71-31,294
RIEGER, Jon Hill, 1936GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY AND OCCUPATIONAL
ACHIEVEMENT OF RURAL YOUTH: A TEN YEAR
LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF AN UPPER MICHIGAN
SAMPLE.

Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971
Sociology, general

University Microfilms, A XEROXCompany, Ann Arbor, Michigan

GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY AND OCCUPATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
OF RURAL YOUTH:

A TEN YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY

OF AN UPPER MICHIGAN SAMPLE

By
Jon Hill Rleger

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology
1971

PLEASE NOTE:
Some Pages have Indistinct
print.
Filmed as received.
UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS

ABSTRACT
GEOGRAPHICAL MOBILITY AND OCCUPATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT
OF RURAL YOUTHS A TEN YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY
OF AN UPPER MICHIGAN SAMPLE
By
Jon Hill Rieger
This dissertation addresses itself to the relation­
ship of geographic mobility and occupational attainment of
rural youth, a subject of continuing interest in sociolog­
ical research.

A survey of the literature yields the fol­

lowing generalizations concerning the migration behavior
and career achievement of these young peoples

1) Most of

them depart their rural communities after leaving school;
2) Most of the departees migrate to urban areas; 3) The
migrants generally exhibit higher occupational attainments
than nonmigrants; 4) Superior occupational achievement among
migrants may be explained only partly in terms of selectivity
of migration; 5) Persons reared in larger communities tend
to achieve higher occupational levels than those from smaller
ones; and 6) Migrants to small cities show the highest occu­
pational attainment while migrants to large cities rank
second.

Migrants to other rural places rank behind migrants

to large cities but ahead of nonmigrants.
These generalizations are based on research which
is typically cross-sectional or historico-reconstructlve in

Jon Hill Rieger
design.

The few longitudinal studies carried out have been

hampered by reliance on simple **Time 1, Time 2" observations
or by significant data loss through attrition of cases, or
both.

An indication of the limitations of previous research

is revealed in the lack of systematic analysis of "circular
migration,1* which is shown to be a widespread phenomenon.
It is observed that a need exists for a more complete analy­
sis of the experience of a single cohort over the period of
their basic career development.
A micro-level study is then outlined in which the
above generalizations are restated as hypotheses and tested
under strict longitudinal conditions utilizing a) continuous
data over the time period of the study, and b) recovery of
information for 100% of the cases.

The study uses a sample

of young males from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.

These

subjects were first studied while they were still enrolled
in high school and then were tracked for the subsequent ten
year period.

Pata were initially obtained concerning various

objective and social psychological background factors.

Ten

years later detailed Information was gathered concerning
all changes of residence, occupations held, and education
obtained during the decade.
The results support each of the hypotheses and point
up the significance of the circular migration phenomenon.
Most of those residing in their home community at the end
of the ten year period were found to have lived elsewhere

Jon Hill Rieger
for a significant period during the decade, and their occu­
pational attainment was distinctly higher than that of the
true nonmigrants, but lower than that of the migrants to
other rural areas*

This rank order of occupational achieve

ment of nonmigrants, circular migrants, and rural migrants
is accounted for in terms of a "kinship deterrent" theory
in which proximity to, and frequent interaction with, kin
exercises an inhibiting effect upon occupational mobility*
The findings in respect to circular migration serve
as a basis for criticism of the conventional simplified
classification of migration status as it relates to career
formation and occupational mobility among rural youth.

It

is argued that migration among these types of subjects is
a more complex process than is implied by the format of
previous research.

1111*

Mp

U«t*n

jwCP ‘
S ta c /a ti

ft <**>

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Apprenticeship in the craft of Sociology is initially
measured in the creativity, and in the quality of the work­
manship and writing, of the Ph.D. dissertation. To whatever
degree the present thesis embodies those characteristics,
it has been due to the continuing confidence, interest, and
guidance of a number of key individuals during the last
several years of my professional education.
The patient support, counsel, and encouragement of
Professor J. Allan Beegle was basic to the completion of
the research reported in part in this thesis. As the indi­
vidual primarily involved in guiding the dissertation, a
greater debt is owed to him than can ever possibly be repaid.
My committee chairman, Professor Donald Olmsted, gave invalu­
able counsel and advice in the casting of the thesis in its
present form, and conscientiously read and criticized the
initial draft. Professors Duane Gibson, Eugene Jacobson,
and Jay Artis have contributed by their cordial, thoughtful,
and persistent interest and encouragement as members of my
Guidance Committee and by their critical examination of the
thesis. Thanks is due, in addition, to Professor William
Form, who gave exceedingly timely and helpful advice during
the early stages of the research.
Gratitude is also extended to the M^.- igan State
University Agricultural Experiment Station and to the Insti­
tute for Community Development and Services of Michigan State
University for their financial support of the extensive field
work necessary to this type of research, as well as the de­
tailed processing and analysis of the data thus obtained.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...........................
LIST OF TABLES.

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

v

LIST OF F I G U R E S .................................. vii
Chapter
I.

THE RESEARCH PROBLEM........................

1

A.

1

Introduction ............................

B. Migration and Social Mobility.........
C.

Review of Literature ...................
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

D.

3
8

Frequency of Migration from Rural Areas
Destinations of Migrants............. 19
Migration and OccupationalAchievement.
Selectivity of Migration............. 27
The Influence of the Opportunity
Structure of the Community of
Orientation............................
6. Migration and the Opportunity Struc­
ture of the Community of Destination. •

16

34

Circular Migration and Social Mobility . •

39

25

31

1. The Occupational Achievement of Cir­
cular Migrants.......................... 50
E.

Statement of the Research Problem...... 57
1.
2.

II.

Rationale for the Hypotheses............59
Statements of the Hypotheses............ 67

THE METHOD OF THE S T U D Y ...................... 71
A.

Introduction.......................... 71

B.

The Ontonagon County Project, 1957-1968. •
1.
2.

71

The Research S i t e ......................73
The Research S a m p l e ....................75

iii

Chapter

Page
3. Operationalization ofthe Variables . • 81
4. Operational Statements of the Hy­
potheses................................. 87
5. Format of Analysis................ • . . 91

1X1.

RESULTS OF THE STUDY........................... 94
A.

Introduction • . . • ...................... 94

B. Geographic Mobility and Occupational
Achievement.
........................... 94
C.
IV.

Summary.

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

118

CONCLUSION..............

123

A.

Introduction

123

B.

Migration and the Careersof Rural Youth . 123

C.

Significance of the Findings

.........

......... 126

D. The Value of Longitudinal Micro—Studies. . 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................... .................. 132
APPENDICES........................................... 141
Appendix A. May 1957 Initial Phase of
Voluntary Migration Questionnaire
Appendix B. 1968 First Decennial Re-Study
Que stionnaire

iv

LIST OF TABLES
Table

Page

1.

1962 Residence by Residence at Age 16, Men of
Rural Background Aged 20 to 64, OCG National
Sample (Extrapolated from Blau and Duncan,
1967, Appendix H, p. 4 8 1 ) ....................... 19

2.

Mean 1962 Occupational Status by Type of Com­
munity at Age 16 and In 1962 and Migration
Status (In Deviations from the Grand Mean),
Men Aged 20 to 64, OCG National Sample (Adapted
from Blau and Duncan, 1967, p. 2 6 0 ) ...........

35

3.

Per Cent Upwardly Mobile from Father's Occupa­
tion More than 25 Points, by Type of Community
at Age 16 and In 1962 and Migration Status, Men
Aged 20 to 64, OCG National Sample (Adapted
from Blau and Duncan, 1967, p. 2 6 1 ) ............. 37

4*

Residence at End of Post High School Decade
(PHSD) In Numbers and Percents; Male Ontonagon
County 195 7 Juniors and S e n i o r s ................. 95

5.

Size of Community of Residence at End of Post
High School Decade (PHSD) In Numbers and Per­
cents; Male Ontonagon County 1957 Juniors and
Seniors Living Outside Their Home Communities
at End of PHSD O n l y ............................. 96

6.

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) for Persons Living In,
and Persons Living Outside, Their Home Com­
munity at End of PHSD; Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Juniors and Seniors............ 97

7.

Selected Objective Family Background Character­
istics of Persons Living In, and Persons Living
Outside, their Home Communities at End of Post
High School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Juniors and Seniors............ 98

8.

Selected Dynamic Family Background Character­
istics of Persons Living In, and Persons Living
Outside, their Home Communities at End of Post
High School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Jiinlors and Seniors. • • • • • 100

v

Page

Table
9*

Selected Objective Individual Background Char­
acteristics of Persons Living In, and Persons
Living Outside, their Home Communities at End of
Post High School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon
County 1957 High School Juniors and Seniors • • 103

10.

Selected Dynamic Individual Background Charac­
teristics of Persons Living Int and Persons
Living Outside, their Home Communities at End of
Post High School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon
County 1957 High School Juniors and Seniors • . 105

11.

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) by Community (School);
Male Ontonagon County 1957 High School Juniors
and Seniors .................................

111

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD), Three Largest Communi­
ties (Schools) vs. Three Smallest Communities
(Schools); Male Ontonagon County 1957 High
School Juniors and Seniors..................

111

12*

13.

Mean Socioeconomic Status by Residence at End
of Post High School Decade (PHSD) for Persons
Living in Home Communities, Other Rural Areas,
Small Cities, and Large Cities; Male Ontonagon
County 1957 High School Juniors and Seniors • < 113

14.

Extent and Frequency of Circular Migration
among Persons Living in their Home Communities
at End of Post High School Decade (PHSD) in
Numbers and Percents; Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Juniors and Seniors........ . 115

15.

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) for Nonmigrants, Circular
Migrants, Rural Migrants, Small City Migrants,
and Large City Migrants; Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Juniors and Seniors........ . 117

vi

LIST OF FIGURES
Page

Figure
1.

2

.

Bergland School. One of the three smaller
schools in Ontonagon County. The study sample
includes eleven males who graduated from this
school in 1957 and 1958......................

76

Ontonagon High School. Largest school in
Ontonagon County. The graduating classes of
1957 and 1958 included 48 males who are sub­
jects in this study. With consolidation of
Mass and Rockland schools in 1968, a new high
school has been built........................... 76

3.

Main Street, Rockland. One of a number of
small communities scattered about Ontonagon
County, Rockland was a teeming copper mining
town in the late nineteenth century. Since
the closing of the mines it has declined to
about 400 residents............................. 77

4.

Residential street scene, Bergland. Houses in
foreground are not atypical of many houses
around the county. The street is unpaved, as
are most of the streets in this community. . •

77

Church in Rockland. Most churches in the
county are wooden structures such as that
pictured above ..............................

78

6.

Ewen High School. Thirty of the subjects
included in this study attended school here. .

78

7.

A view of the main street, Trout Creek. This
small community is located near the south­
eastern border of Ontonagon County. Seven
males who graduated from Trout Creek School
in 1957 and 1958 are included in this study. .

78

5.

8.

Ontonagon youth today. Young people with time
on their hands. Many of them will be leaving
tomorrow for the city.......................... 120

vii

CHAPTER I
THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
A • Introduction
A substantial amount of research in American rural
sociology has been concerned with the problems of rural youth
under conditions of rapid social change in the twentieth
century.

Improvements in agricultural technology, contrac­

tion of the rural labor market, consolidation of land into
larger, and fewer, units, and changes in the economics of
rural areas are some of the factors which have had major
impact on the careers of young people growing up in rural
America (Burchinal, 1963a).
Perhaps the most basic consequence of such changes
over the period of the last sixty years has been the develop­
ment of a more or less continual labor surplus In rural areas,
and a resultant outflow of many young people into urban re­
gions, where they are absorbed into the urban labor market
(Freedman and Freedman, 1956; Beegle, Marshall, and Rice,
1963; Leuthold, 1968).
While many conditions contribute to the decision
of a young person to leave his community, the consequence
is that moving away from home carries him into a new and
possibly strange environment.
rather similar to his own.

It might be a community

It might be a small town.
1

And

2
then again it might he a middle- or large-sized city quite
different from the familiar community whence he came.

In

any such new environment the young migrant must find his
way and re-establish himself.
or employment, or both.

He may seek further education,

Unless he has a relative living

in the new community, he must set up independent residence.
He must adapt to new conditions and realities

(Omari, 1955;

Rose and Warshay, 1957).
The new environment presents not only challenges
to the migrant; it may also present new opportunlties which
were not available in the community from which he came.
Such new opportunities may well result in a total experience
which is significantly different from that which he would
have had had he not chosen to leave his home area, or had
he chosen a different destination.

Hence those original

decisions concerning 1) leaving the home community and 2)
selecting a particular new community were strategic in their
effect upon later outcomes— they shaped the possibilities
and the limitations of the individual's development.

They

were, in a certain sense, fateful events in influencing the
character of the individual's later career.
The relevance of geographic mobility in the career
outcomes of rural youth is fundamental.

Such mobility func­

tions to lift men out of certain familiar, but often unsatis­
fying circumstances and allocate them among many alternative
environments in which new influences and conditions must

L\

3
be met, with a wide range of cons.equences for their lives*
The level of their occupational achievement, education, and
income will be affected, and along with these, their styles
of living*

Xn addition, the amount of contact that can be

maintained with family and other members of the home commu­
nity will be limited.
mate choice as well*

Such new exposure may often affect
The profound significance of the im­

pact of decisions to migrate on later experience would ap­
pear to be unassailable.
The purpose of this thesis is to examine some aspects
of the relationship between geographic mobility and career
achievement among rural youth*

The objective is to delin­

eate the consequences, in terms of the status of occupations
attained, of decisions made by young people 1) to stay and
live and work in their home communities, or 2) to leave those
communities to make their way in other communities of vary­
ing dissimilarity from their home area.

Special attention

will be given to the effect of leaving, but returning to,
the home community in terms of long range career achievement
outcomes.
B* Migration and Social Mobility
The process and function of migration can be under­
stood in terms of its significance for both the society at
large and the individual*

At the level of the whole society,

migration serves, among other things, as a means of spatial
redistribution of population in response to changes in

4
economic activity and the labor market.

Hence, migration

streams can be seen as part of the more or less continual
economic readjustment process.

Sociologically, migration

is a dynamic feature of the occupational structure in which
the migrants represent a physical reallocation of a portion
of the population to different geographical sub-units of
the total structure, and to possibly different positions
in terms of status.

In this sense migration serves the

function, more or less effectively, and in conjunction with
the educational apparatus, of maintaining the social system
in a continuing re-equilibrium.

Migration is thus, at its

root, a mechanism of "horizontal” mobility in which people
are moved from areas of, say, inadequate economic opportu­
nity, to other areas in which such opportunity is better.
Looked at from the standpoint of the individual,
migration may arise out of, and be instrumental in, the ef­
fort to achieve financial security, to realize educational
or occupational goals, or to change or improve the quality
of living, climate, etc.

These gains for the Individual

may be made at some cost in terms of his having thereby to
give up whatever value and security derived from his former
connection with his place of origin.

He may be required

to leave supportive kin relationships as well as the famil­
iarity of a local scene.

He may risk much uncertainty and

economic Instability in the process.
Involving as it does a physical removal of the

5
Individual to another place, migration results in exposure
to a new environment*

Xt may be that the migrant will as­

sume a status very much similar to that which he left in
his former environment, particularly if the new place is
similar to his original surea*

Hence, the act of migration

may be one of horizontal mobility only and Involve no nec­
essary vertical movement*

But a new environment similar

to his former one is only one of the possible environments
into which the migrant might move, and a job similar to that
which he left will be only one of those jobs potentially
available in the new area*
Variation in the demand for new entrants in the many
occupational roles of the work structure at the place of
destination, training obtained by the individual along the
way, and his resulting differential capacity to meet various
occupational entrance requirements, not to mention factors
such as interest and motivation, are some of the conditions
impinging on the occupational fate of the individual migrant
We may assume that among the most significant fac­
tors affecting the work experience of the individual, both
migrant and nonmigrant, will be the range of occupations
actually available in the community in which he finds him­
self*

After all, it is this "opportunity structure" which

embodies models of potential career lines for the new entxan
into the work force as well as setting limits on the kinds
of work which can be obtained*

Xf this is true, then we

6
may expect to find that as the opportunity structure of the
community expands, the variety of career lines actually fol­
lowed by new workers will increase.
Inasmuch as there is a rough relationship between
the size of a community and the breadth of its opportunity
structure, we should expect to find that the larger the com­
munity, the more diverse the resulting occupational achieve­
ment of its residents.

And since the larger communities

contain a higher proportion of jobs in professional, tech­
nical, clerical, and business categories than do smaller
ones, we should expect that the average level of occupational
achievement should be higher as the size of a place increases.
Migrants to a place may be considered to participate
in, and be Influenced by, the opportunity structure of that
place at least to some degree.

However, the experience of

an immigrant to a community will be affected not only by
its opportunity structure but also by his level of educa­
tional preparation, by the facilities and resources to which
he has access, and by what might be called his "attitudinal
set," meaning his motivation, interests, and level of as­
piration.

All of these factors are intimately linked to

his experience in his community of origin and to his family
background.

In general, the better the migrant's education

and the greater the family resources upon which he may draw,
including his parents' own educational and occupational
levels, the greater will be his chances of occupational

7
success in the new community (Sewell, Haller, and Portes,
1969; Sewell and Shah, 1968b; Schwarzweller, 1967).

More­

over, the larger the size of the place from which he has
come, and therefore, the more substantial and diverse the
opportunity structure to which he has been previously ex­
posed, the greater, presumably, will be his sophistication
in matters of job choice and career strategy (Lipset, 1955).
Looked at in this perspective, migrants from larger
communities to other places, regardless of size, should ex­
hibit superior occupational achievement compared to migrants
from smaller communities.

And such achievement should be

influenced by level of education and by other background
factors, such as parents' socioeconomic status and education.
Such evidence as has been gathered to date would
appear to be generally consistent with the above generali­
zations, although it leaves many tantalizing questions un­
answered.

One such question concerns the role of migration

and the resulting experience in new areas in influencing
the level of occupational achievement of persons who subse­
quently decide to return to their communities of origin.
Where should we expect to find them located in the total
spectrum of occupational achievement?

Such "circular mi­

grants," among people from rural areas, have often been
assumed to be the occupational "failures" from the original
migrant cohorts.

Finally, we may wonder what the role of

family and kinship ties is in the occupational achievement
process.

Are the costs of leaving the supportive relationships

8
of kin in the community of origin compensated by the advan­
tage obtained in the form of freedom from restraints which
such relationships may impose?
In the next section we shall discuss some of the
research literature which deals with this topic area and
which bears on some of the questions which arise in connec­
tion with the analysis of career achievement in rural youth.
C. Review of Literature
Data bearing on the relationship of geographic mo­
bility and occupational achievement in rural youth have come
from a number of lines of research.

Field studies in rural

sociology and survey studies utilizing national samples have
been carried out yielding information relevant to the expe­
rience of rural young people in finding their "niche** in
the occupational structure.
Field studies in rural sociology reveal an early
concern with 1) the selectivity of rural outmigration by
sex, education, and size of family (Beers, 1947; Mauldin,
1940), and by intelligence (Gist, Pihlblad, and Gregory,
1941), 2) the constraining effects of kinship ties on migra­
tion plans and behaviors (Williams and Beers, 1943), and
3) problems of rural-reared migrants in the city (Heflin
and Beers, 1946; Caldwell, 1938; Leybourne, 1937).
Subsequent, to the Second World War a number of field
studies were conducted focussing on youth migrations from
rural areas.

Pihlblad and Gregory (1954) studied a sample

9
of 5011 former Missouri high school students who had gradu­
ated in 116 different communities during 1939-1940.

About

73 percent of these were located in 1951-52, of whom approx­
imately 57 percent were then living in different communities.
Brown and Buck (1961) studied 974 young adult males from
rural areas in Pennsylvania, first when they were sophomores
in high school, in 1947, and again ten years later.

Half

of these subjects had moved to other areas by the end of
the ten year period.
Youmans (1963) and Schwarzweller (1963) report, in
separate analyses, data from interviews of 307 males located
ten years after they had been in the eighth grade in eleven
eastern Kentucky counties in 1950.

Using 1960 residence

outside the Eastern Kentucky area as an index of geographic
mobility, they classified forty-nine percent of the young
men as migrants.

In 1958, Taves and Coller (1964) collected

interview data from 739 male former Minnesota high school
students who had graduated in even-numbered years since 1948,
and analyzed the results in terms of possible relationships
between migration and the condition of the economy of local
areas of origin.

Fifty-six percent of the sample had left

their home communities by the time they were interviewed.
Andrews and Sardo (1965) obtained questionnaire data
from 156 former residents of Sedgwick County, Colorado, who
had left the county prior to 1959 and analyzed the sample
in terms of such factors as age, sex, marital status, edu­
cation level, destination, reasons for leaving, etc.

10
The studies cited above and other similar studies
have attempted to profile the migrants and nonmigrants, and
to delineate some of the circumstances typically surrounding
the act of migration.

In addition to these studies which

deal with specific regions, several efforts have been made
to draw.together a unified picture of geographic mobility
and career achievement of rural youth on a national level.
Using Survey Research Center data, Lipset and Bendix (1959)
found direct relationships between size of community of ori­
gin, years of education completed, and social mobility on
both an inter- and intra-generational basis.

Examining the

total occupational structure, they conclude that migrants
from rural areas, with few exceptions, tend to fill up the
lowest rungs of the occupational ladder in urban regions
to which they typically migrate.
In March, 1962, under the aegis of the Current Pop­
ulation Survey (CPS) of the Bureau of the Census, Blau and
Duncan (1967) studied a national sample of approximately
20,700 men aged 20 to 64 years.

Data were gathered in a

supplemental questionnaire to the regular CPS interview and
designated as a survey of "Occupational Changes in a Genera­
tion (OCG)."

Between the CPS and OCG, a rather broad range

of data was obtained giving a comprehensive view of social
mobility in addition to the usual labor force information.
Thus, in what has already become a classic study, Blau and
Duncan were able to analyze the relationships among a number
of variables generally thought to have significance in the

11
mobility process, including education and socioeconomic
status of parents, size and location of community of origin,
nativity, race, education, status of first job, migration,
family size, etc.

Their analysis of the relationship between

geographical and social mobility is perhaps the most detailed
yet available, revealing trends for both rural and urbanreared subjects.

They find that the region, and, particu­

larly, the size of the place in which an individual grows
up has a highly significant influence on his socioeconomic
status.

Geographic mobility is seen to be a facilitating

factor in career achievement for all classes of migrants
except for farm laborers.
The field studies and national sample analyses de­
scribed above are representative of an accumulating body of
research dealing with geographic mobility and occupational
achievement.

These studies, and others, have been rather

diverse in terms of the quality and types of samples used,
regions represented, study design, and methods of analysis.
Some, for example, have actually attempted to follow the
careers of a particular cohort over a period of time, in
certain cases as long as twenty years, gaining measurements
at the beginning and at the end of the period (Bohlen and
Wakeley, 1950; Brown and Buck, 1961; Brown, Schwarzweller,
and Mangalam, 1963; Smith and Berg, 1962).

Some scholars

have utilized a historico-reconstruetlve approach in which
the sample is based 1) on a source list, such as a register
of past school enrollment (Mauldin, 1940; Pihlblad and Gregox

12
1954; Schwarzweller, 1963; Taves and Collar, 1964; Youmans,
1963), or 2) on some residence, migration, or family history/
structure or other criteria (Bauder and Burchinal, 1965;
Burchinal and Jacobson, 1963b; Olson, 1960; Scudder and
Anderson, 1954).

The attempt is then made to locate, in

the former case, as many sample members as possible, or,
the latter case, as many as meet sampling criteria, and to
collect retrospective data concerning their careers.
Still other studies have combined this reconstructive
procedure with cross-sectional analysis (Blau and Duncan,
1967; Lipset and Bendix, 195 2, 1959; Taeuber, 1967) in an
attempt to provide a stronger basis for inferences about
longitudinal trends.
Several studies have focussed on places of origin,
utilizing information about migrants' careers and destina­
tions gained either partly or wholly from secondary sources
such as school officials or family members (Anderson, 1952;
Beers, 1947; Hamilton, 1957; Leuthold, Farmer, and Badenhop,
1967; Pihlblad and Gregory, 1954; Scudder and Anderson, 1954;
Williams and Beers, 1943).

Others have utilized places of

destination of migrants (Andrews and Eshleman, 1963; Bauder
and Burchinal, 1965; Beers and Heflin, 1945; Burchinal and
Jacobson, 1963c; Byerley, 1970; Howard, 1969; Illsley,
Finlayson, and Thompson, 1963a, 1963b; Omari, 1956; Rose,
1958) as sampling sites and have concentrated on collection
of data from immigrants.

One unusual study, by Andrews and

Sardo (1965) involved securing of names and addresses of

13
former community residents from family members still living
In the local area and then obtaining data from these Indi­
viduals via mall-back: questionnaires*
Xn terms of the methodology employed, all the studies
cited suffer, In varying degree, from attrition of cases
from the broad groups under analysis*

The historico-

r©constructive studies had varying success in locating and
securing data from subjects in the cohorts studied, from a
low of 40*5 percent (Youmaas; Schwarzweller) to a high of
75*4 percent (Burchinal and Jacobson) in those studies giving
sufficient information to allow computation of this value*
Xn the reconstructive studies not using source lists, repre­
sentativeness is, of course, affected by not-at-homes, re­
fusals, and the fact that the method results in obtaining
data only from the "survivor group*' in the area sampled.
The result is that these studies are confronted with such
non-representativeness that they are forced to generalize
only to that portion of migrants successfully located or
who have remained in the area sampled*

And neither the

studies which sample sites of origin nor those which focus
on sites of destination are amenable to wholly satisfactory
generalizations concerning the actual cohorts of migrants,
since attrition cuts so deeply into the data recovery*

Among

other things, the conclusion suggested in recent censuses—
that one out of five families moves every year— would seem
to be confirmed by the problems experienced in these re­
searches .

14
The high rate of geographic mobility of the popula­
tion is a fact which should not be lost sight of in appre­
ciating the problems of research into migration of rural
youth.

Yet, despite indications to the contrary, the rural

migrant tends to be conceived as being engaged in an essen­
tially singular event— in migration from his rural community
of origin to the urban labor market.

The pattern of migra­

tion has been seen as characteristically one-way; a phenom­
enon in which the rural youths leave an area of marginal
or depressed economic activity for the cities, and are ab­
sorbed more or less permanently into the lower skilled or
unskilled levels of the urban work force.

This conception

of the migration/occupational adjustment process has per­
sisted despite evidence of the mobility of the general popu­
lation and even though several of the studies cited have
observed a reverse phenomenon in which some of the migrants,
after a few years elsewhere, return, apparently inexplicably,
to the same depressed areas from which they came (Leuthold,
Farmer, and Badenhop, 1967; Schwarzweller, 1963).
To the extent that these rural youth continue in
their geographic movement beyond the first point of rest,
research that fails to take account of this falsely simpli­
fies the migration process itself and introduces the possi­
bility of error in estimating its consequences.

An individ­

ual may depart his rural community shortly after high school
for military service, education, or employment and subsequent­
ly return to the community while another may never leave the

15
area during the same period*

By no measure can these two

be considered to have had truly equivalent experience.

The

practice of treating both of these individuals as nonmigrants,
because they both happened to turn up in the same place at
the beginning and end of the time frame of the study would
thus miss a highly significant difference between them*
Such admonishment would not be so pertinent were it not
that this practice is rather frequent in otherwise well
executed research studies, owing, partly, to the "one-shot**
or other simplified designs of such studies (Andrews and
Sardo, 1965; Blau and Duncan, 1967; Brown and Buck, 1961;
Pihlblad and Gregory, 1954; Schwarzweller, 1963)*
Two important defects to be found in the bulk of
the research dealing with the relationship between migration
and career achievement, then, appear to be the twin problems
of attrition of cases (non-representativeness) and lack of
refined definitions/measurements of actual migration behavior
of the cohort being studied*

Useful reinforcement of the

findings of the research cited might be found if research
were conducted on a single cohort of rural youth under strict­
est possible longitudinal conditions with maximal data re­
covery throughout a significant period after high school*
Application of more precise definitions of migration would
also help reveal the significance, if any, of patterns of
return migration heretofore obscured in the literature.
Before approaching such longitudinal research, it
is useful first to summarize the trends suggested in the

16
current literature and to delineate a particular set of out­
comes which we may expect will be exhibited under more ex­
acting test conditions.
1.

Frequency of Migration from Rural Areas

One of the more recent inquiries into the relation­
ship between geographical mobility and occupational achieve­
ment , and one which is at the same time large in scale and
comprehensive in detail and analysis, is that by Blau and
Duncan, known as the Occupational Changes in a Generation
(OCG) study (Blau and Duncan, 1967).

As a great landmark

of mobility research, it will serve in this discussion as
a central focus for consideration of the current state of
research knowledge.

It explores many of the factors gener­

ally thought significant in the literature on the subject
even though it exhibits the methodological problems alluded
to earlier.
In 1962 Blau and Duncan gathered, from a national
sample of men aged 20 to 64, data on a series of variables
which previous research indicated would be of Importance
in their occupational careers.

These included region of

birth and orientation, family size, father's educational
and occupational status, own education, first job, mate
choice, size of the community of current residence, and
current occupational status.

From this information it was

possible to reconstruct the basic outlines of the careers
of these men, some of whom were just starting their work

17
experience, while others were in the middle or at the end
of their working careers.

The sample included a large num­

ber of individuals, approximately 7,093, from rural back­
grounds, some of whom were now living in urban areas.
The measure of occupational attainment used in the
OCG study was the socioeconomic status of the individual's
1962 occupation coded according to the Duncan Socioeconomic
Index for Occupations (Reiss, 1961).1

Father's education

and father's occupation were treated as the two prime back­
ground variables, with own education and first job as con­
sequents, leading finally to occupational status as of the
time of data collection, in 1962.

These variables are set

in temporal order and a path analysis model is employed in
evaluating the causal relationships presumably involved.
Using this procedure, Blau and Duncan are able to account:
for about 42 percent of the variation in occupational attain­
ment as of 1962.

