1

I

71-11,991
THOMAS, Jr., William Lee, 1932PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY GOALS: A COMPARISON
OF ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY AND STUDENTS ENGAGED
IN THE PRACTICE, TEACHING AND/OR STUDY OF
STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AT MICHIGAN
STATE UNIVERSITY WITH A NATIONWIDE STUDY OF
UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS.
Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1970
Education, higher

U niversity M icrofilm s. A XEROX C om pany , A n n A rbor, M ichigan

PERCEPTIONS OP UNIVERSITY G O A L S :

A COMPARISON

ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY AND STUDENTS ENGAGED
IN THE PRACTICE, TEACHING AND / O R STUDY OF
STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AT
M ICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WITH A
NATIONWIDE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY
FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS
By
WILLIAM L. THOMAS, JR.

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration
and Higher Education
1970

ABSTRACT
PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY GOALS:
A COMPARISON OF
ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY AND STUDENTS ENGAGED
IN THE PRACTICE, TEACHING A N D / O R STUDY OF
STUDENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION AT
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WITH A
NATIONWIDE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY
FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS
By
W ILLIAM L. THOMAS, JR.
The purpose of this study was to assess the per­
ceptions of importance of a set of university goals among
selected populations of student personnel administrators,
graduate students in the field of student personnel admin­
istration,

and their faculty at Michigan State University;

and to compare those perceptions with the perceptions of a
nationwide study of university faculty and administrators.
The study sought to establish relative rankings of fortyseven goals within groups.
Data for the study was gathered by use of a q u e s ­
tionnaire.

The study was conducted during the Winter and

Spring of 1970.

The questionnaire was mailed to one hundred

fifty potential respondents in the Michigan State University
student personnel populations.

Total usable responses for

William L. Thomas, Jr.
this study included twenty-seven Doctoral degree candidates
forty-two Master of Arts degree candidates;
members;

and thirty administrators,

hundred five

(N ■ 105).

six faculty

for a total of one

Data from the nationwide study

were extracted from the published report of that study,
University Goals and Academic Power
V. Grambsch.
Education,

Washington,

D.C.:

Edward Gross and Paul

American Council on

1967, Table 1.

Conclusions of the Study
1.

The total of the student personnel samples

(N - 105) when compared to the 1967 study totals,

revealed

that the student personnel total group placed higher value
on student oriented goals than did the 1967 study total
group.

The 1967 study total group placed higher value on

goals related to academic excellence,

research and academic

freedom.
2.

The student personnel total group least valued

goals insuring the faculty's involvement in governance,
the accommodating of only high potential students, the
maintaining of an institution's character,
vating of students'

and the c u lti­

taste and the emphasizing of u n der­

graduate education.
3.

Within the student personnel total sample,

the

Faculty group most frequently showed the greatest variance
from the remainder of the total sample on measures of

W illiam L. Thomas, Jr.
individual goals.

Established interests,

age, position,

and more extensive professional training were suggested as
reasons for that phenomenon.
4.

Congruence measures between perceived and p r e ­

ferred rankings of individual goals across groups were
inconclusive with regard to either types of goals that
attained significance or the ordering of the groups within
the r a n k i n g s .
5.

Congruence measures between perceived and p r e ­

ferred rankings of all goals within groups revealed no
significant relationship for the Master of Arts candidates,
the Doctoral candidates and the Administrators.

The Faculty

and the 1967 study total group were significantly related
at

.001 level of confidence.

William L. Thomas, Jr.
Candidate for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Date of Examination:
Dissertation:

July 2, 1970

PERCEPTIONS OF UNIVERSITY GOALS:
A
COMPARISON OF ADMINISTRATORS, FACULTY AND
STUDENTS ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE, TEACHING,
AND / O R STUDY OF STUDENT PERSONNEL ADM INIS­
TRATION AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WITH A
NATIONWIDE STUDY OF UNIVERSITY FACULTY AND
ADMINISTRATORS

Outline of S t u d i e s :
Major Area:

Higher Education;

Student

Personnel Administration
Cognate Area:

Sociology

Biographical Data:
Birthdate:

February 12,

19 32, Knoxville,

Tennessee
Undergraduate Studies:

The University of

Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, Bachelor
of Science, Secondary Education— Social
Studies,

1955.

Graduate S t u d i e s :

The University of

Tennessee, Master of Science, Educational
Administration and Supervision, 1965.
Membership:

American Personnel and Guidance Association
American College Personnel Association
National Association of Student Personnel
Administrators
Phi Delta Kappa
ii

Experience:

Infantry Officer, U. S. Army, 1955-1960
Teacher, Hall's High School, Knoxville,
Tennessee, 1960-1961
Head Resident and Manager, Hess Hall, The
University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
Tennessee, 1961-1964
Administrative Assistant to the Director of
Residence and Food Services, The University
of Tennessee, 1964-1966
Director of Residence Halls and Assistant
Dean of Students, The University of
Tennessee, 1966-1968
Area Director, Residence Halls Programs,
M ichigan State University, 1968-1970.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer of this study gratefully recognizes the
contributions of others who were instrumental in producing
this study.

A debt of thanks is extended:
To Dr.

direction,
Committee.

and

Laurine E.

Fitzgerald for her counsel,

assistance

as Chairman of the Guidance

I am particularly grateful for her p r o f e s ­

sionalism and her friendship.
To Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. Vandel C. Johnson
and Dr. James B. McKee for counsel and encouragement,
and for serving as Committee members.
To all who participated in the study at Michigan
State University.
To Dr. Edward Gross, The University of Washington,
and Dr. Paul V. Grambsch, The University of Minnesota,
for the

use of their questionnaire in the study.
And to

Betsy, who

contributed encouragement to

me, cohesion to our family life, and m uch hard work
toward the completion of this study.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

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

ii

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S .............................................. iv
LIST OF T A B L E S ............................................ vii
Chapter
I.

I N T R O D U C T I O N ......................................... 1
The P r o b l e m ........................................ 5
Objectives of the S t u d y .......................... 5
Limitations of the Study

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

6

Organization of the S t u d y ........................7
II.

RELATED LITERATURE

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

8

An Historical P e r s p e c t i v e ........................9
A Current P e r s p e c t i v e ........................... 25
The Procreant S t u d y ............................. 40
III.

DESIGN AND M E T H O D O L O G Y ............................ 54
Introduction

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

54

The S a m p l e ....................................... 55
I n s t r u m e n t a t i o n .................................. 58
Collection of D a t a ............................. 61
Handling of D a t a ................................ 63
Statistical T r e a t m e n t ........................... 63
v

Chapter
IV.

Page
PRESENTATION A N D ANALYSIS

OF D A T A ................68

Congruence M e a s u r e s ............................ 107
V.

SUMMARY AND C O N C L U S I O N S ........................... Ill
C o n c l u s i o n s ......................................114
Implications for Further R e s e a r c h ............ 115
Implications for Future Action

.............. 117

B I B L I O G R A P H Y .............................................. 119
A P P E N D I X ................................................... 12 3

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

Goals of the University by Student
Personnel Total Group and 1967 Study
Total G r o u p ....................................... 69

2.

Goals of the University Mast e r of Arts
and Doctoral C a n d i d a t e s ......................... 91

3.

Goals of the University Faculty and
Administrators ................................

94

4.

Across Goal Measure (GM 1) of Perceived
Most Important Goals .......................... 102

5.

Across Goal Measure (GM 1) of Preferred
Most Important Goals .......................... 104

6.

Scattergram of Perceived Goal Rankings
of 47 Goals Across Groups
(GM1 ) ............ 106

7.

Scattergram of Preferred Goal Rankings
of 47 Goals Across Groups
(GM1 ) ............ 106

8.

Across Group Measure of Correlation
Between Perceived and Preferred
Rankings of Individual G r o u p s .................108

9.

Within Group Congruence Between
Perceived and Preferred Rankings
of all G o a l s ................................... 109

vii

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Establishing priority among goals has been a focus
of continuous debate and discussion throughout the history
of American higher education.

In earliest colonial t i m e s ,

debate hinged on sectarian controversy and denominational
rivalries.^

Immediately prior to the Revolution, a p r i n ­

cipal issue was the idea of experimentation replacing
2
scholasticism as a source of knowledge.
In the first
sixty years of the nineteenth century, debates were waged
over "the collegiate way,"

the classical curriculum versus

a more pragmatic curriculum, and the issue of education for
the elite only as contrasted with more democratic populations that higher education might serve.

4

The later nin e ­

teenth century fostered developments such as the e s t a b l i s h ­
ment of the first university at Johns Hopkins^ and the
^"Frederick Rudolph, The American College and
University
(New York:
Vintage B o o k s , 1 $ 6 2 ) , pp. 1^22.
2 I b i d . , p. 31.
3
I b i d . , Chapter 5.
4I b i d ., Chapters 6-11.
5
Clark Kerr, The Uses of the University
Harper and Row, 1963)
pT 13.
1

(New York:

2
creation of the Morrill Federal Land Grant Act of 1862.

g

These were significant departures from normal practices
and, as such,

fueled the fires of controversy^ over higher

education.
Over the years since the Civil War, other issues
have stirred debate about the ends and means of higher
education.

Rudolph identified several:

and extent of electives;
ism;3-0 f o o t b a l l a n d

8

women's education;

9

progressiv-

the involvement of the federal

government with institutions,
a myriad of programs.

the introduction

faculty, and students through

12

Current discussions are wide l y prevalent and range
from the consideration of goals by national professional
associations in omnibus fashion, e.g., the American Council
13
of Education Annual Meeting in 1967,
to dormitory room

®Rudolph, o p . c i t ., p. 247.
7I b i d . , p. 248.
® I b i d ., Chapter 14.
^ I b l d ., Chapter 15.
1 0 I b l d . , Chapter 16.
^ I b l d . , Chapter 18.
^ I b i d . , Epilogue, pp.

483-496.

^ A m e r i c a n Council on Education, Whose Goals for
American Higher Education
(Washington, D . C . : American
Council on Education,
7) .

3
debates over the merits of Reserve Officers Training Corps
Programs.

"Almost everywhere these days there is a lively
14
debate about the means and ends of education."
Student personnel administrators have contributed
to the general discussion and debate about g o a l s .

Formal

statements of purpose for the student personnel profession
in higher education were formulated and published in 19 37
15
and again in 1949.
These statements, while oriented
toward professional development,

implied goals for the

education of students in higher education.

A subsequent

statement by the Council of Student Personnel A s s o c i ations1**
proposed a broad concept of educational p u r p o s e .
Human beings seek to develop behaviors
which include all functions of a person, in order
to interact as equals with their human and physical
environment.
Education is an institution of society
designed to facilitate behavioral development so
that it occurs in the most effective and efficient
manner.
Most societal institutions have e d u c a ­
tional functions, but the educational institution
is society's means to use knowledge to further the
development of its members. 7

Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, University
Goals and Academic Power
(Washington, D.‘ C . : American
Council on Education, 1568), p. iii.
^ S t a t e m e n t by C O S P A of professional training and
student personnel functions, 1964, and "The Student Person­
nel Point of View," 1940, ACE Statement, Washington.
1 6 " A Position Paper: Action Involvement for College
Personnel Education" (The Commission on Professional Devel­
opment, Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher
Education, January 9, 1970).
17I b i d . , p. 1.

4
This statement is similar in breadth to Kerr's
summation of University purposes.
The ends are already g i v e n — the p r e s e r v a­
tion of external truths, the creation of new k n o w ­
ledge, the improvement of service wherever truth
and k nowledge of high order may serve the ends of
m a n .^
While conceptually adequate,

such statements lack s pecific­

ity sufficient for meaningful interpretation into action.
More precise goals, with more narrow parameters are needed
if consensus on processes is to be gained within the aca19
demic community.
Gross and Grambsch
identified a set of
47 goals that attempted to encompass the principal purposes
of higher education in A m erican Universities.
Efforts to identify and order priorities for higher
education have been made.

Specific goals for the university

have been identified and ordered, both within and among
various institutions.

None, however, have focused on the

perceptions of student personnel specialists
faculty, and practitioners)

(students,

as they compare w i t h the p e r c e p ­

tions of other major components of the university.

This

study proposed to initiate that focus.
The research presented in the following chapters
related the perceptions of University goals held by persons
engaged in the study, teaching and/or administration of
18

Kerr, op. c i t . , p.

38.

19 Gross and Grambsch, op.

cit.

5
student personnel work with the study of University goals
20
reported by Gross and Grambsch.

The Problem
To assess perceptions of a set of University goals
among selected populations of student personnel a d m inistra­
tors, graduate students in the field of student personnel
administration,

and their faculty.

Objectives of the Study
1.

To measure responses received from selected p o p u ­
lations of student personnel administrators;

faculty

members w h o teach student personnel administration;
and graduate students majoring in student personnel
administration at Michigan State University, about
the importance given to 47 University goals.
2.

To make comparisons among the responses described
above and also with a prior national study

21

which

sampled university faculty and administrators
opinions.
3.

To summarize, conclude,

recommend, discuss,

and

identify implications for further study or action,
appropriate to the results of the research.

20Ibid.
21 Ibid.

6
Limitations of the Study
1.

The study was a pilot study of a single university's
population of student personnel administrators;
faculty members w h o teach student personnel a d min­
istration;

and graduate students majoring in student

personnel administration during the Winter Term,
1970.
2.

Less than 100 percent return of questionnaires
22
reduced the validity of generalizations made.
Return rates are shown in Chapter III, p.

3.

58.

This study was concerned principally with the 47
specific goals identified in the survey instrument.
Since no provision for statistical analysis or
ordering of the goals identified by responder
write-in was possible,

the ordering of the 47

standard goals and their respective measurements
cannot be interpreted to be the only or complete
set of goals h eld by the responders.

22

Appendix A (The q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) .
23
See Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of. Behavioral
Research
(New York:
Holt, Rinehart andl Winston, inc. ,
1965) , p. 397, for a discussion of survey research limita­
tions .

23

7

Organization of the Study
Chapter I introduces the study,

states the problem

and describes objectives and limitations.
tains a review of related literature.

Chapter III describes

the study design and m ethodology including:
the sample;

Chapter II c o n ­

an introduction;

instrumentation; data collection procedures;

and the statistical treatments used.
an analysis of the data.

Chapter IV includes

Chapter V contains a summary,

conclusions, recommendations, discussions and implications
for further research or action.
appendix are included.

A bibliography and an

C H A P T E R II
RELATED LITERATURE
Researching the status and development of goal
determination with i n American higher education reveals
both the paucity of consistent efforts to clarify or restate
goals

and the plurality of underlying philosophical bases

for educational practices.

About the former, Sanford

opted for a "recovery of purpose" for Universities.
"Instead of keeping a clear idea of what they exist to do,
Universities have sometimes acted as if their main purpose
were to survive,

..."*

About the latter, Martin reported

that most administrators and faculty gave little attention
or interest to the educational philosophy of their institu­
tion.

He suggested as a major determinant of this attitude

the pluralcy of educational philosophies.
In other cases, unwillingness to get involved
in institutional goal formulation is due to a feel­
ing of futility.
Faculty and administration see
the prospect of endless controversy in these matters
and have no hope of ever achieving closure.
E d uca­
tors have not been a b l e , viewed historically, to show
the superiority of one educational philosophy over

1Nevitt Sanford, Where Colleges Fall
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1967), p. 178.
8

(San Francisco:

9
another; the idealists, from Plato to Hegal, took
no stand for the primacy of trans-historic v eri­
ties, for universals or absolutes, while realists,
from Aristotle to Mill, make the case for the
dignity of men and ideals in this world.
In more
recent time came the p e r e n n i a l i s t s — Hutchins and
Barr; the p r o g r e s s i v i s t s — James and Dewey; the
analytic p h i l o s o p h e r s — Whittgenstein and Russel;
the exis t e n t i a l i s t s— Kierkegaard and Heideggar.
All these schools of thought and these p h i l o s o p hi­
cal theoreticians have been persuasive, yet they
have failed to persuade, in the sense of winning
a dominant position in the field.
Because e d u c a­
tors have been unable to prove the superiority
of one educational philosophy in a given institu­
tion w ithout fractricidal warfare, it has seemed
expedient to many administrators and faculty to
play down the whole business.
A vacu u m seemed
better than a whirlwind.
These views,

if accurate,

set limitations to our

ability to perceive a clear current status of goals or trace,
with progressive unity,

the development of goals for

American Universities.

Rather this discussion will embrace

a representative survey of important contributions to u n i ­
versity goal determination from historical and current
perspectives.

An Historical Perspective
Earliest American higher education did not lack
purpose.

A clear sense of mission directed the efforts of

the colonialists to establish centers of higher learning.
The mission was to prepare for the future the kind of

2

Warren Byran Martin, Conformity Standards and
Change in Higher Education
(San Francisco:
Jossey-feass,
inc.7
pF. 2IS-217.'

10
educated, disciplined leaders needed in the new world to
set the w o rld straight.

As Puritans,

they did not wish to

leave the fate of the future to accident or carelessness.
Harvard, Wil l i a m and Mary, Yale, New Jersey, and other
early colleges were purposefully established to insure a
learned clergy and leaders disciplined by knowledge and
learning.

However, diversity,

strongly aided by the dec i ­

siveness of d e n o m i n a t i o n a l i s m , came to characterize the
church-college relationship so as to allow the continuance
of more than religiously oriented goals.

4

Rudolph summa­

rized the multiple purposes of a college from a 1726 appeal
to English benefactors made by George III in behalf of
colleges in Philadelphia and New York.
There they w e r e — all the reasons that might be sum­
moned for having a college.
A college develops a
sense of unity where, in a society created from many
of the nations of Europe, there might otherwise be
aimlessness and uncontrolled diversity.
A college
advances learning; it combats ignorance and b a r ­
barism.
A college is a support of the state; it
is an instructor in loyalty, in citizenship, in
the dictates of conscience and faith.
A college
is useful; it helps men to learn the things they
must k now in order to manage the temporal affairs
of the world; it trains a legion of teachers.
All
these things a college was.
All these purposes
a college served.5

sity

3Frederick Rudolph, The American College and U n i v e r ­
(New York:
Vintage B o o k s , 1962), p p . 3-9.
^ I b i d .. pp. 8-18.
5 I b i d . , pp.

12-13.

11
A climate of freedom of thought and inquiry continued to
develop in the pre- r e v o l u t i o n a r y war days of the American
College.

More attention was being given to the natural

sciences and m a t h e m a t i c s .6
The American Revolution left a legacy to the A m e r i ­
can College that included "...a w i d e l y held belief that the
colleges were now serving a new responsibility to a new
nation:

the preparation of young men for citizenship in a

republic that m ust prove itself,

the preparation for lives

of usefulness of young men w h o also intended to prove
t h e m s e l v e s ."

7

The "college movement"

g

in America, resulting largely
g
from a combination of "romantic belief in endless progress,"
the vast geography of the c o u n t r y , ^
denominationalism.

12

local p r i d e a n d

Higher education was conceived of

"as a social investment."

13

"The notion that a college

Richard Hofstadter and Walter P. Metzgar, The
Dev e l o pment of Academ i c F r eed o m in the United S tates fNew
York:
Columbia University Press, 1$5*>) , pp. I & S - 2 0 I .
7Rudolph, op. c i t ., p. 40.
® I b i d ., Chapter 3.
^ I b i d ., pp.

48-49.

10 I b i d . , p. 49.
11 I b i d ., pp.

47-53.

12I b i d .
1 3 I b i d . , p. 58.

12
should serve society through the lives of dedicated g r a d u ­
ates was not new.
As a collegiate purpose it would never
14
di s a p p e a r . "
The "social purposes" took many forms.
The
purpose of social control of the masses by an aristocratic
oriented leadership was evident in South Carolina in 1801.
Recognition of the eventual leadership roles-to be filled
by the college-trained man at the University of North
Carolina before the Civil War encompassed a keen awareness
of the social advantages and social obligations, ideas
15
established by the Oxford tradition in England.
Also important in this period was the identification
of the college with national purpose.

"A commitment to the

republic became a guiding obligation of the American
Co l l e g e . " 16

Democracy in America was also growing,

and

colleges contributed to the diffusion "...among the people
that monopoly of knowledge and mental power w h ich despotic
17
governments accumulate for purposes of arbitrary rule..."
"The institutions of the college m o vement in America

14 I b i d . , p. 59.
15I b i d ., pp.

60-61.

16Ibid.
17I b i d . , p. 63.

