70-9583
LAUTH, Laurence Vincent, 1931AN INVESTIGATION OF SELECTED FACTORS
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROLONGATION
OF DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1969
Education, administration
University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan

©

Copyright by
LAURENCE VINCENT LAUTH
1970

AN INVESTIGATION OP SELECTED FACTORS
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROLONGATION
OP DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY

By
Laurence Vincent Lauth

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education
1969

ABSTRACT
AN INVESTIGATION OP SELECTED FACTORS
WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE PROLONGATION
OP DOCTORAL PROGRAMS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY
By
Laurence Vincent Lauth

Statement of the Problem
The crucial Importance to any modern society of the
professional training and development of as many of its
members as possible has led to an increased national
awareness of the continuing Imbalance existing between
doctorate supply and demand.

As a result, the length of

time required to earn the doctorate has emerged as one
of the major issues in graduate education.
The time issue Is viewed not so much as one involving
the expected or actually enrolled period of time required
for completion of the doctorate.

Rather, the issue is

seen as one concerned with the actual amount and manner
of distribution of the lapsed time doctoral recipients
take to earn the degree.

With the accelerating expan­

sion of man's knowledge and the increased need to gain
control over it, less actual time spent on the doctorate
is not seen to be as societally expedient as is the

Laurence Vincent Lauth
searching out, and alleviation of, those factors which
contribute to its unnecessary prolongation.
Historically, those variables which have been most
strongly associated with prolongation of the doctorate
fell readily into 6 general groupings— discontinuities
of attendance, patterns of financial assistance and
support, dissertation requirements, personal, and depart­
mental variables.
Organization of the Study
The primary focus, then, of the present study was
an investigation of the significance of those Independent
variables which a review of the literature had revealed
as most influential in accounting for prolonged lapsed
time periods in the pursuit of the doctoral degree.
To this end, a doctoral recipient sample of 320
was drawn randomly from Michigan State University's
degree granting departments for the academic years 196667 and 1967-6 8 .

The testing by an Intercorrelation

matrix of 34 research hypotheses formulated from 53 of
the 90 original independent variables and the 3 depen­
dent time lapse variables followed.
A second Intercorrelation matrix based on the total
sample divided into 6 basic fleldB of study was then
employed to test 4 research hypotheses.

Finally, a

Least Squares Stepwise Deletion procedure was undertaken

Laurence Vincent Lauth
resulting in the formulation of 3 multiple regression
equations, one for each of the 3 dependent time variables.
Major Findings of the Study
Of the 3^ research hypotheses based on the total
sample, 27 were found to be supported by the data with 8
of these correlating with one of the 3 dependent time
variables at significantly greater than .50 revealing
that those doctoral recipients with a greater lapsed time
between B.A. and Ph.D. reception were found to have more
total years of post-B.A. interruptions and greater lapsed
time off-campus after the end of course work.

Recipients

who evidenced a greater lapsed time between entry to
doctoral study and reception of the Ph.D. degree were
shown to have greater lapsed time in interruptions during
the Ph.D. program, greater lapsed time off-campus after
the end of course work, fewer full-time terms, no prior
doctoral language proficiency, a greater number of
credits below the 800 level, and a lower Ph.D. Grade
Point Average.

Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower

Ph.D. grade point average also showed greater registered
time from Ph.D. entry to reception.
Two of the research hypotheses based on the 6
fields of study data were also found to be significant
at the .05 alpha level revealing that doctoral students
in the humanities, the social sciences, the professions,
and education show greater lapsed time between B.A. and

Laurence Vincent Lauth
Ph.D. reception than do those In the biological and
physical sciences, with those in education having the
greatest lapsed time of the entire group.
Finally, the 3 multiple regression equations
revealed that registered terms and lapsed time until the
passage of the second language; part- and full-time
terms; lapsed time of interruptions during the Ph.D.;
number of Institutions since the B.A.; age at entry to
Ph.D.; number and total years of interruptions since
the B.A.; citizenship; registered terms and lapsed time
until course completion; lapsed time in residence and
off-campus after the end of course work; career plans at
the entrance to graduate school; student’s evaluation of
the Importance of financial need for assistant ships;
salary per year of post-Ph.D. degree job; and registered
terms and lapsed time between the end of course work and
the end of the dissertation predicted the lapsed times
between B.A. and Ph.D. and Ph.D. entry to reception and
the registered time from Ph.D. entry to reception at the
.05 alpha level of significance.

PLEASE NOTE:
Some pages have small
and indistinct type.
Filmed‘as received.
University Microfilms

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wisheB to express his appreciation and
adknowledge a debt of gratitude:
To Dr. Van C. Johnson, for his professional counsel
and personal encouragement.
To Dr. Walter P. Johnson and Dr. Max R. Raines
for their helpful
To Dr. Paul

suggestions.
L. Dressel for his unobtrusive support

and generosity in permitting the writer full use of the
essential and extensive facilities of the Office of
Institutional Research.
To Dr. Margaret P. Lorimer whose frank and knowl­
edgeable criticism, helpful guidance and thoughtful
personal concern encouraged and aided the writer through­
out the study.
To Lynn H.- Peltier for his technical assistance,
and to James M. Peters, Marion M. Jennette, Mary Ann
Roth and Barbara M. Stuart for their assistance In pre­
paring the rough drafts of the text and tables.
To each Individual member of the Office of
Institutional Research for their continual personal
encouragement and concern.

il

To John F.

Draper for his patient and helpful

statistical assistance.
To my mother, Kerrie M . , and my father, Harold V.,
especially for their unknown and untold sacrifices.
And finally, to my wife, Mary Elyn, whose critical
judgment and buoyant spirit accompanied the writer
throughout the entire study.

ill

TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............

11

LIST OF TABLES

vi

.............

Chapter
I.

RATIONALE OP THE STUDY
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study.
Basic Assumptions.
Theory
. .............
Organization of the Study

II.

REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE AND RELATED IDEAS
Discontinuities of Attendance.
Patterns of Financial Assistance and
Support
..........................
The Dissertation Requirement .
The Language Requirement and Prelimin­
ary (Qeneral) Examination
Personal Variables
................
Departmental Variables .............
Summary .............................

III.

GENERAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Sample
. . . .
Sources of the Data
Nature of the Data
Analysis Procedures
Summary . . . .

IV.

1
5
9
9
11*
16

16
19

26
29
31
33
36
37
37
38
1*0

^5
49
50

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Dependent Variables . . . . . .
Correlational Analysis : Total Sample
Findings ..........................
Correlational Analysis:
Discussion.
Correlational Analysis : 22 Other
Significant Variables.............
Correlational Analysis:
Six Fields.

iv

50
53
69
78
83

Chapter

Page
Correlational Analysis: Discussion of
the 90 Variables in Relation to the
Fields................................
Factor Analysis of the Selected 76
Variables: Findings ................
The Least Squares Regression Analysis
.
Regression Equation Formulation:
Dependent Variable I— Lapsed T i m e :
B.A.-Ph.D.
. . . . . . . . .
Regression Equation Formulation:
Dependent Variable II— Lapsed Time:
132
Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon...........
Regression Equation Formulation:
Dependent Variable III— Registered
Time:
Ph.D. Entry-Reception
.
. .
S u m m a r y ............................
136

V.CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................

BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................

v

103
123
124

134
139

Conclusions........................
142
Statement of Other Significant Results.
Significant Variables from the Total
Sample Correlational Analysis .
. .
Significant Variables from the 6 Field
Correlational Analysis
.............
The 3 Multiple Regression Equations.
.
Implications for Future Research.
. .

A P P E N D I X .....................................

95

145
146
148
150
153
157

164

LIST OP TABLES
Page

Table
3.1

Departm ents divided by field

39

3.2

Indepenti ent variables.

41

4.1

Factor malyals of the six dependent
variables

52

Means, standard deviations, correlations,
degress of freedom and t-tests between
the 90 independent and 3 dependent variables

55

Six fields; means, standard deviations,
degrees of freedom, correlations and t-test
significance between ninety independent
and three dependent v a r i a b l e s .............

85

Highest factor loadings for 76 Independent
variables using the varlmax rotation
a n a l y j s l s ....................................

106

Pinal regression coefficients, beta weights,
standard errors, levels of significance,
partial correlation coefficients and R 2
deletes from a stepwise deletion of 75
independent variables from the least
squares regression equations................

125

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

vi

CHAPTER I
RATIONALE OP THE STUDY

Statement of the Problem
Increased public recognition of the crucial impor­
tance to any modern society of professionally prepared
individuals, together with the existence of an unabated
imbalance between doctoral supply and demand,1 have
caused the length of time involved in doctoral study to
emerge as one of the major Issues in graduate education
according to Gerelson, Carmichael, Heiss, Keniston,and
2
the* National Academy of Sciences.

Hans Rosenhaupt, Graduate Students:
Experience at
Columbia University. 1940-1956 (New York:
Columbia
University Press, 19510, P» 90.
2
Bernard Berelson, Graduate Education in the United
States (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960),
p. l5f>j Oliver C, Carmichael, Graduate Education:
A
Critique and a Program (New York:
Harper and Brothers,
19&1), P. 13b; Ann M. Heiss, "Berkeley Doctoral Students
Appraise Their Academic Programs," Report of the Center
for the Study of Higher Education (Berkeley:
University
of California, 196*0* p. 16; Hayward Keniston, Graduate
Study and Research in the Arts and Sciences at the"
University of Pennsylvania CPhiladelphia:
University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1959J» p. 5; National Academy of
Sciences, Doctorate Recipients from United States
Universities 19*ab-19b6 (Washington, D. C. ; National
Academy of Sciences, 1967), p. 64.

1

2
The time issue raises little debate as regards the
"expected*1 period of time specified for doctoral study,
i.e., generally 3 to 4 calendar yearB;^ or as regards
doctoral requirements themselves since the Independent
investigative nature of the Ph.D. research precludes time
ji
definition.
Instead, the primary question is the
actual amount of time it takes students to obtain the
doctorate and the manner of this time distribution.

The

National Academy of Sciences Report^ notes that an impor­
tant aspect of the doctoral education process is the time
needed to complete the degree or the time lapse from
receipt of the baccalaureate to the completion of the
doctorate.
With the geometric expansion of knowledge and the
increasing need to gain control over it, less actual
time is not seen as educationally or even societally
7
debatable.
But when this actual time spent at work on
the doctorate (3 to 3.5 years) more than doubles in
time elapsed from the reception of the bachelor*s degree
■a
JKenneth M. Wilson, Of Time and the Doctorate:
Report of An Inquiry Into the Duration of Doctoral "Study
(Atlanta: Southern Regional Education Board, 1965),
p. 2.
h

Moody E. Prior, "A Manifesto on Graduate Educa­
tion." The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII. No. 5
(May, 1952 7 ,' p. 2HT T
* ------------^Berelson, op. cit.. p. 157.
^National Academy of Sciences, op. cit.. p. 64.
n

'Wilson, op. cit.. p. 4.

3
to the doctorate (7 to 10 years), then the desirability
of seeking out and alleviating the causes of unnecessary
0
prolongation becomes essential.
The National Academy of Sciences Report. in listing
the total calendar time elapsed between year of bacca­
laureate and year of doctorate, shows large field dif­
ferences.

The total median time for all fields for the

years 1964 to 1966 is 8.2 years.

The physical sciences

and engineering have the shortest lapsed median time
with 6.3 years, while the biological sciences follow with
7.3 years, the social sciences with 8.0 yearB, the arts
and humanities with 9*5 years and the professional
fields with 10.8 years.

Education completes the list
Q
showing the longest lapsed time— 13.8 years,
k

Tucker, Gottlieb,and Pease's study reveals some­
what similar field differences for total lapsed time
from baccalaureate to doctorate though
than median time is employed.
is 8.9 years.

mean time rather

The mean for all fields

Physical sciences again has the shortest

time lapse (7.3 years) followed by the biological
sciences (7.9 years), social sciences (9.4 yearsX and
the humanities (11.7 years).

In measuring the lapsed

Q

Gustave Arlt, "The First Ph.D.'s under Title IV:
Baccalaureate to Doctorate in Three Years," The Journal
of Higher Education. XXXIV (May, 1963), p. 21TC1
^National Academy of Sciences, op. c i t .. p. 64.

4
time from beginning of post-master's study to Ph.D.
reception, this study Bhows that 4.8 years is the mean
for all fields with the physical and biological sciences
possessing the shortest time (4.1 years) followed by the
social sciences (5.1 years) and the humanities (6.0
years).10
Tucker's data also show that the average number of
years that Ph.D. recipients were actually enrolled for
doctoral work was 3*9 for all fields, with the biological
sciences averaging 3.7 years, the physical sciences 3.8
years, the social sciences 4.0 years and the humanities
4.1 years.

Tucker concludes that although humanities

students seem to take longer to earn the doctorate than
do physical science students, the additional time is
really a function of the amount of time they are not in
school, once they begin their program, rather than a
11
longer doctoral program Itself.
Not surprisingly, then, Carmichael, Perkins and
12
Snell, and Beach
see in such a great lag between the
10Allen Tucker, David Gottlieb, and John Pease,
Attrition of Graduate Students At the Ph.D. Level in the
Traditional Arts and Sciences. Report No. d of the 6fflce
of Research Development and the Graduate School (East
Lansing: Michigan State University, 1964), pp. 57-67.
11Ibid., pp. 124-125.
12
Carmichael, Graduate Education:
A Critique and
a Program, p. 146j Dexter Perkins and John L. Snell. The
Education of Historians in the United States (New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952, p. 188; and Leonard B.
Beach, "The Graduate Student," in Graduate Education
Today', ed. by Everett Walters (Washington, D. C.:
American Council on Education, 1965)* p. 123.

5
the bachelor's and Ph.D., the loss of the best equipped
and potentially most stimulating teachers and scholars.
13
Pressey and Wolfle J also point out the Importance of
expeditious completion of doctoral requirements for the
enhancement of the productivity and professional status
of the individual.

And, If In fact, the needed time for

the Ph.D. can be curtailed, graduate schools may be able
to produce up to 50 per cent more Ph.D.'s every year
without increasing facilities or teaching staff.

14

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study Is to investigate those
variables which a review of the literature postulates to
have been consistently, and to a significant degree, most
influential In prolonging doctoral study.

Such an

investigation will be specifically concerned with the
lengthening effect of these factors on Michigan State
University doctoral recipients' degree programs.
Consequently, the following hypotheses in their
research form were formulated for the total Michigan
State doctoral recipients' sample:

■^Sidney L. Pressey, "Age and the Doctorate— Then
and Now," Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII (March,
1962), p. 153; Daei Wolfle, "Delayed Independence,"
Editorial In Science,
CXLII (January 10, 1964).
l4
Rosenhaupt, op. c i t ,. p. 77*

6
1*

Doctoral recipients who exhibit late decision
about, and lack of commitment to, their field
of study goals, show a greater lapsed time
between B.A. and Ph.D. reception than those
who do not,

2.

Doctoral recipients with more total years of
post-B.A, interruptions have a greater lapsed
time between B.A, and Ph.D. reception.

3.

Doctoral recipients who show greater lapsed
time In interruptions during the Ph.D. program,
show greater lapsed time from Ph.D. entry to
Ph.D. reception.

4.

The greater the lapsed time spent off-campus
after the end of course work, the longer the
lapsed time between B.A. to Ph.D. and Ph.D. entry
to reception.

5.

The greater the number of transfer credits, the
shorter the lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and
reception.

6.

The greater the number of part-time registered
terms, the greater the lapsed and registered
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

7.

The fewer the number of full-time registered
terms, the greater the lapsed and registered
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

8.

The fewer the number of quarters fellowship
stipends are received during doctoral study,
the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D. entry
and reception.

9.

The smaller the average amount of fee remission
stipends received during doctoral study, the greater
the registered time between Ph.D. entry and
reception.

10.

The greater the number of quarters teaching
asslstantshlp stipends are received during
doctoral study, the greater the registered time
between Ph.D. entry and reception.

11.

The greater the average amount of teaching
asslstantshlp stipends received during doctoral
study, the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

7
12.

The fewer the number of quarters research
asslstantshlp stipends are received during
doctoral study, the greater the lapsed time
between Ph.D. entry and reception.

13.

The smaller the average amount of research
asslstantshlp stipends received during doctoral
study, the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

14»

The lower the age of the doctoral recipient at
entry to doctoral study, the greater the lapsed
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

15.

The greater the family obligations, the
the lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and

greater
reception.

1 6 . The greater the number of credits taken before
the organization of the guidance committee, the
greater the registered time between Ph.D. entry
and reception.
17.

The greater the lapsed time between the end of
course work and the end of the dissertation, the
greater the lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and
reception.

18.

Those doctoral recipients who had no prior
research experience evidence greater lapsed
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

19*

The greater the number of pages in the disserta­
tion, the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

20.

The greater the lapsed time or registered terms
until the fulfillment of the language requirement,
the greater the lapsed time and registered time
between Ph.D. entry and reception.

21,

The greater the lapsed time before the passage
of the general examinations, the greater the
lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

22,

Doctoral recipients who lack prior doctoral
language proficiency show more lapsed time between
Ph.D. entry and reception.

23,

The greater the lapsed time or registered terms
until course work completion, the greater the
lapsed and registered time between Ph.D. entry
and reception.

8
24.

The greater the number of Ph.D. credits taken,
the greater the
lapsed and registered time between
Ph.D. entry and reception.

25*

The greater the number of credits taken below the
800 level, the greater the lapsed and registered
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

26.

Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower Ph.D.
Grade Point Average show greater registered time
from Ph.D. entry to reception.

27*

Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower graduate
Grade Point Average show greater registered time
from Ph.D. entry to reception.

28.

Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower undergrad­
uate Grade Point Average show greater lapsed time
from B.A. to Ph.D. reception.

29.

Doctoral recipients who have attended a greater
number of institutions since the B.A. exhibit a
greater lapsed time B.A. to Ph.D.

30.

Doctoral recipients who did not hold a scholarship
during Ph.D. study exhibit greater lapsed time from
Ph.D. entry to reception.

31.

Doctoral recipients who entered doctoral study
under a provisional or special non-degree admission
status exhibit greater lapsed time from Ph.D.
entry to reception.

32.

U.S. doctoral recipients show greater lapsed time
between Ph.D. entry and reception than do foreign
doctoral recipients.

33.

Those doctoral recipients who express dissatis­
faction with their major advisor evidence greater
lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

34.

Doctoral recipients who rate their departments
low on their overall doctoral program, have greater
lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and reception*

35.

Doctoral students in the humanities, the social
sciences, the professions, and education show
greater lapsed time between B.A. and Ph.D.
reception than do those in the biological and
physical sciences.

9
36.

Doctoral recipients in education have greater
lapsed time between B.A. and Ph.D. reception
than those of any other field.

37*

Women doctoral students in education have
greater lapsed time between the B.A. and Ph.D.
reception than do men.

38.

The lower the first post-doctoral position*s
annual salary for humanities
doctoral recipients,
the greater the lapsed time between B.A. and Ph.D.
reception and Ph.D. entry and reception,
Basic Assumptions

A primary assumption of this study is that all
Michigan State University doctoral students share a common
set of experiences in their pursuit of the doctoral degree
which are Identifiable, measurable, and which can be
described in objective terms.

At the same time, these

students possess certain differences which affect in varying degrees the duration of their doctoral study.
A second basic assumption is that certain compari­
sons by field of study can be made and that there is a
definable nature to each of these fields.

It Is further

assumed that such comparisons by field of study are
both desirable and necessary to reveal the peculiar
patterns among fields which in turn affect the length
of doctoral study.
Theory
The theories which attempt to explain the problem
of prolonged time in earning the doctorate are numerous.
Keniston theorizes that financial problems

stemming from

10
lack of fellowships and preventing full-time study, lack
of an established and clearly defined 3 year program norm,
the out-moded language requirement and final examination,
and the unlimited scope of the doctoral dissertation are
factors involved in unduly lengthening the time of
15
doctoral study. ^ Berelson reports lack of financial
support as an important cause, with the problems sur­
rounding the dissertation secondary in importance*

He

emphasizes the lack of faculty encouragement, due, in
part, at least to the candidates' usefulness to the
faculty as teaching and research a s s i s t a n t s . ^

Carmichael

disagrees with the primacy of the financial support factor
maintaining the real reasons for the prolongation of
doctoral study to be the unclarifled goals of graduate
study on the part of departments, lack of clearly stated
preparatory steps

for foreign language and qualifying

exams, unduly delayed

faculty approval of the

dissertation

17
and general faculty reluctance to puBh candidates. '
18
Arlt, Brown, Perkins and Snell, and Bent,
however, view
■^Keniston,

o p .cit., p. 24.

^ Berelson,

op. cit., p. 163.

^Carmichael, op. cit.. p. 147.
18
Arlt, "The First Ph.D's under Title IV:
Baccalaur
eate to Doctorate in Three Years," p. 247; David 0. Brown,
"A Student Evaluation of Research Assistantships," The
Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII, No. 8, November,
1962, p. 438; Perkins aiTd Snell, The Education of
Historians in the United States, p. 204; Henry E. Bent,
“Fellowships, Assistantships, and Traineeships," in

11
the lack of proper financial support as the primary cause
and strongly recommend more unencumbered service-free
awards, especially fellowships and research asslstantshlps,
Rosenhaupt asserts that what is needed for successful
doctoral degree completion is sufficient support for full­
time attendance, high undergraduate ability, and high
la
motivational level. * Grigg also views academic ability
as a success factor while deploring the inability of
graduate schools to draw the potentially best students.

20

Davis agrees with Rosenhaupt's and the other above
authors' lack-of-support reasoning as well as the need
for attracting better students.

Doing all one's graduate

work in a single institution and the tightening up of the
training process, as well as better orientation and
articulation of the beginning and the end of the dootoral
program, are also seen as shortening the doctorate
duration.

It is Davis' statistical findings which seem

to establish the idea that married men with a family
tend to take longer than others to complete their degree;
and that low post-degree salaries and a reluctance to go
from graduate school to a college teaching position is
Graduate Education Today, ed. by Everett Walters
(Washington, D. C.: Arnerj.can Council on Education, 1965)*
p. 151.

19
20

Rosenhaupt, op. cit., p. 42.

Charles M. Grigg, Graduate Education (New York:
The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965)*
P. 95.

12
the reason for protracted study In certain areas of the
21
humanities.
Heard includes inherent differences among disci­
plines, vocational indecision, and lack of proper super­
vision of the dissertation as well as lack of funds,
lack of program coordination, and low post-degree
remuneration among his reasons for prolongation of
22
doctoral study.
Heiss observed from her Berkeley study
Interviews with Ph.D. students that a significant number
of doctoral students seem to enter and pursue their
studies with no time schedule or sequential pattern in
mind.

She noted a lack of planning and direction with

a consequent loss of motivation and drive.

At least half

of the interviewees admitted they had drifted a year
*

before settling down to a definite target.

Like Car­

michael, Heiss sees the need for establishing realistic
limits for the completion of doctoral study as well as
an increased role on the part of faculty in encouraging,
23
guiding, and prodding along procrastinating students.
Wilson, in sampling over 1900 doctoral degree
recipients representing over 120 graduate departments
and 15 doctoral fields, lists 15 factors which were
21

James A. Davis, Stipends and Spouses;
The
Finances of American Arts and Sciences Graduate"^Students
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1952J, pp. 125-130
22
Alexander Heard, The Lost Years In Graduate
Education (Atlanta:
Southern Regional Education koard,
1$63), p. 19.
23
JHeiss, op. c i t .. p. 17.

13
reported as lengthening doctoral programs.

The 6

factors which proved Influential for a significant per­
centage of the sample Include discontinuity of graduate
attendance, work as a teaching assistant, nature of the
dissertation topic, writing the dissertation off-campus,
financial problems, and Inadequate preparation in
languages.

Wilson found the correlation between the

median time lapse and the incidence of selected factors
as lengthening Influences to be .83 for discontinuity of
attendance, .81 for off-campus dissertation, and .72 for
financial problems.

He also reported that the responses

of graduate deans and departmental representatives sug­
gested a pattern of variables affecting doctoral duration
very similar to those of the graduates’ responses above.
k

These respondents, particularly the deans, pointed out
the crucial importance of clarity of institutional and
departmental requirements and expectations as well as
the nature of the advisory relationship with graduate
students.

2k

Data from the National Academy of Sciences supports
the relation to the time lapse of such factors as the
doctoral field, amount of institutional transfer during
graduate work, the decision to take a master’s degree,
time of beginning of graduate work, graduate study

^ Wilson, op. cit.. pp. k 6 ~ k 7 1 56.

i4
continuity and commitment (full or part-time), and sex.
In addition, the NAS Report states that most fellowship
programs have as a major goal the reduction of the
baccalaureate-to-doctorate time span, thereby indirectly
pointing up the influence of support level in shortening
the time lapse.

The NAS Report.

however, cites data to

negate the often held assumption that the doctoral time
lapse Is lengthened in the case of a person who receives
his baccalaureate from a non-doctoral undergraduate
2*5
institution. J
Organization of the Study
Ninety Independent variables will be run against
as many as 3 dependent time lapse variables to determine
the various strengths of association.

In thlB fashion,

significant relationships between certain variables and
time lapses will be established for the sample of 320
Michigan State University doctoral degree recipients.
In addition, the 6 basic fields represented will be
analyzed to elucidate any associative bonds, existing
by reason of these fields* peculiar natures, between the
appropriate dependent and Independent variables.
Chapter I has presented the rationale for, and
relevance of, the study of length of doctoral degree
programs.

Chapter II reviews the literature and discusses

^ N a t i o n a l Academy of Sciences, op. clt.. pp. 64-77,

15
the related ideas concerning the prolongation of doctoral
study,

Chapter III offers an analysis of the 90 inde­

pendent and 3 dependent variables together with the nature
and source of the data and the methodology employed to
appropriately interpret the data.

Chapter IV presents

the results obtained from the analysis while Chapter V
presents a summary and states the conclusions.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE AND
RELATED IDEAS

A great diversity of reasons has

been reported by

many authors in support of the differences in the time
lapse between the baccalaureate and doctorate.

An

analysis of their studies reveals, however, certain
factors which are most frequently cited and more heavily
supported by data.
Discontinuities of Attendance
Wilson reported the factor of discontinuity of
attendance to be first in influence in the lengthening
of the doctorate time lapse, both in the view of the
graduate deanB and faculties and of the more than 1900
doctorate respondents (32 per cent ranked it first).
Wilson further reported a .83 correlation between the
median time lapse and the Incidence of this factor.1
The National Academy of Science data show that the
differences in time lapses between broad fields are
sharply reduced when total registered time is used (5*1
years for physical sciences to 6.8 years for education).
^Wilson, op. c i t .. p. 5 6 .

16

17
Thus, a major cause for prolonging the time lapse Is
the Interrupting of the actual study time.
NAS*s data support a relationship

Moreover,

between Increased time

lapse and taking a bachelor's, master's, and doctorate
at different Institutions.

