71-31,312 STEAD, Ronald Stanley, 1932AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNIVERSITY GOAL PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS, FACULTY, ADMINISTRATORS, AND TRUSTEES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1971 Education, higher U niversity M icrofilms, A XEROX Com pany , A nn Arbor, M ichigan AN ANALYSIS OF THE UNIVERSITY G O A L P E RCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS, FACULTY, ADMINISTRATORS, A ND T R U S T E E S A T M I C H I G A N S T A T E UNIVERSITY By R onald Stanley Stead A THESIS Submitted to M i c h i g a n S t a t e University in partial fulfillment of the r e q u i rement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1971 PLEASE NOTE: Some pages have small and indistinct type. Filmed as received* University Microfilms ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF TH E UNIVERSITY GOAL PERCEPTIONS AND PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS, FACULTY, ADMINISTRATORS AND TRUSTEES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Ronald Stanley Stead The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the perceptions and preferences of undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, adminis­ trators, and trustees on possible goals for Michigan State University. The goals were specific in nature and were related to the functional problems of a social system. A questionnaire containing fifty-two goal items was mailed in February of 1971 to 186 subjects represent­ ing the five groups. Sixty-eight per cent of the responses were u s e a b l e for the statistical phase of the study. The instrument was a slightly modified version of that used in a study authored by Edward Gross and Paul Grainbsch under the title, University Goals and Academic P o w e r , Washington, D. C . , American Council on Education, 1968. The respondent was asked to rate the importance of each goal on the basis of ( ) how important he perceived it to be, and 1 important he preferred it to be. ( ) how 2 Ronald Stanley Stead It was hypothesized that there w o u l d b e differ­ ences between the groups on the goal categories o f a d a p ­ tation, pattern - m a i n tenance, tension management, gration. The trustees rated all of the goal cat e g o r i e s as being more important than did the other four cyronps a statistical method used was repeated measures variance. and inte­ The analysis of There were no interaction effects b e t w e e n groups and goals. Adaptation goals were rated significantly more important than the other three goal classifications.. The tension management, pattern-maintenance, and integration goals were not significantly different from each Across group comparisons of g o a l s were other.. made b y ranking the goals in each group on the basis of perceptions and preferences. Two goals among the top ten ceived goals of each group were common to all ranted per­ groups i ( ) obtain faculty and staff w h o are competent in their 1 area of special training, and ( ) seek the 2 favorable a p ­ praisal of those who validate the quality of programs, There were also two preferred goals that each, group ranked in their top ten goals % ( ) obtain a competent 1 faculty and staff, and ( ) protect and facilitate the stu­ 2 dents 9 right to investigate and examine criticall-y any program. The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was used to assess within group congruence be t w e e n perceived Ronald Stanley Stead and preferred goals, graduate students The faculty, administrators, and (in order) displayed the greatest harmony between their perceptions of the Univ e r s i t y 0s goals and what they believed the goals should be. The undergraduate stu­ dents and the trustees reflected the greatest dissonance be­ tween their perceived and preferred goal rankings. T hirteen goals in the questionnaire were related to the expected qualities of a graduate of Michigan State. Six of these goals tended to be in the top t h i r d , five in the middle third and two in the lower third of the fiftytwo preferred goals ranked by the groups. On the question of an "open" versus a "selective" admissions policy, the trustees favor the former more than do the other groups. ferred goals. It was ranked 13th among their pre­ Wi t h this exception, all groups rank both admissions goals r e l atively low among their preferred goals. The following conclusions were reached! (1) there does seem to be a relationship between an individual's hierarchial position in the University organization and his attitudes about its goals, should be given greater tice, ( ) the groups felt that the goal 2 emphasis than was the case in prac­ (3) "means" as well as "ends" goals are important to all of the groups, and (4) while there were differences be- tween the groups on goal preferences, there was also con­ siderable agreement w i t h regard to what the U n i versity s 3 goals should be. ACKHOWIEDGMENTS The a d a g e t h a t "no man applicable with Ma n y people, respect t o the stands alone" i s c ertainly achievement of this study. diirectly or incdirectly, have contributed to I am gratef ul to the members of my this effort. Guidance Committee for their willingrxess t o s e r v e in this capacity. They are Dr. Richard F eafcher stone Dr, Walter Johnson., and Dr. J a m e s McKee. A s p e c i a l "fcharrlcs0® is extended Dr, Eldon Nonnamaker, my Chairman ive in ma n y w a y s during the who has course o f this Dr, Fr e d Ignatovich , Department 5 and Higher Education, Consultation, have and methodology and Mr, Jim both toeen. very Maas, endeavor. of Administration Office of Research I am Dr. Edward G r o s s and Dr, Paul Grarxibsch for to use portions instrument. their been support­ helpful in the planning phases o f the stucdy, of to indebted to permitting me Also ^ I would cer­ tainly be n e g l i g e n t i f I died not acknowledge that the data could not h a v e been collected without the cooperation of the respondents . M y most sustainecd helpers of m y family w h o have have h e e n the members macde n u m erous sacrifices during this endeavor. Gary, T o m y wife, Joan, and my sons, Doug and I want to express m y deepest appreciation and love. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page v i LIST OF T A B L E S ........... ........................ vixi LIST OF F I G U R E S ......................... .. Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . o . . . . . . . . . ® The Importance of Higher Education GOalS . 0 . 0 . . . . 0 . 9 O The Theoretical Base for this StUdy 0 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 . 0 . O The Purpose of the Study . . . . . H y potheses o c o a o . o . o . . Questions . . . o o e o . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . Limitations of the Study . . . . . Organization of the Study . . . . II. REVIEW OF T H E LITERATURE 5 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 . . . . . . 18 25 The Need for Defining Goals . . « What Goals? . . . . . . . . . . . Recent Research on Higher Education GOalS . . . . . o o . e . e « Social Systems Analysis . . . . . 111. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . The Populations in the Study Samples . . . . The Instrument . . . . . . . Collection of Data . . . . Processing the Data . . . . Hypotheses . . . . .. Analysis of Data . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 47 54 . o 0 o © 0 0 0 0 54 55 57 59 6 2 63 64 65 Chapter IV. Page ANALYSIS OF D A T A ............. ............ 6 6 Hypotheses Findings . Summary of Hypotheses Findings . . . Across Group Comparisons of Perceived Goals . . . . . . . . . Across Group Comparisons of Preferred Goals . .. . » . • ® » Within Group Analysis ofGoals , . . Summary of Within G r o u p Congruence . Student-Centered Output G o a l s . . . . Attitudes on A d m i s s i o n s , „. . * . Other G o a l s Suggested By Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. SUMMARY AMD CONCLUSIONS . . . ... 82 8 8 95 120 121 125 129 138 140 Conclusions . . . , •. , . . . . . Implications for Future R e s e a r c h . , Concluding Statement ., . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY 67 74 145 147 149 .................. . . 150 APPENDICES A. THE QUESTIONNAIRE B„ COVER LETTER T O UNDERGRADUATE AMD GRADUATE STUDENTS, F A C U L T Y , AND ADMINISTRATORS „ . C. ............. COVER LETTER T O T R U S T E E S .. . . . . , . , 155 . 160 ... 161 LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1. 4.1. Page Rate of Response to the Questionnaire . .................. 61 Summary of Analysis of Variance on Groups , G o a l s , and Inter­ action O O . e . O O O . » 08 0 , ® » 4.2. Post Hoc Comparison (Groups) . . . . . 71 4.3. Post Hoc Comparisons , . . . . 73 4.4. Goal Rankings of Undergraduate and Graduate Students, Faculty, Administrators, and Trustees . . . . 75 Highest Ranked Goals of UnderGraduate Students ........... 96 Lowest Ranked Goals of UnderGraduate Students . . . . . . . . . 98 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9. (Goals) Highest Ranked Goals of Graduate Students ............. 102 Lowest Ranked Goals of Graduate ................ Students . . . . . . 104 Highest Ranked Goals of Faculty 106 4.10. Lowest Ranked Goals of Faculty 4.11. Highest Ranked Goals of Administrators 4.12. . . . . . . . .............. Lowest Ranked Goals of Administrators . 4.12. Highest Ranked Goals of Trustees 4.13. Lowest Ranked Goals of Trustees vi 107 . . » . . . . . 109 Ill 114 118 Page Table 4.15. 4.16. 4.17. Relationship Between All Perceived and Preferred Goal Rankings Within Groups . . a . . 121 Rankings of Student-Centered Goals ................ (Preferred) . . . . . 122 . . . 127 Group Rankings of Admission Goals vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 4.1 4.2 Page Imperative Functions of Social ................................ Systems Graphic Representation of Group .................. Effects 7 69 Graphic Representation of Goal E f f e c t s ................................... 70 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Importance of Higher Education Goals What are the contemporary goals of American higher education? What should be its goals? To what extent do— or should— goals differ between types of in­ stitutions, i ® e a , public versus private, college versus university, two-year versus four-year, non-sectarian? sectarian versus What is an effective process for a col­ lege or university to follow in the development of goals? How is the performance of an institution measured rel­ ative to the goals it has set for itself? These and m a n y other questions related to the issue of goals for higher education are of vital concern not only to professional educators but increasingly to the general public as w e l l . Meeting The Fiftieth Anniversary (1967) of the American Council on Education, a major coordinating body for higher education, was devoted to the topic of higher education g o a l s . In 1969, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences formed an Assembly on University Goals and Governance. In its first report, the Assembly voiced the need for contemporary higher 2 education to re-examine its goals; An academic system that was forged in the latter decades of the nineteenth century, came to maturity in the 1920®s and 1930®s, and was remarkably uncrit­ ical of itself in the 1950®s and early 1960®s when it grew to unprecedented dimensions, is now required to rethink its fundamental orientations® Robert M. Hutchins, former President of the University of Chicago and a long-time critic of American higher education, asserts that the major problem facing universities Hutchins, is a lack of clear purpose® According to "Until you can have some rational conception of what a u n i versity is® ® ® you®ve got to expect not merely peculiar attitudes of the public but the dissatisfaction of the students ®" In the development of this study, the writer is expressing basic agreement with the above view of Hutchins and others who advocate the need for universities to define their goals® It does not seem likely that higher education can secure and maintain the support of the public, a necessity for effective performance, if it can not articulate clearly defined goals, particularly at the level of the individual institution® The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, First Report, The Assembly on University Goals and G o v e r n a n c e . (Cambridge, Massachusetts; The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1971), p® 41® 2 Philip W. Sernas, "U«S, Universities Don®t Know What They®re Doing or Why, Robert M® Hutchins Says," Chronicle of Higher E ducation, March 9, 1970, pp. 5-6. 3 Organization theorists also provide a rationale for identifying goals * For example., Etzioni indicates that organizations are "social units (or human groupings) deliberately constructed and reconstructed to seek specific g o a l s , " 1 He suggests that organizational goals serve these purposesi ( ) they provide orientation by 1 depicting a future state of affairs which the organi­ zation attempts to r e a l i z e , ( ) they set guidelines for 2 organization activity, (3) goals constitute a source of legitimacy w h i c h justifies not only the activities but also the existence of the organization, (4) goals serve as standards by w h i c h members of an organization and out­ siders can assess the performance of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , and (5) goals also serve as measuring rods for the student of organizations who is interested in determining how well the organization is performing. Viewing an organization from the perspective of social systems analysis , Thompson and McEwen stress both the importance and complexity of organization goal set­ tings Because the setting of goals is essentially a p roblem of defining desired relationships between an organ­ ization and its environment, change in either 1Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys Prentice-Hall Inc., 1964), p. 3. 2 Ibid., p. 5. 4 requires review and perhaps alteration of goals. Even w h ere the most abstract statement of goals r e ­ mains constant? application requires re-definition or interpretation as changes occur in the organ­ ization? the environment or b o t h . 1 Accordingly? the above authors emphasize that "reappraisal of goals thus appears to be a recurrent problem for large organization? albeit a more constant problem in an unstable environment than in a stable o n e . T h i s view certainly has implications for the contempory university for who could deny that our society is changing at a rapid pace. In the application of social systems analysis to a university? what are the implications for goal-setting? Thompson and McEwen simply aclmowledge that it is a dif­ ficult processs "The University perhaps has even greater difficulties in evaluating its environmental situation through response to its output. Its range of 8 products 9 is enormous? extending from astronomers to z o o l o g i s t s ." Further complexities in the assessment of goal achieve­ ment in a university? according to these writers? ares ( ) that different standards are used to judge "educated" 1 1James D. Thompson and William J, McEwen? "Organ­ izational Goals and Environments Goal-Setting as an Interaction Process?" American Sociological R e v i e w ? XXIII (February? 1958)? 23. 2 I b i d .? p o 24. ^Ibid. 5 people, ( ) vocational performance is only one of several 2 outcomes, and ( ) the test of a competent specialist is 3 1 not always standardized. It seems clear that there is a sound rationale for a university, as an organization or social system, to develop goals for its activities. A recent report en­ titled The Crisis of Purposes Definition and Uses of Institutional Goals m a y veil define the urgency of the problem. As Peterson, the author, notess In attempting to accommodate new demands, academic communities have been left divided and demoralized as perhaps never before. Prospects for common understandings about the role of the university in American life seem hopelessly distant. This dilemma and the staggering events of the Spring of 1970 . . . have propelled the academic community into an unprec­ edented 'crisis of purpose.' The Theoretical Base For This Study This study will be partially based on the theories of Talcott Parsons, a sociologist. The social systems theory of Parsons designates the functional prob­ lems of any system, an organization, a model w h i c h can be used to analyze such as a university, as a system. The "functional imperatives" (or problems) as identified by ^Ibid. 2 . • . Richard E. Peterson, The Crisis of P u r p o s e ! Definition and Uses of Institutional Goals, (Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education, October, 1970), p. 1. 6 Parsons, can be explained as follows: These four functional problems arise from two fundamental dilemmas of human existence. First, every system consists of a plurality of units, and functions in relation to an environment defined as external to it. One dilemma is whether to give priority to the solution of the problems of coexistance of the units, or to the problem of opti­ mizing the relation to the environmnet. A funda­ mental postulate of the Parsonian view is that no amount of attention to the problems of co-existence will, by itself, solve the problems of relations w i t h the environment, or vice versa. A second dilemma concerns the assignment of priority between continuity and stability over time, on the one hand, and direct, immediate gratification, or consummation, on the other. Cross-classified these dilemmas define the four functional imperatives. These "imperatives" are defined as a d a p t a t i o n , g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t , pattern-maintenance and tension manage­ ment , and integration (see Figure 1.). Adaptation refers to the need for a social system to develop and maintain a satisfactory relationship with the external environment for the purpose of ensuring the acquisition of the resources necessary for the system to function. The system can manipulate both itself and the environment in the process of resolving the problem of 2 adaptation. R. Jean Hills, Toward a Science of Organization (Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educa­ tional Administration, University of Oregon Press, 1968), p . 19 . . 2 Edward C. Devereux, Jr., " P a r s o n s ’ Sociological Theory," The Social Theories of Talcott P a r s o n s , e d . Max Blade, (Englewood Cliffs, Ne w Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1961), p . 56. 7 Continuity and Stability Over Time INSTRUMENTAL Adaptation Continuity and stability over time in rela­ tion to envi­ ronment . Relation to Environment EXTERNAL Tension Management— Pattern Maintenance Co-existance of Units INTERNAL Figure 1. Continuity and stability over time in rela­ tions among units. Immediate Gratification CONSUMMATORY Goal-Attainment Gratification in relation to envi­ ronment , Integration Gratification in relations among units. Imperative Functions of Social Systems^ The second external problem of a social system is known as G o a 1 At ha i n m e n t . In this case, the system faces the need to satisfy the external environment through the achievement of its defined goals or output. 2 Tension Management involves the internal problem of motivating the individuals or units in the system to This illustration was adapted from Hills, Toward a Science of Organization, p. 21. ^ Ib i d . , p . 20. 8 perform their designated roles for system functioning. Failure to gain and sustain the commitment of the individuals or units -will result m system dysfunction. 1 Another internal problem of a system is that of Pattern M a i n t e n a n c e . Devereux describes the problem ass . . , essentially that faced by an actor in recon­ ciling the various norms and demands imposed by his participation in any particular social system with those of other systems in w h i c h he also participates, or w i t h the more general norms of the broader culture. If there is serious role conflict or normative inco m p a t a b i l i t y , the system will suffer the conse­ quences . Integration is another internal problem— that of keeping the individuals and units of the system working in a harmonious, cohesive relationship in order to facil- itate system functioning. According to this model, the normal "output" goals of a university, often given the general classifi­ cation of teaching, research, and public service, can be achieved in an optimum manner only if the university, as a social system, lems. can resolve the other functional prob­ Therefore, there are certain problems that must be resolved in order for an organization to effectively pursue its "output" goals. 1 Devereux, Parsons* ^Ibid . 3 Ibid. Sociological T h e o r y , p. 57. 9 In addition to the "functional imperatives," Parsons also views an organization as having a h i e r ­ archical structure composed of three levels: "managerial" and "institutional." "technical," However, he does not view these in a pure line type of relationship. Each level has a certain degree of independence, depending on the nature of the organization, but there is also a great deal of inter-dependence between levels. rizes this points Parsons summa­ "I m a y generalize about the nature of the two main brealcs in line authority which I have out­ lined by saying that at each of the two points of articu­ lation between subsystems there is a two-way interchange of inputs and outputs."'*' In a university setting, the technical function would be performed by the faculty. According to Parsons, "in an educational organization these are the actual proc­ esses of teaching . . . in a business firm, the process of physical production of goods, etc.." 2 In a sense, Parsons sees each hierarchical level as a subsystem which has its own c o n c e r n s . The managerial level is concerned with serving and controlling the technical organization. While a Talcott Parsons, Structure and Process in Modern Societies (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), p . 69, I b i d . p. 60. 10 university is not clearly a "line” organization because of the professional competence of the "technicians" the collegial nature of the university, and nonetheless, the administration would still tend to function as the mana­ gerial level® Since an organization, according to Parsons, "is also part of a wider social system which is the source of 'meaning*, legitimation, or higher level support which makes the implementation of the o r g a n i z a t i o n 9s goals possible,"'1' a control mechanism over the "managerial" level exists® This level is exemplified in many forms depending on the nature of the organization but, case of the university, in the the Board of Trustees would ap­ pear to p e r form the "institutional" function. This level serves as "mediating structures between the particular managerial organization— and hence the technical organ­ ization it controls— and the higher-order terests which, on some levels, community in­ it is supposed to It is on the basis of Parsons* 'serve.*"^ "functional imper­ atives" and his hierarchical levels of an organization that this study will analyze h o w selected groups at ^ I b i d ., p . 63 o 2 Talcott Parsons, "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization," Administrative Theory in Organ iz at i o n , ed. Andrew W. Halpin, (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), p. 45. 11 Michigan State University perceive the value being placed on specified goals as opposed to their preferences for these same goals. Proceeding on the assumption that a university, as a social organization, should have defined goals, pressing problems of contemporary higher education center on the issues of what goals and, not insignificantly, who is to be involved in their development. The current trend in higher education is toward the broad participation of various groups within the university community. fore, There­ it would seem timely to examine the attitudes of different groups in the university to determine the degree of congruence of attitudes regarding its goals. A wide variation in attitudes m ay make meaningful goals difficult to define, let alone pursue. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study will be to determine the relationship between the goal perceptions and goal pref­ erences of selected groups at Michigan State University, namely, the Board of Trustees, administrators, faculty, undergraduate and graduate students. The goals will be rather specific in nature and several will be related to the functional problems of a social system as classified by Parsons. 12 Hypotheses The hypotheses will be stated in a non-directional form, although it is anticipated that certain relation­ ships m a y exist® For example, in the first hypothesis, the theory would suggest that the Board of Trustees will rate adaptation goals more important than will any of the other four groups because the function of a trustee is to serve as an intermediary between the larger society and the University® All of the hypotheses will relate to the preferred goals of the different groups. Hypothesis 1 There will be differences between the Board of Trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of adaptation goals. With the exception of the trustees, administrators might be expected to value adaptation goals more than the other ” internal" University groups due to their closer relationship wi t h the trustees and other groups considered external to the University. Hypothesis 2 There will be differences between trustees, fac­ ulty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their 13 ratings of the importance of pattern-maintenance goals. Hypothesis 3 There -will be differences between the trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and grad­ uate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of tension manage­ ment goalso Hypothesis 4 There will be differences between trustees, ulty, fac­ administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of integration goals. It would be anticipated that administrators would be more concerned than would any of the other groups about the internal system problem goals represented in hypoth­ eses two, three, and four. Administrators presumably would have a greater day-to-day sense of responsibility for the functioning of the entire university and, thus, would see pattern-maintenance, tension management, and integration problems as being more important. Questions In addition to testing the above hypotheses, the study will address itself to the following questions: 1. How do trustees, administrators, faculty, u n der­ graduate and graduate students at Michigan State 14 University rate the importance of perceived and preferred goals? 2, What differences exist between trustee, admin­ istrative, faculty, undergraduate and graduate student groups at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of perceived and preferred goals? 3, What is the level of congruence between per­ ceived and preferred goals for each of the following groups at Michigan State University* trustee, administrative, faculty, undergraduate and graduate student? 4, Are there differences between groups on the question of "open" versus "selective" admissions? 