INFORMATION TO USERS This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “target** for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity. 2. When an image on the Him is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­ graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning” the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy. University Micrdnlms International 3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D , A NN A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6 18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D 8112134 O steen , J a m e s M a r t in A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF DOCTOR O F VETERINARY MEDICINE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1913*1976 Michigan State University University Microfilms International PH.D. 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1980 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the b est possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with th is document have been 1denti fi ed here w1th a check mark . 1. SI o ssy pho to g rap h s 2. Colored illu stratio n s 3. Photographs with dark background 4. Illustrations are poor copy____ 5. °rin t shows through as there 1s text on both sides o f page 6. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 7. Tightly bound copy with print l o s t in spine 8. Computer printout pages with indistinct print 9, Page(s) lacking when material received, and not available from school or author 10. Page(s) _______ seem to be missing in numbering only as text fo llows 11. Poor carbon copy _______ 12. Not original copy, several pages with blurred type 13. Appendix pages are poor copy 14. Original copy with lig h t type _ _ _ _ _ 15. Curling and wrinkled pages _ _ _ _ _ _ 16. Other University Mfcrofilms International 3CQ IN 7 E EB R D . A N N A R B U l l . M I 4 B 1 Oli I IB 1 HI 7 6 1 1 7 0 0 _ A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OP DOCTOR OP VETERINARY MEDICINE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1913-1976 By Janes Martin Osteen A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Administration and Higher Education ABSTRACT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF DOCTOR OF VETERINARY MEDICINE GRADUATES OF MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 1913-1976 By James Martin Osteen There are many Issues facing decision makers In veterinary medical education regarding the number of graduates needed and the focus of their training. One source of input for addressing these issues is the evaluation by graduates of their veterinary training programs. At the request of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University, the Office of Institutional Research conducted a survey of the graduates of that college. The study was designed to describe the professional employment of graduates and the opinion of those graduates regarding the Michigan State University program leading to the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) degree. Specifically, this study sought to identify: 1. the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree, 2. the employment patterns of graduates with selected preveterinary factors, 3. the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates, 4. the optimal emphasis on the curricular areas included in the professional program as perceived by graduates, and 5. the trends in the veterinary medical profession which relate to the veterinary medical curriculum as perceived by graduates. A questionnaire was designed and mailed to D.V.M. graduates of the College o f Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University who w ere grad­ uated during the years 1913 to 1976 inclusive. This survey instrument consisted of eight parts, four of which were used in this study of the training and employment patterns of graduates. Responses to the question­ naire items were reported and analyzed by means of tabulation of frequency distributions, calculation of chi-square tests of Independence, and Kendall’s Tau tests of rank correlation. Two hundred sixty-nine (269) individual null hypotheses were tested in an attempt to address the five objectives of the study and to analyze the population data. One hundred eighty— five (185) of these hypotheses were rejected at the .05 level of significance. The major findings of the study were: 1. Graduates, particularly women and later graduates, reported employment in small and mixed animal practices more than large animal or other types of practices. 2. The type of preveterinary experience reported tended to have an influence on the type of practice later chosen by graduates. 3. Graduates working in government, industry, and military reported less satisfied career objectives than those in private practice or education. 4. Graduates recommended four years as the optimal length for veter­ inary professional programs and most often cited the additional time for practical application as a major advantage of the longer program. 5. Graduates recommended increased opportunity for optional speciali­ zation in the veterinary program. 6. Additional emphasis on the curricular areas of economics and business administration, p e r s o n n e l management, animal behavior, clini cal pathology, and n u t r i t i o n for s mall animals wa s recommended by graduates. A m a j o r t rend iden t i f i e d b y g r aduates w a s an increase in w o r k w i t h food a n i m a l s . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to offer a sincere expression of appreciation to Dr. Lou Anna Klmsey Simon for directing the work on my dissertation; to Dr. Richard L. Featherstone for serving as Chairperson of my doctoral committee; and to Bev, Laura, Leah, other members of my family, and friends for giving me encourage­ ment and assistance throughout my entire program. The patience and support of these people have meant much to me in the accomplishment of this project. ii Thanks. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................ Chapter I. II. THE P R O B L E M .................................................. 1 Statement of the P r o b l e m ................................... 3 Purpose of the S t u d y ........................... 4 Limitations of the Study ................................... 5 Definition of Terms ................................... 6 Organization of the Study ................................... 7 REVIEW OF THE L I T E R A T U R E ................................... 8 Veterinary Medical Profession ................... . ........ 8 ............................... 9 Human Resource Projections ............................. 11 Projected Areas of Growth 13 Professional Activities Career Changes . . . . . Veterinary Medical Education Curriculum Length ............................. ....................... ............ . . . . . 15 16 ...................................... Curriculum Development ......................... 17 . . . . 19 . . ........ 22 Giuliani Study .......................................... 22 Centra Study ............................................ 26 Other Studies at Michigan State University ............ 32 Follow-Up Studies at Michigan State University ill III. POPULATION, SURVEY INSTRUMENT AND DATA CODIFICATION AND A N A L Y S I S .................................... 34 P o p u l a t i o n ..................... 34 Survey Instrument 39 ................... Data Codification and A n a l y s i s .................................... 50 IV. ANALYSIS OF D A T A ................................................... 65 Objective I .............................. . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Present Primary Professional Position ..................... 66 First Primary Professional Position ....................... 72 All Primary Professional Positions ....................... 76 Shifts in Career from First to Present Primary Professional Position . . . . . . ....................... 82 Shifts Among All Primary Professional Positions ........... 93 Number of Shifts in C a r e e r ................................. 105 Inclusion of Career Options and Other Factors in Course of C a r e e r ................................. 107 Summary for Objective I ..................................... 115 Objective I I ...................................................... 118 ................... 119 ........................................ 119 Residential Setting During High School Michigan Residency Factors Influencing the Decision to Become a Veterinarian ............................................. 119 Career Objectives Influencing the Type of Veterinary Work Pursued .................................... 124 Preveterinary Work Experience .............................. 127 Preceptorship ............................................... 136 Summary for Objective I I ................................... 139 Objective I I I .................................................... 143 Recommended Program Lengths ................................ Advantages, Disadvantages, and Other Comments ........ iv 143 . . 143 Summary for Objective III . . . . .......................... 146 Objective I V ................. .. . .............................148 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas ............... 148 Work in Organ S y s t e m s ....................................... 162 Preparation in Various Work Related Areas ............... 163 Preceptorship Experience 163 ................................ Summary of Objective I V ..................................... 167 Objective V - Future Trends ................................... Summary of Objective V Summary V. 167 ..................................... 172 . . .......................................................172 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND ............................ RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 184 S u m m a r y ........................................................... 184 Career Employment Pattern ................................ Present Primary Professional Position 187 ............. 187 ............... 189 All Primary Professional Positions ................. 190 Shifts in Career from First to Present Primary Professional Position ...................... 192 First Primary Professional Position Shifts in Career Among All Primary Professional P o s i t i o n s ............... . ............... 192 Number of Shifts in C A r e e r .............................193 Inclusion of Career Options and Other Factors in Course of C a r e e r .......................... 193 Selected Preveterinary Factors .......................... 194 Residential Background .............................. 194 Influence on Career Decisions 195 ...................... Preveterinary Work ........................ Preceptorship . . . . . 197 ....................................... 197 v Recommended Program Length ........................ 198 ...................... 198 ............................ 200 C o n c l u s i o n s ................................................. 201 Implications ................................................. 204 Recommendations forFurtherStudy ............................ 205 ....................................................... 206 Recommended Program Content Future Trends REFERENCES APPENDIX A, TABLES DISPLAYING POPULATION DATA .................... 210 APPENDIX B, SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE S T U D Y .................. 234 APPENDIX C, TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I ........ 247 APPENDIX D, TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE II ........ 373 APPENDIX E, TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE III .... 428 APPENDIX F, TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE IV ........ 436 APPENDIX G, TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE V ........ 457 APPENDIX H, TABLES DISPLAYING HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS FOR THE FIVE OBJECTIVES OF THES T U D Y ................................ 478 vi LIST OF TABLES 3.1 Cohort Group M e mbership............................................ . 3 7 3.2 Zip Code Grouping of Current A d d r e s s ................................38 3.3 Parts of Survey Instrument Included in This Study .................. 39 3.4 Questionnaires Returned by Cohort Group ............................ 47 3.5 Date of Return of Questionnaire......................................49 3.6 Application of Null Hypotheses in the Analysis for the Five Objectives of the S t u d y ................................ 60 3.7 Application of Research Questions in the Analysis for the Five Objectives of the S t u d y ................................ 61 4.1 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position 4.2 ............ Location of Present Primary Professional Position 67 . . 69 4.3 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position .......... 69 4.4 Income of Present Primary Professional Position . .................. 70 4.5 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position .............. . . 71 4.6 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position .............. 73 4.7 Location of First Primary Professional Position .................... 74 4.8 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position ............ 77 4.9 Workload of First Primary Professional Position .................... 78 4.10 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions 4.11 Location of All Primary Professional Positions 4.12 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions ............. 83 4.13 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions. . . . . . 4.14 .............. 79 ................. 81 .......... 84 Shift in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position ..................................... 85 vii Major Shifts In Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position ............. Career Option of Shifts from First to Present Primary Professional Position • 86 . - 87 Type of Major Shift in Career Option from First to Primary Professional Position ............ 88 Type of Practice Shifts in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position .......... 89 Shifts Within Major Areas of Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position ........ . 90 Shifts Within Practice Areas from First to Present Primary Professional Position ............... 91 Shifts in Location from First to Present Primary Professional Position ............... 92 Shifts in Size of Practice from First to Present Primary Professional Position ............... 93 Shifts in Workload from First to Present Primary Professional Position ............... 94 Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions ..................... 95 Major Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions ..................... 96 Career Options of Shifts Among All Primary Professional Positions ..................... 97 Type of Major Shift in Career Option Among All Primary Professional P o s i t i o n s ............ . . . . 98 Type of Practice Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions . ............... 100 Shifts Within Major Areas of Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions .......... 101 Shifts Within Practice Areas Among All Primary Professional Positions ..................... 102 Shifts in Location Among All Primary Professional Positions ............................. 103 Shifts in Size of Practice Among All Primary Professional Positions ..................... 104 viii A.33 Shifts in Workload Among All Primary Professional Positions ............................................. 105 Number of Shifts Divided by the Number of Years in C a r e e r .................................................. 106 4.35 Inclusion of Each Career Option in Course of C a r e e r ............ 108 4.36 Inclusion of Various Factors in Course of C a r e e r ............... 4.37 Residential Setting During High School ........................... 120 4.38 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine ................... 121 Ranking of Factors Having at Least Some Influence on ............................ the Decision to Become a Veterinarian 122 Ranking of Career Objectives Influencing the Type of Veterinary Work P u r s u e d ......................................... 125 Ranking of Career Objectives Influencing Type of Veterinary Work Pursued and Ranking of Career Objectives Perceived Satisfiable in Various Career Settings by Respondents Working in Those S e t t i n g s .................................................. 128 4.42 Type of Experience in Preveterinary W o r k ......................... 130 4.43 Setting of Preveterinary Work Experience ......................... 131 4.44 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preveterinary Work E x p e r i e n c e .................................................... 133 4.45 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience ................... 134 4.46 No Preveterinary Work Experience Reported ................... 135 4.47 Type of Experience in P r e c e p t o r s h i p .............................. 137 4.48 Setting of P r e c e p t o r s h i p ........................................... 138 4.49 Practice Type of P r e c e p t o r s h i p .................................... 140 4.50 No Preceptorship Reported 141 4.34 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.51 . . ........................................ Ill Recommended Length of Preveterinary and Veterinary Programs by Program Length of R e s p o n d e n t s ................................... 144 4.52 Comments about the Three-Year Curriculum ......................... 145 4.53 Comments about the Four-Year Curriculum 147 4.54 Recommended Additional Emphasis on Curricular Areas ix ......................... ............ 149 4.55 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Program ............ 151 4.56 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Respondents Working in That Area Versus O t h e r s ............................. 157 4.57 Over Ten Percent of Work Reported in Organ S y s t e m s ............ 162 4.58 Ranking of Preparation in Various Areas Rated as Adequate or B e t t e r ........................................... 164 Rating of Preceptorship......................................... 165 4.59 4.60 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preceptorship Work Experience................................................. 166 Ranking of Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by the College of Veterinary Medicine ................ 169 Ranking of Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention ....................... 170 4.63 Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years .............. 171 4.64 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Other Concerns for Veterinary Medicine . . . . ....................... 173 4.65 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective 1 .......... 175 4.66 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective 1 1 ........ 179 4.67 Summary of Tests of Hypothesis Related to Objective 1 1 1 ........ 180 4.68 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective I V ........ 181 4.69 Kendall's Tau Values for the Six Research Q u e s t i o n s ............ 183 A.l Questionnaires Returned by Graduating Class .................... 210 A.2 Sex of Respondents by Graduating C l a s s ........................ 214 A.3 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents by Graduating Class ............................. 218 Present Geographical Location of Respondents by Sex, by Cohort Group and by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ................ . 228 4.61 4.62 A.4 A.5 Date of Return by Sex, by Cohort Group, and by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ........ .... 232 C.l Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex . . 249 C.2 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ............................ by Cohort Group 251 x Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Location ...................................... < 253 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice . . . .................... . , 255 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Workload ...................................... 257 Location of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex . 259 Location of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group .......................................... 260 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex .......................................... 261 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group .......................................... 262 Income of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex . . 263 Income of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group .............................................. 264 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex . 265 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group .......................................... 266 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Sex 267 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group .......................................... 268 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position . 270 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by L o c a t i o n ......................... .................... 272 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Size of P r a c t i c e ................. ................ .. 274 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Workload .............................................. 276 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Sex , . 278 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort G r o u p .......................................... 279 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of First Primary Professional Position .......... 280 xi Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position by Sex .............................. 282 Size of Practice of 'First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group ............................................... . 283 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position . . . . 284 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Sex ........ 286 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group . . . . .......................................... 287 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ................. 288 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex 290 . . . Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group ................................................... 292 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Porfessional Positions 294 . .. Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Location ....................................................... 296 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Size of Practice ............................................... 298 Career Option of All Primary Porfessional Positions by W o r k l o a d ....................................................... 300 Location of Professional Positions by Sex ......... 302 Location of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group . ................................................. 303 Location of All Primary Professional Positions by Career ........ Option of Present Primary Professional Positions .. 304 .. 306 All Primary . Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group ................................................... 307 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ........ 308 Workload of Professional Positions by Sex .......... 310 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group ................................................... 311 All Primary xii C.43 C.44 C.45 C.46 C.47 C.48 C.49 C.50 C.51 C.52 C.53 C.54 C.55 C.56 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Position ........................ 312 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position ......... 314 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Males by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position . . . . 316 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Females by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position . . . . 318 Career Option of Present Position of Respondents Who did not Indicate Sex by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position . . . . . .............................................. 320 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents who Graduated between 1913 and 1938 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position . 322 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents who Graduated between 1939 and 1952 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position ...................... 324 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents Who Graduated between 1953 and June, 1967 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position ................ 326 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents Who Graduated between December, 1967 and 1976 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position ........ 328 Career Option of Present Professional Position of Respondents Whose Graduation Date was Unknown by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position .............. * 330 Location of Present Primary Professional Position by Location of the First Primary Professional Position ............ . . . . . 332 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice of the First Primary Professional Position 334 .. Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Workload of the First Primary Professional Position ...................... 335 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position . 336 C.57 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Males by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional P o s i t i o n ........................................................... 338 C.58 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Females by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional P o s i t i o n .......................................... xiii 340 C.59 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Did Not Indicate Sex by Career Option of Previous Primary Professional Position . . ........ . . . . . . . . 342 C.60 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated between 1913 and 1938 by Career Option of the Previous Professional Position ....................... 344 C.61 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated between 1939 and 1952 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position .............. 346 C.62 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated between 1953 and June, 1967 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position . . . . 348 C.63 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated between December, 1967 and 1976 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position . . . . 350 C.64 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Whose Graduation Date was Unknown by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position • ............. 352 C.65 Location of All Primary Professional PositionsShifted to by Location of the PreviousPrimary ProfessionalPosition ............... 354 C.66 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Size of Practice of the Previous Primary Professional P o s i t i o n ............................................................. 356 C.67 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Workload of the Previous ProfessionalPosition ................. 358 C.68 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by S e x ..................................................... 359 C.69 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by Cohort G r o u p ..................................................... 360 C.70 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by Career Option of Present PrimaryProfessionalPosition .......... 361 C.71 Reported Inclusion of Each Career Option during the Course of Respondents' Careers by S e x .......................................363 C.72 Reported Inclusion of Each Career Option During the Course of Respondents' Careers by Cohort Group C.73 Reported Inclusion of Each Career Option During the Course of Respondents' Careers by Career Options of Present Primary Professional Position .. . . xiv . 364 365 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents' Career by S e x .................... . . . . . 367 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents' Career by Cohort Group ................... 368 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents’ Careers by Career Option of Their Present Primary Professional Position ..................... 370 Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Sex ...................................................... 373 Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Cohort G r o u p ........................... ................ 374 Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position. . 375 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by S e x .............. . . , . 377 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by Cohort Group ............... 378 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ..................... 379 . . . Factors Having Some or Very much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by S e x ..................... ................ 381 Factors Having Some or Very Much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Cohort Group ........................... 382 Factors Having Some or Very Much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position .................................... 383 Influence of Factors on Decision to Become a Veterinarian 385 . . . . Career Objectives Influencing Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Sex ............................................ 386 Career Objectives Influence Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Cohort Group .................................................. 388 Career Objectives Influence Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position . . . . 389 Adequate Satisfaction of Career Objectives in Various Career Settings by Respondents Working in Those Areas 393 .......... Type of Experience in Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex . . . . xv 395 Type of Experience In Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort G r o u p ........ . .......... ............................. 396 Type of Experience In Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ................. 397 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex . . . . . 399 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort G r o u p ................................................... 400 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position . . . . ........ 401 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preveterinary Work E x p e r i e n c e .............................. .................... 403 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex ........... 405 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort Group ................................................... 406 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ................. 407 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex... .............. 409 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by CohortGroup . . . . 410 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option in Present Primary Professional Position ................. 411 Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex 412 .. Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort Group ..................................................... 413 Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ........ 414 Type of Setting in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex 416 . .. Type of Setting in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort G r o u p ................. . . . . . . . . . .............. 417 Type of Setting of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ................. 418 Practice Type of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex . . . . 420 Practice Type of Preceptorship- or Work Experience by Cohort Group ................................................... 421 Practice Type of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option in Present Primary Professional Position . ............... 422 xvi No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex . . . . . . . . 424 No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experienceby Cohort Group 425 . . . No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experienceby Career Option in Present Primary Professional Position................... 426 Recommended Length of Preveterinary Programs by Program Length of Respondents ............................................ 428 Recommended Length of Veterinary Programs by Program Length of Respondents ............................................ 429 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Comments about the Three Year Curriculum by Program Length ................................ 430 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Comments about the Four Year Curriculum by Program Length . . . . . ...................... 433 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas ........................ 436 Recommended Additional Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Program Length ................................................ 439 Over Ten Percent of Work in Organ Systems by Program Length . . . . 442 Over Ten Percent of Work in Organ Systems by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ........................ 443 Preparation Rated Adequate or Better in Various Areas by Program L e n g t h .................................... ............ 445 Preparation Rated Adequate or Better in Various Areas by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position ........ 446 Rating of Preparation in Various Areas .......................... 448 Rating of Preceptorship by Program Length ........................ 450 Rating of Preceptorship by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position .................................... 451 Rating of Preceptorship or Other Work Experience by Type of Experience........................................ 453 . . Type of Setting for Preceptorship or Work Experience by Type of Experience ............................................ 455 Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by Cohort Group ................................................. . 457 Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position .................. 458 xvii Degree of Emphasis Recommended for Various Areas 459 Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention . . . . ............................. 461 Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position .......................................... 462 Recommended Attention for Various Groups or Service Areas . . . 464 . . 466 New Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years by Cohort G r o u p ........................................... New Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years by Career Option of Primary Professional Position ............ 468 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Concerns by Cohort Group ................................. .......... 472 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Concerns by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position .............. 474 Highlights of Findings for the First Objective of the Study Regarding Career Employment Patterns ..................... 478 Highlights of Findings for the Second Objective of the Study Regarding Preveterinary Factors ......................... 479 Highlights of Findings for the Third Objective of the Study Regarding Program Length ................................. 480 Highlights of Findings for the Fourth Objective of the Study Regarding Curricular Emphasis ........................... 481 Highlights of Findings for the Fifth Objective of the Study Regarding Future Trends .................... ............ 