2

The data also confirm the assumption that those who
omit the master's degree finish in less lapsed time In
all fields.

In the "Total All Fields" category, even

registered time elapsed In median time ranges from .7
years to 1.6 years less for those omitting the master's
degree.

In addition, delayed entry into graduate study

causes prolongation in various fields with the physical
sciences having only .2 median years delay but eduoation
showing 1.0 median years delay.

Wilson reports that

the incidence of delayed entry (of at least 6 months)
into graduate school across all fields and all respon­
dents is at the 34 per cent level.
cent of his sample

Thirty-seven per

of respondents report one or more

interruptions in their doctoral study of at least 6
4
months duration.
Beach points out that 83 out of 100
undergraduate Btudents have high orientation toward
further study and that 77 actually intend to go on, yet

p

National Academy of Sciences, op. c l t .. pp. 64, 79.
3Ibid.
^Wilson, op. cit.. p. 64.

18
only 25 per cent of college graduates actually enroll In
graduate and professional school Immediately upon
graduation.^
Heard reports In his summary of the Southern
Regional Education Board study that, in regard to the
timing of the graduate study goals variable, pursuit of
graduate study became an objective only after senior
year in college for 38 per cent of the slow group as com­
pared with 15 per cent of all the others.

Correspondingly,

only 47 per cent of the slow students went into graduate
study within 6 months of college graduation, whereas 84
per cent of the fast students had.

Moreover, Heard

states that the doctoral degree had become an objective
for the slower 65 per cent of students by the end of
V

the first year of graduate study as compared to 87 per
cent of the faster students.^
Wilson reports from his investigation that for more
than 27 per cent of all baccalaureate graduates pursuit
of graduate training had not yet become established as
a definite personal goal.

Among English baccalaureates,

the percentage soared to 42 per cent.

By the end of

the college senior year, interest in the field of doctorate
was established across all fields at the 76 per cent level,

^Beach, op. clt.. p. 119.
^Heard, op. clt.. pp. 9-10.

19
but the definite personal goal of earning a doctorate
7

was indicated by only 30 per cent.'
Patterns of Financial Assistance
and Support
Data from the Tucker study show that because of
their financial situation, 35 per cent of the doctoral
students surveyed were forced to extend their length of
time In doctoral study.

When respondents were asked to

identify the single most important reason for not yet
receiving their degree, the greatest number (19 per
cent) reported lack of sufficient finances, followed
o
by 12 per cent who listed family responsibilities.
The doctoral recipients in Wilson's study rated the
factor of financial problems fifth, with over 27 per
cent finding it lengthening their programs.

In sources

of financial support which were considered to be of
major importance during their beginning and advanced
stages of study, veterans1 benefits, teaching assistantships, research assistantships, and spouses* earnings
led all bthers by a large margin.

Of the respondents

over-all fields, nearly 64 per cent held teaching
assistantshlps with a mean duration of 2.0 years, while

7
~
'Wilson, op. clt.. pp. 64-66.
8
Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. clt., pp. 230,
255.

20
nearly 43 per cent held research assistantships with a
g
mean duration of 2.0 years.
Tucker, Gottlieb and Pease report, similarly, that
among doctoral recipients, the teaching asslstantshlp was
a financial source cited by 60 per cent; 39 per cent
listed the research asslstantshlp and about 50 per cent
reported some type of fellowship or scholarship stipend.*0
Davis too, in his sample of over 2800 respondents
representing 140 graduate institutions, in 1958, reported
that the characteristic source of income for the majority
of graduate students was stipends, i.e., scholarships,
fellowships, and assistantshlps.

Over 70 per cent

received stipend income, with 4l per cent receiving half
or more of their total income from stipends.

For

approximately 25 per cent of Davis* students, spouse
income was an important source, while for only a small
minority was full-time employment a major source of income.
About 50 per cent of the sample had a non-duty stipend
and 40 per cent had a duty stipend, i.e., one for which
they had to perform some kind of service.

Teaching

assistantshlps were twice as common as research assistant­
shlps, with 25 per cent holding the former.

Natural

^Wilson, op. cit.. pp. 79* 86-87.
*°Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. clt., p. 214.

21
science students had the higher probability of holding
a stipend of any type and received more money from
their non-duty stipends.

11

In the advanced stages of doctoral study, the
teaching assistantshlps were the most Important source
of support, and yet, nearly 32 per cent of Wilson's
sample cited the teaching asslstantshlp as a lengthening
factor in their programs, giving it second position in
12
the ratings.
Wilson further states that a correlation
of .91 exists between the Incidence over fields of
teaching assistantshlps and their rated "lengthening
effect," whereas in the case of the incidence of research
assistantshlps and their rated "lengthening effect,"
the correlation is but .54.

Moreover, the relationship

*

over fleldB of the incidence of research assistantshlps
and the median "entry to doctorate time lapse" was a
negative .55.

As a result, Wilson concludes that the

role of the teaching asslstantshlp is perceived as
financially sustaining, but not directly Instrumental,
while the research asslstantshlp is perceived as both
sustaining and directly instrumental to the completion
of the doctorate.^3
11Davis, op. c i t .. pp. 126-128,

12

Wilson, op. cit., p. 48.

13Ibid., pp. 91-92.

..

22
Elder In his 1958 study of Harvard graduate students
found that 5 per cent of the doctoral students in natural
science, 13 per cent In social science and 14 per cent
in humanities were delayed considerably by lack of money.
Moreover, Elder noted that teaching assistantshlps
delayed considerably 12 per cent of natural science
doctorates, 8 per cent of social science,and 16 per cent
lli
of humanities doctorates.
Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease remark that the finan­
cial situation is more austere for the humanities and
social sciences and seem to think that the nature of the
disciplines and the characteristics of the individuals
in them also influence both the amount of attrition and

1*5

the time it takes to earn the degree. v

Although 43 per cent of humanities graduates
reported fellowships as compared to 40 per cent in the
physical sciences, the average total value of the
latter was more than 50 per cent h i g h e r . ^

Thus, it is

possible that if the fellowship support is significantly
high, the median lapsed time for the doctorate could be
affected in the direction of less lapsed time.

14

J. P. Elder, A Criticism of the Graduate School
of Arts and Sciences in Harvard University and Radcllffe
College (Cambridge. Mass.;
Harvard University, 1938),
p. 2l7
15
Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. cit.. p. 50.
^Wilson, op. c i t .. p. 89.

23
Arlt seems to feel that the only really significant
factor In his study was the fact that of the 755 students
on fellowships under Title IV, 14 per cent were able to
complete their Ph.D.'s in 3 years including summers.
For him, then, a short but sustained span of adequate
fellowship support is the major cause of finishing the
doctorate within the "expected" time, i.e., 3 years.
A discordant note in the assistance picture is
struck by Berelson in reporting the responses to his
questionnaire on graduate education.

He states that 4l

per cent of the graduate deans, 30 per cent of the
graduate faculty and 36 per cent of the recent doctorate
recipients agreed that major professors often exploit
Ph.D. candidates by keeping them too long as research
assistants.
Rosenhaupt states in his Columbia study that, though
greater financial support in itself cannot guarantee more
rapid doctorate completion, generally students who must
support themselves have less time to spend on their
graduate training, and that an increase in fellowships
will at leaBt shorten the time needed for degrees.

He

cites the case of Princeton (known at the time for allow­
ing only full-time graduate study and for its insistence
on rapid doctorate completion) which, in 1956, gave 73
per cent of its graduate students fellowships or
■^Arlt, op. cit., p. 241.
18
Berelson, op. clt.. p. 162.

24
assistantshlps as compared with the national figure of
24 per cent.

Rosenhaupt's survey reveals, In addition,

that Columbia's fully supported group of veterans com­
pleted the doctorate more rapidly than the non-veterans,
in some cases by as much as 2.3 median years.

Remarkably,

the time gains were most pronounced in the 2 areas
where non-veterans received the least support and least
pronounced where 60 per cent of all students received
aid.19
Lack of funds is also seen by Perkins and Snell
in their study of historians to be a main problem of
their sample of candidates.

Their data reveal that 42

per cent of the 1958 Ph.D.'s completed their residence
in graduate school in 3 years or less and 75 per cent
4

within 4 years.

Yet doctoral programs of 8, 9, 10 and

sometimes more years are not usually caused by time in
residence, but by the needed full-time employment which,
in turn, delays completion.

20

Another facet to this lack of financial support
factor is brought out by Rosenhaupt who points out that
Columbia Ph.D. candidates in fields that offered high
21
post-degree salaries finished the degree rapidly.
On
the other hand, Davis reports that in the humanities
19Rosenhaupt, op. cit., pp. 61-62.
20
Perkins and Snell, op. cit.. pp. 179-188.
21

Rosenhaupt, op. c l t ., p. 75.

25
where low post-degree salaries were expected, candidates
apparently showed a reluctance to leave graduate school
for the unattractive financial incentives of college
teaching positions.

Davis concludes from his statistical

data that the higher the current Income and the lower the
expected salary for Ph.D. candidates, the greater the
proportion of students who expect to take more than 5
22
years.

In looking further at the question of student
income, Davis discovered that the higher incomes are con­
centrated among married students.

However, it is the

family role position which is the major determinant of
financial situations, with only the fathers appearing to
have financial troubles due not to low incomes but to
income sources which divert them from their studies.

The

fact that there is a strong negative relationship between
amount of employment and course loads completed only
tends to aggravate their situation.

Davis points out,

however, that regardless of employment or stage of study,
older students and those with higher Incomes carried
23
lower academic loads.

22

Davis, op. cit.. p. 129.

23Ibid., pp. 124-125.

26
The Dissertation Requirement
In Wilson's study, over 27 per cent of the doctor­
ate recipients reported both the nature of the disserta­
tion subject and the conditions under which it was com­
pleted as significant factors Influencing the prolongation
of the doctorate.

As a result, these 2 factors ranked

second and third among the top 5.
The formal approval of the dissertation topic
occurred after more than 3.0 median years of attendance
for over 37 per cent of the sample.

Less than 12 per

cent of the respondents reported completing the disserta­
tion prior to course and residence requirements, with
over 7 per cent reporting no topic as yet chosen at that
2k

time.

Completion of the dissertation measured in lapsed
time from the date of formal topic approval involved a
mean Interval of more than 2.0 calendar years.

For

nearly 50 per cent of the sample, average time taken to
complete the dissertation is related to median entry-todoctorate time lapse at .61.

Moreover, using Berelson's

median page length of the dissertation and comparing it
with Wilson's median time between topic approval and com^
25
pletion, a moderate correspondence of .65 is shown.
2k

Wilson, op. clt., pp. 96-100.

25Ibld.. p. 102.

27
Berelson reports that in reply to one of his
'criticisms and reforms' statements, i.e. "Doctoral
dissertations, at least outside the sciences are too
long"— 71 per cent of the graduate deans, 32 per cent
of the graduate faculty, and 27 per cent of the recent
doctorate recipients were in agreement.

Sixty-four per

cent of the deans and 32 per cent of the graduate
faculty and recent recipients agreed that too often the
dissertation is made to be a major contribution to
research rather than a manageable topic,
Berelson had earlier reported that the median
length of a dissertation in the biological sciences Is
108 pages, in the physical sciences 103 pages, but in the
social sciences 226 pages, and in the humanities 283
pages.

27

'

Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease go on to suggest

that the number of pages in a doctoral dissertation will
have a correlation with the amount of time it takes
humanities and social sciences doctoral students to earn
their degrees as well as be a reflection of the differences
in the nature of their disciplines and their character?8
istlcs as individuals.

26

Berelson, op. c i t ., p. 289.

27Ibid., p. 181.
28

Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. c l t .. p. 50.

28
Wilson, in reporting data regarding the amount of
time spent in full-time employment before dissertation
completion, states that over all fields, 30 per cent
spent 1.0 years or more in full-time employment between
approval of the dissertation and its completion.

He

further found a relationship between rank of the field
in terms of median entry-to-Ph.D. time lapse and the
above 30 per cent of respondents to be .84, a correspon­
dence which is consistent with Wilson's graduate sample
who assessed the "off-campus dissertation" as a lengthen­
ing influence.

Finally, because the natural science

recipients spent more time on campus during the critical
dissertation phase (37 and 28 per cent of the biological
and physical science students spent 2.0 years or more as
against 3.6 and 15 per cent of those in the social
sciences and humanities), they enjoyed greater opportunity
for holding research assistantshlps directly related
and applicable to their dissertation (33 and 38 per cent
in the biological and physical sciences in contrast to
16 and 2 per cent in the social sciences and humanities).
Tucker found that it took their sample of Ph.D.
recipients 2 years less to earn the degree than it takes
the A.B.D.'s (All But Dissertation) not to earn the
degree.

The average lapse of time for the A.B.D.'s was

2^WIlson, op. c i t .. pp. 102-104.

29

29
6.0 years, ranging from 5*4 years in the biological
sciences to 6.4 years in the humanities.

30

In addition, Tucker*s study reported that, as the
quality (Tucker believes that there is a high correlation
between doctorate production and quality) of a college
decreases, the lapse of time between the beginning of
post-master’s study and the obtaining of the doctorate
increases, and the lapse of time for the A.B.D.'s between
the beginning of post-master's study and the completion
of all-but-the-dissertation increases.

31

The Language Requirement and Pre­
liminary (General) Examination
Perkins and Snell view the foreign language require­
ment as a major obstacle to efficient Ph.D. completion
reporting that only 14 per cent of all high school students
in the nation study even one foreign language.

32

Seventy-one per cent of the graduate deans and 75
per cent of both the graduate faculty and recent doctorate
recipients in Berelson's study agree that the foreign
language requirement is, in most cases, ’’more form than
substance," thereby giving this factor the greatest per-

33

centage of any response. J
•

Twenty-seven per cent of

#

30Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. c i t .. p. 58.
31Ibid., p. 68.
32Perklns and Snell, op. c l t .. p. 184.

33

JJBerelson, op. c i t .. p. 289.

30
Wilson's respondents listed Inadequate preparation In
language as lengthening their doctorates.

Moreover,

Wilson's data on the Incidence of a particular language
studied as an undergraduate as compared to the per­
centage qualifying in that same language reveal a major
source of the language problem.

In all fields, 44 per

cent studied French for their doctorate.

Only 22 per

cent of the total sample indicated no need for special
preparation in any language.

Of the German qualifiers,

6l per cent needed special preparation, as did 52 per
?4
cent of those in French.
Departmental (disciplinary) differences in foreign
language preparation and use do exist; only 14 per
cent needed no special preparation in the social sciences,
while 25 and 27 per cent needed none In the physical
sciences and humanities respectively.

As regards use,

Berelson's study reveals that under 20 per cent in
education, economics, and psychology reported professional
use of a language, whereas 75 per cent or more was
35
reported for the physical and biological sciences. ^
In the Southern study, Wilson reported 23 per cent
listing inadequate preparation in a field as a lengthening
factor and one of the measurable variables which exhibit
this inadequate preparation is the preliminary examination
34

Wilson, op. c i t .. p. 110.

^Berelson, op. c i t ., pp. 197-198.

31
In one*s discipline,^

Carmichael remarks that graduate

students have been known to flounder for 2 years or more
attempting to get ready for their general exams without
knowing for what they were preparing.

37

'

Personal Variables
Ability
Ability is seen to have a definite temporal
Influence by Berelson who states that the evidence sug­
gests that the ablest students tend to finish sooner and
are more productive afterwards as measured by production
qo
of scholarly articles.
The ability factor can be
partially explained in terms of the ablest having more
chance of getting support and attention.

D a v i s 1 study

k

further concludes that 33 per cent of the .highest
academic performance index group are postponing their
graduate studies after their baccalaureate, thereby
39
depriving doctoral programs of abler students. '
Berelson's questionnaire results reveal 35 per cent of
the graduate deans, 28 per cent of the graduate faculty,

^Wilson, op. cit., p. 47.
37
'Carmichael, op. c l t .. p. 150.
38
J Berelson, op. c i t .» p. 165.
^ J a m e s A. Davis, Great Aspirations (Chicago:
National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago,
1963), X, P. 317.

32
and even 25 per cent of recent recipients agree that the
initial selection of graduate candidates is poor.

40

The grade point average at the Ph.D. level, as
reported by Tucker is a better indicator of potential
for completing requirements for a Ph.D. than the grade
point average at the

master’s level and the master's

average is better than that at the undergraduate level.

lil

Age
A wide range of departmental differences was shown
to exist in the average age of graduates in the Wilson
study.

The median for all departments was 31.9 years

of age, whereas history alone was 35.1 and chemistry
iiP
only 28.8.
Rosenhaupt's study at Columbia reveals that a
larger percentage of those who entered graduate study
while young obtained Ph.D.'s than did those entering at
a more advanced age.

Yet, those who entered after 23

took less time to finish than did the younger candidates,
with those over 29 finishing the fastest.

40

jiq

Berelson, op. cit.. p. 290.
lil
Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. clt., p. 210.

lip

_

Wilson, op. clt.. pp. 36-37.

JRosenhaupt, op. clt.. p. 75.

33
Sex
Time lapse appears to vary by sex as well.

Women

have longer total time lapse than men in almost every
field (identical in the physical sciences) and are more
concentrated in fields with long total time lapses
(arts and humanities and education where they take
10.8 and 16.0 years respectively, as opposed to 9*2 and
13.3 years for men).

Moreover, a smaller number of

women than men complete the doctorate with minimal
interruption.

As a result, the median age at the com­

pletion of the doctorate for women in all fields is 35
as compared with 31 for men.

Again, only in the physical

sciences, where women receive the doctorate at a younger
median age than men (28.7 to 29-3 years of age), do
k

women finish with the same time lapse as men (6.3
44
y e a r s).
v

Departmental Variables
The graduate deans in Wilson’s study ranked in
second place factors connected with departmental expecta­
tions and faculty attributes.

A major variable cited

was the nature and degree of clarity of departmental
expectations especially as seen through the major pro­
fessor's, advisor's-or thesis director's guidance,
attitudes, and standards of progress.

Changes in the

iiii
National Academy of Sciences, op. c l t .. pp. 111113.

34
dissertation committee, for example, was listed eighth
(by more than 6 per cent) as a lengthening experience
among the Southern sample of doctorate recipients.

45

The number of doctoral advisees per major advisor
may well show a lengthening Influence within fields.
Though the social sciences show a ratio of 1,88 doctorate
recipients per advisor per 3 year period, psychology
with the highest ratio (2.07) also possesses the shortest
median time lapse from master's to Ph.D.

(4,2 years).

And anthropology and archeology, exhibiting the lowest
ratio (1.65), have the longest time lapses (5*6 y e a r s ) . ^
Perkins and Snell reported that 300 history
graduate students Indicated something less than satisfac­
tion concerning advice from professors— 46 per cent of
li7

19 Ph.D.'s from one of these 7»

Berelson reported

that 38 per cent of the graduate deans, 35 per cent of
the graduate faculty, and 43 per cent of recent recipients
agreed that graduate students do not clearly know what
they must do to get the doctorate and are not well
counselled, i.e., experience Ill-defined expectations
and Inadequate guidance.

48

^ W i l s o n , op. c lt.. pp. 45-47.
46
p.
National Academy of Science, op. clt.. pp. 58-59.
^ P e r k i n s and Snell, op. cit.. pp. 182-183.
48

Berelson, op. cit., p. 290,

35
In general, the Wilson study reveals substantial
differences among the doctoral graduates of various
doctoral departments In overall rate of progress relative
to field norms and in age.

As noted earlier, the median

rates of progress tend to be higher In departments where
a higher proportion of recipients omitted the master's
and in which smaller percentages Interrupted study upon
lig
master's reception.
Finally, Poulton, In his study of doctoral programs
at Michigan State University, reports time data on 729
successful degree recipients representing 70 different
departmental programs or majors.

He found that from

doctoral admission date to completion of language
requirements, 2.0 years were required; from admission
date to completion of preliminary examinations 3.0 years
were needed; from admission date to completion of all
degree requirements 4.5 years were needed; and that the
average number of terms registered during the doctoral
program was 13*9.

50

His analysis of the lapsed and registered time
required to complete the degree reveals a wide range of
departmental differences.

Accounting exhibits the least

40
7Wilson, o p . clt. . p. 25.
^°B, R. Poulton, "An Assessment of Doctoral Programs
at Michigan State University" (East Lansing:
Office of
Institutional Research, Michigan State University, April,
1967)* pp. 3-4.
(Mimeographed.)

36
average lapsed time with 3.2 years while history takes
the most time with 6.8 years,**1
Summary
In the above review of the literature, an analysis
has been made of the numerous variables which the various
authors associate in varying degrees of strength with the
prolongation of doctoral degrees.
Those variables more heavily supported by research
*1
data fall readily into 6 general groupings— discontinuities
.

of attendance; patterns of financial assistance and
support; the dissertation requirement; the language,
course work, and general examination requirements;
personal variables; and departmental variables.
It will be, then, these general areas and the
particular variables which compose them which will be
analyzed through application of the Michigan State
doctoral degree total sample data, and where appropriate,
through field data.

51Ibid., Table 2, pp. 1-3.

CHAPTER III
GENERAL DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The design of the study is treated in 4 general
sections:

(1) Sample,

(2) Sources of the Data,

(3)

Nature of the Data, and (4) Analysis Procedures.
Sample
The population from which the sample was selected
consisted of the doctoral recipients of Michigan State
University during the academic years 1966-67 and 1967-68.
Ten doctoral recipients from each of those Michigan
State University departments which graduated at least
10 such students during the above years were then
randomly selected except in those cases where there
were but 10 recipients.

In the latter instances, all 10

were selected.
It was felt that the use of fewer than 10 degree
recipients would not have provided sufficient data from
which significant conclusions and/or Implications could
be drawn.

Requiring more than 10 recipients per depart­

ment would have narrowed the departmental scope of the
study considerably.

37

38
As a result, the sample selected numbered 320,
and represented 32 of the 57 Michigan State University
departments that granted doctoral degrees during the
1966-67 and 1967-68 periodB.

The division of these

departments into 6 fields was based on similar categori­
zations as given in the reports of the National Academy
1
2
of Sciences and Tucker together with the particular
organizational structure existing at Michigan State
University (Table 3.1).
Sources of the Data
Data on the selected sample of doctoral recipients
and their departments were collected from 6 different
sources.
The first source, graduate transcripts, was obtained
for each member of the sample from the Office of the
Registrar.
The second data source, the Office of the Graduate
School Doctoral Candidate Questionnaire and the Question­
naire for Candidates for Doctor's Degrees (Appendix),
was obtained from the records of the School for
Advanced Graduate Studies.
The Application for Admission to Graduate Study,
the third data collection instrument, was obtained in the
Office of the Registrar's Non-Current Records Division.
1National Academy of Sciences, op. clt.. pp. 3-11
2
Tucker, Gottlieb, and Pease, op. clt.. pp. 22-2M.

39
TABLE 3.1.— Departments divided by field.
Field
I.

Total Number in Sample
PHYSICAL SCIENCES

50

Agricultural Engineering
Chemistry
Electrical Engineering
Mathematics
Physics and Astronomy
II.

BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

100

Biochemistry
Botany and Plant Pathology
Dairy
Food Science
Forestry
Horticulture
Microbiology and Public Health
Physiology
Soil Science
Zoology
III.

HUMANITIES

40

English
History
Music
Speech
IV.

SOCIAL SCIENCES

50

Communications
Economics
Geography
Psychology
Sociology and Anthropology
V.

EDUCATION

40

Administration and Higher Education
Counseling, Personnel Services,
Educational Psychology
Elementary and Special Education
Secondary Education and Curriculum
VI.

PROFESSIONAL
Accounting and Financial Administra­
tion
Agricultural Economics
Management and Personnel
Marketing

40

40
The fourth source of information, research grants
data, was collected from the Office of the Registrar,
Division of Research Grants.
Scholarship, fellowship, and fee remission data,
the fifth source, were collected from the Registrar's
Non-Current Records Division, while the sixth source,
asslstantshlp and other on-campus employment information,
was taken from the Office of the Payroll.
Nature

of the Data

Prom the 6 sources of data outlined above, 90
independent and 6 dependent variables were initially
gathered on each member of the sample.

The 90 inde­

pendent variables (Table 3.2) selected for analysis were
chosen on the basis of the strong and frequent support
granted them in the literature in the form of research
data and/or experiential observation.
Thus, each of the 90 independent variables align
themselveB under one of the 6 general categories
described

in Chapter II.

In addition, the Bource

of,

and data format under which, each variable wascollected
for measurement and analysis is listed in Table 3*2.
The 6 dependent variables selected were also
chosen because of the frequent evidence in the review of
the literature of their usefulness and appropriateness
in measuring the time spent by doctoral students in
their pursuit of the Ph.D.

They were:

TABLE 3.2.— Independent variables.

Source

Variable Description

Data Format

1.

Number of Field Changes B.A. to Ph.D.

I

Transcript and Graduate
Questionnaire (1)

Numerical Units

2.

Admission Status

V

Transcript

Dlchotomous: Regular
or Provisional-

3.
A.

Total Number of Advisors

I
IV

Transcript

Numerical Units

Registered Terms until Passage of First Language

Transcript

Three Honth Invervals

5.
6.

Lapsed Time until Passage of First Language

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

7-

Registered Terms until Passage of Second
Language
Lapsed Time until Passage of Second Language

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

8.

Registered terms until Passage of General Exams

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

9.

Lapsed Time until Passage of General Exams

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

J.O.

Part-Time Terms

I

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

11.

Full-Time Terms

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

12.

Registered Terms before Course Completion

I
IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

13.

Lapsed Time until Course Completion

IV

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

14.

Credits Taken outside Department

IV

Transcript

Numerical Units

15.

Registered Time between End of Course Work and
End of Dissertation

III

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

16.

Lapsed Time between End of Course Work and
End of Dissertation

III

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

17.
18.

Number of Credits below 800

Transcript
Graduate Questionnaire
(36)
Transcript

Numerical Units
Numerical Units

Library

Numerical Units

IV
IV

19.

Credits Taken before Organization of
Guidance Committee
Grade Point Average— Ph.D.

20.

Pages In Dissertation

21.

Lapsed Time In Residence after End of
Course Work

I

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

22.

Lapsed Time Off-Campus after End of
Course Work

I

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

V
III

Cumulative Average to
Two Decimals

23.
24.

Lapsed Time of Doctoral Study Interruptions

25.
26.

Sex -

V

Admissions Form

Dlchotomous:

Humber of Institutions since B.A.

I

Admissions Form

Numerical Units

27.

Rating of M.A. Institution

Admissions Form

Dlchotomous: Ranked :
Cartter's Top Twenty,
in Top Twenty

28.

Grade Point Average-Undergraduate

V

Admissions Form

Cumulative Average to
Two Decimals

29.

Grade Point Average— Graduate

V

Admissions Form

Cumulative Average to
Two Decimals

III
V

' Admissions Form

Humber of Ph.D. Credits

I

Transcript

Three Month Intervals

IV

Transcript

Numerical Units

V

30.

Research Experience

31.

Age at End of Ph.D.