The rest of the analysis deals with the

influences of other factors such as marriage and assortative
mating, farm origin, nativity, and migration.

Xt may be useful to point out that there is consider­
able, if not entirely uncontroversial, precedent for the use
of socioeconomic status, however well measured, for the as­
sessment of career achievement. Despite their earlier criti­
cism (1952), Lipset and Bendix use it extensively in their
later analysis (1959). Form (1949) used SES in a study of
occupational histories, Tumin and Feldman (1957) in a study
of mobility, Duncan and Hodge (1963) in an analysis of edu­
cation and occupational mobility, Goodman (1969) in develop­
ing an index of status persistency. The complexity of status
as a concept has been noted by Westoff, Bressuer, and Sagi
(I960) in their discussion of its multiple dimensions.

18
It is, of course, the significance of migration on
the part of rural youth that interests us in this discussion*
In analyzing the effect of migration on the occupational
attainment process of persons reared in rural communities,
Blau and Duncan apply several types of controls and examine
outcomes in terms of socioeconomic status as of 1962.

As

shown in Table 1 they find that about 58 percent of the adult
men in the rural sample were living in 1962 outside the com­
munity in which they were raised.

This proportion is some­

what higher than typically found in the regional field studies
cited earlier, in which investigators reported migration
rates varying from 49 percent for a Kentucky sample
(Schwarzweller, 1963) and 50 percent for a Pennsylvania
sample (Brown and Buck, 1961), to 56 and 57 percent respec­
tively for samples from Minnesota (Taves and Coller, 1964)
and Missouri (Pihlblad and Gregory, 1954).

However, Bohlen

and Viakeley (1950), in a study of a sample of 156 former
Iowa high school students, found that 59 percent had left
their home communities within one year after graduation.
2

2

It would appear that both the narrower age range
of the samples analyzed in these other studies, as well as
the distinctive regional, and, perhaps, local conditions
involved, could easily account for the varying proportions
of migrants found: Blau and Duncan point out that "older
men are less likely than younger ones to live where they
were reared. • •
(1967, pp. 255-56) Special regional
or local conditions which undoubtedly Influence the rate
of migration from a particular area include the relative
size of the agricultural and non-agricultural components
of the rural population and trends in the economy. For ex­
ample, in a study of four North Dakota counties experiencing

19
The preponderance of evidence from these studies, however,
does nonetheless support the conclusion reached by Blau and
Duncan— that migration is the prevailing pattern in the so­
ciety.
Table 1.

1962 Residence by Residence at Age 16,* Men of
Rural Background Aged 20 to 64, OCG National
Sample (Extrapolated from Blau and Duncan, 1967,
Appendix H, p. 481)

Residence
at age 16

Same
community
N
%

Rural
Nonfarm
2959
2959

1208

17.0

467

6.6

1675

23.6

41.7

Rural Farm
Total

1962 Residence
Other rural
community
Small city
under 2,500 2,500-50,000
N
%
N
%

41.7

Large city*'
50,000 +
N

704

9.9

1755

24.8

704

9.9

1755

24.8

*Residence at age 16 is accepted by Blau and Duncan
to denote the community of orientation, not without knowledge
that in at least a few cases individuals may have only re­
cently moved there.
••Includes "urbanized areas'* of the U.S. Census 1960.
2. Destinations of Migrants
A second basic finding of Blau and Duncan concerns
the destinations of rural migrants.

As can be seen from

extensive agricultural consolidation, Anderson (1952) found
that fully 70 percent of the farm youth eighteen years or
older had moved away from the home area. In addition to
these factors, of course, is the fact that samples which
include varying proportions of females will be correspond­
ingly affected by whatever sex differences in migration rates
exist.

20
Table 1, a majority of those persons who migrate end up as
residents of small or large cities, that Is to say, urban
places.

This reflects the overall trend of migration In

the society at large, with most persons who move leaving
smaller places for larger ones.

It agrees with findings

of a large number of other mobility studies focussing on
rural people.

For example, Schwarzweller (1963) found, In

his case study of migration patterns from Eastern Kentucky
mountain communities over a period of ten years, that:
Most of the Individuals (66.8 percent) who did move
out of their home counties during [the ten years]
moved Into city or suburban situations. This pat­
tern of rural to urban migration is even more strik­
ing in the case of those who moved out of Kentucky
during 1950—60; about 95 percent of them initially
moved Into a city. Thus, the movement of young men
from eastern Kentucky is truly a classical example
of rural to urban migration. (1963, p. 19)
Similarly, Leuthold, Farmer, and Badenhop found for
their sample of Tennessee youth that "Detroit, Michigan,
and Dayton, Ohio, were the major places of residence for
those in other states, while Nashville and Putnam County
(Cookeville) were the major areas for migrants residing in
Tennessee." (1967, p. 6)
And, similarly, Andrews and Sardo found in their
study of migrants from a rural Colorado county that:
Only about 20 percent had moved to open country.
Of these 15 percent were on farms and 5 percent were
in open country but not on farms. Nearly 69 percent
were living in cities— about the same proportion as
in the national population— while about 11 percent
were living in small rural towns. Thus, the migrants
are now predominantly urban residents as contrasted
with the fact that all of them came from rural homes.

21
Of these, 57 percent were from farm or open country
residences and 42 percent from the three small rural
towns In the county. (1965, p. 12)
Further, In a study of migration from rural North
Carolina, Hamilton found that although 82 percent of the
population of the two counties (Stokes and Montgomery) lived
in the open country [defined as "all the territory lying
outside of clustered settlements'^, 61.7 percent of the de­
parting youth had moved to non-open country area ["villages,
towns, and cities (incorporated and unincorporated) of more
than 250 population''^ (1957, pp. 9-12).

Taves and Coller

(1964) found in their study of youth migration from rural
Minnesota that 65 percent of those migrants from open country
or small town background reported urban or, in a few cases,
military, addresses at the conclusion of the study.
A perplexing exception to this pattern of rural-tourban migration is reported by Brown and Buck in a followup study of former high school sophomores from rural Penn­
sylvania in which it was found that
. . . approximately three-fourths (71%) of the young
people remained in rural areas, while one-fourth
(29%) migrated to the city. About one-half (45%)
of the rural young people were in the same communi­
ties in 1947 as in 1957. Of these, nearly 50 percent
had not left their parental homes. . • . The conclu­
sion to be drawn from this . . . is that no wholesale
movement of young adult males out of rural areas
occurred. Much of the movement was within the rural
setting and, to some extent, within the community
of origin. Local movement was almost as great as
migration to urban areas. (1961, p. 10)
Brown and Buck account for this unusual outcome by reasoning
that:

22
It may be that young persons in Pennsylvania would
have less to gain by migrating than would those from
less urban states* This assumes that, in general,
rural young people in Pennsylvania would have less
need to migrate in order to take advantage of urban
employment opportunity* The lengthening of commuting
radius afforded by improved roads may be reducing
the amount of migration necessary, at least within
local areas* • • • Enough employment may have been
immediately available to accommodate the young workers
becoming a part of the adult labor force. (1961, p* 33)
This outcome is nonetheless so contrary to what would
have been expected from the other studies cited that it calls
for some critical evaluation.

A quick inspection of the 1940

and 1950 Censuses for the state reveals that during that
decade the proportion of rural young persons in the 16-17
age bracket (tenth grade) enrolled in school increased from
68*1% to 75.5%, while the percentage of farm children among
rural school attendees decreased from 30*1% (51.0% male)
to 27.1% (53.8% male)*

Xn 1940, the proportion of males

among the total cohort of 16-17 year old rural high school
students was 51*7 percent, while by 1950 it had declined
very slightly to 51*3 percent.

Xf we assume fairly linear

trends over that decade it may be surmised that at the time
of Brown and Buck's first sampling, in 1947, the enrollment
of 16-17 year olds in rural Pennsylvania schools was roughly
seventy-two percent of the total rural age cohort.

Of those

enrolled, at least 51 percent were male.

About 28 percent

of the total enrollment lived on farms*

The proportion of

males among farm students was perhaps 53 percent*
Brown and Buck report an original 1947 sampling of
sophomore classes:

23
• • • consisting of 2,810 students from 74 rural
high schools. • • • The schools used in the sample
were initially selected from the State's fourth class
school district population. This assured a maximum
inclusion of farm-reared youth, for no fourth class
school was situated in a population center of more
than 2,500 persons.
Areas having a heavier concentration of farm popu­
lation contributed relatively more schools to the
sample. This provided the number of cases with farm
backgrounds necessary for detailed analysis. . . .
(1961, p. 8)
They then describe the data recovery process in 1957:
The 1957 interviewing renewed contact with 2,344
of the original 2,810 cases. This number constituted
83 per cent of the 1947 sample. The remaining 17
per cent were either unlocated, refused to be inter­
viewed, or had died. Those who were not interviewed
in 1957 were not found significantly different from
those who were interviewed in terms of residence of
origin. . . . (1961, p. 8)
They drop all the females from the analysis and pro­
ceed with a remaining sample of 974 males for whom informa­
tion was complete over the ten year period, 258 of whom had
resided on farms in 1947, the rest in the open country or
in villages of less than 2,500.
In tallying this sampling procedure against Census
figures for the period, it can be seen, first of all,

that

at best the original sampleof students was a maximum of
only 72 percent of the age cohort, which would thus have
been 3,903 rural young persons, aged 16-17.

If the sample

of 2,810 students were typical of Pennsylvania rural students
generally, it would have contained approximately 1433 males
(51%).

The sample actually used in the research consisted

of not more than 974 males, or only 68 percent of the

probable

24
original sample of the male students in 1947.

Inasmuch as

258 of the 974, or 26.5%, were from farms, it cannot be said
that the farm segment was over-represented•

The projected

459 missing cases (1433 minus 974) almost certainly consist
mainly of outroigrants, perhaps as many as 90 percent (413
persons)•
The implication here is that there would appear to
be a high probability of non-representativeness in the sample
used by Brown and Buck.

Twenty-eight percent of the age

cohort was inaccessible through non-attendance in school.
Many of these individuals had no doubt already left the area
after dropping out of school.

If we ignore this, as most

research has found it necessary to do, we still have a prob­
able loss of another 32 percent of the males through non­
recovery of data.

Xf, say, ninety percent of those left

the area, the total proportion of migrants would inflate
from 55 to 66 percent.

Moreover, even if the ratio of mi­

grants going to urban versus rural places were the same as
reported by Brown and Buck (278 out of a reported 533 migrants)
we would still project an actual rural-urban migration rate
of about 494 persons— more persons than either stayed in
their home communities or moved to other rural areas.

By

these recalculations it would appear that our previous gen­
eralizations would still hold:

1) that most youth will mi­

grate rather than stay in the home community; and 2) that
of those who leave, most will move to urban areas.
Altogether, under conditions of the predominant

25
pattern of rural outmigration, and rural-to-urban trends
revealed In the literature, It would appear that the specu­
lations offered above are at least possible, If not probable,
alternatives to both the results and the analysis offered
by Brown and Buck concerning migration of rural youth from
Pennsylvania•
3.

Migration and Occupational Achievement

Blau and Duncan compared the 1962 occupational at­
tainments of those who had moved away from their communities
of orientation with those who Indicated that they were living
In the same community as at age 16.

As was the case for

migrants from urban areas, persons who had migrated from
rural areas to other places showed occupational achievement
superior to that of nonmigrants*
This result Is consistent with the general thrust
of earlier research*

For example, Scudder and Anderson

(1954) found In their analysis of migration and vertical
social mobility that among youth growing up In a rural Ken­
tucky communitys
• * . irrespective of the vocational or general status
of the father, migrant sons entered white collar posi­
tions more frequently than their non-migrant contem­
poraries* • • • Among resident [nonmigrant] sons
there is an excess of moves into ranks below the
father's position, among migrant sons the upward
shifts exceed the downward* • • • Of all the sons
who did not leave the home community but who did
move into a vocational level different from that
of the father, two-thirds dropped in status. Among
sons who went elsewhere but did not pursue the same
sort of job as the father, over half rose vocation­
ally. The chances of going up rather than down, if

26
mobile
grants
rating
(1954,

at all, were definitely greater for the mi­
and fewer of the migrants entered occupations
at the same level as those of their fathers*
pp. 331-32)

The authors conclude that "sons who migrate out of
small or moderate-size communities are more likely to rise
above their parents' occupational status than sons who remain
in the home town." (1954, p. 334)
Andrews and Sardo (1965) found that after migration,
the migrants obtained increased training and further educa­
tion, higher incomes and better jobs compared to people still
living in Sedgwick County, Colorado.

In their study of

Jackson County, Tennessee, Leuthold, Farmer, and Badenhop
analyzed the relationships among;
. . . residential, educational attainment, occupa­
tional, and level of living data on 1,076 adult
persons reared in [the county]. . . . The data
clearly indicated a high association of migration
and educational attainment with level of living
for both males and females. . . . Those outside
the county were higher in level of living for all
occupational categories. (1967, p. 6)
Blau and Duncan raise the possibility that the su­
perior occupational achievement of migrants over nonroigrants
may be due to superior opportunity structures in places of
destination.

But by comparing the attainment levels of non­

migrants and migrants to other communities of the same size,
they are able to show that migrants still display greater
occupational achievement than nonmigrants.

This leads to

the speculation "that migration is selective of men predis­
posed to occupational success." (1967, p. 257)

27
4.

Selectivity of Migration

The selectivity hypothesis is an old one (Thomas,
1938) and has received considerable attention in the litera­
ture*

The theoretical basis for anticipating some selectiv­

ity in migration and occupational attainment would appear
to be good*

However, the accumulated empirical evidence

is ambiguous in identifying selective factors operating in
the migration process (Hawley, 1950, pp. 340-45)*

Blau and

Duncan hypothesized that father's socioeconomic status, own
education, and own first job would be significant selective
factors bearing on later attainment outcomes.

They show

that these variables do indead seem to have some effect upon
the process for urban migrants but conclude that, for rural
migrants;

—

1) in respect to own education;
"In contrast to the differences favoring migrants
in urban areas, there is no difference in rural
nonfarm areas, and on farms nonraigrants actually
have some educational superiority over migrants."
(1967, p. 258)
2) in respect to first job:
"The pattern here is the same as that for educa­
tion, with the superiority of migrants being con­
fined to urban areas." (p. 258)
3) in respect to father's occupational position:
" . . . urban migrants come from origins superior
to those of nonmigrants whereas there is again
no such difference for rural men." (p. 258)
Blau and Duncan find only a small degree of

selec­

tivity in the slight reduction of differences in mean 1962
occupational attainment between rural migrants and nonmigrants

28
when both education and first job are controlled simultane­
ously.
Among rural nonfarm individuals, there is still a
residual difference of occupational attainment in favor of
the migrants, who exhibit a mean 1962 socioeconomic status
score of 35.9, versus 34.2 for the nonmigrants.

Interest­

ingly, among the farm group the difference is in the opposite
direction, with the farm nonmigrants exhibiting a 1962 mean
score of 28.9 and the farm migrants a score of 27.2.

From

data presented by Blau and Duncan, it would appear that there
is less selectivity in terms of education and first job among
rural nonfarm migrants than among all classes of urban migrants
3
or farm migrants.
Nevertheless, the idea of a selectivity factor run­
ning through the migration process from rural areas is a
strong one in the literature.

Some field studies seeking

to assay the selective influence of education in the migra­
tion process provide affirmative evidence (Andrews and Sardo,
1965; Beers, 1947; Hamilton, 1957; Leuthold, Farmer, and
3
Application of the controls among large city migrants/
nonmigrants reduces the mean advantage of migrants by 5 scale
points, from a difference of 6.7 to a residual of 1.7 in
1962 socioeconomic status. Among the small city group the
advantage to migrants is reduced 6.1 points, from a differ­
ence of 9.0 to a residual of 2.9. Among persons from farms
the advantage in favor of nonmigrants is reduced 2.1 points,
from 3.8 to 1.7. But among the rural nonfarm, application
of the controls reduces the difference in favor of migrants
in 1962 attainment by only seven tenths of a point, from 2.4
to 1.7.

29
Badenhop, 1967; Olson, 1960; Sanford, 1940), while others
have found no association (Brown and Buck, 1961; Schwarzweller,
1964b)• Attempts to assess the effect of family status have
also had mixed results.

Olson (1960) and Scudder and Anderson

(1954) report a positive relationship between family socio­
economic status and youth migration while Brown and Buck
(1961) and Schwarzweller (1963) found little, if any, rela­
tionship and Bohlen and Wakeley (1950) found none.
and Coller (1964) obtained a mixed result:

Taves

a significant

association between father's occupation and migration of
youth in a sample from a "high agricultural income" area
and no relationship in a sample from a "low agricultural
income" area of rural Minnesota.
The hypothesis that migration from rural areas is
selective of the most intelligent has been investigated with
both affirmative (Gist and Clark, 1938; Mauldin, 1940;
Pihlblad and Gregory, 1954) and non-significant (Bohlen
and Wakeley, 1950; Brown and Buck, 1961) results.

The re­

search on the influence of Intelligence appears, for the
most part, to have been conducted under less than rigorously
controlled conditions and with instruments containing con­
siderable cultural bias so that the conclusions drawn must
be accepted as rather dubious.
A number of other potentially selective factors have
been examined, such as family size (Anderson, 1952; the pro­
portion of migrants seems to increase roughly with family
size:

Schwarzweller, 1963; "a greater proportion of male

30
out-xni.grants [stemmed] from larger families • . •'* although
the difference was not statistically significant), occupa­
tional aspirations (Taves and Coller, 1964; '*[There was a]
greater tendency for those aspiring to professional than
blue collar vocations to migrate • • • aspirants to non­

professional white collar positions fell midway between. • .'*),
and age and sex (Beers, 1947, and Andrews and Sardo, 1965;
most migrants are young, and there is a tendency for depart­
ing females to leave earlier than males:

Anderson, 1952;

"Girls left home later in life than boys, except in [one]
county. • • .")•
Still other factors have been investigated, including
personality adjustment (Brown and Buck, 1961, and Martinson,
1955; some differing trends were found in migrants and non­
migrants but none which were statistically significant),
marital status (Andrews and Sardo, 1965; most of the migrants
were single:

Tilly and Brown, 1967; most of the migrants

were married)•

Additional factors have been looked into,

Including such things as sibling age-position (Beers, 1947),
military service experience (Taves and Coller, 1964), and
color (Hamilton, 1957).
Altogether, as can be seen from the discussion above,
the nature of selectivity in migration of youth from rural
areas is by no means a settled issue.

There do not appear

to be any universal or consistent factors operating in sort­
ing migrants from nonmigrants in every situation.

Yet, on

theoretical grounds, it would seem that in an act as

31
fundamental and fateful as migration, migrants must differ
in some way or ways from persons who do not choose to move,
whether or not such difference(s) bear directly on later
outcomes in education or occupational attainment.

This as­

sumption notwithstanding, there is no case upon the record
in which the strength of any particular selectivity factor
has been great enough to "explain" either the initial de­
parture or later differences in occupational achievement.
Despite this limitation of the available evidence, if there
is any general theme which runs through the literature on
selectivity, it is that migrants tend to be "superior" to
nonmigrants on most indexes— that they are persons better
equipped to succeed than those left behind.

Hence, it would

appear the more promising strategy to hypothesize that in
any prior aspect relevant to the achievement process, the
migrant should emerge superior to the nonmigrant.

Presum­

ably, this superior potential for achievement should exhibit
itself in both objective and attitudinal (social psycholog­
ical) aspects.

"Objective superiority" would be exemplified

in such things as academic ability, intelligence, etc., while
"attitudinal superiority" would be exemplified in such things
as levels of educational and occupational aspiration.
5.

The Influence of the Opportunity Structure of
the Community of Orientation

The slight evidence of selectivity found by Blau and
Duncan in their sample of rural men did not completely ac­
count for the subsequent difference between migrants and

32
nonmigrants in 1962 occupational attainment.

Given the

ambiguousness of much of the research on selectivity and
the large differences typically reported in the literature
between the occupational achievements of migrants and non­
migrants from rural areas, it would appear that other factors
must be involved.

The weight of explanation would tend to

shift in the direction of the differences in environments
of migrants and nonmigrants, particularly in terms of their
opportunity structures.

Migration clearly offers, for the

individual reared in a rural area, at least the possibility
of increased opportunities— opportunities for further train­
ing and a broader range of jobs, depending on the place of
destination.
In general it can be said that as the size of a place
increases, so does its opportunity structure.

Individuals

reared in a rural area or in a small town will have been
exposed to a narrower range of possible career lines than
will be the case for persons who grow up in small or large
cities.

This, plus other conditions which may obtain at

the local level, such as the limitations of the school sys­
tem, impinge on the later occupational attainments of rural
residents.

As Blau and Duncan notes

The community in which a boy is raised affects
his career as an adult. . . . The socioeconomic
structure of the community where a boy grows up
probably serves as an ascriptive determinant of
his later behavior in a manner somewhat similar
to his family origins. The adolescent is doubt­
lessly more aware of career lines to which he has
been exposed in his home town, more interested in

33
jobs for which role models exist in his experience,
and better prepared for occupations to which the
local school system is oriented. Thus we would ex­
pect the occupational structure of the community
in which a man was raised to influence his future
career— and occupational structures vary, of course,
with degree of urbanization.
The larger the place
where a man was reared,
the
better are his chances of occupational success.
This positive association between degree of urbani­
zation of place of origin and occupational achieve­
ment can be observed among both migrants and nonmigrants, and it is independent of the size of the
community to which a migrant moves and in which he
lives and works. The pattern is perfectly consis­
tent. (1967, p. 262)
Hence they

find that

"thedegree of urbanization

of the place where

a migrant

grewup is directly associated

with his later occupational achievement elsewhere . . ."
and " . . .

the occupational status of nonmigrants is directly

related to size [of their] present community. . . •" (p. 262)
This basic finding applies to the broad range of their data
which runs the gamut from the farm-reared to those brought
up in large metropolitan areas.

To the extent that it is

true as a generalization concerning the relationship of size
of place (i.e., opportunity structure) to career achievement,
we may speculate that it will discriminate also among vari­
ous elements of the rural population itself•

That is to

say, to the degree that their environments, and therefore,
their exposures, differ, persons growing up in larger, but
still rural, communities should do better in their careers
than persons who grow up in remoter and smaller rural com­
munities or in the open country.

Such a supposition is

theoretically consistent with the basic hypothesis as to

34
the relationship between opportunity structure and occupa­
tional achievement*

It suggests that we should anticipate

direct variation in levels of career achievement among youth,
regardless of the frequency of migration, with size of com­
munity, even within the narrow range of communities classi­
fied as rural.
6*

Migration and the Opportunity Structure of the
Community of Destination

For nonmigrant individuals from rural areas, the
opportunity structure of their environment of orientation
is, of course, coterminous with that of their adult occupa­
tional careers, within the limits of the historical changes
in its size and economy over the total period*

This is not

the case for outmigrants, who are transported into new en­
vironments and may be exposed to substantially different
structures, both in the immediate and historical sense.
These persons are subject to the influences such new en­
vironments afford, and may be expected to exhibit effects
in their differential career outcomes.

The magnitude of

the effects may be assumed to be at least roughly a function
of the increase in the scope of the opportunity structure.
By this reasoning, the larger the size of the place to which
the migrants have moved, the higher their occupational at­
tainments should be.
Blau and Duncan present data relating the size of
place of 1962 residence to mean occupational attainment for
migrants and nonmigrants from both rural and urban backgrounds.

35
Table 2.

Mean 1962 Occupational Status by Type of Community
at Age 16 and in 1962 and Migration Status (in
Deviations from the Grand Mean*), Men Aged 20 to
64, OCG National Sample (Adapted from Blau and
Duncan, 1967, p. 260)
1962 Residence
Different Community

Residence
at age 16

Same
community
(non­
migrants )

Rural farm

-15.3

-19.1

—6.6

-1.6

-4.5

Rural nonfarm

- 5.8

-18.6

-3.4

-1.5

-2.1

5.5

5.7

11.7

9.3

Large
Small City
City**
Rural Rural
farm nonfarm 2,500-50,000 50,000+

Small city
2,500-100,000# - 3.5
4 .2
Large city
100,000+

2.7

*The Grand Mean - 36.3 on the Duncan Socioeconomic
Index (Reiss, 1961, Appendix B).
**Includes "urbanized areas" of the U.S. Census 1960.
#For explanation of use of this apparently noncom­
parable size category see Blau and Duncan (1967), Appendix I.

It can be seen from Table 2 that for nonmigrants, at least;
the expected pattern of increasing achievement with increas­
ing size of opportunity structure is consistent.

Big city

nonmigrants exhibit considerably higher 1962 occupational
attainment than nonmigrants in other areas, most notably
farm residents.

But for migrants, the highest occupational

attainment is demonstrated by persons moving to small cities
from all other types of environments.

The only exception

to this generalization is that of persons who grew up in

£L

36
small cities:

such people seem to do about as well, If not

a little better, In large cities*
Xn assessing these Interesting findings, Blau and
Duncan comment that:
The more urbanized the environment, the higher
the mean occupational status of natives* The occu­
pational position of migrants, on the other hand,
does not accurately mirror these differences In
opportunities* • • • To be sure, migrants as well
as natives have more successful careers In urban
than In rural areas. However, whereas the nonmigrant's position Is highest In large cities, the
migrant's Is best In small cities. This Is the
case not only for migrants from rural areas, who
might be expected to do better In small cities,
which contrast less with their rural background,
but also for those who themselves come from large
cities. (1967, p. 260)
This striking finding concerning the success of mi­
grants to small cities Is further reinforced In an analysis
of the percentage of Individuals upwardly mobile more than
twenty-five points (from father's occupation), cross- classi­
fied by residence In 1962 and at age 16*
Concerning these results, Blau and Duncan observe
that:
Data on upward mobility from social origins con­
firm the conclusion that the small city provides
exceptional opportunities for the migrant. The
native's chances of experiencing considerable upward
mobility (over 25 points) are greater In large cities
(25 per cent),
than in small ones (20 per cent),
where they arestill greater than in rural areas
(15 per cent).
But migrants find their best chances
for upward mobility in small cities, regardless of
whether they were raised in large cities, small cities,
or rural areas. The superior occupational opportuni­
ties in large cities notwithstanding, migrants to
small cities are the ones most likely to achieve
upward mobility and high occupational status• As
a result of the apparent advantages migrants enjoy

in small cities* those of rural as well as those of
urban origins are more successful than natives there
Csee Table 2]. In large cities, on the other hand,
only urban migrants are superior to natives, and
the achievements of migrants from rural areas are
inferior to the natives'. These differences are
not entirely due to the superior background qualifi­
cations of urban migrants. When the effects of edu­
cation and first job are controlled,4 the same pat­
tern emerges, though the differences are greatly
reduced. (1967, p. 261)
Table 3•

Per Cent Upwardly Mobile from Father's Occupation
More than 25 Points, by Type of Community at Age
16 and in 1962 and Migration Status, Men Aged 20
to 64, OCG National Sample (Adapted from Blau and
Duncan, 1967, p. 261)

Residence
at age 16
Rural farm
and nonfarm

_______________ 1962 Residence________
Different Community
Same
Community
Large
(Non­
Rural Rural
Small City
City*
migrants) Farm Nonfarm 2,500-50,000 50,000+
15.4

6.1

25.3

Small city
2,500-100,000 •• 20.5

37.4

29.7

31.3

27.1

35.3

29.1

26.0
Large city
100,000+

25.4

*Includes "urbanized areas" of the U.S. Census 1960.
••For explanation of this apparently noncomparable
size category see Blau and Duncan (1967), Appendix I.

What is of primary interest to us in this detailed
examination of the Blau-Duncan findings is, of course, the
4
Results showing effect of the application of these
controls (Blau and Duncan, 1967, p. 262) are not reproduced
here.

38

experience of the persons reared in rural areas.

These data

from a national sample indicate that, in terms of the influ­
ence of the environment and its opportunity structure for
migrants from rural areas, the small city represents the
most advantageous place in which to pursue a career.

The

reasoning used by Blau and Duncan in accounting for this
empirical finding is that the small city provides for the
rural migrant the best combination of expanded opportunity
structure and similarity to the environment of orientation,
and, hence, the optimum environment for achievement.

5

In attempting to predict the career achievement of
rural youth, then, it would appear that not only will per­
sons who migrate from their home communities exhibit higher
attainments than those who did not, but also that the level
of attainment of the migrants themselves will be strategic­
ally affected by their choice of destination.

Migrants who

end up in small cities presumably achieve superior status,
outranking those migrants who move to larger cities, who
outrank migrants to other rural areas.

The least success­

ful, of course, are those individuals who have never left
the home community.
5
This leaves moot the question as to why the urban
migrant exhibits superior achievement also in the small city.
Does he benefit competitively from the somewhat less sophis­
ticated environment of the small city, compared to that which
he left? About this Blau and Duncan speculate that " . . . bigcity experiences seem to benefit most those men who later
move to small cities, where they can become, so to speak,
big fish in small ponds.11 (1967, p. 266)

39
Whereas we have previously indicated that the size
of place of orientation will have an important bearing on
occupational attainment, based on the scope and limitations
of its opportunity structure, we now add to this the hypoth­
esis that the characteristics of the place in which the worker
presently lives also exercise an influence on his level of
achievement.

The significance of these environmental factors

was well recognized by Schwarzweller in his study of the
'•life chances” of Kentucky youth:
. . . Since the migrant and nonmigrant segments [did]
not differ significantly in antecedent sociocultural
characteristics (prior to 1950) Cwhen they were in
high school] . . . differences in occupational place­
ment and material level of living which do exist
between the segments at the time of interviewing
(in 1960) are largely due to regional variations
in the structure of opportunity and cultural expe­
riences which intervened during the decade. (1964b,
p. 164)
This conclusion is reinforced by Schwarzweller*s
discovery that migrant high school dropouts from eastern
Kentucky "exhibit a higher level of living than nonmigrant
high school graduates," and that "the level of living of
migrant *drop-outs' is no different from that of migrant
high school graduates." (1964b, p. 165)
D. Circular Migration and Social Mobility
At this point in the discussion it is strategic to
give consideration to an intriguing phenomenon in the analy­
sis of geographic mobility and career achievement:
circular migration.

that of

Referred to as "return migration" in

some research studies, it has been noted by puzzled

investigators in almost every inquiry extensive enough to
gather detailed information on actual migration patterns
of rural youth.

