A STUDY” OF THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERION.
HIE BASIC FEATURES, AND STUDENT
APPRAISALS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE
UNIVERSITY HQNQRS COLLEGE

Thais 9a the Dem afi PE. D.
AMCI-ITIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Hahn I. Brown
1960

0-169

III‘W‘II \‘I‘TITIIVK‘.‘L\\

\W

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A Study of the Selection Criterion,
the Basic Features, and Student
Appraisals of the Michigan State
University Honors College

presented by

Helen I . Brown

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

31112.— degree mwducation

/ //( /(

/
Ma ajor professor L [v

41

Date Se emb 1 6

     
  

L I B R 1
Michigan
Univen

 
 

LkM/

 

 

 

 

“$1150 w]?

 

 

iv-

.52

~—-. 9-.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERION, THE BASIC FEATURES,

AND STUDENT APPRAISALS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE

by
,F

Helen If Brown

AN ABSTRACT

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 OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1960

l, ,\ , e > 3:] A" / . ‘
Approved I .l/ .' '1' "V, I! ,4 (vi: 1/"//~’" \" l). '

 

 

 

NA!

5)) 1.2.
II.

( .
n:

 

 

HELEN I. BROWN ABSTRACT

This study purported to investigate factors affecting
student attainment of the Michigan State University Honors
College eligibility qualification and to evaluate student use
of the special provisions designated for Honors scholars.
Three groups of undergraduate women participated: Group A
consisted of 192 Honors scholars; Groups B and C were com—
prised of 192 women each, randomly selected from female stu-
dent populations with grade point averages of 3.15 to 3.A9
and 2.50 and lower, respectively. The .01 level of signifi—
cance was established for statistical computations.

Chi—square analysis of high school class ranks and Reading
scores of these students revealed no differences in predicted
scholastic ability between Groups A and B; Group C was sig-
nificantly lower in academic potential as measured by these
predictors. Chi—square and/or percentage comparisons were
then made of questionnaire responses of the participants to
ascertain what non—intellectual factors might explain differ-
ences among groups in academic achievement. Variables used
were family size and structure; education, marital status,
and occupations of parents; student perception of the influ—
ence of favorable and/or unfavorable faculty discrimination,
gainful employment, and co-curricular activities upon
academic grades; and the number of changes made in and present
satisfaction with curricular majors. Group A had devoted

significantly more time to scholastic co-curricular activities

 

.. ‘v J. n. .L
. e . 2‘ ~I.

 

 

HELEN I. BROWN ABSTRACT

and had perceived significantly more favorable :aculty dis-
crimination; they reported more changes in major and greater
satisfaction with present choices and general academic
progress than B and C. Group A also had the lcrgest percen-
tage of gainfully employed members; B and C students worked
somewhat longer hours and in general performed more physically
demanding tasks. Very few students designated employment as

a limitation in grade attainment.

All groups believed that they were not achievingibll
academic potential. They listed co-curricular participation,
lack of self—discipline, motivation, and time, poor course
background, and fear of examinations as deterrents. All
groups expressed a desire for better instruction, more
counseling, and a need to show more interest in and direct
more effort to academic pursuits.

Students in all groups favored Honors College member-
ship because of the challenge, library privileges, superior
instruction and counseling, and resultant faculty and student
prestige. Honors scholars showed preference for eligibility
criteria based chiefly upon grade point averages and faculty
recommendations. Non—members favored eligibility criteria
based upon combinations of college grades, high SChOOl records,

co—curricular pursuits, special examinations, and/or completion

of a special paper or project.

C;
n. .

9,.

ma.
to

as

.re

 

 

 

 

 

HELEN I. BROWN ABSTRACT

Honors students primarily favored early registration,
library privileges, "comping” courses, and waiving prerequisites.
They reported they felt out of place in graduate courses and
faculty seminars, and that they lacked sufficient initiative
for independent study.

Results of the study show a difference in potential
between Group C and A and B, but not between A and B. Further
study is recommended relative to factors differentiating
between high ability achievers and non—achievers, identification
and implementation of affective and cognitive motivating factors,
and incidence and causes of attitude changes during college and
the effects of such changes upon motivation, decision-making,

and over—all college adjustment and achievement.

 

 

 

 

 

A STUDY OF THE MEMBERSHIP CRITERION, THE BASIC FEATURES,

AND STUDENT APPRAISALS OF THE MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY HONORS COLLEGE

by

Helen IiuBrown

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 OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Teacher Education

1960

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express her gratitude and appre—
ciation to Dr. Buford Stefflre, Professor of Administrative
and Educational Services, for his encouragement and guidance
as chairman of the Doctoral Committee.

In addition, the author is very grateful for valuable
criticisms and suggestions received from Dr. Pearl Aldrich,
Professor of Research in Institution Administration, Dr.
William Durr, Associate Professor of Teacher Education, and
Dr. Carl Gross, Professor of Foundations of Education. A
note of thanks is also due Dr. Stanley Idzerda, Director of
the Michigan State University Honors College, and Dr.
Elizabeth Drews, Associate Professor of Foundations of Edu—

cation, for support of the questionnaires.

ii

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES.
Chapter

I. THE PROBLEM.

Introduction . . .
Statement of the Problem . . .
Background and Need for This Study.
Scope and Limitations of This Study
The Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Importance of This Study

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Identification of Honors Students
Non-Intellectual Factors
Family Background
Family Structure. . .
New Research on Identification
Characteristics of the Gifted
Problems and Needs of the Gifted .
Underachievement as Seen by Educators.
Underachievement as Viewed by Students
Educational Needs of the Gifted. . . .

III. METHOD OF INVESTIGATION.

Sources of the Data.
High School Rank.
Orientation Scores
Survey Samples . .
The Instruments of Measurement . .
The Procedure for the Analysis of the
Data. . . . . . . . . . . .
High School Rank. . . . . .
Reading Test Scores.
Questionnaire Data

iii

Page

ii

vii

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Page

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA. . . . . . . . . 53
Collection of the Data. . . . . . 53
Plan for the Analysis of the Data . . . 54

Section l——An Examination of Some of
the Factors Which Appear to Distin-
quish High Achievers from Low

Achievers Among College Women. . . 55
Intellectual Factors . . . . . 56
Non- Intellectual Factors . . . 60

Section 2—-Participation of Honors
Scholars in the Basic Features of
the Honors College . . 95
Section 3——Attitudes of Respondents -
Toward the Honors College and

Suggestions for Eligibility Criteria 97

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS OF
THE STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Summary of Data Relative to Hypothesis l. 109
Summary of Data Relative to Hypothesis 2. 115
Summary of Data Relative to Hypothesis 3. 116
Conclusions and Implications of the Study 120
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

iv

Table

U1

\OCIJNON

IO.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.
16.

17.
18.

19.

LIST OF TABLES

Response of Students to the Questionnaire. .

Distribution of Student Samples Among Quartiles
Within High School Graduating Classes

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C on the Basis of
High School Rank and Reading Test Scores

Orientation Reading Test Scores

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C——Familia1
Factors . . . . . .

Size of Families . . . . .

Position of Respondents Within Families
Marital Status of Parents

Education of Parents.

Occupations of Parents

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C——Choice of
Major. . . . . . . . . . . .

Major Factors Influencing Curricular Choices.
Changes in Majors. . . . . . .

Reasons Given for Most Recent Changes in Majors.
Satisfaction with Present Choice of Major.

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C-—Perceptions
of Discriminatory Practices . . .

Extent and Type of Faculty Discrimination.
Reasons for Faculty Discrimination . . . .

"Other" Reasons for Faculty Discrimination

V

Page
54

57

58
59

61
62
63
64
65
67

69
69
71
72
73

7a
75
76
77

 

 

 

 

 

h)
r\\

1
.14.

g A)
r-

(.A)

 

 

Table
20.

21.

22.

23.

2A.
25.

26.

27.
28.

29.
30.

31.

32.

33.
34.

35.

36.

Effect of Faculty Discrimination upon Grades

Evidence of Discrimination Shown by Other
Students '

Reasons for Student Discrimination.

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C--Apportionment
of Time. . . .

Hours Devoted Weekly to Co-curricular Activities

Effect of Co-curricular Participation upon
Grades

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C-—Student
Employment. . .

Hours Devoted Weekly to Regular Employment
Types of Work Performed by Students
Academic Progress

Percentage Participation in Basic Features of
the Honors College

Three Highest Ranking Reasons for Non-
Participation in Each Basic Feature

Comparison of Groups A, B, and C--Attitudes
Toward Honors College Membership

Attitudes Toward Honors College Membership
Student Choices: Eligibility Criteria

Suggestions of Honors Students for Experiences
Which Would Be Helpful to Their Programs.

Equivalent Table for Percentile Ranks and
Decile Scores. . .

vi

Page
78

79
80

81
83

83

85
86
88.-

92

96

98

99
102

102

10AL

n+7

Figure

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES

Per Cent Distribution-—Students Devoting
More Than Five Hours Weekly to Outside
Activities. . . . . . . . .

Per Cent Distribution-—Hours Per Week of
Regular Employment

Student Appraisal of Scholastic Progress.

vii

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

Modern education is faced with the task of drawing upon
the cultures of the past, inculcating the powerful scientific
and technological forces of the present, and building concrete
foundations for the future of our society. In so doing, it
must recognize and perfect the powers of individual students,
each of whom has a unique contribution to make to society.
These students must attain a workable perspective of the past
and present, learn to think clearly in resolving present con—
flicts, and apply their experience and knowledge to an unpre-
dictable future. By such means it is hoped that they may also
come to the personal realization of their greatest individual
potential. Thus it can be said that a successful democratic
society is composed of an enlightened citizenry, whose members:
subscribe to the harmonious blending of its fully developed
resources, a11 directed toward the best interests of the whole.

The inception of the Honors College at Michigan State
University in 1956 was motivated by a desire to provide more
differentiated educational experiences and a more advantageous
environment for scholars who have superior innate intellectual

ability, and/or stronger motivation than average students.

1

 

These young people are highly individualistic; they display

tendencies toward more rapid growth and higher achievement
than their classmates. Honors College was devised to satisfy
the needs of these superior students and the educational

goals of the faculty. The program is characterized by
simplicity, increased challenge, and intensified individual
guidance. Participating students are allowed subject matter
acceleration, freedom of choice within curricula, and various
broadening and deepening personal experiences tailored to
their interests, needs, and capabilities. These experiences
are included, along with entrance and graduation requirements
for Honors scholars, in a full statement of the "basic
features" of the Honors College legislation, which is in the
Appendix, page 148. The privileges incorporated into the
basic features of the Michigan State University Honors College
are (1) waiving of all graduation requirements other than the
total number of hours; (2) attainment'of credit in some courses
by examination; (3) independent study under a faculty member
who is willing to undertake its supervision; (A) permission to
take graduate courses; (5) waiving of prerequisites for advanced
courses; (6) participation in graduate seminars and Honors
College colloquia; (7) registration on the first day of the
registration period; (8) use of the library stacks, storage
lockers, study desks, and the Honors College lounge; (9)
receipt of the weekly "Honors College Bulletin"; and (10)
special recognition at commencement and on other appropriate

occasions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no strong evidence that tests measure poten-

tial creativity or identify distinctive talent. On the con—
trary, much research has been done, and many conflicting
conclusions reached, in an effort to make a clear-cut defi—
nition of the superior student. The sole factor which
currently serves to qualify students for membership in the
Honors College at Michigan State University is the average
of the grade points assigned to the students by their in-
structors during the freshman or sophomore years of college.
This investigator raises three questions:

1. Can this single criterion be validated by the
degree to which it aligns with acceptable
predictions of college academic success? If
not, what factors help to determine whether or
not all students of equal potential will be
high achievers?

2. To what degree, and for what reasons, do
Honors College students demonstrate non—
participation in the basic features of the
program?

3. What are the attitudes of Honors scholars and
unselected students toward the Honors College,
and what eligibility criteria would they choose?

The author felt that any single criterion for member-

ship in an honorary group discriminated against students whose
ability was equal to that of students who qualified for member—
ship, but who were victims of extenuating circumstances which
prohibited them from attaining the necessary grade point
average. The investigator further contended that Honors

scholars were not taking full advantage of all of the educa—

tional opportunities offered them as Honors College members.

 

 

 

 

It was hoped this study might contribute toward information

needed for a re—evaluation of the selection criterion and the

basic features of the Honors College.

Statement of the Problem,

 

This thesis is concerned with an evaluation of two com-
ponents of the Honors College program at Michigan State
University: the selection criterion and the special privileges
and experiences offered to its members.

Students who have attained a 3.501 grade point average
in the first three quarters of college matriculation are
eligible for the Michigan State University Honors College.
Students who fail to attain the necessary grades in the fresh—
man year, but do so in the sophomore year, are granted the
privilege of becoming members of the organization. Special
arrangements are possible for transfer students. Members may
continue to participate unless their grade point average falls
below 3.20. Research (3, 7, 9, 20, 21, 30, 38, 44, 45, 60,
62, 66) supports the thesis that family structure, parents‘
education and occupation, motivation, self—concept, perception
of others, and degree of stability of goals, purposes, and
values are among the elements which interact with scholarship
in determining students' total academic ability. Hence, if

somewhat lower academic achievers are found to be comparable

 

1Michigan State University grade points are assigned
on a maximum basis of 4.00.

 

 

 

to high achievers in potential, but are faced with the
necessity to overcome financial, physical, family, or social
obstacles, or are more actively engaged in constructive extra-
class activities, their total ability may match or exceed that
of students who, relatively free from these obstacles and
activities, receive higher academic grades. Perhaps consid-
eration should be given to the eligibility criterion of the
Honors College in order that some of these students might be
considered as potential candidates.

Comparisons of Honors College members with students
whose grade point averages are less than 3.50, made on the
basis of these variables, might be expected to make major
contributions to an assessment of the differences between high
and low achievers. Accordingly, 576 currently enrolled women
students, representative of three levels of academic achieve—
ment, were asked to participate in the study. Students with
grade point averages of 3.50 and over were classified as
Group A. Students designated as Group B were randomly se-
lected (58) from women whose grade point averages ranged from
3.15 to 3.49. Group C consisted of women randomly selected
from students with grade point averages of 2.50 and under.

Information necessary for a comparison of high SChOOl
ranks of the three groups was readily obtained from the Records
Office of the University. The Office of Evaluation Services

permitted access to the college orientation scores of the

 

 

 

 

participants. Since students are themselves considered to be

a valuable source of opinions and attitudes which are essen—
tial to an assessment of the popularity of the program and
the merits of its basic features from the standpoint of the
learner (54), these observations were sought by the use of a
direct—mail questionnaire. Similarities and/or differences
among the three groups of students, revealed by analysis of
their records and the responses obtained from the question—
naires, provided the basis for evaluation of the selection
criterion for and the basic features of the Honors College

program.

Background and Need for This Study

 

Research has repeatedly indicated (38, 62, 66, 69)
that exceptionally able students display even less homogeneity
than the average student body. The faculty at Michigan State
University approved the establishment of the Honors College
on the premise that the highly individualistic needs of very
able students could not be met by any existing course of study.
The basic objective of the program, as stated by Idzerda (32,
33) for the planning committee, was "to provide a situation
which makes certain that students of high ability are con-
stantly challenged by the most advanced work for which each
is ready." Provision for greater flexibility in program plan-
ning and acceleration in subject matter, but not in time, were

thought to be beneficial. The Honors College student was

 

 

 

 

expected to master more subject matter within and without
his field of specialization than other students. The insti—
gators anticipated that participation in the program would
help these students to excel in the development of intel-
lectual curiosity, analytical skill, and comprehensive judg-
ment, and to attain a keen cognizance of the privileges and
responsibilities of talent in our society.

The planning committee anticipated that the waiver
of all degree requirements except the total number of course
hours necessary for graduation would afford greater flexi-
bility within the programs of the Honors students. This
flexibility in course selection was expected not only to
heighten the challenge with which each student was confronted
in college course work, but in addition, to increase and
intensify the need for individual guidance. Special advisers,
selected within each college, were therefore asked to work
with students in constructing and carrying out appropriate
individual programs.

Certain privileges were to be granted to all Honors
College students without further special arrangements or re-
quests. These included (1) registration on the first day of
the enrollment period; (2) library stack, locker, and Honors
College lounge privileges; (3) receipt of the "Honors College
Bulletin"; and (4) special recognition at the commencement
exercises and at other appropriate occasions. Other privi—

leges would be granted upon the display of individual

 

 

 

 

initiative by the participating student. These included
arrangement for independent study with special advisers, en—
rollment in graduate courses, attainment of credits by exam—
ination, attendance at faculty seminars, participation in
the Honors College colloquia, and requests to waive advanced
course prerequisites.

The planning committee provided that each of the
various colleges would work out suitable techniques and
devices for implementing the program, and would select its
own faculty board to deal with any problems which might arise
within its sphere of influence. This committee recognized
that the results of evaluative measures might necessitate
policy changes after the program had been in operation for a
time. A university-wide faculty committee was charged with
the obligation to give continuing attention to the program.

A full time Honors College Director1 was appointed to carry
the over-all administrative responsibilities of the program
and to provide individual counsel and assistance for both
students and faculty involved in the program.

A somewhat experimental endeavor to improve any phase
of an educational program is inevitably subject to evaluation.
This evaluation, directed toward the measurement of progress
toward full realization of the purposes and 80313 Of a program,

includes the accumulation and organization of relevant evidence

1Stanley J. Idzerda, Assistant to the Provost, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.

 

 

 

and the weighing and relating of this evidence to the cardinal
objectives set forth for the program. This is a complicated,
exhaustive process, concerned with all phases of the experi-
mental endeavor. To be realistic, it must be viewed from both
the administrative and the student standpoints, and snould
include reactions of any individuals who are directly or in-

directly concerned with the program.

Scope and Limitations of This Study

The efforts of this investigation will be directed
toward the evaluation of two major components of the Honors
College program. First, factors which might profitably be
considered concurrently with grade point averages for the
determination of student eligibility in the Honors College
will be examined. Second, attention will be given to the
deBree of student acceptance <3f and participation in the
Special academic privileges of the program. Although a
previous study, reported by Lorimer (38), indicated that
Michigan State University participants exhibited favorable
over-all reactions to the Honors College, the degree to which
students fail to benefit from many of the specialized oppor—
tunities may be indicative of the impracticality of certain
offerings, and/or students' misunderstanding of or unprepar-

edness for such individualized experiences. Student views

concerning non-acceptance or non-participation in these types

of educational opportunities may suggest the need for a

 

10

critical and realistic evaluation of the stated basic features
of the Honors College program.

The limitations to be found within the study appear to
fall into four main categories. The first of these is con-
cerned with the broad scope of the Honors College program,
which could be examined from any number of standpoints. Once
the objectives of a program have been clearly defined, however,
it seems logical to proceed to a study of the admissions
policies and the unique experiences to which program partici-
pants are entitled. These are the only two components of the
Honors College to be considered in this thesis.

Another limitation of the study has to do with the size
and nature of the sample. The focus is placed upon three
groups of women students; no attempt is made to classify them
according to college class or curriculum, or to include infor—
mation about or opinions of administrative personnel, faculty,
or Honors College men.

The third limitation of the study is imposed by the
type of instrument employed for gathering the data. A ques-
tionnaire, although it seems to be the most efficient instru—
ment to use in seeking opinions, attitudes, and suggestions
from a large sampling of students, presents certain problems.
The central difficulty in the use of direct-mail techniques
is that the percentage ofreturns may be small, even under
favorable conditions. There are various reasons for this
difficulty, two of which seem particularly applicable to this

study. First of all, a questionnaire is time-consuming to the

 

 

 

 

 

 

11

reciPAEUt. In addition, students may be negligent in responding
to a study which seems to hold no personal meaning for them.

It is, therefore, important that the instrument be as brief as
possible, that it have a clear format, and that it be adminis-
tered at a time as convenient as possible for the respondents.
Although a 50 per cent return may be considered a satisfactory
level for factual data (24), affective data necessitate a

higher rate of return because the biases held by non-respondents,
if they could be obtained, might exert considerable influence
upon the results of the study. To obtain the highest possible
rate of return, a plan for providing second and third contacts
with the respondents is often necessary.

Only a few of the many hereditary and environmental factors
which play a part in student achievement are considered in this
study. Since the literature reveals little research at the col—
lege level which is directed toward the designation of gifted
students, the basic considerations chosen for examination in
this study are those which have most frequently been found by
investigators (19,37,46,47,49,57,59) to be significant in the
identification of superior students at the primary and secon-
dary school levels. These include family background, previous
educational records, parental education and occupations, moti—
vation, self-concept, and clarity of goals, purposes, and
values. The inquirer hypothesizes there are other contributing
factors: financial limitations, apportionment of time and
effort among co-curricular activities, and/or obligations im—

posed by forces outside of college. The questionnaire has

 

 

 

 

 

12

attempted to embrace these sources of variability in addition
to those established by previous investigations. Evidence
was sought, by means of comparative group response, which
might or might not support the concept that some or all of
these factors are essential to a thorough assessment of total
student ability. Information was also solicited relative to
the students' selection of adequate eligibility criteria for

the Honors College.

W
Four basic assumptions underlie the hypotheses of
this study:

1. that there are students, comparable to Honors
College students with respect to academic ability,
who have cumulative grade point averages below
3.50. This may be attributable in part to various
factors which do not necessarily detract from, but
may, in effect, actually contribute to their total
ability.

2. that although the basic features of the Honors
College program are designed to facilitate the
self—fulfillment of the student, there is consid—
erable evidence of non—participation in many of
these basic features among Honors College women.
This situation may be due to unwillingness and/or
unpreparedness on the part of the students, or to
impracticalities inherent in the basic features
themselves.

3. that both participating and non-participating
students are fruitful sources of information,
opinions, and attitudes which might be helpful
in re-evaluating the selection criterion of the
Honors College and the academic advantages it
offers to its members.

4. that a direct-mail Questionnaire, supported by
information from the Records Office of the
University and the Office of Evaluation Services,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

constitutes a practical and expeditious method
of collecting pertinent information about a
large group.

The hypotheses are as follows:

1. There are no significant differences among
Groups A, B, and C with respect to high school
class rank and Orientation Reading Test scores.

2. Honors College women participate more freely
in privileges such as early registration and
the use of unique library privileges than they
do in opportunities such as enrollment in grad—
uate courses, waiver of advanced course pre—
requisites, Honors College colloquia. and inde-
pendent study under the direction of qualified
faculty members, all of which are initiated by
individual student application,

3. The majority of Honors College women say that
they would elect to join the group if they were
again faced with the opportunity. The majority
of students who are ineligible say that they
would elect membership if they could meet the
qualifications.

Importance of This Study

 

The administrative and instructional personnel of
every educational institution are responsible for the edu-
cational well-being of their students. Inherent in this
assignment is the responsibility for continuous, realistic
evaluation of all aspects of its programs in terms of the
suitability for and compatibility with the current needs of
society. If positive development of individualized programs
'of study, such as those which are available through the
Honors College at Michigan State University, is to be ensured,

even more careful scrutiny of the degree of compatibility

 

 

 

 

 

14

between prescribed objectives and current educational out—
comes mUSt be undertaken. This critical observation cannot
be accomplished within the total frame of reference of a
program comparable in size and scope to the Honors College
at Michigan State University. 0n the contrary, whatever eval—
uative procedure is undertaken must be delimited to the extent
that whatever data are involved can be efficiently handled.
The present study, then, undertakes an evaluation of two com-
ponents of the Honors College: the admission policy and the
special privileges afforded its members.

