,” Aggicultggal Education Magazing, Vol. 26, No. 1, (July 1953). 34G. P. Deyoe, Y un Men F m Michi an F , Department of Education, Michigan State College (Lansing: The State Board of Control for Education, 1939), pp. 9-12. 35Melvin R. Salmela, "Relation Between Home Characteristics of Farm- Reared Boys and Their Occupational Choices," (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1958). 36James W. Hensel, "High School Influences on the Occupational Choice of Farm Reared Bo s," Agriggltural Education Magazing, Vol. 32, No. 11, (May 1960¥. 29 vocational agriculture in high school. Those who ranked high scholas— tically in high school tended to choose professional occupations however. Vickerstaff37 reported that farm boys were more favorable in their attitude toward agriculture and that vocational agriculture students were more favorable toward farming than high school students in general. Youth who were in 4-H or vocational agriculture were found to be equally favorable toward farming. Haller38 in a county-wide study of farm boys in Michigan found that those who plan to farm tend to lack ego strength and to be emotionally unstable, to be withdrawn, shy or timid, to lack resolu- tion, will control and character stability. Those who do not plan to farm tend to be emotionally stable, to be adventurously resilient, to be independent or self-sufficient and to have firm will control and character stability. Characteristics of youth enrolled in eggicultural curriegle Some recent studies have focused attention on the characteristics of youth who enroll in agricultural curricula in college. Powers,39 in 1953, found that approximately 20 percent of the former college students who had been enrolled in agricultural curricula 375. G. Vickerstaff, “The Attitude of High School Boys Toward Agricul- ture,” (Masters Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1942), p. 61. 38Archibald O. Haller, "The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm-, Reared Youth in Urban-Industrial Society,“ R a1 Sociolo , Vol. 25, No. 3, (September 1960). 39Billy Gene Powers, ”Former Students' Opinions Concerning The Relation of Their College Training to Their Careers," (Unpublished Masters Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, 1958), p. 64. 3;»7 30 indicated that they had decided to enter their present occupation previous to enrolling in college. The replies reported by 509 alumni were grouped by frequency of reporting as follows: previous to col- lege entrance; after military service; during fourth year in college; immediately after graduation from college; during third year in col- lege; during second year in college; during first year in college; and other reasons. Rhea!"o reported that one out of three students entered agricul- tural curricula after previous college work elsewhere and that one out of five transferred to agricultural curricula from some other division in the college. The proportion of farm reared graduates in the agricultural curricula varied from a low of 24 percent in for- estry to a high of 86 percent in agricultural education. In a study conducted at Ohio State University in 1960, Leuthold, Phillips, Rothert andwellsb’1 found that 34 percent of the students enrolled in agricultural curricula had changed their major at least once. Over one-third of those who changed their major had to take additional course work. Their findings show that a large number of those who chose a different major chose agricultural economics and rural sociology. About 60 percent of the students had chosen a career and about one-third of the group had decided on a curricula prior to entering college. “oMark B. Rhea, ”Present Status and Opinions of Graduates Granted Bachelor of Science Degrees Since 1932 in Agricultural Curricula at Iowa State College,” (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1953), p. 122. 1+1Frank 0. Leuthold, G. Howard Phillips, Lowell F. Rothert, and James D. Wells, ”Factors Associated With Changes in Majors by Agricultural Students at Ohio State University,” (Unpublished Graduate Study, Depagtment of Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1960 . i 5"}. la «3 ”W (51" J 31 In a comparison of farm reared students with non-farm students, they found the following differences: farm reared students made sig- nificantly higher grades than non-farm students as determined by the cumulative point hour of agricultural students; non-farm students more often chose careers in conservation and processing than did farm reared students; farm reared students more often chose a career in educational work than did non-farm students; (other types of careers were found to have near normal numbers of farm and non-farm students). A higher proportion of non-farm students chose a major in animal science, dairy technology, zoology and entomology than did farm reared students; a higher proportion of farm reared students chose agricultural educa- tion, agricultural engineering and dairy science than did non-farm students. (The other majors had near normal proportions between farm and non-farm students) Farm reared students were found to be more generally familiar with the Opportunities in agriculture and agricul- tural curricula than were non-farm students as entering freshmen; both farm reared and non-farm students usually enrolled in the majors they were most familiar with as entering freshmen; non-farm students were slightly more satisfied with their current major than were farm reared students. Ceggitive Factors Aesoeiated With Enrollmeet In Aggieultural Curricula Gardner,"2 found that farm boys who attended college but did not enroll in agricultural curricula listed finances, personal qualifications, 42George F. Gardner, “A Survey of Factors Influencing Farm Youth in Selecting College Curricula," (Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 1957). 32 and experiences as having had the greatest influence on their decision not to enroll in agricultural curricula. The above included: the high cost of becoming established in farming, insecurity of farming, low return for time, expense involved in raising farm products, high income offered by other occupations, special talents and abilities which could be utilized better in other career fields; and high scores in high school subjects which indicated possible success in other occupations. 4-H Club experience did not appear to have an influence on youth in their choice of curricula but farm youth with experience in the FFA enrolled in agricultural curricula to a greater extent than the general average shown for farm youth attending college. Students enrolled in agricultural curricula stated that the major influences on their choice of curricula were in the area of farm work, farm people, plants and animals. Bentley and Hemp""3 found that students who enrolled in agricul- tural curricula felt they were influenced in their choice of special- ized fields by persons, vocational factors and publications. Persons cited as being most influential were parents, friends and teachers of vocational agriculture. Those cited as being of next importance were relatives, county extension agents, college professors, high school principals and teachers other than in agriculture. Vocational factors cited as having influenced the student most were: economic advantages “3Ralph R. Bentley and Paul E. Hemp, ”Factors Influencing Agricultural College Students to Choose Their Fields of Specialization," Aggienlp gugal Education Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 11, (May 1958). 1- 33 of the occupation, opportunity for employment, employment before en- tering college and social advantages of the job. The study showed that three-fourths of the students felt they were influenced by reading agricultural books and magazines, while less than one-half felt they were influenced by college catalogs, announcements and hobbies. In a similar study, Bentley and Hemp2+4 studied the factors which influenced agricultural college students to choose agriculture as a career. They found that farm experience factors exerted the greatest influence. A comparison of freshmen and senior students showed that significantly more freshmen students were influenced by FFA experi- ence and the study of vocational agriculture. Comparing students en- rolled in agricultural education with those enrolled in other phases of agricultural curricula, they found that a significantly higher per- centage of agricultural education students were influenced by the fac- tors 'studying agriculture in high school” and acquaintance with agri- cultural leaders; and non-agricultural education students were significantly more influenced by the factor "expect to inherit a farm some day.” Strickland,u5 in studying factors affecting enrollment in agri- culture and agricultural education found that students who had been enrolled in vocational agriculture in high school gave the following “hRalph R. Bentley and Paul E. Hemp, "Factors Influencing Agricultural College Students to Choose Agriculture as a Career," Agricultegel ingestion Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 10, (April 1958). 45Elmer Oscar Strickland, ”The Factors Affecting Enrollment in Agri- culture and Agricultural Education at Auburn University From 1956- 60,")(Special Research Problem, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 1960 . 34 reasons for enrolling or not enrolling in agricultural curricula: reasons for enrolling —- interested in teaching vocational agricul- ture; interested in dairy extension work; desired a college degree; had a scholarship; wanted to gain experience for advancement in agri- culture. Reasons for not enrolling -- lack of salary incentive; no financial backing; public sentiment relative to agriculture; other fields more attractive; difficulty in passing college curriculum. Graduates who had been enrolled in agricultural curricula, indi- cated in a study by Powers:+6 that several factors influenced their choice of occupation and thus their choice of curricula. In order of frequency of reporting, these factors were: natural aptitude and liking for type of work; availability of positions in field; experi- ence while attending college; counsel and influence of an elementamy school teacher, county extension agent or high school teachers; ex- perience in the field; parents desire, approval and/or encouragement; experiences while attending high school; counsel and influence by a college teacher; counsel and influence of college advisor or counselor; and counsel and influence of close relatives. Semmazy Several inferences can be drawn from previous research findings regarding the occupational choices and educational plans of youth. (1) Final occupational choices are based upon tentative occupa- tional choices, arrived at by occupational role taking, which in turn, is related to the total social and psychological development of an 1+6POWBI'S, 22. me, p. 614'. 35 individual. Choices are on the basis of an individual's experience, knowledge of occupational alternatives, training requirements of oc- cupations, financial and non-monetary rewards, the individual's re- sources, and the individual's preference and personality characteristics. (2) The influence of parents, friends, school personnel and others is important in contributing to the development of the individual's self-concept. Through these persons, he learns what is available and appropriate for him. (3) Occupational choice and educational planning are interrelated. (4) The persuasive and potent influences of reference groups within the social status greatly influence youths' attitudes toward education. (5) Rural youth tend to have lower levels of occupational and educational aspiration than urban youth. (6) Planning to farm has a strong negative influence on the plans of rural youth to attend college. I (7) A considerably larger proportion of urban youth than farm youth plan to attend college. (8) The characteristics of farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula in college are different from those of non-farm youth en- rolled in the same curricula in many respects. (9) Youths perceive specific factors as having had the greatest influence on their choice of college curricula. The literature cited provides a basis for an understanding of some of the work that has been done in the area of occupational choice and educational planning. Thus it has implications and application for succeeding chapters in this study. It also serves to point out the uniqueness of this study. In so far as could be determined, in 36 no prior study had anyone specifically studied farm and non-farm youth relative to the characteristics and cognitive factors associated with choice of college curricula. Further, the criteria used for classify- ing youth as farm or non-farm youth in this study had not been previously reported. CHAPTER III THE YOUTH STUDIED COMPARED WITH PREVIOUS GROUPS OF STUDENTS The purpose of this chapter will be to compare students in the sample who were enrolled in agricultural curricula.with comparable groups of students enrolled in agricultural curricula in previous years. The comparison will be made on the basis of performance on orientation tests, home background, participation in the FEA and #_H Clubs and choice of major. It will give some indication as to the similarity or differences between the sample and comparable students in previous years. The results are presented statistically in terms of whether or not the differences are significant. The Chi-Square technique was used to determine significance. Table I shows student performance on the English and Reading orientation tests. The English test contains thirty-five objective test items representing aspects of English usage. -The Reading test is designed to measure the ability of students to comprehend thoughts in reading passages that are representative of textual materials found in several academic areas. Significant differences at the 5 percent level were found between the students in the sample group and similar student groups of previous years. The students in the sample group achieved higher median scores than did the student groups of previous years. 