I" ...-‘... .\\\_. .. .n “I. .H .Iu;<.‘- 'I'.«A~V--"‘I" "" " .‘eI‘TI‘hthT‘R'fi-‘EI'HN‘?I‘M“,) " " ' ‘ ‘ Il.‘ “ V}. wily-21;. I I A. , DOCTDRAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN; THE UNITED STATES ' Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN. STATE UNIVERSITY MARYBELLE CHASE ROCKEY ? 1972 'IIIgnnjyggm‘t‘qngtjjuwgnjfinII E M 1:: " University This is to certify that the thesis entitled ,Doctoral Preparation Programs in College Student I Personnel in Selected Universities in the United States presented by Marybelle c. Rockey I has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. figmein Administration and Higher Education Major professor Date AugtngS, .1972 0-7639 ¥ “ t: fiw‘ivfie ' BUUK BINULRI INC. M " LIBRAR! [moms I *' SPIIIGPOIT, MICHIGAN ‘: «Ry—T 3/ 302mm PREPAFL mm m SELEC .Var a & Tee Purposes. Ziiate a selected .a.;ege Student Pc- A \P‘W'» '5 .Qent Per sonnel ABSTRACT DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES By Marybelle Chase Rockey The Purposes. The purposes of this study were to inves- tigate a selected number of doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel and to develop a profile of College Student Personnel program faculty. The Procedure. Twenty doctoral College Student Per- sonnel preparation programs were selected for the in-depth study and included sixteen public universities in fourteen states and four private universities in two states and the District of Columbia. In investigating the twenty doctoral preparation programs, the structured interview was utilized to elicit information from the preparation program coordinators. Most of the interview data was presented in a descriptive manner. All of the faculty (N=113) involved in the College Student Personnel preparation programs at the twenty univer- sities were included in the study. In developing a profile of the faculty members, a survey questionnaire was employed to gather data from the faculty. Ninety-two per cent of the nestionnaires wer rate of 89.4 per c descriptive ta: snare methods . as: the prepareti filming COUCIUSi smel preparatior last ten years . have shifted over przgrans was to serve as College :slleges and com ii-Cteral student 15‘: M14972 w as tw necents was for .eculty involve 1‘s , ES Past tl Irrtte‘ exa“ \‘3: and Marybelle Chase Rockey questionnaires were returned with a total usable response ratezcof 89.4 per cent (N=lOl). The profile data were analyzed by descriptive tables with selected responses tested by chi- square methods. Findings. The major findings based on the interviews with the preparation program coordinators resulted in the following conclusions: (1) Many of the College Student Per- sonnel preparation programs have been established during the last ten years. (2) The emphases in the preparation programs have shifted over the years. (3) The main objective of the programs was to offer preparation for persons who plan to serve as College Student Personnel workers in universities, colleges and community colleges. (4) The average number of doctoral students enrolled in each of the programs during 1971-1972 was twenty-three and the average number of master's students was forty-six. (5) The average number of full-time faculty involved in the programs was 1.4 and the average num- ber of part-time faculty was 3.2. (6) Formal and informal methods of recruitment were used by eighty per cent of the programs. (7) Most programs required an average of twenty courses past the master's degree. (8) All programs required a written examination near the end of the program, a disserta- tion and an oral defense of the dissertation. (9) On the garage, nearly “U .3 programs gradue students in the prc Evaluation procedu: .‘ze corponents of satin program we 534395, a well to PfiCtlcal work 8X3 :Let’. the leading (2' meat Personnel Trfl. v ' Nana lniversiv srsf‘e w “11658 and t! Marybelle Chase Rockey average, nearly ninety per cent of the students enrolled in the programs graduated. (10) A large percentage of doctoral students in the programs had financial assistance. (11) Evaluation procedures existed in all twenty programs. (12) The components of a quality College Student Personnel prep- aration program were identified by the coordinators as quality faculty, quality students, sufficient elaboration of the program, strong supporting departments, institutional re— sources, a well conceived curriculum and opportunity for practical work experiences. (13) The coordinators identi- fied the leading doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel in rank order as Michigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State University, Columbia Teach- ers College and the University of Minnesota. They based their selections on quality of the faculty, quality of the graduates and visible leadership in the field by the faculty and graduates. The findings based on the questionnaires completed by the faculty members yielded the following conclusions: (1) The preparation program faculty members are predominantly male (eighty-four per cent) and average forty-one years of age. (2) Over forty per cent of the faculty are College Student Personnel administrators. (3) Less than one-quarter :5 the puma”t ion .Iearly ninety PEr ; ,) Over ninety P P' " ".5. 9-1 ‘ ..... teen years age, each faculty Yearly two-thirds £22: Personnel pro .55: :ive years , t \ Q ‘ v I . u ‘ ‘ . fied t 0 Spend 1 .115 r Ctiv‘ - Marybelle Chase Rockey of the: preparation program faculty are full-time. (4) Nearly ninety per cent of the faculty have doctoral degrees. (5) Over ninety per cent of the faculty have had from one to over fifteen years experience in the field. (6) On the aver- age, each faculty member taught 1.6 courses per term. (7) Nearly two-thirds of the faculty were active in College Stu- dent Personnel professional organizations. (8) During the last five years, the faculty attended 4.9 national meetings on the average. (9) Nearly two-thirds of the faculty have published books, monographs or journal articles. (10) The Chi-Square Test for Independence indicated that there were significant differences between full-time and part-time fac- ulty. Full-time faculty tended to participate more and part- time faculty tended to participate less than was expected in professional College Student Personnel organizations. Full- time faculty tended to publish more and part-time faculty tended to publish less than was expected. Part-time faculty tended to spend more time in administration and more time in other activities than was expected. DOCT ORAL PREI PER‘SOIUEL IN SE? DOCTORAL PREPARATION PROGRAMS IN COLLEGE STUDENT PERSONNEL IN SELECTED UNIVERSITIES IN THE UNITED STATES By Marybelle Chase Rockey A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education 1972 Copyright by MARYBELLE CHASE ROCKEY 1972 The writer l 3:. Louis Starst. a... to the nembe‘ :atience and um“; The writer :.'s:and, Harry , ‘2‘.‘| g ‘3‘ «G and Daryl , Ps‘chp‘el -M . duCat . l 19.98 and t ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer expresses her sincere appreciation to Dr. Louis Stamatakos, chairman of her guidance committee, and to the members of the committee, Dr. Walter F. Johnson and Dr. David Heenan for their guidance, assistance, patience and understanding. The writer expresses her love and appreciation to her husband, Harry, and to her children, Donald, Dale, Douglas, David and Daryl, for their sacrifices and encouragement which made the doctoral study possible. Special acknowledgement is extended to the writer's parents, Mr. and Mrs. K. M. Chase, for their helpfulness. Appreciation is expressed to Dr. Y. T. Witherspoon, Dr. Robert Smawley and Dr. Robert Coutts who inspired the candidate to continue graduate studies. A word of thanks is extended to Elizabeth Jenkins, Dr. Robert Kovach, Grant Jensen and James Mansfield for their friendship and special assistance. Appreciation is expressed to the College Student Personnel educators who so graciously agreed to the interviews and to the faculty members who participated in the study. ii CI. P‘AerR I. ..... L H. HI. INTRODEC Statenen Purposes Signific Definitr Organize REVIEW ( Special DISCUSS Speci Critici Discuss t0 Cr R0195 E Discuss R0185 ReCOmze and ( Discus: ReCOI Facult: DiSCuS Facu Summarj METHOD SeleCt eSEan TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I. INTRODUCTION. 1 Statement of the Study. 3 Purposes of the Study . . 4 Significance of the Study . 6 Definition of Terms . 7 Organization of the Study 7 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . 9 Specialized Preparation . . . . . . . 9 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Specialized Preparation . . . . . . . . . l3 Criticisms. . . . . . . . . 15 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Criticisms . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Roles and Program Emphases. . . . . . . . 24 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Roles and Program Emphasis. . . . . . . . 31 Recommended Subject Matter Areas and Curricula . . . . . . . . 32 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Recommended Curricula . . . . . . . . . 38 Faculty Preparation and Experience. . . . . 38 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Faculty Preparation and Experience. . . . 40 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 III. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Selection of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . 42 Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Development of the Instruments. . . . . . . 47 Collection of the Data. . . . . . . . . . . 49 Treatment of the Data . . . . . . . . . . 53 Limitations of the Methodology. . . . . . . 53 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 iii 1P?" ‘ . .mffll IV. ANALYSIS History Emphasis Titles. Degrees Objectiv Kind of Strength Graduate “Embers Faculty ‘ Courses . AdmiSSlOI Recruitze Typical I Practica Examinat Disserta PerCenta ComPleti Financia Percenta Tranl C F0llow [ EVaIUati Quality Leading REasOnS Comparig ChaHEES ChaRRES Summary (EUU7FEli INT. ANALYSIS OF DATA--INTERVIEWS. History . Emphasis. Titles. Degrees . Objectives. Kind of Program Emphasis. Strengths . . . Graduates . . Numbers of Students . Faculty . Courses . . Admissions Requirements . Recruitment . Typical Doctoral Program. Practical WOrk Experience . Examinations. . . . Dissertation Credit . Percentages of Graduates. Completion Time . . Financial Assistance. Percentage of Financial Assistance. Travel Grants . . Follow Up of Graduates. Evaluation. . . . Quality Programs. Leading Programs. . . . Reasons for the Selections. Comparisons . Changes Desired . . Changes Predicted . Summary . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA--QUESTIONNAIRES. Sex of Faculty Member . Ages of Faculty . . Academic Rank or Title. Time Spent in Preparation Program . Doctoral Degree . . . Doctoral Major. iv Page 56 56 58 58 59 59 63 65 70 71 72 72 73 79 81 84 89 90 91 92 93 93 94 95 96 99 102 104 105 106 110 115 124 125 125 126 127 127 128 IV. Year of Institut Master's Major of Year of lnstitut Professi Percenta Number 0 Courses ' Professi Meetings PUblicat PIOgram Program Leading Comparis Part-1 Pro: Pub' PET: RECome. Act: Rec Enr Dep Fat Fin CHAPTHHR IV. Year of Doctoral Degree. . Institution of Doctoral Degree . Master's Degree. . Major of Master' 3 Degree . Year of Master's Degree. . . Institution of Master's Degree . Professional Experience. Percentage of Time . . Number of Courses Taught Each Term . Courses Taught . Professional Organizations Meetings Attended Last Five Years. Publications . Program Emphasis . Program Emphasis Comparisons Leading Programs Comparisons Between Full- Time and Part- Time Faculty. . Professional Organizations Publications . Percentage of Time . Recommended Program Changes. Admissions Recruitment. Enrollments. . Departmental Procedures. Faculty. Financial Support. Internships- -Practicum-Fie1d WOrk Experiences Research . Students Course Changes Overall Changes. Other Comments . Changes Unnecessary. Summary. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary. Findings and Conclusions Discussion . Implications for Further Research. V Page 129 129 130 131 132 132 134 134 139 139 140 143 143 145 146 147 149 149 150 151 152 152 153 153 153 153 154 154 155 155 155 156 158 159 159 168 168 170 183 188 BIBLIOGRAPHY . IEPEIDECES . Page BIBLIOGRAPHY..................... 192 APPENDICES......................199 vi 5.5. 16. i7. Rmmary Summary by Univ Kind 01 Number in C01 h0g1} 5.10. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Responses to Questionnaire. Summary of Responses to Questionnaire by University. Kind of Program Emphasis Numbers of Students Enrolled in 1971-1972 in College Student Personnel Preparation Programs . Sex of the Faculty Member. Ages of the College Student Personnel Preparation Program Faculty. Academic Rank or Title . Time Spent in College Student Personnel Preparation Program Responsibilities Doctoral Degree. Doctoral Major . Year of Doctoral Degree. Master's Degrees . Major of Master's Degree . Year of Master's Degree. Professional Experience. Percentage of Time Spent in Teaching, Administration, Advisement and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . Percentage of Time Spent Teaching and Advising Doctoral Candidates . vii Page 51 52 63 71 . 125 125 126 127 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 135 . 137 all 1.1;. ’ a -7 4.1 . 3.18. KJ' N C') v‘ v. W! M... TABLE 5 .14. .15. .16. .17. .18. .19. .20. .21. .22. LIST OF TABLES Number of Courses Taught on the Average Each Term. Courses Taught by the Preparation Program Faculty. Participation in Professional Organizations. NUmber of Professional Meetings Attended in the Last Five Years Publications College Student Personnel Preparation Program Emphasis Frequency Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Preparation Program Faculty Members-Professional Organizations Frequency Distribution of Full-Time and Part-Time Faculty Members--Publications. Mean Percentage of Time Spent in Teaching, Administration, Advisement and Other Activities for Full—Time and Part-Time Faculty Members. viii Page . 138 . 139 . 141 . 142 , 144 . 145 . 149 , 150 , 151 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix page A. Colleges and Universities Included in the Initial Survey to Determine Institutions Offering Doctoral Programs in College Student Personnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 B. Letter and Information Sheet for the Initial Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 C. Responses to Initial Survey With Name of Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 D. Universities Included in the Study . . . . . 206 E. Structured Interview Outline . . . . . . . . 207 F. Faculty Cover Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 G. Faculty Questionnaire. . . . . . . . . . . . 211 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The professional preparation of College Student Personnel workers is a major concern to leaders in the field. Historically, this issue has been controversial. One controversy has been between those who recommend pro- fessional preparation for personnel workers and those who do not. Another disagreement has been about program emphases. Many institutions prefer and require professional preparation for College Student Personnel workers. Others look askance at such preparation and do not recognize it as relevant or meaningful. (Kauffman, 1964) Numerous student personnel workers have entered the field from a variety of backgrounds and do not advocate special training. By custom many student personnel admin- istrators have been recruited from the ranks of teaching faculty. A number of College Student Personnel practitioners currently employed in the field have had no formal prepara- tion. In a study conducted by Upcraft (1971), less than half :5 his satple :rators in un: t... u. .n ' a Q l as; I? 9' v. Q H- (II 1 J’ l 3-r£q . “S 6:; 1.7:] i 1 ‘ § . l-- -"" T“«l“g'\ l‘z l ‘v 5“ " F s1 \5 v“ H N M .s- ~I3‘QS I “ . . V“ 's‘f‘ K . \. L ‘ V- ‘K‘N‘tl \‘ ‘4’ V 5 (‘1. .‘ .N ‘ERQ Q ’v\ V ‘¥ s ‘ oflnis sample of chief College Student Personnel adminis- trators in universities of over 10,000 students had been professionally trained. However, ". . . there appears to be a growing conviction that college and university administrators have unique functions to perform and that they perform them best when specially equipped with distinctive academic capabilities." (Bolman, 1964, p. 276) Among those who recommend professional training in College Student Personnel, there are varying opinions about appropriate preparation emphases. Differences of opinion exist on theoretical grounds, as well as philosophical bases. Some College Student Personnel preparation programs emphasize counseling, while others stress administration, student development, educational philosophy, research or behavioral sciences. Another concern ripe for investigation concerns the staffing of College Student Personnel preparation programs and the content of preparation for those who staff the programs. Almost nothing has been written about this topic. Exactly what are the qualifications of those currently teaching in the preparation programs? Have the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty had training and experience in the field of College Student Personnel? ' y‘ \s The S‘ 'r- r' .54; 5:8 ‘ I ‘n‘ o .,. i.tCtQI'S A re arch is I . a“. .