5, How much importance does each group place on "student-centered" goals? Definition of Terms Administrator— A member of the Administrative Group at Michigan State University, excluding the President, Faculty— Those regularly appointed, tenured members of the teaching faculty at Michigan State University who do not have administrative responsibilities. Undergraduate Student— A student of United States citizen­ ship enrolled in a regular degree program at Michigan State University at the beginning of Winter Term, 1971, 15 The student will be classified as eit h e r a freshman, sophomore, junior, or senior. Graduate Student— A citizen of the United States enrolled in a graduate or professional program at M ichi g a n State University at the beginning of Winter Term, 1971, Higher Education— A formal program offered b y an insti­ tution w h i c h grants a degree or certificate beyond the high school diploma. Functions of Higher Education— The "activities of the u n i versity or higher education system that are function­ ally related to other social i n s t i t u t i o n s » An example would be to provide an opportunity for upxvard social mobility. Purposes in Higher Education---Those expectations held for particular subsystems of higher education such as the community college or liberal arts college* Goals— The intended ends or outputs of a specific u n i ­ versity, i.e., produce a well rounded student or prepare a student for a vocation. Also, goals refer to University directed activities designed to achieve effective internal functioning. Examples would be to motivate the faculty or to keep the various colleges working in a cooperative manner. 1 Peterson, The Crisis of P u r p o s e , p. 3, 16 Objectives— The specific ends of components of a system, in this case the University, For example, an academic department develops objectives related to the goals of the University, Social System— The patterned activities of a number of individuals w h e r e the activities are complementary or interdependent w i t h respect to some common output. The activities are repeated, relatively enduring, and bounded in space and t i m e , ’*' Limitations of the Study Significant limitations of the study are as follows: 1. This study does not consider other groups parents, alumni, (e.g., legislators and the general public) that ma y be important in determining the goals of the University, 2. No attempt is made in this study to view such v ariables as sex, academic discipline, age, longevity at the University and other variables that might be related to attitudes concerning the U n i v e r s i t y 8s goals, 1Daniel Katz and Robert L, Kahn, The Social Psychology of Organizations (New Yorks John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), p. 17, 17 3. A survey type study using a questionnaire has certain well recognized limitations of measure­ ment which must,be tahen into account in the in­ terpretation of data® 4. Since less than a 100 percent return of question­ naires can be anticipated, conclusions can not safely be generalized beyond those who complete the questionnaire. Organization of the Study Chapter II will be devoted to a review of selected literature related to the importance of defining goals for higher education, education goals, current views about the nature of higher and research related to such goals. Se­ lected studies and writings related to social systems theory as applied to organizations will also be reviewed. The design and methodology employed in the study will be discussed in Chapter III, Chapter IV contains the presen­ tation and analysis of the data and Chapter V, the last, will include a summary, future research. conclusions, and suggestions for CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE In this c h a p t e r , selected literature related to the need for* views of* and research on the goals of higher education will be r e v i e w e d 0 Also* a review of social systems theory as it relates to this study will be i n c l u d e d . The Need For Defining Goals Before discussing the various views that have been expressed about the purposes of contemporary higher e d u c a t i o n * it seems judicious to examine the reasons for the concern about such purposes® The focus of this study will be on the goals of an individual institution but the purposes of higher education as a total system are obvi­ ously r e l a t e d « Various writers have spoken to the need for de­ fining uni v e r s i t y goals. Some* such as Etzioni (see page 3), emphasize the need to state clear goals by vi r ­ tue of viewing a university as an organization. Others are most concerned about the specific nature of higher education aims and this issue will be treated in the next section® The reader must recognize that the terms used 18 19 in the literature are no t consistent "purposes*" "aims*" "missions*" in meanings "goals*5' "objectives*" and "func­ tions" are often used interchangeably but do not n eces­ sarily have t h e same connotation. The various perspectives about the need for goal clarity in any institution of higher education seem to be well summarized b y Peterson s It seems essential in these times that colleges articulate their goalss to give direction to pres­ ent and future work? to provide an ideology that can nurture internal cooperation* communication and trust? to enable appraisal of th e institution as a means-ends system? to afford a basis for public understanding and support® Indeed* the college without the inclination or w i l l to define itself* to chart a course for itself * can look forward either to n o f u t u r e — to a hind of half-life of con­ stantly responding to shifting pressures— or to a future laid down b y some external authority® Neither p rospect pleases.1 T he n e e d to develop goals at the institutional level to g i v e coherent direction to the institution’s day-to-day activities seems most important® University goals must be stated with some specificity if they are to have operational meaning® state goals (objectives) Dressel stresses the need to in an operationally meaningful ways 1 • Richard E. Peterson, The Crisis of P u r p o s e ! Definition and Uses of Institutional G o a l s * Report 5, (Washington, d T c TI ERIC Clearinghouse o n H i g h e r Education* October, 1970), p. 11® 20 Objectives arise out of purposes, but they attempt to spell out in more concrete terms the institution’s hopes for the students that it accepts® Objectives should be stated in desired qualities of students or as student behavior I unfortunately these statements tend to become highly verbose and abstract® By espousing God, family and democracy, they may make an emotional appeal but provide little guidance to the educational program® What is needed is a limited and succinct statement of the competencies which the institution expects to produce in its students? these should be so specific that it is feasible to determine whether students have obtained these competencies in some reasonable measure before degrees are granted to them® The emphasis here,then, is on the need to state clear, specific, measurable goals to give direction to programs and to provide opportunities for the institution to evaluate the degree of success that has been in reaching the stated goals® Another of external achieved reason for setting goals is the problem pressures® As Abbott indicates, "the wide­ spread disagreement and uncertainty regarding the purposes of these institutions ® ® ® sometimes suggests that under a v a r i e t y of influences they may be losing control of their own destinies." Paul L. Dressel, "Evaluation of the Environment, The Process, and The Results of Higher Education," Hand­ book of College and University A d m inist r a t i o n , ed® Asa S. Knowles, (New Yorks McGraw H i T l , Inc®, 1970), p® 2-74® 2 Charles C» Abbott, "Governing Boards and Their Responsibilities," Journal of Higher Educa t i o n , XLI (October, 1970), 524® 21 Werdell echoes a similar thought about the prob­ lem of an institution®s direction being determined byoutside forces! for an identity. " o . o the multiversity is searching Its growth has been r a p i d , and its direction and goals have been defined largely by those interests in American life large and powerful enough to command attention to their demands c"1 R o b i n s o n , speaking from the bias of management principles, stresses the importance of identifying goals in institutional p l a n n i n g . He contends that sound planning in higher education often has not occurred b e ­ cause goals have not been articulated. of goal omission? What is the price " If planning does not focus on academic g o a l s , the va c u u m will be filled b y some less meaningful consideration . . ." 2 These "considerations" could pr e ­ sumably be of an internal or external nature. A similar view is expressed by Hungate, also an advocate for applying management principles to higher education. In discussing the planning function, he ^-Philip R. Werdell, "Teaching and Learning: Whose Goals Are Important Around Here?" Whose Goals For American Higher Education? ed, Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee, (Washington, D.C.s American Council on Education, 1968), p. 20. 2 Daniel D. Robinson, " W h o 8s Managing?" Issues of The S e v e n t i e s , ed. Fred F. Harcleroad, (San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 145. 22 stresses the importance of objectives! Clear definition and continuous review of o b j e c t i v e s , and the institutional guidelines for achieving t h e m , are e s s e n t i a l ® Each institution must carefully de­ fine its objectives or p u r p o s e s , the nature of the undertakings it deems n ecessary to achieve them* and the general guidelines in accordance w i t h w h i c h the undertakings are to develop,, In a d d i t i o n P he emphasizes that goal-setting must be the first step in long-range p l a n n i n g * a view also shared by Davidson® ^ Change and innovation have been words frequently associated w i t h higher education in recent years® Bolman cautions that change must be guided if it is to achieve desired results® O # It would seem that innovation must be related to what the institution is attempting to do® Of c o u r s e * the process of change m a y actually include alter­ ing the goals of the institution and not just the means of achieving those goals® It is also the opinion of Ward that institutions must carefully define their goals if they are to ^Thad L® H u n g a t e * Management in Higher Education (New Yorks Bureau of P u b l i c a t i o n s * Columbia University* 1964)* p® 243® 2 Olaf M® Davidson* "C o m m e n t a r y ," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s * ed® Fred F® H a r c l e r o a d * (San Franciscos Jossey-Bass* Inc®* 1970)* p® 152® 3 Frederick D® Bolman* "Problems of Change and Changing Problems*" Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n * XLI (November* 1970)* 590. 23 responsibly respond to change,, "But the quality of the u n i v e rsities0 response will depend above all on the ca­ pacity of each of them to decide what it can best do and be and to secure aid and understanding on the basis of that self-def i nition®"1 In speaking of c h a n g e , one of the most contro­ versial issues today revolves around the possible di­ lemma between academic standards and educational oppor­ tunity „ Tyler sees the absence of educational goals as contributing to the difficulty in resolving this conflicts Currently there is great confusion in all types of higher institutions regarding the educational objec­ tives , standards of performance and what constitutes efficiency in l e a r n i n g „ Clearing up some of this confusion might help in resolving the apparent con­ flicts between excellence and equality of opportu­ nity® 2 Effective internal functioning is mentioned by A b b o t t , 5 H u n g a t e ,4 and L e e 5 as a major reason for F, Champion Ward, "University Initiative in Response to Change," Higher Educations Demand and R e s p o n s e , ed® W. R® Niblett, (San Franciscos JosseyBass, Inc,, 1970), p. 171® 2 Ralph W. Tyler, "Academic Excellence and Equal Opportunity," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s , ed® Fred F. Harcleroad, (San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass Inc®, 1970), p. 173® 3 Abbott, "Governing Boards," p 0 525® 4tt Hungate, Management m 5 Higher Educa t i o n , p . 59. Calvin B® T® Lee and Charles G® Dobbins, Whose Goals For American Higher Education?, (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968), p. 3. 24 developing goals. Abbott*s views seem to summarize this concern: Furthermore, lack of clarity as to mission and means of accomplishing it almost inevitably leads to con­ fusion as to the proper roles and functions of the several elements within the organization? in u n i ­ versities these include administrators, faculty, students, alumni, technicians and staff. Such con­ fusion has been evident in recent years on numerous occasions. In developing guidelines for a hypothetical u n i ­ versity, Case proclaims in rather blunt terms w h y such direction is required? One of the causes of the present difficulties in our institutions of higher learning seems to be that they have failed to emphasize w i t h strong, clear statements what they stand for, what their objectives and policies are, what they are and are not willing to do, and who is responsible for what. It is hard to run a railroad in such a deep fog.^ Other consequences of failure to critically exam­ ine and articulate a philosophy and goals for institutions of higher learning were suggested by Martin following a case study of eight institutions. It was a conclusion of the study that there is not as much value diversity among our institutions as we are led to believe. Further, there is not a "'holistic9' approach to education? the learning process is fragmented by the lines drawn -^Abbott, "Governing Boards,” p. 525. 2Harry L. Case, "A Declaration of Aims and Policies of University X," Educational R e c o r d , L (Fall, 1969), 450. 25 between academic disciplines. A strong indictment of institutional leadership was made: The strongest impression gained from our examination of the literature and through conversations w i t h administrators of the large public universities was the notable absence of attention by the leaders to institutionalized a s s u m ptions? v a l u e s ? and goals compared with their almost frenetic regard for quantitative? financial? procedural? implementive considerations. In summary? then? the development of goals is necessary for planning? effective internal functioning? resisting external pressures? evaluating performance? gaining the support of the public? and providing direc­ tion for programs. The writers about contemporary higher education appear to be in general agreement that there is a need for clarifying institutional goals. What Goals? Assuming that institutional goals in higher edu­ cation need to be identified? there is still the diffi­ culty in determining the nature of these goals. Most writers seem to agree that higher education has at least three general purposes? service. teaching? research? and public These are classified under various terms? for •^Warren B. Martin, Conformity: Standards and Change in Higher Education (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc.? 1969), p. 51. 26 example, Perkins speaks of knowledge acquisition (re­ search), transmission (teaching), and application (public x •1 service) While there is general agreement about the three general purposes mentioned above, regardless of the lan­ guage used, Dressel points out that different types of institutions will emphasize different purposes? "’The true u n i versity will have all three purposes, whereas liberal arts colleges and community colleges or technical institutes are more likely to concentrate on the dissem­ ination or instructional function* Although it is recognized that these three pur­ poses u s u a l l y will not receive an equal emphasis across institutions, there is concern about the relative prior­ ities accorded to them* For example, John W. Gardner, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, feels that the teaching function is now being slighted, particu larly as it relates to undergraduates* 3 Concerned about human needs, Perkins seconds the view that the 1James A* Perkins, The University in Transition (Princeton, New Jerseys Princeton University Press, 1966), p * 9 * Dressel, "Evaluation of the Environment," p„ 2-74, 3John w* Gardner, "Agenda for the Colleges and Universities," Campus 1 9 8 0 , ed* Alvin C, Eurich, (New York: Delacorte Press, 1968), p, 1, 27 teaching function must be given increased attention: These n e w priorities have as their central theme that human beings are more important than Knowledge, and that the individual is more important than soci­ ety , As a consequence, teaching now seems more im­ portant than research, and certainly more important than research that is not justified by visible con­ nection w i t h the quality of life.-*Perkins also expresses concern about the purposes of a u n i v e r s i t y being isolated from each other, It is his contention that the three functions should be mutually reinforcing and, thus, viewed as interdependent,, He points out that the German university has traditionally favored research while the British model has been known for knowledge transmission. With the advent of the Morrill Act of 1862, all three purposes were blended together wi t h dramatic results. 2 An example of an uneven approach would seem to be found in S p e n c e r 9s view. According to him, teaching and research are the two main purposes of the university. However, he does, by implication, seem to recognize that the application of knowledge is a function of the un i ­ versity, For instance, he notes that " . . , the u n i ­ v e r sity has the obligation both to preserve and to -'-James A, Perkins, "Higher Education in the 1970®s," Educational R e c o r d , LI (Summer, 1970), 249. p # Perkins, The University in T r a n s i t i o n , p. 16. 28 enrich our culture . . « in the exact sciences w e are doing too much enriching and not enough preserving* w hile in the social sciences we are doing just the , o p p o s i t e 0" I In defining the purposes of a university* public service often seems to be understood as an indirect out­ come of teaching and research rather than being given the status of a direct purpose 0 Spencer seems to be saying this and it is also implied in a recent statement of university purpose adopted b y the faculty at the Uni­ versity of Wisconsin! The primary purpose of the University Is to provide an environment In w h ich faculty and students Can discover® examine critically* Preserve® and transmit The Knowledge* w i s d o m and values That will ensure the survival Of the present and future generation With improvement in the quality of life® Here* then* the implication seems to be that the Uni­ versity w ould not necessarily be directly involved in public service but that an "improvement in the quality of Lyle M. Spencer® "The Research Function in the Advancement of Knowledge*" Whose Goals For AmericanHigher E d u c a t i o n ? * ed, Charles G, Dobbins and Calvin Lee® TWashington® D 0C 0 ; American Council on Education* 1968)* p. 6 6 o V, R 0 Potter and Others® "Purpose and Function of the University®" Science® CLXVII (March 20* 1970)* 1591. 29 life" would occur b y virt u e of the n ew knowledge that was discovered and transmitted to the members of the University and the larger s o c i e t y „ This seems to repre­ sent a v e r y fine line w h i c h may? or may not? have any operational mean i n g w h e n compared w i t h a specifically articulated purpose of public s e r v i c e . In fact, the committee which developed the above statement indicated that the University might have other, less important, purposes but did not define them. A fourth general purpose of higher education, that of social criticism, has been advocated by Keniston. He asserts that "amongst the major functions of the modern university, criticism is surely the most neglected,," The major reason, according to him, for the contemporary university to assume this role is because of our rapidly changing and complex society! » . o the emergence of criticism as a major function of the uni v e r s ity is intimately related to the changing nature and needs of American life* In modern society, the simple transmission of knowledge must increasingly give w a y to a critical re-examina­ tion of that Imowledge? the extension of knowledge presupposes a critical analysis of T^hat is worth extending? and the application of knowledge requires a critical study of w hich knowledge can be applied to what *^ Kenneth Keniston, "Responsibility for Criticism and Social Change," Whose Goals for American Higher E d u c a t i o n ? , ed. Charles G, Dobbins and Calvin Lee, (Washington, D.C.s American Council on Education, 1968), p. 145. 2 Ibid., p. 147. 30 Keniston feels that the university is b e s t suited to perform the role of social critic due to (1) its more extended time span and inclusive scope of concern 9 (2) a more intimate involvement w i t h the next generation which results in a sensitivity to the q uality of future soc­ iety, (3) the ability of faculty to take a broad view of society because of tenure which protects them from ex­ ternal forces, and (4) faculty tend to be anti— authori­ tarian and possess a critical m i n d .^ Although strongly endorsing the need for uni­ versities to carry out the critical function, Keniston is careful to point out that a university as an organization, should not take partisan positions because this would undermine its ability to perform its functions, including that of criticism,, Rather, he says, the criticism should emanate from individuals and groups within the univer— sity. This is a reasonable distinction to make but it is difficult to implement because the general public is often inclined to view individual and group positions on issues as equivalent to those of the institution as an entity* 1 I b i d ., p. 154. 2 I b i d », p* 161, 31 Shoben also indicates a need for the university®s role as a critic of society. In addition to the reasons for this role as cited by Keniston, he indicates that there is "a growing mistrust of intellectual demands that virtually all ideas and domains of inquiry be deliberately uninvolved for their moral and political implications and assessed in the light of explicit v a l u e s T h u s , he feels that the curriculum ought to be based on the critical function w h i c h would reduce the concern about educational "relevance„"2 A recent President of the National Student Associ­ ation supports the idea of the university as a social critic. Powell scoffs at the notion that the university has ever been neutral! it has, according to him, been u p ­ holding traditional values which have retarded, rather than advanced, society,, Instead, he feels that the u n i ­ vers i t y should w o r k for the forces of peace, social jus- tice, and equality of o p p o r t u n i t y • Social criticism of society is also the theme of Mullaney but his view is more extreme. He contends that 1 Edward J. Shoben, Jr., "Cultural Criticism and the American College," D a e d a l u s , IC (Summer, 1970), 683. 2 I b i d ., 691. ^Robert S. Powell, Jr., "More Than a Number," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s , ed. Fred F. Harcleroad, (San Franciscos J o s s e y - B a s s , Inc., 1970), p. 77. 32 the university has tolerated, of the ills of society® if not perpetuated, m a n y To correct the situation, he urges the uni v e r s i ty "to become a center of dissent and resistance in itself and an interpreter of such behavior to the p u b l i c . " 1 To incorporate a "resistance model" the university should * (1) divest itself of stock and other holdings that are contrary to person-centered values, (2) make the curriculum action oriented, (3) pressure the courts to broaden their v i e w of disruption, (4) form alliances w i t h various groups, and (5) strike and close down as a last resort. 2 The above view appears to be alien to that ex­ pressed b y Keniston and Shoben in that Mullaney does not insist that the university, as a corporate body, remain neutral w h ile serving a critical function. his position on this basis? He defends "A commitment to free and open inquiry makes sense only when one is equally committed to resist those forces w h i c h repudiate the value of such inquiry."2 A rec e n t l y formed organization, University Pro­ fessors for Academic Order, seems determined to counter 1A n t o n y Mullaney, "The University as a Community of Resistance," Harvard Educational Review, X L (November, 1970), 634. 2 I b i d ., 635. 3 I b i d . , 641. 33 the social critic role* In a recent statement this group asserted that "a u n i versity should be a place for instruc­ tion , l e a r n i n g , and the pursuit of truth through research and reflection^ and not an instrument of social change/'1 Furthers they insist that a university should "not toler­ ate demands from any source that takes stands on questions that are p roperly the concern of political organizations , » .” 2 . . . Taken at face value, their position would appear to be rather reactionary and contrary to a reason­ able interpretation of academic freedom., The preceding review of literature has centered on the general purposes of institutions of higher edu­ cation* Not\t we will move to more specific purposes which are more of an "o utcome” than of a "process” nature* In other words, wh a t should be the impact of teaching, r e ­ search, public service, and social criticism? A major v o ice in higher education in the last decade has been Nevitt Sanford* He, along w i t h many others, consistently argues for a "student development” concept of education* In addressing himself to the issue of what to expect in higher education in the next decade, he responded that s ^•"Faculty Unit Asks 'Depoliticization'," Chron­ ical of Higher E d u c a t i o n , (Washington, D.C.), February 15, 1971, p* 3* 2 Ibid* 34 By 1980 educators will see m u c h more clearly than they do t oday that the major a i m of college education is the fullest possible development of the individual personality, and that th e o n l y basis for planning an educational environment is Imowledge of how students actually d e v e l o p . 1 Sanford defines more clearly what he means by the develop­ ment of the individual in another writings Education and training, in the society we may then e n v i s i o n s w o u l d b o t h be h u m a n i s t i c , that is based on an understanding of what people are by nature, and of what they need to develop all talent potential. Thusp we would direct our attention to a w hole range of talents w h i ch are negle c t e d in school or which are focused on the narrowly cognitive aspects of develop­ ment « o . talents such as those involved in communi­ cation-, relating to people, perceptual clarity and so on. If we implemented such a program, » . . many people now labeled disadvantaged would actually have advantages! particularly lower-class blades who, when seen on college campuses today, turn out to be extra­ ordinarily gifted communicators „ The same v i e w of student development as the pur­ pose of higher education was advanced in the Hazen Founda­ tion Report on The Student In H i g h e r E d u c a t i o n . The report made two basic points % . • • (1) The college is a major influence on the development of the student®s personality and must therefore assume responsibility for the quality and direction of this development? (2) Even the c o l l e g e ’s central taste of guiding the intellect cannot be done well unless the school realizes that the acquisition Nevitt Sanford , "The College Student of 1980," Campus 1 9 8 0 , e d . Alvin C. Eurich, (New Yortes Delacorte Press, 1968), p. 182. Nevitt Sanford, "Loss of Talent," Issues of The S e v e n t i e s , ed. Fred F. Harcleroad, (San F r a n c i s c o ; Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 66. 