37 38 TABLE I STANDINGS OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN AGRICUIEURAL CURRICULA ON ENGLISH AND READING ORIENTATION EXAMINATIONSa English Test Term N Range 10 PR Q1 Median Q3 90 PR Fall 1958b 188 4.31 9.2 12.9 18.0 22.2 26.3 Fall 1959b 236 3-34 10.6 14.9 17.8 22.3 26.u Fall 1960b 209 n-3u 10.6 14.7 18.8 23.7 27.5 Fall 1961b 241 6-32 12.0 1#.8 19.3 23.3 27.7 Reading Test Fall 1958b 188 5-39 16.6 20.3 25.1 29.8 33.9 Fall 1959b 236 7.41 18.9 21.6 26.h 31.0 34.3 Fall 1960b 209 1o.u0 19.0 22.8 26.9 31.1 3u.8 Fall 1961b 241 9-39 18.1 21.5 27.6 31.2 36.3 college qualification tests. and yield four scores: aAppendix A offers a key for interpreting the data bDoes not include Veterinary Medicine Table II indicates the total score of the student groups on the These tests measure scholastic aptitude V (Verbal), I (General information), N (Numeri- cal), and the total score which is the sum of the three part scores. Again significant differences at the 5 percent level were found between the median scores achieved by the students in the sample and those of comparable student groups of previous years. The students in the sample group achieved higher scores than did similar student groups in previous years. The student groups were compared on the basis of home background. Table III shows that the proportion of farm to non-farm students in agricultural curricula has remained relatively constant in recent years. D o n . . ~— - o u c Q - o a - Q n — . o b n - ~ 0 o o - u "' ‘ . o . . o — 1 n o n v - - o o a n a — -r- 7 u " . f. , . ‘ Q ,, 39 TABLE II STANDINGS OF STUDENTS ENROLLED IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA ON CQR TOTAL IN ORIENTATION EXAMINATIONSa con Total Tern N Range 10 PR Q1 Median Q3 90 PR Fall 1958b 188 56-177 80 9 97.5 112.5 134.2 153.3 Fall 1959b 236 63-180 86 8 101.5 115.5 134.8 151.1 Fall 1960b 209 63.175 93 4 104.2 121.0 138.0 153.0 Fall 1961b 241 63-190 95 8 108.8 124.5 141.0 161.5 a‘Appendix A offers a key for interpreting the data bDoes not include veterinary medicine TABLE III FARM AND NON-FARM BACKGROUND OF FIRST-TERM FRESHMEN ENROLLED IN AGRICUIEURAL CURRICULA Number Number Percent Term From Farm Non-Farm Non-Farm Fall 1958a 90 111 55 Fall 1959a .95 130 58 Fall 1960b 78 85 52 Fall 1961 114 158 58 aDoes not include bNot all freshmen replied Veterinary Medicine The majors chosen by students enrolled in agricultural curricula are recorded in Table IV. General Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries and Wildlife were the majors chosen most often in each of the years. The percentage of students choosing a particular major in 1961 was not significantly different from the corresponding percentage in previous years. TABLE IV FIRST-TERM FRESHMEN STUDENTS IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA BY MAJORa Major Fall 1958b Fall 1959b Fall 1960b Fall 1961b hibikailaai Agricultural Science 17 7 21 6 21 7 16 5 Agricultural Business 19 8 30 9 20 7 26 9 General Agriculture 65 25 132 39 109 38 126 40 Agricultural Engineering 26 10 20 6 27 9 23 7 Fisheries and Wildlife 51 20 56 17 48 16 #1 13 Forestry 61 24 70 19 6O 20 7k 23 Immber and Building Materials 12 5 3 1 4 1 5 2 Park Management ._4 _1 .19 _3. _i __2 J __1 Total 255 100 242 100 295 100 316 100 8‘From the records of the Director of Resident Instruction, College of Agriculture bStudents majoring in Agricultural Science, Agricultural Business or General Agriculture choose one of the following specialized areas prior to their junior year in college: Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Education, Agricultural Communications, Agricultural Mechanics, Animal Husbandry, Dairy Production, Farm Crops, Flori- culture, Food Science, Horticulture, Ornamental Horticulture, Pomology and Vegetable Crops, Poultry Science, Soil Science, and Resource Development. The percentage of students with FFA and h-H experience is shown in Table V. Except for 1961, a greater percentage reported FFA experience than h—H Club experience. Likewise, the percentage of farm youth with FFA and h-H Club experience was considerably greater than it was for non-farm youth. Again this has remained relatively constant in recent years. SUMMARY This chapter indicates that there was a significant difference be- tween those youth in the sample who were enrolled in agricultural curricula 41 TABLE V FRESHMAN STUDENTS WITH FFA AND h—H CLUB EXPERIENCE ENROLLED IN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA FFA Experience hafl Club Experiengs Term Farm You h Non-farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth 32.. :i: flea Nga. FIE N2. Fall 1958 48 53 21 19 27 3o 16 14 Fall 1959 54 56 30 23 33 34 19 14 Fall 1960a 33 43 16 18 24 30 12 14 Fall 1961b 67 60 11 7 76 68 21 16 3Not all freshmen replied bIncludes freshmen enrolled in Veterinary Medicine and comparable groups of students in previous years when they were com- pared on the basis of median scores achieved on orientation examinations. This suggests that the sample group had greater scholastic ability than former groups. No significant differences were found, however, between the sample group and previous groups when they were compared on the basis of home background, choice of major and participation in the FFA and 44H Clubs. It is especially interesting to note that the percentage of farm to non-farm youth was essentially the same for each of the years. This suggests that higher achievement on orientation examinations was not related to a greater or lesser percentage of non—farm youth enrol- ling in agricultural curricula. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter presents the results of the study in terms of responses to questions which were asked the students in the sample. The responses of farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula are analyzed and com- pared to the responses of farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula and to the responses of non-farm youth enrolled in agricul- tural curricula to identify certain characteristics of the youth studied. Emphasis is given to their attitude toward agriculture; their exposure to information about college and/or careers; and cognitive factors asso- ciated with their college curriculum choice. No further description will be included here of those characteris- tics of the sample included in the section on delimitations and proce- dures of the study, and the preceding chapter. Responses were secured from eighty-nine percent of the students contacted. One hundred and eleven of the one hundred and fourteen students classified as farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula responded as compared to eighty-nine of the one hundred and two students who were classified as farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. One hundred and thirty—nine of the one hundred and fifty- eight students classified as non-farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula responded. #2 “3 Characteristics of the youth studied Table VI shows the farming status of parents or guardians of the farm youth in the sample. Sixty percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula indicated that their parents or guardians were full-time farmers as compared to #0 percent of the farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. A greater percentage of farm youth enrolled in non-agricultural curricula indicated that their parents lived on farms but did not farm than did farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. The difference was not significant, however. TABLE VI FARMING STATUS OF PARENTS OR GUARDIANS OF FARM YOUTH IN THE SAMPLE Students Farm Youth in Farm Youth in Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Total Number Percent Number Percent Full-time farming 66 6o 36 40a 102 Part-time farming 28 25 31 35 59 Lived on farm but did not farm 15 14 22 25 3? No response __2 _1 _ _ __2., Total 111 100 89 100 200 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. Table VII shows that farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula were not significantly different from farm youth enrolled in non-agri- cultural curricula when compared on their employment experiences. Non-farm youth reported considerably less farm work experience than farm youth but over 50 percent reported that they had worked on a farm or in an agricultural occupation related to farming. The latter in- cluded work in forests, conservation camps, feed stores, dairies, and other agricultural businesses. TABLE VII EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCES OF STUDENTS 51M Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Type of in in in Experience Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Worked on farm 101 91 78 88 47 343 Worked in Ag. occupation other than farming 9 8 3 3 29 21 Worked in Non- agricultural occupations _1. _1 .._§ .2 _é.l .11.? Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed significantly in some respects from farm youth not enrolled in agriculture, and non- farm youth enrolled in agriculture relative to the occupational areas of adults they admired most and the career aspirations of friends they most associated with. The data are shown in tables VIII and IX. Farm youth enrolled in agriculture most often reported that they admired adults who were employed in agriculture and that they associated most with friends who aspired to agricultural careers. “5 TABLE VIII OCCUPATIONAL AREAS OF ADULTS MOST ADMIRED BY STUDENTS Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Occupational in in in Area Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Agriculture (Farming and other) 41 37 _ 6 7a 13 9a Non-Agricultural 27 29 59 66a 93 673‘ Agriculture and Non-Agriculture .41 .32 .21 .22 .31 .2118 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. TABLE IX CAREER ASPIRATIONS OF FRIENDS WITH WHOM STUDENTS MOST ASSOCIATED Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Career in in in Aspirations Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Agricultural 25 23 -- 0a 6 4a Non—Agricultural 30 27 57 64a 7‘1 53‘1L Agricultural and Non-Agricultural 39 35 2h 27 35 25 Undecided .12 .11 ._$. _2 .2111 .1§ Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. Sixty-seven percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula reported that they had been enrolled in vocational agricul- ture in high school as compared to only 2h percent of the farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. Only 10 percent of the non-farm youth reported that they had been enrolled in vocational agri- culture. Table X presents the responses of the three sample groups. TABLE X NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HAD STUDIED VOCATIONAL AGRICULTURE IN HIGH SCHOOL Studgnts Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Years of in in in Vo.Ag. Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent None 39 33 67 76*1L 125 901‘!l One Year 12 11 9 10 h 3 Two Years 3 3 6 7 1 1 Three Years 10 9 N h 3 2 Four Years AZ .411 _1 _..’1a A .1? Total 72 67 22 24a 14 103 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. Slightly fewer students in each classification reported that they had had FFA experience than had reported enrollment in vocational agri- culture. The numbers are shown in Table XI. It indicates that not everyone who was enrolled in vocational agriculture in high school was a member of the FFA. Almost three times as many farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula reported that they had studied vocational 4? agriculture and had been a member of the FFA as did farm youth en- rolled in other than agricultural curricula. This might infer that some farm youth decide prior to high school or soon after entering high school that they will pursue a non-agricultural career and thus do not enroll in vocational agriculture. Others may have attended schools which did not offer vocational agriculture. TABLE XI NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HAD FFA EXPERIENCE Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Years of FFA in in in Experience Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent None 44 40 70 79a 128 98a One Year 7 6 7 8 2 1 Two Years 3 3 5 6 3 2 Three Years 7 6 3 3 2 1 Four Years 46 42 4 4a 4 3a More than Four Years __3 ._Il __: ._:. ._;: __: Total with FFA Experience 66 60 19 21a 11 7a 8This percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Forty-two percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula reported that their favorite subject in high school was agriculture. Sixty-two percent of the farm youth who studied voca- tional agriculture in high school reported that it was the subject they enjoyed most. In light of the data presented in the previous 48 two tables, it is not surprising to find that only a small percentage of the other students reported that agriculture was their favorite subject. It is interesting to note, however, that half of the 10 non- farm boys who reported they were enrolled in agriculture as shown in the previous table reported that it was the subject they enjoyed most in high school. The results are shown in Table XII. TABLE XII SUBJECT STUDENTS ENJOYED MOST IN HIGH SCHOOL Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Type of Subject Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Vocational Agriculture) General Agriculture ) 46 42 3 3a 7 5a Subject other than ‘ the above .65. .251 .89. .27.“ 1.32 .2? Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 3This percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Only two significant differences were found when farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula were compared with the other groups in the sam- ple relative to experience in 4—H Club work. This is shown in Table XIII. Less non-farm youth reported that they had been members of 4-H Clubs than farm youth. Otherwise the groups were not significantly different. Again it is quite likely that non-farm youth had less op- portunity to join 4-H Clubs than farm youth. The students were compared on the basis of activities they had participated in while in high school. Some significant differences 49 TABLE XIII NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HAD 4—H EXPERIENCE Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Years of 4-H in in in Club Experience Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One Year 6 5 6 7 5 1+ Two Years 10 9 9 10 5 4 Three Years 10 9 7 8 4 3 Four Years 17 15 4 4 3 2 More than Four Years _’}_3 _3_Q_ _23 _2_6_ _4_ __3 Total with 4.11 Club Experience 76 68 49 55 21 16a aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. were found as indicated in Table XIV. Farm youth enrolled in agricul- tural curricula more often reported participation in the FFA and 4—H Clubs than did the other two groups. Farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula reported significantly more participation in dramatics and chorus-vocal than did farm youth enrolled in agriculture. In all other activities, there was no significant difference between farm youth enrolled in agriculture and the other groups in the sample. Forty-seven percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula reported that they had decided to attend college during their last two years in high school, while the majority of the other two groups reported that they had decided to attend college prior to their 50 TABLE XIV ACTIVITIES IN WHICH STUDENTS PARTICIPATED WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Type of Activity Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Athletics 74 67 64 72 95 68 Dramatics 34 3O 42 47a 3it 2“ Band-Orchestra 21 18 27 30 3O 22 4-H or FFA 80 72 33 37a 15 10a Chorus-Vocal 20 18 33 37a 27 19 School Paper-Annual 30 27 3O 34 28 20 Other 47 . 