- stra VA“_P ~ 5 T a. L L .mgsA; q «A A review of recent literature reveals that little research is being conducted about College Student Personnel preparation programs or about their faculty. The study by Rhatigan and Hoyt (1970) was concerned with the perceptions of doctoral preparation program directors in assessing the work of student personnel administrators in large institutions. Montgomery (1971) evaluated the Master's degree program in College Student Personnel at Indiana University. Tracy (1971) investigated Master's programs in College Student Personnel. He surveyed fifty-six programs and was concerned about factors associated with entrance requirements, number of graduates, factors relating to financial support and factors relating to the placement of graduates. The research cited provides scant insight into the doctoral College Student Personnel preparation programs. This investigation, then, was an attempt to examine a number of doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel, their nature, and their faculty. Statement of the Study Two major concerns are examined in this study. The first issue is to investigate a selected number of doctoral s . 6A1 31?. COT racets of t a?‘“" :‘Vé‘ E :tutent P C a, pert SS. ‘fies ' l x.“k5 9 I I A T‘Iv't‘s " H v "A fl 0 ‘ § 4 preparation programs in College Student Personnel. Various facets of the programs are studied including emphases, objectives, admissions requirements, curriculum, quality program components, leading programs and predicted changes. The second issue is to develop a profile of College Student Personnel preparation program faculty. The characteristics of the faculty examined are professional experience, educational background, age, sex, title or rank, percentage of time spent in College Student Personnel activities, numbers and emphasis of courses taught, partici- pation in professional organization activities and publica- tions. Faculty perceptions of program emphasis, recommended changes for the program and an opinion of the leading doctoral College Student Personnel preparation programs are ascertained. Purposes of the Study The purposes of the study are to: 1. identify the colleges and universities offering a doctorate in College Student Personnel; 2. conduct an intensive analysis of a selected number of College Student Personnel preparation programs at the doctoral level; 3. compare selected aspects of program requirements among universities; 4. ca eza'tases Of PTO‘E S. de program in Colle perceived by tho 6. as experience of th 7. ma‘ o.” ,. naege Student 31 urposes #2, Other Speci include the fell 5 4. categorize the philosophical and curricular emphases of programs included in the study; 5. determine the characteristics of a quality program in College Student Personnel preparation as perceived by those who conduct such programs; 6. ascertain the professional education and experience of the preparation program faculty; and 7. make recommendations for the improvement of College Student Personnel preparation programs as an outcome of purposes #2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Other specific questions considered in the study include the following: 1. Are the emphases in College Student Personnel preparation programs easily identified? 2. Are there standardized criteria for admission to College Student Personnel preparation programs? 3. Is the curriculum primarily multi-disciplinary in College Student Personnel preparation programs? 4. How, when and by whom are College Student Personnel preparation programs evaluated? 5. What changes in the College Student Personnel preparation programs are predicted for the future? 6. Which are the leading College Student Personnel preparation programs at the present time and why? Tee signifi. educators who are starlets have par. in programs at retmends that "share their thi xture generati< I)” (h o r' 11‘ (D n 6 Significance of the Study The significance of this study is fivefold. First, educators who are preparing College Student Personnel workers have particular need for information about prepara- tion programs at other universities. Miller (1967) recommends that faculties of various preparation programs "share their thinking and approaches to the education of future generations of student personnel workers." (p. 176) Second, the information gathered in this study should be helpful in evaluating and improving existing programs. If the characteristics of a quality preparation program can be determined, they should be of value to the entire field of College Student Personnel. Third, in identifying and categorizing program types, prospective students may be assisted in determining an appropriate program in which to seek admission. Practitioners and educators in the field should also benefit by the clarification of program emphases. Fourth, the data collected in this study might be used by the professional organizations for establishing standards for College Student Personnel preparation programs. Fizt“, generation 4' P '1 v‘: ucgaege ‘ 2:;LCYE21 i s." ~33 Set-1", Etefi~ate ":n ‘i‘ 'ral‘e p( 7 Fifth, a profile of College Student Personnel preparation program faculty should be useful to the field of College Student Personnel in determining qualifications for preparation program faculty. Definition of Terms The following terms are defined for use in this study: College Student Personne1-—the college or university program particularly concerned with enhancing the student's learning experiences beyond the confines of the classroom. Collegg_Student Personnel Workers--an educator employed in the field of College Student Personnel. He may serve as an administrator, a counselor, a consultant or as a faculty member. College Student Personnel Preparation Program--a graduate program of preparation or training designed to prepare persons for professional positions in College Student Personnel. Coordinator--for the purposes of this study, the chairman or director of the College Student Personnel preparation program. College Student Personnel Preparation Program Faculty Member--a college or university faculty member who prepares graduate students for the field of College Student Personnel. Organization of the Study Literature related to the study is reviewed in Chapter II. The instruments and methodology used are OUtlined in Chapter III. Chapter IV consists of the 6 we... “‘3." \ ' r- ya v.7 A b. d 8 analysis of the interviews with the College Student Personnel preparation program coordinators. The profile of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty is presented in Chapter V. Contained in Chapter VI are the summary, findings and conclusions, discussion, and implications for further research. n. “r3 t ‘I‘vw-x 5“ k * CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE One of the basic issues in the field of College Student Personnel is whether or not College Student Personnel workers need specialized preparation. Other issues focus on the criticisms of the College Student Personnel preparation programs, student personnel roles and program emphases, recommended preparation program curricula and preparation of the faculty teaching in the programs. The literature pertinent to these issues is reviewed in this chapter. Specialized Preparation Several authors and researchers have discussed the value of specialized preparation in College Student Personnel while others have discussed the irrelevance of College Student Personnel preparation. Nearly fifteen years ago, Williamson (1958) urged that College Student Personnel workers needed special competencies and preparation. He recommended that personnel people be "liberally educated as well as technically competent." (p. 3) 9 10 The necessity for persons in College Student Personnel work to have special knowledge, skills and leadership qualities has been underscored by Fitzgerald, Johnson, and Norris (1970). They felt there was general agreement among the writers in the field that the need for professionally trained student personnel workers would increase. Matson (1966) was not only supportive of professional preparation for College Student Personnel workers, but she argued that specially designed graduate programs were necessary for preparing junior college administrators. In spite of the recommendations for professional preparation, the appointments of academicians to dean of student positions have been repeatedly reported. (Grant, 1968; Schultz, 1968; Crane, 1965; Hulet, 1966; and Kauffman, 1964) Schultz questioned whether it was even realistic to expect a change in the long established practice of selecting deans from academic ranks. In his study on the role expectations of chief student personnel administrators, Upcraft (1967) questioned student personnel administrators about desirable prepara- tion for those working in the field. His sample consisted of eighty-three chief student personnel administrators in institutions enrolling more than 10,000 students. Less 11 than sixteen per cent of the chief student personnel administrators recommended training primarily in student personnel administration. Thirteen per cent felt that student personnel administrators should not have formal training in student personnel administration and seventy- one per cent thought that student personnel administrators may or may not be trained in student personnel administration. No clear consensus concerning the preparation of College Student Personnel administrators was reported by the student personnel administrators included in Upcraft's study. According to Rhatigan and Hoyt (1970), considerable interest has been expressed in the academic preparation of student personnel administrators. Their investigation was concerned with the accuracy with which faculty trainers in the preparation programs perceived the work of student personnel administrators. The sample consisted of forty- five senior college and forty-eight junior college chief student personnel administrators and twenty-four chief faculty trainers in doctoral preparation programs. Both practitioners and faculty judged academic training to be helpful in performing most administrative functions. Practitioners and faculty agreed that the value of academic training was doubtful in preparing budgets, performing Ir 12 administrative details, conducting informational functions and in performing committee work. Academic preparation was thought to be essential in teaching, research and counseling functions. The faculty trainers gave academic training a stronger relevancy rating than the student personnel administrators did. Rhatigan and Hoyt suggested three implications of the findings of their study. First, that the "doctoral degree will not produce the 'compleat' administrator." (p. 162) Secondly, that increased attention must be given to practice and internship opportunities because of the perceived relevance of on-the-job training. Thirdly, the researchers predicted that many top administrators will probably continue to be employed on the basis of their experience and personal characteristics even though they have had little or no relevant academic background. They concluded that practitioners and faculty trainers believed that academic preparation was relevant to the performance of most administrative functions. However, administrators rated on-the-job training more helpful than academic training while faculty members tended to rate academic training more helpful than on-the-job training. l3 Foy (1969) surveyed 1320 members of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators to determine the career patterns of student personnel administrators. One of his questions dealt with the desirability of specialized preparation for student personnel administrators. Over eighty per cent of the respondents felt that formal training of new student personnel administrators was of great importance. Foy concluded that the attitudes of practicing student personnel administrators had changed from those reported previously by other researchers and that an increase in value had been placed upon formal training in student personnel administration. Discussion of Literature Relevant to Specialized Preparation The literature dealing with specialized preparation for College Student Personnel administrators appeared to be of two varieties. One variety might be classified as "opinions of the authorities." The other might be called ”research findings on the impressions of student personnel practitioners." The leading educators in the field have pointed to the importance of specialized preparation for College Student Personnel workers, while practitioners surveyed by several researchers have responded negatively, '0 ..W‘|‘ in :cst cases: that less thar personnel acimi training. The study rated or acadezic trait ttrained admi 3.3 Positions ci‘araCteristic The Cpini fElated t0 the 14 in most cases, to specialized preparation. Upcraft found that less than sixteen per cent of the chief student personnel administrators in his study recommended formal training. The practitioners in the Rhatigan and Hoyt study rated on-the-job training as more helpful than academic training. Rhatigan and Hoyt predicted that untrained administrators would continue to be appointed to top positions on the basis of their experience and personal characteristics. The opinions of the practitioners may be directly related to their own professional preparation. Less than half of the practitioners in Upcraft's study had been professionally trained. Of the Rhatigan and Hoyt sample, less than half had doctoral degrees in student personnel work or related fields. Foy found a more acceptant attitude toward professional preparation of student personnel workers, even though less than half of the practitioners in his study had received their highest academic degree in counseling, guidance or College Student Personnel. While educators continue to encourage professional preparation for College Student Personnel workers, the practitioners in the field have not supported specialized ”rainng as ent'r. lack of professi ,I- {1- . m .mcrsas Several an: treaaration pro g azé'ulolf (1963) 3‘5 Various orien :gan the person; tut that the fit recfind in var tether or not rug, ....ent perm“? I QL'Jre Of C011. Here felt to 1: st“ . as on“ . «tyarati C Elke" 15 training as enthusiastically, perhaps because of their own lack of professional preparation. Criticisms Several authors have written critically about the preparation programs in College Student Personnel. Barry and Wolf (1963) labeled personnel training a "hodgepodge" of various orientations with the primary focus dependent upon the personal predilection of the trainer. They pointed out that the field had not examined the competencies required in various student personnel positions or determined whether or not a common core of training was needed by all student personnel workers. Barry and Wolf criticized the personnel course work and asserted that it consisted of a mixture of courses from various disciplines. The courses were felt to be useful, but probably not meaningful to students if they could not synthesize and apply the materials in practice. The authors thought that the trainees were probably unable to do so because the whole field suffered from lack of synthesis. Hester (1971) pointed out that there was a void regard- ing systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of programs of preparation for student personnel administrators. However, several doctoral dissertations have dealt with preparation 5:933), Kell Wright training prO rrrkers in c . 