482 xvlii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM There are many pressures for change in the field of veterinary medicine that are generated both from members of the profession and from the general public. Current shortages in world food supplies point out the need for expanding the role of the veterinarian in food animal medicine. Since veterinarians have been called on to testify and develop diagnostic procedures for cases such as the recent polybrominated byphenyl (PBB) and Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) food contamination problems in Michigan, the function of the veterinarian in regulatory work has been brought into sharper focus. Also under scrutiny is the disproportionate emphasis in veterinary medicine on caring for companion animals. These concerns demonstrate the need for a dynamic and adaptable veterinary medical profession. A college of veterinary medicine must acknowledge this condition and strive not only to keep pace with the growing demands but also to project future needs of the profession. The relevancy of a training program is affected by the ability of that program to focus appropriately on current professional issues and to train people to cope with the future roles. The veterinary medical profession is currently faced with projected practitioner shortages which are expected to continue into the next century (McLaughlin, 1976). This problem has a direct relationship to colleges of veterinary medicine which have as a primary mission to train 1 2 future veterinarians. The problem is well stated by Grafton (1969). The increasingly significant role that the veterinary sciences are playing in the overall health programs of this country is placing demands on educational institutions to provide the personnel required. The fact that training is required at all levels, from post doctoral to paraprofessional makes a broad spectrum of academic planning for veterinary sciences an important part of any consideration of manpower in the healthrelated professions (p. 147). But the problem of practitioner shortages is not an easy one for colleges of veterinary medicine to solve. There is not a shortage of applicants since colleges accept only 1 out of 7.4 persons who apply for admission, compared with 1 out of 2.7 for medical colleges (Hawes, 1973-74). There is, however, an acute shortage of veterinary medical faculty members. This shortage has been projected to 1985 (Pritchard, 1975), but Judy (1975) cautions that this demand for faculty may only be in the short run, and Bailey (1974) suggests that with all the attention given to the present shortage of veterinarians, there could be a surplus in the next decade. In short, there are many issues facing decision makers in veterinary medical education regarding the number of graduates needed and the focus of their training. In responding to the pressures for change in the profession, a key element within control of colleges of veterinary medicine is the curriculum. This dimension determines faculty resource requirements as well as the areas of strength and weakness of graduates. Both qualitative and quantitative changes in the character of veterinary medical education have been suggested in the literature as answers to the problems described above. One additional source of input which is valuable to educational decision makers is the evaluation by graduates of their veterinary training programs. These practitioners can offer information regarding the possible inconsistencies between 3 professional programs in veterinary medicine and the training needs of practitioners and provide insights about the future needs of practitioners. Statement of the Problem This study, which is part of a larger survey conducted at the request of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr. Lou Anna Kimsey Simon of the Office of Institutional Research, is designed to describe the professional employment of graduates of that college and the opinion of those graduates regarding the Michigan State University program leading to the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) degree. The larger survey is a study of the graduates of the College of Veterinary Medicine who received the D.V.M. degree from 1913 through June, 1976, and is similar to two follow-up studies which were conducted for that college in 1965 and 1966. While the similarity of the studies is insufficient for developing significant trend data, the usefulness of the earlier studies prompted the College of Veterinary Medicine to seek additional and more current information about its graduates. Through a review of the literature and consultation with various personnel in the college including administrators, members of the curric­ ulum committee, and other interested faculty, the following foci emerged for the survey. What are the background experiences of graduates? What postgraduate work experiences do the graduates have? advice of graduates concerning the admissions process? What is the What is the appropriate length and content of the professional program? What contributions do graduates make in the area of public health in their professional work? To what extent do graduates use paraprofessionals in their veterinary practice? What has been the relationship of graduates with Michigan State University since graduation? And, what future trends 4 and areas of emphasis do graduates see as important in the field of veterinary medicine? For the purpose of this study only those portions of the larger project which deal most directly with the postgraduate work experiences of graduates and the form and substance of the professional training program are included. Specifically, this study seeks to identify: 1. the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree, 2. the employment patterns of graduates with selected preveterinary factors, 3. the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates, 4. the optimal emphasis on the curricular areas included in the professional program as perceived by graduates, 5. and the trends in the veterinary medical profession which relate to the veterinary medical curriculum as perceived by graduates. Purpose of the Study The results of this study should provide administrators and other decision makers in the College of Veterinary Medicine with information about the curriculum content in the training program for the D.V.M. degree that can be used in curriculum revision. This information also addresses the College's concern about the proper length of the professional training program at Michigan State University. Traditionally professional programs in veterinary medicine are four years in length; however, of the twenty"One programs in North American veterinary schools the program at Michigan State University is one of three programs which are compressed into three years by eliminating the summer term breaks. The American Veterinary Medical Association standards for accreditation stipulate that an acceptable curriculum should include a minimum of 3840 contact hours (AVMA Directory, 1976). In an attempt to maintain this standard, one option which is being considered by the College of Veterinary Medicine is to return to offering a four-year program as was done for classes prior to December, 1967. Finally, these data also provide a key to understanding the characteristics of people who have chosen careers in areas which traditionally have been less popular. This can provide insights into ways to encourage career choices which are responsive to projections of growth areas in the profession. Limitations of the Study While the results of this study should prove to be useful as pointed out above, there are limitations to the study which are related to methodology as well as the definition of the population which must be acknowledged. The kinds of data in this study could have been collected by personal interviews, telephone interviews, or mailed questionnaires. Mailed questionnaires were used in this study and offer the advantages of economy and consistency in gathering data but also present limitations, two of which have been pointed out by Sax (1968). The first is that by this method one cannot judge the motivation of respondents and therefore cannot check the validity of their responses. The second disadvantage is the risk of a possible bias if the return rate is less than 100 per cent. While clientele from other programs in the College of Veterinary Medicine might offer additional insight, the focus of this study is the curriculum leading to the degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine. The population of the study includes only those persons who completed the program and received the D.V.M. degree and does not include those persons who were enrolled in the program at one time but did not complete the requirements for the degree. The comprehensive nature of the larger survey from which this study is taken required a lengthy questionnaire containing 60 questions, 37 of which had multiple parts. The impact of the length of the questionnaire on the return rate is not known, and this may have had an impact on the findings. One additional limitation results from the identification of the population by use of the mailing addresses on file with the College of Veterinary Medicine. This procedure prevents the inclusion of graduates who have not maintained contact in some way with the College since graduation. Definition of Terms For maximum clarity, the definitions of certain key terms are listed here. Career length; The number of years in the career of a graduate as determined by the first year reported on the employment grid through the year 1976. Career option: graduates. The specialized area of practice reported by the The career option choices are aggregated in various ways as described in Chapter III. Cohort group; Grouping of graduates to reflect the type of veterinary curriculum experienced. The cohort groups are aggregated in various ways as described in Chapter III. 7 D .V.M. i The Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree. Professional position; Position of employment as determined by specifically reported incidents on the employment grid. Professional program; Courses, clinical experiences, preceptor- ships, and other aspects involved in the completion of the requirements for a D.V.M. degree. Organization of the Study This study is reported in the following sequence. Chapter I has included an introduction, a statement of the problem, the purpose of the study, limitations of the study, definition of terms, and the organization of the study. literature. Chapter II contains a review of the related A discussion of the format for analysis and methodology of the study is in Chapter III. Chapter IV contains an analysis of the data. And, in Chapter V, a summary, conclusions, implications, and recommenda­ tions are provided. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE This chapter is devoted to a review of studies and opinions related to the objectives of this study and is divided into three sections. First, those studies which examine manpower needs and career patterns within the veterinary medical profession are reviewed. Second, a review of the literature regarding the length and content of veterinary medical education is presented. And third, there is a discussion of other surveys of D.V.M. graduates at Michigan State University. The first two sections parallel the major concerns of this study, and the third sec­ tion presents a framework for the design of the study which is discussed in Chapter III. Veterinary Medical Profession Prior to this century, due to the importance of the horse as both work animal and means of transportation, and to the importance of agri­ culture in the economy of this country, the work of the veterinary medical profession became focused on the care of farm and draft animals. After the turn of the century, however, the economic importance of large animals in our society was reduced because of technological advances and a shift to urban residence. This reduction was accompanied by the diver­ sification of the veterinary profession into a number of areas, including the care of companion animals, public health, laboratory animal medicine, herd health and production management, environmental health and safety, nuclear and space sciences, health research, and teaching and research 9 in postsecondary institutions (National Research Council, 1972). This section of the review of literature concentrates first upon the types of professional activities in which veterinarians are engaged, and next on the overall manpower projections and the projected areas of growth within the profession. In conclusion, the career changes of veterin­ arians are examined. Professional Activities The American Veterinary Medical Association (1976) reported the professional activities of its members and other non-members who responded to a directory verification survey. The data revealed that of the 27,889 veterinarians listed, the largest group was engaged in exclusively small animal practices (34.1%), closely followed by mixed practices (33.8%). practices. Of those responding only 7.0% were in large animal In addition, 1.2% were in public health, 3.8% in regulatory veterinary medicine, 2.1% in military veterinary medicine, and 16.2% in all other classes, which include the basic science areas, several unique practice areas, and retired veterinarians. The practice activities of 1.7% were unknown. Crawford et al. (1973) surveyed private practitioners in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina and found a comparatively larger proportion of them in small animal practice. Of the 787 respondents who were in private practice, 59.7% reported their practice to be exclusively small animal; 20.2% reported their practice to be a mixed practice in which small animals predominated. Eight and one half percent were in mixed practice with about 50% small animals and 50% large animals; 4.5% were in mixed practices with large animals predominating, and 7.1% were in exclusively large animal practices. 10 Clay (1975) reported the results of a survey of the 1974 graduating class of veterinarians at Oklahoma State University. In reporting their type of employment he indicated, in contrast to the above studies, that 53.2% were entering a mixed practice, 23.4% were entering a small animal practice, 8.5% were entering the military, 6.4% were continuing their training efforts, and 4.2% reported other types of employment. The type of work and area of the country were reported as important criteria for selecting jobs, as were salary and the option to buy into a practice. The number of graduates remaining in the state of Oklahoma (48.9%) was just slightly less than those choosing to leave (51.1%). The Women's Veterinary Medical Association conducted a survey of 833 women veterinarians who graduated from North American veterinary schools between 1929 and 1973. Of those responding 165 (20%) were involved in some large animal work, including general and zoo practice. Twenty-five were reported to be in strictly large animal or equine prac­ tices. As for the preconception that women tend to get married and leave the profession, it was reported that 61% of the respondents were married, and only 5% of these were not working due to pregnancy or children. Most of the women D.V.M.'s who were not working reported they were between jobs, applying for jobs or licenses, moving, retired, or ill. Seventy-three percent (73%) of the respondents worked 30 or more hours per week, and 25% worked over 51 hours per week. Also, 206 of the women were self employed, and 321 were full-time private practice employees (MVP Staff, 1974). In a later study Crawford (1976) compared the practice records of male and female graduates of the University of Georgia veterinary school. Using the 1974 AVMA Directory as his source of data, he reported that a greater percentage of women (45.0%) than men (33.3%) were engaged in 11 exclusively small animal practice. Only four (10%) of the women are in practice where large domestic animals are treated (exclusively equine and predominately small animal mixed practice). Combining the figures for those practicing in the predominately small animal mixed practice and the exclusively small animal practice resulted in nearly equal per­ centages of 52,7% men and 52.5% women. The percentage of women entering private practice (57.7%) was significantly less than the percentage of all veterinarians in private practice (71.9%) as revealed by the comparable AVMA data used by Crawford. Summary. Although the exact proportions are somewhat varied, the studies reviewed which examined professional activities generally revealed that most practitioners were engaged in mixed or small animal practices and that only a small percentage of practitioners were in exclusively large animal practices. small animal practices more than men. Women tended to be in exclusively Other areas of activity reported by veterinarians included public health, regulatory veterinary medicine, military veterinary medicine, basic sciences, and retirement. Human Resource Projections The New England Board of Higher Education (1973) estimated that approximately five job openings await each D.V.M. graduate and that, while 41,000 veterinarians are needed by the end of this decade, only 35,000 graduates are optimistically projected. This report was written in support of a proposal for creating a regional veterinary school in New England to meet the growing demand for veterinary professional services in that area. A study reported by the Bureau of Health Resources Development (1974) indicated that the growth in the number of veterinarians over the 12 past four decades was at a greater rate than the growth in the general population. The ratio of active veterinarians to persons in the popu­ lation increased from 9.7 per 100,000 in 1930 to 12.6 per 100,000 in 1970. Assuming an increase in first year enrollments in veterinary schools of 1.8% annually, this ratio was projected to be 19.2 per 100,000 in 1990. The highest projected ratios were for the agricultural states, with Iowa having the highest (42/100,000) and Rhode Island the lowest (5/100,000). McLaughlin, Bard, and Talbot (1974) projected a veterinary practi­ tioner shortage through the year 2020. They assumed a 92% graduation rate in veterinary training programs, no additional federal incentives, an average age of 26 for graduates entering the work force, and no expansion in training facilities. They also assumed that the ratio of veterinarians to persons in the population would increase by .06 each decade to allow for an expanding role of veterinarians. Based on these assumptions, a net shortage of 17,203 veterinarians in the year 2020 was projected. Price (1974) and Bailey (1974) discussed projected veterinary prac­ titioner shortages and speculated on the effect of practitioner maldistribution on such projections. Price listed the following seven reasons why veterinarians do not distribute themselves according to needs of society for veterinary professional services: the environmental, recreational, and cultural aspects of a given area; the level of medicine which can be practiced; the availability of adequate facilities and support personnel; the sufficiency of population to support some degree of specialisation; the personal income potential; the preference for certain animal species; and the preference for certain types of clients. 13 Bailey recommended that the expansion of veterinary schools should be closely tied to human resource needs and that more attention should be given to the maldistribution of veterinary services rather than the projected shortages of veterinarians. Summary. The human resource studies reviewed indicated an overall growth in the need for veterinarians in the future, although some writers cautioned that projections were inflated by a practitioner maldistribu­ tion. The current rate of producing D.V.M. graduates will not create the anticipated supply needed to fill the demand. The projected growth in the profession was perhaps due to the increased diversification in the use of veterinary services in our society as reflected by the continued increase in the ratio of veterinarians to persons in the population. Projected Areas of Growth The National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (1972) examined veterinary practice options and estimated that the need for U.S. veterinarians in 1980 would be more than 60% greater than it was in 1970. The largest growth was anticipated in wildlife animal practice and industrial veterinary practice, areas which in 1980 were expected to need about three times as many practitioners as were available in 1970. Areas which were estimated to double their veterinary needs in this decade include small animal practice, equine practice, laboratory animal practice, zoo animal practice, public health, and teaching and research. Factors such as the increased use of paraprofessional personnel and other developments were expected to hold the number of veterinarians in food animal practice and meat inspection at about the same level from 1970 to 1980, even though the importance placed on these food-related areas was expected to continue increasing. The number of veterinarians needed by 14 the military was expected to decrease, and only a moderate growth was anticipated in the areaB of regulatory veterinary medicine (other than meat inspection). In a survey of Indiana veterinarians, Holdeman (1965) found that lesB time was spent in large animal practice and more time was spent in small animal practice, research, and teaching than during the 10 to 15 year period prior to his survey. The respondents reported an optimistic attitude about the opportunities in veterinary medicine and its future in general, particularly in the areas of small animal practice, research, and public health. They felt that the profession was going in the direction of greater specialization. Large animal practice was con­ sidered the area least likely to expand. Income growth was most strongly related to small animal practice, commercial work and, to some extent, research and teaching. Respondents saw rural background as having less importance for entering veterinary work because of these changes in the profession. Pritchard (1975) examined the increase in enrollments of veterinary students and the relatively slower increase in number of ranked faculty in U.S. veterinary schools from 1969-70 to 1974-75 and determined that the student to faculty ratio had increased from 3.35 in 1969-70 to 4.0 in 1974-75. He projected the need for faculty for the 1984-85 academic year to be 2464. Butler (1974) discovered in a survey of veterinary students that while in their final year students were more inclined to consider a position as a veterinary faculty than were first year students, the per­ centage was 8till only 10%. Of the graduates surveyed, 41% indicated they would consider such a position. 15 Summary. Growth in the areas of wildlife animal practice, industrial veterinary practice, small animal practice, equine practice, laboratory animal practice, zoo animal practice, public health, and research and teaching was projected in studies reviewed in this section. Large animal practice was not generally considered to be an area of growth. Career Changes Snizek (1975) noted that the preference for different practice specialties shifted from large animal medicine to small animal medicine at increasingly later stages of one's professional training career. His study involved preveterinary students, veterinary students, and prac­ ticing veterinarians. He found that only 25.8% of the preveterinary students in the survey anticipated that their work would be in a small animal practice while 63.2% of the practicing veterinarians surveyed reported their work was in that specialty. The comparable figures for anticipated practice and actual practice in large animal medicine were 34.8% and 16.5% respectively. The author also examined possible factors which might affect on e ’s type of veterinary practice. Of the four factors examined - area of childhood residence, perceived income differ­ ential, relative job demands, and professional image - only the area of childhood residence appeared to have any relationship to the type of practice which was chosen. Students and practicing veterinarians raised in a rural setting were found to be significantly more likely to enter mixed or large animal practices, and those with urban backgrounds tended to enter small animal practices. Crawford et al. (1973) looked at the changes in the area of specialization which veterinarians reported over the course of their 16 careers. Approximately 70% of the respondents reported no change. Of those who had changed their practice type, 80% reported moving into small animal practice while only 6% moved out of small animal practice j.nto other types of practice. The other changes included 58% of the respondents reporting a move out of mixed animal practice and 31% moving out of large animal practice. large animal practice. Approximately 4% reported moving into A move by 7% of the respondents into private practice from positions in teaching, research, or regulatory veterinary medicine was also noted. In this same study the veterinarians were asked to indicate the number of veterinarians with whom they were in practice. Almost half (46%) reported they were in a single practice, 36% practiced with one other veterinarian, 12% practiced with two others, 4% practiced with three, 2% practiced with four, and less than 1% worked in a practice with more than four other veterinarians. Summary. These two studies which examined career shifts of veterinarians both revealed a tendency toward small animal practices and away from large animal practices. Veterinarians with rural backgrounds tended to enter large animal practice. tended to enter small animal practices. Those with urban backgrounds Most practitioners worked alone or with one other veterinarian. Veterinary Medical Education The literature on veterinary medical education, which is reviewed in this section, may be categorized into two areas related to the objectives of this study. First, the studies and other writings which focus on the length of the professional veterinary medical curriculum are reviewed. Second, the current opinions expressed in the literature regarding the development of curriculum, particularly as it relates to the present 17 demands of the veterinary medical profession, are discussed. Curriculum Length Schein (1972) in writing for the Carnegie Coimtission on Higher Education reported that students were critical of professional education in the area of scheduling. Two specific criticisms he listed were the existence of set calendar periods for completion of programs and fixed sequencing of the course work and other experiences. A distinction was made by Kitchen (1972) in the terms "year-round" and "accelerated" used to describe veterinary programs. The year-round curriculum involved the reduction of elapsed calendar time for the student and not the reduction of total sutdent instructional time as implied by the term "accelerated." Advantages he listed for the year- round curriculum included (a) the addition of an extra year of produc­ tivity and income at the start of one's professional career, (b) the year-round use of clinical material, (c) the possible increase in enroll­ ments without increasing faculty size, and (d) the flexibility in scheduling faculty. He cited as disadvantages of the year-round curriculum (a) that capitation funding would be awarded to a smaller group of students, (b) that there would be no summer breaks for faculty or students, and (c) that there would be two senior classes during the transition year. He also recommended that total flexibility would come, not with alteration in required calendar lengths but rather with a competency based program. Studies which compared three- and four-year programs in medical education (Hoffman, 1975; Page and Boulger, 1976; Garrard and Weber, 1974) generally found students to be satisfied with the time-shortened curriculum, but faculty to be less enthusiastic about that option. 18 Hoffman surveyed twelve medical and other health sciences schools which had a three-year curriculum. Only one of the schools surveyed planned to revert to a four—year program. option. Two planned to introduce a four-year The advantages of the time-shortened curriculum listed by her respondents were that material of questionable value could be eliminated from the program, students saved one year of time and expense, resources were better utilized, and there were financial benefits to the institu­ tion. Students reacted favorably to the three-year curriculum finding it more attractive, but faculty reported a general dissatisfaction, due in some part to being overcrowded and overworked. Page and Boulger reported a similar reception to the three-year curriculum by students and faculty in their report of a survey of deans of medical schools with three-year programs or with three- or four-year optional programs. In institutions offering the option, fewer than one quarter (22.5%) of the students elected the three-year curriculum; how­ ever, no differences in student performance were reported. Faculty reported displeasure with the three-year program due to time demands and a reduction in the courses offered. whether there would be sufficient synthesize the curricular material. They also expressed worry over time for students to absorb and While 96% of the respondents felt the three-year program should be an option, only a few thought it should be the standard for all schools. The three- and four-year programs did not display significant differences according to the variables examined by Garrard and Weber, with the exception of age and some personality and interest variables. The mean age of three-year students at entrance to their programs was over 1.5 years higher than four-year students. It was also reported that 19 three-year students were probably better adjusted, more oriented toward achievement, less inclined to worry, less cynical, and perhaps less isolated and alienated than four-year students. Summary. Concerning the length of the veterinary curriculum, the studies on that topic reported a general satisfaction with the threeyear curriculum, particularly from a student's perspective. The advan­ tages of the year-round curriculum were the earlier commencement in one's career and the better use of resources. A major disadvantage was the lack of breaks in the program. Curriculum Development Two major issues were discussed in the literature related to the development of veterinary educational programs. The first was the increasing trend toward specialization in the veterinary profession, which was identified as a major influence in the focus of training programs. The second major issue to be discussed was the difficulty of adequately dealing with the ever-expanding body of scientific knowledge in the veterinary curriculum. Poppensiek (1972), who proposed that schools of veterinary medicine were less affected by the social changes of the 1960's than non­ professional schools, reported that the development of opportunities in comparative medicine and an accompanying decrease in opportunities in agriculture were two factors influencing recent changes in veterinary medical education. In addition, he stated that the increase in speciali­ zation, brought about in part by the replacement of small farm operations with large-scale agribusiness, has also influenced curricular changes and that this trend toward specialization is reinforced by the establishment of specialty boards in the American Veterinary Medical Association. 20 Two authors (Kavanaugh, 1976; Kitchen, 1974) discussed the dangers of over-specialization in veterinary medicine. Kavanaugh pointed out that the tendency of veterinary schools to emphasize increasingly a selective rather than a uniform curriculum could in the long run cause a loss of the interface between the veterinarian and the public served, and a fragmenting within the ranks of the profession. Kitchen warned against the curriculum which is left very flexible and fosters the development of specialization within the profession. Kitchen believed that total flexibility might cut into the broad based core and result in the production of graduates who are rigidly, if not poorly, trained. Several additional weaknesses in veterinary programs of instruction were identified by the National Research Council (1972) and others (Poppensiek, 1972; Kavanaugh, 1976). The most important weaknesses were said to be: a failure to use developments in educational technology, an overly rigid curriculum, too much compartmentalization of subject matter, and a failure to consider education as a lifelong process. It was also further pointed out that attempts to address these conditions are complicated by the fact that colleges of veterinary medicine now are at the end of the period of rapidly escalating resources. In discussing the failure of veterinary schools to incorporate adequately current scientific developments into the veterinary curricu­ lum, Poppensiek indicated that when attempts have been made to deal with the ever-expanding body of knowledge, course accretion was the solution most often employed. Armistead (1965) wrote that the increased body of knowledge and the expansion of veterinary professional activities has led to a burgeoning curriculum with the following consequences: an increasing volume of facts must be memorized, curriculum content becomes outdated, and new subject matter is added to the curriculum. He 21 contended that veterinary colleges cannot keep pace by repeatedly lengthening the curriculum, but rather that curriculum changes must be made through restructuring or reorganizing the content. Armistead (1970) listed four alternatives for curriculum change in veterinary education. First, the institutional structure of the college could be modified from departmental organization to groups of depart­ ments to avoid the disjointed picture produced by disciplinary divisions. Second, a clinical problems approach to subject matter, proceeding from the general to the specific rather than the more traditional, aggrega­ tive procedure could be adopted. Third, a criterion-based evaluation over a norm-based evaluation could be used. These changes would result in a higher quality of veterinary medicine, since marginal graduates are allowed time to perform at a higher level. The fourth alternative is the adoption of an eschelon system in which students and faculty are teaching and supervising other students and faculty in a training and professional hierarchy which is appropriate to the stage of development. Armisteadrs purpose in listing these alternatives was not, however, to define the "best" system but rather to point out the need for a diversity in approaches to veterinary medical education. Two studies (Holdeman, 1976; Crawford et al., 1973) looked specifi­ cally at course work deficiencies. These studies showed that practi­ tioners in Indiana indicated they wanted more training in business management, liberal arts, nutrition, preventive medicine and diagnosis (Holdeman, 1965). The practitioners surveyed by Crawford and his asso­ ciates (1973) recommended more training in business management, auscultation, hematology, and chemotherapy. Summary. The growth of the body of knowledge in the biomedical sciences and the expansion and diversification of the veterinary 22 profession with its accompanying emphasis on specialization were two factors which have influenced the development of curriculum in veterinary schools. A continued expansion of the already burgeoning curriculum was not felt to be the most appropriate means of meeting these demands. Two studies revealed that, among other areas, graduates felt more training was needed in business management. Follow-Up Studies at Michigan State University Two follow-up studies of veterinary alumni were conducted by the Michigan State University Office of Institutional Research at the request of the College of Veterinary Medicine. graduates only. The first study examined female The second study looked at male graduates and, where possible, made comparisons with data from the first study. Giuliani Study Giuliani (1965) surveyed women veterinary graduates of Michigan State University from 1933 to 1965 by means of a mailed questionnaire to identify certain variables related to background, education, and pro­ fessional practice. Factors in her survey pertinent to this study were residence and mobility, career choices, program assessment, and type of practice reported by the graduates. There were 52 respondents to her study, representing a return rate of 88%. The results of the survey were reported on the basis of three levels of entrance requirements. Group A consisted of graduates who completed their programs prior to 1939. They had no required preveterinary work for admission to the College of Veterinary Medicine. Group B graduates, which consisted of students in the Class of 1939 through the Glass of 1952, were required to have one year of preveterinary work. Group C graduates, which started with the Class of 1953, were required to have two years of preveterinary work. 23 Prior to enrollment at Michigan State University, 30 (58%) of the respondents in Giuliani's study were Michigan residents, and 22 (42%) were from another state. The data indicated that immediately following graduation the women veterinarians were evenly split between those residing in Michigan (50%) and those residing in another state (50%). At the time of the study 46% of the respondents lived in Michigan and 54% of the respondents lived in another state. This data demonstrated a shift over time by women graduates from Michigan to other states. Another trend was the type of residence setting which graduates have prior to entering college. The largest number of the graduates reported that they lived in urban settings before entering college. A comparison by cohort groups, however, revealed that graduates in Group A (1933-38) and Group B (1939-52) were predominantly from urban areas, but graduates in Group C (1953-65) were from urban areas (31%), suburban areas (31%), and rural areas (38%) about equally. While almost half of the total group of respondents lived in urban settings prior to entering college, only 29% lived there at the time of the survey. gain occurred in the suburban areas. The greatest Of the graduates responding, 21% lived in suburban areas prior to college, but this figure increased to 38% at the time of the survey. A look at trends over time revealed that earlier graduates (Group B) had left the urban areas for the suburbs and rural areas, but that the graduates of a later period (Group C) had moved from the rural areas into the urban and suburban areas. To analyze the career decisions of graduates, Giuliani asked the respondents to identify factors that had influenced their decisions to become veterinarians. Having had pets in childhood was reported by 81% of the respondents as having influenced their career decisions, and 73% reported their enjoyment of science courses in high school was an 24 influence on their later choice. Two other influencing factors reported by more than half of the respondents were a desire to relieve animal suffering (60%) and enjoyment of outdoor activities (56%). The other factors reported were ownership or working with horses (35%), contacts with the medical field (35%), working with a veterinarian (31%), working and/or living on a farm (29%), and showing animals (15%). No major discrepancies were apparent from the data reported by the different cohort groups. When asked whether particular people had influenced their decisions to become veterinarians, the largest number of respondents, particularly those from Group C (1953-65), indicated that it was their own decision. The responses also showed that people were less ofan influence than factors reported above. the Those who did mention that Other people had influenced their decisions named persons in the following categories: the local veterinarian (25%), mother (19%), father (19%), high school teacher or counselor (8%), a veterinarian in the family (4%), and other members of the family (2%). Giuliani also asked the graduates to assess various curricular areas. When questioned about the curricular areas in which they would have liked more course work, 70% of the respondents answered that they needed more in business administration, 40% said more in liberal arts, 33% said more in ethics and jurisprudence, and 25% said more in fine arts. The number of people who would have preferred less course work in the various areas was much smaller than those indicating a need for more. However, 21% of the graduates did feel they needed fewer agricultural courses. Most of these responses were from later graduates (Group C). There are four aspects of professional practice which were examined by Giuliani and which are pertinent to this study. She sought 25 information from the graduates concerning the type of practice they entered upon graduation, the type of practice they were in at the time of the survey, their income level at the time of the survey, and the percentages of time involved in full-time and part-time practices. Over half (56%) of the women reported that they were engaged in small animal practices in their first professional positions. Mixed practice was an area reported by 11.5% of the graduates, and research and teaching was an area reported by 10% of the graduates. Three graduates (6%) were engaged in laboratory work, and two worked for the Department of Agriculture. The others listed the following as their first positions: graduate work, poultry inspection, feline work, farm animal work, university clinical work, and internship. to the question. One informant gave no response In aggregate, the percentage of women entering small animal practice was greater for graduates in Group C (1953-65). When asked to report their career status at the time of the survey, 17% of the respondents, most of whom graduated between 1939 and 1952 (Group B), indicated they were not practicing. For choice of specialty, small animal practice was the area most often reported by graduates (50%), and here again, the percentage of women engaging in small animal practice was greater for graduates in Group C (1953-65). The approximate average yearly income from veterinary medicine prac­ tice over the five years prior to the survey was reported to be between $5,000 and $10,000 for almost one half of the women who were in practice during that time. Only three of the women reported incomes higher than $10,000, and five reported incomes of less than $5,000. According to Giuliani's calculations, the respondents have engaged in professional practice, either full- or part-time, a total of 78% of the collective time since graduation. Approximately one-fifth of the time spent in practice 26 was in part-time work and four-fifths was in full-time work. Giuliani also made comparisons of the data she collected and data taken from the 1964 AVMA Directory. The percentage of women graduates from Michigan State University entering small animal practice was shown to be disproportionate to the distribution of the total group of veter­ inarians in the United States and Canada. The greatest percentage of the total group according to the American Veterinary Medical Association figure was engaged in mixed practice. Centra Study Centra (1966) conducted a study which focused on male veterinary graduates of Michigan State University from 1913 through 1965. The format of this study was similar to the Giuliani study and, for the most part, used similar or identical questions. Usable survey forms were returned by 1,085 respondents representing a return rate of 72%. One way in which the Centra study differs from that of Giuliani is in the larger number of graduates which Centra included in the earliest cohort group. This was because there had been no women graduates prior to the Class of 1933. The earliest cohort group for the Centra study con­ sisted of graduates of the Class of 1913 through the Class of 1938. The other two cohort groups were, as in the Giuliani study, graduates from 1939 to 1952 and from 1953 to 1965. Centra reported on the legal residences of graduates. He found that prior to their enrollment at Michigan State University 60% of the male graduates had lived in Michigan. It was also shown that immediately following graduation 48% of the male veterinarians resided in Michigan, and at the time of the survey 39% resided in Michigan. decrease of 21% over time. This was a The comparable decrease for women was 12%. 