35 of Imowledge takes place in the context of emergent adulthood. This emphasis would seem to be on the outcome of the teaching function of higher education without denying the val i d i t y of the other functions previously discussed. T a y l o r , in analyzing student u n r e s t , suggests the need for higher education to be concerned with the human dimension of the individuals "The students need to learn more than how to master academic subjects? they need to learn how to live/'1' His concern is with improving the quality of personal relationships through the educational experience. Total personal development as an end of higher education is also the bias of Tyler^ and Werdell.^ M a n y of the commentators on the role of higher education have a humanistic orientation. Hess, in a dissertation on the function of higher education, devel­ oped a definition of a person based on the views of man The Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The Student in Higher Education (New Haven, Connecticuts The Hazen Foundation, 1968), p. 42. 2 Harold Taylor, "Student Unrest," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s , ed. Fred F. Harcleroad, (San Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970), p. 127, °Tyler, "Academic Excellence and Equal Opportunity," p. 173. 4Werdell, "Teaching and Learning," p. 19. 36 held b y social scientists, philosophers and theologians. It is his thesis that "the development of persons shall be viewed as the end of the educational p r o c e s s ."^ With such importance placed on p ersonnal development, he feels that all of the components of the college community should be directed toward the achievement of this goal. This central theme of personal development is also held b y a respected authority on higher education, Lewis B. MayheWo In speculating on higher education in the next decade, he states that "within the teaching institution, professors will have accepted that their chief duty is to , 2 help young people changeo Paschal expresses a similar position in saying that teaching should result in greater student ability to organize and apply Knowledge as w e l l as grow in wisdom.^ The preceding discussion about personal dev e l o p ­ ment as a general goal of higher education tends to centuate the "whole person" concept. ac­ That is, the idea David N. Hess, "The Person-Centered Function of Higher Education" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1962), p. 75. 2 Lewis Be Mayhew, "The Future Undergraduate Curriculum," Campus 1 9 8 0 , ed. Alvin C. Eurich, (New York: Delacorte Press, 1968), p. 217, q „ Elizabeth Paschal, "Organizing for Better Instruction," Campus 1 9 8 0 , ed. Alvin C. Eurich, (New York: Delacorte Press, 1968), p. 224, 37 that the learning of a person must be viewed as a totality rather than in isolated components., For example, these writers would see intellectual development as only one aspect of the s t u d e n t 9s growth and definitely related to his affective d e v e l o p m e n t , Hutchins disagrees with the personal development v i e w except for the intellectual dimension of such devel­ opment . From his point of view, a university or college exists basic a l l y for the purpose of dealing with the m a t ­ ter of intellect and other activities have no place in an institution of higher education,1 In summary, it would appear that the purposes of higher education have been subject to a v ariety of inter­ pretations, The most recent general purpose to emerge is that of social criticism. However, even among the pro­ ponents of this purpose, there is divergence of opinion about the form it should take. It is also apparent that individual institutions have been reluctant to develop specific goals that would lend themselves to some degree of measurement. With an increasing trend toward "accountability" in higher edu­ cation, it seems likely that goal ambiguity will be a less acceptable state of affairs in the future. 1 Semas, "U,S. Universities Don*t Know What They*re Doing or Why, Robert M, Hutchins Says," p* 6. 38 Recent Research on Higher Education Goals Osmunson analyzed the inaugural addresses of twenty college presidents delivered between 1860-1916 and another twenty fr o m 1 9 1 7 - 1 9 6 7 He was operating on the assumption that the inaugural address of a president re­ veals something about the institution5s g o a l s » identified nine goal classifications; tural trainings individual developments The study ci t i z e n s h i p , cul­ community services knowledge t r a n s m i s s i o n 9 leadership trainings moral and religious trainings research, and spirit of place fined as a supportive u n i versity atmosphere). (de­ Knowledge transmission was the most frequently mentioned category. The presidents from the recent period gave greater atten­ tion to research and less to moral training. The author concluded thats based on the content of inaugural ad­ dresses s modern presidents tended to be more aware of higher education objectives than were those in the earlier period. In a study of community college goals , Kimball identified five accepted objectives for this type of insti­ tution; (1) liberal arts and transfer courses, education, (3) terminal and technical programs, (2) general (4) adult 1Robert L. Osmunson, "Higher Education as Viewed by College and U n i v ersity Presidents," School and S o c i e t y , XCVIII (October, 1970), 369. 39 education and community service, and (5) guidance and counseling.1 He then developed a questionnaire containing items related to these c a t e g o r i e s , Kimball surveyed faculty and administrators of five selected Michigan community colleges which repre­ sented institutions having either comprehensive or limited programs. It was his purpose to compare the goal prefer­ ences of faculty and administrators in these two types of institutions. 1. Some of his conclusions were as follows; There were no significant differences between administrators and teachers in the two institution types. 2. Only 20 percent of the respondents were satisfied wi t h the present program of their institution. 3. The liberal arts program was the most valued one. 4. The administrators were more adept at expressing institutional goals compatible w i t h those established for their community college. 2 The most comprehensive study of higher education goals was conducted b y Gross and Grambsch under the aus­ pices of the American Council on Education. The John R. Kimball, "Analysis of Institutional Objectives in Michigan Community Colleges" (unpublished Ed.D. thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1960), p. 69. ^Ibid., p . 71. 40 researchers developed forty-seven specific goals which were classified into two general categories, Output and Support goalso These categories flow from a social sys­ tems model of an organization and appear to be compatible wi t h the "functional imperatives" of Parsons as described in Chapter I. Output goals w e r e defined as "those which are manifested m a product of some kind . , ." 1 Support goals we r e identified as those activities carried on within the organization to keep it functioning effectively to achieve its Output goals. ? Gross and Grambsch justify the category of Support goalss . . . in any organization, activities concerned with support m a y be regarded as goals, since they are es­ sential to the h ealthy functioning of the organization? since they clearly involve an intention or aim of the organization as a whole? and since m a n y participants perceive th e m as worthy, give a great deal of attention to them, and deliberately engage in activities that will move the organization toward them. It was on the basis of these two types of goals that the questionnaire items study w e r e developed. ■I (or goals) for the above The instrument was mailed in the % Edward Gross and Paul Grambsch, University Goals and Academic Power (Washington, D.C.s American Council on Education, 1968), p 9 9. 2 Ibid, 3 Ibid. 41 Spring of 1964 to faculty and administrators at sixtyeight universities in the United States. The Output goals •were subdivided into the following categories : 1. Student-expressive-- invoIves the attempt to change the student®s i d e ntity or character in some fundamental way. 2. S t udent-instrumenta1-— invoIves the student's being equipped to perforin certain functions for society. 3. R esearch— involves t h e production of new knowledge or the solution of problems. 4. Direct Service— involves the direct and continuing provision of services to the larger society. Support 1 goals w e r e categorized in the following manner s 1, A d a p tation— represents t h e n e e d for the university to come to terms with the environment in which it is located. 2, M a n a g e m e n t — involves decisions on who should run the u n i v e r s i t y s t h e n e e d to handle conflict, and the establishment of goal priorities, 3, M o t i v a t i o n — seeks to ensure a h i g h level of satisfaction on t h e p a r t of -*-I b i d . 9 p» 13. staff and students. 42 4» Position— helps to maintain the position of the university* in comparison with others* in the face of pressures that could change its relative 1 status» In developing such a large number of fairly specific goals* these researchers asserted that ” it is our belief that the study of organizations has suffered from an overly simple view of g o a l s ." 2 The respondent was asked to rate the importance of each goal on the basis of how important he perceived it to be at his institution as well as his preference for the goalc In ranking the perceived goals of respondents across institutions* the top seven weres 1, Protect the faculty®s right to academic freedom, 2, Increase or maintain the prestige of the un i ­ versity, 3, Maintain top quality in those programs felt to be especially important, 4, Ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contribute substantially to the finances and other material resource needs of the university. 1 I b i d o * p. 14, 2 Ibid. 43 5. Keep up to date and responsive. 6. Train students in methods of scholarhips and/or scientific research and/or creative endeavor. 7. Carry on pure research.1 The ranking of preferred goals yielded the following results s 1. Protect the faculty®s right to academic freedom. 2. Train students in methods of scholarship and/or scientific research and/or creative endeavor. 3. Produce a student wh o has had his intellect cultivated to the maximum. 4. Maintain top quality in all programs engaged in. 5. Serve as a center for the dissemination of new ideas. 6. Keep up to date and responsive. 7. Maintain top quality in those programs felt to be especially important. 2 In addition to the consistent concern about the academic freedom of the faculty, the study results indi­ cated that goals relating to students were not a high priority in practice although the preference was for greater emphasis on student-centered goals. 1 I b i d B, p. 29, ^ I b i d . p. 32. Another 44 conclusion was that administrators and faculty "tend to see eye to eye to a much greater extent than is commonly supposed • . A fairly detailed review of the above study has been provided because the instrument has been used in other research and a modified version of it is being utilized in this study* In 1970 Ball State University surveyed faculty and students , u s ing the Gross and Grambsch instrument , as part of a study designed to re-examine the goals of that University* Of the top ten preferred goals of each group (faculty and s t u d e n t s ), there was over-lap on seven of the goals* The agreement between the two groups appeared on these goals? protect the academic freedom of the faculty, m a intain top quality in all p r o g r a m s , keep up to date and r e s p o n s i v e , ensure efficient goal attainment, disseminate new ideas, produce a well rounded student, and train students for scholarship and/or research. Over-all, the faculty showed more agreement about what the goals should be than did students A pilot study, using the Gross and Grambsch instrument, was conducted at Michigan State University. Ibid *, p * 115 . ^Clair D. Rowe, Acting Dean of the College of Business, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, Personal letter, January 7, 1971. 45 Thomas compared the goal perceptions and preferences of graduate s t u d e n t s , faculty, and administrators in the field of student personnel at Michigan State University with the findings in the original study,, The student personnel group ranked their first seven preferred goals for Michigan State as s (1) keep up to date and responsive, (2) serve as a center for the dissemination of n e w ideas, (3) protect and facilitate the s t u d e n t s 0 right of inquiry, (4) help students to develop objectivity about themselves, f a c u l t y 8s academic freedom, (6) involve students in the government of the university, and m (5) protect the (7) maintain top quality all p r o g r a m s . The four least preferred goals chosen by this g roup were :(1) maintaining institutional character, admitting only high potential students, (2) (3) insuring that the will of the faculty prevailed, and (4) cultivating the s t u d e n t s 8 taste as a consumer. 1 » 2 • William L» Thomas, Jr. "Perceptions of University Goalss A Comparison of Administrators, Faculty and Students Engaged in the Practice, Teaching and/or Study of Student Personnel Administration at Michigan State University wi t h a Nationwide Study of University Faculty and Administrators" (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, College of Education, Michigan State University, 1970), p. 79. 2 I b i d ., p. 85. 46 Thomas concluded that "the results of this study seem to indicates, at least for the majority of the student personnel respondents, a general philosophical posture that values quality education while maintaining concern for individual human d e v e l o p m e n t . He suggested that it was n e c e s s a r y for institutions to periodically assess the values and perceptions of the different segments of the academic community w i t h respect to g o a l s , 2 an observation *3 that had also been made by Kimball. A modified version of the Gross and Grambsch instrument was used in the Spring of 1969 in a study sponsored by the Danforth Foundation. Fourteen liberal arts colleges wi t h limited resources from the Appalachia and Great Plains areas were invited to participate in The Institute for College Development. Administrators, faculty, and students were ashed to respond to the questionnaire. A general finding of this study was that the administrators, faculty, and students agreed that teach­ ing and student oriented activities were most important I b i d «, p. 114. ^ I b i d ., p . 117. O p . 82«, , Kimball, "Analysis of Institutional Objectives," 47 to those i n s t i t u t i ons While there were significant . 1 differences between the perceived and preferred goals of the three groups , they all tended to agree on the direction of desired change. From the data gathered in this study* the following conclusion was reacheds The role w h i c h these particular colleges and others like th e m pl a y in the total picture of American higher education m a y well depend upon their maintaining certain of these characteristics® For their own sake and for the sake of pluralism in higher education* these colleges should not seek or feel pressured to conform to the university model w hich is increasingly dominating the s c e n e . 3 A review of the literature indicates that there have been relatively few empirical studies relating to the goals of institutions of higher education. Social Systems Analysis Some attention has previously been given to social systems theory in Chapter I and in the discussion of the Gross and Grambsch study in this c h a p t e r . Organizations are frequently being scrutinized these days from the orientation of social systems analysis. 1 "A Reports College Goals and Go v e r n a n c e , ” Danforth News and N o t e s , (St. Louis: Danforth Foundation, November, 1969), p. 2. 2 I b i d ., p . 5. 3 I b i d ,, p . 7. 48 Haberstroh defines a system in the following manners "Some of the more common definitional criteria are common purposes, functional unity? and high internal interdepend­ ence It , , " 1 is recognized that most systems are "open" in the sense that they exist in an environment with which there is interaction and a state of interdependence® Another definition of a system is offered by Banathys " . . ® deliberately designed synthetic organisms, comprised of interrelated and interacting components which are employed to function in an integrated fashion to attain predetermined purposes." What is systems analysis? According to Haberstroh? Systems analysis can best be defined as a point of v i e w plus a few ke y ideas, integrated into a logical pattern . . The point of v i e w is abstract in that it deals w i t h symbols that stand for aspects of real objects or their interrelationship. It is holistic in that it presumes to deal (symbolically) with objects, the fine structure of which is unknown or at least irrelevant. It is dynamic in that it is concerned wi t h the behavior of these objects as it changes over time. It is pragmatic in that it is concerned ^ i t h ho w a task or function is to be performed. 0 Chadwick J. Haberstroh, "Organization Design and Systems Analysis," Handbook of Organ i z a t i o n s , ed. James C. March, (Chicagos Rand McNally and Co., 1965), p. 1174. 9 Yorks James D. Thompson, Organizations In Action (New McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1965), p. 1. Bela H. Banathy, Instructional Systems (Palto Alto, Californias Fearon Publishers, 1968), p. 2. ^Haberstroh, "Organization Design," p. 1172. 49 The v a lue of systems analysis in education, as viewed by Carter, is that "it places much emphasis on the problems of implementation, evaluation, feedback and re­ v ision— an emphasis w h i c h should be high l y welcome in today's complex educational milieu.'' It is his bias that the analysis of problems with this method can be valuable because it requires that decisions be based on a system­ atic review of activities® He does indicate that systems analysis can not be applied in precisely the same w a y to education as it is to a technological process such as 2 space p r o g r a m s . Parsons has developed a theoretical model of a social system w h ich recognizes both the internal and external relationships of the systems . o o empirically social systems are conceived as open systems, engaged in complicated processes of interchange w i t h environing systems. The environing systems include, in this case, cultural and person­ ality systems, the behavioral and other subsystems of the organism, and, through the organism, the physical environment® The same logic applies inter­ n a l l y to social systems, conceived as differentiated and segmented into a plurality of subsystems, each of w h i c h must be treated analytically as an open system interchanging w i t h environing subsystems of the larger s y s t e m „3 ^Launor F® Carter, "The Systems Approach to Edu­ cation: Mystique and Reality," Educational T e c h n o l o g y , (April, 1969), 31. o I b i d ® , p o 30« ^Talcott Parsons and Others, Theories of Society (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961), p. 36. 50 In effect, he is saying that, with i n an organization, each unit (e.g., an academic department in a university) can be viewed as a system w i t h the same functional problems of the type discussed earlier. The thinking of Parsons with respect to social systems theory has provoked considerable discussion among social scientists. He h a s been criticized for being too general and too concerned w i t h system maintenance. For instance, Buckley questions whether Parsons does not seem overly concerned about t h e equilibrium of a social system; • . . social systems are characterized primarily by their p r o pensity to change their structure during their culturally continuous lifetime Parsons thus stretches the organism]c model beyond its limits when he confines himself to the use of an existing fixed structure as a point of reference for assessing th e functional imperatives of a social s y s t e m 0 9 . . 9 0 1 Parsons does not deny that his interest is in general t h e o r y rather than empirical research. With regard to B u c k l e y s criticism, it does not appear, 9 in this w r i t e r s opinion, that Parsons would refute the 9 notion that a system will gradually change in structure as its environment also changes. 1 'Walter Buckley, Sociology and Modern.Systems T heory (Englewood Cliffs, N e w Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967), p. 31. 2 Devereux, "Parsons 9 Sociological T h e o r y , " p. 1. 51 Various current writers about higher education are viewing it as a social s y s t e m . P e r v i n , in expressing the need for the components of a college to w o r k in h a r m o n y * declares that "the college is a system in the sense that it is composed of interdependent parts which w o r k in a more or less complementary w a y toward more or less compatible g o a l s . He emphasizes the need for students* faculty., and administrators to serve common goals— to w o r k for greater integration (one of Parsons® functional i m p e r a t i v e s ). Shaffer* in focusing on a particular component of the college or university* student personnel services* urges that specific objectives be developed to serve the goals of the larger system* the institutions For him* failure to take such steps will mean that ’’those subsystems w h ich cannot show their specific contributions to the goal achievement of the overall institution will not be able to 2 justify continued s upports” Hills is a strong advocate of a more scientific approach to the study of organizations and it is his contention that a systems approach offers m u c h promise. "^Lawrence A. Pervin, "The College as a Social System,” Journal of Higher Education, XXXVIII (June, 1967)* 317. 2 Robert H. Shaffer, Objectives*” N A S P A Journal. " R e d e f i m n a Student Personnel VIII (October, 1970), 142. 52 He asserts that ®*the most general requirement for a science of organization* then, is the development of means of characterizing the state of organizations as systemso" 1 • Incidentally, his t h e o r y of organizational behavior is almost entirely "based on the thinking of Parsons. While systems analysis potential for seems t o h a v e considerable improving the effectiveness of institutions of higher education, there are some questions being raised about its limitations of educators interested 0 In an address t o a group in systems analysis application to higher education, Alden cautioned against uncritical enthusiasm of this method even though he supportive of i t 2 0 is generally His first concern is that systems analysis m a y result in increased central authority and rigidity of structure which can result in alienation and dehumanization,, The second question h e raises relates to the requirement of specific objectives in systems analysis when some educators feel that all worthy objectives cannot be studied quantitatively* Thirdly* h e w onders whether al worthwhile educational goals can be identified. The last ^Hills, Toward a Science of Organization, p. 3, ^John Wo Alden, "Systems Analysts in Higher Educations Some Concerns*" Paper presented t o Discussion Group 13 at the 25th National Conference in Higher Edu­ cation, Chicago, March 2* 1970. 53 general area of concern raised by Alden is that a rigid pursuit of specified goals m a y result in unanticipated effects and he uses the ana logy* .-of the, undesirable conse­ quences of industrialization and a u t o m a t i o n . While systems theory is relatively y o u n g , it does seem to be a viable method of attempting to improve the effectiveness of institutions of higher education* How­ ever, caution must be exercised in using this technique as the "products” of a university are humans and not things* And even in those organizations designed to produce inani­ mate objects, it has been learned that a scientific ap­ proach can not ignore the human personality*^ In this chapter, the writer has reviewed selected literature related to the importance of articulating goals for institutions of higher education, various views about the nature of these goals, research on higher education goals, and social systems theory. Amitai Etzioni, Modern Organizations (Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1964), p. 33. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY The purpose of this study is to compare selected groups at Michigan State University on their perceptions and preferences of possible goals for the University. This chapter will describe the populations in the study, sampling procedures, the instrument, data collection and analysis procedures, the hypotheses to be tested, and the statistical treatment of the data. The Populations in the Study Five different populations were selected for this studys 1. Board of Trustees— The eight elected members of the Board of Trustees of Michigan State University as of J a n uary 1, 1971. 2. A d m i n i strators— The Administrative Group, exclud­ ing the President of the University, was selected as the population of administrators at Michigan State University. number, This group, twenty-eight in is composed of the top officers of the central administration and the Deans of the Colleges. 54 55 3. Faculty— The faculty population consists of those tenured, regular appointments to the teaching faculty of Michigan State University who current­ ly do not have administrative responsibilities such as that of department chairman. 4. Graduate Students— The graduate student popula­ tion is defined as students of United States citizenship who were regularly enrolled in a graduate or professional program at Michigan State University at the beginning of the Winter Term, 5. 1971. Undergraduate Students— This group was defined as those full-time, degree seeking students classi­ fied as freshmen, sophomores, juniors, and seniors who were enrolled for the Winter Term of 1971. International students are not included in the population of undergraduates in this study. Samples 1* Board of Trustees— The total population of the Board of Trustees (N= ) of Michigan State Uni­ 8 versity. 2. Administrators— The total population of the Administrative Group (N=28) of Michigan State University. 56 3* Faculty— A simple random sample of fifty (n=50) faculty at Michigan State University. 4. Graduate Students— A simple random sample of fifty (n=50) graduate and professional students at Michigan State University. 5. Undergraduate Students-- A simple random sample of fifty (n=50) undergraduate students at Michigan State University. A simple random sampling technique was used to obtain the three samples (faculty* undergraduate and graduate students) because such factors as sex* age, and academic department were not treated as independent v a r i ­ ables in this study. Therefore, a random sample was chosen rather than a stratified one. The sample of faculty was selected from a com­ puter list of this group located in the Provost's Office. There are approximately 1,800 faculty in this population. A computer list containing the names of all undergraduate and graduate students enrolled for Winter Term, 1971 was obtained from the Dean of Students' to identify the samples for these two groups. Office There were a pproximately 29,000 undergraduate and 9,000 graduate students enrolled for Winter Term, 1971 at Michigan State University. A table of random numbers was used to identify the subjects in all three samples. 