71-2190
WENTWORTH, Clifford Russell, 1925A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF 1,H64 SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS WHO WERE DENIED ADMISSION TO
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, higher

U niversity Microfilms, A XEROXC om pany , A nn A rbor, M ichigan

L D E S C R I P T I V E S T U D Y OF 1,464 S E C O N D A R Y S C H O O L
STUDENTS W H O WERE DENIED ADMISSION T O
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
By
'N
■<jX
aC . Rus s e l l W e n t w o r t h

A THESIS

S u b m i t t e d to
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t of the r e q u i r e m e n t s
for the d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF P H I L O S O P H Y
D e p a r t m e n t of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and
Higher Education
1970

ABSTRACT
A D ES C R I P T I V E STUDY O F 1,4 64 SECONDARY SCHOOL
STUDENTS W H O W E R E DENIED A D M I S S I O N TO
M I C H I G A N STATE UNIVERSITY
By
C. Russell W e n t w o r t h

The P r o b l e m
A d m i s s i o n s officer s are d e e p l y concerned w i t h the
challenge of provi d i n g adequate,

accurate,

and helpful

couns e l i n g to secondary school students w h o seek e n r o l l ­
m e n t in p o st secondary educational institutions.
Of partic u l a r c o n c e r n are those students to w h o m
a d m i s s i o n is denied.

They are a c o n c e r n bec a u s e little is

known of t hem and of w h a t becomes of t h e m o n c e denied.
They are a con c e r n because they repre s e n t a cons i d e r a b l e
amount of the time expended by admissions o f f i c e r s as they
seek appeal and alternate p r o p o s a l s to p o s t high school
education.
This paper was w r i t t e n to pro v i d e n e w insight
relevant to the "non-admit"

student and w i t h the h o p e that

the n e w knowledge w h i c h resulted m i g h t permit wiser, more
efficient and m o r e effective co u n s e l i n g by a be t t e r in­
formed admissions officer.

C.

Russell Wentworth

M e t h o d s and P r o c e d u r e s
S p ec i f i c a l l y ,

the study sought b a c k g r o u n d d a t a

w h i c h w o u l d b e t t e r i d e n t i f y and d e s c r i b e the
student,

"non-admit"

i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n e d w i t h w h a t b e c a m e o f the

s t udent a f ter d e n i a l to M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,

and

i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the a t t i t u d e of the s t u d e n t and h i s
p a r e n t s t o w a r d the u n i v e r s i t y and the a d m i s s i o n s office.
B a c k g r o u n d d a t a w e r e g a t h e r e d by a n a l y z i n g the
a p p l i c a t i o n s of a s t r a t i f i e d r a n d o m s a m p l e of

students

d r a w n f r o m the u n i v e r s e of s t u d e n t s d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to
M.S.U.

in 1968.

point average,
major,

A p p l i c a t i o n s p r o v i d e d d a t a o n sex, g r a d e
class rank,

a p t i t u d e test scores,

college

s i z e of s e c o n d a r y school, p r i n c i p a l r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ,

p a r e n t e ducation,

a n d alumni

status of parents.

D a t a from the a p p l i c a t i o n s w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h
similar d a t a o b t a i n e d from an a n a l y s i s of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s
of a r a n d o m l y selected sample of s t u d e n t s d r a w n f r o m the
u n i v e r s e of students admitted
Two questionnaires,
of the

"non-admit"

t heir student,

stud e n t s

to M.S.U.

in 1968.

o n e d i r e c t e d to the p a r e n t s
in the sa m p l e a n d the other to

secured i n f o r m a t i o n r e l a t e d t o the students'

p r e s e n t a c t i v i t i e s and the a t t i t u d e of b o t h p a r e n t s and
students.
F i n d i n g s and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
T h e a p p l i c a t i o n a n a l y s i s and a v e r y s u b s t a n t i a l
q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e t u r n p r o v i d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e data.

C.
T h e "non-admit"

stu d e n t d o e s not d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i ­

a l l y f r o m his cou n t e r p a r t ,
p a r e d b y sex,
major,

Russell Wentworth

t h e a d m i t t e d student, w h e n c o m ­

size of h i g h school,

p a r e n t s e d u c a t i o n or a l u m n i

s e l e c t i o n of c o l l e g e
status of pare n t s .

He

do e s d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y w h e n c o m p a r e d by g r a d e point
average,

c lass rank, a p t i t u d e test scores,

and p r i n c i p a l

recommendations.
N i n e t y — one per cent of the

"non-admit"

stud e n t s

in the sample did e n r o l l in a f o u r - y e a r coll e g e ,
junior c o l l e g e or trade school.

community-

M o s t s t u d e n t s are s u c c e e d ­

ing academically.
P a r e n t and student a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s the u n i v e r s i t y
was g e n e r o u s and friendly.

Both admit disappointment,

but

b o t h a g r e e d the d e c i s i o n w a s h o n e s t and sincere.
The "no" d e c i s i o n d o e s n o t a p p e a r to be as d e v a s t a t ­
ing as m a n y a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s b e l i e v e d it to be.
As a r e s u l t of the study,
m e n d e d m o r e s t u d e n t interviews,
admit"

the w r i t e r h a s r e c o m ­

a r e w o r d i n g of the

"non-

letter to ins u r e m o r e a d e q u a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e

a d m i s s i o n s p r o c edure,

i n t e n s i f i e d e f f o r t s to c o m m u n i c a t e

w i t h s e c o n d a r y c o u n s e l o r s a n d the e x t e n s i o n of the p u b l i c
r e l a t i o n s effo r t s e n g a g e d in by t h e a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e
staff.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

T h e w r i t e r is i n d e b t e d to m a n y i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e
encouragement,

faith,

and c o o p e r a t i o n has m a d e p o s s i b l e

the c o m p l e t i o n of this study.
T o Dr. E d w a r d B. B l a c k m a n my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n
a n d g r a t i t u d e for his interest,

support,

and inspiration

as a d v i s o r t h r o u g h o u t the d o c t o r a l program.

My association

w i t h h i m has b e e n a p r i v i l e g e to be f o r e v e r cherished.
M y g r a d u a t e c o m m i t t e e , c o m p o s e d of Dr. E d w a r d B.
Blackman

(chairman), Dr.

Nonnamaker,

R o b e r t C. A n d e r s o n ,

and Dr. G o r d o n A. Sabine,

Dr.

E l d o n R.

have each c o n t r i b u t e d

g e n e r o u s l y and s i g n i f i c a n t l y of t h e i r time and talent.

To

e a c h X a m grateful.
T o Mr. G e o r g e E. P e t e r s o n and Dr. G w e n d o l y n N o r r e l l
t h a n k y o u for "believing."
T o m y parents,
to m y wife, Carolyn,

Mr.

and Mrs. C l i f f o r d We n t w o r t h ,

a n d to my c h i l d r e n ,

Keith,

Cindy,

Craig,

and Daniel,

I a c k n o w l e d g e m y l a r g e s t debt of g r a t i ­

tude.

T h e i r love,

sacrifice,

and fa i t h is b o u n d l e s s and

has s u s t a i n e d m e t h r o u g h o u t my s t u d y a n d m y life.
to t h e m this w o r k is dedicated.

It is

TA B L E OF CONTENTS
C h apter
I.

I N T R O D U C T I O N ....................................
S t atement of the P r o b l e m

II.

III.

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

1

R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E ......................

4

S i g n i ficance of the P r o b l e m
..............
The A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r . . . . . . .
T he Public Concern
..............
The U n i v e r s i t y C o n c e r n .....................

4
5
7
9

T H E DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ......................

11

T h e D e s c r i p t i o n ............................
W h a t Becomes of the S t u d e n t Denied?
W h a t is the A t t i t u d e of His P a r e n t s ?
.
.
The Student A t t i t u d e .........................
S u m m a r y ................................
IV.

1

12
13
20
27

T H E F I N D I N G S ....................................

28

T he N o n - A d m i t S t u d e n t .....................
W h at Becomes of the Stu d e n t A f t e r He or
She is D e n i e d A d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n
S t a t e ? .......................................
S t udent and Parental A t t i t u d e ..............

28

V.

A N A N ALYSIS OF C O M M E N T S ............

63

VI.

SUMMARY AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S .........

73

The N o n - A d m i t S t u d e n t ............
73
W h a t Becomes of the N o n - A d m i t Student?.
.
Student and Pa r e n t A t t i t u d e
R e comm e n d a t i o n s
.............................
R e c o m mendations for Further Study . . .

iii

37
40

74
75
77
81

Chapter
B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...........................................

83

APPENDICES
Appendix
A.

P a r e n t ' s Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and L e t t e r s

. . .

85

B.

S t u d e n t Q u e s t i o n n a i r e and Letters.

. . .

90

C.

C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e E n r o l l m e n t of N o n —A d m i t
S t u d e n t s by C o u n t y ...................
97
S u m m a r y of D a t a S o u r c e by P a r e n t and
Student Questionnaires
......................

98

L I S T OF T A B L E S
Table
1.

Page
D i s t r i b u t i o n of Stud e n t s by G r a d e P o i n t
Average, B o t h S a m p l e s ......................

30

2.

S t u d e n t C l a s s R a n k .............................

30

3.

S c h o l a s t i c A p t i t u d e T e s t R e s u l t s for B o t h
S a m p l e s ........................................

32

T h e S e l e c t i o n of M a j o r s by S t u d e n t s of
E a c h S a m p l e b y C o l l e g e at M.S.U.
.

34

4.

.

.

5.

Principal Recommendations

for B o t h Samples.

36

6.

P a r e n t s E d u c a t i o n as R e p o r t e d b y S t u d e n t s
in B o t h S a m p l e s
.........................

37

P a r e n t R e s p o n s e s to the Q u e s t i o n "Who
Helped Your Student Select Michigan
S t a t e ? " ............................

42

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "Who
H e l p e d Y o u S e l e c t M i c h i g a n State?".

.

.

42

Items C i r c l e d b y P a r e n t s a n d S t u d e n t s as
the One W h o M o s t I n f l u e n c e d S t u d e n t to
S e l e c t M . S . U ..................................

43

S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e s to the Q u e s t i o n "Who
H e l p e d Y o u S e l e c t the C o l l e g e Y o u N o w
A t t e n d ? " ....................................

44

P a r e n t R e s p o n s e s to the Q u e s t i o n "What or
W h o M a d e Y o u T h i n k of M.S.U. as an
A p p r o p r i a t e U n i v e r s i t y for Your
S t u d e n t ? " ....................................

45

v

Table
12.

Page
S t u d e n t Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "To How
M a n y O t h e r Colleges Did You Apply?"
.

.

13.

S t u d e nt Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "Did You
Have a Perso n a l I n t e r v i e w in the M.S.U.
47
O f f ice of A d m i s s i o n s ? " ..........

14.

S t u d e nt Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "Which of
the Factors B e l o w Do You Feel I n f l uenced
Our D e c i s i o n to D e n y A d m i s s i o n to You?"
.

46

49

15.

P a r e n t Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "Which of
the Factors B e l o w Do You Feel In f l u e n c e d
Our D e c i s i o n to D e n y A d m i s s i o n to Your
S t u d e n t ? " ........................
49

16.

S t u d e n t Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "What
Factors D o Y o u B e l i e v e We Sh o u l d C o n ­
sider W h e n We A r r i v e at an A d m i s s i o n s
D e c i s i o n ? " ....................................

50

P a r e n t R e s p onses to the Q u e s t i o n "What
Factors D o Y o u Feel We Should C o n s i d e r
W h e n We A r r i v e at an A d m i s s i o n Decision?"

51

S t u d e n t Responses to the Q u e s t i o n "When You
R e c eived Our N o n - A d m i t L e t t e r , W e r e You:"

52

P arent Response to the Q u e s t i o n "When Your
S t udent was D e n i e d A d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n
State, Were Y o u : " .........................

53

S t u d e n t Resp o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "At the
Time Our D e c i s i o n A r r i v e d Did You T h e n
Be lieve Our Deci s i o n to B e : " ..............

54

S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "How Do
You Feel N o w A b o u t Our Decision:" . . .

54

P a r e n t Response to the Q u e s t i o n "At the
Time Our Letter A r r i v e d D i d Y o u T h e n
B e l ieve Our Deci s i o n to B e : " ..............

55

P a r e n t Response to the Ques t i o n "How Do You
Feel N o w A b o u t Our Decision?"
. . . .

55

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.
22.

23.

vi

Table
24.
25.

26.

27.
C-l.
C-2.

Page
S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e to " P r e s e n t G r a d e P o i n t
A v e r a g e : " ........................................

58

P a r e n t R e s p o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "Do Y o u
B e l i e v e the A d m i s s i o n s D e c i s i o n s at
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y A r e : " ...............

59

S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "Do You
B e l i e v e the A d m i s s i o n s D e c i s i o n at M.S.U.
A
r
e
.............................

60

S t u d e n t R e s p o n s e to the Q u e s t i o n "Why A r e
Y o u N o t P r e s e n t l y E n r o l l e d in a C o l l e g e ? "

61

.

C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e E n r o l l m e n t of N o n - A d m i t
S t u d e n t s B y C o u n t y .............................

97

S u m m a r y of Data S o u r c e by P a r e n t and S t u d e n t
Questionnaires
.................................

98

D E F I N I T I O N OF TERMS

The follo w i n g terms are used freque n t l y in this
study.

In an e f f o r t to m a k e this w o r k more e a s i l y u n d e r ­

standable,

a short e x p l a n a t i o n of their m e a n i n g is i n ­

cluded.
Admission;

A c c e p t a n c e of an a p p l i c a n t for enroll

m e n t in a school or other institution.
Admissions O f f i c e r ;

A college or u n i v e r s i t y

officer w h o approves or d i s a p p r o v e s

the a p p l i c a t i o n

for

e nroll m e n t of n e w students.
"Non-Admit” Student;

The s t u d e n t w h o h a v i n g

applied to a coll e g e or u n i v e r s i t y is denied admission.
Questionnaire;
questions,

A list of planned, w r i t t e n

r e l a t e d to a p a r t i c u l a r topic, w i t h space p r o ­

vided for i n d i c a t i n g the resp o n s e to e a c h question,
tended for s u b m i s s i o n to a nu m b e r of persons
Counseling;

for reply.

I n d i v i d u a l i z e d and p e r s o n a l i z e d

assistance w i t h personal, e d u c a t i o n a l or v o c a t i o n a l

viii

in­

p r o b l e m s in w h i c h all p e r t i n e n t facts are s t u d i e d and
a n a l y z e d and a s o l u t i o n is sought;

o f t e n w i t h the a s s i s t ­

ance of s p e c i a l i s t s , s c h o o l , and c o m m u n i t y r e s o u r c e s , a n d
personal interviews

in w h i c h the c o u n s e l e e is t a u g h t to

m a k e his o w n d e c i s i o n s .
A l l of the a b o v e terms or d e f i n i t i o n s w e r e take n
from the same s o u r c e :
C a r t e r V. Good, D i c t i o n a r y of E d u c a t i o n
M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , I n c ., 1959).

ix

(New York:

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
S t a t e m e n t of the P r o b l e m
A m a j o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r
at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y is c o u n s e l i n g s t u d e n t s r e g a r d ­
ing a p p r o p r i a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s
education.

T h e M.S.U.

for p o s t - s e c o n d a r y sc h o o l

a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r is c h a r g e d w i t h

and c o m m i t t e d to the c o u n s e l i n g function:

(1 ) b e c a u s e it

is i m p l i c i t in the u n i v e r s i t y ' s p h i l o s o p h i c goal of publ i c
service,

(2 ) b e c a u s e it is a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a s s i g n e d to h i m

b y the d i r e c t o r of admissions,
are d e p r i v e d of,

(3) b e c a u s e m a n y s t u d e n t s

or w i l l n o t a c c e p t c o u n s e l i n g of this

nature f r o m s e c o n d a r y school p e r s o n n e l ,^1 and

(4) b e c a u s e

of the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r ' s c o n c e p t of his o w n p r o f e s s i o n a l
r o l e .2

^ D o nald D. Jorgenson, "The C o u n s e l i n g A s p e c t s
A d m i s s i o n s , " T h e J o u r n a l of the C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s
C o u n s e l o r s , ( S e p t e m b e r , 1967), 9-11.
2

of

J. Z. H a u s e r and P. F. Laz a r s f e l d , T h e A d m i s s i o n s
O f f i c e r in the A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e , a R e p o r t for T h e C o l l e g e
E n t r a n c e E x a m i n a t i o n Board, B u r e a u of A p p l i e d S o c i a l R e ­
s e a r c h (New York:
C o l u m b i a U n i v ersity, 1964), C h a p t e r III.

1

T h e c o u n s e l i n g process,

as d e f i n e d b y Tolbert,

3

e n c o u r a g e s the s t u d e n t t o w a r d a m o r e r e a l i s t i c self
a p p r a i s a l of aptitudes,

achievements,

and i n t e rests and

assists h i m in r e l a t i n g t h e s e a b i l i t i e s and p o t e n t i a l i t i e s
to a v a i l a b le o p p o r t u n i t i e s

for e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d s e c o n d a r y

school.
T h e c o u n s e l i n g s e r v i c e is p r o v i d e d to g r o u p s and
to i n d i v i d uals and it m a y be i n i t i a t e d by the a d m i s s i o n s
officer,

s e c o n d a r y school person n e l ,

student.

or b y the i n d i v i d u a l

It u s u a l l y takes p l a c e in the s e c o n d a r y school

or in the u n i v e r s i t y o f f i c e of admissions.
T h e students i n v o l v e d range in age from twelve to
n i n e t e e n years,

th o u g h m o s t are seniors,

e i g h t e e n years of age.

The majority,

s e v e n t e e n or

capable,

intellige n t ,

an d mature, have d e m o n s t r a t e d one or m o r e of these c h a r a c ­
teristics; m a n y other,
or motiv a t ion,

for reasons i n v o l v i n g a p t i t u d e an d /

have not.

Th e a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r is e x p e c t e d
he does,

to c o u n s e l and

g i v i n g a t least half of his p r o f e s s i o n a l

student interviews

4

and m u c h to g r o u p interviews.

time to
Of that

time, a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n is r e q u e s t e d b y and g r a n t e d to
stude n t s w h o have b e e n d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n State
3

York:

E. L. Tolbert, I n t r o d u c t i o n to C o u n s e l i n g
M c G r a w - H i l l B o o k C o m p a n y , I n c . , 1959), pT 3.
4

(New

H a u s e r and L a z a r sfeld, T h e A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r in
the A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e , p. 6 .

3
and who,

as a result,

seek appeal and a l t e r n a t e p r o p o s a l s

in the s e a r c h for p o s t - s e c o n d a r y education.
Th is study has c o n c e r n e d itself w i t h this s p e c i f i c
g r o u p of students,

t h o s e d e n i e d admission.

The writer

g a t h e r e d and a n a l y z e d d a t a w h i c h are a v a i l a b l e f r o m e a c h
s t u d e n t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n folder and d a t a w h i c h w a s s o l i c i t e d
by a q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i r e c t e d to the students w h o w e r e d e n i e d
a d m i s s i o n to M.S.U.

for fall term,

1968,

and to the p a r e n t s

of t h e s e students.
It is the c o n t e n t i o n here that this s t u d y has
p r o v i d e d n e w insight r e l e v a n t to the "non-admit"

student

and that the n e w k n o w l e d g e w h i c h r e s u l t s will p e r m i t
wiser, m o r e efficient,
a better

and m o r e e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l i n g by

informed a d m i s s i o n s officer.
W h i l e s p e c i f i c a l l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h the M i c h i g a n

State s t u d e nt and the M i c h i g a n State a d m i s s i o n s officer,
it is t h e w r i t e r ' s h o p e and b e l i e f t h a t the study has
c o n t r i b u t e d w o r t h w h i l e k n o w l e d g e to all a d m i s s i o n s p e r ­
sonnel w h o counsel o r c o n t e m p l a t e c o u n s e l i n g the stu d e n t
w h o is d e n i e d admission.

C H A P T E R II
R E V I E W OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E
S i g n i f i c a n c e of -the P r o b l e m
T h e r e is a p a u c i t y of r e s e a r c h and l i t e r a t u r e c o n ­
c e r n i n g the

"non-admit"

for the m o s t part,

student.

E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h has,

i g n o r e d him.

W h e n an e x t e n s i v e r e v i e w of a v a i l a b l e r e s e a r c h and
litera t u r e fa i l e d to d i s c l o s e a single s t u d y c o n c e r n e d
w i t h the "non-admit"

student,

the w r i t e r at the s u g g e s t i o n

of a m e m b e r of his d i s s e r t a t i o n c o m m i t t e e w r o t e e v e r y foury e a r c o l l e ge in M i c h i g a n s e e k i n g e v i d e n c e of u n p u b l i s h e d
studies.

In addition,

all

"Big Ten" u n i v e r s i t i e s a n d the

U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o w e r e polled.
v e r s i t i e s responded,

A l l c o l l e g e s and u n i ­

e a c h w i t h an i n t e r e s t b u t n o n e w i t h

any s i m i l a r effort.
T h e w r i t e r b e l i e v e s this s t u d y is i m p e r a t i v e
and timely,

for

(1 ) it c o i n c i d e s w i t h the e m e r g e n c e

of the " p r ofe s s i o n a l "

a d m i s s i o n s officer,

5

and

(2 ) it c o i n c i d e s w i t h a g r o w i n g p u b l i c and u n i v e r s i t y

Ohio:

5R i c h a r d R. Perry, T h e A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r (Toledo,
T h e U n i v e r s i t y of T o l e d o , 1963-64), p p . 3^7, 6 6 .

4

5
interest in the role of the admissions officer and his
o b l i g a t i o n to the student d e n i e d admission.
T h e A d m i s s i o n s Officer
It has been stated earlier that the admissions
officer m u s t counsel.

Indeed,

c o n t e m p o r a r y literature and

resea r c h seem to indicate that the a d m i ssions offic e r ' s
role as c o uns e l o r w i l l be c o m e i n c r easingly important.
T h e s t u d e n t will turn to the admissions office
because that of f i c e will a p p a r e n t l y continue to provide
the m a j o r source of p r o f e s s i o n a l co u n s e l i n g for the
colleg e - b o und s t u d e n t 6 and because the admiss i o n s officer
appears to be n o t only the m o s t available source of h e l p
7
but the m o s t acceptable to the student.
R i c h a r d Perry in his study, T h e A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r ,
concludes:
I n d i v i d u a l l y and as a group admissions officers are
altruistic.
Their chief conc e r n is the e d u c a t i o n a l
w e l f a r e of students e n t e r i n g colleges and universitie s .
T h a t c o n c e r n takes the form of e x t e n d i n g w i s e counsel
to students so that i n t e l ligent decisions c a n be made
about a choice of c o l l e g e .8

A r t h u r A. Hitchcock, "Counselors:
Supply, D e m a n d
and Need," C o u n s e l o r D e v e l o p m e n t in A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y , e d .
by J o h n F. McGowan, C o n f e r e n c e Recomme n d a t i o n s F r o m " I n ­
vitat i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e on G o v e r n m e n t - U n i v e r s i t y Relations
in the P r o f e s s i o n a l P r e p a r a t i o n and E m p l o y m e n t of C o u n s e ­
lors, Washington, D.C., 1965, p. 109.
7

Da vxd W. Peterson, "How H i g h School Visits I n f l u ­
ence C o l lege Admissions," C o l l e g e Board Review, (Summer,
1968), 8 .
O

Perry, T h e A d m i s s i o n s Officer, p.

24.

6
O t h e r s t udies p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e of t h e a d m i s s i o n s
officer's

c o n t e n t i o n that c o u n s e l i n g s t u d e n t s

i m p o r t a n t f u n c t i o n of the job.

is the m o s t

9 10
'

It is w i t h i n his own p r o f e s s i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of
"counseling" and "wise coun s e l "

that the admissions officer

b e c o m e s i n v o l v e d w i t h the n o n - a d m i t student.