13
intended to be, to the best of their ability and knowledge,
XB
democratic institutions for a democratic s o c i e t y . ”
19
Rudolph devoted a chapter
of his book to a discription of "the collegiate way" of the American colleges.
The collegiate w a y is the notion that a curriculum,
a library, a faculty, and students are not enough
to make a college.
It is an adherence to the
residential scheme of things.
It is respectful
of quiet rural settings, dependent on dormitories,
committed to dining halls, permeated by paternalism.

20

The collegiate way of educating A m erican college students
helped to establish the philosophical and historical founda­
tion for many of the non-academic purposes of the American
college.

The concept lent itself to the idea that the

college could be many things other than just an institution
of academic learning.

21

But geographical proliferation,

religious diversity,

democratic motives, and the collegiate way did not greatly
affect the curriculum until m uch later in the 19th century.
In the meantime,
efforts

22

amid some notable curriculum reform

at Harvard, Amherst, The University of Vermont,

The University of Nashville, The University of Virginia

18I b i d . , p. 67.
^8 I b i d ., Chapter 5, pp.
2 0 I b i d ., p. 87.
2 1 I b l d . , p.
22I b i d . , pp.

108.
110-112.

86-109.

14
and the University of the City of New York,

the defenders

of the classical curriculum scored a major victory.

The

Yale Report of 1828 supported the great strength and clar
ity the rightness of the classical curriculum that had
23
prevailed since the seventeenth century.
What then is the appropriate object of a
college?
...its object is to 'lay the foundation
of a superior education'; and this is to be done,
at a period of life w hen a substitute must be p r o ­
vided for 'parental superintendence.'
The ground
work of a thorough e d u c a t i o n , must be b r o a d , and
deep, and solid.
The two great points to be gained in intel­
lectual culture are the 'discipline* and the 'furni­
ture' of the mind; expanding its powers, and stor­
ing it with knowledge. ...
But why, it may be asked, should a student
waste his time upon studies which have no immediate
connection with his future profession?
...In
answer to this, it ought to be observed there is
no science which does not contribute its aid to
professional skill.
'Everything throws light
upon everything.'
The great objection of a col­
legiate education, preparatory to the study of a
profession, is to give that expansion and balance
of the mental powers, those liberal and com p r e ­
hensive views, and those fine proportions of charac­
ter which are not to be found in him whose ideas
are always confined to one particular c h a n n e l . . .
I b i d ., pp. 129-135; Clark Kerr, The Uses of the
University
(New York;
Harper and Row, 19(>3) , pp. 12-14;
Nicholas von Hoffman, The Multiversity (New York;
Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p p . 27-28; Robert H. Knapp,
"Changing Functions of the College Professor," in College
and C h a r a c t e r , ed. by Nevitt Sanford (New York:
John wlley
and S o n s ,
, pp. 27-28; Paul L. Dressel, College and
University C u r r iculum
(Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing
C o r p . , 1968), pp. 1-2.
24
"The Yale Report of 1828" as cited in American
Higher Education:
A Documentary H i s t o r y , ed. by Richard
Horstadter and Wilson
Smith (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1961), p. 272.

15
The Yale report: prevailed until after the Civil War.

25

Dressel gives credit to its restraining effect on curricu­
lum change for the subsequent development of state univer­
sities,

land-grant colleges,

and graduate schools.

These

new institutions came into being because the existing ones
refused to alter their curricula to meet the pressures of
26
new social and economic n e e d s .
Kerr identifies the "breakthrough"

from the influ­

ence of the Yale report as the beginning of Johns Hopkins
in 1876, and the appointment of Daniel Coit Gilman as its
first president.

27

The Hopkins idea brought w i t h it the graduate
school with exceptionally high academic standards
in w ha t was still a rather new and raw civ i l i z a ­
tion; the renovation of professional education,
particularly in medicine; the establishment of
the pre-eminent influence of the department; the
creation of research institutes and centers, of
university presses and learned journals and the
'academic ladder'; and also the great proliferation
of courses.28
McGrath and Meeth similarly landmark 1876 and the
founding of Johns Hopkins as the beginning of an "ideal
29
for institutions of higher education."
25
26

27
28

Rudolph, op. c i t ., p.

135.

Dressel, op. c i t . , p. 2.
Kerr, op.

c i t . , p. 13.

Earl J. McGrath and Richard L. Meeth, "Organizing
for Teaching and Learning:
the Curriculum," in Higher E d u cation:
Some Newer Developmen t s , ed. by Samuel Baskin (New
Y o r k : McGraw-Hill , 1965) , p. 2TF.

16
The influence of scholars returning from German u n i ­
versities and a public demand for other types of
instruction caused many new disciplines to be
introduced into our institutions of higher e d u c a­
tion.
The curriculum of the liberal arts college
underwent a transformation, and soon thereafter
entirely new university divisions were e s t a b ­
lished , such as schools of engineering, agri­
culture, and business administration.
Under
these influences, specialization in learning
soon became the order of the d a y . The omnibus
courses in natural history and natural p h i l o s ­
ophy , for e x a m p l e , soon broke up into d e p a r t ­
ments of physics, chemistry, geology, botany,
astronomy, and others.
Ancient history was soon
superseded by specializations in the history of
E u r o p e , the history of the United S t a t e s , the
history of England, e t c . , and a great host of
social sciences little known a few years earlier,
such as sociology, anthropology, economics,
psychology, and political science, assumed their
places in the college curriculum among their
older subject-matter peers.
Kerr emphasized the contribution of the land grant
movement as complementing the "Hopkins experiment."
had origins from Prussia,

One

the other was distinctly A m e r i c a n . 3^-

"...but they both served an industrializing nation and they
both did it through research and the training of technical
c o m p e t e n c e ."32
Perkins claims fulfillment of the dreams of Thomas
Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin for the application of k n o w ­
ledge to the w o rld that supported the University, w ith the
33
enactment into law of the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862.
30I b i d . , pp.

28-29.

31Kerf*, op. c i t ., p. 15.
32Ibi*d.
33
James A. Perkins, The University in Transition
(Princeton:
Prinoeton University Press, 1966), pp. 15-16.

17
And then everything began to blo s s o m at
once.
American universities became the heirs of
the British tradition of undergraduate instruc­
tion and the German concern for graduate education
and research, and jointed b oth to the new mission
to be fin the nation's service.'
For the first
time in history, the three aspects of knowledge
were reflected in the three mod e r n missions of
the university.
The results were both revolu t i on­
ary and explosive.
They changed the whole rel a tion­
ship between the university and society.
And in
the process*.they produced a new idea of the
university.
During the period of the influence of the Yale report,
a different kind of change was occurring on the college
campus.

The dogma of the classical c u r r iculum was augmented

by the intellectual exercising that occurred in the literary
societies and in debating c l u b s . 35
Another dimension of collegiate purpose, perhaps
given impetus by the success of the literary societies was
the social fraternity.

Introduced by the undergraduates,

the social organization was to overshadow the literary
societies as the college students continued to seek ways to
"escape from the monotony, dreariness, and unpleasantness
36
of the college regimen."
"On another front the un dergradu­
ates determined to redefine the American College.

Their

purpose was to change the focus from the next w o r l d to this.

34I b i d . , p. 16.
3^ R u d o l p h . , op.
36I b i d . , p. 146.

c i t . , p.

136-144.

18
Their instrument was the Greek**letter fraternity m o v e m e n t . " 37
In spite of opposition by anti-secret societies and by many
administrators,

the fraternities persisted in the pursuit

of temporal status and success.

38

The American college student was not content with
liberating the mind, giving it free range in o r gan­
izations that served the intellect.
He was not
content with enthroning manners, enshrining the
ways of success in this w o r l d in a far-flung
system of fraternities and social clubs.
He
also discovered muscle, created organizations
for it; his physical appearance and condition
had taken on new i m p o r t a n c e . Man the image of
God became competitive, boisterous, muscular,
and physically attractive.
Man the image of
God became the fine ge n t l e m a n — jolly, charming,
pleasant, w e 11-developed, good-looking.
He
became an obvious candidate for fraternity
m e m b e r s h i p . 39
Similarly,

sports of various types became for the

college student "...necessary for the fullest enjoyment of
life."*®

In all these extra curricular activities,

...the college student stated his case for the
human mind, the human personality, and the human
body, for all aspects -of man that the colleges
tended to ignore in their single-minded interest
in the salvation of souls.
In the institutions
of the extracurriculum college students e v e r y ­
where suggested that they preferred the perhaps
equally challenging task of saving minds, saving
personalities, saving bodies. 1

38I b i d . , pp.

136-150.

39I b i d . , p. 150.
40I b i d ., p. 154.
41I b i d . , p. 155.

19
The search for truth t h r o u g h science was spearheaded
by the spirit of research that exemplified Johns Hopkins
University.
view,

"This open embrace of the scientific point of

this almost w i d e-eyed admiration for the unfolding of

layer after layer of the unknown and for the application of
42
the known to the benefit of man..."
President Daniel Coit
Gilman of Johns Hopkins was an open advocate of the new
spirit
The new u n i v e r s i t y ... found its purpose in knowledge,
in the world of the intellect.
And it made no apol­
ogies for its touchstone was truth.
'No truth
which has once been discovered is allowed to
perish,' ...but the incrustations w h ich cover it
are removed.
It is the universities w h ich edit,
interpret, translate, and reiterate the acquisi­
tion of former questions both of literature and
science.
Their revelation of error is sometimes
welcom e d but it is generally opposed; nevertheless
the process goes on, indifferent alike to plaudits
or r e p r o a c h e s .*^
The university mo v e m e n t in America caught on parti44
cularly with the state universities.
Because of many fac­
tors, the state university wou l d provide the image of the
45
American university in the minds of m ost Americans.
A
"collection of disparate agencies"*® was the concept that

42 I b i d . , p. 274
43 I b i d . , pp.

272-273

44 I b i d . , pp.

225-286

p.

332

p.

333

20
Gilman expressed in 1872 at his inauguration as president
of The University of California.

"...a group of agencies

organized to advance the arts and science of every sort,
and train young men as scholars for all the intellectual
callings of lif e . " 47
To the many dimensions of university purpose d e v e l ­
oped in the

period of the "flowering"

of the university,

new purpose

was being serv e d — the education of women.

The agitation for collegiate education for
women shared the same inspiration as many of the
humanitarian movements of the first half of the
nineteenth century.
In a w o r l d where everything
and everyone was progressing, where the sacred­
ness of
the human personality and inherent rights
of the individual in society were
advanced as
fundamental truths, in such a world higher e d u c a ­
tion for women received the attention of mankind
along w i t h such causes as prison reform, education
for the blind, the care of the insane, the rights
of children, and the emancipation of s l a v e s . 4 °
Western institutions led the way in adopting coeducation,
due in part from the facts of w e s t e r n life.
...where an equality of sexes was achieved in the
ordinary work of the farm.
Western w o man was not
a thing apart, Neither pampered nor fragile,
perhaps she was not even as feminine as she might
be; but she was a person in her own right w h o had
commanded the respect of her menfolk by assuming
responsibility and working hard.^®

47Ibid .
4 8 I b i d ., p.

311.

49 I b i d . , p. 314.

a

21
The defining of the American University produced a
variety of descriptions because it failed to resemble faith­
fully any of its historical models.
observation by Lyman A b b o t t ^

Rudolph recorded an

in 1906.

The American university, . . .he saw as a place where
the emphasis was placed neither on culture [the
English model] nor scholarship [the German model]
but on service, on the preparation of young A m e r i ­
cans for active lives of service.
Progressivism,

the spirit of more progress, more

democracy,

and more awareness of the problems and promise
51
of America,
provided the service oriented concept of the
university — a political blessing from the nation through
reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert LaFollett,
and a moral blessing from service min d e d students.

52

These

students were described as "...men and w o m e n w h o best r e pre­
sented the values for which the Progressive temper stood:
honor, character,

a certain wholesomeness bordering on utter

innocence, a tendency toward activity rather than reflec53
t i o n ..."
Student government, honor societies and the honor
system were marks of the Progressive mov e m e n t on the campus.
Kerr,

speaking of the role of students in the governance of

50

As recorded in Rudolph, p. 356.
Lyman Abbott was
an important liberal clergyman and editor of O u t l o o k , an
influential religious periodical of that era.
51I b i d . , pp.

355-359.

52 I b i d . , p. 357.
5 ^ I b i d . , p. 372.

22
universities and their locus of power noted,
the

"As a part of

'Wisconsin i d e a 1 before World War I, there was quite a

wave of creation of student governments.

They found their

power in the area of extra-curricular activities, where it
has remained."

54

The "Wisconsin Idea"

55

was, however, broader than

the student expression of self-government to w h ich Kerr
referred.
label

The program of university service that bore that

introduced two distinct purposes to the university.

The first was the exercise of an expertise in the affairs
of state.
...for at Wisconsin the alliance between the u n i ­
versity and the state was so strong that officers
of the University framed and administered legis­
lation for the regulation of corporations, staffed
many of the new regulatory commissions, and d i r ec­
ted their researchers toward the solution of state
p r o b l e m s .5®
The second of these purposes was the development of n o n ­
technical lectures,

called extension courses, which were

carried to the people of the state.

57

Concomitant with discovering truth through research
came the necessity to report the findings.

54
55

Kerr, op. c i t . , p. 21.
Rudolph, op. c i t ., pp.

5 6 I b i d . , p.

362.

57I b i d . , p.

363.

362-363.

"Publication,

23
indeed, had become a guiding interest of the new academi58
cian.
Publication encouraged research and research
produced publications.
University rivalry required that each university
be certain that its professors were better than
its rivals, and one way of making that clear was
by coming in ahead in the somewhat informal annual
page count in which universities i n d ulged.59
Professional organizations provided additional p u b ­
lications as w ell as increasing the relative
the academic m a n . 60

"status" of

The concept of Academic Freedom gained

strength for the faculty as the right to "freedom of inquiry
and to freedom of teaching,

the right to study and to report

on his findings in an atmosphere
tenure,

of c o n s e n t . " 6 ^

"...the terms of professorial office,

Academic

that would

safeguard both the principles of academic freedom and the
professor at his work...,"

62

was another principle ingrained

into the American university idea.
As American universities developed from simple insti­
tutions to complex institutions, growth, organizational and
maintenance problems created the need for new means to cope
with the problems.
requirements,

Financing, administration,

admissions

and the "whole fabric of collegiate and

58I b i d . , p. 403.
59 I b i d ., pp.

403-404.

6Q I b i d . , pp.

404-416.

61 I b i d . , p.

412.

6 2 I b i d . , p. 415.

24
university a c c r e ditation..."63

were only some of the sources
64
of chaos that w ere attacked w i t h organization.
A counter revolution of s o r t s , following the First
World War, was

"...in a sense...a clear return to aristo­

cratic ideals— not for their exclusiveness, but for their
suitability as standards of being for men and women in a
modern democratic s o c i e t y . " 6 ^
undergraduates,
advising,

Counseling and guidance for

freshman week, honors programs,

faculty

the introduction of the college Dean, religious

clubs and an effort to return to the Aristotelian tradition
in teaching w ere manifestations of this movement.

In loco

parentis had suffered as a result of the university idea,
and these efforts sought to find a suitable e quivalent.66
The Harvard house system
at Yale

(1928)

and the system of colleges

(19 30) were the "...great monuments to the return

to Aristotle,

. . ."67

A consensus posture of American higher education
remains undetermined.

Experimentation toward greater rele­

vancy to current life on the one hand, and advocates for a

63 I b i d . , p. 438.
64 I b i d . , pp.

418-439.

65 I b i d ., p. 453.
6 6 I b i d . , pp.

440-461.

67 I b i d . , pp.

460-481.

25
return to the old scholastic curriculum on the other, c o n ­
tinue to "...battle between the past and present in American
higher education,

a battle between certainty and uncertainty,

between absolutism and relativism, between revealed truth
and science."

68

Two purposes, however, open to broad inter­

pretation, have been historically established.

Those were

the continued search for more knowledge and the resulting
enrichment of the human condition. 6 9

A Current Perspective
Almost all thoughtful comment about the American
college and university is either directly or indirectly a
comment on some actual or desired purpose of higher e d u c a ­
tion.

This discussion will initially focus on only a select

sample of the more notable spokesmen that have had an impact
on the mode r n A m erican university.

A perspective of p u r ­

poses relevant to the profession of student personnel
administration will also be presented.
sion of the procreant study,

Finally, a disc u s ­

from which this research was

modeled, will complete this chapter.
Kerr's appraisal of the many purposes of the modern
university was representative of the plethora of points of
view.

"The university is so many things to so m a n y different

68 I b i d ., p. 481.
6 9 I b i d . , p. 462-482.

26
people that it must, of necessity, be partially at war
with itself."70
Calvin B. T. Lee, in 1967,
goals:

to transmit;

to extend;

identified three basic

and to apply knowledge.

"Each of these mi s s i o n s — teaching,

research, and public

service— is related to a multitude of programs, inter71
mediate goals and functions, ..."
He added the role of
critic to the three basic goals.
...they must serve as the main trustees of civi li­
zation.
...If they are to help create a greater
society and a better world, they must be able to
criticize as well as comply, to shape as well as
serve. 2
Wendell expanded the teaching goal to one that p r o ­
vides for teaching and learning, by assisting students to
become self-directed learners.

73

Daniel Bell supported the university role of public
service by suggesting that the universities will become
principal shapers of the society. 74
Kenneth Keniston established and defined the c r iti­
cal function of the University.
70Kerr, o p . c i t ., p. 9.
71Calvin B. T. Lee, "Whose Goals for American Higher
Edu c a t i o n , ” in Whose Goals for American Higher Education
(Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1967), p. 1.
72I b i d ., p. 11.
73
"Teaching and Learning:
The Basic Function," I b i d .,
pp. 16-35.
74
Daniel Bell, The Reforming of General Education
(New York:
Columbia University Press, 15"6S) , pT 106.

27
There can be no doubt that criticism is an actual
function of the American university; ...By c r i t i­
c i s m , I mean above all the analysis, e x a m i n a t i o n ,
study, and evaluation of our society at large, of
its directions, practices, institutions, strengths,
weaknesses, ideals, values, and character; of its
consistencies and contradictions; of what it has
been, of what it is becoming, of what is becoming
of it; and of w hat it might at best become.
The
critical function involves examining the p u r p o s e s ,
practices, meanings, and goals of our society.75
That function is implemented by the members of the univer­
sity community, Keniston declared the university as an
organization to be neutral, objective,

"...and d i s p assion­

ate in order to preserve an atmosphere in which students
and faculty members can discuss, evaluate, criticize,
judge, commit themselves,

and, when they choose,

act."

V6

Walter Lippman stated that modern man has e m a n c i ­
pated himself from established authority into an open
society.

That arrival has revealed a void of order, and

"a feeling of being lost and adrift, without purpose and
meaning in the conduct of their lives."

77

"...the modern

void...must be filled, and...the universities m ust fill the
78
void because they alone can fill it."

75

Kenneth Keniston, "The University as Critic:
Objective or Partisan?" in Whose Goals for American Higher
E d u c a t i o n , p. 75.
7 6 I b i d ., p. 90.
77Walter Lippmann, "The University and the Human
Condition," in Whose Goals for American Higher E d u c a t i o n ,
p. 103.
78Ibid.

28
Robert Hutchins asserted that Mhigher education was
79
primarily intellectual."
An Inclination toward the c l ass­
ical curriculum was expressed:
If the members of universities are now to
do for their own day w h a t their academic ancestors
did for theirs, they will have to continue w hat
their ancestors did, and they will have to do some­
thing more.
They will have to recapture, r evital­
ize, and reformulate for our time the truths which
gave purpose and significance to the work of their
predecessors.
We are in the midst of a great
moral, intellectual, and spiritual crisis.
To
pass it successfully or to rebuild the w o rld
after it is over we shall have to get clear about
those ends and ideals which are the first p r i n c i ­
ples of human life and of organized society.
Our
people should be able to look to the universities
for the moral courage, the intellectual clarity,
and the spiritual elevation needed to guide them
and uphold them in this critical hour.
The u n i ­
versities must continue to pioneer on the new
frontiers of research.
But today research is not
enough either to hold the university together or
to give direction to bewildered humanity.
We aQ
must now seek not knowledge alone, but wisdom.
Sanford has wri tt e n that the goals or ends of
American higher education are products of the American
e t h o s , and that they change w h e n the social scene c h a n g e s .
He further explained two basic approaches to education;
Education that tries to inculcate skills
and knowledge, even for a social or cultural p u r ­
pose, m a y be distinguished from education that
has as its aim the fullest possible development
of the individual.
79

York:

Robert M. Hutchins,
Education for F r e e d o m
Grove Press, 1963), pp. 19-3 8.
80I b i d ., pp. 100-101
81
Sanford, College and C h a r a c t e r , p. 14.