'H the North :e-hunc’red :fief prepa: tions. His training ex; :79 Programs Keller ~ 1683 PEI‘ 't‘sohnel to ":rSOHnel . wO Q t :‘r‘yx W Th. l6 preparation program evaluation, including those by Wright (1958), Keller (1962) and Montgomery (1971). Wright sought to identify the status of doctoral training programs for counselors and other personnel workers in colleges and universities holding membership in the North Central Association. His sample included one-hundred graduates of sixteen institutions and the chief preparation program trainer in each of the institu— tions. His findings indicated that nearly all of the basic .training experiences were highly rated by the graduates of the programs. Keller investigated the doctoral preparation program at Indiana University. The purpose of his study was to evaluate the student personnel training program through a survey of the opinions of its trainees. The alumni and trainees perceived their course work in College Student Personnel to be helpful in preparing them for student personnel work. The interest shown by the staff members in the trainees was found to be the major strength of the program. The most negative aspect of the program was reported to be the limited opportunity for supervised internships. Montgomery that would best | and functions 6 to evaluate the practical work - 1n the Master' 5 Prcgram at Indi. t: L. ~. the program I Participated in '55 Practical e preparat i on in Tfin '\ §~Lv mended tha Sitiology 0f tk per30m 17 Montgomery was concerned about the types of training that would best prepare personnel workers for the roles and functions demanded by higher education. She sought to evaluate the contributions of the course work and the practical work experiences (practicum, internships, etc.) in the Master's College Student Personnel preparation program at Indiana University. Two-hundred eighty alumni of the program who had graduated between 1959 and 1969 participated in the study. In the opinion of the graduates, the practical experience preparation surpassed the academic preparation in the program. In summary the researcher recommended that courses in psychology, counseling, the sociology of the university, group dynamics and human relations skills and practicum experiences in several student personnel service areas be emphasized in the future. The evaluation and improvement of existing programs was suggested by Tracy (1971). He thought that "inquiry should be designed to define and assess the appropriateness of each of the existing programs." (p. 110) These same kinds of recommendations were offered nine years before by Super (1962). He advocated that "we need to help graduate students decide early in their preparation, whether they I, are going to be tifferentiate t': Other writ literature and . preparation. I: Stu-dent Personm ariters have to :i questionable Quantity. Stri “seem in the 18 are going to be counselors or administrators, and then differentiate the training programs.” (p. 236) Other writers have commented about the research, literature and approaches to College Student Personnel preparation. In analyzing doctoral research in College Student Personnel work, Gladstein (1968) reported that many writers have concluded that student personnel research was of questionable quality and was limited in both scope and quantity. Stripling and Lister (1963) summarized the research in the field of College Student Personnel as questionnaire surveys and position papers. Penney (1969) observed that there was a scarcity of basic literature in the field of College Student Personnel. In his opinion, the field had produced few fundamental textbooks and most of the writings were problem-centered and of short-term value. In assessing the quality of the basic literature, he asserted that a large quantity of the materials had been taken "wholesale" from psychology. A second category of materials was classified as writings about administrative, organizational and coordinating matters which Penney labeled as housekeeping activities. He questioned how the publications could appear so irrelevant and prosaic in a decade of monumental change. The third category of matt personnel p0 int In another critical of the Student Personn three approache arrkerSuguidar The guidance be than and prox it: was an ext. 9 ,. . \.“"‘ .‘T'OC 1 guidanc “‘“EEE Studen 5.3.. . sa‘cathn , l9 category of materials was termed elaborations of the personnel point of view. In another article also published in 1969, Penney was critical of the emphases in preparation programs in College Student Personnel. From his observations, he pointed out three approaches to the education of student personnel workers--guidance based, human relations, and counseling. The guidance based approach appeared to Penney as the most common and provided a generalist orientation. The curricu- lum was an extension of a preparation program for secondary school guidance personnel with additional courses for the College Student Personnel worker in philosophy of higher education, organization and administration of higher educa- tion and studies in College Student Personnel work. The second approach, a human relations program, was described as basically group oriented and one in which motivational psychology, group work and interpersonal relations skill training were emphasized. He noted that these programs usually exposed students to varied group experiences, so that they could become group ”trainers" in their occupational settings. Penney labeled the third orientation a counseling approach which resulted from the philosophy that counseling was the I30St C" personnel TOPS“ Penney dec seeded by SW99 :reir jobs did ' education offer prepare them it taintained that 20 was the most common and important aspect of all student personnel jobs. Penney declared that a common core of basic information needed by student personnel workers in the performance of their jobs did not exist. He was of the opinion that the education offered to student personnel workers did not prepare them for entry into the field. Furthermore, Penney maintained that there was little evidence to indicate that student personnel educators were concerned about professional education. He observed that discussion about professional education was limited in the relevant journals, that few dissertations had been written about the subject and that it was rarely found on convention programs. Penney was also disapproving of the COSPA document which suggested guidelines for the preparation of student personnel workers. He commented that the recommendations appeared to represent an elucidation of the current thinking and that the proposal had not established new directions. He concluded that there was practically nothing in the current literature suggesting "significant innovations or creative adaptations in either the functioning or the prepara- tion of student personnel workers. . .” (p. 63) Dewey (197 change "if they specificity of preparation pro miraginative a recomended th: teconstmcted 21 Dewey (1972) argued that preparation programs must change "if they are to help avoid extinguishing the field." (p. 63) Preparation programs were described as having a similarity of approach and focusing too much on the specificity of student services. In addition the professional preparation programs have been limited in design, repetitive, unimaginative and reluctant to question themselves. She recommended that professional preparation programs be reconstructed to offer preparation previously lacking in substantive areas. It was urged that preparation programs become more flexible and that they create new degree structures and new approaches to the study of College Student Personnel. Dewey concluded by pronouncing that if the professional preparation programs "choose McLuhan's description of the average person's approach to the future--that is, happily driving forward looking into the rearview mirror, it will be all over in the year 2000." (p. 64) Also recommending that the College Student Personnel preparation programs be revised were Wallenfeldt and Bigelow (1971). They reported that in the opinion of many educators, College Student Personnel preparation programs were "characterized by a dearth of subject matter, Sparse liter at: generally requi suggested that shauld focus up national reconrr. lcvever, they f and that consi< cartrol. They itself in the national cotrn: 22 sparse literature and a lack of scholarly qualities generally required of graduate education." (p. 184) They suggested that the College Student Personnel profession should focus upon the preparation programs and that national recommendations on program ingredients be drafted. However, they felt that recommendations were only a beginning and that considerably more was needed in the form of quality control. They strongly urged the profession to police itself in the area of graduate instruction and to form a national committee on standards and accreditation. Fitzgerald, Johnson, and Norris (1970) also urged that professional preparation and accreditation must continue to be dealt with as pertinent issues. Discussion of Literature Relevant to Criticisms Criticisms have been levied about various aspects of the College Student Personnel preparation programs. Some of the comments may be valid, but others have not been substantiated by the authors. Several researchers commented that evaluations of preparation programs had not been accomplished. On the contrary, several programs have been thoroughly evaluated. However, the studies have been regional in character; the investigations do not appear to be systematic; and comparisons among various preparation programs have not been conducted. ad program em; Personnel. Ali of College StUC pregaration. 'I about the scam field and abou Evidence does pe rsonnel educ in the profes workers . 23 Several writers have been critical about the literature and program emphases in the field of College Student Personnel. Also reported was a lack of concern on the part of College Student Personnel educators about professional preparation. The writers may be accurate in their perceptions about the scarcity of basic and profound literature in the field and about the poorly defined program emphases. Evidence does exist, however, to indicate that student personnel educators have expressed considerable interest in the professional preparation of College Student Personnel workers. (Nygreen, 1968; Greenleaf, 1968; O'Banion, 1969; Rhatigan and Hoyt, 1970; and others) Numerous acceptable and meaningful recommendations can be teased out of the criticisms of the College Student Personnel preparation programs. Research in the field can be improved in quantity and in quality. Program emphases could be differentiated, so that students might choose the appropriate programs for their interests. Programs could become more innovative, imaginative and able to question themselves. The College Student Personnel professional organizations have formed national committees on standards and accreditation and they could become more involved in some form of quality control. lies and From “ I _L. Educators College Student“ fro-gran enphase predicted that rust be educato 1964; .iller, 1 Cross urged the time educatm student 1 sP‘ECialists in E‘ECple.” (p. Miller 9X ‘3 . $- r=~SOn I161 Work 'emiCaLsPec 5‘32de H ' (p. "*Sinnel worl 24 Roles and Program Emphases Educators recommending professional preparation in College Student Personnel have discussed diverse roles and program emphases. Many authorities in the field have predicted that student personnel workers of the future must be educators. (Cross, 1972; Johnson, 1970; Kauffman, 1964; Miller, 1967; Trueblood, 1966; and Williamson, 1958) Cross urged that student personnel administrators must become educators, rather than administrators. She would have "student personnel administrators become educational specialists in the sphere of excellence in working with people." (p. 57) Miller explained that the future role of the student personnel worker would be as "an educator first and a technical-specialist or a service-oriented specialist second." (p. 173) According to Johnson, the student personnel worker will combine the roles of educator, provider of services and student development specialist. Johnson anticipated that the "greatest demands in the years ahead will be for those who are qualified professionally to help students--individually and in peer groups--to understand themselves and their educational environments." (p. 11) He also pointed out that personnel workers "will be filmed to alrinistration attainment“ “ rearingful educ Kauffman ' aninistratof ' 5 "conditions and ritual and at The unique cont airinistrator t student person: :eat with the t Greenleaf generalists sho' 3f the young ad* “c7 a broad knox that a. student pei 25 be expected to serve as consultants to the faculty and administration in interpreting students' behavioral and developmental needs, which can be met through more meaningful educational programs." (p. 11) Kauffman (1964) elaborated the student personnel administrator's role as assisting in the creation of 'bonditions and opportunities for reinforcing the intellectual, cultural and artistic purposes of the institution." (p. 292) The unique contribution made by the student personnel administrator to his university was linked with the student personnel administrator's awareness of and involve- ment with the total student community. Greenleaf (1968) professed that student personnel generalists should have a knowledge of the characteristics of the young adult, as well as knowledge of legal procedures and a broad knowledge of world affairs. She recommended that student personnel workers have the ability to use counseling and interview skills and also the skills to provide in service training .for staff responsible for Operations and management. According to Mueller (1967) the student personnel worker 1m~1st have an intellectual grasp of the facts of Imbllc and private education, a personalized internalized hierarchy of v2 :anagenent of : personnel workc and future trer uncertainties c Grant (196 student develop personnel worke aile in the art and as a resear A variety Sci . , E-”er' I) lenCe haVE A COunseli 26 hierarchy of values and priorities and a maturity in the management of feeling. She recommended that the student personnel worker be able to look for current developments and future trends and be able to tolerate the annoying uncertainties of an arduous professional life. Grant (1968) urged student personnel workers to become student development specialists. He described the student personnel worker as a behavioral artist, as one knowledge- able in the arts, as a student of the behavioral sciences and as a researcher. A variety of emphases, including counseling, behavioral sciences, administration, educational theory and practical experience have been stressed in the preparation programs. A counseling or a counseling psychology emphasis in College Student Personnel preparation programs has been debated by a number of authorities. Dressel (1957) recommended that counseling psychology be the basic discipline for student personnel administrators. Shoeben (1967) made the observation "that the relevance of psychology to the attain- ment of personnel goals lies in the general light it throws on human development and the human condition, not in its professional character." (p. 243) N a 13:15 e . vi ‘ ‘ ill. us q wl Ce C «U .. u 3 .G 3 S d e A: «9 “IN \0 t S Ad This rfiu v a n) «I» t .5 v a it “I“ Eh.» ah I‘le\ ‘ \ cl. ‘ nus nv LUNA “N q: r. s v s t q: .\. a .. t .s u a .. x 27 Based on a 1965-66 study of Deans of Women in Texas, Dunn (1967) suggested that preparation programs for women deans needed an emphasis in counseling, including counseling techniques, individual and group counseling, counseling practica and courses in mental health, psychology of adolescence and human growth and development. In total disagreement was Penney (1969) who contended that counseling was an insufficient base for College Student Personnel administrators. Lloyd-Jones (1968) argued that student affairs staff members would not become qualified by concentrating exclusively on personality theory, psychological testing and clinical counseling. She foresaw College Student Personnel staff members working "with others using the resources and techniques of discussion, symposia, exposi- tion, colloquia, dialogue, clarifying questions, literature, art, history, religion, philosophy, social fellowship, and sustained search." (p. 28) Lloyd-Jones felt that student personnel workers must be qualified to help students learn to assess their environments and environmental changes in the direction of carefully determined values. Therefore, in her opinion, the student personnel worker cannot take refuge in narrow specializations. counsel: .crilng) I?» “.1 3K;~«S 3 I‘EEQI‘. 28 Parker (1966) thought that the education appropriate for counselors was an important part of the preparation for student personnel workers. However, other skills beside counseling skills were recommended for student personnel workers, including administrative decision making, consensus taking, record keeping, budget making and speciality skills. Emphasis in the behavioral sciences has been encouraged by a number of authors. McConnell (1970) proposed that all student personnel workers, regardless of their particular interests, must have a broad and extensive background in the behavioral sciences. Trueblood (1966) recommended that on the doctoral level, the emphasis be "on deepening the understanding of the behavioral sciences, the context of higher education and on the philosophy and skill of counseling, research skills, and philosophy of inquiry." (p. 83) Chickering (1967) urged college deans, counselors and teachers to study psychology, social psychology and sociology of the young adult. The contributions of sociology to College Student Personnel work were enumerated by Stroup (1967) as both direct and indirect. An understanding of man and his world, the distribution and organization of people and of social ins relevant t The l ers, accc ps'm‘hn‘m yLb‘V‘UE‘ 4 29 social institutions were listed as sociological concepts relevant to College Student Personnel. The basic principles for student personnel administra- tors, according to Crane (1965) were found in phiIOSOphy, psychology, sociology and the humanities, as well as in management, administration (public and educational) and other more specialized areas. In a speech to College Student Personnel professionals and graduate students in College Student Personnel, Useem (1964) observed that increasing attention had been paid to theoretical principles in the student personnel field. From her viewpoint she reasoned that skilled performances should flow from theory. She thought that the professionalization of student personnel work depended upon student personnel workers becoming authorities on handling growing numbers of students in large bureaucratized institutions. Several authors have discussed the value of internships as a part of College Student Personnel preparation. Accord- ing to Pierson (1967), the major emphasis in programs of preparation should be upon supervised practice and super- vised work experience. He was of the opinion that few universities were equipped to provide professional training in College Student Personnel work. 11 ,, C$§ELe \v- .