Yet it has received, so far as can be as­

certained , no systematic treatment or analysis of any kind
beyond occasional tabulations of its frequency and specula­
tion as to its causes*
Moreover, the extent of circular** migration, as will
be indicated below, is often great enough that failure to
take account of it may seriously distort analysis of the
relationship between migration behavior and career achieve­
ment.
It has been a common, even customary, procedure in
the research on rural youth migration, and in studies of mi­
gration generally, to treat residence in the same community
or place at Time 1 and Time 2 as indicating nonmiqration.
Thus, in their study of selective aspects of migration in
a Missouri sample of former high school students, Pihlblad
and Gregory (1954) distinguish migrants from nonmigrants
on the basis of residence ten years after graduation:
. . . The migrants in our group will be those resid­
ing in 1951-1952 in a county different from the one
in which they attended school in 1939 and 1940.
g

Use has been made here of the term 'circular' in
preference to the concept of return migration for the reason
that it does not imply a limit as to the number of circuits
made away from and back to an original location. Empirical
evidence already available indicates that the process is
sufficiently recurrent in some individuals to render the
notion of a simple 'return' movement somewhat inaccurate.

Sit..

41
Persons living at the same address or in the same
county, but at a different address, will be treated
as non-migrants*
Similarly, Brown and Buck treat as migrants persons
who, ten years after the sophomore year in high

school, are

found to have "left the parental home and the local commu­
nity" and moved "to another rural community . . • [or] . . .
settled in an urban community*"

(1961, p* 6)

Similarly,

Schwarzweller (1963) and Youroans (1963), in separate analy­
ses of a sample of former students from eastern Kentucky,
define a "nonmigrant" as:
. . . an Individual who was residing within the
eastern Kentucky area included in State Economic
Areas 8 and 9, as delineated by the U.S. Census.
"Migrant," on the other hand, refers to an indi­
vidual who was residing outside the eastern Kentucky
area but within the boundaries of Ohio and Kentucky.
(Schwarzweller, 1963, p. 7)
Andrews and Sardo, in their 1965 survey of migration
from Sedgwick County, Colorado, used a sample of 156 respond­
ents "who had left the county prior to June 1959," and for
whom they were able to obtain current addresses and secure
data by mail.

Only the current addresses of departees were

used as data concerning migration behavior, thus obscuring
the possibility of multiple acts of migration among this
group and completely omitting those cases in which persons
left the county but subsequently came back.

In the same

fashion, Yoesting and Bohlen (1969) treated as nonmigrants
those who happened to be living in the same Iowa community
in which they had graduated from high school eight years

42
before.

Incredibly, "• . • respondents who lived in their

home communities at the time of the 1956 study were consid­
ered to have stayed even though they may have moved out of
their home between 1948 and 1956 and returned." (p. 7)
In a study of migration in Tennessee by Leuthold,
Farmer, and Badenhop (1967) Information was "gathered on
1,076 young adults age 20 and over from household heads with
children of this age" and "migration patterns of these young
adults [were] analyzed." (1967, p. 4)

Present residence

was utilized as an index of migration behavior with the re­
sultant inaccurately low estimate of the proportion of the
total cohort who may actually have migrated sometime during
the ten year time frame of the study, but who had subsequently
returned.
This practice of treating residence in the same lo­
cation at two different times as nonmigration has been used
not only in the field studies of rural youth cohorts, but
also in national survey analyses, notably by Blau and Duncan
in the 1967 Occupation Changes in a Generation study.

Thus

migration status is derived;
. . . from the answer to the question, 'Where were
you living when you were 16 years old7' Men report­
ing that they had lived in the same community as
in 1962 are identified as nonmigrants. The rest,
the migrants, were asked whether they had lived in
a large city of 100,000 or more inhabitants or in
suburbs, a smaller city, or a rural area. The last
category was subdivided by father's occupation into
rural nonfarm and farm. (1967, p. 254)
This approach is used for the entire sample, which

includes individuals as old as 64 years, with the consequence
that for these older persons a time span of as much as 48
years is included*

While it is true that the frequency of

migration is generally greater among the younger segment,
it would appear that this procedure has allowed virtually
the maximum possible opportunity for some unknown number of
individuals to gravitate back to the communities from which
they came— for retirement, perhaps, among some of the older
ones, to mention just one possible circumstance— and to be
thus classified as nonmiqrants.

To the extent such a cir­

cularity of migration actually takes place among persons
who turn up in the "same community as at age 16'* at the time
of data collection, the analysis is vulnerable to error in
assessing the characteristics of "nonmigrants."
Blau and Duncan are not unaware of the possibility
of circular migration and comment that
These figures [on the proportion of migrants among
the sample] can only under-estimate the true propor­
tion of the population that has experienced migra­
tion at one point or another in adult life, as some
unknown number of men return to the community in
which they were raised after having migrated else­
where and hence escape our count* (1967, p. 255)
Whether this procedure for distinguishing migrants
from nonmigrants is catastrophic or not depends on at least
two considerations:

1) what kinds of research objectives

we have, and 2) the extent and frequency of such circular
migration in the groups of people studied*
On the first count, it would appear that if the ob­
jective of the research has anything to do with the assessment

44
of the differential effects of exposure to a new environment
(i.e., opportunity structure) on the basic career trajectory
of an individual, the simple 'Time l,Time 2' approach must
be highly risky indeed.

To pick a graphic hypothetical ex­

ample; Person A, who, let us say, has never left his rural
home community but simply went out and got a job on the local
scene after high school could hardly be considered to have
had experience equivalent to that of Person B who left the
home community after high school, obtained a college educa­
tion in the city, served in the armed forces overseas, com­
pleted a graduate degree and subsequently returned to his
original community to continue his career.

The 'Time 1,

Time 2' approach obviously risks lumping these two individ­
uals together as nonmigrants, thus completely misconstruing
their careers and the manifold differences which almost cer­
tainly exist between them in many aspects, from socioeconomic
status to ideological perspective.
Inasmuch as most of the research on rural youth co­
horts focusses fundamentally on their formative experiences
and the various other ingredients in the development of their
careers, failure to take account of the full history of their
migratory behavior would appear to falsely simplify reality.
It must be admitted, of course, that such a complete account­
ing was beyond the scope and resources of a national survey
such as the Blau-Duncan study.

And the inability to secure

the additional information does not invalidate their basic
findings which, altogether, provide many insights and are

sk '•

45
of enormous value*

The point, rather, is that such data

obviously do not tell the whole story in that they do not
reveal the actual complexity of migration and its relation
to career trajectory*

7

For this reason careful longitudinal

analysis of migration behavior alongside the other strategic
o
and significant events of the careers of rural youth is an
essential complement to large scale cross-sectional study
designs such as that of Blau and Duncan.
Notwithstanding the significance, on theoretical
grounds, of the phenomenon of circular migration in under­
standing the occupational attainment process, there is a
practical empirical question of the extent and frequency
of its occurrence.

9

For if the occurrence of circular migra­

tion is actually rare, then we may largely ignore it empir­
ically while granting its potential theoretical significance.
7
By the imagery of a "trajectory" we suggest a model
in which the individual *s career is likened to the path of
a bullet. With an initially high motive force, it starts
from a relatively low initial point (first job) and rises
steadily (mobility) to an apex somewhere beyond the midpoint
of flight (highest-level job ever held), and, shortly there­
after, descends rapidly to the ground (retirement).
o
While our discussion has been focussed on the con­
sequences of the use of the "Time 1, Time 2" method in the
study of rural youth, an equivalent criticism can be made
about its potential hazards in the study of urban youth.
9
By extent we refer to the proportion of the total
number of personswho ever migrated who subsequently return
to the place of origin, while by frequency we shall mean
the number of times any particular individual who migrates
returns to his place of origin.

46
The second contingency, then, is:

How often is such a phe­

nomenon actually observed?
A hint of its importance can be gained from an exam­
ination of several studies in which data on the number and
direction of moves made by outmigrants from rural areas were
gathered.

Leuthold, Farmer, and Badenhop (1967) found that,

Of the 1,076 persons surveyed [who had grown up in
the county], 40% presently reside in Jackson County,
32% in other areas of Tennessee, and 28% in other
states. . . . Many of those who presently reside in
Jackson County migrated on one or more occasions.
Forty percent of the males and 42% of the females
residing in the county left for at least a 6 -month
period other than for school or military service.
Xn addition, 2 0 % of both males and females presently
residing outside Jackson County remigrated on one
or more occasions. (1967, p. 4)
A stunning 40 percent of the in-county residents
had left, presumably for employment, but had returned to
live in the county 1

Moreover, others, who were in an "away

phase" at the time of the study had been back to live in
the county one or more times!

On this scale, circular mi­

gration could hardly be seen as anything but a highly sig­
nificant mass phenomenon.
Further evidence on the frequency of circular mi­
gration comes from the Kentucky study of Schwarzweller who
reports that
. . . over a third (38.9 percent) of the nonmigrant
segment (19.9 percent of the total population) had
established civilian residence outside the eastern
Kentucky area during the decade, but had returned
by 1960. (1963, p. 21)
Xn addition to those who had been away for civilian,
presumably educational and employment purposes during the

47
decade of the study, another

11

percent had left the area

and lived for some years elsewhere while serving In the armed
forces*

On the other hand, Schwarzweller reports that 16

percent of those who at the end of the decade were living
outside the original area "had established residence one
or more times back In eastern Kentucky after their initial
migration." (1963, p* 21)
About the returnees Schwarzweller speculates:
This is an interesting group from many standpoints;
for example, one might ask 'Why did they return?—
What happened?— Couldn't they make a go of it?— Did
they get homesick?--etc•' Over 77 percent of these
men had lived in areas of Ohio during that period*
In terms of their destination, then, we might infer
that their initial departure was motivated by similar
reasons as those who moved out and remained— that
is, to find employment in the industrial Ohio Val­
ley * * . the evidence suggests that from 2 0 to about
25 percent of the entire study population might be
so designated [as residentially unstable]. If this
prediction proves correct, the situation begins to
assume enormous proportions as a social problem [if
residential stability is at all indicative of social
stability and adjustment] when one conservatively
generalizes regarding the thousands of young men
who reach adulthood each year under similar circum­
stances in eastern Kentucky and low-income areas
elsewhere. (1963, pp. 21, 28)
Whatever the actual reasons for their residential
vacillation and any significance it may have for their so­
cial stability and adjustment, this "betwixt and between
segment," as Schwarzweller labels it, is a substantial por­
tion of the total number of persons studied who ever left
the original area during the ten year period of the study.
Interestingly, Youmans finds, in his independent analysis
of the Kentucky sample, that 55 percent of those who had

48
moved and were living in urban centers of Kentucky and south­
ern Ohio "would like to move" from where they were situated
and that the principal reason given by these men "was to
return to [eastern] Kentucky 'because my home is there
(Youmans, 1963, p. 26)
In their study of 152 former Hamilton County, Iowa,
high school students, Yoesting and Bohlen found that of those
living in their home communities after eight years, and whom,
incidentally, they treated as "nonmigrants," 16 percent of
the females and 41 percent of the males had " . . .

migrated

some time between 1948 and 1956 but had returned and resided
in their home communities by 1956. . . . "

(1969, pp. 16-17)

Still another field study which reveals a pattern
of circular migration, in this instance in a relatively short
time frame, is that by Smith and Berg (1962).

In an analy­

sis of migration within the ten month period after gradua­
tion from 67 Michigan Upper Peninsula high schools, Smith
and Berg found that at least 782 out of 3,508, or 22%, of
these former students had left their home communities (and
the U.P.) "on a permanent or semi-permanent basis," and that
the probable figure, allowing for certain methodological
problems, approached 35 percent.

Included were persons who

had enrolled in colleges or other schools, Joined the mili­
tary, gotten married and moved away, or gone away to look
for work (1962, pp. 5-6).

But of the 562 persons who had

originally left to find work, 23.4 percent of the boys and
17.2 percent of the girls had already returned.

A few (4.5%)

49
had come back within a month, but most had apparently been
gone for at least three months and some had been gone more
than eight*

The principal reasons given for returning by

both boys and girls were difficulties in finding work and
dissatisfaction with jobs obtained (1962, pp. 46—47, 61)*
The net impact of these studies in terms of the is­
sue of circular migration is to confirm its occurrence as
a significant feature of rural youth migrations*

Xn the

studies cited, from about twenty to forty percent of the
persons who ever migrated returned to live in their original
community by the end of the time period under study.

Hence,

on empirical, as well as theoretical, grounds this phenom­
enon would clearly appear to be of considerable importance*
Depending on the types of training, job experience,
and reorientation undergone, we should expect that these
circular migrants will be characteristically different from
those who never left their home communities for any period*
At least theoretically, some such difference should be ex­
pected whether that absence from the local scene was for
purposes of military service, education, employment, or
marriage, and should be especially significant for combina­
tions of these experiences*

Both the amount of time spent

elsewhere and the size of place in which it is spent should,
of course, also contribute to these hypothetical differences
between circular migrants and "true1* nonmigrants.

so
1

.

The Occupational Achievement of Circular Migrants

Having already established the considerable incidence
of circular migration and having now indicated the probabil­
ity of differences between such migrants and nonmigrants
who live in rural communities, it remains to be spelled out
just what level of occupational achievement we might expect
will be exhibited by these people*

How will they stand in

comparison with the other groups already discussed— the mi­
grants to large and small cities, migrants to other rural
areas, and the 'true nonmigrants?'

Are they really the re­

jects, the incompetents, the "failures" they are perhaps
thought to be?

Are they, as Schwarzweller speculates, the

ones who "couldn't make it" outside the local community?
If our understanding of the factors involved in the
occupational attainment process is accurate, we should be
able to go some way toward predicting the level of occupa­
tional achievement of circular migrants relative to the
other identifiable groups treated in the literature discussed
above*

We have described opportunity structure, for example,

as an important variable in determining achievement levels,
and pointed to the sophisticating effects of migration,
since it widens exposure and increases the potential access
to training and occupational opportunities*

In evaluating

the situation of the circular migrant, then, we must keep
clearly in mind his relation to the opportunity structure.
Specifically, we would assume that the circular
migrant should have an advantage over the true nonmigrant

in that he has been exposed to, and has likely benefitted
from experience in, an opportunity structure of some place
away from home*

His training may have been increased, and

certainly his horizons will have been widened in the sense
that his knowledge will be greater and his perspective, per­
haps, less parochial*

He may not have liked living away

from his local community, but, presumably, he will have been
affected by the experience nevertheless*

if the time spent

was in a small or large city, and particularly if it involved
formal education or training of any sort, the returning mi­
grant is very likely to have a strong competitive advantage
over the person who went directly to a job in the local com­
munity after leaving high school.
If this reasoning holds, we should anticipate that
the circular migrant, contrary to his popular image as a
loser, should exhibit occupational attainment superior to
that of his nonmigrant counterpart*

Even under conditions

of the limited resource base of the particular local commu­
nity, the circular migrant is still in a better overall com­
petitive position occupationally than the person who never
left*

Thus, we hypothesize that, as a group, the circular

migrants will occupy a position above the true nonmigrants
in our "hierarchy" of achievement groups*
The circular migrant is, on the other hand, a cer­
tain kind of rural-to-rural migrant, having simply gone
through an intermediate stage of living in a city or in
some other rural community*

How shall we predict his

52
occupational attainment relative to the other group of rural
to-rural migrant 6 --those who left their home community and
went to live in some other rural community elsewhere, never
having returned?

Is there any basis for not expecting these

two groups to exhibit similar occupational achievement?
Xn comparing the circumstance of circular migrants
with that of other rural migrants, it can be seen that there
is at least one major difference between their situations.
The circular migrants have moved back to a place in which
they are surrounded by family, whereas the rural migrants
very likely are living in places where no family, or, at
most, some member of the extended family resides (Olson,
1960, pp. 16-17).

There may be differences between the

rural communities involved, but over any large number of
cases such differences may not be very significant.

Cer­

tainly the characteristic and predictable difference is that
of the presence of family in the home community•
What possible consequences does the physical prox­
imity of immediate family, or lack of it, have for these
two classes of migrants?

First, it has been shown that

migration tends to reduce kinship contacts (Jitodai, 1963;
Schwarzweller, 1964a) and that such reduced contacts involve
certain ’•costs" to the migrant, particularly if he has had
significant attachments to kin and to the home community•
Xn examining the situation of migrants who had left eastern
Kentucky, Schwarzweller notes:

53
Here, we observe quite clearly two major forces
in opposition:
(1 ) economic and material opportuni­
ties available outside eastern Kentucky which tend
to attract young people newly recruited to the labor
force, and (2 ) family-kinship-neighborhood ties which,
almost by definition, mean ''home11 to the migrant
and tend either to discourage young people from mi­
grating or to make the new migrant uncomfortable,
homesick, and dissatisfied. The balance between
these forces— the manner in which young men from
eastern Kentucky coped with the personal strains
generated by this duality— is, we would argue, a
problem of adjustment that confronts almost any man
entering the labor force from eastern Kentucky re­
gardless of whether or not he migrates. (1963, p. 27)
This dilemma afflicts potential migrants even before
the time arrives at which a decision must be made as to
whether or not to leave the local community.

Foreman and

Francis, in a study of 1,770 high school students in Minne­
sota, found that "conditions which would keep the person
from moving are associated with community satisfaction,
while conditions which would make a person move are associ­
ated with mobility ideology." (1963, p. 23)

The evidence

suggests that to the extent kinship and community ties are
strong, they exercise some influence not only in restraining
individuals from migrating in the first place, but probably
also in pulling the migrants back to the community after
they have left (Simwanza, 1969).
The critical issue becomes that of the effects of
family proximity on occupational achievement since it is
in this circumstance that the circular migrants and rural
migrants notably differ.
A strong hint as to the possible impact of close
kinship ties and contacts on achievement can be gained from

54
a recent analysis of interaction with kin and "modernity'*
by Straus*

An index of psychosocial modernity was developed

which included measures of:

1

) mastery values— an active-

future orientation and a rejection of fatalism;

2

) role

prescription— expression of the amount of education which
parents expected their children to complete and their com­
munication of that expectation; and 3) planninafulness—
innovativeness and future-orientation of role behavior (1969,
pp. 484-85).

Straus found "a strong relationship between

frequency of interaction with kin and *non-modern* psycho­
social traits. • . •" (p. 486)

Replication with controls

for residence and socioeconomic status did not erase the
relationship, with the result that Straus finds support for
the hypothesis that interaction with kin deters modernity.
He proposes a "kinship deterrent" theory in which:
(1) Ruralness and working-class status are associated
with greater kinship interaction than urbanness
and middle-class status, [and]
(2) The greater the intensity of interaction with
the extended kin, the less the psycho-social
modernity. (Straus, 1969, pp. 488-89)
Straus elaborates that:
Specifically, it was found that the greater the kin­
ship interaction, the lower the achievement values,
the lower the educational expectations for children,
and the less planning and innovativeness in homemaking. (p. 489)
[Various] considerations suggest that the more con­
servative the society, the greater the deterrent
effect of the kin group on individual modernity. . . .
Conversely, if the values and behavioral patterns
of the society are "modern," then the kin group will
tend to take on the role of teaching such patterns

55
or, at the least, will not be under pressure to
transmit traditional patterns* * * • However, even
If the society Is thoroughly "modern,” the family
might still be a conservative force because rapid
social change produces age cohorts with different
cultures* These generationally-linked cultural
differences, when coupled with the socialization
and conformity enforcing functions expected of
families In most societies, may make the family
an Inherently conservative group* Cpp* 489-90)
The complex of factors Involved In Straus* "modern­
ity” Index would seem, on theoretical grounds, to have con­
siderable relevance to our discussion of the possible effects
of family proximity on the occupational achievement of cir­
cular migrants In rural areas*

The obvious Implication of

the "deterrent” theory Is that the circular migrants, who
perforce live near and Interact with kin, will be Impeded
In their achievement compared to migrants who live away,
even in other rural communities .1 0
Xn predicting the occupational attainment levels
of circular migrants, then, we anticipate that the experi­
ence, qualification, and sophistication gained from exposure
to other environments beyond their home communities will
enable them to demonstrate superiority over those who never
left their home area*

On the other hand, we would expect

Schwarzweller (1964a) explores the notion of
famillsm as a deterrent even under conditions where indi­
viduals are living away from the home community and kin*
He finds inconsistent evidence for strong famillsm as a
hindrance to occupational achievement for such migrants,
but concludes that It does ” . * • hold back the migrant
from becoming socially integrated into the urban community.”
(p* 34) Also, migrants who maintain strong family ties
tend to suffer greater anomie than those who exhibit fewer
ties •

that their level of achievement will not be quite so high
as that of migrants to other similar rural communities who
did not return*

These individuals, while they may not have

access to an opportunity structure significantly "better"
than that of the home community, nonetheless have the advan­
tage of freedom from certain subtle pressures and obligations
involved in close ties with kin.^*
Altogether, it would appear that the variables of
1 ) experience of migration, and 2) choice of terminal des­
tination, being sensitively connected with the process of
career achievement among rural youth, should be handled with
as high a degree of precision as possible if we are to gain
an accurate appreciation of the extent of their effects*
The practice, frequently encountered in migration research,
of treating individuals who turn up in the same location
upon two successive occasions as nonmigrants is likely to
be factually inaccurate and theoretically misleading.

To

be sure, proper longitudinal research methods which avoid
this pitfall are more troublesome, more expensive, more
complicated, and take longer to carry out.

But the truth

of the matter is that if we "look inside" this class of
"nonmigrants" built of 'Time l,Time 2* observations, we

^ X t has been a popular notion, of course, that
proximity of kin has a "supportive" effect on the individ­
ual, rather than a deterrent one. That is obviously not
the tack taken in this analysis, and, it must be said, the
accumulated evidence simply does not provide much foundation
for this popular notion.

57
will very probably find a significant number of instances
in which such classificatory procedures essentially misrep­
resent the amount of mobility which has taken place in the
interim*

Such falsifications cannot but detract from the

level of precision with which we apprehend the whole process
of career achievement and the many factors which impinge
on it.

Under these circumstances what is clearly needed

is a series of careful and complete longitudinal analyses
of rural youth cohorts during the period in which the basic
structural outlines of their careers are formed.

Data are

needed that are continuous over a long enough period of the
process and detailed enough to provide a complete history
of the significant events.

Only thus will we ensure the

continuity of outline which is the key to a more adequate
understanding of these career profiles.
E. Statement of the Research Problem
In the foregoing sections we have discussed the
research literature on the subject of geographic mobility
and career achievement in rural youth.

In the process of

this discussion we have attempted to summarize the research
in terms of the generalizations which may be drawn from it.
At the same time we have pointed to some of the shortcomings
of much of the research, particularly the limitations of
the cross-sectional and historico-reconstructive studies
and the problem of definition of nonmigration.
The need has been expressed, first, for careful

58

longitudinal analysis of the experience of an actual cohort
of rural youth, as a replication, in stricter methodological
form, of the widely executed cross-sectional and reconstruc­
tive studies.

Such research would serve both as a test of

the findings already developed from other types of research
and as a context within which to examine issues (i.e., cir­
cular migration) as yet not systematically developed in the
literature.
The value of this longitudinal research, of course,
derives only insofar as it

1

) minimizes non-representative­

ness through attrition of cases; and

2)

recovers information

substantial enough to provide a complete and continuous pic­
ture of the activities of individuals during the critical
period, perhaps ten years, after their completion of high
school.
Longitudinal research of the type indicated might
address itself to examination of the several issues contained
in the literature, such as the frequency of migration, des­
tinations of migrants, the occupational attainments of mi­
grants and nonmigrants, the selectivity of migration, the
significance of the opportunity structure of both the place
of origin and the place of destination, and occurrence and
implications of circular migration.

These matters have not

heretofore been addressed in combined format in any longi­
tudinal research presently available.

59
1.

Rationale for the Hypotheses

From the research literature discussed above, we
may construct a hypothetical picture of the process of occu­
pational achievement among young persons from rural areas.
The structural changes in the economy of rural areas, coupled
with the typically large families of rural residents, has
produced a continuing labor surplus in rural regions with
a resultant outflow to urban areas•

We anticipate that mi­

gration will thus be the rule for young persons in rural
settings— that after leaving high school most of these young
persons will strike out for other areas to continue their
education, go into the service, or seek employment.

It

would appear to be reasonable to expect that a fairly sub­
stantial majority of young people will be so affected, par­
ticularly in areas that are unusually economically depressed.
Given the inability of the rural economy to support
a substantial working force, we anticipate that the direc­
tion of the bulk of migration will be cityward— that the
basic flow will be from these rural communities to urban
regions and to the fringe areas surrounding such places.
Hence, we would expect most migrants to have established
residence in urban areas, although a few will likely have
gone to live in other rural areas not unlike the places from
which they came.

These theoretical expectations about the

frequency of migration and about the destinations of migrants
derive from the impact of structural conditions in the so­
ciety at large.

There is a general flow of labor to urban

60
areas and this phenomenon might be expected to be especially
acute among new entrants to the labor force who 9 although
the least well qualified, are the most mobile segment.

12

Of central interest is the nature of the careers
of those who choose to migrate as compared with those of
persons who stay in their communities of origin.

Depending

on such factors as differential quality of educational prep­
aration and the relative need for various types of labor in
the places of origin and places of destination, the migra­
tion of young persons out of their rural communities carries
significance for both the home communities themselves and
for the areas of destination.

For the rural communities

it means that manpower will be lost and thus, at least po­
tentially, certain kinds of resources essential to the con­
tinued vitality of the community.

For the places of destina­

tion it may mean new Inputs of labor of both high and low
quality, thus adding to the manpower resources available
to that area and perhaps to its problems as well.
The research literature indicates that migrants from
12

It is recognized that the rural-urban migration
stream is a time-bound phenomenon and is linked to the unique
set of economic and technological trends of this historical
period, as well as to the broader dynamics of population
growth and redistribution. There is a good basis for believ­
ing that rural areas will not lose population indefinitely,
and may even begin to show net increases with the passage
of time and further expansion of nearby metropolitan centers.
Apart from such stabilization at a gross level, however, we
may reasonably anticipate that the outmigration of rural
youth will continue, and that their departure will be simply
compensated by a "back flow** of persons in other age brackets.

rural areas typically exhibit higher levels of occupational
attainment than the persons left behind*

Such higher attain­

ment presumably owes to the possible effects of certain kinds
of selectivity operating in the migration process itself
and to differences in the opportunities available in the
various target regions to which the migrants move*

In re­

spect to selectivity of migration, we anticipate that persons
who choose to leave their communities of orientation will
likely exhibit an initial advantage over nonmigrants along
a range of relevant personal and social characteristics and
circumstances, and may be therefore somewhat "predestined"
to relative success*

For example, we might expect migrants

to have given evidence of superior ability while in school,
to have had higher levels of aspiration, and, perhaps, to
have had parents who more often reinforced such aspirations.
The nonmigrants, on the other hand, should exhibit lower
ability, fewer of the values associated with achievement,
greater attachment to the home community, and less interest
in, and reinforcement from others for, leaving it. 13
13
Existence of positive relationships among a cluster
of variables associated with the career socialization process
has been well established* Such variables include parents'
socioeconomic status, parents' educational and occupational
expectations, children's levels of educational and occupa­
tional aspiration and ability, size of community of origin,
and levels of educational and occupational achievement*
See for example: Anderson, Brown, and Bowman, 1952; Bender,
Hobbs, and Golden, 1967; Bordua, 1960; Burchinal, 1961; Gist,
Pihlblad, and Gregory, 1942; Gregory and Lionberger, 1966;
Grigg and Middleton, 1960; Kuvlesky and Bealer, 1967; Campbell
and Dilley, 1966; Lindstrom, 1964; Lipset and Bendix, 1959;

62

It would appear reasonable also to expect that there
may be selectivity in migration in terms of such things as
the individual's attitude toward the community and his rela­
tions with his parents— factors which might not have an ob­
vious or clear connection with later occupational achieve­
ment, yet which may serve, if negative in valence, to drive
the individual out of the community.

Hence, we would antici­

pate the possibility of migrants expressing less satisfaction
with the local scene and the relationships which obtain there.
While still in high school they may feel that the community
is too provincial, for example, or that nobody minds his
own business, or that there is nothing to do with one's free
time (Crawford, 1964; Goldsmith and Beegle, 1962; Schulze,
Artis, and Beegle, 1963).

On the other hand, they may feel

that they would like to get away from the family for a while,
that their parents are restricting their freedom, "cramping
their style," or are unable to see their viewpoint, etc.
(Oavls, 1940; Schwarzweller, 1964a; Simwanza, 1969).
Altogether, in terms of selectivity of migration,
we would anticipate that migrants and nonmigrants will dif­
fer in both objective characteristics and in certain dynamic
factors.

Xn the case of the former, the migrants may come

Middleton and Grigg, 1959; Porter, 1954; Sewell, Haller, and
Straus, 1957; Sewell, 1964; Sewell and Shah, 1967, 1968a,
1968b; and Simpson, 1962. What we are suggesting in this
discussion, of course, is that among rural youth a further
variable linked to this career socialization process is
migration status.

63
from families with higher status than the nonmigrants and
they may exhibit greater ability and potential for achieve­
ment.

In the case of the latter, the migrants may differ

from the nonmigrants in the kinds of reinforcement they get
from significant others, in the attitudes they have about
home and community, in their aspirations and plans for the
future.

The selectivity, then, may be both circumstantial

and social psychological, and may have reference to both
the Individual himself and to his dynamic relationship to
those around him.

Some of these aspects, such as the indi­

vidual's ability and level of aspiration, should have inti­
mate relevance to both his departure from the community and
to subsequent levels of achievement.