(New

29
The latter kind of education does not ask
what the individual should k now or do, but what
qualities he should a c h i e v e . It makes assumptions
about what the individual is, with open-ended
visions of what he can become, and it measures
educational progress in terms of personality change—
from prejudice to broadmindedness, say, or from
indiscipline to discipline in t h i n k i n g . 82
Dressel outlined seven competencies to be attained
by students as the goals of higher education:

83

1.

The recipient of the baccalaureate degree should
be qualified for some type of work.
He should
be aware of w h a t it is and he should have con­
fidence in his ability to perform adequately.

2.

The students should know how to acquire knowledge
and h o w to use it.

3.

The students should have a high level of mastery
of the skills of communication.

4.

The student should be aware of his own values
and value commitments and he should be aware
that other individuals and cultures hold con­
trasting values which must be understood and,
to some extent, accepted in interaction with
them.

5.

The graduate should be able to cooperate and
collaborate with others in study, analysis, and
formulation of solutions to problems, and in
action on them.

6.

The college graduate should have an awareness,
concern, and sense of responsibility for con­
temporary events, issues, and problems.

7.

The college graduate should see his total college
experience as coherent, cumulative, and unified
by the development of broad competencies and by
the realization that these competencies are rele­
vant to his further development as an individual
and to the fulfillment of his obligations as a
responsible citizen in a democratic society.

82I b i d . , pp. 14-15.
83
Dressel, o p . c i t ., pp.

209-212.

30
And r e w Mclieish has wri t t e n of the need to restore
man as the focus

for education.

There is no quarrel between the humanities
and the sciences.
There is only a need, common to
them both, to put the idea of man back where it
once stood, at the focus of our lives; to make the
end of education the preparation of men to be men,
and so to restore to m a n k i n d — and above all to this
nation of m a n k i n d — a conception of humanity with
which humanity can l i ve.84
Chickering,

in response to an appeal for more r e a l ­

istic research made by Kate Hevner Mueller,

Professor of

Higher Education and Editor of the Journal of the National
Association of Women Deans and C o u n s e l o r s , cited the concern
of several authorities for the university as a place for
education of the individual.
...it is probably fair to say that these persons,
who have thought hard and long about American
higher education, w h o v i e w college as a place for
education, not training, who think that students'
concerns about love and marriage, careers, and
coping with society should meet with some response,
have shared your experiences. .
Perkins suggested that the internal role of the u ni­
versity "...is to provide a framework and an environment
where ideas can be put to use...where creative work can be
conceived, tested, explained, reformulated and tested again,
86
and then sent out into the world."
84

Andrew
Saturday R e v i e w ,
85
Arthur
(San Francisco:
)

88

McLeish, "The Great American Frustration,"
July 13, 1968.
W. Chickering, Education and Identity
Jossey-Bass, I n c 1 $ 6 ^ ) , p. 335.

Perkins, op. c i t . , p. 55.

31
Perkins states that "the university's function is
to serve the private processes of faculty and students, on
the one hand,

and the large public interests of society on

the o t h er. " ® 7
Perkins

(from a broad societal point of v i e w ) :

It (the University) is the most sophisticated
agency we have for advancing knowledge through
scholarship and research.
It is crucial in the
transmittal of knowledge from one generation to
the next.
And it is increasingly vital in the
application of knowledge to the problems of modern
society.
In a discussion of

"elite" versus

"mass" education,

Gardner denies the forced choice of a society to educate a
few people well or a great number of people somewhat less
w e l l . 89
A modern society such as ours cannot choose to do
one or the other.
It has no choice but to do both.
Our JcTnd of society calls for the maximum d e v e l o p ­
ment of individual potentialities at all l e v e l s .
Mayhew clearly places institutions of higher educa­
tion in a role of responsiveness to societal d e m a n d s .
Higher education,
performs services
requires, and its
mined by how well

like other social institutions,
which the supporting society
success and viability are d e t e r ­
it performs and by how responsive

87 I b i d .
88I b i d ., p. 3.
89
John W. Gardner, "Quality in Higher Education,"
printed in Louis B. Mayhew, Higher Education in the Revolutionary Decades (Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing £ o r p . ,
1967), pp. 1*7-148.
9 0 I b i d . , p.

148.

32
it is to changing social d e m a n d s . . .When an insti­
tution is unresponsive to the fundamental demands
and needs of its society, it looses its vitality
and becomes i r r e l e v a n t .91
An American Council on Education report identified
post secondary school education as a source of vocational
development.

"Advanced formal education is the principal

social mec h a n i s m for developing skilled manpower in most
countries of the world."

92

Sanford placed the development of the individual
student at the center of education's effort.
In arguing for individual development as
the primary aim of education, I consider that I am
largely restating in contemporary terms the p h i l o s o ­
phy of humanistic education that has persisted in
Western civilization ever since the Greeks conceived
the idea of p a i d e r i a . It is the philosophy that
inspired the British university colleges, was
embraced by our Founding Fathers, and eloquently
restated by President Truman's Commission on
Education.
It is still boldly stated in college
catalogues and commencement addresses, even though
it tends to be ignored in practice as students are
increasingly abandoned in favor of specialized
scholarship and often trivial research.
I argue
that there is a critical need for a reaffirmation
of this philosophy, for it is only through individual
development that a person can maintain his humanity
and become truly useful in our t e c h n o l o g i c a l , postcapitalistic society. 3

91

Louis B. Mayhew, "American Higher Education and
Social Change," printed in Louis B > M a y h e w , Higher Education
in the Revolutionary D e c a d e s , p. 3.
92
Alexander W. Astin and Robert J. Panos, The
Educational and Vocational Development of College Students
(Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1&69) ,
p. 1.
93
Sanford, Where Colleges F a i l , p. xv.

33
Katz,

from his study of Berkeley and Stanford fresh­

men, similarly focused on the individual's growth.
Concern for the student's personality d e v e l ­
opment has pervaded this whole study, and for good
reason.
We do not think that the furtherance of p e r ­
sonal growth would be a 'nice* addition to present
programs— we think it is an essential one.
We also
believe that no true intellectual development is p o s ­
sible when the intellect is treated not as a human co m ­
ponent, but as an isolated depository for k n o w l e d g e . 9 ^
The Committee on the Student in Higher Education,
appointed by the Hazen Foundation in 1966

(Joseph F. K a uff­

man, C h a i r m a n ) , called for collegiate environments that
would allow for the human spirit to develop its potential.
The quality of relationships in higher e d u ­
cation therefore must be improved not simply because
it will enable students to spend happy and more ful­
filling years in college or because many of the
present conditions in higher education are intoler­
able, but primarily because unless trends toward
giantism and dehumanization are reversed, the
college will not be able to educate even the t ech­
nician.
The argument for developmental education
is, in the last analysis, that even technicians
cannot be trained unless it is recognized that
they are something more than functionaries— that
they are also human beings, and as such they can
perform effectively only w h e n their basic e m o ­
tional needs are fulfilled.
Everyone wants a face,
not a m a s k . 9 5
Freedman opted for social action by institutions and
students.

94

"Instead of bowing facilely to the transient

Joseph Katz, No Time For Youth (San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 19687"^ p p . 339-340.
95
The Committee on the Student in Higher Education,
The Student in Higher Education
(New Haven:
The Hazen
F o u n d a t i o n , 1968), p. 58.

34
needs of American s o c i e t y , the leading colleges m ust exert
pressures on that society in the d i r ection of greater individual and social f r e e d o m . ”

96

The Federal Courts have produced a set of legal
purposes for institutions of higher education.

The U.S.

District Court for the Western District of Missouri En Banc
97
summarized the following lawful missions of education:
1.

To maintain, support, critically examine, and
to improve the existing social and political
system;

2.

To train students and faculty for leadership
and superior service in public service, science,
agriculture, commerce and industry;

3.

To develop students to w e ll-rounded maturity,
physically, socially, emotionally, spiritually,
intellectually and vocationally;

4.

To develop,
values;

5.

To provide fullest possible realization of d e m o c ­
racy of every phase of living;

6.

To teach principles of patriotism,
gation and respect for the law;

7.

To teach the practice of excellence in thought,
behavior and performance;

8.

To develop, cultivate, and stimulate the use of
imagination;

96
Francisco:
97

refine and teach ethical and cultural

civil o b l i ­

Mervin B. Freedman, The College Experience
Jossey-Bass, I n c ., 1967) , p. 17.

(San

U.S. Higher Court of W e s t e r n Missouri, "Lawful
Missions of Tax Supported Higher E d u c a t i o n ” The Journal
of College Student Personnel, Vol. 10, No.
2 (March 1969) ,

pp. 1IT-'157.

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

35
9.

To stimulate reasoning and critical faculties
of students and to encourage their use in
improvement of the existing political and social
order;

10.

To develop and teach lawful methods of change
and improvement in the existing political and
social order;

11.

To provide by study and research for increase
of k n o w l e d g e ;

12.

To provide by study and research for development
and improvement of technology, production and
distribution for increased national production
of goods and services desirable for national
civilian c o n s u m p t i o n , for export, for e x p l o r a­
tion, and for national military purpose;

13.

To teach methods of experiment in meeting the
problems of changing environment;

14.

To promote directly and explicitly international
understanding and cooperation;

15.

To provide the knowledge, personnel, and policy
for planning and managing the destiny of our
society w ith a m a x i m u m of individual freedom;
and

16.

To transfer the w e a l t h of knowledge and tradi­
tion from one generation to another.

The tax supported educational institution
is an agency of the national and state governments.
Its missions include, by teaching, research and
action, assisting in the declared purposes of g o v e r n ­
ment in this nation, namely:
To form a more perfect union.
To establish justice.
To insure domestic tranquility,
To provide for the common defense,
To promote the general welfare,

and

To secure the blessing of liberty
and to posterity.

to ourselves

36
Riesman and Jenks related an attempt to explain the
organization of American higher education to a group of
Russian youth leaders and student editors w h o had difficulty
in believing "that anything could be so planless and lack­
ing in central direction, if not from the ministry then
98
from some hidden elite."
They insisted nevertheless that
there indeed is no plan.

"...there are only osmotic pre s ­

sures that bear unevenly throughout the landscape, and
models that are initiated at different levels of excellence
99
and ambition."
The diffusion of purposes represented only in a
part by the above comments demonstrated that indictment.
Similarly,

in the area of student personnel a d m i n i s ­

tration, there is no clear picture of goals.

F rom the p r o ­

fessional writing of people concerned w i t h Student Personnel
Administration,

there has been relatively much less about

goals than about methodology.
is, however,

Some of the prominent comment

of significance in such a discussion.

Mueller has suggested four basic goals for higher
education:
culture

preserving,

transmitting and enriching the

(a concern with k n o w l e d g e ) ; developing all aspects

of the personality

98

(physical, social,

spiritual and

David Riesman and Christopher S. Jenks, "The
Viability of the American College" found in Sanford, College
and Character, p. 64.

37
e m o t i o n a l ) ; developing civic awareness
national understanding,

(democracy, i nter­

solution of social problems);

and

training leaders in the various aspects of a democratic
society.100

Mueller established a basic foundation of

"student needs" as a beginning point for college personnel
w o r k . 101

She identified four:

(1) the need to know;

(2) the need for self realization;
and

(4) the need for integration.

(3) the need to adjust;

102

Mueller suggested

that personnel work was a "special aspect of teaching,"
that encompassed "...the assuming of responsibility for the
student's full use of that knowledge for himself and for
s o c i e t y . ”101
Joseph Shoben outlined college personnel functions
as directed toward:
a.

helping students to gain greater personal
maturity through reflected-upon experience;

b.

increasing their interpersonal effectiveness;

c.

deepening their sensitivity to human needs
including their own;

d.

clarifying their long-range objectives in
both vocational and more personal terms;

Kate Hevner Mueller, Student Personnel Work in
Higher Education (Cambridge:
Riverside Press, 1961),
pp. 3-16.
101I b i d . , pp.

101-102.

102Ibid.
103I b i d . , p. 49.

38
e.

assisting in their interpretation of education
both in their active student careers and in their
lives after g r a d u a t i o n .
Wrenn and Darley defined student personnel work in

1947 as "actually a collective term for a number of special­
ized vocations having a common goal in the extra-classroom
105
adjustment of the students."
Harold Grant defined the student personnel functions
as the "...formal and deliberate attempt to facilitate
becoming process, help

(the)

(a person to) come out of h i m s e l f . " ^ ®

Grant suggested the use of knowledge from all the social
sciences in the facilitating processes.
Mueller,

Shoben and Grant represented a continuum

of student personnel purpose,

ranging from the structured

set of goals set by society as well as the individual,

to

very flexible process goals that focus on the individual's
development.
A widely endorsed statement of the goals of higher
education by student personnel professional agencies came

10 4
Edward J. Shoben, Jr., "A Rationale for Modern
Student Personnel Work," P e r s o n n e l - O - G r a m , 12:9-12 (March,
1950) .
105
C. Gilbert Wrenn and J. G. Darley, "An Appraisal
of the Professional Status of Personnel Work," Parts I and
II, in Trends in Student Personnel W o r k , ed. by E. G.
Williamson, (Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota
Press, 1949), p. 279.
^ ^ H a r o l d Grant, "Student Development" (Undated
transcribed tape lecture, Michigan State U n i v e r s i t y ) ,
p. 3.

39
from the Council of Student Personnel Associations

(COSPA)

in 1962.
Historically the basic purposes of higher
education have been recognized as the exploration,
accumulation, and transmission of knowledge with
scholarship and the production of scholars in all
fields b e ing recognized as hallmarks.
Yet higher
education in today's society has become a complex
and mu l t i - f a c e t e d institution w h ich serves society
in many ways.
Thus one of the desired outcomes of
a prog r a m of higher education is a student w h o is
well p r epared in an academic discipline, broadly
prepared in the sciences, arts, humanities, and
social studies and who:
is b e g inning to achieve a sense of identity
w i t h i n the larger society,
assumes responsibility for mak i n g his full­
est contribution to society,
has a quality of openness which allows
for change, creativity, difference and
yet is committed to a set of values,
has begun to develop attitudes and m e c h a n ­
isms which will enable him to cope with
reality as he experiences it,
is aware of and utilizes the resources
and opportunities available to him for
his continuous development,
has begun to find his place in the e c o ­
nomic world and has the fundamental
knowledge and skills necessary for his
vocational development,
seeks to deepen his sensitivity for a full
appreciation of the arts and s c i e n c e s ,
recognizes and respects the concepts of
freedom and opportunity for all people
in the community, the nation, and the
world.I®'
107

Council of Student Personnel Associations,
"The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers
in Institutions of Higher Learning" (Washington, D. C . :
COSPA, 1962), p. 1.

40
Wi l l i a m s o n noted that, there are differences between
philosophies of education as held by student personnel
administrators and the faculty,
sis,

importance,

"with respect to the empha­

and status given to intellectual

development.
While we do not concur with those w h o currently
advocate a return to the classical curriculum,
yet today we do hold to an educational point of
view that enthrones reason as the center of e d u ­
cation — but reasonfully integrated with a social
ethic and healthy p e r s o n a l i t y .

The Procreant Study
The research upon w h i c h this study is based is
reported in an American Council of Education publication
entitled. University Goals and Academic P o w e r , Edward
Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, ACE,

1968.

That publication,

in turn, was derived in large part from a relatively obscure
report of research submitted to the Office of Education,
Department of Health,

Education, and Welfare,

in 1 9 6 7 . ^ ®

X0 8

E. G. Williamson, Student Personnel Services in
Colleges and Universities (New York:
McG r a w Hill, 1961),
pp. 426-427.
109I b i d . , p.

427.

^*®U. S., Office of Education, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Bureau of Research, Academic A d m i n ­
istrators and University Goals (Final Report^ Project
Bureau No. 5678 [formerly project 2633], Contract No.
SAE OE 5-10-099 [Washington:
Government Printing Office,
J u n e , 1967]).

41
Gross and Gr a m b s c h developed a list: of 47 goals for
the university.

That list resulted from a rationale about

goals and the organizational characteristics of American
universities.

A brief di s c u s s i o n of that r a t i o n a l e ^ ^

is

helpful to the understanding of the distinctions made between
types of goals in the university.
Gross and Grambsch explained that the identification
of goals and the process of goal attainment is a central
concept in the study of organizations.

Goal attainment is

the primary purpose of associational relationships
zations) .

(organi­

For the purpose of clarity, an "associational

relationship" can be contrasted w i t h a "communal relationship."

112

In the latter, persons come together for reasons

intrinsic to the relationship itself.
Goals can be classified as:
a.

p e r s o n a l — a future state that an individual seeks
for himself;

b.

personal goals for the o r g a n i z a t i o n — the individual's
own particular perception of the organization's
missions;

c.

organizational g o a l s — the group consensus goals

(in

so far as consensus can be a t t a i n e d ) .

111Gross and Grambsch, op. c i t ., pp.
112

1-9.

For a distinction between communal and a ssocia­
tional relationships, see Robert Maclver, Community:
A
Sociological Study (New York:
MacMillan, 193^).

42
Organizational goals of a large organization are influenced
by man y persons.
least in part)

Those individuals m u s t subjugate

(at

their personal goals and their personal goals

for the organization that are d i s sonant to the group goals
of the organization.

The incompleteness of that process of

subjugation, however,

insures the continued existence of

variant perceptions of the organizational goals by its
members.
Goals are clearly more than the identifying of some
kinds of output into a larger society.

If this were not so,

all organizations would be mere sub-systems to some m o n o ­
lithic social system, and w o u l d have no freedom at all to
set their own goals

(being constrained by w hat the rest of

the "super-system" needed or could be persuaded to a c c e p t ) .
Such is not the case,

as there is rational decision-making

in choosing organizational goals.

Further,

since organiza­

tions characteristically have a variety of outputs, both
intended and unintended, m any of w h ich cannot be d i f f e r ­
entiated from functions or c o n s e q u e n c e s , it is hard to
single out certain kinds of outputs as the ones that r e pre­
sent the goals of the organization.
Organizations enjoy special advantages of precision,
division of labor,
or processes.

and predictability through explicit rules

Because of their importance to the goal

attainment of the organization,

those explicit rules or

processes that are designed to facilitate output become

43
themselves legitimate organizational g o a l s .

This Is p a r t i c u ­

larly so for those individuals w h o are assigned responsibil­
ity for carrying out the rules and p r o c e s s e s .
It is also a characteristic of organizations that,
in the seeking of goal attainment by the organization,

the

group effo r t is typically divided by differences of opinion.
Stoppages result from differences over approaches or tech­
niques to be employed,
conflicts.

emotional clashes, and personality

When such cleavages occur,

the g r oup must stop

its goal-directed activity and attempt to repair the social
deunage that has occurred.

This becomes a k ind of group

maintenance g o a l .
An organization then clearly m u s t do more than
directly pursue its goals in order to attain its goals.
Parsons^^

identified a set of conditions necessary to

system survival as containing:

adaption,

integration,

p a t t e r n - m a i n t e n a n c e , and t e n s i o n - m a n a g e m e n t , as well as
attainment.

A good part of the total effort of an organiza­

tion "...must be spent on activities that do not contribute
directly to goal attainment but rather are concerned with
114
maintaining the organization itself."
As such activities
are to be carried out well and effectively,

the persons

^■^Talcott Parsons et a l . , Theories of Society
(New York:
Free Press of G l e n c o e , 1961), pp. 38-41.
114
Gross and Grambsch, op. c i t ., p. 8.

44
concerned w i t h them tend to "professionalize" those tasks,
i.e., make ends of those means.
end,

When a means becomes an

it has become a goal of the organization.
As a large, complex organization,

university has a large number of goals.
the obvious output goals of teaching,
ity service,

the American
In addition to

research, and commun­

it is believed that any analysis of the uni­

versity's goals requires that many activities normally
thought of as m aintenance or support activities be regarded
as goals.
. . .since they [goals] are essential to the healthy
functioning of the organization; since they clearly
involve an intention or aim o f .the organization as
a whole; and since many participants perceive them
as worthy, give a great deal of attention to them
and deliberately engage in activities that will
move the organization toward t h e m . H 5
The presence of a goal is determined by intentions
and a c t i v i t i e s .

Intentions refer to w hat participants see

the organizational goals to b e — w h a t directions they feel
it is taking.