42 45 50 6O 43 8This percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. last two years in high school. Table XV shows the years in which stu- dents reported they had decided to attend college. Although these differences in any one year were not significant, it can be observed that many farm youth enrolled in agriculture in the study sample made their decisions to enter college somewhat later than the students in the other two groups. ‘When the T test was applied to an average of the years in which students decided to attend college, a significant difference, at the one percent level, was found between farm and non-farm youth. Farm youth in the sample, regardless of the curricula they enrolled in, selected their college curricula later in high school than did non-farm youth. These data are given in Table XVI. Even though farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture 51 TABLE xv SCHOOL YEAR IN WHICH STUDENTS REPORTED DECISIONS TO ATTEND COLLEGE ‘Stadenia Fanm Youth Farm.Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Year in School Ag. Curricula Non—Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 6 15 14 15 17 24 17 7 5 6 7 9 6 8 6 13 15 16 12 9 15 14 9 10 34 24 1O 15 14 19 21 27 20 11 28 24 12 13 15 11 12 .252 .21 .15. .11 .1‘1 .19 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 TABLE XVI YEAR IN SCHOOL IN WHICH STUDENTS REPORTED THEY SELECTED THEIR COLLEGE CURRICULA ..§£ussuya Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farleouth in in in Year in School Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 6 3 3 2 2 7 5 7 4 4 3 2 8 1 1 2 2 7 5 9 7 6 6 7 14 10 10 15 14 18 21 20 14 11 20 18 18 20 36 26 12 52 47 42 47 38 27a Other than the above _.2 _Z _.1 _1 JR .11. Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 8This percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the correSponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. 52 reported they had decided to attend college earlier in life than farm youth enrolled in agriculture, as shown in the previous table, the groups were almost identical when they were compared as to the school year in which they selected their college curricula. The majors and specializations selected by students enrolled in agricultural curricula were reported in Chapter III,2 Table XVII gives the majors chosen by farm youth who enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. TABLE XVII MAJORS SELECTED BY FARM YOUTH ENROLLED IN OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA Major Number Percent Engineering (other than agriculture) 22 26 Non-Preference 18 ' 21 Science or Mathematics 14 16 Business 9 10 Pre-Law h 4 Pre-Medicine 4 4 Education 4 a Police Administration 3 3 Other .11. .12 Total 89 100 Eighty percent of the farm youth in the sample had visited the university campus prior to enrolling in college as compared to 52 percent 2Cf. post, p. 37, et seq. 53 of the non-farm youth. Over half of the farm youth enrolled in agri- cultural curricula who had visited the campus had done so in connection with an FFA or 4-H Club activity. The majority of the students in the other two groups listed ”other” events as the occasion for their visits. The responses are shown in Table XVIII. It might be noted that 19 per- cent of the farm boys enrolled in other than agricultural curricula visited the campus for an FFA or 4-H Club activity. The differences between farm youth enrolled in agriculture and farm youth enrolled in non-agricultural curricula is significant in reSpect to the percent that visited the campus for FFA and 4-H Club activities, however. TABLE XVIII STUDENT VISITATIONS TO MSU CAMPUS Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non—Farm Youth in in _ in Occasion for visit Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 4—H or FFA Activity 53 48 17 19a 6 4a Agricultural College Open House 2 2 2 1 Farmers"Week 16 14 12 13 2 18 Other 42 .11 E .5228 _63_ _’~_I;5,a Total 88 79 > 72 80 73 51 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the correSponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. There is also a significant difference between the number of youth enrolled in agriculture and the number of students in the other groups who visited campus for ”other" occasions. Sixty-two percent of the farm youth enrolled in agriculture visited the campus to take part in an agricultural activity, while the majority of the students in the other two groups visited the campus for "other” reasons. There has been considerable discussion in recent years relative to the prestige rating of the word "agriculture." Some people believe that prospective students are often reluctant to enroll in such majors as forestry, park management, fisheries and wildlife, etc., if they are offered by the agricultural college. Further, these same people feel that non-farm students who do enroll in some of the majors offered in a college of agriculture would prefer that the major be offered in some other college in the university. The students in the sample were asked to state their preference as to which college should offer the curricula in which they were enrolled. Table XIX presents the response of the three sample groups. TABLE XIX STUDENTS' PREFERENCE RELATIVE TO WHICH COLLEGE SHOULD OFFER THE CURRICULA THEY ARE ENROLLED IN Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Preference Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Strongly prefer College of Agriculture 39 35 1 1a 21 15a Prefer College of Agriculture 45 41 4 4-aL 45 32 Don't care 22 19 38 43a 43 31 Prefer college other than agriculture 3 3 25 28a 22 16 Strongly prefer college other than agriculture _g _2_ _2_; _243- __8 _6 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. 55 Ninety-five percent of the farm youth in the sample enrolled in agricultural curricula either preferred the College of Agriculture or had no preference for the college which offered their major, and 95 percent of the farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula quite naturally preferred a college other than agriculture or did not care. The interesting finding is that 78 percent of the non-farm youth also preferred the College of Agriculture or did not care. Only twenty- two percent of the non-farm students reported that they would prefer that their major be offered by a college other than agriculture. Their responses were not significantly different from those of farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Two of the hypotheses tested in this study were that farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula less frequently report that their parents have high levels of educational and occupational aspiration for them than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural cur- ricula. Tables XX, XXI, XXII and XXIII show the responses of the students regarding the levels of educational and occupational aspira- tion that their parents had for them. As indicated in these four tables, with but one exception, there were no significant differences between the two groups of farm youth in the sample. The one exception is found in Table XXV. More farm youth enrolled in other than agri- cultural curricula reported that their father would like them to pursue a very important occupation than did farm youth enrolled in agriculture. Significant differences between farm and non-farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula are shown in Tables XXIII, XXIV and XXV. Non-farm youth reported, more often than farm youth, that their father had encouraged them to continue their education; and that their parents did not care how good the occupation was that they 56 were preparing for, as long as they liked it. TABLE XX EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS THAT STUDENTS REPORTED'THEIR MOTHER HAD FOR THEM Students Educational Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Aspirations in in in of Mother Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Strongly encouraged continuing education 78 7O 66 75 102 73 Gave student some encouragement to con- tinue education 29 26 19 21 35 26 Never said much about education 2 2 4 4 2 1 Felt student would be better off going to work _2 I. Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 No significant differences were found between farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula and the students in the other two groups. There was a significant difference between farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula and non-farm youth in regard to the amount of encouragement they felt their parents gave them for continuing their education. Quite a number of significant differences were found between farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula and the students in the other sample groups regarding the career areas in which they would most like to work. Almost half of the farm youth enrolled in agri- cultural curricula reported farming as their first career choice with 57 TABLE XXI EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS THAT STUDENTS REPORTED THEIR FATHER HAD FOR THEM Students Educational Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Aspirations _ in in in of Father Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Strongly encouraged continuing education 64 57 55 62 93 68a Gave student some en- couragement to con- tinue education 34 31 23 26 28 19 Never said much about education 11 10 9 10 15 11 Felt student would be better off going to work __2 __2 __2 __3 _.2 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 I. aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. the broad field of agriculture second. This is contrary to the find- ings of Haller reported in the Review of Literature.3 Farm youth en- rolled in other than agricultural curricula preferred education, engineering and farming in that order. Non-farm youth rated agricul- ture and science as their first two choices. Forty percent of the non-farm youth chose agriculture as their number one career choice. Engineering was the area least chosen by both farm and non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture as shown in Table XXIV. The responses are dispersed throughout the various areas. 30f. ante, p. 19. . n -‘ n 1 m n ' o 1 .. . 1 - ._ - _ . , :- n > .. o o u n g e 58 TABLE XXII OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATIONS THAT STUDENTS REPORTED THEIR MOTHER HAD FOR THEM Studgnts. Felt Mother Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Wanted Them in in in to Pursue Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Very Important Occupation 8 7 16 18 7 5 Occupation that is considerably better than most occupa- tions in community 22 20 16 18 14 10 Occupation that is slightly better than most occupations in community 10 9 3 3 10 7 Occupation which is equal to most in community 5 5 3 3 3 2 Doesn't care how good occupation is as long as student likes it _66 _52 _51 _58 125. _zéa Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Ninety-five percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula and 77 percent of the non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture classified the career they were preparing for as an agricultural career or related to agriculture. Their responses were significantly differ- ent however. Fifty-two percent of the farm youth classified their career as agricultural while 63 percent of the non-farm youth classi- fied the career they were preparing for as related to agriculture. This is shown in Table XXV. 59 TABLE XXIII OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATIONS THAT STUDENTS REPORTED THEIR FATHER HAD FOR THEM ___ Stgdents Felt Father Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Wanted.Them in in in to Pursue Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Very Important Occupation 8 7 18 Zia 10 7 Occupation that is considerably better than most occupa- tions in community 28 25 19 21 21 15 Occupation that is slightly better than most occupations in community 8 7 6 7 10 7 Occupation which is equal to most in the community 5 5 4 4 4 3 Doesn't care how good occupation is as long as student likes it _6_2_ _‘jé ._4_2_ _4_Z _24 __6_§a Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 8This percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the correSponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. It might be well to note that 12 percent of the farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture classified the career they were pre- paring for as agricultural or related to agriculture. ‘When the three groups of students were compared on the basis of their understanding of career opportunities in agriculture, it was found that 17 percent of the farm youth who were not enrolled in agri- culture and 21 percent of the non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture reported that they had a good understanding of career Opportunities, . | I .. I l I e — Jk 60 TABLE XXIV CAREER AREA IN WHICH STUDENTS ‘WOULD MOST LIKE TO WORK Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Career Area Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Education 6 5 22 25a 11 8 Medicine 12 11 7 8 14 10 Engineering 3 3 19 21a 10 7 Agriculture (The entire industry) 28 2 5 11 12 56 40“ Science 9 8 1h 16 35 26a Farming .11 £3.51 _lé 4.8a .1.) .23 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. TABLE XXV HOW STUDENTS CLASSIFIED THE CAREERS FOR WHICH THEY ARE PREPARING Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Career in in in “_Classification Ag. Curricula Non-Ags Curricula Ag, Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Agricultural Career 57 52 2 2a 20 lha Related to Agriculture #9 43 9 10a 87 63a Non-Agricultural 4 4 68 77a 21 15 Don't Know 1 1 10 11 6 # Didn 't Answer __ __ __ _ _j _{t Tgtal 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. 