Although it is not likely that the findings of this
investigation will cause renunciation of any of the present
organizational or functional policies of the Honors College,
information obtained from and about students may be useful
in evaluating the present selective criterion and in assessing
the effectiveness of the basic features from the students'
frame of reference.

The findings of the study may also be of value to per-
sonnel of other universities who are attempting to formulate
similar plans for assisting the gifted students to attain
their highest potentialities. Finally, it is the hope of the
investigator that increased knowledge of the characteristics
of gifted women students may emerge from this study and become
beneficial to prospective faculty counselors and Honors College

program planners.

 

 

 

 

 

 

15

This chapter has presented an introduction to the prob-

lem and the hypotheses to be tested. The four remaining

chapters are entitled "Review of the Literature," "Method of

Investigation," "Analysis of the Data," and ”Summary, Con-

clusions, and Implications of the Study."

 

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

American educators have long been endeavoring to find
better ways of helping individual students attain the highest
type of self-realization, whereby they are in full use of
their talents, potentialities, and capacities. Such a goal
implies that every individual merits the opportunity for self-
development in ways and degrees commensurate with his endow-
ment and ambition. It does not preclude those who differ from
the majority in any physical, personal, social, or intellectual
dimension. It means acceptance and application of a philosophy
of education based upon the recognition of individual differ—
ences. Learned (36) states, "Our opportunity as a nation is
without precedent. We are called upon to produce on a clean
soil an education that is sincere and sound, that values each
differing mind, and with every encouragement offers it advance-
ment to the limit of its capacity." Melby (42) states it thus:

What we need is an education for all which enables each of
us to become all he is capable of becoming. This means an
education which utilizes the sum total of all our knowledge
about human beings, about the human organism, about human
growth and development, and about human society. It must
be a creative education. It must have high motivation.

It must reach all, at all ages and all stations in society.

In very early Greek history education was restricted to

special classes; later it was open to the sons of citizens.

16

 

 

 

 

 

 

17

Knowledge and the power of thought were placed above other
pursuits as being the most worthy of a civilized man in a
civilized state. Plato believed in educating able students
to become philosopher-kings, who would pursue free investi-
gation and rational interpretation. Nettleship (48) inter—
prets Plato‘s plan of the Republic as follows:

The cause of the ills of mankind is ignorance of their
true good and neglect of their noblest natures; train
those natures rightly and they will see what is the
true good of mankind; give them unlimited power and
they will carry out what the good requires.

Greek educational ideas, writings, and practices spread
through the Roman Empire and were later carried to the West
by the Byzantian refugees. European schools and universities
were established during the Renaissance. Rickover (52) says
of present—day European schools,

. their schooling is tailored to fit the aptitudes

of children as determined by examinations. Teachers

are on the lookout for gifted pupils and urge parents

to let them go to schools preparing for the University.
All that a democratic government can do to insure edu—
cational equality for all its children is to throw open
the school to everyone who will make the effort to learn.
Insistence on intellectual effort is where we have fallen
down.

Borgstrom (4) states,

There are no Honors Colleges at European universities;
indeed, no special programs for gifted students exist

at any school level. They are not thought necessary.

A gifted child is automatically challenged because of
high requirements. To get top grades, he has to be both
gifted and hard working. The gifted student . . . gets
no special privileges as does the Honors College student
here. He is thought to be sufficiently privileged by
having a good brain, and, if anything, the requirements
he faces are stiffer than those faced by the less gifted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

Good (25) reports that our history has shown it is

feasible to educate entire populations, all the people,
rich and poor, boys and girls, of a whole country; that
the ability and the desire to learn are universal when
proper provision is made. Democratic education has
demonstrated that great ability, ranging from high
talent to genius, does appear in all classes and may be
developed to render eminent service to the whole society.

This statement places considerable emphasis upon the concept
of individual differences.
Rickover (52) emphasizes this concept wnen he points
out that although all men are considered equal in our society,
all are not intellectually equal.
We harm the nation and our children when we force them
all into the strait jacket of the comprehensive school
without making careful provision for homogeneous
grouping.

The Rockefeller Report (53) supports this thought:
Men are unequal in their native capacities and motivations,
and therefore in their attainments. Our conception of
excellence must embrace many kinds of achievement at many
levels. . . . We must not assume that native capacity is
the sole ingredient of superior performance. Excellence
is the product of ability, motivation, and character.
The more one observes high performance in the dust and
heat of daily life, the more one is likely to be impressed
with the contributions made by the latter two ingredients.

After World War II a general trend toward mobilization
of the gifted at the college level became apparent, particu-
larly in the areas of science and technology. Rickover (52)
points out that although the Research and Development Subcom-
mittee of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee of the Congress

was primarily concerned with the man—power shortage delaying

our atomic energy program, its members declared that it has

 

 

Illl| l'lll"l‘l.|l

 

 

 

 

19

become increasingly obvious that a shortage of scientific

and engineering talent is

only part of a much larger national problem of identi-
fying and developing our best young minds in this
country so as to realize maximum advantage from our
potential intellectual sources. It is the development
of this brain power and the upgrading of our educational
system so as to attune it more closely to the needs of
our economy which is at once the most challenging and
the most important Job we have to do.

Heightened concern for the nature and development of

talent has led many colleges and universities to make specific

provision for gifted students in the form of Honors sections

and Honors programs. Banner (2) states,

is

An Honors program cannot be Justified merely as an-
other program of a college. It is Justified ultimately
as a program which represents the intellectual function
of the college at the level of its ablest students, the
discharge of which function must in a real way pervade
the whole life of the college.

The aim of Honors programs, as described by Hicks (28),

to make the superior student into an independent scholar,
able to carry on the dialogue of intellectual discovery
and exploration, with self—reliance coupled with humility.
It should help the student develop a framework of valid
relationships about which to organize the more and more
complex structure of his learning. It will try to create
a situation in which the student senses that he is a
respected apprentice in learning, to whom his professor
should soon become unnecessary without becoming super-
fluous.

Three problems present themselves here: Who shall be

eligible for the Honors programs? What characteristics differ—

entiate these students from other students? What kind of

educational experience will be most beneficial to members?

 

 

20

Criteria for the selection of the gifted and the special
experiences provided for them are the tenets upon which this

thesis is based.

Identification of Honors Students

 

Hicks (28) states, ”The Honors program must select its
students wisely, which means not on the basis of grades alone.
The student of Honors quality is not necessarily one with
highest grades, either at entrance or later in his college
career." Hicks continues by stating that the underachiever
may be bored, mistaught by inferior teachers, or may be
devoting time to real but personal learning.

One might say that gifted college students are, for
the most part, identified by tests and/or performance, either
in high school or in college. The implementation of standard—
ized tests in the first and second decades of the twentieth
century was purported to identify students of various levels
of ability in order to form a basis for adequate educational
provisions. Acceleration was introduced for rapid learners
in the first part of the century as it became evident that
there are different rates of learning. Enrichment became a
newer keynote in the 1920's, providing specialized, individ-
ualized programs for gifted students.

Selection procedures used and programs offered differ
among colleges and universities. The majority are guided by

high school and/or college academic performance of students.

 

 

 

 

x g

i I
i
. -

 

_._.._____.

 

21

For example, one university accepts liberal arts and profes—
sional school majors who are in the upper 20 per cent of the
freshman class, with special arrangements for transfer students.
Another selects participants in the spring semester of the
sophomore year on the basis of intellectual ability, curiosity,
and initiative. Faculty recommendations have the priority in
selection in some schools. Other universities admit freshmen
with B averages to the Honors College, requiring senior colloquia,
a senior essay, and an oral examination on the essay and on the
total program of the student. In one university freshmen apply
for membership in the Honors College and faculty are asked to
submit recommendations for students they believe are qualified
by temperament and/or ability. The results are correlated
with students' first year academic records, and final selection
is made by the Dean at the end of the freshman year. These
and other programs, including the Honors College at Michigan
State University, base eligibility requirements upon performance.
Zeigler (79) describes a profile which has been found
successful at Pennsylvania State University for predicting
college academic ability and interpreting academic scores to
students. Holland (29) found that the high school rank of
students was the best over-all predictor of college academic
success. Of his high aptitude students, 82 per cent graduated

in the top quartile, and 95 per cent in the top half, of their

high school classes.

 

 

l‘l‘l‘llil]

 

 

 

22

Goldberg (23) says, ”. . . there is no available meas-
uring instrument which is a sure—fire predictor of academic
success. . . we are as yet unable to measure the nonintellec—
tive factors that may be crucial to predicting academic success."
She further asserts that it is not easy to locate the poten-

tially able but unambitious students.

Non—Intellectual Factors

Family Background

 

Considerable research has been done in the area of non—
intellectual factors which may contribute to or inhibit high
achievement among students. In surveying studies in this area,
Gallagher (20) found that families of the gifted, as a group,
were in higher than average socio—economic brackets. ”These
families tend to have a favorable socio-economic background,
better than average education, less divorce, and above average
income. In all these studies, however, there has also been a
fascinating minority of families that deviate from this general
picture."

Strang (62) presents four concepts of giftedness: ".
as a part of the individual's total development, as many—sided,
as existing in different degrees, and as a progressive devel—
opment if conditions are favorable." She emphasizes that gift—
edness is not bestowed, once and for all, at birth. In viewing
it as a process of development, she places emphasis upon condi-

tions which contribute to accomplishment as well as to initial

 

 

 

23

capacity. These factors include family traditions and inter-
reactions, child care practices, relationships with peers,
social and family expectations as related to students‘ own
inner;growth urges, self-concept, motivation, and the intel-
lectuality of high school environment.

Lorimer reports (38) that in 1959 a larger percentage
of Honors College seniors at Michigan State University were
children of professional fathers than seniors whose grade
point averages were between 3.15 and 3.50. She concluded
that the better educational level of the parents of high
ranking students was a contributing factor in the socio-eco-
nonuc superiority they demonstrated.

Caplow (7) states that while higher education in 1900
was limited to the children of the upper-middle class and
upper—class families, there has been a strong, steady tendency,
with the removal of financial and social bars, for the college
population to become progressively more representative.
Mulligan (45) attributes the absence of talented students
from the white-collar and skilled groups in colleges to eco-
nomm:rather than cultural factors. He adds, however, that in
general the absence of talented students from farming, semi—
skilled, and unskilled groups is due to cultural rather than
purely economic factors.

Over 50 per cent of the fathers of the gifted students

in the Hollingworth study (30) were professionals or proprietors;

 

 

nu- :—

'VAJ‘»
nu.

'n-.'.
n. .-

 

rm'n,‘
u. --

WI,
u.»

   

 

 

 

2A

one—fourth of them were clerical or semi-professional. Barbe
(3) found 40.3 per cent of the fathers of the gifted to be in
professional or managerial positions, 22.4 per cent were
clerical workers and salesmen, and 29.7 per cent were skilled
or semi-skilled workers.

Terman (65) reports that in actual numbers the non—
professional general population contributed more than twice
that of the professional group. In percentage, the semi-
professional and business groups stood highest, and in pro—
portional representation of the general population the
professional class had ten times its quota of gifted children.
This suggests that the level of aspiration in some homes pro—
vides especially favorable conditions for the development of
gifted children. Bray (6) supports this opinion in the state-
ment that if all children were exposed to equally favorable
emotional, educational, and cultural environments, there \
would be a greater percentage of gifted students.

In a public high school study, Chambers (9) found very
significant differences among gifted and non-gifted students
with respect to parents' occupations, education, marital-
status, and extent of community activity. She further stated
that highly intelligent subjects in her study were less satis-

fied with their school experiences than their peers.

Family Structure
Goddard (21) reports that half of his 253 subjects

were first—born and three—fourths were first- or second-born.

 

25

Of the first-born, 18 per cent were only children. Holling-
worth (30) found that more than half of the gifted children
were first—born, and that the gifted children had few siblings.
Terman (66) reports that the average family of gifted students
contains 3.09 children. Barbe (3) found 21.8 per cent only
children, 42.6 per cent were children with one sibling, nearly
20 per cent had two siblings, and 7 per cent had three. About
half (52.5%) were first-, 29 per cent second—, and 9.3 per
cent third—born. In a group of 456 subjects with a mean I.Q.
of 130.2, the typical gifted child appeared to be first—born
in a family of two children.

Barbe (3) reports that 88 per cent of the parents of
the gifted in his study were living together while the subject
was in public school. Divorce or separation characterized
6.3 per cent of the families, while 5 per cent of the homes
were broken by the death of one or both parents.

Stalnaker (60) found that 87 per cent of the gifted
students were from small families, 70 per cent were first—born.
He reports a "majority" of gifted students from high socio—
economic groups. Witty (77) says the gifted tend to come from
superior homes according to socio-economic status, although

they are found in every socio-economic group.

New Research on Identification
There seems to be no area of complete agreement among

researchers with respect to identification of gifted students.

 

26

Whether they can be differentiated from regular students by
tests, performance, or whether additional considerations
need to be included with these factors, is a moot question.
Trends have been observed by some, refuted by others. More
research in the area of identification of and provision for
giftedness at the college level appears to be necessary.
Some studies are in progress, the complete results of which
will not be available for one or two years. Argell (1),
Director of the Honors Council at the University of Michigan,
is currently directing a three—year study to examine the ef-
fectiveness of the University of Michigan Honors program in
its initial selection of students, its academi: aspects, and
its extra-academic implications. A review is being made of
students' high school records and recommendations, college
entrance test scores, scholastic aptitude examinations, and
special tests taken during Freshman Orientation Week. It is
the aim of this researcher to discover which combinations of
the aforementioned criteria provide the best guide for iden—
tifying students for the Honors program. Faculty opinions
of student progress will be compared with freshman test
results to assess the reliability of high school and college
grade point averages as indicators of creative ability; The
University of Michigan is also studying other phases of the
Honors programs, including faculty and student opinions of

the Honors courses, effectiveness of counseling, alumni

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

opinions of the program, and academic autobiographies of the
senior Honors students relative to peer, social, and extra—

curricular adjustment.

Characteristics of the Gifted

 

In order to plan and execute a program for high schol-
arship students, it seems necessary to acquire information
relative to the special characteristics they possess, personal
problems which they perceive, and the educational needs which
are indicated for them.

Terman and Oden (67) indicate emotional stability, the
drive to achieve, a cheerful, happy temperament, and freedom
from excessive frustration as characteristic of those who
achieve more than ordinary success in adult life. Lorimer (39)
states that superior students know more, learn more quickly,
deal critically and thoughtfully with experiences, can handle
the abstract and symbolic, are creative, and take interest in
planning their education. She also describes the gifted as
being very different among themselves in these respects. Mac-
Lean and Carlson concur with the latter statement when they
quote the observation made by the Department of Sociology at
the University of Kansas (40): "The most striking aspect is
diversity of personalities. Almost nothing can be said in
general that is true of all of them."

Physical characteristics of the gifted, as summarized

by Terman (65) include larger build, greater strength, and

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

health superior to that of the average student. He found
that gifted students were somewhat inclined toward sedentary
pursuits. Witty (77) reports that the typical pupil gifted
in abstract intelligence was ”somewhat above the average" in
physical and social development.
Terman (66) states that superior students are better
adjusted socially and above average in desirable character
and personality traits. They show more concern for moral and
ethical behavior than average students, and are more popular
and socially successful. Other characteristics pointed out
by Terman are greater stability and versatility, less tendency
toward introversion, and a definite preference toward working
out their own difficulties. Carter (8) attributes much of
their "special talent" to a tendency toward versatility, en—
gagement in hobbies, and intense pursuit of their talents.
These observations are not in complete agreement with Sanford
(55), who depicts the "uncertain senior" as a student who has
considerable difficulty in the area of decision-making.
Reference is sometimes made to apathy and indifference
among gifted students. Wise (76) feels that this is due to
faculty misunderstanding of students and insistence upon
attempting to interest them in the issues which seemed impor—
tant to students in earlier generations but which are of little
concern to students today. Carter (8) refers to their "idleness"

and states that it stems from a lack of intellectual stimulation.

 

 

 

 

.r
J..- - ,'
.——-7 _ I'" “ J J

 

29

Most gifted students are unwilling to perform routine

work. They are not interested in low intellectual level

extra-curricular activities, and they are disrespectful

of subject matter below their intelligence.
Sanford (56) states,

In 1930, it seems, people showed a stronger tendency

to be one thing or another; today the inclination to

try to be all things—~to be a balanced person, shall

we say——is strong.

Strang (62) asserts,

Gifted children are usually versatile . . . they also

tend to be self—critical; they make logical evaluations

of their own performances and thoseof others. They are

curious about many things, develop a wide range of

interests, read eagerly, think logically, and show

superior insight into problem situations.

Problems and Needs of the Gifted
Honors programs were developed on the general premise

that students who appear to differ markedly from their peers
physically, socially, and educationally need curricular and/or
instructional adjustments. Honors Colleges have afforded
reasonable provisions for the characteristics, needs, and
desires of high achieving students. The benefits of member-
ship would reach many more students if the discrepancy between
academic ability and grade attainment of underachievers could
be alleviated. Moreover, this discrepancy is one ofthe major
concerns of academicians. Underachievement may be studied

from two viewpoints: that of the educator and that of the

student.

 

 
 

l C
)V u [Ax V“!
V n u
A. hl
u... m. u .. .3 3
”h. r .r . .n L .

a .3
a l 2 a
a no
.1 av
.3

 

 

3O

Underachievement as Seen by Educators

The Michigan Cooperative Bureau of Educational Research
(43) stated that the percentage of high psychological examin-
ation scores among failing students is sufficient to call
attention to difficulties encountered by colleges and univer—
sities in providing educational opportunities suited to the
needs of superior students.

Idzerda (31) places some responsibility for under-
achievement with the parental attitude when he states that
95 per cent of the students admitted to Michigan State Univer—
sity are "fully capable, intellectually, of achieving the
highest level of academic success, but may lack the character
to do it."

Goldberg (22) points out the price of underachievement
when she asserts, ”Failure to live up to one‘s potentialities
prevents the individual from attaining the self-fulfillment,
the self-actualization of which he is capable, and thus pre—
vents his becoming a truly integrated person."

Strang (61) states, "Usually more than one factor is
involved when the gifted child does unsatisfactory school
work." Terman (65) mentions habits of idleness, unwillingness
to do routine assigned tasks, excessive amount of work for
Self-support, or the deliberate choice to give preference to
Social and extra—curricular activities. Strang (61) adds

others: poor teaching, lack of guidance in the choice of major

 

 

 

 

31

field, and a desire on the part of the student to be accepted

in a group where the morale is low and academic achievement

is disparaged. In another publication Strang states (62),
Underachieving, as reflected in a discrepancy between
a pupil’s performance and his capacity as measured by
intelligence tests, is more prevalent among the gifted
than in any other group. There are many causes of
underachievement among the gifted: disillusionment,
lazy habits of getting by, inadequate instruction,
boredom, preoccupation with family and social problems,
lack of interest from adults, lack of inspiration.

Wedemeyer (75) supports the thesis that lack of adjust—

ment, motivation, opportunity suited to students' natures and
needs, and/or excessive outside demands are causes of under-
achievement. He also suggests that emotional maladjustments
of various kinds and conflicts of motivation caused by econ-
omic needs and family and local customs hold back students of
high scholastic potential. About 75 per cent of the sample
he studied were employed. "Most non—achievers were working
outside school——some as much as 30 hours weekly." He feels
that there is a strong suggestion that excessive outside em—
ployment has been a potent factor in the failure of non—
achievers to live up to their potential; he, therefore, places
emphasis upon the need for more scholarships and aids for
these students.

The Educational Policies Commission states (16),
Probably the most frequent type of educational inade-
quacy is the failure to challenge the gifted students
to achieve up to capacity. Only a superior teacher
can stimulate and guide the learning of gifted students

with optimum effectiveness. Such teachers are far too
rare.

 

 

 

 

m}:

 

 

 

 

 

32

Fretwell (l8) substantiates this by saying, "Too few students,
even in the best colleges, find an intellectual environment
that continuously challenges them to the limit of their
abilities."

Goldberg (22) believes that no simple explanation can
account for the variability in achievement motivation of poten—
tially able people. "Various socio-cultural, familial, and
personal factors interact to determine to what extent potential
ability will be translated into commensurate attainment."

Pearlman (50) studied achievers and non-achievers with
relation to academic background, health status, family organ-
ization, vocational interests, and general adjustment. The
achievers, with grade point averages of 3.A99, were more
active and rounded in extra-curricular endeavors than the
underachievers (grade point average 1.775), except in the area
where competitive physical expression was a keynote. He found
no significant differences between groups with respect to
health, family size, sibling patterns, intactness of parental
marital structure, parents‘ ages, activities, or occupations.
The achievers tended to come from families where the father
had taken study beyond the baccalaureate level or where the
mother had completed high school matriculation. Both groups
showed an inner reserve of power which was either not being
tapped or was being inhibited by present experiences. Good
and poor adjustment, good and poor mental health, character-

ized both groups.

L‘

 

 

33

Wedemeyer (75) found that 30 per cent of those ranking
in the top decile on intelligence tests failed to attain sige
nifioant achievement in college. Boyce (5) used the Chi—square
statistic to compare achievers and non—achievers. He found
that a significantly greater number of underachievers than
achievers had fathers who had more formal education and were
engaged in professional occupations.

Terman and Oden (68) list the ”absence of educational
procedures adapted to children of exceptional ability" among
causes of student failure to achieve in accord with mental
ability.

Gowan (26) concludes that underachievement stems from
habits, interests, attitudes, and motivationsestablished in
the elementary school. He reports points upon which achievers
and non-achievers differ:

1. Clarity and definiteness of academic and occupa—
tional choices
Strength of ego control
Socialization and social interaction
Use of time and money
Reading and arithmetic ability

Character integration

“\IONU'l-P‘UUID

Permissiveness, intraception, and creativity in
the home
8. Parental interest

9. Tension in task demands in the home

Lg _Il , A

 

lO. Maturity, responsibility, seriousness of interests

11. Awareness and concern for others
12. Dominance, persuasiveness, self—confidence
l3. Enthusiasm and socialization in viewpoints

toward life

Underachievement as Viewed by Students

Dressel (14) points out two facts which relate to the
use of student evaluations: (1) students’ reactions are only
indirect evidence of effectiveness, and (2) when students are
asked to evaluate a course or a teacher, it should be done
with the understanding that teachers and students share the
responsibility for course effecgiveness. Researchers have
found that students themselves, however, have constructive
suggestions to offer with relation to the evaluation of their
programs. Wrenn (78) states, ”Measurement data have their
part in the total picture of appraisal, but they contribute
only a part, and other cues must come from personal history,
observations, records of achievement, and self—perceptions."
Carter (8) believes that evaluation requires subjectivities,
and that conclusions necessarily rest upon rendered judgments.
"Lack of an adequate measuring device and an accepted criterion
makes appraisal difficult.”

Dressel and Grabow (15) state,

. again and again the college goers of this group

indicated that their expectations of some really

challenging work had been unrealized. The gifted stu—
dent may perform at a satisfactory level or even a high

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

level without actually being challenged by the experi—
ence. Many of these students recognized the problems
of education of the masses, but still indicated that it
seemed to them that it was the responsibility of the
schools to make some adjustment of the educational pro-
grams to various levels of ability and interests of
students.