Activities refer to w h a t persons are observed

to be doing; how they are spending their time and how they
are allocating the organization's resources.
factors can be distinguished from outputs,

Both of these

as evidence

about outputs refer to the organization's success in goal
attainment, not to specific goal activity as such.

1 1 5 Ibird . , pp.

9-10.

45
Gross and Grambsch used the model of social systems
in describing university goals by first using terms of
categories that are functionally imperative to organizations.
Thus, output and support were the two major headings of
goals; Output g o a l s — subdivided into S t u d e n t - e x p e r i e n c e ,
Student Instrumental,

Research, and Direct Service goals;

and Support g o a l s — subdivided into Adaptation, Management,
Motivation,

and Position goals.

The 47 goals, each under its respective, brieflydescribed subdivision, were enumerated by the authors
Output Goals
Output goals are those goals of the university
which immediately or in the future,
product,

service,

are reflected in some

skill, or orientation which will affect

(and is intended to affect)

society.

Student Expressive

goals involve the attempt to change the student's identity
or character in some fundamental way.
1.

Produce a student who, wha t e v e r else may be done
to him, has had his intellect cultivated to the
maximum.

2.

Produce a well-rounded student,

that is, one whose

physical, social, moral, intellectual,

and esthetic

potentialities have all been cultivated.

1 1 6 I b i d . , p. 12
117I b i d . , pp.

13-16.

46
3.

Make sure the student is permanently affected
m i n d and spirit)

(in

by g r e a t ideas of the great minds

of history.
4.

Assist students to develop objectivity about them-*
selves and their beliefs and, hence, examine those
beliefs critically.

5.

Develop the inner character of students so that
they can make sound, correct moral choices.

Student-Instrumental goals involve the student's being
equipped to d o something specific for the society w h i c h he
will be entering or to operate in a specific w a y in that
society.
6.

Prepare students specifically for useful careers.

7.

Provide the student with skills, attitudes, contacts,
and experiences w h i c h maximize the likelihood of
his occupying a high status in life and a position
of leadership in society.

8.

Train students in methods of scholarship and/or
scientific research and/or creative endeavor.

9.

Make a good consumer of the stu d e n t — a person w ho
is elevated culturally, has good taste, and can
make g ood consumer choices.

10.

Produce a student w h o is able to per f o r m his
citizenship responsibilities effectively.

Research goals involve the production of new knowledge or
the solution of problems.

47
11.

Carry on pure research.

12.

Carry on applied research.

Direct Service goals involve the direct and continuing
provision of services to the population outside the u n i ­
versity
staff).

(that is, not faculty,

full-time students, or

These services are provided because the university,

as an organization,

is better equipped than any other

organization to provide them.
13.

Provide special training for part-time adult
students,

through extension courses,

short courses,
14.

special

correspondence courses, etc.

Assist citizens directly through extension p r o g r a m s ,
advice, consultation, and the provision of useful
or needed facilities and services other than
teaching.

15.

Provide cultural leadership for the community
through u n i v e r s i t y-sponsored programs in the arts,
public lectures by d i s t inguished persons,
events, and other performances,

athletic

displays, or c e l e ­

brations w h ich present the best of culture, popular
or n o t .
16.

Serve as a center for the dissemination of new ideas
that w i l l change the society, whe t h e r those ideas
are in science,

17.

literature,

the arts, or politics.

Serve as a center for the p r eservation of the c ul­
tural heritage.

48
Support Goals
Adaptation goals reflect the need for the university as an
organization to come to terms w i t h the environment in which
it is located:

to attract students and staff, to finance

the enterprise,

to secure needed resources, and to validate

the activities of the university w i t h those persons or
agencies in a position to affect them.
18.

Ensure the continued confidence and hence support
of those w h o contribute substantially
students and recipients of services)

(other than
to the finances

and other material resource needs of the university.
19.

Ensure the favorable appraisal of those w h o validate
the quality of the programs we offer

(validating

groups include accrediting bodies, professional
societies,

scholarly peers at other universities,

and respected persons in intellectual or artistic
circles) .
20.

Educate to his utmost capacities every high school
graduate w h o meets basic legal requirements for
admission.

21.

A ccommodate only students of high potential in terms
of the specific strengths and emphases of this
university.

22.

Orient ourselves to the satisfaction of the special
needs and problems of the immediate geographical
region.

49
23.

Keep costs down as low as possible, through more
efficient u tilization of time and space, reduction
of course duplication,

24.

etc.

Hold our staff in the face of inducements offered
by other universities.

Management goals involve decisions on w h o should run the
university,

the need to handle conflict,

and the e s t a b l i s h ­

ment of priorities as to whi c h output goal should be given
m a x i m u m attention.
25.

Make sure that salaries, teaching assignments,
prerequisites,

and privileges always reflect the

contribution that the person involved is making to
his own profession or discipline.
26.

Involve faculty in the government of the university.

27.

Involve students in the government of the university.

28.

Make sure the university is run democratically
insofar as that is feasible.

29.

Keep harmony between departments or divisions of
the university w hen such departments or divisions
do not see eye to eye on important m a t t e r s .

30.

Make sure that salaries,
requisites,

teaching assignments, p r e ­

and privileges always reflect the c o n ­

tribution that the person involved is maki n g to the
functioning of this university.
31.

Emphasize undergraduate instruction even at the
expense of the graduate program.

50
32.

Encourage students to go into graduate work.

33.

Make sure the university is run by those selected
according to their ability to attain the goals of
the university

34.

Make sure that
curriculum)

in the m o s t efficient manner possible.
on all important issues

(not only

the will of the full-time faculty shall

prevail.
Motivation goals seek to ensure a high level of satisfaction
on the part of staff and students and emphasize loyalty to
the university as a whole.
35.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.

36.

Make this a place in w h i c h faculty have maximum
opportunity to pursue their careers in a manner
satisfactory to them by their own criteria.

37.

Provide a full

38.

Protect and facilitate the students'
inquire into,

round of student activities.
rights

to

investigate, and examine critically

any idea or pro g r a m they might get interested
in.
39.

Protect and facilitate the students'
advocate direct action of a

right to

political or social

kind and any attempts on their part to organize
efforts to attain political
40.

Develop loyalty on the part
staff to the university,

or social goals.
of the faculty and

rather than only to their

own jobs or professional concerns.

51
41.

Develop greater pride on the part of faculty,
staff, and students in their university and the
things it stands for.

Position goals help to ma i n t a i n the position of the u n i v e r ­
sity in terms of the kind of place it is compared with
other universities and in the face of trends which could
change its position.
42.

Maintain top quality in all programs we engage
in.

43.

Maintain top quality in those programs we feel to
be especially important

(other programs being,

of course, up to acceptable s t a n d a r d s ) .
44.

Maintain a ba l a n c e d level of quality across the
whole range of programs W e engage in.

45.

Keep up to date and responsive.

46.

Increase the prestige of the university, or, if
you believe it is already extremely high, ensure
the m aintenance of that prestige.

47.

Keep this place from becoming something different
from w h a t it is now;

that is, preserve its peculiar

emphases and point of view, its

"character."

Objectives of the Procreant Study
Gross and Grambsch gathered observations and atti­
tudes from a nation-wide survey of academicians about the
goals of the American university.

Specifically,

they

attempted to provide information that could help universities

52
to identify current goals,

to distinguish between output

and support goals, to recognize dissonance between stated
goals and actual practices, to recognize dissonance between
real or presumed goals and the goals actually preferred by
members of the organization,
formulated,

to determine how goals are

and to identify w h o formulated the goals of the

institution.
Sample and Methodology
Gross and Grambsch employed a mailed surveyquestionnaire listing 47 separate goals for universities.
The population of the study sample is described in Chapter
III.
Each respondent was asked to rate the importance of
each of the 47 goals:
practice;

and

(1) as he perceived it to be in

(2) as he w o u l d prefer that it be.

An ordinal

scale was employed providing five verbal degrees of import­
ance including:
"of absolutely top importance"
"of great importance"
"of m e d i u m importance"
"of little importance"
"of no importance"

(lowest)

One neutral entry was p r o v i d e d :
" d o n 't know or c a n 't s a y ."

(highest)

53
Goal measures were calculated in a variety of ways
according to the relative importance given to each goal.
The total of all samples reported on in the Gross and
Grambsch study is incorporated into this research as
lift

population five as described in Chapter III, p. 56. AO

118

A substantial reporting of the findings of the
Gross and Grambsch research w ill be accomplished in Chapter
IV through comparisons with data gathered in this study.
For the interested reader, in addition to the original
report, E. G. Willia m s o n has reviewed the book in The
Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l , Vol. 48, No. 2 (October,
1969), pp. 159-160.
Extensive reference to their findings
also appears in Warren Byran Martin, Conformity (San
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969), pp. 223-226.

C H A P TE R III
DESIGN A N D METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The maj o r objective of this research study was to
analyze perceptions of the degree of importance given and
preferences of the degree of importance that should be
given to each of forty-seven university goals by graduate
students,

faculty and administrators engaged in the study,

teaching and/or practice of student personnel administra­
tion at Mic h i g a n State University.

Responses from these

populations also were compared with responses from an
earlier study^ that surveyed faculty and administrators
from sixty-eight universities about the same goals.
chapter is concerned w i t h the sample,

This

the instrumentation

used in the study, the meth o d used for collecting and
handling the data,

and the procedures used for analyzing

the d a t a .

Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch, University
Goals and Academic Power (Washington, D . C . : American
Counail on Education, T5"68) .
54

55
The Sample

1.

Five populations have been included in this study:
2
All doctoral degree candidates currently enrolled
at Michigan State University in the department of
Administration and Higher Education with a major
in Student Personnel Administration.

2.

All Master of Arts degree candidates currently
3
enrolled
at M ichigan State University in the
department of Administration and Higher Education
who have declared a major in Student Personnel
Administration.

3.

Professional administrators occupying positions in
the Dean of Students Office of Student Affairs at
Michigan State University.

This group of personnel

included the Dean, Associate Deans, Area Directors,
Assistant Directors,

and Residence Hall Head

Resident Advisors w h o were not in populations 1 or
2 above.

2

Lists of candidates for the Master of Arts degree
and the doctoral degree were obtained from faculty advisors
of students majoring in Student Personnel Administration.
Students not enr o l l e d d u r i n g the Winter Quarter, 1970, were
not surveyed.
Students w h o listed only an out-of-town
address were similarly omitted.
(That number totaled less
than 10.)
It should be noted that no official omnibus list
of candidates was available and the resulting patchwork
roster may have unintentionally omitted some candidates.
3Ibid.

56
4.

Faculty at M ichigan State University who:

(a)

teach courses normally prescribed in the student
personnel curriculum,

or

(b) advise students in

the student personnel curriculum for either the
M a s t e r of Arts or the doctoral d e g r e e s .
5.

The 1967 study

4

data from populations of faculty

and administrators of 68 American universities.
Population overlap in populations 1, 2, 3, and 4 was
resolved according to the following r u l e s :
a.

Population 4 (Faculty) was identified to include
all eligible respondents due to the small potential
number.

(Two of the six potential respondents also

held administrative positions.)
b.

Population 3 (Administrators) was identified to
include all persons having the rank of Dean,
Associate Dean, Area Director, and Assistant
Director.

(Twelve of thirty-nine potential r e s ­

pondents were enr o l l e d in a doctoral degree program.
Two were enrolled in a Master of Arts degree p r o g r a m ) •
c.

Populations 2 (Master of Arts degree candidates)
and 1 (Doctoral degree candidates) were identified
to include all persons in those categories as origin­
ally defined except those excluded by rules
(b) above.
4

Gross and Grambsch, op.

c i t . , pp.

21-23.

(a) and

57
The assignment of potential respondents from p o p u l a ­
tions 1, 2, 3, and 4 to one of two possible categories was
done with an effort toward seeking a primacy of interest
category.

Age, experience,

and level of responsibility

were untested correlations to the subjective judgment
about the primacy of interest criterion.

Statistical

handling theory allows for populations reduced by d e f i n i ­
tion, or via the pre-survey assignment of a "unique
identification.
A 100 percent survey of populations 1, 2, 3, and
4 was m a d e .
Population 5 (the 1967 study data) was represented
in this study only in the form of the total responses of
all 68 participating institutions.

Gross and Grambsch

described their sample and response rate as shown:
Sixty-eight universities--both public and nondenominational p r i v a t e — constituted the basic
sample for the study.
Questionnaires were sent
to presidents, vice-presidents, academic deans,
non-academic deans, department heads, and persons
classified as directors; to members of governing
boards; and to a 10 percent sample of faculty
members at each institution.

5

Leslie Kish, Survey Sampling (New York:
Wiley and Sons, 1965) , pp. 55, 58, 3’8 9 .
**Gross and Grambsch, op. c l t . , p.

108.

John

58
The respondent rate

(usable questionnaires)

was as

follows:
Administrators

Faculty

Total

Respondents

4 ,494

2,730

7,224

Non-Respondents

4,334

4 ,026

8,360

Total

8,828

6,756

15,584

50.9

40. 4

46 .4

Percentage Responses

....Response rates for the various administrative
categories were as follows:
presidents, 42 percent,
academic vice-presidents, 56 percent; non-academic
vice-presidents, 42 percent; academic deans, 53
_
percent; directors, 50 percent; chairmen, 51 percent.

Ins trumentation
A portion of the questionnaire developed for the
O

original Gross and Grambsch study.

University Goals and

Academic P o w e r , was extracted unaltered and used in this
research.

Q

In the form of an itemized rating s c a l e ,

the

questionnaire was employed to survey responses to the q u e s ­
tion of the relative importance of 47 separate university
goals.

Each respondent was asked to rate the importance

of each of the 47 goals:

7 I b i d . , pp.

(1) as he perceived it to be in

21-22.

8I b i d .
9
Claire Selltiz et a l ., Research Methods in Social
R e l a t i o n s , rev. ed. in 1 v o l . (New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t ,
ancl—W i n s t o n , 1967), pp. 347-349.

59
practice;

and

(2) as he w o uld prefer that it be.

A verbal

scale was employed including five degrees of importance
and one neutral entry.

Listed below is an example of one

of the 47 goal items on the questionnaire:

ALL QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT THIS UNIVERSITY, that is, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WHERE YOU
ARE CURRENTLY EMPLOYED OR ENROLLED
as a GRADUATE STUDENT.
GOALS
of
absolutely
of
of
of
don't know
top
great
medium
little
of no
or
importance importance importance importance importance can't say

»

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

hold our staff
in the face of
inducements
offered by
other
universities

should

61
The cover sheet and first page of the questionnaire
contained directions for completing it.
Demographic data mat c h i n g that secured for the
procreant study was also obtained to provide for possible
future exploitation of the data.

The complete qu e s t ion­

naire employed appears in Appendix A.

Collection of Data
For populations 1, 2, 3, and 4 described above,
the questionnaire was self-administered,

and was sent by

mail or personally delivered to individuals surveyed.
Respondents returned the questionnaires by mail.
A 100 percent survey of populations 1, 2, 3, and
4 was made.

Follow-up was made by telephone contact with

non-respondents.

The final response rate was as follows:

Doctoral Degree
Candidates

Master of Arts
Degree
Candidates

Administrators

27

42

30

6

105

9

27

9

0

45

Total

36

69

39

6

150

Percentage Response

75%

61%

77%

Respondents
Non-Respondents

Faculty

100%

Total

70%
OH
to

63
The 1967 study sample

(population 5 above)

in this study was taken from Table 1,

data employed

"Goals of American

U n i v e r s i t i e s ," appearing in University Goals and Academic
10
Power.

Handling of Data
Questionnaire data was coded for computer handling.
A 10 percent random quality check was performed on trans­
ference of data from questionnaires to code sheets.

Code

sheet data was card punched and verified.

Statistical Treatment
The statistical treatment of data in this study
replicated to some degree the measurements utilized by
Gross and Grambsch.

One obvious difference from that

study was that the measures were for goals across the
sample student personnel groups and w i t h i n the sample
student personnel groups instead of across and within
universities.

A more detailed description of the measure

employed f o l l o w s :
Goal Measure 1 (GM 1)
This measure was calculated by assigning w e ighted
values to the five verbal levels of importance.

For

"absolutely top importance" a value of 5 was assigned.
10Gross and Grambsch,

op.

c i t . , pp.

28-29.

For

64
"great imp o r t a n c e , ” a value of 4 was assigned.
importance," a value of 3 was assigned.
ance," a value of 2 was assigned.
value of 1 was assigned.

For "medium

For "little import­

For "no importance," a

All responses from a group for a

particular "perceived" goal were then calculated from the
weighted values of each response.

A we i g h t e d mean score

resulted for that goal in that group.
means

All such weighted

(one from each sample group— total 5) were then

ranked from the highest score to the lowest.

GM 1, t here­

fore, measured a single goal from a sample group in relation
to the other groups measurement of the same goal.

This

became the "across groups" measurement of that goal.

A

similar measure was calculated for "preferred" goals.
Goal Measure 2 (GM 2)
This measure was calculated using the same weighted
mean scores as in GM 1.

In this measure, however, all the

47 perceived goals were ranked within their sample group.
Thus, G M 2 me a s u r e d a particular goal in relation to all
the other perceived goals w i t h i n the particular sample
group.

A similar measure was calculated for preferred goals.
The ranked GM 2 distributions were trichotomized

(roughly 16 in each third)

and were labeled "high,"

"medium,"

and "low," for purposes of discussion and generalization.

65
Measures for Congruence
Congruence measures:

(1) intended to determine

whether or not the relative importance given to each p e r ­
ceived goal by all groups corresponded to the relative
importance given to the same goal preferred by all groups
(across group c o n g r u e n c e ) ; and

(2) intended to determine

whether or not the relative importance given to all p e r ­
ceived goals within each group corresponded to the relative
importance of all preferred goals w i t h i n each group

(within

group co n g r u e n c e ).
If a large number of goals were significantly
related in the across group congruence measure, there would
have been established some indication of h armony or disson­
ance within the goal environments of the respondents.
Similarly,

statistically significant congruence between

perceived and preferred listings w i t h i n groups w o uld have
indicated harmonious
sonant

(for positive correlations)

(for negative correlations)

or d i s ­

goal environments.

Across Groups
Congruence between perceived and preferred measures
of each goal across groups was calculated to determine a
correlation coefficient between the two GM 1 rankings on
each goal.

The Spearman Rank C orrelation

(Rho)statistic

was u s e d .

^ S . Siegel, Non-parametrlc Methods for the B e hav­
ioral Sciences (New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i 1 I , 1956), pi 207.

66
Within Groups
Congruence on each goal as it was ranked within
groups

(perceived and preferred)

was calculated to d e ter­

mine a correlation coefficient between the two G M 2 rankings of each group.

The Spearman Rank Correlation

(Kho)

12

statistic was used.
The Spearman Rank Correlation

(Rho)

The Spearman Rank Correlation
by Charles Spearman,

(Rho) was developed

an English statistician.

The computed

rho produces a quantitative measure of the degree and
direction of relationship that exists between two or more
13
ranked variables.
Automatic computer handling of the rho statistic
employed the following formula: 14
x2 + y2 - d2
P *
2 Y I x 2 Zy2
N3 - N
where Z x 2 *
12

t3 - t
— Z-------12

for t * ties in x
and

Z y2

—

N3 - N
--------- —
12

t3 - t
E
12

for t m ties in y
12Ibid.
13

Victor H. Noll, Introduction to Educational
Measurement
2nd ed.
(Boston: Houcrhton Mifflin Company.
1965), pp. 483-4 86.
14
Siegel., op. c i t .

67
Scaling and Rank Order Analysis of Data
Use of the Spearman Rank Correlation

(Rho)

statistic

for measures of congruence rather than one that measured
the quantity of items in a wei g h t e d distribution is comp a t ­
ible wit h the limitations of ordinal scaling.

The ordinal

scale utilized in this study ranged from "Top Importance"
to "No Importance."

It was assumed that this scaling

would provide for a reasonable m e a s u rement of responses
ranging from a very high degree of importance to no
importance.

However, exact differences between each level

on an ordinal scale cannot be determined.
...although the numbers standing for ordinal
measurements may be manipu l a t e d by arithmetic,
the answer cannot necessarily be interpreted
as a statement about the true magnitudes of
objects, nor about the true amounts of some
p r o p e r t y .15

^ W i l l i a m L. Hays, Statistics
Rinehart and Winston, 1963)" pT 71.

(New York i

Holt,

C H A P TE R IV
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
This chapter will present and analyze the data.
First, an overall perspective of the new data totals com­
pared with the 1967 study w ill be discussed.