First because

w i s e c o u n s e l implies t h a t some s t u d e n t s w i l l b e d e n i e d
a d m i s s i o n on the p r e m i s e that the

"no" d e c i s i o n is the m o s t

h o n e s t a n d h e l p f u l to t h e m in that it m a y p r e v e n t a c a d e m i c
failure, a n d s e c o n d l y beca u s e ,
denied,

o n c e the s t u d e n t has b e e n

the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r feels an o b l i g a t i o n t o p r o ­

vide a l t e rnatives.
T h e writer believes

this s t u d y w i l l a i d the a d ­

m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r in m e e t i n g his o b l i g a t i o n to s t u d e n t s w h o
ha v e b e e n d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n as it p r o v i d e s m o r e r e f i n e d
i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t a n d g r e a t e r d e t a i l
a b o u t the a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e to him.
T h e a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r has i n d i c a t e d a n e e d for
this

type of r e s e a r c h ,11 and he rela t e s ,

finally,

his compe­

t e n c y d i r e c t l y to the r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e a v a i l a b l e

^ I b i d . , p.

pp.

^Jorgenson,
9-11.

to him;

63.
" C o u n s e l i n g A s p e c t s of A d m i s s i o n s , "

11H a u s e r and L a z a r sfled, T h e A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r in
the A m e r i c a n College, C h a p t e r III.

7
literature w h i c h is s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t e d to the student,
the u n i v e r s ity,

and society.
The Public Concern

P e r h a p s m o r e than e v e r b e f o r e the A m e r i c a n p u b l i c
is c o m m i t t e d to e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d h i g h school.

T h e 1964

E d u c a t i o n a l P o l i c i e s C o m m i s s i o n of the N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n
A s s o c i a t i o n spoke m o s t e l o q u e n t l y for the nation.

In its

p u b l i c a t i o n "Unive r s a l O p p o r t u n i t y for E d u c a t i o n B e y o n d the
H i g h School,"

the C o m m i s s i o n stated:

If i n d i v i d u a l f r e e d o m is the
A m e r i c a n ideal and if
e d u c a t i o n is i n c r e a s i n g l y p e r t i n e n t to the s o c i a l w e l l
b e i n g the c o m m o n p r a c t i c e o f e n d i n g o n e 's e d u c a t i o n at
the h i g h school level c a n n o t be defen d e d .
It s h o u l d
b e p u b l i c p o l i c y to p r o m o t e the u n i v e r s a l i z a t i o n of
e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t y b e y o n d the h i g h s c h o o l .12
A m e r i c a n s h ave r e s p o n d e d a f f i r m a t i v e l y to this s e n t i m e n t
and,

as the c o m p l e x i t i e s and the r a t e of c h a n g e of our

p l u r a l i s t i c s o c i e t y have increased,

t h e y h a v e c h a r g e d the

c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w i t h p r o v i d i n g the m e a n s

for

s o c i a l w e l l being.
The American people have
h i g h s c h o o l as a "panacea"

for a

accepted education
t r o u b l e d world.

w i l l i n g l y p r o v i d e d for the e x p a n s i o n o f plant,
and faculty. 13

A t this junc t u r e then,

beyond

T h e y have

facility,

the p u b l i c is apt

12

J a m e s D. Logsdon, "A C a s e for the J u n i o r C o l l e g e , "
T h e B u l l e t i n of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y
S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s (December, 1968) , 64.
13

S t e w a r t E. Marsee, "The K i d G r e w Up," T h e J o u r n a l
of the A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s ( M a r c h ,

TTeTfi) , 36-59.-----------

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

8
to be i n t o l e r a n t of shortages and of d e c i s i o n s w h i c h d e n y
c o l l e g e o p p o r t u n i t y to y o u n g people.

B. A l d e n T h r e s h e r

w r i t e s in his b o o k C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n a n d the P u b l i c
Interest:

"Populations have o f t e n showed r e m a r k a b l e

patience with situations

involving misdirected selectivity.
14
T h e r e are signs that p a t i e n c e m a y be r u n n i n g out."
T o d a y ' s p u b l i c is hig h l y s e n s i t i v e to the ne e d s o f
y o u n g p e o p l e a n d to its o b l i g a t i o n to m e e t those n e e d s .
T h e A m e r i c a n p e o p l e e x p e c t the c o l l e g e s a n d u n i v e r s i t i e s
to p r o v i d e p l a c e s for y o u n g p e o p l e w h o apply,

a n d those

i n s t i t u t i o n s w h i c h d e n y a d m i s s i o n risk a l i e n a t i o n u n l e s s
the p e o p l e t h o r o u g h l y u n d e r s t a n d the r a t i o n a l e for denia l .
Thus p u b l i c

"good will"

and u n d e r s t a n d i n g has b e c o m e a

r e c e n t and m a j o r r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e
and its personnel.
D u n n p r o p o s e s t h a t as the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r
a t t e m p t s to r e s p o n d to the needs of the r e j e c t e d s t u d e n t he
a s s u m e s an i m p o r t a n t n e w role,
official.

that of p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s

He argues that the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e has b e c o m e

a "center of a n x i e t y a n d u n c e r t a i n t y "

a n d that:

In a v e r y real sense no o t h e r a r m of the u n i v e r s i t y
de a l s so i m p o r t a n t l y w i t h a r e j e c t e d p u b l i c and in
s u c h n u m b e r s . T h e r e can be n o d o u b t that the

14

A l d e n B. Thresher, C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n and the
P u b l i c I n t e r e s t (New York:
College Entrance Examination
B o a r d , 1966), pp. 20-21.

9
a d m i s s i o n s o p e r a t i o n is a p r i m e d e t e r m i n a n t of the
i n s t i t u t i o n ' s p u b l i c i m a g e . 15
T h e w r i t e r b e l i e v e s t h a t this s t u d y c a n a s s i s t the M i c h i g a n
State image as it e s t a b l i s h e s n e w i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h w i l l
p e r m i t w i s e r and m o r e e f f e c t i v e c o u n s e l i n g to the s t u d e n t
w h o s e a d m i s s i o n is denied.
The U n i v e r s i t y C o n c e r n
T h e C o m m i t t e e on U n d e r g r a d u a t e E d u c a t i o n at M i c h i g a n
State U n i v e r s i t y has s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d the u n i v e r s i t y ' s
c o n c e r n w i t h a d m i s s i o n s and its c o m m i t m e n t to y o u n g
people.

T h e C o m m i t t e e states:

T h e a d m i s s i o n s d e c i s i o n is at o n c e an i n s t r u m e n t of
p u b l i c policy, r e p r e s e n t i n g the U n i v e r s i t y ' s o b l i ­
g a t i o n to the c i t i z e n s w h o s u p p o r t it, a n d an i n s t r u ­
m e n t of a c a d e m i c p o l i c y r e p r e s e n t i n g its o b l i g a t i o n
to a c h i e v e h i g h s t a n d a r d s in all the p r o g r a m s it c o n ­
ducts.
E v e r y a d m i s s i o n d e c i s i o n , f r o m the r e j e c t i o n
of a s in g l e a p p l i c a n t to the far r e a c h i n g d e t e r m i ­
n a t i o n of o v e r a l l size and g r o w t h a n d d i s t r i b u t i o n ,
e v e r y d e c i s i o n a f f e c t s in u n a c c o u n t a b l e ways, n o t only
the v i t a l i t y of the U n i v e r s i t y ' s c o u r s e s of study, but
the lives of i n d i v i d u a l m e n a n d w o m e n and the c a p a c i t y
o f s o c i e t y to r e a c h its o w n b e s t h o p e s for all of its
m e m b e r s .lo
T h e C o m m i t t e e leaves l i t t l e d o u b t r e g a r d i n g the
i m p o r t a n c e of e f f e c t i v e a d m i s s i o n s c o u n s e l i n g to all w h o
apply.

It c o m m i t s the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r to a

m e t i c u l o u s c o n c e r n for the p u b l i c w e l f a r e and the
15

A l b e r t H. Dunn, " A d m i ssions as a P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s
Function," T h e J o u r n a l of the A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e A d ­
m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s , XII^ N o . 3 (1967), 1-3.
16I m p r o v i n g U n d e r g r a d u a t e E d u c a t i o n , A R e p o r t of
t he C o m m i t t e e on U n d e r g r a d u a t e E d u c a t i o n Hsast Lansing,
Mich.:
M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y , 1967), p. 10.

10
i n d i v i d u a l 's r i g h t to e d u c a t i o n b e y o n d h i g h s c h o o l ; it
obligates the u n i v e r s i t y to the s t u d e n t w h o is d e n i e d
admission.
A l b e r t D u n n has a r g u e d t h a t no u n i v e r s i t y c a n t o d a y
ignore the r e j e c t e d student.

He s u g g e s t s t h a t s e r v i n g h i m

is v i t a l to the i n s t i t u t i o n a l image,

an i m a g e w h i c h in

turn is v i t a l to the p r e s s i n g n e e d for n e w u n i v e r s i t y
financing.

He says:

"We c a n no longer a f f o r d the a d ­

m i s s i o n o f f i c e r w h o sees his

job s o l e l y as b e s t o w i n g the

p r i v i l e g e of a t t e n d a n c e on the f a v o r e d few."

17

If the u n i v e r s i t y fails to s e r v e the r e j e c t e d s t u ­
dent it m a y w e l l lose the p r e r o g a t i v e o f s e l e c t i n g its
future students.

18

The university must be concerned with

the w e l f a r e of the s t u d e n t d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n b e c a u s e the
p ublic it se r v e s is concer n e d .

It m u s t p r o v i d e an a d ­

missions officer w h o can reject students and yet maximize
the c h a n c e s

for c o m p l e t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o n the p a r t of the

student a n d the public.

It is to that e n d t h a t this stu d y

was completed.

17

Dunn,
F u n c t i o n ," 1-3.
18

"A d m i s s i o n s

as a P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s

"The C l e a r i n g h o u s e A p p r o a c h to U n d e r g r a d u a t e
A d m i s s i o n s , " an E d i t o r i a l in T h e J o u r n a l o f the A s s o c i a t i o n
of C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s (Spring, id<>3) , 12.

C H A P T E R III
T H E D E S I G N OF T H E S T U D Y

T h e p u r p o s e of this s t u d y w a s to p r o v i d e n e w k n o w l ­
edge w h i c h w o u l d in s u r e a m o r e t h o r o u g h u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e
s t udent w h o is d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i ­
ve r s i t y a n d to p r o v i d e some m e a n i n g f u l m e a s u r e of s t u d e n t
and p a r e n t a l atti t u d e toward the U n i v e r s i t y a f t e r the
d e c i s i o n to deny a d m i s s i o n has b e e n d e l i v e r e d to the s t u ­
dent.
It is the w r i t e r ' s hope that such n e w k n o w l e d g e
and u n d e r s t a n d i n g w i l l p e r m i t m o r e e f f e c t i v e a n d m e a n i n g f u l
c o u n s e l i n g to s t u d e n t s a n d p a r e n t s of s t u d e n t s w h o are
de n i e d admission.
S p e c i f i c a l l y the study sought:
1.

To insure a m o r e a d e q u a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of the
n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t a n d his p a r e n t s .

Particular

a t t e n t i o n was given to sex, g r a d e p o i n t a v e r ­
age,

class rank,

tests,

aptitude and/or achievement

i n t e n d e d c o l l e g e major,

size of

s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l , r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of s e c o n d a r y
school p r i n c i p a l or counselor,
cation,

parental edu­

and alumni status of parents.
11

12
2.

To provide information concerned with what
b e c o m e s of the s t u d e n t a f t e r he o r she is
d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n State.

3.

T o p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g the a t t i t u d e
of the s t u d e n t a n d his p a r e n t s toward
s e c o n d a r y school,

the U n i v e r s i t y ,

a d m i s s i o n s officer.

the

and the

A n a t t e m p t w a s m a d e to

d i s c o v e r any c h a n g e in the o r i g i n a l a t t i t u d e s
w h i c h m i g h t h a v e o c c u r r e d in the s e v e r a l m o n t h s
s i n c e the s t u d e n t w a s a d v i s e d of the M i c h i g a n
S ta te d e c i s i o n .
The Description
D a t a t o p r o v i d e for a m o r e a d e q u a t e d e s c r i p t i o n of
the n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t w e r e o b t a i n e d by a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s
of the a p p l i c a t i o n s

for a d m i s s i o n f r o m 1,464 M i c h i g a n

s e c o n d a r y sc h o o l s t u d e n t s w h o w e r e d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to the
u n i v e r s i t y for fall t e r m 1968.
d e s c r i p t i o n b y sex,
class rank,

The analysis permitted a

s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l grade p o i n t averag e ,

a p t i t u d e a n d / o r a c h i e v e m e n t tests,

college major,

size of s e c o n d a r y school,

intended

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n of

p r i n c i p a l or c o u n s e l o r , p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n ,

and a l u m n i

status of parents.
D a t a o b t a i n e d w e r e c o m p a r e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h
s i m ilar d a t a o b t a i n e d by a n a l y z i n g a r a n d o m s a m p l e
of a p p l i c a t i o n s

(N = 300)

from Michigan students w h o were admitted

to

13
and e n r o l l e d In the freshman class,

fall t e r m 1968,

at

M.S.U.
W h a t Beco m e s of the S t u d e n t D e n i e d ?
W h a t is the A t t i t u d e of
His Parents?
T o this p o i n t a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was dev i s e d and sent
to a s t r a t i f i e d r a n d o m samp l i n g o f the parents of students
d enied admission.
T h e sample
verse

(1,464).

(N) was 300 or 20.5 p e r cent of the u n i ­

The sample w a s s t r a t i f i e d on the basis of

student s e x a n d school size for the universe.

The uni­

verse c o n t a i n e d 63.18 per c e n t boys a n d 36.82 per cent
girls.

W h e n sex and school size w e r e considered,

the u n i ­

v erse d i v i d e d as follows:

>
II

%

3

N
587

40.10

M

O =

338

23.08

fa

<

II

345

23.57

F

O =

194

13.25

1,464

100.00

M = Male; F = Female
A = C l a s s A High Sch o o l (1,200 or
m o r e s t u d e n t s ) ; 0 = other Cl a s s High School
(B, C, or D, 1,199 or fewer students)
School classes (A, B, C, D) were
e s t a b l i s h e d by the M i c h i g a n H i g h School
A t h l e t i c Association.

14
The s a m p l e w a s d r a w n f r o m e a c h of the four c a t e ­
gories in the u n i v e r s e by u s i n g a r a n d o m t a b l e of numbers.
W h e n c o m p l e t e d the s a m p l e a p p e a r e d as f o l l o w s :
N

«

M

A

120

40.01

M

O

68

22.66

F

A

71

23.67

F

O

41

13. 66
1 0 0 .0

300

A l e t t e r and q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e sent to the p a r e n t s
o f e a c h s t u d e n t w i t h i n the s a m p l e of 3 00
pages 85-87).

(see A p p e n d i x A,

The f i r s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s m a i l e d

in F e b r u ­

ary 1969 so the students i n v o l v e d had b e e n h i g h s c h o o l
g r a d u a t e s a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t months.

T w o w e e k s a f t e r the

first l e t t e r , a se c o n d r e q u e s t w a s sent to those p a r e n t s
w h o h a d n ot r e s p o n d e d

(Appendix A, p a g e

after the s e c o n d letter w a s sent,

8 8 ).

Two w e e k s

a p e r s o n a l p h o n e cal l w a s

m a d e to e a c h n o n - r e s p o n d e n t and if n e c e s s a r y a t h i r d l etter
and q u e s t i o n n a i r e w e r e sent.
calls,

Two w e e k s a f t e r the p h o n e

a final letter w a s m a i l e d

(see A p p e n d i x A, p a g e

89).

The p a r e n t s q u e s t i o n n a i r e so u g h t to p r o v i d e
sp e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the s t u d e n t ' s p r e s e n t w h e r e ­
abouts , the s t u d e n t 1s a t t i t u d e t o w a r d the s e c o n d a r y s c h o o l ,
p a r e n t a l influence,
versity,

p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e t o w a r d the u n i ­

and p a r e n t a l a t t i t u d e c o n c e r n i n g the a d m i s s i o n s

15
o f f i c e a n d a d m i s s i o n s decision.

The questionnaire also

e n c o u r a g e d g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s and c o n s t r u c t i v e criticism.
Questions

1, 2, and 3 to the p a r e n t s

s o u g h t to

shed some light on the e x t e n t o f the p a r e n t s ' i n f l u e n c e
w h e r e t h e s e l e c t i o n of M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y w a s c o n ­
cerned.

Q u e s t i o n 1 a s k e d the parents,

s t u d e n t s e l e c t M i c h i g a n State?"
c h e c k y e s or no to p a r e n t s ,
lor, M.S.U.

T h e p a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d to

friend,

a d m i s s i o n s officer,

"Who h e l p e d your

teacher,

and o t h e r

In a d d i t i o n, p a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d to,

school counse­

(please e x p l a i n ) .

"circle the o n e w h o y o u

b e l i e v e m o s t i n f l u e n c e d y o u r s t u d e n t to s e l e c t M . S . U . "
Q u e s t i o n 2 a s k e d the p a r e n t s

"How m u c h i n f l u e n c e

did y o u as a p a r e n t h a v e on y o u r s t u d e n t ' s d e c i s i o n to
s elect M . S . U . ? "

T h e y w e r e a s k e d to c h e c k v e r y m u c h ,

some,

little, o r none.
Q u e s t i o n 3 s o u g h t factors w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d the
parents

to b e l i e v e t h a t M.S.U. was an a p p r o p r i a t e u n i ­

v e r s i t y for t h e i r student.

T h e q u e s t i o n asked,

w h o m a d e y o u think of M.S.U.
for y o u r s tude n t ? "
to:

as an a p p r o p r i a t e u n i v e r s i t y

P a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d to c h e c k yes or no,

I a t t e n d e d M i c h i g a n State, o t h e r s w h o h a d a t t e n d e d

M i c h i g a n State,
M.S.U.

s c h o o l counselor,

a d m i s s i o n s officer,
Q u e s t i o n 4,

no, u n c e r t a i n ,

friend,

and o t h e r

sch o o l teacher,

(please explain).

"Did y o u r s t u d e n t e x p e c t to be a d m i t t e d

to M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y ? "
yes,

"What or

p e r m i t t e d four responses :

and I d o n ' t know.

The responses were

c o m p a r e d w i t h a s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n asked of s t u d e n t s in

16
a n other q u e s t i o n n a i r e to be d i s c u s s e d later in this chapter.
The w r i t e r b e l i e v e s that m a n y a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s a s s u m e
some s t u d e nts a p p l y to a p a r t i c u l a r c o l l e g e as a "long
shot" or to p l e a s e one or b o t h p a r e n t s e v e n t h o u g h they
feel t h e y w i l l be denied,

and t h a t o f t e n the s t u d e n t is

m o r e r e a l i s t i c a b o u t his c h a n c e s t h a n are his parents.
Q u e s t i o n 4 was i n c l u d e d in the h o p e that any d i f f e r e n c e in
p a r e n t a l and s t u d e n t o p t i m i s m or p e s s i m i s m r e g a r d i n g a d ­
m i s s i o n m i g h t be noted.
Q u e s t i o n 7 a t t e m p t e d to r e f l e c t a n y d i f f e r e n c e in
p a r e n t a l or s t u d e n t c o m p r e h e n s i o n of a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s
and requirements.

The q u e s t i o n was,

"Did you ex p e c t y o u r

s t udent t o be a d m i t t e d to M i c h i g a n State Uni v e r s i t y ? "
P a r e n t s w e r e p e r m i t t e d a y e s or no response.

Responses

w e r e c o m p a r e d to r e s p o n s e s to Q u e s t i o n 4.
Q u e s t i o n s 5, 5(a)
e v i d e n c e o f the parents'

and 5(b)

a t t e m p t e d to g a t h e r

k n o w l e d g e of a d m i s s i o n p r o c e du r e s ,

of the p r o c e d u r e s e m p l o y e d by the M.S.U.

a d m i s s i o n s office,

and of t h e p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e toward the M i c h i g a n S t a t e a d ­
m i s s i o n s officer.

Q u e s t i o n 5 asked,

"Did y o u a t t e n d a

h i g h s chool C o l l e g e N i g h t w i t h your student?"
or no); Q u e s t i o n 5(a)

asked,

"If the answer is yes, d i d

y o u hear the M i c h i g a n S t a t e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ? "
5(b)

inquired,

(answer yes

and Q u e s t i o n

"Did you b e l i e v e the M i c h i g a n State r e p r e ­

s e n t a t i v e a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e d the a d m i s s i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s ? "
B e c a u s e the m a j o r i t y of M i c h i g a n s e c o n d a r y schools n o w p r o ­
vide

" C o llege Night" or

"Career Day" p r o g r a m s w h i c h o f f e r

17
opportunities

for p a r e n t s a n d s t u d e n t s

and u n i v e r s i t y a d m i s s i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s ,

to d i s c u s s c o l l e g e
th e s e q u e s t i o n s w e r e

i n c l u d e d in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e in a n e f f o r t to e v a l u a t e the
value o f s u c h p r o g r a m s p a r t i c u l a r l y w h e r e the p a r e n t s o f
s t u d e n t s d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n are c o n c erned.
w e r e a s k e d of s t u d e n t s

T h e same q u e s t i o n s

in t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e and p a r e n t -

s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s w e r e c o m p a r e d for s i g n i ficance.
T h e r e m a i n i n g q u e s t i o n s p u t to p a r e n t s a t t e m p t e d
to g a r n e r e v i d e n c e of the p a r e n t s ' a t t i t u d e t o w a r d the nonad m i t d e c i s i o n or t o w a r d the U n i v e r s i t y as a r e s u l t of that
decision.
P a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d in Q u e s t i o n 6,

"When your s t u ­

d e n t w a s d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n State, w e r e y o u
(check yes or no for e a c h a n s w e r ) :
w i t h y o u r student,

surprised,

disappointed

d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h self, d i s a p p o i n t e d

w i t h M i c h i g a n State, d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h h i g h school,

ot h e r

(please e x p l a i n ) .
Q u e s t i o n 8 s o u g h t to d e t e r m i n e

s o m e t h i n g of the

p a r e n t s ' k n o w l e d g e of the c r i t e r i a for d e t e r m i n i n g a d ­
missi o n .

xt asked,

"Which of the fac t o r s b e l o w do y o u feel

i n f l u e n c e d our d e c i s i o n to d e n y a d m i s s i o n to y o u r student?"
(Check yes or n o for e a c h a n s w e r ) .
hi g h s c h o o l grades,
recommendations,
activities,

other

t e s t scores,

C r i t e r i a g i v e n were:

class rank, p r i n c i p a l

counselor recommendations,
(please explain).

extra-curricular

P a r e n t s w e r e as k e d to

circle the three factors t h e y b e l i e v e d to be m o s t i m p o r t a n t
to the decision.

18
W h i l e it: might: be e x p e c t e d that m o s t p a r e n t s w o u l d
be d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h the n o n - a d m i t decision/

it was

the

w r i t e r ' s w i s h to d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r or n o t time w o u l d a l t e r
the p a r ents'
Q u e s t i o n 9,

i n i t i a l reaction.

"At the time our l e t t e r a r r i v e d d i d y o u T H E N

b e l i e v e our d e c i s i o n to be
sponse) :
other

P a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d in

correct/

(check yes or no for e a c h r e ­

discouraging/

(please e x p l a i n ) . "

s i n c e r e , help f u l /

Q u e s t i o n 10 asked,

feel N O W a b o u t our decisi o n ? "
the s a m e items of response.

or

"How do y o u

and a l l o w e d for yes or n o to
R e s p o n s e s to b o t h q u e s t i o n s

w e r e c o m p a r e d for signi f i c a n c e .
Items 11,

12, and 13 w e r e c o n s t r u c t e d to p r o v i d e

some m e a s u r e of p a r e n t a t t i t u d e c o n c e r n i n g the a d m i s s i o n
d e c i s i o n a n d the p a r e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in that d e c i s i o n .
Q u e s t i o n 11 asked,

"Do y o u b e l i e v e the a d m i s s i o n

d e c i s i o n s at M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y are
no for e a c h an s w e r b e l o w ) :
vidually considered,
p u t e d b y formula,

(check yes or

c a r e f u l l y con s i d e r e d ,

r a t h e r c a r e l e s s l y a r r i v e d at,

indi­
com­

computed by machine."