Cornell is one of the universities in which there are
on—going student evaluations of academic climate. A student
committee suggested changes in the adviser system, improve-
ments in residence halls to encourage academic attainment;
increased emphasis upon academic climate in the Fresnman
Orientation Program; changes in the examination and grading
systems to ameliorate the current problem of working for
grades rather than knowledge; and establishment of the Honors
program early in the students‘ careers.

"College experiences as appraised by students reflect
the need for greater faculty and guidance support in personal

areas,‘ states the Michigan Cooperative Bureau of Educational
Research (43). Lorimer (38) found that much of the student
dissatisfaction reported was attributed to lack of motivation
and/or poor teaching. Reisman (51) and Goldberg (22) include
peer esteem as a factor in underachievement. They agree that
students feel they must conform in order to get along with

classmates; thus achievement beyond the accepted norm is viewed

with disfavor.

Educational Needs of the Gifted

 

Maxson (41) believes that insecurity and anxieties of

Students, due to complexities and uncertainties of the rapidly

 

 

 

 

36

changing social scene, are basic to student dissatisfaction.
He suggests increased counseling by all who are concerned
with student welfare and security, not just by those whose
explicit function is guidance and counseling.

Cohen (10) suggests a checklist for the Honors program,
designed for those who ask how to meet the responsibility of
the college to its superior students:

1. Identify and select students of higher ability as
early as possible. This involves far closer cooper—
ation than has hitherto been the case with high
schools and preparatory schools. The proper uses of
predictive techniques, past records, entrance tests,
and interviews and studies of aptitude, motivation,
and achievement are now being explored and much
experience is being canvassed.

2. Start programs for these students immediately upon
admission to the college or university and admit
other superior students into these programs whenever
they are later identified by their teachers.

3. Make such programs continuous and cumulative through
all four years with Honors counseling especially
organized and equally continuous.

4. Formulate such programs in terms both of all the
college work for the degree and of the area of con—
centration, departmental specialization, pre—
professional or professional training.

5. Make the programs varied and flexible by establishing
special courses, ability sections, Honors seminars,
colloquia, and independent study. Advanced placement
and acceleration will serve in a contributory role.

6. Make the Honors Program increasingly visible through-
out the institution so that it will provide standards
and models of excellence for all students and faculty,
and contribute to the substitution of an "Honors
outlook" for the "grade outlook."

7. Employ methods and materials appropriate to superior
students.

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

37

Warner, Havighurst, and Loeb (73) suggest that gifted
students need more encouragement and guidance. They also
feel that more programs supported by subsidies, scholarships,
and fellowships would lead to an increased enrollment of the
gifted in colleges and universities. DeHaan and Havighurst
(ll, 27) stress the necessity for motivating parents of
gifted students, especially those of lower socio—economic
status, to try to find ways and means for college education
for their children. Waggoner (70, 71, 72) presents six sug—
gestions for educating the gifted: high quality teaching;
coordination between high schools and colleges in bridging
the gap and avoiding subject matter duplication; careful
selection of varying teaching methods; provision for individ—
ual differences among gifted students; faculty and administra—
tive stimulation; and more intensive recruitment of gifted
students. Carter (8) asserts that there is support for four
statements about the teachers of the gifted: they need to be
brighter than average teachers; they must be better prepared
in subject matter than other teachers; they must have special
tolerance and understanding of the very bright; and they should
be given special training for education of the gifted.

Lannholm (35) outlines the processes involved in devel—
oping programs for superior college students: identification
(through closer work with high schools); stimulation (through

effective motivation); counseling (helping students to make

 

38

wise decisions to realize optimum development and maximum
potential); and evaluation (from the standpoints of students,
teachers, and administrators).

The Educational Policies Commission (l6) states,

If the present waste of talent in American life is to
be reduced, we must get at its causes. Present knowl—
edge suggests that the causes are multiple, complex,
and variable. In most cases, several factors appear
to be operating simultaneously--often reinforcing and
aggravating one another. The educational implications
offered are:

l. The schools and colleges must share some of the
blame when highly gifted students make little use
of their gifts in later life.

2. Inflexibility of curriculum and teaching method
constitute a formidable barrier to the development
of the gifts of exceptional students.

3. Schools with narrow curricula can be particularly
serious handicaps to students whose gifts are
highly specialized.

4. Only a superior teacher can stimulate and guide the
learning of a gifted student with optimum effective—
ness. Such teachers are far too rare.

5. More than money is needed to curb talent waste
what is most needed to promote conservation and
utilization of human talent is first, on the part of
the American people as a whole, clearer understanding
of the role of the gifted in relation to social wel-
fare; and second, on the part of the schools and
colleges, the operation of educational programs that
systematically provide for giving all children and
youth——including the gifted——educational opportunities
and experiences that raise the individual to as high
a level of competence as his ability will permit.

Several authors emphasize the fact that college teachers
are not adequately prepared for or sufficiently dedicated to
teaching to accomplish the highest aims of education for students.

Klapper (34) wrote as follows:

 

39

On the whole, we are justified in characterizing the

gap between educational intent and actual achievement

as wide and discouraging. The keenness of the disap-
pointment stems from the fact that the conditions
responsible for this wide gap are not new and not nec—
essarily associated with the pressures of the day, but
rather with circumstances that have, unfortunately,
prevailed for many years. The large classes, the in-
experienced teachers, the long teaching day, the heavy
teaching assignments-~these are not the primary causes
of ineffective teaching in our colleges and universi—
ties today; rather they are the secondary causes that
have intensified it. The fact remains that our teachers
in institutions of post—high school levels have not been
prepared to teach. We have persisted in the assumption
that good teachers are born, hence cannot be made, and
further, that anyone who really knows can teach because
the converse--he who does not know cannot teach--is true.
Aimlessness is the most important single cause of inef-
fectiveness in teaching and of frustration of educational
effort.

Dressel (12) suggests that this viewpoint needs tempering, but

agrees with the basic context. He says,
The teacher must see why improvement is important. He
must have assistance. His efforts to improve must
yield satisfaction and be given recognition. He must
develop both high performance standards and means of
appraisal to the extent to which he achieves. And, of
course, the ultimate appraisal can only be in terms of
the quality and amount of learning which he encourages
in his students.

Tead (64) asserts that "where there has been no learning,

there is a failure in teaching.”

Thus, from the reports in the literature, it appears
that the foremost need in education of the gifted as well as
all other students is for increased motivation and more effec-
tive academic counseling and instruction. These are, in

essence, the aims and objectives of the Honors College as set

forth by the Planning Committee at Michigan State University

956
'r~'.'
w

= e Ur.

EEI‘S

C

UJQJ
‘-..‘-
-‘AD-O:

-'r l

’zei
:. L
“m
m1...“
“2.35-5
.~

 

...I.. Mr} ml, .

 

 

 

40

in 1956 when they stated that the program would be character-
ized by flexibility, a potential for heightening the challenge
which confronts the very able, and a heavy reliance on guid—
ance geared to the particular needs of the superior student.
The remaining chapters of this thesis are devoted to
a study of two components of the Honors College at Michigan
State University: the membership selection procedure and the
special opportunities which are available to the members.
Chapters I11 and IV contain the method of investigation and
analysis of the data. Chapter V presents results and con—
clusions, and offers implications for further study in the

area of education for the gifted student.

 

J

 

M

at, ”Av

. . an...“

x -: ’ rm
... 5‘;

:r- A

n. A.

y.

 

 

:, A
..__,‘

M’

J. v
"V- :

 

54 ‘y
~JI r
I ‘10
"A
..~:~..
' MFA»
. ”1‘
\4 a’u‘n.‘
.
3.3+ .
..
v a;

 

 

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION

This study was undertaken in an effort to evaluate
the eligibility criterion for the Honors College at Michigan
State University, and to assess the special privileges
offered to members. It is the present policy of the Honors
College to offer membership to students who attain the
qualifying grade point average either in the freshman or
sophomore years of college matriculation, and to make cer—

' for the enrich—

tain provisions, known as ”basic features,‘
ment of their educational programs. The investigator asks
what factors seem to predict or influerce the academic suc-
cess of students, enabling some of them to qualify as Honors
scholars and rendering others ineligible.

Various means are used by which the academic ability
of college students is predicted in advance of matriculation. If
students representing three levels of grade point averages
show no differences in ability as indicated by these predictive
measurements, the reason(s) for the discrepancy between ability
and achievement should be identified and remedied. It follows
that as a result of this procedure, more students who score
well by predictive measures may become eligible for membership

in the Honors College.
A1

s
t
y " H
..
.ng

~A‘K
».

N
'V...
C“:
u
L
mug
.
:g‘
.‘D r. 4.
i.
40
“(A

r;-
wJ MK.»

::r-‘
....
.
VA *1
.c h-
‘A

 

he

«\u
an!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

42

Before this problem could be explored, it was neces—
sary to identify the best of the known predicting factors,
and to determine whether the three groups of students dif—
fered in levels of academic ability as designated by these
factors. Research (13, 29) has established that high school
rank and certain college orientation Scores of students are
the most accurate predictors of academic success in college
work. The investigator felt that factors influencing grade
point attainment of able students could best be identified
through a study of the students' own opinions and attitudes

toward their college experiences.

Sources of the Data

 

The author utilized three sources of information for
the collection of data pertinent to the study. The Tabu-
lating Department of Michigan State University was employed
to compile lists of women students, categorized by grade
point averages, upon which the quartile high school rank of
each student appeared. (Subsequently, these lists became
the sources from which the student samples were randomly
selected for the study.) The investigator was granted access
to the records of students' college orientation scores by the
Office of Evaluation Services. Information contributing to
the identification of factors influencing academic success

was sought directly from the participants.

 

43

High School Rank
It is customary for high schools, upon request, to
transmit the academic record of a student, including his
high school rank, to the college of his choice. Class rank
is recognized by educators (29) to be the most reliable of
the high school records for predicting college academic

SUCCGSS .

Orientation Scores

A battery of tests, known as ”orientation tests,” are
administered to all incoming freshmen and undergraduate
transfer students at Michigan State University. Scores from
these tests are used chiefly for prescribing improvement
services and for designating the rank of each student within
his own group of entrants. The battery generally consists
of Arithmetic Proficiency, Psychological, Reading, and
English tests. Jackson (13) reported fromsmudies conducted
at Michigan State University, that the Reading Test was the
best single predictor of first term grade point averages of
students. Later studies, also conducted at Michigan State
University (13) established the Reading Test score as the
best single predicting factor for general academic success.
Thus, it would seem that these two dimensions, high school
rank and Reading Test score, might together constitute a
rather effective device for designating whether students dif-

fered in academic ability or whether students who are

 

 

 

 

)“

...‘

.ar.,

 

 

’: a
“w ‘
.4;,E

 

 

.«.;: 4.-
~ ‘~

:«..

I. ‘V—
.‘,_s

‘

o .

m: L”

‘ V

if».
n,.y

P~

1;. ”~.

 

44

eligible and non-eligible for Honors College possessed the

same ability but differed only in achievement levels.

The Survey Samples

There may be concomitant conditions which exert
favorable or unfavorable influences upon the attainment of
Honors College qualifying grades. These circumstances may
conceivably be related to the students' home backgrounds,
the degree to which they are socially and academically ad-
Justed, or to demands made upon their time by economic,
Social, or co—curricular pursuits while they are attending
college. Information bearing upon these factors was sought
from samples of the student body.

The total sample, comprised of 576 currently enrolled
undergraduate women students at Michigan State University,
was divided into three groups. Group A COUSiSted Of 192
Students, representing 100 per cent of the women members of
the Honors College. A complete mailing list of these stu-
dents was provided by the Honors College Director. Group B
was made up of 192 students, randomly selected from women
Whose cumulative grade point averages were between 3.15 and
3-49. Group C was composed of 192 students selected at ran—
dom from women whose cumulative grade point averages were

2.50 and lower.

 

 

”LS“

 

 

45

The Instruments of Measurement

 

The next problem confronting the author was the devel—

opment of a suitable type of instrument for use in collecting

affective data from participants with reference to their

family backgrounds, their present status as students, their

appraisal of the Honors College, and their choices of suitable

criteria for membership in this selective group of students.

Direct-mail questionnaires were used because they seemed to

be an expedient method of obtaining both factual and affective

data from a large sample of respondents.

The three purposes of the questionnaires were:

I.

to obtain information and ideas from respondents
which would contribute to a critical student assess_
ment of the present method of choosing Honors
scholars. Factors which seem to impede the attain—
ment of high academic grades may concurrently
accentuate particular strengths or abilities of
students, thus rendering them quite capable of
Honors College membership.

to obtain information relative to the extent of

and reasons for non-participation of Honors schol-
ars in the basic features provided for them by
membership in the Honors College. Responses con—
cerned with this problem were sought only from
Honors College women. The investigator anticipated

that these data would be helpful in re—evaluating

 

 

 

 

s”;

1J1

 

 

n"
.

 

A6

the basic features as stated in the original plan
of the program.

3. to gather opinions of women students toward the

Honors College, and to ascertain their preferences
with respect to the choice of suitable membership
criteria and appropriate special educational
offerings for Honors scholars.

Two instruments were constructed: one, composed of 43
questions, was designed for Group A, the Honors College stu—
dents; the other, including 40 items, was directed to Groups
B and C, the participants who were not eligible for the Honors
College. Both instruments consisted of five parts. The first
four, identical in content for all recipients, were entitled
"Background Information," "Apportionment of Time," "Scholastic
Progress," and "Relationships with Others." The data requested
in these sections concerned the size of students‘ families;
the marital status, educational background, and present occu-
pations of parents; students‘ apportionment of time among co-
curricular and outside activities; the influences upon and
stability of choices of major areas of study; and an assess-
ment of the extent of, bases for, and results of student and
faculty discriminatory practices. All of these factors were
thought by the investigator to bear some relationship to stu-
dents' scholastic achievement, and thus to be legitimate con—
siderations in deciding which students could be eligible for

the Honors College.

 

 

47

Part five of the instrument, entitled "Attitudes Toward

Phariors College and Suggestions for Your Program," elicited in-

fkorunation relative to the importance students attach to mem-
bEBI‘ship in the Honors College and the opinions they hold with

IKBZLation to qualifying criteria for membership in the organ—

iJZEition. Respondents in Group A were aSked whether, if the
OIDEDortunity again presented itself, they would choose to join
tries Honors College. Groups B and C were asked whether they

wOl—lld join the Honors College if they could meet the necessary

Estuade point average qualification. Three additional questions

VVErre inserted in part five of the questionnaire distributed to

CFri-"oup A. In these items the Honors scholars were asked to

COnsider the special privileges provided for them by the
HOnors College, to designate those in which they had taken

Ewart, and to indicate reasons for non—participation in the

CDthers. Respondents from all groups were asked to substan—

tiate the responses they chose throughout part five of the
QUestionnaire.

The itemsincluded in both instruments were styled for

multiple choice response. Where appropriate, provision was

made for responses other than those listed among the alter-

natives offered. In addition, the questionnaire was constructed

foradaptation to the International Business Machines(IBM) method
of recording and tabulating.
Early drafts of the questionnaires were submitted to

ten qualified staff members for criticisms and suggestions;

 

 

A8

ttijxs procedure was intended to make the instrument pertinent,

aIDExropriate, and adequate in coverage. Revisions were made

OTI the basis of comments received. The instrument was then

aliniinistered to a group of 20 Michigan State University

Llndergraduate women students who did not participate in the

axltnual survey. Additional refinements were made to insure

‘ttlee greatest possible clarity of meaning. The questionnaires

VH33?e then coded in order that non—respondents might be iden-

tSigfied and reminded of the request for their cooperation in
tfie study.

The appropriate instrument and cover letter explaining
tfle purpose of the study and soliciting student cooperation,

VJere mailed to each sample member during the early part of

tflle 1960 Winter college term. A stamped, addressed return

EEnvelope was enclosed to encourage prompt return. A period

Oi‘one week was allowed for completion and return of the
Questionnaires before reminders were mailed to all non—

PeSpondents. One week later, all remaining non—respondents

Were contacted by telephone. A reinforcement of interest and

motivation of the recipients and the replacement of two mis—
addressed and fourteen misplacedinstruments resulted from

this follow-up procedure. Reproductions of the instruments,

cover letters, and follow—up letters used in this study are

to be found in the Appendix, pages 127 to 145.

 

 

 

 

49

The Procedure for the Analysis of the Data

High School Rank
Justification for the inclusion of high school rank
EJUCDng the data collected for the study was based upon the
tfleasis that this measurement constitutes the best high—school—

<3Ifiiginated predictor of the college academic success of stu-
diarits. These ranks indicate the quartile placement of each
Srtiident within his high school graduating class. High school
IYinks of the students comprising the total sample used in

this study range from one to four, representing the first

through the fourth quartiles. Chi—squares were computed from

'tfie high school ranks of students in Groups A, B, and C. The
iJivestigator anticipated that if these data revealed signifi-

cant Chi-square values among the three samples of students

Surveyed, one might conclude that Groups A, B, and C differed

Sufficiently in academic ability to account for differences

in scholastic attainment.

Reading Test Scores

In general, the orientation tests at Michigan State

University consist of the Arithmetic Proficiency, Psycholog-

ical, Reading, and English tests. Considerable research has

been conducted at the University with respect to the role of
these test scores in predicting the future academic success

of students as they continue in college. Inasmuch as the

 

5o

fieeading Test score has been found (13) to be the best of the
caxsientation scores for predicting college academic success,
‘tlie investigator chose to measure grade point attainment of
tkie respondents against the predictions set forth by this
‘beest. If significant Chi—squares were not obtained between
Elriy two groups, the students would seem to possess the same

axzademic ability; reasons would then be sought for the dis-

<31cepancy between predicted ability and academic achievement.

The raw scores from the orientation tests were formerly

Cchverted and expressed as "derived scores,”

(liigh) to one (low). Beginning in the fall of 1959, however,

idddividual test results were expressed as percentile rankings

VVithin the group of students tested. Hence, it was necessary

‘to equate the Reading Test scores obtained from 1956 through
1959 before comparisons could be made within a random sample

Of currently enrolled students. This adjustment was accom-

plished with the assistance of the Office of Evaluation Ser-

vices. Details of the procedure used are given in the

Appendix, page 146.

Chi—square was used to compare the equated Reading
Test scores of Groups A, B, and C, to ascertain whether the
three groups sampled differed more in potential ability than
could be attributed to chance. If the Chi—square value was
not significant, it might appear that all entering students

possessed the same degree of academic ability. This would

ranging from ten

//

 

 

 

51

lfiead one to suspect that factors other than academic ability
nligght need to be identified in order to understand why some
S‘tildents achieved sufficiently high grades to warrant Honors
C3C>11ege membership while others failed to attain the necessary

E51“ade point averages to become eligible for the Honors College.

Questionnaire Data
The information assembled from the questionnaire in-

Ciluded both objective and free—response items from all respon—

Cients. The returned instruments were checked and entered

Ll‘pon a master control list and sent to the Tabulating Depart-
Tnent of the University where the pre-coded objective items

VVere card-punched, verified, sorted into the major categories,

‘totaled, tabulated, and printed as separate summaries for
Grbups A, B, and C. All free—response items were manually
recorded, classified, and counted by the investigator. Per-
centage group response for all objective and free—response
items for each questionnaire item was computed.

After careful consideration of the various types of
statistical designs available for the analysis of research
data, a statistical consultant verified the conclusion of the
investigator that no single type of analysis seem applicable
to all segments of the questionnaire. As a result, various
parts of the instrument were evaluated separately. Responses
to each of the alternatives offered in the multiple choice

questions were totaled and recorded on multi—cell contingency

 

 

52

terbles. Chi-square was then computed separately for all

Stirigle response questions in an effort to ascertain whether

trieere were significant differences among the three groups

C>f‘ students sampled. Percentage comparisons were made among

EEINDupS with respect to questions which elicited more than

<Dr1e response from each participant. Data obtained in the

ICCDIwn of free-responses were analyzed by simple percentage

Clcnnparisons among Groups A, B, and C.

This chapter has presented the plan for collecting and
aJialyzing the data which it is hoped will contribute to an
Ervaluation of the Honors College selection criterion and the
YDEsic features of the program from the student standpoint.

Clhapter IV contains a detailed analysis of the data, which

ale summarized in Chapter V. The final chapter also in-

cludes conclusions drawn from the study and implications for

furtherresearch in the area of selecting and providing for

Honors scholars.

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Collection of the Data

Five hundred and seventv—six uestionnaires were
J q

Cii_stributed to three grogps of college women, classified

Eianording to grade point average.

‘tkl

Group A inc"uded all of
e 192 women members of the Honors College; Group B con—
ciisted of 192 randomly selested women whose grade point
ElVerages ranged from 5.15 to 3.39; Group C was comprised
(bf 192 randomly selextei women whose grade point averages
‘Nere 2.50 or less. The mean grade point averages for the
three groups were 3.59, 3.42, and 2.1u, respectively.

Percentage responses of the students selected for tJiS

Study are shown in Table l.

Seventeen of the 576 students had married or dis-

continued matriculation, leaving no forwarding addresses.

The instruments intended for these students were recorded

under the classification "returned undeliverable,” in

order that these individuals might re differentiated from

non-respondents who were unaccounted for. The over-all

percentage responses for the three groups (80.J&%) was

deemed adequate.

 

54

TABLE 1

RESPONSE OF STUDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

 

 

Returned
Initial Completed Returns Undeliverable No Response
C}1?oup Mailing No.1 %2 No. % No. %
A 192 171 89.06 3 1.56 18 9.38
B 192 148 77.09 5 2.60 39 20.31
C 192 142 73.96 9 4.69 41 21.35
TKDTAL 576 461 80.04 17 2.95 98 17.01

 

1Number of questionnaires.

2Per cent of initial mailing.

Plan for the Analysis of the Data

 

The analysis of the data will be presented in three
Sections, corresponding to the sequence of the basic ques—
tions posed by the investigator, page 3.

Section l.—-An Examination of Some of the Factors Which
Appear to Distinguish High Achievers from Low
Achievers Among College Women

Section 2.-—Participation of Honors Scholars in the Basic
Features of the Honors College and Suggestions
for Honors Program Enrichment

Section 3.--Attitudes of Respondents Toward the Honors
College and Their Suggestions for Eligibility
Criteria

The Chi—square technique was used for analyzing the

objective data pertaining to Sections 1 and 3, to ascertain

 

iniiether the three groups of students differed more than

chuld be accounted for by chance. The .01 level of con-
ffiidence was established for statistical significance througi—
(Dllt the study. Percentage comparisons were made among
galroups with respect to the free-response and multiple response

j.i:ems includes on the questionnaires.
Section 1.-—An Examination of Some of the Factors
Which Might Appear to Distinguish High
Achievers from Low Achievers Among
College Women
The process of self-realization, like any other devel-
Cbpmental process, is aided or retarded by certain factors.
Tflde author questioned whether any objective instrument has
ESufficient power to predict which students shoald be Honors
EScholars, or whether high academic achievement (and thus
}ionors College eligibility) might be determined in part by
factors and circumstances which are not used as predictive
measures. Since high school class rank and the Reading Test
Score from the Michigan State University Grientation Test
battery are considered to be the best predictors of the aca-
demic success of college students (13), the writer made com—
parisons of three groups of students with respect to each of
these predictive measures. If the grades earned by the
participants in the study fell in line with the expectancies
established by these predictors, it could be stated that

Honors students and ineligible students differed in ability.