A c o n sidera­

tion of individual goals as they were ranked across groups
will follow.

A discussion of w i t h i n groups rankings of

all goals w ill then be given.

A summary will conclude the

chapter.
For each of the forty-seven goals listed on the
q u e s t i o n n a i r e , respondents were asked to respond with a
perceived degree of importance
be in practice)

(how they saw the goal to

and a preferred degree of importance

important they w o uld prefer the goal to b e ) .

(how

A five point

scale, ranging from five for "top importance" to one for
"no importance" was used.

A mean score on each goal for both

perceived and preferred ratings was calculated for each group.
A w eighted m ean score for the total number
respondents in the new study samples

(exclusive of the 1967

study s a m p l e ) , was similarly computed.
analysis,

(N — 105) of

The results of that

along with the results of the 1967 study s a m p l e ,

are shown in Table 1.

68

Table 1.

Goals of the university by student personnel total group and 1967 study total
group.
Tc>tal

1967 Study Group
Perc:eived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

Perc eived
Rank Mean

PreJEerred
Rank Mean

1.

Cultivate student's intellect

14

3.38

3

4.17

40

4.17

25.5

3.47

2.

Produce well-rounded student

21

3.25

17

3.75

26

2.96

8

3.94

3.

Affect students with great ideas

30

3.16

15

3.76

37

2.80

34.5

3.21

4.

Develop students' objectivity

23

3.22

8

3.99

38.5

2.78

4

4.10

5.

Develop students' character

38

2.95

12

3.71

46

2.47

20

3.64

6.

Prepare students for useful
career

13

3.39

32

3.34

9

3.39

34.5

3.21

Prepare students for status/
leadership

28

3.18

33

3.31

34.5

2.86

40

2.97

6

3.56

2

4.17

22.5

3.02

11

3.81

Cultivate student's taste

47

2.47

45

2.78

47

2.38

44

2.86

10.

Prepare student for citizenship

20

3.27

14

3.76

29.5

2.91

15

3.71

11.

Carry on pure research

7

3.55

16

3.76

10

3.32

41

2.94

12.

Carry on applied research

12

3.39

30

3.37

5

3.50

18.5

3.65

13.

Provide special adult training

37

3.00

38

3.18

17

3.17

16

3.70

14.

Assist citizens thru extension
program

31

3.10

36

3.22

15

3.21

13

3.77

Provide community cultural
leadership

16

3.33

28

3.49

13

3.27

21

3.59

7.
8.
9.

15.

Train students for scholarship
and research

Table 1.

(cont.)

1967 Study Group
Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

Total
Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

16.

Disseminate new ideas

11

3.39

5

4.10

20.5

3.06

2

4.20

17.

Preserve cultural heritage

19

3.28

20

3.63

31.5

2.89

37

3.14

18.

Ensure confidence of contributors

4

3.66

26

3.52

2

3.65

33

3.22

19.

Ensure favor of validating bodies

9

3.43

34

3.31

4

3.55

36

3.20

20.

Develop to utmost high school
graduates

39

2.93

37

3.19

38.5

2.78

13

3.76

21.

Accept good students only

40

2.89

39

3.09

27

2.94

46

2.13

22.

Satisfy area needs

34

3.07

42

3.00

24

3.01

31.5

3.23

23.

Keep costs down

24

3.22

35

3.30

36

2.83

24

3.49

24.

Hold staff in face of inducements

15

3.37

18

3.74

28

2.92

28.5

3.27

25.

Reward for contribution to
profession

26

3.20

20

3.63

14

3.24

39

2.99

Involve faculty in University
government

25

3.21

19

3.63

7

3.42

14

3.75

Involve students in University
government

45

2.60

46

2.69

31.5

2.89

6

4.03

28.

Run University democratically

29

3.16

22

3.61

29.5

2.91

9

3.37

29.

Keep harmony

43

2.84

41

3.06

42

2.69

42

2.93

30.

Reward for contribution to
institution

32

3.10

13

3.77

44

2.64

17

3.63

Emphasize under-graduate
instruction

44

2.66

44

2.89

41

2.73

25.5

3.47

26.
27.

31.

Table 1.

(cont.)

1967 Study Group
Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

Total
Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

32.

Encourage graduate work

18

3.30

27

3.51

19

3.13

36

3.11

33.

Ensure efficient goal attainment

10

3.42

9

3.99

20.5

3.06

23

3.50

34.

Let will of faculty prevail

36

3.01

24

3.56

11

3.30

45

2.59

35.

Protect Academic Freedom

1

3.90

1

4.33

1

3.75

5

4.08

36.

Give Faculty maximum opportunity
to pursue careers

22

3.22

25

3.55

17

3.17

43

2.90

37.

Provide student activities

29

3.19

43

2.99

8

3.40

22

3.56

38.

Protect students' right of
inquiry

17

3.31

10

3.88

22.5

3.02

3

4.18

Protect students' right of
action

41

2.88

40

3.08

33

2.88

10

3.82

Develop faculty loyalty to
institution

42

2.86

29

3.47

45

2.49

31.5

3.23

41.

Develop pride in university

33

3.09

23

3.59

43

2.65

28.5

3.27

42.

Maintain top quality in all
programs

8

3.49

4

4.14

17

3.17

7

3.99

Maintain top quality in
important programs

3

3.69

7

3.99

6

3.43

18.5

3.65

35

3.07

31

3.36

34.5

2.86

27

3.38

39.
40.

43.
44.

Maintain balanced quality in
all programs

45.

Keep up to date

5

3.57

6

4.09

12

3.28

1

4.30

46.

Increase or maintain prestige

2

3.76

11

3.80

3

3.59

30

3.25

47.

Preserve institutional character

46

2.56

47

2.13

25

2.99

47

2.08

72
It should be noted that some imbalance existed
among the components of the student personnel total s a m p l e .
The total number

(N = 105) was composed of forty-two Masters

of Arts candidates;
six faculty;

twenty-seven doctoral degree candidates;

and thirty administrators.

that the Master's Degree candidates,

It is obvious

as a sub-group, had

a disporportionate effect on the total rankings.

It was,

however, possible to assume that the four sub-groups are
more or less homogeneous w i t h regard to a general e d u c a ­
tional p h i l o s o p h y — particularly when compared w ith n o n ­
student personnel faculty and administrators.
of this particular discussion,

For purposes

that assumption has been

m a d e .^
The total student personnel sample identified the
top eight

(roughly the top one-sixth)

within the university.

They were

goals as being pursued

(in o r d e r ) ;

1.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.

2.

Ensure the continued confidence and, hence,

support

of those w h o contribute substantially to the finances
and other material resource needs of the university.
3.

Increase or mai n t a i n the prestige of the university.

A more precise statistical treatment might have
included the testing for this assumption by use of F Tests
for population homogeneity.
It should be noted that,
relative to this assumption, such a treatment was not made.

73
4.

Ensure the favorable appraisal of those w h o validate
the quality of the programs w e offer.

5.

Carry on applied r e s e a r c h .

6.

Maintain top quality in those programs felt to be
especially important.

7.

Involve faculty in the government of the university.

8.

Provide student activities.

By comparison,

the 1967 study group identified the highest

eight goals perceived.

These included the following

(in

order) :
1.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.

2.

Increase or maintain the prestige of

the university.

3.

Maintain top quality in those programs felt to be
especially important.

4.

Ensure the confidence and, hence, support of those
who contribute substantially to the finances and
other material resource needs of the university.

5.

Keep up to date and responsive.

6.

Train students in methods of scholarship and/or
scientific research and/or creative endeavor.

7.

Carry on pure research.

8.

Maintain top quality in all programs

engaged in.

The consistently highest ranking given to the goal of p r o t e c t ­
ing academic freedom is a
results.

striking

characteristic of these

According to both sets of respondents,

it was

the goal perceived as b e ing most important w i t h i n the
university.

74
Other similarities in these lists of hig h e s t p e r ­
ceived goals existed.

In the 196 7 group, only one of the

eight goals was directly concerned w i t h students, and that
one— the output goal of training students for research and
scholarship— was closely related to scholarly interests of
the faculty, and the emphasis given to pure research.

In

the student personnel group only one such g o a l — the support
goal of providing student a c t i v i t i e s — was p e r ceived as
ranking among the top eight.
Some differences of perception were evident.

The

1967 group included the position g o a l — kee p i n g up to date
and responsive--while the student personnel group did not
see it to be operating so strongly.

Clearly, however, the

student personnel group valued that goal as it was ranked
highest on their preferred list.
The absence of the g o a l — to train students for
research and s cholarship— was similarly significant.
Ranked high in the 1967 group,

it received a rank of 22.5,

or around the mid-point of the rankings in the student
personnel group.

The presence of an additional adaption

goal— Ensure favor of validating b o d i e s — on the student
personnel group's list was relative harmonious w i t h the
1967 group's ranking of tenth.

However,

the ma n a g e ment

goal of involving faculty in university government was not.
Perceived seventh by the student personnel group,

the

75
1967 group saw the involvement of faculty ranking b elow the
mid-point of the distribution of all goals

(25th).

The eight least important goals p e r ceived by the
student personnel group
1.

(ranked from the b o t t o m up) were:

Make a good consumer out of the s t u d e n t — a person
wh o is elevated culturally,

has good taste, and

can make good consumer choices.
2.

Develop the inner character of the students so
that they can make sound, correct moral choices.

3.

Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and
staff of the university rather than to their own
jobs or professional concerns.

4.

Make sure that salaries,

teaching assignments,

prerequisites and privileges always reflect the
contribution that the person involved is making
to the function of this university.
5.

Develop greater pride on the part of faculty,
staff and students in their university and the
things it stands for.

6.

Keep harmony between departments or divisions of
the university w h e n such departments or divisions
do not see eye to eye on important m a t t e r s .

7.

Emphasize undergraduate instruction e ven at the
expense of the graduate program.

8.

Produce a student who, w h a t e v e r else may be done to
him, has had his intellect cultivated to the maximum.

76
The 1967 group perceived these goals as being least
important:
1.

Make a good customer of the stu d e n t — a person w h o is
elevated culturally, has good taste, and can make
good consumer choices.

2.

Keep the university from becoming something d i f f e r ­
ent from what it is now;

that is, preserve its

peculiar emphasis and point of view,

its "character."

3.

Involve students in the government of the institution.

4.

Emphasize undergraduate e d u cation e ven at the expense
of the graduate program.

5.

Keep harmony between departments or divisions of
the university w h e n such departments or divisions
do not see eye to eye on important m a t t e r s .

6.

Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff
to the university rather than to their own jobs or
professional concerns.

7.

Protect and facilitate the student's right to advo­
cate direct action of a political or social kind and
any attempts on their part to organize efforts to
attain political or social goals.

8.

Accommodate only students of high potential in terms
of the specific strengths and emphasis o f this
university.

77
A comparison of these lists found agreement on four
of the eight g o a l s .

Of interest was the agreement on the

single least important goal perceived to be in effect.

The

goal— cultivating the students t a s t e — was reckoned the lowest
rank in both g r o u p s .
The maintenance of harmony between d e p a r t m e n t s , the
developing of faculty and staff loyalty, and the emphasizing
of undergraduate education were the other goals upon which
agreement was found in the lists of those goals perceived
as least important.
There was general ranking agreement on the lack of
importance b e ing given to all the items on both lists.
Only one exception,

the goal--cultivate student's i n tellect—

appeared in the top third of the comparative group.
fourteenth in the 1967 group,
bottom

(40th)

Ranked

it was ranked eighth from the

in the student personnel group.

It was n o t e ­

worthy that four of the perceived goals, ranked lowest by
the student personnel group, were closely related to the
education and development of the individual undergraduate
student.
other.

The remaining four seemed to be related to each
If the relative importance given were translated

into an actual state of affairs on campus,

this group

might be suggesting that they saw a university whose classes
were taught by self-seeking faculty preoccupied w i t h o u t ­
side i n t e r e s t s . . .who w ere rewarded b y the university for
having outside i n t e r e s t s . . .and who had little pride or

78
identity w i t h the university,

...and who, w h e n they d i s ­

agree on important matters, were not necessarily inclined
to resolve their differences.
The 1967 group also identified four goals related
to the individual development of the undergraduate student.
Two goals that reflected the "position" and "adaption"
efforts of the university were seen to be not valued on the
campuses.

These were:

tion character;

and

(1) the preserving of the i n s titu­

(2) accepting g ood students only.

The

actual expres s i o n of these perceived low goals w o u l d p r o b a ­
bly take the form of rapid change and alteration of many
traditions on the campus for the former;

and the trend

toward open admission and special remedial curricula for
the latter.

The 1967 group also perceived little importance

given to the concerns for harmony end institutional loyalty.
By marking a degree of importance in the row labeled
"should be" on the questionnaire,

the respondent indicated

the emphasis that he bel i e v e d the p a r t icular goal should have
on his campus.

The "preferred" goal rankings for the student

personnel total group represented the values held b y the
respondents about the merit of each goal.

This was contrasted

with the "perceived" ranking in that the latter asked the
respondent to report w h a t he actually saw ha p p e n i n g on his
campus.
The preferred goals for the student personnel group
that were ranked highest included

(in order)

the following:

79
1.

Keep up to date and responsive.

2.

Serve as a center for the dissemination of new
ideas that will change the society, w hether those
ideas are in science,

literature, the arts, or

politics.
3.

Protect and facilitate the students'

right to

inquire into, investigate, and examine critically
any idea or program that they m i g h t get Inter­
ested in.
4.

Assist students to develop objectivity about them­
selves and their beliefs and, hence, examine those
beliefs critically.

5.
6.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom
Involve students in the government of the university.

7.

Maintain top quality in all programs we engage in.

8.

Produce a well-ro u n d e d student,
physical,

social, moral,

that is, one whose

intellectual,

and esthetic

potentialities have all been cultivated.
The preferred goals for the 1967 group that were
ranked highest included

(in order)

the following:

1.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.

2.

Train students in methods of scholarship and/or
scientific research and/or creative endeavor.

3.

Produce a student who, wh a t e v e r else may be done to
him, has had his intellect cultivated to the maximum.

4.

Ma intain top quality in all programs we engage in.

80
5.

Serve as a center for the d i s s emination of new ideas
that w ill change the society, whe t h e r those ideas
are in

science, literature, the arts, or politics.

6.

Keep up to date and responsive.

7.

Maintain top quality in those programs we feel to
be especially important

(other programs being, of

course, up to acceptable standards).
8.

Assist students to develop objectivity about them­
selves and their beliefs and, hence, examine

those

beliefs critically.
For the 1967 group,

the goal of protecting the

faculty's academic freedom head e d the list.
the ideal situation m a t c h e d the actual.

In this case,

Not only was the

goal pursued with a high degree of importance,
valued greater than any other g o a l .

it was also

Student interests

fared better in the preferred list than in the perceived list
of this group.
research

Preparing the student for scholarship and

(this one appeared on the list of perceived g o a l s ) ,

and cultivating his intellect ranked second and third.
Assisting students to develop o bjectivity and the ability
to examine their beliefs critically ranked eighth.

The goal

was the only student development or student participation
role that also appeared in the student personnel group's
list of most important g o a l s .

81
The two maintenance of quality In programs goals
(ranked 4th and 7th In the list) w ere curiously both valued
high.

One m i ght deduce that to value top quality in all

programs w o u l d by definition exclude giving a high value for
a goal that opted for only selected programs for emphasis.
One possible explanation might be that the majority of r e s ­
pondents bel i e v e d their particular interests w o u l d be
mantled by the programs deemed to be

"especially important."

The first three goals in the 1967 group list seemed
highly predictable as values of a broad sample of a dministra­
tors and faculty.

Academic freedom for faculty, training

students for scholarship and research, and cultivating the
student's intellect might well head the list of objectives
in any professional education organization's constitution...
or any university catalogue.

Add to those three the goal

of developing the students objectivity, and it remained a
relatively prediatable set of high values.

The interesting

inclusions in this list, ranked five and six, were the goalsserve as a center for dissemination of new i d eas— a nd— keep
up to date and responsive.

The first of these had its roots

in the historical development of the American university's
role of being an active contributer to the development of
the society that supported it.

There might have been,

however, a new dimension of public service suggested by the
"keep up to date and responsive" goal.

If respondents

judged this in a perspective of university action or

82
inclination to participate in direct solutions to social
problems,

it w o u l d represent a somewhat significant d e p a r ­

ture from the tradition of institutional neutrality.
the other hand,

On

it was also likely that the "keep up to date

and responsive" goal was interpreted by most respondents in
this group as an objective to be implemented by w a y of
better faculty preparedness and responsiveness to student
learning needs in the classroom.
The student personnel group ranked these two goals
one and two.

They were followed in degree of importance by

goals that facilitated the students*
(ranked 3rd);

right of inquiry

that protected academic freedom for faculty

(ranked 5 t h ) ; and that sought to involve students in the
government of the university

(ranked 6 t h ) .

In the context

of these particular other highly valued goals,

the question

of interpretation of the "keep up to date and responsive"
goal reappeared more strongly than before.

If these goals

were not intertwined in the minds of the respondents, then
each goal essentially represents an independent concern and
no further comment about interrelationships w o uld be helpful.
There seemed to be, however,

a thread of integrated purpose

that tied these particular goals together.

The university

as a social change agent, as a critic, as the model for
democratic institutions,
as outreaching,

fearlessly introspective as well

. . . all nurtured by the all-encompassing

security of academic freedom.

Such a syndrome, if actual.

83
would reflect a desire on the part of the respondents to
move the university away from its traditional status of
organizational neutrality in social issues.
On the other hand, if the "keep up to date and
responsive" goal was interpreted to refer to curriculum
and the classroom as previously suggested,

it was most

probably a strong expression for faculty and curriculum
planners to become more relevant to student needs in
today's society.

M u c h has been h e a r d from student personnel

administrators about the lack of relevancy of much of the
students'

academic experience.

Similarly, much has been

written and said about the imbalance between vocational
preparation and the development of the whole student.

The

goal— produce a w e l l - r o u n d e d student— w o uld have been sig~
nificant in this study only if it had failed to appear as
a highly-valued goal by the student personnel group.
It was of interest to note that, in a choice of
importance b etween self knowledge
objectivity about themselves)
intellect

(developing the students'

and cultivating the students'

(ranked 3rd in the 1967 group's preferred list),

the student personnel group chose the former, giving that
goal the rank of fourth, whi l e assigning the "intellect"
goal below the m i d -point of the distribution of preferred
goals

(ranked 25.5).

84
Other striking disparities occurred b etween ranks
assigned to individual goals by b o t h groups.

The g o a l —

involve students in the government of the un i v e r s i t y— ranked
sixth by the student personnel group, was ranked third from
the b o ttom

(45th)

by the 1967 group.

ranked in the top 8 goals)

Similarly,

(but not

the g o a l — run the university

d e mocrati c a l l y — was assigned a high rank of ninth by the
student personnel group, and mid-range rank of twenty-two
by the 1967 group.

Ensuring the efficient operation of

the university was assigned a rank of ninth by the 1967
group and a mid-range rank of twenty-three by the student
personnel group.

A considerable difference was evident

on the goal of protecting the students'

right of inquiry.

It ranked third in the student personnel group, compared
with seventeenth in the 1967 group.

Related to that goal,

the goal of protecting the s t u d e n t s 1 right of action ranked
tenth among the student personnel group and forty-first
among the 1967 group.
The 1967 study group identified the following
the b o ttom up)
1.

lowest preferred goals.

Keep this place from becoming something different
from w h a t it is now;

that is, preserve its peculiar

emphases and point of view,
2.

(from

its

" character."

Involve students in the government of the university.

85
3.

Make a good consumer of the student— a person who
is ele v a t e d culturally, has g ood taste, and can
make good consumer choices.

4.

Emphasize undergraduate instruction even at the
expense of the graduate program.

5.

Protect the faculty's right to academic freedom.

6.

Orient ourselves to the satisfaction of the
special needs and problems of the immediate
geographical region.

7.

Keep harmony between departments or divisions of
the university w hen such departments or divisions
do not see eye to eye on important m a t t e r s .

8.

Protect and facilitate the students'

right to

advocate direct action of a political or social
kind, and any attempts on their part to organize
efforts to attain political or social goals.
The student personnel group identified the following
(from the b o t t o m up)
1.

lowest preferred goals:

Keep this place from becoming something different
from w h a t it is now;

that is, preserve its peculiar

emphases and point of view, its "character."
2.

Accommodate only students of high potential in terms
of the specific strengths and emphases of the
university.