- "X" . It.) 30 Two recent studies have been conducted to determine the effectiveness and the status of the internship in College Student Personnel preparation programs. Houtz (1967) surveyed the 1961, 1962, and 1963 doctoral and master's graduates of twelve preparation programs to elicit information about their internship experiences. She also questioned twelve professionally active student personnel workers with respect to the internship experiences they would recommend. She reported that the student personnel professionals advised internships in one or two specialized areas for College Student Personnel students. However, she found discrepancies between the activities recommended and those offered by the institutions. On the basis of her research, Houtz deve10ped a proposed internship plan which provided an opportunity for the individual to apply theory to practice. Wallenfeldt and Bigelow (1970) sought to gain informa- tion concerning the status of student personnel internships. Forty-two institutions responded to their questionnaire which sought data about the philosophy, structure, mechanics and evaluation of internships. The researchers reported that a standard definition of the term, internship, was non-existent and stated, "What one institution considers an internship a ‘u’allenfeldt internship 1 consensus n for the stu ship was pe education '1 :eve toward in this are Nygree that there 0 ft 31 internship another regards as a practicum.” (p. 181) wallenfeldt and Bigelow concluded that student personnel internship programs seemed to be characterized by lack of consensus regarding what these experiences should accomplish for the student personnel worker. They felt that the intern- ship was perhaps the most valuable portion of graduate El education in student personnel and that the profession must move toward standard definitions and common understandings in this area. _u Nygreen (1968) differed with many writers and argued that there was basic agreement and common understanding about the training programs in spite of the differences of opinion about some aspects of the programs. Discussion of Literature Relevant to Roles and Program Emphases Nearly all of the literature dealing with future roles for College Student Personnel workers and recommended prepara- tion program emphases represent opinions of leading educators in the field. Most of the educators anticipate that the College Student Personnel worker of the future will be an educator first, but he will also be a provider of services, a student development specialist and a researcher. ’LMM ' ‘ “ wane“ C '31» - “L It a :Efi : . Natl 3.. 32 While several authorities have suggested a counseling emphasis for student personnel workers, most of those writing today agree that counseling is an insufficient base for College Student Personnel preparation. Widely recommended emphases at the present time for inclusion in preparation programs are the behavioral sciences, higher education foundations, administration and management principles, counseling techniques, research skills and practical experiences. Three research studies related to preparation program emphases. Two investigated the College Student Personnel internship and one recommended a program emphasis for a select population (Deans of Women) in one state. One of the studies exploring the internship recommended a proposed internship plan which provided an opportunity for students to apply theory to practice. In essence, the other study underscored the importance of the practical work experience, but it also reported the lack of consensus in terms of the definitions and understandings in this area. Recommended Subject Matter Areas and Curricula Recommended subject matter areas and curricula for the preparation programs have been suggested by Cosby (1965), Trueblood (1966), Miller (1967), and O'Banion (1969). lost of the ham also be aiaccredit Cosby : be develope education." personnel w the "changi faculty, at Causal to c Cosh \4: awe Studv ProteSSEs. ‘H J» P a Part B I :195 :iOHS 33 Most of the student personnel professional organizations have also been actively involved in professional preparation and accreditation matters. Cosby suggested that the "student personnel curriculum be developed within the context of the study of higher education." (p. 17) She explained that the student personnel worker must understand and be able to cope with the ”changing role concepts and the relationships of students, faculty, administration and of those forces which were causal to change. . ." (p. 17) Cosby thought that student personnel trainees should also study the sociology of undergraduate life and group Processes. She felt that supervised work experience should be a‘part of the preparation programs, but she raised questions about the balance of the academic program and practice in the student's experience. She warned against Students beginning study and internships simultaneously. In her Opinion, preparation programs in order to be Viable 'Hnust produce persons knowledgeable in both social process and social issues." (p. 18) In-outlining a preparation program for College S tudenItilPersonnel workers, Trueblood (1966) included the f ollowing areas in an ideal program: i- -__ *Io -.- _'.4.-—r—-' 34 1. One major core in psychology 2. A second major core in the study of culture change and societal forces 3. Study aimed toward a comprehensive under- standing of the context, philos0phy, finance, planning and curriculum of higher education 4. "Skill" courses in counseling and measurement Fl 5. Supervised experience in work with individual students and groups of students in a higher education setting 6. An understanding of research goals, methods LJ and skills 7. A thorough understanding of the ethical responsibilities and legal relationships in College Student Personnel work IMiller (1967) proposed ten fundamental subject matter areas of knowledge and practice needed by the student in College.Student Personnel preparation. 1. "To be introduced to the field in such a way as to obtain a meaningful orientation to, and overview of, student personnel work. 2. To obtain a clear understanding of the context and foundations of higher education in America and elsewhere. 3. To bridge the gaps between the academic disciplines, especially the behavioral sciences and practical application to work with students. 4. To learn the psychological and sociological bases of behavior and general characteristics of the college age student. 35 5. To deve10p the human helping relationship concepts and attitudes essential to individuals in a "helping" profession. 6. To obtain a comprehensive grasp of research and evaluation--their value and function for College Student Personnel. 7. To understand the basic principles and practices necessary to implement and coordinate student personnel programs. 8. To become skillful in methods and approaches used by counselors and educators in working with students in formal and informal, group and individual, situations. 9. To assimilate and integrate the theoretical with the practical by way of supervised practicum field work experiences. 10. To have ample opportunity to obtain a grasp of certain of the specialized sub- stantive areas of student personnel work." (pp. 174-175) On the basis of her research findings in defining the future role of the highest ranking woman student personnel administrator, Haller (1967) suggested a training program which would prepare her for the role. The recommended program included a study of the individual, the group, the campus, the institution and the community. Techniques for Winking with the individual, the group, the community and colleagues were felt to be essential, as well as a 0 . . o dunJ'llst‘rative, communications and research skills. Also su . ggestied were courses in soc1ology, cultural anthropology, i“- social Psyd scienCe and 55951“ St Node in ngmior in Psychol: gratticum iersomel college St etucation' Trait deities 7 because 0 0the preparati Estreloptxé 3.6 the I 11' .356) a' 21? the b1 ECCiOiOE‘ .A, .ilege ‘ :r“ ' . «£1916 36 social psychology, education, economics, business, political science and philosophy. The program would include intern- ships in student personnel services. A model College Student Personnel preparation program in O'Banion's opinion would consist of a core of experiences in psychology, counseling principles and techniques, practicum in student personnel work, an overview of student personnel work in higher education, the study of the college student, sociology and anthropology and higher education. Training in group work, sensitivity perception and group d”Mimics have been recommended by Schreck and Shaffer (1968) because of the changing nature of campus organizations. Other programs of studies in College Student Personnel Preparation have been suggested by the COSPA Professional DevelOpment Committee, the APGA Interdivisional Committee, and the ACPA Commission XII. According to Robinson's (1966) analysis of the COSPA, APGA, and ACPA documents, the College Student Personnel worker must have a grounding in the behavioral sciences with emphasis on psychology and SOCiology. Other basic understandings recommended for the C011ege Student Personnel worker included higher education Prlnciples, philOSOphy and administration; human development, the college sock, pract necessary, methodology Rat-3w the lnterd CCZpetenc; 333 IECOE 37 the college student and college culture. Formal course work, practica and internship experience were deemed necessary, as well as counseling, testing and research methodology . Approved in 1968 were the "Guidelines for Graduate Programs in the Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education," prepared cooperatively by COSPA and the Interdivisional Committee of the American Personnel and Guidance Association. A program of studies including competencies and understandings in the following areas was recommended: 1. Student personnel work in higher education 2. Higher education as a social institution 3. Human growth and development 4. Social and cultural foundations 5. Methods, techniques and concepts used by student personnel workers 6. Research and evaluation 7. Preparation in specialized fields supervised experiences were also suggested for the Integration and application of knowledge and skills gained 1 . n the Program of studies. Discussion c The lit College Stu: kinds. One individuals tion undert ercgrans or lmeblood, their phih S‘mld be : kOEESSiQn the thinki Student pg All ‘ CurrlC‘dla Stantial include t minim 38 Discussion of Literature Relevant to Recommended Curricula The literature relevant to recommended curricula for College Student Personnel preparation programs was of two kinds. One type represented research and opinions of individuals and the other represented professional organiza- tion undertakings. Haller and O'Banion based their ideal programs on research findings while the publications by Trueblood, Miller, Cosby, Schreck and Shaffer reflected their philosophical orientations. Possibly more credence should be given to the model programs suggested by the professional associations, since their guidelines represent the thinking of many experts in the field of College Student Personnel. All of the recommendations for College Student Personnel curricula reviewed by this writer appeared to be in sub- stantial agreement. A basic core of preparation would include the behavioral sciences, higher education, adminiStration, counseling, working with individuals and groups, research, specialized preparation and practical work experiences. Fae\ultl‘Preparation and Experience Few authors have discussed the recommended content of the . . . Profe581onal education or experience of those who r “I H!" prepare Co'. 286A Conve: of Educato ?articipat lusert Hm their rec. Personnel the lmequ P53310102 He Obsen 39 prepare College Student Personnel workers. During the 1967 APGA Convention, a symposium was held on the "Qualifications of Educators of Counselors and Student Personnel Workers." Participating were Drs. C. Winfield Scott, Ralph Berdie, Hubert Houghton and Roger Myers. Scott and Berdie addressed their remarks in part to the education of College Student Personnel preparation program faculty members. Scott took the unequivocal position that a good understanding of psychology was fundamental for preparation program faculty. He observed that Student Personnel workers spend most of their time "helping individuals and groups choose and become able to function in ways that will be personally satisfying and socially useful." (p. 27) He urged the educators of College Student Personnel workers to adopt psychology as their basic discipline. Berdie felt that a person who prepared students to enter a profession must be well acquainted with the Profession and must understand the problems and functions Of that profession. He emphasized, however, that the educator's most important characteristics were his SChOJfili‘ly, humane and scientific qualifications. Berdie recommended that the College Student Personnel preparation Program faculty member be as well informed, competent, and intereste in counse as techn: Hes' EESSiOf‘a SElECtiQ deve10p: 40 interested in broad aspects of higher education as he was in counseling and guidance. He urged a broad liberal educa- tion for the College Student Personnel preparation program and warned that educators must incorporate opportunities for continuing liberal and humane education into the graduate programs. Berdie reasoned that otherwise many of the students in the programs will be able to serve only as technicians in a community of professional educators. Hester (1971) commented about the selection of pro- fessional trainers in the preparation programs. Careful selection of trainers was considered to be important to the development of preparation programs. It was recommended that the trainers have had experience in the field in order to understand College Student Personnel roles and functions and "the degree of importance of each in practice." (p. 69) Discussion of Literature Relevant to Faculty Preparation and Experience Almost nothing has appeared in the literature about the content of professional education and experience recommended for those who prepare College Student Personnel workers. Experience in the field of College Student Personnel was recommended for the preparation program faculty member so that they might understand the roles, functions "I“. ' _ and proble preparatio :ecomende urged that me his : 50 little P.2d EXPEI‘ 41 and problems of the profession. As far as academic preparation for faculty was concerned, one authority recommended psychology as the basic discipline. Another urged that the trainer's most important characteristics were his scholarly, humane and scientific qualifications. So little has been written about the appropriate education and experience for College Student Personnel faculty members that recommendations about the topic appear to be presumptuous. Summary The literature relevant to specialized preparation in College Student Personnel, criticism of the preparation programs, student personnel roles and program emphases, recommended preparation program curricula and preparation of the faculty teaching in the programs has been reviewed and discussed in this chapter. No studies were found similar to the one being reported. This study was designed to investigate a number of doctoral level College Student Personnel preparation programs and their faculty. This Purpose s selected Student 1 PTOfile ( Thi Wiple, j C01lecti 0f the m CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY This study consisted of two major purposes. One purpose was to conduct an intensive investigation of a selected number of doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel. The other purpose was to develop a profile of preparation program faculty. This chapter is concerned with the selection of the sample, research methods, development of the instruments, collection of data, treatment of the data and limitations of the methodology. Selection of the Sample Universities offering doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel were identified from the Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Pgrsonnel 1970-71 and Financial Aid for Personnel and guidance Graduate Study 1970-71. Seventy-one colleges and Universities were listed in these publications as having doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel. 42 To to atthese i don sheet ccordinato Procrans i icpendix A included 1 letter and aSllEd for PreParatic Ninet “recompl AWERdiX C (in exd’fjine fifty ins: Personnel tw'itutic dismount tcinitiaI n" reses‘ Ciffered Cc it (my < tiered dc LcColleg( 43 To confirm the existence of a doctoral level program at these institutions, a letter and a preliminary informa- tion sheet were sent to each of the preparation program coordinators as identified in the Directory of Preparation Programs in College Student Personnel 1970-71. (See Appendix A for a listing of the colleges and universities included in the initial survey and Appendix B for the letter and information sheet) The coordinators were asked for the exact name of the College Student Personnel preparation program at their college or university. Ninety-four per cent (N=67) of the information sheets were completed by the coordinators and returned. (See Appendix C for the responses to the information sheet) An examination of the information sheets revealed that fifty institutions offered doctoral College Student Personnel preparation programs. Of the other seventeen institutions that returned an information sheet, one had discontinued its program. Another university had planned to initiate the College Student Personnel major, but had not received funding for the program. Three institutions Offered College Student Personnel preparation programs, bUt only on the master's level. Twelve universities offered doctoral programs in closely related areas but not iJI College Student Personnel. 