 

 

 

 

 

(ZEBrItI.

 

1f, or: the other hand, there appeared to be discrepancies

between the expectancies established by the predictive meas—
ures and the grade point averages attained by these students,
it would seem desirable to explore the possibility that some

or all of the non—intellectual factors delineated on page 46

might have effected the grades received. These factors might
in turn become important additional factors to be considered

in the establishment of suitable Honors College eligibility

criteria.
Intellectual Factors

High school class rank.--Inasmuch as the records of

the Tabulating Department at Michigan State University were
incomplete, the availability of high school ranks for students
participating in the study was limited to 145 in Group A, 130
in Group B, and 153 in Group C, or 75.93, 75.44, and 68.68 per
cent, respectively. The percentage distribution of the
quartile ranks of Groups A, B, and C within their high school
graduating classes is recorded in Table 2.

Approximately three-fourths of the members of Group A
smare from the first quartile of their respective high school
cLleasses. Group B had an almost equal representation (70.18%)
3111 the first quartile, whereas Group C had only 38.74 per

The second quartile contained a few Group A and B stu—

cjealetis (2.63% and 5.26%, respectively), and 29.84 per cent of

 

 

 

 

 

E7

TAELE 2

DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT SAMPLES AMONE QUARTILES
WITHIN HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATING OL.SSES

 

High School

 

Class Rank % Group A % Group B % Group C
1st quartile 73.30 70.18 38.74
2nd quartile 2.63 5.26 29.84
3rd quartile 0.00 0.00 0.10
4th quartile 0.00 0.30 0.02
Not recorded 24.07 ,24.F6 31.30

 

the students in Group C. No Group A or B students were found

in the third and fourth quartiles of their graduating classes;

of Group C, 0.10 per cent were in the third, and 0.02 per cent

in the fourth,
results of the
Test scores of
revealed there

in high school

quartiles of their classes. Table 3 shows the
comparison of the high school ranxs and Reading
Groups A, B, and C. Computation of Chi—square
was no significant difference between A and B

rank, although Group C differed from both A and

I3 in this respect. This finding suggested that factors other

trian academic ability might be affecting the grade point

eai/errages of Group B students. An attempt was made to identify

ESLlCIh factors and ascertain whether they seem to explain dif—

f e r’ences among

groups with respect to academic attainment.

Pt.-

 

58

TABLE 3

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C ON THE BASIS
OF HIGH SCHOOL RANK AND READING TEST SCORES

 

Degrees of

 

Item Chi—square Freedom Significance
High school class rank 103.40 6 *nl
Reading Test scores 233.14 18 as

 

1Significant at the .01 level of confidence.

Orientation Reading Test scores.-—Within the past four

 

years the method of constructing and scoring the orientation
tests at Michigan State University has been altered. The in-
vestigator found it necessary, therefore, to equate the
recorded scores for the years 1956 to 1959 before undertaking
the Chi-square analysis. Details of the equating procedure
are given in the Appendix, page 146.
Table 4 indicates the percentage distribution of the
Reading Test scores of students in Groups A, B, and C. They
range from ten (high) to one (low). Some students were
excused from taking the orientation tests; the classification
"r10 score" has been used to represent these individuals.
Chi—square computation verified Reading Test score
Ciiafferences among the three student groups, significant at
t3k163 .01 level of confidence, but further Chi—square analysis
C’l? ‘the scores revealed significant difference, not between A

Eir1Ci B, but between both of these groups and Group C.

 

TABLE 4

ORIENTATION READING TEST SCORES

 

Reading Test

 

Score % Group A % Group B % Group C

10 10.30 10.00 0.06

9 26.06 11.33 0.00

8 23.64 30.00 5.77

7 26.67 29.33 10.90

6 7.88 13.33 25 co

5 3.03 6.00 29.49

4 1.82 0.00 21.15

3 0.06 0,00 3.85

2 0.00 O 00 1.92

1 0.00 L 0.00 0.13

No score 0.54 0.00 1.73

 

Summary of intellectual factors.——Within the limitations

 

of these data it appears that Reading Test scores and high
school rank are good predictors of general college academic
Sllccess, but are not sufficiently precise to distinguish
beatween Honors College students per se and students reflecting
highscholastic potential, who failed by a small margin (no
Inc>17€3 than 0.34 grade point) to attain eligibility for Honors

C o l lege membership .

 

 

 

 

6O

g9§:lg1§ellectual Factors
Although the high school rank and the Reading Test

scores were found to distinguish between Group C and Groups
A and B with respect to predictions of college academic suce
cess, the investigator felt that certain other factors might
have contributed to the differentiation between students in
Groups A and B. These factors include the structure of the
student's family; the education and occupation of her parents;
evidence of student‘s curricular adjustment; the student‘s
appraisal of the extent of favorable and unfavorable discrim-
ination by faculty and/hr other students, and the effect it
seems to have had upon grades; the amount of time devoted to
co-curricular and outside activity; and the student‘s own
‘evaluation of her progress and suggestions for ways in which

she could improve her academic record.

Structure of the student's family.--The structure of the
family refers to: the size of the family, position of the
respondent within her family, and marital status of the parents.
Table 5 presents the results of the comparison of Groups A, B,
and C with respect to familial factors. Former studies (21,

3C), 3, 60, 65) have indicated that high achievers are the
CDleest or only children in small families from unbroken homes,

111 'Which the parents are well educated and obtain their live-

l-j-flcaod from positions which command high salaries and consid-

e17’Eible social respect.

 

 

61

TABLE 5

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C FAMILIAL FACTORS

 

Degrees of

 

Item Chi-square Freedom Significance
Size of family 1.96 6 N.S.l
Marital status of

parents 14.35 10 N.S.
Position of respondent

within her family 3.89 6 N.S
Education of father 13 27 10 N,S.
Education of mother 9.14 10 N.S.
Occupation of father-«

type 17.44 1A N-S.
Occupation of mother_— ’

type 13.98 14 N.S.

 

lNot Significant.

S153 of Family—-—Table 6 presents the percentage dis-
tribution of the families of Group A, B, and C students with
respect to the number of children they contained. There were
no statistically significant differences among the three

Efl?oups; in fact, the similarities were more outstanding than
tile variations. Contrary to the findings of some researchers
(£33-, 30, 60, 3, 65), the highest percentage of only children
VVEiES found, not in Group A, but in Group B. Group A led in
17511Thilies with two children, and Group C in families containing
173C>JTVE than three children. Percentage differences among groups,

ho we ver, were small .

 

 

 

62

TABLE 6

SIZE OF FAMILIES

 

Number of Children,

 

Including Respondent % Group A % Group B % Group C
One 15.79 18.24 16.90
Two 36.84 31.08 34.51
Three 26.32 26 35 23,24
Four or more 20.47 24,33 24.65
No response 0.58 0.00 C 73

 

Position of Respondent in Family———Table 7 shows that

 

the smallest percentage of only children occurs in Group A
families, and the largest percentage of only children belongs
to Group B families. This does not substantiate certain
former findings (21, 30, 60). One investigator (3) has com-
bined the categories "oldest" and "only” in making such com-
parisons; if this is done, Group A with a total of 53.80 per
cent, supports the statement that high achievers are predom-
inantly "oldest or only" children. The percentage differences
thatween Groups A and C are so slight that if the non—response
Enercentage of Group A (1.75%) could be included in its proper
Céifzegory, there would be the possibility of a change in the
<>I?Ciering of the three groups with respect to categories one,
f3f11?ee, and four. Chi—square analysis of these data reveals
r1<3 ESignificant difference among Groups A, B, and C with respect

13C) fShe positions of the respondents within their families.

 

 

 

63

TABLE 7

POSITION OF RESPONDENTS WITHIN FAMILIES

 

Category Position % Group A % Group B % Group C

 

1 Only 15.20 17.57 16.90
2 Oldest 38.60 32.43 36.62
3 Youngest 26.32 24.32 27.46
4 Between oldest

and youngest 18.13 25.68 19.01
5 . No response 1.75 0,00 0.00

 

Marital Status of Parents——-Marita1 status of the parents

 

is shown in Table 8. There is negligible difference among
Groups A, B, and C in the classification "never separated.”
Over three—fourths of the respondents from all groups report
unbroken families. Death of one parent acc0unts for the
highest percentage of separation in all groups. Divorce is
the second most frequent cause of permanent parental separation.
Group B leads in this factor and in families broken by the
death of both parents. Although Group C reveals the smallest
Exercentage of divorced parents, (3.52%), it leads the other
tVVO groups in the proportion of parents temporarily separated,
b<>13h in the present and in the past. The total of items one
éir1<i two on the table represents presumably stable present

1F€1ITtily status. There is little difference in the groups in

 

64

this Iwaspect; Group C, with 83.10 per cent, exceeds the other
two groups by less than two per cent. No significant differ—
ence in the parental marital status of the three groups of

students was shown by Chi—square analysis.

TABLE 8

MARITAL STATUS OF PARENTS

 

Marital Status of Parents % Group A % Group B % Group C

 

1. Never separated 79.53 80.41 78.17
2. Have been separated;

not separated at present 1.75 1.35 4.93
3. Now temporarily

separated 0.58 0.68 1.41
4. Separated by death of

one parent 11.11 7.43 11.27
5. Separated by divorce 4.68 6.76 3.52
6. Both deceased 0.58 3.37 0.70
7. No response 1.77 0.00 0.00

 

Education of Parents—-—Table 9 shows the percentage
distribution of the parents of Groups A, B, and C on the
béisis of the highest level of formal education achieved. The

Clliassification used for these strata. was taken from "Social
CIJL51SS in America" (74), in which the authors present the

égllfilgg of Status Characteristics.

 

 

 

 

65

TABLE 9

EDUCATION OF PARENTS

 

 

 

 

-. T C 4
Highest Level Fathers do hers
Achieved A B C A B C
Completed 1 or more 25.73 16.89 19.01 12 28 8.11 9.15
years graduate
school after col—
lege graduation
Graduated from 4- 18.71 19.59 15.49 13.45 16.22 11.97
year college,
university, or
equivalent
Attended college 13.45 16.22 18.31 22.81 20 95 29.58
2 or more years,
or its equivalent
High school grad- 18.13 25.68 26.06 29 24 34 46 35 21
uate, or equivalent
Completed 1 year 7.60 13.51 8.45 10 53 10 81 7.04
high school,did not
graduate
Less than 8 grades 13.45 8.11 10.56 8 77 8.11 4 93
No response 2.93 0.00 2.12 2 92 1.34 2.12

 

It will be noted that Group A contains the greatest per—
centage of both parents who did graduate study following four
years ofcollege. More fathers and mothers of Group B terminated
their education with college graduation. Group G contains the
greatest percentage of both parents who completed only two
years of college. Group B exceeds the other groups in the
number of both parents who started, but did not complete, high

school.

 

 

66

No statistically significant differences were found
among the three groups of students with respect to educational
achievement of either parent. It is interesting to note that
the largest percentages of both mothers and fathers who
received less than eight years of formal education are to be
found in Group A. Taken compositely, these data support the
findings of other researchers (39, 40) that college students,
particularly the high achievers, are characterized by great
diversity of background. This study only partially supports
the thesis that high achievers are the offspring of the most

extensively educated parents.

Occupation of Parents——-The respondents were asked to

 

state the occupation of each of their parents. Responses
were then classified according to the types of occupations
outlined by Warner, Meeken and Eells (74). It was the opinion
of the writer that a more realistic picture of these occupations
could be gained through this procedure than by asking respon—
dents to classify their parents‘ occupations. Mothers who were
described as "homemakers" or "housekeepers at home" were in—
cluded in the classification "unemployed," in order that the
remaining percentages given for mothers would include only
those who were gainfully employed outside the home.
Differences among Groups A, B, and C with respect to
occupational type were not statistically significant. The
distribution of the parents according to type of occupations

is presented in Table 10.

 

67

TABLE 10

OCCUPATIONS 0F PARENTS

 

 

 

 

Fathers Mothers
Type of
Occupation Per Cent Group Per Cent Group
A B C A B C
1. Professional 28.65 18.92 21 13 19.30 14.86 10.56
2 Proprietors 1.17 4.05 7.75 0.58 0.00 0.00
3. Business Men 16.96 15.54 14 79 2.39 1.35 4.93
4. White Collar
Workers 9.94 16.22 12.68 15.20 15 54 13.38
5. Manual Workers 22.81 29.05 24.65 2.39 3.38 1.41

6. Service and
Miscellaneous 3.51 2.03 2.82 1.17 0.00 0.70

7. Landowners and -
Farmers 8.19 8.11 7.04 0.00 0.00 0.00

8. Unemployed and/pr
No response 8.77 6.08 9.14 58.97 64.87 69.01

 

With respect to gainful employment outside the home,
Group A contained the largest percentage of working mothers.
The greatest percentage of fathers engaged in the professional
occupations was found in Group A. This classification includes
lawyers, doctors, dentists, Judges, ministers, professors,
engineers, industrial chemists, school superintendents, and
county veterinarians. Group A mothers hold the leading pro-
portions occupied in certain professions, including nurses,

grade and high school teachers, and in white collar positions

 

68

ineltuiing secretaries, clerks, and staff of public utilities.
Group A mothers also led in service and miscellaneous occu-
pations. liese findings re-emphasize the diverse types of
family background found among Honors students.

Group A exceeded the otrer two groups in the percentage
of fathers employed as business men, service and miscellaneous
workers, and landowners and farmers. Group B led in white
collar workers and manual workers, and Group C contained the

greatest percentage of proprietors.

Influences upon, stability of, and satisfaction with
major curricular choices.-- The discussion of the curricular
adjustment of students includes: (1) influences exerted upon
the major curricular choices of students; (2) frequency of
and reasons for changes in these preferences; and (3) the
present satisfaction of students with their choice of major.
Some researchers (67) report that high achieving students
display the greatest maturity in making choices; others (55)
state that they are less stable than other students in this
respect. Table 11 shows the results of Chi-square analysis

of Groups A, B, and C with respect to choices of major.

Influences E222 Major Curricular Choices of Students——-
Students were asked to choose the two persons or factors which
had been the most influential in their most recent decision
with respect to major area of study. The percentage distri-

bution of responses to this question are recorded in Table 12.

 

 

69

TABLE ll

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C--CHOICE OF MAJOR

 

Degrees of

 

Item Chi—square Freedom Significance
Declared a major? 6.23 2 N.S.l
Changed major? 10.24 2 **2

Number of changes of
major 13.04 6 N.S.

Reasons for changes
of major 51.41 14 **

Satisfaction with
present major 11.85 6 N.S.

 

lNot significant.

2Significant at the .01 level of confidence.

TABLE 12

MAJOR FACTORS INFLUENCING CURRICULAR CHOICES

 

 

Item % Group A % Group B % Group C
Respondent herself 76.02 67.57 83.10
Parent(s) 21.05 25.00 27.46
High school teacher(s) 22.22 21.62 20.42
Specialist(s) in the field 15.79 12.84 14.08
College counselors 11.70 4.05 9.86
Past employment 7.60 12.84 9.86
College grades 5.26 4.73 7.04
Relatives outside immediate

family 2.92 3.38 5.63
High school counselors 2.92 4.73 2.82
College orientation scores 1.75 2.70 2.10
High school friends 1.17 2.03 2.11
Past employers 0.58 3.38 3.52
Others 22.22 12.16 4.23
No response 8.80 22.97 7.77

 

 

70

In all casesstudents claimed to have been their own
greatest influences in making choices. Group A students
seemed to be less dependent than Group B and C students upon
high school friends, past employment, college orientation
test scores, high school counselors, and relatives outside
the immediate family. They expressed the opinion that high
school teachers, parents, specialists in the field, and col-
lege counselors in that order, had exerted the most influence
upon their choices. They also cited the greatest number of
"other" influences. Those which elicited highest frequency
of mention were college instructors, the possession of special
ability and interest in a chosen field, and concentrated
reading in a specific area. Influential factors designated
by Group B, in rank order, were parents, high school teachers,
specialists in the field, counselors, past employment, and
college grades.

Group C students experienced the greatest influence
from parents, high school teachers, specialists in the field,
former employment, college counselors, college grades, and
relatives other than parents, in that order. This group re-
corded the fewest "other" influences. These were predomin-
antly college instructors and reading and/or experience in the
field. Many respondents in Group B checked only one of the
influencing factors;this explains the high percentage (22.97%)

of "no reSponse" shown in Table 12 for this group.

 

J.)

 

 

71

Stability of Student Choices of Major Area of Study—-—

 

 

Table 13 illustratesthat more Honors students have made changes
in their major areas of curricular pursuit than students in
Groups B and C. This finding, not statistically significant,
lends only slight support to the conclusions drawn from a

study conducted by Chambers (9), who reported that high achievers
were more prone to make changes in their curricular decisions

than low achievers.

TABLE 13

CHANGES IN MAJORS

 

 

Number of Changes % Group A % Group B % Group C
None 54.97 72.30 62.68
1 33.33 21.62 26.76
2 8.19 3.38 4.93
3 or more 3.51 2.70 5.63

 

Honors scholars (Group A)were also found to have made
the greatest number of changes within their programs. Approxi-
mately one—third of this group had changed their major once,
and 8.19 per cent twice. With respect to curricular choice,
Group B reflects the greatest stability. Group C led in the
jpercentage (5.63%) who had made three or more major curricular
changes. Difference among groups with respect to the number

c)f changes was significant at the .01 level of confidence.

 

72

Reasons given for the most recent major changes are

shown in Table 14. Students were asked to check all the

reasons which applied to them. Students in Groups A and B

attributed their changes largely to transfer

Group C reported that their changes of major

of interests.

were due mostly

to transfer of interests, trouble with difficult courses,

and college course test results. Group A students indicated

far more influence from counseling than students in either

Group B or Group C.

 

 

TABLE 14
REASONS GIVEN FOR MOST RECENT CHANGES IN MAJORS
Reasons % Group A % Group B % Group C
Counseling by advisers 7.60 1.35 1.41
Test results 3.51 1.35 7.04
Changes of interest 33.92 17.57 28.17
Low grades 0.58 0.68 5.63
Influence of friends 3.51 1.35 4.23
Difficult courses 0.58 1.35 7.75
Dislike of instructors 2.92 1.35 3.52
r-Other and/or No response 61.40 79.05 64.79

 

Satisfaction with Present Major---The

respondents were

also asked whether they are now satisfied with their choice of

rnajor. Per cent responses to this question are recorded in

 

 

 

73

Table 15. Only 65.50 per cent of Group A, 56.76 per cent of
Group B, and 59.15 per cent of Group C reported satisfaction
with their present majors. While the proportion of dissatis-
fied students was small in all groups (1.17%, 4.73%, and
4.23% for groups A, B, and C respectively), there were many
students who were uncertain of their choices. Combined
totals for "No" and "Not sure" responses were 21.64, 20.27,
and 26.06 per cent, respectively, for Groups A, B, and C.
Inasmuch as differences among groups were not statistically
significant in this respect, it seems logical to conclude
that all of these students are in need of some effective
provision for exploring the underlying factors contributing

to indecision and/or dissatisfaction.

TABLE 15

SATISFACTION WITH PRESENT CHOICE OF MAJOR

 

Degree of Satisfaction % Group A % Group B % Group c

 

Satisfied 65.50 56.76 59.15
Uncertain 20.47 15.54 21.83
Not satisfied 1.17 4.73 4.23
No response 12.86 22.97 14.79

 

Discriminatory practices of faculty and students.--For
purposes of this study, discrimination for or against was de—

fined as "the making of an unfair distinction in the treatment

 

 

 

74

of one student as compared with treatment of other students."
Participants were asked whether they felt that they had ever
been subject to favorable or unfavorable discrimination by
faculty or by other students, and whether they thought either
type of discrimination had affected their grades. Results of
the Chi—square analysis of responses are shown in Table 16.
Responses are discussed in terms of faculty discrimination
and student discrimination, each being subdivided into extent
and type, explanations given, and student assessment of the

effect of particular discrimination upon course grades.

TABLE 16

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C-—PERCEPTIONS OF
DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES

 

Degrees of

 

Item Chi-square Freedom Significance
Teacher discrimination: 1
Evidence and type 26.52 4 **
Effect upon grades 39.34 6 **
Student discrimination: 2
Evidence and type 8.33 2 N.S.
Effect upon grades 11.25 N.S

 

1Significant at the .01 level of confidence.

2Not significant.

Faculty Discrimination--Extent and Type—--Table 17 shows

 

tflle percentage distribution of Groups A, B, and C with respect

t0 the extent and type of faculty discrimination. Group A

 

 

75

reported considerably more (significant at the .01 level)
total and favorable discrimination than either of the other
groups. Group C claimed significantly more unfavorable

,faculty discrimination than either Group A or B.

TABLE 17

EXTENT AND TYPE OF FACULTY DISCRIMINATION

 

 

Item % Group A % Group B % Group C

Extent:

Have noticed faculty

discrimination 54.39 29.73 33.80

No response 45.61 70.27 66.20
Type:

Favorable 76.00 27.03 19.71

Unfavorable 20.42 16.88 35.21

No response 3.58 56.09 45.08

 

Percentage distribution of students' perceptions of
the reasons for faculty discrimination are indicated in
Table 18.

"Other" reasons pertaining to faculty discrimination
as noted by students are enumerated in Table 19. They are
arranged in rank order of frequency of mention within each

group.

 

 

 

 

 

 

76

TABLE 18

REASONS FOR FACULTY DISCRIMINATION

 

 

 

Reasons for Group A Group B Group C
Discrimination F1 U2 F U F U
Scholarship supere 39.18 1.17 16.89 0.68 7.75 1.41
ior to classmates

Getting better 2.92 1.17 3.38 0.00 2.82 0.70
grades, studying
less

Use of extensive 4.09 0.00 0.00 2.03 3.52 2.11
vocabulary

Honors College 21.64 4.68 2.03 0.68 0.70 1.41
eligibility

Marital status 0.58 1.71 0.68 1.35 0.70 3.52

Poor course 0.58 4.09 0.00 4.73 2.11 8.45
background

Foreign birth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 2.82
Age variation 0.58 0.00 1.35 2.70 1.41 3.52
from class

Other 6.43 7.60 2.70 4.73 0.70 11.27

No response 23.99 79.58 72.97 82.42 80.29 64.79

 

lFavorable

2Unfavorable

 

77

TABLE 19

"OTHER" REASONS FOR FACULTY DISCRIMINATION

 

Group Favorable

Unfavorable

 

A Contribution to class discus—
sion

Social attraction of teacher
to student

Prominance of student’s
family in college com—
munity

Teacher expectancy too
high

Teacher exploitation

of Honors scholars—-

use of ”busy work"

 

B Reward for hard work

Friendship with teacher

Unwillingness to con-
form to classroom
customs

Unfair grading

Personality clash with
instructor

Poor instruction

Refusal to "brown up"
teacher

Unwillingness to cheat

 

C Regular class attendance

Faculty Discrimination-~Effec

Unwillingness to con-
form

Personality clashes

Refusal to "apple
polish"

t upon Grades—-—Students

 

‘Nere asked whether they thought faculty discrimination had

affected the grades they received.