3.

Make sure that on all important issues

(not only curric

u l u m ) , the will of the full-time faculty shall prevail.

86
4.

Make a good consumer of the student— a person w ho
is elevated culturally, has g ood taste, and can
make good consumer choices.

5.

Make this a place in w h ich faculty have m a x i mum
opportunity to pursue their careers in a manner
satisfactory to them by their own criteria.

6.

Keep harmony between departments or divisions of
the university w h e n such departments or divisions
do not see eye to eye on important m a t t e r s .

7.

Carry on pure research.

8.

Provide the student w ith skills, attitudes, contacts,
and experiences which maximize the likelihood of
his occupying a high status in life and a position
of leadership in society.
By this comparison of the two groups, agreement was

found on only three goals.
institutional character;
and

(3) keep harmony.

They are:

(1) preserve the

(2) cultivate the students'

taste;

Apparently there was a considerable

degree of agreement that absolutes in individual cultural
development or in the nature of the institutional character
are not valued highly.

The unconcern for harmony between

departments or divisions was compatible w ith the low values
of absolutism.

For dissonance is the forerunner of change,

and change in individual value systems and in institutional
character appeared to be more desirable than the status quo.
This was supported by the high values placed on the

87
development of objectivity,

and the students'

right to

inquire into any idea or program of their choosing.
Differences abounded in the two least preferred
lists.

As previously discussed,

the goal of involving

students in the government of the university was perhaps
the single most striking difference.

Also previously

discussed, responses to the goal of protecting students'
right of action produced a wide difference in ranking
(40th for the 1967 group;

10th for the student personnel

group).
Emphasizing undergraduate instruction,

a goal

perceived low by both groups and preferred low by the 1967
group, was ranked around the mid-point in the preferences
of the student personnel group.

That it was not higher in

rank is somewhat surprising in view of the high rank
assigned to other goals dealing with the quality of the
educational experiences available to the student.
the student personnel group,

Perhaps

almost all of w h ich having an

interest in the graduate program, w ere not w i l l i n g to run
the risk of sacrificing the graduate p r o g r a m

(as specified

in the complete goal statement in the questionnaire)
the sake of undergraduate instruction per se.

for

Another

possible explanation was that the concern for non-classroom
experiences or status of things were seen to be manipulatable, or capable of being changed, w h i l e cl a s s r o o m instruc­
tion generally was considered beyond the direct influence
of anyone except the instructor.

88
The goal of satisfying area needs, ranked sixth from
the bottom by the 1967 group, was ranked near the two-thirds
point

(31.5) by the student personnel group.
Three rather interesting analyses of rankings

occurred in the goals,

(1)

let w i l l of faculty prevail,

(2) give faculty m a x i m u m opportunities to pursue careers,
and

(3) carry on pure research.

as the third,

These goals, classified

fifth and seventh least w o r t h y goals by the

student personnel group,

appeared to have constituted a

statement of contempt for some of the traditional p r ofes­
sional concerns of a university faculty.

A curious aspect

of these rankings was that the 1967 group,

comprised mostly

of faculty, did not strongly prefer the professional atti­
tudes and activities.

The 1967 group ranked letting the will

of the faculty prevail b e low the mid-point

(24th).

Giving

the faculty m a x i m u m o pportunity to pursue careers was ranked
twenty-fifth by that group.

The g o a l — carry on pure

research— bare l y made the top third of the order

(ranked

16th).
Little difference occurred on the goal of accepting
good students only.
next to lowest

The student personnel group ranked it

(46th), whi l e the 1967 group placed the goal

well down in the b o t t o m third of the list

(ranked 3 9 t h ) .

The g o a l — prepare students for status/le a d e rship—
clearly implied an elitist concept of higher education and
was generally not endorsed by either group.

The student

89
personnel group ranked the item fortieth, while the 1967
group assigned the item to the lower third of the list
(rank 33).
To summarize the overall comparisons of the student
personnel group totals

w i t h the

1967 study group totals,

it appeared that the 1967 study group believed that students
were not particularly important w h e n asked to report the
actual goals of the universities.

Little evidence of strong

feeling was offered that this state of affairs was c o n s i d ­
ered to be unfortunate, except in the case of cultivating
the student's intellect and developing his objectivity,
both of which were valued higher than they were pursued.
The perceived and preferred student-oriented
goals w h ich rank at the top relate to the i ntellec­
tive/academic capacities and development of the
student; the Renaissance concept of cultivating
the whole man is apparently no longer esteemed as
an ideal.
The findings suggest that preparing
students for useful careers or for high status and
leadership and developing their citizenship a bil­
ities, consumer tastes, characters, or overall
potential (well-roundedness) are not— and should
not b e - - e m p h a s i z e d .^
The student personnel group similarly did not give
high rank to goals being pursued on their campus that were
concerned directly w i t h

students, except in the case of p r o ­

viding student activities.

In this case, however,

the

goal was given a lower preferred rank than where it was
perceived to be operating.

Thus, the only direct student

2
Gross and Grambsch, op. c i t . , p.

33.

90
concern goal observed as getting high importance was d o w n ­
graded in relative importance w h e n goal preferences were
ranked.
In contrast w ith the 1967 group,

the preferred

student-oriented goals whi c h w ere ranked at the top by the
student personnel group,

related to the self-awareness and

well-roundedness of the student rather than only to his
intellective/academic capabilities and development.

Cul­

tivation of the whole man was esteemed as an ideal by this
group.
The two groups were in general agreement in suggest­
ing that preparing students for useful careers, or for high
status and leadership, and developing consumer tastes were
not high priority missions of the university.
With i n group m easurement rankings
in Tables 1 (p. 69),

2 (p. 91), and 3

(GM 2) are shown

(p. 94).

This goal

measure was the rank of a particular goal in relation to
the rank of all goals within a given group.

Discussion of

the relationship of the ranking of goals w i t h i n the 1967
study total group and the total student personnel group h a v e
preceded this.

Discussion of the within group measurements

of the component sub-groups of the student personnel total
(Master of Arts candidates,
and Administrators)

Doctoral candidates, Faculty,

follows.

Tables 2 and 3 show the m e a n score and ranks of each
goal, perceived and preferred,

for the four sub-groups

Table 2.

Goals of the university Master of Arts and Doctoral candidates

Masters
Perceived

Doctoral

Preferred

Perceived

Preferred

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

1.

Cultivate student's intellect

43

2.56

27

3.21

34

2.93

19

3.70

2.

Produce well-rounded students

23

2.95

4

4.07

32.5

2.96

14.5

3.81

3.

Affect students with great ideas

41

2.62

3.45

3.00

35.5

2.92

23

3.62

4.

Develop students' objectivity

40

2.64

6.5

3.98

30.5

2.92

5.5

4.07

5.

Develop students' character

45

2.44

21

3.48

46

2.48

17.5

3.74

6.

Prepare students for useful
career

9

3.31

31

3.12

7.5

3.44

37

3.33

Prepare students for status/
leadership

24

2.90

39

2.93

37.5

2.88

37

3.33

Train students for scholarship
and research

26

2.88

12

3.71

17.5

3.30

12

3.85

Cultivate students' taste

47

2.36

43

2.67

47

2.25

41

3.11

30.5

2.80

22.5

3.46

30.5

3.00

7

4.00

10

3.25

42

2.73

9

3.42

43

3.04

7.
8.
9.

Prepare student for citizenship

11.

Carry on pure research

12.

Carry on applied research

6

3.48

19.5

3.50

7.5

3.44

17.5

3.74

13.

Provide special adult training

1

3.92

15.5

3.62

11

3.37

14.5

3.81

14.

Assist citizens thru extension
programs

21

3.00

11

3.74

17.5

3.30

12

3.85

Provide community cultural
leadership

13

3.15

22.5

3.46

12.5

3.33

20.5

3.67

Disseminate new ideas

28

2.85

2.5

4.14

27

3.07

•

in
H

10.

16.

2

4.22

Table 2.

(cont.)

Masters
Perceived

Doctoral

Preferred

Perceived

Preferred

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

33

2.78

36

2.98

30.5

3.00

39

3.26

17.

Preserve cultural heritage
Ensure confidence of contributes

2

3.67

37.5

2.95

4.5

3.52

37

3.33

19.

Ensure favor of validating bodies

4

3.53

28

3.15

2

3.65

34

3.38

•
o
CM

Mean

•
GO
H

Rank

Develop to utmost high school
graduates

37.5

2.68

17

3.60

41

2.67

8

3.96

21.

Accept good students only

26

2.88

46

2.00

39

2.85

46

2.41

22.

Satisfy area needs

32

2.79

40

2.90

21.5

3.15

30.5

3.44

23.

Keep costs down

29

2.02

24

3.45

40

2.81

28

3.40

24.

Hold staff in face of inducements

18

3.06

30

3.13

32.5

2.96

33

3.40

25.

Reward for contribution to
profession

16.5

3.08

41

2.35

15

3.32

40

3.12

11
1
35

3.23

18

3.54

4.5

3.52

9.5

3.89

2.79

5

4.00

25

3.08

12

3.85

37.5

2.63

9

3.90

23

3.11

16

3.78

26.

Involve students in University
government

to
CO
•

27.

Involve faculty in University
government

Run University democratically

29.

Keep harmony

39

2.65

37.5

2.95

42

2.52

42

3.07

30.

Reward for contribution to
institution

36

2.73

13

3.68

44

2.50

9.5

3.89

Emphasize undergraduate
instruction

34

2.76

25

3.33

44

2.50

28

3.48

Encourage graduate work

21

3.00

34.5

3.00

15

3.32

35

3.37

31.
32.

Table 2.

(cont.)

Masters
Perceived

33.

Ensure efficient goal attainment

34.

Let will of faculty prevail

35.

Protect Academic Freedom

36.

Give Faculty maximum opportunity
to pursue career

Doctoral

Preferred

Perceived

Preferred

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

Rank

Mean

16.5

3.08

19.5

3.50

21.5

3.45

20.5

3.67

12

3.21

45

2.44

6

3.44

45

2.81

5

3.50

6.5

3.98

1

4.04

2

4.22

21

3.00

44

2.48

19.5

3.26

44

2.96

37.

Provide student activities

7

3.45

15.5

3.62

12.5

3.35

24.5

3.59

38.

Protect students' right of
inquiry

26

2.88

2.5

4.14

28.5

3.04

5.5

4.07

Protect students' right of
action

42

2.57

10

3.79

28.5

3.04

26

3.56

Develop faculty loyalty to
institution

46

2.43

33

3.05

44

2.50

32

3.41

41.

Develop pride in university

44

2.54

29

3.14

37.5

2.88

24.5

3.59

42.

Maintain top quality in all
programs

15

3.10

8

3.93

19.5

3.26

4

4.11

8

3.39

14

3.63

15

3.32

22

3.63

30.5

2.80

26

3.32

25

3.08

28

3.48

14

3.12

1

4.24

10

3.41

2

4.22

3

3.57

32

3.10

3

3.50

30.5

3.44

19

3.05

47

1.88

25

3.08

47

2.37

39.
40.

43.
44.

Maintain top quality in
important programs
Maintain balanced quality in
all programs

45.

Keep up to date

46.

Increase or maintain prestige

47.

Preserve institutional character

Table 3.

Goals of the university Faculty and Administrators

Faculty
Perceived
Rank Mean
1 . Cultivate student's intellect

Administrators

Preferred
Rank Mean

Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

39

2.80

22

3.67

34

2.93

24

3.57

26.5

3.00

4

4.17

30.5

2.97

13

3.83

42

2.67

3.17

32

2.96

36

3.17

26.5

3.00

4

4.17

40

2.80

3

4.30

2.

Produce well-rounded student

3.

Affect student with great ideas

4.

Develop students' objectivity

5.

Develop students' character

45

2.60

22

3.67

47

2.46

14

3.79

6.

Prepare students for useful
career

8

3.50

35.5

3.17

10.5

3.43

33.5

3.23

46.5

2.50

42

2.83

38

2.86

44

2.71

36

2.83

14.5

3.83

28

3.00

10.5

3.90

Cultivate students' taste

46.5

2.50

22

3.67

46

2.48

42

2.73

10.

Prepare students for citizenship

17.5

3.17

14.5

3.83

34

2.93

16

3.77

11.

Carry on pure research

26.5

3.00

35.5

3.17

10.5

3.43

38

3.10

12.

Carry on applied research

3.67

8.5

4.00

6

3.55

18.5

3.70

13.

Provide special adult training

3.00

14.5

3.83

15

3.34

18.5

3.70

14.

Assist citizens thru extension
programs

3.50

14.5

3.83

13

3.37

17

3.73

3.33

22

3.67

13

3.37

20

3.67

5

3.60

4

4.17

19

3.24

4

4.27

42

2.67

3.17

28

3.00

30

3.27

7.
8.
9.

15.

Prepare students for status/
leadership
Train students for scholarship
and research

Provide community cultural
leadership

16.

Disseminate new ideas

17.

Preserve cultural heritage

4
26.5
8
12.5

35.5

35.5

Table 3.

(cont.)

Faculty
Perceived
Rank Mean

Administrators

Preferred
Rank Mean

Perceived
Rank Mean

Preferred
Rank Mean

18.

Ensure confidence of contributors

8

3.50

22

3.67

3

3.79

28

3.38

19.

Ensure favor of validating bodies

15

3.25

43

2.80

7

3.54

35

3.20

20.

Develop to utmost high school
graduates

26.5

3.00

28

3.50

30.5

2.97

12

3.86

42

2.67

47

2.33

21.5

3.17

46

2.03

21.

Accept good students only

22.

Satisfy area needs

12.5

3.33

28

3.50

24

3.10

26.5

3.43

23.

Keep costs down

26.5

3.00

28

3.50

39

2.85

23

3.59

24.

Hold staff in face of inducements 26.5

3.00

14.5

3.83

42

2.70

33.5

3.23

25.

Reward for contribution to
profession

26.5

3.00

35.5

3.17

9

3.45

39

3.03

Involve faculty in University
government

26.5

3.00

14.5

3.83

5

3.67

10.5

3.90

Involve students in University
government

26.5

3.00

8.5

4.00

1

3.93

5

4.23

28.

Run University democratically

26.5

3.00

22

3.67

26

3.03

8.5

3.93

29.

Keep harmony

42

2.67

45

2.67

36

2.90

41

2.83

30.

Reward for contribution to
institution

17.5

3.17

35.5

3.17

43

2.55

22

3.60

Emphasize under-graduate
instruction

42

2.67

40

3.00

34

2.93

15

3.78

32.

Encourage graduate work

26.5

3.00

22

3.67

21.5

3.17

40

2.93

33.

Ensure efficient goal attainment

36

2.83

14.5

3.83

28

3.00

30

3.27

26.
27.

31.

Table 3.

(cont.)

Faculty
Perceived
Rank Mean
34.

Let will of faculty prevail

35.

Protect Academic Freedom

36.

Give Faculty maximum opportunity
to pursue careers

Administrators

Preferred
Rank Mean

12.5

3.33

45

2.67

1.5

3.83

1

4.33

26.5

3.00

40

Perceived
Rank Mean
17.5

Preferred
Rank Mean

3.27

45

2.59

2

3.83

7

4.03

3.00

16

3.33

43

2.72

37.

Provide student activities

8

3.50

31.5

3.33

13

3.37

25

3.50

38.

Protect students' right of
inquiry

8

3.50

8.5

4.00

24

3.10

2

4.37

39.

Protect students' right of
action

17.5

3.17

14.5

3.83

24

3.10

6

4.10

Develop faculty loyalty to
institution

36

2.83

28

3.50

45

2.50

30

3.27

41.

Develop pride in university

26.5

3.00

3.5

3-33

44

2.53

37

3.13

42.

Maintain top quality in all
programs

17.5

3.17

4

4.17

20

3.20

8.5

3.93

3

3.80

8.5

4.00

8

3.50

21

3.63

Maintain balanced quality in
all programs

36

2.83

40

3.00

41

2.74

26.5

3.43

45.

Keep up to date

1.5

3.83

4

4.17

17.5

3.27

1

4.43

46.

Increase or maintain prestige

12.5

3.33

28

3.50

4

3.70

32

3.24

47.

Preserve institutional character

36

2.83

45

3.67

37

2.87

47

1.97

40.

43.
44.

Maintain top quality in
important programs

97
within the total student personnel group sample.

Table 2

showed the data for the Masters of Arts degree candidates
and the Doctoral degree candidates.

Table 3 showed the data

for the Faculty sample and the Administrator sample.
Analysis of the total student personnel sample
(N » 105) established, of course,

the general direction of

the responses of the component s u b - g r o u p s .

In several

instances, however, one of the sub-groups gave a widely
variant rating w h e n compared to the other three.
this occurred within the sub-group Faculty.
noted,

a deviation of this g r o u p

Mostly,

As previously

{n * 6) w o u l d be less

likely to affect the total student personnel group

(N “ 105)

rankings than w o u l d any of the other three sub-groups
42, n2 — 27, n3 =“ 30) .

(nl *

Typical of this phenomenon was the

g o a l — cultivate students'

taste.

ranking for N = 105 was 44.

The overall preferred

The faculty sub-group ranking

was 22, a considerable deviation from the other three
rankings.
Examination of the sub-groups data revealed o c c a s ­
sional deviations by a single group from a relative norm
established by the remaining three groups

(the three groups

having shown close agreement on rankings given to a p a r t i c ­
ular goal).
The Faculty group saw the goal of preparing students
for citizenship being pursued more strongly than did the
three others; w h ile the Doctoral students placed a much
greater value on that goal by their high ranking on the

98
preferred list.

The Faculty perceived less importance on

pure research efforts on campus and on providing special
adult training.

The Faculty perceived a considerably

greater importance being given to the dissemination of new
ideas, but were very compatible w i t h the other groups in
ranking this goal as the second highest preferred goal
for N = 10 5.
The Faculty p e r ceived the goal of ensuring the
favor of validating bodies lower and,

somewhat curiously

preferred it the least of the four groups.

The Faculty

judged that the goal--to satisfy area n e e d s — was strongly
pursued,

ranking it in the upper third

(rank 12.5).

The

remaining three groups perceived the goal to be receiving
much less importance

(ranks 32, 21.5, and 24 respectively).

The group of Administrators perceived the goal of
"hold staff in face of inducements"

lowest of the four

groups, while the Faculty preferred it the most of the
four groups.

The Faculty judged that reward for contri­

bution to the profession was not given as much priority
as did the other three groups.

There was close agreement

on the pre ferred rankings of that goal.

The range extended

from a rank of thirty-five and five/tenths to forty-one
(35.5-41).
The Faculty group disclaimed the high ranking given
to the perceived goal of involving the faculty in the govern
ment of the university by the other three groups.

99
One of the more striking instances of single group
deviation occurred w i t h the goal "involve students in the
government of the university."

Perceived to be valued low

in actual practice by the other three groups
it below the mid-point

(each ranked

[ranks 35, 25, and 26.5 r e s p e ctively ] )»

the Administrator group ranked the item as the single
highest goal perceived to be actually valued on their campus.
An appreciable deviation occurred on the g o a l —
reward for contribution to the institution.

The Faculty

group ranked it perceived highest among the four groups.
The goal was then ranked in the lower third of the order
by the Faculty group in the preferred listing.

This co n ­

trasted sharply w ith the remaining three g r o u p s .

Each of

those groups ranked the goal perceived as quite low

(all

in the lower third of the l i s t ) , and preferred the goal
sufficiently enough to rank it well above the mid-point.
These data suggest that the student personnel faculty
believe more than did the graduate students or Administra­
tors that contributions to the institution were indeed
rewarded, but that this was not an appropriate state of
affairs.
The Administrator group placed the goal of e m pha­
sizing undergraduate education higher than the other three
groups.

The g o a l — ensure efficient goal attainment— was

interestingly ranked lowest by the Administrative group.

100
The Administrator group placed the highest compara­
tive ranking on th** preferred goal of protecting students'
rights of action in a widely variant distribution of ranks.
On the other end, the Doctoral candidate group gave the
goal the lowest preferred ranking.
Another variance occurred in the top-ranked preferred
goal

(for N - 105)— keep up to date.

That goal was perceived

as the single highest goal in actual practice by the Faculty
group on their c a m p u s .

It should be noted, however,

that

while the Faculty rating was noticeably high, each of the
other three groups ranked the perceived status of that goal
in or near the top third of the order

(ranks 14, 10, and

17.5, respectively).
The Faculty perceived the goal of increasing or
maintaining prestige lower than did the other groups.
It could have been hypothesized that the greatest
frequency of variance among the student personnel sub-groups
would have resulted from the rankings of the Faculty group.
It was that group that was most significantly differentiated
from the total student personnel sample by virtue of p osi­
tion, age, experience, professional training and e s t a b ­
lished interests.