Other aspects, such

as the individual's attitude toward the community, may have
immediate relevance only to the decision to stay or leave
the area, and dubious, if any, connection with subsequent
events.
We anticipate that the migrants and nonmigrants will
exhibit differential occupational attainments not only be­
cause of selectivity in the migration process itself, but
also because their ultimate environments differ.

This reason­

ing is based on the theoretical assumption of the importance
of differences between the opportunity structures in these
several environments, and, as we shall presently suggest,
the proximity or absence of kin.
We anticipate that a major element in the career
achievement process of young persons from rural areas will

64
be the nature of the opportunity structure of the places
in which these people come to live and work, and their rela­
tive freedom and facility in exploiting that opportunity
structure.

In general, we assume that the larger the oppor­

tunity structure to which an individual has been exposed,
the greater will be the likelihood of his demonstrating a
high level of occupational attainment.

By this reasoning,

we anticipate that persons who grow up in larger communities
will later exhibit achievement superior to those who grow
up in smaller communities (Lipset, 1955), and this principle
may apply at least in a general way even to the range of
communities classed as "rural."

Moreover, we would expect

that those individuals who come to live in urban areas will
typically do substantially better than persons who remain in
rural areas.

This would merely reveal the gross differences

in the opportunity structures of urban and rural areas, and
would underscore the strategic significance for migrants of
the choice of destination.

Here we are hypothesizing a dual

significance of the opportunity structure:

first, in set­

ting out for the individual the kinds of possible career
lines open to him, and second, in serving as the context
in which the individual's career takes on its ultimate form.
We expect that the opportunity structure of the place of
origin and that of the destination will have influence in
determining career outcomes for the migrant while the nonmigrant will be affected solely by the place in which he
has always resided.

65

A further refinement in the prediction of achieve­
ment may be tentatively advanced in respect to urban migrants.
Following the speculation of Blau and Duncan (1967), it is
anticipated that those rural-urban migrants who reside in
small cities will exhibit higher levels of occupational
attainment than will those who migrate to larger cities.
Blau and Duncan reason that smaller cities offer the rural
immigrant substantially improved opportunity without the
presumably greater problems of alienation and readjustment
to city life ("culture shock” ) involved in the experience
of transition from the rural source area to the larger metropolitan areas. 14
In addition to the
and

2

1

) job market and labor flow,

) variations in the opportunity structure of various

communities as theoretical factors accounting for differen­
tial occupational achievement of persons from rural areas
is the additional factor previously mentioned, proximity
of family.

In this we have a social psychological factor

which we suppose plays a role in occupational achievement.
We have suggested that the function of close interaction
with kin is actually to impede occupational achievement,
and have proposed a "kinship deterrent" theory, after Straus
(1969), to predict the differential outcomes of persons who
14The problem of alienation and readjustment to city
life on the part of rural-urban migrants is recognized and
discussed also by Schwarzweller (1964a).

66
follow their careers In their home communities compared to
those who migrate to other rural communities In which kin
are absent.

We predict that rural-to-rural migrants who

live beyond their home communities will show higher occupa­
tional attainment than will persons who live In their home
communities.
A possible test of this presumption Is the case of
persons who leave their home community but who subsequently
return to live In the same place.

These people will have

benefltted from the experience of migration In terms of Its
sophisticating effects and from any further training or edu­
cation received In the process.

However, they have returned

to an area where family contacts are probably plentiful and
the effects of such Interaction with kin are to be fully
felt.

Hence, we predict their level of occupational achieve­

ment will be higher than that of persons who never migrated,
but still lower than that of persons who migrated to other
rural areas.
In sum, we have conceived the career experience of
rural youth In terms of the effects of various conditions
growing out of the nature of the environment, such as the
structural features of the labor market, geographic mobility
and the opportunities available within communities of vari­
ous sizes, and combined these with social psychological fac­
tors, such as differences In the Individuals’ orientations
and backgrounds and differences In
with kinship members.

Intensity of Interaction

From the Interrelationships among

67
these various factors, we have attempted to predict their
differential occupational attainment outcomes.
2.

Statements of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis I:

(Frequency of Migration)

Of men reared in rural areas, more will subsequently
move away from their home communities than will remain within
their home communities.
Hypothesis II:

(Destination of Migrants)

Of those men reared in rural areas who subsequently
move away from their home communities, more will be found
to live in urban areas than in rural communities.
Hypothesis Ills

(Occupational Attainment of Migrants and
Nonmigrants)

Of men reared in rural areas, those who subsequently
move away from their home communities will exhibit higher
occupational attainment than will those who remain in their
home communities.
Hypothesis IV:

(Selectivity of Migration)

Of men reared in rural areas, those who subsequently
move away from their home communities (migrants) will differ
in specified ways from those who remain in their home com­
munities (residents) in terms of the following background
factors:
A. Factors associated with family background

68
1.

Objective factors
a. Migrants' fathers will have had higher socio­
economic status than will residents' fathers.
b. Migrants' fathers will have had more educa­
tion than will residents' fathers.
c. Migrants' mothers will have had more educa­
tion than will residents' mothers.
d. Migrants' fathers will have had higher income
than will residents' fathers.

2.

Dynamic (social psychological) factors
a. Migrants' parents will have had higher occupational expectations for their children than
residents' parents will have had for theirs.
b. Migrants* parents will have been more favor­
ably oriented toward their children's possible
departure from the home community than will
be the case for residents' parents.
c. Migrants will have been less satisfied with
their relationships with their parents than
will be the case for residents.

B. Factors associated with the individual
1

.

Objective factors
a. Migrants will have had higher intelligence
than residents.
b. Migrants will have had greater academic abil­
ity than residents.

69
2*

Dynamic (social psychological) factors
a. Migrants will have had higher educational
aspirations than residents*
b. Migrants will have had higher occupational
aspirations than residents*
c* Migrants will have been more favorably ori­
ented toward leaving the community after
leaving school than residents,
d* Migrants will have been more motivated toward
further education or training as a basis for
leaving the home community than residents,
e* Migrants will have been less satisfied with
the community than residents*
f. Migrants will have had a residential prefer­
ence for a larger community than residents*

Hypothesis V:

(Opportunity Structure of the Community of
Orientation)

The larger the community of orientation, the higher
will be the level of subsequent occupational attainment,
regardless of present residence.
Hypothesis VI:

(Opportunity Structure of the Community of
Destination)

Of men reared in rural areas, the level of subsequen
occupational attainment will be highest among migrants to
small cities, next highest among migrants to large cities,
third highest among migrants to other rural communities,
and lowest among those remaining in their home communities»

70
Hypothesis VII:

(Occupational Achievement of Circular
Migrants)

Of men reared in rural areas, those who move away
from their home communities but subsequently return will
exhibit occupational attainment higher than that of persons
who have never moved away from their home communities but
lower than that of persons who have moved away to other rural
communities and not returned.

CHAPTER XX
THE METHOD OF THE STUDY
A* Introduction
Xn the previous chapter we summarized the research
literature dealing with the relationship between geographic
mobility and occupational achievement of rural youth.

We

discussed the need for a careful longitudinal check of gen­
eralizations growing out of the literature and for explora­
tion of the phenomenon of circular migration.

Finally, we

constructed a set of interrelated hypotheses for testing
within a longitudinal design.

The purpose of this chapter

is to outline a study developed to provide a test of those
hypotheses.
B. The Ontonagon County Project, 1957-1968
Xn response to the Report of the Procedures Committee
of NC-18, the North Central Regional Project Concerning Field
t

Studies in Migration (1957), Michigan State University soci­
ologists undertook a series of studies of outmigration areas
of rural Michigan*

Among the places studied was a low in­

come rural area in the Upper Peninsula with an extended his­
tory of population loss:

Ontonagon County .1

^Under the aegis of NC-18, sociologists in the North
Central Region undertook parallel field studies of areas
71

Xn May, 1957, a study of the "initial phase** of
voluntary migration was conducted in this county by MSU
sociologists, with support from the Michigan Agricultural
Experiment Station.

Xn this project extensive data were

collected from and about a sample of young people enrolled
in high school.
questionnaire

2

This was accomplished through a mimeographed
filled out by the students which elicited

information about a variety of topics, such as their activ­
ities, their attitudes toward the community and toward their
parents, their educational and occupational plans and aspira­
tions, and their possible desires, expectations, or plans
to leave the local area after high school.

Further infor­

mation was obtained from school records including evidence
concerning their academic performance and various test scores.
An attempt was made to corroborate certain information, such
as the students' fathers* occupations, with knowledgeable
school staff members in order to ensure the highest possible
validity of information gathered.

Analysis of the 1957 data

was subsequently presented by Goldsmith and Beegle (1962)
in a study of the "initial phase" of voluntary migration.

exhibiting various combinations of the following conditions:
1 ) net inmigration or net outmigration during the previous
decade, 2) a high or low level of living, and 3) a high or
low proportion of persons employed in manufacturing. Onto­
nagon County was considered to fall into the category of
net outmigration, a low level of living, and a low propor­
tion of persons employed in manufacturing.
2

See Appendix A.

In 1967, the second phase of the Ontonagon County
project was undertaken*

This consisted of a follow-up study

of these former high school students*

The sample members

were relocated and new data were collected concerning the
events which had taken place since 1957*

For the ten year

period since high school, information was obtained concern­
ing all places in which these young people had lived, the
various jobs they had held, marriage and family formation,
spouses' occupations, family income, attitudes toward their
home community and toward their present community, if living
elsewhere, their social participation, and their assessment
of the meaning of their ten years' experience.
The present study of geographic mobility and occu­
pational achievement of rural youth is based on the exten­
sive data now available for this sample of persons from
Ontonagon County, Michigan, over a period of ten years,
commencing while they were still enrolled in high school
in May, 1957.3
1*

The Research Site

The site selected for this study was a rural county
in the western part of Michigan's Upper Peninsula.

Ontonagon

County is located approximately 60 miles southwest of Houghton,

other studies have been recently completed using
data from this sample, including those by Tregea (1968) and
Simwanza (1969)* Several others are currently in progress*
3Two

Michigan, and about the same distance northeast of Ironwood,
Michigan*

It is an entirely rural area, with the largest

community, the village of Ontonagon, having a population
in 1960 of approximately 2360 persons.

A

There are a number

of other smaller hamlets with populations of a few hundred
or less scattered about the county, with the rest of the pop­
ulation living in the open country* The total population
of the county in 1960 was 10,564, a figure slightly increased
over that of the previous decade, but due almost entirely
to expansion of the copper mining operation at White Pine
in the western part of the county.

Previous to the reopen­

ing of this mine, in 1954, the county had shown a continual
loss of population since the 1920's*

Goldsmith reports that

In 1950, Ontonagon County was an economically de­
pressed rural, predominantly Finnish community
characterized by out-migration, a rapidly aging
population, a high sex ratio, a large number of
single, widowed and divorced males, a low level
of educational attainment, and dependency upon
agriculture and the lumber industries for economic
livelihood. It had the lowest rural-farm level
of living index, 100, for the entire state. Over
17 percent of its active labor force was unemployed
as compared with the state average of 5.4 percent.
Forty-seven percent of the population earned less
than $ 2 , 0 0 0 and only 6 percent earned more than
$5,000. The same figures for the state were 19
percent and 20 percent respectively. (1961, p. 78)
These conditions, dismal as they were in 1950, do
not appear to have been much changed by the introduction
4

The photograph on the frontispiece is a scene of
the main thoroughfare, River Street, in the village of On­
tonagon .

of new industry, principally mining, during the decade 19501960*

While there has been some shift of labor from agri­

culture and logging into mining, the overall atmosphere in
the county has continued to be one of depression and, particularly, outmigration of the young.

5

The County exhibits

a pattern similar in basic respects to many rural counties
in the North Central Region of the United States,** and thus
serves as a generally representative area in which to study
the career profiles of rural youth.

Some impression of the

nature of the Ontonagon County area may be gained from the
pictures on the accompanying pages.

Although these photo­

graphs were taken at the time of the 1967-70 re-study, they
convey in an authentic manner the basic atmosphere of the
area during the contemporary period in which the subjects
in this study grew up.
2.

The Research Sample

Xn May of 195 7, all the Juniors and Seniors enrolled
7
in the six high school districts in Ontonagon County
c

Preliminary 1970 Census figures released in June,
1970, indicate that the County has again lost population
during the decade ending 1 April 1970.
6The North Central Region, as recognized by the U.S.
Census, includes the states of North Dakota, South Dakota,
Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, Xowa, Missouri, Wisconsin,
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio. Xn terms of migra­
tion patterns, the state
ofKentucky can be thought of as
also belonging generally
tothis region.
7

According to the 1960 Census, 97.3 percent of the
16-17 year olds residing
inthe county were enrolled in high

Fig. 1. Bergland School. One of the three smaller
schools in Ontonagon County. The study sample includes
eleven males who graduated from this school in 1957 and
195S.

Fig. 2. Ontonagon High School. Largest school in
Ontonagon County. The graduating classes of 1957 and
1958 included 48 males who are subjects in this study.
With consolidation of Mass and Rockland schools in 1968,
a new high school has been built.

Fig. 3. Main Street, Rockland. One of a number of small
communities scattered about Ontonagon County, Rockland
was a teeming copper mining town in the late nineteenth
century. Since the closing of the mines it has declined
to about 400 residents.

Fig. 4. Residential street scene, Bergland. Houses
in foreground are not atypical of many houses around
the county. The street is unpaved, as are most of the
streets in this community.

Fig. S. Church in Rockland*
Most churches in the county
are wooden structures such
as that pictured above.

Fig# 6* Ewen High School
Thirty of the subjects
included in this study
attended school here.

participated in the MSU study of the initial phase of volun­
tary migration*

This included a total of 269 students, 127

males and 142 females, who were present on the day the data
were collected.

The school supplying the largest number

of students in the original sample was Ontonagon, with 111
persons, while the smallest was Rockland, with just 11*
During the period March, 1968, to December, 1969,
all of the students still living were re-located (three had
died), and new data covering the ten year period since high
school were gathered.

This was accomplished through use

of photo-offset questionnaires

Q

mailed to the respondents'

addresses, completed by them, and returned to the university.
Follow-up phone calls were made and interviews were conducted
where necessary to insure the highest possible percentage
of recovery of data.

In three cases where subjects refused

to cooperate with the study, in nine others in which the
individuals indicated cooperation but failed ultimately to
return the questionnaire, and in the three deceased cases,
substitute data were collected from secondary sources, in­
cluding immediate family members, friends, and school offi­
cials.

An informal check of the probable validity of this

school. On the assumption that the level of attrition three
years earlier at least approaches this rate, it would appear
that an exceedingly small number in this age group in the
county were not enrolled in school at the time of the orig­
inal data collection.
8

See Appendix B.

80
type of data was gained from a number of other cases in which
such secondary data were collected, but in which the completed
questionnaires were later received from the subjects them­
selves.

The secondary source information was found to be

remarkably accurate, and in at least one case, more precise
and reliable than the information supplied by the subject
himself.

Altogether, usable data were recovered from 95.5

percent of the living members of the original sample and
secondary source information was obtained to cover the re­
maining few cases, resulting in complete coverage of the
original sample for the ten year period.

The zero net data

loss was considered essential considering the small size
of the initial sample and because of the problems of rep­
resentativeness alluded to earlier in the discussion of
previous research.
For this study of the relation between geographic
mobility and career achievement, only the male subsample
is used.

9

Of the original 127 males, two had died by the

end of the ten year period after high school, one in what
was described as a hunting accident and the other as a re­
sult of the sinking of the USS THRESHER (SSN-593) while
serving with the Navy.
9

Females were excluded from the analysis because
there is good reason to believe that their careers charac­
teristically differ in important structural ways from those
of males. For example, the relationship of females to the
occupational structure is not the same as that of males,
and their geographic mobility is no doubt complicated and
constrained by the career activities of their husbands.

3.

Operationalization of the Variables

The variables to be dealt with in this study include
a) migration, b) size of place of current residence, c) socio­
economic status, and d) certain background factors, including
father's socioeconomic status, parents' education and income,
parents' occupational expectations and career preferences,
attitudes toward parents, intelligence, academic performance,
educational and occupational aspirations, migration expec­
tations, reasons for desiring to migrate, attitudes toward
the community, and residential preferences.
Migration.

This variable was measured by items in

the re-study questionnaire (1968, pp. 4, 6-9) eliciting in­
formation about all the places in which the respondents had
lived for a month or more since high school.

Changes of

house within the same community were not considered to be
migration.
Size of Place of Current Residence.

The format and

procedure used by Blau and Duncan (1967) were used in this
study to provide a basis for appropriate comparisons and to
ensure maximum value of longitudinal replication of their
analysis.

Rural areas were defined as those communities

under 2,500 population.

Small cities were defined as in­

corporated places of 2,500 to 49,999 which were not part
of the 213 "urbanized areas" identified in the Census 1960.
Large city residence was defined as residence within one
of the 213 "urbanized areas" of the Census, which refers
to all incorporated places of at least 50,000 population

82
plus the surrounding unincorporated but developed urban and
suburban fringe.

Inasmuch as there were only 60 urban places,

containing less than 5 percent of the population, which were
not located In urbanized areas of at least 100,000 aggregate
population, large city residence typically refers to urban
areas of substantial size.

Residence as of the end of the

post high school decade (PHSD)— 30 June 1967 for the 195 7
seniors and 30 June 1968 for the 195 7 Juniors— -as listed
In the re-study questionnaire (1968, pp. 4, 9), was desig­
nated the place of current residence.
Socioeconomic Status.

The subjects' occupations as

of the end of the PHSD as reported by them in the re-study
questionnaire (1968, p. 9) were coded according to the Duncan
"Socioeconomic Index for Occupations in the Detailed Clas­
sification of the Bureau of the Census: 1950," in Albert
Reiss (1961, Appendix B-l).

Fathers' occupations were simi­

larly coded from information supplied on the initial phase
questionnaire (1957, p. 19) and corroborated by school staff.
Using Census data, the Duncan Socioeconomic Index
scales occupations according to objective components of in­
come and education.

This is done in such a manner that the

rankings produced coincide well with the differential pres­
tige of the various occupations as ascertained previously
by the National Opinion Research Center (1947).

The numeric

scores derived range from a high of 96 to a low of zero.
Examples of occupations ranking at various levels are as
follows:

physician, 92; civil engineer, 84; teacher, 72;

83
salaried manager, 68; typesetter, 52; clerical worker, 44;
gas station operator, 33; welder, 24; smelterman, 18; jan­
itor, 9; construction laborer, 7; and woodsman, 4.
Parents' Education.

The level of education of each

parent was measured by an item inthe initial

phase question­

naire (1957, p. 20) eliciting number of yearsof education
completed•
Parents1 Income.

Parents' incomes were measured by

an item in the initial phase questionnaire (1957, p. 20)
eliciting the subjects' estimates of their incomes in terms
of a series of categories scaled from less than SI,000 to
$9,000 or more.

The midpoints of these income categories

were used in converting the subjects' answers into dollar
income estimates.
Parents* Occupational Expectations.

Parents' expec­

tations concerning the occupational achievement of the sub­
jects were measured by an item inthe initial

phase question­

naire (1957, p. 14) eliciting thetypes of work the subjects
thought their parents would like to see them follow.

Three

such possible lines of work were elicited and these were
coded according to the Duncan Socioeconomic Status Index
(Reiss, 1961, Appendix B-l) and the scores averaged to ar­
rive at the most stable estimate of the subjects' perceptions
of parental expectations.
Parents' Career Preferences.

The parents* career

preferences for the subjects were assessed by a forced-choice
item in the initial phase questionnaire (1957, p. 9) eliciting

84
information as to the course of action parents urged upon
the subjects for the period after high school, as perceived
by the subjects*

The advice was divided into two categories

in terms of whether it 1) involved staying near home (Answers
1 , 2, and 4), or 2) allowed for the possibility of establish­
ing residence away from home (Answers 3 and 5).

Responses

in the "Other” category were similarly divided where pos­
sible:

advice to "take over my father's business” was put

in category 1, while advice such as "go in the service and
get a job of my own thereafter” was put in category 2.
Relations with Parents*

The subjects' relations

with their parents was the subject of a nine item checklist
of evaluative statements about relationships with parents
in the initial phase questionnaire (195*), pp* 7-8)*

The

statements allowed for responses in five categories from
strong agreement to strong disagreement.

£ach statement

was scored from 1 to 5 with the high score reflecting high
solidarity with parents.

The individual statement scores

were summed to provide a "relations with parents index” with
scores ranging from a maximum possible of 45, reflecting
high solidarity with parents, to a minimum of 9, indicating
alienation from parents.

This index score was used as a

measure of the subjects' relations with their parents.
Intelligence.

The most recent intelligence test

scores were obtained from the school records.

Only those

results from standardized tests, and which were recorded

in classical X.Q. format, were used*

It is recognized, of

course, that these tests are, at best, highly impure measures
of intelligence.

Allowance must be made for the fact that

results are likely to be Influenced by such factors as school
achievement, family background experience, self-attitudes,
etc.

While interpretation of outcomes must be made in the

light of these reservations, the test results may still be
useful in apprehending the career achievement potential of
the students, and in revealing possible differences between
migrants and nonmigrants.
Academic Ability.

The academic ability of the stu­

dents was measured by their graduation rank converted into
a percentile rank by the formula:
sons in the graduating class.

1 — Rank/Number of per­

In the several cases in which

individuals did not actually graduate, ranks were assigned
based on an evaluation of their academic performance while
still enrolled.
Educational Aspirations.

The level of educational

aspirations was measured by a forced-choice item in the in­
itial phase questionnaire (1957, p. 15) eliciting informa­
tion concerning possible intentions to seek further train­
ing after high school.

Response alternatives allowed for a

specification as to what type, if any, training was planned.
Occupational Aspirations.

The level of occupational

aspirations was obtained from an item in the initial phase
questionnaire (1957, p. 14) eliciting nfirst choice job [that
the subject was now] considering as a lifetime work,'* coded

66
according to the Duncan Socioeconomic Status Index (Reiss,
1961, Appendix B-l).
Miqration Expectations.

The attitude of the subjects

concerning the possibility of leaving the local community
after high school was measured by a forced-choice item in
the initial phase questionnaire (1957, p.10) eliciting ex­
pectations regarding staying or leaving.

Response alterna­

tives were listed in order of increasingly favorable orien­
tation toward migrating from the community and divided in
terms of whether they involved staying (Answers 1 and 2)
or leaving (Answers 3 and 4).
Reason for Leaving the Community after High School.
The principal reason the students felt might be grounds for
leaving the community after high school was measured by an
open-ended question in the initial phase questionnaire (1957,
p. 10) eliciting their "first main reason" for considering
leaving.

Responses were coded

into a series of categories

according to the type of reason given.
Attitude toward the Community.

The subjects' level

of community satisfaction was measured by a selection of 15
items from a checklist of evaluative statements about the
community in the initial phase

questionnaire (1957, pp. 4-5).

The fifteen item checklist was scored in the same fashion
as that for relations with parents, and an index derived
in which a higher score (maximum possible score » 75) indi­
cated greater satisfaction with the community and a lower
score (minimum » 15) indicated lesser satisfaction with the

community.

This index score was used as a measure of the

subjects* attitudes toward the community.
Residential Preference.

The residential preference

of the subjects was measured by an item in the initial phase
questionnaire (1957, p.12) eliciting the type of community
in which they would most prefer to live.

Response alterna­

tives were listed in order of increasing size of community.
Due to a misprint in the questionnaire, the size category
2,500 to 10,000 was omitted.

This reshaped the choice in­

terestingly into one which drew a distinction between the
kind of community found in Ontonagon County, all of which
are smaller than 2,500, and communities of definitely larger
size, such as Xronwood and Marquette in the U.P. and others
of similar and larger size in the Lower Peninsula and else­
where •
4.

Operational Statements of the Hypotheses

Hypothesis X:
Of male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors, more will be living outside their home communi­
ties than will reside within their home communities at the
end of the PHSD.
Hypothesis XX:
Of male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors who are living outside their home communities
at the end of the PHSD, more will be living in places of

88
over 2,500 population than will be living in places of under
2,500.
Hypothesis 111:
Of male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors, those who are living outside their home com­
munities at the end of the PHSD will exhibit a higher mean
SES score than will those residing in their home communities•
Hypothesis IV:
Of male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors, those who sure living outside their home com­
munities at the end of the PHSD (migrants) will differ in
specified ways from those residing in their home communities
(residents) in terms of the following background factors:
A. Factors associated with family background
1.

Objective factors
a. The mean Duncan SES score for migrants' fathers

will be higher than that for residents' fathers.
b. The mean years of education completed for
migrants' fathers will be greater than that
for residents* fathers.
c. The mean years of education completed for
migrants' mothers will be greater than that
for residents’ mothers.
d. The mean dollar income of migrants* parents
will be higher than that for residents'
parents•

69
2.

Dynamic (social psychological) factors
a. The mean average Duncan SES score of jobs
suggested by parents of migrants will be
higher than that for jobs suggested by
parents of residents.
b. The proportion of parents of migrants ex­
pressing career preferences which allow for
departure from the community after high school
will be greater than that for the parents
of residents.
c. The mean relations-with-parents index score
for migrants will be lower than that for
residents.

B. Factors associated with the individual
1.

Objective factors
a. The mean l.Q. score for migrants will be
higher than that for residents.
b. The mean graduation rank percentile score
for migrants will be higher than that for
residents.

2.

Dynamic (social psychological) factors
a. The proportion of migrants intending to get
further training or education beyond high
school will be greater than that for resi­
dents .
b. The mean Duncan SES score of occupations "now
being seriously considered'* by migrants will

90
be higher than that of occupations being con­
sidered by residents.
c. The percentage of migrants who expected to
leave the community after high school will
be greater than that for residents.
d. The percentage of migrants listing further
training or education as the "first main
reason" for considering leaving the community
after high school will be greater than that
for residents.
e. The mean community satisfaction index score
for migrants will be lower than that for
residents.
f. The proportion of migrants preferring to live
in communities larger than 10,000 will be
greater than that for residents.
Hypothesis V:
Among male Ontonagon County 195 7 high school juniors
and seniors, there will be a direct rank order relationship
between the size of the home community and mean SES scores
at the end of the PHSD.
Hypothesis VX:
Among male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors, the highest mean SES score at the end of the
PHSD will be exhibited by those living in cities between
2,500 and 50,000, the next highest mean SES score by those

91
In cities over 50,000, the third highest mean SES score by
those living In places of less than 2,500.other than their
home communities, and the lowest mean SES score by those
living In their home communities*
Hypothesis VIIs
Among male Ontonagon County 1957 high school juniors
and seniors, those who left their home communities to live
elsewhere for at least one month or more, but who returned
before the end of the PHSD, will exhibit a mean SES score
higher than that of persons who never moved out of their
home communities during the PHSD, but lower than that of
those living in places of less than 2,500 other than their
home communities at the end of the PHSD.
5*

Format of Analysis

The results of the study will be presented in tabu­
lar form*

The research subjects will be grouped in terms

of their standing in respect to the variables treated in
the study, and sums, percentages, means, ranges, etc., com­
puted where appropriate*

Cross-classifications will be made

between residence status and other variables in order to
allow for needed comparisons between the nonmigrants and the
various groups of migrants*
Inasmuch as the subjects used in the study consti­
tute, for all practical purposes, a population in terms of
both the county from which they come and the specific his­
torical time period, statistical tests of significance would

92
be inapplicable to inferences concerning this local area*
On the other hand, the subjects might be thought of as a
sample from some larger universe, say, all rural young men
from the North Central Region of the United States.

Con­

strued thus, the question arises as to the possible rele­
vance of statistical tests in assessing the probability of
sampling error.

Sociologists are accustomed to seeing the

tests applied in these circumstances, and their non-use in
the present study calls for appropriate explanation.
The routine use of tests of statistical significance
has come under increasing criticism in recent years.

Xt

has been observed by Morrison and Henkel (1969) that these
tests have been often misapplied in that the fundamental
assumptions on which they are based are frequently violated.
They point out that
• . • [t]he notions of sampling distribution and
sampling error have no meaning in statistical in­
ference apart from the assumption of randomness in
the sample selection procedure— randomness being a
central feature incorporated in all probability
sampling designs. (1969, p. 133)
And, again, that
. . . [a] common misuse of significance tests occurs
when they are employed on a set of cases termed a
••population" rather than a "sample." Were it lit­
erally true that the cases constitute a population,
significance tests would be both inapplicable and
unnecessary, since the probability relation of a
sample and a population is by definition unity when
they are the same. What seems more likely is that
the researcher actually considers that his cases do
not constitute his conceptual population, regardless
of the fact that they exhaust some population that
he has specified for study. Significance tests in
such an instance are applicable only if the cases

93
at hand have been selected by probability methods—
a very unlikely possibility, given that the researcher
terms his cases a "population." (1969, p. 134)
Such Is the case

in the present research.

The sub­

jects used in this study were not selected by any kind of
random sampling procedure.

The county itself was selected

nonrandomly— on the basis that it happened to exhibit cer­
tain characteristics (e.g., a history of outmigration, a
low level of living, etc.) relevant to the objectives of
the research.

But its selection was made without the as­

sumption that it was statistically representative of a uni­
verse of such counties.

Hence, the subjects usedin this

research constitute a purposive sample which by no means
meets the criteria essential to the application of tests
of significance.

For this reason we have refrained from

the use of the tests, with the intent of avoiding giving
the mis-impression that the data can be safely considered
as statistically representative of rural areas in the North
Central Region.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS OF THE STUDY
A. Introduction
In the previous chapter we described a research
study designed to provide a longitudinal test of a series
of hypotheses concerning the relationship between geographic
mobility and occupational attainment of rural youth.

The

task of this chapter is to report the results of the research
and the tests of the hypotheses outlined earlier.

In addi­

tion, we shall attempt to assess the significance of the
outcomes in terms of the total process of career achievement
among young people growing up in rural areas.
B. Geographic Mobility and Occupational Achievement
In Hypothesis I we predicted that by the end of the
post high school decade most of the former students would
have left their home communities for residence elsewhere.
The actual outcomes are shown in Table 4.