57 The samples were restricted to fifty subjects in order to permit a more effective follow-up procedure w h i c h would hopefully result in a higher rate of response than w o uld be possible in working with a larger sample. The Instrument The questionnaire was composed of fifty-two items (see Appendix A ) * the m a j ority of w hich w e r e identical to those contained in the instrument used by Gross and Grambsch in the study reported in University Goals and 1 Academic P o w e r . A few of the items were deleted or slightly modified and thirteen items were developed by this researcher. Each item required two types of response: (1) the perceived importance of the goal in current practice at Michigan State University* and (2) the preferred impor­ tance of the goal at the University. asked to rate the importance of each goal on a scale com­ posed of five possible responses. The respondent was The response categories ranged from "of absolutely top importance" to "of no im­ portance at all" w i t h a neutral response of "don't know or can't say." Space was provided at the end of the questionnaire for the respondent to write in those goals Edward Gross and Paul V. Grambsch* University Goals and Academic Power (Washington D.C.: American Council on Education, 1968), p. 15. 58 that he felt were important for Michigan State University but w e r e not included among those in the questionnaire. The items are of two general t y p e s , those which represent output g o a l s 1 and those which are measures of the "functional imperatives " 2 of an organization. A table of ra n d o m numbers was used to order the items in the i n s t r u m e n t . 4 The "functional imperative" categories and an ex­ ample of a goal item related to each are presented below (the item numbers correspond to their location in the questionnaire)% Adaptation 15. Ensure satisfactory relations with the immediate geographical region by responding to its special needs and problems. Other goal items in this category are numbers 23, 33, 36, and 47. Pattern-Ma intenance 16. Have the various academic departments and admin­ istrative units periodically assess their ^An example of an output goal would bes Specifi­ cally prepare students for useful careers. Any goal that pertained to "providing" something for society either in the form of a service or producing a person who had been changed in some w a y as a result of his experience at the U niversity would be classified as an output goal. 2These are classified as Adaptation, PatternMa intenance, Tension Management, Integration, and Goal A t t a i n m e n t . A discussion of these classifications is found on pages - . 6 8 59 activities relative to the fulfillment of the Un i v e r s i t y 9s goals* Other items in this cate­ gory are 21, 26, 34, 39, and 44, Tension Management 4, Protect the academic freedom of the faculty. Other items in this category: 11, 18, 30, 37, 42, 46, 48, and 52, Integration 3, Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for, Other category items: 25, 29, 35, 45, and 50, The items in the preceding classifications were taken from the Gross and Grambsch instrument in those cases where they were compatible with P a r s o n s cations, 9 classifi­ The remaining items were developed and then all items were reviewed for their validity by a faculty m e m ­ ber who is Icnowledgeable of this theory. All of the items in the instrument were submitted to several graduate students and faculty for suggestions on improved clarity of wording. Collection of Data The questionnaire, along with a cover letter (see Appendix B) and a return, stamped envelope, was mailed to the subjects in the study on February 1, 1971, 60 Each questionnaire w a s given a code number in order to identify the respondent and t h e group that he represented. Such identification made it p o s sible to follow-up on the non-respondents . The same cover letter w as used for the two stu­ dent groups s. f a c u i t y 9 and administrators. A separate letter (see A p pendix C) was developed for the trustees in order to emphasize the importance of their cooperation in the study due to their small number. Approximately two w e e k s following the mailing of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e » telephone calls were made to the no n ­ respondents residing in the greater Lansing area. The four trustees w h o had not responded were personally con­ tacted on February 19 while they were on campus for a meeting. These four were also sent a letter immediately following the personal conversations to express appreci­ ation for their willingness to consider completing the quest ionna i r e . In the cases of those f ew non-respondents who either did not h a v e a telephone listing or lived in other Michigan c o m m u n i t i e ss a second letter and questionnaire we r e mailed to them. Table 3.1 provides a detailed picture of the re­ sponse rate in the survey. among the faculty administrators ( 8 6 T he highest response was percent) (60 percent). and the lowest among the T h e relatively low return 61 among the administrators appears to be attributable to their being swamped w i t h questionnaires* With the press of other duties they do not give such inquiries a high priority. Some of the undergraduate s t u d e n t s s wh o also showed a relatively low rate of returns, indicated that they had not been at the University sufficient time to formulate clear perceptions about its pursuit of goals. Table 3.1.— Rate of Response to the Questionnaire Groups Board of Trustees Number Useable Percent Number in Sample Responded Responses Responded 8 75 6 6 Administrators 28 17 14 60 Faculty 50 43 40 8 Graduate Students 50 37 35 74 Under Graduate Students 50 31 31 62 186 134 Total 126 ( 6 8 %) 6 72 Although some of the returned questionnaires were not useable in the statistical a n a l y s i s 9 they did provide useful informations, some of which will be reported in Chapter 4. O v e r - a l l s the telephone follow-up appeared to be a more effective technique than did the letter follow-up. The personal contact made it possible to motivate the non­ respondents to a greater degree than was possible through 62 a written communication. when called, As an example, a faculty member, admitted that he had discarded the question­ naire because of other more urgent demands. However, the call prompted him to ash for another questionnaire w h i c h he did complete and return. The researcher is convinced that a letter follow-up alone would have resulted in a lower rate of response. One weakness in the data collection procedure was that the return deadline was set too close to the mailing to give some of the subjects a reasonable time to respond. During follow-up it was discovered that some non-respond­ ents had failed to complete the questionnaire because the deadline had passed before they had sufficient opportunity to respond. Processing the Data In order to quantify the data, each response category on the rating scale was assigned an arbitrary value. The response "of absolutely top importance" was assigned a value of 5; "of great importance," a value of 4 5 "of me d i u m importance," a value of 3; "of little im­ portance,” a value of 1. 2 ? "of no importance," a value of The " d o n ’t know or c a n ’t say" category was given a value of 0 but was not weighted in the computation of mean scores. The values assigned to the individual ratings were recorded on computer coding sheets and were then 63 key-punched on data processing cards, A complete check for error was made in both transactions. Hypotheses There are four hypotheses to be tested in this study. They are stated in the non-directional form since the theory and previous research does not provide any clear expectations. Hypothesis 1 There will be differences between the Board of Trustees , faculty, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s , undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of adaptation goals. Hypothesis 2 There will be differences between trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of pattern-maintenance goals. Hypothesis 3 There will be differences between the trustees, fac­ ulty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate stu­ dents at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of tension management goals. Hypothesis 4 There will be differences between trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students 64 at Michigan State University on their ratings of integration goals. Analysis of Data To test the h y p o t h e s e s , a mean score for each goal classification (adaptation* integration, etc.) for each individual was derived by summing the item scores for each individual and dividing by the number of items answered. A limitation of this procedure is that when an individual fails to respond to an item, his score for that item becomes the average value of the answered items. Statistical Treat m e nt— Repeated measures analysis of variance was the statistical technique used in testing the hypotheses. This technique provides a more "global" picture of the relationship between the variables by yielding interaction and main effects. • this technique in some detail. 1 The Kirk discusses .05 level of con­ fidence was used for accepting or rejecting hypotheses. Data were analyzed by a program written for the CDC 3600 computer at Michigan State University. Descriptive Data— The data in this study were also ana­ lysed by ranking the goals, both perceived and preferred, for each group. This was accomplished by computing a mean Roger E. Kirk, Experimental Design; Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences (Belmont, California: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1968), pp. 245-270. 65 item score for each group by averaging the item scores of those responding to that item (or goal). The limitation of this procedure has previously been identified. The Spearman Ranh Correlation Coefficient was used to test the relationship between the perceived and preferred goal choices of subjects within groups. This is an appropriate technigue to summarize the association between two ordinal scales. 1 To correct for ties, the tied goals were assigned mean ranks by averaging the ranks that the tied goals would occupy. For e x a m p l e , three goals tied for 10th would sum up to 33 (10 + 11 + 12). Therefore, the mean rank assigned to each of the goals would be eleven. Summary This chapter has described the populations in the study, the instrument, the hypotheses to be tested, and the procedures used for the collection and analysis of d a t a . -^William L. Hays, Statistics (New York: Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 641. Holt, CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA This chapter is devoted to the presentation and analysis of the data gathered in this study* The four hypotheses are re-stated and followed by a discussion of the findings* The remainder of the presentation and dis­ cussion will be related to those questions raised by the researcher in chapter 1 . Each respondent from the five groups (under­ graduate and graduate students, faculty, administrators, and t r u s t e e s ) in the study was asked to rate the impor­ tance of each goal on the basis of ( ) how important the 1 goal Lb, and ( ) how important the goal should be at 2 Michigan State University. The former is classified as a perceived goal and the latter as a preferred goal. Among the fifty-two goals were twenty-six that were assigned to the following goal classifications: adaptation, p a t t e r n -maintenance, tension management, and i n tegration. The hypotheses are related to these classi­ fications and refer to preferred goals. 66 67 Hypotheses Findings There were four hypotheses to be tested in this study. The repeated measures analysis of variance sta­ tistical model was used to test the hypotheses. As this technique permitted a simultaneous analysis of the two variables, groups and g o a l s , for main effects and inter­ action, the four hypotheses will be stated first. Hypothesis 1 There will be differences between the trustees, fac­ ulty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate stu­ dents at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of adaptation goals. Hypothesis 2 There will be differences between trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of pattern-maintenance goals. Hypothesis 3 There will be differences between the trustees, fac­ ulty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate stu­ dents at Michigan State University on their ratings of the importance of tension management goals. Hypothesis 4 There will be differences between trustees, faculty, administrators, undergraduate and graduate students at Michigan State University on their ratings of inte­ gration goals. 68 Interaction effects--Table 4.1 summarizes the results of the repeated measures analysis of variance for significant differences between g r o u p s , goal categories and for inter­ action. A test for significance at the ,05 level indicates that there are differences between groups and between goal classifications (repeated measures). The F value for in­ teraction effects between these two variables was not significant. Since there w e r e not interaction effects, the hypotheses will be discussed as a package. Table 4.1.— Summary of Analysis of Variance on Groups, Goals, and Interaction. Source df Groups Sub je c t s- Gr o up s RS-G Total MS 4 14.60 3,65 1 95.11 ,79 3 14,06 4.69 4.21 .35 363 58.43 .16 503 186.41 .37 1 2 Repeated Measures RG-Interaction SS 1 2 *Significant at F 4.62 29.31* 2.17 ,05 level. Figures 4.1 and 4.2 provide a visual representation of the relationship between the groups and the goal classi­ fications. Graphically, it appears as though there is some interaction but the failure to obtain statistical 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 M M Groups Gj_ -G — G — G — G — 2 3 4 5 Goals Undergraduates Graduates Faculty Administrators Trustees Mi - M? — M — M — 3 4 Figure 4,1,— Graphic Representation of Group Effects Adaptation Integration Tension Management Pattern-Maintenance A M W 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 M/ 1 t « g Groups Gi G G G G 2 3 4 5 — — — — — Undergraduates Graduates Faculty Administrators Trustees Goals M|_ m 2 Mo — M — 4 Figure 4.2,— Graphic Representation of Goal Effects 4 Adaptation Integration Tension Management Pattern-Maintenance g5 71 significance requires an assumption that these minor deviations can be attributed to sampling error. Main effects for groups— To determine precisely where there were differences between groups on the goal classif . f i c a t i o n s s Scheffe®s post hoc ratio was employed. 1 A summary of the results of this test is shown in Table 4,2. Table 4.2.— Post Hoc Comparisons (Groups) F 5 - %(G-l + G 2 + g 4 - G3 in • H g 4 - G2 .6 g 4 - Gi G3 - G2 .3 g 3 - G1 1.9 g 2 - G1 2.7 12.4** 4 + G4 ) *Groups — Undergraduates G 2 — Graduates G 3 — Faculty G 4 — Administrators G 5 — Trustees Significant at .05 level. -^Kirk, Experimental D e s i g n » p. 269, • g ^ CO Group * Comparisons 72 The trustees rate all four goal classifications as more important than do the other four g r o u p s 0 The other g r o u p s 9 undergraduate and graduate s t u d e n t s , faculty, and administrators, do not differ among themselves. The theory behind this research would suggest that the trustees would rate adaptation goals higher than would the other groups due to their position as a link between the University and the larger society. It is not sur­ prising, then, that they would be sensitive to the need to maintain a satisfactory relationship w i t h those groups and agencies that are external to the University and upon whom the University is dependent, in the final analysis, for its existence. That the trustees also rate the internal goals of tension management, pattern-maintenance and integration to be more important than do the other groups is of inter­ est. It m a y be that the trustees9more global perspective of the University and its environment leads them to view all goals as of greater importance than do the others who are in a more proximate position. The administrators rated adaptation goals as second in importance to the trustees. This outcome was predictable as administrators are operationally respon­ sible for maintaining satisfactory relationships w i t h the U n i v e r s i t y 9s "publics" and procuring the necessary re­ sources to complete its missions. 73 Across the four categories of goals, the u n d e r ­ graduate students had the lowest mean. This group was particularly low on the pattern-maintenance goals. How­ ever, it must be noted that both of these differences could have been the result of chance alone as the F test was not significant for differences between the under­ graduate and graduate students, faculty, and administrators. Main effects for goals— It can be seen in Table 4.3 that adaptation goals are rated significantly higher than the other goal classifications by all groups. The F test for significance failed to show differences between the other three goal classifications that could not be attributed to sampling error. Table 4.3.— Post Hoc Comparisons (Goals). Goal* Comparisons F ** 1 4 - m 3 6.7 m 4 - m 2 .3 m 3 - m 2 4.0 H M 2 + M 79.9 1 / 3 (M *Goals M-j_ — M -M -M — 2 3 4 3 + M4 ) Adaptation Integration Tension Management Pattern-Ma intenance **Significant at .05 level. 74 Adaptation goals were rated highest by all groups which would suggest a concern on the part of all for the University to be responsive to the needs of society as well as recognizing the practical necessity of obtaining the resources (finances^ s t u d e n t s 5 personnel, e t c , ) to Keep the organization functioning* Summary of Hypotheses Findings The null hypotheses of no differences between groups on the four goal classifications must be rejected. The trustees rate all four goal categories (a d a p t a t i o n s pattern-maintenance, tension m a n a g e m e n t , and integration) as more important than do undergraduate and graduate stu­ dents 9 f a c u l t y * and administrators* The latter groups do not differ among themselves* Although hypotheses had not been developed which were related to the variable of goal classifications» the statistical technique employed to analyze the data enabled observations about this variable. It can be concluded that adaptation goals are significantly higher than the other three classifications of goals. F u r t h e r 9 there were no significant differences among the other goal classi­ fications o In addition to testing the h y p o t h e s e s 9 the r e ­ searcher was interested in other questions related to the data collected in the study. The following discussion will be based on the goal rankings of the five g r o u p s , all of which appear in Table 4.4, Table 4.4.— Goal Rankings of Undergraduate and Graduate Students, Faculty, Administrators, and Trustees. Item Rank Mean Undergraduate PerPreceived ferred Graduate PerPreceived ferred Faculty PerPreceived ferred Administrator Trustee PerPrePerPreceived ferred ceived ferred 1. Produce a student whose physical, rank social, moral, intellectual, and mean esthetic potentialities have all been cultivated. 22 2.93 17 3.66 15 3.25 4 4.14 26 3.07 8 3.87 19 3.35 20 3.78 14 3.40 27 3.83 2. Accommodate only students of high rank potential in terms of the specif­ mean ic strengths and emphases of this University. 10 3.16 47 2.38 26 3.00 49 2.75 47 2.58 40 3.10 48 2.78 45 2.92 34 3.00 51 2.20 3. Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for. rank mean 22 2.93 47 2.38 42 2.69 50 2.66 48 2.55 43 3.00 39 3.00 22 3.71 50 2.40 46 3.16 4. Protect the academic freedom of the faculty. rank mean 10 3.16 13 3.70 7 3.41 9 4.05 4 3.47 3 4.15 2 4.00 7 4.14 19 3.33 3 4.60 5. Carry on research for the sole purpose of extending knowledge. rank mean 14 3.10 24 3.45 5 3.51 32 3.37 3 3.50 11 3.82 5 3.71 19 3.84 19 3.33 39 3.40 6. Produce a student who has been rank inculcated with those values con­ mean sidered important to an educated person; e.g., the dignity of the individual, truth, tolerance of different views, and a rational approach to problem solving. 34 2.70 16 3.67 18 3.17 2 4. 28 19 3.15 2 4.17 20 3.30 2 4.28 34 3.00 17 4.16 7. Provide opportunities for spe­ cial training for part-time adult students, through exten­ sion courses, special short courses and correspondence courses. rank mean 40 2.60 21 3.54 10 3.29 19 3.77 15 3.17 22 3.55 39 3.00 28 3.53 3 3.66 21 4.00 Produce a student who has had his intellect challenged to the maximum. rank mean 44 2.58 20 3.60 38 2.79 10 4.00 32 2.95 5 4.07 30 3.07 7 4.14 26 3.55 21 4.00 Assist other nations in meeting their qoals by providing their citizens with educational oppor­ tunities on campus. rank mean 7 3.25 32 3.29 9 3.34 39 3.26 13 3.20 43 3.00 30 3.07 40 3.14 8 3.60 50 2.80 8 . 9. Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Item Rank Mean Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Graduate Per­ Pre­ ce ived ferred Faculty Administrator Trustee Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred 10. Carry on research designed to solve contemporary problems. rank mean 24 2.92 5 4.03 16 3.24 10 4.00 7 3.37 15 3.72 11 3.50 15 3.92 19 3.33 30 3.80 11. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by involving them in the governance of the University. rank mean 20 2.96 34 3.20 31 2.93 25 3.52 15 3.17 27 3.43 3 3.78 24 3.61 2 3.83 39 3.40 12. Produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the dis­ ciplined study of the world's philosophical and religious traditions. rank mean 51 2.16 46 2.40 49 2.45 52 2.43 52 2.34 45 2.97 50 2.61 37 3.35 47 2.75 49 3.00 13. Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. rank mean 52 1.89 44 2.76 52 2.17 44 3.00 51 2.35 38 3.12 51 2.15 40 3.14 50 2.40 35 3.66 14. Make sure that salaries, teach­ ing assignments, and privileges always reflect the contribution that the person involved is making to his own profession or discipline. rank mean 50 2.25 30 3.33 45 2.59 22 3.60 39 2.81 16 3.71 39 3.00 35 3.42 42 2.83 36 3.60 15. Ensure satisfactory relations with the immediate geographical region by responding to its spe­ cial needs and problems. rank mean 46 2.50 29 3.34 24 3.05 34 3.34 22 3.13 37 3,15 30 3.07 31 3.50 19 3.33 43 3.20 16. Have the various academic depart­ rank ments and administrative units mean periodically assess their activi­ ties relative to the fulfillment of the University's goals. 45 2.52 15 3.68 50 2.40 17 3.82 40 2.78 20 3.57 46 2.83 3 4.23 42 2.83 21 4.00 17. Ensure the vitality and quality of our society by creating an atmosphere where faculty, stu­ dents, and administrators, as individuals, may be encouraged to serve as its critics. 34 2.70 3 4.16 35 .2.91 7 4.12 37 2.85 14 3.80 17 3.38 7 4.14 19 3.33 13 4.20 rank mean Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Item Rank Mean Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Graduate Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Faculty Administrator Trustee Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred 18. Protect the right of faculty to rank organize as a collective bargain­ mean ing unit. 41 2.59 41 2.87 51 2.30 35 3.30 49 2.43 45 2.97 46 2.83 51 2.41 44 2.80 13 4.20 19. Assist the society in the main­ rank tenance of continuity and stabil­ mean ity by serving as a center for the preservation of the cultural heritage. 30 2.76 45 2.58 33 2.93 41 3.21 28 3.00 30 3.41 17 3.38 23 3.69 34 3.00 46 3.16 20. Produce a student who has been exposed to the ideas of the great minds of history. rank mean 26 2.90 28 3.35 26 3.00 26 3.51 33 2.94 11 3.82 39 3.00 31 3.50 27 3.20 46 3.16 21. Maintain top quality, in rela­ tion to other major univer­ sities, in all programs we engage in. rank mean 6 3.30 31 3.32 13 3.27 27 3.50 31 2.97 26 3.50 30 3.07 38 3.28 10 3.50 2 4.80 22. Enrich the cultural life of the community by providing Univer­ sity sponsored programs in the arts, public lectures by dis­ tinguished persons, athletic events, and other performances, displays, or celebrations which present the best of culture, popular or not. rank mean 2 3.50 17 3.66 12 3.27 23 3.57 9 3.30 24 3.52 7 3.64 24 3.61 14 3.40 38 3.50 23. Ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contribute substantially (other than students and recipients of services) to the f inances and other material resource needs of the University. rank mean 1 3.72 39 2.96 3 3.59 40 3.24 6 3.41 32 3.36 8 3.57 15 3.92 34 3.00 1 4.83 74. Produce a student who has a gen­ rank eral education (whether or not mean he has had specialized training). 21 2.93 36 3.16 21 3.11 31 3.44 23 3.12 21 3.56 22 3.23 26 3.57 31 3.16 43 3.20 Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Item Rank Mean Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Graduate Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred Faculty Administrator Trustee Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred 25. Develop attitudes of mutual res­ pect and consideration among students, faculty, administra­ tors, and trustees. rank mean 28 2.83 13 3.70 39 2.79 16 3.90 35 2.92 17 3.65 43 2.91 3 4.23 34 3.00 5 4.50 26. Ensure that faculty follow Uni­ versity-wide standards in the evaluation of student perfor­ mances . rank mean 30 2.76 51 2.09 43 4.00 37 3.27 43 2.67 47 2.87 25 3.15 42 3.00 34 3.00 21 4.00 27. Assist other nations in their development by providing direct technical and educational assis­ tance to their governments or institutions. rank mean 16 3.00 42 2.83 23 3.06 44 3.00 27 3.05 50 2.71 30 3.07 49 2.71 31 3.16 39 3.40 28. Produce students who have devel­ rank oped the ability to apply the mean methods of various disciplines in attaching societal problems. 33 2.73 6 3.96 29 2.96 13 3.97 28 3.00 18 3.64 25 3.15 11 4.07 14 3.40 17 4.16 29. Develop maximum communication and rank coordination within and between mean academic departments, administra­ tive offices, student organiza­ tions and other agencies of the University. 42 2.58 11 3.74 48 2.54 20 3.65 4? 2.70 31 3.37 24 3.16 15 3.92 44 2.80 5 4.50 30. Maintain the commitment of the rank students by involving them in the mean governance of the University. 48 2.43 6 3.96 37 2.80 24 3.55 38 2.84 42 3.02 30 3.07 31 3.50 52 2.20 3 4.60 31. Serve as a center for the dissem­ rank ination of new ideas that will mean change the society, whether those ideas are in science, literature, the arts, or politics. 37 2.64 10 3.80 22 3.08 14 3.94 13 3.20 11 3.82 15 3.42 12 4.00 27 3.20 27 3.83 32. Produce a student who has devel­ rank oped the attitudes and competen­ mean cies essential to perform respon­ sibly in a democratic society. 16 3.00 26 3.38 17 3.22 15 3.94 24 3.10 7 3.92 11 3.50 12 4.00 14 3.40 5 4.50 Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Item Rank Mean Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred Graduate Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Faculty Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Administrator Trustee Per­ Pre­ Per­ ceived ferred ceived Pre­ ferred 33. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training. rank mean 4 3.34 1 4.29 1 3.70 1 4.37 1 3.62 1 4.42 1 4.07 1 4.30 3 3.66 8 4.40 34. Keep Michigan State University rank from becoming something different mean from what it is now; that is, pre­ serve its "land grant" philosophy. 12 3.13 52 2.03 6 3.50 42 3.03 5 3.45 39 3.10 16 3.41 46 2.91 8 3.60 42 3.25 35. Keep harmony between departments rank or divisions of the University mean when such departments or divisions do not agree on important matters. 