27 The largest proportion of male graduates (35%) had lived on a farm prior to entering college. This was true for all three cohort groups. The residence setting which was most subject to change over time was the suburban area. Only 6% of the graduates in the earliest group (1913-1918) came from the suburbs, but 27% of the most recent group (1953-65) lived in suburbs prior to college enrollment. Thus, while the farm was the primary place of origin for male graduates, the largest pro­ portion of respondents reported their residence at the time of the survey to be in the suburbs (38%). This was true for all but the earliest graduates (1913-38) who reported a slightly higher proportion of graduates living in urban areas at the time of the survey. More women resided in urban areas than men prior to entering college, but both men and women tended to shift to the suburbs over time. It was also noted that a proportionately greater number of women than men lived on a farm at the time of the survey, even though three out of four of the more recent women graduates lived in an urban or suburban area. When they were asked to identify factors influencing their decisions to become veterinarians, 56% of the male graduates reported their enjoy­ ment of science courses in high school and 52% reported working and/or living on a farm. The later graduates (1953-65) emphasized the importance of having had pets in childhood, more than did earlier graduates. Farm-related experiences (working and/or living on a farm and owning or working with horses) were considered by the earlier graduates to be the most influential factors. Both men and women reported that their enjoyment of high school science courses was a significant influence on their decisions to become veterinarians. However, the women tended to put less emphasis than men on farm experiences and more on pet ownership, particularly horses. Most of 28 the men, as did the women, felt that the decision to become a veterin­ arian was their own. About a fourth of the men and women each reported the local veterinarian had some effect on their career choice. Women seemed somewhat more likely, however, to be influenced by their parents. The decision to become a veterinarian was made by 43% of the male respondents before graduating from high school. That decision was made by 21% of the respondents following high school but before entering college, and an additional 22% decided during college. Comparing the times of decision for graduates in the different cohort groups revealed a growing trend toward earlier decisions. The career decision was made prior to entering high school by 22% of the latest graduates (1953-65). When asked to indicate curricular areas in which they would have liked more course work, 75% of the male respondents wanted more classes in business administration, which was also the area most frequently men­ tioned by women.. More course work in clinical training, an area not listed in the Giuliani study, was desired by 68% of the men. The recent male graduates, like the women, also requested more course work in liberal arts as well as ethics and jurisprudence. When asked in what areas they would have liked less course work, 23% of the men indicated agricultural courses, again a request similar to the women's response. The data regarding the male graduates' first positions of employment were not reported by Centra; therefore, no comparisons can be made with the Giuliani study in that area. Data were available showing the type of practice in which the males were engaged during the time of the survey, their reported income levels, and the number of graduates who were employed on a part-time basis. Most of the male graduates were working in a mixed practice (29%) or in a small animal practice (28%) at the time of the survey. Over time the 29 number of veterinarians working in mixed practices fluctuated; however, there was a steady increase in the number employed in small animal practices. Only 15% of the earliest graduates (1913-38) reported being employed in a small animal practice at the time of the survey, a figure which contrasts with the 35% of the latest graduates (1953-65) who reported that area of practice. Employment in large animal practice was reported by 4% of the respondents. A higher proportion of MSU graduates were engaged in small animal practice and a lower proportion were engaged in mixed or large animal practice than the national pattern of practice current at that time. Some degree of involvement in regulatory veterinary medicine was reported by 9%, and research and teaching was reported by 5% of the respondents. Centra also looked at the types of veterinary practice for graduates having different origins of residence. According to his data approxi­ mately 38% of the respondents who had lived in an urban or suburban area prior to college enrollment were in small animal practice at the time of the survey, while about 38% of those from rural areas were in mixed prac­ tice. The largest proportion of graduates in large animal practice (7%) had lived on a farm prior to college enrollment, and those in regulatory veterinary medicine tended to come from rural towns. Apparently, a number of male graduates made a shift away from large animal practice over the course of their careers, for when asked to indi­ cate their primary professional practice, 11% of the men reported large animal practice, while only about a third as many (4%) reported their type of practice was large animal at the time of the survey. Mixed and small animal practice were the areas most often reported as the primary professional experience. 30 For the year prior to the survey 34% of the men reported an approxi­ mate average net income from veterinary medicine of over $15,000; 52% recorded an income between $7,500 and $15,000; and only 6% reported less than $7,500. When compared to figures reported by women, it was evident that men had much higher income levels. The approximate average net income varied greatly by practice type. The highest average figures were reported for sales or service (commercial) and equine (exclusive). Also among the better paying posi­ tions were management (including college administration) and small animal practice (exclusive). Large animal practitioners made lower salaries than mixed practitioners and substantially less than small animal practitioners did. The lowest incomes were reported by graduates in military veterinary service, zoo animal practice, and regulatory veterinary medicine. Only 8% of the recent graduates (1953-65) reported working on a parttime basis during their professional career. The proportion was greater for the earliest graduates (1913-38) with 19% of that group reporting some part-time work. By comparison, there were 16% of those graduating between 1939 and 1952 who had practiced part-time. While the studies by Centra and Giuliani represented a significant collection of data regarding the veterinary graduates of Michigan State University, several factors were not included which would have current interest to the College of Veterinary Medicine. First, data collected for men and women were not consistently compatible to allow comparison on the basis of sex. Second, over one-third of the present alumni of the College of Veterinary Medicine were not surveyed since their graduation was after 1965. And third, also due to the date of the survey, no infor­ mation was obtained regarding the three-year curriculum which was later adopted by the College. 31 Summary. Centra and Giuliani examined the residence and mobility of graduates and found that the majority of students entering the College of Veterinary Medicine were from Michigan, but that at the time of the survey less than half of the graduates had remained in the state. outward migration was more pronounced for male graduates. This Also, the majority of male veterinarians had had farm backgrounds prior to college attendance, while most of the women had come from urban areas. A pre­ dominance of both men and women reported living in suburban areas at the time of the survey. Both men and women named enjoyment of high school science classes as a major factor influencing their decision to become a veterinarian. Women and recent male graduates also named having pets in childhood as critical factors while male graduates in the earlier period emphasized their farm experiences. The local veterinarian and parents reportedly had some influence on career decisions, but the largest number of respondents said that the decision to become a veterinarian was their own. A growing trend emerged for these decisions to be made earlier in life. When asked to point out curriculum deficiencies, almost three-fourths of the graduates named business administration as a weak area. The respondents also indicated a desire for more courses in liberal arts as well as ethics and jurisprudence. They desired less course work in the area of agriculture. The graduates entered small and mixed animal practice in large numbers, and the proportion of small animal practitioners among these graduates was greater than the national pattern. The reported income levels were substantially higher for males than females, and highest net incomes were reported in sales or service (commercial), equine practice (exclusive), management (including college administration), and small animal practice. 32 Other Studies at Michigan State University Ten additional follow-up studies of graduates from Michigan State University were reviewed to identify possible institutional or time variables which might perhaps be pertinent to this study. Three of the studies (Arends, 1969; Kenny, 1973; Nigro, 1973) surveyed graduates from programs in the College of Education. Two of the studies (Wyeth, 1953; Zindel, 1953) surveyed graduates from programs in the College of Agriculture. One study (Moore, 1959) looked at graduates of Home Economics and graduates of Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Adminis­ tration who worked in food services administration. The other studies looked at graduates from Engineering (Schweingruber, 1971), Speech (Kalmbach, 1956), Industrial Security Administration (Larkins, 1966), and Home Economics (Miller, 1956). While all of the above studies looked to some degree at both postgraduate work experiences and at graduates' assessment of curriculum components, they contained no dis­ tinct pattern of institutional or time variables which would have importance for this study. Summary. The current literature of the studies and opinions regarding the veterinary medical profession and veterinary medical educa­ tion was described in this chapter. This review has focused upon three major areas: veterinary professional practice, veterinary medical education, and follow-up studies of veterinary graduates at Michigan State University. Several national studies which examined the distribution of veterinarians by practice type found the largest number of practitioners to be in small animal or mixed practice with relatively few in large animal practice. Reinforcing this distribution were career shifts which 33 produced a further expansion in the small animal area. Growth rates were estimated for different specialty areas in veterinary medicine, and particular note was made-of the growing shortage of veterinary faculty. Several manpower studies projected shortages in the future though some writers cautioned that the gross figures may simply reflect a general manpower maldistribution. The results of the studies showed that indi­ viduals entering the veterinary profession were somewhat affected by their childhood residence in selecting a practice type, and that most veterinarians in private practice worked alone or with one other veterin­ arian. This review also covered the significant literature in veterinary medical education. There the studies showed a general satisfaction with the three-year curriculum, particularly from the student's perspective. While the reports acknowledged the disadvantage of a year-round curricu­ lum, they also indicated that this kind of program had the advantage of allowing the students an earlier entry into the work force and a more efficient use of educational resources. Specialization in the veterinary profession and the continually expanding body of scientific knowledge in the veterinary curriculum were problems discussed in the literature on the development of veterinary educational programs. Weaknesses in curricula were identified in several areas, particularly business management. The Centra and Giuliani studies compiled a list of factors regarding the background, education, and professional practice of veterinary graduates of Michigan State University. These findings serve as a framework for the design of this study, which is discussed in Chapter 111. CHAPTER III POPULATION, SURVEY INSTRUMENT, AND DATA CODIFICATION AND ANALYSIS The population, the survey instrument, and the data codification and analysis are discussed in this chapter. As outlined in Chapter I, the objectives of the study were (1) to identify the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree, (2) to identify the employment patterns of graduates with selected preveterinary factors, (3) to identify the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates, (4) to identify the optimal emphasis on the curricular areas included in the professional program as perceived by graduates, and (5) to identify trends in the veterinary medical profession which relate to the veterinary medical curriculum as perceived by graduates. Discussion in this chapter will focus on the identifi­ cation of D.V.M. graduates of the College of Veterinary Medicine, the development and mailing of the questionnaire, and the treatment and analysis of the data. Population The population for this study included all graduates who were awarded the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree by Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine and who had valid addresses on file with the Michigan State University Alumni Office. In order to develop needed trend information about career patterns, the study included graduates 34 35 from all classes, as did the Centra and Giuliani studies, rather than a sample of only more recent classes. This population increased the opportunity to collect data about perceptions of the appropriateness and importance of curriculum components from a variety of perspectives. In addition to the professional training program leading to the D.V.M. degree, the College of Veterinary Medicine also offered a paraprofessional training program in animal technology as well as graduate programs and lifelong learning opportunities during the period covered by the study. The medical technology program at Michigan State University was also administered from 1929 to 1968 by the College. As mentioned in Chapter I, however, the population of interest for this study did not include the graduates of these other programs of the College of Veterinary Medicine. In attempting to determine the number of veterinary graduates in each class a discrepancy was discovered in the data provided by the Michigan State University Registrar's Office and the College of Veterinary Medicine Dean's Office. This discrepancy, which was a total difference of nineteen persons for the sixty-four years covered by the study, was perhaps due to administrative delays in processing graduation materials, to the inadvertent inclusion in University records of graduates from other programs in the College of Veterinary Medicine, or to the difference in data collection periods. The College aggregated data for each graduating class, while the Registrar aggregated data for each academic year. Nevertheless, the College records rather than the Registrar's were used in computing return rates since they were compiled from readily verifiable class lists and since the year of program completion as documented by these records was important for analyzing curriculum differences. Table A.l in Appendix A shows the number of . 36 graduates in each class with corresponding figures found in the Registrar's data. The number of graduates for each class ranged from a low of one graduate in 1914 to a high of 106 graduates in 1943. The pattern of variation generally reflected a steady growth in the enrollment of the College of Veterinary Medicine with two years as notable exceptions. There was an increase of forty in the number of graduates in 1943 from the previous class according to the College records, and in 1948 there were only two graduates, representing a decrease of forty-five graduates from the previous year. The high figure for 1943 was due to the nearly simultaneous completion of the program by two classes which were accelerated through the program to meet special manpower needs for World War II. There were accelerated programs for six consecutive classes, and then the College returned to the four-year program which created a situation whereby only two students were graduated in 1948. These were two international students who did not participate in an accelerated program. The data regarding cohort group membership of the respondents are shown in Table 3.1. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to cohort group membership for the variables of sex and career option of the present primary professional position both of these were found to have a significant relationship at the .05 level with cohort group membership. Later graduating classes had a larger proportion of female graduates and graduates working in small and mixed animal practice. 37 Table 3.1 Cohort Group Membership Cohort Group 1913 through 1938 Group 1939 through 1952 1953 through June, 1967 D e c ., 1967 through 1976 df Chi Square Value Percentage distribution2 All Respondents 4.90 25.11 32.33 34.57 Sex Male Female 55 282 347 335 1 4 28 67 3 54.010b 9 155.361b Career Option. Small Animal 7 63 139 213 Mixed Animal 3 56 98 112 Large Animal 0 7 17 18 28 116 79 43 Other aIn addition, there were 36 (3.10%) whose date of graduation was not known in analysis. ^Significant at .05 level As shown in Table 3.2, 44.37% of the respondents had a current address zipcode location in Michigan, and 55.63% had a current zipcode location not in Michigan. A significant relationship was found to exist at the .05 level for this zipcode location variable and the variables of cohort group membership and career option of the present primary professional positon. There was a larger proportion of later graduates 38 and graduates working in small animal practice among respondents with a Michigan zipcode. No relationship was found for the variables sex and zipcode location. Table 3.2 Zip Code Grouping of Current Address Current Address Zip Code Michigan Non-Michigan Group df Chi Square Value Percentage distribution All respondents 44.37 55.63 Sex Male Female 458 591 56 50 1 3.279 3 28.010® 3 63.397a Cohort Group 1913-1938 27 30 1939-1952 100 192 1953-June, 1967 163 213 Dec., 1967-1976 218 184 Career Option Small Animal 220 219 Mixed Animal 158 115 Large Animal 12 31 Other 75 201 Significant at .05 level 39 Survey Instrument This study, as stated in Chapter I, was a part of a larger project to survey the graduates of the College of Veterinary Medicine. The data were collected by means of a mailed questionnaire (Appendix B) which was developed to obtain a wide range of information regarding the D.V.M. graduates. Only certain portions of the questionnaire, however, were directly related to the objectives of this study. Those portions as described in Table 3.3 are given greater attention in the following discussion. Table 3.3 Parts of Survey Instrument Included in this Study Parts of survey instrument I - Personal data II - Career pattern Item numbers included 1-2, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5 III — Admissions IV - Training 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, 4-9 V - Public health VI - Animal technicians VII - Continuing relationship with MSU VIII - Future trends 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4 The process of developing the questionnaire included (a) modifying items used in the questionnaires developed by Giuliani (1963) and Centra (1966), (b) obtaining recommendations from faculty members, the Dean, and the Associate Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine, (c) reviewing the literature related to education and careers in veterinary medicine, 40 and (d) seeking suggestions from persons skilled in survey research methods. The questionnaire was field tested in two successive pilot studies involving members of the College faculty who were D.V.M. graduates of other professional training programs. The faculty members were asked to complete the survey instrument; record the time spent in that process; and critique each item for clarity, completeness, and accuracy of information. After reviewing the responses of the subjects in the pilot study and meeting with them to obtain additional feedback, the primary concerns about the questionnaire focused on the wording of several items and the length of the survey instrument. Although alterations were made to remove the confusing language, the length was basically unaltered. The longer format was adopted to address all of the issues identified for the larger study. In its final form the questionnaire was organized into eight separate parts, four of which included questions used in this study. Part I - Personal Data. The first section of the questionnaire was designed to collect certain demographic information about the respondents by addressing their present age and sex, their year of graduation, and their age at graduation. Two multiple choice items adapted from the Giuliani and Centra studies (1965 and 1966) solicited information regarding the type and location of their residence prior to entering the Michigan State University College of Veterinary Medicine. These items were used in identifying preveterinary factors for use in looking at employment patterns of graduates, the second objective of the study. Part II - Career Pattern. The purpose of the second part was to identify preveterinary work experiences, factors influencing career decisions, career practice activities, other professional activities, career satisfaction, and future plans of graduates to use in achieving 41 the first and second objectives of the study. After considering and field testing several alternative formats, an employment grid was developed to identify the career practice activities of the graduates. The grid was designed to obtain the needed information in an easy and consistent manner. Coded response options were developed to identify the type of work, years of employment, employer, location, the number of veterinary colleagues, income, and workload for each professional position held by graduates. The options for type of work and employer were adopted from the American Veterinary Medical Association classifications which are used by that organization to report the professional activities of veterinarians. These classi­ fications were chosen primarily due to their familiarity among the membership of the AVMA, which included a large proportion of the graduates. Four other items in this part of the questionnaire are of concern to this study. The first question, adapted from Centra (1966), was a multiple choice item to determine at what point in their lives the graduates had decided to become veterinarians. In a second, short answer question the respondents described their preveterinary work experiences. In another multiple choice item respondents were asked to indicate the amount of influence of various factors on the decision to become a veterinarian. In an attempt to identify what career objectives personally influenced the decisions to enter the type of work involved in their veterinary careers, the respondents were asked to indicate such from a list of twelve possible objectives developed from discussions with College personnel and from suggestions of the subjects surveyed in the pilot studies. A second part of this item was designed to judge the degree of satisfaction of the various career objectives in each of five 42 different career settings: private practice, industry, government agency, education, and military. As indicated previously the remainder of the questions in this section on career patterns were included to identify other professional activities, career satisfaction, and future plans of the graduates. Those questions dealing with other professional activities specifically looked at memberships in professional organizations, publications and other research presentation activities, involvement with training of veterinary students, affiliation with veterinary schools, consulting work, community service involvement, and community education activities of the graduates. These questions, while providing much useful data for the purposes of the larger project, were not included as part of this study because they related only tangentially to the objectives of the study. Part III - Admissions. The questions in this section were also omitted from analysis in this study because of their secondary relationship to the study objectives. Questions in Part III sought graduate opinions on the emphasis that should be placed on certain admissions criteria and on the use of a lottery system in the admissions procedure, and sought suggestions for modification and improvement of the process. Part IV - Training. The first part of this section of the question­ naire was intended to identify the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates - the third objective of the study. Multiple choice items were included for respondents to indicate the required length of their preveterinary and D.V.M. programs and for respondents to indicate what they considered to be the optimum length for those programs, considering the total educational and emotional development of students. A3 Response options were consistent with the range of program lengths described in the literature and were particularly intended to assess the perception of the graduates on the issue regarding the appropriate length of the professional training program described in Chapters I and II. Two open-ended questions were also included to solicit the graduates' opinions regarding the advantages and disadvantages of the three-and four-year curricula. For the purpose of addressing the fourth objective of the study, the next five questions were designed to identify graduate opinions regarding the content of the curriculum. Curricular areas in the professional training program were listed and respondents were asked to indicate if they needed more or less course work or if they had the right amount of training. This item in the questionnaire was patterned after an item in the Centra study (1966) and was designed to identify the optimal emphasis to place on various parts of the curriculum. At the request of the College of Veterinary Medicine Curriculum Committee, an item was included to determine the work load distribution of graduates as defined by percentage of time involved in various organ systems. This was of interest because of the current emphasis on a systems approach in the curriculum and faculty desire course work to reflect practice emphasis. to evaluate Respondents were asked to estimate percentages of their work (totaling 100) that dealt primarily with each of the body systems. Another item was included for graduates to indicate how they felt the D.V.M. curriculum prepared them in history taking, diagnostic skills, surgical skills, emergency care, patient management, client communications, and business management. These areas represented the process dimension of veterinary practice to complement 44 the two previous content oriented items in the questionnaire. Two questions related to the preceptorship of the D.V.M. program were included to assess the value of that component of the curriculum. In order to identify the types of preceptorship or other work experience of graduates who later pursued various career options in the practice of veterinary medicine, a short answer question was included for respondents to describe their preceptorship. A multiple choice item was included to assess the value they placed on the preceptorship or work experience in relation to other parts of their training. The other questions in Part IV not included in this study dealt with the overall rating of the professional training programs, strong and weak components of the program, amount of indebtedness for education expenses, other degrees and specialty training, board examinations passed, and continuing education activities. Part V - Public Health. The purpose of the section on public health was to determine the extent of involvement by graduates in public health areas. The questions in this section, as well as in the next two sections, were also omitted from the analysis in this study for reasons stated earlier. In the area of public health, questions were included to determine the percentage of professional activities related to public health, the nature and extent of professional contri­ butions in specific public health areas, and areas of public health in which graduates felt there was a need for increased involvement by veterinarians. Part VI ~ Animal Technicians. Several questions on the use of animal technicians in veterinary practice were included since this was seen as a growing area of interest in the profession. Questions in this part of the survey instrument were designed to determine current salary 45 ranges graduates were willing to pay animal technicians, the number of animal technicians they employed, of this number how many were certified and registered and what were their responsibilities, and graduate opinions on the effects of animal technicians on veterinary medicine. Graduates were also asked to indicate whether or not they felt veterinary practice statutory acts regarding the closeness of supervision should be liberalized to expand the use of animal technicians by food animal practitioners. Regarding the training of animal technicians, respondents were asked to indicate the appropriate emphasis to place on various areas related to the work of animal technicians and to offer suggestions for their training considering the role and future of these paraprofessionals. Part VII - Continuing Relationship with MSU. In an attempt to determine optimal ways to foster current relations between the graduates and the College, graduates were asked about their contacts with MSU since graduation, their awareness of the MSU Development Fund, their attitudes concerning financial support of the College of Veterinary Medicine, and their present perceptions of various factors related to the veterinary program. Part VIII - Future Trends. The four questions in the final section of the questionaire were all included in this study specifically to address the fifth objective - to identify future trends in the veterinary profession which might have relevance for the professional training program. The first question in this section asked respondents to indicate the degree of emphasis the College of Veterinary Medicine should place on ten areas of interest which were identified in the literature and by personnel in the College of Veterinary Medicine. The areas include public health, animal welfare, consumer advocacy, environmental concerns, 46 efficiency in food animal production, international veterinary medicine, changing human dietary patterns, fees, malpractice, and the position of pet animals in society. Respondents were next asked to identify the amount of attention which they felt should be directed toward a variety of groups or areas served by the veterinary profession. These included suburban pet owners, inner city pet owners, livestock producers (both herd health and individual animal), fisheries and wildlife management, horse owners, exotic and zoo animal medicine, agricultural and biological research, cooperative medical research, meat inspection, and public health. The last two questions were open-ended and asked the respondents to suggest new career opportunities for veterinarians in the next ten years and to identify other societal demands, future directions, and other concerns for veterinary medicine in the near future. In its final form the questionnaire was fourteen pages in length and was printed in booklet form on green paper with a cover page which contained a letter from the Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine and a back page which was left blank for additional comments from the respondents. The booklet was mailed in a white envelope printed with the emblem of the College, and a business reply mail return envelope was included. The questionnaire booklets were stamped with individual identification numbers to keep track of returnees for possible follow-up. Addresses for the graduates were obtained from the Michigan State University Alumni Office. There were 363 graduates for whom that office did not have an address or who were known to be deceased. Therefore, addresses for 2461 or 87.1% of the total number of graduates were provided. Questionnaires were initially mailed to all graduates for whom an address was provided, but there were 181 addresses, 6.4% of the 47 total graduates, which were subsequently discovered to be inaccurate by means of an address correction request and an audit of the address list with the College of Veterinary Medicine records. Thus the survey popula­ tion, representing 80.71% of all D.V.M. graduates, included 2280 graduates. Two follow-up postcards and a notice in the College Report, a news­ letter distributed to College alumni, were used to increase the response rate. After the initial mailing of the questionnaire and the reminders, there were 1169 questionnaires returned of which 1163 could be used in the study. Of the six unusable questionnaires four were only partially completed, one was from a person who was not verified to be a D.V.M. graduate in the address audit, and one was received too late for analysis. In addition, there were three persons who wrote letters indicating that they would not be returning the questionnaire. The 1163 questionnaires represented a return rate of 51.01%. The return rates by graduating class are shown in Table A.l in Appendix A. These figures are summarized by cohort group in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 Questionnaires Returned by Cohort Group Questionnaire. Status Cohort Group Returned Not Returned or Returned without Identification No. Total 1913-1938 57 89 146 1939-1952 292 393 685 1953-June 1967 376 358 734 December, 1967-1976 402 313 715 1127 1153 2280 Total Chi Square « 33.2 48 Twenty-three of the graduating classes had return rates of less than 40%; however, all but seven of these had eight or less graduates in the survey population. The classes for which no questionnaires were returned only had four or less graduates in the survey population. The figures in Table A.l in Appendix A also indicate that there were thirtysix respondents for whom no year of graduation was known. Fourteen of these were due to removal of the coded identification number from the questionnaire by the respondent. The other twenty-two were unknown in analysis due to coding errors of the computer terminal operators when the data were being entered. The known return rate for questionnaires was lowest for the earliest cohort group and was progressively better for each succeeding group. A Chi Square Test for Independence (Table 3.3) demonstrated that there was a relationship between cohort group membership and return rate for the questionnaires. A similar test could not be made on the variables of sex and career option of graduates' present primary professional position due to the unavailability of data on those variables for the non-respondents. Other factors which might have affected the return rate for the questionnaires were the length of the questionnaire and the inclusion of the entire population in the study. Approximately 87% of the respondents returned a completed questionnaire prior to the mailing of the first reminder, and approximately 13% returned theirs after the first reminder but before June 30, 1977, which was the final date for inclusion in the analysis of the data. When the date of return was analyzed on the basis of sex, cohort group, and career option, there was not found to be a significant relationship at the .05 level for the variables of sex, cohort group membership, or career option of the present primary professional position. Table 3.5. These data are shown in 49 Table 3.5 Date of Return of Questionnaire Date Group November 1, 1976 Through January 12, 1977 January 13, 1977 Through June 30, 1977 df Chi Square Value 1 0.260 3 3.390 3 0.860 Percentage distribution3 All respondents 86.93 12.55 Sex Male Female 913 131 90 15 Cohort Group 1913-1938 54 3 1939-1952 252 39 1953-June, 1967 332 42 Dec., 1967-1976 350 51 Career Option Small Animal 384 52 Mixed Animal 234 38 Large Animal 37 6 237 38 Other aln addition, there were 6(0.52%) whose date of return was not recorded. 