It can be seen

from the table that the results clearly support the hypoth­
esis, with almost two-thirds of the young men having estab­
lished residence outside their home communities after ten
years.

Even if those who'currently live in another com­

munity within the county were considered to be nonmigrants,
as they have been treated in. some studies, there is still

94

95
a majority of 55 percent which has moved outside the area.
The evidence from this test is consistent with the general
interpretation in the literature— that migration is the order
of the day for youth from this type of rural area.
Table 4.

Residence at End of Post High School Decade (PHSD)
in Numbers and Percents; Hale Ontonagon County
1957 Juniors and Seniors
Residence at end of P H S D
Locations outside home community_____
Other Ontonagon Outside Ontonagon
Total
community
County

Total

Home
community

Number:
125*

46

79

Percent:
100.0

36.8

63.2

10

69

8.0

55.2

‘Excludes two deceased cases.

In Hypothesis II we indicated that the direction
of migration would be toward places of larger size.

The

results are shown in Table 5.
From Table 5 it can be seen that the data strongly
support Hypothesis II, in that about three-quarters of those
young men who had established residence outside their home
communities after ten years lived in places classified as
urban, with most residing in large cities.

Actually, less

than a fourth had simply moved to another location similar
to the one they had left in Ontonagon County.

The prepon­

derance of movement, then, is cityward, and it is a strong

96
trend indeed in this group of rural young men.1
Table 5.

Total

Size of Community of Residence at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) in Numbers and Percents; Male
Ontonagon County 1957 Juniors and Seniors Living
Outside Their Home Communities at End of PHSD Only
Size of community of residence at end of P H S D
Urban residence
Rural
Large city
community
Small city
under 2,500
Total
2,500-50,000
50,000+

Number:
79

18

61

22

39

Percent:
100.0

22.8

77.2

27.8

49.4

We now come to the matter of the differential occu­
pational achievement of persons who have migrated from their
home area and those who are still local residents after ten
years.

In Hypothesis III it was predicted that those living

outside their home community at the end of the PHSD would
exhibit higher occupational attainment than those who were
at that time residing within their home community.

Table 6

Inasmuch as 69.9 percent of the U.S. population,
as of the 1960 Census, were living in areas classified as
urban, one might expect that if the redistribution of these
migrants were predicted solely on simple probability grounds,
excluding all other factors, something like seventy percent
of them should have ended up in urban areas. If we adopt
this rather high hypothetical percentage, as a stricter test
of our notions of the importance and significance of this
migration stream, it can be seen that the actual outcome
exceeds even this requirement, since seventy-seven percent
of this group of rural migrants is now living in urban areas.

97
presents the actual socioeconomic status outcomes of the
two groups.
Table 6.

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) for Persons Living Xnt and
Persons Living Outside, Their Home Community at
End of PHSD; Male Ontonagon County 1957 High
School Juniors and Seniors
Residence at end of P H S D
Outside
Home
home community
community

Total
Number:
125*

46

79

Mean SES:
40.3

28.2

47.3

'Excludes two deceased cases.

Here the outcomes are dramatically clear.

The oc­

cupational achievement advantage is greatly in favor of the
migrants who, in the space of the ten years, have achieved
a mean status substantially higher than those living in their
original community in Ontonagon County.

The difference—

nearly twenty scale points in the mean attainment scores—
is so great that it invites the speculation that an impor­
tant selectivity factor is operating among the migrants.
In Hypothesis IV we anticipated this issue of pos­
sible selectivity and delineated a series of both objective
and dynamic background factors in which differences between

98
migrants and residents,

2

if any, might be exposed.

The re­

sults bearing on this hypothesis are reported in Tables 7,
8 , 9, and 10.
Table 7 presents comparative information on the fam­
ily backgrounds of migrants and residents.

Examination of

the table reveals that, contrary to the hypothesis, the mean
socioeconomic status of the fathers of the residents (29.6)
clearly exceeds that of the fathers of the migrants (22.9).
Table 7.

Selected Objective Family Background Characteris­
tics of Persons Living In, and Persons Living Out
side, their Home Communities at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County 1957
High School Juniors and Seniors

Home
Outside home
Total
community
community
(ftU125)»
(N-46)
(N»79)
Family background No. of
Mean No. of
Mean No. of
Mean
characteristic responses
responses
responses
a. Fathers' mean
SES score

125

25.8

46

29.6

79

22.9

b. Fathers' mean
years of educa­
tion completed

115

9.2

43

9.1

72

9.3

c • Mothers' mean
years of educa­
tion completed

112

10.1

44

10.0

68

10.3

d. Subjects' esti­
mate of parents'
annual income;
mean in dollars

102

$4279

37

$4216

65

$4315

*Excludes two deceased cases.
2

To simplify discussion of these results the term
resident is used to designate, in accordance with Hypothesis
IV, those persons living in their home communities at the
end of the Post High School Decade.

99
Yet while the migrants* parents exhibit lower status, they
would appear to attain slightly higher incomes
more education.

3

and to have

These income and educational differences,

while in the hypothesized direction, are, admittedly, small
and represent merely estimates on the part of the subjects
themselves.

Hence, they are perceptions and not actual ver­

ifiable data on these particular aspects of the parents'
situations.

Moreover, it will be noted that there is a high

level of non-response, particularly in reference to annual
income, with obvious implications for bias in the results.
Considering the inconsistency of these results and the rela­
tive size of the differences in each direction, it is not
at all clear that the migrants typically come from homes
which are "superior** to those of the residents.

At least,

on balance, these data do not appear to provide much support
for the notion of selectivity of migration in terms of par­
ents' status as an explanatory factor in the vastly superior
occupational achievement of migrants.
The evidence for selectivity is equivocal not only
for the status of parents, but also, apparently, for certain
dynamic aspects of the relationship between parents and
children.

Table 8 presents comparisons of several social

psychological aspects of the home situation for migrants
and residents.

While the difference in the subjects'

3
Interestingly, only three of the 125 subjects re­
ported that their fathers' incomes were $9000 or more, and
all three were residents.

100
Table 8*

Selected Dynamic Family Background Characteristics
of Persons Living In, and Persons Living Outside,
their Home Communities at End of Post High School
Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County 1957 High
School Juniors and Seniors

Outside home
Home
community
Total
community
(N«79)
(N-125)*
(N.46)
Mean No • of
Dynamic background No. of
Mean No • of
Mea
characteristic
responses or % responses or % responses or
a. Mean average SES
score of jobs
subjects' parents
have encouraged
them to take

82

b. Parents' career
preferences for
the period subse­
quent to high
school:
123
1 • Advice urging
children to
establish them­
selves at or
near home
30
2. Advice allowing
children option
to establish
themselves away
from home
84
3• Other advice
9
c. Relations-withparents index
mean score

125

50.4

24

49.5

58

50.

100%

44

100%

79

100%

25%

14

32%

16

20%

68%
7%

28
2

64%
4%

56
7

71%
9%

19.9

46

20.0

79

19.1

"Excludes two deceased cases.
perceptions of their parents' occupational expectations is
in the direction hypothesized, that difference would appear
to be virtually insignificant.

The parents of both migrants

and residents seem to have held rather high expectations

101
for their children's occupational achievement, as these young
people perceived them.

Yet, when the children's perceptions

of their parents' preferences concerning their course of
action after high school are compared, certain Interesting
differences emerge.

Nearly a third (32%) of the residents'

parents, half again as many as In the case of the migrants'
parents, apparently urged their children to establish them­
selves as near home as possible after high school.

Despite

this difference In the attitudes of some of the parents, how­
ever, it must be recognized that most of the parents of both
migrants and residents appear to have given their children
advice which allowed for the possibility of departing the
local area.

Thus we find that almost two-thirds (64%) of

those individuals living in this depressed area ten years
after high school had received the impression from their
parents that their best course of action, whatever else it
might involve, would be to "get the best job possible even
if you have to move to another community."
We hypothesized that the migrants would have exhibit­
ed a lower level of solidarity with their parents, and the
results are consistent in direction with our expectation.
However, the degree of difference between the mean scores
of residents and migrants on the relations-with-parents in­
dex is insignificant; a mere two-tenths of a point.

Hence,

it would appear that this factor does not serve to predict
departure ffrom the area in the period after high school, let
alone subsequent differential career achievement.

102
Xn terms of those social psychological aspects of
the home situation which we have here examined, the migrants
differ from the residents as hypothesized, but the differ­
ence appears to be, for the most part, trivial, with the
only exception being the proportion of residents whose par­
ents wished them to stay near home after high school.
Xn summing up the evidence for selectivity of migra­
tion In terms of factors connected with family background,
It would seem that there Is no clear basis for concluding
that such selectivity Is very strong, nor that It operates
uniquely In favor of the migrants.

Certainly, no single

factor appears to be so dramatically connected with migra­
tion and career formation that It goes very far In account­
ing for the wide divergence In subsequent occupational at­
tainments of migrants and residents.
Results bearing on Intelligence and academic ability
as selective variables are presented In Table 9.

Here the

data conform to our expectations In a more meaningful way.
The mean Intelligence score for the migrants Is somewhat
higher than that

for residents.

This Is a small, but prob­

ably significant

edge which the migrants have over the resi­

dents, an edge reflected contemporaneously In their superior
performance In school as Indicated by their mean percentile
graduation rank.

While the usual X.Q. tests are heavily

contaminated measures of ability, and typically only weakly
related to grade

point average, the fact Is that they can

be, nonetheless,

predictors oflater achievement.

Xn this

103
group of former high school students, both mean I.Q. and
graduation rank do appear to be related to their subsequent
migration status and occupational attainments*

All the same,

it must be observed that the migrants as a group do not pre­
sent an especially imposing picture; they are merely average
in ability and have, as a group, exhibited lower overall
academic achievement than their female counterparts.

None­

theless, when compared to other males who still reside in
the home community ten years after high school, these mi­
grants emerge as objectively superior, particularly, perhaps,
in terms of their performance in school.
Table 9.

Selected Objective Individual Background Character­
istics of Persons Living In, and Persons Living
Outside, their Home Communities at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County 1957
High School Juniors and Seniors

Objective
individual

Home
Outside home
Total
community
community
--- (M.125)*-------- (M.46)-------- <N-79>---No. of
No. of
No. of

a. Mean I.Q.
score

107

100.2

41

97.6

66

101.8

b. Graduation
rank; mean
percentile
score

125

39.4

46

33.1

79

43.1

•Excludes two deceased cases.

A series of six social psychological aspects of the
students' own situations were examined, and the results are

104
presented In Table 10.

It was hypothesized that migrants

would more often be planning to obtain further training be­
yond high school and this appears to have been the case.
Sixty-two percent of the migrants, as compared with fiftyfour percent of the residents, looked forward to more train­
ing, and a slightly higher proportion of the migrants who
were planning for such training specified college training
than is the case for the residents.

In general, it appears

that the migrants were more oriented toward further educa­
tion, particularly college education, than was the case for
the residents at the time they were all still in high school.
That this expectation on the part of the migrants would augur
for a high proportion expecting also to migrate from the
home community after high school is obvious.

But it does

not necessarily mean that those who didn't happen to be
planning on college were not entertaining valid thoughts
of leaving home, particularly in light of the poor economy
of the area and the advice which we have shown was typically
offered by their parents.

As we shall presently see, the

majority of both groups actually expected to leave the area.
It is known that the level of occupational aspira­
tions is directly related to achievement in school, and this
pattern appears to hold for the present sample of rural youth,
divided as it is somewhat along school achievement lines.
The migrants exhibit aspirations (48.7) notably higher than
those of the home community residents (40.9), although,
interestingly, neither group holds aspirations for itself

Selected Dynamic Individual Background Characteristics of Persons Living In, and Persons Living Outside,
their Home Communities at End of Post High School Decade (PHSD); Male Ontonagon County 1957 High School
Juniors and Seniors

Total
(N=125)*
Dynamic individual characteristic
a. Percentage of persons planning to get further
training; total

No. of
responses

Mean
or %

Home
community
(N.46)
No. of
responses

Mean
or %

Outside home
community
(N-79)
No. of
responses

Mean
or %

74

59%

25

54%

49

62%

46
15
13

37%
12%
10%

15
7
3

33%
15%
6%

31
8
10

39%
10%
13%

b. Mean SES score of "first choice job [being
considered] as a lifetime work"

110

45.8

41

40.9

69

46.7

c. Orientation toward leaving the community after
high school:

123

100%

46

100%

77

100%

15
19
69
20

12%
16%
56%
16%

8
5
27
6

17%
11%
59%
13%

7
14
42
14

9%
16%
55%
18%

26

25.5%

23.5%

18

26.5%

42.4

79

44.0

1. College
2. Trade school or apprenticeship
3. Other

1.
2.
3*
4.

Eager to
Probably
Probably
Eager to

stay
stay, but not eager to stay
leave, but not eager to leave
leave

d. Percentage of persons listing further education
or training as "first main reason" for considering
leaving the home community after high school**

8

e. Community satisfaction index mean score

125

f. Type of community in which subjects would most
prefer to live:

125

100%

46

100%

79

100%

65

52%

26

56%

39

49%

60

48%

20

44%

40

51%

1. In the open country or in a village under 2,500
2. In a city of 10,000 or larger, including a
suburb of a large city

43.4

46

•Excludes two deceased cases.
**Percentages computed using as a base the total number of residents (34) and migrants (68) who indicated
by their response to the question that they were in fact considering leaving the home community after high school.

SOT

Table 10.

106
quite as high as those held for It by parents.

This higher

level of occupational aspirations on the part of the migrants
Is consistent with their expectations concerning further train­
ing after high school, examined earlier.

Thus, the migrants,

who have been observed to exhibit greater ability and super­
ior school achievement, and to be more often planning to get
further education or training, are seen also to hold fittingly
high occupational aspirations.
The students were asked about their possible expec­
tations to leave the community after high school.

The results

are consistent with our hypothesis in that a higher percentage
of the migrants (73%) than residents (72%) expected to leave
the area, but the magnitude of that difference is exceedingly
small.

Further insight into the students* feeling about

leaving can be gained, however, by examination of their at­
titudes concerning the prospect.

Of the 56 migrants who

had expected to leave while still in high school, one quarter
of them indicated that they were actually **eager to leave,"
while only about 18 percent of the residents who had expected
to leave were enthusiastic about the prospect.

On the other

hand, among the students who had anticipated staying in the
community, only a third of those who later migrated expressed
enthusiasm for staying in the area, while eight out of thir­
teen residents expressed eagerness for remaining in the com­
munity.

The implication of these results is that while the

proportions of the migrants and residents who had expected
to leave the area are not very different, although somewhat

107
predictable, their attitudes about the prospect reveal a
notably greater reluctance on the part of the residents to
move away from the home community*

On balance, we Infer

support for the hypothesis concerning orientations of migrants
and residents toward leaving the community after high school.
Given that the migrants exhibited higher ability,
academic aptitudes, aspirations, and more often planned for
further education, It is not surprising that a greater per­
centage of them also listed further education as a "first
main reason" for leaving the community after high school.
While the difference is not great (26*5 per cent of the mi­
grants versus 23*5 percent of the residents), it is in the
predicted direction and is consistent with the diverging
patterns we have observed in their careers.
It was predicted that the migrants would exhibit
a lower level of satisfaction with the local community as
compared with the residents.
to have been the case*

However, this does not appear

The migrants attained a mean score

(44*0) on the community satisfaction index slightly higher
than that for the residents (42*4).

While this difference

is not great, it is distinctly opposite that anticipated
and is simply counter to expectations built on previous
research*
The students were aslced what type of community they
would most prefer to live in and the results for the two
groups differ in the hypothesized direction*

A majority

(51%) of the migrants indicated that they would prefer to

108
live In a community of 10,000 or larger, which is to say,
a community unlike any found in Ontonagon County.

This is

in contrast to the residents, a majority (56%) of whom pre­
ferred to live in a community of less than 2,500 people.
These preferences directly anticipate the actual outcomes,
of course, since most of the migrants now live in urban areas
and all of the residents live in rural communities smaller
than twenty-five hundred people.
In summarizing the evidence as it bears on the issue
of selectivity of migration, it would generally appear that
such selectivity as exists in this sample of former rural
high school students has less to do with family background
and faultily resources than it does with the situation of the
individual himself.

The migrants do not clearly emerge su­

perior to the residents in terms of the status of their par­
ents or their parents' capacity to support liberal career
aspirations.

But the migrants do differ from the residents

in certain aspects connected with the school experience and
the process of preparing for a career.

The migrants demon­

strate greater measured ability and higher grades and higher
educational and occupational aspirations•

They apparently

receive more reinforcement from their parents for independent
educational and occupational achievement and migration, and
undoubtedly also receive similar encouragement from their
teachers and counselors.

They are more favorably oriented

toward leaving the community after high school and their
impending departure is functionally related to their plans

109
for further training and advancement*

In contrast, those

persons who are residents of the home community after ten
years seem to have exhibited less overall ability, to have
done less well in school, and to have been less often plan­
ning for further education or training.

They were more likely

to have been encouraged to stay near home and seem to prefer
living in an area like Ontonagon County*
Having observed these differences, it must be admit­
ted that, except in a few particulars, they are not large,
and none are dramatic*

The pattern of observed differences

suggests that those who migrate tend to be more "ready** for
the experience— more favorably oriented toward the proposi­
tion and more attuned, perhaps, to exploit the opportunities
that it affords.

But apart from this, the migrants do not

appear to be uniquely equipped for success— their credentials
as of the end of high school are not so much better than
those of the residents as to alone account for the substan­
tial differences in occupational attainment after ten years.
In short, while we do come up with some evidence for selec­
tivity of migration, to some degree in favor of the compara­
tive success of migrants, it is by no means sufficient to
explain the diverging achievements of migrants and residents.
We are left, then, with the conclusion that selectivity of
migration is a factor in the career attainment of rural youth,
but it does not tell the whole story.

For the rest, we must

look to variations in the opportunity structure of the en­
vironments of migrants and residents.

110

Hypothesis V dealt with the significance of the size
of the community of orientation for later career achievement.
Specifically, it was anticipated that the larger the size
of the community in which the subjects grew up, the higher
the subsequent occupational achievement.

Results bearing

on this hypothesis are presented in Tables 11 and 12.
Inspection of Table 11 reveals that there is by no
means a perfectly consistent pattern in which the subjects
from the larger communities do better occupationally than
those from the smaller communities.

For example, the men

from Rockland exhibit a higher mean occupational attainment
after ten years than do those from Bergland, which is a larger
community.

Nor is the achievement pattern consistently re­

lated to the size of the school itself, since the Trout Creek
students who come from a smaller school, do better than those
from Bergland.
Only when the subjects from the three larger communi­
ties and those from the three smaller communities are grouped
together, as in Table 12, does anything like a convincing
difference emerge, with those from the larger places doing
clearly better than those from the smaller ones.

But it

must be admitted that the sample sizes are so small that
these results leave much room for equivocation as to whether
it is the size of the school or the size of the community
which is primarily responsible in affecting later outcomes.
To be sure, in this type of area, school size and community
size are correlated, and probably play a joint role in

1X1

Table 11*

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) by Community (School);
Male Ontonagon County 195 7 High School Juniors
and Seniors
Community (School)
Ewen—
Bergland
Br. Crossing
(Pop-600)
(Pop-630)

Total

MassGreenland
(Pop-860)

Number:
125*

11

30

22

Mean SES:
40.3

18.1

42.3

37.6

Ontonagon
(Pop-2358)

Rockland
(Pop-500)

Number:
125*

48

Mean SES:
40.3

46.3

Trout Creek
(Pop-350)

7

7

34.9

39.3

*Excludes two deceased cases.

Table 12.

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD), Three Largest Communities
(Schools) vs. Three Smallest Communities
(Schools); Male Ontonagon County 1957 High
School Juniors and Seniors

Total
Number:
125*
Mean SES:
40.3

Community (School) size category *
Three smallest
Three largest
100
43.2

25
28.7

*Excludes two deceased cases.
••The three largest communities are Ontonagon, Ewen,
and Mass; the three smallest, Bergland, Trout Creek, and
Rockland*

112

influencing subsequent achievement*

However, considering

the limited facilities and programs available in any of the
schools in Ontonagon County in 1957, it is difficult to
imagine that very much of the difference in career outcomes
could be accounted for in terms of the differential quality
of the schools themselves*

This issue notwithstanding, it

would appear that even in rural areas, the variation in the
size of a place, and any consequences it may have in terms
of exposure and training, does have a predictable influence
in the careers of the youth who grow up there.
In Hypothesis VI, attention was shifted from the
influence of the place of orientation to that of the place
of destination*

We suggested that those individuals who

chose small cities as places to carry on their careers would
be generally the most "successful," with those living in
large cities ranking second.

Still others, who by the end

of the ten year period had left their home communities and
established residence in other rural areas, would rank be­
hind big city migrants in occupational achievement, while
those who remained in their home communities would exhibit
the least "success*"

The results are shown in Table 13.

In these outcomes ten years after school, the hypoth­
esis would appear to be clearly supported.

The rank order

of the various groups in socioeconomic status is perfectly
consistent with that indicated in the hypothesis, despite the
relatively small sample sizes involved, and the differences
are sufficiently great to call for some degree of confidence.

113
Table 13.

Mean Socioeconomic Status by Residence at End
of Post High School Decade (PHSD) for Persons
Living in Home Communities, Other Rural Areas,
Small Cities, and Large Cities; Male Ontonagon
County 1957 High School Juniors and Seniors
Residence at end of P H S D
Home
Other rural com. Small city Large city
community
under 2,500
2,500-50,000 50,000 +

Total
Numbers
125*

46

18

22

39

Mean SES:
40.3

28.2

42.2

53.3

46.2

'Excludes two deceased cases.

This evidence confirms under strict longitudinal
conditions and for a particular cohort of rural young people
the most basic projections made in the Blau-Duncan analysis
concerning the relationship between geographic mobility and
occupational attainment.

Those who reside in small cities

do very well indeed, and are followed in their achievement
by migrants to large cities.

The rural migrants, while they

do more poorly than the urban migrants, nevertheless do bet­
ter than the nonmigrants.
Those in this study who migrated to other rural com­
munities exhibit unusually high attainment levels, consider­
ing the presumably poor opportunity structure of such places.
Close inspection of the particular cases in this group re­
veals that in five cases, the small community chosen was
located within a short distance of a substantial urban area,

114
but beyond Its immediate fringe.

In each of the five cases,

the subjects held relatively high level jobs (three were
graduate engineers) located in, or at least clearly connected
with, the industry and commerce of the nearby urban area.
Several others in the group of eighteen rural-to-rural mi­
grants were school teachers.

This substantial representa­

tion of professional people accounts for the unexpectedly
high mean achievement among persons nominally classified
as residing in rural areas outside the home community.
Among the subjects who still reside in their home
communities ten years after high school, we observe the hy­
pothesized pattern of low occupational attainment.

By no

means all of these individuals were limited in socioeconomic
status at the end of the PHSD, as we shall see when we con­
sider the matter of circular migration.

But the trend is

clearly below that for the other groups who live elsewhere.
In our consideration of previous research, we raised
the question of whether persons found to live in the same
place at two successive points in time could be safely con­
sidered to be nonmigrants.

We found broad hints in the lit­

erature that such an assumption would probably be false in
a significant proportion of cases.

We anticipated that some

persons would have left their home communities for military
service, further education, or employment and later returned.
These people would have thus undergone different experiences
from those who never left their home communities, and yet
not entirely the same experience as those who left permanently.

115
Hypothesis Vll attempts to predict the occupational attain­
ment outcomes of these circular migrants*

But before con­

sidering the results In connection with the hypothesisv It
Is In order first to detail the residence history of the
46 persons found to be living In their home communities at
the end of the decade*

How many of them are, In actuality,

circular migrants, rather than nonmigrants?
From Table 14 It can be seen that the great majority
of those residing In their home communities at the end of
the PHSD had actually lived elsewhere sometime during the
ten years*

Among those who ever left the area for some

period, a significant number had migrated more than once*
Table 14*

Extent and Frequency* of Circular Migration among
Persons Living In Their Home Communities at End
of Post High School Decade (PHSD) In Numbers and
Percents; Male Ontonagon County 1957 High School
Juniors and Seniors

Extent and frequency of circular migration
Residence
Migrants:
In home
Left
home
community
at least once
community Nonmigrants:
Frequency of departures
at end
Never left
6
of PHSD:
home
Total
1
2
3
4
5
or
more
Total
community
Number
46

6

40

28

9

2

0

0

1

Percent:
100.0

13.0

87.0

*Extent - proportion of persons who ever migrated
and returned; Frequency » number of times any particular
Individual migrated and returned*

116
Twelve of twenty-eight, or about forty-three percent, had
left the area several times— one as many as six times— over
the ten year period*

Altogether, migration would clearly

seem to be the order of the day, even among persons from
relatively Insular areas such as Ontonagon County who might
on more superficial Inspection appear to be resldentlally
nonmoblle•
Having established the significant extent of circu­
lar migration, It Is now appropriate to consider the career
achievement of these migrants as a group In comparison with
the other "rural-to-rural" migrants and the "true nonmigrants •"
It will be recalled that we predicted, in Hypothesis VXX,
that the mean occupational attainment of circular migrants
would fall between that of persons who never left their home
communities and those who left permanently to reside in other
rural communities away from home*

Dividing the 46 home com­

munity residents Into subcategories of true nonmigrants and
circular migrants and representing their attainments along­
side those of the other groups in our sample results in the
configuration shown in Table 15*
These results nicely support the hypothesis.

The

small number of true nonmigrant cases notwithstanding, there
appears to be a definite distinction between their charac­
teristic level of achievement and that of circular migrants,
who are still distinctly separated from the migrants to other
rural areas*

Yet it can be seen, also, as indicated earlier,

that the range of occupational attainment is fairly wide

117
for those who live In the home community.

Even the nonmigrant

group includes at least one person who achieved a moderately
high rank, in this case through on-the-job training as a
laboratory technician at the White Pine mine.

Still, the

restrictions on career achievement which permanent residence
in the home community imposes are obvious, and in no other
case among the nonmigrants had an individual managed to gain
employment above the semi-skilled level.
Table 15•

Migration/nonmigration category
Migrants Migrants
Circular Rural
to small to large
cities
Nonmigrants Migrants Migrants cities

Total
Number s
125*

6

Mean SESs
40.3
Range

Mean Socioeconomic Status at End of Post High
School Decade (PHSD) for Nonmigrants, Circular
Migrants, Rural Migrants, Small City Migrants,
and barge City Migrants; Male Ontonagon County
1957 High School Juniors and Seniors

40

18

22

39

21.5

29.2

42.2

53.3

46.2

6-53

4-04

6-84

9-93

9-92

*Excludes two deceased cases.

The circular migrant group, on the other hand, in­
cludes a number of professional and sub-professional as well
as skilled and nonskllled types.

Some persons were out of

their home communities only briefly for employment or mili­
tary service while others stayed away considerably longer

116
In pursuit of education or other training and employment
and only recently returned to live In their home communities*
The group of circular migrants Included five college gradu­
ates , three of whom came back to teach In the local schools*
The remaining two, one of whom Is an engineer, are employed
by mining companies*

One of the three returning as teachers

has recently gone Into the resort business*

Apart from these

five Individuals the circular migrant group Includes an as­
sortment of business, clerical, skilled, and semi—skilled
persons, as well as a number of laborers.

In general, their

occupations are spread through the opportunity structure of
Ontonagon County and they present, as a group, a distinctly
more Impressive picture than do the true nonmigrants.
C • Summary
In this chapter we have examined data designed to
provide tests of our hypotheses concerning the relationship
of geographic mobility and occupational achievement.

We

have assayed the frequency of migration of a sample of young
people from a rural area, and found that a majority of such
persons did leave their communities of orientation and es­
tablish residence elsewhere in the period after high school.
We then identified the types of destinations chosen by those
who left their home communities and found that a high per­
centage of them opted for urban residence, mostly in large
cities.
Next, we compared the occupational attainments of

119
those who had migrated with those who still resided in their
home communities at the end of the decade and found that
the migrants attained higher socioeconomic status.

Having

found higher occupational achievement among the migrants,
we then asked the question as to how much of a role selec­
tivity of migration might have played in accounting for such
a difference.

We examined a series of background factors,

measured at the time these young persons were still in high
school, which might be supposed to be relevant to the process
of career formation and migration.

The migrants did not

appear to have any great advantage over the residents in
terms of either the objective or social psychological fac­
tors associated with their family backgrounds.

Such differ­

ences as did emerge between migrants and residents had to
do with their ability and their experience in school, and
with their aspirations and plans for the future.

We found

that, in general, the migrants had somewhat greater ability
and had been more favorably oriented toward leaving the area
after high school, and that this orientation fit well with
plans which they had for further training or education.
These differences between migrants and residents did not
appear to be particularly significant, however, and certainly
not sufficient to account for the emerging differences ob­
served in their later occupational attainments.
Inasmuch as the selectivity factor was not seen as
strong enough to explain the resulting achievement differ­
ences we then focussed attention on the opportunity structure

Fig• 8* Ontonagon youth today. Young people with time
on their hands. Many of them will be leaving tomorrow
for the city.

121

of the home community and those of the communities to which
the migrants moved*

First* we found a pattern of occupa­

tional attainment among the former students which was con­
sistent with the hypothesis that the size of the community
in which an individual is reared is directly related to his
subsequent achievement, regardless of present residence*
Apart from the influence of the opportunity structure of
the community of orientation there is the question of the
effects of the opportunity structure in the community in
which the individual lives as an adult, and in which his
career is played out*

To examine this issue, we looked at

the varying occupational attainment levels of persons who
had migrated to different types of communities.

It was found

that those who had migrated to small cities exhibited the
highest occupational attainment after ten years, while mi­
grants to large cities ranked second.

Migrants to other

rural communities ranked third and those who remained in
their home communities showed the least achievement.
Finally, the frequency of circular migration was
investigated, and it was discovered that a majority of those
still living in their home communities at the end of the
first decade after high school had actually moved out and
lived elsewhere sometime during the period, only to have
returned.