61 as compared to 35 percent of the farm youth enrolled in agriculture. By the same token, almost twice as many farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula and more than three times as many non-farm youth reported that they had little or no understanding of career op- portunities in agriculture than did farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. The responses are presented in Table XXVI. TABLE XXVI DEGREE OF UNDERSTANDING STUDENTS REPORTED THEY HAD OF AGRICULTURAL CAREER OPPORTUNITIES Students Understanding of Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Career Opportuni- in in in ties in Agriculture Ag, Curricula Non-Ag, Curricula Ag, Curricula _ Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Good Understanding 39 35 15 17a 30 21a Some Understanding 67 6O 66 74 87 63 Little or no 1 Understanding __5_ __5 _8 _2 _2_2 _16_ Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula Attitudes of students towards agriculture Five questions were included in the research instrument for the express purpose of identifying attitudes of the student groups towards agriculture. For the most part, the responses to these questions by farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula were significantly dif- ferent from farm youth enrolled in other than agriculture. On the other hand, they were not significantly different from those of non- farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. 62 Responses to the question, ”which of the following most closely represents your feelings about the field of agriculture," are shown in Table XXVII. TABLE XXVII STUDENT ATTITUDES RELATIVE TO THE STATE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY Students State of Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Agricultural in in in Industry Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Growing industry 89 80 45 50a 104 75 Neither growing or declining 15 13 1h 16 15 11 Declining industry 5 5 18 21 4 3 Haven't developed a feeling _E __2_ .12. .13 llé .11 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. A greater percentage of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula felt that agriculture was a growing industry than did farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture. Almost one-fourth of the farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula reported that they felt agriculture was a declining industry. A significant difference was found between the two groups of farm youth regarding the career opportunities they felt agriculture offered. As shown in Table XXVII, 83 percent of the farm youth enrolled in agri- culture felt that agriculture was a growing industry as compared to 51 percent of the farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. 63 The responses of non-farm youth were not found to be significantly different from those of farm youth enrolled in agriculture. TABLE XXVIII STUDENT ATTITUDES RELATIVE TO CAREER OPPORTUNITIES IN AGRICULTURE Students Career Oppor- Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth tunities in in in in Agriculture Ag. Curricula Non—Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Growing 92 83 #5 51a 108 78 Have remained the same 17 15 23 25 23 16 Declining .2. __2. 4 .21. .2351 _fi _é Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. The question relating to the social status associated with an agricultural career produced some significantly different reSponses between the two groups of farm youth. Although Table XXIX shows a high majority of all students agreeing that high or average prestige is associated with a career in agriculture, a greater percentage of the farm youth in the sample who enrolled in agriculture felt that high prestige was associated with a career in agriculture than did farm youth who were enrolled in non-agricultural curricula. Ninety-five percent of the farm youth enrolled in agriculture reported that they felt average or high prestige was associated with a career in agriculture as compared to 92 percent of the non-farm . ~v I -.. . ~‘ II. . ‘ ' .1- mar-m”. ., _ A ‘ y ' /r- 64 TABLE XXIX STUDENT ATTITUDES RELATIVE TO SOCIAL STATUS ASSOCIATED'WITH AGRICULTURAL CAREER Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Agricultural in in in Careers Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent High Prestige 3O 27 8 9 22 16 Average Prestige 75 68 71 Boa 106 76 Low Prestige ___6 _5 __;_Q _11 __1_1_ _8 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. youth enrolled in agriculture and 79 percent of the farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture. A greater percentage of the farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture felt that there was less opportunity for advancement in an agricultural career than there was in most other career areas than did farm and non-farm youth who were enrolled in agriculture. Fifty- six percent of the farm youth who were not enrolled in agriculture felt that agricultural careers offer as much opportunity for advance- ment as do most other career areas. Significant differences can be seen in Table XXX. . No significant differences were found between the student groups regarding the potential for making money in agricultural careers. 1A5 shown in Table XXXI, two-thirds or more of the respondents felt that agricultural careers offer medium potential for making money. 65 TABLE XXX STUDENT ATTITUDES RELATIVE TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL CAREER Students In Relation Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth to Other in in in Career Fields Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Agr. careers offer morg opportunity for advancement 15 1h 1 1 15 10 Agr. careers offer as much opportunity for advancement 88 79 50 56a 101 73 Agr. careers offer lesg opportunity for advancement la .42 _3§ .533 .33 .12 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. TABLE XXXI STUDENT ATTITUDES RELATIVE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR MAKING MONEY IN AGRICUETURAL CAREERS Students Potential for Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Making Money in in in in Agr. Career Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent High Potential 21 19 7 8 16 12 Medium Potential 82 7h 59 66 106 76 Low Potential __8 __Z _33 _gg _12 _1; Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 66 T nature and extent of students e sure to inf a ion ngarding careers and college cuggicula With but two exceptions, as indicated in Table XXXII, there were no significant differences between the responses of the three groups regarding the availability in their high school of publications deal- ing with careers and college curricula. Over half of the students in each group felt that publications dealing with careers and college curricula, agricultural or otherwise, were readily available. TABLE XXXII STUDENT RESPONSE RELATIVE TO THE AVAILABILITY OF PUBLICATIONS DEALING WITH CAREERS AND COLLEGE CURRICULA Students Publications Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Dealing With in in in Chosen Career Area Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Felt they were readily available 59 53 41 Y6 61 44 Felt they were not readily available 41 37 34 38 59 42 Don't know how avail- ' able they were .11 _L0. _1_’i .432 .12 J5 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 Publications Dealing with College Cur- ricula in General Felt they were readily available 82 74 64 72 113 81 Felt they were not readily available 22 20 21 24 17 12 Don't know how avail- able they were I. °°| \O -P H O 0 Total 111 100 139 100 67 TABLE XXXII (continued) Students Publications Dealing Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth 'With Agricultural in in in Careers Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Felt they were readily available 76 68 50 56a 80 58a Felt they were not readily available 31 28 14 16 33 23 Don't know how avail- able they were _i __‘t _2_: .28. _2_6. .12 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 Publications Deal- ing With Agricul- tugal Curricula Felt they were ' readily available 65 59 42 47 83 60 Felt they were not readily available 38 34 16 18 3O 21 Don't know how avail- able they were ...§3. _Z .11 .35 .26. .12 Total 111 100 89 100 139 100 aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. A greater percentage of farm youth enrolled in other than agri- cultural curricula reported that they did not know how available agri- cultural publications were than did the other two student groups. Similarly, a lesser percentage of the respondents reported that agri- cultural career publications were readily available than did the other two groups of students. When the three groups were compared regarding the extent to which they read publications dealing with careers and 68 college curricula in general, no significant differences were found. However, as is indicated in Table XXXIII, when they were compared relative to the extent to which they read publications dealing with agricultural careers and agricultural curricula, significant differ- ences were found between farm youth enrolled in agriculture and the other two groups. Farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula and non- farm youth enrolled in agriculture less often reported that they had extensively read publications dealing with agricultural careers and agricultural curricula and more often reported that they had read this type of publication "little or not at all" than did farm youth enrolled in agriculture. A greater percentage of farm youth enrolled in agricultural cur- ricula reported that they had heard a college faculty member give a talk on careers and college curricula, agricultural and other, than did the students in the other two groups. The differences between the groups are indicated in Table XXXIV. Where did the students hear a college faculty member speak on agricultural careers and/or agricultural curricula? Table XXXV shows that their responses included: at the high school, at an FFA banquet, at a career day, during a college visit and "others.” No significant differences were found between the groups although a greater percentage of farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula indicated that they had heard such a talk at the high school or at an FFA banquet than did the other two groups. -—3l 69 TABLE XXXIII THE EXTENT TO WHICH STUDENTS REPORTED THEY READ PUBLICATIONS CONCERNED WITH CAREERS AND COLLEGE CURRICULA Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Extent to in in in Which Read Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent General Career Publications Read extensively 13 12 17 19 30 Read some 73 65 63 71 88 Read little or not at all _2_5 _2_} __2 _LQ _2_; Total 111 100 89 100 139 Agricultural:9areers Publications Read extensively 45 41 3 38L 30 Read some 56 50 35 4O 64 Read little or not at all __1_Q_ _2 _5_1_ _523‘ _45 Total 111 100 89 100 139 Publications Concerned'flith General Collegg Curricula Read extensively 17 15 19 21 28 Read some 59 53 54 61 82 Read little or not at all .32 .12. .16. .1_8. .22 Total 111 100 89 100 139 Publications Concerned With Agricultural Curricula Read extensively 27 24 2 2 27 Read some 60 54 19 22a 54 Read little or not at an .21.». .22. .631 .2951 .261 Total 111 100 89 100 139 Number Percent 22 63 100 22a _2a 100 20 59 39a 93. A; — 100 aJThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. 70 TABLE XXXIV NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO HEARD A TALK ABOUT CAREERS AND/OR COLLEGE BY A COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBER Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Type of Talk Ag. Curricula Non—Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Heard college faculty member give talk on careers and/or college 93 84 64 72a 105 76a Heard college faculty member give talk on ag. careers and/or ag. curricula 76 68 30 34a 63 45a aThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. TABLE XXXV IOCATION 0R OCCASION WHERE STUDENTS HEARD COLLEGE FACULTY MEMBER SPEAK ON AGRICULTURAL CAREERS AND/OR AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth Location or in in in Occasion Ag. Curricula Non—Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent In high school 31 28 16 18 36 26 At FFA banquet 9 8 3 3 3 2 At career day 8 7 7 8 8 6 During college visit 14 13 1 1 16 12 Other .29 _l§ __2 —19 .12 .18 Total 82 74 36 4O 82 60 71 Cognitive factors associated with gollege curricula choicg What persons had students found to be of importance in helping them choose their college curricula? Table XXXVI shows how the 339 students ranked the various people. The responses of the three groups of students differed significantly on six of the ten factors tested by the Chi Square technique.u In general, it will be noted that farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula and non-farm youth were slightly more conservative in their ratings than farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. Parents were rated most important by farm youth while non—farm youth rated adults, other than parents or teachers, as being most important. Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula rated vocational agriculture instructors, adults (other than parents and teachers), and teachers (other than vocational agriculture), in that order as of greatest importance, but less so than parents. Farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula were quite similar to farm youth enrolled in agriculture in their ratings of people except for their ratings of the vocational agriculture instructor. Farm youth in non- agricultural curricula rated vocational agriculture instructors eighth while farm youth enrolled in agriculture rated them second. ‘When only those youth in the sample who had studied vocational agriculture in high school were compared, it was found that those enrolled in agri- cultural curricula rated vocational agriculture teachers significantly higher as a source of influence. 4For a complete statistical summary, including Chi Square value, de- grees of freedom, and level of significance, see Appendix I. 6*» . , Q. ,r ' d 72 TABLE XXXVI STUDENT RATING OF PEOPLE‘WHO INFLUENCED COLLEGE CURRICULA CHOICEa Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in People Ag. Curricula Non—Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Parents 2.12 1.92 1.85 Adults (other than parents and teachers) 1.87 1.84 1.90 Friends 1067 1060 1059 Vo-Ag Teachers 1.95 1.09 1.16 4-H Agent or Leader 1.50 1.06 1.01 Teachers other than Vo-Ag 1.72 1.83 1.67 High School Counselor 1.66 1.68 1.53 College Faculty Member 1.61 1.47 . 