3Zj

Humber of Children at End of Ph.D.

II

33.

Spouse Activities

II

34.

Age at Entry to Ph.D.

V

35.

Development of Field of Study Goals

I

36.

I

37.

Career Plans at Graduate Entrance
Importance of Ease and Speed for Attending
Michigan State University

38.

Importance of Research Opportunity for
Attending Michigan State University

39.

Importance of seholarshlp/asslstantshlp for
Attending Michigan State University
Evaluation of Decision to Attend Michigan State
University

40.

I

Dlchotomous:

Male, F<

Yes, Ho

Graduate Questionnaire
C25)

Chronological Units

Graduate Questionnaire
(31)
Graduate Questionnaire
C32)
Transcript

Numerical Units
Dlchotomous:
Did not Work

Worked/

Chronological Units

Graduate Questionnaire (3) Interval Scale Data
Graduate Questionnaire (5) Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data
Graduate Questionnaire
(71

III

Graduate Questionnaire
(7)

Interval Scale Data

II

Graduate Questionnaire
(7)
Graduate Questionnaire
(9)
Graduate Questionnaire
(12)

Interval Scale Data

VI

41.

Rating of Department among Experts

VI

42.

Rating of Department's Research Training

VI

43-

Humber Of Faculty Known to Discuss Problems

VI

44.

Rating of Department's Sensitivity to Student
Heeds

VI

Graduate Questionnaire
(13)
Graduate Questionnaire
(15)
Graduate Questionnaire
(16)

Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data

■Category I— Discontinuities of Attendance; II— Patterns of Financial Assistance and Support; III— The
Dissertation Requirement; IV— The Language, Course and General Exaa Requirements; V— Personal Variables; and
VI— Departmental Variables.

TABLE 3.2.— Continued.

Variable Description

General
Category

Data Format

Source

45.

Rating of Department's Research Skills

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (16 )

Interval Scale Data

46.

Comparison of Michigan State University
Stipends (Assistantships, etc.) to
Those of Other Universities

II

Graduate Questionnaire
(17)

Interval Scale Data

47.

Comparison of Michigan State University
Research Facilities to Those of Other
Universities

III

Graduate Questionnaire
(17)

Interval Scale Data

II

Graduate Questionnaire
(19)

Interval Scale Data

48.

Importance of Financial Need for Assistantships, etc.

49. Validity

of Department's Formal Hurdles

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (20)

Interval Scale Data
Interval Scale Data

50.

Validity of Department’s Too Low Admission
Standards

VI

Graduate Questionnaire

51.

Validity

of Department's Student Exploitation

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (20)

Interval Scale Data

52.

Validity

of Department's Reward for Conformity

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (20)

Interval Scale Data

53. - Validity of Department's Over-Interest in
Research

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (20)

Interval Scale Data

54.

Lengthening Due to Inadequate Preparation

IV

Graduate Questionnaire (21)

Interval Scale Data

55-

Lengthening Due to Remedial Work

IV

Interval Scale Data

56.

Lengthening Due to Language Requirement

IV

Graduate Questionnaire (21)
Graduate Questionnaire (21)

57.

Lengthening Due to Teaching Assistantship

II

Graduate Questionnaire (21)

Interval Scale Data

58 . Lengthening Due to Research Assistantship

II

Graduate Questionnaire (21)

Interval Scale Data

59.

II

Graduate Questionnaire (21)

Interval Scale Data

Lengthening Due to Work Off-Campus

60.

Lengthening Due to Veteran’s Benefits

61.

Lengthening Due to Leave and Work

62.

Lengthening Due to Family Obligations

63.

Lengthening Due to General Exams

64.

Lengthening Due to Thesis

(20)

Interval Scale Data

Graduate Questionnaire (21) Interval Scale Data
II
II-- -Graduate—Quc&t-lonna ire. -(21) — Interval Scale Data
Graduate Questionnaire (21) Interval Scale Data
' II
Graduate Questionnaire (21)
Interval Scale Data
IV
III

Graduate Questionnaire (21)

Interval,Scale Data

65.

Evaluation of Procedures for Selection of
Major Professor

VI

Graduate Questionnaire

(3*)

Interval Scale Data

66.

Length of Time before Assignment of Major
Professor

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (35)

Interval Scale Data

67.

Number of Meetings with Major Professor

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (45)

Interval Scale Data

68.

Department’s Orientation Program

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (46)

Interval Scale Data

69.

Amount of Supervision of Thesis Given

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (49)

Interval Scale Data

70.

Amount of Supervision of Thesis Preferred

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (49)

Interval Scale Data

71-

Opportunity to Incorporate Own Ideas into Thesis

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (51)

Interval Scale Data

72.

Opportunity to Incorporate Student Ideas into
Thesis if Student were Professor

VI

Graduate Questionnaire (52)

Interval Scale Data

73.

Number of Quarters Fellowship, etc. Held

II

Office of the Registrar

Numerical Units

74.

Average Value per Quarter of Fellowship

II

Office of the Registrar

Average in Dollars

75.

Number of Quarters Fee Remission Held

II

Office of the Registrar

Numerical Units

76.

Average Value per Quarter of Fee Remission

II

Office of the Registrar

Numerical Units

77.

First Language Proficiency

IV

Admissions Form

Dlchotomous:

Yes, No

76.

Second Language Proficiency

IV

Admissions Form

Dlchotomous:

Yes, No

79.

Number of B.A. to Ph.D. Interruptions

I

Graduate Questionnaire (2)

Numerical Units

8o.

Total Years of B.A. to Ph.D. Interruptions

I

Graduate Questionnaire (2)

Three Month Intervals

81.

Scholarship or Not

V

Office of the Registrar

Dlchotomous:

82.

Total Number of Quarters Teaching Assistantship
Held

II

Office of the Registrar

Three Month Intervals

83.

Average Value per Quarter of Teaching
Assistantship

II

Office of the Registrar

Average in Dollars

84.

Total Number Quarters Research Assistantship
Held

II

Office of the Registrar

Three Month Intervals

85.

Average Value per Quarter of Research
Assistantship

II

Office of the Registrar

Average In Dollars

86.

Number of Quarters On-Campus Jobs Held

II

Office of the Registrar

Three Month Intervals

87.

Average Value per Quarter

II

Office of the Registrar

Average in Dollars

86.

Salary per Year of Ph.D. Job

II

Graduate Questionnaire
(Form 53)

In Dollars

89.

Number of Transfer Credits

I

Graduate Questionnaire
(Form 53)

Numerical Units

90.

Citizenship

V

Graduate Questionnaire
(Form 53)

Dlchotomous:
Other

Yes, No

U.S.,

45
1.

The lapsed time between reception of the bachelor's
and doctor's degrees.

2.

The lapsed time between reception of the
bachelor's degree and entrance to graduate study.

3.

The lasped time between entrance to graduate
study and reception of the master's degree.

4.

The lapsed time between the master's reception
and entrance to Ph.D. study.

5.

The lapsed time between entrance to Ph.D. study
and reception of the Ph.D.

6.

The registered time between entrance to Ph.D.
study and reception of the Ph.D.
The above 6 variables, gathered from copies of the

doctoral recipients' transcripts, were measured In terms
of quarters or 3 month intervals.
Analysis Procedures
Factor analysis, correlational analysis, the t-test
of significance, and multiple regression analysis were
the 4 basic procedures employed In the statistical
treatment of the data.
Since this study deals with a population that has
already achieved their doctoral degrees, and therefore
cannot further be manipulated, the analysis of the data
cannot focuB on an Investigation of any direct causality
between the Independent variables and the dependent
variables of time between the baccalaureate and the
doctorate.
Rather, the analysis of the data will Involve a
determination of the varying strengths of the functional

46
relationships between the dependent variables and the
various Independent variables listed In Table 3.2.
In order to avoid as much as possible overlapping
measures and to insure more independence in the dependent
variables used, factor analysis was employed using
Michigan State University's Computer Institute for Social
"3

Science Research (CISSR) routines.
First, a 6 by 6 correlation matrix routine was run,
which in turn served as input for the Factor A program,
The Factor A routine produced a principal axis Quartimax
and Varimax rotation analysis which indicated the use of
less than the original 6 dependent variables.
Then, as the second step toward testing 34 of the
38 hypotheses stated in Chapter II, a 93 by 93 correla%

tion matrix was run involving the 90 independent vari­
ables and the 3 dependent variables using the CISSR
4
IDCORR routine with adjustment calculations made for
missing or non-applicable data.
From the above correlation coefficients generated
by the correlation matrix, the 34 hypotheses were then
o
JA, Williams, "Factor Analysis Factor A: Principal
Components and Orthogonal Rotations," Technical Report
No. 34 of the Michigan State University Computer Insti­
tute for Social Science Research, East Lansing, Michigan,
October 23» 1963. (Mimeographed.)
li

David Kline, "IDCORR:
Incomplete Data Correla­
tion Program," Technical Report No. 4 of the Michigan
State University Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, East Lansing, Michigan, June 28, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)

47
tested for significance at the .05 alpha level by means
of the t-test of significance for paired observations
where

The 34 research hypotheses were tested in their
null form, i.e., the value of the correlation coefficient
is equal to zero, or:

HQ : p = 0.

In addition, the remaining Independent variables
were subjected to the t-test to determine their signifi­
cance with each of the dependent variables.

After the

above correlation matrix was run on the total sample, a
second correlation matrix employing the identical
routine was run on the 6 fields which comprise the total
%

sample.

The resulting correlation coefficients were

tested for significance in the same manner as those of
the total sample and included the testing of Hypotheses
35, 36, 37, and 38.
Finally, in order to obtain a multiple regression
equation capable of predicting an unknown time lapse for
a doctoral student given the knowledge of his score on
one or more known variables, the following statistical
procedures were undertaken.
First, to provide a simplified description of the
relationships between the 90 independent variables,

F
U8
thereby facilitating an interpretation, comprehension,
and management of such a large collection of items, the
CISSR Factor Analysis routine was again employed.

Four­

teen of the 90 variables which exhibited more than 30
missing or non-applicable observations were taken out
and each of those items having fewer than 30 were
supplied with the mean of the particular variable's
total observations.

The above adjustment of the data

was necessary since the succeeding Least Squares Deletion
analysis (LSDEL)^ permits no missing data.
Factor analysis with an absolute criterion of 28
(28 factor rotation) was then run for a principal axis,
Varimax, and Quartimax analysis on the

76

dependent

variables.
The next step planned was to use as raw data for
the Least Squares Deletion analysis only those variables
which loaded highest on the rotated factors.

However, a

preliminary test run of the Least Squares analysis
revealed the presence of at least one negative regression
coefficient where a positive one was expected, Indicating
the possible influence of suppressor variables.

If one

or more suppressor variables were operating, it would
be possible that an Independent variable, though
^Mary E. Rafter, and William L. Ruble, "Stepwise
Deletion of Variables from a Least Squares Equation
(LSDEL Routine)," STAT Series Description No. 8 of the
Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment
Station, November, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)

49
correlating only slightly with the dependent variable
Itself, could, through the difference between it and a
second variable (even one with a negative correlation),
add significant predictability to the regression equation.
Consequently, to preclude the possibility of losing
negative correlations from the regression analysis, not
only were the variables loading highest on the rotated
factors included, but all of the 76 variables as well.
Summary
A doctoral recipient sample was drawn from Michigan
State University's degree-granting departments for the
academic years 1966-67 and 1967-6 8 .

To determine the

differing strengths of the relationships between the 3
dependent and the Independent variables aB stated In the
38 hypotheses, an Intercorrelation matrix generating
correlation coefficients both for the total sample and
for the 6 fields was utilized.

Then, in order to develop

a multiple regression equation capable of predicting a
doctoral student's time lapse period needed to obtain
his Ph.D. degree, factor analysis procedures on 76
selected variables were employed, followed by, a Least
Squares Regression analysis.

CHAPTER IV
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The present chapter describes the statistical
procedures and results of (1) the factor analysis of
the 6 dependent time variables;

(2) the correlational

analysis of the 90 independent variables with 3 dependent
variables together with the corresponding t-test of
significance results including the testing of the 34
hypotheses;

(3) the results of the principal axis,

Quartimax, and Varimax rotations of the factor analysis
on 76 Independent variables; and (4) the predictive
equations determined from the Least Squares Regression
Analysis from the 76 independent and 3 dependent variables.
Dependent Variables
Though 6 dependent variables were Initially
selected (p. 5 2 ) as potentially useful in yielding
significant relationships with the 90 independent vari­
ables, 3 were expected to yield information more useful
to this study.
The f i r s t , Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D., w a s .chosen

because it basically covers the total period of time
most directly connected with the pursuit of the doctorate.

51
The second, Lapsed Time:
and third, Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reoeption.

Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon. were

selected both on the basis of their general importance
In covering the period of time during which actual
doctoral level study was being conducted, and on their
specific potential significance for Michigan State
University as the institution concerned in the doctoral
degree-granting programs.
Consequently, the Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Receptlon variable was seen as the most significant phase
of the total B,A.-Ph.D. time period, while the allied
Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry. Reception was similarly

viewed as important in permitting distinction in the
relative associative strength between time actually
enrolled and actual total lapsed or calendar time.
; At this point, factor analysis was utilized to
aid in a closer examination of the underlying association
that might have existed between the 6 original dependent
variables and to support the reduction of their number
to an expected and more manageable 3.
The resulting factor analysis

consisted of a 3

factor rotation since an earlier analysis had shown that
only the eigenvalues of these first 3 factors were 1.00
or above (Table 4.1).

Both the Quartimax and Varimax

rotation analyses yielded the highest loadings on
1

A, Williams, op. c i t .

TA31E *.1

FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE Six' DEPENDENT VARIABLES
I. THREE FACTOR ROTATION
FACTOR I
Quartinax
Verlnax
Loadi n n
Loadings
A.

Eigenvalues

B.

Proportion of Variance

C.

Dependant Variables
.793
I.
Lapsed Tiro BA - PH.D.
II.
Lapsed Tine Ph. D. Entry.091
Reception
III. Registered Tine PH.D.
.003
Entry - Reception
IV.
Lapsed Tine HA Reception- .28*
Ph. D. Entry
V.
lapsed Tint Graduate
•.205
Eotry-HA Reception
.927
VI.
Lapsed Tins BAGreduate Entry

2.02
.270

2.02

FACTOR II
Quartinax
Verinax
loadings
loadings
l.*8

l.*B

Eigenvalues

B.

Proportion of Variance

C.

Dependent Variables
I.
Lapsed Tine BA - Ph. D.
II. Lapsed Tine Ph.D. EntryReception
III. Registered Tine Ph.D.
Entry - Reception
VI. lapsed Tine BA Graduate Entry

1.82

1.10

1.10

.272

.271

.271

.227

.22*

.80*
.097

-.280
-.883

-.276
-.882

-.52*
-.116

-.509
-.115

.00*

-.868

-.868

.138

.137

.298

.115

.117

-.735

-.729

-.191

-.0*7

-.0*7

-.701

-.705

.92*

.020

.025

.1*5

.16*

l.*0

l.*0

II. TWO FACTOR ROTATION

A*

FACTOR III
Quartinax Veriasx
loadings
loadings

1.82

.*12

.*11

.39*

.395

.322
.873

.317
.872

.85*
.175

.855
.180

.868

.868

-.087

-.082

.165

-.170

.900

.899

53
Variables 1, 2, 3>and 6 (Table 4.1) and accounted for
over 54 per cent of the total variance.

The third factor

on which Variable 1 as well as 4 and 5 loaded accounted
for another 23 per cent (Table 4.1).
Since Variable 1 was represented in Factor 3 with
a relatively high loading (-.53)* Variables 4 and 5 were
no longer viewed as essential for this study and were
dropped from further factor analysis.
A second Quartimax and Varimax rotation using a 2
factor solution on Variables 1, 2, 3, and 6 yielded the
expected 2 eigenvalues of 1.00 or above with the 2 factors
accounting for over 80 per cent of the total variance
(Table 4.1).
The highest loadings under Factor 1 were on
k

Variables 2 and 3 and on Factor 2 on Variables 1 and 4
(Table 4.1).

And, since dependent Variable 1 covered

the entire B.A.-Ph.D. period, it was selected as more
suitable than Variable 4 for this study.
The above factor analysis, then, supports the
reduction of the initial 6 dependent variables to the 3
variables most appropriate and germane to the present
study.
Correlational Analysis:
Sample Findings

Total

Each of the selected dependent variables were then
run against the 90 independent variables as outlined in

54
Table 3.1 to determine the level of associative strength
2
that existed between them on the total sample of 320.
The findings in the form of means, standard deviations,
degrees of freedom, correlation coefficients, and the
t-tests of significance results are given in Table 4.2.
Consequently, all those variables (one or more) connected
with each of the 34 hypotheses were tested at the .05.
level of significance using the critical values of the
correlation coefficient.
Of the 34 hypotheses tested for the total sample
in the null form p « 0, 27 permitted the rejection of the
null hypothesis (Table 4.2)

(Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,

8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16:, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26,
27, k20, 29, 30, 31, 32).

In these cases then, the null

hypothesis was rejected at the ,05 level and the data
supported the research hypothesis that p is significantly
different than zero at a 95 per cent level of confidence
(Table 4.2).

The data did not support the remaining 7

hypotheses when tested at the .05 alpha level
(Hypotheses 5, 11, 13, 14, 18, 33, 34).

As a result,

the null hypothesis was retained in these Instances.
In addition, in 8 of the 27 significant hypotheses
(Hypotheses 2, 3, 4, 6, 17, 20, 21, 23), the data
2
o

David Kline, op. cit.

JGeorge A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis in
Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., i9bb), Appendix, Table F, p. 413.

TABU? 6.2
KEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, CORRELATIONS, DEGREES OF FREEDOM AND t-TESTS
BETWEEN THE NINETY INDEPENDENT AND THREE DEPENDENT VARIABLES

Independent Variables

Hypo­
thesis
Tested

Mean1*

S.D.

d.f.'

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE4
I
II
III
Lapsed line
Registered Hoe
Lapsed Tine Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EbtryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

1.

Nuaber of Field
Changes BA to
Ph.D.

1

0.811

0.96

317

0.335*

0.123*

0.092

2.

Adaissioo Status

31

1.16

0.39

318

0.131*

0.155*

0.119*

3.

Total Nuaber of
Advisors

32*

1.58

0.86

318

0.185*

0.868*

0.378*

4.

Registered Terns
until Passage of
First Language

20

6.17

6.61

318

0.132*

0.668*

0.609**

* Significant at the a = .05 level
**Sipiificantly greater than p = .5 at the a * .05 level
l.Hesn for Dependent Variable I * 60.59; II » 18.16; III * 18.65
2 Standard Deviation of Dependent Variable I * 21.75; II = 8.75; III = 6.67
3 degrees of freedom for all three Dependent Variables - 318
6 Critical Values of- the Correlation Coefficient ( George A. Ferguson, Statistical Analysis
in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.. l ^ l i Appendix,
T a E V F / pTiin : -----------

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Tested

Mean1

S.D.2

d.f.3

8.06

6.90

318

6. Registered Terns
until Passage of
Second Language

7.27

4.22

318

7*

8.93

6.42

318

9.77

3.90

12.20

7.18

Independent Variables
5.

Lapsed Tine until
Passage of First
language

20

lapsed Tine' until
Passage of Second
Language

8. Registered Terns
until Passage of
General Exans
9.

10*

lapsed Tine until
Passage of
General Exans

21

Part-tine Terns

6

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE*
I
II
III
Lapsed line
Registered Tine
Lapsed Time Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA-Ph. D.
Reception
Reception
0.644**

0.455*

0.270*

0.469*

0.176*

0.564*

0.326*

317

0.119*

0.553*

0.776**

6.81

317

0.336*

0.828**

0.544*

4.80

318

0.124*

0.449*

0.800**

0.290*

-0.023

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

Mean*

S.D.2

d.f.®

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIQIIFICAHCE1*
1
II
III
Lapsed Tiae
Registered Tiae
Lapsed Tiae Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

11.

Full-time Terms

7

6.26

2.7S

318

0.010

0.159*

0.196*

12.

Registered Terms
before (burse
CospletioQ

23

8.77

3.7**

318

0.13*1*

0.457*

0.704**

13.

Lq>sed Tiae until
(burse Collation

23

10.81

6.53

318

0.322*

0.696**

0.499*

14.

Credits taken
outside Department

21.90

16.20

318

0.052

0.0>»1

0.151*

IS.

Registered Tiae
between end of
Course Work and end
of Dissertation

4.68

3.25

318

0.038

0.300*

0.543*

16*

Lapsed Tiae between
end of course work
and end of
Dissertation

7.39

6.11

318

0.200*

0.646**

0.284*

17

TABLE 4.2— Continued
CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tine
Registered Tine
Lapsed Tine Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

Hean1

S.D.2

d.f.3

17.

Nuaber of Credits
below 800

25

15.01

13.29

318

18.

Credits taken
before Organization
of Otnaittee

16

14.45

13.03

318

-0.002

19.

Grade Point
Average Ph.D.

3.59

0.30

318

-0.003

163.95

95.29

289

0.149*

0.218*

0.036

4
21. Lapsed line in
Itesidaoce after end
of Course Work

3.29

3.44

318

-0.197*

-0.161*

0.079

22. lapsed Tiae off
4
Caapus after end of
Oaurse Work

4.18

6.81

318

0.305*

0.672**

0.207*

4.80

7.24

318

0.405*

0.830**

0.086

20. Pages in
Dissertatioe

23.

Lapsed Tiae of
Interruptions

*

19

3

1

0.108*

0.169*

0.218*

0.132*

0.253*

-0.051

-0.209*

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested
2**. Nuaber of Ph.D.
Credits

24

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE1*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tiae
Registered Tiae
Lapsed Tiae Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

Mean^

S.D.Z

d.f.'

92.50

22.05

318

0.198*

0.347*

1.03

0.18

318

0.086

0.007

1.68

1.09

318

0.329*

-0.080

-0<099*

0.435*

-0.051

25.

Sex

26.

Munber of
Institutions since
BA

27.

Rating of MA
Institutions

1.78

0.42

123

-0.153*

-0.057

-0.059

28.

tirade Point Average 28
[Ubder-graduate]

3.11

0.44

204

-0.177*

-0.109

- 0.110

29.

Grade Point Average 271
[Graduate]

3.54

0.36

240

-0.001

-0.083

-0.212*

30.

Research Experience 18

1.58

0.51

258

-0.004

0.062

0.041

31.

Age at end of Ph.D.

32.53

6.04

318

0.462*

0.154*

29

0.892**

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested
15

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIOIIFICANCE1*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tine
Registered Tine
Lapsed Tiae Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

Mean1

S.D.2

d.f.®

1.56

1.55

317

l.<t5

0.64

263

28.10

5.40

318

0.851**

0.157*

4.14

1.66

318

0.239*

0.086

0.106*

0.441*

0.232*

0.110*

0.019

0.017

32.

Nuaber of children
at end of Ph.D.

33.

Spouse Activities

34.

Age at Entry to
Ph.D.

14

35.

Developnent of
Field of Study
Goals

1

36.

Career Plans at
Graduate Entrance

1.71*

0.78

307

-0.211*

-0.076

0.015

37.

Ioportance of Ease
and Speed for
Attending Michigan
State University

3.15

1.19

318

-0.105*

-0.044

-0.025

38.

Znportance of
Ifceearch Opportunity
for Attending
MLchlgv State
University

2.35

1.22

318

0.137*

0.052

0.002

-0.026

-0.045

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Independent Variables

Hypo­
thesis
Tested

Mean1

S.D.2

d.f.3

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE1*
1
II
III
Lapsed Time
Registered Time
Lapsed Time Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EtotryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

39.

Ieportence of
Scholarship/
Assistantship for
Attending Michigan
State University

2.11

1.26

318

0.262*

40.

Evaluation of
Decisiao.to attend
Michigan State
university

1.59

0.64

311

-0.130*

0.009

0.173*

41.

Rating of
Deportsent osong
Experts

34

1.88

0.95

318

-0.075

-0.029

0.015

42.

Rating of
Department's
Research Training

34

1.83

1.03

318

-0.066

-0.059

-0.050

43.

Musber of Faculty
known to Discuss
Dvwtkl
a s m
Problew

3.25

1.11

316

-0.143*

-0.039

0.072

0.072 .

-0.000

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

Mean1

S.D,2

d.f.3

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIOIIFICANCE1*
I
II
XII
lapsed Tiae
Registered Tiae
Lapsed Tins Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

*M»,

Bating of Depart■eat*a Sensitivity
to Student Heeds

31*

1.72

0.72

318

-0.116*

-0.050

0.027

*5.

Bating of
Departaent's
Basearch Skills

3*

1.50

0.65

318

-0.095*

-0.052

0.017

46.

Oospare Michigan
Stats University
Stipends
[aaaistantshlps.etc.3

1.87

0.78

318

-0.069

0.032

0.062

*7.

Oospars Michigan
Stats University
Research Facilities

1.91

0.81

318

-0.087

-0.063

-0.107*

2.*3

0.90

318

-0.122*

-0.025

-o.ow

2.33

0.93

318

0.060

0.087

0.02*

H8. Isportsce of
financial Need for
Assistantships, etc.
H9*

Validity of
Departaent's Foraal

3^

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE1*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tine
Registered Tiae
Lapsed Time Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception___

Mean1

S.D.2

d.f.'

2.82

0.81

318

0.010

0.026

0.042

0.107*

0.089

-0.008

50.

Validity of
Departaent's too
Loir Admission
Standards

51.

Validity of
Departaent's
Student
Exploitation

34

2.63

0.94

318

52.

Validity of
34
Departaent's Reward
for Conformity

2.75

0.85

318

-0.028

0.002

-0.046

53.

Validity of
Departaent's Over
Interest in
Research

2.47

0.88

318

0.019

0.032

-0.024

54.

Lengthening due to
Inadequate
Preparation

2.43

0.77

193

0.073

-0.143*

34

-0.155*

TABLE 4.2— Continued

CQISEutiTW m
I
Hypothesis
Independent Variables Tested

_
Mean

S.D.

d.f.

Lapsed Tine
BA - Ph.D.

t-lESF

II
Lapsed Tine
Ph.D. EntryReception

III
Registered Tine
Ph.D. EntryReception

-0.128

-0.067

-0.044

-0.218*

-0.242*

189

0.001

-0.291*

-0.251*

0.90

156

-0.143*

-0.141*

-0.050

1.79

0.87

77

-0.301*

-0.411*

-0.226*

Lengthening due to
Veteran's Benefits

3.17

0.51

34

-0.068

-0.181

-0.129

Lengthening due to
Leave and Work

1.61

0.84

77

-0.244*

-0.406*

-0.104

55.

Lengthening due
to Repeat Work

2.72

0.54

131

0.093

56.

lengthening due to
Language
Requirenent

2.30

0.75

289

57.

Lengthening due
to Teaching
Assistantship

2.25

0.73

58.

Lengthening due
to Research
Assistantship

2.81

59.

Lengthening due to
Work Off Caapus

60.

61.