Q u e s t i o n 12 asked,

"What factors d o y o u feel w e

s h o u l d c o n s i d e r w h e n we ar r i v e at an a d m i s s i o n d e c i s i o n ? "
P a r e n t s w e r e r e q u e s t e d to c h e c k yes or no to:
test scores,

grades,

class rank, e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r activities,

c o u n s e l o r 's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s , p r i n c i p a l 's r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s
or o t h e r
sponse,

(please e x p l a i n ) .

In a d d i t i o n to a y e s / n o r e ­

the r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e asked to cir c l e the three

19
factors t h e y b e l i e v e d s h o u l d b e m o s t important.
to this i t e m w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h r e s p o n s e s

Responses

to Q u e s t i o n 8

for s i g n i f i c a n c e .
I t e m 13 s o u g h t to e x a m i n e the e x t e n t to w h i c h the
p a r e n t m i g h t w i s h to be i n v o l v e d in the final le t t e r of
denial.

It asked,

"Would you h a v e p r e f e r r e d t h a t the le t t e r

of d e n i a l be s e n t to you i n s t e a d of y o u r stude n t ? "
yes o r n o ) .

Fart

(a) of the s a m e q u e s t i o n asked,

AN D y o u r student?"

(answer
"To yo u

(answer yes or n o ) .

I t e m 15 s o u g h t the s t u d e n t ' s p r e s e n t a c t i v i t y ;
asked,

it

"Is y o u r s t u d e n t p r e s e n t l y a t t e n d i n g c o l l e g e or some

o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n for e d u c a t i o n a f t e r h i g h s c h o o l ? "

Part

(a) o f the q u e s t i o n a s k e d for the n a m e a n d l o c a t i o n of the
c o l l e g e if the an s w e r to the q u e s t i o n w a s yes.

Part

(a)

also a t t e m p t e d to g a t h e r some e v i d e n c e o f a c a d e m i c suc c e s s
if t h e s t u d e n t was e n r o l l e d in college.

Parents were re ­

q u e s t e d to c h e c k the one b e s t r e s p o n s e to,
e a r n e d so far in college:

i m p r o v e d over h i g h s c h o o l gra des,

a b o u t the same as h i g h school grades,
h i g h s c h o o l grades,
Part

"Are the g r a d e s

s o m e w h a t lower than

d o n ' t know."

(b) of I t e m 14 s o u g h t the s t u d e n t ' s a c t i v i t i e s

if n o t college.
if yes, where;

It asked if the s t u d e n t w e r e e m p l o y e d ,
and it a l s o p r o v i d e d for a n a r m e d

forces

r e s p o n s e and b r a n c h of s e r v i c e .
I t e m 15 s o l i c i t e d a s t u d e n t a d d r e s s
may c o r r e s p o n d w i t h your student."

"so that we

and

20
The

last: i t e m for p a r e n t s p r o v i d e d an "open end"

o p p o r t u n i t y to o f f e r g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s or cr i t i c i s m .

All

co m ments w e r e e x a m i n e d and o r g a n i z e d for s i g n i f i c a n c e .
The Student Attitude
Again,

a questionnaire

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e

90)

was a d o p t e d as the m o s t e f f i c i e n t m e t h o d for s e e k i n g the
a t t i t u d e o f the s t u d e n t d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M.S.U.
the w r i t e r w i s h e d ,

in some instances,

Because

to compare parent and

s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s to s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n s ,

the u l t i m a t e d e s i g n

o f the s t u d y s o u g h t to e n l i s t r e s p o n s e s

f r o m the s t u d e n t s

w h o s e p a r e n t s h a d r e c e i v e d the p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
S i n c e a c u r r e n t m a i l i n g a d d r e s s was not a v a i l a b l e
u n t i l the p a r e n t s p r o v i d e d it,

the s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

w e r e m a i l e d as the c o m p l e t e d p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e
returned.
spond,

In t h o s e c a s e s w h e r e the p a r e n t s d i d n o t r e ­

the s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s s e n t to the s t u d e n t

in c a r e of the p a r e n t s ' h o m e a d d r e s s p r o v i d e d in the
o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n for a d m i s s i o n .

Again,

"reminder"

T w o w e e k s a f t e r the

intervals were employed.

first r e q u e s t l e t t e r
letter w a s m a i l e d

two-week

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e 94)

(Appendix B, p a g e 95).

a second

Two weeks

later

a p h o n e c a l l a n d a t h i r d le t t e r s o u g h t to e n l i s t the s t u ­
d e n t ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in the s t u d y

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e

96) .
A final r e q u e s t w a s m a i l e d t w o w e e k s after the
p h o n e call a n d t h i r d l e t t e r

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e 96).

21
In a t t e m p t i n g to d o c u m e n t s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e the
s tudy d i v i d e d the n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s

into t w o g r o u p s — those

w h o h a d e n r o l l e d in o t h e r c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s and
t hose w h o h a d not.
gr o u p

A q u e s t i o n n a i r e was d e s i g n e d for e a c h

(see A p p e n d i x B ) .

in c o m m o n o f b o t h groups,

While several questions were asked
some w e r e d i r e c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y

to the s t u d e n t in c o l l e g e or the s t u d e n t n o t in college.
The student questionnaires

sought specific infor­

m a t i o n f r o m e a c h s t u d e n t c o n c erning:
1.

S o u r c e s of a s s i s t a n c e in s e l e c t i n g or fac t o r s
i n f l u e n c i n g the s e l e c t i o n of M i c h i g a n S t a t e
and o t h e r c o l l e g e s .

2.

His or her a t t i t u d e a b o u t the d e c i s i o n or
to w a r d the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e a n d / o r the U n i ­
versity.

3.

T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a d m i s s i o n d e n i a l as it
m a y have a f f e c t e d se n i o r y e a r gr a d e s in h i g h
school and i m m e d i a t e p o s t - h i g h s c h o o l plans.

4.

T h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of the a d m i s s i o n d e n i a l as it
m a y h a v e i n f l u e n c e d l o n g - r a n g e p l a n s and
ambitions.

E a c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e a l l o w e d space for a n d e n c o u r a g e d
g e neral c o m m e n t s or c r i t i c i s m c o n c e r n i n g a d m i s s i o n p r o c e ­
dures at M.S.U.
I t e ms 1, 2, 4, 5,

6, 7,

8, 9, and 18 of b o t h s t u ­

d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e identical.

Each sought responses

w h i c h w o u l d r e f l e c t the s t u d e n t ' s a t t i t u d e c o n c e r n i n g the

22
admissions procedure,

-the n o n - a d m i t d e c i s i o n ,

or the

University.
Q u e s t i o n 1 asked,

"Did y o u e x p e c t to be a d m i t t e d

to M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ? "

(answer yes or no or u n ­

certain) .
Q u e s t i o n 2 inquired,
admit*
below):

decision were you
s urprised,

counselor,
M.S.U.,

'non-

(check y e s or n o for e a c h answ e r

discouraged,

disappointed,

or o t h e r

"When y o u r e c e i v e d our

u n h a p p y w i t h h i g h scho o l

u n h a p p y w i t h self, u n h a p p y w i t h

(please e x p l ain."

I t e m 4 asked,

"Which of the factors b e l o w d o yo u

feel i n f l u e n c e d our d e c i s i o n to d e n y a d m i s s i o n to you?"
(Check yes or no for e a c h answer b e l o w ) .
were:

h i g h s c h o o l grades,

pal r e c o m m e n d a t i o n ,

t e s t scores,

Answers provided

c l a s s rank, p r i n c i ­

counselor recommendation,

curricular activities,

or o t h e r

extra­

(please e x p l a i n ) .

Items 5 and 6 a t t e m p t e d to m e a s u r e a n y c h a n g e of
s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e w h i c h m i g h t h a v e o c c u r r e d in the time b e ­
t ween the r e c e i p t of the n o n - a d m i t d e c i s i o n and the
questionnaire.
I t e m 5 asked,

"At the time y o u r e c e i v e d our letter

d id y o u b e l i e v e our d e c i s i o n in y o u r c a s e was
or no for e a c h a n s w e r b e l o w ) :
c ouraging,

i n c o rrect,

honest,

correct,
or o t h e r

(check yes

helpful,

dis­

(please e x p l a i n ) . "

I t e m 6 p r o v i d e d i d e n t i c a l q u e s t i o n s b u t asked,
do y o u feel N O W a b o u t our d e c i s i o n ? "

"How

23
R e sponses to stu d e n t Q u e s t i o n 5 and p a r e n t Q u e s t i o n
9 w h i c h w e re identical were compared for significance.

In

a further e f f o r t to d e t e r m i n e the ext e n t of a g r e e m e n t or
d i s a g r e e m e n t in p a r e n t - s t u d e n t attitude, respo n s e s

for

student Q u e s t i o n 6 and p a r e n t Q u e s t i o n 10, also identical,
were c o m p a r e d .
Q u e s t i o n 7 to students inquired,
the admiss ions d e c i s i o n s at M.S.U. are
each answer b e l o w ) :
arrived at,

"Do you believe

(check yes or no for

c a r e f u l l y considered,

i n d i v i d u a l l y considered,

ra t h e r careless iy

arrived at by a for m ­

ula, or m a c h i n e computed."
Q u e s t i o n 8 asked,

"What factors d o you believe we

should c o n s i d e r w h e n we arrive at an admissions decision?"
(check yes or no for each answer b e l o w ) .
were grades,

Factors given

test scores, c o u n s e l o r recommendations,

class

rank, e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r activities, p r i n c i p a l r e c o m m e n ­
dations,

special talents,

(explain),

or other

(explain).

R e sponses to Q u e s t i o n 8 were compared w i t h Quest i o n
4 and w i t h identical Q u e s t i o n 12, d i r e c t e d to p a r e n t s , for
significance.
I t e m 9 of the student q u e s tionnaire p r o v i d e d for
student e v a l u a t i o n of the admissions officer at M i c h i g a n
State.

It asked,

"Did y o u attend a C o l l e g e N i g h t p r o g r a m

while in high school?"

(answer yes or n o ) ; "If yes,

you have an o p p o r t u n i t y to hear an M.S.U.
officer d i s cuss a d m i s s i o n requirements?"

did

admissions
(answer yes or

24
no);

"Xf the a n s w e r is yes, do y o u feel the M.S.U.

ad­

missions officer adequately described admission require­
ments?"

(answer yes or n o ) .
In an e f f o r t to e v a l u a t e the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of

p e r s o n a l a d m i s s i o n interviews,

I t e m 18 a s k e d the student,

"Did y o u h a v e a p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w in the M.S.U.
Admissions

(check yes or n o for e a c h a n s w e r ) ;

r e c e i v e d o ur decision,
b efore y o u applied,

O f f i c e of

before you

a f t e r y o u r e c e i v e d our decision,

or a f t e r y o u a p p l i e d . "

This

same

q u e s t i o n w a s a s k e d of the g r o u p n o t in c o l l e g e b u t it wa s
Item 16 o n their p a r t i c u l a r q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
S o urces of a d m i s s i o n s a s s i s t a n c e a v a i l a b l e

to s t u ­

dents a n d factors w h i c h m a y have i n f l u e n c e d the s t u d e n t to
apply to M i c h i g a n S t a t e w e r e e x p l o r e d b y Items
16.

10,

14, a n d

Items 14 and 16 w e r e n o t i n c l u d e d in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e

sent to s t u dents n o t in college.
I t e m 10 a s k e d b o t h groups of students,
y o u s e l e c t M i c h i g a n State?"
a n swer below).

(check y e s or n o for e a c h

A n s w e r s g i v e n were:

counselor, M.S.U.

"Who h e l p e d

a d m i s s i o n s officer,

parents,

school

teacher,

or friend.

Respo n s e s to this q u e s t i o n w e r e c o m p a r e d w i t h p a r e n t r e ­
sponses to an i d e n t i c a l q u e s t i o n

(No.

1)

for s i g n i ficanc e .

I t e m 14 was i n t r o d u c e d to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i r e c t e d
to students in c o l l e g e in an e f f o r t to d e t e c t a n y change
in s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e c o n c e r n i n g g u i d a n c e in s e l e c t i n g a
c o llege a f t er b e i n g d e n i e d by M.S.U.

It asked,

"Who h e l p e d

25
you select, the college y o u now attend?"

Responses p e r ­

m i t t e d w e r e identical to I t e m 10.
Q u e s t i o n 17 d i r e c t e d to students in college a s k e d
the s t u d e n t his p r e s e n t grade p o i n t average.
was a s k e d to check the one b e s t answer to:

E a c h student
Less than "C,"

above "C," b e t w e e n "C" and "C+," betw e e n "c+" and "B,"
about "B," b e t w e e n "B" a n d "B+," or b e t w e e n "B+" and "A."
Items 3, 11,

12, and 13 w e r e repe a t e d in both

student questionnaires.

Each was incl u d e d in an e f f o r t to

evaluate the sig n i f i c a n c e of the no d e c i s i o n e s p e c i a l l y as
it a f f e c t e d senior year grades in high school and immediate
p o s t - h i g h school p l a n s .
Q u e s t i o n 3 asked specifically,
your

'non-admit'

"After y o u receive d

letter from M i c h i g a n State, did your

senior y e a r grades in h i g h school

(check one b e s t r e s p o n s e ) :

remain a b o u t the same as y o u r sophomore and junior g r a d e s ,
i m p r o v e , or go d o w n ? "
Q u e s t i o n 11 asked,

"Was M i c h i g a n State your first

choice c o l l e g e ? ” (answer yes or n o ) ; and Q u e s t i o n 12 a s k e d
the s t u d e n t for a n u m b e r response to "To h o w m a n y other
colleges d i d y o u apply?"
I t e m 13 a s k e d for a yes or no response to the
question,

"Were you d e n i e d admis s i o n to any other college?"

I t e m 15 to students in college sought to d e t e rmin e
a shift in "major" emphasis after the student was d e n i e d
ad m i ssion to M.S.U.

It asked,

"Is y o u r p r e s e n t p r o g r a m

26
(check o n e please):

technical,

termi n a l ,

c o l l e g e paral l e l ,

or f o u r - y e a r de g r e e p r o g r a m ? "
T h e same i t e m

(15)

d i r e c t e d to the s t u d e n t g r o u p

n ot in c o l l e g e a s k e d the s t u d e n t w h y he o r she w a s n o t
p r e s e n t l y e n r o l l e d in a college.

The student was requested

to c h e c k yes or n o to the f o l l o w i n g ca t e g o r i e s :
aged b e c a u s e of m y r e f u s a l f r o m M . S . U . ,
to a t t e n d college,

discour­

never really wanted

c o u l d n o t be a d m i t t e d to c o l l e g e or

colleges of m y choice,

felt X m i g h t do b e t t e r in c o l l e g e

at a l a t e r time, c o u l d n ' t b e a d m i t t e d a n y w h e r e ,

preferred

to s e t t l e my m i l i t a r y o b l i g a t i o n first, w a n t e d to e a r n some
money b e f o r e

I e n r o l l e d in college,

or o t h e r

(please e x ­

plain) .
Finally,
future plans,
M.S.U.,

to the end of a s c e r t a i n i n g the s t u d e n t ' s

p a r t i c u l a r l y as those p l a n s m i g h t a f f e c t

s t udents in c o l l e g e w e r e a s k e d v i a I t e m 16,

"Do

you p l a n to t r a n s f e r to a n o t h e r c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y ? "
(answer yes or n o ) .

If the s t u d e n t r e s p o n d e d

"yes," he

or she w a s a s k e d to p r o v i d e the n a m e of the i n s t i t u t i o n
to w h i c h t ransfer a d m i s s i o n w o u l d be sought.
A r e l a t e d q u e s t i o n w a s a s k e d of s t u d e n t s n o t in
college.

It

(Question 14)

college in the future?"
where?"

asked,

"Do y o u p l a n to a t t e n d

(answer yes or n o ) .

"If so,

A space w a s p r o v i d e d in w h i c h the s t u d e n t m i g h t

respond.
E a ch q u e s t i o n n a i r e c l o s e d w i t h the comment,

"We

w o u l d w e l c o m e any g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s or c r i t i c i s m y o u m a y

27
w i s h to o f f e r c o n c e r n i n g a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s at M . S . U . "
Space w a s a l l o w e d for w r i t t e n responses.
Summary
In summary,

the p u r p o s e of this s t u d y is to a s s i s t

the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r in his role as c o u n s e l o r by p r o ­
v i ding facts n o t p r e s e n t l y k n o w n a b o u t the s t u d e n t w h o is
d e nied a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n State.

The w r i t e r h o p e s

that

the d a t a g a t h e r e d as a r e s u l t of the s t u d y w i l l p e r m i t
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w h i c h w i l l imp r o v e t h a t c o u n s e l i n g d i r e c t e d
to the " n o n-admit"

s t u d e n t and p r o v i d e

cation, b o t h o r a l a n d w r i t t e n ,
student,

for b e t t e r c o m m u n i ­

b e t w e e n the u n i v e r s i t y ,

the

a n d his parents.
T a b l e C-2

{Appendix C, p a g e 98)

provides a summary

of d a t a s o u r c e b y b o t h p a r e n t a n d s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .

C H A P T E R IV
THE FINDINGS
The Non-Admit, s t u d e n t
A n a n a l y s i s o f the a p p l i c a t i o n s f r o m t h o s e s t u d e n t s
w h o m a d e u p the s t r a t i f i e d r a n d o m s a m p l e

(N — 300)

drawn

from t h e u n i v e r s e of 1,464 M i c h i g a n s e c o n d a r y school s t u ­
dents w h o w e r e d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r ­
sity

(M.S.U.)

for fall t e r m 1968 p r o v i d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e data.

To m a k e that d a t a m o r e m e a n i n g f u l a s i m i l a r
r a n d o m s a m ple w a s d r a w n f r o m the

size

(N = 3 00)

6,466 M i c h i g a n s e c o n d a r y

school s t u d e n t s w h o w e r e a d m i t t e d to and s u b s e q u e n t l y e n ­
r olled as f r e s h m e n for the fall t e r m 1968.

The s a m p l e of

a d m i t t e d s t u d e n t s was n o t s t r a t i f i e d b y sex and school

size

as w a s the s a m p l e of n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s . *
It is the w r i t e r ' s p u r p o s e in t h i s c h a p t e r to p r e ­
sent the d a t a w i t h l i t t l e c o m m e n t or e v a l u a t i o n ,
that p r e r o g a t i v e

for C h a p t e r VI,

reserving

"Summary and Recommen­

dations. "
1.

M a l e s a c c o u n t e d for 62.67 p e r c e n t o f t h e n o n -

admit u n i v e r s e a n d the n o n - a d m i t sample;

fem a l e s for 37.33

*The w r i t e r c h o s e n o t to s t r a t i f y the a d m i t sa m p l e
in o r d e r to e s t a b l i s h any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s in sex
or school size b e t w e e n a d m i t and n o n - a d m i t students.
28

29
per cent:.

M a l e s a c c o u n t e d for 48 p e r cent: of the a d m i t t e d

sample and fem a l e s for 52 per cent.
2.

Of the n o n - a d m i t sample,

students a t t e n d e d a c l a s s
students)

63.68 p e r c e n t of the

"A" h i g h school

(1,200 or m o r e

and 36.32 p e r cent a t t e n d e d o t h e r t h a n a c l a s s

high school

("B,"

"C" or

"A"

" D " ; f e w e r t h a n 1,200 students).

Of the a d m i t t e d sample 58.33 p e r c e n t a t t e n d e d c l a s s

"A"

high s c h o o ls w h i l e 41.67 p e r c e n t a t t e n d e d o t h e r t h a n c l a s s
"A" schools.
3.

W h e n a h i g h school g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e w a s d e ­

t e r mined for each n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t in the sample,

that

average r a n g e d f r o m .05 to 3.07 and the m e a n g r a d e p o i n t
average for the g r o u p w a s 2.03.

By contrast,

the g r a d e

point a v e r a g e for the a d m i t t e d s t u d e n t sa m p l e r a n g e d f r o m
1.81 to 4.00 and t h e i r m e a n g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e w a s 3.04.
The high school g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e p r o v i d e d for
each s t u d e n t was b a s e d u p o n an a v e r a g e of g r a d e s e a r n e d in
the ninth,

tenth,

"solid" a c a d e m i c
sciences,

and e l e v e n t h y e a r s of h i g h school in the
subjects;

i.e., math,

and social sciences.

English,

languages,

Grades were assigned numeri­

cal v a l u e s of A = 4 ., B = 3 ., C = 2 . , D = 1 ., and E or F = 0 .
T a b l e 1 p r o v i d e s a further b r e a k d o w n of g r a d e p o i n t
averages for b o t h samples.

T h e r e a d e r w i l l note v e r y f e w

students w e r e a d m i t t e d to the u n i v e r s i t y w i t h a g r a d e po i n t
average b e l o w 2.5.
4.

A r a n k in c l a s s w a s p r o v i d e d by the s e c o n d a r y

school for 243 or 81 p e r c e n t of the s t u d e n t s in the nonadmit sample.

R a n k in c l a s s was p r o v i d e d for 266 or 88.67

30
TABLE 1
D I S T R I B U T I O N OF S T U D E N T S B Y G R A D E P O I N T A V E R A G E ,
B O T H SAMPLES

G rade P o i n t
Average

0.00-0.49
0 . 5 0 - 0 . 99
1. 0 0 -1.49
1 .50-1.99
2 . 0 0 -2.49
2 . 5 0 -2.99
3 .00-3.49
3 . 5 0 -3.99
4 .00-4.49
Totals

N o n - A d m i t Sa m p l e

A dm i t Sample

No.

%

No.

«

0
2
19
92
162
24
1
0
0

0 .00
0 .67
6 .33
30 .67
54 .00
8 .00
0 .33
0 .00
0.00

0
0
0
1
19
114
115
44
7

0 .00
0 .00
0.00
0.33
6 .33
38 .00
38 .33
14 .67
2.34

300

100.00%

300

100.00%

per c e n t of t h e students in the a d m i t t e d student s a m p l e .
Table 2 p r o v i d e s vi s u a l a n a l y s i s of the class r a n k by
a d m i t t e d and n o n - a d m i t student samples.
TABLE 2
S T U D E N T CLASS RANK

Class Rank
by Q u a r t e r

N o n - A d m i t Sam p l e

Admit Sample

%

No.

%

11

4 .53

225

84 .59

125

51.44

41

15.41

Third Quarter

82

33 .74

0

0 .00

Fourth Quarter

25

10 .29

0

0 .00

First Q u a r t e r
S econd Q u a r t e r

Totals

No.

243

100.00%

266

100.00%

31
Th e p r o c e d u r e e m p l o y e d by M i c h i g a n secon d a r y
schools for r e p o r t i n g class rank is n o t u n i f o r m or c o n ­
sistent.

Some schools r a n k students on the basis of a

grade p o i n t average w h i c h includes grades e a r n e d in "solid"
academic s u bjects only w h i l e others rank on a grade p o i n t
average w h i c h includes grades e a r n e d in all subjects.
Many schools p r o v i d e ex t r a "points"
ated c o u rses w h i l e others do not.

for honors or a c c e l e r ­
In r e p o r t i n g class rank

here, n o a t t e m p t was m a d e to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n met h o d s
u s e d by i n d ividual high schools.
5.