This group contained a broad range of occupational

types, from college-educated professionals to laborers.
The occupational attainment of the circular migrants as a
group was compared to that of the true nonmigrants and to

122

those migrants who had established residence In other rural
communities away from home.

It was found that the circular

migrants' occupational achievement ranked above the non­
migrants' but below that of the other rural-to-rural migrants.
Altogether, the findings support each of the major
hypotheses developed for the most part from cross-sectional
research reported In the literature.

This replication In

stricter longitudinal form of the findings from other research
does tend to confirm previous generalizations, as far as
they go, concerning the migration and career achievement
of rural youth.

Our analysis of the frequency of circular

migration and of the differential experience and achievement
of circular migrants, however, raises some interesting ques­
tions about the validity of our conventional conceptions
of the career pattern of rural youth.

A real question emerges

here as to whether it is sufficiently accurate to conceive
of the migration and career experience of these young people
as consisting of a simple process in which migration, if it
occurs at all, is a single event.

From even our brief an­

alysis of the difference between circular migrants and other
types of migrants and nonmigrants, it would seem that there
is much more to this process than superficially meets the
eye.

This issue will be further explored in the following

chapter•

CHAPTER IV

CONCLUSION
A. Introduction
In Chapter I the literature dealing with the rela­
tionship between geographic mobility and occupational attain­
ment was discussed*

A series of hypotheses was constructed

to be tested under longitudinal conditions in an attempt
to provide further confirmation of generalizations growing
out of previous research.

In Chapter II a study was outlined

which would provide a means of testing the hypotheses.

In

Chapter III, we reported the results of the study and found
that the evidence from longitudinal data provided empirical
support for each of the hypotheses.

The task of the present

chapter is to discuss the general significance of the results
of the study and, specifically, to explore the implications
of our findings in respect to the role of migration in the
career patterns of rural youth.
B. Migration and the Careers of Rural Youth
From our results in this study, considered alongside
previous research on the subject of migration and the career
trajectory of young persons from rural areas, there would
appear to be grounds for certain basic generalizations.
First, the outflow and redistribution of young people from

123

124
rural areas Is clearly a substantial, significant, and con­
tinuing phenomenon*

Whether or not the populations of rural

areas stabilize over time, the migration of young people is
likely to continue.

This geographic mobility is a consequence

of the need of these young people for the training and edu­
cation necessary for them to find employment within a broad
and expanding technology.
Many of the young people from rural areas, particu­
larly the males, may depart their communities initially for
military service.

However they gain their first experience

away from their home communities, it carries great potential
weight in shaping their later careers.

For it lifts them

out of the familiar local scene and into new and sometimes
quite strange environments.

Very often these youths will

assimilate new skills or obtain advanced education along
the way.

They will have access to new and different oppor­

tunities.

Altogether, this experience will have a facili­

tating effect upon their careers, enabling them to advance
farther up the occupational ladder than would likely have
been the case had they merely remained in their local rural
communities.

Even those who do subsequently return to their

home areas will have benefitted from their experience away
from home.

They will exhibit its effects typically in en­

hanced occupational attainment even in their home community.
In general, those young persons from rural areas
who move to cities seem to do better occupationally than
those who merely move to some other rural community, and

125
the explanation for this may he primarily in the expanded
opportunity structure of the city*

Those who migrate to

small cities seem to do the best of all, perhaps because
such environments represent some hind of optimum combination
of expanded opportunity structure and relative similarity
to the environment they left*
Those who leave their home communities and subse­
quently return do not seem to do as well occupationally as
those who live in similar communities away from home, al­
though they do better than those who never left*

We have

attempted to account for this phenomenon in terms of a "kin­
ship deterrent" theory*

By this notion, the latent effect

of close proximity to, and high frequency of interaction
with, kin is to inhibit occupational mobility.

Apart from

their typical lack of access to the various benefits of the
migration experience, those who have always lived in the
home community are subject to the most severe effects of
kinship deterrence, while those who have left and returned
are subject to at least moderate effects*

In contrast, those

who have left the community for other rural communities,
while they may not have had access to a dramatically ex­
panded opportunity structure, have nonetheless been freed
of this subtle form of constraint upon their occupational
advancement•
From the available evidence it does not appear that
the differential occupational attainments of these various
groups of migrants and of the nonmigrants can be attributed

126
entirely, or even primarily, to selectivity in the original
migration process*

While there do appear to be some differ­

ences between persons who migrate and those who elect to
stay near the home area, these differences are not always
in favor of the migrants, and are by no means large enough
to explain the wide divergence in later occupational achieve­
ment •
C. Significance of the Findings
It will be recalled that in developing this analysis
of the relationship of geographic mobility and occupational
achievement, we took our initial departure from the work of
Blau and Duncan, enunciating a series of hypotheses growing
out of their work and that of others*

We examined in se­

quence, and in conventional format, such factors as the
frequency of migration, destinations of migrants, differen­
tial achievement of migrants and nonmigrants, selectivity,
and the influence of the opportunity structure of the com­
munity of orientation and the various communities of des­
tination.
None of the previous research on which these hypoth­
eses were based contain longitudinal data for a single co­
hort of rural youth, over a continuous period of their career
formation, which are comprehensive and detailed enough to
afford a proper appreciation of the complex chain of events
of which such careers are composed*

In most studies in which

a longitudinal design was attempted, including that of Blau

127
and Duncan, the results were based on simple Time 1,Time 2
observations.

Furthermore, most studies were afflicted with

considerable data loss through attrition of cases over the
time period of the study*

The net result has been an Incom­

plete picture of the careers of these young people, and,
ultimately, a potential lack of appreciation of the rich
complexity of the structure of their experience.
This Is not to suggest that the hypotheses made in
the research literature and confirmed in this strict longi­
tudinal replication are not valid as far as they go.

As

has been stated, there is, good reason to believe that migra­
tion is a continuing phenomenon of rural life, as of urban
life, and that most of those who leave their rural communi­
ties of orientation move in the direction of larger places.
But it is not necessarily true that these migrants stay in
the place to which they first move, or in which they may
happen to be found some specified number of years after high
school.

There is no reason to believe that they are prone

to any less geographic mobility than other segments of the
population.

They may well move to other places of smaller,

or even larger, size.

Or, as has been demonstrated clearly

in this study, they may elect to return to the communities
from which they have come.

All this makes for an added de­

gree of complexity in the role and significance of migration
in the structure of their careers— a fact which cannot safely
be overlooked if we are to apprehend the basis for these
■a

people's ultimate differential occupational attainments.

128
The above Illustration serves the point; by analyzing
the relationship of migration and occupational achievement
essentially according to the conventions observed in the
literature, we get the expected outcomes*
tions seem to be correct*

The generaliza­

But there is a good basis for

not accepting the conventions, for the conception is too
simple and the categories are exceedingly impure.

What

probably exists is a fine series of gradations of experience
between those who have lived all their lives in a single
rural community and those who have lived in different places
during the course of their careers.

Included in this will

be the Influence of other variables, such as family back­
ground, differential ability, exposure to various educa­
tional experiences, travel, etc., all of which contribute
to a career structure which is actually a highly complex
mosaic.

The danger may not be so much in misapprehending

of the influence of any one of the variables as such, as in
oversimplifying the conception of the chain of events, and,
thus, falsifying the complex profile of the careers of these
subjects.
Thus the findings of this study would appear to be
significant, not merely in that they provide, under condi­
tions of optimum data recovery, a small scale longitudinal
test of generalizations growing out of the literature of
past research on the subject.

Their value is also in that,

through the analysis of circular migrants, they invite fur­
ther attention to the complexity of migration as it figures

129
in the careers of people from rural areas.

How many of

those people who have left Ontonagon County on what would
appear to be a permanent basis will in fact some day come
back?

On the other hand, how many of those now living there

will one day leave for some place else?

What will be the

impact of such eventualities upon the course of their careers?
D. The Value of Longitudinal Micro-Studies
The research reported in this dissertation has two
important attributes:

it utilizes a comprehensive longitud­

inal design and it benefits from recovery of data for 100%
of the cases.

Studies such as this require persistence and

a long-term continuity of effort not usually possible in a
field in which practical considerations tend to force the
casting of research into shorter time frames and into more
expeditiously completed packages.

Not only does this type

of longitudinal micro-study take time and effort, but, also,
there must be sufficient resources to support the consider­
able travel, contact, and follow-up needed to secure the
highest possible number of returns.

Moreover, the type of

field work involved requires a combination of aggressive
detective work, salesmanship, and social survey skill on the
part of field staff.

Thus, it is relatively expensive re­

search in terms of time, money, and effort, and it demands
a high order of ingenuity and persistence.
Recovery of the re-study data in the Ontonagon County
project extended over the better part of two years and

130
Involved locating individuals who had moved to locations
throughout the United States and beyond, some of whom, we
found, were not particularly desirous of being located*
The cases in which it took a long time and a lot of effort
to recover data were distinctly different from those in which
the data were obtained quickly and easily*

While no system­

atic analysis of this has been made, our strong clinical
impression is that to have stopped short of accounting for
the entire original sample would have been to miss many of
the more unusual cases and to have thus failed to accurately
assay the experience of these young people as a group*
If 100% data recovery is logistically difficult in
a micro-level study, it is virtually Impossible in a large
scale survey*

Therein lies, perhaps, part of the unique

value of the well-executed longitudinal micro-study:

it

can be used as a check of large scale survey results, and,
as we have shown here, it can provide a means for elucidating
some of the processual aspects glossed over or ignored in
macro-level studies.

Thus in the present research we have

found that migration is actually a complex phenomenon in
terms of its significance in the career structure of young
men from a rural area*

And it would seem that at this point

we have really only scratched the surface.

The availability

of continuous data offers the opportunity for exploring such
aspects as the relationship between family formation and
geographic mobility, between mate choice, family formation,
and career achievement, between a host of background factors

131
and later educational and occupational achievement apart
from their mediation through migration*

While the result­

ing analyses may not have the "power" of large numbers, they
nevertheless should serve simultaneously as a test of find­
ings from other types of research and as a means for filling
In the picture of the various processes we can only suppose
to exist from Information gained In macro-level studies.
Beyond this, the micro approach, utilizing detailed longi­
tudinal data, can serve as a rich source of hypotheses to
be evaluated through subsequent research*

Such hypotheses

emerge out of the completeness and comprehensiveness of the
data on a particular cohort, which results In a more coherent
picture of their experience.
speak.

The data "come alive," so to

Each aspect begins to make sense In terms of the

Integrated whole.

Thus the researcher Is In a better posi­

tion to Infer causal links among sequential elements of the
experiences and behavior of the subjects, and is better able
to see connections between various concurrent aspects of
their situations.
Looked at in this way, and thus utilized, longitud­
inal micro-studies have a considerable contribution to make
to the ongoing progress of research inquiry.

They offer a

way of checking and elucidating various processes we have
inferred from other research while, at the same time, pro­
viding a context within which new insights may be gained
and new ideas generated.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, A. H. "Changes in Farm Population and Rural Life
in Four North Dakota Counties," North Dakota Agri­
cultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 375, April,
1952.
Anderson, C. Arnold; Brown, James C.; and Bowman, Mary J.
"Intelligence and Occupational Mobility," Journal
of Political Economy. Vol. 60, No. 3 (June, 1952),
pp. 218-39.
Andrews, Wade H., and Eshleman, J. Ross. "The New Commu­
nity ••.Character!sties of Migrant and Non-Migrant
Residents in the Rural Fringe of a Metropolitan Area
in Ohio," Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Re­
search Bulletin 929, April, 1963.
Andrews, Wade H., and Sardo, Joseph. "Migration and Mi­
grants from Sedgwick County, Colorado," Colorado
Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin
82, 1965.
Bauder, Ward W., and Burchinal, Lee G. "Farm Migrants to
the City: A Comparison of the Status, Achievement,
Community and Family Relations of Farm Migrants and
Urban Natives In Des Moines, Iowa," Iowa Agricul­
tural and Home Economics Experiment Station, Research
Bulletin 534, March, 1965.
Beegle, J. Allan, et al. "Report of the Procedures Committee
of NC-18, North Central Regional Project Concerning
Field Studies of Migration," (Mimeograph) Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1957.
Beegle, Allan; Marshall, Douglas; and Rice, Roger. "Select­
ed Factors Related to County Migration Patterns in
the North Central States, 1940-50 and 1950-60,"
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, North
Central Regional Research Publication 147, 1963.
Beers, Howard W., and Heflin, Catherine. "Rural People in
the City: A Study of the Socio-Economic Status of
297 Families in Lexington, Kentucky," Kentucky Agri­
cultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 478, July,
1945.

132

133
Beerst Howard W. "Mobility of Rural Populations A Study
of Changes In Residence and) Occupation In Two Types
of Rural Communities," Kentucky Agricultural Experi­
ment Station, Bulletin 505, June, 1947.
Bender, L. D.; Hobbs, D. J.; and Golden, J. F. "Congruence
between Aspirations and Capabilities of Youth In a
Low-Income Rural Area," Rural Sociology. Vol• 32,
No* 3 (September, 1967), pp* 278-89*
Blau, Peter M., and Duncan, Otis Dudley. The American Occu­
pational Structure. New Yorks Wiley and Sons, 1967.
Bohlen, Joe M . , and Wakeley, R. E. "Intentions to Migrate
and Actual Migration of Rural High School Graduates,"
Rural Sociology. Vol. 15, No. 4 (December, 1950),
pp. 328-34.
Bordua, David J. "Educational Aspirations and Parental
Stress on College," Social Forces. Vol. 38, No. 3
(March, 1960), pp. 262-69.
Brown, C. Harold, and Buck, Roy C. "Factors Associated with
Migrant Status of Young Adult Males from Rural Penn­
sylvania," Pennsylvania State University Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin 676, January, 1961.
Brown, J. S.; Schwarzweller, H. K.; and Mangalam, J. J.
"Kentucky Mountain Migration and the Stem Family;
An American Variation on a Theme by LePlay," Rural
Sociology. Vol. 28, No. 1 (March, 1963), pp. 48-69.
Burchinal, Lee G. "Differences in Educational and Occupa­
tional Aspirations of Farm, Small Town, and City
Boys," Rural Sociology. Vol. 26, No. 2 (June, 1961),
pp. 107-21.
Burchinal, Lee G. (ed.). Rural Youth in Crisis; Facts.
Myths, and Social Change. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1963.
Burchinal, Lee G., and Jacobson, Perry O. "Migration and
Adjustment of Farm and Nonfarm Families and Adoles­
cents in Cedar Rapids, Iowa," Iowa Agricultural Ex­
periment Station, Bulletin 516, June, 1963.
Burchinal, Lee G., and Jacobson, Perry E. "Migration and
Adjustments of Farm and Urban Families and Adoles­
cents in Cedar Rapids, Iowa," Rural Sociology. Vol.
28, No. 4 (December, 1963), pp. 364-78.

134
Byerley, Billy J. "Social Characteristics of Out-Migrants,
Non-Migrants and In-Migrants in a High In-Migration
County, Hamblen County, Tennessee, 1968," Unpublished
M.S. Thesis, Department of Sociology, University of
Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, March, 1970.
Caldwell, Morris G. "The Adjustments of Mountain Families
in an Urban Environment," Social Forces. Vol. 16,
No. 3 (March, 1938), pp. 389-95.
Campbell, Rex R., and Dilley, Martha. "College Attendance
Plans of High School Seniors in Missouri," Missouri
Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin 874, May,
1968.
Crawford, Charles O. "Family Factors in Migration Plans of
Youth: High School Seniors in St. Lawrence County,
New York," New York Agricultural Experiment Station,
Bulletin 65, December, 1964.
Davis, Kingsley. "The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict,"
American Sociological Review. Vol. 5, No. 4 (August,
1940), pp. 523-35.
Duncan, Otis Dudley, and Hodge, Robert W. "Education and
Occupational Mobility: A Regression Analysis,"
American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 68, No. 6
(May, 1963), pp. 629-44.
Form, William H. "Occupational Career Pattern as a Socio­
logical Instrument," American Journal of Sociology.
Vol. 54, No. 4 (January, 1^49), pp. 317-29.
Forman, Robert, and Francis, Roy G. "Some Ideological As­
pects of Migration," Sociology of Rural Life. No. 4
(September, 1963), Minnesota Agricultural Experiment
Station Paper No. 5220, Scientific Journal Series.
Freedman, Ronald, and Freedman, Deborah. "Farm Reared Ele­
ments in the Nonfarm Population," Rural Sociology.
Vol. 21, No. 1 (March, 1956), pp. 50-61.
Gist, Noel P., and Clark, C. D. "Intelligence as a Selective
Factor in Rural-Urban Migrations," American Journal
of Sociology. Vol. 44, No. 1 (July, 1936), pp. 36-S8.
Gist, Noel P.; Pihlblad, C. T.; and Gregory, C. L. "Selec­
tive Aspects of Rural Migrations," Rural Sociology.
Vol. 6, No. 1 (March, 1941), pp. 3-15.
Gist, Noel P.; Pihlblad, C. T.; and Gregory, C. L. "Scho­
lastic Achievement and Occupation," American Socio­
logical Review. Vol. 7, No. 4 (December, 1942), pp.
752-63.

135
Goldsmith, Harold* "The Meaning of Migration: A Study of
the Migration Expectations of High School Students,**
Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Sociology
and Anthropology, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, Michigan, 1961.
Goldsmith, Harold, and Beegle, J. Allan. "The Initial Phase
of Voluntary Migration," (Mimeograph) Michigan Agri­
cultural Experiment Station, Rural Sociology Studies
No. 1, January, 1962.
Goodman, Leo A. "On the Measurement of Social Mobility:
An Index of Status Persistence," American Socio­
logical Review. Vol. 34, No. 6 (December, 1969),
pp. 831-50.
Gregory, Cecil L., and Lionberger, Herbert F. "Occupational
and Educational Plans of Male High School Seniors:
A Study Conducted in Missouri Country, Town, and
Small City Locations, 1964," Missouri Agricultural
Experiment Station, Research Bulletin 937, April,
1968.
Grigg, Charles M., and Middleton, Russell. "Community of
Orientation and Occupational Aspirations of Ninth
Grade Students," Social Forces. Vol. 38, No. 4
(May, 1960), pp. 303-308.
Hamilton, C. Horace. "Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban
Migration: Preliminary Results of a North Carolina
Study," Selected Studies of Migration Since World
w*** H i
Proceedings of the 195^ Annual Conference.
New York, Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957, pp. 110-22T
Hawley, Amos H. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community Struc­
ture. New York: Ronald Press, 1950.
Heflin, Catherine, and Beers, Howard W. "Urban Adjustment
of Rural Migrants: A Study of 297 Families in Lex­
ington, Kentucky," Kentucky Agricultural Experiment
Station, Bulletin 487, 1946.
Howard, James Edward. "Migration Patterns of Residents in a
High In-Migration County, Hamblen County, Tennessee,"
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Sociology,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee,
December, 1969.
Xllsley, Raymond; Finlayson, Angela; and Thompson, Barbara.
"The Motivation and Characteristics of Internal Mi­
grants, Part I," The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly.
Vol. 41, No. 2 (April, 1963), pp. 115-43; Milbank
Memorial Fund, 40 Wall Street, New York, N.Y.

136
Xllsley, Raymond; Finlayson, Angela; and Thompson, Barbara.
"The Motivation and Characteristics of Internal Mi­
grants , Part IX,” The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly
Vol. 41, No. 3 (July, 1963), pp. 217-48; Milbank
Memorial Fund, 40 Wall Street, New York, N.Y.
Jitodai, Ted T. ''Migration and Kinship Contacts,” Pacific
Sociological Review. Vol. 6, No. 1 (Fall, 1963),
pp. 49-55.
Kuvlesky, William P., and Bealer, R. C. "The Relevance of
Adolescents' Occupational Aspirations for Subsequent
Job Attainments,” Rural Sociology. Vol. 32, No. 3
(September, 1967), pp. 290-301.
Leuthold, Frank O . ; Farmer, Charles M.; and Badenhop, M. B.
"Migration of Young Adults from a Low—Income Rural
County,” Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station,
Tennessee Farm and Home Science Progress Report No.
63, July, August, September, 1967.
Leuthold, Frank 0. "Exodus of the Rural Farm Population,”
Tennessee .Agricultural Experiment Station, Tennessee
Farm and Home Science Progress Report No. 67, July,
August, September, 1968.
Leybourne, Grace G. "Urban Adjustments of Migrants from
the Southern Appalachian Plateaus,” Social Forces.
Vol. 16, No. 2 (December, 1937), pp. 238-46.
Lindstrom, David E. "Differences in Academic Capability
between Rural Youth Planning and Not Planning to
Go to College," (Mimeograph) Illinois Agricultural
Experiment Station, RSM-40, December, 1964.
Lipset, Seymour M . , and Bendix, Reinhard.
"Social Mobility
and Occupational Career Patterns,” American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 57, No. 4 (January, 1952), pp.

366- 74”.

Lipset, Seymour M. "Social Mobility and Urbanization,"
Rural Sociology. Vol. 20, No. 3 (September, 1955),
pp. 220-28.
Lipset, Seymour M., and Bendix, Reinhard. Social Mobility
in Industrial Society. Berkeley, California: Uni­
versity of California Press, 1959.
Martinson, Floyd M. "Personal Adjustment and Rural-Urban
Migration,” Rural Sociology. Vol. 20, No. 2 (June,
1955), pp. 162-10.

137
Mauldin, W. Parker* "Selective Migration from Small Towns,"
American Sociological Review. Vol. 5. No. 5 (October.
l$4d>, pp. 74S-5S.--------Middleton, R., and Grigg, C. M. "Rural-Urban Differences
in Aspirations," Rural Sociology. Vol. 24, No. 4
(December, 1959), pp. 347-54.
Morrison, Denton E., and Henkel, Ramon E. "Significance
Tests Reconsidered," American Sociologist. Vol. 4,
No. 2 (May, 1969), pp. 131-46.
National Opinion Research Center. National Opinion on Occu­
pations s Final Report of a Special Opinion Survey
among Americans 14 and Over. National Opinion Research
denter, University of Denver, March, 1947.
Olson, Phillip G. "Job Mobility and Migration in a High
Income Rural Community," Indiana Agricultural Ex­
periment Station, Research Bulletin 708, November,
1960.
Omari, Thompson P. "Factors Associated with Urban Adjust­
ment of Rural Southern Migrants," Social Forces.
Vol. 35, No. 1 (October, 1956), pp. 47-53.
Pihlblad, C. T., and Gregory, C. L. "Selective Aspects of
Migration Among Missouri High School Graduates,"
American Sociological Review. Vol. 19, No. 3 (June,
1954), pp. 314-24.
Porter, J. Richard. "Predicting Vocational Plans of High
School Senior Boys," Personnel and Guidance Journal.
Vol. 33, No. 4 (December, 1954), pp. 2l£-ltT.
Reiss, Albert J., Jr. (ed.). Occupations and Social Status.
New York: Free Press of Glencoe, Inc•, 19(»1•
Rose,

ArnoldM«, and Warshay, Leon. "The Adjustment of
Migrants to Cities," Social Forces. Vol. 36, No. 1
(October, 1957), pp. 72-76•

Rose, Arnold. "Distance of Migration and Socioeconomic
Status of Migrants," American Sociological Review.
Vol. 23, No. 4 (August, 1958), pp. 420-23.
Sanford, Gilbert A. "Selective Migration in a Rural Alabama
Community," American Sociological Review. Vol. 5,
No. 5 (October, 1940), pp. 759-66.

138
Schulze, Rolf; Artis, Jay; and Beegle, J. Allan* "The
Measurement of Community Satisfaction and the De­
cision to Migrate,” Rural Sociology. Vol. 28, No.
3 (September, 1963), pp. 279-83.
Schwarzweller, Harry K. "Sociocultural Origins and Migra­
tion Patterns of Young Men from Eastern Kentucky,"
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin
685, December, 1963.
Schwarzweller, Harry K. "Family Ties, Migration, and Transi­
tional Adjustment of Young Men from Eastern Kentucky,"
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station, Bulletin
691, May, 1964.
Schwarzweller, Harry K. "Education, Migration, and Economic
Life Chances of Male Entrants to the Labor Force
from a Low-Income Rural Area," Rural Sociology.
Vol. 29, No. 2 (June, 1964), pp. 152-67.
Schwarzweller, Harry K., and Brown, J. S. "Social Class
Origins, Rural-Urban Migration, and Economic Life
Chances: A Case Study," Rural Sociology. Vol. 32,
No. 1 (March, 1967), pp. 5-19.
Scudder, Richard, and Anderson, C. Arnold. "Migration and
Vertical Occupational Mobility," American Socio­
logical Review. Vol. 19, No. 3 (June, 1954), pp.
329-34.
Sewell, William H.; Haller, A. 0.; and Straus, M. A. "Social
Status and Educational and Occupational Aspiration,"
American Sociological Review. Vol. 22, No. 1 (Feb­
ruary^ 1957), pp. 67-73.
Sewell, William H. "Community of Residence and College
Plans," American Sociological Review. Vol. 29, No.
1 (February, 1^64)^ pp. 24-38.
Sewell, William H«, and Shah, Vimal P. "Socioeconomic Status,
Intelligence, and the Attainment of Higher Education,"
Sociology of Education. Vol. 40, No. 1 (Winter, 1967),
pp. 1-23.
Sewell, William H., and Shah, Vimal P. "Social Class, Par­
ental Encouragement, and Educational Aspirations,"
American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 73, No. 5 (March,
1^68), pp. 559-72.
Sewell, William H., and Shah, Vimal P. "Parents' Education
and Children's Educational Aspirations and Achieve­
ments," American Sociological Review. Vol. 33, No.
2 (April, 1968), pp. 191-209.

139
Sewell, William H.; Haller, Archibald O . ; and Fortes,
Alejandro. 11The Educational and Early Occupational
Attainment Process,” American Sociological Review.
Vol. 34, No. 1 (February, 1969), pp• 82-92.
Simpson, Richard. "Parental Influence, Anticipatory Social­
ization, and Social Mobility," American Sociological
Review. Vol. 27, No. 4 (August, 1962), pp. 517-22.
Simwanza, Kamutondo Kawala. "The Influence of Family in
the Migration Process," Unpublished M.A. Thesis,
Department of Sociology, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1969.
Smith, Glenn E., and Berg, Wilbert A. "A Follow-Up Study
of 1961 High School Graduates of Public Secondary
Schools in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan," (Mimeo­
graph) Marquette, Michigan, School District of the
City of Marquette, 1962.
Straus, Murray A. "Social Class and Farm—City Differences
in Interaction with Kin in Relation to Societal
Modernization," Rural Sociology. Vol. 34, No. 4
(December, 1969), pp. 476-95.
Taeuber, Karl E. "The Residential Redistribution of FarmBorn Cohorts," Rural Sociology. Vol. 32, No. 1
(March, 1967), pp. 20-36.
Taves, M. J., and Coller, R. W. "In Search of Opportunity:
A Study of Post High School Migration in Minnesota,"
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical
Bulletin 247, 1964.
Thomas, Dorothy Swaine. Research Memorandum on Migration
Differentials. Social Science Research Council,
Bulletin 43, 1938.
Tilly, Charles, and Brown, C. Harold. "On Uprooting, Kin­
ship, and the Auspices of Migration," International
Journal of Comparative Sociology. Vol.”5 (September,
T567); pp. 139-64.
Tregea, William.
"Patterns in Circular Migration: An Ex­
ploratory Study of Rural Return Migrants as a Type,"
Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department of Sociology,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
1968.
Tumin, Melvin M., and Feldman, A. S. "Theory and Measure­
ment of Occupational Mobility," American Socio­
logical Review. Vol. 22, No. 3 (June, 1957), pp.
281-88.

140
Westoff, Charles F.; Brassier, Marvin; and Sagi, Philip C.
"The Concept of Social Mobility: An Empirical In­
quiry,” American Sociological Review* Vol. 25, No.
3 (June, 1960), pp. 375-85.
Williams, Robin M . , and Beers, Howard W. "Attitudes Toward
Rural Migration and Family Life in Johnson and
Robertson Counties, 1941," Kentucky Agricultural
Experiment Station, Bulletin 452, June, 1943.
Yoesting, Dean R., and Bohlen, Joe M. "Migration Expecta­
tions and Performances of Open-Country Young Adults:
A Longitudinal Study, 1948-1956," Paper presented
to the Joint Session of the Midwest Sociological
Society and the Ohio Valley Sociological Society,
Indianapolis, Indiana, May, 1969.
Youmans, E. Grant.
"The Educational Attainment and Future
Plans of Kentucky Rural Youths," Kentucky Agricul­
tural Experiment Station, Bulletin 664, 1959.
Youmans, E. Grant.
"The Rural School Dropout: A Ten Year
Follow-Up Study of Eastern Kentucky Youth," Bulletin
of the Bureau of School Service. Vol. 36, No. 1
(September, 1963}, Lexington, Kentucky, College
of Education, University of Kentucky.

APPENDICES

Appendix A
May 1957 Initial Phase of
Voluntary Migration Questionnaire

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Department of Sociology and Anthropology

WHAT THIS STUDY IS ABOUT
This survey Is an attempt to get a better picture of the problems
high school students In Michigan face In selecting an area where they
would like to live and work. You and only you can provide the answers.
By carefully filling out this questionnaire you will help us to gain a
better understanding of these problems. This information will be of
great value in developing counseling programs for high school students.
For this reason we are anxious to have you answer the questions on this
form to the best of your ability.

PLEASE FOLLOW THESE DIRECTIONS
1. Read each question and all items listed beneath the question care­
fully. Then answer the question to the best of your knowledge.
2. Be sure to answer each question,
any one question.

but do not spend too much time on

3. If you are In doubt or don't understand an item, raise your hand and
you will receive aid.

1.

Your name:_______________________________________________
(First)
(Middle)
(Last)

2.

Your mailing address:_____________________________________
Do you live on a farm? Yes
No___
If you do not live on a farm, have you ever lived on a farm?
Yes
No

3.

Your high school:_______________________________
(Name and Location)

4.