1.70 Employers 1.56 1.45 1.79 Others .99 .98 1.00 aThe higher the numerical value, the more important the perceived influence. Non-farm youth differed a great deal from farm youth enrolled in agri- cultural curricula in three respects: they rated vocational agricul- tural teachers much lower and college faculty members and employers much higher than did farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. All of the student groups rated 4-H Club agents and leaders second from the bottom in importance. A further study of the rating given various factors was made by asking the students to rate factors which influenced their choice of 73 college curricula. Table XXXVII shows that on this basis, the voca- tional agriculture course, publications dealing with agriculture careers, and publications dealing with agricultural curricula show greater dif- ferences for farm youth in the two categories than do the other factors. When the farm youth in the two groups who had studied vocational agri- culture in high school were compared, the same pattern of significant differences emerged. When the ratings of farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula were compared with these of non-farm youth, the vocational agriculture course, publications dealing with specific non-agricultural curricula and/or college curricula in general, publi- cations dealing with agricultural careers and experiences in the FFA, showed the greater differences. The responses of the three groups of students differed significantly on all of the fifteen factors tested by the Chi Square technique.5 The students were compared on the basis of other factors which may have influenced them to choose their college curricula. As indi- cated in Table XXXVIII, farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula ranked such factors as: an interest in agriculture, a liking for plants and/or animals, an interest in working outdoors and a desire to become a farmer as having influenced their curricula choice the most. Farm youth enrolled in other than agriculture ranked such fac- tors as: an interest in a particular career area, the feeling that there is more Opportunity for advancement in your chosen career area, a feeling that you can use your education to its best advantage, and a feeling that areas other than agriculture offer greater opportunity 5For a complete statistical summary, including Chi Square value, de- grees of freedom, and level of significance, see Appendix V. STUDENT RATING OF FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED 74 TABLE XXXVII COLLEGE CURRICULA CHOICEa Factors. High school courses other than Vo-Ag. Vocational agricul- ture course Rank in high school class Employment experiences Speech about agricul— ture and/or ag. careers Speech about a specific non-ag. career and/or careers in general Publications dealing with agricultural curricula Publications dealing with a specific non-ag. curricula and/or col- lege curricula in general Publications dealing with agricultural careers Publications dealing with non-agricultural careers Visit to M.S.U. campus Experiences in the FFA Experiences in 4-H Clubs High school activities Others aThe higher the numerical value, the more important the perceived influence. in 1.78 1.86 1.77 2.26 1.76 1.36 1.97 1.47 2.06 1.34 1.77 1.76 1.75 1.72 .71 Farm Youth Students Farm Youth in 2.27 1.10 2.04 1.89 1.10 1.54 1.18 ‘ 1.78 1.14 1.83 1.47 1.04 1.07 1.91 .85 Non-FZFE'YSEtE 1n Ag. Curric‘lla Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula 1.71 1.10 1.55 2.20 1.45 1.45 1.78 1.57 1.79 1.48 1.60 1.05 1.08 1.57 1.35 75 as having had the greatest influence on their choice of college cur- ricula. Non-farm youth ranked the factors: an interest in a particu- lar career area, a liking for plants and/or animals, an interest in working out of doors, and an interest in an agricultural career.area other than farming as having influenced their curricula choice the most. It appears that both farm youth and non-farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula indicated that an interest in working out of doors and a liking for plants and/or animals had an important influence on their college curricula choice. The factors on which the groups differ significantly are indicated in the table. TABLE XXXVIII COMPARISON OF PERCEIVED FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCED COLLEGE CURRICULA CHOICE Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Factor Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent An interest in agriculture 80 72 3 3a 43 30a A desire to be- come a farmer 41 36 2 2a 5 4a An interest in ag. but have a limited opportunity to enter farming 17 15 7 8 11 8 An interest in an ag. career other than farming 3o 27 13 14 58 428L A liking for plants and/or animals 62 56 8 9a 94 68 76 TABLE XXXVIII (continued) Factor Number Percent A feeling that areas other than ag. offer greater opportunity An interest in a particular career area A desire to achieve high social status A desire to make a lot of money A feeling that you aren't smart enough to succeed in some other curricula A college or uni- versity scholarship An interest in working out of doors A desire to travel A desire to live in a city A feeling that your chosen career area offers you good work- ing hours A desire to become famous The feeling that there is great opportunity for advancement in your chosen career area A desire to do good for others Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in in Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula 7 6 26 33 4 4 9 8 8 7 10 1o 64 58 5 5 o o 1 3 3 18 16 15 13 Number Percent 33 37a 56 63a 17 19 20 23 4 4 8 9 13 14a 13 14 4 4 16 18 8 9 34 40a 21 23 Number Percent 89 11 94 19 28 33 64a 68 13 20 24 77 TABLE XXXVIII (continued) Students Farm Youth Farm Youth Non-Farm Youth in in ' Factor Ag. Curricula Non-Ag. Curricula Ag. Curricula Number Percent Number Percent A feeling that it will prepare you for a variety of work 25 23 20 A desire to have an ”in-door" job 0 O 2 A desire to be in a position of authority 5 5 15 A feeling that you can use your education to its best advantage 25 23 42 High scholastic standing in your high school class 4 4 11 Others 7 6 7 23 21 2 2 16 9 47a 22 12 1 8 14 Number Percent 15 16 .05 10 aJThis percentage is significantly different at the 5 percent level from the corresponding percentage for farm youth en- rolled in agricultural curricula. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Summary This has been a study to identify characteristics of selected students enrolling in agricultural curricula in college and the cogni- tive factors associated with their curricular choice. Specific pur- poses were to compare farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula with farm youth enrolled in non-agricultural curricula and non-farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula, on the basis of: (1) their general characteristics; (2) their attitudes toward agriculture; (3) their exposure to information regarding careers and curricula; and (4) the perceived influence of people, experiences and other fac- tors on their curricular choice. The comparisons were made to deter- mine whether any significant differences existed between the farm youth enrolled in agriculture and the other groups studied. This chapter will present a summary of the student responses, along with the conclusions and implications. Summggy of General Characteristics of the Students The following statements summarize the characteristics of the students in the sample: (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed significantly from farm youth enrolled in other than agri- cultural curricula in the following ways: (a) they more often reported that their parents or guardians were full-time farmers; 78 (2) (b) (c) (d) (e) (r) (g) (h) (i) (j) 79 a greater percentage reported that the adults they admired most were in agricultural occupations; a greater percentage reported that their closest friends were aspiring to agricultural careers; a greater percentage had studied vocational agriculture in high school; they reported more participation in the FFA and less in dramatics, chorus-vocal activities; they more often visited the college campus for FFA and 4-H Club activities and less often for ”other" activi- ties; a greater percentage preferred that their curricula be offered in the College of Agriculture; a much greater percentage chose farming as their first career choice; a greater percentage classified their ultimate career as "agricultural” or related to agriculture; a greater percentage reported a good understanding of career opportunities in agriculture. Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture in the following ways: (a) (b) they more often reported that they had.worked on a farm and less often reported that they had worked in non-ag- ricultural occupations; they more often reported that the adults they admired most were employed in agricultural occupations; 80 (c) a greater percentage reported that their closest friends were aSpiring to agricultural careers; (d) a greater percentage reported that they had studied voca- tional agriculture and participated in FFA and 4—H activities; (e) they more often reported that agriculture was their favor- ite subject in high school; (f) they more often reported that they had selected their college curricula when they were seniors in high school; (g) they more often visited the college campus to participate in FFA and 4-H Club activities and less often for "other” activities; (h) a greater percentage strongly preferred the College of Agriculture as the school which should offer their curriculum; (1) a smaller percentage reported that their father had strongly encouraged them to continue their education; (j) a greater percentage classified the career they were pre- paring for as agricultural, while a smaller percentage classified it as related to agriculture; (k) a greater percentage reported they had a good understand- ing of career opportunities in agriculture. Summggy of Students' Attitude Toward Agriculture The following statements summarize the attitudes of the students in the sample toward agriculture: (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from farm youth in other than agricultural curricula in the following ways: 81 (a) they more often reported that they felt agriculture was a growing industry; (b) a greater percentage reported that they felt the career opportunities in agriculture were growing; (c) they less often reported that agricultural careers were associated with average social prestige; (d) a greater percentage reported that they felt agricultural careers offered as much opportunity for advancement as other career areas. (2) Farm youth in agriculture did not differ significantly from non-farm youth in agriculture with respect to their attitudes toward agriculture. Suflmggy of Students' Egpgsure to Information Ahggt Caregrs and College Curricula The following statements summarize the students' exposure to information about careers and college curricula: (1) Farm youth enrolled in agriculture differed significantly from the youth in the other two groups in the following ways: (a) they more often reported that they felt agricultural career publications were readily available in their high school; (b) they more often reported that they had extensively read agricultural careers publications; (c) they less often reported that they had read agricultural careers publications "little or not at all;" (d) they more often reported that they had done some reading in publications dealing with agricultural curricula; 7 r ' r I r 4 82 (e) they less often reported that they had read publications dealing with agricultural curricula “little or not at all;" (f) they more often reported that they had heard a college faculty member give a talk on agricultural careers and agricultural curricula. Sumgary of Cognitive Factors Associated With Curricula Choice The students were asked to cite the people who had influenced their choice of college curricula. Significant differences were found between the groups with respect to the amount of influence the students felt was exerted by parents, vocational agriculture teachers, college faculty members, 4-H Club agents or leaders, teachers other than Vo-Ag and employers. The following statements summarize the way in which the students rated people as a source of influence. (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from farm youth in other than agricultural curricula in the following ways: (a) they more often rated vocational agriculture teachers as the greatest source of influence, after parents. (b) they rated adults (other than parents and teachers), friends, college faculty members, employers and 4-H Club i agents or leaders highg;_as a source of influence. Both groups rated 4-H Club agents or leaders as having the least influence however. (c) they rated teachers (other than vo-ag) and high school counselors lgggg as a source of influence. (2) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from non-farm youth in agricultural curricula in the following ways: 83 (a) they rated parents, vocational agriculture teachers, friends, teachers (other than vo-ag), high school coun- selors and 4-H Club agents and leaders highg; as a source of influence. Both groups, however, rated 4-H Club agents and leaders as having had the least influence on their college curricula choice. (b) they rated adults (other than parents and teachers), college faculty members, and employers lgwe; as a source of influence. When the students were asked to rate factors which might have influenced their choice of college curricula, significant differences were found between the groups as summarized by the following statements: (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula in the following ways: (a) they rated the vocational agriculture course, employment (b v experiences, a speech about agriculture and/or agricul- tural careers, publications dealing with agricultural curricula, publications dealing with agricultural careers, visit to M.S.U. campus, and experiences in the FFA and 4-H Club highgz as a source of influence. they rated high school courses (other than vo-ag), rank in high school class, speech about a specific non-agri- cultural career and/or curricula or careers in general, publications dealing with non-agricultural curricula and non-agricultural careers, and high school activities, 191;; as a source of influence. 