50 Data Codification and Analysis To facilitate treatment of the information provided by the graduate the responses in the completed questionnaires were converted into coded data which were subsequently analyzed on the CDC computer located in the Michigan State University Computer Center. Systematic procedures were followed in coding the responses and in entering the data into the com­ puter to insure accuracy and consistency. All questionnaire items requiring a simple check or a multiple choice response were coded according to a numerical designation for each of the given choices. For open-ended questions requiring short answer or narrative response the coding was developed by reviewing a sample of the questionnaires, listing the responses given and grouping the responses into repetitive categories which were subsequently assigned numerical designations. Before implementation these codes were reviewed to insure clarity and prevent redundancy. In completing the employment grid thirty-two respondents listed multiple work classifications for thirty-five individual positions. This required an alteration in the coding process. The work classifica­ tion code for these positions was assigned according to the following scheme in order to make the data useful for addressing the objectives of the study while not losing the uniqueness of any given work classifica­ tion response. The work classifications on the employment grid were grouped into twelve work areas: mixed practice (50%/50% large and small animal), mixed practice (over 50% large animal), mixed practice (over 50% small animal), small animal practice, large animal practice, basic sciences, veterinary public health, regulatory veterinary medicine, military veterinary medicine, other veterinary medicine, retired, and other. 51 If all work classifications listed in any particular multiple listing were within the same area, the special numerical designation for that area was used to code the response. If the work classifications were from more than one area, a judgement was made by the coder as to which area to assign for that position. The judgement was made based on which position was listed first by the respondent and what other positions were included in the course of that respondent’s career. There were no positions listed for which a single work classi­ fication was indicated along with a multiple employer code. To increase the accuracy of the data entered into the computer a data entry program was used which contained set parameters for the numerical values of each questionnaire item and had periodic check points for verifying the amount of data entered from each page of the questionnaires. The questionnaire item included for respondents to estimate the percentage of their work which dealt primarily with each of the organ systems presented some difficulty in the data entry process. Inadver­ tantly in developing the data entry program no provision was made for non-response on this item, and the twelve response options were required to total one hundred for accurate entry of the data. It was decided to use the response option "other systems" for the residual percent­ ages if the figures listed did not total one hundred or for the full one hundred percent if there was non-response on the item. This procedure, which was adopted due to time constraints, required that the "other systems" option be deleted from the analysis and the others be analyzed independently since the totals would not equal one hundred. One sample of questionnaires was audited for possible coding errors, and another sample was later audited for data entry errors. The audits 52 were accomplished by a step by step review of the coding and data entry process by a coder who had not done the original work. No significant pattern of data error was revealed by either audit. After the codification of the data and entry into the computer, these data were systematically adjusted for clarity of definition of selected variables and were grouped into special categories for analysis. These treatments of the data are discussed here. In the employment grid there were forty-eight positions listed by forty-one respondents for which the time of employment was overlapped with the time of employment in another position. In order to eliminate duplication of analysis of the data by multiple career options for a given period of time in a respondent's career, the concept of primary professional position was developed and adopted for analysis purposes. In determining the primary professional position for a given period of time the following criteria were applied for data adjustment. Military positions were given recognition over other simultaneous positions, for it was felt that the secondary positions would not be actively pursued during the time of military service. Full-time positions were given recognition over part-time positions, and part-time positions (50% or greater) were given recognition over part-time positions (less than 50%). When neither position was military nor greater in workload than the other, the first position listed was given recognition over the second. In analyzing the data from the employment grid another adjustment was made related to military service and retirement. Thirty-five respondents indicated that they were in the military for less than five years as their first position after graduation. For these persons, their second position listed was used as the first in analyzing first 53 primary professional positions. In a like manner the position just prior to retirement was used for the twenty-five respondents who indicated they were retired at the time of the survey. These adjustments for military and retirement were not made in analyzing the objectives related to curriculum and future trends. The data were analyzed by sex, cohort group membership, and career option for the present primary professional position. Sex was indicated as male or female by all but eight respondents in questionnaire item 1-2. The variables of cohort group membership and career option were defined as described in the following paragraphs. Cohort groups were defined by the types of veterinary curriculum experienced by the graduates. The grouping of graduates was similar to the method employed by Centra (1966) with three major differences. The graduating classes after 1967 were grouped together since they represented graduates of the three-year professional curriculum. The class of December, 1967, was treated separately since it was the transition class from the four-year to the three-year programs. And the graduates between 1943 and 1947, who were in an accelerated program introduced for wartime needs, were also treated separately. Thus, the cohort groups for analysis of the data in this study were defined as follows: 1913-1938 No preveterinary requirement and a twelveterm professional curriculum. 1939-1942 and 1948-1952 One-year preveterinary requirement and a twelve-term professional curriculum. 1943-1947 One-year preveterinary requirement and a twelve-term professional curriculum, including one or more summer terms. 1953-June, 1967 Two-year preveterinary requirement and a twelve-term professional curriculum. December, 1967 Transition class between the three-year and four-year professional curriculum. 54 1968-1976 Two-year preveterinary requirement and an eleven—term professional curriculum, year-round. Each questionnaire was identified by the coded identification number stamped on the back page which allowed the date of graduation to be verified from the College of Veterinary Medicine records. This method was adopted rather than using the date of graduation listed by respondents in questionnaire item 1-3 to insure that the appropriate curriculum lengths would be identified for each respondent. Data for the cohort groups were aggregated differently for each of the objectives of the study. For the objectives dealing with employment (l and II) the data for cohort groups were aggregated as follows: 1913-1938, 1939-1952, 1953-June, 1967, and December, 1967-1976, combining the second and third groups and the fifth and sixth groups and dropping the data for respondents with unknown graduation years. This was done to give an incremental perspective based on the length of time since graduation. For the objectives dealing with curriculum (III and IV) the data for cohort groups were aggregated by length of the veterinary training program: three-year programs (1968-1976) and four-year programs (1913-1938, 1939-1942, 1948-1952, and 1953-June, 1967). The data from the classes of variable program lengths in 1943-1947, the class of December, 1967, and the respondents with unknown graduation years were dropped. For the fifth objectives related to future trends the data for cohort groups were aggregated into early classes (1913-June, 1967) and late classes (December, 1967-1976). Again, the data from respondents with unknown graduation years were dropped. An exception to the above aggregation guidelines was made for the questionnaire items on factors influencing the decision to become a 55 veterinarian and the career objectives influencing the respondent's decision to pursue an area within veterinary medicine. In analyzing these questions the data were aggregated by early and late graduation dates to support the application of a test of rank correlation. Career options were defined by a combination of work classification and employer codes listed for each position on the employment grid. After consideration of several alternatives, these options were developed for this study in an attempt to provide an appropriate balance between aggregations which were either too general or too specific for useful career analysis. The career options were defined as follows: Mixed 50/50 A single or multiple work classi­ fication for mixed practice (50%/ 50% large and small animal) and a self-employed or private practice employer code. Mixed-Large A single or multiple work classi­ fication for mixed practice (over 50% large animal) and a selfemployed or private practice employer code. Mixed-Small A single or multiple work classificiation for mixed practice (over 50% small animal) and a selfemployed or private practice employer code. Small A single or multiple work classi­ fication for small animal practice and a self-employed or private practice employer code. Large A single or multiple work classificiation for large animal practice and a self-employed or private practice employer code. Education A single or multiple work classi­ fication for all mixed, small, and large practices, basic sciences, veterinary public health, regulatory veterinary medicine, other veterinary medicine, or other position and a college or university employer code. 56 Government A single or multiple work classi­ fication for all mixed, small, and large practices, basic sciences, veterinary public health, regulatory veterinary medicine, other veterinary medicine, or other position and a federal government, international government, or state or local government employer code. Industry A single or multiple work classi­ fication for all mixed, small, and large practices, basic sciences, veterinary public health, regula­ tory veterinary medicine, other veterinary medicine, or other position and an industry employer code. Military A single or multiple work classi­ fication for military and any employer code except retired. Or, any single or multiple work classi­ fication except retired and an armed forces employer code. Retired A single or multiple work classi­ fication for retired and any employer code. Or, any single or multiple work classification and a retired employer code. Other All other combinations of work classification and employer codes not listed above. As was done for the data for cohort groups,the data for career options were aggregated differently for each of the objectives of the study. For the objectives dealing with employment* the data for career options were aggregated by small animal practice, mixed practice, large animal practice, and other career options. For the objectives dealing with curriculum and for the objectives dealing with future trends, the data for career options were aggregated by private practice and other career options. Data for respondents with unknown career options were dropped in the analysis related to all five objectives. There were exceptions to the above aggregation guidelines. In order to apply a test of rank correlation, the data for the questionnaire items regarding factors influencing the decision to become a veterinarian and the career objectives influencing the respondent's decision to pursue an area within veterinary medicine were aggregated by private practice and other career options. In order to compare responses from persons working in particular areas of veterinary medicine with others regarding the recommendations of increased emphasis in the curriculum on that area, the data were aggregated to separately identify these persons in the analysis of questionnaire item 4-5. In addition to the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option, data were also analyzed by location of employment, size of practice, and workload. Options for location of employment were defined as Michigan and non-Michigan. Options for size of practice were defined as single-person practice and multipie-person practice. And, workload options were defined as full-time and part-time. In testing for each of the relationships discussed below data were omitted for respondents from whom data were missing on either variable. Eleven null hypotheses and six research questions were developed for the purpose of data analysis. These are stated here with accompanying information shown in Tables 3.6 and 3.7 on how these were used to address each of the five objectives of the study. 58 Null Hypothesis I - There are no significant differences on the basis of sex regarding factors related to the career employment pattern of graduates, the preveterinary experiences of graduates, and the population description data. Null Hypothesis II - There are no significant differences on the basis of cohort group membership regarding factors related to the career employment pattern, preveterinary experiences, the optimal length of veterinary programs, the optimal emphasis on curricular areas, trends in the veterinary medical profession, and the population description data. Null Hypothesis III - There are no significant differences on the basis of career option of the present primary professional position regarding factors related to the career employment pattern, preveteri­ nary experiences, optimal emphasis on curricular areas, trends in the veterinary medical profession, and the population description data. Null Hypothesis IV - There are no significant differences on the basis of location of practice regarding various factors related to the career employment pattern. Null Hypothesis V - There are no significant differences on the basis of size of practice regarding various factors related to the career employment pattern. Null Hypothesis VI - There are no significant differences on the basis of workload regarding various factors related to the career emplovment pattern. Null Hypothesis VII - There are no significant differences in various characteristics of the first primary professional position and those same characteristics of the present primary professional position. Null Hypothesis VIII - There are no significant differences in various characteristics of positions held by respondents prior to a career shift and those same characteristics of those positions held after a career shift. Null Hypothesis IX - There is no significant difference in the type of setting for different types of preveterinary work experience. Null Hypothesis X - There is no significant difference in type of experience in the preceptorship experience and the rating of that experience. Null Hypothesis XI - There is no significant difference in the type of setting for different types of preceptorship work experience. 59 In addition to the null hypothesis stated above, there were six research questions addressed in the analysis of the data. Research Question I - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall's Tau Value between males and females, early graduates and late graduates, private practice career options and other career options for the ranking of factors having at least some influence on the decision to become a veterinarian. Research Question II - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall's Tau Value between males and females, early graduates and late graduates, private practice career options and other career options for the ranking of career objectives influen­ cing the type of veterinary work pursued. . Research Question III - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall'sTau Value between the ranking of career objectives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued and the ranking of career objectives perceived as satisfiable in various career settings by respondents working in those areas. Research Question IV - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall's Tau Value between three-year graduates and four-year graduates and between private practice career options and other career options for the ranking of preparation in various areas as adequate or better. Research Question V - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall's Tau Value between three-year graduates and four-year graduates and between private practice career options and other career options for the ranking of areas recommended to receive at least some emphasis by the College of Veterinary Medicine. Research Question VI - What is the relationship as indicated by a computed Kendall's Tau Value between three-year graduates and four-year graduates and between private practice career options and other career options for the ranking of groups or service areas recommended to receive greater or much greater attention. As shown in Table 3.6, the hypotheses related to sex, cohort group, and career option were applied to multiple objectives of the study, and as described above the data for the variables cohort group and career option were aggregated differently for each objective to focus more closely on the specific questions of concern. The null hypotheses were tested with a Chi Square Test of Independence, which permits a test of the unrelatedness of two variables associated with Table 3.6 Application of Null Hypotheses in the Analysis for the Five Objectives of the Study Objectives Null hypothesis Career employment patterns Preveterinary factors I - Sex II - Cohort group x X III - Career option x X IV - Location of practice V - Size of practice VI - Workload VII - First and present positions in career VIII - Positions before and after career shifts IX - Setting and experiences of preveterinary work X - Experience and rating of preveterinary work XI - Setting and experience of preceptorship Program length Curricular emphasis Future trends Table 3.7 Application of Research Questions in the Analysis for the Five Objectives of the Study Objectives Research questions 1 Career employment patterns 2 Preveterinary factors 3 4 5 Program length Curricular emphasis Future trends I - Factors influencing decision to become a veterinarian XI - Career objectives influencing type of veterinary work pursued x III - Career objectives influencing and career objectives perceived satisfiable X IV - Preparation in various areas V - Areas recommended to receive emphas is VI - Groups or service areas to receive attention X X x 62 the same sample of subjects. A rejection of a null hypothesis shows a relationship between the two variables. A .05 level of significance was set as the alpha value for testing the hypotheses. The Kendall Rank Correlation Coefficient was used as a measure of correlation for the six research questions about relationships. The coefficient can be used on data such as these when the data are measured on an ordinal scale. Data from the employment grid in item 2-3 of the questionnaire were used as the basis for analysis related to the first objective of the study, i.e., to identify the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree. The career options of the present primary professional positions of employment, the first primary professional positions of employment, and all primary professional positions of employ­ ment of the respondents were analyzed by sex, cohort group, location, size of practice, and workload. In addition, the location, size of practice, and workload of these positions were also analyzed by sex and cohort group. The data on first positions as well as the data on all positions were analyzed by the career option of the present primary professional positions. The concept of primary professional position was described above. The present primary professional position was defined as the last such position listed on the employment grid. The first primary professional position was defined as the first such position listed on the employment grid. And, the variable all primary professional posit ions was defined as every such position listed on the employment grid. To determine whether or not there was any relationship between the variables, a general hypothesis of independence was tested by means of a chi-square test of independence. Summary tables used to conduct the chi- square tests were included in the presentation of the data, and complete 63 tables of data were included in the appendices. This format of tabular presentation of the data was followed throughout the study. Data from the employment grid related to present primary professional positions and data from questionnaire items 1-5, 1- 6 , 2- 1 , 2 - 2 , 2-4, and 2-5 were used as the basis of analysis related to the second objective of the study, i.e., to identify the employment patterns of graduates with selected preveterinary factors. Responses to these questionnaire items were analyzed by sex, cohort group, and career options of present primary professional positions. To determine whether or not there was any relationship between the variables, a general hypothesis of independence was tested by means of a chi-square test of independence. For the data on factors influencing the decision to become a veterinarian and the career objectives influencing the type of work pursued within veterinary medicine, a Kendall's Tau test of rank correlation was applied. Data from the questionnaire items 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4 were used as the basis of analysis for the third objective of the study, i.e., to identify the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates. Responses to these items were analyzed by cohort groups aggregated by program length. To determine whether or not there was any relationship between the variables, a general hypothesis of independence was tested by means of a chi-square test of independence. For the data regarding the advantages and disadvantages perceived for the alternative program lengths, frequency distributions were reported. Data from questionnaire items 4-5, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8, and 4-9 were used as the basis of analysis related to the fourth objective of the study, i.e., to identify the optimal emphasis on the curricular areas included in the professional program as perceived by graduates. Responses to these 64 items were analyzed by cohort group and career options of present primary professional position. To determine whether or not there was any relationship between the variables, a general hypothesis of independence was tested by means of a chi-square test of independence. Data from the questionnaire items 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4 were used as the basis of analysis related to the fifth objective of the study, i.e., to identify trends in the veterinary medical profession which relate to the veterinary medical curriculum as perceived by graduates. Responses to these items were analyzed by cohort group and career option of present primary professional position. To determine whether or not there was any relationship between the variables, a general hypothesis of independence was tested by means of a chi-square test of independence. For data regarding new career opportunities and societal demands, future directions, and concerns for veterinary medicine in the near future, frequency distributions were reported. Summary. A questionnaire was designed and mailed to D.V.M. graduates of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University who were graduated during the years 1913 to 1976 inclusive. This survey instrument consisted of eight parts, four of which were used in this study of the training and employment patterns of these graduates. Responses to the questionnaire items were reported and analyzed by means of tabulation of frequency distributions, calculation of chi-square tests of independence, and Kendall's Tau test of rank correlation. written and tabular form in Chapter IV. The results are reported in CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA The responses to the survey instrument are reported and analyzed in this chapter to achieve the objectives of the study. In all tables in this chapter the data is reported only for those respondents, for whom responses were given for each variable under consideration. reason the totals found in each table will vary somewhat. For this Also, in each table the percentage distribution of responses on the variable of concern is given first followed by the data without percentages. complete percentage distribution is given in the larger study. The Tables 3.5 and 3.6 in the previous chapter serve as guides for the application of the null hypotheses and research questions for the analysis of the data for the five objectives of the study. The presentation of the data in this chapter is organized according to the five objectives. Objective I In order to accomplish the first objective of the study, i.e., to identify the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree, the career options, location, size of practice, and workload are examined for the respondents' present primary professional positions, first primary professional positions, and all primary profes­ sional positions, first primary professional positions, and all primary professional positions. In addition the income for the present primary professional position is examined. 65 66 Also, shifts in career options from first to present primary pro­ fessional positions are analyzed by career option, location, size of practice, and workload. The same analysis is made for all shifts during the careers of the respondents as well as an analysis of the number of shifts. And lastly, in accomplishing Objective I the inclusion of various work experiences in the course of graduate's careers is ana­ lyzed. Present Primary Professional Position. The variables which were examined in analyzing the present primary professional position of graduates included the career option, location, size of practice, income, and workload of that position as well as sex and cohort group membership. The responses of graduates indicating the career option of the position held at the time of the study (present primary professional position) were aggregated into small animal practice, mixed animal practice, large animal practice, and other. The largest percentage of respondents (40.63%) indicated they were in small animal practice, and large animal practice was reported by the smallest percentage of respon­ dents (3.95%). These data, shown in Table 4.1, on the career option of the present primary professional position were analyzed by sex, cohort group, loca­ tion, size of practice, and workload to determine if there was a relationship between career option and any of these variables. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence, Null Hypotheses I, II, IV, and V were rejected at the .05 level of significance. 67 Table 4.1 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option Group Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 40.63 25.46 3.95 29.96 383 254 42 249 56 23 1 18 Sex Male Female 3 10.761a 9 140.694® 3 63.985® 3 44.376® 3 2.654 Cohort Group 1913-1938 7 4 0 27 1939-1952 66 59 7 110 1953-June, 1967 139 98 17 79 Dec., 1967-1976 213 112 18 43 Location Michigan 218 162 12 74 Non-Michigan 222 110 31 193 Size of Practice Single-person 143 112 27 57 Multiple-person 280 154 12 198 Workload Full-time 419 263 40 249 Part-time 21 9 3 16 Significant at .05 level 68 As shown in Table 4.2, 45.61% of the respondents indicated Michigan as the location of their present primary professional position. Of the respondents who indicated location of the present primary professional position 54.39% did not report Michigan as their present location. Data regarding the location of the present position were analysed by sex and cohort group to determine if there was a relationship between location and these variables. At the .05 level of significance Null Hypothesis II was rejected. In Table 4.3 the size of practice of the respondents' present primary professional position is shown. two categories: The responses are aggregated into single-person practice and multiple-person practice. Approximately one third (34.48%) of the respondents indicated that they were in a single-person practice, and 65.52% of the respondents indicated that they worked with one or more other D.V.M.'s. These data were analyzed by sex and cohort group and indicated a significant difference at the .05 level in size of practice as analyzed by cohort group. Thus Null Hypothesis II was rejected. The responses of graduates indicating the income from the present primary professional position were aggregated into three categories: $20,000 and under, $20,001-$40,000, and over $40,000. The largest per­ centage of respondents (48.61%) indicated that their income was in the middle range ($20,000-$40,000). These data, shown in Table 4.4, were analyzed by sex and cohort group to determine if there was a relationship between income and these variables. Significant differences in income were found on the basis of sex and cohort group, and Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected at the .05 level of significance. 69 Table 4.2 Location of Present Primary Professional Position Location Michigan Group Non-Michigan df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 45.61 54.39 Sex Male Female 415 510 51 45 1 2.389 3 12.938a Cohort Group 1913-1938 22 17 1939-1952 90 150 1953-June,1967 149 182 Dec.,1967-1976 196 187 Significant at .05 level Table 4.3 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position Size of Practice Group SinglePerson Practice Multiple Person Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 34.48 65.52 Sex Male Female 313 573 25 70 1 3.084 70 Table 4.3 (cont'd.) Size of Practice Multiple Person Practice SinglePerson Practice Group df Chi Square Value Cohort Group 1913-1938 11 25 1939-1952 87 133 1953-June,1967 128 193 Dec.,1967-1976 106 271 3 13.537a Significant at .05 level Table 4.4 Income of Present Primary Professional Position Income Group $20,000 and Under $20,001 to $40,000 Over $40,000 df Chi Square Value 2 68.398® 6 148.092® Percentage Distribution All respondents 35.81 48.61 15.58 Sex Male Female 290 460 156 71 26 0 Cohort Group 1913-1938 13 21 4 1939-1952 59 131 42 1953-June, 1967 61 179 88 215 142 21 Dec.,1967-1976 Significant at .05 level 71 The workload of the present primary professional position of respond­ ents is shown in Table 4.5. Approximately 95% of the respondents indicated their workload in this position was full-time. When the Chi Square Test of Independence was applied , Null Hypothesis I was rejected at the .05 level of significance. Table 4.5 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position Workload Group Full-Time Part-Time df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 95.11 4.89 Sex Male Female 885 36 83 14 1 20.847a Cohort Group 1913-1938 34 3 1939-1952 225 11 1953-June, 1967 319 12 Dec., 1967-1976 364 22 Significant at .05 level 3 2.555 72 First Primary Professional Position. The variables which were used in analyzing the first primary professional position of respondents were the same as those used for the present primary professional position with the exception of income, for which there was not comparable data. Income was reported in ranges rather than specific figures. This did not allow for adjustments to be made with an acceptable degree of accuracy on the data to account for the changing value of the dollar over time. Variables used were career option, location, size of practice, and work­ load as well as sex and cohort group. The responses of graduates about the career option of the first primary professional position were aggregated, as in the previous section, into small animal practice, mixed animal practice, large animal practice, and other. The largest percentage of respondents (38.33%) indicated mixed animal practice as their first primary professional posi­ tion, while large animal practice was indicated by the smallest percentage (4.14%) of the respondents. The data shown in Table 4.6 were analyzed by sex, cohort group, career option of the present primary professional position, location, size of practice, and workload to determine if there was a relationship between career option of the first primary professional position and these variables. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence, Null Hypotheses I, II, III, IV and V were rejected at the .05 level of significance while Null Hypothesis VI was not rejected. This analysis suggests a relationship between the variables of sex, cohort group, career option, location, and size of practice with the variable of career option of the first primary professional position. 73 Table 4.6 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position Career Option (First) Group Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 34.47 38.33 4.14 23.07 Sex Male Female 311 293 44 230 63 25 1 15 3 35.037a Cohort Group 1913-1938 3 13 1 30 1939-1952 25 123 19 98 1953-June, 1967 121 134 10 80 Dec., 1967-1976 213 137 14 30 9 216.536a 9 605.393a Career Option (Present) Small Animal 297 79 10 56 Mixed Animal 25 215 11 26 Large Animal 1 21 12 9 38 81 9 140 Other 74 Table 4.6 (cont'd.) Career Option of First Primary Professional Position Career Option (First) Small Animal Practice Group Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Location Michigan 198 212 15 102 Non-Mi ch igan 176 203 30 145 3 13.314® 3 84.977® 3 6.355 Size of Practice Single-Person Multiple-Person 42 142 23 42 330 265 20 189 Workload Full-Time 366 399 45 229 Part-Time 7 15 0 12 aSignifleant at .05 level In table 4.7 the responses of graduates about the location of their first primary professional position are shown. Over one-half (51.34%) of the respondents indicated the location of that position was somewhere other than Michigan. There was found to be a significant relationship at the .05 level of significance between the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option of the present primary professional position and the variable of location of the first primary professional position, thus Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected. 75 Table 4.7 Location of First Primary Professional Position Location Michigan Non-Michigan Group df Chi Square Value 1 6.700a 3 16.895a 3 24.037s Percentage Distribution All respondents 48.66 51.34 Sex Male Female 460 514 63 41 Cohort Group 1913-1938 30 17 1939-1952 109 156 1953-June, 1967 156 188 Dec., 1967-1976 213 179 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 224 217 Mixed Animal 154 120 Large Animal 17 26 Other 98 170 Significant at .05 level 76 Approximately 76% of the respondents indicated that they were in a multiple-person practice for their first primary professional position. The data regarding size of practice, shown in Table 4.8,were analyzed by applying the Chi Square Test of Independence and a statistically sig­ nificant relationship was identified between that variable and the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option. Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected at the 0.5 level of significance. The data on workload in the first primary professional position are shown in Table 4.9. Almost 97% of the respondents indicated their position was full-time. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied, no differences were found between the variable of workload and the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option of the present primary professional position at the .05 level of significance. All Primary Professional Positions. The variables which were examined in the analysis of all present primary professional positions included career option, location, size of practice, and workload of all primary professional positions as well as sex, cohort group, and career option of present primary professional position. The responses of graduates for the career option of all primary professional positions is shown in Table 4.10. Again the career option data were aggregated into small animal practice, mixed animal practice, large animal practice, and other. The largest percentage of positions (37.51%) were reported in areas other than small, mixed, or large animal practice. This percentage is followed by 32.66% of all positions reported to be small animal practice, 26.17% of all positions reported to be in mixed animal practice, and 3.66% of all positions reported to be in large animal practice. 77 Table 4.8 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position Size of Practice Group SinglePerson Practice MultiplePerson Practice df Chi Square Value 1 7,942a 3 76.872a 3 13.984a Percentage Distribution All respondents 23.62 76.38 Sex Male Female 235 710 13 91 Cohort Group 1913-1938 12 30 1939-1952 94 158 1953-June, 1967 104 232 Dec., 1967-1976 38 353 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 75 357 Mixed Animal 75 193 Large Animal 11 30 Other 70 191 Significant at .05 level 78 Table 4.9 Workload of First Primary Professional Position Workload Full-Time Part-Time Group df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 96.83 3.17 Sex Male Female 936 29 99 5 1 0.987 3 0.946 3 4.639 Cohort Group 1913-1938 42 2 1939-1952 250 9 1953-June, 1967 332 12 Dec., 1967-1976 382 10 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 433 7 Mixed Animal 264 8 Large Animal 43 0 255 10 Other 79 Table 4.10 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Career Option (All) Group Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other Chi Square df Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 32.66 26.17 3.66 37.51 Sex Male 847 739 108 1015 Female 140 53 3 44 3 77.333a 9 475.611a Cohort Group 1913-1938 20 32 4 142 1939-1952 134 240 36 441 1953-June, 1967 359 278 36 338 Dec., 1967-1976 442 228 33 112 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 834 140 14 184 Mixed Animal 40 440 18 85 Large Animal 9 33 55 25 82 148 19 726 Other 9 2695.757s 80 Table 4.10 (cont'd.) Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Career Option (All) Small Animal Practice Group Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other Chi Square df Value Location Michigan 474 407 35 313 Non-Michigan 515 382 75 727 3 109.208a 3 118.703a 3 2.294 Size of Practice Single-Person 234 306 57 210 Multiple-Person 733 461 44 764 Workload Full-Time 933 755 104 982 Part-Time 54 31 5 48 Significant at .05 level In applying the Chi Square Test of Independence differences were found for this variable on the basis of sex, cohort group membership, career option of present primary professional position, location, and size of practice. Null Hypotheses I, II, III, IV, and V, were rejected at the .05 level of significance. As shown in Table 4.11 the location reported for all primary pro­ fessional positions was in Michigan for 41.95% of the positions. Dif­ ferences were identified in location of all primary professional posi- 81 tions on the basis of cohort group membership and career option of present primary professional position, thus Null Hypotheses II and III were rejected at the .05 level of significance. Table 4.11 Location of All Primary Professional Positions Location Michigan Non-Michigan Group df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 41.95 58.05 Sex Male Female 1115 1564 109 130 1 1.433 3 35.698a 3 71.363a Cohort Group 1913-1938 94 89 1939-1952 301 538 1953-June, 1967 408 600 Dec., 1967-1976 397 417 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 529 639 Mixed Animal 302 272 Large Animal 44 79 309 650 Other Significant at .05 level 82 As shown in Table 4.12, 71.28% o£ all positions were reported to be multiple-person practices. In applying a Chi Square Test of Inde­ pendence to determine a relationship between size of practice of all primary professional positions and the variables of sex, cohort group membership, and career option of present primary professional positions, Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected at the .05 level of signi­ ficance. The workload reported for all primary professional positions was full-time for 95.24% of the positions. In testing Null Hypotheses I, II, and III a relationship between workload and sex was the only one which was found to be significant at the .05 level (Table 4.13). Shifts in Career from First to Present Primary Professional Posi­ tion. Several factors were examined in analyzing career shifts from respondents' first primary professional positions to their present primary professional positions. The variables of sex and cohort group membership were used in examining several factors: (a) shifts between career options versus no shifts or only shifts within options, (b) the direction of major shifts from private practice to other positions or other positions to private practice, (c) types of shifts among private practice options, (d) shifts within major options, and (e) shifts within private options. As shown in table 4.14 over half of the respondents (53.13%) indicated that there had been no shift or had only been a shift within a career option, while 46.88% indicated that their present primary pro­ fessional position was in a different career option than their first position. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence there were differences found on the basis of the variables sex and cohort group as 83 Table 4.12 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions Size of Practice Group SinglePerson Practice MultiplePerson Practice df Chi Square Value 1 7.720® 3 55.693® 3 13.392® Percentage Distribution All respondents 71.28 28.72 Sex Male Female 754 1809 49 186 Cohort Group 1913-1938 45 125 1939-1952 278 502 1953-June, 1967 311 662 Dec., 1967-1976 158 647 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 305 820 Mixed Animal 183 371 Large Animal 43 72 241 677 Other Significant at .05 level 84 Table 4.13 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions Workload Full-Time Part-Time Group df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 95.24 4.76 Sex Male Female 2565 97 198 42 1 92.626a 3 2.282 3 1.043 Cohort Group 1913-1938 168 9 1939-1952 795 34 1953-June, 1967 961 47 Dec., 1967-1976 766 46 Career Option (Present) Small Animal 1119 47 Mixed Animal 550 22 Large Animal 117 6 Other 904 45 Significant at .05 level 85 Table 4.14 Shift in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shift in Career Option No Shift or Shift Within A Career Option Group Shift Between Career Options df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 53.13 46.88 Sex Male Female 506 473 69 35 1 8.110a 3 106.286a Cohort Group 1913-1938 17 31 1939-1952 90 176 1953-June, 1967 170 175 Dec., 1967-1976 285 109 Significant at .05 level to whether or not there had been such a shift between the first and present positions. Null Hypothesis I and Null Hypothesis II were rejected at the .05 level of significance. Also examined were shifts between private practice and other posi­ tions; shifts among small animal practice, mixed animal practice, large animal practice, and other career options; shifts in location; shifts in size; and shifts in workload. 86 The data regarding shifts among career options were further examined to determine the amount of movement of respondents during their careers between private practice positions and other positions. There were 61.67% of the respondents who reported private practice for both their first and present primary professional positions as shown in Table 4.15. Almost twice as many respondents shifted from private practice to other career options as those who shifted from other career options to private practice (15.26% versus 8.36%), Null Hypothesis VII was rejected at the .05 level of signif­ icance indicating a relationship between first and present positions as to whether the career option was in private practice or not. Table 4.15 Major Shifts in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shifted To Shifted From Private Practice Other Career Options df Chi Square Value 1 177.419® Percentage Distribution Private Practice Other Career Options 61.67 15.26 8.36 14.71 Frequency Distribution Private Practice Other Career Options 671 166 91 160 Significant at .05 level The data in Table 4.15 are more specific in Table 4.16 to show shifts among small animal practice, mixed animal practice, and large animal practice as well as other career options. The data for shifts 87 Table 4.16 Career Option of Shifts from First to Present Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Small Mixed Large Practice Practice Practice Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Small Animal 27.30 2.30 0.09 4.78 Mixed Animal 7.26 19.76 1.93 9.38 Large Animal 0.92 1.01 1.10 1.10 Other 5.15 2.39 0.83 14.71 Frequency Distribution Small Animal 297 25 1 52 Mixed Animal 79 215 21 102 Large Animal 10 11‘ 12 12 Other 56 26 9 160 9 601.447a Significant at .05 level within these career options are displayed diagonally on the table. Respondents who were in small animal practice for both their first and present positions (27.30%) represented the largest group among the possible options. The largest group that had a change in career option from the present positions were the respondents who indicated their first primary professional position was in a mixed animal practice and their present primary professional position was in other career options (9.38%). Null Hypothesis VII was rejected at the .05 level of significance. As indicated above there were more respondents who indicated they shifted from private practice to other career options than those who shifted from other career options to private practice. In analyzing this type of major shift on the basis of sex and cohort group, as shown in Table 4.17, no significant differences were found. Table 4.17 Type of Major Shift in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position Type of Major Shift Private Practice Other Career Options to to Other Career Options Private Practice df Group Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 64.59 35.41 Sex Male Female 152 84 14 5 1 0.665 Cohort Group 1913-1938 10 4 1939-1952 70 35 1953-June, 1967 50 39 Dec.,1967-1976 31 10 3 5.422 More specific data on the type of practice shifts in career option from the first primary professional position to the present primary pro­ fessional position are shown in Table 4.18. In examining the types of practice shifts among three options (small animal practice, mixed animal practice, and large animal practice) it was noted that over half (53.74%) of the shifts among these three options were from mixed animal practice to small animal practice. When these types of practice shifts were 89 analyzed on the basis of sex and cohort group, Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating significant differences on the basis of these variables. Table 4.18 Type of Practice Shifts in Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position Type of Practice Shift Small to Mixed Group Small to Large Mixed to Small Mixed to Large Large to Small Large to Mixed df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 17.01 0.68 53.74 14.29 6.80 7.48 Sex Male Female 20 1 75 21 10 11 5 0 4 0 0 0 5 11.340a 14 25.656® Cohort Group 1913-1938 0 0 4 0 0 0 1939-1952 3 0 24 0 6 4 1953-June, 1967 11 1 24 10 2 4 Dec.,1967-1976 11 0 23 10 1 3 Significant at .05 level In looking at Table 4.19 regarding respondents who did not shift from private practice to other career options or vice versa, it was noted that approximately four times as many respondents indicated they were in private practice for both their first and present positions than those who indicated they had other career options for both their first and present positions. In determining if there was a relationship between the 90 variables sex and cohort group and the reported data that respondents remained within private practice or other career options, significant differences were found on the basis of cohort group membership but not for the variable of sex. Null Hypothesis 11 was rejected at the .05 level of significance. Table 4.19 Shifts Within Major Areas of Career Option from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shifts Group Within Private Practice Within Other Career Options df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 80.75 19.25 Sex Male Female 595 148 75 10 1 3.285 3 168.539s Cohort Group 1913-1938 7 27 1939-1952 97 64 1953-June, 1967 215 41 Dec., 1967-1976 333 20 Significant at .05 level 91 Table 4.20 shows the number of respondents whose first and present primary professional positions were both reported to be within small animal practice, mixed animal practice, or large animal practice. This pattern of career shifts was also analyzed on the basis of sex and cohort group and significant differences were found; thus Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected at the .05 level. Table 4.20 Shifts Within Practice Areas from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shifts Within Small Animal Practice Group Within Mixed Animal Practice Within Largo Animal Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 56.68 41.03 2.29 Sex Male Female 246 199 12 50 16 0 2 1 1 .856a 6 40.903S Cohort Group 1913-1938 1 2 0 1939-1952 13 44 3 1953-June, 1967 90 72 1 Dec., 1967-1976 183 94 8 Significant at .05 level As shown in Table 4.21, approximately 44% of the respondents indicated that their first position was not in Michigan and their present position was not in Michigan. Also, 37.01% indicated both positions were 92 in the state of Michigan. A slightly larger percentage of respondents indicated they shifted from Michigan to non-Michigan areas and vice versa (10.84% versus 8.59%). Null Hypothesis VII was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a relationship between the location of the first and present positions. Table 4.21 Shifted To Shifted From Michigan Non-Michigan df Chi Square Value 1 381.609® Percentage Distribution Michigan Non-Michigan 37.01 10.84 8.59 43.55 Frequency Distribution Michigan 379 111 88 446 Non-Michigan Significant at .05 level Over one-half (56.69%) of the respondents indicated their first position as well as their present position was in a multiple-person practice. Approximately 21% of the respondents indicated a shift from a multiple-person practice to a single-person practice over the course of their career. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence, Null Hypothesis VII was rejected at the .05 level of significance. for these shifts are displayed in Table 4.22. The data 93 Table 4.22 Shifts in Size of Practice from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shifted To Shifted From SinglePerson Practice Multiple Person Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Sing1e-Person 13.48 8.85 Multiple-Person 20.99 56.69 Frequency Distribution Single-Person 131 86 Multiple-Person 203 551 1 82.991a Significant at .05 level As shown in Table 4.23, 93.72% of the respondents indicated their first and present positions were full-time. There was a somewhat greater shift over the course of their careers from full-time to part-time (3.83%) than from part-time to full-time (1.37%). A significant dif­ ference at the .05 level was found for the variable of workload, thus Null Hypothesis VII was rejected. Shifts Among All Primary Professional Positions. Factors which were used in analyzing career shifts among all primary professional posi­ tions were similar to those used in the previous section regarding shifts from first to present primary professional positions. 94 Table 4.23 Shifcs in Workload from First to Present Primary Professional Position Shifted To Full-Time Part-Time df Shifted From Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Full-Time 93.72 3.83 Part-Time 1.37 1.08 Frequency Distribution Full-Time 955 39 Part-Time 14 11 1 83.678a Significant at .05 level In comparing data regarding the number of shifts between career option and the number of shifts within a career option it was noted that more shifts took place between career options (55.33% versus 44.67%) as shown in Table 4.24. When the comparison between these types of shifts was analyzed on the basis of sex and cohort group a significant dif­ ference was found on the basis of these variables at the .05 level of significance. Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected. 95 Table 4.24 Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions Shift in Career Option Shift Between Career Options Shift Within A Career Option Group df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 55.33 44.67 Sex Male 872 1124 Female 100 75 1 11.782a 3 187.189® Cohort Group 1913-1938 50 115 1939-1952 186 457 1953-June, 1967 323 404 Dec., 1967-1976 384 196 Significant at .05 level In Table 4.25, data on the major shifts in career options among all primary professional positions are shown, and 45.90% of the shifts which were among private practice positions as compared with 24.07% which were among other career options. Null Hypothesis VIII was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a relationship between these major aggregations of career options for both positions involved in all shifts. 96 Table 4.25 Major Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifted To Private Practice Shifted From Other Career Options df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Private Practice 45.90 16.20 Other Career Options 13.82 24.07 Frequency Distribution Private Practice 1003 354 302 526 Other Career Options 1 299.674a Significant at .05 level Data on shifts among more specific career options are shown in Table 4.26. The data for shifts within these career options are dis­ played diagonally on the table and the between option shifts are off the diagonal. The largest number of shifts described in this table were between two positions which were both in career options other than pri­ vate practice. The largest number of shifts which involved two different career options for the two positions in the shift was from mixed animal practice to other career options. Among the shifts which involved a change in career option from private practice to other or vice versa, there were more which shifted out of private practice, as shown in Table 4.27. There was no signifi­ cant difference found for these types of major shifts on the basis of sex and cohort group variable. 97 Table 4.26 Career Options of Shifts Among All Primary Professional Positions Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Small Animal 21.10 2.24 0.14 6.18 Mixed Animal 5.17 13.96 1.19 8.65 Large Animal 0.27 0.92 0.92 1.37 Other 6.86 5.77 1.19 24.07 Frequency Distribution Small Animal 461 49 3 135 Mixed Animal 113 305 26 189 Large Animal 6 20 20 30 150 126 26 526 Other & • Significant at .05 level 9 982.576a 98 Table 4.27 Type of Major Shift in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions Type of Major Shift Group Private Practice to Other Career Option Other Career Option to Private Practice df Chi Square Value 1 0.601 3 4.251 Percentage Distribution All respondents 53.96 46.04 Sex Male Female 325 280 28 19 Cohort Group 1913-1938 32 26 1939-1952 141 107 1953-June, 1967 120 125 Dec., 1967-1976 52 36 99 Specific types of shifts among the three private practice career options (small animal practice, mixed animal practice, and large animal practice) are shown in Table 4.28. Over half of the shifts (52.07%) which were made among these three career options were from mixed animal practice to small animal practice. These data were analyzed by sex and cohort group to determine if there was a relationship between them. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence, Null Hypothesis I was rejected at the .05 level of significance. Shifts within major areas of career options among all primary pro­ fessional positions are shown in Table 4.29. It was noted that 65.60% of this type of shift was within private practice while 34.40% were within other career options. In applying the Chi Square Test of Inde­ pendence for the variables of sex and cohort group, Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected at the .05 level of significance. Data on shifts within small animal practice, mixed animal practice, large animal practice career options is shown in Table 4.30. Differences were found to exist on the basis of sex and cohort group at the .05 level of significance, thus Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to the data regarding shifts in location among all primary professional positions, shown in Table 4.31, Null Hypothesis VIII was rejected at the .05 level of significance. More shifts in location either took place in Michigan or out of Michigan than between these two options. Data regarding the shifts of size of practice among all primary professional positions are shown in Table 4.32. Again, Null Hypothesis VIII is rejected at the .05 level of significance, indicating a signifi­ cant relationship between the size of practice of both positions involved in all career shifts. 100 Table 4.28 Type of Practice Shifts in Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions Type of Practice Shift Group Small to Mixed Small to Large Mixed to Small Mixed to Large Large to Small Large to Mixed df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 22.58 1.38 52.07 11.98 2.76 9.22 Sex Male Female 40 3 105 26 6 20 9 0 7 0 0 0 5 11.195® Cohort Group 1913-1938 1 0 6 0 0 0 1939-1952 6 0 34 1 3 8 1953-June, 1967 19 2 36 12 2 6 Dec., 1967-1976 21 1 33 12 1 6 Significant at .05 level 15 22.905 101 Table 4.29 Shifts Within Major Areas of Career Option Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifts Group Within Private Practice Within Other Career Options df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 65.60 34.40 Sex Male 886 505 Female 115 13 1 35.664a 3 377,239a Cohort Group 1913-1938 15 92 1939-1952 168 227 1953-June, 1967 340 142 Dec., 1967-1976 452 40 Significant at .05 level 102 Table 4.30 Shifts Within Practice Areas Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifts Within Small Animal Practice Group Within Mixed Animal Practice Within Large Animal Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 58.65 38.80 2.54 Sex Male Female 387 280 19 73 25 1 2 10.881a 6 60.044a Cohort Group 1913-1938 5 3 0 1939-1952 31 79 6 1953-June, 1967 154 104 5 Dec., 253 116 9 1967-1976 S ignificant at .05 level 103 Table 4.31 Shifts in Location Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifted To Shifted Prom Michigan Non-Michigan df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Michigan Non-Michigan 31.21 10.21 9.34 49.23 Frequency Distribution Michigan 648 212 Non-Michigan 194 1022 Significant at .05 level 1 737.090a 104 Table 4.32 Shifts in Size of Practice Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifted To Shifted From SinglePerson Practice MultiplePerson Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Single-Person 11.11 12.75 Multiple-Person 18.92 57.22 Frequency Distribution Single-Person 216 248 Multiple-Person 368 1113 1 79.210a Significant at .05 level Table 4.33 shows the data regarding shifts in workload among all primary professional positions. It was noted that 91.94% of the shifts in workload were from a full-time position to another full-time position. Null Hypothesis VIII was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship in workload for the positions involved in all shifts. 105 Table 4.33 Shifts in Workload Among All Primary Professional Positions Shifted To Full-Time Part-Time df Shifted From Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Full-Time 91.94 4.05 Part-Time 2.70 1.30 Frequency Distribution Full-Time 1906 84 Part-Time 56 27 1 126.154a Significant at .05 level Number of Shifts in Career. In order to make allowance for the variation in career length among respondents, the number of shifts reported on the employment grid was divided by the number of years in the career. The quotient of these two figures is the data unit used in comparing the number of shifts by sex, cohort group, and career option. As shown in Table 4.34, 21.97% of the respondents indicated they had only one position in the course of their career, thus had no shifts in career options, location, size of practice, or workload. Also, 27.57% of the respondents indicated a number of shifts which when divided by the number of years in their careers produced a value greater than zero but less than .10, 24.91% had such a figure greater than or equal to .10 106 Table 4.34 Number of Shifts Divided by the Number of Years in Career Number of Shifts/Career Length Group 0 (No Shifts) Greater than 0 but less than .10 Greater than or equal to .10, but less than .20 Greater than or equal to .20 df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 21.97 27.57 24.91 25.55 Sex Male Female 208 283 254 234 31 14 16 43 3 26.693a 9 421.079s 9 101.711s Cohort Group 1913-1938 2 28 18 0 1939-1952 33 150 72 11 1953-June, 1967 48 113 108 76 Dec., 1967-1976 148 0 68 178 Career Option Small Animal 96 101 102 140 Mixed Animal 112 59 51 51 Large Animal 8 8 11 15 23 95 92 66 Other Si g n i ficant at .05 level 107 but less than .20, and 25.55% had a value greater than or equal to .20. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied for the variables sex, cohort group, and career option, Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating significant differences on the basis of these variables and the number of shifts divided by the number of years in the career. Inclusion of Career Options and Other Factors in Course of Career. The percentage of respondents who indicated each career option in the course of their careers is shown in Table 4.35. Also shown are the number of respondents reporting each career option reported by sex, cohort group, and career option. A Chi Square Test of Independence was applied for each variable to determine if there was a relationship between those variables and the reporting of each career option. The largest percentage of graduates reported that they had worked in small animal practice during their careers (48.58%). This was fol­ lowed by 22.01% reporting mixed practice (large) and 21.36% reporting government as career options included in their careers. Less than one- tenth of the respondents indicated large animal practice (7.91%), other practices (6.45%), industry (.62%), or retirement (2.24%). A significant relationship was found to exist between sex and the inclusion of each of the career options except mixed practice (50/50), mixed practice (small), education, industry, and other. A significant relationship was found to exist between the variable cohort group and each career option with the exception of mixed practice (50/50) and large animal practice. A significant relationship was found to exist between career option to present primary professional position and the reporting of each career option in the course of the career. 4 Table 4.35 Inclusion of Each Career Option in Course of Career Variable of Analysis Sex Career Option Percentage Distribution Cohort Group Male Female df 1 Chi Square Value 0.840 1913 1939 1953 thru thru thru 1958 1952 Jan.,1967 Dec.,1967 thru 1967 df Chi Square Value 51 54 59 3 1.627 13 94 89 53 3 36.407b 2 41 70 73 3 10.289b 13 93 187 252 3 80.098b 5.878b 3 31 28 28 3 4.040 1 0.063 14 57 58 32 3 24.997b 10 1 9.806b 33 119 75 13 3 190.169b 38 5 1 0.123 6 26 22 7 3 20.585b 13.41 152 1 1 15.371b 15 55 64 15 3 52.813b Retirement 2.24 26 0 1 2.693 14 11 1 0 3 145.006b Other 6.45 67 8 1 0.215 5 35 17 17 3 20.590b 15.31 164 13 Mixed practice (large) 22.01 249 7 Mixed practice (small) 16.42 171 20 1 Small animal practice 48.58 485 77 1 26.867b Large animal practice 7.91 90 2 1 Education 14.36 149 16 Government 21.36 236 Industry 5.62 Military £ Out of 1163 total respondents ^Significant at .05 level 1 16.374b 0.459 108 10 Mixed practice (50/50) Table 4.35 (cont'd.) Inclusion of Each Career Option in Course of Career Variable of Analysis Career Option Career Option Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Mixed practice (50/50) 28 103 9 31 3 127.578b Mixed practice (large) 46 118 10 67 3 100.953b Mixed practice (small) 46 109 9 22 3 124.591b Small animal practice 439 34 4 68 3 691.333b Large animal practice 14 15 43 16 3 482.772b Education 24 10 6 120 3 227.772 Government 52 27 6 148 3 207.^66b Industry 7 3 1 50 3 100.889b Military 60 25 6 61 3 19.093 0 1 0 25 3 65.588b 17 5 0 46 3 63.845b Retirement Other aOut of 1163 total respondents ^Significant at .05 level 110 In Table 4.36 data regarding the inclusion of various locations of practice, various sizes of practice, and various workload options of practice are reported. The factors were tested with a Chi Square Test of Independence to determine if there was a relationship between these variables and the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option. Approximately 61% of the respondents indicated that they had worked in a state or U.S. Territory other than Michigan, and 4% indi­ cated that they had worked in a foreign country. A significant relationship was found between each of these variables of location and the variables of cohort group and career option. A significant rela­ tionship was found between the variable sex and only the location variable of work in Michigan. Approximately 47% of the respondents indicated that they had worked in a single-person practice in the course of their career, and 45% indicated that they had worked in a practice with one other D.V.M. A significant relationship was found between sex and the size of practice and work in a practice with three to five other D.V.M.'s. A significant relationship was found between the variable cohort group and all size of practice variables, and between the variable career option and all size of practice variables except for work in a practice with three to five other D.V.M.'s. Work in full-time positions was reported by 91.49% of the respon­ dents, and only 9.72 indicated work in any part-time positions. A significant relationship was found between the variables sex and each of the workload variables except for work in a full-time position. A significant relationship was found between cohort group and only the workload variable of work in full-time positions and a relationship Table 4.36 Inclusion of Various Factors in Course of Career Variable of analysis Sex Factors Percentage distribution Cohort group Male Female df Chi Square Value 1913 1939 1953 Dec.,1967 thru thru thru thru 1958 1952 Jan.,1967 1976 df Chi Square Value Work in Michigan 54.69 562 70 1 6.037k 34 136 204 242 3 13.270b Work in another state or U.S. Territory 61.48 653 59 1 1.766 33 196 245 217 3 15.897b Work in a foreign country 3.96 42 3 1 0.354 3 18 12 9 3 7.998b Work in a single­ person practice 46.60 505 34 1 9.988b 26 165 209 128 3 58.862b Work with one other D.V.M. 44.54 468 49 1 0.098 18 110 175 195 3 12.591b Work with two other D.V.M.'s 27.43 284 34 1 1.210 9 54 109 131 3 21.526b Work with three to five D.V.M.'s 26.57 264 43 1 3.841b 14 55 92 137 3 21.595b Work with more than five other D.V.M.'s 29.06 312 23 1 3.022 34 127 103 64 3 89.476b Work in a full-time position 91.49 957 102 1 3.154 44 258 342 385 3 27.635b 41 19 1 38.361b 2 13 22 21 3 0.988 Work in part-time position (50% or greater) 5.16 Table 4.36 (cont'd.) Inclusion of Various Factors in Course of Career Variable of analysis Sex Factors Percentage distribution Cohort group Male Female df Chi Square Value 1913 1939 1953 Dec., 1967 thru thru thru thru 1938 1952 Jan.,1967 1976 df Chi Square Value Work in part-time position (50% or less) 5.33 47 15 1 17.724b 6 16 18 21 3 3.215 Work in any part-time position 9.72 85 28 1 36.589b 7 28 38 37 3 0.616 £ Out of 1163 total respondents Significant at .05 level Table 4.36 (cont'd.) Inclusion of Various Factors in Course of Career Variable of analysis Career Option Factors Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value Work in Michigan 260 178 20 146 3 11.262 Work in another state or U.S. Territory 269 145 36 234 3 74.289b Work in a foreign country 14 10 0 21 3 10.693b Work in a single­ person practice 207 137 30 143 3 8.506b Work with one other D.V.M. 247 127 19 107 3 21.809b Work with two other D.V.M.'s 163 72 16 56 3 25.8791 Work with three to five D.V.M.'s 145 64 11 81 3 7.779 89 37 10 187 3 236.5371 436 266 43 271 3 5.054 Work with more than five other D.V.M.'s Work in full-time position Table 4.36 (cont'd.) Inclusion of Various Factors in Course of Career Variable of analysis Career Option Factors Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice Other df Chi Square Value 23 9 1 23 3 7.792 Work in part-time position (50% or less) 18 10 4 19 3 3.599 Work in any part-time position 38 17 4 40 3 11.644b a Out of 1163 total respondents ^Significant at .05 level 114 Work in part-time position (50% or greater 115 between career option and only the workload variable of work in any part-time position. Summary for Objective I . The career option of the present primary professional position of respondents reported by the largest percentage (40.63%) was small animal practice. Most of the respondents reported a work location not in Michigan (54.39%), 65.52% reported working in multiple-person practices, 48.61% reported incomes in the range of $20.001-$40,000 and 95.11% reported employment in a full-time position. Null Hypothesis I regarding the relationship between sex and various factors related to the present primary professional position was rejected at the .05 level for career option, income, and workload, and not rejected for location and size of practice. Null Hypothesis II, related to the relationship between cohort membership and various factors concerning the present primary professional position was rejected at the .05 level of significance for career option, location, size of practice, and income, but not workload. Null Hypotheses IV and V regarding location and size of practice were rejected at the .05 level of significance for the variable of career option of present primary professional position, and Null Hypothesis VI regarding workload was not rejected for that same variable. The career option of the first primary professional position of respondents reported by the largest percentage of respondents (38.33%) was mixed animal practice. More respondents reported the location of their work was not in Michigan (51.34%) than in Michigan. Approximately 76% reported working in multiple-person practices and 96% reported working in a full-time position. Null Hypotheses I, II, and III regarding sex, cohort group, and career option of the present primary 116 professional position were rejected at the .05 level of significance for the variable of career option, location, and size of practice of first primary professional position. They were not rejected for the variable of workload of the first primary professional position. Null Hypotheses IV and V regarding location and size of practice were rejected for the variable of career option of first primary professional position, and Null Hypothesis VI regarding workload was not rejected for that same variable. The largest percentage of all primary professional positions was reported to be in areas other than small, mixed, or large animal practice (37.51%). Almost 59% of the positions were reported to have non-Michigan locations, 71% reported to be in multiple-person practices, and 95% reported to be full-time. Null Hypothesis I regarding sex was rejected at the .05 level of significance for the variable career option, size of practice, and workload of all primary professional posi­ tions. Null Hypotheses II and III regarding cohort group membership and career option of present primary professional position were rejected at the .05 level of significance for career option, location, and size of practice. Null Hypotheses IV and V were rejected at the ,05 level of significance for career option of all primary professional positions. Null Hypothesis VII was rejected for the variables of major career option (private practice versus other career options); the career options of small, mixed, and large animal practice and other career options; location; size of practice; and workload indicating a relationship between first and present positions on the variables. Null Hypothesis I was rejected for the variables of shifts in career option, specific shifts among types of private practice, and shifts within types of private 117 practice. Null Hypothesis II was rejected for the variables of shifts in career option, specific shifts among types of private practice, shifts within private practice versus shifts within other career options, and shifts within type of private practice. The predominant shifts from first to present primary professional position were from private practice to private practice.; more specifically, from small animal practice to small animal practice; from mixed animal practice to small animal practice for those respondents indicating a shift among types of private practice, from Non-Michigan locations to Michigan locations; from multiple-person practices to multiple-person practices; and from full-time positions to full-time positions. Null Hypothesis VIII, regarding positions held by respondents prior to a career shift and those same characteristics of the positions held after a career shift, was rejected for the variables of career option (private practice versus other career options); the career options of small, mixed, and large animal practice and other career options; loca­ tion; size of practice; and workload. Null Hypothesis I was rejected for the variables of shifts between career options versus shifts within career options, specific shifts among types of private practice, shifts within private practice versus shifts within other career options, and shifts within specific types of private practice. Null Hypothesis II was rejected for the variables of shifts between career options versus shifts within career options, shifts within private practice versus shifts within other career options, and shifts within specific types of private practice. Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected for the number of shifts in career divided by the number of years in the career. Null Hypothesis 1 regarding the variable sex was rejected for the career option of mixed practice (large), small animal practice, large animal practice, government, military, and retirement at the .05 level of significance. Null Hypothesis II regarding the cohort group variable was rejected at the .05 level of significance for the career option variables of mixed practice (large), mixed practice (small), small animal practice, education, government, industry, military, retirement, and other. Null Hypothesis III regarding career option was rejected at the .05 level of significance for all career option variables. Null Hypothesis I was rejected for the location variable of work in Michigan; for the size of practice variables of work in a single­ person practice and work in a practice with three to five other D.V.M.'s and the workload variables of work in a part-time position (50% or greater), work in a part-time position (less than 50%), and work in any part-time position. Null Hypothesis II was rejected for all three location variables, all five of the size of practice variables, and for the workload variable of work in a full-time position. Null Hypothesis III was rejected for all three location variables; for the size of practice variables of work in a single-person practice, work in a prac­ tice with one other D.V.M., work in a practice with two other D.V.M.'s, and work in a practice with more than five other D.V.M.'s, and for the workload of work in any part-time position. Objective II The variables of sex, cohort group, and career option of the present primary professional position were used as the basis of analysis for the variables of major interest in Objective II: residential setting during high school, indication of Michigan as the legal residence prior 119 to entering the M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine, ranking of factors influencing the decision to become a veterinarian, ranking of career objectives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued, pre-veterinary work, experience, and preceptorship work experience. Residential Setting During High School. As shown in Table A.37, 52.93% of the respondents indicated their residential setting during high school was in a rural area, and 47.06% indicated an urban or suburban area. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to determine if there was a relationship between the variable of residen­ tial setting and the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option, Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected at the .05 level of sig­ nificance. Michigan Residency. Approximately 68% of the respondents indicated that Michigan was their legal residence prior to entering the M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine, and 32% did not indicate Michigan as their legal residence as shown in Table 4.38. A significant relation­ ship was found to exist between Michigan residency and cohort group membership and career option of the present primary professional posi­ tion at the .05 level of significance. Thus Null Hypotheses II and III were rejected. Factors Influencing the Decision to Become a Veterinarian. As shown in Table 4.39, 82.89% of the respondents indicated "interested in medical field" as a factor which had at least some influence on the decision to become a veterinarian. Other factors which were listed by more than half of the respondents included love of animals (79.28%), desire to relieve animal suffering (67.58%), owned or worked with small animals (64.57%), desire for financial security (56.58%), owned or 120 Table 4.37 Residential Setting During High School Residential Setting Group Urban or Suburban Area Rural Area df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All respondents 47.06 52.94 Sex Male 467 580 74 32 Female 1 24.551a 3 47.986® 3 119.707a Cohort Group 1913-1938 24 33 1939-1952 92 195 1953-June, 1967 172 204 Dec., 1967-1976 237 165 Career Option Small Animal 294 147 Mixed Animal 77 200 Large Animal 10 33 116 152 Other Significant at .05 level 121 Table 4.38 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine Michigan as Legal Residence Group Reported Not Reported df Chi Square Value 1 0.034 3 39.948a 3 11.053a Percentage Distribution All Respondents 68.10 31.90 Sex Male 713 336 75 31 Female Cohort Group 1913-1938 42 15 1939-1952 157 135 1953-June, 1967 262 114 Dec., 1967-1976 305 97 Career Option Small Animal 308 134 Mixed Animal 208 69 Large Animal 27 16 168 101 Other aSignifleant at .05 level Table 4.39 Ranking of Factors Having at Least Some Influence on the Decision to Become a Veterinarian Variables of Analysis Sex Cohort Group Percentage distribution3 Male*5 Interested in medical field 82.89 856(1) Love of animals 79.28 Desire to relieve animal suffering Career Option Early Graduates Late Graduates Private Practice 102(2) 562(1) 372(1) 650(1) 213(1) 813(2) 104(1) 557(2) 335(2) 630(2) 199(2) 67.58 683(3) 98(3) 469(3) 292(4) 537(4) 171(3) Owned or worked with small animals 64.57 651(4) 96(4) 425(5) 301(3) 545(3) 142(8) Desire for financial security 56.58 610(5) 45(8) 368(8) 267(5) 451(5) 143(7) Owned or worked with large animals 55.29 581(6.5) 59(5) 438(4) 185(7) 418(7) 151(5) Factors 3 Out of 1163 total respondents ^Number in parenthesis indicates rank Female Other Table 4.39 (cont'd.) Variables of Analysis Sex Factors Percentage distribution3 Male^ Cohort Group Female Career Option Early Graduates Late Graduates Private Practice Other Acquainted with a veterinarian 55.20 581(6.5) 58(6.5) 400(7) 225(6) 423(6) 149(6) Worked and/or lived on a farm 52.11 563(8) 40(9) 424(6) 163(9) 385(8) 152(4) Worked with a veterinarian 36.52 366(9) 58(6.5) 228(9) 184(8) 298(9) 84(9) Veterinarian in family 10.15 115(10) 4(11) 89(10) 26(11) 63(11) 40(10) 8.86 93(11) 10(10) 52(11) 48(10) 74(10) 22(11) Other Kendall's Tau value a Out of 1163 total respondents ^Number in parenthesis indicates rank .778 •673 .564 124 worked with large animals (55,29%), acquainted with a veterinarian (55.20%), and worked and/or lived on a farm (52.11%). In order to have a measure of the degree of association or correlation between the ranking of 11 factors possibly having at least some influence on the decision to become a veterinarian by male and female respondents, a Kendall rank correlation coefficient, Kendall's Tau, was computed. The same computa­ tion was made for comparing the ranking of the various factors made by early graduates versus late graduates and by respondents in private practice versus other career options in their present primary profes­ sional positions. The computed Kendall's Tau values were .778 for the variable sex, .673 for cohort group, and .564 for career option. Career Objectives Influencing the Type of Veterinary Work Pursued. The career objectives which were reported by respondents as influencing the type of veterinary work they pursued are shown in Table 4.40. The objective of using a variety of medical skills was indicated by 71.45% of the respondents as influencing their career decision. Other career objectives which were reported by more than half of the respondents included being own boss (68.10%), fulfilling desire to help people and animals (68.47%), desiring financial security (59.42%), and finding intellectual stimulation (58.64%). A Kendall rank correlation coefficient was computed for the variables sex, cohort group, and career option for the ranking of the thirteen career objectives. The computed Kendall's Tau value was. 487 for sex, .769 for cohort group, and .410 for career option. The ranking of the influence of the career objectives was compared with the ranking of the perceived satisfaction of these career objectives for respondents whose present primary professional position was reported Table 4.40 Ranking of Career Objectives Influencing the Type of Veterinary Work Pursued Sex Career Objectives Percentage distribution Cohort Group Maleb Female Career Option Early Graduates Late Graduates Private Practice Other Using a variety of medical skills 71.45 742(1) 83(2) 487(2) 320(1) 591(2) 158(2) Being own boss 68.10 740(2) 48(5) 495(1) 274(3) 593(1) 102(8) Fulfilling desire to help people and animals 66.47 679(3) 87(1) 472(3) 280(2) 545(3) 141(4) 59.42 649(4) 39(8) 411(4) 255(5) 470(4) 146(3) Finding intellectual stimulation 58.64 601(5) 75(3) 389(5) 271(4) 439(5) 169(1) Working in a rural setting 42.82 473(6) 25(11) 320(6) 166(7) 346(6) 90(10) Associating with colleagues 38.61 397(8) 52(4) 253(9) 179(6) 292(8) Desiring financial security a0ut of 1163 total respondents ^Number in parenthesis indicates rank 111(6) Table 4.40 (cont'd.) Cohort Group Sex Career Option Early Graduates Late Graduates Private Practice Other Career Objectives Percentage distributiona Setting own hours 37.40 399(7) 33(10) 255(7) 165(8) 328(7) 56(11) Using other skills in a medical setting 32.42 327(10) 46(7) 222(10) 145(10) 245(9) 96(9) Investigating the unknown 32.33 335(9) 36(9) 254(8) 112(11) 208(11) 123(5) Finding employment opportunities 30.44 305(11) 47(6) 183(11) 156(9) 217(10) 107(7) Working in an urban setting 9.97 106(12) 9(12) 76(12) 39(12) 81(12) 18(12) Other 5.76 59(13) 8(13) 36(13) 28(13) 44(13) 16(13) Kendall's Tau value a Out of 1163 total respondents ^Number in parenthesis indicates rank Maleb .487 Female .769 .410 127 to be in private practice, industry, government, education, and military. These ranks are shown in Table 4.41. There was a higher calculated Kendall's Tau value for respondents in private practice (.758) and education (.744) than for government (.473), military (.407) or industry (.346). Preveterinary Work Experience. The variables which were used in analyzing the preveterinary work experience included the type of experience, the setting of the experience, the practice type of the experience, and whether or not such experience was reported as well as sex, cohort group, and career option of the present primary professional position. The responses of graduates indicating the type of experience in their preveterinary work were aggregated into four options: cared for large animals, cared for small animals, worked with a veterinarian, and other. The largest percentage of respondents (48.65%) indicated other types of experiences such as having lived on a farm, having a D.V.M. as a family relative, or laboratory work. Only 9.17% reported having cared for large animals, while over twice that percentage (19.15%) indicated having cared for small animals. Almost one-fourth of the respondents (23.03%) reported having worked with a veterinarian in a preveterinary work experience. When applying a Chi Square Test of Independence for sex, cohort group, and career option, Null Hypotheses I, II and III were rejected at the .05 level of significance. The responses of graduates indicating the setting of their pre­ veterinary work experience, shown in Table 4.43, were aggregated into three options: home or farm, private practice, and other. Over half of the Table 4.41 Ranking of Career Objectives Influencing Type of Veterinary Work Pursued and Ranking of Career Objectives Perceived Satisfiable in Various Career Settings by Respondents Working in Those Settings Private Practice Hflropr ntiiftrfi'vp Influencing3 Satisfiable Industry Government Influencing Satisfiable Influencing Satisfiable 21(5) 62(2) 40(7) 43(8) 13(11) Using a variety of medical skills 590(2) 546(3) 28(1) Being own boss 592(1) 637(1) 12(12) Fulfilling desire to help people and animals 544(3) 554(2) 26(2.5) 19(7) 58(3) 51(4) Desiring financial security 470(4) 493(5) 23(5) 21(5) 76(1) 69(1) Finding intellectual stimulation 438(5) 415(7) 26(2.5) 26(1) 55(4) 50(5) Working in a rural setting 343(6) 484(6) 12(9.5) 49(5.5) 31(8) Associating with colleagues 292(8) 393(9) 15(7) 39(9) 53(3) Setting own hours 328(7) 506(4) 24(11) 11(12) Using other skills in a medical setting 244(9) 370(10) 14(8) 21(5) 45(7) 43(6) Investigating the unknown 208(11) 270(12) 25(4) 18(8) 37(10) 25(10) Finding employment opportunities 217(10) 407(8) 16(6) 22(3) 49(5.5) 56(2) Working in an urban setting 81(12) 17(9) 9(12) 27(9) Kendall's Tau Value dumber in parenthesis indicates rank 363(11) •758 1(12) 6(10) 24(2) 3(11) 5(11) 1(12) .346 •473 Table 4.41 (cont'd.) Education Career Objective Influencing Using a variety of medical skills 47(3.5) Being own boss 24(9) Fulfilling desire to help people and animals 38(5) Desiring financial security Military Satisfiable 43(5.5) Influencing Satisfiable 8(1) 3(4.5) 3(7.5) 2(7) 48(4) 6(2.5) 4(2.5) 25(8) 31(8) 5(4) 6(1) Finding intellectual stimulation 65(1) 61(1) 6(2.5) 1(10) Working in a rural setting 19(10) 2(10) 0(12) Associating with colleagues 47(3.5) 59(2) 3(7.5) 4(2.5) Setting own hours 16(11) 14(10) 2(10) 2(7) Using other skills in a medical setting 29(7) 43(5.5) 4(5.5) 3(4.5) Investigating the unknown 49(2) 49(3) 4(5.5) 1(10) Finding employment opportunities 32(6) 39(7) 2(10) 1(10) 24(9) 1(12) 2(7) Working in an urban setting Kendall's Tau Value 5(11.5) 5(11.5) 5(12) .744 .407 130 Table 4.42 Type of Experience in Preveterinary Work Type of Experience Group Cared for Large Animals Cared for Small Animals Worked With a Veterinarian Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 9.17 19.15 23.03 48.65 Sex Male Female 75 131 163 378 2 31 33 35 3 23,619a 9 81 .'760s 9 27.329a Cohort Group 19]3-1938 8 0 0 23 1939-1952 16 15 26 125 1953-June, 1967 25 54 67 132 Dec., 1967-1976 29 90 93 124 Career Option Small Animal 28 98 73 144 Mixed Animal 21 29 58 91 Large Animal 5 5 9 21 18 25 37 93 Other Significant at .05 level 131 Table 4.43 Setting of Preveterinary Work Experience Setting Home or Farm Group Private Practice Other Chi Square Value df Percentage Distribution All Respondents 51.70 23.34 22.96 Sex Male Female 171 349 155 6 70 20 2 2 0 .462a 6 44.148a Cohort Group 1913-1938 14 4 9 1939-1952 43 62 30 1953-June, 1967 70 132 55 Dec., 1967-1976 46 208 76 Career Option Small Animal 52 193 80 Mixed Animal 43 103 36 Large Animal 11 20 5 Other 39 76 39 Significant at .05 level 6 12.190 132 respondents (51.70%) indicated the setting of their preveterinary work experience had been in private practice, and 25.34% indicated home or farm and 22.96% indicated other settings. Null Hypotheses I and II were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship between the setting of preveterinary work experience and the variables sex and cohort group. The types of setting reported for different types of preveterinary work experience are shown in Table 4.44. The setting for having cared for large animals tended to be at home or on a farm, and the setting for having cared for small animals or having worked with a veterinarian tended to be in a private practice; however, the setting for other types of preveterinary work experience were fairly well divided among the three settings of home or farm, private practice, and other. Null Hypothesis IX was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship between the type of setting and the type of experience reported for preveterinary work experience. Respondents were asked to indicate if their preveterinary work experience was in a small animal practice, mixed animal practice, or large animal practice. The largest percentage (43.06%), as shown in Table 4.45, was in small animal practice. This was followed by large animal practice (35.90%) then mixed animal practice (21.06%). Null Hypotheses I, II, and 111 were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a signifi­ cant relationship between practice type of preveterinary work experience and the variable sex, cohort group, and career option. Respondents were also given the opportunity to indicate that they did not have a preveterinary work experience, as reported in Table 4.46. Approximately 42% of the respondents reported not having a preveterinary Table 4.44 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preveterinary Work Experience Type of Experience Setting Cared for Large Animals Cared for Small Animals Worked With a Veterinarian Other df Chi Square Value 6 388.986a Percentage Distribution 7.80 0.39 0.26 14.69 Private Practice 0.00 17.43 21.72 15.34 Other 1.04 2.34 2.73 16.25 133 Home or farm Frequency Distribution 60 3 2 113 Private practice 0 134 167 118 Other 8 18 21 125 Home or farm Significant at .OS level 134 Table 4.45 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience Practice Type Group Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 43.06 21.06 35.90 Sex Male Female 175 105 178 58 9 18 2 26.484a 6 50.335a 6 46.489a Cohort Group 5 1 6 1939-1952 17 30 44 1953-June, 1967 58 43 71 Dec., 1967-1976 145 39 71 1913-38 Career Option Small Animal 144 43 59 Mixed Animal 34 27 64 Large Animal 6 10 11 39 19 40 Other aSignificant at .05 level 135 Table 4.46 No Preveterinary Work Experience Reported No Preveterinary Work Experience Group Reported Not Reported df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 41.53 58.47 Sex Male Female 451 598 29 77 1 9.687a 3 17.214a 3 5.117 Cohort Group 1913-1938 29 28 1939-1952 141 151 1953-June, 1967 163 213 Dec., 1967-1976 137 165 Career Option Small Animal 178 264 Mixed Animal 121 156 Large Animal 12 31 120 149 Other Significant at .05 level 136 work experience. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied, Null Hypotheses 1 and II were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship betwwen not having preveterinary work experiences and the variables sex and cohort group. Preceptorship. The variables which were used in analyzing the preceptorship reported by respondents included the type of experience, type of setting, the type of practice, and whether or not the respondent had a preceptorship experience. The responses of graduates indicating the type of experience in their preceptorship were aggregated into three options: professional responsibilities, caretaking and maintenance responsibilities, and other experiences. The percentage of respondents reporting each of these three options was 31.47%, 9.05%, and 59.48%, respectively. These data, shown in Table 4.47, were analyzed by sex, cohort group, and career option to determine if there was a relationship. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence, Null Hypotheses I, II, and III were rejected at the .05 level of significance. The responses of graduates indicating the setting of their precep­ torship were aggregated into two options: private practice and other. As shown in Table 4.48, 63.80% of the respondents indicated private practice as the setting, and 36.20% indicated other settings. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to determine if there was a relationship between the setting of the preceptorship and the variables sex, cohort group, and career option, Null Hypotheses II and III were rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship with cohort group and career option. The type of practice of the preceptorship reported by respondents 137 Table 4.47 Type of Experience in Preceptorship Type of Experience Group Caretaking Professional and Maintenance Responsibilities Responsibilities Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 31.47 9.05 59.48 Sex Male Female 219 61 442 34 12 35 2 10.366a 6 31.878* 6 25.795a Cohort Group 1913-1938 4 1 18 1939-1952 41 9 131 1953-June, 1967 110 37 214 Dec., 1967-1976 92 23 101 Career Option Small Animal 88 42 171 Mixed Animal 77 11 113 Large Animal 14 0 16 Other 48 12 127 £| Significant at .05 level 138 Table 4.48 Setting of Preceptorship Setting Group Private Practice Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution All Respondents 63.80 36.20 Sex Male Female 444 251 50 30 1 0.059 3 11.706® 3 10.196® Cohort Group 1913-1938 14 9 1939-1952 117 53 1953-June, 1967 236 119 Dec., 1967-1976 111 95 Career Option Small Animal 173 119 Mixed Animal 142 54 Large Animal 18 12 107 72 Other aSignifleant at .05 level 139 is shown in Table 4.49. of the respondents. Mixed animal practice was indicated by 46,90% Small and large animal practices were reported by 32.03% and 21.07%, respectively. A significant relationship was found to exist between type of practice of the preceptorship experience and cohort group membership and career option. Thus Null Hypotheses II and III were rejected at the .03 level of significance. Approximately 43% of the respondents indicated that they did not have a preceptorship experience in their professional training as shown in Table 4.50. When testing for a relationship between this factor and the variables of sex, cohort group, and career option a significant difference was found only for cohort group membership. Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the .05 level of significance. Summary for Objective II. Null Hypothesis I was rejected at the .05 level of significance for residential setting during high school, type of experience in preveterinary work, setting of preveterinary work experience, practice type of preveterinary work experience, no prevet­ erinary work experience reported, and type of experience in preceptorship indicating a significant relationship between these factors and the sex of the respondents. Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the .05 level of significance for residential setting during high school, indication of Michigan as legal residence prior to entering M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine, type of experience in preveterinary work, setting of prevet­ erinary work experience, practice type of preveterinary work experience, no preveterinary work experience reported, type of experience in pre­ ceptorship, setting of preceptorship, practice type of preceptorship, and no preceptorship reported, indicating a significant relationship between the variable of cohort group membership and all variables in Objective II 140 Table 4.49 Practice Type of Preceptorship Practice Type Group Small Animal Practice Mixed Animal Practice Large Animal Practice df Chi Square Value 2 5.088 6 27.036® 6 64.541a Percentage Distribution All Respondents 32.03 46.90 21.07 Sex Male Female 189 133 297 31 13 27 Cohort Group 1913-1938 1 3 10 1939-1952 30 48 78 1953-June, 1967 114 49 146 Dec., 1967-1976 66 40 83 Career Option Small Animal 121 89 48 Mixed Animal 26 114 41 Large Animal 1 17 10 50 65 37 Other aSignifleant at .05 level 141 Table 4.50 No Preceptorship Reported No Preceptorship Group Reported Not Reported df Chi Square Value 1 0.817 3 53.647a 3 5.118 Percentage Distribution 43.08 All Respondents 56.92 Sex Male 447 602 50 56 Female Cohort Group 1913-1938 28 29 1939-1952 136 156 1953-June, 1967 107 269 Dec., 1967-1976 216 186 Career Option Small Animal 209 233 Mixed Animal 108 169 Large Animal 19 24 113 156 Other Significant at .05 level 142 for which Null Hypothesis II was tested. Null Hypothesis III was rejected at the .05 level of significance for residential setting during high school, indication of Michigan as legal residence prior to entering M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine, type of experience in preveterinary work, practice type of preveterinary work experience, type of experience in preceptorship indicating a significant relationship between these factors and the variable career option of the present primary profes­ sional position. Null Hypothesis IX was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating a significant relationship between the type of setting and the type of experience for preveterinary work experience. In addressing Research Question I, relationships as indicated by computed Kendall's Tau Values of .778, .673, and .564 were found to exist for the ranking of factors having at least some influence on the decision to become a veterinarian for the variables of sex, cohort group, and present career option, respectively. In addressing Research Question II, relationships as indicated by computed Kendall's Tau Values of .487 for sex, .769 for cohort group, and .410 for present career option were found to exist for the ranking of career objectives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued. And, in addressing Research Question III, relationships as indicated by computed Kendall's Tau Value of .758, .346, .473, .744, and .407 were found to exist for the ranking of career objec­ tives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued and the ranking of career objectives perceived as satisfiable for the career settings of private practice, industry, government, education, and military, respectively. 143 Objective III The variable of cohort group membership aggregated by program length was used in analyzing the recommended optimal length of prevet­ erinary and veterinary programs. Also reported in this section related to Objective III are the advantages, disadvantages, and other comments offered by respondents regarding the three—year and four—year programs. Recommended Program Lengths. As shown in Table 4.51, 46.80 of the respondents recommended two years as the optimal length for preveterinary programs, 31,38% recommended three years, and 18.49% recommended more than three years. Only 3.33% recommended less than two years for preveterinary programs. When a Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to determine if there was a relationship between the recommended length of preveterinary programs and the veterinary program length of respondents, Null Hypothesis 11 was rejected at the .05 level of signi­ ficance. Also shown in Table 4.51, 86.94% of the respondents recommended four years as the optimal length for veterinary professional programs while 13,06% recommended three years. A significant relationship was found to exist between the recommended length of veterinary professional programs and the actual length of the respondents' professional programs. Thus Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the .05 level of significance. Advantages, Disadvantages, and Other Comments. Advantages, disadvantages, and other comments about the three year curriculum are listed in Table 4.52. The advantage of the three year curriculum listed by the greatest percentage (32.42%) of the respondents was the less amount of time involved than with the four year curriculum. Two disadvantages were listed by approximately one-fourth of the respondents. Approximately 144 Table 4.51 Recommended Length of Preveterinary and Veterinary Programs by Program Length of Respondents Program Length of Respondents Recommended Length Percentage Distribution Three Years Four Years df Chi Square Value Preveterinary Programs Less than two years 3.33 2 25 Two years 46.80 97 350 Three years 31.38 169 141 More than three years 18.49 104 80 3 123.224b Veterinary Programs Three years 13.06 99 26 Four years 86.94 254 521 1 97.312b g The percentage distribution was calculated for all respondents for these questions (1141 for preveterinary and 1130 for veterinary). ^Significant at .05 level 145 Table 4.52 Comments about the Three-Year Curriculum Comments Frequency Percentage Advantages of Three-Year Curriculum Less time involved 377 32.42 Lower cos t 215 18.49 Graduate more D.V.M.'s 106 9.11 More continuity in program 98 8.43 Better use of facilities and resources 92 7.91 128 11.01 85 7.31 Other comments No advantages Disadvantages of Three-Year Curriculum Too much stress, no breaks 301 25.88 Too little time for practical application 267 22.96 Too little time to absorb and synthesize material 216 18.57 Too little time for work 168 14.45 Too little time, in general 129 11.09 Too little time for maturity 118 10.15 Limits offerings 72 6.19 Too little time to explore options 56 4.82 148 12.73 11 .95 Comments of concern about three-year curriculum 79 6.79 Comments in support of three-year curriculum 42 3.61 Other comments 87 7.48 Other commentb No disadvantages Other Comments £ Out of 1163 total respondents g 146 26% indicated the three year curriculum generated too much stress compounded by the lack of summer break, and 22.96% indicated that there was too little time for practical application of the academic material. In examining the other comments offered by respondents, 6.79% raised questions or concerns about the three year curriculum while only 3.61% offered comments in support of the three year curriculum. Advantages, disadvantages, and other comments about the four year curriculum are reported in Table 4.53. The largest percentage (24.68%) of the respondents indicated that one advantage of the four year cur­ riculum was the added time for practical application of the academic material. The disadvantages of the greater expense of a four year cur­ riculum and the increased time spent in the program were mentioned by 16,60% and 16.25% of the respondents, respectively. Other comments in support of the four year curriculum were offered by 7,57% of the respon­ dents while only 1.20% made comments of concern about the four year curriculum. Summary for Objective III. Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the .05 level of significance for recommended length of preveterinary programs and recommended length of veterinary programs, indicating a relationship between these variables and the variable of cohort group membership as aggregated into program length of respondents. The major advantage of three-year curriculum is the less time involved, and the major disadvan­ tages were the added stress and lack of time for practical application of the academic material. The major advantage of the four-year curricu­ lum was the added time for practical application of the academic material, and the major disadvantages were the greater expense and the greater time spent. 147 Table 4.53 Comments about the Four-Year Curriculum Frequency Comments Percentage3 Advantages of Four-Year Curriculum More time for practical application 287 24.68 More time to absorb and synthesize material 178 15.31 More time for work 166 14.27 Less stress, more breaks 166 14.27 More time to explore options 111 9.54 More time for maturity 104 8.94 Permits broader program offerings 96 8.25 More time, in general 88 7.57 144 12.38 11 .95 Other comments No advantages Disadvantages of Four-Year Curriculum Greater expense 193 16.60 More time spent 189 16.25 Less efficient use of facilities and resources 41 3.53 Less continuity in program 36 3.10 Graduate fewer 24 2.06 Other comments 111 9.54 72 6.19 Comments in support of four-year curriculum 88 7.57 Comments of concern about four-year curriculum 14 1.20 105 9.03 No disadvantages Other Comments Other comments g Out of 1163 respondents 148 Objective IV The variable of cohort group membership as aggregated by program length and the variable of career option of the present primary profes­ sional position were used to analyze the variables related to Objective IV, which include the recommended emphasis on the various curricular areas, the reporting of over 10% of work in various organ systems, the rating of preparation in various work related areas, and additional assessments of the preceptorship experience. Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas. Respondents were asked to recommend the optimal emphasis to place on thirty-three curricular areas. Over one-half of the respondents indicated more training was needed in five of these areas: economics and business management (68.36%), per­ sonnel management (64.14%), animal behavior (58.13%), clinical pathology (53.91%), and nutrition for small animals (52.11%). in Table 4.54. These data are shown Null Hypothesis II and Null Hypothesis III were tested for each of the curricular areas as shown in Tables 4.55 and 4.56. Null Hypothesis II was rejected at the .05 level of significance for the following curricular areas: anatomy (applied), microbiology (virology, bacteriology, and mycology), poultry diseases, parisitology, clinical pathology, physiology, pharmacology, toxicology, public health, epidemiol­ ogy, small animal surgery, food animal medicine, large animal surgery, large animal clinics, obstetrics and reproduction (small animal), obstet­ rics and reproduction (large animal), nutrition (large animal), radiology, animal behavior, ethics and jurisprudence, economics and business manage­ ment, and personnel management. Null Hypothesis III was tested with the variable of career option being aggregated by various specific career options related to the course work under consideration versus all other 149 Table 4.54 Recommended Additional Emphasis on Curricular Areas Curricular area Frequency Percentage Economics and business management 795 68.36 Personnel management 746 64.14 Animal behavior 676 58.13 Clinical pathology 627 53.91 Nutrition (small) 606 52.11 Obstetrics and reproduction (small) 562 48.32 Toxicology 560 48.15 Small animal surgery 530 45.57 Anatomy (applied) 529 45.49 Aquatic and exotic animal diseases 501 43.08 Radiology 499 42.91 Small animal medicine 494 42.48 Laboratory animal medicine 491 42.22 Applied pathology 480 41.27 Small animal clinic 476 40.93 Large animal surgery 456 39.21 Large animal clinic 411 35.34 Nutrition (large) 400 34.39 150 Table 4.54 (cont1d) Curricular area Frequency Percentage Equine medicine 390 33.53 Anatomy (neuroanatomy) 383 32.93 Food animal medicine 370 31.81 Pharmacology 357 30.70 Obstetrics and reproduction (large) 342 29.41 Ethics and jurisprudence 300 25.80 Epidemiology 285 24.51 Pathology (basic and systemic) 265 22.79 Physiology 253 21.75 Public health 238 20.46 Microbiology 202 17.37 Poultry disease 139 11.95 Parasitology 138 11.87 Anatomy (gross and histology) 89 7.65 Other 75 6.45 151 Table 4.55 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Program Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 2.620 2 1.044 2 8.075a 2 10.291a 2 12.739a Anatomy (Gross and Histology) Three-year 29 303 35 Four-year 35 457 70 Anatomy (Neuroanatomy) Three-year 127 195 36 Four-year 184 314 47 Anatomy (Applied) Three-year 188 176 3 Four-year 248 292 17 Microbiology (Virology , Bacteriology, and Mycology) Three-year Four-year 62 237 62 108 398 56 Poultry Diseases Three-year 43 179 123 Four-year 79 325 131 Significant at .05 level 152 Table 4.55 (cont'd) Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 10.175® 2 1.017 2 15.938a 2 3.170 2 10.849a 2 17.438a Parasitology Three-year 28 291 48 Four-year 82 417 66 Pathology (Basic and Systemic) Three-year Four-year 79 269 17 137 402 23 Clinical Pathology Three-year 180 185 2 Four-year 348 212 7 Applied Pathology Three-year 146 212 9 Four-year 256 294 11 Physiology Three-year 86 238 39 Four-year 134 396 28 Pharmacology Three-year 144 187 32 Four-year 178 360 24 Significant at .05 level 153 Table A.55 (cont'd) Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount ' of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 35.648a 2 14.9548 2 36.723a 2 3.217 2 13.993a 2 3.001 Toxicology Three-year 148 195 21 Four-year. 333 215 11 Public Health Three-year Four-year 54 235 62 135 331 65 Epidemiology Three-year Four-year 53 240 52 175 303 48 Small Animal Clinics Three-year 164 193 8 Four-year 233 310 23 Small Animal Surgery Three-year 145 212 9 Four-year 289 257 20 Small Animal Medicine Three-year 172 186 7 Four-year 238 306 18 aSlgnifleant at .05 level 154 Table 4.55 (cont'd) Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 1.377 2 38.832 2 14.138 2 20.878a 2 1.294 2 59.701 Equine Medicine Three-year 137 139 65 Four-year 208 235 88 Food Animal Medicine Three-year 153 117 66 Four-year 170 293 58 Large Animal Surgery Three-year 149 128 64 Four-year 223 253 58 Large Animal Clinics Three-year 153 132 60 Four-year 188 287 60 Laboratory Animal Medicine Three-year 168 116 48 Four-year 241 139 67 Obstetrics and Reproduction (Small Animal) Three-year 246 111 5 Four-year 231 301 19 Significant at .05 level 155 Table 4.55 (cont'd) Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 23.005a 2 8.151a 2 5.540 2 46.984s 2 7.839 2 1.619 Obstetrics and Reproduction (Large Animal) Three-year 131 152 59 Four-year 158 321 53 Nutrition (Small Animal) Three-year 186 153 23 Four-year 325 187 23 Nutrition (Large Animal) Three-year 127 155 62 Four-year 207 251 64 Radiology Three-year 106 253 6 Four-year 283 262 19 Animal Behavior Three-year 253 78 9 Four-year 323 156 15 Aquatic and Exotic Animal Diseases Three-year 181 94 25 Four-year 252 118 45 Significant at .05 level 156 Table 4.55 (cont'd) Length of Respondents Recommended Emphasis Program Length More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 26.278a 2 57.299® 2 21.101a Ethics and Jurisprudence Three-year Four-year 71 245 36 176 332 22 Economics and Business Management Three-year 209 126 17 Four-year 453 87 11 Personnel Management Three-year 226 96 17 Four-year 409 91 10 aSignifleant at .05 level 157 Table 4.56 Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Respondents Working In That Area Versus Others Recommended Emphasis Area of Work More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 11.5103 2 1.779 2 1.042 2 3.590 2 0.000 2 0.967 Anatomy (Gross and Histology) Anatomy Other 1 0 0 88 872 131 Anatomy (Neuroanatomy) Anatomy Other 1 0 0 382 581 97 Anatomy (Applied) Anatomy Other 1 0 0 528 531 25 Microbiology (Virology, Bacteriology, Mycology) Microbiology Other 0 8 0 202 744 133 Poultry Diseases Poultry Practice Other 0 0 0 139 590 304 Parasitology Parasitology 0 Other 138 a Significant at .05 level 3 0 826 129 158 Table 4.56 (cont'd) Recommended Emphasis Area of Work More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value Pathology (Basic and Systemic) Pathology Other 2 12 1 263 763 48 2 1.089 2 4.710 2 0.353 2 1.633 2 1.830 2 18.657a Clinical Pathology Clinical Pathology Other 6 1 0 621 459 10 Physiology Physiology Other 1 2 0 252 752 78 Pharmacology Pharmacology Other 2 1 0 355 662 68 Toxicology Toxicology Other 6 2 0 554 480 39 Public Health Veterinary Public Health Other 9 3 0 229 642 148 Si g n i f i c a n t at .05 level Table 4.56 (cont'd) Recommended Area of Work More Training Needed Emphasis Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value 2 72.756a 2 22.5183 2 65.896a 2 22.027a 2 5.345 Small Animal Clinics Small Animal Practice 253 174 4 Other 223 405 35 Small Animal Surgery Small Animal Practice 241 188 4 Other 289 347 29 Small Animal Medicine Small Animal Practice 258 170 3 Other 236 397 27 Equine Medicine Equine Practice Other 17 2 0 373 448 189 Food Animal Medicine Large Animal Practice Other 11 8 0 359 488 144 aSignifleant at .05 level 160 Table 4.56 (cont'd) Recommended Emphasis Area of Work More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value Large Animal Surgery Large Animal Practice Other 13 6 0 443 427 145 2 5.796 2 5.186 2 9.840a 2 56.122a 2 23.005a Large Animal Clinics Large Animal Practice Other 12 8 0 399 475 145 Laboratory Animal Medicine Lab Animal Medicine Other 14 1 0 477 291 137 Obstetrics and Reproduction (Small Animal) Small Animal Practice 283 145 3 Other 279 333 29 Obstetrics and Reproduction (Large Animal) Large Animal Practice Other 14 6 0 328 553 132 aSigriifleant at .05 level 161 Table 4.56 (cont’d) Recommended Emphasis Area of Work More Training Needed Right Amount of Training Received Less Training Needed df Chi Square Value Nutrition (Small Animal) Nutrition 0 1 0 606 396 53 2 Other 1.633 Nutrition (Large Animal) Nutrition Other 0 1 0 400 474 148 2 1.165 2 1.175 Radiology Radiology Other 1 0 0 498 563 23 162 career options. Null Hypothesis III was rejected at the .05 level of significance for the following curricular areas': anatomy (gross and histology), public health, small animal clinics, small animal surgery, small animal medicine, equine medicine, laboratory animal medicine, obstet­ rics and reproduction (small animal) and obstetrics and reproduction (large animal). Work in Organ Systems. As shown in Table 4.57 the largest number of respondents, who indicated over 10% of their work was in a particular organ system, reported work in the digestive system (46.60%). This was followed by the integumentary system (32.50%), the reproductive system (25.19%), and the respiratory system (23.13%), while 18.06% of the respondents indicated that over 10% of their work was not in organ systems. Table 4.57 Over Ten Percent of Work Reported in Organ Systems Organ System Frequency Percentage8 Digestive system 542 46.60 Integumentary system 378 32.50 Reproductive system 293 25.19 Respiratory system 269 23.13 Musculoskeletal system 192 16.51 Urinary system 156 13.41 Cardiovascular system 58 4.99 Hematopoietic system 48 4.13 Nervous system 22 1.89 Endocrine system 17 1.46 210 18.06 Other work not in systems Out of 1163 total respondents 163 Preparation in Various Work Related Areas. Respondents were asked to rate their preparation in various work related areas as to whether they were prepared extremely well, adequately, poorly, or not at all. As shown in Table 4.58, 88.82% of the respondents indicated they were prepared adequately or better in the area of physical examinations. Other areas in which over one-half of the respondents rated their preparation as adequate or better included diagnostic skills (81.77%), history taking (78.76%), therapeutics (76.78%), surgical skills (69.73%), patient man­ agement (67.93%), and problem solving skills (60.79%). Three areas were rated as adequate or better by less than one-half of the respondents: emergency care (48.15%), client communications (36.20%), and business management (15.13%). When a Kendall's Tau Value was computed for the rankings of the preparation ratings for three-year versus four-year graduates and private practice versus other career options respondents, values of ,719 and .899, respectively, were discovered. Preceptorship Experience. As shown in Table 4.59, 7.81% indicated that the preceptorship experience was the most valuable part of their professional training, 41.53% indicated it was one of the more valuable parts of training, 37.04% indicated it was a valuable part of their training, 11.46% indicated that it was less valuable than other parts of their training, and 2.16% indicated that it was of no value in their pro­ fessional training. A Chi Square Test of Independence was applied to determine if there was a relationship between the rating of the preceptorship and cohort group membership as aggregated by program length and career option as aggregated by private practice versus other. Null Hypothesis II was not rejected, and Null Hypothesis III was rejected at the .05 level of 164 Table 4.58 Ranking of Preparation In Various Areas Rated as Adequate or Better Program Length Areas Percentage distribution3 Three Yearb Four Year Career Option Private Practice Other Physical examination 88.82 359(1) 530(1) 689(1) 231(1) Diagnostic skills 81.77 331(3) 489(3) 643(2) 204(2.5) History taking 78.76 337(2) 452(4) 617(3) 198(4) Therapeutics 76.78 259(7) 500(2) 578(4) 204(2.5) Surgical skills 69.73 323(4) 401(5.5) 567(5) 157(6) Patient management 67.93 287(5) 401(5.5) 528(6) 179(5) Problem solving skills 60.79 264(6) 351(7) 488(7) 145(7) Emergency care 48.15 236(8) 261(8) 378(8) 121(8) Client communication 36.20 172(9) 199(9) 265(9) 105(9) Business management 15.13 111(10) 51(10) 125(10) Kendall's Tau Value aOut of 1163 total respondents k Number In parenthesis Indicates rank .719 36(10) .899 Table 4.59 Rating of Preceptorship Rating Group The Most Valuable Part of Training One of the More Valuable Parts of Training A Valuable Part of Training Less Valuable Than Other Parts of Training Of no Value in Training df Chi Square Value 4 9.168 4 17.6343 4 13.955a Percentage Distribution All respondents 7.81 41.53 37.04 11.46 2.16 Program Length 18 70 43 15 3 Four-year 24 157 153 42 8 165 Three-year Career Option Private Practice Other 34 180 121 43 8 7 47 73 18 4 87 33 2 Type of Experience Professional responsibilities Caretaking and maintenance responsibilities Significant at .05 level 21 4 95 23 22 16 5 166 significance indicating a significant relationship only with rating of preceptorship and career option, A significant relationship was also found to exist, however, between the rating of the preceptorship and the type of experience as aggregated into professional responsibilities versus caretaking and maintenance responsibilities. Null Hypothesis X was rejected at the .05 level of significance. The data on the type of experience in the preceptorship of respond­ ents and the setting of that experience is shown in Table 4.60. In applying a Chi Square Test of Independence to these two variables to determine if there was a significant relationship, Null Hypothesis XI was rejected at the .05 level of significance indicating the existence of such a relationship. Table 4,60 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preceptorship Work Experience Type of Experience Setting Professional Responsibilities Caretaking and Maintenance Responsibilities Other df Chi Square Value Percentage Distribution Private practice 16.23 6.20 39.16 Other 15.24 2.85 20.32 Frequency Distribution Private practice 131 50 316 Other 123 23 164 g Significant at .05 level 2 15.894* 167 Summary of Objective IV. Null Hypothesis II related to the variable of cohort group membership as aggregated by program length was rejected at the .05 level of significance for 22 of the 33 curricular areas rated for their optimal emphasis in the veterinary professional program. Null Hypothesis III regarding the career option variable of analysis was rejected at the .05 level of significance for nine of the curricular areas rated for their optimal emphasis in the veterinary professional program, and for the rating of the preceptorship experience. Null Hypothesis X regarding the relationship between the type of experience in the preceptorship and the rating of that experience was rejected at the .05 level, and Null Hypothesis XI regarding the relationship between type of setting and type of experience in the preceptorship experience was rejected at the .05 level of significance. In addressing Research Question IV, relationships as indicated by computed Kendall's Tau Values of .719 and .899 were found to exist for the ranking of preparation in various areas adequate or better for the variables of program length and present career options, respectively. Objective V - Future Trends The variables of cohort group as defined by early versus late graduates and career option as aggregated by private practice versus other options were used to analyze the data related to perceived trends in the veterinary medical profession. Specifically examined in this section are (a) the areas recommended to receive emphasis by the college of veterinary medicine, (b) groups or service areas recommended to receive greater attention, (c) career opportunities developing in the next ten years, and (d) societal demands, future directions, and other concerns for veter­ inary medicine. 