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE*
I
II
III
Lapsed Time
Registered Tine
Lapsed Time Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

S.D.2

d.f.3

2.27

0.84

199

-0.139*

-0.451*

-0.299*

2.41

0.68

298

-0.020

-0.178*

-0.208*

6*t. Lengthening due
to Thesis

1.83

0.80

303

-0.112*

-0.283*

-0.233*

65.

1.30

1.12

318

-0.015

-0.023

0,020

66. Length of Time
Before Assignment of
Major Professor

1.62

1.19

318

-0.024

0.189*

57.

2.12

1.19

318

-0.201*

-0.231*

-0.068

2.37

1.06

318

-0.129*

-0.075

-0.061

62.

Lengthening due
to Family
Obligations

63.

Lengthening due
to General Exams

15

Evaluation of
Procedure

Number of Meetings
with Major Professor

68. Department's.
Orientation Program

34

Mean

0.191*

TABLE 4.2— Continued

Hypo­
thesis
Independent Variables Tested

Mean*

S.D.2

d.fy3

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE1*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tine
Registered Tine
Lapsed Tine Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

69.

iterant of
Supervision of
Thesis Given

§3

2.73

1.75

318

-0.047

-0.022

0.014

70.

iterant of
Supervision
Preferred

33

2.82

1.36

318

-0.081

-0.032

0.030

71.

Opportunity to
Incorporate Oun
Ideas

33

1.12

0.38

318

-0.067

0.005

0.027

72.

Opportunity if
Student Here
Professor

33

2.77

0.64

318

-0.029

-0.063

-0.052

73.

Kuaber of Quarters
Fellowship, etc.
Held

8

1.23

2.68

318

-0.229*

-0.109*

0.030

74.

Average Value
per Quarter

9

785.34

289.93

86

0.074

-0.005

-0.030

CT\
0\

TABLE

M.2—

Continued

Independent Variables
75.

Hypo­
thesis
Tested

Number of Quarter
Fee Remission Held

d.f.3

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SIGNIFICANCE4
I
II
III
Lapsed Time
Registered Time
Lapsed Time Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

Mean1

S.D.2

4.54

3.19

80

-0.218*

-0.134

0.008

157.90

102.90

80

0.162

-0.143

-0.231*

1.42

0.52

119

-0.069

-0.007

0.143*

1.56

0.55

142

-0.002

-0.009

76.

Average Value per
Quarter

77.

First Language
Proficiency

78.

Second Language
Proficiency

79.

Humber of
Interruptions

2

1.36

1.19

80

0.588**

0.347*

0.099*

80.

Total Years of
Interruptions

2

4.59

5.32

318

0.833**

0.332*

0.054

81.

Scholarship or not

30'

1.64

0.48

318

0.210*

0.102*

0.018

82.

Total Humber of
Quarters Teaching
. Assistantship Held

10

2.13

4.06

318

-0,144*

22

-0.006

-0.001

0.119*

TABLE

H.2—

Continued

Mean1

S.D.2

d.f.3

83.

Average Value
per Quarter

11

218.47

336.68

318

-0.144*

-0.059

0.030

€
0
■P
*

Independent Variables

Hypo­
thesis
Tested

CORRELATION AND t-TEST SiaUFICANCE1*
I
II
III
Lapsed Tine
Registered Tine
Lapsed Tine Ph.D. EntryPh.D. EntryBA - Ph.D.
Reception
Reception

Total Number of
Quarters Research
Assistantship Held

12

3.58

5.59

318

-0.190*

-0.140*

0.073

85.

Average Value
Per Quarter

13

801.08

132.51

115

-0.103

-0.003

-0.029

2.i»8

4.72

318

0.063

0.100*

0.044

1371.05

563.68

117

0.057

0.073

0.062

318

-0.068

-0.062

0.067

86. Number of Quarters
On Campus Jobs
Held
87.

Average Value
Per Quarter

88. Salary per Year
of Ph.D. Job

16192.10

89.

Nusber of Transfer
Credits

5

40.84

24.39

83

-0.161

0.098

-0.018

90.

Citizenship

32

1.18

0.38

318

0.037

-0.168*

-0.138*

69
supported the research hypothesis that p is greater than
.5 at the 95 per cent level of confidence (Table 4,2).
Finally, those independent variables (36) not con­
nected with any of the 34 hypotheses (36) were tested
for the significance of their relationship with each of
the 3 dependent variables-(Table 4.2) again using the
t-test of significance.

Of these 36, 22 variables corre­

lated significantly at the .05 alpha level (where p « 0)
with one or more of the 3 dependent variables (Table 4.2).
Lastly, 2 of these, Hypotheses 8 and 31 (Table
4.2), were found to correlate significantly greater than
p = .5 at the a = .05 level.
Correlational Analysis:
Hypothesis 1:

Discussion

Though the correlation coefficient

is small (.123), the Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon

variable as well as the Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

variable correlates significantly with the independent
variable, Number of Field Changes.

Thus, field changes

are made frequently enough even after pursuit of the
doctorate degree has begun.
Similarly, Development of Field of Study QoalB
correlates with Registered Time;
as well as with Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception

B.A.-Ph.D.

Apparently,

late decision about the field of study has some influence
on increasing the number of registered terms needed to
complete the degree.

70
Finally, it is rather surprising to find that there
is a significant negative correlation between the doctoral
r e c i p ients response to Career Plans at Graduate Entrance
and Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.,

indicating that the less

definitive the doctoral student's commitment was to his
career plans, the less actual calendar time it would take
him to complete his degree, B.A. to Ph.D.
Hypotheses 2 and 3s

Both the Number of and the

Total Years of Interruptions B.A. to Ph.D. variables
correlate at significantly greater than .5 (.588 and .833)
with the Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. variable, making the

interruption of pursuit of the doctorate a strong candi­
date for determining the total length of time of a
doctorate.

As would be expected, Lapsed Time:

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception is significantly correlated with the same
2 "Interruption" variables.
Similarly, the Lapsed Time of Ph.D. Interruptions
should be helpful in determining why a recipient takes
a longer time to finish once he enters doctoral study
since it correlates significantly with Lapsed T i m e ;
Ph.D. Entry-Recept'ion at .830.
Hypothesis

Lapsed Time Off Campus after the

End of Course Work correlates significantly with all 3
dependent variables and significantly greater than .5
(.672) with Lapsed Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon.

Basically, this variable indicates that period of time

71
of doctoral study known as the A.B.D.

("all but the

dissertation") phase.
Hypotheses 6 and 7:

Part-time Registered Terms

correlates significantly with all 3 dependent variables
and exhibits a significantly greater than .5 correlation
(.800) with Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

lending weight to the statement in the literature that
full time study is the shortest route to the doctorate.
Though not nearly as significantly correlated, the Full­
time Terms variable of Hypothesis 7 supports the fore­
going statement about full-time study.
Hypotheses 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13:

These

hypotheses deal with the various kinds and levels of
financial support or lack of it and its influence on
the length of the doctorate.

The actual possession of

a scholarship, fellowship, or other unencumbered (servicefree) stipend correlates significantly with Lapsed Time:
Ph.D. Entry-Reception so that the doctoral recipients
without it take longer to finish.

On the other hand, the

Average Value per Quarter of the Scholarship does not
correlate significantly apparently because there is not
sufficient variance among the recipients.
Teaching and research assistantship holders who
possess stipends with service requirements exhibit an
interesting anomaly.

As the total number of quarters of

a teaching assistantship increases, so does the Registered

72
Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reoeptlon.

And yet, this is not true

of the research assistants; for, there is no significant
correlation between Total Number of Quarters Research
Assistantship Held and Registered Time:
Reception (.073).

Ph.D. Entry-

In addition, there is a significant

negative correlation (-.140) between Lapsed Time:

Ph.D.

Entry-Receptlon and the Number of Quarters Research
AssistantBhip held.

This difference seems best explained

by the fact that the research assistantship1s (but not
the teaching assistantship’s) service function is often
related directly to his thesis thereby tending to shorten
the time lapse.
Nevertheless, both the above Independent variables
exhibit a significant negative correlation with Lapsed
%

Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

This apparent discrepancy perhaps is

due to the fact that both the research and the teaching
assistant's superior academic ability or experience are
involved in their obtaining their assistantships in the
first place, and therefore, they might well be expected
to finish sooner than those recipients without any
assistantship.
Again, as in the case of the scholarship, the
average value per quarter of the assistantBhlps does not
influence the length of time taken.
Hypothesis 14:

Age at Entry to Ph.D. correlated

significantly but positively (.157) where a negative

73

correlation was hypothesized.

In fact, there wa3 a cor­

relation significantly greater than .5 (.851) with
Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

In retrospect, the hypothesis

needs to be more specific, using discrete delimited age
categories in order to properly test out the literature’s
contention that entry to doctoral work before age 23
tends to lengthen the Ph.D. time lapse and entry after
age 29 tends to shorten it.
Hypothesis 15:

Doctoral recipients reporting that

family obligations had a lengthening effect did in fapt
experience a greater Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-

Receptlon (-.299), as well as a greater Lapsed Time:
Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon (-.451) and Lapsed Time:
Ph.D. (-.139).

B.A.-

The second variable measuring family

obligation, Number of Children at End of Ph.D., also
correlated significantly with all 3 time variables.
Hypotheses 16, 24, and 25:

These hypotheses test

the lengthening effect of the type and number of credits
taken.

Credits Taken before the Organization of the

Doctoral Recipient's Committee correlates significantly
(.132) and (.253) with the Lapsed and Registered Times:
Ph.D. Entry-Reception variables.

Consequently, there is

some influence regarding time taken on those who do not
take early steps to set up and finalize their doctoral
program.

There is also significant relationships between

the Number of Ph.D. Credits Taken and the 3 dependent

7*<
time variables.
Times:

In the case of the Lapsed and Registered

Ph.D. Entry-Reception. the strengths of the

relationships are rather substantial (.3^7 and

35).

As a result, the amount of time it takes to complete
actual doctoral study varies directly with the number
of Ph.D. credits taken for the doctoral recipients as a
group.
Similarly, the Number of Credits Taken below 80Q
is correlated significantly with the 3 time variables.
Thus, though the influence is not great, it is true for
the sample that as the number of credits takep below 800
rises, so does the length of time taken to complete
the doctorate.

This is probably so because such credits

were in courses not in the major field of competency of
%

the recipient.
Hypotheses 17, 20, 21, and 2 3 s

These 4 hypotheses

are concerned with the formal requirements of the
doctorate:

the dissertation, the language requirement,

the general examinations, and the course work.
The correlation between Lapsed Time between End
of the Course Work and the End of the Dissertation is
significant with each of the 3 dependent time variables
(B.A.-Ph.D. » .200; Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception * ,6*16; and Registered Time:
Reception * .28*1),

The Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. EntryPh.D. Entry-p

Reception is significantly greater than .5*

The

75
significant correlation of the independent variable with .
the total Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. is evidence of the

lengthening influence on the doctorate of the research
phase.
Though the language requirement is no longer an
important influence on doctoral programs at Michigan
State University, it is of considerable interest that,
the often-referred-to-formal-"hurdle" did in fact corre­
late significantly with all 3 of the time variables to
such an extent that both the Lapsed Time;

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception (.64*0 and the Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception (.609) were associated with the Independent
variables of language passage at a correlation coefficient
significantly greater than .5.
Quite similarly, the language requirement's sister
"hurdle," the general exams, correlated significantly
with the 3 time variables and in fact likewise shared a
strong relationship greater than .5 with both Lapsed
Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.828) and Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.776).
Finally, as expected, the fourth major doctoral
requirement, the course work, measured in either
registered terms or lapsed time before completion cor­
related significantly with the 3 time variables.
especially, the course work variable evidenced a
relationship at a significantly greater than .5

More

76
correlation with both the Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception (.696) and with Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception (.704).
Hypothesis 19:

The Number of Pages in the Dlsserta-

tation correlated significantly (.218) with Lapsed Time ;
Ph.D. Entry-Reception as well as with Lapsed Time:
Ph.D. (.149).

B.A .-

Though this variable may well be more a

function of the nature of the discipline and individual
involved, it does invite some comment since the time when
many theses are mostly written is during the Lapsed Time
Between the End of Course Work and End of the Dissertation
which correlates similarly (though higher) with the Lapsed
Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. (.200) and Lapsed Time:

Reception (.646),
’

Ph.D. Entry-

%

Hypotheses 26, 27, 28,
hypotheses are measuring, in

29, 30, and 31:
one fashion or

These 6
another,

ability of the doctoral recipients.
Undergraduate Qrade Point Average significantly
correlates, as expected from review of previous research,
negatively with Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. (-.177).

Yet,

there was no significant correlation between the Under­
graduate Qrade Point Average

and the actual

study period.

those doctoral students who

Nevertheless,

doctoral

exhibited lower Undergraduate Qrade Point Averages took
a longer total time lapse to achieve the degree.

Interestingly, both the Graduate Qrade Point
Average and the Ph.D. Qrade Point Average did not corre­
late significantly with the Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception (-.,083 and -.051)* but only with Registered
Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (-.212 and -.209).

This

data tends to support the idea that, though registered
doctoral time is increased by a lower Ph.D. academic
achievement as measured by grade point average, actual
lapsed time before reception of the doctorate is not.
In other words, perseverance in pursuit of the doctorate
may well be as sensitive a predictor as grade point
average.
The Number of Institutions Attended since the B.A.
correlates significantly with Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

*

(.329) and negatively with Registered Time:
Entry-Reception (-.099).

Ph.D.

The former positive correlation

is expected while the latter, though unexpectedly nega­
tive, can be explained by the fact that while those who
attend more institutions would tend to take more lapsed
time, their actual registered time in fact could be
less since they tend to accumulate transfer credits
usable at the Ph.D. institution.

t

Non-Possession of a Scholarship correlates sig­
nificantly both with Lapsed Time:
and Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. (.210)

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.102).

Con­

sequently, those doctoral students who did not possess

78
the benefits of a scholarship (whether we measure
ability or financial support with it) take longer lapsed
times to finish.
Finally, doctoral recipients who entered their
doctoral programs under a provisional or non-degree
status took longer Lapsed Time;
longer Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.155) and

longer Registered Time;
Hypothesis 32:
cant variable.

B.A.-Ph.D. (.131),

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.119).

Citizenship proved to be a signifi*-

Doctoral recipients reporting U.S.

citizenship took longer Lapsed (-.168) and Registered
(-.138) Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception than did those of

foreign citizenship.

Yet, total Lapsed Time:

B.A.-p

Ph.D. is not significantly different for either the
United States or foreign citizen.

The shorter lapsed

and registered times for the actual doctoral study for
the foreign student is perhaps clarified by the fact
of the "on-loan-from-their-country" status of foreign
students who, though they perhaps are influenced by no
personal desire to hasten their own return home are
under some governmental or financial pressure to do so.
Correlational Analysis:
22 Other
Significant variables
Though not used in the 3^ hypotheses, 22 variables
of the other 36 remaining were found to correlate with
one or more of the dependent variables.

79
Variable 31, Age at End of Ph.D..

correlated sig­

nificantly with all 3 dependent variables with Lapsed
Time:

B.A.-Ph.D . being significantly greater than .5

(.892).

Such a high correlation is expected* however,

since age is by its nature closely allied to lapsed
calendar time.
Variables 6, 7, 8, and 15 are related to the formal
requirements of the degree.

Variable 8, Registered

Terms until Passage of the General ExamB. displayed a
correlation significantly greater than .5 (.776).

In

addition, Variable 8 correlated significantly with Lapsed
Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. (.119) and Lapsed Time:

Reception (.553).

Ph.D. Entry-

The former correlation shows the

Influence of the general exams passage on the total time
taken for the doctorate.

In general, then, doctoral

recipients who have taken more registered terms before
passage of their general exams will show longer registered
and lapsed time periods along their route to the degree.
Variables 6 and 7, Registered and Lapsed Time until
Passage of Second Language, both correlated significantly
on both the Lapsed (.326) and Registered (.469) T i m e :
Ph.D. Entry-Reception. though not

sb

highly as the cor­

responding time periods for passage of the first language,
thereby lending some weight to the feeling that the longer
the passage of the first language is delayed, the longer
the lapsed and registered time will be.

Again, as in Variable 16, those recipients who took
more Registered Time Between the End of Course Work and
the End of the Dissertation (Variable 15) took more
Lapsed (.300) and Registered (.543) Time:

Ph.D. Entry"

Reception.
Variable 48 reveals that recipients who reported
that their departments awarded assistantships or scholar­
ships on the basis of grades rather than financial need
took longer Lapsed Time;
who did not.

B.A.-Ph.D. (-.122) than those

The fewer Number of Quarters Fee Remission

Was Held (Variable 76), the greater the total Lapsed
Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. required (-.218).

On the other hand,

the less the Average Value Per Quarter of the fee
remission (Variable 76), the more Registered Time:

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception was required (-.231).
Reasons for attending Michigan State University
are the area of concern of Variables 38, 39, and 40.

The

less important Research Opportunity was for Attending
Michigan State University (Variable 38), the more Lapsed
Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. (.137) was required for the degree.

The supposition underlying this relationship seems to be
that those who view research opportunity as not important,
either are in the less strictly research oriented fields
which traditionally take more lapsed time, or were not
interested in research and later found the dissertation
research to be quite demanding.

Similarly, those doctoral recipients who rated
the Importance of Scholarship/Asslstantshlp for Attending
Michigan State University (Variable 39) as not important
also took a longer Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. (*262) than

those who rated it highly important.

In this case, it

would appear that a substantial proportion of those who
rated the scholarship or assistantship as unimportant
did not expect to get one and therefore did not have this
added financial aid to hasten their doctoral pursuit.
The major professor or advisor is the central com­
ponent of Variables 66 and 67*

Doctoral recipients who

had to wait a longer Length of Time Before Assignment of
Their Major Professor (Variable 6 6 ) found both their
Lapsed (.189) and Registered (.191) Time;
Reception to be greater.

Ph.D. Entry-

And, those who had fewer

Meetings With Their Major Professor (Variable 6 7 ) had a
greater Lapsed Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reception (-.231).

Variables 54, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, and 64 deal with
the self-reporting by the doctoral recipients concerning
"factors" which they felt affected the length of time it
took them to get their doctoral degrees.
Four of the variables (54, 56, 6 3 , and 64) are con­
cerned once again with the formal requirements of the
doctorate and all 4 correlated significantly and negatively
with both Lapsed and Registered Time;
Reception.

Ph.D. Entry-

82

Consequently, recipients reporting Lengthening Due
to Inadequate Preparation (Variable 5*0 had longer
Lapsed (-.143) and Registered (-.155) Time;
Entry-Reception.

Ph.D.

The Language Requirement (Variable 56)

also lengthened the Lapsed (-.218) and Registered (-.242)
Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception as did Variable 6 3 ,

General Exams (-.178 for Lapsed and -.208 for Registered
Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reception), and Variable 64, Thesis

{-.283 for Lapsed and -.233 for Registered Time;

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception).
The other 3 variables, 57, 59, and 61, dealt with
the lengthening effect of the need for financial support
which requires a service function.

Thus, those

recipients who reported Lengthening Due to the Teaching
Assistantship (Variable 57), Working Off Campus
(Variable 59), or Leaving School to Work (Variable 6l)
did in fact experience in the former two instances both
longer Lapsed (-.291 and -.411) and Registered (-.251
and -.226) Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

In addition,

those reporting Lengthening Due to Work Off-Campus
also showed greater Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.

(-.301)

which again supports the statement that full time pur­
suit of the doctorate without being encumbered by the
need to leave school to work is more conducive to a
speedier reception of the degree.

83
The correlational analysis also lends support to
the idea that the more Credits that are Taken Outside
the doctoral student’s Department (Variable 14) the
more likely he is to take greater Registered Time;
Ph.D. Entry-Reception (.151).

Perhaps the underlying

reason is in the doctoral student's decision (or his
department’s) to take a lighter credit load for a term
when taking courses outside his major field of competency.
Finally, those recipients who reported a smaller
Number of Faculty Known With Whom to Discuss Problems
(Variable 43), took greater Lapsed Time:
(-.143).

B.A.-Ph.D.

Since there is no significant correlation with

the Lapsed and Registered Ph.D. Entry-Reception variables,
it seems reasonable to assume that the factor which
Influences the B.A.-Ph.D. Lapsed Time variable lies not
within the department's or college's faculty, but within
the characteristics of the Individual recipient involved.
Correlational Analysis:

Six Fields

Each of the 3 dependent variables were then run
against the 90 independent variables (Table 3.2) to
ascertain the varying levels of strength of relationship
existing between them for each of the 6 fields (Table
3.1).
The findings in the form of means, standard
deviations, degrees of freedom, correlation coefficients,
and t-tests of significance results are given in Table

84
4.3 together with the reporting of the various means
for Hypotheses 35 and 36, and the testing of Hypotheses
37 and 38 at the .05 level of significance again
using the critical values of the correlation coefficient
where H„:
o

n

p « 0.

As reported in Table 4.3, Footnote 1, the physical
and biological sciences with a mean Lapsed Time;

B . A .-

Ph.D. of 31.86 and 36.05 quarters respectively, take
considerably shorter total lapsed time than do the
humanities with a mean of 47.25» the social sciences with
a mean of 37.88, education with a mean of 55.95,and the
professions with a mean of 44,25.

Thus, education's

doctoral degree recipients, with more than 9 quarters
of lortger lapsed time than the field with the next
k

longest time lapse, have taken a substantially longer
period of Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. than any of the other

5 (nearly 16 calendar years).
In the case of both Hypotheses 37 and 38, which
were tested at the .05 alpha level, the null hypothesis—
H0

:

P

** 0, was retained and the conclusion was that the

data did not support the research hypothesis, HQ : p ^ 0.
In addition, not only did the 2 independent variables,
Sex and Salary Per Year of Ph.D. Job not manifest a
significant relationship with any of the 3 dependent

4

Ibid.

H3S»
mini
5
?m i
•••
all

isiiiiij
iiigfffl

lallir

iiili
ip
iiia

llJiSf

5iW«}|S
i:«iS

I* !i

«• «•*»

86

\

\

3

1

i.

\

$

\

$ *
a R
g
3 5 3
3 3 3

\

\

S t

R
3
3

1

<

\

$

\

\

S
6
g
j

S E
1 R
3 3
X
4
3

a
R
3
3

\

\

I

4
1

e 1
5 CV
«
5
4

4
s
3
r
d
5
\

?
1
2
3

I

b
ar
r.' 3 J

* i
■» d

R 6 R

*

I

* S *

»

I

sag
si
3 J rf 3 rj

I R S

I

R

I
I• aI j
I I3
i „
■
*
d d

\

1
1
a
3
3

\

\

3. 1

\

\

i

t
3
3

R

t

a
■t
a
3
5
!
g
«
9

S

I R

\

$
■ : t
a
s 3 ►
m
3 3
3
1 \ *
• 1
a *
\
\

6

S

1 1
\
?
c R
3 3
3 3
\
m
%

i
1

$
1
g
g$
3 ■
J

M

u

m

4 ?U

M

irc

eg

\

\

1

■ ■ r fit i f
3 3 i 533 5 3
3 3
5
5 3 55533

3
a

«r

07808041

Jlj

87

i-t
*

k

88

i\ *

ii

\

33
A ■
*» A

e«
35
3I

!*
6I

*?
*S

i§

!5

fi A

I A

33
B JS
j 2

33
35

a a

M
i

*

!y
It
33

A I

33
33

A »

H

M

i* i•

H

G I

it I•

/

•

a a
S A

*

It

B V
tf *1

4J
A A
Ji
I5

a?
H

*\
M

?*
ii

2s
tV
•* d

« •

5\

*i
s P

dK
5 H

^

-

M
M

A»

»

Af

33 3 35
33 3 u
1 i
i
iL
;; i!: i
i i

i

i i

89

90

*

3

9

9

3 9
3 I
A
a
5 3

9

9
Ef

9

I

II
1
4

a
a

a

1
4

3

3

9

1

3t

at

E

1
1

3

3

9
3
«
4

9

5

9 9
9 st

S

9 9
G a
5 3
3 5

9

Vf

3

■
0
4
9
4

A
3
0

a

a

3
3

5
5

S

9

Ef

9

l

\

1

9

9

9

It

\

a
s

9

9

9

9

\

7

V

i
a

4

f
4t
t
4

«
4
ft
4

9
3
3

1

9

9

I

9

9

5

I Bt
X a
5 3
aJ
3

1f
9

3

Et

*

a

0
4
S

5
3

X
a

4

n
a4
•1
4

S

3

*

*

8

1i

i/

i

t

i

9
3

?
a

1
t
a

5
5

3
3

5
B
4

0
9
4

5
9 Bt
if 3

? l
« V
3 5
3 3

???7@!

1

1

ti
ft

4
5

4
3<
a

•

4

3

1
ft
a

4

3

91

J!

E

* !

3

3

\

3

3
3

* 9
3 s
td £J
5 a

?
a
a
a

i

? 3

ir

%

1 3
% ?

3
6

•

I
*

%

ii
i

a

3

3

&
XJ
t
N

B
a 5
a sll

a
5
3

3

3 S

3

1

3

\
i
5
3

3
n
8
d
5

t

R

S
3
i

3
a

3
ar
•<4
a
5

?

3

*

?
I

s

a

*

3

I

i

?

f

*

5

3

•

R

13

3

3

i
f

s

3

9

3

a
V

&

R
8
4

5
a

jt

a
a

3

!

3 3

»

*

1 3

3

3

3

c

R

a 5
qN
*

5

3

If

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

R

a

R

»

3

8
5

5
3

a
3

t

■

3

t

*

3

£

&

*

a
a

t

■
■)

13

1

Et*

III 3Ii! Ill l! Hi HI

1

i i

t

i

i

i

i

i

92

M

U
n

m

M

8
/

¥

\
1
■
f
t
4

¥

¥
c
35 5 *
*
33 3 5
* I K

5
3
) I

5

U

*

I

¥

\ ?

1

9' 1 ¥

¥
*r

¥

¥

*
i
3
5

¥ *

I

3 5 5
3 I
3
ft

*1

¥
8 E{
¥
K
3
3
4

* i

tj

3 *

¥ I
* II

\
3

3

a

3 ¥
E i
t
i &

5
P
4

3 5
3 3

3
5

3

E
f

E

^
*«.