84 (2) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from non-farm youth in agricultural curricula in the following ways: (a) they rated vocational agriculture and other high school courses, rank in high school class, speech about agricul- ture and/or agricultural careers, publications dealing with agricultural careers and agricultural curricula, visit to M.S.U. campus, experiences in the FFA and 4-H Club and high school activities, highg; as a source of influence. (b) they rated publications dealing with non-agricultural curricula and non-agricultural careers, speech about a specific non-agricultural career and/or careers in general, and "others" 193g; as a source of influence. A comparison of other factors which students perceived to have influenced their curricula choice showed some significant differences between the groups in the sample. (1) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from the other two groups of students as follows: (a) they more often reported that an interest in agriculture and a desire to become a farmer influenced their curricula choice. (b) they less often reported that an interest in a particular career area influenced their curricula choice. (2) Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula differed sig- nificantly from farm youth not enrolled in agriculture in the areas cited above plus the following: 85 (a) they more often reported an interest in working out of doors as having influenced their curricula choice. (b) they more often reported an interest in plants and/or animals as having influenced their curricula choice; (c) they less often reported that ”a feeling that there is great opportunity for advancement in their chosen career area" influenced their curricula choice. (d) they less often reported "a feeling that they can use their education to its best advantage" influenced their curricula choice. ‘. :1?“ “ ‘ 4. ‘T‘Eifln‘ I" ‘1 r7 .{1 (3) In addition to the differences cited in the first statement above, farm youth also differed from non-farm youth in that non-farm youth more often reported that an interest in an agricultural career other than farming influenced their cur- ricula choice. A liking for plants and/or animals and an interest in working out of doors was reported by a high percentage of both farm and non-farm youth in agriculture as having influenced their curricula choice. CONCLUSIONS Seven hypotheses, as stated on pages 9 and 10, provided the basis for this study. The conclusions are drawn from the findings as they relate to the hypotheses. anclusions Relative to Hypgthesis Number 1 Hypothesis number 1 was that farm youth who enroll in agricul- tural curricula report more influence from sources and experiences supporting agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula. 86 This hypothesis was to be accepted and regarded as true if farm youth enrolled in agriculture reported significantly more influence from the following than did farm youth enrolled in non-agricultural curricula: * (1) Adults in agricultural occupations * (2) Friends aspiring to agricultural careers *(3 V Vocational agriculture instructors * (4) Speech about agricultural careers and/or agricultural curricula * (5) Agricultural employers * (6) Publications dealing with agricultural careers * (7) Publications dealing with agricultural curricula * (8) Vocational agricultural course * (9) Experience in the FFA *(10) Experience in the 4-H *(11) Employment experience in agriculture In all the above factors (*) significant differences were found be- tween the two groups. Farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula reported significantly more influence from these sources and experi- ences than did farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. Therefore, hypothesis number one was accepted. anclusions Relative to Hypothesis Number 2 Hypothesis number 2 was that farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula less frequently report that their parents have high levels of educational aspiration for them than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula. Data to test this hypothesis were taken from questions about the youths' parents. Each boy's parents' level of educational aspiration 87 for him was measured by his responses to two identical questions, one for each parent. Responses to each question were arbitrarily scored from zero to four, and the scores for both summed to provide for an over—all index of the parents' level of educational aspiration for him. No significant differences were found betWeen the two groups of students. Conclusions Relative to Hypgthesis Number 3 Hypothesis number 3 was identical to hypothesis number 2 except that it referred to the level of occupational aspiration that parents had for the students. Again, the responses to each of two questions were arbitrarily scored from zero to four, and the scores for both were summed to pro- vide an over-all index of the students' parents' level of occupational aspiration for him. No significant differences were found between the two groups of students. anclusions Relative to Hypothesis Number 4 Hypothesis number 4 was that farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula report greater exposure to information about agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula. It was decided to accept this hypothesis if the following cri- teria were met: (1) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agricul- ture reported that publications dealing with agricultural careers and/or agricultural curricula were readily available in their high school. 88 (2) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agricul- tural curricula reported that they had extensively read publications dealing with agricultural careers and agricultural curricula; (3) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agricul- ture reported that they had heard a speech about agricultural careers and/or agricultural curricula. (4) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agriculture had been enrolled in vocational agriculture. (5) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agricul- ture had been members of the FFA. (6) A significantly higher percentage of farm youth in agricul- ture had visited the college campus to participate in an FFA or 4-H Club activity. In testing this hypothesis all but the first criteria were com- pletely satisfied. On the basis of the criteria listed and findings of the study, hypothesis number 4 was accepted. Conclusions Relativg to Hypothesis Number 5 Hypothesis number 5 was that non-farm youth who enroll in agri- cultural curricula report factors as having influenced their choice of college curricula which are significantly different from those re- ported by farm youth as having influenced their choice. The students were asked to rate 25 factors relative to the influence they felt each had on their college curricular choice. It was decided to accept this hypothesis if the two groups of students differed significantly on these factors. 89 Significant differences between the two groups were found in 84 percent of the factors. Therefore this hypothesis was accepted. Conclusions Relative to Hypothesis Number 6 Hypothesis number 6 was that non-farm youth who enroll in agri- cultural curricula and farm youth who enroll in other than agricultural curricula, as a group, report a less favorable attitude toward agri- culture as a career field than do farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. This hypothesis was tested by the responses to five ques- tions in the research instrument. It was decided to accept the hypothesis and regard it as true if the responses given by non-farm youth and farm youth in other than agricultural curricula differed significantly from those of farm youth in agricultural curricula. It was found that farm youth enrolled in non-agricultural curricula differed significantly from farm youth in agriculture as follows: (1) a smaller percentage thought agriculture was a growing industry; (2) a greater percentage felt that the career opportunities were de- clining; (3) a greater percentage felt agriculture offered less Oppor- tunity for advancement than other careers; (4) a greater percentage felt agriculture offered average social prestige; (5) a smaller percent- age felt it offered as much opportunity for advancement as other career areas. No significant differences were found between the responses of non-farm youth and farm youth enrolled in agriculture. This hypothesis was therefore neither wholly acceptedrmu'rejected. The part that was accepted is that farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula have a less favorable attitude toward agriculture as a career field than farm youth enrolled in agriculture. 90 The part that was rejected is that non-farm youth enrolled in agricul- ture have a less favorable attitude toward agriculture than farm youth enrolled in agriculture. Conclusions Relative to Hyppthesis Number 2 Hypothesis Number 7 was that non—farm youth who enroll in agri- cultural curricula and farm youth who enroll in other than agricul- tural curricula less frequently report goals and objectives directly related to agriculture than do farm youth who enroll in agricultural curricula. Data to test this hypothesis were taken from the responses to items which were classified as goals or objectives related to agriculture. It was decided to accept this hypothesis if the responses of farm youth in agriculture were significantly different from the other two groups of students on the items. Farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula differed significantly from farm youth in agriculture on their responses to 66 percent of the items. Non-farm youth enrolled in agriculture dif- fered significantly from farm youth in agriculture relative to their responses to 33 percent of the items. Since farm youth in other than agricultural curricula and non- farm youth in agriculture did less frequently report goals and objec- tives directly related to agriculture than did farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula, this hypothesis was accepted. It is well to note, however, that non-farm youth in agriculture more frequently reported goals directly related to agriculture than did farm youth enrolled in other than agricultural curricula. 91 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Several implications resulted from the study and are listed as follows: 1. Publications dealing with agricultural careers and agricultural curricula were perceived, by students enrolled in agricultural curricula, as having influenced their choice of college curricula to a great degree. Therefore, it would seem that if agricultural colleges and potential employers of college graduates in agriculture wish to in- fluence more youth to attend college and to enroll in agricultural curricula, they should make career and curricula publications readily available to high school students. This might be accomplished by sending the publications to school librarians, vocational agriculture instructors, school counselors, science instructors and directly to the students. 2. Students enrolled in agricultural curricula reported that persons outside the school exerted considerable influence on their choice of a college curricula. These included parents, adults they admired (other than parents or teachers), and employers. This im- plies that to effectively influence prospective college students rela- tive to their curricula choice, influence must not only be exerted on the prospective students, but beyond that, one must identify and in- form peOple who have influences on students. The latter might be accomplished in part by providing such people with information about career areas and college curricula. 3. Farm youth who were not enrolled in agricultural curricula in college reported significantly less years of enrollment in voca- tional agriculture, and less participation in the FFA and 4-H Club work than did farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula. This .50 ‘ 92 I t‘li might imply that youth develop many of their attitudes toward agri- culture prior to entering high school. As a result, they may have decided against an agricultural career before entering high school and thus did not enroll in a course which is associated with agricul- ture; or participate in activities so oriented. If this deduction is valid, as it appears to be, then it is important that information about agriculture, agricultural careers and agricultural curricula be readily available to youth while they are in the latter years of elementary school. Again, this information might be distributed to librarians, counselors, and teachers. 4. The vocational agriculture course, FFA experience, and the vocational agriculture instructor were rated high as sources of in- fluence by students enrolled in agricultural curricula. In view of this finding, it would seem that the vocational agriculture courses and FFA programs should be structured so as to provide youth with an accurate and thorough understanding of the career opportunities in agriculture, the importance of higher education to success in modern agricultural careers, and the scope and nature of agricultural cur- ricula in college. Means of preparation for entrance into, and pro- gress in agricultural occupations other than farming should receive equal or greater emphasis than farming in high school. 5. If there is an increasing need for college graduates who have majored in agricultural curricula, as the available evidence indicates, then agricultural colleges might well give Special emphasis to pro- grams and activities designed to promote a better understanding of modern agriculture, agricultural careers and agricultural curricula among prospective college students and the general public. To carry 93 out these activities they might well enlist the support of agricul- tural organizations, persons employed in agriculture and potential employers of college graduates in agriculture. 6. The findings of this study strongly suggest that additional studies need to be conducted to determine the attitudes of potential students toward agriculture, their understanding of modern agriculture and the career opportunities it offers. 7. Since over fifty percent of the students enrolled in agricul- tural curricula in the past few years have come from non-farm back- grounds, agricultural colleges and others interested in attracting more youth into the agricultural field might well emphasize programs and activities which are designed to provide potential students of this nature with more information about modern agriculture. 8. Since this study and others have shown a high correlation be- tween the levels of educational and occupational aspiration of youth and the levels of educational and occupational aspiration that their parents have for them, it would seem that in order to raise the aspiration levels of youth one must also raise the aspiration levels of the parents. 