Table 20 Shows that

 

78

differences among group responses in this respect were sig—
nificant at the .01 level. Groups A and B reported more

favorable than unfavorable effects.

TABLE 20

EFFECT OF FACULTY DISCRIMINATION UPON GRADES

 

 

Effect Upon Grades % Group A % Group B % Group C
Favorable 30.99 15.54 8.45
None 38.01 43.92 41.55
Unfavorable 8.19 8.11 21.13
No response 22.81 32.43 28.87

 

While the percentage of students feeling no effect upon
grades as a result of faculty discrimination remained fairly
constant for the three groups, the high percentage of Group A
(30.99%) reporting favorable effects differs very signifi-
cantly from 8.45 per cent for Group C. The percentage of stu-
dents feeling unfavorable effects from this type of discrimin—
ation ranged from 8.19 and 8.11 per cent for Groups A and B to
21.13 per cent in Group C. From these data it appears that
Students felt that favorable discrimination by faculty con—
tributed somewhat to the attainment of higher grades by Groups
A and B, whereas unfavorable discrimination by faculty had a

<ieterrent effect upon the grades of Group C.

 

 

 

79

Student Discrimination-—Extent and Type———Participants

 

were also asked whether they thought they had experienced dis—
crimination by other students. The percentage distribution

of the responses made to this question by Groups A, B, and C
is presented in Table 21. Evidence of peer discrimination
cited by Group A was somewhat higher than that reported by
either Group B or C, but not significantly so. Percentage
distribution of reasons indicated for student discriminatory
practices are given in Table 22.

Group A attributed the highest proportialof favorable
and unfavorable discrimination to the same three reasons:
better scholarship, achievement of better grades with less
study, and Honors College membership. Group C reported dif-
ference from average class age, foreign birth, lack of ex-
tensive vocabulary, poor course background, and the fact that
they were married as the five most important reasons for

unfavorable peer discrimination.

TABLE 21

EVIDENCE OF DISCRIMINATION SHOWN BY OTHER STUDENTS

 

 

Response % Group A % Group B % Group C
Have seen evidence 33.33 20.95 22.54
NO evidence 65.50 78.38 77.46

N1) response 1.17 0.67 0.00

 

 

 

 

80

TABLE 22

REASONS FOR STUDENT DISCRIMINATION

 

Group A Group B Group C

 

Reasons for
Discrimination F1 U2 F U F U

 

Scholarship super- 19.88 8.19 10.14 3.38 5.63 3.52
ior to classmates

 

Getting better 6.43 9.36 6.08 2.70 4.23 4.63
grades, studying
less
Extensive vocabulary 0.58 3.51 0.68 1.35 2.11 5.23
Honors College 10.53 5.26 0.68 0 68 1.41 3 52
eligibility
Marital status 1.17 0.58 2.03 2.70 0.00 4.23
Poor course back- 0.00 2.39 0.68 1.35 3.52 4.93
ground
Foreign birth 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.63
Age difference from 1.17 0.58 0.68 2.70 2.11 6.34
class majority
Other 1.75 4.09 2.03 3.38 0.58 2.11
No response 58.49 66.04 77.00 81.76 80.41 59.86
1
Favorable
2Unfavorable

Student Discrimination——Effect Upon Grades-—-Both Groups

 

A and B reported more favorable than unfavorable effects upon
grades resulting from student discrimination; 9.15 per cent of

Ckroup C felt that discrimination by other students had been

 

 

 

 

81

influential in lowering their grades, whereas 13.38 per cent
of this group reported favorable effects upon grades from
this type of discrimination. Differences among groups were

not statistically significant.

Time devoted to co—curricular activities.—~Co-curricular

 

activities were defined as those, other than classes, which

are sponsored by the University. It was thought that differ—
ences among Groups A, B, and C with respect to the amount of
time devoted to these activities might contribute to an explan-
ation of differences among groups in relation to their scholas-
tic success. Table 23 presents the comparison of Groups A, B,
and C with respect to apportionment of time among co—curricular
activities and outside activities, and the effect of co—cur-

ricular activity upon grades, as perceived by the student.

TABLE 23

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C-—
APPORTIONMENT OF TIME

 

Degrees of
Item Chi-square Freedom Significance

 

Co-curricular activi—

ties, hours per week: 1
Sports 14.14 22 N. .
Scholastic 54.40 22 **
Social 33.43 22 N.S.

Effect of co—curricular
activities upon grades 5.87 6 N.S.

Outside activities,over
5 hours per week 17.39 12 N.S.

 

lNot significant.
2Significant at the .01 level of confidence.

 

 

 

 

82

Table 24 shows the number of hours per week devoted
by these students to three kinds Of co—curricular pursuit:
sport, scholastic, and social. Chi-square analysis revealed
no significant differences among groups in the number of
hours devoted to sport and social activities, but Group A
differed very significantly in the amount of time allotted
to scholastic activity. It might seem that participation in
scholastic activities had contributed to the higher grade
point averages of the Group A students, and conversely, lack
Of participation in this area might have contributed to the
lower grades of Groups B and C. Table 25, "Effect of Co-
curricular Participation Upon Grades," shows that this did
not appear to be the case. Group A led in the percentage of
students who stated that this activity lowered their grades,
and Group C students exceeded in the percentage reporting

that such activity had raised their grades.

Time devoted to outside activities.-—Outside activi-
ties were defined as functions which were not sponsored by
the University. Figure 1 shows the relationship among Groups
A, B, and C with respect to time devoted to these activities.
Differences among groups were not statistically significant.
Group A exceeds the other two groups in dating, sorority
activity, and attendance at concerts and movies. Group B
Iled in housekeeping tasks, and Group C in television, radio

Elnd phonograph, and in outdoor and indoor sports.

 

 

 

 

HOURS DEVOTED WEEKLY TO C0—CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

83

TABLE 24

 

 

 

 

 

52:? £2325. 52:23: 8.0.2.122“
week B A B c A B C
O 64.91 67.57 59.15 32.75 47.30 41 55 40.94 67.57 73.24
1 6.43 8.78 6.34 5.85 4.05 4.23 8.19 7.43 1.41
2 16 96 10.81 14.08 11 11 13.51 11.24 15.20 8.11 4.93
3 7.02 6.76 9.15 9.94 6.76 7.75 9.32 5.41 2.82
4 1.75 2.02 4.93 5.85 7.43 8.45 9.94 2.03 2.11
5 1.75 2.70 0.00 8.19 6.08 8.45 2.92 4.05 1.41
6 0.58 0.68 0.70 7.02 3.38 0.70 1.75 2.03 0.70
7 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 2.70 2.82 0.58 0.00 1.41
8 0.00 0.68 0.70 3.51 1.35 2.11 2.39 0.00 6.34
9 0.58 0.00 0.00 12.87 7.43 7.75 8.19 0.00 2.11
10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.82
10+ 0.00 0.00 0.70 1.16 0.00 0.70 0.58 0.00 0.00
No
response0.02 0.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 4.25 0.00 3.37 0.70
TABLE 25

EFFECT OF CO—CURRICULAR PARTICIPATION UPON GRADES

 

 

Effect % Group A % Group B % Group C
Raised them 7.02 7.43 13.38
NO effect 77.19 77.70 71.13
Lowered them 9.36 6.76 9.15
No answer 6.43 8.11 6.34

"Pancmmes 0F 'Resmwnwrs

:] GRMA
E Gm B
mnmmumnm 01m 0

84

 

 

 

- GUI-noon AND
1~oooa Spams

SEKEEPINQ

D
O
I

 

  

A lIllIlllIllllIlll[lflllllllIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllTE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

,,
Nfi
K .2..-

,, fllllllflllllllllllllllllllllIIHIIIllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

   

or
2
'z
A

‘3‘:
2:
36
Pg
:35

- STUDENTS DEVOHNG MORETMAN FNE HOURS WEEKLY

F\GURE 1 RRCENT DISTR|BUTION

 

73 OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES

 

85

Student employment.-—Some students are faced with the

 

need to contribute to their financial support while they are
attending college. Comparison was made among Groups A, B,
and C with respect to the hours per week devoted to work,

the type of work, and the students' perception of the effect
of such activity upon the grades they have received. Results

of this comparison are shown in Table 26.

TABLE 26

COMPARISON OF GROUPS A, B, AND C-—
STUDENT EMPLOYMENT

 

Degrees of

 

Item ChiaSquare Freedom Significance
Employment-—hours 1
weekly 30.97 10 **
Type of work 77.22 20 **
Effect of work upon 2
grades 6.30 4 N.S.

 

lSignificant at the .01 level.

2Not significant.

EQEEE Devoted to york---Tab1e 27 shows the percentage
comparison of Groups A, B, and C with respect to the number
of hours devoted weekly to regular employment. Figure 2
presents“ this information in a bar graph. Group A contains
the smallest percentage of students who did not work at all,

the greatest percentage of students who worked between five

 

86

and twenty hours weekly. Groups B and C contained 7.44 per
cent and 9.15 per cent, respectively, of students employed
more than 20 hours each week. The investigator questioned
whether there was a relationship between the number of hours
a student was employed and the quality of the course grades
she received. Chi—square analysis of these data revealed
differences among the groups, significant at the .01 level
of confidence. This finding partially supports the thesis
that the students working the longest hours receive the

lower grades.

TABLE 27

HOURS DEVOTED WEEKLY TO REGULAR EMPLOYMENT

 

 

Hours % Group A % Group B % Group C
O 46.78 63.51 55.63
1—5 7.02 6.08 11.27
5-10 14.62 6.76 11.27
10-20 A 25.15 11.49 9.15
20+ _ 4.68 7.44 9.15
No response 1.75 4.72 3-52

 

Type of Work Performed by Students——‘Some types of em-
ployment are more physically demanding than others. The
author felt that it was possible this factor might have some

effect upon the academic achievement of the students involved.

 

 

 

 

 

‘Pencem'Aes a; Pgepouoeme

 

87

 
 
   

    

 

"“muuum MI] 2

 

 

 

        
 

 

‘Ii‘liili‘u’iIluluIIIIIliiillliilillimlI‘lmiiIIIIIIIiIIIIIiIIiiiIii

 
 

 

 

FIGURE 8 .RR CENT DISTRIBUTION HOURS 'PER WEEK OF REGULAR EMPLOYMENT

 

 

 

 

 

88

Table 28 records the types of work in which Groups A, B,

and C were employed. Groups differed at the .01 level of
significance with respect to this factor. The more phy—
sically demanding work (baby—sitting, housekeeping, sales—
work, and food service employment) characterized Group C,
whereas Group A students were employed as secretaries,
laboratory assistants, residence assistants, and librarians.
A few (4.09%) were waitresses. Group B percentages exceeded
the other groups in the classifications of church or school

janitress, and switchboard operators.

TABLE 28
TYPES OF WORK PERFORMED BY STUDENTS

A

 

Type of Work % Group A % Group B % Group C
Library 9.94 6.08 2.11
Janitress 0.00 1.35 0.00
Waitress 4.09 4.05 1.34
Salesclerk 4.09 3.38 7.05
Secretarial and typing 21.64 10.81 14.08
Residence assistant 4.09 1 35 0.70
Laboratory helper 4.68 0.00 1.41
Switchboard, office 5.26 6.08 5.63
Baby-sitting, housework 1.75 2.82 6.08
Food service 1.17 1.35 5.63

Other 43.29 62.73 55.97

 

 

 

 

89

"other"occupations; these

All three groups reported
consisted of "research" work (14.04%), nursing (1.17%),
teaching and reading to the blind (4.68%), and newspaper
work (1.17%) for Group A students. Group B participants
reported teaching and reading to the blind as the highest

"other" work. Group C recorded

single percentage (4.73%) of
only one student (0.70%) in each of the following: "research,"
church music, photography, and laundry work. From these

data there is slight indication that the amount of energy
expended in employment may be a contributing factor in low
grade point achievement, although Group A contained the
greatest percentage of waitresses. The extent of this rela-

tionship does not support the somewhat common premise that

students doing the most tiring work receive the lowest grades.

Student evaluation of academic progress.—- The investi—

 

gator hoped to gain some understanding of the relationships
between the significant non-intellectual factors Just dis-
cussed and variations among groups with respect to academic
achievement. Following the theory of Rogers (54) that stu-
dents are themselves the best source of affective data, stu—
dents were asked to assess their academic progress, and to
“estimate the time and effort they spend on assignments as
compared with their classmates. Differences among percentage
responses of Groups A, B, and C withrespect to these questions

are significant at the .01 level of confidence. Figure 3

 

 

 

 

 

 

90

shows the percentage comparison among groups with respect to
student evaluation of their own scholastic progress. Table

29 presents the percentage distribution of these same responses,
the factors which students think have inhibited them most in

the achievement of higher grades, and the factors they think
would be most influential in improvement of grades. About one-
third of Group B said they were not doing well enough; 12.84 per
cent said they could do very much better. It would appear that
Group C, with the lowest percentage of satisfied members and the
highest percentage of students believing they could do much
better, might be poorly prepared for college work and/or
deficient in intrinsic motivation. A relatively high percen—
tage of this group (21.83%) report they would benefit from
better teaching.

Lack of self—discipline was cited by all student groups
as one of the three reasons for not achieving higher grades.
Group A included co-curricular activities and basic satis—
faction with present scholastic records among the three high
ranking Justifications. Group B believed they lacked incen-
tive and time, while Group C attributed their failure to improve
to poor background and the threat posed by examinations.

With respect to the forces which would be most influ—
ential in the unprovement of academic standing, all groups
cited the same three factors, and in nearly the same proportions:
hard study, interest in the subject, and increased teaching

skill of instructors.

 

 

 

T45 RCENTAGElggTQQRDNm

I
.'
65-
60-

$5.

 

1:! Gum/1
% Stow-B
—m- Gmp c

    

130m as WELL Nar nowq Wm.
AS Ofilbu ENOUGH

iFGUREO. STUDENT/APPRMSALOF SCHOLASTncRoaREss

 

 

_.7 ins-*1

ifs-’35:;__ . . ‘
@L

 

 

 

 

Om.©m No.4m so.wm nomcoamos o: go\ecc schoov
mw.am sm.sfi 20.:H mpoaoznpmcfi mo Haflxm mgegomoe
am.:m 0s mm so.wm mpomeSm CH pMOLOLQH
ms on 4a.mm mm.wm seeps stem
“mopmgm Laogu wgwmflmp :H
Hmapconawca pmos on oasoz gowns mucoosrm
an co>ew whoaomm mcHECML pmocwfi: mouse .m
Sm.n: as mm mm.mq noncommmp on LO\UCN mepov
mm ma scumogzpmcoHLmQHmem
mn.om pesopwxomp DQOAOHMMDwQH
ma 0H oEHp mo gomq
q@.ma os.aa O>OLQEH Op poo: Bo: om
2 ms om mm.om sw.mfl ogflaaflomflouwaom mo Emma
0. om.@m mtfl>flpom toastenadouoO spa: mmsm
“moomgm poswfic mgfl>owgom woe
pom co>am mcommop wcflxcms umoswac ocsgw .m
oo o mm.a mm.m oncoammt oz
Hm am am.ma mm.o toasts nose sto> oe easoo
mm as @q.mm om.ws nwfioco Hams wcfioo poz
om ma mm.on Ha.mq mapflmmoa mm Ham: mo wcaom
. "owOHHoo CH mmogmopa
gapmmfiocom ESQ mo coflpmsfim>c pCOUSBm .H
u esopo R m @3090 R < Q3090 R EouH

 

mmmmwomm OHEMQ<Q<

mm wamae

 

 

 

 

 

93
Summary of non—intellectual factors.-~An effort was
Rigidiee to identify some non-intellectual factors which might
t1£1\163

contributed to the attainment of Honors College quali—

f7i.C:Eition by Group A students, on

1 contributed to reasons why
Group B and/or (3 students did not satisfy the eligibility
CI‘i‘tzerion for the Honors College. These factors were family
k”51¢kground, including the structure of the families; the
edileation, occupations, and marital status of parents;

cur~
KPj—Cnalar adjustment of students, including persons and

EVicztors that influenced curricular choices, and the stability
of? and satisfaction with these choices; the effect upon
EDTades of discriminatory practices of faculty and peers; the
apportionment of student time among co-cirricular and out-
Side pursuits; and

student evaluation of scholastic achieve—
ment, their reasons for not having attained higher grades,
and their opinions as to which factors would be the most

helpful in increasing academic success.

Neither the size and the structure of families, nor

the education or occupations of parents were found to differ

significantly among groups. Further investigation revealed

that the groups did not differ significantly with respect to

factors influencing choices of college major. Group A made
significantly more program changes than Groups B and C; all
groups showed high percentages of students who were either

uncertain about or dissatisfied with their present majors.

 

 

 

 

 

 

9h

Group A reports significantly more favorable faculty
air1c1 student discrimination than Groups B and C, the greatest
I>ealri3 of which was attributed to high s.holarship and/or Honors
C3c>iLZLege eligibility. Group A reported that favorable faculty
Ciiljs<3rimination had contributed to high grades; Group C felt
leleais faculty discrimination had had an unfavorable effect
Llpongrades.

The amount of time devoted by students to sports and

SCD‘Clial co~curricu1ar activities did not differ among groups;
C§IR3up A reported significantly more time spent in the pursuit
of? scholastic activities than Groups B and C; nevertheless,
tlhey maintained this had not affected their academic achieve-
ment.

There were statistical differences 1r the time allotted
to and the types of employment of the students in the three
samples. Group A students showed a greater per cent employed
than Groups B and C, but fewer of this group (A) worked more
than 20 hours weekly. Their work demanded somewhat less
physical energy than that done by the other two groups. Group
A employment was closely related to academic pursuits. For
example, they worked in the library, laboratories, or as
secretaries orresidence assistants. The other groups were
characterized by work of the manual type, such as baby—sitting,

housework, food service, and sales work. Group A students

felt that work had lowered their grades, whereas Groups B and

 

 

 

95

C3 Ireaxoorted that work had exerted little or no effect upon
1:}163:i:r academic records.

With respect to scholastic records, many students of

EiiLiL groups stated their academic performance was not commen-

E3ll]?eate with their ability. Group A attributed this fact

‘UWCDEstly to participation in co-curricular activities; Groups

E3 Elnd C stated that they had failed to exercise sufficient
E36Elf-discipline. All groups cited hard study, interest in
‘bklea subject, and more effective teaching as the three most
'1r1fluential factors for increasing academic success. Although
a. large percentage of Group B respondents felt that they were
r“lot doing well enough in course work, they also reported they
Were expending greater effort than their classmates in prep-
aration of assignments and were doing their best to achieve.

Hence, one might conclude that of the non—intellectual

factors examined, those which seem to distinguish among the

three groups are co—curricular scholastic activity, student
employment, satisfaction with major curricular choice,

faculty discrimination, and student evaluations of their own

progress. It seems evident that students feel the need for

more guidance in selecting their courses, a higher quality

of instruction, and increased intrinsic motivation.

Section 2.——Participation of Honors Scholars in
the Basic Featuresof the Honors College

The ten main features of the Honors College, as set

forth by the planning committee, are listed in Table 30.

 

 

 

{ah—

 

 

 

P1c>r1c>1rs students (Group A only) were asked to examine the

1_j_ssis and designate those features in which they had taken
EDElI7t3, those in which they did not choose to take part, and
13k1c>sse which they found impossible to include in their

8 Chedules.

TABLE 30

PERCENTAGE PARTICIPATION IN THE BASIC
FEATURES OF THE HONORS COLLEGE
\\\

Have Did Not No
Bassic Features Participated Choose Impossible Response

 

 

CI‘edit by exam-
tlnation 48.54 6.42 23.39 21.65

Iiidependent study
Under qualified
faculty member 33.33 12.28 49.71 4.68

Waiving advanced
course prerequi—

sites 71.35 8.19 18.13 2.33

Participation in
graduate courses 22.81 28.65 43.86 4.68

Closer relationship
with Honors College
adviser 50.88 7.60 34.50 7.02

Early registration 97.66 0.00 0.00 2.34

Library stack
privileges 60.82 15.79 118.71 4.68

Attendance at
faculty seminars 11.70 33.33 49.71 5.26

Honors College col-
loquium participa—

tion 17.54 24.56 52.05 5.85

Increased flexibi—
lity of program 68.42 3.51 23.39 4.68

 

 

 

97

Early registration is by far the most popular of the

1361s3j_c features. Almost all (97.66%) of the Honors students
tsc>c>LC advantage of this privilege. Waiving of prerequisites,
j.r1c:1?eased flexibility of program, and library privileges also
X‘Elr11< among the four most used privileges. Those in which
3313laxflents participated the least were faculty seminars, inde-

EDEErident study under qualified faculty members, Honors College

C3olloquia, and graduate courses. In many instances students
I“eported that these were impossible to schedule. Table 31
Stlows the three reasons most frequently given for non-parti-
Cipation in each of the basic features. The similarity of
iPeasons, regardless of the features in question, is striking.

Section 3.——Attitudes of Respondents Toward the

Honors College and Suggestions for
Eligibility Criteria

Comparisons were made among Groups A, B, and C rela-
tive to their attitudes toward Honors College membership,
and what they thought were suitable eligibility criteria.

Table 32 presents the results of the Chi—square analysis of
these responses.

Students in the Honors College group were asked whether

they would again elect to Join the Honors College if they
found that they were eligible. Students in Groups B and C
were asked whether they would Join the Honors College if

they could meet the academic requirement.

Responses of the
three groups differed at the .01 level of significance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

98

TABLE 31

THREE HIGHEST RANKING REASONS FOR NON-PARTICIPATION
IN EACH BASIC FEATURE

 

 

 

‘
\#

 

Non-Participants

 

 

Item
Number %
C31?€sdit by examination
Could see no benefit in this for me 15 29.41
Did not take the initiative 13 25.49
Was not encouraged 9 17.65
Other reasons 14 27.45
TOTAL 51 100.00
II‘ldependent study under qualified faculty
Was not encouraged 29 27.36
Did not take initiative 17 16.04
Could see no benefit in this for me 14 13.20
Other reasons 46 43.40
TOTAL 106 100.00
)Naiving prerequisites
Could see no benefit in this for me 22 48.89
Was not encouraged 11 24.44
Did not take initiative 8 17.78
Other reasons 4 8.89
TOTAL 45 100.00
Participation in graduate courses
Felt too young 26 20.97
Was not encouraged 17 13.71
Could see no benefit in this for me 15 12.10
Other reasons 66 53.22
TOTAL 124 100.00
Closer relationship with Honors College
adviser than with original adviser
Was not encouraged l 20.83
Did not take the initiative 10 13.89
Attempted, was rebuffed 6 8.33
Other reasons 41 56.95
TOTAL 72 100.00
Early registration
Was not encouraged 1 50.00
Someone else failed to take initiative 1 50.00
No other reasons recorded 0 00.00
TOTAL 2 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

99

TABLE 31—-Continued

 

Non—Participants

 

 

 

 

 

Item
Number %
I;j_txrary and stack privileges

Could see no benefit in this for me 16 27.12

Did not take the initiative 8 13.56

Was not aware of this possibility 3 5.08

Other reasons 32 54.24

TOTAL 59 100.00

E°Eiculty seminars

Felt out of place 49 34.51

Did not take the initiative 27 19.01

Could not schedule 15 10.56

Other reasons 51 35.92

TOTAL 142 100.00
}{Onors College colloquia

Did not take the initiative 36 27.48

Could not schedule 24 18.32

Felt out of place 15 11.45

Other reasons 56 42.75

TOTAL 131 100.00
Program flexibility

Was not encouraged 7 15.22

Could not schedule 7 15.22

Could see no benefit in this for me 6 13.04

Other reasons 26 56.52

TOTAL 46 100.00

TABLE 32
COMPARISON OF ATTITUDES OF RESPONDENTS
TOWARD HONORS COLLEGE MEMBERSHIP
Degrees of
Item Chi-square Freedom Significance

Would you Join (or 1

rejoin) if eligible? 235.03 A

**

 

lsignificant at .01 level.