13 3.11 43 2.80 36 2.85 43 3.03 34 2.94 48 2.82 43 2.91 42 3.00 27 3.20 34 3.75 36. Seek the favorable appraisal of rank those who validate the quality of mean the programs we offer (validating groups include accrediting agen­ cies, professional societies, scholarly peers at other univer­ sities, and respected persons in intellectual or artistic circles). 4 3.34 37 3.06 4 3.51 36 3.28 8 3.30 29 3.42 5 3.71 39 3.23 1 4.00 21 4.00 37. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by making sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum), the will of the faculty shall prevail. rank mean 29 2.82 47 2.38 39 2.75 48 2.82 44 2.65 41 3.05 30 3,08 50 2.46 19 3.33 52 1.80 38. Assist citizens directly through extension programs, advice, consultation, and the provision of useful or needed facilities and services other than teaching. rank mean 27 2.89 22 3.51 10 3.29 21 3.62 11 3.28 36 3.23 8 3.57 28 3.53 10 3.50 36 3.60 39. Be certain that the instructional rank staff adhere to University exmean pectations with regard to grading policies, stating instructional objectives in courses, meeting classes and maintaining a reason­ able number of office hours. 8 3,20 38 3.03 19 3.16 32 3.37 12 3.25 22 3.55 21 3.28 21 3.76 10 3.50 30 3.80 Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Item Rank Mean PerPreceived ferred Graduate PerPreceived ferred Faculty Administrator Trustee PerPreceived ferred PerPreceived ferred PerPreceived ferred 40. Produce a student who is able to think clearly, objectively, and coqently in making judgements. rank mean 16 3.00 12 3.73 14 3.25 6 4.14 15 3.17 4 4.10 14 3.46 3 4.23 44 2.80 17 4.16 41. Specifically prepare students for rank useful careers. mean 3 3.38 35 3.19 8 3.40 27 3.50 9 3.30 33 3.35 11 3 „50 28 3.53 10 3.50 21 4.00 42. Protect and facilitate the stu­ dents* right to inquire into, investigate, and examine criticcally any idea or program in which they might become inter­ ested . rank mean 39 2.63 2 4.19 31 2.93 3 4.26 20 3.14 9 3.84 8 3.57 6 4.15 48 2.66 8 4.40 43. Produce students who have devel­ rank oped objectivity about themselves mean and their beliefs and hence can examine those beliefs critically. 36 2.67 8 3.90 29 2.96 8 4.05 18 3.16 6 4.02 23 3.21 10 4.07 27 3.20 11 4.33 44. Ensure that the various colleges rank and academic departments follow mean University-wide policies in deci­ sions relating to teaching load, salaries, sabbatical leaves, pro­ motion and tenure. 15 3.08 40 2.89 26 3.00 46 2.87 25 3.08 34 3.32 25 3.15 36 3.41 3 3.66 30 3.80 45. rank Make sure the University is run mean democratically (a consensus ap­ proach involving students, facul­ ty, administrators and trustees) insofar as that is possible. 42 2.58 9 3.87 34 2.63 18 3.80 28 3.00 25 3.51 29 3.08 42 3.00 34 3.00 8 4.40 46. Make this a place in which facul­ rank ty have maximum opportunity to mean pursue their careers in a manner satisfactory to them by their own criteria. 38 2.64 27 2.36 20 3.13 30 3.47 21 3.13 35 3.27 28 3.14 48 2.76 3 3.66 43 2.20 47. Obtain the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educa­ tional environment. 8 3.20 4 4.06 2 3.66 10 4.00 2 3.53 9 3.84 3 3.78 15 3.92 14 3.40 17 4.16 rank mean Table 4.4.— (continued) Undergraduate Per­ Pre­ ceived ferred Graduate Per­ P re­ ceived ferred Faculty Per­ P re­ ceived ferred Admin istrator Trustee Per­ Pre­ P re­ Per­ ceived ferred ceived ferred rank Protect and facilitate the stu­ dents* right to advocate direct mean action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals. 49 2.42 17 3.66 41 2.73 37 3.27 45 2.62 51 2.67 49 2.76 47 2.85 31 3.16 13 4.20 49. Provide educational opportunities rank mean for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MSU. 47 2.46 33 3.24 47 2.55 47 2.85 50 2.37 52 2.12 52 1.92 52 1.83 34 3.00 30 3.80 50 rank Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the Uni- mean versity, rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns. 16 3.00 50 2.26 46 2.56 51 2.65 46 2.59 49 2.78 45 2.84 31 3.50 49 2.60 27 3.83 51. Produce a student who is commit­ ted to use his talents to con­ tribute to the betterment of society. rank mean 30 2.76 24 3.45 25 3.03 4 4.14 36 2.92 18 3.64 30 3.07 12 4.00 19 3.33 13 4.20 52. Maintain the commitment of the rank academic units by ensuring that mean there is a proportionate dis­ tribution of resources among the colleges and academic departments • 25 2.92 23 3.50 34 2.92 27 3.50 41 2.76 28 3.42 30 3.07 26 3.57 3 3.66 12 4.25 • 00 Item Rank Mean 82 Across Group Comparisons of Perceived Goals The fifty-two goals on the questionnaire were ranked within each group on the basis of mean scores. This phase of the analysis will compare the top ten ranked perceived goals of each group. In ranking the g o a l s , an arbitrary point has been established to categorize the highest rated goals. In this case, those goals that were ranked in the top ten of each group were designated as "high” perceived goals. In some cases, more than ten goals were listed if there was a tie for the 10th rank, A limitation of this ranking procedure is that there is not equality across rankings. For example, a goal ranked 10th in one group m a y have a lower mean than a goal ranked twelfth in another group. Highest Ranked Perceived Goals— In viewing the top ten ranked perceived goals across groups, it can be determined that only two goals appear in each g r o u p 1s high ranked goals. The goals are stated in abbreviated form and the numbers correspond to the goal items in the questionnaires 33, Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training, 36o Seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer. There m a y be some relationship between these two goals that are seen by all groups to be of importance to Michigan State. It is generally accepted that a competent 83 faculty will contribute considerably to the prestige of a university, A good example of this was the recent study1 of graduate education w h i c h relied on the perceptions of faculty members renowned in their fields to rate the qual­ ity of institutional graduate programs. Such a criterion measurement of quality education is obviously closely related to the reputed competence of the faculty. Although there w e r e just two perceived goals that were ranked hi g h b y all g r o u p s , there were four goals that were common to four of the groups. The goal of protecting the academic freedom of the faculty was perceived to be important to M i chigan State by both student g r o u p s , admin­ istrators , and faculty and was ranked relatively high (19th) by the trustees. The high ranking of this goal is consistent with other studies cited in Chapter 2, Main­ taining an environment for the faculty w h ich ensures free­ dom of inquiry and expression is considered by these groups to have a high priority at the University. Each g r o u p s except the trustees,, saw the goal of maintaining the confidence of contributors as important in practice. The trustees ranked this goal 34th but the fact that they preferred it to be their top ranked goal '''Robert L, Jacobson , "Ratings of Graduate Depart­ ments Raise Questions About Who's 'Best'," The Chronicle of Higher E d u c a t i o n s January 11, 1971, p, 9. 84 may suggest that their position of proximity to the ex­ ternal environment m a y distort their perceptions of what is a very sensitive issue for them. They are ultimately accountable for the financial health of the University and might understandably under-rate the University's posture in this area. The goal of specifically preparing students for useful careers was perceived as a top goal by each group wi t h the exception of administrators who ranked it just below the top ten goals (tie for 1 1 t h ) 0 The high ranking of this goal compared to the relatively low ranking of the goal of providing the student w i t h a general education would suggest that the latter c o n c e p t , although emphasized through the University College cur r i c u l u m , is perceived to be receiving less attention than is vocational edu­ cation „ Another goal seen as important to all groups except the trustees is that of obtaining the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educational environ­ ment a H o w e v e r p it was also given a relatively high rank of 14th by t h e m e The sprawling, moderif physical plant of Michigan State is probably the evidence that most respond­ ents needed to give this goal a high perceived rating. Three groups ranked the following perceived goals in the high groups 85 22. Enrich the cultural life of the community by sponsoring University programs (undergraduates, faculty, and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ). 9. Assist other nations by providing their citizens w i t h educational opportunities (undergraduates, graduates, and trustees). 5. Carry on pure research (graduate students, fac­ ulty, and administrators). 34. Preserve the ’"land g r a n t ’9 philosophy (graduate students, faculty, and trustees). The two groups that did not rank these goals in this high category were still in general agreement with the other three as they ranked the same goals no lower than 19th. One exception was the administrators who gave the goal of providing educational opportunities for inter­ national students a low rank of 30th as a perceived goal. Otherwise, it can be stated that all groups saw the four above goals as being relatively important. In summary, an across groups comparison of the top ten ranked goals perceived by each group to be important at Michigan State reveals that ten goals were common to at least three of the groups. This would suggest that there is a fair degree of harmony between the groups on their perceptions of the U n i v e r s i t y 8s top goals. Lowest Ranked Perceived Goals-— There were two goals that appeared in each group®s ten lowest ranked goals? 86 12, Produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the disciplined study of the world®s philosophical and religious traditions• 13, Graduate a student who is able to use his lei­ sure time in a creative manner. The low ranking of the first goal by all groups m a y be related to the U n i v e r s i t y ’s status as a public institution. The respondents m a y interpret that the Uni­ versity is not exercising any responsibility in shaping the students® ethical convictions based on religious pr e ­ cepts because this is not its proper function as an in­ stitution designed to serve all of society. While the groups saw the University as giving considerable emphasis to vocational educations, they do not perceive it to be concerned w i t h helping the student prepare for the non-vocational use of his time. There were four goals that appeared in the low­ est perceived ranking of all except one groups 16, Have the various academic departments and admin­ istrative units periodically assess their activ­ ities relative to the U n i v e r s i t y ’s goals ceptions 18. (ex­ faculty), Protect the right of faculty to organize as a collective bargaining unit graduate s t u d e n t s ). (exceptions under­ 87 49. Provide educational opportunities for every hi g h school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by Michigan State University (except ion * 50. t r u s t e e s ). Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the University* rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns ceptions (ex­ undergraduate students). The "exception" groups do not differ greatly from the others on these goals as they rank them in at least the lower half of their perceived rankings. The undergraduates depart from this pattern on the last goal of developing faculty and staff loyalty to the University and not just their own jobs. These students* for some reason* ranked this goal relatively high* 16th* on their perceived list. T hree groups ranked the following goals among their lowest tens 14. Make sure that salaries* teaching assignments, and privileges a 1'ways reflect the contributions that the person involved is making to his own profession or discipline (undergraduate and graduate s t u d e n t s , t r u s t e e s ). 29. Develop maximum communication and coordination within and between academic departments. 88 administrative offices, student organizations and other agencies in the University (under­ graduate and graduate students and trustees),, 48. Protect and facilitate the students® right to advocate direct action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals (undergraduate students, faculty, and adminis­ trators ). Once again, the deviating groups also tend to ranlc these goals relatively low. In only one instance is one of these goals ranked in the top half of the per­ ceived goals. The administrators rank the goal of devel­ oping communication within and between the various com­ ponents of the University 24th and, thus, see it as receiving more emphasis than do the other groups. The other exception on this goal, the faculty, gave it a low ranking of 42nd. In summary, there were nine goals that appeared among the lowest ten ranked perceived goals of at least three groups in this study. Across Group Comparisons of Preferred Goals Highest Preferred Goals— Using the same ranking technique used for the top perceived goals, the preferred goals were identified. There are two in this category which are found in the top ten goals of all groups* 89 33. Obtain faculty and staff wh o are competent in their area of special training. 42. Protect and facilitate the students® inquire into* right to investigates, and examine critically any idea or program in w hich they might become interested. The goal of obtaining competent personnel also appeared among the high perceived goals of each group. Thus* the groups see this goal as being important, a reality w i t h w hich they concur. It is noteworthy that all groups show concern about protecting the freedom of students to question and probe. The past few years have found m a n y in our society resentful of student exploration of sensitive issues and all groups seem to be endorsing such a right even though it has certain "public relations" risks. There were two high ranked goals that were common to four of the groupss 4. Protect the academic freedom of the faculty (ex­ ceptions 43. undergraduate students). Produce students who have developed objectivity about themselves and can examine their beliefs critically (exceptions trustees). As previously indicated s the groups had perceived the goal of protecting the academic freedom of the faculty to be important. Their beliefs concur with their 90 perceptions as t h e y feel that it should be a major con­ cern. Although the undergraduates did not rank it in their top ten preferred goals® it still rates a relatively high ranking of 13th w i t h them. The second goal common to four groups® producing students who have developed objectivity® is an output goal involving an expected characteristic of a graduate. For all practical purposes® this is a high ranked goal for all groups. The trustees® who are the exception® rank it 11th wi t h a mean of 4.33 w h ich indicates that they also value the goal highly. Therefore® all of the groups agree that it is important that a graduate of Michigan State should have the ability to practice introspection. Five goals in the preferred category appeared in the top ten goals of three groups? 17. Ensure the vitality and quality of our society b y creating an atmosphere where faculty, students and administrators, as individuals, may be encoxiraged to serve as its critics graduate students, 6. (undergraduate and and administrators). Produce a student who has been inculcated with those values considered important to an educated person, i.e., truth, tolerance, etc, students, 8, (graduate faculty, administrators), Produce a student who has had his intellect chal­ lenged to the maximum (graduate students, faculty, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ). 91 40. Produce a student w ho is able to think clearly, objectively, and cogently in making judgments (graduate students, 47. faculty, administrators), Obtain the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educational environment graduate and graduate students, (under­ faculty). Though the above goals were on the high ranked lists of three groups, the other two groups, in each case, had these goals ranked in the top two-fifths of their preferred goals. Therefore, there was no extreme variation among the five groups on these goals. It must be emphasized that some goals, although not ranked in the top ten, were still hig h l y valued. For example, the trustees gave the goal of producing students who have developed the ability to apply the methods of various disciplines in attacking problems a ranking of 17th, yet it had a mean of 4,16 w hich still makes it a goal of great importance from their perspective. In summary, there were nine goals that were common to at least three of the groups on their high ranked preferred goals. Where goals did not appear in the top ten in the deviant groups, they were still ranked relatively high by those groups. Lowest Ranked Preferred Goals— There was not a single goal which was ranked in the bottom ten goals of all of the groups. However, there were five goals that appeared 92 in the low preferred ranking of four groups. along wi t h the exception group* 2. These g o a l s , are listed belows Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University (exceptions 3. faculty). Develop loyalty on the part of faculty* staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for 12. (exceptions administrators). Produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the disciplined study of the w o r l d 0s philosophical and religious traditions 35. (exceptions administrators). Keep h a r m ony between departments or divisions of the University when such departments or divisions do not agree on important matters (exceptions t r u s t e e s ). 37. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by making sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum), the will of the faculty shall pr e ­ vail (exceptions faculty). While t h e faculty did not join the other groups in assigning a low rank to the goal of admitting only high potential students* neither did they rate it of strong importance. This goal was only given a preferred rank of 40th by the faculty w h i c h indicates that there was relative agreement that this goal should not receive a high priority. 93 That the administrators did not rank the goal of University loyalty as low as the others does not seem sur­ prising o Administrators have a major concern for keeping personnel and the sub-organizations of the University performing for the benefit of the larger organization. The administrators ranked this goal 22nd among their pre­ ferred goals. The administrators also departed from the other groups in ranking higher the goal of producing a student w i - h a closely examined set of ethical convictions. This got 1 was ranked 37th by them, still a relatively low rank­ ing, This goal was also on the low perceived list of the groups, The trustees deviated from the other groups on the goal of keeping harmony between departments by ranking it 34th among their preferred goals. Apparently, this integration type goal is not seen as a crucial problem by the g r o u p s , The last goal that received a low ranking by four of the groups was that of involving the faculty on all important issues. Again, while the deviant group on this goal was the faculty, it must be noted that they gave it a relatively low ranking of 41st. Consequently, even the group that might have a vested interest in this goal does not value it highly. 94 The following goals were ranked in the lowest ten preferred goals of three groups! 26. Ensure that faculty follow University-wide stan­ dards in the evaluation of student performance (undergraduate students* faculty* a d m i n i s t r a t o r s ) . 27» Assist other nations in their development by pro­ viding direct technical and educational assis­ tance to their governments or institutions (graduate students* 49. faculty* administrators). Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MS U (graduate students* faculty* ad m i n i s t r a t o r s ). 50. Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the University* rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns (under­ graduate and graduate students* faculty). The trustees ranked the goal of following Uni­ versity-wide student evaluation standards 21st which was the greatest deviation from the above low ranked goals. Otherwise* all other group deviations from these goals are not as great as the rankings fall in the lower half of the preferred goals. minimal. Therefore, the incongruence is 95 Within Group Analysis of Goals The following discussion will relate to a de­ scription and analysis of the goal perceptions and pref­ erences within the five groups® Comparisons will be made between the five highest and lowest ranked goals within each classification* perceived and preferred,, All goals are listed in the order of their ranking® Undergraduates--The five highest and lowest ranked pe r ­ ceived and preferred goals for undergraduate students are found in Tables 4® 5 and 4,6, It should be noted that only one of the hi gh ranked perceived goals is similarly ranked as a preferred goal® The undergraduate students perceive that Michigan State is making a strong effort to obtain competent faculty and staff and they fully support this effort as they rank it first as a preferred goal® There we r e considerable differences between the perceived and preferred goals of the undergraduates® The only other preferred goal that was also ranked relatively high was that of obtaining the necessary facilities for the educational plant® It ranked 4th as a preferred goal and 8th on their perceived list® The students place a high value on a competent faculty and staff* and adequate facilities for an educational environment but do not seem to feel the need to be surrounded by only ’’high potential" students as they rank that goal 49th® Table 4.5.— Highest Ranked Goals of Undergraduate Students1 Highest Perceived 23. 22. Ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contrib­ ute substantially (other than stu­ dents and recipients of services) to the finances and other material resource needs of the University. Enrich the cultural life of the community by providing University sponsored programs in the arts* public lectures by distinguished p e r s o n s , athletic events, and other performances, displays or celebrations which present the best of culture, popular or not. 41. Specifically prepare students for useful careers. 36. Seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer (validating groups include accrediting agen­ cies, professional societies, scholarly peers at other univer­ sities, and respected persons in intellectual or artistic circles). Highest Preferred 33. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of spe­ cial training. 42. Protect and facilitate the stu­ d e n t s 9 right to inquire into, investigate, and examine criti­ cally any idea or program in which they might become inter­ ested » 17. Ensure the vitality and quality of our society by creating an atmosphere where faculty, stu­ dents, and administrators, as individuals, ma y be encouraged to serve as its critics * i.e., examining its values, goals and practices as well as prescribing solutions, alternatives and new d i r ections. 47. Obtain the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educa­ tional environment. 10. Carry on research designed to solve contemporary problems. Table 4.5,— (continued) Highest Perceived 33. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training. ^■Numbers refer to position in questionnaire Highest Preferred Table 4.6.— Lowest Ranked Goals of Undergraduate Students^ Lowest Perceived 13. Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. 12. Produce a student who has a close­ ly examined set of ethical convic­ tions rooted in the disciplined study of the world's philosophical and religious traditions. 14. 48. Make sure that salaries, teaching assignments, and privileges always reflect the contribution that the person involved is making to his own profession or discipline. Protect and facilitate the stu­ dents® right to advocate direct action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals. Lowest Preferred 34. Keen Michigan State University from becoming something different from what it is now; that is, pre­ serve its "land grant" philosophy. 26. Ensure that faculty follow Univer­ sity-wide standards in the evalua­ tion of student performance. 50. Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the Uni­ versity, rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns. * 2. Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University. * 3. Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for. Table 4.6.— (continued) Lowest Preferred Lowest Perceived 30. Maintain the commitment of the students by involving them in the governance of the University. *37. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by making sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum), the will of the faculty will prevail. •^Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. *Tied for 47th rank. 100 Two goals on the s t u d e n t s 8 high perceived list suggest that they see the University working too hard to satisfy external g r o u p s , The goals of ensuring the sup­ port of contributors and seeking the favorable appraisal of validating groups were seen b y the students as re­ ceiving a great deal of emphasis (ranked 1st and 4th on the perceived list) while they preferred that these goals receive far less attention. This is not an uncommon attitude on the part of college students as they often feel that a uni v e r sity is too sensitive to external in­ fluences . The educational "relevance” issue appears in the stu d e n t s 9 high ranked preferred goals. They desire that members of the University community perform a critical function for society* that research be directed toward solving problems and that students be encouraged to in­ quire and investigate any program that interests them. These three goals have much in common in supporting the view that a university should be addressing itself d i ­ rectly to the problems of society. Another significant difference between a per­ ceived and preferred goal for undergraduates was that of maintaining the commitment of students by involving them in University governance. From the studen ts9 perspective* this goal is not receiving adequate attention in current practice. On their perceived list* it ranks 48th— a 101 rather dramatic difference from the 6th place ranking on their preferred list* The fact that the students re­ sponded to this item at about the time that the student newspaper and other groups were criticizing the latest effort to increase the involvement of students in decision­ m aking m a y have effected their response* The lowest rating of the students on their pr e ­ ferred list of goals went to that of preserving the "land grant" p h i losophy of the institution* This seems incon­ sistent w i t h their other goal preferences which suggest that the University should serve the larger society* It m ay be that the students still see a land grant institution as having an agricultural and mechanical arts orientation and do not feel that the principles underlying the Morrill Act, w h i c h created these institutions, are applicable to the urban centered problems of today* Also, they may have interpreted the question to be suggesting a status quo position regardless of the philosophy underlying that position* Graduate Students— -The graduate students, as the under­ graduates, ranked the goal of obtaining competent faculty and staff first on their preferred list (see Table 4*7*), This was in agreement w i t h their perception that the Uni­ versity w as giving this goal the highest priority* Interestingly, the graduate students placed three student-centered output goals among their top five Table 4 e 7 8— Highest Ranked Goals of Graduate Students1 rt Highest Perceived Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training. 