Sc h o l a s t i c A p t i t u d e T e s t scores w e r e r e p o r t e d

for 47.33 p e r cent of the students in the n o n - a d m i t sample
and for 38.33 p e r c e n t of the students in the admitted
sample.

Of the total n o n - a d m i t students w h o w r o t e the

test 54.78 p e r c e n t w e r e male and 45.22 per c e n t were
female.

In the case of a d m i t t e d students w h o w r o t e the

test 56.34 p e r c e n t w e r e males and 43.66 per c e n t female.
T w o Scholastic A p t i t u d e T e s t scores are r e p o r t e d
for e a c h student;

one for ver b a l a p t i t u d e and one for math.

The m e a n v e r b a l score for males in the n o n - a d m i t sample
was 424 and the mean m a t h score was 450.

For females the

mean verbal score was 396 and the m e a n m a t h score was 393.
For males in the admitted sample the m e a n ve r b a l score was
525 and the m e a n math score was 582.

For females in the

same sample the m e a n ver b a l score was 488 and the m e a n
math score w a s 453.

32
T h e n a t i o n a l m e a n scores r e p o r t e d by the C o l l e g e
E n t r a n c e E x a m i n a t i o n B o a r d for 1967-68 w e r e 471 for m a l e s
verbal,

522 for m a l e s math,

476 for f e m a l e s v e r b a l a n d 4 83

for f e males math.
A c o n v e r s i o n table p r e p a r e d b y the M.S.U.
Evaluation Services permits

furt h e r e v a l u a t i o n of the

Scholastic Aptitude Test s c o r e s .
the table to e s t a b l i s h M.S.U.
of s t u d e n t s . *

O f f i c e of

It is p o s s i b l e t h r o u g h

percentiles

Table 3 provides

such data.

for e a c h g r o u p
The m e a n male

TABLE 3
SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE TEST RESULTS
F OR BOTH SAMPLES

National
Mean

Mean
N o n —A d m i t
Sa m p l e

MSU
%
Rank

Mean
Admit
Sample

MSU
%
Ra n k

Male V e r b a l

471

424

11

525

41

Male M a t h

522

450

9

582

45

Total M a l e
Math +
Verbal

993

874

12

1,107

54

Female V e r b a l

476

396

6

488

28

Female M a t h

483

393

3

531

28

Total F e m a l e
Math +
Verbal

959

789

5

1,019

37

* P e r c e n t i l e s w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d by e m p l o y i n g test
score d a t a a v a i l a b l e f r o m s t u d e n t s a d m i t t e d to the u n i ­
v e r s i t y in 1968 a n d 1969.

33
verbal score for n o n - a d m i t males equ a t e d to the 11th p e r ­
centile for M.S.U.
an M.S.U.

all fres h m a n r a n k and the m a l e m a t h to

9th percentile.

T h e female m e a n v e r b a l score

converted to the 6th percen t i l e for M.S.U.

rank and the

mean female math score to the 3rd percentile.
6.

W h e n the college ma j o r s r e q u ested b y students

from the two sample groups w e r e t a b u l a t e d and compared,
two s i g n i f icant d i f f e r e n c e s w e r e noted.

First,

students

in the n o n - a d m i t sample chose the college of social science
twice as o f t e n as students in the admi t t e d sample.

Second,

only two students in the n o n - a d m i t sample chose the small
residential coll e g e s wh i l e t w e n t y - n i n e students from the
admit s ample chose these p r o g r a m s .

T a b l e 4 permits a

detailed sample comparison.
7.

Space is provi d e d on each a p p l i c a t i o n for a d ­

m i ssion form for an official r e c o m m e n d a t i o n by the s e c o n d ­
ary school principal.

T h e p r i n c i p a l m a y check

(x or /) to

recommended for admission, not r e c o m m e n d e d for admission,
prefer n o t to make a recommendation,
for further information.

or please c o n t a c t me

The p r i n c i p a l is a l s o p r o v i d e d

an o p p o r t u n ity to esti m a t e each ap p l i c a n t ' s potential.
may check
a:

He

(x or /) the f o l l o w i n g choices; w i l l p r o b a b l y be

superior student, above average student, ave r a g e s t u ­

dent, or m a y have some d i f f i c u l t y and should have special
guidance and attention.

34
TABLE 4
T H E S E L E C T I O N O F M A J O R S BY S T U D E N T S OF
E A C H S A M P L E B Y C O L L E G E A T M.S.U.

Non-Admit Sample
No.
Arts & L e t t e r s
Agriculture
Bu s iness
Communication Arts
E d u c a t i o n ® (Total)
Elementary Education
Special Education
Physical Education .
Secondary Education
Engineering
Home E c o n o m i c s
Natural Science
Residential Colleges
Lyman Briggs
James Madison
Justin Morril
S ocial S c i e n c e
Veterinary Medicine
Medical Technology
No P r e f e r e n c e
No Preference Science
No Preference Pre-Law
Total

%

Admit Sample
No.

%

39
14
21
17
(58)
20
6
8
(24)
27
10
23

13.00
4 .67
7 .00
5.67
(19.33)
6.66
2.00
2.67
(8.00)
9.00
3.33
7.67

35
9
17
12
(50)
22
2
2
(24)
29
9
28

11.67
3.00
5.67
4.00
(16.67)
7.33
.67
.67
(8.00)
9.66
3 .00
9.33

0
1
1
35
2
0
66
8
2

0.00
0 .33
0.33
11.66
0.67
0.00
22.00
2 .67
.67

8
13
8
17
8
4
74
2
1

2.67
4.33
2.67
5.67
2.67
1.33
24.66
.67
.33

300

100.00%

300

aT h i s t o t a l n o t i n c l u d e d in c o l u m n totals.
cludes s e c o n d a r y e d u c a t i o n majors.

100.00%

In­

u

Secondary Education students were distributed
a c c o r d i n g to m a j o r college.
T h i s c o u n t n o t t a b u l a t e d in
totals for t a b l e .

35
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s w e r e o f f e r e d for 269 or 89.67 per
ce n t of the s t u d e n t s in the n o n - a d m i t sample.

By contrast

240 o r 80 p e r c e n t o f the stude n t s in the a d m i t t e d samp l e
w e r e g i v e n some s o r t of r e c o m m e n d a t i o n .
was o f f e r e d b y the p r i n c i p a l

No recommendation

for t h i r t y - o n e or 10.33 pe r

cent of the s t u d e n t s in the n o n - a d m i t sample.

Principals

failed to g i v e a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n for s i x t y or 20 p e r c e n t of
those s t u d ents in the a d m i t t e d sample.
T a b l e 5 d i s p l a y s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s g i v e n for s t u d e n t s
in b o t h samples.

T h e reader w i l l n o t e some p r i n c i p a l s p r o ­

v i d e d a "write in" r e c o m m e n d a t i o n .

In the n o n - a d m i t s a m p l e

t w e n t y - t h r e e s t u d e n t s w e r e r e c o m m e n d e d if t h e y c o u l d s u c ­
c e s s f u l l y p a s s the u n i v e r s i t y e n t r a n c e exam.
of five s t u d e n t s

In the ca s e

f r o m the a d m i t t e d sample t h e p r i n c i p a l

offered a similar recommendation.

Finally,

only 107 or

36.80 p e r c e n t of the s t u d e n t s in the n o n - a d m i t s a m p l e w e r e
g iven a c l e a r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i t h o u t some r e s e r v a t i o n .
the s t u d e n ts

Of

in the a d m i t t e d sa m p l e 224 or 93.33 p e r c e n t

w e r e g i v e n r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i t h o u t r e s e r vation.
8.

W h e n s t u d e n t s a p p l y to M i c h i g a n Sta t e t h e y are

a sked to p r o v i d e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r p a r e n t s '
college e d ucat i o n .

S p e c i fically,

c a t i o n for a d m i s s i o n asks,
Wh e r e ?

Mother?

p a r t n i n e of the a p p l i ­

"Did father a t t e n d c o l l e g e ? ____

W h e r e ______."

The responses

from students

in b o t h s a m p l e s are r e p o r t e d in T a b l e 6.
T h e d i f f e r e n c e s n o t e d in p a r e n t a l e d u c a t i o n b e t w e e n
the t w o s a m p l e s s e e m of little c o n s e q u e n c e .

36
TABLE 5
P R I N C I P A L R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R B O T H SAM P L E S

Recommendation

R e c o m m e n d e d for
Admission
Not Recommended
for A d m i s s i o n
P r e f e r N o t to M a k e
a Recommendation
P l ease C o n t a c t m e
for F u r t h e r
Information
Total
Recommended, S u p e r i o r
Student
Recommended, Above
Average Student
Recommended, Average
Student
Recommended, May
Ha v e D i f f i c u l t y
R e c o m m e n d e d if P a s s
Entrance Exam
Total

Non-Admit Sample
(N = 269)

A d m i t Samp l e
(N -■ 236)

No.

%

No.

%

157

58.36

236

98.33

47

17 .47

1

.42

65

24.17

3

1.25

0

0.00

0

0.00

269

100.00%

240

100.00%

0

0 .00

15

6.25

2

.74

99

41.25

105

39.03

110

45.83

27

10.04

7

2.92

23

8 .55

5

2.08

157

58 .36%

236

98.33%

37
TABLE

6

P AR E N T S E D U C A T I O N AS R E P O R T E D B Y S T U D E N T S
IN B O T H S A M P L E S *
(N = 300)

Non-Admit Sample

A d m i t Sampl e

No.

«

No.

%

Father yes
F a ther n o

137
163

45.67
54.33

117
183

39.00
61. 00

M o t h e r yes
M o t h e r no

107
193

35.67
64.33

104
196

34 .66
65.34

Both p a r e n t s yes
Both p a r e n t s no

61
132

20 .67
44.00

68
146

22.67
48.66

12
3

4 .00
1.00

21
9

7.00
3.00

4

1.33

6

2.00

Father a l u m n u s of M.S.U.
M o t h e r a l u m n a of M.S.U.
Both p a r e n t s alumni
of M.S.U.

*The e x t e n t o f the p a r e n t ' s c o l l e g e e d u c a t i o n is
not known.
T h e q u e s t i o n on the a p p l i c a t i o n for a d m i s s i o n
asks o n l y if father o r m o t h e r a t t e n d e d college, and if so,
where.
W h a t B e c o m e s o f the S t u d e n t A f t e r He
or She is D e n i e d A d m i s s i o n to
Michigan State?
T o d e t e r m i n e the p r e s e n t w h e r e a b o u t s of e a c h s t u ­
dent in the n o n - a d m i t s a m p l e and to e s t a b l i s h i n f o r m a t i o n
c o n c e r n i n g his or her a c t i v i t i e s
ation,

since h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u ­

a q u e s t i o n n a i r e was p r e p a r e d a n d m a i l e d to the

parents of e a c h n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t in the s a m p l e
A p p e n d i x A, p a g e 85).

(see

E a c h p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was

a c c o m p a n i e d b y a letter w h i c h e x p l a i n e d the p u r p o s e for
the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and w h i c h s o l i c i t e d the p a r e n t ' s

38
c o o p e r a t i o n and prompt, response.

T w o w e e k s a f t e r the first

l etter a s e c o n d r e q u e s t w a s s e n t to those p a r e n t s w h o d i d
not respond

(see A p p e n d i x A, p a g e 88).

the s e c o n d reque s t ,

Two weeks after

the p a r e n t s w h o fa i l e d to r e t u r n the

q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e c e i v e d a p h o n e call

f r o m the writer.

call a s k e d for i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the student;
college?",

Each

"Is he in

"If not, w h a t ? ” , and a g a i n p a r e n t s w e r e a s k e d to

r e t u r n the c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

A t h i r d a n d last r e ­

q u e s t w a s m a i l e d two w e e k s a f t e r the p h o n e calls

(see

A p p e n d i x A, p a g e 89).
P a r e n t a l r e s p o n s e was gra t i f y i n g , w h e n 260 or 86.60
per c e n t o f the p a r e n t s u l t i m a t e l y r e t u r n e d c o m p l e t e d
questionnaires.

B y q u e s t i o n n a i r e o r by p h o n e the w r i t e r

w a s a b l e to e s t a b l i s h the w h e r e a b o u t s and a c t i v i t i e s
291 or 97 p e r c e n t of the students

in the sample.

for

Un­

a c c o u n t e d for w e r e n i n e s t u d e n t s w h o c o m p r i s e d 3 per cent
of the n o n - a d m i t sample.

A n a n a l y s i s of the d a t a g a t h e r e d

p r o v i d e d the f o l l o w i n g information:
1.

T w o h u n d r e d s i x t y - s e v e n or 91.75 p e r c e n t of
the s t u d e n t s a c c o u n t e d for w e r e e n r o l l e d in a
p r o g r a m for p o s t - h i g h s c h o o l educat i o n ;

twe n t y -

four or 8.25 p e r c e n t w e r e not.
2.

Of those students a t t e n d i n g an i n s t i t u t i o n for
p o s t - h i g h school e d u c a t i o n ,

181 or 67.69 per

c e n t w e r e e n r o l l e d in a f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e or
university,

s e v e n t y — two or 26.96 per c e n t w e r e

e n r o l l e d in a c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r college,

and

39
f o u r t e e n or 5.25 p e r c e n t w e r e e n r o l l e d in a
t e c h n i c a l s c h o o l or college.
3.

Of t h o s e s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g a n i n s t i t u t i o n for
p o s t - h i g h school e d u c a t i o n 232 or 86.89 p e r
cent were attending an institution somewhere
in the S t a t e of M i c h i g a n .

4.

Of the s e v e n t y - t w o s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g a
c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r college,

f i f t y - o n e or 70.83

p e r c e n t w e r e e n r o l l e d in a c o l l e g e p a r a l l e l
progr a m ,

se v e n or 9.72 p e r c e n t w e r e e n r o l l e d

in t e c h n i c a l t e r m i n a l

(two-year)

programs.

T h e p r o g r a m s e l e c t e d b y f o u r t e e n or 19.45 p e r
c e n t of the c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s
was u n k n o w n .
5.

Of the s e v e n t y - t w o s t u d e n t s a t t e n d i n g a
c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e s e v e n t y or 97.24 p e r
c e n t w e r e a t t e n d i n g a M i c h i g a n inst i t u t i o n .

6.

Of the 300 s t u d e n t s

in the n o n - a d m i t s a m p l e

258 or 86 per c e n t

r e s i d e d in a M i c h i g a n

c o u n t y in w h i c h is

located a community-junior

college.

Of the 258 o n l y 70 or 27.14 p e r c e n t

c h o s e to a t t e n d a c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r c o l l e g e
(for d e t a i l e d analysis,
97) .

see A p p e n d i x

c,

page

40
S t u d e n t and P a r e n t a l A t t i t u d e
M o s t o£ t h e items w h i c h m a d e u p t h e p a r e n t s q u e s t i o n ­
naire s o u g ht to e s t a b l i s h an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e p a r e n t ' s
a t t i t u d e t o w a r d hims e l f /

his student,

admission procedures,

and t h e u n i v e r s i t y af t e r his s t u d e n t w a s d e n i e d admission.
In a d d i t i o n to the p a r e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e ,

a student question­

n a i r e w a s d e s i g n e d to g a t h e r e v i d e n c e c o n c e r n i n g e a c h s t u ­
d e n t ' s a t t i t u d e as well.
The student questionnaire
93)

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e s 90-

s o u g h t s t u d e n t a t t i t u d e c o n c e r n i n g hims e l f ,

ary school,

admissions procedures,

the s e c o n d ­

and t h e u n i v e r s i t y .

w as d i r e c t e d to e a c h s t u d e n t in the n o n - a d m i t sample.

It
A

letter w h i c h a c c o m p a n i e d e a c h q u e s t i o n n a i r e o f f e r e d e x p l a ­
n a t i o n and s o l i c i t e d t h e s t u d e n t ' s c o o p e r a t i o n in r e t u r n i n g
the c o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e

(see A p p e n d i x B, p a g e 94).

F o l l o w - u p p r o c e d u r e s w e r e e x a c t l y the s a m e as t h o s e e m p l o y e d
with the parent's questionnaire

(Appendix A,

p a g e s 87-89).

C o m p l e t e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s w e r e r e t u r n e d b y 239 s t u ­
dents r e p r e s e n t i n g 79.66 per c e n t o f t h e sample.
T h e r e m a i n d e r of t h i s c h a p t e r w i l l be c o n c e r n e d
w i t h r e p o r t i n g p a r e n t and s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e s t o e a c h
q u e s t i o n n a i r e item.

W h e n q u e s t i o n s or items a p p e a r e d

i d e n t i c a l l y o n b o t h q u e s t i o n n a i r e s r e s p o n s e s w i l l be t a b u ­
lated to p e r m i t comparison.
P a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s a g r e e d that pare n t s ,

friends,

and "other" w e r e of m o s t h e l p to t h e student in s e l e c t i n g
M i c h i g a n State.

T h e y d i d n o t agree,

however,

as to w h o had

41
the m o s t inf licence.

P a r e n t s b e l i e v e d t h e y h a d the m o s t

influence on the student's decision followed
by f r i e n d and h i g h sc h o o l c o u n s e l o r .
friend, p a r e n t s ,

and

"other"

In explaining

in i m p o r t a n c e

Students ranked

in o r d e r of m o s t influence .

"other,"

f i f t y - s e v e n o r 59.99 per

cent o f the p a r e n t s c o m m e n t e d t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n w a s m a d e by
the s t u d e n t

("his o r her o w n c h o i c e " ) ;

t w e n t y - s e v e n or 28.42

per c e n t s u g g e s t e d t h a t a s i b l i n g w h o had a t t e n d e d or w a s
c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d in t h e u n i v e r s i t y had i n f l u e n c e d the
student d e c i s i o n and e l e v e n o r
m e n t s d e s c r i b e d a spe c i a l

11.57 p e r c e n t of t h e c o m ­

friend

(doctor,

faculty member,

aunt).
Student explanations

for

f i f t y - o n e or 56.66 p e r c e n t s a i d
six or 28.88 p e r c e n t said

"other" w e r e

similar,

"my o w n c h o i c e , "

twenty-

" b r o t h e r or s i s t e r , " a n d f o u r ­

teen or 15.55 per c e n t d e s c r i b e d some spec i a l frien d . *
Considering

"self" the m a j o r i n f l u e n c e in "other"

c o m m e n t s , the s e c o n d a r y school c o u n s e l o r m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d
as the t h i rd r a n k e d o u t s i d e i n f l u e n c e in a s s i s t i n g t h e s t u ­
dent.
T a b l e s 7,

8, and

9 p r o v i d e m o r e c o m p l e t e data.

*Many stu d i e s h a v e e m p l o y e d parents, friend, t e a c h ­
er, school counse l o r , and a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r as m a j o r
factors o f s t u d e n t i n f l u e n c e w h e r e the s e l e c t i o n of c o l l e g e
is concerned.
A f t e r a n a l y z i n g "other" c o m m e n t s the w r i t e r
w o u l d s u g g e s t t h a t a d d i t i o n a l s t u d i e s i n c l u d e sib l i n g and
peers to p e r m i t m o r e a c c u r a t e and m e a n i n g f u l response.
See
J. B. E d l e s o n and M. J. Crowe, T e e n - A g e r s O c c u p a t i o n a l
A s p i r a t i o n s (Pullman, W a s h i n g t o n !
Washington Agricultural
E x p e r i m e n t a l Station, B u l l e t i n 513, 1960).

42
TABLE 7
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E S T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHO H E L P E D
Y O U R S T U D E N T S E L E C T M I C H I G A N STATE?"
(N = 260)
Yes

Parentis
F riend
T e acher
School C o u n s e l o r
MSU A d m i s s i o n s O f f i c e r
Other (Please explain)

No

No.

%

114
101
48
94
21
95

43.84
38.84
18.46
36.15
8.08
36 .53

No.

%

75
68
103
74
123
0

28.85
26.15
39.61
28.46
47.30
0.00

TABLE 8
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E T O THE Q U E S T I O N "WHO H E L P E D
Y O U S E L E C T M I C H I G A N STATE?"
(N = 238)
Yes

Parents
Friend
Teacher
School C o u n s e l o r
MSU Admissions Officer
Other (Please explain)

No

No.

%

No.

%

95
137
64
69
19
90

39.92
57.56
26.89
28.99
7.98
37.82

112
78
138
139
178
0

47.05
32.77
57 .98
58.40
74 .78
0.00

43
TABLE 9
ITEMS C I R C L E D BY P A R E N T S A N D S T U D E N T S AS T H E
O N E WHO M O S T I N F L U E N C E D S T U D E N T TO
S E L E C T M.S.U.
(Parents N = 260, S t u d e n t N = 238)
C ir c l e d b y P a r e n t s
No.
Parents
Friend
Teacher
School C o u n s e l o r
MSU A d m i s s i o n s
Officer
Other (Please
explain)

%

C i r c l e d by S t u d e n t
%

NO.

34
33
12
26

13.08
12.69
4.62
10.00

30
45
16
10

12.61
18.91
6.72
4. 20

5

11. 92

4

1.68

15

5.77

28

11.76

To f u r t h e r refine the e x t e n t of p a r e n t a l i n f l u e n c e
parents w e r e asked,

"How m u c h i n f l u e n c e d i d y o u as a p a r e n t

have o n y o u r student's d e c i s i o n to a t t e n d M i c h i g a n State?"
In response,

15.78 p e r c e n t of the p a r e n t s s a i d

37.69 p e r cent r e p l i e d

"very m uch,"

"some," 17.69 p e r cent s a i d

and 26.54 per c e n t r e s p o n d e d "none."

"little”

N i n e or 2.30 per c e n t

of the p a r e n t s d i d not r e s p o n d to the question.
In an e f f o r t to d e t e c t any c h a n g e in the s t u d e n t s
a t tempt to seek a s s i s t a n c e h a v i n g b e e n d e n i e d admission ,
the s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e sent to s t u d e n t s w h o w e r e e n r o l l e d
in c o l l e g e or t r a d e p r o g r a m s asked,
the c o l l e g e y o u n o w a t t e n d ? "
friend a n d

"other"

(self)

"Who h e l p e d y o u select

T h e s t u d e n t ' s r e l i a n c e on

shows the g r e a t e s t change.

After

b eing d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n he a p p a r e n t l y leans m o r e o n his
parents a n d h i g h school c o u n s e l o r for advice.

T a b l e 10

44
provides detail.
w i t h "other"

Again,

an analysis of comments p r o v i d e d

indicates that the student h i m s e l f m a d e the

choice in the m a j o r i t y of cases

(sixty-one or 84.76 p e r cent

of the students w h o c o m m e n t e d said "my d e c i s i o n ”) .
TA B L E 10
S T U D E N T RESPONSES TO THE QUES T I O N "WHO HELPED
YO U SELECT THE C O L L E G E YOU N O W A T T E N D 7 "
(N = 221)
Yes

Parents
School C o u n s e l o r
Friend
Teacher
An A d m i s s i ons
Officer
A College R e f e r r a l
Se r v i c e
Other (Please
explain)

MOSt

No

Influence
%

No.

%

81
105
92
136

36.65
47.51
41.63
61.53

43
22
16
1

19.46
9.95
7.24
0.45

12.22

158

71.49

4

1.80

5

2.26

174

78.73

0

0.00

72

35.58

0

0.00

21

9.54

No.

%

Ill
86
99
47

50.22
38.91
44.80
21.27

27

No.

B e c a u s e parental influence was c o n s idered as
substantial,

the parent q u e s t i o n n a i r e sought to deter m i n e

the source o f the parents reg a r d for M i c h i g a n State as an
appropriate u n i v e r s i t y for their student.