¥
B
5
3. 3

M

¥
?
«

^

J

1

ft

R ft
3 5
3 3

¥

3

3

< e. 5 ¥ i

\

3t

¥ t i

\

1

¥

9

5

3

ft

•

3 3 5
4
3 3 ft

3
5

3

3

\
3t
s

5
?
tt

5
3

3
3

1
I

*

¥ ¥

t

B

¥ \ ?t

¥ ¥
I I

B

I
4

3

3
.1 i

* \ a

¥
i

3
5 3 3
i J

i
i i

¥

¥
f
nt

3

¥ ¥ J ¥

.1.

a

3

¥ I

►

5
3

4

i

t
I

3
9

3

5 5

7

S4

3

4
3

I

3
4

i 4

i i

4

*4

1 1 1

M

M

M M
* « M
j • • 5
M

M

S5M
M

M

H | j

M
*

M
*

* a

M

m

t t a i

S ' a3
M M
i * M
* ? M
#»*♦*.(

i 1I »
j 5 I S
1 • h
H

»?

| | H

! M 1
M
M
a

M
M
c

s p

I M S
*3*3
M M

M

M

m

m

M

M

i i *i

f f

i n

n

KB I

f ' %
i

I

I *

s I

s
s ec 5
I l *

it

, k

\

s s

9 3 $ *

« k

ii

t *
E I

£5
s5

c

\

it it

5

\ i
it e k it
a3 ! o E
!■ r

t e

c
3I
3*
1 I

l i t
I

E

i

S

ii
5 S

\

\ *

it 6

\

i

3

3

S5 E E E

! s

£5
I Ci E
3 5 (

i

i *
k k

k
k i k
I 5I
I E

kk

\ H

it it I \
EE

J E s
ft it i i
It k I ft S '

s \

k

i k \ «

k

I 9 a

k

it

3 9

I

5• £ 5 S
5E
c a
3 a a ! i\

3

i Ii|

i

it

k fe £

k ft it i
ft e

kki

variables in the field of education or the humanities,
neither did they show a significant correlation within
any of the other fields (Table 4,3).
Correlational Analysis:
Discussion of
the 90 Variables in Relation to
the Fields
In the correlational analysis of the total sample,
62 of the 90 Independent variables were found to be sig­
nificantly different from zero at the .05 alpha level
(14 of which were significantly greater than p * .5 at
the .05 alpha level) and the remaining 28 were found to
be non-significant (Table 4,2).
In reviewing the results of the correlations within
the 6 fields (Table 4.3), it was found that the physical
and biological sciences, with a population of 50 and 100
respectively, show 42 independent variables (not all the
same ones) correlating significantly with one or more of
the 3 dependent variables while 45 do not.

Seven of the

42 physical sciences’ variables correlate significantly
greater than .50 at the .05 alpha level while 14 in the
biological sciences do (Table 4.3).
The humanities with a population of 40 lists 44
significant and 43 non-significant variables with 12
being significantly greater than ,50,
Both the social sciences with a population of 50
and education with a population of 40 report 37 signifi­
cant and 50 non-significant variables with the former

96
having 8 variables correlating significantly greater
than .50, and the latter 1*1,
Finally, the professions with a population of 40
had 29 significant and 50 non-significant independent
variables with 14 correlating significantly greater
than ,50,
Of those independent variables which show correla­
tions significantly greater than .50, Lapsed Time until
Passage of General Exams (9 ), Part-time Terms (10), and
Age at End of Ph.D. (31)» do so in all 6 fields.

Two

others, Age at Entry to Ph.D. (34) and Total Years of
Interruptions (80), are represented at the significantly
greater than .50 correlation in 5 of the 6 fields, the
exception being the physical sciences which still corre*

lated highly significantly greater than zero (.676 and
. 620) .
All 6 fields have at least significant correlations
with 12 other independent variables (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8,
12, 13, 15, 23, 62, and 81).

Eight of these variables

are concerned with formal doctorate requirements, and
one each with number of major advisors, doctoral study
interruptions, family obligations, and scholarships,
A close analysis of the correlational data on the
90 variables across the 6 fields in relation to the
total sample's correlational data reveals some rather
interesting phenomena.

97
First, of the 28 variables which are not signifi­
cantly correlated for the total sample, 19 (68 per cent)
are significant for one or more of the fields.
Secondly, of the 62 variables correlating significantly
in the total sample, 31 (50 per cent) are significant for
3 fields or less out of the 6.

In fact, of the 31 , 11

are significant for but 1 field, 8 for 2 fields, and 12
for 3 fields.

Thirdly, 2 of the variables which are not

significant for any of the fields separately are signifit

cant for the total sample.
Examining the 19 variables significant for one or
more of the fields but not for the total sample may well
yield additional influences which are brought to bear on
the doctoral recipients' time lapses due to the nature
of their fields.
The humanities alone account for 4 of these signifi­
cant variables.

Recipients who reported their Depart­

ment *s Over-Interest in Research (53) to be at least not
valid and who in Comparing Michigan State University
Research Facilities to Others (47) rated them as good or
excellent had longer Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. with Ph.D.

Entry-Reception longer for the latter and Lapsed Time;
B.A.-Ph.D. longer for the former.

Those recipients who

responded that they would give their students more
opportunity to Incorporate Their Own Ideas Into Their
Thesis (42) than their

1

major professor had given them

98
took longer Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

This finding seems to reflect a dissatisfaction level.
Finally, Variable 78, Second Language Proficiency, cor­
related significantly with Lapsed Time:
Receptlon.

Ph.D. Entry-

The physical sciences are alone responsible

for 3 more of the 19 variables.

Recipients who saw

Validity in the Criticism of Their Departments1s
Rewarding of Conformity (52) took longer Registered Ti m e :
Ph.D. Entry-Reception and, as in the humanities, those
who would have given their students more Thesis Super­
vision than they got (70), took longer to finish
Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry Reception.

Not surprisingly

for the heavily research oriented physical sciences,
those recipients who received less Average Value Per
Quarter for a Research Asslstantship showed a longer
Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

Education contributed 3 significant variables as
a field.

Ph.D.'s who disagreed with the Validity of the

Department's Too Low Admission Standards (50) finished
with more Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reception— a

finding which may reflect a function of ability.
Similarly, those recipients who gave at least a good
rating to their Department's Research Training (42)
finished with longer Registered Time:
Reception.

Ph.D. Entry-

Finally, the sample size (3) was too small

to given any meaning to the Rating of the M.A. Institu­
tion Attended (27).

99
Social sciences accounted for 2 of the 19 signifi­
cant correlations by itself with biological sciences
adding one.
Credits

Somewhat surprisingly, the more Transfer

(89) a recipient has had accepted for doctoral

study in the social sciences, the longer Lapsed Time:
Ph.D. Entry-Reception he exhibits,

Again, the greater

Number of Quarters On Campus Jobs were Held by a social
science doctoral recipient, the longer he took on all 3
time variables.

The assumption here is that the working

tends to limit the amount of time allocated to the pursuit
of the doctorate.
Finally, the biological sciences show a significant
correlation for Variable 30, Research Experience.
yet, it does so negatively with Lapsed Time:
which at first appears unexpected.

And

B.A.-Ph.D.

It can, however, be

explained by the fact that Age at the End of the Ph.D.
(3 1 ) for the biological sciences correlates very highly
(.886) with Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.. indicating that

time taken to gain research experience takes away time
which most recipients seem to put rather early into
actual pursuit of the doctorate.
Of the remaining 6 Independent variables which
are not significant for the total sample, 4 correlate
significantly for but 2 fields.

Validity of a Depart­

ment's Formal Hurdles (49) when perceived as invalid
criticism correlated with Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D. for

100

both the social sciences and the humanities.

Variable 58,

Lengthening Due to Research AssistantshipB. correlated
negatively with Lapsed Time;
sciences and with Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. for the social
Ph.D. Entry-Reception in

the biological sciences, indicating that those degree
recipients who perceived research assistantships as
lengthening their doctorate did, in fact, have longer
lapsed times.

The greater the satisfaction with the

Procedures Used in Selecting a Major Professor (65),
the less Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception for educa­

tion's doctorate recipients; the greater the satisfaction
for social science recipients, the longer was that time.
Similarly, those recipients in education who were given
the most Supervision on their Thesis (6 5 ) showed longer
k

Ph.D. Entry-Reception Lapsed and Registered Times;
whereas, the social science doctorates who reported
very little supervision had longer Lapsed Time;

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception.
Doctoral recipients in the social sciences and
education who reported Ease and Speed of degree comple­
tion as quite an important reason for attending Michigan
State University (37) showed longer Registered Time:
Ph.D. Entry-Reception. while the professions' recipients
had less Registered and Lapsed Time:
Reception.

Ph.D. Entry-

101

Finally, social science and education recipients
who averaged more Money Per Quarter for On-Campus Jobs
(8 7 ) showed longer Lapsed Times;
Entry-Reception

B.A.-Ph.D. and Ph.D.

respectively; whereas, the professions1

recipients had less Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception,
An analysis of the second interesting phenomenon,
namely, the 31 variables that are significantly correlated
with the dependent variables for 3 or less fields, also
yielded results worthy of brief mention.

This is

especially true of those 11 variables which, though they
are significantly correlated for but one field, yet
manage by their strength of association to give a some­
what undue importance to the significance of the variables
*

for the total sample.
Number of Field Changes B.A. to Ph.D. (1) has a
significant influence only for education's recipients
on their Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

Career Plans at Graduate Entrance (36) correlates
negatively for biological science degree recipients
with Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.

Surprisingly enough, then,

those recipients reporting that they are trying out the
field finish in less Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

Biological

science degree holders who reported their Department
Research Skills as excellent took a longer Lapsed Time;
B.A.-Ph.D .. indicating perhaps more about the recipients'

personal characteristics than of* the actual state of the
departments research skills.

Variable 5 7 $ Lengthening

Due to Teaching Assistantshlp. when viewed by biological
science doctors as a lengthening factor, had, in fact,
lengthened their Lapsed Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Reoeption.

For the physical sciences, those doctors who have
held a Scholarship or Fellowship for a leBser Number of
Quarters or not held one at all have taken longer Lapsed
Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

Likewise, those doctoral recipients

from the humanities who held fewer or no Quarters of Fee
Remission finished with longer Lapsed Time:
and Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

B.A.-Ph.D.

Again, for the humanities'

doctors, the fewer quarters they held teaching assistantships, the longer was the Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

manifested, pointing up that, despite the time consuming
service function of the teaching assistantshlp, the
financial support that it gives

(in addition to the

higher ability level which probably aided in its
initial reception) shortens the total lapsed time.

This

idea is supported by Variable 83 wherein the higher the
Average Value Per Quarter of the Teaching Assistantshlp,
the shorter the lapsed time.
On the other hand, for education degree recipients
(though the degrees of freedom is but 5), the greater the
Number of Quarters a Research Assistantshlp is held, the
longer the total Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

And finally,

103
Variable 90, Citizenship, correlates significantly
(positively) only with the field of social science so
that, those recipients who are of foreign citizenship
have a longer Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.

This is somewhat

unexpected in that the significant correlation for the
total sample is negative.
The third phenomenon, namely, those 2 variables
which though not significant for any of the fields
separately are significant for the total sample,
deserves a brief perusal.

It would appear that these 2

variables, Number of Pages in the Dissertation (20) and
First Language Proficiency (77), were not strong enough
to correlate by themselves with any of the fields but
had sufficient cumulative strength to be significant for
k

the 320 recipients as a group.
From the above analysis and discussion of the
associative strength of selected independent and
dependent variables, it can be asserted that more accuracy
and precision about the functional relationships can be
made by virtue of a division of the total sample of
recipients into their proper fields of doctoral study.
Factor Analysis of the Selected 76
Variables: .Findings
As discussed in Chapter III, the Least Squares
Deletion routine did not permit missing data.

And so

the means of the total-given observations of those

X04

variables with missing data were supplied, In place of
the missing data, but only In those cases where there
were no more than 30 blanks.

With a total sample of

320, more than 30 could adversely influence the accuracy
of the mean.
Consequently, 14 of the original 90 were dropped
from the factor analysis:

Variable 27, Rating of M . A .

Institutions; Variable 30, Research Experience; Variable
33, Spouse Activities; Variable 54, Lengthening due to
Inadequate Preparation; Variable 55, Lengthening due to
Repeat W o r k ; Variable 57, Lengthening due to Teaching
Assistantshlp; Variable 58, Lengthening due to Research
AsBlstantship; Variable 59, Lengthening due to Work Off
Campus; Variable 60, Lengthening due to V e t e r a n ^
Benefits; Variable 61, Lengthening due to Leave and Work;
Variable 62, Lengthening due to Family Obligations;
Variable 65, Evaluation of Procedure; Variable 77,
First Language Proficiency; and Variable 78, Second
Language Proficiency.
For the 76 remaining variables, an absolute
criterion of 28 rotated factors seemed appropriate to
produce eigenvalues of 1.00 or more.

From the principal

axis solution and the Quartlmax and Varlmax rotations,
the latter rotation was selected as most representative
of the data, though the Quartlmax solution was nearly
identical.

The results of the 28 factor rotation with

105
their eigenvalues, proportions of variance, and highest
factor loadings for the 76 variables are given In Table
4.4.

The eigenvalues ranged from 7.79 for Factor 1 to

.912 for Factor 28, while the proportion of variance for
each factor ranged from .080 for Factor 1 to .016 for
Factors 23 and 28.

The cumulative proportion of

variance attained .758 at Factor 28.

The communalities

ranged from .513 for Factor 3 to .945 for Factor 22
(Table 4.4).
The purpose of the factor rotation was to load
together as many variables under one category as were
measuring basically the same factor and assign to It
common descriptive name.

a

Of the 28 factors rotated, 7

consisted of only one variable and so kept their original
item description.

They were:

Citizenship (Variable 90,

Factor 16), Importance of Financial Need for Assistantships (Variable 2, Factor 21), Sex (Variable 25, Factor
2 3 ), Comparison of Michigan State University Stipends
(Variable 46, Factor 25), Rating of Department Among
Experts (Variable 41, Factor 26), and Salary Per Year
of Ph.D. Job (Variable 88, Factor 28).

Two other

factors whose variable loadings were measuring nearly
the same thing also maintained their earlier variable
names.

Thus, Variables 69 and 70, Amount of Supervision

of ThesiB Given and Preferred, and 71 and 72, Opportunity
to Incorporate Own IdeaB into Thesis and Opportunity if

TABLE 4.4
HIGHEST FACTOR LOADINGS FOR 76 INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USING THE VAR1MAX ROTATION ANALYSIS1
•*

1

Eigenvalues

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

7.789 5.113 4.795 3.999 2.882 2.442 2.259 2.126 2.026 1,885 1.743 1.670 1.553 1.453

Proportion of Variance

.080

.056

.026

.047

.039

.037

.027

.034

.029

.025

.023

.031

.022

.021

Cumulative Prop, of Var.

.080

.136

.162

.208

.247

.284

.310

.344

.373

.398

.420

.452

.474

.495

Variable

1

10 6

2
3

.510

4

.814

5

.816

6

•708

7

.735
.743

9

1

.718

Willing, Factor A; Principal C o m n a t i tad Orthogonal Rotations. Coaputer Inatituta for Social Sclance
laaaarch: Michigan State University, 1967, Technical Report 2111V • (An absolute criterion of 28 rotateA
factors solution was alloyed) •

TABLE 4.4 (cont.)

15
Ilganvaluaa

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

1.425 1.355 1.350 1.304 1.239 1.174 1.139 1.091 1.062 1.003

25

26

27

28

.966

.930

•924

•912

Prop, of Variance

•020

.018

.025

.017

.018

.023

.018

.019

.016

.019

.017

.019

.020

.016

Goa. Prop, of Var.

.514

.532

.557

.574

.592

.615

.633

.651

.667

.686

.703

.722

.742

.758

Connalltlaa

Variable
1
2

-.709
-.752

.726
.693

3

.513

4

.795

5

.790

6

.805

7

.875

8

.848

9

•816

TABLE 4.4

1

10

2

3

4

5

6

(cont.)

7

8

10

11

12

13

14

.579
-.556

11
12

.793

13

.778

14

-.760

IS

.842

108

16

9

-.862

17

-.718

18

.729

19

20
21

.772

22

>.898

23

>.700

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

(cont.)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alltlca

10

.910

11

.821

12

.895

13

.855

14

.761

15

.853

16

.935

17

.722

18

.715

19

20

-.349

.690
-.636

.592

21

.840

22

.945

23

.902

601

TABLE 4.4

TABLE 4.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

(cont.)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

-.676

24
25
26
28
29

.888

32

.466

34

.902

110

31

35
36
37
38
40

.662

41
42

.691

TABLE 4.4 (cont.)

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Variable

28 Co— malltlea
.864

24
.798

25

.767

26

-.670

.620

28

-.816

.770

29

-.534

.641
.921

32

.727

34

.898

35

.626

•721

36

.750

•688

37

.751

38
39

.683
.679

-.683
.386

•698

40
41
42

.683

-.666

.675
.703

Ill

31

TABLE 4.4

(cont.)

8
43

.658

44

.679

10

11

12

.735

45
46
47
48
49

-.376

50
51
52
53
56
63
64

66

.643

TABLE 4.4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

(cont.)

22

23

24

25

Varlable

26

27

28

Cammmalitles

43

.688

44

.705

45

.680

46

-.745

47

-.443

48
.516

50

.653
.723

.688
.714

51

.751

.686

52

.729

.682

53

.703

56

.643

63

.675

64

.692

113

49

.799

.747

TABLE 4.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

(cont.)

7

8

9

10

11

12

Variable
67

68

.317

69

-.874

70

•.887

71

.832

72

-.838

73

.837

74

.797

75

.810

76

.662

79

.733

80

.901

81

-.879

82

.833

83

.858

13

14

TABLE 4.4

15

Variable
67

16

17

18

19

20
.578

21

(cont.)

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Coinalitlaa
.676
.674

69

.846

70

.838

71

.762

72

.763

73

.813

74

.798

75

.782

76

•722

79

.688

80

.873

81

.827

82

.863

83

.848

115

68

TABLE 4.4

1

2

3

4

5

6

(cont.)

7

Variable
84

-.692

85

-.754

86

.877

87

•878

88
89

.379

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

TABLE 4.4 (cont.)

15

16

Variable

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 Co— m alltlei

84

.844

85

.808

86

.847

87

.801

88

.775

89

.664
-.739

.705

117

90

.724

118
Student Were Profeasor, fell under Factors 10 and 11
respectively.
Factor 1, Time Spent at Michigan State University
for Doctoral Program, loaded high on 10 variables most
of which dealt with the time needed to fulfill formal
doctoral requirements such as the language, general
exams, and course completion requirements.

The highest

loadings were on Variable 4, Registered Terms until
Passage of First Language (.814), Variable 5, Lapsed
Time until Passage of First Language (.816), and Variable
12, Registered Terms before Course Completion (.793).
Factor 2, A g e . had 5 high loadings including
Interruptions (.901), Age at Entry and Reception of the
Doctorate (.902), and Number of Children at End of
Doctorate (.466),
Factor 3 loaded on 3 variables characterized by
Departmental Sensitivity.

They include Variable 43,

Number of Faculty Known to Discuss Problems; Variable
44, Rating of Departments Sensitivity to Student Needs;
arid Variable 53, Validity of Department’s Over-Interest
in Research.

Variable 44 carried a loading of .677.
I

Five variables loaded on

Factor 4 characterized

by Unencumbered Financial Support, including scholarship
and fee remission aid.
loaded at -.879.

Variable 81, Scholarship or N o t ,

119
Factor 5, The3ls Done Off Campus, carried 3 high
loadings and included Lapsed Time

after End of Course

Work (-.862), Off Campus after End of Course Work (-.898),
and Doctoral Interruptions (-.700).
Encumbered Financial Support described Factor 6
with teaching assistantships viewed as encumbered but
directly unrelated to thesis support, while research
assistantships were seen as encumbered but related to
the thesis.

There were 4 high loadings with Variable 83,

Average Value per Quarter, the highest (.858).
Factor 7 can be characterized by Encumbered Financial
Support Totally Unrelated to Doctoral Study which includes
Variables 86, Number of Quarters on Campus Jobs Held,
and 8 7 , Average Value per

Quarter.

Of the 3 loadings,

t

Variable 87 loaded the highest at .878.
Credit Pattern describes Factor 8 and includes the
Number of Ph.D. Credits, their level, and their breadth,
i.e., whether taken outside of the major department.
The latter, Variable 14, loaded highest of the 4 at

-. 760.
Factor 9, Dissertation Done On Campus, loaded on
Variables 15, Registered Time between End of Course Work
and End of Dissertation, and 21, Lapsed Time in
Residence after End of Couse Work.
higher

at .842,

Variable 15 loaded

120

Factor 12, High Positive Perceptions of Department,
is made up of high loadings on 5 variables including
ratings of department’s research training and skills and
the validity of its low admission standards.

Variable

45, Rating of Department’s Research Skills, loaded
highest at .735.
Doctoral Program Organization characterizes Factor
13 which consists of the Length of Time Before Assignment
of Major Professor and Number of Credits Taken before
First Committee Meeting.

The former loaded at .752.

Factor 14, Influences Perceived as Lengthening
Doctorate, encompasses 3 high loadings Involving 3 major
doctoral requirements:
and thesis.

language exams, general exams,

The latter, Variable 64, loaded higheBt at

-.712.
Factor 15, Development of. and Commitment t o .
Field of Study Goals, comprises 2 variables, Variable
35, Field of Study Goals (.626), and Variable 3 6 , Career
Flans at Graduate Entrance (.750).
Conformity to the Departmental Rules of the
Doctoral Degree Program characterizes Factor 17.
Validity of Departmental Student Exploitation. Conformity.
and Over-Interest in Research are the 3 variables
involved, with Variable 51 being the highest (.751).

121

Factor 19 Is identified as Incentives for Attendance
at Michigan State University*

Variable 37* Importance of

Ease and Speed for Attending Michigan State University,
loaded highest with .751.
Research Orientation. Factor 20, is comprised of 2
variables of which Importance of Research Opportunity
for Attending Michigan State University, Variable 38, had
the higher loading at -.683.
Factor 22, Grade Point Average, is comprised of the
undergraduate, graduate, and Ph.D. grade point averages.
The Undergraduate Grade Point Average, Variable 28,
loaded highest at -.816.
Factor 24, Quantitative Measures of the Doctoral
Program is composed of 2 variables, Course Credits and
*

Dissertation Pages with the latter loading the higher at
-.636.
Finally, Factor 27, Field and Institutional Change,
had a 2 variable loading with Number of Field Changes,
Variable 1, the higher at -.709.
Of the 76 variables loading on the 28 factors,
all 76 loaded high on one of the factors so, though it
would have been possible, as initially planned, to
select out for the Least Squares Regression routine one
or more of the highest loading representative variable
members of each factor, the possibility of the presence
of "suppressor" variables made a more conservative

122

approach desirable.

c

In fact, the technique of factor

analysis discussed above was employed Initially to reduce
the number of 76 available, useable predictor variables
and use some of the resulting factors In a regression
equation in place of the original variables.
Nevertheless, when reliable variables such as age
or lapsed time of various kinds are used as they are
in this study, it could happen that factors which account
for very little variance in the predictor variables
could still be highly useful in predicting the dependent
variables.

In other words, given 2 original variables

that are highly correlated as Lapsed and Registered Time
until Passage of the Second Language (.7 8 ), the factor
consisting of the difference between the scores of these
2 would account for little variance in the original 2
variables.

Yet such a difference might have had a strong

influence on the time lapse and thus correlate more
highly with some external criterion than would a factor
consisting not of the difference but of the sum of the
2 scores on registered and lapsed time.
Consequently, to avoid such potential loss of pre­
dictive power, the strategy of stepwise regression based
on the use of the original variables as input data was
selected.

Darlington defends this computer-assisted

^Richard B. Darlington, ’’Multiple Regression in
Psycholgoical Research and Practice." Psychological
Bulletin. LXIX (1968), p. 1 9 .
7

123
routine since stepwise regression has the desirable
property of using the only statistics relevant to select­
ing predictor variables from a larger number of variables-lnltlal sample validity, N, and n for each of the possible
regression equations created from different combinations
of the variables.
Such a technique of choosing all the 76 Independent
variables avoids the danger of losing the added pre­
dictability of what Darlington describes as "suppressor"
variables.

He defines a suppressor variable as one

which, when included In a regression equation In which
the variables have been scored in the direction which
makes their correlation in the population positive,
nevertheless, takes on a negative weight when the regresBlon equation is derived for the population,

7

The Least Squares Regression Analysis
The Least Squares Regression routine employed con­
sisted of a stepwise deletion in which an initial least
squares equation was formed using all of the independent
variables.

Then, the variable out of the total least

useful (significant) to the prediction was deleted from
the equation and a new least squares equation estimated.
The process continued until only those variables
remained which were selected as candidates for deletion
6Ibid., p. 18.
^Ibld., pp. 5-7*

124

but were found to be significant at the .05 level and
thus retained.
As mentioned earlier, 76 independent variables were
initially selected as candidates for the least squares
routine.

Variable 31* Age at End of Ph.D.. however, was

dropped Just prior to the computer run because it was
viewed, due to its post-hoc nature, as incapable of
serving as a meaningful or useful predictor.
Three Least Squares Deletion routines were then
performed each on a separate computer run using the 75
independent variables and one of the 3 dependent
variables for each pass.
ficients and beta

The resulting regression coef­

weights and their standard errors,

P critical values and their significance levels, the
partial correlation coefficients and the R

2

deletes

together with the multiple correlation coefficients

p

(R and R ) and the standard error of estimates for those
independent variables which met the .05 significance
level criterion are listed in Table 4.5.
Regression Equation Formulation:
Dependant Variable X--Lapsed
'Time: B .A .- P h .D .
Together with the constant, 11 of the 75 inde­
pendent variables met the .05 significance criterion
for inclusion in the final multiple coefficient regres­
sion equation.

These variables of the 75, then would be

m u . REGRESSION OOOTICXEHTS, BETA WEIGHTS, SXAMURD EBRORS, LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE,
PARTIAL CORRELATION COEFF I CIENTS AM) R2 DELETES FROM A STEPWISE DELETION OF 75 DDEPERDEltT VARIABLES
nO M A LEAST SQUARES REGRESSOR EQUATION IB WHIOJ THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE I S LAPSXD T D C : BA - P H .D .1

In A aaaw ltn f' V a r i a b l e s

R e g r e s s io n
C o e f f i c le n C s

S ta n d a r d
E rror

B e ta
W e ig h ts

S ta n d a r d
E rror

F
C r itic a l
V a lu e

F
S ig n ifi­
can ce

1 0 0 .4 6 1

0 .0 0 0 5

P a r tia l
C o r r e la t io n
C o e f fic ie n t s

*2
D e le te s

-4 7 .3 0 2

4 .7 1 9

R e g is te r e d T ern s u n t i l
P a s s a g e o f 2nd L an gu age

0 .5 7 1

0 .2 6 9

0 .1 1 1

0 .0 5 2

4 .5 0 2

0 .0 3 3

0 .1 2 0

0 .8 4 5

L a p se d T i n e u n t i l
F e e s e g e o f 2nd L an gu age

- 0 .5 0 1

0 .1 8 4

- 0 .1 4 8

0 .0 5 4

7 .4 3 0

0 .0 0 7

- 0 .1 5 3

0 .8 4 4

R e g is te r e d T e rn s u n t i l
P a s s a g e o f G e n e r a l E ven s

• 0 .5 4 2

0 .2 1 5

- 0 .0 9 8

0 .0 3 9

6 .3 3 2

0 .0 1 2

- 0 .1 4 2

0 .8 4 4

10 P a r t- t la s T erns

1 .0 4 2

0 .1 8 2

0 .2 3 0

0 .0 4 0

1 2 .7 8 3

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .3 1 0

0 .8 3 1

11 F u l l - C i n e T a m e

1 .4 5 7

0 .2 6 3

0 .1 8 4

0 .0 3 3

3 0 .6 5 0

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .3 0 1

0 .8 3 2

23 L ap sed T in e o f
I n te r r u p tio n s

0 .7 1 9

0 .1 0 6

0 .2 3 9

0 .0 3 5

4 6 .2 8 6

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .3 6 1

0 .8 2 4

26 M ^ e r o f I n s t it u t io n s
s i n c e BA

1 .9 2 9

0 .4 9 0

0 .0 9 6 .
t»

0 .0 2 4

1 5 .4 7 2

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .2 1 9

0 .8 4 0

3 4 A g e a t E n t r y t o F tu D .