47, Obtain the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educa­ tional environment. 23. Ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contribute substantially (other than students and recipients of services) to the finances and other material resource needs of the University. 36. 5. Seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer (validating groups include accrediting agen­ cies, professional societies, scholarly peers at other univer­ sities , and respected persons in intellectual or artistic circles). Carry on research for the sole purpose of extending Icnowledge. 33. 6. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training. Produce a student who has been inculcated with those values con­ sidered important to an educated p e r s o m e.g., the dignity of the individuals truth, tolerance of different views, and a rational approach to problem solving. 42. Protect and facilitate the stu­ dents* right to inquire into, investigate, and examine criti­ cally any idea or program in which they might become inter­ ested » 51. Produce a student who is committed to use his talents to contribute to the betterment of society. 1. Produce a student whose physical, social, moral, intellectual, and esthetic potentialities have all been cultivated. ^Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. 102 33. Highest Preferred 103 preferred goals: (1) produce a student w i t h values con­ sidered important for an educated persons, (2) produce a student who is committed to use his talents for s o c i e t y p and (3) produce a student who has been developed more than intellectually,. These three goals have a very h u ­ manistic dimension in that they represent a holistic*, or total student developments view of education,. The graduate students also agree with the u n d e r ­ g r ad u a t e s 0 perception that the University is overly con­ cerned about attempting to satisfy those external groups w ho provide financial support and validate programs Table 4«8)® (see The two goals rank relatively low on their preferred list (40th and 36th r e s p e c t i v e l y ) a The goal of producing a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions appears on both the low perceived and low preferred lists of the graduates® Apparently? they simply do not see that it is appropriate for a public supported University to be involved in this dimension of a s t u d e n t 5s life® It is not that they would seem to deny the importance of affective development and the University®s responsibility for it? r a t h e r , they apparently are concerned about instruction that m ay border on the promotion of religion® Of the low ranked perceived goals? only two were ranked in the top half of their preferred list® The graduate students would have the various academic and Table 4.8.— Lowest Ranked Goals of Graduate Students-*- Lowest Preferred Lowest Perceived 13. Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. 18, Protect the right of faculty to organize as a collective bargaining unit 8 16. 29. Produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the disciplined study of the world's philosophical and religious traditions. Develop maximum communication and coordination within and between academic depar t m e n ts, administra­ tive offices., student organiza­ tions and other agencies of the University. 2 , 50, 3, 2 , 37, Produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the disciplined study of the world's philosophical and religious traditions. Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the Uni­ versity, rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns. Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for. Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by making sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum), the will of the faculty shall prevail. ^"Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. 104 12. Have the various academic depart­ ments and administrative units periodically assess their activi­ ties relative to the fulfillment of the University®s goals. 1 105 administrative units assess their activities relative to the University®s goals more than they perceive this to be happening® Also*, they feel that a greater effort needs to be made to increase communication between component units of the University* The 'lowest ranked perceived goal of the graduate students involves that of graduating a student who is able to use his leisure t i m e B They also do not place a high value on this goals, ranking it only 44th on their pr e ­ ferred list® Faculty— The number one ranked goal on both the perceived and preferred lists (see Tables 4®9 and 4*10) of the fac­ u l t y is that of obtaining competent faculty and staff* There is complete congruence between the desired and practice from the perspective of this group. There is also congruence on the goal of protecting the academic freedom of the faculty® It is ranked 3rd on their preferred list and 4th on the perceived list. The goal of preserving the land grant philosophy of the University is perceived by the faculty as being an important goal (ranked 5th) of the institution but they rank it only 39th as a preferred goal® Again^ the inter­ pretation of this goal ma y be that the land grant philos­ ophy does not speak to the contemporary problems of soc­ iety. It m a y also be that the faculty desire that the University be more intellectually than ’'service"' oriented. Table 4.9.— Highest Ranked Goals of Faculty-*- Highest Perceived 33, Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of spe­ cial training, 47. Protect and facilitate the stu­ d e n t s right to advocate direct action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals. Highest Preferred 33. 6 . 8 5. 34. 4. Protect the academic freedom of the faculty. 40. Keep Michigan State University from becoming something differ­ ent from what it is nows that is, preserve its "land grant" philos­ ophy. 8 , Produce a student who has been inculcated with those values con­ sidered important to an educated persons e.g.* the dignity of the individual^ truth, tolerance of different views, and a rational approach to problem solving. Protect the academic freedom of the faculty. Produce a student who is able to think clearly, objectively, and cogently in making judgements. Produce a student who has had his intellect challenged to the maxi­ mum. "^Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. 106 4. Carry on research for the sole purpose of extending knowledge. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of spe­ cial training. Table 4.10,— Lowest Ranked Goals of Faculty1 Lowest Perceived Produce a student who has a close­ ly examined set of ethical convic­ tions rooted in the disciplined study of the world's philosophical and religious traditions, 13, Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. 49, Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MSU» 18, 3, 49. Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MSU, 48, Protect and facilitate the stu­ d e n t s right to advocate direct action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals. 9 27o Assist other nations in their development by providing direct technical and educational assis­ tance to their governments or institutions. 50. Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the Uni­ versity, rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns, 35. Keep harmony between departments or divisions of the University when such departments or divisions do not agree on important matters. Protect the right of faculty to organize as a collective bargain­ ing unit, Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for. l u m b e r s refer to position in questionnaire. 107 12• Lowest Preferred 108 This is suggested by the high preferred ranking given to the goal of producing a student who has had his intellect challenged to the maximum. Also? the lowest preferred goal of the faculty relates to a more "open" admissions practice* a concept that has been associated with this University in its earlier history as a land grant institution. 1 There is general congruence between the low ranked perceived and preferred lists of the faculty. The only notable exception is on the goal of assisting other nations by offering direct technical or educational assis­ tance, The faculty do not favor this goal but perceive it to be more important by ranking it 2 7 t h , Administrators-— Of the top five perceived goals of the administrators (see Table 4,11)* only one receives a similar hi g h ranking on the preferred list— that of ob­ taining competent faculty and staff. The other four per­ ceived goals are all ranked in the top half of their pre­ ferred goals except for the goal of seeking the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of programs. The administrators seem to feel that this goal is being overemphasized as they rank it 39th on their preferred list, 1M adison Kuhn* Michigan State; The First Hundred Years (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press* 1955), p. 237. Table 4 d i e — Highest Ranked Goals of Administrators Highest Perceived 33o Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of spe­ cial training, Highest Preferred 33. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of spe­ cial training. i 4, Protect the academic freedom of the faculty, Obtain the necessary facilities to provide a satisfactory educa­ tional environment. 11, Maintain the commitment of the faculty by involving them in the governance of the University. * 5. Carry on research for the sole purpose of extending knowledge. *36, Seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer (validating groups include accrediting agen­ cies, professional societies* scholarly peers at other univer­ sities* and respected persons in intellectual or artistic circles). . Produce a student who has been inculcated with those values con­ sidered important to an educated person? e.g.* the dignity of the individual* truth* tolerance of different views* and a rational approach to problem solving. 25. Develop attitudes of mutual res­ pect and consideration among students* faculty* administrators, and trustees. 16, Have the various academic depart­ ments and administrative units periodically assess their activi­ ties relative to the fulfillment of the University8s goals. 40. Produce a student who is able to think clearly, objectively, and cogently in making judgements. ^-Numbers refer to position in questionnaire, *Tied for 5th ranking. 109 47. 6 110 Two strongly preferred goals of the administrators are v e r y low on their perceived list, The goal of devel­ oping attitudes of mutual respect among faculty* adminis­ trators, students, and trustees is ranked 3rd on the pre­ ferred list but only 43rd as a perceived goal. It would seem appropriate for administrators to be concerned about this integration goal? in this instance, they are not sat­ isfied that it is receiving sufficient emphasis at Michigan State, The second "under emphasized" goal of the adminis­ trators is that of having the various academic and adminis­ trative units assess their activities in relation to the University®s g o a l s . It is a very important preferred goal for the administrators (ranked 3rd) and, again, this is not surprising as their role requires them to value the integrated functioning of the s u b - s y s t e m s 0 The goal has a perceived rank of 46th w h i c h indicates the disparity between what is and what should be on this goal from the stand point of the administrators. On the lower end of the two goal rankings of admin­ istrators, there is considerable congruence between what is perceived and what is preferred (see Table 4 012)„ All of the five low perceived and low preferred goals are ranked in the lower half of the opposite list w hich sug­ gests that there is not extreme dissonance on these goals. Table 4,12,— Lowest Ranked Goals of Administrators^ Lowest Perceived Lowest Preferred Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MSU. 49. Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered by MSU. 13. Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. 18. Protect the right of faculty to organize as a collective bargain­ ing unit. 12. Produce a student who has a close­ ly examined set of ethical convic­ tions rooted in the disciplined study of the w o r l d 9s philosophi­ cal and religious traditions. 37. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by making sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum )s the will of the faculty shall prevail. 48. Protect and facilitate the stu­ d e n t s right to advocate direct action of a political or social kind and any attempts on their part to organize efforts to attain political or social goals. 27. Assist other nations in their devel opment by providing direct techni­ cal and educational assistance to their governments or institutions. 46. Make this a place in which faculty have the maximum opportunity to pursue their careers in a manner satisfactory to them by their own criteria. 9 2. Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University. •^Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. Ill 49o 112 An interesting observation about the adminis­ trative list of low preferred goals is that three of the five relate to satisfying the faculty. This group does not place a high priority on protecting the faculty's right to collective bargaining, maintaining faculty commitment by letting them prevail on all important issues, and providing faculty a maximum opportunity to pursue their careers in a satisfactory manner. It is possible that the administrators feel that the right to collective bargaining as required by law is sufficient protection. The goals relating to faculty involvement in all decisions m a y suggest that the administrators do not feel that faculty should dominate the decision making process. It should be noted that the administrators, at the same time, rank the goal of running the University in a demo­ cratic manner low on their preferred list. This would seem to suggest that the administrators ma y see a need for mo r e decision-making authority to be vested with ad­ ministrators rather than being diffused among the differ­ ent segments of the University. That the administrators rate so low the importance of faculty having an opportunity to pursue their careers by their own criteria is not totally unexpected. They are probably reflecting a concern that faculty should 113 maintain some balance between the interests of the Uni­ versity and their prof e s s i o n s . This interpretation seems to be supported by the administrators' high preferred ranking of the goal of having the academic departments assess their activities relative to the University's goals. Trustees--In describing and analyzing the preferred goals (see Table 4*13) of the trustees, one phenomenon is im­ mediately apparent. This group lists 26 preferred goals which have a mean of 4.00 or above. Therefore, to talk about the top five preferred goals of this group requires an understanding that these represent only approximately one-fifth of the goals that the trustees would consider to be of at least "top importance" for the University. This compares to 13 for the administrators who had the second largest number of preferred goals with a mean of 4.00 or greater. The highest ranked preferred goal of the trustees was that of ensuring the support of those who contribute to the material resources of the University. As the organizational level of the University that is ultimately responsible for the achievement of this goal, it is u n d e r ­ standable that the trustees should have this concern. Incidentally, they do not see the University giving this goal adequate attention as it is ranked 34th on their perceived list. Table 4.13.— Highest Ranked Goals of Trustees^ Highest Perceived Seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs we offer (validating groups include accrediting agen­ cies, professional societies, scholarly peers at other univer­ sities , and respected persons in intellectual or artistic circles). 11. Maintain the commitment of the faculty by involving them in the governance of the University. 52. Maintain the commitment of the academic units by ensuring that there is a proportionate distri­ bution of resources among the colleges and academic departments. 46. * 7„ Make this a place in which faculty have maximum opportunity to pursue their careers in a manner satis­ factory to them by their own crite­ ria . Provide opportunities for special training for part-time adult stu­ dents, through extension courses, special short courses and corre­ spondence c o u r s e s . 23. Ensure the continued confidence and hence support of those who contribute substantially (other than students and recipients of services) to the finances and other material resource needs of the University. 21. Maintain top quality, in relation to other major universities, in all programs we engage in. 30. Maintain the commitment of the students by involving them in the governance of the University. 4. Protect the academic freedom of the faculty. *29. Develop maximum communication and coordination within and between academic departments, administra­ tive offices, student organiza­ tions and other agencies of the University. *32. Produce a student who h a s ,devel­ oped the attitudes and competen­ cies essential to perform respon­ sibly in a democratic society. 114 36. Highest Preferred Table 4.13.— (continued) Highest Preferred Highest Perceived *33. Obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training. *44« Ensure that the various colleges and academic departments follow University-wide policies in deci­ sions relating to teaching load, salaries, sabbatical leaves, pro­ motion and tenure. *25. Develop attitudes of mutual respect and consideration among students, faculty, administrators, and trustees. lNumbers refer to position in questionnaire. *Tied for 5th ranking. 116 Their second highest ranked preferred goal— maintaining top quality in all programs— is probably a response to the need that the trustees see for meeting the broad educational needs of their constituencies! therefore, they want a wide range of quality programs,, It is surprising that the trustees give such a high preferred ranking to the goal of involving students in the governance of the U n i v e r s i t y „ These data would indicate that the trustees feel that the students are considerably under-involved in the decision making affairs of the U n i v e r s i t y „ ceived g o a l ) (Notes This is the lowest ranked per­ While showing a strong preference for a 0 greater involvement of students, the trustees would appear to favor a more democratic approach to University govern­ ance, They seem to reject the notion that faculty should determine policy in all areas, ranking this lowest on their preferred l i s t 0 However, on the goal which suggests the broad based participation of all groups, the trustees ranked it 8 th on their preferred listo Even though the trustees have the ultimate authority on all policies per­ taining to the University, they would seem to be endorsing the concept of shared authority and responsibility. It is significant that the trustees show a deep concern for protecting the academic freedom of the faculty. Since the trustees are in the best position to legitimize 117 this concept due to their role as "buffers” between the University and s o c i e t y s it is n o t eworthy that they sup­ port academic freedom w hich often is a source of tension between the University community and the public. The. high preferred goals of developing maximum communication between the component units of the Uni­ v e r sity and the similar goal of developing attitudes of mutual respect among groups are both perceived b y the trustees as being relatively unimportant in current prac­ tice. While in the top five preferred g o a l s » they only rank 44th and 34th respectively on the perceived list. Table 4.14 contains the low preferred trustee goals. One— -not previously menti o n e d — -stands out as dif­ fering sharply from its ranking as a perceived goal. This goal refers to providing educational opportunities for the citizens of other nations. The trustees perceive the goal to be i m p o r t a n t , ranking it 8 t h s but give it the low rank of 50th on their preferred list. The highest ranked perceived goal of the trustees is that of seeking the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of programs. preferred goal. They rank it 21st as a The fact that the trustees see this as the highest priority goal of the institution may indicate that they see a great deal of emphasis being given to seeking the favor of those external groups who are considered Table 4,14,— Lowest Ranked Goals of Trustees1 Lowest Perceived 30• Maintain the commitment of the students by involving them in the governance of the University, 13, 3. 42. 7 , Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner, Maintain the commitment of the faculty by malting sure that on all important issues (not only curriculum), the will of the faculty shall prevail. 2 , Develop loyalty on the part of faculty? staffs and students to the University and the things it stands for, Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University, 9 , Assist other nations in meeting their goals by providing their citizens with educational oppor­ tunities on campus. 2 , Produce a student who has a close­ ly examined set of ethical convic­ tions rooted in the disciplined study of the w o r l d 8s philosophi­ cal and religious traditions. 3 , Develop loyalty on the part of faculty, staff, and students to the University and the things it stands for. 3 Develop loyalty on the part of the faculty and staff to the Uni­ versity s rather than only to their own jobs or professional concerns. Protect and facilitate the stu­ d e n t s right to inquire into, investigate, and examine criti­ cally any idea or program in which they might become interested, 1 8 * 118 50, Lowest Preferred Table 4,14.— (continued) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- , Lowest Preferred Lowest Perceived *19. Assist the society in the main­ tenance of continuity and stabil­ ity by serving as a center for the preservation of the cultural heritage. *20. Produce a student who has been exposed to the ideas of the great minds of history. 119 ^-Numbers refer to position in questionnaire. *Tied for 46th rank. i---------- 120 important in determining the status of the various profes­ sional groups represented in the U n i v e r s i t y . While this goal would seem related to the goal of ensuring the sup­ port of financial resources (first among their preferred g o a l s ), the trustees seem to recognize that there are also other determinants of financial support. A low perceived goal that the trustees ranked high as a preferred goal was that of protecting the stu­ dents 9 right to inquire into any program. This concern about freedom of inquiry for the student would seem con­ sistent wi t h the t r u s t e e s 9 support of academic freedom for the faculty. Summary of Within Group Congruence The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was the method used to determine the agreement between the per­ ceived and preferred goal rankings of the groups on all fifty-two goals. Table 4.15 summarizes the results of this computation. The graduate s t u d e n t s , faculty, and administrators showed the greatest degree of agreement between their rankings of perceived and preferred goals. The low cor­ relation found w i th the undergraduate students and the trustees indicates that these two groups tend to perceive the U n i v e r s i t y 9s goals quite differently from what they prefer them to be. 121 Table 4.15.— Relationship Between All Perceived and Preferred Goal Rankings Within Groups, Group rs - ,171 Undergraduate s Graduates .319 Faculty .492 Administrators ,486 ic * * -.063 Trustees * . • • Significantly different from zero at ,05 level. Student-Centered Output Goal s The questionnaire contained thirteen goals that : related to the expected qualities of a person who been educated at Michigan State, This is an output type goal in the sense that it involves ’’producing" an individual for society who has attained certain charac­ teristics , Since a number of writers emphasize the importance of higher education contributing to the development of the individual s t u d e n t 9 the data were analyzed to determine the importance placed on these goals by the different groups. Table 4,16 lists the thirteen goals and their preferred ranks among the five groups. Table 4.16»— Rankings of Student-Centered Goals Goals Graduates Faculty Adminis­ tration Trustees 1 . Produce a student whose physical, social, moral, intellectual, and esthetic potentialities have all been cultivated. 17 4 8 6 . Produce a student who has been inculcated with such values as the dignity of the individual, truth, tolerance, etc.. 16 2 2 2 17 8 . Produce a student who has had his intellect chal­ lenged to the maximum. 0 5 7 2 2 . Produce a studsit who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions. 46 52 45 37 49 Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. 44 44 38 40 35 Produce a student who has been exposed to the ideas of the great minds of history. 28 26 1 31 46 13. 2 Under­ graduates 0 „ 2 0 1 1 2 0 27 122 1 (preferred) 1 Table 4,16,— (continued) Goals Produce a student who has a general education. 28. Produce students who have developed the ability to apply the methods of various disciplines. 32. Produce a student who has developed the attitudes and competencies essential to perform in a democratic society. 40. Produce a student who is able to think clearly, objectively, and cogently. 41. Specifically prepare students for useful careers. Graduates 36 31 2 13 18 15 7 43. Produce students who have developed objectivity about themselves and their beliefs, 51. Produce a student who is committed to use his tal­ ents for the betterment of society. 6 26 Faculty 1 Adminis­ tration Trustees 26 43 1 1 17 1 2 5 123 24. Undergraduates 1 2 6 35 27 8 24 8 4 4 3 33 28 6 18 17 2 1 10 11 12 13 124 In looking at the top eighteen (approximately o n e - t h i r d ) preferred goals for the groups s the following student-centered output goals appear on all lists; 6 . Produce a student who has been inculcated with those values considered important to an educated person„ 28. Produce students who have developed the ability to apply the methods of various disciplines in attacking societal problems. 40. Produce a student who is able to think clearly, objectively, and cogently in making judgments. 43. Produce students who have developed objectivity about themselves and their beliefs and hence can examine their beliefs critically. There we r e two of these goals that appeared in the top third of the preferred goal lists of all but one group s 32. Produce a student who has developed the attitudes and competencies essential to perform responsibly in a democratic society (exception; under­ graduates ). 51. Produce a student who is committed to use his talents to contribute to the betterment of soc­ iety (exception; undergraduates). 