0f I College E research. preparat the twen Personne thought limited 5 faculty Universj Professj Higher 1 Si: Sities ‘ the pris New Y 01" Colt-rubs O'EECn, 44 Of the fifty universities offering the doctorate in College Student Personnel, it was determined that the researcher would conduct an in-depth study of twenty preparation programs and of all the faculty involved in the twenty programs. A select group of College Student Personnel educators assisted in the choice of universities thought to have representative programs throughout the United States. The group was composed of members of the faculty at Michigan State University, Oregon State University and members of ACPA Commission XII, the Professional Education of Student Personnel Workers in Higher Education. Sixteen public universities and four private univer- sities were selected for inclusion in the study. Two of the private institutions were located in the state of New York, one in Illinois and one in the District of Columbia. Two of the public universities were located in Oregon, two in Iowa and one in each of the states of Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Tennessee and wyoming. (See Appendix D for a listing of the universities included in the study) Coordinators of the doctoral preparat of the i study. it teasers Prepare: were se (I) 45 preparation programs in College Student Personnel in all of the institutions chosen, agreed to participate in the study. It was determined by the coordinators that 113 faculty members were involved in the College Student Personnel preparation programs at the twenty universities. All were selected to be included in the study. Research Methods Two research methods were used in this study. In investigating the twenty doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel, the structured interview technique was utilized. In developing a profile of the faculty members involved in the programs, a survey questionnaire was employed. Since this was an exploratory research study, it was felt that the interview would be a suitable technique in obtaining detailed information about the College Student Personnel preparation programs. Several authors have suggested the appropriateness of the interview for such studies. (Borg, 1963 and Macoby and Macoby, 1954) Borg pointed out the uniqueness of the interview in descripti of data t individua The advantage primary 5 researche CCIfipiex 5 "opens th (e. 32‘) Emil grea COllectin 46 descriptive research in that it involved the collection of data through direct verbal interaction between individuals. The interview as a research technique has a number of advantages over other methods of investigation. Its primary advantage is its adaptability. It allows the researcher to follow-up leads and to probe subtle and complex situations. Hillway noted that the interview "opens the way to finding very detailed bits of information." (p. 32) More data and greater clarity can be obtained and much greater depth is permitted than in other methods of collecting research data. According to Van Dalen (1962), Many people are more willing to communicate information verbally than in writing and therefore, will provide data more readily and fully in an interview than on a questionnaire. (p. 258) Disadvantages of the interview technique include the possible introduction of bias and subjectivity. In addition, the interview is time consuming, expensive and data analysis can be difficult. Borg contended that the "direct interaction is the source of most of the advantages and disadvantages of the interview as a research technique." (p. 221) inter has t' does F opinio uritteI then if BO should i the ques on the b in a sir: The structure coordinatc teaching i he struct questionna: The re Sttdying the their facul 47 Borg and Hillway both recommended the structured interview for researchers. The structured interview has the advantage of being reasonably objective, but it does permit a more thorough understanding of the respondent's opinions. Hillway suggested that the researcher prepare a written schedule of questions in advance and then ask them in the same way at each interview. Borg recommended that the research interview questions should be based upon the objectives of the study. Therefore, the questions for the structured interview were developed on the basis of the objectives of the study and utilized in a similar manner throughout the interviewing process. Development of the Instruments The instruments designed for this study included a structured interview for use with the preparation program coordinators and a questionnaire for faculty members teaching in the preparation programs. (See Appendix E for the structured interview and Appendix G for the faculty questionnaire) The researcher designed a structured interview for studying the preparation programs and a questionnaire to elicit faculty profile information. After the initial 48 questions were formulated, they were reviewed for clarity, validity and appropriateness by College Student Personnel educators at Michigan State University. On the basis of their recommendations, the questions were revised. For the structured interview, questions were formulated about the following topics: History and Stages of Develop- ment of the Program, Program Emphasis, Program Titles, Degrees Offered, Objectives of the Program, Kind of Emphasis (Pragmatic-Theoretical), Program Strengths, Numbers of Students, Numbers of Graduates, Numbers of Faculty, Numbers of Courses, Admissions Requirements, Recruitment, Practicum-Internship-Field Work Experiences, Typical Doctoral Programs, Examinations, Dissertation Credit, Percentage of Graduates, Average Completion Time, Financial Assistance, Travel Grants, Follow-up of Graduates, Evaluation of Programs, Components of a Quality Program, Leading Programs, Reasons for Program Selections, Compari- sons, Changes Desired and Changes Predicted. The questionnaire was developed to gather data directly from the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty. The items were designed to collect information 49 about the following topics: Academic Rank or Title, Educational Background, Age, Sex, Professional Experience, Percentages of Time Spent in Preparation Program Responsibilities, Numbers and Emphasis of Courses Taught, Participation in Professional Organization Activities, Publications, Perceptions of the Program Emphasis, Recommended Changes for the Program and the Leading College Student Personnel Preparation Programs. Collection of the Data Interviews were conducted with eighteen College Student Personnel preparation program coordinators and the other two with the coordinator's representative during March, April and May, 1972. Nine of the coordinators and one representative were interviewed in their offices on their respective campuses and the other nine coordina- tors and one representative were interviewed at the 1972 National Conventions of the College Student Personnel professional organizations. Throughout the study all of the interview respondents have been identified as coordinators. The researcher noted the responses to the questions on the outline of topics to be covered in the interview. 50 The interviews were also tape recorded. All respondents were willing to have the interview recorded, although several requested that the tape recorder be stopped for certain "off-the-record” comments. The questionnaire and a cover letter were either mailed directly or personally delivered to the faculty members teaching in the College Student Personnel preparation programs during March, April and May, 1972. (See Appendix F for the cover letter) An addressed, stamped envelope was included with the questionnaire for each respondent. The names and addresses of the preparation program faculty were provided by the program coordinators. The questionnaires were distributed to the faculty members after the interviews had been conducted with the coordinators. The faculty members were requested to return the completed questionnaire within two weeks. If the questionnaire had not been returned in three weeks, the research sent another copy of the letter and questionnaire to the faculty member with a personal hand-written note. ‘1qu , 51 By June 26, 1972, a total of 104 (92.0 per cent) of the questionnaires had been returned. A summary of the responses is presented in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.l--Summary of Responses to Questionnaire Responses Number Per Cent Usable Returns 101 89.4 Unusable Returns 3 2 . 7 No Response 9 8.0 Totals 113 100 . 1a aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures emp loyed A total of 101 usable returns was obtained. Three 91168 tionnaires were returned by faculty members with notes expressing their professional incompatibility with the study_ Of the nine faculty who did not return their questionnaires, four were from the same university and were part—time College Student Personnel preparation p'E'ogli‘am faculty members. The other five faculty members Who did not respond to the questionnaire represented five different programs. In other words, the faculty at fourteen uniVeilrsities had a one-hundred per cent rate of return and at - C C C 81): univer31t1es had a return rate of 82.7 per cent. "t- 52 Table 3.2 indicates the number of questionnaires distnributed and the number returned by the faculty members at each university . TABLE 3.2-~Summary of Responses to Questionnaire by University Lhaiversity Distributed Returned 1 5 5 2 3 2 3 7 3 4 8 8 5 10 9 6 6 6 7 l l 8 3 3 9 7 6 10 6 5 ll 8 8 12 6 6 13 3 3 l4 4 4 15 5 5 l6 2 2 l7 3 3 18 2 2 19 l8 17 20 6 6 Totals 113 104 \ Ttrf transcr: C0 the 4 statist tabtlat Qt 5:16 puts EE'Jer‘al‘. 53 Treatment of the Data The responses from the structured interviews were transcribed from the tapes and were grouped as they related to the questions. No attempt was made to prepare a statistical analysis of the interview information. Numerical tabulations were prepared and all interview data have been presented in a descriptive manner. Questionnaire data were coded for computer analysis and punched onto IBM cards. In order to analyze the data, several statistical techniques were employed. Frequency counts, percentages, means and standard deviations, where aPPrOpriate, were computed for certain variables by using the CDC 6500 CISSR Percount Program available at Michigan State University. (Thiel and Patrick, 1968) The Chi- Square Test for Independence was used in analyzing seleCited questionnaire responses. Limitations of the Methodology This study has the limiting factors common to the inteI‘View and questionnaire methods of gathering data. The interview, even though structured, can present limita- tions as a method of obtaining data due to interviewer blag. Another limitation may be that only one individual Was ' . . . luterv1ewed at each univer51ty. The because : intent o. in addit utilized nation. there ma transfer this fur itprove were use William 25) als< A11 Eél‘lcatoj z'Eliabi' been te: 54 The questionnaire method of data collection is limited because it assumes that the respondent understands the intent of the questions and that he answers honestly. In addition, the questionnaire is impersonal and cannot be utilized to probe for clarifications or for detailed infor- mation. Several of the questions were unstructured and there may have been inconsistency in coding the data for transfer from the questionnaire to computer cards. However, this function was performed by one individual in order to improve preciseness and standardized coding procedures were used whenever possible. Personal information and Opinions on controversial topics were called for which may also have affected responses. Although the questionnaire was carefully examined by ef higher education or in College Student Personnel for at Ileast two or three years. The other ten universities did ruot specify the kind of full-time work experience that was ruecessary, but they did recommend a minimum of two years. Occasionally, the justification for the work experience was 31f! terms of employability after the doctorate was earned. Three universities did not require any full-time ‘3nnr>loyment and three other universities considered the Student's work experiences along with other factors when they were reviewing his application for admission. Commitment was a quality that nearly all of the coordinators were concerned about. A student needed to be cotDmmitted to the field of higher education in most cases a11<3_ in other instances the commitment needed to be to a ca'1'—“ :recommend that these students make application here." E2ZJELical Doctoral Program A typical doctoral program in College Student Personnel at; each university was described by the respondents. Most 82 doctoral programs in College Student Personnel required from fifteen to thirty courses past the master's degree with twenty courses as the median and the mean. The major areas of study in all the programs included College Student Personnel, Higher Education, Counseling and Educational Psychology, Administrative Theory, Applied .Administration, Historical and Philosophical Foundations rand.Research. Some similarities and many differences (existed among the requisites from campus to campus. A Iligher Education course on one campus might be called a Challege Student Personnel course on another campus. No examination was conducted by the researcher to determine uniformity of course content. Programs required from one course in College Student PEersonnel to eleven courses, with students on most campuses tzéilcing three College Student Personnel courses. Higher Education courses were a part of more than 1deilfof the programs. The range was from one to six cc>11rses with an average of four courses. Counseling and Educational Psychology courses were a pEll—‘t of eighty per cent of the programs. Students carried from one to ten courses in this area with five courses as the average . 