2 .1 9 6

0 .1 6 2

0 .5 4 5

0 .0 4 0

1 8 4 .8 0 7

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .6 1 2

0 .7 3 6

- 1 .4 0 7

0 .6 1 6

- 0 .0 7 7

0 .0 3 4

5 .2 2 0

0 .0 2 2

- 0 .1 2 9

0 .8 4 5

80 T o ta l T ears o f
ie t a r n v tio n a

1 .5 0 0

0 .1 9 2

0 .3 6 7

0 .0 4 7

6 1 .1 2 0

0 .0 0 0 5

0 .4 0 7

0 .8 1 7

9 0 C itis e n S h lp

3 .0 1 1

1 .3 1 4

0 .0 5 3

0 .0 2 3

5 .2 5 3

0 .0 2 1

0 .1 3 0

0 .8 4 5

0

C o n s ta n t

6

7

8

7 9 M ^ e r o f In te r r u p tio n s

86 . 9 , 40, 38, 66, 72, 5 , 84, 12, 13, 49 , 69, 81, 76. 64, 67, 4 8 , 56, 63, 31. » .
V a r i a b l e s i n O r d er D e le t e d :
5 2 , 1 7 , 3 7 , 4 7 , 3 2 , 2 4 , 7 1 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 6 , 1 5 , 2 8 , 2 1 , 5 0 , 8 8 . 7 3 . 7 4 , 3 5 , 8 5 , 4 2 , 4 5 , 2 0 ,, 1 9 , 8 2 , 8 3 , 4 1 , 1 , 3 9 ,
6 8 , 7 5 , 7 0 , 2 5 , 5 1 , 1 4 , 3 , 3 4 , 2 2 , 1 6 , 8 9 , 8 7 , 4 >, 1 8 , en d 2 .
1 N . B . I i f t n t o d Id. L . R u b le , S t t w i l t t D e l a t i o n o f V i r i t b l t i f r o * « l u t t S t a t t t t E q u a t io n
A g r i­
c u l t u r a l b f i r l m c S t a t i o n : M ic h ig a n S t a t u U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 6 8 ,
S IA I S a r l a a D e s c r i p t i o n V I I I . (T b a M u l t i p l e
C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s : R - , 9 2 1 , R 2 - .8 4 7 w i t h a s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f e s t l n e t a o f 8 . 6 5 ) .

TABLE 4.5— Continued

LAPSED TIME:

PH.D. ENTRY-RECEPTION1

0 Conerenr

-0.676

0.485

6 Ksglstered I n n until
Passage of 2nd Language

-0.187

0.056

•0.090

7 Lapsed Tlan until
Passage of 2nd Language

0.143

0.039

10 Fart-tlae Terns

0.606

11 Full-tlae Tana
12 laglatarad Tana before
Courae Completion

0.161

0.027

11.161

0.001

-0.187

0.973

0.105

0.029

13.478

0.0005

0.205

0.973

0.063

0.333

0.035

92.060

0.0005

0.480

0.966

0.638

0.069

0.200

0.022

86.076

0.0005

0.468

0.967

0.147

0.060

0.063

0.026

5.890

0.015

0.137

0.974

13 Lapaad Tlae until Course
Collation
0.318

0.059

0.237

0.044

28.645

0.0005

0.292

0.971

21 Lapaad Time In lealdence
After End of Course Work 0.419

0.066

0.164

0.026

39.753

0.0005

0.339

0.970

22 Lapsed Tins Off-Carina
After tad of Course Work 0.412

0.059

0.320

0.046

49.099

0.0005

0.371

0.970

23 Lapsed Tlae of
Interruptions

0.539

0.059

0.446

0.049

83.730

0.0005

0.463

0.967

36 Career Flans at Graduate
Entrance

•0.229

0.104

•0.020

0.009

4.807

0.028

-0.124

0.974

48 I^inrtanrs of Financial
Meed for Asalatantshlpa,
ate.

0.322

0.132

0.023

0.009

5.964

0.015

0.138

0.974

88 Salary par Tear of FbJ>.
Job

•0.000

0.000

-0.020

0.009

4.610

0.031

-0.122

0.974

t

Variables la Otter Deleted: 84, 49. 81. 20. 14, 29. 40. 76. 52 , 56, 38, 89 , 90 , 80, SO, 25 , 9, 44, 71, 35 , 87,
17, 84, 79 , 75 , 2, 18 , 53 . 66 , 44, 19 , 68 , 70 , 72, 73, 74, 43 , 41, 86, 15 . 85, 82, 28, 51, 34, 1, 26, 83, 45,
67, 32, 39, 63 , 64, 69, 42, 5 , 4, 8, 3, 16, 47, rad 37.

126

1.940

TABLE 4.5— Continued
REGISTERED TIME: PH.D. ENTRY-RECEPTION1

0

Constant

0.991

0.393

0.104

0.047

0.094

7 Lapsed Time until
Passage of 2nd Language -0.080

0.033

•0.109

10 Part-time Terms

0.754

11 Full-time Terms
12 Registered Terms before
Course Completion

6.348

0.012

0.043

4.916

0.026

0.125

0.927

0.045

5.923

0.015

-0.137

0.927

0.072

0.776 . 0.074

109.647

0.0005

0.511

0.903

0.728

0.078

0.428

0.046

86.683

0.0005

0.467

0.908

0.171

0.083

0.137

0.066

4.278

0.037

0.117

0.927

13 Lapsed Time until Course
Collation
0.060

0.028

0.084

0.039

4.558

0.032

0.120.

0.927

IS Registered Time between
End of Course Work and
End of Dissertation

0.149

0.072

0.104

0.050

4.280

0.037

0.117

0.927

16 Lapsed Time between
End of Course Work and
End of Dissertation

0.057

0.015

0.075

0.019

15.122

0.0005

0.216

0.925

48 bgmrtance of Financial
Need for Assistantships,
ate.
-0.308

0.116

•0.041

0.015

7.057

0.008

-0.149

0.927

6 Registered Terms until
Passage of 2nd Language

Variables in Order Deleted: 2. 82, 28 , 53, 51, 63 , 34, 23 , 29, 67 , 50, 87, 32, 70, 75, 35, 22, 21, 37, 42, 43,
71, 24, 20, 84, 66, 83, 76, 80, 79, 1. 86, 18, 52, 44, 25, 3, 85, 38, 8, 9. 45, 89, 49, 74, 81, 90, 72, 46, 19,
40, 73, 56, 39, 26, 64, 14, 17. 36, 4, 5, 88, 68, 69, 47, •and 41.
1 M. B. Uftar and if. L, Ruble, Stepwise Deletion of Verleblee free i L m t Squares Equation Q.SDP.1. Agri­
cultural Experiment Station: Hlcblgan state University, 1968, SEAT Series Description Till. (Ihe Multiple
Correlation Coefficients: R*.964, R2-.928, with a standard error o£ estimate of 1.27).

128
the best predictors of a doctoral student*s Lapsed Time;
B.A.-Ph.D.
p
For the 11, the square (R ) of the multiple corre­
lation coefficient was .847, indicating that nearly 85
per cent of the Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.P.'s variation

£>ove that accounted for by its mean was accounted for
by the selected independent variables.
In analyzing the 11 predictor variables, normalized
weights (beta weights) rather than the regression coef­
ficients (Table 4.5) were employed as more useful and
accurate in normalizing the raw scores of the sample,
thereby reducing the amount of predictive fluctuation due
to large standard deviations.

These beta weights, then,

do not change when an independent variable is multiplied
>

by a constant resulting in an indication of the contribu­
tion of each independent variable as "predictor” or
"accounter" for the variation of the dependent variable.
2
Partial correlation coefficients and R deletes
were also reported since they are both useful in
approximating the portion of variation which each of
the independent variables accounts for in the dependent
variable.
Variable 34, Age at Entry to Ph.D.. proved to
carry the highest beta weight (.545) with a partial
correlation coefficient of .612, indicating rather high
usefulness as a predictor of the variation of the
dependent variable.

129
Variable 80, Total Years of Interruptions. showed
a .367 beta weight and a partial correlation of .407.
The third highest beta weight, .239, was assigned
by the Least Squares Regression Equation routine to
Variable 23, Lapsed Time of Ph.D. Interruptions, which
also was assigned a rather high predictive measure of

.361.
Variables 7 and 6 respectively, Lapsed and Registered
Terms until Passage of Second Language, carried the next
highest beta weights (-.148 and .111).

The presence of

the negative beta weight is, as discussed earlier, at
first view, disconcerting.

Variable 7 had correlated

significantly and positively (.1 7 6 ) with the dependent
variable, Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

What has happened

according to Darlington is that precisely because Variable
7 is measuring more of Variable 6 with which it corre­
lates highly than of the dependent variable, Lapsed Time:
B.A.-Ph.D.,

it receives a negative weight.

In other

words, Variable 7 is more useful as a predictor in the
regression equation as a measure of what Variable 6
O

doesn’t measure in the dependent variable.
The nature of what is being suppressed in 6 that 7
is better at predicting is not easily determined.

In

fact, Darlington maintains that it is extremely
hazardous to reasonably interpret negative or suppressor
8Ibid., p. 4.

130

relationships in a complex multi-predictor situation.
And yet, he concludes that it would be difficult to
imagine a researcher with such faith in his ability to
conceive of all possible suppressor relationships that
he would ignore the Improved predictability of negative
beta weights.

q

Variables 8, Registered Terms until Passage of the
General Exams, and 79, Number of Interruptions B.A.-Ph.D.,
also were assigned negative beta weights (-.142 and
-.129).

Both are interpretable in the same terms as

discussed above; the General Exams variable, in leaving
the time lapse part of its correlation to Variable 6,
takes on a negative character to be more useful as a
predictor of Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.

Variable 79

operates in the same fashion leaving to Variable 80 the
lapsed time variance to add its negative weight to
greater predictability.
Finally, Variable 26, Number of Institutions since
B . A . (.096), and Variable 90, Citizenship (.130),
finish up the significant predictors for dependent
Variable 1, Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.

These 2 carry

partial correlation coefficients of .219 and .130
respectively.
At this point, after the last step in the
analysis procedures has been taken, of the 75 it is
9Ibid., p. 5.

131
Interesting to compare those variables which correlated
most highly with Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D. in the correla­

tional analysis with those which thp Least Squares
analysis reported as the best predictors.

The 3 vari­

ables, 34, 79, and 80, with significant correlations
greater than .50 for the total sample.correlational
analysis also were selected as 3 of the heaviest
weighted predictors.

Yet, there were at least 11 other

variables with higher correlations in the earlier rela­
tionship analysis which were deleted in the regression
equation in favor of others of less apparent influence.
For example, Full-Time Terms (.010 which is non­
significant) was selected over Number of Field Changes
(.335) and Number of

Children at End of Ph.D. (.441).

Such a result serves to further clarify the function
of the multiple regression equation to increase the
precision of the prediction capability of the independent
variables.
The resulting regression equation for predicting
Lapsed T i m e :

B.A.-Ph.D. may be written

Zy = . 1 1 1 ( Z 1 ) - , 1 4 8 ( Z 2 ) - , 0 9 8 ( Z 3 ) + . 2 3 0 ( z 1}) . . . + . 0 5 3 ( Z 1 1 )

where Z

■ the transformed (normalized) score of a

doctoral student*s expected Lapsed Time;

B.A.-Ph.D.

and Z^ . . . Z1X are his scores on the predictor indepen-i
dent variables multiplied by the corresponding fractions
or beta weights.

132

Regr'eBB'l'ori Equation Formulation;
Dependent Variable II— Lapsed '
Time:
Ph.D. Entry-keceptlon
Twelve of the 75 Independent variables together
with the constant variable, satisfied the .05 significance
criterion and remained in the final regression solution.
2
The square of the multiple correlation coefficient (R )
was .974 indicating that a very high portion (over 97
per cent) of the Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception's

variance was accounted for by these 12 variables and the
constant.

The standard error of estimate was but 1.43.
m

Variables 10, Part-Time Terms, and 11, Full-Time
Terms. wi£h beta weights of .333 and .200 respectively
exhibited usefulness as predictors as measured by
partial correlation coefficients of .468 and .137*
Variable 23* Lapsed Time of Ph.D. Interruptions, with the
highest beta weight (.446) carried a partial correlation
coefficient of .463.

Variable 22, Lapsed Time Off Campus

after End of Course Work (All But the Dissertation) and
21, Lapsed Time In Residence after End of Course Work,
with beta weights of .320 and .165 respectively, carried
partial correlation coefficients of .371 and .339.
*

Variable 7* Lapsed Time, and Variable 6, Registered Time
until Passage of Second Language, reverse the functions
they had for predicting dependent Variable I.

Here,

Variable 7 instead of being negative was positive
(.105)* while Variable 6 changed from positive to
negative (-.090).

133
Variables 13* Lapsed Time until Course Completion,
and 12, Registered Terms until Course Completion, earned
beta welghtB of .202 and .137 respectively and carried
partial correlation coefficients of .292 and ,137.

Both

Salary per Year for Ph.D. Job (88) and Career Plans at
Graduate Entrance (36) had negative beta weights of -.122
and -.124 respectively.
Finally, Variable 48, Importance of Financial Need
for Assistantships. was assigned a beta weight of .138.
Again, as in the case of the Lapsed Time:

B.A.-

Ph.D. dependent variable, those independent variables
that correlated at a significance level greater than .50
(Variables 13, 22, and 23) also were selected by the
Least Squares Regression analysis as the best predictors.
*

Similarly though, other variables that correlated sig­
nificantly were deleted, e.g., Number of Ph.D. Credits
(.347) for such non-significant correlations as Salary
of Ph.D. Job and Career Plans at Graduate Entrance.
Once again the principle of the regression equation was
operating to choose the measures of prediction and not
necessarily of correlation.
Written in normalized form, the regression equation
for dependent Variable II:

Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception is

Z

- -.090^)

+ .105(Z2 ) + .333(^3).. . -,020(Z1 2 )

134
Regression' Equation Formulation: Dependent
Variable III— fieglatered T i m e :
Ph.D. Entry-Re ception
The additive constant together with the 9 variables
that met the .05 significance criterion reported a
multiple correlation coefficient (R) of .964 so that the
resulting R2 (.928) Indicated that the 9 independent
variables and constant accounted for nearly. 93 par cent
of the variation In the dependent variable.

The

standard error of estimate was 1.27*
Variables 10, Part-Time Terms. and 11, Full-Time
Terms. received beta weights of .776 and .428 respectively.
Part-Time Terms, then, had a very high usefulness-aspredlctor rating of ,511 while Full-Time Terms carried
a high rating of .467.
Variables 7, Lapsed Time until Passage of Second
Language, and 6, Registered Time until Passage of Second
Language, were assigned beta weights of -.109 and .094
respectively and partial correlation coefficients of
.137 and .125.
Variables 12, Registered Time before Course Com*

pletion, and 13, Lapsed Time before Course Completion,
received beta weights of .137 and .084 respectively and
carried rather low usefulness ratings Qf .117 and .120.
Variables 15, Registered Terms between End of
Course Work and End of Dissertation, and 1 6 , Lapsed Time
between End of Course Work and Dissertation, received

135
beta weights of .10*1 and .075 respectively.

Variable 15

carried a low usefulness rating of .117 while the latter
variable had a partial correlation coefficient of .216,
even though Its beta weight was lower.
Finally, Variable 48, Importance of Financial Need
for Assistantships. had a beta weight of -.041 and was
assigned a partial correlation coefficient of -.149.
A comparison of the above predictor variables with
those of the 75 correlating highly with the dependent
variable exhibits a general correspondence.

But unlike

those of the earlier 2 dependent variables, the predictor
variables with the highest predicting capability (Vari­
ables 10, 11, 12, and 1 6 ) do not all have significant
correlations greater than .5 with the dependent variable
*

Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry-Reception.

For, Full-Time

Terms (Variable 11) carried only a ,196 correlation and
Variable 16, Lapsed Time between End, of Course Work and
End of Dissertation carried but .284 while others such
as Variable 8, Registered Terms until Passage of General
Exams. with a correlation of .776 was deleted.

Neverthe­

less, as happened in the earlier 2 equations, many
variables which correlated higher than, for example,
Variable 48 (-.04 and non-significant) were deleted
including Variable 18, Number of Credits Taken before
Organization of Committee (.253 and significant), and
Ph.D. Grade Point Average (-.209 and significant).

136
Thus, the correlational significance of a variable does
not necessarily correspond to its predictive usefulness.
The dependent variable, Registered Time:

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception will be best predicted by the multiple
regression equation

Zy

-

.094^ )

-,109(Z 2 ) + ,776(Z3 ) . f . - . 0 4 l ( Z 9 ).

Ill
Summary

,

After the reduction of the original 6 dependent
variables to 3 was supported by a 3-factor rotation
followed by one of 2-factors (Table 4.1), a correlational
analysis was run.
(Lapsed Time;

The 3 selected dependent variables

B.A.-Ph.D.; Lapsed Tlmei

Reception; and Registered Time:

Ph.D. Entry>-

Ph.D. Entry-Reception)

together with the 90 independent variables for the total
number of 320 were placed in an intercorrelation matrix
to determine the varying strengths of relationship.
Of the 34 hypotheses tested in this manner in the
null form p » 0, 27 (Table 4,2) were found to be sig­
nificant at the .05 alpha level, thereby permitting the
rejection of the null hypotheses In these cases and the
conclusion that the data supported the alternate
hypothesis that p is significantly different from zero.
In 8 of these 27 hypotheses the data supported the con­
clusion that, at the 95 per cent level of confidence, p
was significantly greater than .50 (Table 4.2),

137
In addition, of those 39 Independent variable? not
tested by the 34 hypotheses, 23 correlated at the .05
alpha level as being significantly different than zero.
Of these, 2 correlated significantly at greater than
.50.
Correlational analysis of the total sample popula­
tion divided into 6 fields or areaB of doctoral study
followed (Table 4.3).

In testing Hypotheses 35 and 36

(Table 4.3, Footnote 1), a one-way analysis of variance
was employed followed by the Sheffd Test.
hypotheses p1 *

The null

m V 3 ■ Vt\ m ^5 ■

alpha

level were rejected and the data supported the alternate
hypotheses.

Hypotheses 37 and 38 (Table 4.3) were tested

and the null hypothesis retained.

A review of the findings

concerning the correlations within the 6 fields (Table 4.3)
Bhows the physical and biological sciences as having 42
variables with significant correlations and 45 non­
significant; the humanities, 44 significant and 43
non-significant; the social sciences and education, 37
significant and 50 non-significant.
A factor analysis waB run on the 76 selected
variables for the purpose of reducing the number of
variables to be Included in the Least Squares Regression
analysis.

The 76 variables loaded on 28 factors with 2

or more variables loading only on 19 factors.

To

avoid loss of predictive power due to the likely
presence of negative beta weights, not only were the

138
variables loading high on the 9 factors included in the
Least Squares Regression analysis, but all 75 of the
selected independent variables as well.
Finally, the Least Squares Deletion routine was
undertaken and multiple regression equations were
generated for each of the 3 dependent variables.
Dependent Variable I, Lapsed Time:

B.A.-Ph.D.. produced

11 significantly predictive variables which with the con­
stant accounted for 84 per cent of the dependent variable's
variation.

Dependent Variable II, Lapsed Time:

Ph.D.

Entry-Reception generated 12 significant; predictor
Variables that together with the constant was responsible
for 97 per cent of the dependent variables' variation.
Dependent Variable III, Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception. selected out 9 predictive variables that
with the constant accounted for 93 per cent of that
dependent variable's variation.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The primary focus of the present study was an
Investigation of, and a testing for, the significance
of those Independent variables which a review of the
literature revealed as most Influential In accounting
for prolonged lapsed and registered time periods in the
pursuit of the doctoral degree,'
Toward this end, a doctoral Recipient sample of
1 t

320 was drawn randomly from Michigan State University's
degree-granting departments for the academic years
1966-67 and 1967-6 8 .

Then, 34 research hypotheses were

generated from 53 of the 90 original independent vari­
ables and the 3 dependent time lapse variables.

These

34 hypotheses were tested in their null form, p ■ 0, at
an alpha level of .05 by means of t-tests of signifi­
cance based on the results of an intercorrelation
matrix.

Twenty-seven of these hypotheses permitted the

rejection of the null hypothesis.

Eight of these

hypotheses permitted the rejection of the null:
Hq : p > .50 at? o * .0 5 .
In addition, 23 of the remaining 37 Independent
variables were found to be significantly associated

139

140
1

*

with one op more of the dependent variables at the .05
level of significance.

Two of these permitted the

t

rejection of HQ : p < .50.
Next, an intercorrelation matrix was run on the
6 basic fields to search out the presence and strength
of any relationships existing between the dependent
time lapses and the Independent variables, but most
particularly between those independent variables which
generated Hypotheses 35, 36, 37* and 38.

Hypotheses 35

and 36 were found to be significant at the .05 alpha
level using a one-way analysis of variance, followed by
a Scheff6 test.
The 6 fields’ intercorrelatlonal matrix also pro­
duced the following results:
the physical and biological
'
i
sciences’ fields showed 42 of the 90 independent vari­
ables correlating significantly different than zero
with one or more of the 3 dependent variables.

Fourteen

of the biological science variables and 7 variables of
the physical sciences correlated with one of the 3
dependent variables at significantly greater than .50.
The humanities had 44 significant variables with 12
being significantly greater than .50.

Both the social

sciences and education reported 37 significant vari­
ables with the former having 8 variables correlating
Blgnlfioantly greater than .50, and the latter having 14.
Finally, the professions had 29 significant variables

mi
with m

correlating with one of the 3 dependent variables

at significantly greater than .50.
The 6 fields share a significant correlation regard­
ing 11 independent variables of which 8 deal with the
formal doctoral requirements, and one each with number
of major advisors, doctoral study Interruptions, and family
obligations.

Three more were found to be significantly

greater than .50 across all 6 fields.
A factor analysis was then utilized on 76.of the
90 variables with a resulting 28 factor solution which
produced high loadings of 10 on Factor 1 down through
1 on 7 factors.

Factor 1 generated an eigenvalue of

7.79, while Factor 28 produced one of .912.

The cumu­

lative proportion of variance attained .758 at Factor
28 with Factor 1 producing the largest single proportion
of variance at .08.
The above factor analysis, though it would have
proven useful in reducing the number of potential pre­
dictor variables, was not employed directly in the final
step of the study— formulation of multiple regression
equations fop the 3 dependent time lapse variables.
For, in order to preclude the possibility of overlook­
ing a valuable predictor that did not load high on one
of the factors and which had the effect of a suppressor
variable, all 75 of the independent variables were
Included in the regression routine.

142

Thus, the Least Squares Stepwise Deletion procedure
was utilized resulting In the generation of 3 multiple
regression equations, one for each of the 3 dependent
variables.

Dependent Variable I, Lapsed Time!

B . A .-

Ph.D.. deleted all but 11 of the 75 Independent variables.
These 11 had a squared multiple correlation coefficient
(R^) of .847 with beta weights which were all signifi­
cantly different from zero at the .05 alpha level.
Dependent Variable III, Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry-

Reception, deleted all but 12 of the 75 independent
variables producing a R

of .974 and beta weights all

significantly different from zero.

Finally, dependent

Variable III, Registered Time;

Ph.D. Entry-Receptlon.
2
left remaining 9 predictor variables with an R of .928
*

and beta weights that were aldo significantly different
from zero.
Conclusions
The decisions based on the findings produced by
the t-tests of significance were, in the following 27
hypotheses, t;o reject the null hypotheses p ■ 0 at the
.05 alpha level and to conclude that the data support
the following research hypotheses:
1.

Doctoral recipients who exhibit late decision
about, and lack of commitment to, their field
of study goals, show a greater lapsed time
between B.A. and Ph.D. reception than those
who do not.

143
2.# Doctoral recipients with more total years of
post-B.A. interruptions have a greater lapsed
time between B.A. and Ph.D. reception.
3.» Doctoral recipients who show greater lapsed
time in interruptions during the Ph.D. program,
show greater lapsed time from Ph.D. entry to
Ph.D. reception.
4.* The greater the lapsed time spent off-campus
after the end of course work, the longer the
lapsed time between B.A. to Ph.D. and Ph.D.
entry to reception.
5.

The greater the number of part-time registered
terms required, the greater the lapsed and
registered time required between Ph.D. entry
and reception.

6.* The fewer the number of full-time registered
terms required, the greater the lapsed and
registered time required between Ph.D. entry
and reception.
7.

The fewer the number of quarters fellowship
stipends are received during doctoral study,
the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

8.

The smaller the average amount of fee remission
stipends received during doctoral study, the
greater the registered time between Ph.D. entry
and reception.

9.

The greater the number of quarters teaching
assistantshlp stipends are received during
doctoral study, the greater the-registered
time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

10.

The fewer the number of quarters research assistantship stipends are received during doctoral
study, the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

11.

The greater the family obligations, the greater
the lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and
reception.

12.

The greater the number of credits taken before
the organization of the guidance committee, the
greater the registered time between Ph.D. entry
and reception.

144
13.

The greater the lapsed time between the end of
course work and the end of the dissertation,
the greater the lapsed time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

14.

The greater the number of pages in the dis­
sertation, the greater the lapsed time between
Ph.D. entry and reception.

15.

The greater the lapsed time or registered
terms until the fulfillment of the language
requirement, the greater the lapsed and
registered time between Ph.D. entry and recep­
tion.

16.

The greater the lapsed time before the passage
of the general examinations, the greater the
lapsed time between Ph.D. entry and reception.

17.

Doctoral recipients who lack prior doctoral
language proficiency show more lapsed time .
between Ph.D. entry and reception.

18.

The greater the lapsed time or registered
terms until course work completion, the greater
the lapsed and registered time between Ph.D.
entry and reception.

19.

The greater the number of Ph.D. credits taken,
the greater the lapsed and registered time
between Ph.D. entry and reception.

20.* The greater the number of credits taken below
the 800 level, the greater the lapsed and
registered time between Ph.D. entry and
reception.
21.* Doctoral recipients exhibltng a lower Ph.D.
Grade Point Average show greater registered
time from Ph.D. entry to reception.
22.

Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower
graduate Grade Point Average show greater
registered time from Ph.D. entry to reception.

23>* Doctoral recipients exhibiting a lower under­
graduate Grade Point Average show greater
lapsed time from B.A. to Ph.D.
s
level.

Significantly greater than p ■ .5 at the a ■ .05

24.

Doctoral recipients who have attended a greater
number of Institutions since the B.A. exhibit a
greater lapsed time B.A. to Ph.D.

25.

Doctoral recipients who did not hold a
scholarship during Ph.D. Btudy exhibit greater
lapsed time from Ph.D. entry to reception.

26.

Doctoral recipients who entered doctoral study
under a provisional or special non-degree
admission status exhibit greater lapsed time
from Ph.D. entry to reception.

27.

U.S. doctoral recipients show greater lapsed
time between Ph.D. entry and reception than do
foreign doctoral recipients.

The findings of the one-way analysis of Variance
followed by the Scheff€ test permitted the rejection of
the null hypothesis

= y2 =

«= y^ » y^ - yg at the

a * .05 level and the data support the following research
hypotheses:
1.

Doctoral students in the humanities, the social
sciences, the professions, and education show
greater lapsed time between B.A. and Ph.D.
reception than do those In the biological and
physical sciences.

2.

Doctoral recipients In education have greater
lapsed time between B.A. and Ph.D. reception
than those of any other field.
Statement of Other Significant Results

Since there has been considerable material subjected
to analysis in this study that had not been placed In
hypothesis form prior to analyzing the data the reporting
of certain results of this research seem appropriate.

146
Significant Variables from the Total
Sample Correlational Analysis
Utilizing the t-Test of Significance to test the
null hypothesis that p « 0 at the .05 alpha level and
employing critical values under the two-tailed or nondirectional test in the tables, the following statements
can be reported as significantly different from zero
for the total sample:
1.

The greater the number of field changes B.A.
to Ph.D., the greater the lapsed time: B.A.
to Ph.D. and the lapsed time: Ph.D. entry to
reception.

2.

The greater the number of registered terms
required until passage of the second language,
the greater the lapsed and registered time:
Ph*D. entry to reception.

3.

The greater the lapsed time until the passage
of the second language, the greater the lapsed
time:
B.A. to Ph.D., and lapsed and registered
time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

4.

The greater the registered terms required until
passage of the General exam, the greater the
lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D., and the lapsed
and registered* time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

5.

The greater the number of Ph.D. credits taken
outside the department, the greater the registered
time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

6.

The greater the registered time between the
end of course work and the end of the disserta­
tion, the greater the lapsed and registered
time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

7.

The greater the age at the end of the Ph.D.,
the greater the lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.*
and the lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D.
entry to reception.

«

Significantly greater than p ■ .5 at a ■ .05.

147
8.

Doctoral recipients who reported themselves at
the time of graduate school decision, as trying
out their field of study to see if it would
lead to a desirable career, took less lapsed
time:
B.A. to Ph.D.

9.

Doctoral recipients reporting research
opportunity as important for attending Michigan
State University required less lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.

10.

Doctoral recipients who reported scholarship
or asslstantship assistance as important for
attending Michigan State University required
less lapsed time: B.A. to PhfD.

11.

Doctoral recipients who reported they made the
best decision in coming to Michigan State University required greater lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.
but less registered time:
Ph.D. entry to
reception.

12.

The greater the number of faculty known with
whom the doctoral recipient oould discuss
problems, the less the lapsed time:
B.A, to
Ph.D.

13.

Doctoral recipients who reported financial
need as the important departmental criterion
on which assistantships were granted, required
less lapsed time: B.A. to Ph.D.

14.

Doctoral recipients who reported lengthening
of their Ph.D. degrees due to inadequate prepara­
tion before coming to Michigan State University
required greater lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

15.

Doctoral recipients who reported lengthening
of their Ph.D. degrees due to the language
requirement, required greater lapsed and
registered time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

16.

Doctoral recipients who reported
ing of their Ph.D. degrees due to
assistantships, required greater
registered time:
Ph.D. entry to

17.

Doctoral students who reported the lengthening
of their Ph.D. degrees due to work off campus
required greater lapsed time: B.A. to Ph.D.,
and lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D. entry
to reception.

the lengthen­
teaching
lapsed and
reception.

148
18.

Doctoral recipients who reported the lengthening
of their Ph.D. degrees due to a financial
obligation to leave Michigan State University
in mid-course and work, required greater lapsed
time:
B.A. to Ph.D. and Ph.D. entry to reception.

19.

Doctoral recipients who reported lengthening
of their Ph.D. degrees due to the General Exams,
required greater lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D. entry to reception,

20.

Doctoral recipients who reported lengthening
of their Ph.D.degrees due to the thesis,
required greater lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.
and lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D. entry
to reception.

21.

The greater the length of time required before
the assignment of the major professor, the
greater the lapsed and registered time:
Ph.D.
entry to reception.

22.

The less the number of meetings with the major
professor the greater the lapsed time:
B.A.
to Ph.D. and Ph.D. entry to reception.

23.

The greater the number of quarters fee remission
was held, the less the lapsed time: B.A. to
Ph.D.
Significant Variables from the 6 Field
Correlational Analysis'

The following 15 statements were found to be sig­
nificantly greater than .50 at the .05 alpha level using
the two-tailed non-dlrectlonal table of critical values
(the pertinent fields are. listed before each set of
assertions):
All Six Fields
1.

The greater the lapsed time required until
passage of the General Exams, the greater the
lapsed time;
Ph.D. entry to reception.

149
2.

The greater the number of part-time terms
required, the greater the registered time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

3.

The greater the age of the doctoral recipient
at the end of the Ph.D., the greater his
lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.

All Fields but 1
(Exception In parentheses after assertion.)
1.

The greater the
lapsed time required between
end of course work and end of the dissertation,
the greater the
lapsed time: Ph.D. entry to
reception,
(education)

2.

The greater the lapsed time needed for inter­
ruptions during the Ph.D. program, the greater
the lapsed time:
Ph.D. entry to reception,
(professions)

3.

The greater the age of the doctoral recipient
at entry to Ph.D. study, the greater the
lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.
(physical sciences)

4.

The greater
the total years of interruptions,
the greater
the lapsed time:
B.A. to Ph.D.
(physical sciences)

All Fields but 2.
(Exceptions in parentheses.)
1.

The greater the number of registered terms
required until passage of the General Exams,
the greater the registered time:
Ph.D. entry
to reception,
(social sciences, professions)

2.

The greater the lapsed time required until
completion of course work, the greater the
lapsed time:
Ph.D. entry to reception,
(physical sciences, humanities)

150
All Fields but 3
(Exceptions in parentheses.)
1.

The greater the lapsed time until passage of
the second language, the greater the lapsed
time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.
(physical
sciences, social sciences, professions)

2.

The greater the registered terms required
before course completion, the greater the
registered time:
Ph.D. entry to reception,
(physical sciences, social sciences, professions)

3.

The greater the lapsed time required off campus
after the end of the course work, 'the greater
the lapsed time:
Ph.D. entry to reception,
(biological sciences, education, professions)

2 Flelds--Education and
Biological Sciences
1
1.

The greater the registered terms required
until passage of the first and second languages,
the greater the registered time:
Ph.D. entry
to reception.

2.

The greater the lapsed time required until
passage of the first language, the greater
the lapsed time:
Ph.D. entry to reception.

1 Field— Education
1.

The greater the average value per quarter of
the fee remission held, the greater the lapsed
time:
B.A. to Ph.D.
The 3 Multiple Regression Equations

The 3 dependent variables were each run separately
against the 75 Independent variables on the Least Squares
Deletion Routine with the stopping criterion set at
a « .05 so that all resulting beta weights were tested
through the null hypotheses B « 0 and found significantly
different from zero.

151
The multiple correlation coefficient for dependent
variable 1— -Lapsed Time:

B.A. to Ph.D. was .921 with an

R 2 of .847 and a standard error estimate of 8 .6 5 .

The

independent variables resulting from the routine were:
Variable 6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
23.
26.
34.
79.
80.
90.

Registered Terms until Passage of 2nd Language
Lapsed Time until Passage of 2nd Language
Registered Terms until Passage of General
Exams
Part-time Terms
Full-time Terms
Lapsed Time of Interruptions
Number of Institutions since B.A.
Age at Entry to Ph.D.
Number of Interruptions
Total Years of Interruptions
Citizenship

In transformed or normalized form the full equation
was:
Zy^ = ,111(Z1 ) -.148(Zg) -.098(Z3 ) +.230(Z||) +.184(Z5 )
+ .239(Z6 ) +.096(Z? ) +.5*I5(Zq ) -*077<Z9 > +.367(Z1 Q )
+.053(Z1 1 ).

The multiple correlation coefficient for dependent
variable 2:

Lapsed Time:

Ph.D. Entry to Reception was

p

.987 with an R

of .97*1 and a standard error of estimate

of 1.43.
The independent variables resulting from the
regression analysis were:

152
Variable 6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
21.
22.
23.
36.
48.
88,

Registered Terms until Passage of 2nd Language
Lapsed Time until Passage of 2nd Language
Part-time Terms
Full-time Terms
Registered Terms before Course Completion
Lapsed Time until
Course Completion
Lapsed Time in Residence After End of
Course Work
Lapsed Time Off-Campus After End of Course
Work
Lapsed Time of Interruptions
Career Plans at Graduate Entrance
Importance of Financial Need for
Assistantships, etc.
Salary per Year of Ph.D. Job

The full regression equation in normalized form was:

Zyii °

"*°90(Z1 ) + -105(z2> +• 333CZ3 ) +,200(Zjj)
+.063(Z5 ) +.237(Z6 ) +.164(Z? ) +.320(Z q )
+ . W ( Z 9 ) -.020(Z10) +.023(ZU ) -.020(Z12).

k

Finally, the multiple correlation coefficient for
dependent variable 3 Registered Time:
Ph.D. Entry to
p
Reception was .964 with an R of .928 and a standard
error of estimate of 1.27.

The Independent variables

remaining after end of the least squares routine were:
Variable

6.
7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
48.

Registered Terms until Passage of 2nd
Language
Lapsed Time until Passage of 2nd Language
Part-time Terms
Full-time Terms
Registered Terms before Course Completion
Lapsed Time until Course Completion
Registered Timebetween End of Course
Work and End of Dissertation
Lapsed Time between End of Course Work
and End of Dissertation
Importance of Financial Need for
Assistantships, etc.

153

In normalized form the full regression equation
was;
Zy±i "

•°9l|<zi> -*109(Z2 ) +.776(Z3 ) +.428(Z4 ) +.137(Z5 )

+ .08i|(Z6 ) +.104(Z7 ) +.075(Zg ) -.04l(Z9 ).

Implications for Future Research
Due to the considerable amount of exploratory
material subjected to analysis during this study, there
remain many areas of study into which future researchers
can probe more deeply and for which more significant
results can be uncovered.

Some of the more fruitful tasks

requiring further examination include:
1.

Replicate the study to test for validity of re­

sults of the Instrumentation and conclusions.

Collect the

data on the appropriate variables on a random sample of
doctoral recipients since spring of 1968 and test out
the predictive ability of the 3 regression equations
formulated in this study.

Do a cross-validation on the

regression equations to ascertain true variance.
2.

Replicate the study using all 6 dependent

variables or a combination of say I, IV, and VI each of
which loaded highest on one of the 3 factors in the 3
factor rotation performed In this study.
3.

Determine the amount of interdependence

existing between the 75 selected variables and select

15^
those with the greatest Independence for utilization in
a correlation matrix containing the appropriate dependent
variables as discussed in Number 1 above.
4.

Experiment with a 15 factor rotation solution

using the 75 selected independent variables, since in
the study over 50 per cent of the cumulative variance
has been accounted for by the time the 15th factor is
determined (and whose eigenvalue is in excess of 1.4),
5.

Using only the highest loading representative

variable of each of the above 15 factors, run a correla­
tion matrix including the 3 and/or 6 dependent variables.
6.

Execute a Least Squares Regression routine

(a Least Squares Add as well as a Delete) using only
those variables loading highest on the above 15 (or
fewqr factors) as potential predictors.

Such a pro­

cedure is done in the interest of having a smaller
number of predictor variables in relation to the number
of people in the sample, thereby aiding in a higher
estimated true validity and a lower mean square error.
7.

Replicate Numbers 4, 5, and 6 on each of the 6

fields but reduce the 15 factor solution to 7.

A

reduction in the number of variables required for the
correlation run with the dependent variables as well
as with the number of predictor variables required
should keep the mean square error low and the true
validity high in a sample with significantly less N.

155
8.

Replicate Numbers 4, 5, and 6 on each of the

32 departments making up the total sample but selecting
only 2 or 3 variables at most as correlators or predictors.
And perhaps, consider either increasing the sample size
in each department before using the least squares routine
or employing another statistical method less prone to a
small N in relation to number of variables.
9.

Replicate Numbers 4, 5» 6» 7* and 8 but perform

a factor analysis of both an orthogonal and oblique
nature in order to generate factor scores to use as input
data for the multiple regression equations.

A comparison

of these results with those of raw data input should
determine the most useful predictive equation.
10.

Replicate the study on the basis of the various

institutional transfer patterns of doctoral recipients.
11.

Replicate the study using departmental

characteristics, especially those concerning the role of
the major professor and departmental administrative style,
especially as it pertains to allocation of departmental
resources.
12.

Finally, perform in depth interviews and/or

case studies on doctoral recipients in conjunction with
the above analyses to produce a more accurate interpreta­
tion particularly of personal variables influencing the
dependent time lapses in the pursuit of the doctorate.

r

156

It Is hoped that, such replication of, and further
investigation into, the research material generated by
this study, will enable administrators, faculty and
students on individual as well as departmental and
collegial levels to Increase both the efficiency and
efficacy of doctoral programs.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.

Books

Alciatore, Robert T , , and Eckert, Ruth E.
Minnesota P h .D .s
Evaluate Their Training;
A Study of the Relatlbnshfp
of Various Ph.D. Programs to Later Career Service
and Satisfaction, Minnesota:
University of
Minnesota Press, 1968.
Berelson, Bernard.
Graduate Education in the United
States.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc,,
1960.
Carmichael, Oliver C.
Graduate Education: A Critique
and a Program.
New York:
Harper and Brothers,

1961 .
Cooley, William W . , and Lohnes, Paul R. Multivariate
Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Mew York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962.
k

Davis, James A.
Stipends and Spouses:
The Finances of
American Arts and Sciences Graduate Students.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
______ . Great Aspirations. Chicago:
National Opinion
Research Center, University of Chicago, 1963.
Elder, J. P. A Criticism of the Graduate School of
Arts and Sciences in Harvard University aricT
Radcllffe College. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard
University Press, 1958.
Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology
and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., 1966.
Friedenberg, Edgar Z., and Roth, Julius A.
SelfPerception in the University: A Study of
Successful and Unsuccessful Graduate Students.
Chicago; The University of Chicago Press, 1$5**.
Grigg, Charles M. Graduate Education. New York: The
Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc.,
1965.
158

159

Harmon, Harry Horace.
Modern Factor Analysis. 2nd ed.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Hays, William Lee.
Statistics for Psychologists.
York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19&3.

New

Heard, Alexander.
The Lost Years in Graduate Education.
Atlanta:
Southern Regional Education Board, 1963.
Keniston, Hayward.
Graduate Study and Research in the
Arts and Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press,
1959.
McGrath, Earl J. Universal Higher Education.
McGraw-Hill Book Company7 1966.

New York:

Michigan State University.
Description of Courses and
Academic Programs for Graduate Study I960. East
Lansing: Michigan State University, i-968 •
Perkins, Dexter, and Snell, John L. The Education of
Historians in the United States"
New York:
tocGrawlHill Book Company, Inc., 1962.
Rosenhaupt, Hans.
Graduate Students:
Experience at
Columbia University. 19^0-195^1 New York:
Columbia University Press, 1958.
B.

Articles and Periodicals

Arlt, Gustave.
"The First Ph.D.’s Under Title IV:
Baccalaureate to Doctorate in Three Years." The
Journal of Higher Education. XXXIV (May, 1963)i
s r r w : -----

---------------

Beach, Leonard B.
"The Graduate Student." Graduate
Education -Today. Edited by Everett Walters.
Washington, D. C.: American Council on
Education, 1965.
Bent, Henry E,
"Fellowships, Assistantships, and Trainee
ships." Graduate Education Today. Edited by
Everett Walters. Washington, D. C .: American
Council on Education, 1965.
Brbwn, David G,
'!A Student Evaluation of Research
Assistantships." The Journal of Higher Education,
XXXIII (November, 1^62), 4 3 6 - 4 ^ .

160

Broudy, Harry S.j Childs, John L.j Campbell, Roald F.;
Morris, Benj Lortie, Dan C.; and Brubacher, John S.
"The Graduate Study of Education:
A Discussion,"
Harvard Educational Review. XXXVI (Spring, 1966),
155-183,
Darlington, Richard B.
"Multiple Regression in Psycho­
logical Research and Practice,"
Psychological
Bulletin. LXIX (1968), 161-182.
Dressel, Paul L,, and Dietrich, John E.
"Departmental
Review and Self-Study."
The Journal of Higher
Education. XXXVIII (January, 1967), 2 5 - 3 7 . --Pressey, Sidney L.
"Age and the Doctorate— Then and Now."
The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII (May, 1962),

153-160 .

Prior, Moody E.
"A Manifesto on Graduate Education."
The Journal of Higher Education. XXXIII (May, 1962),

283-28? .
Strauss, Samuel.
"On Research Ability in Graduate
Students." The Journal of Higher Education, XXXII
(November, 1961), W - 4 4 ' 8 .
°-------------- L
Wolfe, Dael.
"Delayed Independence."
Editorial, January 10, 1964.
C.

Science, CXLIII,

Reports

Butter, Irene H. Economics of Graduate Education:
An
Exploratory Study. Report to the U.S. "Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education, Bureau of Research, November, 1966.
Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan, 1966.
Cartter, Allan M. An Assessment of Quality in Graduate
Education:
A~Comparative Study of Graduate
Departments in 29 Academic Disciplines. Report
to the Commission on Plans ari'd' "bDjec't'i'ves for
Higher Education, American Council on Education,
1966.
Washington, D. C . : American Council on
Education, 1966.
Harmon, Lindsey R.
Profiles of Ph.D.s in the Sciences:
Summary Report on Follow-Up of Doctorate Cohort's.
1935-1960. Career Patterns Report No. 1 to the
National Institutes of Health, 1965. Washington,
D. C . : National Academy of Sciences, 1965.

161
Koenig, H. E . ; Keeney, M. G,; and Zeraach, R. A Systems
Model for Management. Planning, and Resource
Allocation in Institutions of Higher feducalTion.
Report to the National Science Foundation,
September 30, 1968.
East Lansing:
Michigan
State University, 1968,
Langlois, Eleanor, The Length of Time Spent in Earning
the P h . D . Report of the Office of Institutional
Research, University of California, March, 1967.
Berkeley;
University of California, 1967.
National Academy of Sciences.
Doctorate Recipients
From United States Universitle3 , 1 9 5 8 -19 6 6~ Report
of the Research Division 'of the Office of
Scientific Personnel of the National Academy of
Sciences to the National Science Foundation, 1967.
Washington, D. C . : National Academy of Sciences,
1967.
Suslaw, Sidney; Hamilton, Roger; and Goorvitch, Norma.
Student Financial Support at Berkeley: Under­
graduate and Graduate Students. Report of the
Office of Institutional Research, University of
California, February, 1968. Berkeley: University
of California, 1 9 6 8 .
Tucker, Allan; Gottlieb, David; and Pease, John.
Attrition of Graduate Students at the Ph.D.
Level in the Traditional Arts and Sciences.
Report to the Office of Education, U. S. department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, October 30,
1964.
East Lansing: Office of Research Develop­
ment and the Graduate School, Michigan State
University, 1964.
D.

Unpublished Materials

Council of Graduate Students, Michigan State University.
"Report to the Faculty and Graduate Students in the
College of Education on the Results of the Council
of Graduate Students' Survey of Graduate Student
Opinion in the College." East Lansing, Michigan,
1968.
(Mimeographed.)

162

Graduate Student Affairs Office, College of Education,
Michigan State University.
"Our Doctoral Graduates
Speak!: A Report to the Faculty of the College of
Education of the Results of a Questionnaire
Developed and Administered by the Graduate School
of Michigan State University to 393 Education
Doctoral Graduates During the Period December,
1961 to June, 1966." East Lansing, Michigan, 1967.
(mimeographed.)
Kline, David.
"IDCORR:
Incomplete Data Correlation
Program." Technical Report No. 4 of the Michigan
State University Computer Institute for Social
Science Research. East Lansing, Michigan, June 28,
1968.
(Mimeographed.)
Heiss, Ann M.
"Berkeley Doctoral Students Appraise
Their Academic Programs." Publication of the
Center for the Study of Higher Education, Univer­
sity of California, Berkeley, California, August,
1964.
(Mimeographed.)
Lorimer, Margaret F.
"A Survey of the Graduate Programs
and Future Plans of Students Receiving Doctorates
from Michigan State University, 1966-6 7 ." Publica­
tion of the Office of Institutional Research,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
August, 1968.
(Mimeographed.)
Thompson, Sister Mary Magdala.
"Michigan State University
Advanced Degrees Winter, 1958, through Spring,
1968." Publication of the Office of Institutional
Research, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, April, 1969.
(Mimeographed.)
Nuerberger, Robert M.
"Reactions of Michigan State
University Graduate Students to Their Experience
as Graduate Assistants:
A Survey of the Opinions
of Assistants Fall, 1965." Publication of the
Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, May, 1966.
(Mime o graphe d .)
Poulton, B. R. "An Assessment of Doctoral Programs at
Michigan State University." Publication of the
Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, Michigan, April, 1967.
(Mimeographed.)

Rafter, Mary E , , and Ruble, William L.
"Stepwise
Deletion of Variables from a Leabt Squares
Equation (LSDEL Routine)."
STAT Series Description
No. 8 of the Michigan State University Agricultural
Experiment Station, East Lansing, Michigan, November,
1968.
(Mimeographed.)
Williams, A.
"Factor Analysis Factor A: Principal Com­
ponents and Orthogonal Rotations," Technical
Report No. 34 of the Computer Institute for Social
Science Research, East Lansing, Michigan, October
23, 1967*
(Mimeographed.)

APPENDIX

OFF ICE OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
East La nsi ng, Michigan
For O f f i c e Use Only

3-M-68

c

(1-4)
Male
Sex
(6-7)

Department
I.

(5)
; Female

P le a s e l i s t below t h e c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s you have a t t e n d e d , be g i n n i n g
w i t h your f i r s t u n d e r g r a d u a t e s ch ool and i n c l u d i n g your p r e s e n t s c h o o l .
C o lle g e o r U n i v e r s i t y

Dates o f
A tte n d a n c e

Major F i e l d
o f Study

Degree
Received

_ _ _
"_____________ ‘

(8 ).
(9).

(10 ).
__________________

(ID.

(12 ).
_______________________
2.

(13).

If you have i n t e r r u p t e d your s t u d i e s ( ex cep t f o r summer p e r i o d s ) s i n c e you f i r s t
began a s a freshman in c o l l e g e , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e what you were doing " I n - b e tw e e n "
(E .G ., m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , p h y s i c a l i l l n e s s , f u l l time employment.)
If you were
working f u l l t i m e , i n d i c a t e what s o r t o f j o b you h e l d . P le a s e I n d i c a t e by an X
in th e r i g h t hand column i f a t t h a t tim e you. would have p r e f e r r e d t o s t a y .in
school.
Oates

Reasons f o r I n t e r r u p t i o n o f Study
Other. tS P E E T m

Would Have
P r e f e r r e d School

0*0__
( 1 5 )___
( 1 6 )___
( 1 7 )___
( 1 8 )___
(19)___

(20)__

3*

When did you f i r s t s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r going i n t o your c u r r e n t f i e l d
o f study? ( C i r c l e One Number)

Before e n t e r i n g hi gh school

_

During high s choo l

,

During th e f i r s t two y e a r s

2

of college

During th e J u n i o r y e a r - o f c o l l e g e
During th e s e n i o r year o f c o l l e g e _
A f t e r being o u t o f c o l l e g e
k.

1

3
...
_

_

5
■ 6

Have you s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r e d any o t h e r f i e l d o r c a r e e r s i n c e you
e n t e r e d g r a d u a t e sch o o l?

I f "YES" what f i e l d

No_______________

1

Yes______________

2

or field s?

P le a se t h i n k back t o t h e time when you f i r s t d e f i n i t e l y d e c i d e d to go
t o g r a d u a t e s c h o o l. C i r c l e t h e number o f th e s t a t e m e n t which comes
c l o s e s t t o d e s c r i b i n g your c a r e e r p l a n s a t t h a t t im e .
D e f i n i t e l y committed t o ' t h e f i e l d an d a p r e f e r e n c e f o r a s p e c i f i c
type of j o b in t h a t f i e l d
1
D e f i n i t e l y committed t o th e f i e l d , b u t no p r e f e r e n c e f o r a s p e c i f i c
ty p e of j o b in t h a t f i e l d
2
Trying o u t the f i e l d t o s ee i f I t m ig ht lead t o a d e s i r a b l e
c a r e e r ___________________________________________________
3
Other (SPECIFY).

k

- 3 ■
6.

P l e a s e w r i t e t h e number of th e s t a t e m e n t h q u e s t i o n 5 which com??
c l o s e s t t o d e s c r i b i n g your s i t u a t i o n r i g h t now.
.
?

7.

L i s t e d below a r e some of the t h i n g s you m ig ht have c o n s i d e r e d when you weighed
t h e a d v a n ta g e s and d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f d i f f e r e n t g r ad u ate s c h o o l s .
Plea se c i r c l e
t h e a p p r o p r i a t e number in each row In terms o f th e importance o f ea ch f a c t o r t o
you a t t h e time you decided t o go t o HSU.
One of t h e
Most Import a n t Reasons

Fa I r I y
Important

Not
important

Reputation of
i n s t i t u t i o n __

3

k.

P a r t i c u l a r man I wanted
t o s tu d y w ith

8

9

Reason

Q u ite
Important

Reputation of,
Department

>.

(25)__

,
(26)__

3

*♦

Ease and speed in
g e t t i n g degree

8

9

O pportunities for
teaching experience

3

U

(27)__

O pportunities for
research experience

8

<28) _

Chance o f g e t t i n g a
b e t t e r j o b 1h t h e long
run___________________

I

2

3

*♦

Housing.

6

7

8

9

S c h o l a r s h i p or
A ssistantship_

3

Not w anti ng t o c u t
Home t i e s __________

8

Other importa nt r e a s o n s (SPECIFY).

8.