125 The undergraduates ranked the two goals 26th and 24th respectively on their preferred list. On the lower third of the preferred goal lists, only two student-centered goals appeared across all groups s 12„ Produce a student wh o has a closely examined set of ethical convictions rooted in the disciplined study of the w o r l d 9s philosophical and religious traditions. 13. Graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. Thus, six student-centered output goals tended to be in the top third, five in the middle third and two in the lower third of the fifty-two preferred goals of the groups. Attitudes on Admissions A v e r y sensitive issue in contemporary higher edu­ cation relates to the criteria to be employed in the se­ lection of students. The researcher was interested in assessing the attitudes of the different groups in this study toward the question of "open" versus "selective" admissions policies. An "open" policy would be one which did not require a high achievement background at the high school level or emphasize "acceptable" scores on standard­ ized general ability tests. Tiro goal items on the ques­ tionnaire were related to these two concepts: 126 2, Accommodate only students of high potential in terms of the specific strengths and emphases of this University,, 49. Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate who has an interest in a program offered b y Michigan State University, The first listed goal would represent a more selective approach to admissions while the latter item would suggest a more "open" policy, given the basic qualifications contained in the goal statement, A summary of the attitudes of the five groups w i t h regard to these goals is contained in Table 4.17. There is a general consistency of response to the two items, assuming that they are somewhat mutually exclusive in nature. The only exception is the administrators who, on the one hand, prefer that more emphasis be given to selective admissions than they perceive is the practice while, s i m u l t a n e o usly, they favor that more emphasis be given to an "open9' policy. The faculty also favor a more selective policy than they perceive to be the situation at Michigan State. However, neither the preferred responses of administrators or faculty would suggest that admissions policies are of major concern to either group in relation to other goals. Both student groups and the trustees give greater importance to more non-restrictive policies. The trustees Table 4.17.— Group Rankings of Admissions Goals Goal * * * 1 2 *1. Graduate Rank Mean Faculty Ran]?; Mean Administrators Rank Mean Trustees Rank Mean Perceived Preferred 3 s16 2.38 26 49 3.00 2,75 47 40 2.58 3.10 48 45 2.78 2.92 34 51 3.00 47 Perceived Preferred 47 33 2,46 3,24 47 47 2.55 2.85 50 52 2.37 49 47 2.76 2.85 31 13 3.16 4.20 1 0 2 . 1 2 2 , 2 0 Accommodate only students of high potential, Provide educational opportunities for every high school graduate. 127 **2. Undergraduate Rank Mean 128 rate the goal of broadening the base of admissions as one of considerable importance (mean of 4.20). As trustees of a public university with a "land grant" tradition, that position is really not too surprising. This group has a vari e t y of constituents to whom it must be accountable, not the least of which are minority groups that are cur­ rently raising penetrating questions about the traditional selection procedures at institutions of higher education. The greatest incongruence between what is p er­ ceived and what is preferred on an a dmission6s goal lies with the undergraduate students. University policy, As they view present it is quite selective. They perceive that the goal of accommodating only students of high po­ tential is important as they rank it 10th, At the same time, they perceive the University to be giving a v e r y low priority to the goal of admitting any high school graduate who has an interest in one of the U n i versity6s programs. The unde r g raduates 6 preferences for these two goals both tend to be low ranked. The selective goal at the preferred level is ranked 47th while their preference for the non-selective admissions goal is r a n k e d 33rd. This would suggest that while the undergraduates do not favor a highly restrictive admissions policy, neither do they favor a totally open approach. 129 Other Goals Suggested by Respondents The q u e s t i onnaire? although designed to include the more common goals of a university? was not intended to provide an exhaustive list of possible goals. There­ fore? the respondent was encouraged to add other goals the space provided at the end of the questionnaire. in While it is difficult to quantify and categorize these responses? these goals seem important to enumerate because of their apparent significance to the respondents. The additional goals will be analyzed by groups. Board of Trustees— Two of the six trustees who responded to the questionnaire suggested additional goal consider­ ations for the University. The following goals were listed s^ 1. Efficient use of funds. 2. Competent administration. 3. Forward thrust of University. 4. Library 5. Work toward faculty employment and reward systems that give appropriate (i.e.? top priority) recognition to the teacher as a facilitator of learning and self-development (as distinguished from the " imparter" of Knowledge). ■*"The wording of the goals is taken verbatum from the questionnaire responses. 130 6 . Be responsive to the educational and manpower needs of Michigan, 7. Increase access to higher education for minority and other groups who, because of educational, financial, or other disadvantages, tend to be under-represented in college and university populations, The trustees listing these goals indicated that all should be of at least great importance. In the first four, the attitude was that the goals were currently re­ ceiving a low priority in practice. The last three goals were perceived as being of at least medium importance but this state of affairs was insufficient in the opinions of the respondents. Administrators— Only one administrator tional goal; listed an addi­ "Give appropriate recognition to the views of external publics when these views and internal views do not coincide," The respondent perceived this goal to be receiving medium importance but preferred that it should be of great importance. This response would seem to suggest that the administrator felt that the University might be prone to give too little weight to external views in making decisions. It could properly be classified as an Adaptation goal. Faculty— Six faculty respondents listed additional goals. Those were as follows; 131 is of 1. should be c Pluralistic programs. great importance great importance Open-ended growth and maturation. little importance great importance 39 Academe for academe. great importance little importance 4. Control of the English language. little importance great importance 5. no Courses should be importance structured for stu­ dent b e n e f i t s not to attract large numbers great importance Extend present fron­ tiers of knowledge. med ium importance top importance Preserve the intel­ lectual heritage of the past. med ium importance top importance 8 . Get as much of both the above to stu­ dents . med i um importance top importance 9. President and Prov­ ost broad in intel­ lectual pursuits first and adminis­ tration second. little importance top importance 10. Board of Trustees aggressively intel­ lectual . little importance top importance 11. University adminis­ tered by intellec­ tuals not p o l i t i - ' cans. little importance top importance 12. U n i v e r s i t y 'policy on limiting enrollments. great importance little importance 2 . 0 6 . 7. iRefers to the two items immediately preceding it. 132 is of should be of All academic areas to little have a balance among importance ( ) theoretics» ( ) a p p l i c a t i o n , and (3) use of knowledge. top importance 14. Intellectual n o n ­ conformism as an encouraged academic policy. little importance top importance 15 U niversity policy as little encouraging academic importance and intellectual pur­ suits among faculty, students and adminis­ tration . great importance 16 University policy as encouraging political activism, little importance 1-3 • 1 2 great importance There we r e a few "goals" qualifications of the regular listed w h ich were merely items on the questionnaire. For example# one respondent qualified his approval of the goal of assisting other nations by providing technical and educational assistance by the following statements "This is good when you're not aiding and entrenching fascist dictatorships." This m a y have been a reference to Michigan State's alleged involvement in Viet Mam political affairs a few years a g o . 1 One faculty member did not complete the question­ naire because of his concern about the ability to rate goals unconditionallys mMSU— CIA Investigation Hinted," The State Mews, April 15, 1966, p. . 1 1 133 The d i f f iculty is that the importance of a particular goal depends on the n e e d s , objective, or capabilities of individual students or faculty members, or on the particular program t h e y are in or on some other partic­ ular circumstance. What applies to one individual ma y not be appropriate to a n o t h e r . This does not mean that a goal is of medium (or high or low) importances It m a y be all of these, depending on the circumstances. The respondent is focusing on output type goals relating to the student. His assertion that individual faculty members will have certain goal biases, for w h a t ­ ever reason, is certainly true and is indicated b y the variance in responses to goals in this study. However, if a goal is deemed important for the University, the concern is about terminal behavior. then If a particular student has already achieved the goal (i.e., control of the English language), that fact does not invalidate the importance of the goal but suggests that the faculty m e m ­ ber and student can concentrate on other learning activities o Graduate Students— Twelve of the graduate student re­ spondents listed other goalss is of should be of 1. Quality of teaching as an important fac­ u l t y evaluation criterion„ no importance great importance 2. Develop teaching expertise for grad students rather than exclusively research expertise in their speciality. little importance great importance 134 is of should be of 3. Continued expansion of University size. great importance little importance 4. Develop outstanding athletic teams. med ium importance little importance Allow a student to develop his own po­ tential 9 not to the goals set by the University or soc­ iety. no importance top importance little Employees have the right to w o r k without importance joining a union. top importance Students should learn. medium importance top importance Teachers should teach, medium importance top importance med ium Administrators should importance administer. top importance med ium importance top importance 11. Objectivity. no importance top importance 12 Packaged student. top importance no importance 13. Place hi gh emphasis little on graduate p r o g r a m s , importance no importance 14. Institute an all University P - F system. top importance 8 10 , Increasing the need for distinguished scholarship amongst faculty. little importance Two graduate students commented on their obser­ vations about the University; both have goal implications. The first relates to instruction and advising: 135 I am quite disappointed with the lack of adequate advisor (no one seems to know much about the Uni­ v e r sity outside of his or her own little o f f i c e ^ Also, course content has been poor and does not ^ measure up to graduate expectations. Everyone seems to be too busy. The second graduate student is concerned about a stronger liberal arts curriculum! In m y three and one half years residency here, I •ISU strong in such areas as Police Ad. , AgriBusiness Ad.) but v e r y weak m the Humanities (History, English, Political Science, etc.) and Social Sciences except w here these serve a spe­ cific utilitarian need or enhance the University's image. The former President of this school has more than once publically stated that the major purpose of higher ed and of M S U in particular is to serve the immediate needs of the community w h ich is fine if you're operating a strictly vocational insti­ tution but a highly limiting concept for a liberal arts u n i versity to assume. Undergraduate Students— Additional goals were listed by seven of the undergraduates. Using the same format as above, the goals are listed belows is of should be of Protect the freedom of individuality. little importance great importance Serve the student. little importance top importance 3, Preserve the flex­ ibility to change to meet the needs of a changing society. little importance great importance 4. Produce students who can communicate to achieve deep re­ lationships with others. little importance top importance 136 is of should be of 5. Assist students in personal and interpersonal problems. little importance top importance 6. Maintain an atmosphere little and curriculum to importance encourage students to discover themselves and others so that they will be able to live a satisfying life rather than just educating them so that they can get a job. top importance 7* Provide, for those who desire, a guiet atmosphere, in a living unit for in­ creased study, little importance great importance 8„ That testing and grading be dropped and leave the stu­ dent alone to learn for its own sake and not cram for grades. no importance top importance 9, To develop their (stumedium dents) individual importance personalities. top importance 10. To aid in understandlittle ing life as it exists importance in modern society. top importance 11. To understand the conmedium tradictions in our importance political system through an evaluation of contemporary policies. top importance 12. Keep parents and taxgreat payers satisfied that importance M S U is guarding their children from Evil. no importance 137 is of should be of 13. Stifle the creativity of students in order to help them "fit "into" society. great importance little importance 14. Operate at peak efficiencyj insure that "business as usual" is preserved always. top importance ^ little importance 15. Not forcing wide ra n a e little education down the importance s t u d e n t 's t h r o a t . great importance One undergraduate student expressed his concern about the lack of a certain type of goals "I think you should have added more goals concerned w i t h social devel­ opment of the student, including relationships w i t h others and a deeper understanding of fellow man." It is obviously necessary to be very cautious about generalizing from the additional goals listed by the various respondents, particularly since there is not much over-lap in the goals. However, neither should these responses be ignored for they would seem to represent beliefs that are important to the respondent and probably to others in the population. One can only speculate about the fact that a m a jority of the respondents in the study did not add other goals. In some cases, it may have been felt that the list was exhaustive of goal possibilities. In other instances, the respondents probably felt that they were devoting as 138 much time and energy as they had available to respond to the goals provided in the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Summary The statistical test of repeated measures analysis of variance failed to indicate interaction effects between the variables of groups and goals. The tests of significance on the hypotheses r e ­ vealed that the trustees were significantly higher (,05 level) than the other groups on all four goal classifi­ cations, There were not significant differences between the undergraduate and graduate s t u d e n t s „ f a c u l t y , and administrators on goal preferences. On the goal c a t e g o r i e s , adaptation goals were rated significantly higher than were p a t t e r n - m aintenance, tension management, and i n t e g r a t i o n . There were not differences between the latter three groups. There were two goals that were ranked in the top ten perceived goals of each groups obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training, and (2) seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of the programs that we offer. Two goals were common to the ten lowest ranked perceived goals of all groupss (1) produce a student who has a closely examined set of ethical convictions, and 139 (2) graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. In the preferred goal r a n k i n g s , there were two goals that all groups ranked in their top tens (1) ob­ tain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training* and (2) protect and facilitate the stu­ dents® right to inquire into, investigate, and examine critically a n y idea or program in w hich they might become interested. There were no goals that were common to all groups in their ten lowest ranked preferred goals. Over-all, the undergraduate students and trustees we r e in the greatest disagreement between what they saw to be the University's goals and what they felt the goals should be. CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the perceptions and preferences of undergraduate and graduate s t u d e n t s , f a c u i t y , adminis­ trators and trustees on possible goals for Michigan State University, The goals were specific in nature and were related to the functional problems of a system (see pp, 6- 8 ), A questionnaire containing fifty-two goal items was mailed to 186 subjects representing the five groups. The total response rate was 72 per cent with 68 per cent of the questionnaires useable for the statistical phase of the study. The instrument was a slightly modified version of that used in a recent national study,1 The respondent was asked to rate the importance of each goal on the basis of (1) how important he perceived it to be, and (2) h o w important he preferred it to be. The rating scale ranged from the category "of absolutely top impor­ tance" (assigned a value of 5) to "of no importance" (assigned a v a l u e of 1), 3Gross and Grambsch, University Goals and Academic Power, pp, 134-143, 140 141 There were four hypotheses tested in the study w h i c h w e r e related to the preferences of the groups on four classifications of goals; a d a p t a t i o n , pattern- maintenance, tension management and integration. The statistical design of repeated measures analysis of v a riance was used to test for significant differences. Scheffe"s post hoc ratio was then applied to determine the sources of the differences,, In addition to the h y p o t h e s e s , the researcher was interested in comparing the goal rankings of the groups on all goals. The g o a l s , both perceived and pre­ ferred , we r e ranked within groups on the basis of mean scores. A review of the literature indicated a recurrent theme regarding the need for institutions of higher edu­ cation to develop goals. The reasons cited for clarifying institutional purposes were internal functioning, (2) effective (3) resisting external pressures, (4) evaluating performance, the public, and (1) planning, (5) gaining the support of (6) providing direction for programs. There are u sually four purposes of higher edu­ cation alluded to by the various writers; (2) research, (1) teaching, (3) public service, and (4) social criticism. The latter is the most controversial as there is consid­ erable disagreement about the appropriateness of this purpose as well as its mode of implementation. 142 R e s e a r c h related to the goals of institutions of higher education has been rather limited. The most com­ prehensive study was done b y Gross and Grambsch and incor­ porated the concepts of "means" and well as "ends" goals for an educational organization. This study, involving the faculty and administrators of sixty-eight universities, revealed that these t w o groups were in close agreement on goals. Systems analysis is being advocated as a method of studying the organizations of higher education. This approach offers the advantage of systematically reviewing the activities and components of the organization in re­ lation to its goals, the latter being central to this process» It w a s hypothesized that there would be differ­ ences between undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, administrators, and trustees on their ratings of the im­ portance of adaptation , pattern-maintenance, tension management, and integration goals. cance failed to indicate The test of signifi­ interaction effects between the groups and goal classifications. The trustees placed more importance on all four goal classifications than did the other groups. dents, faculty, The undergraduate and graduate stu­ and administrators were not statistically different fr o m each other. 3-lb id ., p. 105 o 143 Adaptation goals were rated as being more important than the other three goal classifications which were not different from each other at the cance, o05 level of signifi­ Every group, then, rated this category of goals as being more important. Across group comparisons of the top ten ranked goals of each group revealed that two perceived goals were common to all five groups : (1) obtain faculty and staff who are competent in their area of special training, and (2) seek the favorable appraisal of those who validate the quality of programs. There were eight other goals that were in the top ranked goals of at least three of the g r o u p s , There were also two preferred goals that each group ranked in its top ten g o a l s ; faculty and staff, and (1) obtain a competent (2) protect and facilitate the stu­ dents® right to investigate and examine critically any pro­ gram, In addition, there were seven goals that were in the top ten goals of at least three g r o u p s , Comparisons across groups on the ten lowest ranked goals found two goals on each group®s perceived list; (1) produce a student wh o has a closely examined set of ethical convictions, and (2) graduate a student who is able to use his leisure time in a creative manner. There were also seven goals that at least three groups ranked among their lowest ten perceived goals. 144 Not a single goal was found in the ten low ranked preferred goals of all groups. However, there were eight low ranked goals common to at least three groups, A within group analysis of goal congruence (re­ lationship between the rankings of perceived and preferred goals) indicated that the faculty displayed the greatest h a r mony between their perceptions and preferences of the University's goals. The administrators and graduate stu­ dents also tended to rank perceived and preferred goals in a similar order. The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient was statistically significant from zero for all three of these groups. The undergraduate students and the trustees r e ­ flected the greatest dissonance between their perceived and preferred goal rankings with correlations of -,171 and -.063 respectively. There were thirteen goals in the questionnaire that we r e related to the expected qualities of a person w ho had been educated at Michigan State, These were categorized as student-centered output goals. these goals tended to be in the top third, Six of five in the middle third and two in the lower third of the fifty-two preferred goals ranked b y the groups. On the question of an '’open" versus a "selective" admissions policy, the trustees favor the former more than do the other groups. It is ranked 13th among their 145 preferred goals w i t h a mean of 4,20* With this exception, all of the groups rank both admissions goals relatively low on their preferred l i s t s „ The respondents listed a variety of additional goals for the University that were not contained among the questionnaire items. Conclusions In the review of current literature on higher education, considerable emphasis was placed on the im­ portance of institutions of higher education developing and articulating goals® This study demonstrates that such a process is complex, particularly for a large university w h ich has a highly differentiated organizational structure and is engaged in all of the major purposes of higher edu­ cation® It seems clear that there is merit in viewing the goals of a university from more than the dimension of "ends." The theory that organizations, as systems, face functional problems which require attention seems to be supported b y the data in this study® Some of the most important goals to each group are related to "means" types of activities® For example, all of the groups recognize the importance of maintaining a satisfactory relationship with the larger society and the need to secure the r e ­ sources required to keep the University functioning 146 effectively. Therefore, it is not a question of whether instrumental goals are legitimate? it is a matter of keep­ ing them in proper balance w i t h output goals for the latter must determine the rationale for the Uni v e r s i t y 0s very existence. As a generalization it can be concluded that all groups felt that the goals should be given greater em­ phasis than was the case in practice. particular, The trustees, in seemed to feel that goals were being u n der­ emphasized . The theoretical basis for this study suggested that there m a y be a relationship between the hierarchial position of an individual in a university and his attitude about its goals. The data from this study indicate that the trustees rate goals related to the external and in­ ternal concerns of the University as more important than administrators and faculty, the managerial and technical levels of the organization. It would appear that the trustees, b y virtue of their "linking" position between the University and society, of problems, ization. are concerned about all types internal and external, faced by the organ­ As the legal guardians of the institution, they are the most sensitive about achieving all the goals ne c ­ essary to resolve the functional problems of the University as a system. 147 Implications For Future Research There are many theoretical and empirical dimen­ sions of u n i v e r s i t i e s , as organizations or systems, that remain to be explored. This study raises several questions that could serve as a basis for future research; 1. To what extent do such factors as age, sex, academic discipline, longevity at the institution and prior educational experience effect the attitudes of individuals with respect to institu­ tional goals? 2. Does a college or university that has clearly articulated goals tend to function differently from one that lacks such goals? 3. Does the systematic involvement of the different groups within the university community in the development and re-assessment of goals tend to result in greater agreement about goals than where such participation is minimal or n o n ­ existent? 4. Are there limits on the number of goals that a college or university can effectively pursue? 5„ How do other groups that are important internal and external influences view the U n i v e r s i t y ’s goals, e.g., parents, alumni, non-academic employees, legislators, local community leaders, and the State Board of Education? 148 6. What effect does a change of role have on an ind i v i d u a l’s goal perceptions and preferences? For example, if a faculty member becomes an administrator or vice versa, what is the impact of this n e w role on the i n d ividual’s attitudes about institutional goals? 