Table 11 p r o ­

vides data.
Co mments g i v e n by parents to e x p l a i n "other"
referred to the students o w n strong desire to attend M S U
in 16.44 per cent of the cases, to siblings w h o were c u r ­
rently e n r o l l e d or had b e e n enrolled in the u n i v e r s i t y in
13.88 p e r cent of the cases, to the gen e r a l ex c e l l e n c e of

45
the u n i v e r s i t y in 15.67 p e r c e n t o f the cases,

to k n o w l e d g e

of s p e c i f i c u n i v e r s i t y p r o g r a m s in 10.89 p e r c e n t o f the
cases a n d to s p e c i f i c
cent of the cases.

friends or a c q u a i n t a n c e s

in 29.24 p e r

T e n or 13.88 p e r c e n t of the p a r e n t s

e x p l a i n e d they d i d n o t t h i n k M.S.U. w a s a p p r o p r i a t e

for

their student.
TA B L E 11
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E S T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHAT O R W H O M A D E
Y O U T H I N K O F M.S.U. A S A N A P P R O P R I A T E
U N I V E R S I T Y F O R Y O U R S T U D ENT?"
(N = 260)

Yes
No.
I a t t e n d e d M.S.U.
Others w h o h a d a t t e n d e d
Michigan State
School C o u n s e l o r
Friend
School T e a c h e r
M.S.U. A d m i s s i o n s
Officer
O t h e r (Please explain)

No
%

No.

%

20

7.69

155

59.61

150
82
94
39

57.69
31.54
36.15
15.00

56
98
78
128

21.54
37 .69
30.00
49 .23

17
73

6.54
28.03

138
0

53.07
0 .00

Both parents and students were questioned c o ncern­
ing the r e s p o n s e e x p e c t e d from the u n i v e r s i t y once the
d e c i s i o n to a p p l y had b e e n made.

S t u d e n t s w e r e asked,

"Did

yo u e x p e c t to be a d m i t t e d to M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ? "
They r e p l i e d
"uncertain"

"yes"

34.45 per cent,

52.52 per cent.

"no"

10.92 per c e n t and

When parents were asked how

their s t u d e n t felt a b o u t a d m i s s i o n they a p p a r e n t l y b e l i e v e d

46
the s t u d e n t to be m o r e o p t i m i s t i c .
p e r cent,

T h e y said

"yes"

45.77

"no" 2.69 p e r c e n t and 43.85 per c e n t of the

students w e r e

" u n c e rtain."

S t u d e n t s a c c o r d i n g to t h e m ­

selves a n d t h e i r p a r e n t s e x p r e s s e d c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t that
they w o u l d b e admitted.

It a p p e a r s t h a t to m o s t students,

M.S.U. w a s a "long shot."
F u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n o f the s t u d e n t ' s p e s s i m i s m m a y
be seen in t h e i r r e s p o n s e to i t e m 12 o f the s t u d e n t
q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n c e r n i n g the n u m b e r of o t h e r c o l l e g e s to
w h i c h t h e s t u d e n t applied.
c l u s i v e l y to M.S.U.

Only 5 per cent applied e x ­

B y contrast,

the O f f i c e of R e s e a r c h

for the A m e r i c a n C o u n c i l on E d u c a t i o n r e p o r t e d t h a t 47.1
per c e n t of those f r e s h m e n w h o e n r o l l e d at M.S.U.
t e r m 1968 had a p p l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y to M.S.U.

Table

for fall
12 p r o ­

vides d e t a i l e d responses.
T A B L E 12
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E S T O THE Q U E S T I O N "TO H O W
M A N Y O T H E R C O L L E G E S D I D Y O U A P P L Y 7"
(N = 238)
Students Responding

N u m b e r of
Other Colleges

Number

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

12
59
70
65
19
9
1
1

Percentage
5.04
24.79
29.42
27 .31
7 .98
3 .78
0.42
0. 42

47
P a r e n t s w e r e m u c h m o r e o p t i m i s t i c r e g a r d i n g the
student's c h a n c e s for a d m i s s i o n t o M.S.U.

w h e n asked,

"Did

y o u e x p e c t y o u r s t u d e n t to b e a d m i t t e d to M i c h i g a n S t a t e
U n i v e r s i t y?",

they r e p l i e d y e s in 64.23 p e r c e n t o f the r e ­

sponses a nd n o in o n l y 26.92 per cent.

T w e n t y - t h r e e or 8.85

per c e n t of the p a r e n t s did n o t r e s p o n d t o the q u e s t i o n .
B e c a u s e the g r e a t m a j o r i t y of n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s
had e a r n e d a c a d e m i c records w h i c h w e r e s u b s t a n t i a l l y b e l o w
m i n i m u m r e q u i r e m e n t s for a d m i s s i o n to M . S . U .

the writer

w o n d e r e d w h a t steps the s t u d e n t a n d his p a r e n t s had t a k e n
to u n d e r s t a n d a d m i s s i o n s r e q u i r e m e n t s and p r o c e d u r e s b e f o r e
a p p l y i n g to the u n i v e rsity.

Students wer e queried c oncern­

ing v i s i t s to the u n i v e r s i t y O f f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s .
asked,

When

"Did y o u h a v e a p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w in t h e M.S.U.

Of f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s ? " ,

only t w e n t y - o n e o r 8.82 p e r c e n t

students a c k n o w l e d g e d a p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w .
h a d t w o i nterviews.

Nine students

T a b l e 13 sh o w s responses.
T A B L E 13

S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E S T O THE Q U E S T I O N "DID Y O U
H A V E A P E R S O N A L I N T E R V I E W IN T H E M . S . U •
O F F I C E OF A D M I S S I O N S ? "
(N = 238)
No

Yes
No.
Be f o r e y o u r e c e i v e d our
decision
A f t e r y o u r e c e i v e d our
decision
Before you applied
After you applied

%

No.

%

11

4 .62

222

93 .27

9
10
13

3.78
4 .20
5 .46

219
219
217

92.01
92 .01
91.17

48
In r e s p o n s e to the q u e s t i o n "Did y o u a t t e n d a
'college night*

p r o g r a m w h i l e in h i g h scho o l ? " o n l y 28.57

per c e n t o f the s t u d e n t s said y e s .
did attend,
officer.

Of those students who

82.35 p e r c e n t h e a r d the M.S.U.

O f t h o s e w h o h e a r d the M.S.U.

admissions

admissions officer

62.50 p e r c e n t b e l i e v e d he a d e q u a t e l y d e s c r i b e d a d m i s s i o n s
requirements.
Thirty-one per cent

(31.54%)

of the p a r e n t s

they h a d a t t e n d e d a c o l l e g e n i g h t program.
cent

(82.35%)

h a d a l s o h e a r d the M.S.U.

said

Eighty-two per

a d m i s s i o n s officer.

Of t h o s e p a r e n t s w h o h e a r d h i m 62.50 per c e n t felt the
M.S.U.

admissions officer had adequately described admis­

sions r e q u i r e m e n t s .
O f the s a m p l e students,

o n l y 23.53 p e r c e n t had

heard the admissions officer speak on admission require­
me n t s b e f o r e a p p l y i n g to the university.
To determine

f u r t h e r the e x t e n t of p a r e n t a n d s t u ­

dent understanding of admission p r o c e d u r e s , both were asked
a b o u t f a c t o r s w h i c h i n f l u e n c e d t h e d e c i s i o n for denial.
B o t h a g r e e d g r a d e s , t e s t scores a n d c l a s s r a n k w e r e of
major consequence.

Tables

14 and 15 p r o v i d e d e t a i l e d

responses.
C o m m e n t s p r o v i d e d to e x p l a i n "other"
and 15 o f f e r e d t h i r t y - n i n e v a r i a b l e s ,

for T a b l e s

m o s t of w h i c h e x ­

p l a i n e d or e x c u s e d p o o r p e r f o r m a n c e in h i g h school.
teen parents

and n i n e s t u d e n t s replied,

or "I d o n ' t u n d e r s t a n d why."

14

Seven­

"I j u s t d o n ' t know"

49
T ABLE 14
S T U D E N T RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION "WHICH OF
T H E FACTORS B E L O W DO Y O U F E E L INFLUENCED
O U R D E C I S I O N T O DENY A D M I S S I O N TO YOU?"
(N = 238)

High school grades
Test scores
Class rank
Principal r e c o m ­
mendations
Counselor recom­
m e n d a t i o ns
Ex t r a - c u r r i c u l a r
activities
Other (Please
explain)

Most
Importan t

No

Yes
No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

194
117
109

81.51
49.15
45.79

36
107
112

15.13
44. 95
47.05

167
126
111

70.16
52.94
46.63

37

15.55

183

76.89

39

16.39

51

21.43

169

71.00

57

23.95

36

15.13

188

78. 99

35

14.71

21

8.82

0

0.00

2

0.84

TABLE 15
P A R E N T RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION "WHICH OF
T H E FACTORS B E L O W DO Y O U FEEL INFLUENCED
O U R D E C I S I O N T O D E N Y A D M I S S I O N TO
Y O U R STUDENT?"
(N = 260)

High school grades
Test scores
Class rank
Principal r e c o m ­
mendations
C o u n selor r e c o m ­
mendations
Extra-curricular
activities
Other (Please
e x plain

Most
Important

No

Yes
No.

%

No.

%

No.

%

186
100
108

71.53
38.46
41.53

41
102
79

15.77
39. 23
30.38

134
102
81

51.53
39.23
31.15

34

13.08

137

52.69

27

10.38

45

17.31

132

50.76

33

12.69

42

16.15

139

53.46

31

11. 92

45

17. 31

0

0.00

4

15. 38

50
W h e n a s k e d w h a t fac t o r s s h o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d w h e n
the d e c i s i o n to a d m i t or d e n y is a r r i v e d at,

the r e c o m m e n ­

d a t i o n b y the h i g h school c o u n s e l o r w a s p r e f e r r e d b y p a r e n t s
and s t u d e nts o v e r all c r i t e r i a e x c e p t grades.

Apparently

both p a r e n t s a n d s t u d e n t s b e l i e v e the counselors'

encourage­

m e n t to b e o f c o n s i d e r a b l e m e r i t in p r e d i c t i n g a c a d e m i c
success a t M. S . U .

Tables

16 and 17 c h a r t responses.

C o m m e n t s to e x p l a i n

"other"

for factors w h i c h s h o u l d

influence t h e a d m i s s i o n s d e c i s i o n c e n t e r e d on a p e r s o n a l
interview,

the s t u d e n t ' s m o t i v a t i o n ,

field, q u a l i t y of h i g h school,

the s t u d e n t ' s m a j o r

a n d i m p r o v e m e n t in s e n i o r

year g r a d e s .
T A B L E 16
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E S TO T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHAT F A C T O R S
DO YOU BELIEVE WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN
W E ARRIVE A T AN ADMISSIONS DECISION?"
(N « 238)

Yes
*es

Grades
Test scores
Counselor rec o m ­
mendations
Class rank
Extra-curricular
activities
P r i n cipal r e c o m ­
mendations
Special t a l e n t s
(please explain)
O ther (please
explain)

No
NO

Most
Important
%

No.

%

19
59

7.98
24.79

141
116

59.24
48.73

71.00
30. 67

63
154

26.47
64.70

85
25

35.71
10.50

113

47.47

113

47.47

40

16. 81

126

52.94

101

42.43

35

14.71

37

15.55

0

0.00

15

6.30

40

16.81

0

0.00

13

5.46

No.

%

213
170

89.49
71.42

169
73

No.

51

T A B L E 17
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E S T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHAT F A C T O R S
DO Y O U FEEL W E S H O U L D C O N S I D E R W H E N W E
ARRIVE AT A N ADMISSION DECISION?"
(N » 260)
Yes

G r ades
C lass rank
T e s t s cores
Extra-curricular
activities
Counselors recom­
mendations
Principals recom­
mendations
O t h e r (please
explain)

No

Most
Important
%

No.

«

21
54
39

8.08
20.77
15.00

140
38
103

53.84
14.62
39.61

42.30

99

38.08

21

8.08

193

74.23

30

11.54

112

43.07

157

60. 38

53

20.38

49

18.85

55

21.15

0

0.00

10

3.85

No.

%

211
164
186

81.15
63.07
71.53

110

No.

In e x p l a i n i n g s p e c i a l t a l e n t s

in T a b l e

dents r e f e r r e d m o s t o f t e n to art, music,

16,

stu­

a n d drama.

A

few e x p l a i n e d the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s h o u l d c o n s i d e r
a t h letic a b i l i t y and class o f f i c e s held.
S e v e r a l items in b o t h s t u d e n t and p a r e n t q u e s t i o n ­
naires w e r e i n t r o d u c e d to r e f l e c t the a t t i t u d e of b o t h
groups w h e n the n o n — a d m i t d e c i s i o n w a s received.

More stu­

dents w e r e d i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h the d e c i s i o n t h a n s u r p r i s e d by
it.

A l m o s t h a l f a d m i t t e d the d e c i s i o n w a s d i s c o u r a g i n g and

over h a l f e x p r e s s e d d i s a p p o i n t m e n t in themselves.
pr o v i d e s details.

T a b l e 18

"Other" as e x p l a i n e d b y s t u d e n t s c o n ­

c e r n e d a r e g r e t that the u n i v e r s i t y d e c i s i o n d i d n o t

52
T A B L E 18
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E S T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHEN YOU
R E C E I V E D O U R N O N - A D M I T LETTER, W E R E YOU:"
(N = 238)
Yes

Surprised
Discouraged
Unhappy w i t h high
school c o u n s e l o r
D i s a p p o i n t ed
Unhappy w i t h MSU
U n h appy w i t h self
Other (please
explain)

consi d e r ‘the s t u d e n t s
State.

NO

No.

%

NO.

%

119
113

50.00
47.47

95
105

39.92
44.11

43
191
76
135

18.07
80.25
31.93
56.72

171
35
141
87

71.84
14.70
59.24
36.55

19

7.98

0

0.00

st r o n g desire to attend M i c h i g a n

The students a p p a r e n t l y believe that m o t i v a t i o n is

a key f actor to acad e m i c success and e x p r e s s d i s a p p o i n t m e n t
that it c a n n o t be measured.
P a rents too, w e r e s u r p r i s e d at the no decision,

and

they a d m i t t e d d i s a p p o i n t m e n t in the u n i v e r s i t y and their
student.

Par e n t s in r e s p o n d i n g t o the q u e s t i o n c o n c e r n i n g

attitude w e r e a l s o p e r m i t t e d a "write in" reaction.
more p a r e n t s used the opt i o n than did students.

Many

T o exp l a i n

"other" m o s t parents e x p r e s s e d "relief" or agree m e n t w i t h
the decision.

M a n y w e n t on to say they p r e f e r r e d a small

school for their student.

Other comments simply reinfo r c e d

the surprise or disappointment.

Table 19 p r o v i d e s details.

53

T A B L E 19
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHEN Y O U R S T U D E N T
WAS DENIED ADMISSION TO MICHIGAN S T A T E ,
W E R E YOU:"
(N = 260)
No

Yes

Surprised
Disappointed with your
student
D i s a p p o i n t e d w i t h self
Disappointed with
Michigan State
Disappointed with
high school
Other (please
explain)

No.

%

No.

«

105

40.83

89

34.23

81
31

31.15
11 . 9 2

111
147

42.69
56.53

93

35.77

102

39.23

54

20.77

127

48.84

62

23.85

0

0.00

In o r d e r to a s c e r t a i n a ch a n g e in p a r e n t or s t u d e n t
a t t i t u d e a b o u t t h e a d m i s s i o n s d e c i s i o n a f t e r an e l a p s e of
several m onths,
"now" item.

the q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o f f e r e d a " t h e n ” a n d

B o t h g r o u p s w e r e a s k e d to c o m m e n t a b o u t t h e

d e c i s i o n a t the t i m e it a r r i v e d and a f o l l o w - u p q u e s t i o n
asked "how d o y o u feel now."

Tables

20,

21,

22,

and 23

sh o w d e t a i l e d r e s p o n s e s b y q u e s t i o n a n d b y group.
Students

a g r e e the d e c i s i o n w a s h o n e s t a n d a p p a r ­

ently b e l i e v e the O f f i c e o f A d m i s s i o n s r e s p o n d e d sincerely.
I n i t i a l l y t h e y c o n s i d e r e d the d e c i s i o n d i s c o u r a g i n g a l ­
though t h e p a s s a g e of time s e e m e d to d i m i n i s h d i s c o u r a g e ­
ment.

I n i t i a l l y o n l y o n e - t h i r d of the s t u d e n t s c o n s i d e r e d

the d e c i s i o n h e l p f u l ;

later a l m o s t h a l f t h o u g h t it so.

54

T A B L E 20
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "AT T H E T I M E O U R
DE C I S I O N A R R I V E D D I D Y O U T H E N B E L I E V E
O U R D E C I S I O N TO Bl£:"
(N = 238)
Yes

Correct
Helpful
Discou r a g ing
Incorrect
Honest
Other (please explain)

NO

NO.

«

No.

%

106
79
138
89
154
15

44.53
33.19
57.98
37.39
64.70
6.30

110
143
88
129
51
0

46 .21
60.08
36.97
54.20
21.43
0.00

T A B L E 21
STUDENT R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "HOW D O YOU
F E E L N O W A B O U T O U R DECISI O N : "
(N = 238)
No

Yes

Correct
Helpful
D iscou r a g ing
Incorrect
Honest
Other (please explain)

No.

%

No.

%

111
111
82
102
167
17

46.63
46.63
34.45
42.85
68.06
7.14

108
108
134
114
46
0

45.37
45.37
56.30
47.89
19.33
0.00

55
T A B L E 22
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "AT T H E T I M E
OUR LETTER ARRIVED DID YOU THEN BELIEVE
O U R D E C I S I O N T O BE:"
(N = 260)
Yes

Correct
Discouraging
S i n cere
Helpful
O t h e r (please explain)

No

No.

%

NO.

%

109
148
161
102
30

41.92
56.92
61.92
39.23
11.54

82
60
38
84
0

31.54
23.08
14.62
23.31
0.00

T A B L E 23
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "HOW D O Y O U
FEEL N O W ABOUT OUR DECISION?"
(N = 260)
Yes

C o rrect
Discouraging
Sincere
He lpful
Ot h e r (please explain)

No

No.

%

114
101
150
106
31

43. 84
38.84
57.69
40.76
11. 92

NO.
86
93
40
80
0

%
33. 08
35. 77
15. 38
30. 77
0 .00

56
"Other" comments by students to b o t h questions
simply r e inforced the yes or no r e s p o n s e s .

Five students

wrote "I should have b e e n gi v e n a chance to try."
P a r e n t s , like their s t u d e n t s , bel i e v e our initial
"no" w a s d i s c o u r a g i n g b u t ag a i n they ag r e e that it was
p r o b a b l y c o r r e c t and helpful to the student.

T h e pas s a g e

of time d id n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y alter the parent's original
reaction.
P a r e n t "write in" comm e n t s a g a i n r e i n f o r c e d yes
and no r e sponses for the m o s t part.

Seven parents said

the s t udent w o u l d h a v e succe e d e d at M.S.U.

had he or she

b e e n g i v e n the o p p o r t u n i t y to try; eight e x p r e s s e d complete
a greement w i t h the decision.
B e l i e v i n g the e x t e n t of s t u d e n t d i s a p p o i n t m e n t
might e x i s t in some p r o p o r t i o n to the student's desire to
attend M.S.U.

and his deni a l s

from other colleges the

q uesti o n n aire a t t e m p t e d to a c c o u n t for these f a c t o r s .
W h e n asked if M.S.U. was

"your first choice

c o l l e g e , " 68.07 per cent r e p l i e d that it was and 31.51 per
cent said it w a s not.
W h e n asked,
college?",

"Were y o u denied a d m i s s i o n by any other

only 33.19 per c e n t of the students said yes

while 64.29 per c e n t said they had n o t b e e n denied by
another c o l l e g e .
W h e n so m a n y agree that M.S.U. was

first cho i c e the

di s a p p o i n t m e n t e x p r e s s e d by the students is understandable.

57
M o s t n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s r e c e i v e the d e c i s i o n e a r l y
in the s enior y e a r of h i g h school.

T o d e t e r m i n e the p o s s i ­

ble i m p a c t of a n e g a t i v e a d m i s s i o n s d e c i s i o n o n s e n i o r y e a r
g r a d e s s t u d e n t s w e r e a s k e d , "After y o u r e c e i v e d y o u r nonadmit l e t ter f r o m M i c h i g a n State,
g r a d e s in h i g h school,

r e m a i n about the same as y o u r s o p h o ­

m o r e and junior y e a r grades,
Fifty-six
"improve,"
five

(56.72)

thirty-three

(5.88)

did your senior year

imp r o v e o r go down?"

per cent of the s t u d e n t s r e p l i e d

(33.19)

said

" r e m a i n the same" and

per cent said t h e i r g r a d e s

"went do w n . "

The w r i t e r b e l i e v e s that m a n y a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s
fear the n e g a t i v e d e c i s i o n m a y a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t h i g h school
performance.

The s t u d e n t r e s p o n s e o f f e r s l i t t l e e v i d e n c e

to s u pport the concern.
T h e letter w h i c h d e n i e s a d m i s s i o n to e a c h student
e n c o u r a g e s h i m to enroll
ac c r e d i t e d college."

in a " C o m m u n i t y C o l l e g e or other

It fur t h e r

states

"If at a later d a t e

you have s i g n i f i c a n t l y i m p r o v e d y o u r r e c o r d and w i s h to
tr a nsfer to M i c h i g a n S t a t e w e shall be h a p p y to g i v e yo u r
a p p l i c a t i o n serious c o n s i d e r a t i o n . ”
When asked

"Do y o u p l a n to t r a n s f e r to a n o t h e r

co l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y ? " ,

61.99 per cent of the e n r o l l e d

students r e p l i e d "yes."

Forty-six

(46.72)

p e r c e n t of

them said they p l a n n e d to t r a n s f e r to M.S.U.
T h e students w h o w e r e e n r o l l e d
asked a b o ut gr a d e s ea r n e d in college.

in c o l l e g e w e r e
All had c o m p l e t e d

one t e r m o r one semester of school at the t i m e the
q u e s t i o n n a i r e w a s sent out.

Table

24 r e c o r d s t h e i r replies.

58

T ABLE 24
S T U D E N T RESPONSE TO "PRESENT GRADE
P O I N T AVERAGE:"
<N - 221)
Number
Checked
20
52
56
50
17
12
6

Less t h a n "C"
About "C"
B e t w e e n "C" and "C"+
B e tween "C"+ and "B"
About "B"
B e tween "B" and "B"+
Between "B"+ a n d "A"

Pe r c e n t a g e

9.05
23.54
25.34
22.62
7.69
5.41
2.72

S e v e n t y - e i g h t per cent of the students r e p o r t e d
grades b e t w e e n "C" and "B" and only 9 p e r cent a d m i t to
grades b e l o w "C."

This r esponse indicates some i m p r o v e ­

m e n t o v e r h i g h school g r a d e s .
Given

"0"+ as an a p p r o ximate transfer admit t h r e s ­

hold at M i c h i g a n State,

38 per c e n t of the non-admit

students w o u l d be e l i g i b l e for transfer if they could
continue at the level of p e r f o r m a n c e indicated.
P a r e n t responses c o n c e r n i n g c u r r e n t grades s u p ­
ported the response by s t u d e n t s .

W h e n they w e r e asked

"Are the grades ear n e d so far in c o l l e g e :", parents re­
plied as follows:

"Improved over high school grades"

53.54 p e r cent;

"About the same as high school grades"

37.16 p e r cent;

"Somewhat lower than h i g h school grades"

6.63 p e r cent and "Don't know"

2.67 per cent.

59
M o r e and m o r e often,

a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s h e a r the

c o m p l a i n t from p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s t h a t large c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s are i m p e r s o n a l and the a d m i s s i o n s d e c i ­
sions are a r r i v e d at b y m a c h i n e i n s t e a d of m o r e h u m a n e and
in d i v i d u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

B o t h s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s w e r e

asked for a r e a c t i o n to the p r o c e d u r e a t M.S.U.