83 Administrative Theory courses were taken by College Student Personnel doctoral students in five programs. Students took from one to four courses in Administrative Theory with an average of two courses. Applied Administra- tion courses were a part of three preparation programs with students carrying an average of one course. Research courses, including statistics, computer and Inethodology courses, were mandatory in all of the programs. From two to five courses were required with three as the average. Historical and Philosophical Foundations courses were ‘a-trequisite in about half of the programs. The range was f'r‘o-mone to seven courses with three as the mean. Students studying for the Ph.D. on four campuses were req'uired to successfully complete a language examination (’17 to take research courses in lieu of a language. Cognates or minors outside the College where the maj or was taught were a requirement in slightly more than IIEIIIJE of the programs. The minimum number of courses rec1‘-<:3mmended was three; the maximum was ten; and the mean was six courses. Internships-field work-practica were a part of all the programs and the number of hours credit awarded for the 84 practical experiences ranged from no credit to fourteen hours credit with a mean of eight hours credit. In summary, students in College Student Personnel at the twenty universities included in this study could expect to complete approximately twenty courses on the doctoral level. The areas of study common to the various programs were College Student Personnel, Higher Education, Counseling and Educational Psychology, Administrative Theory, Applied Administration, Historical and Philosophical Foundations, Research, a cognate or minor and an internship- Practicum experience. In addition, students in all programs Were expected to conduct research upon which to base a di 8 sertation . P&€=lctical Work Experiences The terms--field work, practicum, and internship-- appeared to be used interchangeably. An internship in one setting might be called a practicum or field work eI‘KIDerience in another setting. Sixteen universities offered internships; four had field work experiences and 813‘: had practicum arrangements. At several universities, the internship for doctoral S’t‘~1Clents provided for a rotation of experiences in various St“dent personnel offices, depending upon the previous work 85 experience and goals of the student. These assignments carried credit and required from ten to twenty hours of work a week. In one location, an internship was a year—long in-depth experience in one office. At another university, the internship was a part-time position within a related It was usually an experience student personnel service. Another :for'a master's student and it carried credit. illstitution defined the internship as a quarter-time or Fualf-time assistantship in the residence halls, the College thion, or the activities office. At one university, human rGalations training could be substituted for an internship exp erience . Field work or field work experience was thought of by SeVeral respondents as a job. field work from a practicum by the location of the experience. I?i—€eild work took place at another university while a 'pleéitcticum was arranged on the student's campus. The field work experience at one institution consisted 013 éin assignment at an agency for twenty hours a week for txvC) semesters. This experience might or might not carry Credit and it might or might not be a paid position. Stu(lent would be assigned specific kinds of responsibilities One coordinator differentiated The 86 within the agency categorized by "interaction functions," "administrative functions," "need to know functions," "research functions," and "problem encounter functions." The practicum consisted of practical work in student personnel offices, with academic departments, or in general university administration. The student might spend four hours a week for one semester in one office or he might spend fifteen to twenty hours a week for one term in several offices. Usually the practicum experience carried credit for the students. The practicum at another university was a practical vnark experience for the master's student, while the intern- Sllip was a practical work experience for the doctoral Student. Practical work experiences were available in these 1(inds of offices: Activities, Admissions, Campus Ombudsman, CkIreer Planning and Placement, Counseling Center, Dean of Stnldents, Extension Division, Financial Aids, Foreign Stnadent Advising, Fraternity Affairs, Housing, Judicial Affairs, Institutional Research, Minority Affairs, Off- Caimpus Housing, Registrar, Sorority Affairs, Student Health, Student Publications, Student Union, Vice- Chancellor, Vice-President for Administration and 87 Vice-President for Business. Many universities had elicited cooperation from agencies and colleges in the immediate vicinity to provide practical experiences. One urban university counted a possibility of ninety institutional settings where practical work experiences were available. Internship experiences were being developed in community colleges and in church-related institutions. Students were also interning with Boards of Trustees, Community Mental Health Clinics and State Law Libraries. Students on several Campuses completed an internship by planning, teaching, and cxoordinating an ongoing workshop for residence hall staff. Most doctoral candidates in College Student Personnel “here experienced in the field before entering a preparation Program. When a student came into a doctoral program with eéCtensive experience in College Student Personnel, the field WOrk-practicum-internship was often waived. However, it WEis not unusual for advisers to recommend a practical experience if the student needed to fill in a void in some area. Some programs required the student to take several Ixractical experiences. One university required seven Separate internships. Conversely, students were discouraged from taking more than a few hours in internships in other 88 [programs. At one university the student could count no Inore than six hours in practical experiences toward the ciegree. Several universities had no requirements at all :Eor any field work-practicum—internship experiences. The supervisors of the practical experiences were the [>rofessionals responsible for the agencies. Typical titles ()f the supervisors might be Dean, Associate Dean or Director. lkt one university, the supervisor had to have at least the (equivalent of an Education Specialist degree in terms of laackground preparation and must be a successfully function- :ing person in his own office. At another university, the ssupervisor either had to have a doctoral degree or exten- ssive experience. In addition, the quality of his program lied to have been established as being appropriate. Most preparation program coordinators met periodically Vfith the on-site supervisors. Sometimes this was done iJJdividually and sometimes in a group. One coordinator eOmmented that ideally he would bring together the students Euld the supervisors by office area several times a semester. However, for lack of time, this was not possible. In essence, the practicum-internship-field work arrangements consisted of practical work experience for the Student. Consistency did not exist from campus to campus 89 (on terminology of the experience, on amount of time spent in the activity, on number of required experiences, or on ‘the location of the experience. Examinations A written examination toward the completion of the student's course work was a requisite at all twenty I IJniversities. This examination was identified as a "candidacy" examination at one university, a "certification" i (examination at one university, a "comprehensive" examination 3’ .at nine universities, a "preliminary" examination (even ‘though it came near the end of the student's program) at :five universities, and a "qualifying" examination at four llniversities. These written examinations ranged in duration :Erom four hours to twenty-four hours and from one day to saix days with twelve hours as the average. Two universities had an additional hurdle at the beginning of the program. One required a two hour pre- '1imdnary oral with the student and the other had a six hour Wll‘itten preliminary examination which the student must Pass to be admitted to candidacy. Oral examinations followed the written examinations at eight universities. If the student's performance was ‘marginal on the written examinations, orals might be requested at five other universities. 90 A distinctively different approach to the oral (examination was indicated at one university. Each doc- t:oral examinee was assigned to an institution of higher ‘learning as a consultant for a week. The student was sscheduled to spend three days consulting at the institu- ‘tion and then return to his campus for four days to write as twenty-five to fifty page consultant's report. This Iseport became the basis for the student's oral examination. All of the twenty universities also required an oral ciefense of the dissertation which might take anywhere from (one and one—half to three hours with two hours as the average . IDissertation Credit The number of hours granted for the dissertation varied :Erom no credit to forty-five quarter hours. Of the eleven institutions on a semester hour basis, ifive offered no credit for the dissertation and the range Was from zero to thirty semester hours. The average ruAmber of credits granted for the dissertation at these ‘institutions was nine semester hours. At the nine universities granting quarter hour credit, dissertation credit ranged from nine to forty-five hours With twenty-seven quarter hours as the mean. 91 ' With all credits converted to a semester hour equivalency, the average number of hours awarded for the dissertation was thirteen credits. Percentage of Graduates The percentage of College Student Personnel doctoral students who graduated from their universities ranged from sixty per cent in one institution to one-hundred per cent in five institutions. The programs that had a one-hundred per cent graduation rate enrolled few students and began in the last five years. In fifteen of the twenty univer- sities, more than ninety per cent of the doctoral students graduated. Among the twenty universities, the median graduation rate was ninety-three per cent, the mean was eighty-nine per cent and the standard deviation was eleven per cent. One coordinator commented that his program would have a higher graduation rate if more of the women in the program Would complete their dissertations. He felt that these Women did not have the drive "career-wise" that the men may have. He thought that some of these women may not even see themselves going into the job market. Another coordinator stated that once a student was accepted into the College Student Personnel program, about JI 92 the only basis on which he did not graduate was when it was detected early in the program that he was not going to "work out." In such instances the student was encouraged to transfer to another program, to drop, or in some cases to take an Educational Specialist degree instead. At that ‘university, it was felt that the student should not experience a pure failure. Two philosophies of admissions seemed evident from these graduation percentages. One embraced giving the student a chance, but had a high attrition rate. The other :involved a strict policy with admissions being granted only ‘to students with a high probability of success. Completion Time Of those who graduated from the College Student IPersonnel doctoral preparation programs, the average amount <>f time taken for completion ranged from two years to five Years. Among the twenty universities, the median was ‘three years, the mean was 3.3 and the standard deviation Was .07. In the program where the average amount of time taken for completion was five years, most of the students were ‘Working full-time and were pursuing doctoral studies on a Part-time basis. Another coordinator commented that a {a} i l. 93 'number of his students carried full-time residence hall assignments while doing graduate work and he encouraged them to spend at least three to four years completing their doctoral work. Financial Assistance Varying amounts of financial assistance administered through the institutions were available for College Student Personnel candidates. Virtually all of the universities Imad assistantships either in the department or in other campus locations for doctoral students. Three universities Inad a limited number of fellowships reserved for College Student Personnel candidates. Fellowships on a competitive laasis were available for all doctoral students at eleven laniversities. Scholarships in the form of out-of—state ‘tuition remission were also a possibility on three campuses. (lne university offered an $1800 scholarship for a College EStudent Personnel doctoral student. Part-time employment ‘vas obtainable on nearly every campus. lflgrcentage of Financial Assistance The percentage of doctoral College Student Personnel Candidates who had financial assistance administered through the institution ranged from ten per cent to One-hundred per cent. One coordinator had no figures about 94 the percentage of his students having assistance, but he commented that there was "not much." Another respondent stated that nearly all of his students were employed full- time and "money was not a factor." Eighteen coordinators ventured estimates of the jpercentage of their students with financial assistance. At five universities all doctoral College Student Personnel students had financial assistance. In the eighteen programs, the median percentage of students with assistance was ninety lper cent and the mean was seventy-six per cent. Travel Grants Travel grants for doctoral candidates to attend Iarofessional meetings were regularly available at only one ()f the universities. At this university, $100 travel {grants were provided for doctoral students once during ‘their candidacy. Two other universities on occasion were able to provide travel grants ranging in value from fifty t0 one-hundred dollars. Two universities were sometimes Elble to furnish state cars for doctoral students to drive tZOmeetings. One university occasionally was in a position tO present a fifty dollar award to a student if he were Presenting a paper at a meeting. '3'... 95 Fifteen of the twenty universities were unable at any time to provide travel grants or any financial assistance to a student to attend a professional meeting. Follow Up_of Graduates The follow up of graduates of the College Student Personnel preparation programs varied from none to an annual formal study. One university reported that a follow up had not been done, because there was no one with that ‘kind of concern. Eleven of the twenty coordinators commented that follow ups were conducted informally through personal correspondence and professional meetings. Nine universities lprepared an address list and sent out a newsletter at least (Ince a year. Two sent internal professional publications CC) all their former students. Follow up studies had been conducted at several of the tuliversities. One administered a study two years ago to determine if their graduates were employed in occupations r”elated to their training. In another university a fairly ecnmprehensive study was undertaken by doctoral candidates eVery five to seven years. One program which had been in eRistence over twenty years was in the process of a study and had gone back to the original graduates. One institution 96 followed up its graduates once a year with a questionnaire. The graduates of this university were also asked to identify from their perspective the current issues in higher education each year. Several coordinators expressed an interest in doing more with follow up but felt handicapped by lack of time or by lack of secretarial assistance. Only a handful of students had graduated from some of the programs and the coordinators planned to conduct more extensive studies after nmre students had received their degrees. Evaluation. On all twenty campuses, some kind of evaluation jprocedures were in existence. Informal evaluations were nnost common, but highly structured formal evaluations were Eilso indicated. Constant and continuing evaluations were reported by several coordinators. Course evaluations were conducted by many instructors art the conclusion of their classes each term. At some tuniversities, these were mandatory and were written evalua- tZions. At others, they were informal and were often ttbmes handled in a seminar or as a group discussion. Other types of informal evaluations were also Imentioned. At one university, informal get-togethers with 97 faculty and students were held each term to keep in contact with one another and to get the students' feedback about what should be happening. At this same university, grad- uates were asked informally what they would change about the program. Various kinds of committees also were formed to study the curricula, the programs and the style of the programs. Three coordinators pointed to their on-going student advisory committees which concerned themselves with program and course content. On most campuses, the depart- Inental faculties reviewed their programs and course offer- ings periodically. Five respondents mentioned the effective- tless of the student-faculty committees at their universities. Chne student-faculty committee had been meeting for several hours a week for many months to develop an alternate ciurriculumfor the student who wanted a different kind of ‘Plfeparation, perhaps through field work and independent Study. In discussing evaluation, one respondent commented, 'WfieW'faculty will tell you what you should be doing." At ten universities, questionnaires had been developed 6had sent to graduates of the programs. Alumni had been aSked to evaluate their courses as viewed from the 98 perspective of some work experience. Most coordinators found the responses to be valuable, but one commented that the feedback was not terribly helpful. The most common questions asked were: "What course experiences were most helpful?" "Least helpful?" "What were the strengths and 'weakness of the program?" ”What recommendations do you ‘have?" Several of the programs made major changes after receiving the recommendations of the alumni. Courses in accounting, law and politics were added at one university on the basis of requests from the graduates. At another ‘university group work was recommended by the alumni and Inas now been incorporated into the program. Several coordinators reported that they were working CH1 instruments to determine alumni reactions to their Programs. At least three colleges were planning a formal e‘flaluation for next year. A few of the programs reported few graduates to date and were waiting for more students tC) finish before undertaking formal evaluations. Three universities evaluated their programs regularly every two years. However, formal evaluations followed no time pattern on most of the campuses. Two others seemed ‘33 evaluate whenever they had available graduate students to assist with a study. A semi- supervisors experiences. evaluations experiences evaluations 99 structured interview was held with the practicum at one university to evaluate the practica No references to other formal or semi-formal of internship, practicum, or field work were made by other respondents. Informal of practicum arrangements were mentioned by two other coordinators. Another type of evaluation was reported by one respondent. He felt that his program was being effectively received by practitioners in the field, since all of his students had been placed upon graduation. Quality Programs Coordinators were asked, "In your Opinion what makes a (luality College Student Personnel preparation program?" bkost coordinators concluded that a quality program required Cluality people, including faculty and students. Quality faculty members were described as people who were Gunthusiastic about what they were doing and were attitudin- Eillyinspired by the kinds of concepts existing in the field. I t was felt that faculty must have a sound theoretical and FfllilOSOphical background, as well as considerable practical ‘road orientation in a quality program and stated that the eEmphasis should be on administration and not on counseling. Ample opportunity for practical experience was another *Eomponent in a quality program. Internships in a variety <3f vicinities, collegiate as well as community settings, ‘Were strongly recommended. 