7. How stable are goal preferences? What factors influence change? 8. What is the relationship between the size of an institution and goal congruence among its com­ ponents? 9. What are the factors that account for the differ­ ences between individuals on their perceptions of goals? 10. How frequently should an institution evaluate its goals? 11. Is it possible for a univ e r s i t y to give equal attention to the purposes of teaching, research, public service, and social criticism or is one n ecess a r i ly dominant? 12. What effect will the current questioning of higher education have on goal-setting activities? 149 Concluding Statement While there were certainly differences between the five groups on their goal preferences for the University, there was also considerable agreement. Through an on­ g oing dialogue involving the various components of the University community, it seems reasonable to assume that the University could develop a set of goals that are spe­ cific enough to provide direction for the activities of component units while also providing reference points for evaluation. If Michigan State University is to obtain sufficient resources and use t h e m effectively, it must make a systematic effort to delineate its goals. Such a process is m o r e likely to lead to a coherent educational experience for the student as well as ensuring that the U niversity provides appropriate services for society. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbott, Charles C. "Governing Boards and Their Responsibil­ ities," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , XLI (October, 1970), 5 2 4 - 5 3 4 a Alden, John W. "Systems Analysts on Higher Educations Some Concerns," Paper presented to Discussion Group 13 at the 25th National Conference in Higher Edu­ cation, Chicago, March 2, 1970. The American Academy of Arts and S c i e n c e s . The Assembly on University Goals and G o v e r n a n c e , A First Report, Cambridge, Massachusettss The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1971. Banathy, Bela H. Instructional S y s t e m s . Palto Alto, California? Fearon Publishers, 1968. Bolman, Frederick D. "Problems of Change and Changing Problems," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , XLI (November, 1970), 589-598. Buckley, Walter. Sociology and Modern Systems T h e o r y . Englewood Cliffs, New Jerseys P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., 1957. Carter, Launor F. "The Systems Approach to Educations Mystique and Reality," Educational T e c h n o l o g y , (April, 1969), 22-31. Case, Harry L. "A Declaration of Aims and Policies of University X," Educational Record, L (Fall, 1969), 450-452. Committee on the Student in Higher Education, The Student in Higher E d u c a t i o n . New Haven, Connecticut s The Hazen Foundation, 1968. Davidson, Olaf M. "Commentary," ed. Fred F. Harcleroad. Inc., 1970. 150 Issues of the S e v e n t i e s . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 151 Devereux, Edward C., Jr. " P a r s o n s 0 Sociological Theory," The Social Theories of Talcott P a r s o n s „ e d . Max Black. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc., 1961. D r e s s e l , Paul L. "Evaluation of the Environment, the Proc­ ess, and the Results of Higher Education," Handbook of College and University Admi n i s t r a t i o n , e d . Asa S. Knowles. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1970. Etzioni, Amitai. Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n s . Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc., .1964, "Faculty Unit Asks 0D e p o l i t i c i z a t i o n !," The Chronicle of Higher Education, (Washington, D.C.), February 15, T971, "pT"’"3".----Gardner, John W. "Agenda for the Colleges and Universities," Campus 1 9 8 0 . ed. Alvin C. Eurich. New York: Delacorte Press, 1968. Gross, Edward and Grambsch, Paul V. University Goals and Academic P o w e r . Washington, D . C . : American Council on Education, 1968. Haberstroh, Chadwick J. "Organization Design and Systems Analysis," Handbook of O r g a n i z a t i o n s , ed. James C, March. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1965. Hays, W i l liam L. S t a t i s t i c s . Me w York: Winston, 1963. Holt, Rinehart and Hess, David N. "The Person-Centered Function of Higher Edu­ cation." Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, College of Edu­ cation, Michigan State University, 196 2. Hills, R. Jean. Toward a Science of Organi z a t i o n . Eugene, Oregon: Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, University of Oregon Press, 1968. Hungate, Thad L. Management in Higher E d u c a t i o n . New York: Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1964. Hutchins, Robert M, The Higher Learning in A m e r i c a . New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1936. Jacobson, Robert L. "Ratings of Graduate Departments Raise Questions About Who*s 9Best°," The Chronicle of Higher E d u c a t i o n , (Washington, D.C.), January 11, 1971, p. 9. 152 Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of O r g a n i z a t i o n s . Mew Yorks John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Keniston, Kenneth. "Responsibility for Criticism and Social C h a n g e ," Whose Goals for American Higher Education? , ed. Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee. Washington, D.C.s American Council on Education, 1968. Kimball, John R, "Analysis of Institutional Objectives in Michigan Community Colleges." Unpublished Ed.D. Thesis, College of Education, Michigan State Uni­ versity, 1960. Kirk, Roger E, Experimental Designs Procedures for the Behavioral S c i e n c e s . Belmont, Californias Brooks/ Cole Publishing Company, 1968. Kuhn, Madison. Michigan States East Lansing, Michigans Press, 1955. The First Hundred Y e a r s . Michigan State University Lee, Calvin B.T. and Dobbins, Charles G. Whose Goals for American Higher Education? Washington, D.C.s American Council on Education, 196 8. Martin, Warren B. Conformitys Standards and Change in Higher E d u c a t i o n . San Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1969 . Mayhew, Lewis B. "The Future Undergraduate Curriculum," Campus 1 9 8 0 . e d . Alvin C. Eurich. New Yorks Delacorte Press, 1968. "MSU-CIA Investigation Hinted," The State N e w s , (East Lansing, Michigan), April 15, 1966, p. 1. Mullaney, Antony. "The University as a Community of Resist­ ance," Harvard Educational R e v i e w , XL (November, 1970), 628-641. Osmunson, Robert L. "Higher Education as Viewed by College and University Presidents," School and Society, XCVIII (October, 1970), 367-370. Parsons, Talcott. "Some Ingredients of a General Theory of Formal Organization," Administrative Theory in O r g a n i z a t i o n . ed. Andrew w. Halpin. Torontos The Macmillan Co., 1958. 153 Structure and Process in Modern S o c i e t i e s . Glencoe, Illinois; The Free Press, I960. _________ , et a l . Theories of S o c i e t y . Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Paschal, New York: The Free Elizabeth. "Organizing for Better Instruction," Campus 1 9 8 0 . ed. Alvin C. Eurich. New York: Delacorte Press, 1968. Perkins, James A. " H i g h e r .Education in the 1970° s," Educational R e c o r d , LI (Summer, 1970), 246-252. . The University in T r a n s i t i o n . Princeton, New Jersey; Princeton University Press, 1966. Pervin, Lawrence A. "The College as a Social System," Journal of Higher E d u c a t i o n , XXXVIII (June, 1967), 317-322. Peterson, Richard E. The Crisis of Purpose; Definition and Use of Institutional G o a l s , Report 5, ERIC Clearing­ house on Higher Education, Washington, D.C., October, 1970. Potter, V.R. "Purpose and Function of the University," S c i e n c e , CLXVII (March 20, 1970), 1590-1593. Powell, Robert S., Jr. "More Than a Number," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s . Fred F. Harcleroad. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. "A Report; College Goals and Governance," Danforth News and N o t e s . St. Louis; Danforth Foundation, N o v e m b e r , 1969, Robinson, Daniel D. "Who*s Managing?" Issues of the S e v e n t i e s . ed. Fred F. Harcleroad. San Francisco; Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. Rowe, Clair D., Acting Dean of the College of Business, Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, Personal letter, January 7, 1971, Sanford, Nevitt. "The College Student of 1980," Campus 1 9 8 0 . ed. Alvin C. Eurich. Ne w York; Delacorte Press, 1968, _______ . "Loss of Talent," Fred F. Harcleroad. I n c . , 1970. Issues of the S e v e n t i e s , ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 154 Semas, Philip W. "U.S. Universities D o n ’t Know What T h e y ’re Doing or Why, Robert M. Hutchins Says," The Chronicle of Higher Education (Washington, D.C.), March 9, 1970, p.p* 5-6, Shaffer, Robert H. "Redefining Student Personnel Objectives," NA SPA J o u r n a l , VIII (October, 1970), 142-144, Shoben, Edward J , , Jr„ "Cultural Criticism and the American College," D a e d a l u s , IC (Summer, 1970), 676-699, Spencer, Lyle M, "The Research Function and the Advancement of K n o w l e d g e ," Whose Goals for American Higher Edu­ c a t i o n ? ed, Charles G, Dobbins and Calvin Lee. Washington, D,C„; American Council on Education, 1968, Taylor, Harold, "Student Unrest," Issues of the Seventies, ed, Fred F„ Harcleroad, San Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc of 1970, Thomas, William L., Jr, "Perceptions of University Goals; Comparison of Administrators, Faculty and Students Engaged in the Practice, Teaching and/or Study of Student Personnel Administration at Michigan State University wi th a Nationwide Study of University Faculty and Administrators," Unpublished Ph,D. Thesis, College of Education, Michigan State Un i ­ versity, 1970, Thompson, James D. Organizations in A c t i o n , McGraw-Hill, Lie,, 1967, A Mew Yorks _________ , and McEwen, William J, "Organizational Goals and Environments Goal-Setting as an Interaction Process," American Sociological R e v i e w , XXIII (February, 1958), 23-31. Tyler, Ralph W, "Academic Excellence and EquaJ Opportunity," Issues of the S e v e n t i e s , ed. Fred F„ Harcleroad, San Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. Ward, F, Champion. "University Initiative in Response to C h a n g e ," Higher Educations Demand and R e s p o n s e . ed, I'JoR. Niblett. San Franciscos Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1970. Werdell, Philip R, "Teaching and Learning; Whose Goals Are Important Around Here?" Whose Goals For American Higher Education? ed, Charles G. Dobbins and Calvin Lee. Washington, D.C.s American Council on Edu­ cation, 1968, APPENDICES 155 THE GOALS OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY One of the do with tion great issues in American education has to the proper aim or goals of the university. is: what are we trying to accomplish? to prepare people for jobs, or what? The q u e s ­ Are we trying to broaden them intellectually, Below are listed a large number of the more com­ monly claimed intentions or goals of a university. Please react to each of these in two different ways: (1) How important ijs each aim at Michigan State Univer­ sity? (2) How important should the aim be at Michigan State University? An Example: Goal o f abs o l u t e l y top i m p ortance to train t e c h nicians of g r e a t imp o r t a n c e of m e d i u m importance is {) () ( ) should be ( ) (X) ( ) of little imp o r t a n c e ( of no imp o r t a n c e don't know or can't say (X) ( ) ( ) ) ( ) ( ) A person who had checked the alternatives in the m a n ­ ner shown above would be expressing his perception that the intention or goal, "to train technicians," is of little im­ portance at Michigan State but he believes that it should be of great importance as an intention or goal of the Univer­ sity. NOTE: "of absolutely top importance" should only be checked if the aim is so important that, if it were to be removed, the University would be changed in a fundamental way. All Questions Are About Michigan State University. 156 o f abs o l u t e l y top imp o r t a n c e 1 . P r o du c e a s t u d e n t w h o s e physical, social, moral, i ntellectual, and e s t h e t i c p o t e n t i a l i t i e s ha v e all b e e n cultivated. s hould be 2. A c c o m m o d a t e o n l y s tudents of high p o t en t i a l in terms of the sp e c i f i c stren g t h s and emp h a s e s of this Unive r s i t y . should be 3. D e v el o p l oyalty on the pa r t of faculty, staff, and s tudents to the U n i v e r s i t y and the things it stands for. 4. P r o t e c t the a c a d e m i c fr e e d o m of the faculty. 5. Ca r r y on re s e a r c h for the sole p u r p o s e of e x t e n d i n g knowledge. 6. P r o du c e a s tudent wh o has been i ncu l c a t e d wi t h those values c o n ­ s i d er e d i m p o r t a n t to an ed u c a t e d person; e.g. the d i g n i t y of the individual, truth, t o l erance of di f f e r e n t views, and a rational a p p ro a c h to p r o b l e m solving. 7. P r o vi d e o p p o r t u n i t i e s for special train i n g for p a r t - t i m e ad u l t s t u ­ dents, through e x t e n s i o n courses, speci a l sh o r t co u r s e s and c o r r e ­ spond e n c e c o u r s e s . sho.uld be should be should be should be should be 8. Prod u c e a st u d e n t w h o has ha d his i n t el l e c t c h a l l e n g e d to the m a x i ­ mum . s hould be 9. A s s i s t ot h e r na t i o n s in mee t i n g their goals by p r o v i d i n g their citiz e n s w i t h e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r ­ tunities on campus. should be 10. Carry on res e a r c h d e s i g n e d to solve c o n t e m p o r a r y problems. M a i n t a i n the c o m m i t m e n t of the faculty by i n volving them in the g o v e r n a n c e of the University. 12. Produ c e a st u d e n t w h o has a c l o s e ­ ly e x a m i n e d set of et h i c a l c o n v i c ­ tions roo t e d in the d i s c i p l i n e d study of the w o r l d ' s p h i l o s o p h i ­ cal and rel i g i o u s traditions. 13. G r a d u a t e a s t u d e n t w h o is able to use his l eisure time in a c r e a ­ tive manner. Make sure that salaries, teaching assignments, and p r i v i l e g e s always r e f l e c t the c o n t r i b u t i o n that the p ers o n in v o l v e d is ma k i n g to his own p r o f e s s i o n or discipline. 15. Ensur e s a t i s f a c t o r y r e lations with the im m e d i a t e g e o g r a p h i c a l region by res p o n d i n g to its spe c i a l needs and problems. 16. Have the va r i o u s a c a d e m i c d e p a r t ­ m e n t s and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e units p e r i o d i c a l l y as s e s s their a c t i v i ­ ties re l a t i v e to the f u l f illment of the U n i v e r s i t y ' s goals. 17. Ensur e the v i t a l i t y and qu a l i t y of ou r soc i e t y by c r e a t i n g an a t m os p h e r e w h e r e faculty, students, and admi n i s t r a t o r s , as individuals, may be e n c o u r a g e d to serve as its critics; i.e., e x a m i n i n g its v a l ­ ues, goals and p r a c t i c e s as well as pr e s c r i b i n g solutions, a l t e r ­ nativ e s and ne w directions. 18. P r o t e c t the ri g h t o f f aculty to o r g a n i z e as a c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n ­ ing unit. should be s hould be should be should be should be s hould be s hould be s hould be sh o u l d be of gr e a t i m p ortance of m e d i u m imp o r t a n c e of little importance of no i m p o r t a nce d o n 't know or can't say 19. A s s i s t the s ociety in the m a i n ­ t enance of con t i n u i t y a n d s t a b i l ­ ity by se r v i n g as a c e n t e r for the p r e s e r v a t i o n of the cul t u r a l heritage. 20. Pr o d u c e a s t u d e n t w h o has be e n e x ­ po s e d to the ideas of the g r e a t minds of history. 21. Ma i n t a i n top quality, in r e lation to o t h e r m a j o r u n i v e r sities, in all p r ograms w e en g a g e in. 22. En r i c h the c u ltural life of the com m u n i t y by p r o v i d i n g U n i v e r s i t y s p o n s o r e d pro g r a m s in the arts, pu b l i c lectures by d i s t i n g u i s h e d persons, a t h l e t i c events, and ot h e r p e r f o rmances, displays, or cel e b r a t i o n s w h i c h p r e s e n t the best of culture, p o p u l a r or not. 23. Ensure the c o n t i n u e d c o n f i d e n c e and hence su p p o r t of those w h o con t r i b u t e s u b s t a n t i a l l y (other than s tudents and r e c ipients of services) to the finances and oth e r mat e r i a l re s o u r c e needs of the University. 24. Produce a s t u d e n t w h o has a g e n ­ eral e d u c a t i o n (whether or not he has had s p e c i a l i z e d t r a i n i n g ) . 25. De v e l o p att i t u d e s of m u t u a l r e s ­ pec t and c o n s i d e r a t i o n among students, faculty, a d m i n i s trators, and trustees. 26. Ensure that faculty follow U n i v e r ­ sit y - w i d e s t a ndards in the e v a l u a ­ tion of stu d e n t performance. 27. sh o u l d be is sh o u l d be is sh o u l d be is s hould be is s hould be is s hould be is s hould be is s hould be As s i s t o t h e r nations in their d e v e l ­ opm e n t by p r o v i d i n g d i r e c t t e c h n i ­ cal and e d u c a t i o n a l a s s i s t a n c e to s hould their gov e r n m e n t s or institutions. be 28. Pr o d u c e students wh o ha v e d e v e l ­ oped the abi l i t y to ap p l y the methods of various d i s c i p l i n e s in at t acking s ocietal problems. 29. Develop m a x i m u m c o m m u n i c a t i o n and coo r d i n a t i o n w i t h i n and bet w e e n aca d e m i c departments, a d m i n i s t r a ­ tive offices, s tudent o r g a n i z a ­ tions and o t h e r age n c i e s of the University. 30. M a i n t a i n the c o m m i t m e n t of the students by i n volving them in the go v e r n a n c e of the University. 31. Serve as a ce n t e r for the d i s s e m ­ ination of n e w ideas that will change the society, w h e t h e r those ideas are in science, literature, the arts, o r politics. 32. Produce a s t u d e n t w h o has d e v e l ­ op e d the a t titudes and c o m p e t e n ­ cies ess e n t i a l to p e r f o r m r e s p o n ­ sibly in a d e m o c r a t i c society. 33. Ob t a i n f aculty and st a f f w h o are com p e t e n t in their ar e a of s p e ­ cial training. 34. Keep M i c h i g a n State U n i v e r s i t y from b e c o m i n g s o m e t h i n g d i f f e r e n t from w h a t it is now; that is, p r e ­ serve its "land grant" philosophy. 35. Keep harmony b e t w e e n d e p a r t m e n t s or d i v isions of the U n i v e r s i t y w h e n such d e p a r t m e n t s o r d i v isions do not agree on imp o r t a n t matters. 36. Seek the f a v orable app r a i s a l of those w h o va l i d a t e the q u a l i t y of the pro g r a m s we of f e r (validating groups in c l u d e a c c r e d i t i n g a g e n ­ cies, pro f e s s i o n a l societies, sch o l a r l y pe e r s at o t h e r u n i v e r ­ sities, an d r e s p e c t e d pe r s o n s in i n t e l l e c t u a l or a r t i s t i c circles). is should be is s hould be is s hould be is should be is s hould be is should be is should be is should be is s hould be 158 is 37. M a i n t a i n the c o m m i t m e n t of the faculty b y m a k i n g su r e that on all i m p o r t a n t issues (not on l y curriculum), the w i l l of the faculty shall prevail. should be 38. A s s i s t ci t i z e n s d i r e c t l y t hrough ex t e n s i o n p r o grams, advice, c o n ­ sultation, and the p r o v i s i o n of useful or ne e d e d f a c ilities and services ot h e r than teaching. should be 39. Be c e r t a i n that the i n s t r u c t i o n a l staff adhere to U n i v e r s i t y e x ­ pec t a t i o n s wi t h regard to gra d i n g policies, s tating i n s t r u c t i o n a l o b j e c t i v e s in courses, mee t i n g classes an d m a i n t a i n i n g a r e a s o n ­ able nu m b e r of of f i c e hours. 40. Pro d u c e a s tudent w h o is able to think clearly, o b j e c tively, and cogently in m a k i n g judgements. is is should be is sh o u l d be is 41. S p e c i f i c a l l y p r e p a r e s tudents useful careers. for 42. P r o t e c t and f a c i l i t a t e the s t u ­ dents' ri g h t to in q u i r e into, investigate, a n d e x a m i n e c r i t i ­ cally any idea o r p r o g r a m in wh i c h they m i g h t b e c o m e i n t e r ­ ested. 43. Pro d u c e s tudents w h o ha v e d e v e l ­ ope d o b j e c t i v i t y a b o u t themselves and their be l i e f s and he n c e can exa m i n e those b e l i e f s critically. 44. Ens u r e that the v a r i o u s c o lleges and aca d e m i c d e p a r t m e n t s follow Uni v e r s i t y - w i d e p o l i c i e s in d e c i ­ sions rel a t i n g to tea c h i n g load, salaries, sab b a t i c a l leaves, p r o ­ m o t i o n and tenure. 45. Make sure the U n i v e r s i t y is run d e m o c r a t i c a l l y {a con s e n s u s a p ­ pro a c h inv o l v i n g students, fa c u l ­ ty, a d m i n i s t r a t o r s and trustees) ins o f a r as that is possible. 46. Make this a pl a c e in w h i c h fa c u l ­ ty ha v e m a x i m u m o p p o r t u n i t y to pur s u e their ca r e e r s in a ma n n e r s a t i s f a c t o r y to them by their own criteria. 47. Obt a i n the n e c e s s a r y f a c i lities to p r o v i d e a s a t i s f a c t o r y e d u c a ­ tional environment. 48. Pro t e c t and fac i l i t a t e the s t u ­ dents' right to a d v o c a t e di r e c t act i o n of a p o l i t i c a l o r social kin d and any att e m p t s on their par t to o r g a n i z e eff o r t s to attain p o l i t i c a l o r social goals. 49. Provide e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s for ev e r y high school gr a d u a t e who has an i n t e r e s t in a p r o g r a m off e r e d by MSU. 50. Develop l oyalty on the pa r t of the f acultv and st a f f to the U n i ­ versity, ra t h e r than on l y to their own jobs or p r o f e s s i o n a l concerns. 51. Pro d u c e a st u d e n t w h o is com m i t t e d to use his talents to con t r i b u t e to the b e t t e r m e n t of society. 52. M a i n t a i n the c o m m i t m e n t of the a c a ­ dem i c units b y e n s u r i n g that there is a p r o p o r t i o n a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n of resources among the c o lleges and aca d e m i c departments. sh o u l d be is should be is should be is sho u l d be is sho u l d be is sho u l d be is should be is sh o u l d be is s hould bo is s hould bo is sh o u l d be is s hould be 159 In spite of the length of the above list, it is en­ tirely possible that aimes or goals have been omitted which are important to Michigan State University or such an aim or goal may have been poorly stated. If so, please take this opportunity to list such goals below. ^ o a ^s of abs o l u t e l y top imp o r t a n c e -------------------------- is() --------------------------------------- of little importance o f no importance don ' t know or c a n ’t say () ( ) ( ) {) ( ) () ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( ) {) ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( ) () ( ) ( ) {) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) { ) ( ) () ( ) () ( j --- — ._____________________________ is _________________________________ should be --- is should be __ of m e d i u m importance { ) should be _______________________________________ of gr e a t i m p o rtance ( ) ( ) Please send me a summary of the study 1293 Orlando Drive Haslett, Michigan 48840 January 29, 1971 What should be the goals of higher education in our rapidly changing society? More specifically, what should be the goals of Michigan State University in the immediate future? The defining of the University's goals is important to you because they provide guidelines in the search for answers to such current issues as admissions policies, curriculum, etc.. I am conducting a study which will provide you with an oppor­ tunity to express your views about the goals of this University. The purpose of the study will be to determine how the students, faculty, administrators and trustees at Michigan State feel about the goals of the University. These groups are important in the development and implementation of the University's goals. T here­ fore, the results of this study could have implications for future planning and decision-making. The study is related to my doctoral dissertation and has been approved by my graduate committee and I have also cleared with the Office of Institutional Research. The enclosed questionnaire contains a diverse group of goals for you to rate with respect to their appropriateness for Michigan State. The questionnaire is coded to provide a control mechanism for the processing of responses. The identity of the respondents will be known only to the researcher and the handling and analysis of data will ensure the anonymity of individuals. As a sample of only 50 or less from each group will participate in the study, it is very important that the response rate be high. It would be most appreciated if you could return the completed questionnaire in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope by February 10. Let me thank you in advance for your cooperation in this study. If you are interested in a summary of the study, please check the appropriate space on the last page of the questionnaire and I will see that you receive a copy of the results. Sincerely, Ronald S. Stead Office: RSS/lph Enclosure 160 161 Student Services Building Phone 353-6470 1293 Orlando Drive Haslett, Michigan 48840 February 1, 1971 M r . Don Stevens P.O. Box 335 Okemos, Michigan 48864 Dear M r . S t e v e n s : As a member of the Board of Trustees at Michigan State University, I lenow that you have given a great deal of thought to the goals of this U n i v e r s i t y 0 According to m a n y critics of higher education, goal-setting is one of the most difficult, yet essential, tasks facing univer­ sities in a rapidly changing society., What should be the goals of Michigan State University today? This is a question that must be considered by many groups both w i t h ­ in and outside the U n i v e r s i t y . I am conducting a study w hich will focus on five selected groups (undergraduate and graduate students, faculty, administrators and trustees) at Michigan State University with regard to their views about the goals of this Universityo These groups are important components of the University in the development and implementation of its goalso Therefore, the results of this study could be helpful to you as a trustee in future deliberations about the U n i v e r s i t y „ The study is related to my doctoral dissertation and has the approval of m y graduate committee and the appropriate University o f f i c e s . The enclosed questionnaire contains a diverse group of goals for you to rate with respect to their ap­ propriateness for Michigan State University. The ques­ tionnaire is coded to provide a control mechanism for the processing of responses. You can be assured that the identity of respondents as individuals will be treated in a confidential manner. As the number of trustees is so small, it is obviously very important that there be a high response rate if generalizations about this group are to be meaningful. It would be most appreciated if you could return the completed questionnaire in the en­ closed stamped, self-addressed envelope by February 10. Let me thank you in advance for your cooperation with this study. I shall ensure that you receive a summary of this study so it is not necessary for you to mark the space provided on the questionnaire. Sincerely, enclosures Ronald S. Stead 161