Your sex:

Male

5. How old are you?

Female
Your date of birth:_____________________
Month
Day
Year

2
6 . Your class:
7,

With whom do you live regularly?
a.
b/
c.
d.'
f.

8.

Senior

Junior

_My own parents
A parent and a step-parent
One parent only
_My grandparents
U n d e or Aunt
Others (write In who they are)

Your church preference Is:
a.

b/
c.
d.'

^Baptist
jCathollc
Episcopal
Lutheran

Are you a member:

e.
f/
8 -'
Yes

Methodist
_Presby ter ian
Other (write in the name)
No

YOUR ACTIVITIES: Many students participate in some activities in their
school and in their community. We would now like to know something about
your activities and what you think about them.
XXXXXXX
1.

The kinds of extra-curricular activities in which you participate
are: (Check the ones in which you participate actively, and add to
the list if necessary.)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
8*

2,

band-orches tra
chorus-vocal
dramatics
debates
4-H or FFA
high school teams
other athletics (specify)

h.
1.
J.
k.
1.
m.

school paper
annual (year book)
student government
hobby club
hunting or fishing
other

When you have some free time, what do you like best to do?

3

3. Compared with most students in your high school, the number of
activities you are in is:
a .___ greater than average
b.
about average
c .___ less than average
4.

Compared with most students in your high school, your leadership
activities are:
a .___ greater than average
b.
about average
c .___ less than average

5.

How often do you feel that you would like to take part in more
activities?
a .___ very often
b .___ often
c .___ sometimes
d .___ never

6.

How often do you feel that you do not get along with your classmates?
a .___ very often
b .___ often
c .___ sometimes
d .___ never

7.

How often do you avoid your classmates because they are unkind or
unfriendly?
a .___ very often
b .___ often
c .___ sometimes
d .___ never

8.

What do you usually do at the following times:
state what kind)

(If you have £ job,

a. Immediately after school?_______________________________________
b. In the evenings?________________________________________________
c. On Saturdays?
d. On Sundays?

4
9. Write the nemes end agee of your three closest friends.
a. Your closest friend__________________________________________
(Name)
(Age)
b. Your next closest friend
(Name)
(Age)
c. Your next closest friend______________________________________
(Name)
(Age)

YOUR COMMUNITY: All of us have feelings about the community In which we
live; there are things In It that we like and things that we do not like.
We should like to have your honest opinion about the following questions
as they apply to your community.
XXXXXXX
1.

Below is a list of statements that express opinions about any given
community. Read each Item carefully and quickly check the phrase that
most nearly represents your personal belief about the community in or
near which you live.
Strongly
Agree

SAMPLE:Working

is greatfun.

Agree

__

____

a.Anything of a progressive
nature Is generally approved.

____

____

b. With few exceptions the
leaders are capable and
ambitious.

____

____

c. It is difficult for the
people to get together on
anything.
d. The people as a whole mind
their own business.
e. Everyone helps to decide how
things should be run.
f. The future of the community
looks bright.
g. No one seems to care how the
community looks.

Unde- Diselded agree
X

Strongly
Disagree

_____

____

____

____

____

____

____

____

5
Strongly
Agree
h. It will never seem like home
to me.
1. Quite a number of the resi­
dents have really amounted
to something.
j . Persons with real ability
are usually given recogni­
tion.
k. Not much can be said in
favor of a place this size.
1. The church services as a
rule are well worth
attending.
m. The community is not located
in a very desirable place.
n. The people have to do with­
out a good many conveniences
like telephone service, sew­
age disposal, water works,
and good roads.
o. A person has to leave town
in order to have a good time.
p. There are not many families
you would care to marry into.
q. Few if any of the neighboring
towns are able to surpass it.
r. Cultural and educational
facilities like colleges,
libraries, theaters, and
museums are adequate.
s. People have to do without
adequate shopping facilities.

____

Agree

Undeelded

Dieagree

Strongly
Disagree

____

____

____

____

6
2.

After graduation many changes will take place In your way of life.
You and your friends will be looking for jobs, thinking of getting
married, going to college, or moving to a new town. Many of the
activities that you formerly engaged in like playing basketball or
Just visiting will be difficult to do since many of your friends will
not be around. Thinking about the changes that take place after
graduation, read each statement below carefully and quickly check
the phrase that most nearly represents your personal belief about
your community.

xxxxxxx
AFTER GRADUATION YOUR
COMMUNITY WILL BE:

Agree

Undecided

Dlsagree

Strongly
Disagree

a. A good place to engage in
farming________________________ ____

____

____

____

____

b. A good place to get the job
you would like to have

____

____

____

____

____

c. A good place to find someone
you would like to marry

____

____

____

____

____

d. A good place to find people
your own age

____

____

____

____

____

e. A good place to live since
there are facilities in town
or close by for young adults
to have a good time
f. A good place to have fun
with people your own age—
like dating, visiting, going
to movies, or other such
social activities
g. A good place to have fun
with people your own age—
like watching or playing
volleyball, basketball, or
other such organized sports
h. A good place to go hunting,
fishing, hiking, or other
similar outdoor activities
i. A good place to enjoy being
members of adult organiza­
tions like the VFW, the
Eagles, the Rotary, the
church, or womens' clubs

Strongly
Agree

7
Strongly
Agree Agree

Unda- Diselded agree

Strongly
Disagree

j . A good place to build a home
and raise a family

____

____

____

____

____

k. A good place to remain close
to your friends

____

____

____

____

____

1. A good place to remain close
to your relatives

____

____

____

____

____

3.

What facilities or activities should a community have for young
adults, that your community does not have?
a*
c.

4.

As a place to live soon after graduation, hewwell do youlike your
community?
a .___ strongly dislike it______ d.___ I like it
b .___ I dislike it____________ e.___ I am enthusiastic about it
c .___ I am indifferent

5.

After you are married and have a family, how well would you like
your community as a place to live?
a .___ strongly dislike It______ d.___ I would like it
b .___ I would dislike it_______ e.___ I would be enthusiastic about it
c.
I would be indifferent

YOU AND YOUR PARENTS: Below is a list of statements about the relations
between parents and their children. We would like to have your honest
opinion about these statements as they apply to your family. (If you do
not live with your parents, answer the question In terms of your guardian,
or the people you live with.)
XXXXXXX
1.

Regarding your relationships with your parents (or guardian, the
people you live with): (Check the phrase that most nearly represents
your own personal belief.)

a. It is hard for me to feel
pleasant at home.
b. My parents try to understand
my problems and worries.

Strongly
Agree
____

Agree

Undeelded

Dlsagree

Strongly
Disagree

____

____

____

____

8

c. As far as my Ideas are con­
cerned my parents and 1 live
In two different worlds.

Strongly
Agree

Agree

Undeelded

Disagree

____

____

____

____

Strongly
Disagree

____

d. There is real love and
affection for me at home.
e. tty parents criticize me too
much.
f. My friends have happier
homes than I do.
g. Too often my parents compare
me unfavorably with other
children.
h. As I have known It, family
life is happy.
i. tty parents expect too much
of me.
2. When do you think your parents are most likely to consider you an
adult? (Write your answer here)

3.

What right did your parents (or guardian, the people you live with)
have to make decisions for you when you were in the 9th grade
(beginning high school)?
a .____ They had
b.
They had
c.
They had
d.
They had

4.

a definite right to help make my decisions.
some right to help make my decisions.
no right, but they could give me their opinions.
no right to even give their opinions.

What right do your parents have to make decisions for you after you
graduate from high school?
a.
They have
b.
They have
c.
They have
d .____ They have

a definite right to help make my decisions.
some right to help make my decisions.
no right, but they may give me their opinions.
no right even to give their opinions.

9
5.

Which of the following statements best Indicates what your parents
have encouraged you to do after graduation?
a .___ Get a full time job and continue to live at home.
b.
Get a full time job and live as close to home as possible.
c.
Get the best full time job possible even if you have to move
to another community.
d.
Continue your education or training, and then return to your
community.
e .___ Continue your education or training, and then get the beat job
possible even if you have to move to another community.
f .___ Other (indicate)______________________________________________

6.

Do your parents expect you to help support them after graduation?
Yes
No

7.

Will your parents be able to help you in getting a start or continuing
your education after graduation from high school?
a.
b.
c.

8.

They will be financially able to help you a great deal.
They will be financially able to give you some help.
They will be financially able to give you no help.

How willing will your parents be to help you after you graduate from
high school?
a .____ Willing to help you a great deal.
b .____ Willing to give you some help.
c .____ Willing to give you no help.

9.

10.

When the time comes for a boy to take a job, he should stay near his
parents even if it means giving up a good job?
Yes
No
Undecided
Even when teenagers get married, their first loyalty still belongs
to their parents. Yes
No
Undecided____

LEAVING YOUR COMMUNITY: At times many have considered moving away from
their communities. We would now like to know if you have considered
leaving your community, and something about your reasons.
XXXXXXX
1.

Have you ever seriously considered moving away from your community?
Yes
No

2.

Are you considering moving away from your community after graduation?
Yes
No

10
3.

How eager are you to stay or move from your community after graduation?
a .___ Eager to
b .___ Probably
c .___ Probably
d .___ Eager to

4.

stay
stay, butnot eager to stay
leave,but not eagerto leave
leave

If you are considering leaving your community soon after graduation,
what are your two main reasons?
a. First reason______ ___________________________________________
b. Second reason

5.

Below is a list of reasons high school students sometimes give for
leaving their communities after graduation. If the statement repre­
sents a reason for your wanting to leave your community, check yes;
if not, check no.
Yes

No

a. Few good jobs available

____

____

____

b. Unable to make a go of farming

____

____

____

c. Little chance of finding someone
I would like to marry

____

____

____

d. Few people of my own age__________________ ____

____

____

e. Feeling pleasant at home is
difficult for me

____

____

f. Few occasions to engage In
activities you consider important
g. Few occasions to engage in
outdoor sports
h. To get away from the domination
of my family
1. Not enough facilities in town
or nearby to have a good time
j . No privacy— everyone knows my business
k. The climate is not good
1. Not enough night life for young adults

____

Undecided

11

A.

Yes

No

Undecided

m. Peeling pleasant with some of the
people my own age is difficult

____

____

____

n. The community has no future

____

____

____

o. The location is poor______________________ ____

____

____

p. Parents criticise me too much

____

____

____

q. To be able to make my own decisions

____

____

____

r. Public services such as telephone
service, water supply, sewage disposal,
and road repairs are poor

____

____

____

s. My reputation In the community is
not as I want it

____

____

____

t. My community is not a good place
to raise a family_________________________ ____

____

____

u. There are not enough good shopping
centers nearby

____

____

____

v. There are not enough facilities like
libraries, museums, art galleries,
and colleges______________________________ ____

____

____

w. I want a change of scenery and new
experiences_______________________________ ____

____

____

Which of the above do you consider most important? (Please write the
letter of the two most important) First______ Second______.

NEW COMMUNITY: The following questions seek to find out some of your
preferences about the kind of place in which you would like to live.
XXXXXXX

12
1.

Which of the following best Indicates the kind of community In which
you would prefer to live: (Please check only one).
-*
a .___ In the open country
b.
In a village under 2,500 (like Ewen or Ontonagon)
c.
In a city of 10,000 to 100,000 (like Marquette or Lansing)
d.
In a city of over 100,000 (like Detroit or Chicago)
e .____In a suburb outside a large city
A. If you checked the open country or a village, do you prefer the
location to be near a big city? Yes_____ No__ . IF YES, how
near? ________________.
B. Do you have any specific place In mind? Yes
No____
IF YES, where?_________________________________________

2. How important are the following qualities of the community in which
you would eventually like to live? (Read each statement carefully
and quickly check the phrase that most nearly represents your own
personal belief.)
Very
Important

Of Some
Importance

Of Little or
No Importance

a. The community should have
libraries, museums, art
galleries, and colleges.___________ ____

____

____

b. The community should have avail­
able entertainment like con­
certs, lectures, and plays,

____

____

____

c. The community should have avail­
able entertainment like movies
or bowling.

____

____

____

d. The community should have good
TV reception.

____

____

____

e. The community should have avail­
able sports events, like boxing,
football, baseball, and basket­
ball.
f. The community should be one In
which a person can be close to
nature with opportunities for
hunting, fishing, and hiking.

13
Very
Important

Of Some
Importance

____

___

____

h. The community should have a
climate that you like._____________ ____

____

____

1. The community should have an
open country atmosphere away
from the hustle, bustle, and
noise of the city.

____

____

g. The community should have con­
veniences like telephone ser­
vice, water supply, good trans­
portation, sewage disposal and
good roads.

____

Of Little or
No Importance

j . The community should be busy
and exciting with lots of
people and no one knowing your
business.
k. The community should have many
avenues to success, and not
limit a person to a job they
may not like.
1. The community should be one
where there are good jobs.
m. The community should be one In
which you can be close to your
friends.
n. The community should be near
shopping centers with depart­
ment stores and supermarkets.
o. The community should have or be
close to some Interesting and
exciting night life.
p. What other qualities not men­
tioned above should the com­
munity have?
(Write your answer here) _____

A.

Which of the above do you consider most important? (Please write the
letter of the two most Important.) First
Second___

14
YOUR FUTURE OCCUPATION: Now that high school graduation is nearing,
we'd like to know somethingabout your plans for your future life's work.
XXXXXXX
1. Of all the jobs In this community, which jobwould
Which least? ______________ .
2.

youlike

best?

How do you think that farming compares with city jobs like working
in a factory,
store, oroffice?Better
Worse
Undecided______.
How do you think that mining compares with city Jobs like working in
a factory, store, or office? Better
Worse
Undecided
.
How do you think that woods work compares with city jobs like working
in a factory,
store, or office?Better
Worse
Undecided______.

3.

If you could have any job you wanted, regardless of the training or
experience required, what Job would you pick? _____________________ .

4.

What jobs have your parents mentioned that they would like to see you
do? a._________________ b.
c.________________

5. What jobsareyou now

6.

seriouslyconsidering asa lifetime

work?

a. First choice__________________ . Have your parents
this? Yes______No__

encouraged

b. Second choice_________________ . Have your parents
this? Yes______ No__

encouraged

Regarding your first choice, what do you think are the reasons for
your selecting it? (Check as many reasons as apply)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
A.

Encouraged by family
Advised by friends
Suggested by school study
Suggested by motion
pictures
Suggested by TV or radio
Suggested by magazines
and books

8h.
i.
3•
k.

Interest developed out of
experience
Most profitable work I could get
Suggested by counseling and
testing
Admired someone in this job
Other (indicate)

Which of the above do you consider most important? (Please write
the letter of the two most important). First
Second
.

15
7.

Generally* what do you moat expect of the job you want to make your
life's work? (Check as many statements as apply).
Freedom of behavior
Chance for advancement
Friendship with fellow
employees
Power and authority
Intellectual challenge
Prestige or respect

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
A.

8*
h.
1.
Jk.
1.

Money
Security
Public recognition
Benefit to humanity
Time to enjoy myself
Other (Indicate)

Which of the above do you consider most important? (Please write
the letter of the two most important) First
Second
.

8.

How do you expect to get started in the job you want for your life's
work?

9.

Do you Intend to get further training after high school?
Yes
No
Don't k n o w
.
If Yes, what do you plan?
a .___ College.

Where __________________________________________

b .___ Trade School.
c.

Apprentice.

d .___ Other.

Where
Where _______________________________________

What and Where ___________________________________

If Yea, how do you intend to pay for the training? (Check as many as
apply and underline the most important.)
a .___ Parents will help
b.
Work on the side
c .___ Scholarships
d .___ Borrow the money
e .___ Other (specify)___________________________________________
f.
Don1t know
If Yes, when do you Intend to start?
a.
When the new term starts in the fall
b.
After working for
a year or so
c .___ After military service
d .___ Other (Indicate)__________________________________________

16
10.

Do you expect to enter military service soon after graduation?
Yea
No
Don't know
If Yea, for how long?
a .___ Permanent career
b.
Two years only
c .___ Other (Indicate)_______________________________________

11.

Has the pos8lblllty of military service affected your job plans?
Yea
No
Don't know
If Yea, check In what way or ways?
a .___
b.
c .___
d .___

12.

Delayed making any definite plans
Employers are hesitant to hire me
Figured I'd get it out of the way and then decide
Other (indicate)____________________________________________

Do you have a Job waiting for you when you graduate?
Yes
No
Don't Know
(If yes, please check the following; if
no or don't know, go to Question 13.)
If yes, what type of job is It? (If more them one job is available,
state them In order of your preference.)____________________________

Who would you be working for? (For your first choice If more than
one job.) Parents
Other relatives
Non relatives
.
Do your parents expect you to take that job?
Don't Know
They Don't Care

Yes

No____

What Is the location of the Job?_________________________________
Do you Intend to keep the Job permanently?
Yes
No
Don't Know
If no or don't know, which of the following best Indicates what
you would do?
a .___ Not take the job
b.
Take the Job temporarily until _________________________.
c .___ Other (specify)_________________________________________ .
d.
Don't know

13.

If you don't have a job you Intend to take, and don't expect to go to
college (or on for additional training) or into the Service, do you
expect to seek a Job near home or away from home?
a .___ I expect to seek a Job near where I live.
b .___ I expect to look for a job away from home.
c .___ I don't know as yet Just what I will do.
What type of Job will you be looking for?_____________________ .

YOUR COMMUNITY AFTER GRADUATION: Now we would like to know something
about the community you Intend to reside in after graduation.
XXXXXXXX
1.

Where do you expect to live while working or going to school soon
(5 or 6 months) after graduation? _______________________________ .
(place)

2.

Why do you Intend to live in the community named in the above question?
(Check as many statements as apply.)
a .___ Because the community has cultural facilties like libraries,
museums, and colleges.
b .___ Because the community has recreational and entertainment
facilities you consider important.
c.___ Because the community has adequate conveniences like telephone
service, water supply, good transportation, sewage disposal,
and good roads.
d .___ Because the conmunity has a good climate.
e .___ Because the community is the size you want.
f .___ Because the community has many good jobs available.
g .___ Because the community has good shopping centers.
h .___Because you have a job waiting for you there.
i .___Because you will be going to school there.
j.___Because many of your friends are there*
k.___Because many of your relatives are there.
1.___Because you will have freedom of behavior there.

18
m.

Because tha community will be a 'change of scenery*, a place
where you can have new and exciting experiences.

n.___ Better chance to find someone you want to marry.
o.___ Becausethere are more people your own age there.
p.___ Because the community has an open country atmosphere away from
the hustle and bustle of the city.

2.

q.

Because

the community has more avenues to success and advancement.

r.

O t h e r ________________________________ __________

__

A.

Which of the above do you consider most Important? (Please write
the letter of the two most Important.) First
Second____

B.

If the community you intend to live in after graduation is not
your home community, how did you learn about it?_______________.

Do you have a second choice of a community where you would like to
live soon (5 or 6 months) after graduation?
Yes
No
Don't Know
If Yes, where?___________________________________________________
If Yes, why did you select the first choice rather than the second?

3.

Now, considering the kind of job and the way of life you eventually
wish to have, do you think it is necessary for you to move from your
present community? Yes
No
Don't Know

4.

Would you remain or eventually return to your community if jobs were
available? Yes
No
Don't Know

5.

Twenty years from now, what job do you expect to have?________
Where to you expect to be living twenty years from now? First
choice
. Second choice

19
YOUR PARENTS:
parents:

Now we would like to have some Information about your
XXXXXXX

1.

Your parents are:
a.
Both living together
b .___ Both dead
c.
Father is dead
d.
Mother is dead
e .___ Divorced
f .___ Separated

2.

Your mother:
a .___ has no job outside the home.
b .___ has a part-time Job outside the home.
c .___ has a full-time job outside the home.

3.

Your father's occupation is: (or was, if dead or retired)
the kind of work he does and not where he works.)

(Specify

Main occupation____________________________________________________
Part-time occupation_______________________________________________
If your father is a farmer, how many acres does he operate_________
How many milk cows does he have____________________________________
4.

What does your father think of his occupation:
a .___ Completely satisfactory
b.
Fairly satisfactory
c.
Good enough
d .___ Not very good
e .___ Very poor

5.

Where was your father b o m ? ________________________________________
(State or Country)
Where was your mother b o m ? ________________________________________
(State or Country)

6.

What nationality is your father?__________________________________
What nationality is your mother?___________________________________

20
7.

How much formal schooling (doss, did) your father have?
a.
Less than 4 years
b .___ 5-7 years
c .___ 8 years
d .___ 9-11 years
e .___ High school graduate
f .___ Some college
g .___ College graduate
h .___ Don't know
1.___ Other (Indicate)_____________________________ .

8.

How much formal schooling (does, did) your mother have?
a.
Less than 4 years
b .___ 5-7 years
c .___ 8 years
d .___ 9-11 years
e .___ High school graduate
f .___ Some college
g .___ College graduate
h.
Don't know
1.
Other (Indicate) _____________________________ .

9.
10.

How old Is your father?___________

Indicate by a check X the number of the category in which your
parents' income fell last year. (If not sure, make an estimate.)
a.
Under $1,000
b.
1,000 to 1,999
c.
2,000 to 2,999
d .____ 3,000 to 3,999
i.
9,000 and

11.

Your mother?

e._
4,000
f.____ 5,000
g.____ 6,000
h.____ 7,000
over

to 4,999
to 5,999
to 6,999
to 8,999

How many brothers do you have?_________________
How many are older than you?___________________

12.

How many sisters do you have?_
How many are older than you?_

13.

IN THE SPACE BELOW WRITE THE NAME, SEX, OCCUPATION AND PLACE OF
RESIDENCE OF EACH OF YOUR OLDER BROTHERS AND SISTERS: (Start with
your oldest brother or sister end Include all your older brothers
and sisters. If In school, put "student." If older sister Is
married and not working outside the home, put "housewife."
Male or
Female

Name

Occupation

1.

■
|
i
i
i

Place or Residence
(town and state)

i
i
i
I
i
I
i
1
1

2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

---------

YOUR HOME:

i

1

Now we would like to know something about your home.

xxxxxxx
1.

Your parents home is: a.
owned b.
rented c.
being bought
If renting, how much is your rent?__________________.

2.

The number of persons who live in your house Is:__________________.
The number of rooms In your house Is?_________________ .
(Do not include basements, bathrooms, porches, closets, halls.)

3.

The construction of your house Is:
a .___ brick
b.
Unpainted frame
c .___ Fainted frame
d .___ Other (specify)________________________ .

4.

The lighting In your house is:
a .___ Oil lamps
b .___ Electric
c .___ Gas, mantle, or pressure lamps
d.
Other or none.

22
5.

What kind of refrigeration do you have?
a .___ Ice
b.
m echanical (gas or electric)
c .___ other or none

6.

Do you have a deep freeze locker in your house?

7.

Do you have running water in your house? Yes_____No
Do you have an indoor toilet? Yes

No

Yes____ No

.

8.

Does yoi^r family take a daily newspaper? Yes

9.

Does your family have a power washing machine in your home?
Yea
No
.

10.

Do you have a radio in your home?
Does this radio work?

Yes

No

.

No

.

Yes_____ No___ .
.

11.

Do you have a TV set in your home? Yes_____ No___ .

12.

Does your family have a car? (other than a truck)

13.

Does your home have a telephone? Yes_____ No___ .

14.

Does your father (or guardian) go to church at least once a month?
Yes
No
_

Yes

No

.

Does your mother (or guardian) go to church at least once a month?
Yes
No

Appendix B
1966 First Decennial
He-Study Questionnaire

MICHIGAN STATE UIIVSRSITY

DEPARTMENT OP SOCIOLOGY

FIRST DECENNIAL RtSTVDY
ONTONAGON COUNTY NIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

WHAT THIS STUDY IS ABOUT
In May 1957 you and your classmates partloipatod In the first pbaei of k study
of the p r o U m faced by young people In preparing for the world of work end In
••looting on i r u where they would l^ke to lire. This second phase of the study
inquires into events since
school. We would like to learn if the experiences
you have had, the problems you haws faced, your successes and frustrations, had
your thoughts concerning the past teg years and the future* Tbit information will
he of great value in developing /better counseling program for high school etudent*
fron rural areas. Obviously, only you oan help us, by being as frank as possible
in ooapletlng this questionnaire* Your answers will be kept in strict confidence
and your nans will not be linked to the findings.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE DPUCTIOMB

1. Read each iten carefully. Then answer it to the best of yoUr knowledge.
is not a test, so there are no right or wrong answers.
8

This

. Be sure to answer each question vnqiletely. The outcone of the study will be
successful only if you are careful to provide accurate and collate information.
Special "guides," indicated by the syhbol
are included to help, you inter- .
prat some questions.

3. If you are in doubt, or do not understand an iten, make a note of It in the
margin, and complete the rest of the questions* Upon return of the question­
naire, a member of the project staff will then contact you' and complete it by
phono conversation of personal interview, gt your convenience.

I.

1

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

*1 . Ua would Ilka to know a little bit about your— If:

I IMe.
t. What is your naaaf
Klaa

TSndroT

(initial)

(Virst)

(Laet}

b. Hbat la your current nailing addreeet
o. Tour

T.|
|A
ts
.A || I
»$ w
}^f

(ear
d. Your prtHOt tgtt

Single
Married
Widowed
ilEZl N*paretediar

rpretend .euritei

•^ "fTfr % i $

Local phone>

r

■v-...,,

.P. '"Tour high a&hool dad gradation'’elaaa?
(8 cbool)
g. Hare you eerved on actIra duty in any branch of the arned forcaaT
, 1. If "Yea":

Hbat branch
of aarrleaT

1 1 Yea

2. Period on
active duty:

I— 1 No

Proa:
(Month)

3. Hl|haat rank and pay grada
bald while on active duty:

Tos
(Rank)

(iky grade)

tMonth)

h. How eany brotbara and alatera do you haveT
1. Pleaae lndleate ago, aext and occupation of all brotbera and alatera
Age

Saw

Job (Hbat doea he/aha dot)

Age

Sea

1 8

yeara old and <

Job (Hbat doea he/i
'

■■■ ■

■1 .

1;

1.2,

„

’’!

*

••i

If you ara now Married, we would Ilka to know aoaathina of your earriaaa and
a* What la your

O

wife*a O

bubaad'a nanat
(Hrat J

b. Hliat waa her/hia houetown and atatet _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(Initial)

TV5SS)---------

*

(Laat
(Stat

c. Where did you flrat get to know ber/blnT

(Siat

(Tovni
d. Wljet waa the higbeet grade
ahe/he aoapleted In achoolT

a. On what date did
you get uurrledf
(Month)

f, Hera you bad ehlldrenT
1. If *Yea"i

1

l Yaa

l

l No

Llat the date of birth for each child (nonth end year):

2

fDayl

. We would like to learn abou* fyjy f»»thar educat i o n a l ri^wvcnxbavo haft since highsohool:
a. Hava you obtained further qualification by APFfUSNTWMHIP OR OnIthb-JOB TRAINING?
It "lee*" please give details*

-j^. ■

City

.- •

; Inclusive Dates
; of tfce Tbalhlng

Type of Job ob Apprenticeship
(Specific skills in vhlch you
were trained)
i

State

"

.....

..... - - ---- „ ---- --

1 Yes

I

'
* .

•

' ..

1

......... 1

"

Certification ^
earned, if sny

."To.

' Fw

l
T

EZ3> *»

j

A
Organisation or Firm

C D Tee

.

- .

'

'

b. Have you attended a TRADE, VOCATIONAL, OR TECHNICAL SCHOOL?

f

I No

If "Yea," please give details:
Naas of School
City

Specific Program of Training
(Course of training In which
you were enrolled)

State

; Inclusive Dates
’ of the Training
From

Diplona
earned. If any

To
...

‘

1

1

“

"

-

•'

.....
;

...

:

.

.. .....

l_____ "

c. Have yen obtained further ACADEMIC EDUCATION since leaving high school"?

1

I Yes

I~~~l No

If "Yes," please give details:
Inclusive Dates
of Attendance

Institution
Academic Major
City

Pro©

State

i

.

n

- _ ..

_ i _ , .

‘

■.

To

Degree
earned, if any

.

It.

U.l.

R E S ID EN CE

We would Ilk* to

HISTORY

1957

*

1968

rftPC■WlfelBhsplt!

.about your experiences

residence at the
a. Starting vith j
eeapletlng bltfi school
tine you
list each of the places you have
lived •iM.e. tfeut.^lns.

b, What wi»tb aiid
year did you ■
to this placet

rpaeaber then for each place lived at
Do EOT include
f$r a aonth or
chaagte of houee. iiithlnitbe.
teen
or couaunlty.

(Residence at tins of high school)

(Mo.)

(City)
10

,

(P.O.)

(City)

(Ha.)

(Yr.)

e< Why did you nwret
0

': i ':,v '

Va are interested not duly Itf Why you
to leer*«.but *lsp wby you. chose t.Q„8 «
you did.

l———

.
t < i

you have friends
irrelatives living
liar near this place
(«r vho were tHullhf
afsoring here) at the
||| you Mrs cChsid|pfc.soring here!

514

1. On the whole, bO* Miah
would you say you becsae
involved in affairs and
activities In the local
comnunityf

Would you say it had:
IMnds
Xo

»

Relatives
Yes

No

a
najor
affectT

to a
consid­
affe^l; erable
i degreb

.little
sone
affect?

to a
■oderate
degree

to'
only a
slight
degree

a; Did sm
|3w Did you a
part!Ldpate
any friea
ships vlt
in anty local
orgarlisaother rea
dents whl
tioni(t
you canal
laportsn1
-

?.

not
at
ell

j■<.