 

 

 

(rd—Ti

 

   

 

 

IOO

C}I?c>ilp A favored membership, 91.76 per cent stating they
vvc>112Ld join again, given the same prerogative. The five
Ireseassons most frequently checked in support of this choice
VJEBI?€3, in rank order: (1) it is more challenging than regu—
3_ELIé programs; (2) Honors students have the best counselors
Eirlci instructors; (3) it gives prestige with the faculty;
(24C) the library privileges are desirable; and (5) it gives
EDI?eestige with other students. Rank order of reasons offered
1337 Group A students who would not rejoin were: (1) it re-
<Zillires more work; (2) it assures good grades for the rest
(If the college years; and (3) it leads to being a social
Cnatcast.
Group B. was less favorable toward membership in the
Honors College than Group A. Almost one-third (31.76%) of
this group said they would join if they were eligible, and
4.05 per cent said they would not join, even if they could
meet the requirements. A very large proportion of Group B
(64.19%) did not respond to the question. The rank order
of the first five reasons given by Group B for favoring mem-
bership was: (1) Honors students receive the best counselors
and instructors; (2) Honors students get the best jobs; (3)
the library privileges are desirable; (4) it gives prestige
with students; and (5) it gives prestige with the faculty.
These students ranked negative choices as follows: (1) it
requires more work; (2) it is more challenging; and (3) it

leads to being a social outcast.

 

 

101

Over two—thirds (68.31%) of the students in Group C
favored membership in the Honors College. Those who would
not elect to join if they were eligible constituted 26.06
per cent of the sample. Only a small per cent (5.63%) did
not reply to the question. The most frequently checked
reasons favoring membership were: (1) it is more challenging;
(2) Honors students receive the best counselors and instruc—
tors; (3) the Honors students get the best jobs; (4) it gives
prestige with other students; and (5) it gives prestige with
the faculty. The reasons they gave for not wishing to join
were: (1) it requires more work; (2) Honors students are
graded by higher standards; and (3) there is no prestige con—
nected with membership. Thus, it would seem that although
the three groups differed significantly as to whether they
would aspire to Honors College membership, those who gave
affirmative answers substantiated their choices with the
same reasons. Table 33 presents percentage responses of stu-
dents as to whether they would join the Honors College.

It would appear from the data that most students are
basically favorable toward the Honors College, but that
Groups B and C give less support to the present selection
criterion than the members of the organization.

Students in all three samples were asked to choose the
criteria which they thought were suitable for Honors College

eligibility. Their responses are recorded in Table 34. As

 

 

. 4?. bran-:3. J

.“’..I£lr‘fl.tup v.

« ... ,...0‘L.av..n..... ~

., . I. v... .Rurwnrcu- . ,

tun.) uy, I.<..IH~..I.|I.\ .‘U L‘s-I... ..
s h . .. .. [1.0%

           

 

I _

 

102

TABLE 33

ATTITUDES TOWARD HONORS COLLEGE MEMBERSHIP

 

 

 

Item % Group A % Group B % Group C
Would join again under same
circumstances 91.76 -—- -——
Would join if eligible ——- 31.76 68.31
Would not join if eligible 5.85 4.05 26.06
No response 2.39 64.19 5.63
TABLE 34

STUDENT CHOICES: ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

 

Honors Colle e Member-
ship CrIteria % Group A % Group B % Group C

 

College grade point
average 40.94 29.05 19.72

Orientation scores +
grade point average 11.11 5.41 5.63

Examination after three
college terms 3.51 5.41 5.63

Grade point average +
orientation scores +
co-curricular activity 2.92 8.78 25.35

Co—curricular activity +

grade point average 3.51 4.05 5.63
High school records 1.17 0.00 1.41
Grade point average +

faculty recommendation 25.15 27.70 12.68
Grade point average +

completion of special

project or paper 0.00 8.78 14.08
Grade point average + consid-

eration of time devoted to

work and co-curricular

activity 5.26 4.73 2.11
Other 6.43 6.08 7.75

 

 

103

STOUT) grade point averages decrease, the percentage of the
reSpondents choosing the single criterion "college grade
point average" diminishes, and the number of students choosing
combinations of two or more criteria increases.

One-third of Group A favored the possibility of joining
the Honors College immediately upon entering college, quali:
fications depending upon high school class rank. Group B
students favoring this alternative were 31.76 per cent of
the respondents; 24.65 per cent of Group C agreed with these
students.

The Honors scholars were asked to check the ways in
which they had benefited from Honors College membership, and
the ways, if any, in which it had been detrimental to them.
The three most frequently stated benefits, listed in rank
order, are: (1) increased satisfaction with educational
plans (77.19%); (2) increased satisfaction with faculty rela-
tionships (75.44%); and (3) increased satisfaction with
vocational plans (50.88%). The three evidences of dissatis;
faction with membership, in rank order, were related to: (l)
feeling of belongingness in the residence hall (82.46%); (2)
relationships with roommates (73.68%); and (3) relationships
with close friends (72.51%).

Honors scholars were then asked to check the experi-
ences which they thought would be the most beneficial addi—

tions to their programs. These are recorded in Table 35.

 

104

GPOUWMS B and C display a tendency toward favoring the adoption

of some special requirement through which Honors students

would be able to justify their membership in Honors College.

TABLE 35

SUGGESTIONS OF HONORS STUDENTS FOR EXPERIENCES
WHICH WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THEIR PROGRAMS

 

Suggested Experiences

% of Honors Students
Favoring Suggestion

 

Better instruction
More class discussion
More educational counseling

Smaller classes, of Honors students
only

Especially trained faculty
Less formal lecturing
More independent projects

Use of original documents rather
than textbooks

61.99
49.71
48.54

45.61
40.35
36.26
29.24

16.96

 

Honors scholars place considerable emphasis upon the

improvement of instruction through provision of better—trained

faculty and/or more suitable teaching methods. Nearly half of

these students (48.54%) ask for increased educational coun-

seling. It would seem from the data in Table 35 that students

have been rather cognizant of their academic weaknesses and

perceptive in indicating underlying causes.

 

105

From the findings reported in this chapter the
investigator concludes that the majority of students aspire
to achieve their highest potential, but that educators may
be placing unwarranted dependence upon students‘ abilities
to channel their talents in the most productive direction.
Students' belief that they are capable of better work, in
conjunction with their inferences of deficiencies in good
instruction and adequate assistance in making major educa-

tional decisions would appear to indicate that those respon—

Msxg‘etxmv

sible for the educational well-being of these students are
charged with an increased responsibility in directing them
toward individual excellence. V

This chapter has presented the data analysis in some
detail. Chapter V contains the summary and conclusions
drawn from the study. Implications are made for further
study of the identification of and provisions for Honors

students.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS

OF THE STUDY

Effective higher education provides opportunities

and facilities for the fullest development of the capacities

 

and interests of all students. It produces well—adjusted
citizens who are able to cope with the problems of life and
to contribute substantially to the welfare of individuals
and society.

The basic purpose of the establishment of the Honors
College at Michigan State University in 1956 was to identify
and offer special provisions for the "gifted" college stu—
dents, whose abilities enable them to learn more rapidly,
to probe more deeply, and to expand their knowledge beyond
the limits of basic curricula,l Such a program entails care-
ful identification of potential participants and thoughtful
provision of opportunities for reasonable adaptations of
the curricula and procedures of formal education to the
extraordinary capacities and interests of the gifted.

The criterion established for.membership eligibility
intflujsorganization was the attainment of a 3.50 grade point

average for the first three quarters of matriculation.

106

 

 

 

107

Studenits who fail to attain this average in the first year,
but do so in the second, may be permitted to enter the
Honors College at this time on the basis of their cumulative

averages. Special opportunities provided for these scholars,

known as the "basic features" of the program, are registration A

on the first day of the enrollment period, specific library
privileges, and special recognition at the commencement
exercises and at other appropriate occasions. Opportunities
for adaptation of curricula and procedures are dependent
upon the student for primary motivation: provision for inde-
pendent study, participation in graduate courses and Honors
College colloquia, attendance at faculty seminars, attain-
ment of credit by examination, and the waiving of advanced
course prerequisites.

Only through careful appraisal of the results of an
educational program by evaluation of specific goal attain-
ment can a college determine whether it is providing experi—
ences appropriate for the optimum development of its students.
This study was concerned with the evaluation of two major
components of the Honors College program at Michigan State
University as perceived by students: the adequacy of the
membership selection criterion and the suitability of the
special privileges and experiences offered to its members.
Evaluation, simply stated, consists of two questions: "What

was attempted?" and "How did it work?"

=wm‘4mA -F

 

 

 

108

The first of these questions, as it applies within

the framework of this study, is answered in the opening

paragraphs of this chapter. The author approached the

second question by posing three additional queries:

1.

Can the present Honors College eligibility

'fl’

criterion (high scholastic achievement) be
satisfactorily validated by a measurement of

the degree to which it aligns with the most

 

acceptable of the known scholastic predictive
measures? What factors help to determine
whether or not students achieve in relation to
their ability, and, therefore, should be con-
sidered in determining which students are
qualified for the Honors College?

Do Honors scholars feel that the special pro-
visions offered to them are practical and
meaningful, or do they present reasonable sub—
stantiation for a considerable degree of non-
participation in these provisions?

What are the attitudes and suggestions of Honors
scholars and unselected students with respect
to membership in this organization and suitable

criteria for eligibility?

Factual data for each student were procured from the

Tabulating Department and the Office of Evaluation Services

of Michigan State University. The direct—mail questionnaire

 

 

 

 

   

109

tecrniique was used to gather personal data and student
opinions.

The samples selected for study included three groups
of Michigan State University undergraduate women, 192 stu-
dents per group. Group A consisted of all female members
of the Honors College. Participants in Groups B and C were
randomly selected with respect to grade point average,
Group B representative of 3.49 to 3.15, and Group C repre—
sentative of 2.50 and below.

Chi—square was employed for analysis of factual data
pertaining to students' high school rank and Reading Test
scores, and for the objective responses of the participants
to questionnaire items. Percentage comparisons were made
among groups with respect to the subjective data secured
from free—response and multiple-response items on the ques-
tionnaires,

This chapter summarizes the data analyzed in Chapter
IV. Conclusions are drawn and implications for further

study are suggested.

Summary of the Data Relative to Hypothesis 1

Statement of the hypothesis: There are no signifi-
cant differences among Groups A, B, and C with respect
to high school class rank and Orientation Reading Test
scores.

The author attempted to ascertain whether the grade

point achievement of all participants had a direct, positive

 

E)"

\ 759.: 3‘." ‘i

'-..'..‘.'_’1

.‘:Q. ”-1175 ‘53.-

w.
\

 

 

 

 

Y to
(IIfl‘u.

 

tIul'INl‘- ‘ ll!

 

110

relationship to the results of devices used at Michigan
State University for predicting college academic success.
The ranks of students in their high school graduating
classes and the scores they received on the Reading Test
of the Michigan State University Orientation Test battery,
considered the best of these predictors, were used as a
basis for comparison of the three groups of students.

It was found that both devices designated clearly
between high achievers (Group A) and low achievers (Group
C), but not between Honors students and members of Group B,
who might be described as low achievers with high ability.
This discrepancy might then be attributable to differences
in aspiration, purpose, courage, vitality, and/or determin-
ation, rather than to differences in native ability. The
investigator, believing that minimum grades may be needed
as a general standard, but should not stand in the way of
students who, by other measures, indicate that they are
qualified for the program, attempted to identify factors
which might seem to distinguish among students who possessed
equal potential but attained different levels of academic
achievement. Factors considered were: family background,
including the size and structure of the family and the
educational and occupational levels of the parents; the ap-
portionment of the students' time among and the effect upon

grades of co—curricular and outside activities; the extent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

111

and effect upon grades of faculty and student discrimination;
the factors and persons influential in the determination

of and the degree to which students are satisfied with major
curricular choices; and students' assessments of their aca-

demic progress and their reactions to college in general.

3“"
b' '

Chi—square analysis revealed that certain factors
seemed to have no bearing upon variations among groups of

participants with respect to grade point achievement: size ii

 

of family and position of the respondent in the family; '
marital status, education, and occupation of parents; time
devoted to sport and social co-curricular activities; and
discrimination by other students. The areas in which the
three groups exhibited significant differences were: time
devoted to participation in scholastic co-curricular activ-
ities; student perception of evidence and effect upon
grades of faculty discrimination; types of and time devoted
to employment; number of changes made in choice of major;
and student satisfaction with scholastic progress.

Although students in Group A devoted significantly
more time to scholastic co-curricular activities, they
did not believe that this participation had raised their
grades.

All students reported considerable discrimination
by other students, but it was in the perception of faculty

discrimination that the three groups differed significantly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

112

Group A reported the greatest amount of favorable faculty
discrimination, which they felt was exhibited in the form
of high grades. In 60.82 per cent of the cases favoritism
was attributed to the fact that they were better students
than their classmates and/or that they were members of the
Honors College. Group C felt that they had been subjected
to significantly more unfavorable faculty discrimination
than the other groups, and reported that it was manifested
in the assignment of low grades. Participants attributed
this unfavorable discrimination to inadequacy of course
background and/or to differences from their classmates
with respect to age, nationality, or marital status.

Although students in Group A and C did not identify
low achievement with the fact that they were earning part or
all of their college expenses, the study showed that more
Group B and C than Group A studentsworkedover 20 hours
weekly and performed tasks which were in general more phy-
sically tiring than Group A participants.

In all groups most students stated that they were
responsible for their own decisions as to college majors.
Not only did a greater proportion of Honors scholars claim
to have changed their majors than students in the other
samples, but they had made significantly more changes since
their original selections. The reasons students gave for

altering majors were largely concerned with changed interests.

 

 

 

 

 

113

Group C students also included difficult courses and low
grades among their justifications for changes of major.
Although altered interests are a natural consequence
of the educational process and are valid reasons for changes
in curricular emphasis, it is disconcerting to realize that
over 20 per cent of all participants in this study expressed
dissatisfaction and/pr doubt with respect to their wisdom
in choosing their present majors. It seems logical that
this state of mind is in itself one possible cause of under-
achievement, for only as a student is totally in harmony
with his goals can he perform at maximum potential. The
uncertainty and dissatisfaction expressed with respect to
choice of majors, coupled with the fact that 75.56 per cent
of the respondents were their own greatest influences in
making these decisions, suggests the need for improved and/pr
increased guidance and counseling. "The objective of all
educational guidance should be to stimulate the individual
to make the most of his potentialities," states the Panel
on Education in "The Pursuit of Excellence" (53). This func—
tion covers a broad span, beginning with the identification
of each child's talents and potentialities at the elementary
and junior high school levels. It continues through high
school and college, helping the student to direct theSe
talents into suitable channels, to a point where he is qual-
ified to continue his own self-development to the fullest

extent.

 

H. h ”“9! J 4).in

 

 

 

114

Substantial percentages of Groups A, B, and C
(46.20%, 59.46%, and 48.59%, reSpectively) indicated that
they were not achieving up to their ability in college
courses. Almost half of the Group A and B students,

(42.11% and 49.32%) stated that although they should do
better, they were doing as well as they could. A few Group
A and B participants (11.70% and 12.84%) stated that they
did not need to improve. A significantly large proportion
of Group C, 34.51 per cent, expressed the opinion that they
could be doing very much better work. Each group of stu—
dents cited limiting factors in the attainment of higher
grades than they were receiving. Those most frequently
given were, in rank order: Group A--too many co—curricular
activities, lack of self-discipline, and basic satisfaction
with their present grades; Group B-—1ack of self—discipline,
no feeling of a need to improve, and lack of time; Group
C-—lack of self-discipline, poor background, and the threat
posed by examinations. These data are in line with the A
prevalent "Gentleman's C" concept in higher education,
which supports average grades as an indication of the most
socially acceptable degree of accomplishment. The mediocre,
not the fullest capacity, appears to be the level to which
many students are motivated.

Asked what would be the most helpful in raising their

grades, all three groups designated more interest, hard

 

 

 

 

 

..v0. 4. ...lI£.q. . .
. t f. t. l . ‘ i ..
I l I. . 1 A Oilunv. . 4\ .. l§i.l.nl| i .‘I‘nun .I'nl .AII . I. I
. .If .1.-. ..i\h.\.mnl... .
.4! IV

.14.!-

 

 

115

study, and better teaching. It seems altogether possible

 

that these are interrelated factors, underscoring the need
for increased emphasis upon faculty—student interaction in
every stage of the educational process, from planning to

evaluation. Through such means more students might achieve

their full scholastic potential.

Summary of the Data Relative to Hypothesis 2

 

Hypothesis 2 was stated as follows: Honors College
women participate more freely in privileges such as
early registration and the use of unique library
facilities than they do in opportunities such as en—
rollment in graduate courses, waiver of advanced
course prerequisites, Honors College colloquia, and
independent study under the direction of qualified
faculty members, all of which must be initiated by
individual student application.

The findings of the study support this hypothesis.
The rate of student participation in early registration
(97.66%) far exceeds participation in any and all of the
student-motivated activities. The three reasons most com-
monly given by students for not taking part in the less
popular special features were: "I see no benefit in this
for me," "I was not encouraged," and "I did not take the
initiative." These reasons seem to the author to reflect
lack of incentive on the part of the students. No educa—
tional tool serves a purpose unless the student makes con—
structive use of it. From these data it appears that a re—

evaluation of the content and benefits of the basic features

of the Honors College program, undertaken in the light

 

 

 

 

ea. 44-1 |Il1‘. . I . .D.. |
J3 31.... l I .7! but .-
r! (”19g ‘udfl 1" . I .. .4. .

 

 

 

116

of students' needs, interests, capabilities, and limitations,
might be profitable.

The experiences in which students did not choose to
take part were faculty seminars,Honors College colloquia,
and graduate courses. An examination of the reasons students
gave for non—participation indicated that they ”felt out of
place" and "felt too young" for graduate courses and atten—
dance at faculty seminars, and that they "did not take the
necessary initiative” for Honors College colloquia. Either
the basic features need to be made to conform to the stu-
dents' perception of what will benefit them most, or, through
intensive individual counseling by faculty advisers and
guidance workers, students should be brought to appreciate
the true value of the special offerings to them. Assuming
that faculty and administration View the curriculum and its
contributory parts through the eyes of wisdom, maturity, and
experience, the latter course would seem more advisable.

Once again, guidance and motivation are cardinal principles.

Summary of the Data Relative to Hypothesis 3

 

Hypothesis 3 was stated thus: The majority of
Honors College women say they would join the group
if they were again faced with the opportunity. The
majority of students who are ineligible would elect
membership in the Honors College if they could meet
the qualifications.

Almost all of the Honors College students (91.76%) have

been satisfied with membership in the organization and would

 

 

 

 

117

join again under the same circumstances. They recognize
the prestige involved, but they also place emphasis upon
the benefits of additional challenge, the attainment of
superior counseling and instruction, and the convenience of
unique library privileges. They reported that Honors Col-
lege membership culminated in difficult social adjustment
in the residence halls, among friends, and with roommates.

Students seem to perceive these factors as inevitable out—

 

comes of Honors College membership.

Group B and C students aspire to Honors College mem—
bership to a lesser degree than Group A. They state that
they would enjoy the library privileges, would have better
counselors and teachers, would realize better job opportun-
ities, and would gain prestige with students and faculty if
they were members. The disadvantage most frequently cited
by these groups was that Honors College requires more work
than the regular curriculum. The data support the hypothesis
that high percentages of all groups are favorable toward the
existence of such an organization. The consistency with
which they imply that Honors College students have the best
counseling and teachers re—emphasizes the fact that students
are desirous of these advantages. Prestige with faculty and
students, although hardly one of the purposes for which the
Honors College was founded, is high on the list of reasons

supporting the desire to become a member of the group.

 

 

 

 

118

All of the advantages and disadvantages presented by
students show concern for the present. No student, either
member or non-member, expressed a desire to partake of this
organization in order that by eliminating certain non-
essentials and promoting high personal, social, and educa-
tional development, her college education might make her a
better citizen and prepare her to contribute more effectively
to a society which stands in need of able, intelligent,
far—sighted leadership.

Group A contained the largest percentage of students
supporting the grade point average as an adequate single
criterion for membership in the Honors College. The rank
order of other criteria suggested by Honors scholars were:
grade point average + recommendations of faculty, and grade
point average + orientation scores. This group did not
recommend any criteria involving co—curricular activity;
only a small percentage of the Honors scholars indicated
that an examination after three terms should serve as a
suitable membership criterion. There is little indication
here of a willingness or desire on the part of Group A
students to prove their superiority by increased coecurric-
ular activities, by qualifying examinations, or by the
preparation of a thesis, a project, or a paper as a part of
their graduation requirements.

The greatest proportion of Group B respondents recom-

mended grade point average or grade point average + faculty

 

..
‘.;' Q‘LAN '.
v

 

‘1’.

 

 

 

 

 

   

119

recommendation as eligibility criteria. Less than one-tenth

(8.78%) of this group suggested grade point average + co-

curricular activity + orientation scores, and the same num-

ber (8.78%) felt that grade point average + completion of a

special project or paper showing outstanding ability would E
constitute an adequate criterion. g

Group C had significantly fewer students recommending

'3'.“ 1;! "-" Q

consideration of grade point average alone for eligibility ~j

Vlf‘w’.‘
I
J. .

in the Honors College; more students in this group than
in the others suggested grade point average + orientation
scores + co-curricular activity. Group C contained by far
the greatest percentage of respondents who indicated that a
special project or paper should be required which would
demonstrate superior ability of prospective Honors scholars.
Although the data showed that significantly more
Group B and C students than Group A students devoted more
than 20 hours weekly to gainful employment, none of the
participants in any of the groups considered that time devoted
to earning college expenses was a drawback in attaining
Honors College membership eligibility. Only a few partici—
pants in the study reported that work was hindering the
achievement of higher grades; these were Group A students.
In summary, it can be said that the data only partially sup-
port Hypothesis 1, and that they lend substantial support

to Hypotheses 2 and 3.

 

 

My ..IIILVIHt- ,ldai.
3-- M u - .... ill. n...
f r '9’ i 'n“ [I n 1.
1|- ,4 ,i . . it Or: . I n
)5 - . . . . rhiliDO‘

 

 

 

120

Conclusions and Implications of the Study

 

It seems evident that certain factors may be preventing
Group B and/or C students from attaining their levels of aca-
demic expectancy as determined by the most acceptable pre-
dictive devices. From these data it appears that these
factors are closely allied with excessive outside demands,
disappointments and changes in curricular choices, and lack
of self-discipline, incentive, interest, time, and good inw
struction.