168 As shown In Table 4.61 the six areas recommended by the largest number of respondents to receive at least some emphasis by the college of veter­ inary medicine were public health (90.28%), efficiency In food animal production (90.20%), animal welfare (88.99%), environmental concerns (87.79%), malpractice (86.24%), and the position of pet animals in society (85.38%). When a Kendall rank correlation coefficient was computed to com­ pare the ranking of the areas recommended to receive at least some emphasis of the college between early graduates and late graduates and between pri­ vate practice and other career options, Tau Values of .844 and .954 were reported, respectively. Over one-half of the respondents indicated that greater or much greater attention should be given to three groups or service areas: live­ stock producers-herd health (61.74%), agricultural and biological research (53.91%), and fisheries and wildlife management (50.56%). These figures are shown in Table 4.62. The Kendall's Tau Value com­ puted for the cohort group variable was .799, and the Kendall's Tau Value for the career option variable was .758. Marine biology and aquatic animals were reported by more than one of the graduates as being areas for which career opportunities would develop in the next ten years. Other areas, as shown in Table 4.63, which were report­ ed as areas for career opportunities in the next ten years which were reported by more than 3% of the respondents included wildlife animals and environmental concerns (9.46%), increased specialization (6.62%), food animal medicine (5.33%), various research opportunities (4.56%), public health (4.04%), and comparative medicine (3.44%). The two societal demands, future directions or other concerns for vet­ erinary medicine in the near future reported by more than 5% of the Table 4.61 Ranking of Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by the College of Veterinary Medicine Cohort Group Areas Percentage Distribution Early b Graduates Late Graduates Career Option Private Practice Other Public health 90.28 640(2) 377(1) 698(1) 247(2) Efficiency in food animal production 90.20 643 (1.) 373(3.5) 694(2) 248(1) Animal welfare 88.99 630(3) 373(3.5) 691(3) 238(3) Environmental concerns 87.79 612(4) 376(2) 684(4) 237(4) Malpractice 86.24 609(5) 361(6) 680(5) 224(5.5) Position of pet animals in society 85.38 594(6) 366(5) 671(6) 224(5.5) International veterinary medicine 76.35 546(7) 314(7) 575(7) 223(7) Consumer advocacy 72.23 512(8) 297(8) 560(8) 195(8) Fees 68.27 486(9) 281(9) 540(9) 172(9) Changing human dietary patterns 53.91 392(10) 216(10) 420(10) 145(10) 4.30 28(11) 19(11) 24(11) 21(11) Other Kendall's Tau Value a Out of 1163 total respondents ^Number in parenthesis indicates rank .844 .954 Table 4.62 Ranking of Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention Gohort Group Group or Service Area Percentage Distribution Early b Graduates Career Option Late Graduates Private Practice Other Livestock producers-herd health 61.74 429(1) 268(1) 444(1) 193(1) Agricultural and biological research 53.91 384(2) 223(3) 378(2) 186(2) Fisheries and wildlife management 50.56 326(4) 247(2) 372(3) 166(3) Comparative medical research 49.01 330(3) 220(4) 355(4) 155(4) Public health 35.17 257(6) 136(7.5) 226(8) 138(5) Livestock producers-individual animal 35.08 262(5) 136(7.5) 249(6) 101(7) Inner city pet owners 34.31 204(8) 183(5) 287(5) 78(8) Exotic and zoo animal medicine 32.67 210(7) 161(6) 234(7) 108(6) Horse owners 21.93 147(9) 100(9) 169(9) 54(10) Suburban pet owners 19.78 144(10) 83(10) 166(10) 34(11) Meat inspection 13.93 112(11) 43(11) 73(11) 58(9) 2.58 19(12) 10(12) 12(12) 13(12) Other Kendall's Tau Value £ Out of 1163 total respondents Number in parenthesis indicates rank 779 .758 171 Table 4.63 Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years Career Opportunities Frequency Percentage3 Marine biology, aquatic animals 121 10.40 Wildlife animals and environmental concerns 110 9.46 Increased specialization 77 6.62 Food animal medicine 62 5.33 Various research opportunities 53 4.56 Public health 47 4.04 Comparative medicine 40 3.44 Industry 23 1.98 Toxicology 22 1.89 Government 21 1.81 Regulatory work and food inspection 20 1.72 Laboratory animal research 19 1.63 Space animal research 18 1.55 Exotic animal care 15 1.29 Less large animal emphasis 14 1.20 Drugs and chemicals 13 1.12 Increased quality and sophistication of small animal, care 8 0.69 Less concern for small animal and pet care 7 0.60 More large animal emphasis 6 0.52 Increased quality of animal care, approaching level of human care 4 0.34 Increased quality, in general 3 0.26 131 11.26 Other opportunities £ Out of 1163 total respondents 172 respondents were better quality service and more accountability (5.93%) and increased food animal production and animal efficiency (5.33%). The percentage of respondents indicating other areas are shown in Table 4.64. Summary of Objective V . In addressing Research Question V, relation­ ships as indicated by computed Kendall's Tau Values of .844 for cohort group and .954 for present career options were found to exist for the rank­ ing of areas recommended to receive at least some emphasis by the College of Veterinary Medicine. The greatest number of respondents recommended public health, efficiency in food animal production, animal welfare, en­ vironmental concerns, malpractice, and the position of pet animals in society. In addressing Research Question VI, relationships as indicated by com­ puted Kendall Tau Value of .779 for cohort group and .758 for present career options were found to exist for the ranking of groups or service areas recommended to receive greater or much greater attention. The largest number of respondents recommended giving greater or much greater attention to livestock producter-herd health, agricultural and biological research, and fisheries and wildlife management. Marine Biology and aquatic animals headed the list of career areas supported by graduates as having opportunities developing over the next ten years, and better quality service and more accountability headed the list of areas as being societal demands in the near future. Two hundred thirty-nine (239) individual null hypotheses were tested in an attempt to address the five objectives of the study. One hundred sixty-six (166) of these hypotheses were rejected at the .05 level of sig­ nificance. The results of the Chi Square Tests of Independence are 173 Table 4.64 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Other Concerns for Veterinary Medicine Comments Frequency Percentage3 Better quality service, more accountable 69 5.93 Increased food animal production and efficiency 62 5.33 Increased concern for pet population control 41 3.53 Growing surplus of veterinarians 39 3.35 Public health, disease control 39 3.35 Socialized veterinary service 38 3.27 Increased government intervention 37 3.18 Increased communication with public 35 3.01 Increased inflation 29 2.49 Increased specialization 25 2.15 Less individual private practices 20 1.72 Style of veterinarian will change, less of a technician role 18 1.55 Increased concern for malpractice 18 1.55 More emphasis on pets 15 1.29 Concern for underdeveloped nations 13 1.12 Meed to justify emphasis on pets in society 11 0.95 Other optimistic comments 37 3.18 Other pessimistic comments 35 3.01 aOut of 1163 total respondents 174 displayed for each objective in Tables.4.65, 4.66, 4.67, and 4.68. In addition, six research questions were addressed, and the computed Kendall's Tau Values are displayed in Table 4.69. The information in these tables is grouped to reflect the organization of the study reported in Tables 3.6 and 3.7. 175 Table 4.65 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective 1 Hypotheses Variables 1 2 3 Career option of present position a a Location of present position b a Size of practice of present position b a Income of present position a a Workload of present position a b Career option of first position a a a Location of first position a a a Size of practice of first position a a a Workload of first position b b b Career option of all positions a a a Location of all positions b Size of practice of all positions a Workload of all positions a Shift in career option from first to present position a a 4 5 6 7 a a b a a b a a b 8 a a b a b a Major shift in career option from first to present position a Career option of shifts from first to present position a Type of major shift from first to present position b b Type of practice shift from first to present position a a Shifts within major area from first to present position b a Shifts within practice area from first to present position a a 176 Table 4.65 (cont'd.) Hypotheses Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Shifts in location from first to present position a Shifts in size of practice from first to present position a Shifts in workload from first to present position a Shifts in career option among all positions a a Major shift8 in career option among all positions a Career option of shifts among all positions a Type of major shift among all positions b b Type of practice shift among all positions a b Shifts within major areas among all positions a a Shifts with practice areas among all positions a a Shifts in location among all positions a Shifts in size of practice among all positions a Shifts in workload among all positions a Number of shifts/number of years in career a a a Inclusion of mixed practice (50/50) in course of career b b a Inclusion of mixed practice (large) in course of career a a a Inclusion of mixed practice (small) in course of career b Inclusion of small animal practice in course of career a a a a a 177 Table 4.65 (cont'd.) Hypotheses Variables Inclusion o£ large animal practice in course of career Inclusion of education in course of career Inclusion of government in course of career Inclusion of industry in course of career Inclusion of military in course of career Inclusion of retirement in course of career Inclusion of other options in course of career Inclusion of work in Michigan in course of career Inclusion of work in another state or U.S. territory in course of career Inclusion of work in foreign country in course of career Inclusion of work in a single person practice in course of career Inclusion of work with one other D.V.M. in course of career Inclusion of work with two other D.V.M.'s in course of career Inclusion of work with three to five other D.V.M.'s in course of career Inclusion of work with more than five other D.V.M.'s in course of career 178 Table 4.65 Ccont'd.) Hypotheses Variables 1 2 3 Inclusion of work in full-time position in course of career b a b Inclusion of work in part-time position (50% or greater) in course of career a b b Inclusion of work in part-time position (less then 50%) in course of career a b b Inclusion of work in any part-time position in course of career a b a aRejected ^Not rejected 4 5 6 7 8 179 Table 4.66 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective II Hypothesis Variable 1 2 3 Residential setting during high school a a a Indication of Michigan as legal residence prior to entering MSU b a a Type of experience in preveterinary work a a a Type of setting of preveterinary work a a b Type of setting for type of experience in preveterinary work a Type of practice in preveterinary work a a a No preveterinary work reported a a b Type of experience in preceptorshlp a a a Type of setting of preceptorshlp b a a Type of practice in preceptorshlp b a a No preceptorshlp reported b a b arejected ^not rejected 9 180 Table 4.67 Summary of Tests of Hypothesis Related to Objective III Variable Hypothesis 2 Recommended length of preveterinary program a Recommended length of veterinary program a rejected 181 Table 4.68 Summary of Tests of Hypotheses Related to Objective IV Hypotheses Variables 2 3 Recommended additional emphasis on Anatomy (Gross and Histology) b a Recommended additional emphasis on Anatomy (Neuroanatomy) b b Recommended additional emphasis on Anatomy (Applied) a b Recommended additional emphasis on Microbiology (Virology, Bacteriology, Mycology) a b Recommended additional emphasis on Poultry Diseases a b Recommended additional emphasis on Parasitology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Pathology (Basic and Systemic) b b Recommended additional emphasis on Clinical Pathology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Applied Pathology b Recommended additional emphasis on Physiology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Pharmacology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Toxicology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Public Health a a Recommended additional emphasis on Epidemiology a Recommended additional emphasis on Small Animal Clinics b a Recommended additional emphasis on Small Animal Surgery a a Recommended additional emphasis on Small Animal Medicine b a Recommended additional emphasis on Equine Medicine b a Recommended additional emphasis on Food Animal Medicine a b 10 11 182 Table 4.68 (cont'd.) Hypotheses Variables 2 3 Recommended additional emphasis on Large Animal Surgery a b Recommended additional emphasis on Large Animal Clinics a b Recommended additional emphasis on Laboratory Animal Medicine b a Recommended additional emphasis on Obstet­ rics and Reproduction (Small Animal) a a Recommended additional emphasis on Obstet­ rics and Reproduction (Large Animal) a a Recommended additional emphasis on Nutrition (Small Animal) a b Recommended additional emphasis on Nutrition (Large Animal) b b Recommended additional emphasis on Radiology a b Recommended additional emphasis on Animal Behavior a Recommended additional emphasis on Aquatic and Exotic Animal Diseases b Recommended additional emphasis on Ethics and Jurisprudence a Recommended additional emphasis on Economics and Business Management a Recommended additional emphasis on Personnel Management a Rating of preceptorship b Type of setting for type of experience in preceptorship aRejected ^Not rejected a 10 11 a a 183 Table 4.69 Kendall's Tau Values for the Six Research Questions Variables of Comparison Variables of Interest in Research Question Cohort Group Career Option Ranking of factors influencing decision to become a veterinar ian .778 .673 .564 Ranking of career objectives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued .769 .410 Sex .487 Influence versus Satisfaction Ranking of career objectives by respondents working in private practice .758 Ranking of career objectives by respondents working in industry .346 Ranking of career objectives by respondents working in government .473 Ranking of career objectives by respondents working in education .744 Ranking of career objectives by respondents working in military .407 Ranking of rating of prepara­ tion in various areas .719 .899 Ranking of areas recommended to receive at least some emphasis .844 .954 Ranking of groups or service areas to receive greater or much greater attention .799 .758 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Summary This study, which was a part of a larger survey conducted at the request of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University conducted by the Office of Institutional Research, was designed to describe the professional employment of graduates of that college and the opinion of those graduates regarding The Michigan State University program leading to the Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (D.V.M.) degree. Specifically, this study sought to identify: 1. the career employment patterns of graduates since receipt of the D.V.M. degree, 2. the employment patterns of graduates with selected preveteri­ nary factors, 3. the optimal length of veterinary programs as perceived by graduates, 4. the optimal emphasis on curricular areas included in the professional program as perceived by graduates, 5. and the trends in the veterinary medical profession which relate to the veterinary medical curriculum as perceived by graduates. 184 185 In surveying the current literature of the studies and opinions regarding the veterinary medical profession and veterinary medical education, several national studies which examined the distribution of veterinarians by practice type found the largest number of practitioners to be in small animal or mixed practice with relatively few in large animal practice. Reinforcing this distribution were career shifts which produced a further expansion in the small animal area. Growth rates were estimated for different speciality areas in veterinary medicine, and particular note was made of the growing shortage of veterinary faculty. Several human resource studies projected shortages in the future though some writers cautioned that the growth figures may simply reflect a general practitioner maldistribution. The results of the studies showed that individuals entering the veterinary profession were somewhat affected by their childhood residence in selecting a practice type, and that most veterinarians in private practice worked alone or with one other veterinarian. This review also covered the significant literature in veterinary medical education. There the studies showed a general satisfaction with the three-year curriculum, particularly from the student's perspective. While the reports acknowledged the disadvantage of a year-round curriculum, they also indicated that this kind of program had the advantage of allowing the students an earlier entry into the work force and a more efficient use of educational resources. Specialization in the veterinary profession and the continually expanding body of scientific knowledge in the veterinary curriculum were problems discussed in the literature on the development of veterinary educational programs. Weaknesses in curricula were identified in several areas, particularly business management. 186 There were two studies reviewed in depth which examined the background, education, and professional practice of veterinary graduates of Michigan State University ten years prior to this study. A questionnaire was designed and mailed to D.V.M. graduates of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University who had graduated during the years 1913 to 1976 inclusive. This survey instru­ ment consisted of eight parts, four of which were used in this study of the training and employment patterns of these graduates. Responses to the questionnaire items were reported and analyzed by means of tabulation of frequency distributions, calculation of Chi Square Tests of Indepen­ dence, and Kendall's Tau Tests of Rank Correlation. The results were reported in written and tabular form. Two hundred sixty-nine (269) individual null hypotheses were tested in an attempt to address the five objectives of the study and to analyze the population data. One hundred eighty-five (185) of these hypotheses were rejected at the .05 level of significance. Sixty (60) of the null hypothesis tests were conducted to identify differences between males and females on factors related to the career employment pattern of graduates, the preveterinary experiences of graduates, and the population description data. Thirty-five (35) of these null hypotheses related to the variable of sex were rejected at the .05 level of signifi­ cance. Tests of 105 null hypotheses were conducted to examine the cohort group membership as related to the career employment pattern, preveterinary experiences, the optimal length of veterinary programs, the optimal emphasis on curricular areas, trends in the veterinary med­ ical profession, and the population description data. Seventy-six (76) of these 105 hypothesis tests were rejected at the .05 level of significance. Also, 82 hypothesis tests were conducted to determine if 187 there was a relationship between the career option of the present primary professional position and factors related to the career employment pattern, preveterinary experience, optimal emphasis on curricular areas, trends in the veterinary medical profession, and the population description data, and 55 of these tests resulted in the rejection of the null hypothesis at the .05 level of significance. Nineteen (19) additional tests of null hypotheses related to various factors regarding the career employment pattern of graduates and preveterinary experiences were conducted, and all were rejected at the .05 level of significance. In addition, three hypothesis tests regarding the workload of positions in the career employment pattern were conducted and subsequently not rejected at the .05 level of significance. The following statements are listed as a summary of the findings of this study. Career Employment Pattern Present Primary Professional Position 1. Approximately 41% of the graduates reported working in small animal practice in their present primary professional position, 25% in mixed animal practice, and 30% in career options other than private practice, while only 4% reported working in large animal practice. Women had a greater tendency to be in small animal practice while proportionately more men were in mixed or large animal practice or other career options. 2. Earlier graduates, particularly in the 1913-1938 cohort group, tended to be in career options other than private practice, but later graduates tended to be more in small or mixed animal practice. Graduates who worked in Michigan were more likely to be in mixed practice than graduates not working in Michigan. On the other hand,'non-Michigan graduates were more likely to be in large animal practice or other career options than graduates working in Michigan. The geographic preference for respondents in small animal practice was about even for Michigan and non—Michigan. The earlier graduates (1913— 1938) and most recent graduates (Dec., 1967-1976) differed from the two middle cohort groups in reporting Michigan more often than non-Michigan as the location of their present positions and in reporting work in multiple person practices to a greater extent in those same positions. Graduates in single person practices had a greater tendency to be in mixed or large animal practice while graduates who worked with one or more other D.V.M.’s were proportionately more likely to be in other career options. While graduates of all cohort groups tended to work in multiple person practices, this is particularly true of the earliest (1913— 1938) and the latest (Dec., 1967-1976) cohort groups. While there was no relationship found to exist between workload and career option of the present primary professional position or between workload and cohort group membership, women were more likely than men to report part-time work in their present position. Men reported higher incomes from veterinary work than the women graduates, and graduates in the period 1953—June, 1967 reported incomes of over $40,000 to a greater extent than the other cohort groups. 189 First Primary Professional Position 7. Approximately 38% of the respondents worked in mixed animal practice, 34% in small animal practice, and 23% in other career options, while only 4% worked in large animal practice in the first primary professional position of their careers. As was the case in their present positions, women had a greater tendency to be in small animal practice than men in their first positions. 8. The earliest graduates (1913-1938) tended to be in career options other than private practice for first positions, but later graduates tended to be more in small or mixed animal practice. 9. Graduates who reported work in small or mixed animal practice or other career options in their present positions tended to have worked in those same options in their first positions. Graduates who reported work in a large animal practice in their present positions tended to have worked in mixed animal practice in their first primary professional positions. 10. Graduates whose first position was in Michigan had a greater tendency to be in small or mixed animal practice while graduates who first worked outside of Michigan were more likely to be in large animal practices or other career options. While over half of all of the graduates (51.34%) worked outside of Michigan for their first primary professional position, work in Michigan was the choice of location reported by the majority of the women, the graduates of the earliest cohort group (1913-1938), the graduates of the latest cohort group 190 (Dec., 1967-1976), and by small and mixed animal practitioners. 11. Graduates in single-person practices tended more to have a first professional position in mixed or large animal practice than those working with one or more other D.V.M.'s. The graduates in multiple-person practices were in small animal practice proportionately more than graduates who were in single-person practices. While all graduates tended to work in multiple-person practices in their first positions (76.38%), this was particularly true for women, graduates in the latest cohort group (Dec., 1967-1976), and small animal practitioners. 12. No significant relationship was found to exist between workload and the career option of the first primary professional position, nor was a relationship identified between the variables of sex, cohort group membership, and present career option and the variable of workload of the first primary professional position. All Primary Professional Positions 13. Approximately 38% of the positions reported during the course of graduates' careers were in career options other than private practice, 33% in small animal practice, 26% in mixed animal practice, and 4% in large animal practice. Again, women tended to report small animal practice in greater proportion than men. 14. The earlier two cohort groups (1913-1938 and 1939-1952) had a greater tendency to be in career options other than private practice than later graduates. The later graduates, on the other hand, tended more to be in small animal practice than earlier graduates. .191 15. Graduates who reported for their present positions work in each of the career options (small, mixed, and large animal practice, as well as other career options) tended to have reported work in the same options for all of the positions in the course of their careers. 16. While most positions during the course of the graduates' careers were reported to be out of Michigan, this was not true for positions in mixed animal practice for which 461 (60.10%) out of 767 positions were reported to be in Michigan, nor was it true for graduates working in mixed animal practice in present positions or the earliest cohort group (1913-1938). 17. In terms of the size of practice of all primary professional positions, it was determined that while the majority of positions were in multiple person practices, this was true to the greatest extent for positions in career options other than private practice and in small animal practice and was not true for positions in large animal practice. Women, the earliest graduates (1913-1938), the latest graduates (Dec., 1967-1976), and graduates whose present positions were in small animal practice or in a career option other than private practice were more inclined to be in a multiple person practice than other groups. 18. No relationship was found to exist between the variable of workload and the career option of all primary professional positions, nor were relationships identified between workload of all positions and cohort group membership or career options of present positions. Women, however, tended more 192 than men to report part-time positions among all positions reported. Shifts in Career from First to Present Primary Professional Position 19. Most graduates had no major shift in career option, location, size of practice, or workload between their first and present positions. This is particularly true for women and graduates in the latest cohort group (Dec., 1967-1976). 20. Almost twice as many graduates shifted from private practice to other career options (166) than from other career options to private practice (91). While there was no relationship between this type of shift and the variables of sex and cohort group membership, women and graduates of latest cohort group (Dec., 1967-1976) tended to have shifts within the small animal practice option more than men and other cohort groups, and graduates of 1939— 1952 tended to have shifts within mixed practice more than the other cohort groups. Shifts in Career Among All Primary Professional Positions 21. The majority of shifts made by graduates in the course of their careers involved no change in location, size of practice, or workload, but did involve a shift between two different career options. Wojnen and graduates in the latest cohort group (Dec., 1967-1976), however, tended to shift within a career option, particularly within small animal practice. 22. More shifts involved moves out of the state of Michigan than 193 into it, from multiple person to single-person practice than the other way, and from full-time to part-time than from part-time to full-time positions. Number of Shifts in Career 23. After an adjustment was made for the number of years in a career, it was found that women tended to have either no shifts or more than one shift every five years while men tended more to have shifts but less frequently. 24. Graduates whose present career option was mixed animal practice were the least likely to have shifted during their careers, and those in other career options were the most likely to have shifted. The graduates whose present career option was in small or large animal practice were likely to have the most number of moves, as adjusted for career length. Inclusion of Career Options and Other Factors in Course of Career 25. Women reported small animal practice in the course of their careers to a greater degree than men, and they reported mixed animal practice (large animal predominant), large animal practice, and military to a lesser degree than men. Women also had a greater tendency to report work in Michigan, work with three to five other D.V.M.'s, and part-time work more than men. 26. Distinctions can be made between earlier and later graduates in regards to career options and other factors included in their careers. Earlier graduates tended to have included mixed practices (large animal predominant), education, 194 government, industry, military, retirement, and other options in the course of their careers, while later graduates tended to have included small animal practice to a greater extent. Earlier graduates also had a greater tendency to report work outside of Michigan, work in a single-person practice, and work with more than five other D.V.M.'s, and later graduates had a greater tendency to report work in Michigan, work with one, two, or three to five other D.V.M.'s, and work in a full-time position. 27. The present career option reported by graduates was a good indication of career options which were included in the course of their careers. Graduates reporting small animal practice in their present positions tended to have included small animal work in the course of their careers. The same was true for mixed animal practice, large animal practice, and other career options. In addition, graduates reporting small or mixed animal practice in their present primary professional position were more likely to have worked in Michigan, and those working in large animal practice or other career options were more likely to have worked outside of Michigan. Graduates in other career options were over twice as likely to have included work with more than five other D.V.M.'s in their careers than those in small, mixed, or large animal practice. Selected Preveterinary Factors Residential Background 28. Over half (52.94%) of the graduates reported their residential 195 setting during high school was in a rural area; however, women and the latest cohort group (Dec., 1967-1976) tended to be from an urban or suburban area. Graduates from urban or suburban areas had a greater tendency to be in small animal practice and graduates from rural areas had a greater tendency to be in mixed or large animal practice. 29. More than two-thirds of the graduates indicated their legal residence prior to entering the M.S.U. College of Veterinary Medicine was in Michigan. Michigan was more likely to be indicated as the legal residence by the earliest graduates (1913-1938) and the latest (Dec., 1967-1976) than the other two cohort groups. Graduates with Michigan as their legal residence had a greater tendency to be in small or mixed animal practice, while those not indicating Michigan as their legal residence had a greater tendency to be in large animal practice or other career options in their present primary professional positions. Influence on Career Decisions 30. The factors most often reported by graduates as having at least some influence on their decisions to become a veterinarian included interests in the medical field, love of animals, desire to relieve animal suffering, and owned or worked with small animals. The next most often reported factor was desire for financial security, but this was indicated more by men than women, by later graduates than earlier graduates, and by those graduates working in private practice more than those working in other career options. 31. The career objectives most often reported by graduates as influencing the type of veterinary work they pursued included 196 using a variety of medical skills, being own boss, fulfilling the desire to help people and animals, desiring financial security, and finding intellectual stimulation. Men were more likely than women to be influenced by the career objectives of working in a rural setting and desiring financial security, and women were more likely to be influenced by the career objectives of associating with colleagues and finding employment opportunities. Graduates working in private practice reported they were influenced to a greater extent than graduates working in other career options by the career objectives of being own boss, working in a rural setting, and setting own hours and were influenced less by finding intellectual stimulation and investigating the unknown. 