<2*0___

(29)__

(30)__

Which s i n g l e f a c t o r above do you c o n s id e r mo st Important t o your ch o ice
o f MSU?
(3D__

-

( 3 2 )___

9.

k

-

Looking b a c k , do you t h i n k you made t h e b e s t d e c i s i o n by c h o o s in g
HSU f o r your g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g ?
( C i r c l e one num b er .)
‘ I d e f i n i t e l y made t h e b e s t d e c i s i o n by coming h e r e

1

I am p r e t t y s u r e

I made t h e b e s t d e c i s i o n in coming h e r e

2

I am p r e t t y s u r e

I s h o u ld have gone e l s e w h e r e

3

I d e f i n i t e l y made a poor d e c i s i o n In coming h e r e
10.

k

Given your c u r r e n t knowledge a b o u t HSU and your d e p a r tm e n t would you
s t i l l s e l e c t t h i s s c h o o l f o r you r d o c t o r a l t r a i n i n g i f you had t o
make t h e c h o i c e once a g a i n . ( C i r c l e one n u m ber.)
Yes
i

(33)

No

2

(3M

I f "NO" t o Q u e s t io n 10 what g r a d u a t e s ch oo l would you a t t e n d ?

(35)

V/hy would you choos e t h i s s c h o o l ?

(36)

II.

If a c l o s e r e l a t i v e o r f r i e n d was i n t e r e s t e d in e n t e r i n g your f i e l d and
wanted t o a t t e n d HSU, what a d v i c e would you g i v e him?

.i . . . t1

**

5 12.

13*

In term s of g e n e r a l r e p u t a t i o n among e x p e r t s in t h e f i e l d , how would
you r a t e your d e p a r tm e n t ?
Among t h e f i v e b e s t In t h e country_

1

Among t h e to p 20 d e p a r t m e n t s , but not among t h e 5 b e s t .

2

Not among th e t o p 20

3

I have no Idea a t a l l

it

How would' you r a t e t h e t r a i n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s In your d e par tm ent f o r a s t u d e n t
who is I n t e r e s t e d In
( c T r c l e one number in each ro w.)
Exce:lent

Good

Fair

Poor

Te a c h in a o n l v

I

2

3

it

Te achIno and r e s e a r c h

6

7

8

9

R es e a r c h o n lv

1

2

3

it

6

7

6

9

A p p l ie d a r e a s o f t h e f i e l d
lit.

(37).

_

Do you f e e l you have had s u f f i c i e n t o p p o r t u n i t y t o d i s c u s s your
c a r e e r pj«*r.s w i t h members o f t h e f a c u l t y ? ( C i r c l e one)
Yes

(38)___

(39)___

(*0).

L

No ___ 2
15*

How many f a c u l t y members o f your de partm ent d i d you know w e ll e n o u g h , ( * t l ).
d u r i n g your d o c t o r a l t r a i n i n g , w i t h whom y o u - f e l t you c o u l d d i s c u s s
p e r s o n a l problems ? ( C i r c l e " o n e )
All o f them'

1

Many o f them

2

About h a l f o f them

3

Very few of them __

it

None o f them ______

5

■ 6 •

16.

As f a r a s g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g , a l l in a l l how would you r a t e your depart*
m e n t 's f a c u l t y in r e s p e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g . ( C i r c l e one In each row)

fail

Excel l e n t

(*♦2)__

(*♦3)___

<«0_

17.

t

(*♦7)___

<**8)

(*♦9)___
* * (50)___

1

2

Knowledge o f t h e i r f i e l d s __

5

6

Teaching a b i l i t y

1

2

Awareness of c u r r e n t t r e n d s in
th e f i e l d

5

6

publishing Productivity^

1

2

R esear ch s k i l l s _________

5

6

H e l p f u l n e s s in o b t a i n i n g j o b s
f o r new d o c t o r a t e r e c ! p i e n t s _

(*♦5)___

W

S e n s i t i v i t y t o s t u d e n t needs.

Poor

18.

From your own e x p e r i e n c e s and from what you have h e a r d , how would you
say MSU compares t o o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s in r e s p e c t t o th e f o l l o w i n g .
( C i r c l e one In each row)
Excel le n t

Good

Fair

Poor

Housing f o r g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s

1

2

3

h

Concerts, fo re ig n film s , a r t f a i r s

6

7

8

9

Stipends for graduate
assistantshiD S

1

2

3

k

Studv f a c i l i t i e s

6

7

•

9

Re sea rc h f a c i l i t i e s

1

2

3

**

Library (Jo u rn als, referen ces,
e tc ..)

6

7

8

9

General academic c l i m a t e

1

2

3

4

As you t h i n k b a c k , what kind o f c o u r s e do you b e l i e v e was most
valuable?
Le cture

1

Seminars

2

I n d iv id u a l r e a d i n g
Can't decide „

_

3
k

From.what you know, how., important e r e th e f o l l o w i n g . c r i t e r i a a s ' t h e
(51)___
b a s is fo r a s s f s t a n t s h i p , fellow ships or scholarshipstaw arded to graduate
s t u d e n t s in your d e p a r t m e n t .
(Rank in o r d e r o f importance I , 2, 3)
Grades
Faculty personal

.
im p res sio n s

_______
.

F i n a n c i a l n eed

.

i

-.

American g r a d u a t e s c h o o ls have been c r i t i c i z e d and def ended on a number of
accounts.
L i s t e d below a r e some o f t h e c r i t i c i s m s which have been made. For
each i n d i c a t e whethe r you c o n s i d e r i t v a l i d o r not f o r t h e depa rtm en t in which
you com pleted your degree work. ( C i r c l e the a p p r o p r i a t e number In ea ch row)
I
Not
Dead
Somewhat
Wronq
Val id
Va lid
Val Id
i t encourages o v e r s p e c i a l i z a t i o n

1

2

It s t i f l e s stu d en t c r e a t i v i t y

C

7

-

3

U

8

9
»

T r a i n i n g not r e a l l y r e l a t e d t o j o b s
students w ill get

1

2

3

U

Too many formal h u r d l e s and I n i t i a t i o n
r i t e s which a r e n o t genuine t r a i n i n g

6

7

8

9

Does n o t h e lp s t u d e n t s g e t d e s i r a b l e
Jobs

1

2

3

U

I t a c c e p t s more s t u d e n t s tha n i t
should

6

7

8

9

Admission s t a n d a r d s a r e t o o low

1

2

3

U

I t e x p l o i t s i t s s t u d e n t s by u s in g
them f o r cheap la b o r

6

7

8

9

I t rewards c o n f o r m i t y , p u n is h e s
i n d i v i d u a l ism

1

2

3

k

F a c u l t y members a r e more I n t e r e s t e d
In r e s e a r c h t h a n th ey a r e in s t u d e n t s

6

7

8

9

Other (SPECIFY)

(52)___

(53)___

(5*0__

(55)___

(56)___

(57)_

- 8 21.

To what e x t e n t d i d a n y o f t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s a f f e c t t h e l e n g t h o f
tim e I t t o o k you t o g e t a d o c t o r ' s d e g r e e ?
Le ngthened
Time Con* Le ngthe ne d
s l d e r a b l v Time A B i t

(5 6) ___
( 59)___
160)
(61)
(62)
(63)

(6k)___

(65)

Did not
Lengthen
The Time

A ctually
S h o r te n e d
The Time

Not
Ap p IIcabie

Inadequate p r e p a r a tio n
b e f o r e coming t o HSU

1

3

k

5

R e p e a t i n g wor k h e r e
you had a l r e a d y done

1

3

k

5

Passing f o re ig n lan­
guage r e q u i r e m e n t s

1

3

k

5

Being t e a c h i n g
assistan t

1

3

k

. 5

Being r e s e a r c h
assistan t

I

3

k

5

Having t o work o f f
campus w h i l e s t u d y i n g
on campus

1

Lack o f f i n a n c i a l p r e s ­
sure to get doctorate
s p e e d i l y , owing t o co n ­
t i n u e d Gl b e n e f i t s

1

Being f i n a n c i a l l y o b l i g e d
t o le a v e h e r e in mid­
c o u r s e and work t o e a r n
money
I

2

k

5

(66)

Fam lly o b i i g a t i o n s

I

2

k

5

( 6 7 )___

Preparation for p re ­
l i m i n a r y (or g e n e r a l )
exam inations

1

R e s e a r c h f o r and
w ritin g of th e s is

I

(68).
(69).

22.

(70)___

23.

11
Of a l l t h e above f a c t o r s , e n c i r c l e t h e one which p r o b a b l y was most
i m p o r t a n t in * + e n g t h e n i n g t h e tim e I t t o o k you t o g e t a d o c t o r a t e .
If some o t h e r f a c t o r was more i m p o r t a n t th a n any o f t h e a b o v e , p l e a s e
note i t - h e r e v

•- 9 “
Deck 2 — Cols 1-20
214.

— o f f i c e use o n ly

Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g comes c l o s e s t t o d e s c r i b i n g your c a r e e r p l a n s
now t h a t your s t u d i e s a r e completed? ( C i r c l e one)
P o s i t i o n w i t h academic I n s t i t u t i o n
P o s i t i o n in i n d u s t r y

25-

26.

(21)__

I
_

2

P o s i t i o n w i t h f e d e r a l o r s t a t e government

3

Private p r a c tic e

**

O ther (SPECIFY)

5

Which o f t h e f o l l o w i n g comes c l o s e s t t o d e s c r i b i n g your p r e s e n t
s l t u a t ion?
D e f i n i t e l y have a iob

I

N egotiating,

looks oood

2

N egotiating,

looks do u b tf u I

3

Have n ot r e a l l y s t a r t e d s e r i o u s j o b h u n t i n q

'
'

Job

(22)

4

If you answered " I " (Have J o b ) , how s a t i s f i e d a r e you w i t h the
position?
Very s a t i s f i e d

1

Satisfied

2

Not s a t i s f l e d

3

Very d i s s a t i s f i e d

k

(23)

- 10

27.

There a r e many f a c t o r s which might lead a g r a d u a t e s tu d e n t t o c o n s i d e r o r
a c t u a l l y drop o u t o f ..school. For example, some . s t u d e n t s have mentioned f in ance s,
poor g r a d e s , f a i l u r e o f g r a d u a t e school t o measure up t o e x p e c t a t i o n s , i l l n e s s ,
f a c u l t y , m a r r i a g e , m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e , c h i l d r e n and s o f o r t h .
In as much d e t a i l a s n e c e s s a r y d i s c u s s t h e o c c a s i o n s when you s e r i o u s l y con­
s i d e r e d dropp ing o u t or a c t u a l l y d i d drop o u t o f g r a d u a t e s c h o o l . What were
th e r e a s o n s , how d i d th ey come a b o u t , what d i d you do, wit h whom d id you
speak?

28.

i f you a c t u a l l y d i d drop out o f school once you began your p o s t M ast ers work,
d i s c u s s t h e f a c t o r s which l e a d t o your r e t u r n i n g f o r the c o m p le t io n o f your
Doctorate.

- II BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2$.

What Is your ag e?

-

(2**)

30.

what Is your m a r i t a l s t a t u s ?

(25)

S i n g l e , n e v e r m a r r i e d .......................................................... 1
M ar ried, no p r e v i o u s m a r r i a g e ....................................... 2
M ar ried, a p r e v io u s m a r r i a g e ..........................................3
S e p a r a te d o r d i v o r c e d ...............
31.

4

Number o f c h i l d r e n

(26)

IF mRRIED
32.

During your d o c t o r a l work, did yo ur spouae:
Work f u l l time

1

Work p a r t time

Study f o r Bachelo rs Degree

3 .

Nondegree
Housewife o n l v

(27)

M a st e r s

k .

2

Doctors

6 .

6

7

O th e r (SPECIFY)Jl________________ ._________________________________

33.

Which o f th e f o ll o w i n g would you say comes c l o s e s t t o d e s c r i b i n g your (28)
s p o u s e ' s a t t i t u d e d u r in g t h e time you worked on your d o c t o r a t e ?
( C i r c l e One)
She th ought I s p e n t :
Much too much time on my s t u d i e s ................................. 1
Somewhat t o o much time on my s t u d i e s ........................2
About t h e r i g h t amount o f time on my s t u d i e s . . . 3
Somewhat to o l i t t l e time on my s t u d i e s ................... k
Much t o o 1 i t t l e tim e on my s t u d i e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

- 12 ,*

3<t.

P l e a s e d i s c u s s In a s much d e t a i l as n e c e s s a r y t h e p r o c e d u r e s by which you
were a s s i g n e d a m ajor p r o f e s s o r and a g u i d a n c e com mittee. D i s c u s s w h e t h e r
th e c h o i c e was y o u r s , t h e e x t e n t t o which you were i n volved i n t h e s e l e c t i o n ,
and y o u r g e n e r a l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e p r o c e d u r e s which were f o l l o w e d .

■ 13 •
35.

From t h e d a t e o f y our adm iss ion a s a d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t , how long
a p e r i o d was i t b e f o r e you had a major p r o f e s s o r ? ( C i r c l e one)

(25),

During my f i r s t q u a r t e r ........................................................I
During my second q u a r t e r .....................................................2
During my t h i r d q u a r t e r ............................................... ....3
A f t e r my f i r s t y e a r b u t b e f o r e my s e c o n d ................. k
A f t e r t h e s t a r t o f my second y e a r ................................. 5

36.

How long a p e r i o d was I t b e f o r e you had a guidan ce committee?
(Ci r c l e One)

(30)

During my f i r s t q u a r t e r .......................................................I
During my second q u a r t e r .....................................................2
During my t h i r d q u a r t e r .................................................... 3
A f t e r my f i r s t year but b efore my second................. k

37.

A f t e r t h e s t a r t o f my second y e a r ....................
5
!’
How soon a f t e r t h e s e l e c t i o n o f your major p r o f e s s o r and your
guidan ce committee d i d your committee hold I t s f i r s t meeting
w i t h you? ( C i r c l e th e answer which comes c l o s e s t . )
About one month l a t e r ............................................................ I
About two months l a t e r .......................................................... 2
About t h r e e months l a t e r ..................................................... 3
About f o u r months l a t e r . . . . . . ........................................*+
..About f i v e months l a t e r ........................................................5
About s i x months l a t e r ..........................................................6
Between s t x months and a

y e a r l a t e r .........................7

A f t e r a y e a r ............................................................................. 0

**
(31)

- !*♦
38.

P l e a s e d i s c u s s y o u r f e e l i n g a b o u t how y o ur g u i d a n c e c o m m i tte e o p e r a t e d .
Were yo u s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r a t t e n d a n c e and c o o p e r a t i o n ? Was i t
d i f f i c u l t t o g e t them t o g e t h e r ? Did th e y m e e t a s u f f i c i e n t number o f
times?

39.

P l e a s e d i s c u s s y o u r t h e s i s t o p i c a n d how i t was s e l e c t e d . Was i t s o m e t h i n g
you w e r e i n t e r e s t e d in an d w a n te d t o do o r was i t a " p r a c t i c a l c h o i c e " i . e .
s o m e t h i n g t h a t came from a f a c u l t y member 's r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t ?
To what e x te n t
was y o u r m a j o r p r o f e s s o r I n v o l v e d t n t h i s d e c i s i o n ? Were o t h e r f a c u l t y
members i n v o l v e d ?

- 15 **0‘.

*»1.
k2.

Mow many times d i d you meet w i t h your f u l l guidance committee
d u r i n g you r g r a d u a t e t r a i n i n g ?
( C i r c l e One)
Once

1

Twice

2

Three Times

3

Four Times

k

Five Times

5

S ix Times

6

Seven Times

7

Eight Times

8

Nine o r More

S

How many members were t h e r e In y o u r guidance com mittee?

(33)

Old you d i s c u s s your t h e s i s o r program w i t h members o f your committee
on an I n d iv i d u a l b a s t s ? ( C i r c l e One)
Yes

I

No

2

(32)

(Jit)

I f Yes
43*

How many members o f your g u id a n c e committee ( e x c l u d i n g your major
p r o f e s s o r ) dI d you meet w i t h on an I n d i v i d u a l b a s i s ?

i

: i.

:■ u » : ;

(35)

:

( e n t e r number he r e )
I f Yes
W*.

Of t h o s e you d i d meet w i t h o n . a n I n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , how f r e q u e n t were t h e s e
m e e tin g s ? ( C i r c l e one in each row f o r each guida nc e committee member
I n c l u d e d In q u e s t i o n *»3 above.).
Humber o f Times
F i r s t member........................ I

2

3

^

5

6

7

8 o r more

(36)

Second Member...................... 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 o r more

(37)

T h i r d Member........................ 1

2

3

**

5

6

7

8 o r more

(38)

Fourth Member...................... 1

2

3

**

5

6

7

8 o r more

(39)

- 16 45.

How many times In a q u a r t e r d i d you meet w i t h your m a jo r p r o f e s s o r
on t h e a v e r a g e ? ( C i r c l e One)
Less th a n 5 times p e r q u a r t e r

.I

Between 6 and 10 times p e r q u a r t e r ................. 2
m

___

Between II and 20 times p e r q u a r t e r ...............3
More th a n 20 ti m e s p e r q u a r t e r .......................... 4
46.

To what e x t e n t d i d yo ur d e par tm ent engage In any o f t h e f o ll o w i n g
activ ities?
( C i r c l e One number In each row.)
Very
Active

(40

1,

O r g a n iz e d o r i e n t a t i o n
programs f o r new g r a d u a t e
s t u d e n t s ......................................

(42)

2.

O r g a n iz e d informal
a c t i v i t i e s f o r graduate
s t u d e n t s ..................................

(43)

3.

Organized informal
a c t i v i t i e s for f a c u l t y s tu d e n t get t o g e t h e r s . . .

(44)

(45)

4.

47.

Organized programs or
seminars for graduate
t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t s on
t ea ch in g methods.

1

1

2

Active

2

Inactive

Very
Inactive

3

4

3

4

Which o f the above a c t i v i t i e s do you f e e l the department should
organize? ( C i r c l e as many as a p p l y . )
Number................................1
Number............. .................. 2
Number................................ 3

\ i.
Number................................4
All o f t h e Above........... 5
None o f t h e A b o v e . . , . 6 ‘

*

-

kb.

17

-

In lo oking back on your e x p e r i e n c e s a t HSU what would.you say t h e a d m i n i s t r a ­
t i o n c o u l d have done t o make th e e x p e r i e n c e more meaningful In te r m s of
s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s , g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n s and m a r r i e d s t u d e n t
activities?

- 1C
4S.

In c o n d u c t i n g r e s e a r c h ( l a b o r a t o r y , l i b r a r y , f i e l d , e t c . ) f o r y o u r
d o c t o r a l t h e s i s , how much s u p e r v i s i o n w er e you g i v e n by y o u r rnajor
p r o f e s s o r ( o r t h e s i s a d v i s o r I f n o t t h e same p e r s o n ) , an d how much
s u p e r v i s i o n would you have p r e f e r r e d ?
S u p e r v i s i o n Given
( C i r c l e One)

S u p ervision Preferred
( c i r c l e One)

i

Very c l o s e and c o n t i n u o u s
supervlsIon

1

2

Close s u p e r v i s i o n , but not
on a c o n t in u o u s b a s i s

2

< « > ___

3

Continuous s u p e r v i s i o n ,
but n ot v ery c l o s e

3

m

4

A moderate d eg ree o f
supervlsIon

4

5

Very l i t t l e s u p e r v i s i o n

5

50.

I f you w er e a m a j o r p r o f e s s o r ( o r t h e s i s a d v i s o r ) and
were d i r e c t in g
t h e r e s e a r c h o f d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s i n y o u r d e p a r t m e n t , how much
s u p e r v i s i o n ( b o t h In f r e q u e n c y and a t t e n t i v e n e s s ) would you g i v e
your students?
( C i r c l e One)
More t h a n 1 r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r . . . . . . . . 1

( 4 8 )___

L e s s t h a n I r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r .................. 2
About t h e same I
51.

r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r . . . 3

How much o p p o r t u n i t y d i d you r e c e i v e from
your th e s is advisor to
I n c o r p o r a t e y o u r own I d e a s I n t o t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n f o r y o u r
doctoral th e s is ?
( C i r c l e one)
Uni Iml t e d o p p o r t u n i t y ................................... I

(49)

L i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y ........................................ 2
No o p p o r t u n i t y ................................................... 3
52.

I f you were a m a j o r p r o f e s s o r ( o r t h e s i s d i r e c t o r ) In y o u r d e p a r t ­
m e n t , how much o p p o r t u n i t y would you g i v e y o u r d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s
t o I n c o r p o r a t e t h e i r own i d e a s I n t o t h e r e s e a r c h d e s i g n f o r t h e i r
doctoral th e sis ?
( C i r c l e One)
More t h a n I r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r ................ 1

(50)

L e s s t h a n I r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r ................2
About t h e same I r e c e i v e d from my m a j o r p r o f e s s o r . . 3

- is 53.

During t h e p e r i o d o f your d o c t o r a l t r a i n i n g , d i d you p a r t i c i p a t e In
p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e ti n g s? ( C i r c l e one)
1 a t t e n d e d one o r more p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e t in g s b u t d i d n o t
p r e s e n t any p a p e r s a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s ....................................................I
I a t t e n d e d . o n e o r more p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e tin g s and p r e s e n t e d
one o r more p a p e r s a t t h e s e m e e t i n g s .................................
t d i d n o t a t t e n d any p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e t i n g s ............................

5*+.

2(51)
3

How much encouragement d i d you r e c e i v e from f a c u l t y members o f your d e p a r t *
ment t o a t t e n d p r o f e s s i o n a l m eetings and t o p r e s e n t p a p e r s ?
To Attend
P r o fe s s i o n a l
Meetings
( C ir c l e one)
|

To Present
Papers
( C i r c l e one)
Ag r e a t d e a l o f encouragement

1
(52 )___

2

A m oderate amount o f encouragement

2

3

A small amount o f encouragement

3

A

No encouragement

4

(5 3 )___

55.

During th e p e r i o d o f your d o c t o r a l t r a i n i n g , d i d you dev elo p p r o f e s $ IonaI c o n t a c t s w i t h im p o r t a n t s c h o l a r s
o r r e s e a r c h e r s o u t s i d e o f your
own depa rtm en t e i t h e r in y our own
f i e l d o r In r e l a t e d f i e l d s ?

(5*0_

No .............................1
Yes .............................2
56.

I f y e s , were t h e s e p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s made w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s ?
( C i r c l e One)
In o t h e r d e p a r tm e n ts o f

(55)

M5U....................... 1

In o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s ...................................... 2
Both ............................................................................ 3

i

- 20
57.

, How much enc o u r a g e m e n t d i d you r e c e i v e from f a c u l t y . m e m b e r s o f
y o u r d e p a r t m e n t t o make p r o f e s s i o n a l c o n t a c t s w i t h I m p o r t a n t
sc h o la rs o r re s e a rc h e rs o u ts id e o f your department?,
I
W ith P e o p l e In O t h e r
Dep ar tm en ts o f MSU
( C i r c l e one)

(5 6)____

With P e o p l e in O t h e r
U nlversltles
.
( C i r c l e one)

1

A g r e a t d eal o f
e nc o u r a g e m e n t

1

2

A m o d e r a t e amount o f
en co u r ag em en t

3

A s m all amount o f
en c o u r a g e m e n t

3

if.

No enco u r a g e m e n t

4

22

($7)____

(5 8) ___

58.

D ur in g t h e p e r i o d o f y o u r d o c t o r a l t r a i n i n g , d i d you have any
p a p e r s , a r t i c l e s , e t c , p u b l i s h e d In p r o f e s s i o n a l J o u r n a l s o r
m a g a z in e s ?
No..............1
Yes............. 2

(59)

59*

How much' e n c o u r a g e m e n t d i d you r e c e i v e from f a c u l t y members o f
y o u r d e p a r t m e n t t o p u b l i s h i n p r o f e s s i o n a l J o u r n a l s o r m a g a z in e s ?
( C i r c l e One)
A g r e a t d e a l o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t ..........................1
A m o d e r a t e amount

o f e n c o u r a g e m e n t ............2

A smal l amount o f

e n c o u r a g e m e n t ...................3

No e n c o u r a g e m e n t ....................................................... if

1

WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR HELP.
PLEASE RETURN THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO OUR OFFICE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED GRADUATE STUDIES

(#53)

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CANDIDATES FOR DOCTOR’S DEGREES

Name

Sex_
Last

First

Middle

Legal residence when admitted to doctoral program
state or Country
Degree to be granted: Ph.D.

Ed.D.

D.B.A.

When?
Verm

Year

College and Department granting degree
College
Term when you began your doctoral program at MSU

Department

Verm
Number of terms a full-time (7hours or more) doctoral student

Year

Number of terms a part-time (less than 7 hours) doctoral student
Number of credits earned in MSU off-campus courses applied toward doctorate
Number of transfer credits applied to doctoral program

from what institutions)?

Languages for doctoral requirements:
Employment (if any) by MSU during your doctoral program:
Terms ____________ /

Type of work_

Type of work____________________ Terms

Full-time employment, if any, immediately before beginning doctoral degree:
_ _ ^

Public school teaching/admin.
Junior/community college teaching/admin.
3 H H Four-year college/univ. teaching/admin.
.
Industry
______ Business
.Social Services
______ Number of years in this
Government
employment

Type of employment desired after degree:
Public school teaching/admin.
Junior/community college teaching/admin.
____^ Four- year college/univ, teaching/admin.
' Industry
_ _ _ ^ Business
Social Services
If employment will be primarily
■ Government
research, check here r- '" 1
Post-doctoral study

If known, give employer's (company's or institution's) name:_
and location:

Mil* .uiufltail u l a r u

f

ha Want anwf I Hawfl >1 \ l_________

Hame

Sex_
Last

First

Middle

[egal residence when admitted to doctoral program^
State or Oountry
Dagree to be granted: Ph.D.

Ed.D.

D.B.A.

When?_
^erm

'

Year

College and Department granting degree
college
Term when you began your doctoral program at HSU

Apartment

Vear

Term
Humber of terms a full-time (7hours or more) doctoral student____
Humber of terms a part-time (less than 7 hours) doctoral student

Humber of credits earned in HSU off-campus courses applied toward doctorate
Humber of transfer credits applied to doctoral program

from what institutions )?

Languages for doctoral requirements:
employment (if any) by HSU during your doctoral program:
T e r m s ____________ /

Type of work_

Type of work____________________ Terms

FUll-time employment, if any, immediately before beginning doctoral degree:
Public school teaching/admin*
Junior/community college teachlng/admin.
______ Four-year college/univ. teaching/admin.
11 ■ Industry
Business
~~
.Social Services
_____ Number of years in this
Government
employment

Type of employment desired after degree:
Public school teaching/admin.
Junior/community college teaching/admin.
Four- year college/univ. teaching/admin.
Industry
Business
" Social Services
If employment will be primarily
■ Government
research, check here r1
Post-doctoral study
'
1

If known, give employer's (company's or institution's) name:_
and location:
If known, expected salary (to be kept confidential):________
Hill your post doctoral employment be:
The same job you held before beginning the program
A job you took during your doctoral program
A new job similar to one you held before
Anew job unlike any yog have held before

.
"

?
J"?
"?