9. This study seems to refute some of the findings of Haller. He found that farm youth who intend to farm plan to attend college less frequently than those who do not plan to farm. Yet in this study, 48 percent of the farm youth enrolled in agricultural curricula indicated that farming was the career area in which they would most like to work. There is a possibility that planning to farm and naming farming as the career area in which one would like to work is not the same thing. It would seem that they are quite similar, however. 9h 10. The criteria used for identifying "farm youth” in this study could provide the basis for a standardized method of identifying ”farm youth" in future research studies. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 96 A. BOOKS Ginzberg, Eli. C A A oach to a General Theo New York: Columbia University, 1951. Super, Donald. The Psychology of Careers. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. B. BULLETINS AND PERIODICALS Berdie, Ralph F. "Why Don't They Go To College?" Personnel and Guidangg Jgprnal, March, 1953, PP- 352-356- Bentley, Ralph R. and Paul E. Hemp. "Factors Influencing Agricultural College Students to Choose Agriculture As A Career,” Agricul- tural Education Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 10, April 1958. Bentley, Ralph R. and Paul E. Hemp. "Factors Influencing Agricultural College Students to Choose Their Fields of Specialization,” A ricultural Education Ma azin , Vol. 30, No. 11, May 1958. Bjoraker, Walter T. "Factors Associated With Vo—Ag. Students' Desire to Remain on the Farm," A ricultural Education Ma azin , Vol. 26, No. 1, July 1953. Borden, Edward S. "A Theory of Vocational Interests as Dynamic Phe- nomena,“ Educational and Ps cholo ical Measurements, Vol. III, Spring 19h3, p. 60. Carter, Harold D. "The Development of Vocational Attitudes," Journal 92 Consulting Psychology, IV, September-October l9h0, p. 186. DeGraff, Herrell. "Who is the Farm Worker,” The County Agent, Vo-Ag. Tgaghey, Vol. 13, No. 9, September 1957, P. 16. Deyoe, G. P. Y un Men From Michi an Farms, Department of Education, Michigan State College, {Lansing: The State Board of Control for Education, 1939), pp. 9-12. Edlefson, John B. and Martin Jay Crowe. "Teen—agers' Occupational Aspirations," ashington Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 618, Pullman, Washington, 2#:1960. French, John W. "Background Factors Relating to College Plans and College Enrollment Among Public High School Students," Eduga- tional Testin Servic , Princeton, New Jersey, April 1957. Haller, Archibald 0. "Planning to Farm: A Social Psychological Inter- pretation," Social Forces, Vol. 37. No. 3, March 1959. 97 ‘Halfilerg Archibald O. "The Influence of Planning to Enter Farming on Plans to Attend College," Rural Sociology, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 1 9570 Haller, Archibald O. "The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm- Reared Youth in Urban-Industrial Society," Rural Sociology, Vol. 25, No. 3, September 1960. Hensel, James W. "High School Influences on the Occupational Choices of Farm Reared Boys," Agricultural Education Magazine, Vol. 32, NO. 11, May 1960. Kahl, Joseph A. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of Common Man's Boys," Harvard Educational Review XXXIII, Summer 1953, pp. 186-203. Livesay, T. E. "Test Intelligence and College Expectation of High School Seniors in Hawaii," Journal of Educational Research, XXXV, January, 1942, pp. 334-337. MacKaye, D. L. "The Fixation of Vocational Interest," American Journal of Sociology, XXXIII, 1927, pp. 353-370. National Project in Agricultural Communications. I've FOund My Future in Agriculture, American Association of Land-Grant Colleges and Universities, 1958. Pihlblad, C. T. and C. L. Gregory. "Selective Aspects of Migration Among Missouri High School Graduates," American Sociological Review, XIX, June 1954, pp. 314-324. Samson, Ruth and ijord Stefflre. "Like Father -- Like Son?" The Personnel and Guidance Journal, October 1952, pp. 37-38. Sewell, William H. and Archibald 0. Haller and Murray A. Strauss. "Social Status and Educational and Occupational Aspirations," American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 1, February 1957. PP- 72-73. Slocum, W. L. "Occupational and Educational Plans of High School Seniors From Farm and Non-Farm Homes," State College of Wash- ington Bulletin 564, Pullman, Washington, February 1956. Stephenson, Richard M. "Realism of Vocational Choice: A Critique and an Example," Personnel and Guidance Journal 35, April 1957, pp. #82-488. Strong, E. K. "Change of Interest With Age," Stanford, California, Stanford University Press, 1931. ‘Walden, Howard T. "Needed: A Broader Agricultural Education," Editorial, Corn, Vol. XVII, No. 3, Summer 1961. 98 White, R. Clyde. "Future Demand for Admissions to College: How Many and Who?” College and University, Vol. 29, No. 1, October 1953’ Ppo 5‘13. Wilson, Paul B. and Roy C. Buck. "The Educational Ladder," Rural Sociolo , Vol. 25, December 1960, pp. 404-413. Youmans, E. Grant. "The Educational Attainment and Future Plans of Kentucky Rural Youths," Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Sta- tion Bulletin 664, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, January 1959, pp. 44-45. c. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Burchinal, Lee G. and Archibald O. Haller and Marvin Taves. "Career Choices of Rural Youth in a Changing Society." Unpublished Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin, Number 15, University of Minnesota, 1962. Crawford, Ferris N. "A Study of Selected Factors Relating to College Enrollment of Public High School Graduates Within Six Months After Graduation.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1960. Grim, Edgar L. "A Study to Determine the Probability of Relationships Between the Educational and Vocational Goals of Tenth and Twelfth Grade Boys and Girls in Oakland and Macomb County Public High Schools and the Expressed Educational Goals of the Parents of These Children." Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1956. x/Haller, Archibald O. and Lee G. Burchinal and Marvin Taves. "Choosing an Occupation." Unpublished report for North Central Regional Research Committee, 1961. Leuthold, Frank 0., G. Howard Phillips, Lowell F. Rothert, and James D. Wells. "Factors Associated.With Changes in Majors by Agricul- tural Students at Ohio State University." Unpublished Graduate Study, Department of Rural Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1960. Porter, Richard J. "Vocational Plans and Preferences of High School Senior Boys in Relation to Mental Ability, Emotional Adjustment and Prestige Level of Father's Occupation." Unpublished Doc- toral Thesis, University of Pittsburg, Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, 1951. Powers, Billy Gene. "Former Students' Opinions Concerning the Rela- tion of Their College Training to Their Careers." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Okla- homa, 1958. 99 Rhea, Mark B. "Present Status and Opinions of Graduates Granted Bachelor of Science Degrees Since 1932 in Agricultural Curricula at Iowa State College.” Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Iowa.State College, Ames, Iowa, 1953. Salmels, Melvin R. "Relation Between Home Characteristics of Farm- Reared Boys and Their Occupational Choices." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1958. Strickland, Elmer Oscar. "The Factors Affecting Enrollment in Agri- culture and Agricultural Education at Auburn University from 1956—60." Unpublished Special Research Problem, Auburn Uni- versity, Auburn, Alabama, 1960. Vickerstaff, S. G. "The Attitude of High School Boys Toward Agricul- ture." Unpublished Master's Thesis, Iowa State College, Ames, Iowa, 1942. D. OTHERS Benedict, Harris M. and Robert S. McGlothin. "CollegeJTrained Man- power for Agribusiness." Proposal for Research, Stanford Research Institute, Agricultural Research Center, June 1960. Davis, John H. and Ray A. Goldberg. "A Concept of Agribusiness." Boston, The Alpine Press, Inc., 1957. APPENDIX 101 APPENDIX A KEY FOR INTERPRETING ORIENTATION TESTS The Tables contain certain statistical symbols which require some explanation: N Number of students on which results are based Range Range of scores from lowest to highest P.P. Percentile point 10 P.P. Score such that 10 percent of the students received lower scores Q1 Score such that 25 percent of the students received lower scores Median Score such that 50 percent of the students received lower scores Q3 Score such that 75 percent of the students received lower scores 90 P.P. Score such that 90 percent of the students received lower scores Decile A ten-point score system where a 10 refers to scores received by the most superior 10 percent of new fresh- men and a 1 to scores received by the 10 percent of the lowest scoring freshmen. 102 APPENDIX B TABLE USED TO STATISTICALLY INTERPRET DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SAMPLE GROUPS* How much a percent observed in one sample must differ from that observed in another for the difference to be statistically significant Lower Size of Each Sample Percent 20 35 40 45 50 60 70 90 10 15.8 13.3 12.2 10.5 20 21.7 20.1 18.8 16.1 14.8 13.0 30 30.9 23.1 21.5 20.2 17.4 16.0 14.1 40 30.8 23.4 21.9 20.6 17.9 16.6 14.6 50 29.6 22.8 21.4 20.2 17.6 16.3 14.5 60 27.3 21.3 20.1 19.0 16.7 15.5 13.8 70 23.8 18.9 17.8 17.0 15.0 13.9 12.4 80 15.4 14.6 13.9 12.4 11.6 10.4 90 9.3 8.4 7.9 7.2 Lower Size of Each Percent 100 120 140 160 180 200 250 300 400 1000 10 9.9 8.9 8.2 7.6 7.1 6.7 5.9 5.3 4.5 4.0 2.8 20 12.2 11.0 10.2 9.5 8.9 8.4 7.5 6.8 5.8 5.2 3.6 30 13.4 12.2 11.2 10.5 9.9 9.3 8.3 7.6 6.5 5.8 4.1 40 13.8 12.6 1107 1009 10.3 908 8.7 8.0 609 6.1 [+03 50 13.7 12.5 11.7 10.9 10.3 9.8 8.7 8.0 7.0 6.2 4.9 60 13.1 12.0 12.2 10.5 9.9 9.4 8.4 7.7 6.7 6.0 4.3 70 11.9 10.9 10.2 9.5 9.0 8.6 7.7 7.1 6.2 5.5 4.0 80 9.9 9.2 8.6 8.0 7.6 7.3 6.5 6.0 5.3 4.7 3.4 90 6.9 6.4 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.1 4.7 4.3 3.8 3.4 2-5 To use the table, find the lower percent and the size of the sample. The number, in the Table, at the point where a line drawn from the size of the sample intersects one drawn from the lower percent, is the difference necessary in order to be statistically significant at the five percent confidence level. *Daniel, Cuthbert, "Statistically Significant Differences in Observed Percents,” Jgurngl 2f Applied P ch 10 , Vol. 24, 1940, pp. 826-830. (Based on 95% certainty that difference is not due to the size of the sample) . . . e . . . . . . \ s . . . . . . . u o . - n . . . . n o . . a . . . .. . . u . - . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . n a o e u - u . . . . u a 9 a o u o e o u . . \. 1 ~ .. . . n e . . n . . o a o I . u . . . o o o n . o n . n . - u o o n . n . w . . e e . . . . o . . . . . - .. n u o n e . . o . . .. ., . . . . . . 1 o . . . . , a - o e u . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . o . . . e a a o O I V P f . v p .‘ I “ e , n u I , ' Instr I (1-6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) 5. 6. 7. 8. 10. APPEEEDEX C REVISED INSTHJNENI' - JULY 20, 1961 PERSONAL DATA Student Number ____.___._... _.._ __.______ Date mJor or Field of Specialization Father's Occupation Circle the mmber which indicates the amber of years you studied vocational agriculture in high school: 0 l 2 3 4 Circle the mmber which indicates the years of FFA experience you have had: 01234morethan4 Circle the number which indicates the years of 4-H experience you have had: 0 l 2 3 4 morethanh Circle the year in school in which you feel;,you decided to attend college: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Circle the year in school in which you feel you selected the college curricula you are enrolled in: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Have you lived on a farm for three or more of the last eight years (1953-1961)? 1. Team 2. No Have you worked on a farm for three or more of the last eight years years (1953-1961)? 1. Yes ...._............. 2. NO Are your parents or guardians presently living on a fem? lo Yes .... 2. NO. ____________ If your parents or guardians live on a farm, please indicate their farming status. (Check) Full-time farming M Part-time fanning Live on a. farm but do not farm 103 Instr II (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) 3. S. 104 -2- W How would you classify the career you are preparing for? 2. Its a career which is related to agriculture 3. Its a non-agricultural career 1. ; Its an agricultural career ) h. ) I don't know Please indicate the social standing Eu feel is associated with a career in agriculture: 1. ) High prestige 2. ) Average prestige 3. low prestige Please indicate the potential you feel an agricultural career offers for making money: 1. High potential for making money 2. Medium potential for making money 3. Low potential for making money Please indicate the extent to which you feel you understand the career opportunities available in the field of agriculture: 1. ( ) Have a good understanding of career Opportunities in agriculture. 2. ( ) Have some understanding of career opportunities in agriculture. 3. ( ) Have little or no understanding of career opportunities in agriculture. Which of the following most closely represents [gr feelings about the field of agriculture: 1. ( ) Agriculture is a growing industry 2. ( ) Agriculture is neither growing nor declining 3. ( ) Agriculture is a declining industry h. ( ) never thought about it enough to develop a real feeling (23 ) (2h ) (25) (27) 6. 10. 105 —3- As to the curricula you are enrolled in, which of the following most closely identifies yggfigeligngsfl: l. ( ) Strongly prefer that it be offered in the College of Agriculture 2. ( ) Prefer that it be offered in the College of Agriculture 3. ( ) Don't care which college offers it h. ( ) Prefer that it be offered in a college other than the College of Agriculture 5. ( ) Strongly prefer that it be offered in a college other than the College of Agriculture If you were given the Opportunity to enter an occupation in one of the following career areas at the same rate of pay and the same Opportunity for advancement, which career area would you choose? 1. ( )Education 3. ( )Engineering 5. ( ) Science 2. ( )Medicine ll. ( )Agriculture 6. ( )Farming Which of the following most closely represents your feelings about the career Opportunities in the field of agriculture? 1. ( ) The career opportunities in agriculture are growing 2. ( ) The career Opportunities in agriculture have remained about the same 3. ( ) The career Opportunities in agriculture are declining Which of the following most closely represents your feeling_ about one's chance for advancement in an agricultural career? 