Arrangements involving the student p e r ­

sonnel graduate p rogram and most of the student personnel
administrators at Michigan State University that were sam­
pled in the study result in considerable overlap,

i.e.,

most Administrators are also enrolled in a graduate program.

101
As Indicated in Chapter II, the division of respondents
into the categories used, although b a sed on a primacy of
interest criterion, was indeed an arbitrary one, and
differences among the student personnel sub-groups were
not evident from the data.

Rather,

that data tended to

support the assumption of h omogeneity of the student
personnel total that was made relevant to the comparison
with the 1967 study total.
The across goals m e a s u rement

(GM 1) intended to

show the relative importance of a single goal across the
five groups included in the study.

The we i g h t e d mean of

a particular goal was taken from each of the five groups.
The five scores on that goal were then ranked from the
highest to the lowest
measure

(1-5).

Table 4 shows the across goal

(GM 1) of those goals perceived to be the most

important

(according to the combined eight

rankings of

the total student personnel group and the 196 7 study
group t o t a l ) .

Table 5 shows the across goal measure

of those goals preferred to be the most important

(GM 1)

(goals

were identified in the same manner as for Table 4).
No significant pattern was evident to G M 1 rank­
ings , wit h regard to the rank given to a particular group
across several goals.

Generally,

each goal established

its own rank according to the merit of the goal.

Tables 6

and 7 are scattergrams of the group-ranking r e s u l t s .
only discernable patterns w e r e that

The

(1) the Master of Arts

Table 4.

Across Goal Measure (GM 1) of perceived most important* goals.

GROUP
1

2

3

4

5

(Total 1-4)

Mean
Rank

3.50
5

4.04
1

3,83
3.5

3.83
3.5

3.90
2

(3.75)

Ensure confidence of contributors

Mean
Rank

3.67
2

3.52
4

3.50
5

3.79
1

3.66
3

(3.65)

Increase or maintain prestige

Mean
Rank

3.57
3

3.56
4

3.33
5

3.70
2

3.76
1

(3.59)

Ensure favor of validating bodies

Mean
Rank

3.53
3

3.65
1

3.25
5

3.54
2

3.42
4

(3.55)

Carry on applied research

Mean
Rank

3.48
3

3.44
4

3.67
1

3.55
2

3.99
5

(3.50)

Maintain top quality on
important programs

Mean
Rank

3.39
4

3.32
5

3.80
1

3.50
3

3.69
2

(3.43)

Involve faculty in the govern­
ment of the university

Mean
Rank

3.23
3

3.52
2

3.00
5

3.64
1

3.21
4

(3.42)

Provide a full round of student
activities

Mean
Rank

3.45
2

3.33
4

3.50
1

3.37
3

3.19
5

(3.40)

Keep up to date and responsive

Mean
Rank

3.12
5

3.41
3

3.83
1

3.27
4

3.57
2

(3.28)

i

102

Protect academic freedom

Table 4.

(cont.)

GROUP
1

2

3

4

5

(Total 1-4)

Train students for scholarship
and research

Mean
Rank

2.88
4

3.30
2

2.83
5

3.00
3

3.56
1

(3.02)

Carry on pure research

Mean
Rank

3.25
4

3.42
3

3.00
5

3.43
2

3.55
1

(3.32)

Maintain top quality in all
programs we engage m

Mean
Rank

3.10
5

3.26
2

3.17
4

3.20
3

3.49
1

Group 1
Masters of Arts Candidates
Group 2
Doctoral Candidates
Group 3
Faculty
Group 4
Administrators
Group 5
1967 study group
(Total 1-4) (Total of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4)
♦Perceived goals identified as most important by the total student personnel group
and the 1967 study total group combined.

Table 5.

Across Goal Measure (GM 1) of preferred most important* goals.

GROUP
1

2

3

4

5

(Total 1-4)

Keep up to date and responsive

Mean
Rank

4.29
2

4.22
3

4.17
4

4.43
1

4.09
5

(4.30)

Disseminate new ideas

Mean
Rank

4.14
4

4.22
2

4.17
3

4.25
1

4.19
5

(4.20)

Protect students right of inquiry

Mean
Rank

4.14
2

4.07
3

4.00
4

4.37
1

3.88
5

(4.18)

Develop student's objectivity

Mean
Rank

3.98
5

4.07
3

4.17
2

4.30
1

3.99
4

(4.10)

Protect academic freedom

Mean
Rank

3.98
5

4.22
3

4.33
1.5

4.03
4

4.33
1.5

(4.08)

Involve students in university
government

Mean
Rank

4.00
2.5

3.85
4

4.00
2.5

4.23
1

2.69
5

(4.03)

Maintain top quality in all
programs

Mean
Rank

3.93
4.5

4.11
3

4.17
1

3.93
4.5

4.14
2

(3.99)

Produce well-rounded student

Mean
Rank

4.07
2

3.81
4

4.17
1

3.83
3

3.75
5

(3.94)

Train students for scholarship
and research

Mean
Rank

3.71
5

3.85
3

3.83
4

3.90
2

4.17
1

(3.81)

Table 5.

(cont.)

GROUP
1

2

3

4

5

(Total 1-4)

Cultivate students' intellect

Mean
Rank

3.21
5

3.70
1

3.67
3

3.57
4

4.17
1

(3.47)

Maintain top quality in important
programs

Mean
Rank

3.63
4

3.63
4

4.00
1

3.63
4

3.99
2

(3.65)

Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
(Total 1-4)

Master of Arts Candidates
Doctoral Candidates
Faculty
Administrators
1967 Study Group
(Total of groups 1, 2, 3, and 4)

♦Preferred goals identified as most important by the total student personnel total
groups and by the 1967 total study group combined.

106
Table 6.

Rank

S cattergram or perceived goal rankings of 47
goals across groups (GM 1)

Master
of
Arts

Doctoral

Faculty

Administrator

1967 Study

1st

0

8

13

8

18

2nd

6

11

10

13

11

3rd

8

12

7

16

5

4 th

14

9

6

7

7

5 th

19

7

11

3

6

Note:

Ties were assigned the highest of the tied ranks

Table 7.

Rank

Scattergram of preferred goal rankings of 47
goals across groups (GM 1)

Master
of
Arts

Doctoral

Faculty

Administrator

196 7 Study

1st

1

11

14

12

15

2nd

5

13

11

4

10

3rd

8

18

7

12

3

4 th

10

5

9

15

5

5 th

23

0

6

4

14

Note:

Ties were assigned the highest of the tied ranks

107
candidates tended to rate lower on more items, both p er­
ceived and preferred, and

(2) the 196 7 study group tended

to rate higher on perceived goal items.

Congruence Measures
Analysis of the GM 1 across groups measures was
made to determine congruence between the perceived and p r e ­
ferred GM 1 r a n k i n g s .

Machine computer analysis was accom­

plished, employing the Mi c h i g a n State University Computer
Institute for Social Science Research Technical Report 47,
"Rank Correlation Coefficients," by John Morris, January 5,
1967.

That computer program ranked the across group list­

ings of wei g h t e d means on each goal, perceived and p r e ­
ferred.

Tied observations were assigned the average of the

ranks for which they were tied.
tion

(Rho)

statistic was used.

The Spearman Rank Correla­
(See Chapter III, p. 65,

for the formula used.)
Results from that program gave a Rho and a level of
significance for that Rho on each set of perceived-preferred
rankings across groups.

Table 8 shows the goals that were

significant in that analysis.
The test for significance w i t h only N - 5 (pairs)
was difficult to meet.

Table 8 reveals that only seven of

the forty-seven goals attained significance at the
level or better.

.05

One goal had a perfect positive correla­

tion— that one being the goal to satisfy area needs.

The

108
Table 8.

Across group measure of correlation between
perceived and preferred rankings of individual
goals.

Goal

Rho
.828 * *

1.

Cultivate students'

3.

Affect students w ith great ideas

.820 **

8.

Train students for scholarship and research

.800 *

9.

Keep up to date and responsive

intellect

- .800 *

12.

Carry on applied research

.700 *

15.

Provide cultural leadership

.750 *

17 .

Preserve cultural heritage

.872 **

19 .

Ensure favor of validating bodies

.700 *

22.

Satisfy area needs

40.

Develop faculty loyalty to university

.872 * *

41.

Develop pride in the university

.820 **

43.

Maintain top quality in important
programs

.894 ***

1.000 * * * #

* Significant at

.10 level

** Significant at

.05 level

*** Significant at

.025 level

**** significant at

.001 level

109
goal--keep up to date and r e s p onsive— had the only signifi­
cant negative correlation.
Correlation of the across goal measure essentially
meant that groups perceiving a goal as actually being of
high importance also placed high value on the goal.

Con­

versely those groups that perceived the goal as having low
importance w h e n compared to other groups also preferred
that goal less than other groups.

The negative cor r ela­

tion shown in Table 8 was the result of groups preferring
a goal inversely to the way that it is perceived on their
campus.
W i t h i n group congruence was analyzed also b y the
use of the Spearman Rank Coefficient

(Rho).

The GM 2

perceived and preferred rankings w i t h i n each group were
compared for correlation.

The results of these cor r ela­

tions are shown in Table 9.
Table 9.

Within group congruence between perceived and
preferred rankings of all goals.
Group

Rho

Master of Arts

.005

Doctoral

.098

Faculty

.516 *

Administration

.167

1967 Study Total

.719 *

(Total 1-4)
*

Significant at

(.099)
.001 level

110
The Faculty group attained a significant relation­
ship between their perceptions of goals and the goal p r e f e r ­
ences.

The 1967 group Rho was significant.

Gross and

Grambsch concluded that their research revealed relatively
high congruence within universities.

They suggested that

faculty and staff tended to associate themselves w ith
institutions where agreement existed between their own
private values and w h a t was actually being p r a cticed on
the c a m p u s .

3

Support for that analysis was suggested by

the faculty group sampled in this study.

The graduate

students and Administrators of student personnel work,
however, did not record congruence between their p e r c e p ­
tions and their preferences.
Chapter IV has included discussions of the overall
perspectives of the data collected in this research:

with i n

groups and across groups consideration of goal rankings,
and measures of congruence across and wit h i n groups.

3I b i d . , pp.

115-116.

CHA P T E R V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to assess the p e r ­
ceptions of a set of university goals among selected p o p u ­
lations of student personnel administrators, graduate
students in the field of student personnel administration,
and their faculty at Mic h i g a n State University.
A questionnaire,

containing forty-seven specific

goals, wit h provisions for each goal to be responded to,
(1) as perceived and

(2) as preferred, was adapted from a

previous s t u d y , 1 from whi c h data also was taken for purposes
of comparison with the new populations to be sampled.

One

hundred fifty questionnaires were sent out and 105 were
returned,

for an overall return rate of 70 percent.

Five categories of respondents were established:
1.

Master of Arts degree candidates majoring in
student personnel administration;

2.

Doctoral degree candidates majoring in student
personnel administration;

3.

Faculty who teach graduate students majoring in
student personnel administration;

and

^Edward Gross and Paul v. Grambsch, University Goals
and Academic Power (Washington, D . C . : American Council on
E d u c a t i o n , 1968).

112
4.

Administrators in selected student personnel
positions at Michigan State University.

5.

The fifth category was the data showing the total
sample of the 1967 study.
Response to individual goal ratings ranged from

"top i m p o r t a n c e ” to "no i m p o r t a n c e . ”

Values ranging from

five to one were assigned to the possible responses.
Weighted means established the position or rank of the
goal

(1) across groups and

(2) within groups.

The data were investigated for goal measures
across the five groups.

(rank)

The results of that analysis were

indecisive with regard to the establishing of patterns of
responses by groups or by types of g o a l s .
The student personnel total within group responses
were compared to the 1967 study totals as an overall p e r ­
spective on goal rankings.

The student personnel group

perceived highest importance being placed on academic
freedom,

institutional prestige, and the ensuring of the

favor of validating bodies and contributors.

The 1967

group perceived highest importance being placed on academic
freedom, institutional prestige, the maintenance of impor­
tant programs,

and ensuring the favor of contributors.

The student personnel total group perceived to be
the least important goals of cultural development,
ter development,

loyalty to the institution,

charac­

and ensuring

that rewards reflected contributions to the institution.

113
The 1967 group perceived to be the least important goals of
cultural development, maintaining institutional character,
involving students in university government,

and the e m pha­

sizing of undergraduate education.
The student personnel total group preferred as most
important goals of keeping up to date and responsive,
disseminating new ideas, protecting students'

right of

inquiry and developing students' objectivity.

The 1967

group preferred as most important goals of protecting
academic freedom,

training students in scholarship and/or

research, developing students'

intellect, and maintaining

top quality in all programs.
The student personnel total group least preferred
goals of maintaining institutional character, accommodating
only high potential students,
faculty prevailed,

insuring that the will of the

and cultivating students'

taste.

The

1967 group least preferred goals of maintaining institu­
tional character,
university,

involving students in government of the

cultivating the students'

taste, and the e m p h a ­

sizing of undergraduate education.
Within groups analysis of the four sub-groups within
the student personnel total group revealed frequent v a r i ­
ations from the norm by one of the sub-groups.
the group at variance was the Faculty group.
interests,

Most often
Established

age, position, and more extensive professional

training were suggested as reasons for that phenomenon.

114
Congruence measures between perceived and preferred
rankings of individual goals across groups produced twelve
goals significant at the

.10 level of confidence.

Congruence measures wit h i n groups revealed no sig­
nificant correlation for the Master of Arts Candidates,
the Doctoral C a n d i d a t e s , or the A d m i n i s t r a t o r s .

The Faculty

and the 1967 study group, however, were significantly
related

(.001 level of confidence).

Conclusion
The study provided a considerable number of tenta­
tive responses to some very substantive statements about
university goals.

The specificity of purpose represented

by the forty-seven goals in the questionnaire provided,
perhaps,

for many of the respondents,

a relatively unique

opportunity for thoughtful consideration of the missions
of the university.

This opportunity should not continue

to be unique for student personnel administrators.

The

identification and ordering of institutional goals are the
areas of important inquiry and research for the immediate
future.

This study has revealed both congruence and d i s ­

sonance among segments of the student personnel "population"
at Michigan State University.

A broader national population,

represented by the 1967 study data, offered a substantial
sounding board of comparison for the entire student p e rson­
nel group.

The results of this study seem to indicate, at

115
least for the majority of the student personnel respondents,
a general philosophical posture that values quality e d uca­
tion while maintaining concern for individual human d e vel­
opment.

It is not likely, however,

that the language used

in these statements of goals is the best language for the
student personnel administrator.

It is not likely that the

division of goals used in this list
sion

encompassed the p r e c i ­

of purpose needed for student personnel administrators

in the mod e r n university.

The language needs to be d e v e l ­

oped— the proper division of goals needs to be made.

Implications for Further Research
The results of this study established implications
for further research on several aspects of goal d e t ermina­
tion and ordering of priorities for student personnel
administrators.

The following questions require further

investigation:
1.

How are the stated goals defined by respondents
in terms of the behaviors used or needed to imple­
m e n t the g o a l s .

2.

Who has responsibility for goal implementation?
Does this responsibility shift from agency to agency
according to the nature of the goal?

If not, how

is it shared behaviorally?
3.

How accurate are perceptions of goals in effect in
terms of amount of time and resources actually

116
spent in pursuit of goals?

What activities are

directly supportive of the attainment of individual
goals?

W hat activities conflict w ith the attain­

ment of individual goals?
4.

If preferred goals w e r e honored, how w o uld practices
and behaviors change?

What activities w o uld be

increased or decreased?

What functions wou ld be

added or deleted?
5.

What goals w o uld be established by empirically
established behavior analysis?

W o uld these differ

from reports of emphasis given to pre-categorized
goals?
6.

From what sources of authority does emphasis for
goal importance originate?

W hat degree of influ­

ence on goal importance comes from the university
power structure?
student needs,

How do professional authorities,

the news media,

etc., affect goal ordering?

crisis confrontations,

Does the order change

appreciably in time of stress?

Are expressed goals

deeply ingrained values or are they a function of
immediate perceived needs?
7.

How are short-range goals formed?

How are they

accommodated when they conflict with long-range
goals?
8.

How do goal specificity and clarity about goals
relate to such criteria as institutional pro duc­
tivity;

internal harmony;

faculty,

staff, and

student

1X7
homogeneity;

and student satisfaction with their

educational experiences?
9.

How long does an ordering of goals remain valid?
Does it change significantly from year to year?

10.

What are optimum levels of congruence or dissonance
between perceived and preferred goals in terms of
productivity and continuance with the institution?

11.

How are dissonances between perceived and preferred
importance of goals resolved?

What behaviors

exemplify the resolution processes?
12.

How do existing orderings of goals compare with
the perceptions and preferences of the general
public,

state,

legislators, parents, alumni,

and

other populations of interest to the university?
How accurate are their perceptions in terms of
their behavior?
These are but some possible additional research
efforts that are needed to gain both a broader perspective
on the problem of goal importance and to confirm or deny
in behavioral terms the results of this study.

Implications for Future Action
1.

Institutional surveys of goals need to occur at
appropriate intervals in order to continually
reassess the values and perceptions of the many
segments of the university about university purposes.

118
2.

Student personnel administrators need to simultane­
ously consider institutional goals and professional
goals so as to identify and deal with areas or
elements of dissonance.

3.

Student personnel administrators need to adequately
contribute to the continuing debate over univer­
sity goals.

Spokesmen are needed to provide the

rest of the academic community with our point of
view, our language,

and our goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Academic Administrators and University G o a l s .
(Final Report,
Project Bureau No. 5078 [formerly project 2633],
Contract No. SAE OE 5-10-099, June 1967.)
U. S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office
of Education, Bureau of Research.
As tin, Alexander W. and P a n o s , Robert J.
The Educational
and Vocational Development of College Students'!
Washington, Dl C. : American Council on Education,
1969 .
Bell, Daniel.
The Reforming of General E d u c a t i o n .
Columbia University Press, 1966.
Bowlin,

New York:

Robert L. and Warfield, John L.
"Black Power and
Its Direction on Campus," Journal of the Association
of Deans and Administrators of Student Affairs
(NASPA) Vol. 6, No. 4 (April, 1969).

Chickering, Arthur W.
Education and I d e n t i t y .
Jossey-Bass, I n c ., 1969.

San Francisco:

Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The Student
in Higher E d u c a t i o n . New Haven:
The Hazen Founda­
tion , I960.
Council of Student Personnel Associations in Higher Education.
The Commission on Professional Development.
"A
Position Paper:
Action Involvement for College
Personnel Education" (January 9, 1970).
Dressel, Paul L.
College and University C u r r i c u l u m .
Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing C o r p . , 1^68.
Freedman, Mervin B.
Jossey-Bass,

The College E x p e r i e n c e .
Inc. , 19<>7.

San Francisco:

Gardner, John W.
"Quality in Higher Education."
Louis B.
M a y h e w . Higher Education in the Revolutionary
D e c a d e s . B e r k e l e y : McCutchan Publishing C o r p . ,

1967'.
119

120
Grant, Harold.
"Student Development."
Undated transcribed
tape lecture delivered at Michigan State University.
Gross, Edward and Grambsch, Paul V.
Ac ademic P o w e r . Washington,
on E d u c a t i o n , 196 8.
Hays, W i l l i a m L.
Statistics.
and Wilson~ 1963.

University Goals and
d T C . : American Council

New York:

Hoffman, Nicholas von.
The M u l t i v e r s i t y .
Rinehart, and W i n s t o n , 1966.

Holt,

Rinehart

New York:

Holt,

Hofstadter, Richard and Metzgar, Walter P.
The Development
of Academic Freedom in the United States^. New Y o r k :
Columbia University Press, 1955.
_________ and Smith, Wilson.
American Higher Education:
Documentary H i s t o r y . C h i c a g o : University of
Chicago P r e s s , 1961.
Hutchins, Robert M.
Education for F r e e d o m .
Grove P r e s s , I n c ., 1953.

New York:

Katz, Joseph and Associates.
No Time for Y o u t h .
Francisco:
Jossey-Bass^ I n c ., 1968.
Kelinger, Fred N.
New York:

A

San

Foundations of Behavioral R e s e a r c h .
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, I n c ., 1965.