102 Cooperation with the student affairs staff was also an element thought to be necessary in a quality program. Constant articulation between the student affairs staff and the preparation program was deemed essential. With a direct tie between the two, the student affairs staff could be constantly revitalized by the presence of an academic program and the academic program could be confronted with the reality of the practical application. Quality programs must be an adequate size to support an adequate number of courses, seminars, and practica. The criticism was voiced that too many College Student Personnel preparation programs were being ”bootlegged" under other departments with only one or two courses addressing them- selves to theCollege Student Personnel area. Another aspect of a quality program concerned a estudent's performance in the field after graduation and Ilis involvement in professional organizations. "How do IJeOple respond to him?" "How does he perform?" Leading Programs Coordinators had a great deal of difficulty listing in :rank order the five leading College Student Personnel 'Preparation programs in the United States at the present time. Several commented that they had little information 103 about programs and that they really did not know which were outstanding. Others could identify some leading programs but could not put them into a priority listing. Fifteen coordinators listed from three to six leading programs in rank order. Five coordinators listed from three to seven programs in no order. All told, thirty College Student Personnel programs were identified by the coordinators. A point system was devised in order to compare the relative rankings of the programs. Five points were given for a number one ranking, four for a number two, three for a number three, two for a number four and one for a number five. The programs which were not ranked were handled as tied scores. For example, if three programs were listed, eeach was given four points. (Five plus four plus three (iivided by three) If five were listed, each was given tibree points. (Five plus four plus three plus two plus (Jne divided by five) The number of points for each program Vvas computed and the comparisons were made. According to the coordinators interviewed, the leading <3ollege Student Personnel doctoral preparation programs in 'rank order in the United States at the present time are: iMichigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State 104 University, Columbia Teachers College and the University of Minnesota. lieasons for the Selections After the coordinators had listed the five leading (ioctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel, they were asked the reasons for their selections. The most I :Erequently listed reasons were the faculty and graduates of the programs. These people were visible in the field as unfit: . effective spokesmen and researchers. Several coordinators 3, stated that they saw more leadership from both faculty and graduates of the institutions they had chosen than from any others. Another respondent stated his observations negatively. He felt some of the programs were poor because they were not producing very competent graduates. Many coordinators thought that if the College Student Personnel faculty members were good, their graduates would be good. When graduates were in positions of leadership and their Performances were outstanding, they represented their doctoral granting institution creditably. Respondents thought that another indication of a leading program consisted of their graduates being sought for employment. Programs were also selected on the basis of significant literature and research coming from the programs and of 105 ]practical and innovative approaches to program development. £3everal coordinators felt the number of years a program had 1>een in existence, the size of the staff and an Optimum Ilumber of students were other factors to be considered :in the selection of a leading program. Other criteria :included the quality of the institution, the adequacy of 1:he curriculum and the breadth and history of the program. [\lso mentioned were the opportunities for a variety of [Jractical experiences, diverse resources, sufficient :Einancing and flexibility. While it was difficult to ascertain the reasons a Iprogram gained a reputation for excellence, most coordina- ‘tors posited that it was based on the quality of the :faculty and the quality of the students produced. Comparisons Each coordinator was asked to compare his program with ‘therogram. Another felt that technique courses could be t:aught more appropriately by teaching them specifically ifor institutional and personal purposes. Two universities llad moved toward more mini-courses and another was experi- rnenting with individualized instruction. A part-time (:oordinator lamented the fact that he did not have time to <1evelop courses as he would like. Two respondents hoped to (ievelop more field work experiences. To encourage student {personnel graduates to listen and relate to students, aanother coordinator wanted to include more individual <2ounseling, but not psychological counseling, in his program. TPwo respondents desired greater flexibility in planning :individualized programs of study for their students. Several coordinators felt a need for shifts in program emphases and philosophies. Three discussed their institu- tion's efforts in implementing a developmental approach. Two hoped to see a marriage between College Student Personnel and Higher Education, stressing the desirability of broad leadership preparation at the doctoral level. 109 Admissions selections were a concern on five campuses. One respondent commented that he would not recommend taking young students for the doctoral College Student Personnel preparation program. Another felt that his institution would be more selective in admissions and would cut down in numbers. Two others made similar statements that their universities were not planning to enroll more students, since job opportunities after graduation were not available. Other changes desired included the active recruitment of minorities and women students. According to one respon- dent, he would like to have twenty per cent minority and a few more women students. He felt that women were being told not to enroll in his program because it had the reputation of being very difficult. Two coordinators wanted to involve their faculties and doctoral students in research efforts. They felt this ‘would be a good experience for everyone concerned. The faculty would publish and the students would obtain research experience. Both coordinators thought that generating research within the programs was an extremely important aspect of the programs. 110 Changes Predicted Coordinators predicted a number of changes in their programs in the next five years and the reasons for many of the changes. Most commented that the future was difficult to foresee because College Student Personnel had been under constant change. Half of the respondents anticipated a leveling off or even a drop in the numbers of students being admitted to the College Student Personnel preparation programs. Three coordinators felt very pessimistic about the future of their preparation programs. One saw a cutting back in students and staff and had serious questions about the financial support of the doctoral program. Another coordinator thought that the future of his program depended upon the economy. He stated that his institution needed to make a decision regarding the preparation program. In his opinion the program was "muddling" and was in a holding pattern with students. The other coordinator who could be characterized as discouraged felt that his program would either be eliminated or would move in the direction of hiring a full-time coordinator. Most coordinators speculated that only the master's programs would be cut back significantly because of the L E a. V w" -‘ . w. i -' lll lack of employment opportunities for graduates. A number of respondents felt that the number of College Student Personnel doctoral students would remain at nearly the same level, but that the composition would change. Six indicated that special attention would be paid to minority group and women students. One stated, "It is going to be difficult for the young, Anglo-Saxon male to get into a College Student Personnel program." Another hoped to change the proportion of women and minorities in his program, but felt that it was difficult to interest them in the field. According to another respondent, admissions would be contingent upon who could be placed upon graduation. Three respondents previewed new administrative structures. In their opinion, the College Student Personnel preparation programs would become associated with other areas of education. They discussed relationships between College Student Personnel and higher education, between College Student Personnel and adult education, and between College Student Personnel, higher education, research and educational administration. Several coordinators felt that a review of curriculum, content, and quality of the College Student Personnel programs must be systematic and continual to make them 112 relevant to changes that occur in higher education in general. Another coordinator felt that there would be little change in the philosophical orientation and goals of his program because of budgetary and practical considera- tions. Future objectives for one program included reanalyz- ing what they had, strengthening the student development emphasis and developing more quality. Another coordinator predicted that the quality in the doctoral preparation programs would increase, since he thought the trend would be for practitioners to return to college for the doctorate while they were relatively young. In his opinion, older student personnel people never really grasped the whole picture when they took a course here and a course there in a piecemeal approach. He also felt that much more counseling and guidance expertise would be needed by student personnel people in the future. He reasoned that there would be more vocational-technical schools and that more counselors and fewer administrators would be needed. One coordinator was concerned about student personnel practitioners maintaining relationships with the academic world. He felt that the student personnel roles were being challenged and that student personnel administrators must make an impact on the university. 113 One respondent felt that more input in terms of humanistic, group kinds of experiences was needed and that significance would be placed on group counseling and working with groups. Preparation for diversity was stressed by several respondents. With such a diversity of students being admitted to colleges in the future, their needs will require new procedures for working with them. The need for administrative theory in doctoral pre- paration programs was stressed, as well as a need for a broader curriculum. Other curricular changes predicted were the expansion of internship and practicum opportunities, the addition of courses on the legal aspects of College Student Personnel administration, the addition of systems analysis courses and a shift from teaching about the individual student to teaching about student subcultures. One university was thinking about a center kind of approach to College Student Personnel preparation. This would be an open kind of program with more hurdles built in. Courses and grades would be eliminated and a student's progress would be recorded in a cumulative file. Future oriented classes were a major concern of the faculty at that university. They wanted to move away from courses 114 which merely distributed information and were discussing the construction of a curriculum that would be relevant to someone ten to twenty years from now. They were dealing with such questions as, "What will happen to College Student Personnel and counseling if the counter-culture takes over?" or "What will happen when collective bargaining comes onto the Campus?" The gathering and rejecting of information was emphasized. According to the coordinator, "Today's fact is tomorrow's piece of misinformation." He felt that educators could stay current by doing research. Another coordinator predicted that faculty will surface who will bring expertise in research, analysis and inter- pretation of the literature that has come out of personality development psychology. These experts will interpret the data which speak directly to colleges and universities. New roles for College Student Personnel administrators were anticipated by many respondents. The consultative model was mentioned by three coordinators and the student develop- ment model was also discussed. As a consultant, the student personnel administrator would be sought out for his expertise in working with groups and with individuals. The student development specialist would be concerned with facilitating the students' behavioral development. One 115 educator thought that the student personnel administrator might become a combination of a student development specialist and a political administrator. As a student development specialist, he could use and interpret the data about student clienteles and as a political administra- tor, he would know how to make use of the data for institutional change. Summary Twenty College Student Personnel preparation programs were included in this study. Two of the programs originated in the 1930's, but nearly two-thirds of the programs had been in existence less than ten years. Counseling or educational psychology was the original emphasis in seventeen of the programs. Currently, ten of the programs have an administrative emphasis, eight have a counseling emphasis, one has a student development focus, and one stresses research. Fourteen different titles identified the programs. The most commonly used titles were College Personnel Work and College Student Personnel Administration. Six degrees were awarded in College Student Personnel, including the Ph.D., Ed.D., Ed.S., M.A., M.S., and M.Ed. Both the Ph.D. and Ed.D. were offered at seven universities, 116 only the Ph.D. at seven and only the Ed.D. at six universities. The main purpose of the College Student Personnel programs was to offer preparation for persons who plan to serve as College Student Personnel workers. Most of the programs provided preparation for student personnel generalists, while a few offered training in specialty areas. More of the programs embraced a pragmatic emphasis than a theoretical orientation. The reasons given for a pragmatic basis involved the experience and commitment of the staff. The need for a theoretical foundation was stressed in that theory and concept were felt to be a basis for educational practice. Program strengths were identified as flexibility, individuality, campus resources and opportunities for meaningful work experiences. Faculty members were also singled out as the unique strengths in several of the programs. The average number of doctoral students enrolled in the preparation programs during the 1971-1972 academic year was twenty-three and the average number of master's students was forty-six. The average number of full-time 117 faculty involved in the programs was 1.4 and the average number of part-time faculty in the programs was 3.2. During 1970—1971 the number of graduates of the twenty doctoral programs averaged 5.6 students from each program. Admissions requirements were flexible on most of the campuses. Recommended grade point averages and levels of achievement on examinations were waived when a student had other attributes. Personal interviews were either required or recommended in eighty per cent of the programs. Work experience after the master's degree was necessary at seventy per cent of the institutions. The work experience was justified in terms of employability after the doctorate was granted. The personal characteristics that the coordinators hoped to find in their candidates were human relations skills, the ability to communicate, leadership and