1. ( ) Agricultural careers Offer one more Opportunity for advancement than do most other career areas. 2. ( ) Agricultural careers offer one as much opportunity for advancement as do most other career areas. 3. ( ) Agricultural careers offer one less Opportunity for advancement than do most other career areas. In regard to the two adults you admire most, other than parents, teachers, which of the following most closely identifies the occupation they are in: l. ( ) They are famers or in sane other agricultural occupation 2. ( ) They are in non-agricultural occupations 3. ( ) (he is in an agricultural occupation while the other is not. I\ .1 . . . I. n . . . . .. . . . . . o . . J . . .. ,. . . cc .1 . . . .. . .. .. n o v I Keg» (30) (31) (32) (33) (3%) (35) (36) (37) (38) (39) (30) (A1) 11. l. 2. 3. h. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. ll. 13. 1 06 -14... In regard to two friends whom you have associated with the most during the past four years, which of the following do you feel most closely identifies their career aspirations. l. ( ) They hope to enter agricultural careers 2. ( ) They hope to enter non-agricultural careers 3. ( ) One hopes to enter an agricultural career while the other does not. A. ( ) 'Ihey‘re undecided about their career choice RATE THE FOLIWIM} FAL'I'ORS ACCORDING TO THE RELATIVE AMOJNT OF INFLUENIE YOU FEEL THEY HAVE HAD ON YCXJ'R CHOICE OF COLLEGE CURRICULA BY CIRCLING ONE IE‘I'IER IN COLUMN I. IF YCXJ FEEL YCIJ WERE INFHJEMED "A GMAT DEAL" BY AVFACTOR CIRCIE A; IF m1 WERE IWIUEMED "SOME" CIRCLE S; IF "VERY LITI‘IE" OR "NOT AT ALL" CIRCLE V: Column I Degree to which factor influenced @9213, your choice of curricula (1) (2) (3) Parents A S V Adults you admire other than parents and teachers A S V Friends A S V Vo-Ag teachers A S V h-H Agent or leader A S V Teachers other than Vo-ag A S V High school counselor A S V College faculty member A S V Employers A S V Others ___,_..___.__W___~,._ A S V mums High school courses other than Vo-Ag A S Vocational agriculture course ’A S V Rank in high school class A S V ’v’ . ull.|.lll‘ll‘ II , - . . . . .. . . . .: D . I . l I n . I _ a s . yv . . , ,.. , . n . l .. n _ , I . . (32) (be) (AA) (145) (A6) (A7) (118) (#9) (so) (51) (52) (53) (5") NOIE“ 1h. 15. 16. 17.. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 2h. 25¢ 13. 107 -5- Employment experiences A S V Speech about agriculture and/or agricultural careers A S V _Spg_e_c_h about a specific non- agricultural career and/or careers in general A S V Publications dealing with agricul- tural curricula A S V Publications dealing with a specific non-agricultural curricula and/ or college curricula in general A S V Publications dealing with agricultural careers A S V Publications dealing with non- agricultural careers Visit to M.S.U. Campus Experiences in the FFA CDUJUJCD Experiences in the h-H High school activities a>n>:>:r>:>a> <<:<:<:<<: (DU) Others Below are some factors which may influence one to choose a particular college curricula. Check (J) five or less which you feel influenced your choice of curricula: A. ( ) An interest in agriculture 8. ( ) A desire to become a farmer C. ( ) An interest in - agriculture but have a limited opportunity to enter farming D. ( ) An interest in an agricultural career other than farming E. ( ) A liking for plants and/or animals F. ( z) A feeling that areas other than agriculture offer greater Opportunity G. ( ) An interest in a particular career area H. ( ) A.desire to achieve high social status Please turn page before completing this question. PART III (59) 1. O I. J. L. M. N. P. .6- ( ) A desire to make a lot of money ( ) A feeling that you aren't smart enough to succeed in some other curricula. ( ) A college or university scholarship ( ) An interest in working out of doors ( ) A desire to travel ( ) A desire to live in a city ( ) A feeling that your chosen career area offers you good working hours ( ) A desire to become famous ( ) A desire to do good for Others ( ) The feeling that there is great Opportunity for advance- ment in your chosen career area ( ) A feeling that it will prepare you for a variety of work ( ) A desire to have an "in-door" Jdb ( ) A desire to be in a position of authority ( ) A feeling that you can use your education to its best advantage ( ) High scholastic standing in your high school class ( ) Others ABM YQIR PARENTS AS TO CONI‘INIING YQIR EIIJCATION BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH OF THE FOIIMNG DO YCIJ FEEL MOST CIOSELY IDENTIFIES YCXJR LDTHER: l. 2. 3. h. ( ) Strongly encouraged you to continue your education ( ) Gave you some encouragement to continue your education ( ) Never said much about your education ( ) Felt you would have been better off going to work after high school . . _ .. . . . . an .1 . . .l. u i . o . a u . . e . . e . . u .. .J \.. ~ I \n. . .II no]. .. 2 . .i . .. . i. . \n.. .1 \ I . . In . . . ... .. .. .. . . I . . . I. n . . . u . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . y . . . . . \r . . r . .. . . . . . . . .. . . x . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . a. . .I . .. .1 . . L .. . . . .. o. . Q66) 2. (61) 3. (62) h. pm IV (63) . l. 109 -7- AS TO CONTINUING YWR ENCATION BEYOND HIE SCHOOL, WHICH OF THE FOIWING DO Yw FEEL CLOSELY IDENTIFIES YGJ'R FATHER: l. 2. 3. 1+. ( ) Strongly encouraged you to continue your education ( ) Gave you some encouragement to continue your education ( ) Never said much about your education ( ) Felt you would have been better off going to work after high school AS TO m KIND OF WCUPATION m! GO INI‘O, WHICH OF THE FOLLCMING DO YOU FEEL MOST CLOSELY IENTIFIES YCUR MOTHER: l. 2. 3. it. 5. ( ) Wants you to have a very important occupation ( ) Wants you to have an occupation that is quite a bit better than most occupations in your home community ( ) Wants you to have an occupation that is a little better than most occupations in your home cmmiunity ( ) Feels that the occupation you take should be as good as most occupations in your home commnity ( ) Does not care how good the occupation you go into is as long as you like it. AS TO THE KIND OF mCUPATION YCU G0 INTO, WHICH OF THE FOLILMING DO Yw FEEL MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFIES YWR FATHER: l. 2. 3. ( ) Wants you to have a very important occupation ( ) Wants you to have an occupation that is quite a bit better than most occupations in your home community ( ) Wants you to have an occupation that is a little better than most occupations in your home community ( ) Feels that the occupation you take should be as good as most occupations in your home community ( ) Does not care how good the occupation you go into is as long as you like it ABQJ'I'YQIANDSCHOOL Did you ever meet with a high school guidance counselor relative to your future plans? (1) (2) E3 M... NO...................... {as 3 (65) PART V (675) (67) (68) (69) (7o) 2. 110 -8- What subject did you enjoy the most in high school? 3. 1. 2. 3. u. 5. (Name of Subject) Check the kinds of extracurricula activities you participated in while in high school? (Check all that participated in) l. ( ) Athletics h. ( ) Band-orchestra 6. ( ) Chorus-vocal 2. ( )Dramatics 5. ( )li-H or FFA 7. ( ) School paper or annual 30 ( ) Others YOU AND OTHER EXPERIENCES Did you ever hear a college faculty member give a talk about careers and/or college? (1) (2) YES NO Did you ever hear a college faculty member give a talk about agricultural careers and/or the agricultural college? (1) (2) NO. YES... If you have heard a talk about agricultural careers and/or agricultural college, where did it take place? (Check) 1. ( ) At high school 1+. ( ) At career day 2. ( ) At FFA banquet 5. ( ) During visit to college 3. ( ) Other Do you feel that publications dealing with your chosen career area were readily available for you to read while you were in high school? (1) (2) (3) ES .................. NO .................. I DON'T KNOW...” Do you feel that publications dealing with agricultural career areas were readily available for you to read while you were in high school? (1) (2) (3) YES M NO. I DON'T mam... 'h' z. «— __,.. "*Cu - _‘ (72) (76) (77) (78) PART VI (79) 6. 7. Careers in general Do you feel that publications dealing with college curricula were readily available for you to read while you were in high school? (1) (2) (3) ras.,,,._.__ NO n_,._n. I DON‘T KNOW I. Do you feel that publications dealing with agricultural curricula were readily available for you to read while you were in high school? (1) (2) (3) M NO ....._............._.. I DON‘T KNOJ YES- To what extent did you read publications dealing with the follow- ing areas while you were in high school? (Check) (1) (2) (3) Read Read Read little or HIBIICAQQNS IEALQVG WITH: Extensively some not at all Agricultural Careers .W College Curricula in? .ssaezal Agricultural College Curricula 9. 10. 1. Did you visit the M.S.U. Campus while in high school? (1) (2) YES..._l_.. NO. What was the occasion for your visit? 1. ( ) lh-H or FFA activity 3. ( ) Farmers Week 2. ( ) Agricultural College Open House 1+. ( ) Other ........................ ABQJ'I' YCIJR EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE Check the description or descriptions below which most closely describe the kind of part-time and smmer employment experiences you had while in high school: 1. ( ) Worked on a farm 2. ( ) Worked in an agricultural occupation other than farming Describe: 3 . ( ) Worked in a non-agricultural occupation Describe :. 112 APPENDIX D LETTER TO STUDENTS INVOLVED IN TESTING RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY The College of Agriculture Office of the Director of Resident Instruction EAST LANSING September 15, 1961 Dear : During the counseling clinic this summer, you were kind enough to fill out a research instrument for me relative to why or how students choose a college curriculum. This is to remind you to stop in at my office (121 Ag. Hall) some time during the first week of school to complete the second instrument. It will require about twenty minutes of your time and we cannot complete the research without it. With kindest regards, Sincerely, Vern Freeh Coordinator of Student Programs 113 APPENDIX E LETTER TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN THE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY The College of Agriculture Office of the Director of Resident Instruction EAST LANSING November 22, 1961 Dear : I have scheduled a series of meetings for all first term freshmen students in the College of Agriculture. During these meetings we are asking all freshmen students to provide us with information about themselves. This will be used in a research project we are conducting. Please report to Room 110 Anthony Hall at 4:00 p.m. on one of the following dates: (1) Wednesday, November 29th (2) Thursday, November 30th (3) Friday, December lst (h) Monday, December Nth If you cannot attend one of these meetings, please stop in at our office (121 Ag. Hall) and make other arrangements with Mr. Vern Freeh, Coordinator of Student Programs. Sincerely, Richard M. Swenson Director RMS:rh 114 APPENDIX F LETTER TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY The College of Agriculture Department of Agricultural Engineering EAST LANSING November 22, 1961 Dear : The College of Agriculture is currently conducting a research study which pertains to the "characteristics of university students with a farm background." we would like you to participate in this study by attending a meeting in Room 110 of Anthony Hall at #:00 p.m. on one of the following dates: (1) Wednesday, November 29th (2) Thursday, November 30th (3) Friday, December lst (4) Monday, December 4th At the meeting you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire about yourself. It probably won't take more than thirty minutes. If you cannot attend one of the meetings, please see Mr. Vern Freeh, Coordinator of Student Programs in the College of Agriculture, (Room 121 - Ag. Hall) and make other arrangements. Sincerely, Arthur W. Farrall, Head Agricultural Engineering Department 115 APPENDIX G LETTER TO STUDENTS ENROLLED IN VETERINARY MEDICINE OR NON-AGRICULTURAL CURRICULA MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY The College of Agriculture Office of the Provost EAST LANSING November 22, 1961 Dear : The College of Agriculture is currently conducting a research study which pertains to the "characteristics of university students with a farm background.” We would like you to participate in this study by attending a meeting in Room 110 of Anthony Hall at 4:00 p.m. on one of the following dates: (1) Wednesday, November 29th (2) Thursday, November 30th (3) Friday, December lst (4) Monday, December Nth At the meeting you will be asked to fill out a questionnaire about yourself. It probably won‘t take more than thirty minutes. If you cannot attend one of the meetings, please see Mr. Vern Freeh, Coordinator of Student Programs in the College of Agriculture, (Room 121 - Ag. Hall and make other arrangements. Sincerely, David N. Hess Administrative Assistant Office of the Provost DNH:dk 116 APPENDIX H Chi Square Formula Used For Determining Differences Between Sample Groups x2 = E gr-gc22 fc fcii = CiRi f11 ’ CiRj T T d.f. = (R-1)(C-1) 2.2: 1+ X22,.05 = 5-991 X22,.01 = 9-210 f: observed number fc=computed number 117 APPENDIX I Table of Chi Squares -- Group Responses Relative to People Who Influenced Their College Curricula Choice Level of People XZValue Degrees of Signifi- Freedom cance Parents 9.724 2 1% Adults (Other than parents or teachers) 2.198 2 none Friends 1.838 2 none Vo-Ag. Teachers 62.711 2 1% “-H Agent or Leader 50.561 2 1% Teachers other than vo-ag. 12.012 2 1% High School Counselor 2 none College Faculty Member 6.5h3 2 5% Employers 13.729 2 1% Others 3.098 2 none 118 APPENDIX J Table of Chi Squares —- Group Responses Relative to Things Which Influenced Their College Curricula Choice Level of Things X2 Value; Degrees of Signifi- Freedom canoe High School Courses (Other than vng.) 34,711+ 2 1% Vocational Agriculture Course 71.558 2 1% Rank in High School Class 23.233 2 1% Employment Experiences 14.236 2 1% Speech about Agriculture and/or Agricultural Careers 60.578 2 1% Speech about Specific Non-Agricultural Career and/or Careers in General 8.h35 2 5% Publications Dealing with Agricultural Curricula 63.888 2 1% Publications Dealing with Specific Non-Agricultural Curricula and/or College Curricula in General 12.568 2 1% Publications Dealing with Non- Agricultural Careers 32.7h6 2 1% Visit to M.S.U. Campus 154135 2 1% Experiences in the FFA 80.h63 2 1% Experiences in the h—H 64.817 2 1% High School Activities 11. 376 2 1% Others 15. 7119 2 1% J» ' Sci-‘3 3 LA; 1- "IVINTTAIANATI