The author believes that there are four requirements
for top-flight performance in any field: intellectual capa»
city, opportunity, guidance, and intrinsic motivation.
Furthermore, potential achievers, well—adjusted and properly
motivated, will fulfill their highest individual destinies
unless subjected to excessive demands from Outside the col-
lege. In cases where employment seems to be one such demand,
it is important that colleges and universities provide more
financial aid and scholarships for needy students. If co—
curricular activity is requiring immoderate time and/or
energy of the student, a reasonable compromise must be
reached, whereby the student keeps his demands in the proper
perspective. Many students are preoccupied with personal and
social problems. Effective counseling would help them to
explore their difficulties and learn to deal with perplexing

situations.

 

 

 

121

Students made a strong appeal for better instruction;
they also recognized and declared a need for intensive study
and greater interest in their academic pursuits. Insofar as
an academic and co—curricular program may be lacking in
motivation, it is the obligation and responsibility of the
college administration and faculty to provide a stimulating,
enriched program, excellent instruction, and high motivation.
Insofar as the causes for low achievement by students of high
ability lie with other factors, it is the responsibility of
the administration, instructional faculty, and counselors
to assist students to explore their true motives and goals,
to develop suitable ways of attaining them, and to improve
their study and thinking habits and skills to the point
where they are able to make satisfying decisions and purSue
them independently.

The provision of adequate facilities and opportuni-
ties is not enough. Too often students by—pass their
opportunities, unable to absorb the full meaning and possi-
bilities of an adequate, appropriate college education. A
college needs to be founded upon solid philosophical prin-
ciples, which are nonetheless practical and within the
realm of attainment by staff and students. Faculty—student
interaction must be increased and intensified, in order that
students may comprehend the broader concepts of the college
experience, may be motivated and challenged to do their

best work, and may be provided with a faculty who are

 

122

concerned with and actively interesced in the total personal,
social, and professional growth of each and every student.

Mass education is often presented as an excuse for
inadequate education: these need not become synonomous.
Each individual needs to be ensured of personal recognition,
encouragement, and guidance through a facultywstudent rela-
tionship in which there is mutual respect and empathy.

Another disputation is supported by those who contend
that guidance is the specific respors;bility of staff mem~
bers who are charged with the obligations inherent in posi—
tions in the student personnel services of a university.

Such separation of instruction and guidance is impracticable;
coordination of these functions is a cardinal principle of
thetotal educational process.

The author concurs with those who believe that pro-
grams which seek to discover the capacities of their students,
offer effective guidance, provide ample opportunities for
personal, social, and professional growth, and develop
intrinsic motivation are well on the way toward achievement

of the ultimate goals of education and society. The Honors

College can and must take its rightful place in such an

educational system, growing in size, expanding in meaningful
Services, and aspiring always toward the highest attainable
individual and institutional endeavors.

Only the basic philosophy of the Honors College will

survive this process of growth and expansion. Changes cannot

 

 

 

123

be made with any degree of certainty until a thorough eval;
uation has been made of all of its phases, from all points
of View. This investigation was concerned with only two
segments of the Honors College at Michigan State University:

the selection criterion and the degree to which students

"aux-

participated in the basic features of the program. An attempt

was made to identify factors which differentiate between

high and low achievers who are identified by predictive meas-

 

ures as possessing equal academic potential, The variables
chosen for the study have by no means exhausted the possibi-
lities in this area; results of this study suggest the need
for further related investigation, The following research
problems appear to be in evidence for expansion of this study:
1. The differentiation between achievers and non-
achievers with respect to personality character—
istics and/hr attitudes and values as measured
by tests such as the Inventory of Beliefs, Form
L (A.C.E.), Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale, Form E
(Prof. M.E.R., Michigan State University), the
Differential Values Inventory (Prince, University
of Chicago), Wesley's Rigidity Scale, the Michigan
StateUniversity Objectives Test, and the Minnesota
Multiphasic Inventory, Such studies might reveal
the characteristics and/or attitudes and values
which appear to inhibit potential high achievers°

For example, would a student ranking high both in

 

 

 

124

intellectual potential and on the rigidity or
dogmatism scale be an effective member of the
Honors College? What effect would the trait of
rigidity or dogmatism have upon creativity,
which is obviously a necessity for success in
Honors College?
A similar study dealing with male students or mixed
samples, conducted in an attempt to ascertain whether
there is any apparent relationship between academic
achievement, personality characteristics, and sex
differences.
A study of the cause and effect relationships
between changes in attitudes and values during the
college years and the number and kinds of changes
made in curricular majors.
Identification of factors which motivate students
to achieve their highest intellectual potential.
A study of:
a. Affective variables as related to academic

advisers, administrative staff, and peers

(1) Identification

(2) Emulation

(3) Imitation
b. Cognitive variables

(1) Increased academic counseling

(2) Improved instruction

(3) Demand for creativity

(4) Judgment in the apportionment of time

far

 

 

E!
2i

PPPPPPP

 

Cover Letter, Honors Students.
Non-Honors Students
Follow-up Letter .

Survey Instrument, Honors Students

Non—Honors Students.

Equating Procedure for Reading Test
Scores . . .

Basic Features of the Honors College

126

Page
127
128
129
130
139

I46
148

 

 

 

 

127

January 16, 1960

Dear Honors College Student,

The Honors College was approved by the faculty at Michigan
State University in 1956 as the agency responsible for
providing a "special educational experience for certain
students of superior ability and achievement.” The insti—
gators then recognized that continuous attention to the
problems arising in the Honors College might result in
re—evaluation and changes in the major policies of the
program.

 

You, as a participant, are a valuable source of opinion
regarding the expectancies and rewards of Honors College
membership. Would you, then, be willing to give a little
of your time to completing the enclosed questionnaire?

It is possible that as a result of this study, the Honors
College program may become even more beneficial to future
students.

Your prompt cooperation will be deeply appreciated. Please
be frank in your replies; you will not be identified. You
will find an addressed, stamped envelope enclosed for your
convenience. May we hear from you by January 25?

Sincerely yours,

Helen I. Brown/s/
College of Education

Stanley J. Idzerda/s/
Director, Honors College

 

 

 

 

 

 

128

January 29, 1960

Dear Student,

As you probably know, Michigan State University is con-
tinually seeking new ways of making your college years
more worthwhile to you. If it is true that learning needs
to have personal meaning to you, one way for us to measure
the effectiveness of your educational program is to learn

more about you, and to seek your reactions to the existing,

facilities within the university.

The attached questionnaire is being sent to a selected
sample of women students with the hope that the replies
will help to formulate future program plans. Your co-
operation is urgently requested. Will you please complete
it carefully and place it in the enclosed, stamped, ad-
dressed envelope, so that we may receive it by February 5?
Please feel free to be perfectly frank in your replies;
you will not be identified. If you have any questions
about this questionnaire, please call Helen Brown at

Ext. 2016.

Thank you for the time and effort you will devote to com—
pleting the questionnaire.

Sincerely yours,

Elizabeth Drews/s/
Helen I.Brown /s/

College of Education

 

2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

130

SURVEY INSTRUMENT, HONORS STUDENTS

These questions are designed to learn more about you
as a student, and your ideas concerning Honors College.
Please answer all of them carefully, using the spaces
provided. Remember that you will not be identified by name,
so you may be perfectly frank in answering the questions
dealing with your opinions. Thank you for your contribution
to this study.

Part I — Background Information

 

 

1. How many children, including yourself, are there in your
family?
1 One
'-_ 2 Two
3 Three
4 Four or more
2. Please make an ”X" in front of the statement which
describes your parents.
1 Never have been separated
2 Not presently separated, but have been in the past
3 Now separated temporarily
4 Separated by death of one parent
5 Separated by divorce
6 Both deceased
3. Check "X" the description which best describes your
position in your family.
1 Only child
2 Oldest child
3 Youngest child
4 Between oldest and youngest
4. Please fill in the following chart which is concerned

with the education of your parents. Check "X" in front
of the highest grade achieved by each parent.

 

Father Mother
. . . . . 8 grades or less. . . . . . . . . 9
some high school. . . . . . . . . . 10;
completed high school . . ll

2 or more years beyond high school
in a college, university, technical,

 

 

 

or professional school. . . . 12
5 . college graduate. . . 13
6 . some study after college graduation 14
7 . holds a Masters degree. . . l5
8 . holds a Doctors degree. . . . . . . 16

 

 

 

 

 

131

\)'|

 

Ea? What is your father's occupation?
b What is your mother‘s occupation, if working?

Part II - Apportionment of Time

 

6. Mark "X" in front of each of the following activities to
which you ordinarily devote more than i hours weekly.

Television, radio, phonograph

Dating

Sorority activities

Housekeeping tasks

Outdoor sports

Concerts and/pr movies

 

UJJJJ.

7. Indicate the number of offices you have held in each of

the following types of college organization.

 

 

 

1 Class
2 Scholastic
3 Sports
4 Social
8. Co-curricular activities are those other than classes
which are sponsored by the school. In form below, please
fill in the approximate number of hours you think you
now devote to college co—curricular activities each week.
Sports Activities Scholastic Activities Social Activities
(1) (2) 3)
9. Compare the total time you now devote to college co—cur-

ricular activities with what you think you devoted to
them a year ago.

1 More
2 Same
3 Less

 

10. Compare the total time you now devote to college co-cur—
ricular activities with what you think you devoted to
them in high school.

1 More
2 Same
3 Less

11. What effect do you think college co-curricular partici—
pation has had upon your grades?
1 Raised them
g2 No effect
3 Lowered them

 

 

 

 

 

 

132

12. On the average, how many hours of regular employment
(6 weeks per term) do you devote weekly during the
college term?

1 None
2 l to 5
3 5 to lO

4 10 to 20
5 More than 2O

13. If you have worked more than 10 hours weekly, do you
think it lowered your grades?
1 Yes
2 No

}_l

4. What type of work do you do while attending college?
Library

Janitress

Waitress

Clerking

Secretarial and typing

Other:

 

O\U'|-IZ'UOI'\)}-'

 

 

Part III — Scholastic Progress

 

l5. What is the one factor which you believe would be the
most influential in raising your grade point average?
Interest in the subject 6 Pride of accomplishment

 

Liking classmates 7 Hard study

Liking instructor 8 Outside help

Being liked by instructor 9 Native ability in the
Teaching skill of subject

instructor (10) Other:

16. How much time do you put into preparation of each assign—
ment, on the average?

_ Major Area Minor Area
£1 1 hour or less 4 l hour or less
2 2 to 3 hours 5 2 to 3 hours
3 4 hours or more 6 4 hours or more

 

 

17. In comparison with the students in your major area, how
much effort do you think you put into college course work?

1 More
____ 2
3

Same
Less
18. In view of your ability, how well do you think you are
doing in college?
31% AS well as I can

 

 

2 Not well enough
3 Could do very much better

 

 

 

 

 

133

19. Rank the reasons you would give for not doing better in
course work than you are now doing. (Number I, 2, 3, etc.

as far as you care to go)

(1) Busy with co-curricular (6) Examinations threaten
activity me

2 Work 7; Cannot improve

3 Poor health 8 'Insufficient background

4 Grades are not too impor- 9) Other:

 

tant to me
____(5) I am doing as well as I
need to

 

 

 

20. Have you declared a college major other than non—preference?
El Yes
2 No

21. Have you changed your college major since you enrolled in
college?
1 Yes
2 No

 

I

[D

2. If yes, how many times?
1) Once
2g Twice

Three or more times

23. Reasons for changing your major the last time: (Check
all that apply)
(1) Counseling by Honors 5 Influence of friends
College adviser Difficult courses

£23 Test results 7 Dislike for instructor(s)
3 Changed interests 8 Other:
' (4) Low grades

 

n)

4. Are you now satisfied with your choice?

1 Yes
2 Not sure
3 No

 

I'D

5. Some of the following persons or factors may have influenced
you in making a choice of major. Write "M" in front of
the two which were the most influential and "L" in front of

the two which were the least influential.

 

 

1 HIE school friends (8) College orientatation
2 High school teacher(s? scores

3 High school counselor'a 9) College counselors

4 Parent(s) 10; Collegejgrades

5 Past employment 11 Relatives other than
6 Past employers parents

7 Myself (12) A specialist in the

field
(13) Others influencing

me most
(14) Others influencing me

least

 

.. L. nae-them mt.” .39.“; ... .. . . .. . r 5.
V..vo....n-...r . ,. . . ,

H . ..§ ‘)Cnn. y.
5!: Al I...‘ t .q . a I n
. l 5 ...... £11.: v 3‘ , .

   

 

 

 

134

Part IV - Relationship with Others

 

26. Using the definition of "discrimination for or against"
as being the making of an unfair distinction in the
treatment of one as compared with treatment of others,
have you ever felt that you were subject to discrimina-
tion by college classmates?

él; Yes

2 No

 

I'D
\1 l

Indicate the reason(s) why you think you have been subject
to student discrimination. Place an ”F" in front of
reasons for favorable discrimination, and a "U" in front
of reasons for unfavorable discrimination.

You are a better student

You get better grades and study less

You use an extensive vocabulary

You are eligible for Honors College
are married
You have poor background for course
You are foreign born
You age differs from the class
Other:

\0(n~Jovn.EOJm+e
K
o
c

Hlllllll

 

28. Do you think student discrimination has had any effect
upon your grades?

 

 

1 Yes, favorable
2 None
3 Yes, unfavorable
29. Do you think student discrimination has hurt you socially?
1 Yes
2 No

3 Do not know

30 Do you think you have ever been subject to discrimination
by college teachers?
E13 Yes
2 No
31. Indicate the reason(s) why you think you have been sub-

ject to teacher discrimination. Place an "F" in front of
reasons for favorable discrimination, and a "U" in front
of reasons for unfavorable discrimination.

You are a better student than the rest

You get better grades and study less

You use an extensive vocabulary

You are eligible for Honors College

You are married

You have poor background for course

You are foreign born

Your age differs from the class

Other:

\OCDNONU'IJI‘UJMl—J

HIIHHI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

h)

____ l
____ 2
____ 3

 

135

Do you think teacher discrimination has had any effect
upon your grades?

Yes, favorable

None

Yes, unfavorable

 

33. In the following list of traits, some are thought to be‘

34.

lljllllllll

lllllllll

more necessary than others for social success and popu-
larity in college. Mark "+" the three you think are
most necessary and ”O" the three you think are least
necessary.

Intelligence

Social maturity

Eligibility for Honors College

Personal appearance

Generosity

Good looks

Material wealth (clothes, money)

Versatility

HoneSty

Popularity with teachers

Others:

 

 

i—‘OKOCDNONU‘l-{Z‘UUIDH

 

From the items below, select the three which you think
are most important in selecting friends, and place an
"X" in front of them.

Pleasing personality

Sense of humor

High scholarship

Common interests with mine

Adjacent living quarters

Social status

Same curricular choices

Same co-curricular choices

Others:

\OCDNQUWJ‘I-UOMH

Part V - Attitudes waard Honors College and Suggestions For

 

3

U1

Your Program

 

Following are some of the basic features of the Honors

College program. Please place "1" in front of those in

which you have taken part. Place "2" before those in

which you did not care to take part, and "3" in front of

those in which you either have not been approached to

take part, or which for some other reason you found im—

possible to carry out.

(1) Attainment of credit by examination rather than by
taking courses

(2) Independent study under a faculty adviser

 

_____(3) Waiving course prerequisites

 

:5!—

 

136

35. Continued

(J0
O\

 

LA)
_\]

Lilli ll

MHIHII

$2

0&0QO
V

3

Permission to take graduate courses

Closer relationship with Honors College adviser

than with original adviser

Registration on first day of registration period
Special library privileges

Participation in faculty seminars

Participation in Honors College colloquia

Special flexibility of program, provision for special
needs and interests

Below are some reasons which might be given for not having
taken part in the above activities. Choose those which
pertain to you, and place the number(s) of items listed

in number 35 which correspond with the reasons. You may
use more than one number with any reason.

Mi—‘OKOCDNJONU'IJZ'UJIDH

1

would have felt out of place in this situation
could see no benefit in this for me
feel too young for this

was not encouraged tado this

did not take the initiative

Someone else did not take the initiative
I was not aware of this possibility

I attempted this, but was rebuffed

It was impossible to schedule this
Other:

Other:

Other:

F4HF4F4H

 

 

 

Would you join Honors College again if you were eligible?

Yes

2 No
3 Not certain

38. If yes, check ”Y" the three most important reasons for
your affirmative answer.

39. If no, check "N" the three most important reasons for
your negative answer.
1

2

____ 3

It gives prestige with students

It gives prestige with faculty

It would assure me of good grades the rest of my
college years

(4) Honors College students get the best counselors and

5

6
7
8
9

instructors

Honors College students get the best jobs

It requires more work

There is no prestige connected with it

It is more challenging than regular programs
I like the library privileges

 

 

 

 

137

38. and 39. Continued

ll There is no real benefit

12 Honors College students are graded harder (by higher
standards)

_—_(lg) Other:

£10; It leads to being a social outcast

 

14 Other:

 

40. Would you have preferred to join Honors College immedi-
ately upon coming to college if it were open to all
hiih school students with a certain high school rank?

El Yes
2 No

5 l

 

Upon which of the following do you think Honors College»
eligibility should be based? (Check only one)
1 College grade point average
2 Orientation scores and grade point average
3 Examination to be taken after three terms of college
4 Grade point average, orientation scores, and co—
curricular activity
5 Co—curricular activity and grade point average
6 High school records
7 Grade point average plus a recommendation of faculty
8 Grade point average plus completion of some special
project or paper showing unusual ability
(9) Other:
42 Following are some ways in which Honors College member-

ship might affect a student favorably or unfavorably.
Place a "+" in front of those which you think have been
favorably affected in your case, a "O" in front of those
which were unfavorably affected, and a ”-" in front of
those which have not been affected by Honors College
membership in your case.

Feeling of belongingness in classes

Vocational plans

Educational plans

Feeling of belongingness in the residence hall
Relationship with roommate s

Relationship with close friends

Relationship with male friends

Relationship with the faculty '

Other: (Specify, and then mark as you did the others)

\OCDNmUl-IZ‘UJIDH

HllHlH

 

43. Following are some experiences which have been suggested
for Honors College students. Check those you think
would be especially helpful to you as a member.

(1) Smaller classes, made up of Honors College students
only

 

 

 

 

138

“3. Continued

 

2 Use of original documents rather
Less formal.lecturing

More class discussion

More independent projects

More educational counseling
Better instruction

Especially trained faculty

Add others:

llllllll

\OCDN O\\fi 4:00

than textbooks

 

 

 

 

 

 

139

SURVEY INSTRUMENT, NON-HONORS STUDENTS

These questions are designed to learn more about you
as a student, and your ideas concerning Honors College.

Please answer all of them carefully, using the spaces provided.

Remember that you will not be identified by name, so you may
be perfectly frank in answering the questions dealing with
your opinions. Thank you for your contribution to this studyt

Part I — Background Information

 

1. How many children, including yourself, are there in your
family?
1 One
2 Two
3 Three
4 Four or more
2. Please make an "X" in front of the statement which
describes your parents.
1 Never have been separated
2 Not presently separated, but have been in the past
3 Now separated temporarily
4 Separated by death of one parent
5 Separated by divorce
6 Both deceased
3. Check "X" the description which best described your
position in your family.
I Only child
2 Oldest child
3 Youngest child
4 Between oldest and youngest
4. Please fill in the following chart which is conc rned with

the education of your parents. Check "X" in fr t of the
highest grade achieved by each parent.

 

Father Mother
. . . . 8 grades or less. . . . . . . . . .___ 9
some high school. . . . . . . . . _10
completed high school . . . . . ll

 

2 or more years beyond high school
in a college, university, technical,

or professional school. . . . . ___ 12)
E53. . . . . college graduate. . . . . . . .___ l3
6 . . . . some study after college

graduation. . . . . . . . . . .___ l4
(7;. . . . . holds a Masters degree. . . . ___ l5
8 . . . . . holds a Doctors degree. . . l6

 

 

 

 

140

 

 

5. a. What is your father's occupation?
b What is your mother‘s occupation, if working?

Part II - Apportionment of Time

 

6. Mark "X" in front of each of the following activities to
which you ordinarily devote more than 5 hours weekly.

.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 Television, radio, phonograph
2 Dating q
3 Sorority activities I
4 Housekeeping tasks
5 Outdoor sports
6 Concerts and/or movies
7. Indicate the number 2f offices you have held in each of ' "
the following types of college organization. tj
1 Class E
2 Scholastic
3 Sports
4) Social
8. Co—curricular activities are those other than classes
which are sponsored by the school. In form below, please
fill in the approximate number of hours you think you now
devote to college co—curricular activities each week.
Sports Activities Scholastic Activities Social Activities
(1) _____(2) _____(3)
9. Compare the total time you now devote to college co~

curricular activities with wnat you think you devoted
to them Q year ago.

 

1 More
2 Same
3 Less

10. Compare the total time you now devote to college co-
curricular activities with what you think you devoted
to them in high school.

 

1 More——
2 Same
3 Less

 

11. What effect do you think college co—curricular partici—
pation has had upon your grades?
{I Raised them
2 No effect
3 Lowered them

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

141

12. On the average, how many hours of regular employment (6
weeks per term) do you devote weekly during the college
term?

(1 None

2 l to 5

3 5 to 10

4 10 to 20

5 More than 2O

13. If you have worked more than 10 hours weekly, do you think

it lowered your grades?
(I; Yes
2 No
l4. What type of work do you do while attending college?
1 Library
2 Janitress
3 Waitress
4 Clerking
5 Secretarial and typing
6 Other:

 

Part III - Scholastic Progress

 

15. What is the one factor which you believe would be the most
influential in raising your grade point average?

 

1 Interest in the subject 6 Pride of accomplishment
2 Liking classmates 7 Hard study
3 Liking instructor 8 Outside help
4 Being liked by instructor ___ 9 Native ability in the
5 Teaching skill of subject
instructor (10) Other:

 

16. How much time do you put into preparation of each assign-
ment, on the average?

 

 

Major Area Minor Area
£1; 1 hour or less 4% 1 hour or less
2 2 to 3 hours 5 2 to 3 hours
3 4 hours or more 6 4 hours or more

17. In comparison with the students in your major area, how
much effort do you think you put into college course work?

 

 

1 More
2 Same
3 Less

18. In view of your ability, how well do you think you are
doing in college?
1 As well as I can
2 Not well enough
3 Could do very much better

 

 

 

 

142

 

 

19. Rank the reasons you would give for not doing better in
course work than you are now doing. (Number 1, 2, 3, etc.
as far as youcare to go.

1) Busy with co—curricular activity

2 Work

3 Poor health

4 Grades are not too important to me
5 I am doing as well as I need to

6 Examinations threaten me

7 Cannot improve

8 Insufficient background

9 Other:

20. Have you declared a college major other than non-preference?
(1; Yes

2 No
21 Have you changed your college major since you enrolled in
college?
(1; Yes
2 No
22. If yes, how many times?
1 Once
2 Twice
3 Three or more times

23. Reasons for changing your major the last time: (Check

all that apply.
1 Counseling by Honors College adviser
2 Test results
3 Changed interests
4 Low grades
5 Influence of friends
6 Difficult courses
7 Dislike for instructor(s)
8 Other:
24. Are you now satisfied with your choice?
1 Yes
2 Not sure
3 No
25. Some of the following persons or factors may have influ-

enced you in making a choice of major. Write "M" in front
of the Egg which were the most influential and "L" in

front of the twg which were the least influential.