Tables

25 and 26 show respon s e s .
T A B L E 25
P A R E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "DO Y O U B E L I E V E
THE ADMISSIONS DECISIONS AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY ARE:"
(N = 260)
Yes

Carefully considered
Individually considered
Rather c a r e l e s s l y
a r rived at
Co m p u t e d b y f o r m u l a
Co m p u t e d b y m a c h i n e

No

No.

%

No.

%

122
95

46. 92
36.54

86
104

33.08
40.00

56
94
88

21. 54
36.15
33.84

130
82
96

50.00
31.54
36.92

B o t h p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s s e e m to a g r e e the
admissions d e c i s i o n s at M.S.U.
However,

are c a r e f u l l y c o n s idere d .

they d o not in s u b s t a n t i a l n u m b e r s

s u p p o r t the

no t i o n t h a t they are i n d i v i d u a l l y c o n s i d e r e d .

M a n y se e m

to b e l i e v e the d e c i s i o n s are a r r i v e d at b y c o m p u t e r and
formula.

60

T A B L E 26
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E TO T H E Q U E S T I O N "DO Y O U BELI E V E
THE A D M I S S I O N S D E C I S I O N S AT M.S.U. A R E :"
(N = 238)
Yes

Carefully c o n s i d e r e d
I n dividually c o n s i d e r e d
Rather c a r e l e s s l y
a r r i v e d at
A r r i v e d at by formula
M a c h i n e c o mp u t e d

No

No.

%

No.

%

132
114

55.46
47.89

92
109

38.66
45.79

61
104
101

25.63
43.69
42.43

163
110
111

68.48
46.21
46 .63

M a n y parents w h e n c a l l i n g or w r i t i n g to appeal
the n o n - a d m i t d e c i s i o n r e f e r to "our"
I r eceived."

letter or "the letter

Some appear ince n s e d the n o n - a d m i t letter w a s

sent to the student.

The w r i t e r has w o n d e r e d on several

occasions if the p a r e n t w a n t e d to be i n v o l v e d in the
d e c i s i o n and so the q u e s t i o n n a i r e to parents a s k e d "Would
you have p r e f e r r e d that the letter of d e n i a l be sent to
y ou i n s t e a d of y o u r student?".
cent of the parents said no.
W h e n asked, however,

Seventy-seven

(77.68)

per

O n l y 11.54 per c e n t said yes.
the same q u e s t i o n w i t h the

response to y o u and your s t u d e n t 47.30 per c e n t r e p l i e d
yes.
T h e reader w i l l re c a l l that t w e n t y - f o u r of the
students in the n o n - a d m i t sample w e r e n o t p r e s e n t l y e n ­
rolled in school.

W h e n a s k e d about the a c t i v i t i e s of

61
these s t u d e n t s , p a r e n t s

reported that seventeen were gai n ­

fully e m p l o y e d a n d t h a t s e v e n w e r e

in s e r v i c e .

T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e n t to these s t u d e n t s w a s
si m i l a r to the o n e s e n t to s t u d e n t s c u r r e n t l y e n r o l l e d in
school; o n l y t w o items m a d e

it unique.

why the s t u d e n t w a s n o t in college.
responses in detail.

T h e first a s k e d

T a b l e 27 p r o v i d e s

S e v e n t e e n o r 70.83 p e r c e n t of t h e s e

students r e s p o n d e d to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .

T A B L E 27
S T U D E N T R E S P O N S E T O T H E Q U E S T I O N "WHY A R E YOU
N O T P R E S E N T L Y E N R O L L E D IN A C O L L E G E ? "
(N = 17)
NO

Yes

D i s c o u r a g e d b e c a u s e of
my r e f u s a l f r o m M S U
Never r e a l l y w a n t e d to
attend college
Could not b e a d m i t t e d to
college or c o l l e g e s of
my choice
Felt I m i g h t do b e t t e r in
college at a later time
Could n ' t b e a d m i t t e d
anywhere
Pr e f e r r e d to s e t t l e my
military obligation first
W a n t e d to earn some m o n e y
before I e n r o l l e d in
college
Other (please explain)

No.

%

No.

%

4

23.53

12

70 . 5 8

3

17.65

13

76. 47

3

17.65

13

76.47

9

53.94

7

41.18

1

5.88

15

8 8 .23

7

41.18

9

52. 94

10
3

58. 82
17.65

6
0

35. 29
0 .00

62
W h e n asked,

"Do y o u plan -to attend c o l l e g e or a

t e c h n i c a l - t r a d e school in the f u t u r e ? ” , 82.35 p e r cent of
the stude n ts rep l i e d

"yes" to college;

a technical-trade s c h o o l .

none pla n n e d to a t t e n d

CHAPTER V
A N A N A L Y S I S OF C O M M E N T S

B o t h the p a r e n t a n d s t u d e n t q u e s t i o n n a i r e s o f f e r e d
an o p p o r t u n i t y for w r i t e in comment.
q u e s t i o n n a i r e s said,

T h e last item o n b o t h

"We w o u l d w e l c o m e any g e n e r a l c o m m e n t s

or c r i t i c i s m y o u m a y w i s h to o f f e r c o n c e r n i n g a d m i s s i o n
p r o c e d u r e s at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . "

Space was p r o ­

vided for responses.
O n e h u n d r e d f i f t y - t w o or

58.38 per cent of t h e

p a r e n t s t o o k a d v a n t a g e of the o p p o r t u n i t y to comment.
the c a s e o f the s t u d e n t s 155 or

In

62.59 p e r c e n t r e s p o n d e d

to the invitation.
A s m i g h t be a n t i c i p a t e d some c o m m e n t s w e r e n e g a t i v e
and r e s e n t ful.
in nature.

Howe v e r , m o s t w e r e sincere and c o n s t r u c t i v e

It is s i g n i f i c a n t to n o t e that o n l y six p a r e n t

c o m m e n t s a nd five s t u d e n t c o m m e n t s c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d
h o s t i l e to the u n i v e r s i t y or its p r o c e d u r e s for admission.
T hese p a r t i c u l a r c o m m e n t s are r e c o r d e d later in the chapter.
M a n y of t h e c o m m e n t s by b o t h p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s
d id not in fact c o n c e r n a d m i s s i o n s p r o c e d u r e s b u t r a t h e r
a t t e m p t e d to explain,

rationalize,

or e x c u s e p o o r a c a d e m i c

p e r f o r m a n c e o n t h e p a r t of the student.
63

64
Rather than r e p e a t every comment in its entirety,
those w h i c h appeared m o s t si g n i f i c a n t are g r o u p e d be l o w
into the general areas in w h i c h they appeared m o s t f r e ­
quently.

The comments selected r e f l e c t the w r i t e r ' s

effort to account for topic or subject range as well as
intensity of feeling.

D i r e c t q u o t a t i o n s are u s e d in all

cases.
A.

The D e ci s i o n is F a i r — In S t u d e n t s Best Interest
W i t h both students and p a r e n t s the c o m m e n t w h i c h

appeared m ost often suggested c o m p l e t e a g r e e m e n t w i t h the
non-admit decision.
Examples:
1.

I and my husband b e l i e v e you w e r e v e r y w i s e in your
d e ci s i o n not to accept our son.
He is even having
t r ouble at
. He does n o t have the emotional
m a t u r i t y or t h e g o a l s needed to succeed at this
time.

2.

His father and I thought it w a s the b e s t thing that
co uld have happ e n e d to him.
He w a s so sick w h e n
the letter came that he had to go to bed.
However,
he en rolled in
last fall w i t h a n e w d e t e r m i ­
na t i o n to apply himself.
He has d o n e extremely
well and hopes to transfer to MSU.

3.

I b e l i e v e the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e is fair and thor o u g h
in their decis i o n s of applicants.
I also think that
by d e n y i n g cer t a i n students it helps t h e students
r e alize that c o l l e g e is t o u g h and that entering a
c o llege isn't a kids game, he has to have the grades.

4.

I b el i e v e your d e c i s i o n s are on the right track and
I n o w k n o w and agree w i t h m y parents I w a s not ready
and w o u l d no d o u b t have failed at MSU m y first year.
I have settled d o w n and w o r k e d hard.
I am ready
now and hope you w i l l give m e a ch a n c e to prove it.

5.

I w a s satisfied w i t h the d e c i s i o n b e c a u s e it turned
out to be the best in m y case.

65
B.

W e Appreciate Your Interest
M a n y e x p r e s s e d a p p r e c i a t i o n for the u n i v e r s i t y ' s

i n t erest as m a n i f e s t e d by the questionnaire.
Examples:

C.

1.

W e w o u l d like to e x p r e s s our t h a n k s to M S U and the
a d m i s s i o n s b o a r d for the i n t e r e s t s h o w n in o u r son.
H e is not w h e r e he w o u l d like to h a v e been, b u t all
is n o t lost.
He is in a junior c o l l e g e at this
t i m e a n d t h a t is i m p o r t a n t to u s — he's c o n t i n u i n g
h i s education.
W e o n l y w i s h (s t u d e n t s n a m e ) co u l d
h a v e m e t y o u r a d m i s s i o n s standards.

2.

I b e l i e v e a f o l l o w u p such as this t o g e t h e r w i t h a
p e r s o n a l letter t o the stud e n t is excellent.
Don't
b e l i e v e I should h a v e p u s h e d (s t u d e n t s n a m e ) to
a p p l y for a d m i s s i o n — it s h o u l d h a v e b e e n his d e ­
cision.
T h a n k s a g a i n for t h i s t y p e f o l l o w up.

3.

U n der such c o n d i t i o n s e x i s t i n g today (e.g., so m a n y
s t u d e n t s y e a r n i n g for c o l l e g e education) it is i m ­
p o s s i b l e to a c c e p t e v e r y o n e and I a m s u r e y o u are
m a k i n g y o u r d e c i s i o n s for the best.
T h a n k y o u for
y o u r c o n c e r n in m y education.
I w o u l d l i k e som e d a y
to a t t e n d M S U t h o u g h since I haven't, I r e a l l y can
n o t say w h e t h e r y o u r d e c i s i o n in m y c a s e w a s c o r r e c t
o r not.
I s i n c e r e l y hope m y a n s w e r s w i l l h e l p o t h e r s
a n d y o u in the future.

4.

Your obvious concern on student admissions pleases
me, however, y o u r f a i l u r e to have a d m i t t e d m e and
y o u r a d v i c e o n w h a t I should d o has so far p r o v e d
i n c o r r e c t as Z a m e n j o y i n g and m a k i n g it h e r e at
(n a m e of c o l l e g e ) .

P r o b a t i o n and A C h a n c e to Try
R a n k i n g t h i r d in the n u m b e r o f c o m m e n t s w a s a r e ­

qu e s t for p r o b a t i o n a r y admission.

M a n y d i d not r e f e r to

p r o b a t i o n as such but d i d ask for some kind of c h a n c e to
try.
Examples:
1.

F r o m a parent:
C o u l d you not a c c e p t a s t u d e n t on
p r o b a t i o n w h o has a g e n u i n e t a l e n t in his field.
(Students name) r e c e i v e d a s c h o l a r s h i p f r o m the

66
s t ate of M i c h i g a n w h i c h to m e shows that he c o u l d
do the work.
To m e (I a m a teacher) g r a d e s are
t a k e n far too seriously/ and o t h e r facets not c o n ­
s i d e r e d enough.

D.

2.

F r o m a parent:
I feel M S U should g i v e e a c h stu d e n t
w i t h at l e a s t a "C" a v e r a g e a c h a n c e to e n t e r y o u r
s c hool o n a o n e s e m e s t e r basis.
If t h e y c a n m a i n ­
t a i n a a v e r a g e g o o d e n o u g h to m e e t y o u r r e q u i r e ­
m e n t s t h e n y o u h a v e p r o v e d y o u r s e l f w r o n g by no t
l e t t i n g s t u d e n t s h a v e a c h a n c e to p r o v e t h e m s e l v e s
to you.

3.

F r o m a pare n t :
Top notch students are given
p r e f e r e n c e a n d the a v e r a g e o n e s are p a s s e d over.
T h e r e are too m a n y w h o t r u l y w i s h e n t r a n c e i n t o a
c o l l e g e and a r e denied.
W h e r e and h o w do t h e y find
a place?

4.

F r o m a student:
T h e s t u d e n t should be g i v e n a fair
c h a n c e e v e n if this m e a n s p l a c i n g h i m on p r o b a t i o n
for his first term.
The s t u d e n t s a t t i t u d e c h a n g e s
w h e n he is in col lege/ he b e g i n s to a p p l y h i m s e l f
more.
T h i s shoul d be t a k e n into c o n s i d e r a t i o n and
n o t just the fact that in h i g h school he w a s n ' t
s e r i o u s e n o u g h an d his g r a d e s w e r e t h e c o n s eque n c e .

5.

I t h i n k a d m i s s i o n of s t u d e n t s to a s u m m e r p r o b a t i o n
p r o g r a m w o u l d be helpful.
I w a n t e d to go to c o l l e g e
and w a n t e d a c o l l e g e to g i v e me a try.
T h e summer
p r o g r a m is v e r y h e l p f u l to stud e n t s w h o h a v e a h a r d
time a d j u s t i n g to college.
M y n o n - a d m i t l e t t e r came
all to soon.
I c a n ' t see h o w y o u c o u l d h a v e spent
m u c h time in y o u r decision.

6.

F r o m a student:
I feel it (admission p r o c e d u r e s at
MSU) is g i v e n c a r e f u l o u t l o o k for e a c h s t u d e n t but
I a l s o feel that s t u d e n t s should have the o p p o r t u n ­
i ty to g i v e it a try if t h e y feel t h e y can qualify.
Some s t u d e n t s d o n ' t do w e l l in h i g h school but if
t h ey are r e a l l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t f u r t h e r e d u c a t i o n
t h ey sh o u l d be able to have a p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w
and a l s o t a k e the test w h i c h could q u a l i f y t h e m to
b e c o m e a student.

S enior Y e a r G r a d e s
T h e f a c t t h a t the a d m i s s i o n s p r o c e d u r e s do not

include some c o n s i d e r a t i o n of s e n i o r y e a r g r a d e s t r o u b l e d
several s t u d e n t s and a l m o s t as m a n y parents.

67
Examples:

E.

1.

I d i d feel y o u w e r e q u i t e i n c o r r e c t a b o u t y o u r
d e c i s i o n on m y e n t e r i n g MSU.
I improved my grades
f r o m a 2.4 in m y junior year to a 3.0 in m y se n i o r
year.
But, I n o w feel I w i l l b e n e f i t g r e a t l y from
a t t e n d i n g (n a m e of c o l l e g e ) .
1 think that ad­
m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s s h o u l d r e — e v a l u a t e all r e j e c t i o n s
a f t e r t h e i r senior y e a r g r a d e s a r e given.

2.

I b e l i e v e t h a t y o u c o n s i d e r e a c h i n d i v i d u a l case
b u t you are n o t flexible.
My grades improved dur­
i ng m y s e n i o r y e a r and X t h o u g h t t h i s w o u l d b e
helpful.
M y t e s t s c o r e s w e r e also good.
Looking
at it f r o m m y v a n t a g e p o i n t X b e l i e v e that y o u
s hould b e m o r e l e n i e n t to s o m e o n e o n t h e b o r d e r ­
line.
F r o m y o u r s t a n d point, howe v e r , the larg e
n u m b e r o f a p p l i c a n t s m a y p r e v e n t this.

3.

W e feel the best y e a r o r two y e a r a v e r a g e of a
s t u d e n t s g r a d e s sh o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d as a b a s i s for
j u d g i n g a s t u d e n t ' s s c h o l a s t i c ability.
In the
e l e v e n t h y e a r he w a s i n v o l v e d in track, a small
band, a job and dating.
It w a s n e c e s s a r y to c u r t a i l
s ome of th e s e a c t i v i t i e s to b r i n g h i s g r a d e s b a c k
u p to standards.
Should these youngsters be
p e n a l i z e d for p o o r j u d g m e n t at s u c h a t e n d e r age?

4.

F r o m a parent:
Do you t h i n k m o r e w e i g h t s h o u l d b e
g i v e n to s e n i o r y e a r g r a d e s t h a n to o v e r a l l h i g h
s chool y e a r s ?
S o m e t i m e s y o u n g s t e r s do not m a k e the
m o s t of t h e i r o p p o r t u n i t i e s u n t i l m o r e mature.
Per­
s o n a l l y X t h i n k o u r s y s t e m of g r a d e s is v e r y in­
a d e q u a t e but a d m i t X a m at a loss to s u g g e s t a n y ­
t h i n g better.

5.

W h e n X a p p l i e d for M S U m y c o u n s e l o r t o l d m e X w a s
a b o r d e r l i n e case.
My senior year grades brought
u p m y c l a s s r a n k and g r a d e s c o n s i d e r a b l y b u t by t h e
t i m e m y se n i o r y e a r g r a d e s w e r e r e l e a s e d it w a s t o o
l a te to send t h e m w i t h m y a p p l i c a t i o n .

A Personal Interview
The personal

interview w a s seen by

sev e r a l p a r e n t s

and s t u d e n t s as i m p o r t a n t to the a d m i s s i o n s decision.
Some s u g g e s t e d it as a m e a n s to e x p l a i n m o r e a d e q u a t e l y
the r e a s o n s

for d e n i a l , w h i l e o t h e r s h o p e d t h e i n t e r v i e w

68
m i g h t u n c o v e r q u a l i t i e s of c h a r a c t e r , p e r s o n a l i t y or
c i t i z e n s h i p w h i c h c o u l d a r g u e a c a d e m i c success.
Examples:

F.

1.

F r o m a student:
A t least t a l k to a s t u d e n t b e f o r e
m a k i n g or p a s s i n g j u d g m e n t o n w h e t h e r or n o t th e y
s h ould a t t e n d MSU.
I'd m u c h r a t h e r a t t e n d a m o r e
p e r s o n a l i z e d sc h o o l t h a n o n e w h i c h d e a l s w i t h s t u ­
d e n t s as numbers.

2.

G e n t l e m e n , I feel t h a t a p r i v a t e c o n f e r e n c e b e t w e e n
the a d m i s s i o n s c o u n s e l o r and m y s e l f w o u l d h a v e r e ­
v e a l e d q u a l i t i e s w h i c h w o u l d h a v e i n f l u e n c e d the
d e c i s i o n to d e n y m y e n t r a n c e into MSU.
When I
apply again I would prefer a personal interview
r a t h e r t h a n a p o l i t e form letter.

3.

F r o m a student:
I think
should have an interview
ing for a d m i s s i o n but, I
i m p o s s i b l e for t h e r e are
to MSU.

4.

A s pare n t s , w e r e c o m m e n d t h a t a c e r t a i n p e r c e n t a g e
of f r e s h m e n t h a t do not m e e t the g r a d e r e q u i r e m e n t s
be s e l e c t e d o n the b a s i s of a p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w to
d e t e r m i n e th e i r d e s i r e and ambition, i n c l u d i n g
o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n f r o m the application.

5.

F r o m a parent:
Remarks above indicate we were un­
h a p p y w i t h the p r o c e dures.
L e t t e r of d e n i a l m i g h t
i n v i t e c o n f e rence.

C o n s i d e r the "Whole"

t h a t the a d m i s s i o n s b o a r d
wit h each individual as k ­
k n o w this w o u l d b e alm o s t
so m a n y p e o p l e a p p l y i n g

Student

S e v e r a l p a r e n t s and several s t u d e n t s e x p r e s s e d the
w i s h o r c o n c e r n for a n a d m i s s i o n s p r o c e d u r e w h i c h c o u l d
better c o n s i d e r m o t i v a t i o n ,
for college.

maturity,

d e s i r e and r e a d i n e s s

T h e y a r g u e d t h a t a h u m a n b e i n g is s o m e t h i n g

m o r e t h a n t e s t s c o r e s , g r a d e s and c l a s s rank and t h a t t h e s e
c r i t e r i a a r e not a l w a y s a c c u r a t e for p r e d i c t i n g s u c c e s s in
college.

69
Examples:

G.

1.

F r o m a parent:
I u n d e r s t a n d that a student's
p e r f o r m a n c e in h i g h school is a good indication
o f h o w well he is lik e l y to p e r f o r m in college,
however, there are exceptions.
If it w e r e possible,
an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the "whole" p e r s o n m i g h t bri n g
o u t i n f o r m a t i o n about a p r o s p e c t i v e student that
could i n f l u e n c e y o u r decision.

2.

F r o m a parent:
I find m o s t u n i v e r s i t i e s impersonal.
A m a r k or score is the w h o l e thing.
In m y o p i n i o n
the b o y is a w h o l e being and should be judged as
such.

3.

F r o m a student:
Should consider the total person,
not just grade p o i n t average.
A l s o the w i l l i n g n e s s
of the p e r s o n to at t e n d MSU.

4.

F r o m a parent:
I do h o n e s t l y believe you are si n ­
c e re and fair— there m u s t be m a n y d i s a p p o i n t m e n t s
for average young p e o p l e and m a n y who are turned
d o w n w o u l d p r o b a b l y succeed just as m a n y w h o are
a d m i t t e d do fail.
In the final anal y s i s gr a d e s have
to be the d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r — i t 's hard to set u p a
y a r d s t i c k for creativity, p e r s o n a l i t y and allaroundness.

P a r e n t Reac t i o n to Student A c t i v i t i e s — Unrest
Se veral p a r e n t s and inci d e n t a l l y no students,

obliged to comm e n t on ca m p u s activities,
strations, and c i t i z e n s h i p in general.

felt

hippies, d e m o n ­
Most seemed to imply

that c i t i z e n s h i p as e x p r e s s e d by student attitude, m a t u r i t y
and p a r t i c i p a t i o n in h i g h school e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r activi t i e s
should be a factor in a d m i t t i n g students to the university.
Examples:
1.

E v e n th o u g h just an "average" student she has a l ­
w a y s had a lot of c o m m o n sense and p o s s e s s e d the
q u a l i t i e s t h a t attract m a n y friends that have b o t h
feet on the ground and I feel she has the q u a l i t i e s
that w o u l d m a k e her a good teacher.
She is not
ca r ried away by e m o t i o n a l i s m as are m a n y of the
students on camp u s e s today.
Even tho u g h it m i g h t
take m o r e time to get t h r o u g h than some she is

70
w i l l i n g to work.
I would bet on m y daughter, not
o n l y b e c a u s e she is m y d a u g h t e r , but b e c a u s e w e
n e e d to e n c o u r a g e the s t u d e n t s w h o h a v e a b i l i t y
i n s t e a d of p u s h i n g t h e m aside.
M a n y o f the s t u ­
d e n t s o n c a m p u s l a c k t h e q u a l i t i e s t h a t m a k e for
g o o d citizens.

H.

2.

K i c k o u t s o m e of the h i p p i e s and m a k e r o o m for
t h o s e w h o w a n t an education.

3.

X b e l i e v e I a m m a i n l y c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the c h i l d
w h o is s l o w e r to m a t u r e into s c h o l a s t i c a c h i e v e ­
ment.
F o r t u n a t e l y our boys a r e "just a v e r a g e " s i n ­
c e r e y o u n g m e n w i t h no p o l i c e r e c o r d to date.
We
a r e interested, c o n c e r n e d parents.
I w a s led to
b e l i e v e w h i l e on c a m p u s t h a t M S U g a v e this typ e o f
s t u d e n t a chance.

4.

Iw as d i s c o u r a g e d that m y d a u g h t e r d i d n ' t g e t
a c c e p t e d m a i n l y b e c a u s e you p e o p l e are the o n l y
o n e s w h o h a v e the c o m p l e t e c o u r s e w h i c h she d e ­
sires.
She w i l l p r o b a b l y n e v e r set the w o r l d on
f ire w i t h h e r grades, but, n e i t h e r w i l l she be
b u r n i n g d o w n the d o r m i t o r y w i t h a M o l o t o v cocktail.

5.