Keniston, Kenneth.
"The Univeristy as Critic:
Objective
or Partisan?"
Whose Goals for American Higher
E d u c a t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D"I C. : American Council
on E d u c a t i o n , 1967.
Kerr, Clark.
The Uses of the U n i v e r s i t y .
and Row^ 196 3.
Kish, Leslie.
Survey S a m p l i n g .
S o n s , 1966.
Knapp,

Lee,

New York:

New York:

Harper

John Wiley and

Robert H.
"Changing Functionsi of the College
Professor."
College and C h a r a c t e r . Edited by
Nevitt SanforcH
New Y o r k : John Wiley and Sons,
1964.

Calvin B. T.
"Whose Goals for American Higher Education?"
Whose Goals for American Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washington,
DT C. : American Council on Education, T5"67.

121
Lippman, Walter.
"The University and the Human Condition."
Whose Goals for American Higher E d u c a t i o n . Washing
t o n , D . C . : American Council on Education, 1967.
Lipset, Seymour M.
"Student Opposition in the United
States."
Government and Opposition (April 1966)
and A e t b a c h , Philip G.
"Student Politics and
Higher Education in the United States," Comparative
Education R e v i e w , 10 (June, 1966).
McGrath, Earl J. and M e e t h , Richard L.
"Organizing for
Teaching and Learning:
The Curriculum."
Higher
Education:
Some Newer D e v e l o p m e n t s . Edited by
Samuel Baskin.
New Y o r k : McG r a w Hill, 1965.
Maclver,

Robert.
Community:
Y o r k :M a c M i l l a n , 1936.

A Sociological S t u d y .

New

MacLeish, Andrew.
"The Great American Frustration."
Saturday Review (July 13, 1968).
Martin, War r e n Bryan.
Conformity Standards and Change in
Higher Education"! B o s t o n : Houghton Mifflin
C o m p a n y , 1965.
Parsons,

Talcott e t a l .
Theories of S o c i e t y .
Free Press o f G l e n c o e , 1961.

New York:

Perkins, James A.
The University in T r a n s i t i o n .
Princeton University Press, 1$4E>6 .

Princeton:

Reagan, Mary C.
"Student Change:
The New Student and
Society."
Journal of the Association of Deans and
Administrators of Student A f f a i r s .
(NASPA) V o l . S',
N o . 3 (January 1969).
Riesman, David and J e n k s , Christopher S.
"The Viability of
the American College."
College and C h a r a c t e r .
Edited by Nevitt Sanfordl
New Y o r k : John Wiley
and Son, 1964.
Rudolph, Frederick.
The American College and U n i v e r s i t y .
New Y o r k : Vintage B o o k s , 1^62.
Sanford, Nevitt.
Where Colleges Fall.
wnere
Jossey-BasI'T I n c . , 1967.

San Francisco:

Selltiz, Claire e t a l .
Research Methods in Social R e l a t i o n s ,
rev. ed. in 1 vo Yl
New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t , and
Winston, 1967.

122
Shoben, Edward J . , Jr.
"A Rationale for Modern Student
Personnel Work."
P e r s o n n e l - O - G r a m , 12:
9-12
(March, 1950).
Siegel, S.
Nonparametrie Methods for the Behavioral Self
enceiT
New Y o r k : M c G r a w Hill, 1956.
Statement on professional training and student personnel
functions, Council of Student Personnel A s socia­
tions, 1962.
"The Role and Preparation of Student Personnel Workers in
Institutions of Higher L e a r n i n g . " Washington, D.C.
COSPA, 1947.
"The Student Personnel Point of View."
1949.

ACE Statement,

U. S. Higher Court of Western Missouri.
"Lawful Missions
of Tax Supported Higher Education."
ThejT^urnal
of C o llege Student Personnel.
Vol. 10, No. 2
(March 1969) .
Williamson, E. G.
A review of University Goals and Academic
Power (Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch.
Washington, D. C . : American Council on Education, 1968).
The Personnel and Guidance J o u r n a l . Vol. 48, No. 2
(October, 1969).
_________ . Student Personnel Services in Colleges and U n i ­
versities . New Y o r k :M c G r a w - H i l l , 1961.
Wrenn, C. Gilbert and Darley, J. G.
"An
Professional Status of Personnel
II.
Trends in Student Personnel
E . G . Williamson.
Minneapolis:
of M i n nesota Press, 1949.

Appraisal of the
Work." Parts I and
W o r k . Edited by
TheUniversity

APPENDIX

M E M O R A N D U M
February 23,

1970

TO :

(1) Michigan State University Student Personnel
Administrators
(2) Doctoral Degree Candidates in Student Personnel
Administration
(3) Masters Degree Candidates in Student Personnel
Administration
(4) Student Personnel Administration Faculty

FROM:

Bud Thomas, Ph.D.
Home:
337-0943

SUBJECT:

Request for your response

Candidate; Office:

353-3780,

WHY Y O U ? You have been identified as a memb e r of the category
markecT a b o v e . Having a primary interest in the field of Student
Personnel Administration in Higher Education, you are encouraged
to contribute, for inclusion in this research, your perceptions
about the importance of a variety of specific university goals.
ABOUT THE S T U D Y . Your perceptions of goals at Michigan State
University will be compared to a nationwide study (University
Goals and Academic P o w e r , Edward Gross and Paul V. 6 r a m b s c h ,
American Council of Education, Washington, D . C . , 1968) of u n i ­
versity faculty and administrators from 6 8 m a j o r institutions.
Parts 1 and 9 of the 196 8 study questionnaire have been d u pli­
cated and form the questionnaire utilized in this study.
Comparisons among the four populations will be drawn.
Multi­
variant analysis of goal perceptions with i n the four populations
and also with the 196 8 study w ill be possible via inclusion of
part 9.
This will be a pilot study, and, as such, may lead to further
assessment of the role and posture of Student Personnel Adminis­
trators in the processes of university goal determination.
This research has the approval of my doctoral guidance committee
and the M.S.U. Office of Institutional Research.
In the event of
questions relating to this approval, you may contact either Dr.
Laurine E. Fitzgerald (Chairman) 355-8324 or Dr. Paul Dressel
(Institutional Research) 355-6629.
C ONFIDENTIAL I T Y . Only myself and necessary data processing assist
ants will see the completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e . No reference to indi­
viduals will be made in the analysis.
In view of these safeguards
you are asked to place your name on this cover page for purposes
of control of returns.
THANK Y O U ! The questionnaire should take about 22 to 25 minutes
to c o m p l e t e . Please return via campus mail to:
Bud Thomas, 338
Student Services B l d g . , or via U.S. Mail to Bud Thomas, 519 Gunson
Street, E. Lansing, Michigan 48823.
Please enter your name here __________________________________________

IM OOALS or THIS UNIVIRSITY
One of the great issues in American education has to do with the proper aims or goals*of the university. The question is:
What *re we trying to accomplish? Are we trying to prepare people forjobs, to broaden them intellectually, or what?
Below wc have listed a large number of the more commonly claimed aims,intentions or goals of a university.We would
like you to react to each of these in two different ways:
( 1) How important is each aim at this university?
(2) How important should the aim be at this university?
R

top Importance Importance
IXAMfUi

lerve as substitute parents

Importswro

of llttlo
of O O
don't h R R W
Imports»«o Importance or coo’ttoy

Is

□

o

□

n

□

should

□

□

□

IE)

□

A person who had checked the alternatives in the manner shown above would be expressing his perception that the aim,
mtion or goal, "to serve as substitute parents," is of medium importance at his university but that he believes it should be of
importance as an aim, intention, or goal of his university.
)TE: "of absolutely top importance" should only be checked if the aim is so important that, if it were to be removed, the
iversity would be shaken to its very roots and its character changed In a fundamental way.

ild our staff in the face of inducements
few! hy other universities

STATE UNIVERSITY, WHERE YOU ARE Cl
or ENROLLED as a GRADUATE STUDENT,

cl medlem
Importance

of Mlfie
Importance

don't knew
or can't coy

1

JL QUESTIONS ARE ABOUT TH IS UNIVERSITY, that is, MICHIGAN
EMPLOYED
OAIS
of RkulpRly
•f pTMt
ftp Importance Importance

la

n

□

n

□

□

□

should
bo

□

□

□

□

□

□

D

□

bo

□

□

□
□

n
□

□
□

□
□

la

□

□

n

□

n

□

bo

□

□

□

a

□

□

Is

o
a

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

la
ake sure that on oil important issues
lot only curriculum), the will of the
should
ill-time faculty shall prevail

•courage students to go into graduate
ork
should

rotect the faculty's right to academic
eedotn
should

bo
Is
rovide special training for part-time
dult students, through extension courses,
pecial short courses, correspondence should
mines, etc.
bn

Sm 'I k<
•f M
•f iisri*
•f STMt
ImpsrtsMS ImpwtaM* IwpsrtsiW iMpWtMl* •r im 'I
□

□

n

n

n

□

□

n

n

G

n

n

□

□

n

□

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n

□

n

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n

n

□

a

a

n

□

n

□

□

n

□

□

□

□

D

□

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n

□

□

a

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

O

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

la

□

□

□

□

□

n

ahould

□

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

elop loyalty on the part of the faculty
U
staff to die university, rather than
r to their own jobs or professional should

)uce a student who, whatever elae
r be done to him, has had his intellect
ivated to the maximum

tlop the inner character of students
ihat they can make sound, correct
a) choices

.

ce a good consumer of the student—a
I*
am who is elevated culturally, has
d taste, and can make good consumer ahould
ices
k*
»e as a center for the dissemination of
la
I ideas that will change the society,
rther those ideas are in science, liters- ahould
>, the arts, or politics
ho
cate to his utmost capacities every
1 school graduate who meets bask:
il requirements for admission
should
i harmony between departments or
I*
■ions of the university when such
irtments or divisions do not see eye should
ye on important matters
ho
c this a plate in which faculty have
la
imum opportunity to pursue their
en in a manner satisfactory to them ahould
heir own criteria
l°p greater pride on the part of facstaff and students in their university
the things it stands for
should

up to date and responsive

: sure the student is permanently afd (in mind and spirit) by the great
of the great minds of history
should

•f y i t
•f efrnlnf ly
t*r Infw tm w lipwtMW

O M S (coot.)

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

b«

□

□

□

*□

□

□

it

a

□

□

D

□

□

should
•"JJJ
Im

□

□

□

□

□

□

It

□

n

□

G

a

□

n

G

a

□

n

□

n

G

G

n

□

n

□

n

n
G

n

□

n

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

n
n

□
□

□
□

□
□

□
n

□
□

n

n

n

n

a

□

□
□

□
D

n
□

a
□

a
□

□
□

□
□

□
□

n
□

should
ho

a
a

□
□

□
□

□
□

□
□

□
□

It

n

□

G

n

□

□

should
ho

□

□

□

□

□

□

it

G

□

□

□

□

should
ho

G

□

G
G

□

□

□

crve u a center for the preservation of
ilw v ld
he cultural heritage

.

..

nvolve students in the government of
should
he university

ho

It
make sure the university is run by those
selected according to their ability to at­
tain the goals of the university in the should
most efficient manner possible.
bo

u
maintain top quality in all programs we
should
engage in

ho

keep this place from becoming something
different from what it is now; that is,
preserve its peculiar emphases and point
of view, its ‘'character”

It
should
ho

provide the student with skills, attitudes,
It
contacts, and experiences which maxi­
mize the likelihood of his occupying a
high status in life and a position of should
ho
leadership in society

It
carry on pure research

keep costs d o w n .is low us possible
through m ore efficient u tiliza tio n of tim e
and sp a te , re d u c tio n of co u rse d u p lic a ­
tion, etc.
make sure th a t salaries, te a c h in g assign
incuts, ]x *m posites, a n d p riv ileg es alw ays
•effect th e c o n trib u tio n th a t th e p erson
involved is m ak in g to th e fu n c tio n in g of
this university
protect a n d fa cilitate th e s tu d e n ts ’ rig h t
Iti adv o cate d irec t ac tio n of a [xilitieal
or sim iat kind, a n d any a tte m p ts on th e n
part to u rg a iii/e efforts to a tta in political
or social goals

4*»'t Ik
m4«w
lmr«rt«iK*

□

it

nediate geographical region

n urn*
ImparMiiM

O

it

tjn student* in methods of scholarship
nd/or scientific research, and/or cre- should
dve endeavor
bo

irient ourselves to the satisfaction of the
pecial needs and problems of the im -

mtmMImn
ImptiUiin

should
bo
It

ooais

•# |TMt
e# ■SulnUty
llUWtMM* Impertew

(Mnt.)

produce a w e ll-ro u n d ed s tu d e n t, th a t is
one whose physical, social, m oral, in te l­
lectual and e sth e tic p o te n tia litie s h a v e
.ill been cu ltiv ated
assist citizens d irec tly th ro u g h ex ten sio n
programs, advice, co n su lta tio n , a n d th e
provision of useful or n e e d e d facilities
and services o th er th a n th ro u g h te a c h in g
ensure th e fav o rab le a p p ra isa l o f those
who validate th e q u a lity of th e p ro g ram s
wr offer (v a lid a tin g g ro u p s in c lu d e a c ­
crediting ImkIios. pro fessional societies,
scholarly peers at o th e r u n iv ersities, a n d
respected persons in in telle ctu al o r a r tis ­
tic circles)
maintain a b alan c ed level of q u a lity
across the w h o le ra n g e of p ro g ra m s w e
engage in

accom m odate only stu d e n ts of h ig h po
tential in term s of th e specific s tre n g th s
and em p h ases of th is u n iv ersity

assist stu d e n ts to d e v e lo p o bjectivity
about them selv es a n d th e ir beliefs a n d
hence ex am in e th o se b eliefs criticnllv

prepare stu d e n ts specifically for u sefu l
careers

□

n

□

□

□

□

ahould
ho

D

□
□

ia

□

□

□

a

□

□

ahould
ho

□

□

n

□

□

□

la

□

n

n

n

n

n

ahould
bo

a

□

□

□

□

a

la

□

n

n

□

n

□

ahould
bo

□

□

□

n

□

□

□
□

n
□

□
□

n
D

a
□

□
□

□
o

□
□

□
□

□
□

□
□

□
□

□

a

□

□

□

ahould
bo

a
n

□

□

□

□

□

la

□

□

□

□

□

□

ahould
bo

□

□

D

□

□

□

la

□

□

□

□

□

ahould
bo

□

a
a

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□

□
□

□
□

c
c

la

□

□

□

□

□

ahould
bo

□

□

□

□

□

c
c

ahould
bo

ahould
bo
la

provide cultural leadership for the com­
munity through university-sponsored pro­
la
grams in the arts, public lectures by dis­
tin g u ish ed persons, athletic events, and
o th er performances, displays or celebra­ ahould
bo
tions which present the best of culture,
po p u lar o r not
carry on applied research

□
□

d m
S u 't km
iw rirtiM i •r im 't •

□

la
product* a stu d e n t w h o is ab le to p erfo rin
his citizenship resp o n sib ilities effectiv ely

mf Hnte
I f l lt l lU l

la

la
make sure th e u n iv ersity is ru n d e m o ­
cratically insofar as th a t is feasib le

i t mawM
lw » iitiw

•

•t (f««i
ImperteMM

•4NwSlvm
Ifrta im

•4little
lma*rtaN««

•I M

Sen** t>

□

G

n

□

n

n

□

□

□

□

□

a

O

G

n

G

a

□

□
□

□

□

a
a

Is
emphasize undergraduate instruction
even at the expense of the graduate pro­ should
gram
bo

□

n

□

G

a

rn

□

n

n

a

a

a

involve faculty in the government of the
university

Is
should
bo

□

G

n

G

a

a

□

[i

G

G

G

□

n

G

G

G

G

G

a

n

n
i■
—)
J

G

provide a full ro u n d o f stu d e n t a c tiv itie s

Is
should
bo
Is
should
bo

G

G

G

G

G

□

n

G

□

□

G

□

Is

n

n

□

a

□

should
bo

□

G

□
□

n

-

□

Is
maintain top quality in those programs
we feel to be especially important (other
should
programs being, of course, up to accept­
h*
able standards)

□

G

n

□

G

□

n

□

□

□

a

n

•f afcuMtly
tea

GOALS (con*.)

ensure the continued confidence and
hence support of those who contribute
Is
substantially (other than students and
recipients of services) to the finances should
and other material resource needs of the
ho
university
make sure that salaries, teaching assign­
Is
ments. perquisites, and privileges always
reflect the contribution that the person should
involved is making to his own profession
bo
or discipline

increase the prestige of the university or,
if you believe it is already extremely
protect and facilitate the students' right
to inquire into, investigate, and examine
i riiii .ills any idea or program that they
might get interested in

■

G

In spite of the length of the above list, it Is entirely possible that we have not included aims or goals which are im
tant at this university, or we may have badly stated such an aim or goal; if so, please take this opportunity to correct ui
writing them in below.
•* sw at
Oea"* Si
OOAL
IWOWHNMe UmpmJtmrm •v «■•**

Is
should
bo

□

□

a

□

□

n

□

□

□

□

a

□

b

a

n

□

n

n

□

h*

D

□

n

□

□

□

9.1

Present ig e (nearest b irthday):
□ under 25

Q 8630

□

31-33

□

36-40

□ 41-45

D *e-S0

□

□ 56-50

□

61-65

□ 66 or i

51-55

9.3

Number of children: (please circle the correct number) 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. 5, 6 or more.

94

Rice;

[ ] White
0

9.2

Sex:

□

Negro

M

□ F

□ Mongoloid
95

Country of birth of father _

96

Father’s education:
□

Years of schooling completed:

11 or leas.

□

12.

11 or less.

(“ ] 12

0

more than 12.

[']

more

Degree(s) obtained if anv _
M o th er’s e d u c a tio n :

Years of schooling completed:

than

12

Degree(s) obtained if any. __

9: Father's occupation during most of his adult life: (please be specific).
9S

Your p lace of b irth -

If rural, name nearest city
If urban, name city ------ --

(country)

(state, if U.S.A.)
9.9 Place in which the greater part of your life up to age 17 was spent:
If rural, name nearest city _______________
If urban, name city _____________________

(country)

(state, if U.S.A.)

'*Mi Church affiliation;
Q Catholic

Q None

□ Other

□ Jewish

D Protestant

(If Protestant or Other, please specify

ffyi_

9 11 Sources of fnoome: (foe income tax >sas 1664)

Percentage of incoma derived from this source

Academic Salary
Consulting
Income from writing
Other sources (please specify)
100*
9.12 Marital status: (check one)

□ Single
Q Married
Q Divorced, and presently unmarried

If married and male, a question about your wife:
Education of wife’s father;
Number of years;

0

11 or lees

□ 12

Separated

Q more than 12

O Widowed

Academic degr ees, if any: _____________________

P

Occupation of wife's father during moot of hie adult Uf

13 Your education:
Q 11 yean or lm
□ IS year*
Q mom year* of collage or univenity, but no degree received
□ B A. (or other bachelor’* degree requiring 4 year* or more)
If *o, what ooOega or univenity? _________________________________
Field of specialisation, if an y_____________
□

Year rw d vrJ _____

M.A. or M.S., or other Master'* degree requlrfcig atleast one year beyond the bachelor's degiee
If so, what univenity or college?_______________________________________________ ,__
If so, what field of ip a d a lia ito

Q M.D. If so, what univenity? .

_____

___________________________ ________ _
.

Year rnnMnrd _ _ _

□ Ph.D. If so, what un iven ity?______ __________________________________ ____________________________ _
If so, what field of specialisation ______________________________________ ____________________________
Year received
_
□ Other degree than those named.
What degree? ----------------------- What college or university?
__
specialty?
Year received_____________

What field

9.14 Job history.
Title of present position <if more than one is held, please list the uther(s); ___________________ _____
Department, if any _______________________________________ _________ __________________________

List Im-Iow only positions held for 9 months or longer, (please sta rt w ith most recent position)
Kind of Position

Name of Employer

Period of Employment

1.
2.

_
_______________________________________

3 ___________________________________________________________________________________

4 . __________________________________________________________________________________________

5.________________________________________________________________
6. _____________________________________________________________
7._______________________________________________________________
8. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________
J This question is optional
Income data will enable us to perform a number of important analyses. We rsoognixc. however, that persons are, undm
standably, reluctant to reveal what they feel is a personal matter. Would you therefore simply provide an appradtaMthm
as follows:
, ,
i \1p t
Total income from all sources, before taxes, in the I Pf Mas year (i.e., an amount no more than fififi above
or below your actual incom e).
fi — ■■■■ —