1 High school friends ___ 8) College orientation scores

2 High school teacher(s) 9 College counselors
3 High school counselofis§__— 10 College grades
4 Parends) ll Relatives other than parents
5 Past employment 12 A specialist in the field
63 Past employers 13 Others influencing me most
7 Myself

 

 

—
.—._.

|l|||ll

 

(l4)Others influenging me least

 

 

143

Efigrt IV - Relationship with Others

 

26. Using the definition of "discrimination

for or against"

as being the making 9f an unfair distinction in the

 

treatment of one as compared with treatment offlothers,

 

 

have you eVEr felt_that you were subject to disErimination

b? college classmates?

1 Yes
2 No

27. Indicate the reason(s) why you think you have been sub— 1'
ject to student discrimination. Place an "F" in front 13
of reasons for favorable discrimination, and a "U" in ‘
front of reasons for unfavorable discrimination.

You are a better student

You use an extensive vocabulary
You are eligible for Honors College
You are married

You have poor background for course
You are foreign born

Your age differs from the class
Other:

llllllll

\OCDNmUl-F—‘UUMH

 

You get better grades and study less

 

 

28. Do you think student discrimination has
upon your grades?
1 Yes, favorable
g,
______3

None
29. Do you think student discrimination has

I l

 

Yes, unfavorable

 

 

 

I Yes
2 No
3 Do not know

30. Do you think you have ever been subject
by college teachers?
1 Yes
2 No

 

UL)

had any effect

hurt you socially?

to discrimination

1. Indicate the reason(s) why you think you have been subject
to teacher discrimination. Place an "F"

in front of

reasons for favorable discrimination, and a "U" in front

You use an extensive vocabulary
You are eligible for Honors College
You are married

You have poor background for course
You are foreign born

Other:

(DNChUT-EUOIDI-J

llllllll

You are a better student than the rest
You get better grades and study less

 

 

 

 

 

 

144

 

3

R)

Do you think teacher discrimination has had any effect
upon your grades?
1 Yes, favorable
_____ 2 None
____ 3
3

 

Yes, unfavorable

U.)

In the following list of traits, some are thought to be

moe necessary than others for social success and popularity
in college. Mark "+" the three you think are more necessary
and "O" the three you think are least necessary. 6
Intelligence
Social maturity
Eligibility for Honors College
Personal appearance

Generosity

Good looks

Material wealth (clothes, money)
Versatility

Honesty

Popularity with tea hers

Others:

 

 

 

 

 

HOKOCDxlmmthF—J

Ulllllllll

Hl4

 

l:

3 From the items below, select the three which you think are
most important in selecting friends, and place an "X" in
front of them.

Pleasing personality

Sense of humor

High scholarship

Common interests with mine

Adjacent living quarters

Social status

Same curricular choices

Same co-curricular choices

Other:

\OCDNmUl-D‘UOIUH

IIIIHIH

 

Part V - Attitudes Toward Honors College and Suggestions For
Your Program

 

 

35. Would you join Honors College if you were eligible?
El Yes
2 No

36. If yes, check "Y" the three most important reasons for
your affirmative answer.

37. If no, check "N" the three most important reasons for
your negative answer.
1 It gives prestige with students
2 It gives prestige with faculty
3 It would assure me of good grades the rest of my
college years

—*
“I
—#

 

 

 

 

 

 

145

36. and 37 Continued

 

(4) Honors College students get the best counselors

HII Lllllll

(I)

3

5

l—JOKOOONm

l

and instructors

Honors College students get the best jobs
It requires more work

There is no prestige connected with it

It is more challenging than other programs
I like the library privileges it offers
It leads to being a social outcast

Honors College students are graded higher (by
higher standards)

There is no real benefit

Other:

Other:

Other:

 

 

 

Would you prefer to join Honors College immediately

upon coming to college if it were Open to all high school
students with a certain high school rank?

:l

00

3

lllll llll

(10) Other:

1
2

l

Yes
No

Upon which one of the following do you think Honors

College eligibility should be based?

A

\O CDNmU'I SWMH

College grade point average

Orientation scores and grade point average
Examination to be taken after three terms of college
Grade point average, orientation scores, and co-
curricular activity

Co-curricular activity and grade point average

High school records

Grade point average plus a recommendation of faculty
Grade point average plus completion of some special
project or paper showing unusual ability
Consideration of grade point average plus co-
curricular activity and time spent in earning college

expenses

40. What suggestions can you make for improvements in your
own program to date?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

\ . I I
Ll. . F n ...-.- .. . - .l . .
.\Q. . .l. .
)1 . . . . 0
i iv.»l.l (1L! ..ftlllillr: .
I. i - 3 . . ll H, .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

147

TABLE 3 6

EQUIVALENT TABLE FOR PERCENTILE BANKS AND DECILE SCORES

——___ A

 

Derived Scores Percentage of.“

 

“$233.51.“? §2§§22t3.32§ Niiniiriigé’éle DRESSES...
10 99 98 - 99 10
9 96 95 - 97 9
8 88 87 — 94 8
7 72 71 — 86 7
6 50 5o — 7o 6
5 28 29 - 49 5
4 l2 l3 — 28 4
3 4 5 ~ 12 3
2 l 2 - 4 2

l—‘
O
O
I
H
H

 

 

 

 

C to

/..:_.._.In .
_,r

 

 

I48

BASIC FEATURES OF THE HONORS COLLEGE

GUIDE FOR STUDENTS WHO ARE MEMBERS OF THE HONORS COLLEGE
(April, 1959)

The Honors College was approved by the university faculty
in November, 1956. The legislation for the Honors College was
based upon the evidence that the characteristics and needs of
the very able student are highly individualistic and conse—
quently, could not be met by any single course of study.

Basic objectives of the program are:

To provide a situation which makes certain that stu-
dents of high ability constantly are challenged by the
most advanced work for which each is ready. To meet the
individual needs of a student, a greater flexibility in
their programs is made possible. Acceleration, in terms
of time to complete the degree, is not an objective.
Acceleration subject matter is. It is assumed that the
Honors College graduate will have mastered more subject
matter both within and without his field of specialization
than will other graduates. He will be more alive to intel-
lectual concern, more skilled in analysis, more compre—
hensive in judgment, and more cognizant of the responsibi-
lity of talent.

Some of the basic features of the Honors College
legislation follow:

I. At the end of the freshman year all students who
have finished their first year with a B plus average are
given the option of entering the Honors College. Stu—
dents who fail to attain this average in their first
year, but do in the second, may be permitted to enter
Honors College then. Transfer students would be permitted
to enter the Honors College if they have attained a com—
parable academic standard.

In effect, this provision says that anyone may enter
the Honors College after they have attained 42 credits and
before they have obtained 93 credits, with a B plus cumulative

average.

.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllE::;_____________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

149

2. Once a student has been designated as an Honors
College scholar, all requirements for his graduation, other
than total number of hours will be waived. He will be
assigned to an adviser who has been selected for this func-
tion in the college of the student‘s major interest. The
adviser then will work out with the student a program of
study which seems appropriate for the individual. The
program will be subject to approval by the Honors Com-
mittee of the college before being undertaken by the
student. This committee will have the responsibility
of making certain that both the general education and the
special discipline are represented in the student's
program.

The waiver of all requirements for graduation has two
exceptions. The first is the ROTC program. Secondly, the
philosophy of education held by the university, which insists
that no student may graduate with a narrow vocational curriculum,
cannot be waived. It follows that breadth of education is
expected of Honors College students and that in fact they
would have more, rather than less, general education, relative
to the average student. However, where and how this general
education is achieved, is up to the student, in consultation
with the Honors College adviser and the Honors College Com-
mittee. The Honors Committee of the college in which the
student is performing his or her major work has, as its chief
function, to see to it that the student does not look upon
his major as the only important work in the university.

4. The course of study engaged upon by students in the

Honors College may include any of a number of possibilities——
the attaining of credit incoursesby examination, indepen-
dent study under a faculty member willing to undertake its
supervision, waiving of prerequisites for advanced courses,
permission to take graduate courses, etc.

Provisions 2 and 4 of the Honors College legislation do

place some responsibility for initiative on the Honors College

 

 

 

 

150

Student. First, the student ought to have a closer relation—
ship with the Honors College adviser than the regular student
has with an enrollment officer. Secondly, the student, alone
or with the help of his or her adviser, should request the
opportunity of taking courses by examination or by independent
study from the faculty members themselves. If difficulty is
experienced by the student in any of these programs, then
notice of this difficulty should be brought to the attention
of the Honors College Office.

Provision will be made so that Honors College students
may register in accordance with their approved programs.
of study.

All Honors College students may register on the first
day of registration; the chief reason for this privilege is to
make certain that the exact program with the exact sections
decided upon by the student and the adviser may be arranged
for by the Honors College student.

When the student completes the proper total number

of hours--whether by examination, the taking of courses,
independent study, or otherwise-~and the adviser is con-
vinced that the time is come that the student should be
awarded appropriate baccalaureate degree, the adviser
will make that recommendation to the Honors Committee
of the college in which the student is concentrating.

To deal with those cases involving the dual enrollment
of the students who are preparing for a career of
secondary school teaching, a joint Honors Committee
between each of the several colleges and the College of
Education will be formed.

8. Students will have to maintain a cumulative average
of 3.2 to remain in the Honors College.

9. At commencement and at other appropriate occasions,

recognition will be given to the Honors College and its
students. -

 

 

 

 

..| I: l.» Krill A l
inavauVu0.lJ.ul ... -
IN; llfli ,l

 

 

151

Provision 7 of the Honors College legislation does not
mean.that at the last quarter of the student‘s residence in
the university an examination is made to see whether they are
eligible for graduation. The program for the Honors College
student is usually made on a tentative basis for the entire
time left in the university and approved so that the student
need not worry that there will be "requirements" for gradua-
tion imposed late in the student‘s career.

Honors College students have stack privileges in the
Library. All students have "Honors College" printed on their
ID card, and this enables them to use the stacks as well as
the empty study desks which are on the first three floors of
the Library stacks. Also, there are some 60 storage lockers
for individual use by Honors College students who have applied
for these lockers. On the third floor of the Library (in the
stacks) there is a separate Honors College lounge which is
for the exclusive use of Honors College students.

Each student in the Honors College receives in the
mail every week an "Honors College Bulletin." The purpose
of this bulletin is to keep the students in the college in-
formed of those events occurring on campus which might be of
interest to them. On the bulletin is listed "Faculty
Seminars." These faculty seminars are open only to faculty,
graduate students, and Honors College students. Also, during
the year, separate Honors College Colloquia and other meetings

with prominent people who are spending a few days on campus

 

 

 

152

are arranged for by the Honors College office and a committee
of Honors College students. These arrangements will be
brought to the attention of the individualsmudents who might
be interested.

Although it is expected that the Honors College stu-
dents by their very nature will take the initiative in gaining
the many advantages possible in the Honors College, it is
expected too that the Honors College adviser in each case
will be available for consultation at times other than the
pre—enrollment period. In any event, the Honors College
Office is open to all Honors College students and their
problems at any time. The Secretary of the Honors College,
Miss King, often can provide the answers for details of inter-
pretation of Honors College legislation. The director of
the Honors College program is available for any questions or
problems that might be of concern to the Honors College

scholar.

Stanley J. Idzerda
Assistant to the Vice President
for the Honors College

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Angel, Robert C. and Panel. "Evaluating Honors Work,"
The Superior Student, II (October, 1959), 13.

 

2. Banner, William A. "Instructing Superior Students
Through Honors Programs," The Superior Student, III
(April, 1960), 9.

 

3. Barbe, Walter B. "A Study of the Family Background of
the Gifted," Journal of Educational Psychology,
XLVII (May, 1956), 302-309.

 

4. Borgstrom, Greta. "Students in Europe and America,"
Basic College Quarterly, V (Spring, 1960), 27.

 

5. Boyce, Ernest M. "A Comparative Study of Overachieving
and Underachieving College Students on Factors Other
Than Scholastic Aptitude." Unpublished Ph.D. disser-
tation, University of Wisconsin, 1956.

6. Bray, Douglas W. Issues in the Study of Talent. New
York: King's Crown Press, Columbia University,

1954.

 

7. Caplow, Theodore. The Sociology of Work. Minneapolis:
The University of Minnesota Press, 1954. P. 257.

 

8. Carter, Harold D. "The Gifted Child," Encyglopedia of
Educational Research, 3rd ed. C. W. Harris (ed.).
New York: Macmillan Co., 1960. Pp. 583-593.

 

 

9. Chambers, Katherine P. "A Follow- -up Study of Gifted
St. Louis Public School Pupils in the 1920‘s "
Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Washington Universityr

1956.

10. Cohen, Joseph W. "The 1058 1959." Opening Address,
Inter-university Committee on the Superior Student
Eastern Invitational Conference, June 14—17, 1959.
The Superior Student, II (October, 1959).

 

ll. DeHaan, Robert F. and Havighurst, R. J. Chapter IX:
EducatinggGifted Children. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1957. '

 

153

~

 

 

 

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

154

Dressel, Paul L. ”The Current Status of Research on
College and University Teaching," The Apggaisal of
Teaching in Large Universities. Ann Arbor: The

,._

University of Michlian Press, 1959. Pp. 7'16.
e

 

Evaluation in the Basic College. New York:
Harper, 1958. P. 105.

 

 

"Teaching, Learning, and Evaluation,"
Improving College and University Teaching, VIII
(Winter, 1960), 15.

 

Dressel, Paul L. and Grabow, J. M. "The Gifted Evaluate
Their High School Experiences," Ex3eptiona1 Children,
XXIV (May. 1958). 394—396.

 

Educational Policies Commission. Education of the
Gifted. Washington: National Educaticn Associ-
ation, 1958. Pp. 22—23, 29.

French, Joseph L. (ed.). Educating the Gifted. New
York: Henry Holt and Company, 1959.

 

Fretwell, Elbert K., Jr. "The Challenge of the Gifted,"
Journal of Higher Education, XXVIII (June, 1957),
303—308.

 

Frankel, Edward. "A Comparative Study of Achieving and
Underachieving High School Boys of High Intellectual
Ability." Paper presented at the 32nd annual meeting
of the National Association for Research in Science
Teaching, Atlantic City, New Jersey, 1958.

Gallagher, James J. The Gifted Child in the Elementary
School, American Educational Research Association
Bulletin No. 17. Washington: National Education
Association, 1959. P. 10.

 

Goddard, Henry H. School Training of Gifted Children.
Yonkers-on-Hudson: World Book Company, 1928. P. 129.

 

Goldberg, Miriam. "Motivation of the Gifted." Fifty-
seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part II. Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press, 1958. P. 89.

. "Recent Research on the Talented," Teachers
College Record, LX (December, 1958), 152.

Good, Carter V. and Scates, Douglas E. Methods of
Research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,
1954. P. 611.

 

 

 

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

3M.

35.

36.

~37.

 

155

Good, H. G. A History of Western Education. New York:
Macmillan Company, l9fl7. P. 533.

 

Gowan, John C. "Dynamics of the Underachievement of
Gifted Students," Exceptional Children, XXIV (November,
1957), 98-101, 102.

 

Havighurst, R. J. and Symposium Guests. "The Importance
of Education for the Gifted." Fifty-seventh Year-

book of the National Society for the Study of Edu-
cation, Part II. Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press, 1958.

Hicks, John. "Honors Teaching," The Superior Student,
111 (April, 1960). 20.

 

Holland, John L. "Prediction of Scholast 0 Success for
a High Aptitude Sample," School and Society, XXCVI
(June, 1958), 29c.

 

Hollingworth, Leta. Gifted Children: Their Nature and
Nurture. New York: Macmillan, 1926.

 

 

Idzerda, Stanley J. "Earning the Unminted Coin,"
Michigan State University Magazine, V (December, 1959),
15.

"Guide for Students Who Are Members of the
Honors College," Michigan State University Press,
April, 1959. (Mimeographed)

"Programs for Superior Students: Problems

and Prospects," National Catholic Education Associa-

 

tion Bulletin, LV (August, 1958), 121-127.

 

Klapper, Paul. "The Professional Preparation of Colle e
Tegchefis," Journal of Genetic Education, III (1949 ,
22 -24 .

 

Lannholm, Gerald V. "The Role of the ‘Complex‘ Univer-
sity in Developing Programs for Superior Students,"
Journal of College Student Personnel, I (Ocoober,l959).

 

Learned, William S. An Experiment in Responsible Learning.
New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement
of Teaching, 1940. P. 12.

Lewis, W. D. "A Comparative Study of the Personalities,
Interests, and Home Backgrounds of Gifted Children of
Superior and Inferior Educational Achievement,"
Journal of Genetic Psychology, LIX (1941), 207-218.

 

 

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

 

7:;6
“/

Lorimer, Margaret. "An Appraisal of the Honors College
Program at Michigan State University, 1956-1959."
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University
Press, November, 1959. -(Mimeographed)

. "What Colleges Are Doing for the Gifted,"
Basic College Quarterly, III (Spring, 1958), 6-12.

 

MacLean, M. S. and Carlson, R. B. "College and Univer—
sity Programs for the Gifted." Fifty-seventh Year—
book of the National Society for the Study of
Education, Part II. Chicago, Illinois: University
of Chicago Press, 1958.

Maxson, Theron B. "Counseling the Individual Student
During a Period of Uncertainty." A Report of Group
2 to the Sixth Annual Conference on higher Education.
Washington: Department of Higher Education, National
Education Association, 1951.

Melby, Ernest 0. Education for Renewed Faith in Freedom.
Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 1959.
Pp. 27-28.

 

Michigan Cooperative Bureau for Eduxational Research-
Part II: A Study of the Prerequisites for Scholastic
Success.

 

Miles, Catherine Cox. "Gifted Children," Manual of Child
Psychology. Edited by L. Carmichael. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1954. P. 996.

Mulligan, Raymond A. "Socioeconomic Background and
College Enrollment," American Sociological Review,
XVI (April, 1951), 188—196.

 

Musselman, John W. "Factors Associated With the Achieve-
ment of High School Pupils of Superior Intelli ence,‘
Journal of Experimental Education, x1 (1942-1943 , 53-
60.

I

 

Neel, Mary 0. and Mathews, C. 0. "Needs of Superior
Students," Journal of Hi her Educati , VI (January,
1934): 29'3 .

Nettleship, R. L. The Theory of Education in Plato‘s
Republic. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.
P. 21.

Passow, A. H. "Identifying and Counseling the Gifted
College Student,” Journal of Higher Education, XXVIII
(January, 1957), 21-29.

 

50.

51.
52.

53.
54.
55.

56.

57.
58.
59.
60.
61.

62.

 

 

157

Pearlman, Samuel. "An Investigation of the Problem of
Academic Underachievers Among Intellectually Superior
College Students. " Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation,
New York University, 1952.

Reisman, David. The Lonely Crowd. Garden City, New York:
Doubleday Anchor Books, 1953. ~

Rickover, H. G. Education and Freedom. New York: E. P.
Dutton and Co., Inc., 1960. Pp. 150-151.

Rockefeller Report on Education. The Pursuit of
Excellence. Special Studies Project Report V.
gardzn City, New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1958.
. l .

Rogers, Car1.r Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin Co., 1951.

 

Sanford, Nevitt. "The Uncertain Senior," Journal of the
National Association of Women' s Deans an a Counselors,

XXI (October, 1957), 9- 15.

"The Motivation of Women for Education: The
High Achievers." Paper read at the Conference on the
Education of Women under the Auspices of the American
Council on Education at Rye, New York, October 28,
1957.

Shaw, M. C. and Brown, D. J. "Scholastic Underachieve—
ment of Bright College Students,” Personnel and
Guidance Journal, XXXVI (1957), 195—199.

Snedecor, George w. Statistical Methods. Ames, Iowa:
The Iowa State College Press, 1956. Pp. 10—13.

Smith, Alexander F. "Some Characteristics of High Level"
Talent as Found in Selected Connecticut High Schools.
Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Conn—
ecticut, 1953.

Stalnaker, John M. "National Program for Discovering
Students of Exceptional Ability," Exceptional Children,
* XXIII (March, 1957), 234-237, 266.

Strang, Ruth. Guideposts for the Education of the Gifted.
New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1957.

. ”The Nature of Giftedness." Fifty—seventh Year—
book of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part II. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1958. P. 65.

 

 

 

 

63.
64.

55.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

 

158

Ibid., p. 78.

Tead, Ordway. "Learning as the Revelation of Reality,"
Improving College and University Teaching, VII
Winter: 1959) J 19‘23 -

 

Terman, Lewis. "The Discovery and Encouragement of Ex-
ceptional Talent," American Psychologist, IX (June,
1954), 221—230.

 

"Mental and Physical Traits of 1000 Gifted
Children," Genetic Studies of Genius, I. Stanford,
California: Stanford University Press, 1925.

 

Terman, Lewis and Oden, Melita. The Gifted Child Grows
Up. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press,
1947.

 

. "The Significance of Deviates, III. Correlates
of Adult Achievement in the California Gifted Group."
Thirty—ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the
Study of Education, Part I. Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press, 1938.

Tyler, Ralph W. "Why Are Gifted Children Overlooked?"
Crucial Issues in Education. Edited by H. Ehlers and
G. Lee. 2nd ed., revised. New York: Henry Holt and

Co., 1959.

Waggoner, Geor e R. "The Gifted Student in the State.
University, Journal of Higher Education, XXVIII
(November, 1957), 414-424.

“Challenging the Gifted Student," Chapter IV:
The Two Ends of the Log. Edited by R. M. Cooper.
Minneapolis: Lund Press, Inc., 1958.

. "Evaluatin Honors Work," Superior Student,
II (October, 1959 , 13.

Warner, W. L., Havighurst, R. J., and Loeb, M. B. Who
Shall Be Educated? New York: Harper Brothers, 1944.

Warner, W. L., Meeker, Marchia, and Eells, Kenneth.
Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for
the Measurement of Social Status. Chicago, Illinois:
Science Research Associates, Inc., 1949.

Wedemeyer, c. A. ”Gifted Achievers and Non—Achievers,"
Journal of Higher Education, XXIV (1953), 25-30.

 

76.

77.

78.

79.

 

159

 

Wise, Max W. They Come For the Best of Reasons: College
Students Today. Washington: American Council on ‘7
Education, 1958. '

 

Witty, Paul. "Who Are the Gifted?" Fifty—seventh Year-
book of the National Society for the Study of Education,
Part II. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press, 1958.

Wrenn, C. Gilbert. Introduction to The Measurement of
Student Adjustment and Achievement. Wilma Donahue,
editor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press,
1949. P. 8.

 

 

Zeigler, Martin, et al. "A New Profile for Interpreting
Academic Abilities," Educational and Psychological
Measurements, XVIII (1958), 583-588.

 

 

 

an-.. -. - ...:llL:

u.n.H~ ..-~ ...:Iulnil‘Yl

 

 

 

 

 

ROOM USE ON“

JUL; 4167 3%
MW
“zéi-gpi—t-Sé if:

A .. .186
MW

ROOM USE out,

0

 

 

 

5
)
t :_ . ,(
épwl'I'llv'u-..I‘ucv'r14¢-\OI'1~ ...

.,