I supp o s e m a r k s a re a n e c e s s i t y but t h e y d o n ' t
r e a l l y tell the truth.
W h a t is t h e answer?

6.

I k n o w that you m u s t h a v e c e r t a i n g u i d e - l i n e s in
s e l e c t i n g students.
T h e s e I'm sure h a v e b e e n
w o r k e d out carefully.
I like to t h i n k m y s t u d e n t
m a y h a v e b e e n the e x c e p t i o n to y o u r rules.
She is
bright, i n t e l l i g e n t and w e l l adjusted.
Her p u r p o s e
at c o l l e g e is not to m a r c h , p r o t e s t or fla u n t
authority.
P e r h a p s y o u sh o u l d c o n s i d e r t h e s e
th i n g s also in y o u r applicants.

More Detailed Explanation
A

few p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s a s k e d t h a t t h e let t e r of

d enial e x p l a i n the r e a s o n s for the n o n - a d m i t decision.
Examples:
1.

P r o c e d u r e s a r e fine.
I t h i n k w h e n d e n y i n g a stu­
d e n t a d m i s s i o n at M S U it w o u l d be b e n e f i c i a l to
g i v e g e n e r a l r e a s o n s w h y s t u d e n t w a s denied.
May
h e l p in a p p l y i n g to o t h e r schools.

71
2.

I.

T h e le t t e r I r e c e i v e d w a s to the p o i n t b u t als o
h a d a c a r i n g n o t e in it.
If at all p o s s i b l e try
a n d m a k e t h e m a l i t t l e m o r e comforting.
As I r e a d
m y n o n - a d m i t letter I w a s crushed and b i t t e r at
t he world.
Try and e x p l a i n in m o r e d e t a i l w h y t h e
s t u d e n t w a s refused.

Hostile Comments
As indicated earlier twelve replies were considered

by t h e w r i t e r as hostile.
u n i v e r s i t y i m p e r sonal,

F i v e r e s p o n d e n t s c o n s i d e r e d the

two t h o u g h t it b i a s e d and p r e j u d i c e d ,

two b e l i e v e d t h e d e c i s i o n to be unfair,

two w e r e simply

a n g r y and fa i l e d to i s s u e a s p e c i f i c charge,

and o n e t h o u g h t

the d e c i s i o n illegal.
Examples:
1.

A s a taxpa y e r , I a m disgusted.
I am a college
g rad, m a k e $20 , 0 0 0 a year, h a v e t e n c h i l d r e n but
c a n n o t get t h e m into S t a t e unless t h e y h a v e a h i g h
s chool B average.
Y o u r school has r e j e c t e d a n o t h e r
o f m y c h i l d r e n this y e a r b e c a u s e of average.
I
d i s a g r e e 1 Y o u r school has hippies and r i f f - r a f f
a n d p l e n t y of low in c o m e students.
We a r e m i d d l e
class, p a y m o r e t a x e s but can n o t u s e MSU.

2.

In light of y o u r o v e r t u r e s to r e c r u i t N e g r o s t u ­
d e n t s and athle t e s , y o u r r e f u s a l to a c c e p t J o h n
is p e t t y and d i s c r i m i n a t o r y .
As a teacher I know
t h a t the s t a n d a r d s are not r i g i d at MSU.
Some of
m y s h a k i e s t s t u d e n t s h a v e b e e n a c c e p t e d and o t h e r s
a r e t u r n e d down.

3.

Y o u d o n ' t k n o w ev e r y t h i n g , y o u w e r e incorrect.
Go to _____. M y child applied, I w a n t e d no p a r t
of y o u r college.
S t a r t e d to take y o u to court.

4.

W h y r u b salt in a r e j e c t e d s t u d e n t ' s w o u n d ?
Re­
j e c t i o n hurts.
O n e tries to fo r g e t and m a k e the
b e s t of o n e ' s life.
W h y d o n ' t you leave m y son
a l one?
His p r e s e n t p r o g r e s s in school is n o n e of
y o u r concern.
Your sc h o o l has a r e p u t a t i o n for
b e i n g prejudiced.
We, his par e n t s have l i v e d 50
y e a r s w i t h t h e w h i t e m a n s prejudice.
W e are
h a r d e n e d but our son is young.
You s t a r t e d to
t e a c h h i m his le s s o n well.

72
5.

I feel y o u are not i n t e r e s t e d in the student, o n l y
in the st a t u s that h e or she c a n b r i n g to y o u r
campus.

6.

I w a s a l m o s t g l a d to be d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n to a
s c h o o l w h e n 1 w a s n o t t r e a t e d as an i n d i v i d u a l b u t
as a number.
I m a d e an a p p o i n t m e n t w i t h an a d ­
m i s s i o n c o u n s e l o r and w a i t e d in his o f f i c e all d a y
w i t h m y father.
He n e v e r s h o w e d up.
A f t e r that
e x p e r i e n c e I n e v e r w a n t e d to see M S U again.
Thank
y o u for b e i n g so c o n c e r n e d w i t h m e now.

7.

I ' m s o r r y if y o u h a v e g u i l t f e e l i n g s a b o u t r e f u s ­
ing m e admittance.
I wouldn't have gone there any­
way.
T h a n k y o u for y o u r interest.
Am I talking
to a c o m p u t e r ?

8.

I feel y o u w e r e biased.
You accepted white male
c l a s s m a t e s w h o s e gra d e s w e r e o n a par w i t h m i n e
a f t e r t h e y w e r e g i v e n interviews.
I still w a n t
no c o m m u n i c a t i o n f r o m you.

C H A P T E R VI
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Non-Admit Student
T h e n o n - a d m i t student: does n o t d i f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y
from his c o u n t e r p a r t ,
by sex,

the a d m i t t e d student, w h e n c o m p a r e d

size of h i g h school,

parents education,

o r alumni st a t u s of parents;

s i g n i f i c a n t l y differ e n t ,
p o i n t a v e rage,

s e l e c t i o n of c o l l e g e major,
he is

however, w h e n c o m p a r e d b y g r a d e

class rank,

t e s t scores,

and p r i n c i p a l -

counselor r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s .
G i v e n an a v e r a g e d r o p in g r a d e p o i n t a c c o m p l i s h m e n t
by M .S.U.

f r e s h m e n of

c o llege grades,

.5 to

.75 b e t w e e n h i g h school and

it seems c l e a r t h a t a large m a j o r i t y of the

n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s m a y have found a c a d e m i c s u c c e s s d i f f i ­
cult if n o t i m p o s s i b l e at M i c h i g a n S t a t e . *
T e s t scores e a r n e d by n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s s t r o n g l y
s u p p o r t the d e c i s i o n to d e n y a d m i s s i o n .
b o t h n a t i o n a l and M.S.U.

When compared with

norms the o d d s a g a i n s t a c a d e m i c

success a t St a t e for t h e s e s t u d e n t s are i n d e e d long.
R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s by b o t h p r i n c i p a l s

and c o u n s e l o r s

also i m p l y s u p p o r t for the n o n - a d m i t decis i o n .

Considering

*See r e g i s t r a r 's a n n u a l r e p o r t c o m p a r i n g h i g h
school g r a d e p o i n t a v e r a g e w i t h f r e s h m a n g r a d e s at M.S.U.
73

74
t he fact t h a t some p r i n c i p a l s m u s t by school b o a r d e d i c t
r e c o m m e n d e v e r y s t u d e n t , the c l e a r r e c o m m e n d a t i o n g i v e n to
o n l y 38 p er cent of the n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s s e e m s e v e n m o r e
significant.
It is i n t e r e s t i n g to n o t e that s t u d e n t s a p p a r e n t l y
b e l i e v e the r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s b y p r i n c i p a l s and c o u n s e l o r s
to be m o r e s u p p o r t i v e to a d m i s s i o n t h a n is r e a l l y the case.
W h e n a s k e d w h a t f a c t o r s s h o u l d be m o s t
a d m i s s i o n decision,

i m p o r t a n t to the

they c h o s e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s as second

o n l y to grades.
W h a t B e c o m e s of t h e N o n - A d m i t S t u d e n t ?
C l e a r l y the M.S.U.

a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r c a n c o n t i n u e to

advise and e n c o u r a g e e n r o l l m e n t in o t h e r M i c h i g a n c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s

for the n o n - a d m i t student.

A r e v i e w of the

c r e d e n t i a l s p r e s e n t e d by t h e s e stud e n t s c o n s i d e r e d w i t h the
fact t h a t 91 p e r c e n t of t h e m a r e e n r o l l e d in a c o l l e g e or
u n i v e r s i t y s t r o n g l y s u b s t a n t i a t e s the a v a i l a b i l i t y of p o s t h i g h s chool e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s for all.
E a c h n o n - a d m i t student w h o w a n t e d to c o n t i n u e his
education,

did so, r e g a r d l e s s of grades,

test scores,

or

class r a n k and his o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n c l u d e d f o u r - y e a r c o l l e g e s
and u n i v e r s i t i e s ,
trade schools.

c o m m u n i t y - j u n i o r colleges,

and t e c h n i c a l -

T h e r e a p p e a r e d to be no r e l a t i o n s h i p b e ­

t ween c r e d e n t i a l s or p r o p i n q u i t y and the type of i n s t i ­
t u t i o n c h o s e n by the n o n - a d m i t

student.

T he m a j o r i t y of s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s a d m i t to d i s ­
c o u r a g e m e n t w h e n d e n i e d b y M.S.U.

That discouragement,

75
however, does not appear to alter educational goals or to
interfere w i t h high school performance.

Most, say high

school grades were not affected by the non-admit decision
from M.S.U.
Student and Parent Atti t u d e
P a rents and students agree, parents,

friends and

the high school counselor were of m o s t help and influence
concerning the selection of M.S.U.

T h e student continues to

rely on these particular sources of assistance w h e n denied
admission by Michigan State.
"friends" w h e n identified,

A significant number of

are alumni of the university.

W h i l e Michigan State University is largely his
first-choice school the non-admit student indicates serious
reservations regarding his chances for admission.

Parents

tend to be m u c h more optimistic.
V e r y few non-admit parents and students discuss
admissions w i t h an M.S.U. admissions officer.

Only a fourth

of them a ttend a college night program and even fewer visit
the admissions office on campus.
Parents and students seem, however, well informed
regarding the criteria used in determining admission.
agree the criteria employed are the m o s t practical,

Mo s t

accurate,

and reliable but many w i s h that personality, motivation,

and

citizenship could be as important to the decision.
The student and his parents are disappointed by our
"No" r e s ponse,but most students indicate a disappointment

76
in t h e m s e l v e s rat h e r than M. S . U .

o r the s e c o n d a r y school.

Parents, while admitting disappointment in t h e i r s t u d e n t
a l s o express disappointment with the university.

Both parents and students consider the decision
r e n d e r e d b y the O f f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s to be honest, sin­
cere,

c a r e f u l l y considered, and formula- or machine-computed.

Fe w feel the d e c i s i o n is h e l p f u l w h e n
small m a j o r i t y b e l i e v e

it a r r i v e s and a

it to be incorrect.

V e r y little

change in a t t i t u d e o c c u r s over a p e r i o d of time.
A p p r o x i m a t e l y h a l f the stude n t s d e n i e d a d m i s s i o n
still p l a n to at t e n d M S U and w i l l a t t e m p t to t r a n s f e r
after c o m p l e t i n g the f r e s h m a n a n d / o r s o p h o m o r e years

at

the s c h o o l in w h i c h the s t u d e n t is p r e s e n t l y enrolled.
Stud e n t s r e p o r t s a t i s f a c t o r y p r o g r e s s
and if the grades r e p o r t e d are reliable,
m i n o r i t y w i l l be e l i g i b l e

in c o l l e g e

a significant

for transfer.

M a n y p a r e n t s i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e to b e i n f o r m e d of
our d e c i s i o n w i t h their student.
The m a j o r i t y of c o m m e n t s

solicited from both

pa r e n t s and s t u d e n t s w e r e sincere and c o n s t r u c t i v e ;

very

few c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d as o p e n l y h o s t i l e to the u n i v e r s i t y ,
the a d m i s s i o n s office,

or a d m i s s i o n s p r o c e d u r e s .

p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s a r g u e d the case
mission,

for p r o b a t i o n a r y a d ­

a r e v i e w of se n i o r y e a r grades,

i n t e r v i e w b e f o r e a final

Many

and a personal

"No" d e c i s i o n is rendered.

It is

clear t h at m a n y wish d esire, personality, citizenship,
a n d/or the "whole person” might be considered when a

77
d e c i s i o n is being determined.

It is i n t e r esting to note

only one p a r e n t ar g u e d the case for the taxpayer's right
to have his student admitted.
M a n y par e n t s and students indicated a lack of
u n d e r s t a n ding about the n o n - a d m i t decis i o n and a few s u g ­
gested the letter of denial e x p l a i n more fully the basis
for the decision.
W h e n the student selects the college in wh i c h he
is p r e s e n t l y enrolled,

he ap p a r e n t l y does so w i t h more

d e l i b e r a t i o n and information.

O n l y a small m i n o r i t y we r e

denied a d mis s i o n by another college or university.
R e c o m mendations
It is clear that e a c h year decisions r e n d e r e d by
the O f f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s and Scholarships at M i c h i g a n State
U n i v e r s i t y d i s c o u r a g e and d i s a p p o i n t hundreds of parents,
students,

alumni,

and friends.

If indeed, the admissions

officer r emains p r o f e s s i o n a l l y concerned w i t h himself,
the student,

the university,

and the public,

several r e c o m ­

m endations seem in o r d e r :
1.

The pe rsonal inter v i e w w i t h students and/or
p arents should remain a prime function of the
A d m i s s i o n s Office and admissions officer.

The

in t e r v i e w should be conducted in a c o m p a s s i o n ­
ate, op t i m i s t i c manner.

The admissions officer

should explain in detail the crit e r i a by which
a d e c i s i o n is m a d e and the reasons why other

78
c r i t e r i a m a y n o t be as r e l i a b l e
ship,

personality,

(i.e.,

citizen

special t a l e n t s ) .

T h e i n t e r v i e w s h o u l d invo l v e p a r e n t s
w h e n e v e r feasible.

B o t h p a r e n t s and s t u d e n t s

s h o u l d u n d e r s t a n d the r e a s o n s w h y p r o b a t i o n
or a chance to try is r a r e l y o f f e r e d b y the
university.
L astly,

the a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r sho u l d

e x p l a i n in e a c h i n t e r v i e w that the d e c i s i o n
is n o t the p r o d u c t of some i n f a l l i b l e m a c h i n e
or formula b u t ra t h e r is an i n d i v i d u a l l y c o n ­
s i d e r e d r e s p o n s e w h i c h r e f l e c t s the b e s t j u d g ­
m e n t of c o n c e r n e d p r o f e s s i o n a l a d m i s s i o n men.
2.

The w r i t e r r e c o m m e n d s the n o n - a d m i t letter be
changed,

first,

to inc l u d e a p a r a g r a p h w h i c h

explains

in m o r e d e t a i l how and w h y the non-

a d m i t d e c i s i o n was arr i v e d at,

and secondly,

to assure the student and his p a r e n t s of its
i n d i v i d u a l i z e d p r o f e s s i o n a l nature.
ble the n o n - a d m i t
r e f l e c t the office

if p o s s i ­

letter m u s t m o r e n e a r l y
and the u n i v e r s i t y ' s c o n ­

cern for e a c h i n d i v i d u a l student.
3.

The n o n - a d m i t letter should e n c o u r a g e a
p ers o n a l

i n t e r v i e w in the O f f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s

and Scholarships.

The w r i t e r does n o t b e l i e v e

t h a t such an i n v i t a t i o n w o u l d s u b s t a n t i a l l y
increase the n u m b e r of i n t e r v i e w s h e l d in the

O f f i c e of A d m i s s i o n s .

While

few a d d i t i o n a l

p a r e n t s and students m i g h t take a d v a n t a g e of
such an o p p o r t u n i t y , m a n y m o r e w o u l d a p p r e c i ­
ate its i m p l i e d c o n c e r n and sincerity.
T h e s t a f f of the M.S.U.

Office of Admissions and

S c h o l a r s h i p s m u s t c o n t i n u e effective, d e t a i l e d
c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i t h s e c o n d a r y school counselors.
C o u n s e l o r s r e m a i n the m o s t e f f e c t i v e m e a n s

for

t r a n s m i t t i n g a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s d i r e c t l y to
students and parents.
visits

N e x t ye a r ' s

sc h o o l

s h o u l d stress a s s i s t a n c e to c o u n s e l o r s

and p r i n c i p a l s

for i m p r o v i n g c o l l e g e n i g h t

a t t e n d a n c e and in those schools w h i c h d o not
p r o v i d e for a col l e g e n i g h t p r o g r a m an eff o r t
sho u l d be m a d e to arr a n g e for some s p e c i a l
o p p o r t u n i t y to v i s i t w i t h s t u d e n t s and p a r e n t s
w h o have i n d i c a t e d an i n t e r e s t in M i c h i g a n
State.
Th e school v i s i t should e n c o u r a g e
p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s on c a m p u s , p a r t i c u l a r l y
w i t h s t u d e n t s w h o s e a d m i s s i o n is in doubt.
M. S . U .

admissions officers should continue

relat i o n "

efforts,

to service clubs,

in p a r t i c u l a r ,

"public

those d i r e c t e d

PTO and PTA organ i z a t i o n s .

Th e study indicates c l e a r l y the u n i v e r s i t y ' s
"friends"

c o n t i n u e to p r o v i d e its m a j o r so u r c e

of g o o d w i l l and t h a t t e a c h e r s rank high a m o n g

80
those w h o r e c o m m e n d the u n i v e r s i t y to young
people.

A n y effort to p r o m o t e e f f e c t i v e c o m ­

m u n i c a t i o n w i t h these groups can o n l y assist
u n d e r s t a n d i n g and respect.
6.

The

"with-hold decision"

letter w h i c h requests

seventh semester grades should be c o n t i n u e d and
employed w h e n e v e r h o n e s t and feasible.

The

study has p r o v i d e d c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e to
suggest that par e n t s and students consider
senior y e a r grades w o r t h y of attention.
7.

The w r i t e r recommends serious c o n s i d e r a t i o n
for a p a r e n t 's n o n - a d m i t letter w h i c h w o u l d
p rovide e a c h p a r e n t w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t i n f o r ­
m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the n o n - a d m i t decision.

The

letter should stress p r o c e d u r e s e m p l o y e d and
the individualized, p r o f e s s i o n a l a p p r o a c h
given each applicant.

The letter m i g h t also

discuss in m o r e detail the transfer o p p o r t u n i t y
a vailable to the student.
If a pare n t ' s letter is not feasible/
an alt e r n a t i v e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w o u l d urge that
a copy of the n o n - a d m i t letter sent to each
student be also sent to his or her parents.

81
Recommendations
Further Study

for

T h e s t u d y has p r o v i d e d m u c h i n f o r m a t i o n to s u p p o r t
and s u s t a i n f o r m e r c o n v i c t i o n s and
ad m i t s t u d e n t and his parents;

"hunches"

a b o u t the n o n -

it has c o n t r i b u t e d i m p o r t a n t

and r e l e v a n t i n f o r m a t i o n w h i c h the w r i t e r b e l i e v e s is
s u b j e c t to change.

It is r e c o m m e n d e d t h e r e f o r e

that the

r e s e a r c h c o n c e r n i n g n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s and t h e i r p a r e n t s
be c o n t i n u e d and c o n t i n u o u s .

The writer does not suggest

an a n n u a l s t u d y b u t he does b e l i e v e that p e r i o d i c stu d i e s
might reveal important changes

in s t u d e n t a n d p a r e n t a t t i ­

tude w h i c h m a y v i t a l l y e f f e c t the u n i v e r s i t y .
It is u n f o r t u n a t e this s t u d y c o u l d not p r o v i d e
m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the e x t e n t of a c a d e m i c s u c c e s s
or f a i l u r e o n the p a r t of those n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s c u r ­
r ently e n r o l l e d in o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s .

Such information

c ould p r o v i d e e v i d e n c e v i t a l to the o r i g i n a l n o n - a d m i t
d e c i s i o n and its pr o p r i e t y .

The writer encourages such a

f o l l o w - u p study a n d r e c o m m e n d s also a s i m i l a r s t u d y w h i c h
could i n v o l v e t h o s e o r i g i n a l n o n - a d m i t s t u d e n t s w h o u l t i ­
m a t e l y t r a n s f e r to M i c h i g a n S t a t e Uni v e r s i t y .
The students

i n v o l v e d in this p a r t i c u l a r s t u d y

have p r o f i t e d l i t t l e f r o m the c o l l e g e n i g h t programs.
B e c a u s e t h e s e p r o g r a m s r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e e f f o r t o n the
p a r t of a d m i s s i o n s o f f i c e r s a n d s e c o n d a r y sc h o o l p e r s o n n e l
t h r o u g h o u t the s t a t e , the w r i t e r r e c o m m e n d s a s t u d y w h i c h

82
m i g h t e v a lu a t e their e f f e c t i v e n e s s to students and parents
alike.
Lastly,

b e c a u s e "friends" of the u n i v e r s i t y occupy

so impor t ant a p o s i t i o n of i n f l uence in r e c o m m e n d i n g the
u n i v e r s i t y to students and p a r e n t s the w r i t e r recomm e n d s
further study w h i c h m i g h t b e t t e r iden t i f y "friends" and
their source of p r i d e and k n o w l e d g e of the university.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dunn, A l b e r t H.
" A d m i s s i o n s as a P u b l i c R e l a t i o n s
F u n c t i o n ." T h e J o u r n a l o f the A s s o c i a t i o n of
C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s , XII, No. 3 {1967),
Hauser, J. Z ., a n d La z a r s f e l d , P. F.
The Admissions
O f f i c e r in the A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e -! A R e p o r t for
The C o l l e g e E n t r a n c e E x a m i n a t i o n Board, B u r e a u of
A p p l i e d S o c i a l Research.
N e w York:
Columbia
U n i v e r s i t y , 1964.
Hitchcock, A r t h u r A.
"Counselors:
Supply, D e m a n d and
Need."
C o u n s e l o r D e v e l o p m e n t in A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y .
E d i t e d by J o h n F. M c G o w a n . W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .:
Conference Recommendations from Invitational
C o n f e r e n c e on Governraent-University R e l a t i o n s in
the P r o f e s s i o n a l P r e p a r a t i o n a n d E m p l o y m e n t of
C o u n s e l o r s , 1965.
I m p r o v i n g U n d e r g r a d u a t e E d u c a t i o n . A R e p o r t of the C o m m i t t e e on U n d e r g r a d u a t e E d u c a t i o n .
E a s t Lansi n g ,
M ich.:
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1967.
Jorgenson, D o n a l d D.
"The C o u n s e l i n g A s p e c t s of
Admissions."
T h e J o u r n a l of the C o l l e g e A d m i s ­
s ions C o u n s e l o r s , ( S e p t e m b e r , 1967), 9 - i l .
Logsdon,

J a m e s D.
"A C a s e for the J u n i o r C o l l e g e . "
The
B u l l e t i n of the N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of S e c o n d a r y
S c h o o l P r i n c i p a l s , ( D e c e m b e r , 1969), d 4.

Marsee,

S t e w a r t E.
"The K i d G r e w Up."
T h e J o u r n a l o f the
A s s o c i a t i o n of C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s ,
(March, 1968), 36-397

Perry, R i c h a r d R.
The Admissions O f f i c e r .
T h e U n i v e r s i t y of1 Toledo, 1963-64.