maturity. The coordinators were also concerned about the degree of commitment on the part of the prospective student. It was felt in some cases that a student must be committed to a career in College Student Personnel and in all instances, he must be committed to the field of higher education. A student's chances of admission into a doctoral College Student Personnel preparation program varied from 118 university to university. Only ten per cent of the appli- cants were accepted into one program, while ninety per cent were accepted on another campus. The average percentage of applicants accepted into the programs was slightly more than forty-three per cent. Formal and informal methods of recruitment of doctoral candidates were employed by eighty per cent of the prepara- tion programs. Formal recruitment was not as common as informal recruitment. Formal recruitment usually consisted of visitations by preparation program faculty and the preparation and distribution of publications describing the programs. Informal recruitment was practiced by sixteen universities. Reportedly more than half of the contacts came from former graduates. Practical work experiences were available in all programs. The terminology was inconsistent from campus to campus and the experience might be called a practicum, an internship or field work. The requirements for the work experience also varied in amount of time spent in the activity, on the number of experiences required and on the location of the activity. The typical doctoral program consisted of courses in College Student Personnel, Higher Education, Counseling and 119 Educational Psychology, Administrative Theory, Applied Administration, Historical and Philosophical Foundations and Research. Most programs required an average of twenty courses past the master's degree. Written examinations were required at all twenty universities. They were called a candidacy examination, a certification examination, a comprehensive examination or a preliminary examination. These occurred near the end of the student's program and lasted from four hours to twenty-four hours. Oral examinations followed the written examinations in forty per cent of the programs. Credits awarded for the dissertation ranged from no hours to forty-five quarter hours. All universities required an oral defense of the dissertation. Nearly ninety per cent of the College Student Personnel doctoral students graduated from their univer- sities. In one program only sixty per cent completed the requirements for a doctorate, but in five institutions the graduation rate was one-hundred per cent. For those who graduated, the average completion time was 3.3 years. Financial assistance in the form of assistantships and part-time employment was available on all campuses. Slightly more than one-half of the universities had fellowships 120 available for all doctoral students on a competitive basis. All of the doctoral College Student Personnel students had financial assistance at five universities. The average number of students in the twenty institutions having assistantships, fellowships, scholarships and part-time employment was seventy-six per cent. Only one university was regularly able to provide travel grants for doctoral students to attend professional meetings. Graduate follow up was an informal activity in most of the programs. Newsletters were prepared and sent out in about one-half of the universities to determine alumni evaluations of their programs. Student-faculty committees were in existence on five campuses and their recommendations for program.modifications were considered. Coordinators were asked to identify the components of a quality College Student Personnel program. Quality faculty and quality students were the most often mentioned ingredients. The interaction between faculty and students was felt to be a crucial factor. Other elements in a quality program were listed as sufficient elaboration of the program, strong supporting departments, institutional resources to accommodate the program.and a well conceived curriculum. Opportunities for practical work experiences 121 were also underscored as an important facet of a quality program. The coordinators felt that the leading doctoral preparation programs in College Student Personnel in rank order at the present time are: Michigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State University, Columbia Teachers College and the University of Minnesota. The respondents verbalized that they based their selections on the quality of the faculty and the graduates of the programs. Reportedly more leadership in the field was visible from both faculty and graduates of the programs mentioned. Literature and research coming from several of the programs were also criteria for selection. More than half of the coordinators felt that their programs could not compare at all with the leading programs. All coordinators desired some changes in their programs. Forty per cent wanted staff and fifteen per cent needed a full-time director. Financial support was also needed for fellowships, assistantships, workshops, institutes and short courses. Other changes desired included new modes of instruction, expanded field experiences, greater flexibility, selective admissions policies and philosophical modifications. Coordinators emphasized the need for the recruitment of 122 minorities and women and several also wanted to involve their faculties and doctoral students in research efforts. Coordinators were requested to forecast the next five years in their programs and the reasons for their predic- tions. One-half of the coordinators predicted a leveling off or a drop in the number of students being admitted to the preparation programs in College Student Personnel. They cited the cutback because of the reduced demand for College Student Personnel workers. Most foresaw the composi- tion changing in the doctoral programs to include a larger proportion of women and minority students. Several coor- dinators previewed new administrative structures with College Student Personnel programs melding with other education specialties, such as Adult Education. According to several respondents, a review of curriculum, content and quality of the College Student Personnel prepara- tion programs must be undertaken to make them relevant to changes that occur in higher education in general. The need for theory and a broader curriculum were thought to be important requirements in the preparation programs. New approaches to College Student Personnel preparation were anticipated. Future oriented classes and open kinds of programs without courses and grades were also forecast. It was predicted that faculty will come forward who will 123 bring expertise in research, analysis and interpretation of the literature that has come from personality develop- ment theory. New roles for College Student Personnel administrators were previewed. The consultative and student development models were mentioned. Another model discussed was the In combination student development specialist and political administrator who would know how to make use of the data :41 about student clienteles for institutional change. P' The data from the faculty questionnaire are presented and analyzed in Chapter V. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA Questionnaires In this chapter the profile of the faculty member in the College Student Personnel preparation programs included in this study is presented. Data for this profile were obtained from responses to a survey instrument distributed to one hundred and thirteen preparation program faculty members. The total number of usable responses was one hundred and one. The characteristics of the faculty members are presented in the areas of academic rank or title, educational back- ground, professional experience, age, sex, percentage of time Spent in College Student Personnel activities, numbers and emphasis of courses taught, participation in professional organization activities and publications. Faculty perceptions of the preparation program emphasis, of recommended program changes and of the leading doctoral programs are also examined. Comparisons are made between full-time and part-time faculty on selected characteristics. 124 125 TABLE 5.l--Sex of the Faculty Member Sex Number Per Cent Male 85 84.0 Female ‘16 16.0 N=101 100.0 p~ Sex of Facultngember The data show that eighty-four per cent of the faculty teaching in the College Student Personnel preparation programs were male and that sixteen per cent were female. TABLE 5.2--Ages of the College Student Personnel Preparation Program Faculty Ages Number Per Cent 30 or less 11 10.9 31-35 21 20.8 36-40 21 20.8 41-45 23 22.8 46-50 8 7.9 51-55 8 7.9 56-60 6 5.9 over 60 __§_ 2.9 N=101 99,98 aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures employed Ages of Faculty It was found that the majority of the faculty members were between the ages of 31 and 45 with 64.4 per cent in t" he; 1 J. 126 this age range. Nearly eleven per cent of the faculty members were 30 years of age or younger. The age range of 46 to 55 included 15.8 per cent while the range of 56 to over 60 included 8.8 per cent. The youngest faculty member was 25 and the oldest was 63 with a mean of 40.8. TABLE 5.3--Academic Rank or Title Rank or Title Number Per Cent Professor 19 18.8 Associate Professor 11 10.9 Assistant Professor 7 6.9 Instructor 2 2.0 Vice-President for Student Affairs, Dean of Students 11 10.9 Associate or Assistant Dean of Students 14 13.9 Counselor 19 18.8 Other _l§. 17.8 N=101 100.0 Academic Rank or Title Table 5.3 reveals the titles of those teaching in the College Student Personnel preparation programs. 38.6 per cent are faculty members; 18.8 per cent are counselors and over forty per cent are College Student Personnel adminis- trators. Titles included in the "Other" category (17.8 per cent) are Directors of Housing, Residence Hall Programming, Admissions, Financial Aid, University Center; 127 Vice Presidents for Administration and Finance and Public Affairs and Assistants to the President. TABLE 5.4--Time Spent in College Student Personnel Preparation Program Responsibilities Time Number Per Cent Full Time 22 22.0 3/4 Time 2 2.0 1/2 Time 11 11.0 1/4 Time 22 22.0 Occasional 42 42.0 No Time {_1 1.0 N=100 100.0 Time Spent in College Student Personnel Preparation Program Responsibilities The data indicate that twenty-two per cent of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty were full-time and seventy-eight per cent were part-time. TABLE 5.5--Doctoral Degree Degree Number Per Cent Ph.D. 47 46.5 Ed.D 42 41.6 Other 1 1.0 None '11 10.9 N=101 100.0 Doctoral Degree Examination of the data reveals that eighty-nine per cent of the faculty teaching in the College Student 128 Personnel preparation programs have doctoral degrees. TABLE 5.6--Doctoral Major Major Number Per Cent College Student Personnel 30 33.7 Higher Education 7 7.9 Counseling Psychology 8 9.0 Psychology 4 4.5 Guidance and Counseling 9 10.1 Educational Psychology 7 7.9 Counseling 13 14.6 Other _;Ll 12.3 N=89 100.0 Doctoral Major Slightly more than thirty-three per cent of the faculty in the College Student Personnel preparation programs received their doctorate in College Student Personnel. Fifty-four per cent majored in Higher Education, Counseling Psychology, Psychology, Guidance and Counseling, Educational Psychology or Counseling. Twelve per cent indicated that their doctoral majors were in "Other” areas. Among those areas listed were Political Science, Law, English Communication, Educational Administration and Education. 129 TABLE 5.7--Year of Doctoral Degree Year Number Per Cent Before 1950 10 11.2 1951-1955 5 5.6 1956-1960 11 12.4 1961-1965 18 20.2 1966-1970 35 39.3 After 1970 10 11.2 N=89 99.9a aDoes not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures employed Year of Doctoral Dggree Slightly more than fifty per cent of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty received their doctoral degrees after 1966. 32.6 per cent of the doctoral degrees were awarded between 1956 and 1965 and 16.8 per cent before 1955. Institution of Doctoral Degree It will be recalled from the previous chapter that in the opinion of the coordinators, the leading College Student Personnel preparation programs in rank order at the present time are Michigan State University, Indiana University, Florida State University, Columbia Teachers College and the University of Minnesota. 38.9 per cent of the faculty teaching in the preparation programs earned 130 their doctorates at these five universities. 14.4 per cent of the preparation program faculty graduated from the university ranked number one; 5.6 per cent from the number two ranked program; 1.1 per cent from number three; 11.1 per cent from number four and 6.7 per cent from number five. 61.1 per cent of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty received their doctoral degrees from twenty-nine other colleges and universities. TABLE 5.8--Master's Degrees Degree Number Per Cent M.A. 55 54.5 M.S. 17 16.8 M.Ed. 18 17.8 None 7 6.9 Other 4 3.9 N=101 99.9a 8Does not add to 100.0 due to rounding procedures employed Master's Degrees Table 5.8 shows that ninety-three per cent of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty have a master's degree. Four faculty members earned other degrees such as the M.B.A. or the M.S.W. Of the individuals listing no master's degree, several indicated 131 that they had proceeded to a doctoral degree from the baccalaureate degree and the others did not identify the master's degree. TABLE 5.9--Major of Master's Degree Major Number Per Cent College Student Personnel 7 7.6 Higher Education 2 2.2 Counseling Psychology 1 1.1 Psychology 4 4.4 Guidance and Counseling 31 33.7 Educational Psychology 6 6.5 Counseling 12 13.0 Other ‘22 31.5 N=92 100.0 Major of Master's Degree 33.7 per cent of the College Student Personnel faculty members majored in Guidance and Counseling on the master's level. 27.1 per cent were granted degrees in Higher Education, Counseling Psychology, Psychology, Educational Psychology and Counseling. 7.6 per cent earned a master's degree in College Student Personnel. Fields represented by those who listed other majors were Education, Business, Political Science and History, Math, French, Philosophy, English, Social Work and Human Relations. 132 TABLE 5.lO--Year of Master's Degree Year Number Per Cent Before 1950 15 16.1 1951-1955 15 16.1 1956-1960 22 23.7 1961-1965 25 26.9 1966-1970 15 16.1 Since 1970 1 1.1 N=93 100.0 Year of the Master's Degree According to the data, 32.2 per cent of the master's degrees were awarded before 1955. 50.6 per cent were granted between 1956 and 1965 and 17.2 per cent were earned since 1966. Institution of Master's Degree 21.3 per cent of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty received their master's degrees from the universities adjudged by the coordinators to have the five leading programs. 78.7 per cent were awarded their master's degrees by forty-seven other colleges and universities. 133 TABLE 5.11--Professional Experience College College St. Other College St. Pers. Personnel Administration Teaching Years Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent None 7 6.9 80 79.2 74 73.3 1-2 10 9.9 7 6.9 5 4.9 3-4 19 18.8 7 6.9 7 6.9 5-6 10 9.9 2 2.0 7 6.9 7-8 9 8.9 2 2.0 3 3.0 9-10 5 4.9 2 2.0 3 3.0 11-12 11 10.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 13-14 12 11.9 0 0.0 1 1.0 15+ 18 17.8 1 1.0 1 1.0 TOTALS 101 99.98 101 100.0 101 100.0 Other College K-12 Other Teaching Teaching Experience Years Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent None 75 74.3 75 74.3 77 76.2 1-2 14 13.9 5 4.9 9 8.9 3-4 5 4.9 9 8.9 10 9.9 5-6 4 3.9 4 3.9 1 1.0 7-8 1 1.0 3 3.0 1 1.0 9-10 0 0.0 2 2.0 l 1.0 11-12 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 13-14 0 0.0 l 1.0 1 1.0 15+ 2 2.0 2 2.0 1 1.0 101 100.0 101 100.0 101 100.0 aDoes not add to 100.0% due to rounding procedures employed 134 Professional Experience Table 5.11 indicates the professional experience of the College Student Personnel preparation program faculty members. 6.9 per cent had no experience in College Student Personnel while ninety-three per cent had from one to over fifteen years in the field. Nearly forty per cent had Ii? more than ten years experience. 19.8 per cent had worked from one to over fifteen years in other college or university administrative positions. Slightly more than 25 per cent had been involved in teaching College Student Personnel courses as their major responsibility from one to over fifteen years. Those with other college teaching experience totaled 25.7 per cent. 25.7 per cent also had public school teaching experience. 23.8 per cent had worked outside the field of education. 18.8 per cent had been employed from one to four years and five per cent from five to over fifteen years in other than education positions. Percentage of Time Spent in Teaching, Administration, Advisement and Other Typical Work Week Activities As shown in Table 5.12, nine per cent of the prepara- tion program faculty spent no time and fifty-eight per cent 135 g nll!u. . .iifnv 0.00H 00H c.00H 00H o.ooH ooH 0.00H 00H mAo< coaumuumHaHEfi< wcwnomoe mo ucsoa< moaua>auo< Honuo paw .OCOEOma>O< .coaumuumacaEU< .wcatomoe ca “comm oaae mo owmucmouomnuma.m mum