1

t

Yes

* Yes

No

■ •

1V

'

•--

w
f*
i’-‘
j•

s'v*•
r^'v ■
"J
■t

La

>

f. looking hack over your socla:L partied nation vhile livlng
in this placet
" 1 :i:
-

e. If you had friends or
relatives living in or
near this plgtf, (or vho
were thinkis^r'af aovlng
here) how such do you
think that fact, affected
you* decision.to sore to
this placet

"1*‘■
71

1

tt I 7

B M P Ii.0 T M B * T

AHD

IB.C 0 MB

I 9 17 * -X 9 6 T.:

---------------------------------------,------------------ f--III.l. This question deals with your work experisncs and InfaoM otir the period alno* Maw; 1957»
0 L e e k e n r tb« tuition e a n l U U y to be i n n you
understand what to do, aad than fill in each
Motion, working across tbs gags*

INC

Li I H i iJl i t 1 *

a. YOUB BBBlDBBCBi

j
Mark in your residences, and draw vertical lines
between then Indicating the approximate date you
■ m 4 fron one to another. •(You nay; of course,
copy this infcreation fron the prevloua pegs).
•jwhen filled in, this section shows where yon
lived 1957-1967, and should help to plnpcjlnt
your Jobe during that ti*e.

b.

I

YOUB WOHK BBPBRIBBCKi
1. BULL-TXME BMPLOYMDTT. In this Motion nark
In the fjull-tlM Jobs yon have had (tell vhat
you did at your job), aad draw vertical lines
Indicating the approxiaate dates you began
and quit each fUll-tlM job.

• When filled in, this Motion shorn your
full-fciM enployaent 1957-1967.
2. PABT-Tiw EMPLOYIBgT. In this Motion nark
In the nart- t i M .lobs you have had (tell what
you did at your job), and draw vertical lines
Mndleatliig the approxiaate dates you began
and quit each part-tins Job.
• When filled la, this Motion shews all
psrt-tlns vark 1957-1967.

►
*

e. YOUH WIPB'S/HUBBAHD'S WORK KYPKRIBWCBl

(

Nark in the full-tlne Jobs your wife/husband
has had (tell vhat phe/he did at the Job), and
draw vertical 11ms Indicating the approxiaate
dates she/he began end quit each Job.
• When filled in, this section shews your
wife*s/husband's work experience 1957-1967.

I
■•— I— *-

d. YOUR BSTTMMTO TOTAL FANILY IBCQjg (HBTOBE TAXgB)i
tor your own; personal Inccas if not married)
Mark the box which represents the closest estimate
of pour faally/personal lncosn for the years Indi­
cated. (Do not include support from parents or
other'relatives). Looking over the Jobs held
during each year say help you In estimating your
Income.
• When filled In, this section shows your
estimated income 1957-1967.

V

19!

O Under
C D 2,900
t,000
B
5,<j00
6,000

, "

8 000

» ILLUSTRATION: THIS SHEET SHOHS AH EXAHPLE OF HOH TO FILL

IH PAGES

6 THRU 9 AND NAT BE DISCARDED AFTER USE.
:ii.

i K r i o i m n

n.i.

tio

— mi- frrtf

iicons

- 1967

1957

r-p

i»w»««

*<-—

A Look over the peat Ion earefhlly to bo tore jroo
MdorotMd Mot to to, > 1 ttH fill la each
tootloo. Burkina acroaa tho Ml.

iim

33
lit

la your raaldMcea, aad I n n vortical llaoi
botvooa
lalleatlaa the w n b a U data 70a
novod froa coo to aantbor. (Ton ay, of eourae,
eojy thla infonatioo
tba previous pact).

tbca

froa

• M m filled la, tbla 1001100 shove Mere yoa
livod 1957-1967, oad oboold hoi; to pinpoint
poor Jobs tortag that tiao.

imi

continued!)
T

1,21,1,
3 33 3 3 a,** 3 .3 3 3 ,3 3 3 Liiiii+Uiili 3 3 I U 3 , U S 3 H ,

mast

1*4326ttt<DRIVER

lU T,

prrawvAicu.

iMtfMXlN.
POMTIAC,

9

MlCfl

(AI0 ICKM

b.routHMKUFUfli
1.nu-HK u n arm*!, iathisoactiai—it

SAk VKC STATON ONR-

6A8MSE HGOUdlK

la tho fall-tlav Jobe yea horo bad (toll abot
ysa did at year Job), oad drav vortical Uom
lodlratlm tba approiciaata datoo you boom
aad pit oacb luiHlaa Job.

WHSMd V ttnK

MOTORS

• bba filled la, thla ooctloa oboao year
full-tiao e p l ^ a - t 1957-1967.

Hb«-Watt's GULF
s« n
snexne job top did .)

urumut.

2. P U M I *
Ia tbla ooctloa aark
la tho cart-tlao Jobo yea have bad (toll Mat
yoa did at year Job), aad dear vortical lines
ladleatlap tba ayproalMto datoo yoa tope
aad pit oacb yort-tlao Job,
• M m flllad la, tbla ooctloa obooa all
part-tlac vert 1957-1967.
bat W A T SFBCinC J O TOO DID.)
c. ram m r t / m m 1! m

tmtanact:

tit RSI

Mib la the
Joba year rifeZhusbead
baa had (tell Mat abo/ba did at tba Job), m d
d t » vortical llooo
tba oppedado
datM aha/bo bopa aad pit oacb Job.

I

• b h n filled la, tbla aactlca abova your
vtfe’o/hosbaDd’s vork veperieucs 1997-1967.

MRO H< sh tm .
(la an* to include

■•-I

only More abe/bo uorkad but M A T SPECIFIC JOB SHI

d. tan cnmao total ramur h c o m lagan t m s h
{or your oie& personal lucoao if not mrrlod)
Her* tba boa Mich lopooMta the cleaoat ovtlaatv
of year fnetly/peraoonl Ib c o m for tho yearm Indi­
cated. (Do act Include support froa pareota or
other relatives). Inching over tba Joba bald
M M a g oacb year — y help yoa la oatloatlag your
iaeoae.
flllad la, tbla aactloa above your
oattMtod laeoM 1957-1967.

• M

m

6

195*

t

8

I960

1959

□
Under *2,500
O P 2,500 - 3,999
□
1,000 - 1,999
C 3 5,000 - 5,999

□

Under
2.500
6,000
5,000

Q
□

6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999

□

6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999

8

6,000 - 10,000
Ovor *10,000

g

8,000

*2,500
- 3,999
- 1,999
- 5.999

-

10,000

Ortr *10,000

B
*

Under
2,500
1.000
5.000

O

6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999

S

*2,500
- 3,999
- 1,999
- 5,999

6,000 - 10,000

I— 1 Over *10,000

7

1961
(Mar
2,500
1,000
5,000

§
□
Q
Q
CD

*2,500
- 3,999
- 1,999
- 5,999

6,000 - 6,999
7,000 - 7,999
6,000 • 10,000
Over *10,000

CONTINUE

1MB «

iswt;

m

IBSfG!'!
M

A

:

1

.

to lneludo not only where you worked but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB YOU DID.)

■ure to lneludo not only where you worked but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB YOU DID.)

•uro to lneludo not only whoro ehe/be worked but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB SHE/HE DID.)
^ ■ 1 ■
1
■ ■ I ■ 1 . ■ *
i . . i
.

A

A

1

XXI.1 RNPLOYtOS AMD IRCOMI 1957-1967 (Cootinued)
\

4I

,V M T

^ W I * S *'■*f

1969<

1962

19M
u i

a. YOUB RRSIPRRCBl
(Continued)

t
b. YOUR WORK
~ «!■»»
(Continued)

1. PULL-TIMB
XNFLOYMWTl

2. PART-TIMt
KMPLOYMEHTi

e. YOUR U R ' S /
h u b b u b 's
WORK
BEFStlRHBIt

I
*

(Continued)

4-

V.

— *—

A.

1963

1962
A. YOUR BBTXMMRD
TOTAL FAMILY/
PKR90RU.

I

s

B

Under
2,500
b, 0 0 0
5,000

Under $2,500
- 3,999'
* , 0 0 0
- *.999
5 . 0 0 0
- 5i999

$2,500
- 3,999
- *,999
- 5*999

2 , 5 0 0

- 6,999
- 7*999
3.000 - 1 0 , 0 0 0
\ Oeer $10,000

6 . 0 0 0

6 . 0 0 0

(Continued)

- 6,999

T,000 - 7i£99

7 . 0 0 0

I

+

8.000 - 10,000
Orer $10,000

8

2^3322

1,'
ft.'.

1965
i l

1966

1967

ifkiLixstiii

ill,

0

.1 ,t i t , n -

re to lneludo not only vhoro you worked but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB YOU DID.)

re to lneludo not only vhoro you mrkod but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB YOU DID.)

ro to lneludo not only vhere oho/he mrkod but WHAT SPECIFIC JOB SHE/HE DID.)
- ■ * * ■ 1 ■ - 1 » * 1 - * ^ * * 1
JL
4-

V
1965
I

1966

1 Under $2 , 5 0 0

Under $2,500
2 , 5 0 0
- 3,999
1»,000 - h,999
5 . 0 0 0
- 5,999

C O 2,500 - 3,999

a
B

U , 0 0 0 - U,999
5,000 - 5,999

- 6,999
- 7,999
(ZD 0,000 - 10,000
t _I Over $10,000

—— y

— y ---

-

6 . 0 0 0
- 6,999
7,000 - 7,999

6 , 0 0 0

7 , 0 0 0

1967

B

Under $2,500
2 , 5 0 0 - 3,999
k,000 - i,999
5,000 - 5,999
6 , 0 0 0
7 , 0 0 0

- 6,999
- 7,999

I I 8,000 - 10,000

I

I8,000 - 10,000

I

I

I Over $10,000

I Over $10,000

9

m-inra-TtiMrna-Tnann

vaa*

M

In the period sine* high school, vhat have been the grMttit handicaps to getting ihNd!

•----------- nrar---------------

cTT^ri------------------- m t
■v
ii(•
-j-._■'
jT»'.
■^«• ■»„,
_ __ _c
?'./ |tr, ',
i

_

Looking book over tho period since high school, vhat would jrqu do differently if you had It to
ovor again!

Based on your experience since high school, vhat changes In content or In enphasls would you
recounted for rural high ;schools (such as the one you attended) to better prepare young people
for,the futureT

In general, have things turned out as you eqsctnd then to vtiile you were still In high school
f

I Things have turned out less veil than I expected
Things have turned out about as I expected
Things have turned out better than Z expected
Don't know

§

In general, how aneh education do you think a young person should have nowadays!
I— ~~1 Sons college
[ _ I Complete college
1 I Graduate or professional training

Sean high school
Collate high schobl
Business, vocational, or trade school

Hov nany hours did YOU wcjrk last week outside the hone!
bO - 90 hours
More than 90 hours

Dons, but less than 19 hours
19 - 30 hours
30 - bo hours
1, Is your work seasonal!

1

I Yes

I J Ho

Sons people would like to work nare hours per week if they could get paid for It. Others veul
prefer to work fewer hours a week even if they earned less. Hbat would yen do If yon eouldT
i
1

» Work aore hours

O

Work less hours

i

» Don't knew

. Why do you say this!____________________________________ _______

Vhat was your approxiaate family Inooan (personal lneone. If unmarried) last nonth!
1. Mae last nonth a typical nonth!

I

I Yes

>

I Ho

2. Haw would you eonpare your lneone to vhat It was a year ago!

___
I I It Is higher now
L_J It Is lower now
i i It la about the sans n

£ Answer Qsontt.eas 1* J* *• and l,lf you are usually sepJ.oyadpsrt- or full-tiws.
1. Hour do you uwiiUy go about looking for a Jobt

(Check as nany os opply)

Cboek tho newspaper
Oat loads froa frlsads and relatives
Oo to tbs union

SB

Go to
Oo to
Go to
Other

tbs public u p l o j n m t office
a.private ewplcor— ht, offles
enployers dlrsatly
(spsoify)

!• Writs tho lottsr of tho post useful:
J. How surs srs you that you bars identified tho kind of Job you want to safcs your Ufa's work?
I I Vary surs

I

I Fairly sura

r~~l Unsars

k. What faaturas do you think srs important in a JobT
A
B
C
D
B
F

Freedoe of behavior
I I Chance for advanceaent
L j Friendship with fallow employees
Powerand authority
L^J Intsllactual challenge
f i Prestige and respect

.a
H
I
J
K
L
H

-1

(Cbsok as nany as apply)

**®W
(''“l Sscurity
Q
Public recognition
Benefit to huaanity......
I , I Enjoyasnt of tha work
i i H a s to enjoy syself
^ 3 Other (specify)

1. Writs tha lattsr of tha aost 1sportant:
1

. K m ysars froa now what Job do you sxpact you will hawaT

iv.

zv.l.

your

coMoim

avd partxcxpatioh

Ws- Vggd like to laarn about your partioipation, if any. In oraanlaatioos and in political affhlrsi

a. What kinds of clubs, associations, unions, church groups, or othar organisations, If any, do you
participate InT
Naas of .
Organisation

Do.you
Are you a Are you, or here yon 1Do your i Do your
(KLATIVBS
attsnd . nesber of a srsr been, an officer [f h u n o g
aeetlngsT eoaalttaoT
beloncT
!Ycs 1 No I Yes 1 No
Yes
NO

1.
'

2.
3.

-■

-

b.
5.
6

.

11

i

b. Other then organisations {be U n t ’
l oH^ CO t W fHnrlolil {Kfi), ribt other kinds Of
do yoa engage in during your fro* tint
•’

'i ;

• f-

c. Are you • registered voter?

a--.

1

j* j

I Yes

i ;<: ; .

o S

l~~l Ho '

d. Did you vote in tho loot presidential eleetian (19<»W)T
o. Have you voted lot

>■

1. Ststo olootlonst

r

i 'l Yes

I Regularly

2* City or loosi sloetlons sod referenduns?

i

___
f~~~1 Regularly

f • Bare you ertr aetirely participated In a political party?

l:’ I Bo

I Constines

l Sever

___
i H Sonatinae

L n Yes

I

g. Have you ever held, or are you now holding, a political or civic office?
1. If "Yes," please nans the positions or offices:

l

"' ~

I BO
I 1 Yes

■

h. Has the aaount of your oosaamlty participation varied greatly? That Is,
was there erer a. tins. In the last 1 0 ytara that you participated a great
deal acre or a great deal less than you do at the present tins?

r*~l Set

P H B<

■ 1'' '

_
1— IYes

_
I I B<

1* If "Yes," vhy do you feel you participated differently then?

2. Were you living then in the sane eonmmlty that you are living In now?

i

i Yes

I*”*!

If.2. Ms would like to learn of the facilities and servloes In your cossainltr:
a. Belov Is a list of facilities aad services often found In coasunitles.
you and/of your fahlly iiee eaehi.......

ft•eueney.ofisee

Hot avail­
able here

Facility or aervloe

Plaase cheek hov often

a«nr

seldon

sonetinet

- often :i w n r i

•
«

B. Haataura Its ■
.
C|
ni

•I'l.-n- •
1

• •

t.

.

i
'

<■

SnianS it Mmeffi'
k. Day!eare services
14 Health e lnios
h *Ifare lenartnent :
M. Church

--£-

1

'

:
,1

0

. Moris thoatwe

.
i

^

i
f'T

:

Lm £L

1. Write the letters of those you consider n o ^ Igggrtant:

12

First: _____ Second: _ _ _

Third!

b. Have yon lad contact vlth goe'qr acrcaoamiiitrsgtaaleslatbe.DeSttvo yaafst
1

. If

With vhat agency have you hud thu most eontuetf

2

. Did you netlv* uld or uuuistoueu froa this ageneyt
a. If "Yes"i

>

m

m

'

«

^
1

Vhat exaotly did this a|iMy do fCfrvout

Tub

'

1

I ho

-l

. - ■--J: - --

b. Did you foul that thu service of this agency was difficult to get?

'"■'■" --■

f*~*l res

I

I Bo

Kxplaln:
":ci

3.

^ * \ i-'■■

*> h

^

• •=■::

■ -a

Wu would llhu to know your opinion* conoernlne rour jjrtiuit adtuditr*

u. Bolov la u aorloa of statements that axpraaa ntrloui opinions about any given coaminity. Road oaeh
statement carefully and quickly bheoh the ooluan to the rlghtvklehnost nearly represents your own
personal belief about tha ooeennltr in o£ near which you llroi

Statenents

Strongly
agree

Agree

Uhdecldsd

Disagree
• J •

1. Anything of a progresalve nature Is
generally approved*
2. With few exceptlone tha leaders are
capable and ambitious.
3* It la difficult for the people to
gat together an anything*
U. The people* as a whole* ulnd their
own business*' ■
5* The future of the community
looks bright.
6

. Mo one seems to care how the community
looks*

7* It will never eeem like
home to me*
8

9

. Not much can be said for' a place
this alee.
. The community la not located In
a very desirable place.

10. Few If any of the neighboring towns
are able to.surpass It.
11* People have to do without adequate
shopping facilities.
12. Persons with real-ebllity are
usually given recognition.

b. What do you think people In your community need nostf
1. How do you think they should go about getting thisT

■

I

Strongly
disagree

';r :!0*

XV.*. 1W> wouldllhs tokaov »c«tfclai of your relations
i ; 'AUttt

tWIHilil'
W 9 liVfib your present community do you think you would recognise toy
If you saw then in a large erovdT
•.•••.>s *,,•
• ;• •

CD

Almost nil

C D »hny

CD

C D Vary fov

Sam

C D **»a

D. About how oftsn would you soar you chat or visit with your netflfUidreT...

CD

Very ofton

I i Oftsn

i i Sometimes

I i Seldom

e. Oo you or your atltfibors erer tske cere of eeeh
other's family when you or-tbey~sra slckor tounyT.
1. If

C

f~~l Hewer
__
C D ho

Xus

about how oftsn doss this ocourT

C D Vary oftsn

C D Oftsn

C D

Sometimes , C D Seldom

d. Do you and your neighbors ewer talk over problems with each other?

I

I Yes

I

I Ho

1. If "Yes," about how often doss this occur?
n

Very oftsn

H T Often

1 1 Sometimes

e. Do you have-relatives who are living In this v
community, but who are not living with you? !

I

I Yes

I I Seldom

(

i Ho

...

1. If "Yes," about hew often do you visit with then?
I
IV,5.

I Very often

I

1 Often

I

I Sometimes

~
I I Seldom

H^gj£j2Q!£!LiSJCSS£^SHtiSLS&SSM&IJSS!££UlSLSLS!i9LS!9L&CS&JQKJ&9!iSL

a. Would you like to move to some other place?

I

I Yes

1

I Ho

C D DOO*t know

1. tf "Yes,* where would you like to move?

(neighborhood, city, state, ete.J
2. What would toe better there? ___________________________

3. Why would you like to move away from here (present community)?

b. is there anybody you would miss so mich that you would
prefir not to move away from your present community?

_____

i i Yes

1. If "Yes," would you leave anyvuy If you had a good lob opportunity?

'

C D Ho
I > Yei

c. Which of the following best Indicates the kind of couinlty you would most prefer to live 1

L__J On a farm In the open country
In the open country but not on a farm
In a village under 2,500 people
m a town or city of 2,300 to 10,000
In a city of 10,000 to 100,000
InM'dtyovsri0O,00O
In a suburb outside a large city
Ih

&
0Dap«dini oo where you presently lin, u n n r tho questions in tlw appropriate colnsn belovi
PERSONS MOW LIVING OUTSIDE ONTONAGON COUNTY

PERSONS MOW LIVING WiTHIM ONTONAGON COUNTY

O

d. Haw would you setlasts tho obanoe that you
will m h out,of Ontonoflon CountyT
1

I

d. How would you estimate the chance that you
will aore baek to Qstoangon County?
I

I Better than 755
5 0
to 755
About 50-50
25 to 505
I Less than 255

I

a. During the past twalra months* how often
did you vialt relatives in Ontonagon
County?

Durlnc tho past twelve months *rhow oftoa
did you visit nlatimi outaid* Ontonagon
Countyf

I I Mora than onoa
C D Once
lot at all
Mo ralatiraa living’outaide tha
county

More than once
Onoa
E C Mot at all
I I Mo relatives living there

f. During tha past twelve months, how oftan
did you visit friends in Ontonagon County?

f. During tha pant twelve months, how oftan
did you visit frlanda outaIda Ontonagon
Ceuntyt

I I Mere than ones
Onca

Mora than onoa
Onoa
Mot at all
Mo frlanda living outslda tha
eounty

Not at all

Mo friends living there

g. Do you eubaerlba to tha ONTONAGON HERALD?
C D Taa

I Better than 755
5 0
tor 755
About 50-50
25 to 505
I Leas than 255

g. Do you subscribe to tha ONTONAOON HERALD?

C ] Tea

E C Mo

C D >o

h. Overall* how would you describe your ties
to the Ontonagon County area?

h. Overall, how would you daacriba your ties
to tha Ontonagon County area?

I I Very. strong
Moderately strong
Average

I

1 Vary atrong
Moderately strong
Average
C D Moderately weak
t i Little or no tlaa at all

B

Moderately weak

m

Little or no ties at. all

'IF YOU ARB PRESENTLY AM ONTONAGON COUNTY RESIDENT, BUT LIVED AWAY PROM ONTONAGON COUNTY FOR A MONTH OR
MORE ANY TIME SINCE 1957* ANSWER THE QUESTIONS OM PAGES 16 - 19. ALL OTHERS SHOULD PROCEED TO PAGE 20.

15

Answer the questions on pages 16, 17, 18, aad 19 only if you ara now living in Ontonagon County and
llvad away from tba area for a period of one nonth or noire nonetinn since Mty 195T • ALL OTHERS
SHOULD PROCEED TO PACE 20.
.
,
.
........
,v.

r•
V.

RETURNING TO ONTONAGON COUNTY

V.l. RETURNING TO ONVOHAGOV COUNTYt Sons of your classmates moved away after high iobbol, sltber to oth
rural areas or to' cities', and have since returned to live in Ontonagon County. Thsre sre many rtas
wby people leave and then return to their original| oriiannlty. Us are Interested In why you returns
a. Below is a series of statements which express various reasons given by people for novfbg away a
tben returning. Read eaOh statementcarefully and quickly check the celuan to the right which
nearly represents its importance as a reason for your returning to Gmtonagen County. ■
'
Importance as a reason for ay returning
.Statements
Great
importance

1

.

1

Rome
importance

Do
A little
importan
importance or doesn
fppiy

like the climate here.

2. I felt I could make a better living here.
. X like.the outdoor recreational opporttthitles such as hunting and fishing.
. I couldn't find the specific type of work
■* I like elsewhere'.

.

_ X enjoy being near, ey relatives end wanted
to remain close to them.
£ I had no special reason for returning,
it wm* Just happepstapes.
X felt this is a good place to enjoy being
7. a member of adult organisations like Vet­
erans, PTA, church or women's clubs.
a

X felt I wanted to return aad enter
another' line of work.

It seemed others were prejudiced against
y* me, I Just didn't fitin.
0

-y\

I found I Just didn't like the city
* (or other arthe).

/"

I felt the children could get a good
education here.
1 9

Finding a Job in the other placets)
■ was difficult.

x didn't have enough education to get
anywhere in the city.
I Just wanted a change of scenery and
lfe. the chence to travel, or to work in
different nlaces before settling down.
CONTINUED OH THE FOLLOWING PAGE I

16

Zkporlianee as a'restilon f o r m rrstu rn ln g

RETURNING ID ONTONAGON (XXJNTT-(Ce«»tinued)

GTeat
iaportanee

importance

I felt the people in the other places
wore U m Friendly.
m u « ay p M m t location in Ontonagon
16. has a lot Of dliadnnt^BM, other 3
t nlnees I had lived seeded even worse.
Ml~TT.....
1

S

>

,

'

'

I

•‘"y '

No
importan
or doesn
_*FPly

A little
importance

*'•
'

i

;

-

\

•

1

r,

17. I wanted to raise ay feimlly here.

'

,

*

While the people in other areas sssjmed
10« friendly enough, I Just didn't feel
comfortable with then. 1
.

1Q

*

' -> -

I found I didn't have enough vocational
training for the Job I would have liked.

2 0
*

e

I felt ay parents would like to have
aw near them.

t
I think, all in all, the cost of living
is lower here.

9 1

I feel I have ware say in ay own and/or
* cawnanlty life.

2 2

t

1

'

This is a good place to have fun with people
your own age.

2 3

9l

,
-

*

There was * specific Job here that I wanted
* to look into.

■■

25. Hr career pjlaae changed.
\
2

£

2 7

felt It was a good place to find soasone
* I would like to marry.
1

1

*;-

>

I went away to attend (college, work
training or military duty)'

„a I feel that here I can show mere initiative
* in things I do.
2 0

Life just wasn't very interesting to as
in the other area(s).

1

After a while I became rather lonely for the
* people I had known here.
There are mere opportunities here for
31. such things as visiting, going to novies,
sports or other social activities.
3 0

This is a good place for me to engage in the
* kind of work I want to do.

~ 2

3 3

31

I felt .I had to return to help support
* parents or relatives.
•'
•

, Life seemed mere interesting to sat here
* than anywhere else I had been.

f

CONTINUED ON TUB FOLLOWING PACK

17

fwrahrnxBci,®o oaroMAQOH

coubti

' -v

^

1 ’

^
!

t,.J..lgp«rtnaeo.’.!ts,areeaonfosv ay :*e*

(continual)
^

Qreat
Bone
A little
iaportanoe iaportanee iaportanee

!

;

;’
i1

j I feel like I an a person of nore
j iaportance [in this eoMnmity.

■■ L - :

i*

.

: **.x
'■■: y•
•‘
.“V :•*-

I prefer the kind of residential housing
] in a snail jeeamnlty.

.
* -

■

•’<

*

* 4 -i*

37 I Just asshned I would [always cone [back
1 and after 4 while I did*
j
t ■ * , ..,•••
*

a

3 0

j . »

.•

'

. Hr (husband) (wife) had been urging that
we return here.

. ■,

\■

A (nan)(wonan) is nore (hls)(her) own
^ boss here.
; X like to dive in a snaller else coaminity
* where there Is ple&ty of space and ;Scenery.
i

'

bl. X felt a lock of security in other area(s).
b2. X don't like city traffic and counting.
;

■

i

I

’X had always wanted to be away fron ay
**3. parents and conaunity for a while after
'high school.

. .

,

. .. •

..

' -

X decided to sacrifice soar potential lneone
* in order to live here.
b5. This has altays seeasd like hone to aw.

b. In i M m l , which of the reasons you bar* indicated abort do you consider the aoat i»>orti
returning to Ontonagon Countyf

Write tba nuabers of tba three aoat iaportant reasons* First*

: . Second!

Third:

Those stateaents listed abore are* of coarse, only sons of the possible reasons for retin
1* What other reasons, if any, did you bare for returningf

(Please discuss)

e. Which of the fallowing eoUbinstiane best describes your situation at the tine you first li
Ontonagon County subsequent to May 195TI
........
(Check one)
i
i

(Cheek .one)

i I left for a specific purpose or
purposes
i X left far unspacific or rather
gsneral reasons

.
I

18

thought I would retprn one
did not th'tnk; it was lltpia
I would return...
....
I didn't really know whether
return or not*

d. Many people who haw* left an a n a and tbCareturned bewahed alellar CW^l e ed ed ^
dUA
to learn of tha experiences yon b a n had. Check tho oolnan which boat repreaenta tha aaount of
your agreement or disagreement with each statement aa it applies to your experience:

Il
m
1
s

BoawMiat
"iSSgir
agree
agree

Statements

1. X liked it« generally. In tha other
placets).

Somewhat
disagree

Strongly
dieagrea

.* ■■■•.:
;

2. I found I really preferred the kind of
living hare.

»V

v j
-.i
,

3. Tha other plaee(a) had little to do with
ajr returning.
4. I waa rather unaura how successful I
would be in tha other placa(a).
5

6

.

really had little preference one way
or the other for the other placets).
1

. 1 fait I bad to return for certain
obligatory reasons.

7. I didn't particularly like the other
placets).
8

. It ia just ehanee circumstance that I
happen to be hare.

Ha would like to know something of your own, your fanHy'a, and your community'» expectations at the
tine you first left Ontonagon County to live elsewhere:
(Complete the aentanea)
1.

2

[— 1 expected that I would aettle down la thin ci:«nnlty.
expected that I would aattla down aoeevhere elaa.
really didn't know whathar I would nttle here or elaawhare.

I

expected that I would aattla down, la thla eoaaunlty.
expected that I would aattla down sowanihert elaa.
f .. 1 waan't nueh ooneemad where I Battled.

. Hr family

3.

t.

diaeuaaad where I would aettle and, we
diaeuaaad where I would aettle and1we
f 1 diaeuaaed where I would aettle but we
particular conclusion.
I 1 did not dlacusa tha natter of where I

Hf family and I

Othera In tha c

ity

were in agreeneut.
were in disagreement.
newer reached any
would cattle.

(__j expected that I would aattla down in thla coaaunity.
I i expected that I would aattla down somewhere elaa.
weren't much concerned where I wattled,
don't know

PROCEED TO THE IAST PAQE

19

^

ALL PERSONS-SHOULD AWVBL n»«iB B izai8 ok m s rmb* --,.v"T : .

VX.l «.

i •

,

•' vi.pibcubcigh

n*o to harp ycur thouahto about tho (hit'-fl-- <l"— t*

,

*• » 1**1171 V 11—

a. How would you fool If your ehlldron woro to owontuolly oottlo In Ontonagon County? :.■<
I 1 Vory plooood
L J 8o— what plooood
L^j- lodlfforoat
i » 8oaowtiat displeased
1 1 Vory displooood
1. Why would you fool that wayt _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

b. If you woro advising a high oehool otudont now onrollod In oohool In Ontonagon County, what ad
would you giro hla regarding staying or wring t w y subsequent to bio eeaplotlng high oahool?

VI.2

Wbatwo boro tried to do in this questionnaire io to got ao accurate and eanplete a picture ao
of your present situation and your eqperieneee oinca high oehooi.
Ao you look book oror thooo pages, reflecting on your experience In tho pact ton years, please
ooae Judgnont as to how adequate a pleturo is given by thlo questionnaire. Tho space bolov lo
ridod for you to dloeuna thooo aopoeto you fool wo should bo aero fully avaro of to understand
experience oad what It has aoant. Ploaoo fool ftoo to dlocuon otty aonoet you wish.

• THAMK YOU VERY MUCH *

20