83

T o l e d o , Ohio:

84
Peterson, David W.
"How High School Visits Influence
C ollege A d m i s sion s."
College Board R e v i e w ,
(Summer, 1968), 8.
"The C l e a r i n g h o u s e A p p r o a c h to U n d e r g r a d u a t e Adm i s s i o n s . "
A n E d i t o r i a l . T h e Jou r n a l of the A s s o c i a t i o n of
C o l l e g e A d m i s s i o n s C o u n s e l o r s , (Spring, 1963), T 2 .
Thresher, A l d e n B.
Coll e g e A d m i s s i o n and the Public
Interest.
N e w York:
College Entrance Exa m i ­
n a t i o n ^ o a r d , 1966.
Tolbert, E. L.
Int r o d u c t i o n to C o u n s e l i n g . N e w York:
M c G r a w - H i l l Book Company, I n c ., 1959.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PARENT'S Q U E S T I O N N A I R E A N D LETTERS

PARENTS QUESTIONNAIRE
1. Who helped your ttudant select Michigan State? (Check S y m or no for each m w n r below.)
Parerrti
Y esO
No □
School Gountalor
Y esd
No LH
Friand
Ye* d
N od
M J 5 .U . Admissions Officer
Yet 0
No D
Teacher
Y esO
No CD
Other (please explain)--------------------------------------------------------------------Pteaie circle the ONE afaovs who you believe most influenced your student to select MSU.
2. How much influence did you at a parent h aw on your students decision to attend Michigan State? (Check one best response.)
Very much CD
Some CD
L im e d
M onad
3.

What or who made you think of MS.U. as an appropriate university for
i attendedM lehlgsnSteta
Y esO
N od
Others who had attended Michigan State
Y esO
N od
School oauiu alor
Y esd
Friend
Y esd
School teacher
Y esd
M.S.U. admissions officer
Yes 0
Other (please —plain!

your student? (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
No d
Mo d
N
No I

4.

Did your student expect to be admitted to MichiganState University? (Check one beat response.)
Y esd
N od
Uncertain d
I don't know CD

5.

Did you attend a high school "college night" with your student ?
Y esd
N od
a) If the answer it "yes", did you hear the Michigan State
Y esd
N od

b) Did you believe the Michigan State representative adequately described the admissions requirements?
Yes d

No d

When your student was denied admission to Michigan State, were you: (Cheek yea or no for each answer below.I
Surprised
Yet d
No d
Disappointed with your student
Yes d
No d
Disappointed with self
Ye* d
No d
Disappointed with Michigan State
Ye* d
No d
Disappointed with high school
Yes 0
No d
Other (please explain)_______________________________ ___ ___ ___ _____ _________ ___ ____
7.

Did you expect your ttudant to be admitted to Michigan State University? (Check one beet response.)
Yes 0
No d

8. Which of the factors below do you feel influenced our decision to deny admiasion to your student ?
(Check yes or no for each answer below.)
rees
nrtetions
High school grades
Y esd
No
Test scores
Y esd
No
Extracurricular activities
Class rank
Y esd
No d
Other (please explain)________________________
Pie

Yes 0
Yes d
Y esd

>circle the THREE factors you behave were mast important to our decision.

B. A t the time our tetter arrived, did you THEN beMeve our das Idow to be: (Cheek yes or no for each answer below.)
Correct
Y esd
N od
Sincere
Y esd
N od
Discouraging
Y esd
N od
Helpful
Y esd
N od
Other (please explain)__________________________ ______________________________________

85

No O
No d
N od

86

10.

How do you fMl NOW about our decision? (Chock yaa or no for ooch onowor bolow.)
Correct
Yes □
N o0
Sincere
Yoa □
No □
Discouraging
Yaa 0
No 0
llalpful
Yoa O
No CD
Other (pleeae explain)________________________________________________________________

11.

Do you believe the edmiaeione decisions et Michigan Slew University are: (Check yea or no for each anewer below.)
Carefully conelderad
Yea 0
No 0
Individually coneidered
Yet 0
N o0
Rather careloaely arrived at
Yea □
No 0
Computed by formula
Yea CD
No [
Computed by machine
Yea CD
No (

12.

What factora do you foal we ahould conaider when we arrive at an admission decision? (Check yea or
anawar below.)
Grades
Yea CD
No CD
Extra-curricular activities
Claaa rank
Yea CD
No CD
Counselor's recommendations
Test scores
Yaa CD
No CD
Principal's recommendations
Other (pleeae explain)_______________________________________________________________

no for each
Yea
Yes
Yea

D
CD
CD

No CD
No O
No CD

Please circle the THREE factora above you think ahould be most Important.
13.

Would you have preferred that the letter of denial be sent to you Instead of your student?
Yes □
No □
a)

14.

To you AND your student?
Yes CD
No CD

Is your student presently attending college or some other institution for education after high school?
Yea CD
N oD
a) If the answer Is "yes", name of collage----------------------------------------------------------------------------Location of cottage------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Are the grades earned so far In college — (Check one)
Improved over high school grades
CD
About the tame as high school gradas
D
Somewhat lower than M0t school gradea 0
Don't know
D
b) If the answer la "no", is your ttudant employed?
Yea □
No □
Whore________________________________________
City

in the Armed Forces?
16.

Type of work________________________________________

S late

Yea 0

No 0

Branch-(Army. Navy, etc.)-----------------------------------------

So that we may correspond with your student, may we have a current mailino addrear, please?
Student name ______________________________________________________________
Street____________________________________

City_____________________________

Telephonenumber----------------ZipCode________________

Your nam e------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----We would welcome any general comments or criticism you may wish to offer concerning admission procedures at Michigan
State University.

87
MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

b a s t la n s in g

■ M ic h ig a n

4882)

OFFICE O F A DM ISSIO N S A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

We n e e d y o u r h e l p -------- please.
You m a y r e m e m b e r that l a s t y e a r y o u r h i g h s c h o o l se n i o r a p p l i e d
to M i c h i g a n S t a t e and t h a t a f t e r c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n w e s u g ­
gested a s m a l l e r c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y m i g h t b e a m o r e a p p r o p r i
ate p l a c e for y o u r s t u d e n t to b e g i n e d u c a t i o n a f t e r h i g h s chool
N o w w e ' d l i k e to learn a b o u t y o u r r e s p o n s e to this decision.
Will y o u g i v e a few m i n u t e s o f y o u r time to c o m p l e t i n g the
enclosed questionnaire?
Xt w i l l h e l p us try t o d o a b e t t e r
job for o t h e r s t u d e n t s w h o a p p l y to M S U in the future.
There is a s e l f - a d d r e s s e d , s t a m p e d e n v e l o p e e n c l o s e d
convenience.
T h a n k y o u so much.
Sincerely,

Russell W e n t w o r t h
Associate Director
RW/jn
Enc l o s u r e s

for y o u r

88

M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

east l a n s i n g

• M ichigan iseu

OFFICE O F ADM ISSIONS A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

Dear M r . and M r s .
You may r e m e m b e r that two weeks ago I sent y o u a q u e s t i o n n a i r e
and asked your assistance for y o u n g p e o p l e .
Because y o u r resp o n s e has not b e e n r e c e i v e d as yet,
will p e r m i t a nd un d e r s t a n d this "gentle" reminder.

I hope you

Your comments and judgment are m o s t i m p o r t a n t to the U n i v e r s i t y
and will p e r m i t us to do a b e t t e r job for y o u n g people.
Will
you help w i t h just a few m o m e n t s of y o u r time, plea s e ?
I have a t t a c h e d for your c o n v e nience a second q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d
a return self-addressed, s t a m p e d envelope.
Your e a r l y res ponse
will be v e r y m u c h appreciated.
Most sincerely.

Russell W e n t w o r t h
As s o c i a t e D i r ec t o r
RW/jn
Enclosures

89
M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast lapsing

• Michigan

48023

OFFICE or ADMISSIONS A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

The r e p l y to our q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n c e r n i n g a d m i s s i o n s at M.S.U.
has b e e n e x c e l l e n t a n d w e are ab o u t to p r e p a r e a r e p o r t to our
"top" a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Sincerely, I a m n o t h a p p y w i t h the idea of n o t b e i n g able to
r e p o r t for y o u — so this one last request.
If y o u w o u l d like
a v o i c e in f uture a d m i s s i o n s policies, r e t u r n the a t t a c h e d
q u e s t i o n n a i r e at y o u r e a r l i e s t convenience.
I a p p r e c i a t e y o u r help.
M o s t sincerely,

Russell W e n t w o r t h
Associate Director
RW/jn
Enclosures

APPENDIX B
STUDENT Q U E S T I O N N A I R E AND LETTERS

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
To Students in College

Your name (p in t* print) .
College presently attending: Name .
Location---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PresentM ajor-------------------------------------------- —------ -

1.

Did you expect to be admitted to Michigan State University? (Check 1*^1 one best response.)
Y esO
N od
Uncertain O

2.

When you received our "non-admit" letter were you: (Check 0 yes or no tor each answer below.)
Surprised
Yes Q
N oD
Disappointed
Yes Q
N oQ
Discouraged
Yes D
No CD
Unhappy with M.S.U.
Yet CD
No CD
Unhappy with high
Unhappy with self
Yes CD
No CD
school counselor
Yes CD
No CD
Other (please explain)__________________________________________________________________

3.

After you received your "non-admit" letter from Michigan State, did your senior year grades in high school: (Check one
best response, please.)
f |
ff
Remain about the same as your sophomore and junior year grades CD
Improve CD
Go down I—I

4. Which of the factors below do you feel influenced our decision to deny admission to you? (Check yes or no to each
answer below.)
High school grades
Yes CD
No ED
Principal recommendation
Yet CD
No CD
Test scores
Yes ED
No ED
Counselor recommendations
Yes CD
No CD
Class rank
Yes ED
No ED
Extra-curricular activities
Yes CD
No CD
Other (please explain)---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Pleasa circle the THREE factors you believe were most important to our decision.
5.

At the time you received our letter, did you believe our decision in your case was: (Check yes or no for each answer below)
Correct
Y esO
N oO
Incorrect
Y esO
No O
Helpful
Yes O
No O
Honest
Yet O
No O
Discouraging
Yes O
N oO
Other (please explain)__________________________________________________________________

6.

How do you feel NOW about our decision: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Correct
Y esO
No (D
Incorrect
Y esO
N oO
Helpful
Y esO
N oO
Honest
Y esO
N oO
Discouraging
Yes O
No O
Othar (please explain)___________________________________________________________ _____

7.

Do you believe the admissions decisions at M S.U, are (check yes or no for each answer below):
Carefully considered
Y esO
N oO
Individually considered
Y esO
Rather carelessly
Arrived at by a formula
Yes O
arrived at
Yes O
No O
Machine computed
Yes O

8.

N oO
No O
No O

What factors do you believe we should consider when we arrive at an adm lviont decision: (Check yes or no for each answer
below.)
Grades
Yes O
No O
Class rank
Yes O
No O
Test scores
Y esO N o O
Extra-curricular activities
Y esO
N oO
Counselor recommendations Yet O
No O
Principal recommendations
Yes O
No O
Special talants:
Other:
(Explain)____________________________________
(Explain)-----------------------------------------------------Pleasa circle the THREE factors you think should be most important.

90

91

9. Did you attend a college night program while in high ichool?
a)

It th e am w tr is yes, did you have an opportunity to hear an MSU admissions officer
discuss requirements to Michigan State?

bi If answer is yes, d o you feel th e MSU admissions officer adequately described

admission requirements?

10.

Who helped you select Michigan State: (Check yes o r no for each answer below.)
Parents
Y es Q
N od
Teacher
Yes CD
School counselor
Yes CD
No CD
Friend
Yes CD
MSU admissions officer Yes CD
No CD
O th e r ____________________________________________________________________

CD

Ye* □

No

Yes D

No CD

Y e sO

No

CD

No CD
No CD

Please circle the ONE above who most influenced your decision to apply to MSU.
11.

Was Michigan State your first choice college?

Y esO

N oO

12. To how many other colleges did you apply? (Number please) ------------------------13.

Were you denied admission by any other college?

Y esO

No CD

14.

Who helped you select the college you now attend: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Parents
Y e sO
N oO
Teacher
School counselor Yes O
No O
An admissions officer
Friend
Y esO
N oO
A college referral service
O ther (please explain)----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Y esO
Yes O
Y esO

No CD
No D

NoO

Please circle the ONE above who most influenced your decision.
15.

Is your present program:
(check one please)

Technical Terminal (lets than four years)
College parallel (to prepare for transfer)
Four year degree program

16.

Oo you plan to transfer to another college or university?

O
O
O

Yes O

No

O

If yes, w here?---------------------------------------------------------------------------------17.

Present college grade point average: (Check one best answer.)
Less than "C "
D
A bout "B "
O
A bout "C "
O
Between "B " and "B"+ D
Between "C " and "C"+ O
Between "B"+ and " A " 0
Between "C"+ and "B " O

18.

Did you have a personal interview in the MSU Office of Admissions: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Before you received our decision
Yes O
No O
Before you applied
Yes CD
N o O
A fter you received our decision
Y et CD
No CD
After you applied
Yes CD
No □

We would welcome any general comments or criticism you may wish to offer concerning admission procedures at MSU.

QUESTIONNAIRE
T o Students Not in College

Your name (please print! 1.

Did you expect to be admitted to Michigan State University? (Check 0
Yes D
No D
Uncertain D

one best response.)

2.

When you received our "non-admit" letter were you: (Check
yes or no for each answer below.)
Surprised
Yes CD
No O
Disappointed
Yes
Yes
Discouraged
Yes CD
No CD
Unhappy with M.S.U.
Unhappy with high school counselor
Yes CD
No CD
Unhappy with self
Yes
Other (please explain)___________________________________________________________________

D
O
O

No
No
No

o
u
D

3.

After you received your "non-admit" letter from Michigan State, did your senior year grades in high school: (Check one best
response, pleasa)
Remain about the same as your sophomore and junior year grades CD
Improve CD
Go down CD

4.

Which of the factors below do you feel influenced our decision to deny admission to you? (Check yes or no for
answer below.)
High school grades
Yes CD
NoCD
Principal recommendation
Yes CD
Test scores
Yes CD
NoCD
Counselor recommendation Yes CD
Class rank
Yes CD
NoCD
Extra-curricular activities
Yes CD
Other (please explain)
.____________________________________________________________

each
No
No
No

CD
CD
CD

Please circle the THREE factors you believe were most important to our decision.
5.

At the time you received our letter, did you believe our decision in your case was: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Correct
Yes CD
No CD
Incorrect
YesO
N oO
Helpful
YesO
N oO
Honest
Y esO
N oO
Discouraging
YesO
N oO
Other (please exp lain )__________________________________________________________________

6.

How do you feel NOW about our decision: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)

Correct
Helpful
Discouraging

YesO
YesO
YesO

No CD
NoO
NoO

Incorrect
Honest

YesO
YesO

NoD
NoO

Other (please explain)__________________________________________________________________
7.

0

What factors do you believe we should consider when we arrive at an admissions decision: (Check
answer below.)
Grades
Yes O
No O
Class rank
Test scores
Y esO
N oO
Extra-curricular activities
Counselor recommendations
Yes O
No O
Principal recommendations
Special talents:
Other:
(Explain)_________________________________________
(Explain) ___________________

Yes
Yes
Yes

!

8.

Do you believe the admissions decisions at M.S.U. are: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Carefully considered
Yes O
No D
Individually considered
Rather carelessly
Arrived at by formula
arrived at
Y esO
N oO
Machine computed

Yes
Yes
Yes

O
o
o

No
No
No

O
O
o

no for each

o
o
a

No
No
No

o
o
o

Please circle the THREE factors you think should be most important.
Did you attend a college night program while in high school?
a)

If the answer is yes. did you have an opportunity to hear an MSU admissions officer discuss
admission requirements to Michigan State?

b)

If an*wer is yes, do you feel the MSU admissions officer adequately described admission
requirements?

92

o
Yes o
Yes o
Yes

o
No o
No o
No

93

10.

Who helped you select Michigan Stata: (Check yea or no for each answer below.)
Parent*
Yes CD
N oO
School counselor
Ye* G
No CD
MSU admit*tom officer
Ye* CD
No CD
O ther__________________________________________________________________

Teacher
Friend

Ye*
Ye*

CD
CD

No
No

G
CD

No

CD

Please circle the ONC above who most influenced your decision to apply to MSU.
Yes

CD

11.

Was Michigan State your first choice college?

12.

To how many other colleges did you apply? (Number please)

13.

Were you denied admission by any other college?

Yes

CD

No

CD

14.

Oo you plan to attend college in the future?

Yes

CD

No

CD

Name of college______________________________________________________________
a)

If no, will you attend a technical or terminal (less than four years) school in the future?

Name of school or college __________________________________
15.

10.

Yes □

No □

Yes □
Yes □
Yes □
Yes □
Yes □
Yes □
Yes □

No CD
No □
No □
No CD
No □
No □
No □

Location________________

Why are you not presently enrolled in a college? (Check yet or no lor each answer below.)
Discouraged because of my refusal from MSU
Never really wanted to attend college
Could not be admitted to college or colleges of my choice
Felt I might do better in college a t a later time
Couldn't be admitted anywhere
Preferred to settle my military obligation first
Wanted to earn some money before I enrolled in college
Other (pleeae explain)_________________________________________________________

Did yob have a personal interview In the MSU Office of Admissions: (Check yes or no for each answer below.)
Before you received our decision
Yes CD
No CD
Before you applied
Yas CD
No
After you received our decision
Yet CD
No CD
After you applied
Yes CD
No

We would welcome any general comments or criticism you may with to offer concerning admitsion procedural at MSU.

CD
CD

94
MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast l a nsi n g

- Michigan

48823

OFFICE O F A DM ISSIO N S A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

W e n e e d y o u r h e l p — a n d p e r h a p s w e can be of h e l p to you.
You m a y r e m e m b e r t h a t last y e a r y o u a p p l i e d to M i c h i g a n S t a t e
University, and t h a t w e w r o t e s u g g e s t i n g y o u b e g i n y o u r a c a d e m i c
c a r e e r in a s m a l l e r c o l l e g e or u n i v ersity.
P e r h a p s y o u felt w e
were u n c o n c e r n e d .
S u c h is n o t the case.
W e w e r e c o n c e r n e d then,
and r e m a i n so.
We w a n t y o u to c o n t i n u e w i t h y o u r educatio n .
We s i n c e r e l y b e l i e v e our r e s p o n s e to y o u w a s the m o s t h o n e s t (and,
we hope, helpful) w e c o u l d render.
N o w w e w o u l d like to k n o w
how y o u feel an d w h e t h e r w e d i d h e l p you.
Will y o u p l e a s e give a few m i n u t e s of y o u r time to c o m p l e t e one
of the a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .
One is for students w h o e n r o l l e d
in c o l l e g e d u r i n g the 1968-69 a c a d e m i c year.
T h e other is for
stude n t s w h o h a v e n o t a t t e n d e d college.
P l e a s e use the q u e s t i o n ­
naire a p p r o p r i a t e t o you.
Your e a r l y r e p l y w i l l be a p p r e ciated.
C o m p l e t i n g the q u e s t i o n ­
naire m a y h e l p y o u r future p l a n s and w i l l c e r t a i n l y h e l p o t h e r
students w h o a p p l y to M i c h i g a n State.
A se l f - a d d r e s s e d , s t a m p e d
e n v e l o p e is e n c l o s e d for y o u r convenience.
T h a n k y o u so much.
Sincerely,

Russell Wentworth
Associate Director
RW/jn
En c l o s u r e s

95
MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast lansing

• M i c h i g a n 4bs 2»

OFFICE O F AD M ISSIO N S A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

You r e a l l y c a n h e l p a g r e a t m a n y h i g h sch o o l students.
As I i n d i c a t e d in m y e a r l i e r l e t t e r to you, w e are r e v i e w i n g
a d m i s s i o n p r o c e d u r e s at State in a sincere a t t e m p t to b e t t e r
serve future s t u d e n t s w h o apply.
Your j u d g m e n t is v i t a l to
that review.
Wi l l y o u p l e a s e give a few m i n u t e s of y o u r time to c o m p l e t e
one of the a t t a c h e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . One is for s t u d e n t s w h o
e n r o l l e d in c o l l e g e d u r i n g the 1968-69 a c a d e m i c year.
Th e
other is for s t u d e n t s w h o have n o t a t t e n d e d college.
Please
use the q u e s t i o n n a i r e a p p r o p r i a t e to you.
Your e a r l y r e p l y w i l l be app r e c i a t e d .
C o m p l e t i n g the q u e s t i o n ­
naire m a y h e l p y o u r future p l a n s a n d w i l l c e r t a i n l y h e l p o t h e r
students w h o a p p l y to M i c h i g a n State.
A self-addressed,
st a mped e n v e l o p e is e n c l o s e d for y o u r con v e n i e n c e .
M o s t sincerely.

Ru s s e l l W e n t w o r t h
Associate Director
RW/jn
En c l o s u r e s

96
MICHIGAN

STATE U N I V E R S I T Y

bast l a n s i n g

• M i c h i g a n 4ss2j

OFFICE O F AD M ISSIO N S A N D SCHOLARSHIPS

Th e r e p l y to our q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n c e r n i n g a d m i s s i o n s at M.S.U.
has b e e n e x c e l l e n t a n d w e are a b o u t to p r e p a r e a r e p o r t to our
"top" a d m i n i s t r a t o r s .
Si n c e r e l y , I a m n o t h a p p y w i t h the idea of n o t b e i n g able to
r e p o r t for y o u ----- so this one last request.
If y o u w o u l d
like a v o i c e in future a d m i s s i o n s policies, r e t u r n the a t t a c h e d
q u e s t i o n n a i r e at y o u r e a r l i e s t convenience.
I a p p r e c i a t e y o u r help.
M o s t sincer e ly,

Russell Wentworth
Associate Director
RW/jn
Enclosures

APPENDIX C
C O M M U N I T Y COLLEGE E N R O L L M E N T OF
N O N - A D M I T STUDENTS BY CO U N T Y
AND
SUMMARY OF D A T A SOURCE BY PAR E N T AND
STUDENT Q U E S T I O N N A I R E S

97
TABLE C-l
COMMUNITY COLLEGE ENROLLMENT OF
N O N - A D M I T S T U D E N T S BY C O U N T Y

Michigan Counties
With a
Community College

Alpena
Bay
Berrien
Cass
Calhoun
Clare
Delta
Emmett
Genessee
Geogebic
Grand Traverse
Ingham
Jackson
Kent
Kalamazoo
Macomb
Monroe
Montcalm
Muskegon
Mason
Oakland
Roscommon
St. C l a i r
St. J o s e p h
Wayne
Washtenaw
Totals

N o n -Admit s t u d L t s
R
...
.
Count
^

N u m b e r of S a m p l e
Non-Admit Students
Enrolled m
Home
County Community
College

0
12
7
1
3
1
0
0
14
0
0
14
5
8
3
17
0
2
3
1
51
0
1
1
104
10

0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
12
3
7
0
8
0
0
2
0
12
0
1
0
11
4

258

70

98
TABLE C — 2
SUMMARY OF DATA SOURCE BY PA R E N T
AND STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRES
Questionnaire

Data Sought

Parent
Question
Number

S tudents Present A c t i v i t i e s
College
Working
Service

Student
in
College

Students
N o t in
College

Question
Number

Ques t i o n
Number

15
14
14b
14b

P r e p a r a t i o n for A p p l i c a t i o n
C o llege Night Attend a n c e
V i s i t w i t h M.S.U.
A d m i ss i o n s Officer
Student Influences
Importance of M.S.U.
A p p l i e d to Other Colleges
Denied by Other Colleges
E x p ected Decision

5

9

9

5a,5b

9 a , 9 b , 18

9 a , 9 b , 16

1,2

10,14

10

3

11
12
13

11
12
13

1

1

3

3

6

2

2

9,10,11
8,12
13

5,6,7
4,8

5,6,7
4,8

4,7

Result of Non-Admit Decision
High School Grades
A t t i t u d e About Decision
To wards University
Cr i t e r i a Used
Suggestions
Present A cademic Program
Pr esent Grades
Future Plans

15
14a

17
16

14,15