32. There was a higher correlation between the ranking of career objectives which were reported to have influenced the type of veterinary work pursued by graduates and the ranking of career objectives perceived as satisfiable in the respective career settings by graduates working in private practice and education than for graduates in industry, government, or the military. The objectives for which the ranking of the reported influence on career decisions was substantially higher than the ranking of the perceived satisfaction included fulfilling the desire to help people and animals for the industry setting, being own boss for the government setting, finding intellectual stimulation for the military setting, investigating the unknown for both the industry and the military setting, and using a variety of medical skills for all three settings. 197 Preveterinary Work 33. Fewer women reported experience with large animals in preveteri­ nary experience than men. While over twice as many of all graduates reported experiences in caring for small animals than reported caring for large animals, this ratio varied for - graduates working in large and small animal practice in their present primary professional position. Small animal practi­ tioners reported their preveterinary experience was with small animals over three times as often. 34. Women reported preveterinary experience in a private practice setting to a greater extent and preveterinary experience in the home or on a farm to a lesser extent than men. The same comparison was true for early graduates versus later graduates. 35. The experience of caring for large animals was primarily reported to have occurred at home or on a farm, while the experience of caring for small animals was primarily in a private practice setting. Graduates working in a small animal practice in their present position tended to report preveterinary experience in a small animal practice, large animal practitioners reported experience in large animal practice, and mixed animal practitioners reported experience in all three with greater tendency toward large animal practice. 36. Forty-two percent (42%) of the respondents reported having no preveterinary work experience, and men reported not having that experience to a greater extent than women. Preceptorship 37. Almost one third (31.47%) of the graduates reported professional responsibilities in their preceptorship experiences, 9.05% 198 reported caretaking and maintenance responsibilities, and 59.48% reported other types of experience. Almost two thirds (63.80%) reported that their preveterinary experience took place in a private practice setting, and 36.20% reported other settings. 38. Graduates working in small animal practice in their present positions reported preceptorship experiences in small animal practice to a greater extent than other graduates, and mixed animal practitioners tended to report mixed animal practice experience. Recommended Program Length 39. While there was a pretty even division among graduates who recommended two or less years in preveterinary training and those who recommended three or more years, the shorter period was recommended to a greater extent by graduates of four-year veterinary programs and the longer period was recommended more by graduates of the three-year veterinary program. 40. While the graduates of the three-year veterinary program had a greater tendency to recommend the three-year program than the four-year graduates, the overwhelming majority of all graduates recommended the four-year program. Although the advantage of less time involved in the three-year program was noted by 32.42% of the respondents, it was also noted that the threeyear program had too much stress compounded by no breaks in the summer, and there was too little time for. practical application of the academic material. Recommended Program Content 41. Over one half of the respondents indicated more training was needed in five curricular areas: economics and business 199 management (68.36%), personnel management (64.14%), animal behavior (38.13%), clinical pathology (53.91%), and nutrition for small animals (52.11%). 42. There were differences between three-year graduates and fouryear graduates in recommended emphasis on curricular areas. Three-year graduates recommended to a greater extent than fouryear graduates more training was needed in anatomy (applied), obstetrics and reproduction (small animal), and animal behavior. Four-year graduates recommended to a greater extent than threeyear graduates more training was needed in clinical pathology, toxicology, nutrition (small animal), economics and business management, and personnel management. Three-year graduates also recommended to a greater extent less training was needed in microbiology (virology, bacteriology, and mycology), poultry diseases, parasitology, physiology, public health, epidemiology, ethics and jurisprudence. 43. The graduates working in each of the following career options recommended to a greateer extent more training in that area than graduates working in other career options: anatomy (growth and histology), public health, small animal medicine, equine medicine, laboratory animal medicine, and obstetrics and reproduction (both small and large animal). 44. The largest number of respondents who indicated over ten percent of their work was in a particular organ system reported work in the digestive system (46.60%), the integumentary system (32,50%), the reproductive system (25.19%), and the respiratory system (18.06%). 200 45. Preparation was rated as adequate or better by less than one half of the respondents in these areas: emergency care (48.15%), client communication (36.20%), and business management (15.13%). Ranking of the areas rated adequate or better was similar for three-year and four-year graduates and for graduates working in private practice and other career options. One exception in the ranking similarities was the area of thera­ peutics, for which the rating by three-year graduates ranked seventh out of ten while the rating by four-year graduates ranked second out of ten. 46. Approximately 37% of the graduates indicated that their preceptorship was a valuable part of their professional training, 42% indicated that it was one of the more valuable parts of their training, and 8% indicated that it was the most valuable part. Proportionately, graduates who worked in private practice settings for their preceptorship described that experience to encompass professional type responsibilities less frequently than those whose experience was in other settings, and their experience was more in caretaking and maintenance or other responsibilities. Future Trends 47. The six areas recommended by the largest number of respondents to receive some emphasis in the future by the College of Veterinary Medicine were public health (90.28%), efficiency in food animal production (90.20%), animal welfare (88.99%), environmental concerns (87.79%), malpractice (86.24%), and the position of pet animals in society (85.38%). 201 48. Over one half of the respondents indicated that greater or much greater attention should be given to three groups or service areas: livestock producers - herd health (61.74%), agricultural and biological research (53.91%), and fisheries and wildlife management (50.56%). Proportionately more graduates in private practice recommended greater or much greater attention for inner city pet owners, while graduates in other career options tended to recommend public health to a greater extent as an area to receive greater or much greater attention. 49. Areas which were identified by graduates as having future career opportunities included marine biology and aquatic animals, wildlife animals and environmental concerns, increased areas of specialization, food animal medicine, various research oppor­ tunities, public health, and comparative medicine. 50. Two future concerns for veterinary medicine identified most by graduates were better quality service with more accountability and increased food animal production. Conclusions The following conclusions were drawn as a result of this study. 1. The national trend of graduates working in small and mixed animal practices identified in the literature (American Veterinary Medical Association, 1976; Crawford et al, 1973; Clay, 1975) was reflected by the graduates in this study since 40.63% of the graduates reported small animal practice, and 25.46% of the graduates reported mixed animal practice as their present primary professional positions. Further, the trend identified in earlier studies (Giuliani, 1965; Centra, 1966) 202 of Michigan State University graduates reporting small animal practice in greater proportion than the national pattern was also continued. Women and later graduates exhibited this trend to an even greater extent. 2. The type of practice graduates are exposed to in their preveterinary and preceptorship experiences appeared to have a relationship with later career choices. Small animal practition­ ers reported preveterinary experiences in small animal practices, and large animal practitioners reported preveterinary experi­ ences in large animal practices. The same was true for preceptorship experiences. 3. Career objectives identified in this study were found to be relatively unsatisfiable in the career settings of industry, government, and the military by graduates working in those areas. 4. The overall recommendation of graduates was for the three year curriculum at Michigan State University. Approximately 87% of all graduates, including 71.95% of the graduates of the threeyear program, recommended four years as the optimal length for veterinary professional programs. The additional time for practical application was the advantage of the four-year program most often cited. 5. While recognizing the impact of specialization on the profession (Kavanaugh, 1976; Kitchen, 1974), there was an Indication of a need for more opportunities for optional specialization to be provided in the veterinary training program. Graduates working in nine specific areas indicated more training was needed in their own area of specialization. The third most often given 203 responses to the question regarding career opportunities devel­ oping in the future were related to increased specialization. This anticipation of a future trend toward more specialization was similar to the trend described in the Holdeman study (1965). 6. Curricular deficiencies were identified in several areas, par­ ticularly in areas related to business. The curricular areas of economics and business management, personnel management, animal behavior, clinical pathology, and nutrition for small animals were indicated as areas in which more training was needed. Also, the work related area least often cited as having adequate or better preparation by graduates was business manage­ ment. This concern about a deficiency in business management was also identified by Holdeman (1965) and Crawford and his associates (1973). 7. Increased work with food animals is a major trend projected for the veterinary medical profession. Approximately 90% of the graduates recommended future emphasis by the College of Veter­ inary Medicine on efficiency in food animal production. The service area recommended by the largest percentage of graduates (61.74%) to receive greater or much greater attention was live­ stock producers-herd health. The fourth most identified area having future career opportunities was food animal medicine, and the second most often identified future concern of veterinary medicine was increased food animal production. The highlights of the findings for the five objectives of the study are shown in the tables in Appendix H. 204 Implications The following implications of this study were identified. 1. If the trend of actual work experiences of graduates is in the areas of small and mixed animal practice while increased work with food animals is a major trend projected for the future of the vet­ erinary profession, then attention should be given to this discrepancy by encouraging shifts in career practice options of future graduates to this area. 2. If there is a relationship between the type of practice graduates are exposed to in their preveterinary and preceptorship experiences and later career choices, then perhaps attempts should be made to structure more of these practical training experience options in the area of food animal medicine to encourage the career shifts mentioned above. 3. Although other factors may cause the relationship between the career option of the primary professional position and reported sat­ isfaction of career objectives, particular attention should be given to the work environment of career options in industry, gov­ ernment, and the military to determine if alterations can be made to accommodate to a greater extent the relatively unsatisfied career objectives identified in this study by graduates working in those areas. 4. Careful consideration should be given by the Michigan State Univer­ sity College of Veterinary Medicine to the recommendation of graduates to return to the four-year curriculum. 5. More opportunities for optional specialization in the professional training program need to be provided. 205 6 . Through a review of curricular offerings and through increased efforts in advising for curricular programs, Increased emphasis should be given to economics and business management, personnel management, animal behavior, clinical pathology, and nutrition for small animals. Recommendations for Further Study Based on the findings and conclusions of this study the following rec­ ommendations for further study are proposed. 1. There should be an examination of curricular emphasis on organ systems in light of the findings of this study regarding the amount of work in each system. 2 . There should be replication studies of graduates of other veter­ inary schools to assess the extent to which the findings of this study have broader significance. 3. The College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan State University should continue to conduct periodic follow-up studies of graduates to obtain the kinds of data revealed in this study and the Giuliani and Centra studies for effective administration of the veterinary professional training program. 4. Alternative survey methods such as the use of the telephone or personal Interviews should be considered in future studies. Also, the scope of future studies might be limited more to specific curricular or career pattern questions to encourage a higher response rate. 5. The data from this study should be stored on tape for use in possible future studies which might explore trends over time on some of the same specific questions. REFERENCES References American Veterinary Medical Association, "Essentials of an Acceptable Veterinary Medical School" AVMA Directory, 1976, p. C-85. American Veterinary Medical Association, "Professional Activities Summary of Veterinarians in the United States, U.S. Possessions, Canada, and Foreign Countries" AVMA Directory, 1976, p. B-216 Arends, Robert Lewis, A Comparative Study of the Graduates of the Michigan State University Elementary Intern Program and the Regular Teacher Education Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Armistead, W. W. , "Educating Tomorrow's Veterinarians" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 146:9, May 1, 1965, pp. 931-936. Armistead, W. W . , "Veterinary College Organization and Curriculum: A Look at Alternatives" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 156:12,.June 15, 1970, pp. 1911-1916. Bailey, W. S., "Meeting Needs of States in Veterinary Medicine" Higher Education and Service to Our States, Proceedings of the 23rd Legislative Work Conference, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia (Conference in Lexington, Kentucky, October 7-9, 1974). ED 098892. Bureau of Health Resources Development, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, The Supply of Health Manpower, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, "Current Labor Statistics" Monthly Labor Review, 100:2, February, 1977, p. 117. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor, Handbook of Labor Statistics 1975 - Reference Edition, Bulletin 1865, Washington, D.C . : U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975. Butler, R. S ., "Veterinary Study Attitudes" Faculty: Where Will They Come From?, Proceedings of 6th Symposium of Veterinary Medical Education, University of Guelph, June 11-13, 1975. Centra, John A . , Veterinary Medicine Graduates: A Follow-Up Study, East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, 1966. 206 207 Clay, B. R . , "A Profile of New Position Acquisitions by the 1974 Graduating Class, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Oklahoma" Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 2:2, Fall, 1975, pp. 45-48. Crawford, Lester M . , and Coulter, D. B . , "A Comparison of the Practice Fates of Male and Female Georgia Veterinary Medical Graduates 1950-1973" Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 3:1, Spring, 1976, pp. 26-27. Crawford, Lester M . , Tindell, Linwood E., Lewis, Robert E. and Talbot, Richard B., "General Characteristics of Veterinarians in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 163:4, August 15, 1973, pp. 362-364. Garrard, Judith and Weber, Richard G . , "Comparisons of Three— and Four-Year Medical School Graduates" Journal of Medical Education, 49:6, June, 1974, pp. 547-553. Giuliani, Betty, Women Veterinary Graduates - College of Veterinary Medicine, East Lansing, Michigan: Office of Institutional Research, Michigan State University, 1965. Grafton, Thurman S . , "Veterinary Science: The Future of This HealthRelated Profession" Journal of Medical Education, 44:2, February, 1969, pp. 145-148. Hawes, Gene R . , "Crisis in Vet-Med Admissions" Change, 5:10, Winter, 1973-74, pp. 16-18. Hoffman, Arlene F . , A Survey of Experiences with the Three-Year Curriculum, Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C., April 1, 1975. Holdeman, Richard Wendell, The Evolution of Veterinary Medicine and the Character of Appropriate Recruitment, Education, and Employment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1965. Judy, John W . , Jr., "Disparity Between Supply and Demand from an Economist" Faculty: Where Will They Come From?, Proceedings of 6th Symposium of Veterinary Medical Education, University of Guelph, June 11— 13, 1975. Kalmbach, Jr., Roland Edwin, A Survey of the Opinions of Speech Graduates on the Master's Level Concerning Selected Aspects of their Speech Training at Michigan State University. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1956. Kavanaugh, J. F . , "A Three-Step Approach to Veterinary Medical Education Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 3:2, Fall, 1976, pp. 29-31. 208 Kenny, Michael J . , An Appraisal of the Doctoral Programs in the Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum at Michigan State University Based on a Follow-Up Study of Its Graduates. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Kitchen, Hyram, Needs for Flexibility in Veterinary Curriculum, Presented at 2nd Annual Meeting, U.S. Veterinary Colleges' Representatives to the Surgeon General, Washington, D.C., January 16-18, 1974. Kitchen, Hyram, The Short and Long of It (A Review of Accelerated Curriculum), Presented to the 109th Annual Meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, July 18-20, 1972. Larkins, Hayes Carlton, A Survey of Experiences, Activities, and Views of the Industrial Security Administration Graduates of Michigan State University. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1966. McLaughlin, G. W . , Bard, H. E . , and Talbot, R. B., "Veterinary Medical Manpower: Supply-Demand Projection to 2020" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 168:4, February 15, 1976, pp. 319-321. Miller, Grace A., A Study of the Effectiveness of Academic Preparation of Recent Home Economics Graduates As Related to Managerial Responsibilities in the Food Services Industry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. Moore, Aimee Nott, A Study of Attitudes of Recent Graduates Toward Their Educational Preparation for Food Services Administration in Home Economics and Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Administration in Selected Universities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1959. MVP Staff, "Women Veterinarians: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow" Modern Veterinary Practice, 55:12, December, 1974, pp. 933-940. National Research Council, New Horizons for Veterinary Medicine, Washington, D. C . : National Academy of Sciences, 1972. New England Board of Higher Education, The Need for a College of Veterinary Medicine to Serve New England and New Jersey, Wellesley, Massachusetts: New England Library Information Network, 1973. ED 078755. Nigro, Kirk, An Analysis of an Appraisal, by Graduates, of the Specialist and Doctoral Programs in Educational Administration at Michigan State University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Page, Robert G. and Boulger, James G . , "An Assessment of the Three-Year Medical Curriculum" Journal of Medical Education, 51:2, February, 1976, pp. 125-126. 209 Foppensiek, George C., "The Impact of University Reform on Veterinary Medical Education" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 160:7, April 1, 1972, pp. 1004-1009. Price, A. A., "Manpower Maldistribution" Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 1:1, Spring, 1974, pp. 18-19. Pritchard, W. R., "Projected Needs for Faculty" Faculty: Where Will They Come From?, Proceedings of 6th Symposium of Veterinary Medical Education, University of Guelph, June 11-13, 1975. Sax, Gilbert, Empirical Foundations of Education Research, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968. Schein, E. H . , Professional Education: Some New Directions, Berkeley, California: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, 1972. Schweingruber, Donald Lee, A Comparative Study of Electrical Engineering Alumni Concerning Their Undergraduate Program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1971. Snizek, William E. and Bryant, Clifton D . , "Interoccupational Veterinary Specialties: Careers, Trends and Contingencies Among Students and Practitioners" Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, 2:2, Fall, 1975, pp. 36-43. Van Fleet, Donald, Veterinary Needs in Kentucky, Frankfort, Kentucky: Legislative Research Commission, Research Report Number 123, 1975. Wheth, Irving R . , A Study of the Agricultural Graduates of Michigan State College. Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1953. Zindel, Howard C., A Study of Graduate Reactions to the Animal Industries Curriculum at Michigan State University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1953. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLES DISPLAYING POPULATION DATA 210 Table A.l Questionnaires Returned by Graduating Class Number of Graduates Registrar Records Questionnaires Sent Questionnaires Ret'd, No. No. Clas College Records 1913 2 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1914 1 2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 1915 10 10 3 30.0 0 0.0 0.0 1916 6 6 1 16.7 1 16.7 100.0 1917 9 7 2 22.2 1 11.1 50.0 1918 6 10 2 33.3 0 0.0 0.0 1919 13 15 2 15.4 0 0.0 0.0 1920 8 8 2 25.0 0 0.0 0.0 1921 8 6 1 12.5 0 0.0 0.0 1922 5 6 2 40.0 0 0.0 0.0 1923 9 7 3 33.3 1 11.1 33.3 1924 6 8 2 33.3 1 16.7 50.0 1925 14 12 6 42.9 1 7.1 16.7 1926 9 11 3 33.3 1 11.1 33.3 1927 9 8 3 33.3 1 11.1 33.3 1928 4 4 2 50.0 0 0.0 0.0 1929 10 8 4 40.0 2 20.0 50.0 1930 6 8 4 66.7 2 33.3 50.0 1931 8 8 4 50.0 0 0.0 0.0 1932 9 8 6 66.7 2 22.2 33.3 1933 8 9 7 87.5 3 37.5 42.9 1934 14 14 10 71.4 4 28.6 40.0 1935 27 23 18 66.7 8 29.6 44.4 1936 23 24 14 60.9 7 30.4 50,0 1937 20 17 15 75.0 6 30.0 40.0 1938 36 38 30 83.3 16 44.4 53.3 280 278 146 52.1 57 20.4 39.0 % of College % of College % of Sent 211 Table A.l (cont'd.) Clasa Number of Graduates Questionnaires Sent Questionnaires Ret'd. College Records Registrar Records No. No. College % of % of College % of Sent 1939 35 30 23 65.7 12 34.3 52.2 1940 59 63 42 71.2 19 32. 2 45.2 1941 53 51 39 73.6 16 30.2 41.0 1942 66 68 57 86.4 26 39.4 45.6 1943 106 55 90 84.9 33 31.1 36.7 1944 63 57 47 74.6 22 34.9 46.8 1945 50 102 46 92.0 18 36.0 39.1 1946 74 43 60 81.1 26 35.1 43.3 1947 47 40 40 85.1 18 38.3 45.0 1948 2 45 1 50.0 0 0.0 0.0 1949 65 64 52 80.0 15 23.1 28.8 1950 67 68 56 83.6 22 32.8 39.3 1951 86 85 75 87.2 40 46.5 53.3 1952 66 67 57 86.4 25 37.9 43.9 839 838 685 81.6 292 34.8 42.6 1953 50 49 41 82.0 15 30.0 36.6 1954 55 55 50 90.9 29 52.7 58.0 1955 63 66 52 82.5 29 46,0 55.8 1956 62 61 57 91.9 33 53.2 57.9 1957 59 60 53 89.8 27 45.8 50.9 1958 58 58 52 89.7 26 44.8 50.0 1959 49 49 42 85.7 16 32.7 38.1 1960 59 57 54 91.5 37 62. 7 68.5 1961 60 62 53 88.3 25 41.7 47.2 1962 45 56 54 96.4 28 50.0 51.9 1963 47 47 42 89.4 19 40.4 45.2 Cohort Group Total 212 Table A.l (cont'd.) Class Number of Graduates Questionnaires Sent Questionnaires Ret'd. College Records No. No. 1964March 22 1964June Registrar Records % of College % of College % of Sent 22 100.0 13 59.1 59.1 24 22 91.7 15 62.5 68.2 1965March 27 22 81.5 10 37.0 45.5 1965June 28 26 92.9 8 28.6 30.8 1966March 29 23 79.3 12 41.4 52.2 1966June 19 19 100.0 11 57.9 57.9 1967March 32 29 90.6 13 40.6 44.8 21 84.0 10 40.0 47.6 734 89.1 376 45.6 51.2 49 83.1 24 40.7 49.0 34 87.2 16 41.0 47.1 38 86.4 20 45.5 52.6 39 90.7 17 39.5 43.6 39 86.4 25 56.8 65.8 32 78.0 17 41.5 53.1 36 78.3 24 52.2 66.7 43 89.6 24 50.0 55.8 1967June Cohort Grpup Total 66 54 48 57 25 824 1967Dec . 59 1968June 39 1968Dec . 44 1969June 43 1969Dec . 44 1970June 41 1970Dec . 46 1971June 48 845 96 89 85 96 213 Table A.l (cont’d.) Number of Graduates Class College Records 1971Dec. 49 1972June 43 --- Registrar Records Questionnaires Sent Questionnaires Ret'd. No. No. % of College % of College % of Sent 42 85.7 27 55.1 64.3 32 74.4 14 32.6 43.8 31 75.6 21 51.2 67.7 48 87.3 33 60.0 68.8 35 76.1 19 41.3 54.3 92 1972Dec. 41 1973June 55 1973Nov. 46 1974June 56 42 75.0 17 30.4 40.5 1974Dec. 52 38 73.1 22 42.3 57.9 1975June 64 55 85.9 27 42.2 49.1 1976March 34 29 85.3 20 58.8 69.0 1976June 77 54 70.1 35 45.5 64.8 715 81.2 402 45.6 56.2 41.2 51.0 Cohort Group Total --- 96 102 116 ---- 110 881 882 Class Unknown Total 36a 2824 2843 2280b 80.7 1163 Fourteen of these were returned with the identification number marked out, and twenty-two of these were unknown in analysis due to coding error. bThere were seven additional questionnaires sent but later discovered to be inaccurately included as D.V.M. graduates. 214 Table A.2 Sex of Respondents by Graduating Class Sex Male Class No. Not Reported Female % No. No. % Total No. % 1913 0 1914 0 1915 0 % 1916 1 100.00 1 100.00 1917 1 100.00 1 100.00 1918 0 1919 0 1920 0 1921 0 1922 0 1923 1 100.00 1 100.00 1924 1 100.00 1 100.00 1925 1 100.00 1 100.00 1926 1 100.00 1 100.00 1927 1 100.00 1 100.00 0 1928 1929 2 100.00 2 100.00 1930 2 100.00 2 100.00 1931 0 1932 2 200.00 2 100.00 1933 3 100.00 3 100.00 1934 4 100.00 4 100.00 1935 8 100.00 8 100.00 1936 7 100.00 7 100.00 1937 5 83.33 1938 15 93.75 1 6.25 Cohort Group Total 55 96.49 1 1,75 1 *Error due to rounding of figures 16.67 6 . 100.00 16 1 1.75 57 100.00 99.99* 215 Table A.2 (cont'd.) Sex Male Female Class No. % No. 1939 12 100.00 1940 18 94.74 1941 15 93.75 1 1942 25 96.15 1943 32 96.97 1944 22 1945 Reported % No. Total % No. % 12 100.00 19 100.00 6.25 16 100.00 1 3.85 26 100.00 1 3.03 33 100.00 100.00 22 100.00 18 100.00 18 100.00 1946 25 96.15 1 3.85 26 100.00 1947 16 88.88 2 11.11 18 99.99 1 5.26 1948 0 1 1949 13 86.67 1950 22 100.00 1951 39 97.50 1952 25 100.00 >hort Group Total 282 96.57 1953 15 100.00 1954 28 96.55 1 1955 28 96.55 1956 32 96.97 1957 27 100.00 1958 23 88.46 6.67 1 15 100.00 22 100,00 40 100.00 25 100.00 292 99.99 15 100.00 3.45 29 100.00 1 3.45 29 100.00 1 3.03 33 100.00 27 100.00 26 100.00 1 4 3 *Error due to rounding of figures 1.37 11.54 6 6.67 2.50 2.05 216 Table A.2 (cont'd.) Sex. Male Class No. 1959 15 1960 Female Not Reported No. 2 Total No. % 93.75 1 6.25 16 100.00 35 94.59 2 5.41 37 100.00 1961 23 92.00 2 8.00 25 100.00 1962 26 92.86 2 7.14 28 100.00 1963 18 94.74 19 100.00 1964-March 12 92.31 1 7.69 13 100.00 1964-June 14 93.33 1 6.67 15 100.00 1965-March 9 90.00 1 10.00 10 100.00 1965-June 8 100.00 8 100.00 1966-March 9 75.00 3 25.00 12 100.00 1966-June 8 72.72 3 27.27 11 1967-March 9 69.23 4 30.77 13 100.00 1967-June 8 80.00 2 20.00 10 100.00 347 92.29 28 7.45 376 100.00 1967-Dec. 22 91.67 2 8.33 24 100.00 1968-June 14 87.50 2 12.50 16 100.00 1968-Dec. 18 90.00 2 10.00 20 100.00 1969-June 15 88.24 2 11.76 17 100.00 1969-Dec. 21 84.00 4 16.00 25 100.00 1970-June 13 76.47 4 23.53 17 100.00 1970-Dec. 22 91.67 2 8.33 24 100.00 1971-June 19 79.17 5 20.83 24 100.00 >hort Group Total 1 *Error due to rounding of figures 1 5.26 0.27 No. X 99.99* 217 Table A.2 (cont'd.) Sex Male Class No. 1971-Dec. 24 1972-June Female Not Reported No. % Total No. % 88.88 3 11.11 27 13 92.86 1 7.14 14 100.00 1972-Dec. 19 90.48 2 9.52 21 100.00 19 73-June 30 90.91 3 9.09 33 100.00 1973-Nov. 12 63.16 7 36.84 19 100.00 1974-June 15 88.24 2 11.76 17 100.00 1974-Dec. 18 81.81 4 18.18 22 1975-June 19 70.37 8 29.63 27 100.00 1976-March 14 70.00 6 30.00 20 100.00 1976-June 27 77.14 8 22.86 35 100.00 Cohort Group Total 335 83.33 67 16.67 0 402 100.00 1019 90.42 100 8.87 8 1127 100.00 30 83.33 6 16.67 36 100.00 1049 90.19 106 9.11 Total of All Classes Class Unknown Total % *Error due to rounding of figures 8 0.71 0.69 No. 1163 % 99.99* 99.99* 99.99* Table A. 3 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents by Graduating Class Career Option MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. Large % No. Education % No. % 1913 1914 1915 218 1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925 1926 1927 1 100.00 Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Government Class No. % Industry Military No. No. % % Retired Other No. No. % Unknown % No. X 1913 1914 1915 1916 100.00 1917 100.00 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1 100.00 1924 1 100.00 1925 1926 1 100.00 1927 1 100.00 1928 Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Mixed50/50 Class No. % MixedLarge MixedSmall No. No. % Small No. % Large % No. Education % No. % 1929 1 50.00 1930 1 50.00 1 50.00 2 12.50 5 8.77 1931 1932 1933 220 1934 1 25.00 1935 2 25.00 1 16.67 3 18.75 7 12.28 0 4 33.33 1 1936 1 14.29 1937 1938 Cohoi Grou] Total 1 1.7.5 1 6.25 2 3.51 0 1939 8.33 1940 1 5.26 1 5.26 4 21.05 1 5.26 1941 2 12.50 1 6.25 3 18.75 2 12.50 2 7.69 3 11.54 2 7.69 2 7.69 3 9.09 6 18.18 1 3.03 3 9.09 2 9.09 7 31.82 1 4.54 3 13.64 1942 1943 1944 4 15.38 4 12.12 Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Class Government Industry Military Retired Other No. No. No. No. No. % % % % % Unknown Total No. No. 1 1929 1 1930 % 50.00 50.00 % 2 100.00 2 100.00 0 1931 1932 1 50.00 2 100.00 1933 2 66.67 1 33.33 3 100.00 1934 1 25.00 2 50.00 4 100.00 2 25.00 8 100.00 2 28.57 7 100.01* 100.01* 1935 1 12.50 3 37.50 1936 1 14.29 2 28.57 1937 3 50.00 1 16.67 1 16.67 6 1938 3 18.75 1 6.25 6 37.50 16 Cohort Group Total 8 14.04 14 24.56 19 33.33 57 99.99* 1939 1 8.33 1 8.33 5 41.67 12 99.99* 1940 5 26.32 1 5.26 1 5.26 4 21.05 19 99.98* 1941 4 25.00 1 6.25 2 12.50 1 6.25 16 100.00 1942 6 23.08 1 3.85 3 11.54 3 11.54 26 100.00 1943 6 18.18 2 6.06 1 3.03 2 6.06 5 15.15 33 99.99* 1944 2 9.09 2 9.09 1 4.54 1 4.54 3 13.64 22 99.99* 0 *Error due to rounding of figures 0 1 1 1 14.29 1.75 5.26 100.00 Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Mixed50/50 % Mixed— Large No. Mixed Small % No. Small % Large Class to. 1945 2 11.11 1 5.56 2 11.11 4 22.22 1946 1 3.85 1 3.85 2 7.69 6 23.08 1947 2 11.11 3 16.67 3 16.67 2 13.33 2 13.33 3 13.64 2 9.09 4 18.18 2 5.00 3 7.50 8 20.00 No. % No. % 1 5.56 1 5.56 1948 1949 1950 1 4.55 1951 1952 Cohort Group Total 3 12.00 2 8.00 4 16.00 9 36.00 13 4.45 21 7.19 22 7.53 63 21.58 7 2.40 1 6.67 3 20.00 2 13.33 2 13.33 1953 1954 2 6.90 1 3.45 5 17.24 8 27.59 2 6.90 1955 1 3.45 7 24.14 1 3.45 10 34.48 1 3.45 1956 5 15.15 2 6.06 5 15.15 12 36.36 1957 3 11.11 1 3.70 1 3.70 10 37.04 2 7.41 1958 4 15.38 3 11.54 4 15.38 8 30.77 1 3.85 2 12.50 6 37.50 3 8.11 10 27.03 2 5.41 1959 1960 2 5.41 4 10.81 Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Government Industry Class Mo. X No. 1945 2 11.11 2 1946 3 11.54 1947 2 11.11 % Military Retired Other No. No. No. X 11.11 1 % % 5,56 2 1 Unknown 7.69 5.56 No. % No. % 2 11.11 18 10 38.46 26 ■100.01* 4 22.22 18 1948 100.01* 100.01* 0 3 20.00 1 6.67 1950 5 22.73 1 4.55 1951 12 30.00 1 2.50 1952 3 12.00 1 4.00 54 18.49 13 4.45 1953 4 26.67 1 6.67 1954 5 17.24 1955 3 10.34 1 3.45 1956 2 6.06 1 3.03 1 1 0.34 11 4.55 3.77 1958 1 3.85 1959 1 6.25 1 6.25 1960 2 5.41 6 16.22 *Error due to rounding of figures 33.33 15 99.99* 1 4.55 3 13.64 22 100.03* 3 7.50 4 10.00 40 100.00 1 4.00 25 100.00 50 17.12 292 2 13.33 15 100.00 4 13.79 29 100.01* 5 17.24 29 100.00 10 1 1957 5 3.42 3.45 99.99* 1 3.03 1 3.03 4 12.12 33 99.99* 1 3.70 1 3.70 5 18.52 27 99.99* 1 3.85 1 3.85 26 100.01* 1 6.25 4 25.00 16 100.00 5 13.51 37 100.02* 223 1949 Cohort Group Total Total Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Mixed50/50 MixedSmall MixedLarge Class No. % 1961 2 8.00 1962 No. % No. Large Small % No. % 12.00 2 10.53 1 10.00 2 8.00 3 10.71 13 46.43 1 3.57 1 5.26 8 42.11 1964-Mar. 1 7.69 2 15.38 2 15.38 6 46.15 1964-June 2 13.33 7 46.67 6 60.00 5 62.50 1 10.00 1 12.50 4 33.33 2 20.00 3 % 20.00 1 8.33 4 33.33 1 8.33 1966-June 2 18.18 1 9.09 4 36.36 2 18.18 1967-Mar. 1 7.69 3 23.08 5 38.46 3 23.08 1967-June Cohort Group Total 2 20.00 2 20.00 3 30.00 1 10.00 27 7.18 35 9.31 36 9.57 139 36.97 17 4.52 23 6.12 1967-Dec. 1 4.17 1 4.17 5 20.83 8 33.33 1 4.17 3 12.50 1968-June 1 6.25 1 6.25 1 6.25 9 56.25 2 12.50 1 6.25 1968-Dec. 4 20.00 12 60.00 1 5.00 3 15.00 1969-June 2 11.76 2 11.76 2 11.76 9 52.94 1969-Dec. 1 4.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 11 44.00 2 8.00 2 8.00 224 5,26 1966-Mar. 3 48.00 1 12.50 No. 12 5.26 1 % 8.00 1 1965-June No. 2 1963 1965-Mar. Education Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Government Industry Military Retired Other Class No. No. % No. No. No. 1961 1 4.00 2 8.00 1962 6 21.43 1963 2 10.53 % 1 % % 5.26 % 2 13.33 1 Total No. % No. 1 4.00 25 100.00 3.57 4 14.29 28 100.00 1 5.26 2 10.53 19 100.00 2 15.38 13 6.67 1965-June 1 8.33 1966-June 1 1967-Mar. 1967-June Cohort Group Total 29 7.71 1 10.00 16 4.26 1967-Dec. 5 0 0.00 1 *Error due to rounding of figures 4.00 100.00 100.00 8 1 8.33 12 99.98* 2 18.18 11 99.99* 13 100.00 100.00 1 10.00 10 1.60 43 11.44 376 100.01* 1 4.17 4 16.67 24 100.01* 1 6.25 16 100.00 20 100.00 1969-June 4.00 10 12.50 1968-Dec, 1 100.00 6 1968-June 1969-Dec. 15 1 7.69 1.33 99.98* 2 8.00 2 11.76 17 1 4.00 25 99.98* 100.00 225 1965-Mar. 1966-Mar. % 1 1964-Mar. 1964-June Unknown Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option MixedLarge Mixed50/50 Class No. % No. MixedSmall % No. Small % No. Large % No. Education % No. % 1970-June 3 17.65 2 11.76 9 52.94 1 5.88 1970-Dec. 4 16.67 2 8.33 11 45.83 2 8.33 2 8.33 1 4.17 19 79.17 1 4.17 2 8.33 2 7.41 1 3.70 14 51.85 1 3.70 1 7.14 3 21.43 7 50.00 1 7.14 1 7.14 15 71.43 1 4.76 1 3.03 2 11.76 1 3.70 1 5.00 1971-June 1971-Dec. 4 14.81 1972-June 1972-Dec. 2 9.52 1 4.76 1973-June 2 6.06 3 9.09 3 24.24 18 54.54 1973-Nov. 2 10.53 4 21.05 13 68.42 1974-June 1 5.88 2 11.76 7 41.18 2 11.76 2 9.09 12 54.55 1 4.55 1 3.70 1974-Dec. 3 13.64 1975-June 5 18.52 2 7.41 5 18.52 12 44.44 1976-Mar. 3 15.00 3 15.00 4 20.00 8 40.00 1976-June 4 11.43 4 11.43 4 11.43 19 54.29 2 5.71 39 9.70 29 7.21 44 10.95 213 52.98 18 4.48 20 4.98 1 2.78 1 2.78 2 5.56 17 hi.21 1 2.78 2 5.56 81 6.96 88 7.57 104 8.94 439 37.75 43 3.70 77 6.62 Cohort Group Total Class Unknown Total Table A.3 (cont'd.) Career Option Government Class No. % 1970-June Industry Military Retired No. % No. No. 1 5.88 % % 1970-Dec. 1971-June 1971-Dec. 2 7.41 1 4.17 1 3.70 Other Unknown No. % 1 5.88 2 8.33 1 3.70 1972-June 1972-Dec. 1 4.76 1 % 4.17 99.99* 24 99.99* 24 100.01* 27 99.98* 1 7.14 14 99.99* 1 4.76 21 99.99* 33 99.99* 19 1 5.88 1974-Dec. 1 1975-June 1 1 4.55 5.88 1 5.88 17 99.98* 1 4.55 2 9.09 22 100.02* 27 99.99* 5.00 Cohort Group Total 5 1.24 6 1.49 2 0.50 Class Unknown 4 11.11 2 5.56 2 5.56 100 8.60 37 3.18 10 0.86 *Error due to rounding of figures 0 25 0.00 2.15 100.00 1 3.70 1976-June Total 17 3.70 3.03 1974-June % 1 1973-Nov. 1076-Mar. No, 20 100.00 100.01* 1 2.86 1 2.86 35 10 2.49 16 3.98 402 4 11.11 36 132 11.35 1163 27 2.32 100.00 100.02* 100.00 227 1973-June 1 No. Total Table A.4 Present Geographical Location of Respondents by Sex, by Cohort Group and by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Present Geographical Location Michigan MidAtlantic No. % No. 43.66 139 13.25 75 7.15 103 9.82 95 9.06 60 5.72 56 52.83 10 9.43 6 5.66 10 9.43 7 6.60 10 9.43 2 25.00 2 25.00 1 12.50 1 12.50 2 25.00 0 0.00 516 44.37 151 12.98 82 7.05 114 9.80 104 8.94 70 6.02 458 X X Southeast No. Male No. X Cohort Group 1913-1938 27 47.37 5 8.77 0 0.00 4 7.02 8 14.04 6 10.53 1939-1952 100 34.25 59 20.21 32 10.96 23 7.88 27 9.25 23 7.88 1952-June 1967 163 43.35 47 12.50 28 7.45 38 10.11 31 8.24 25 6.65 December 1976-1976 218 54.23 39 9.70 21 5.22 46 11.44 35 8.71 15 3.73 8 22.22 1 2.78 1 2.78 3 8.33 3 8.33 1 2.78 516 44.37 151 12.98 82 7.05 114 9.80 104 8.94 70 6.02 Unknown Total 228 Total X New England X No. Sex not indicated Other Midwest No. Variable Female States Contiguous to Michigan Table A.4 (cont'd.) Present Geographical Location Southwest Mountain Far West U.S. Territories Foreign & Other Variable No. % No. % No. % No. No. Male 20 1.91 15 1.43 58 5.53 5 0.48 21 2.00 1049 100.01* Female 1 0.94 2 1.87 3 2.83 0 0.00 1 0.94 106 99.96* Sex not indicated 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 21 1.81 17 1.46 61 5.24 5 0.43 22 1.89 1163 99.99* Total X X Total No. X 100.00 229 Cohort Group 1913-1938 3 5.26 0 0.00 4 7.02 0 0.00 0 0.00 57 100.01* 1939-1952 7 2.40 3 1.03 18 6.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 292 100.00 1952-June 1967 6 1.60 6 1.60 25 6.65 3 0.78 4 1.06 376 December 1967-1976 5 1.24 7 1.74 12 2.99 1 0.25 3 0.75 402 Unknown 0 0.00 1 2.78 2 5.56 1 2.78 15 41.67 36 100.01* 21 1.81 17 1.46 61 5.24 5 0.43 22 1.89 1163 99.99* Total *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 100.00 Table A.4 (cont'd.) Career Option Michigan % States Contiguous to Michigan Other Midwest New England MidAtlantic Southeast No. % 62.96 14 14.81 2 2.47 8 9.88 2 2.47 1 1.23 45 51.14 26 29.55 7 7.95 3 3.41 2 2.27 2 2.27 62 59.61 12 11,54 1 0.96 18 17.31 3 2.88 1 0.96 Small 220 50.11 35 7.97 28 6.38 50 11.39 43 9.79 19 4.33 Large 12 27,91 7 16.28 4 9.30 6 13.95 5 11.63 4 9.30 Education 21 27.27 9 11.69 12 15.58 7 9.09 8 10.39 6 7.79 Government 25 25.00 11 11.00 10 10.00 3 3.00 15 15.00 16 16.00 Industry 13 35.14 5 13.51 3 8.11 2 5.41 8 21.62 3 8.11 Military 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 20.00 3 30.00 1 10.00 Retired 9 36.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 1 4.00 3 12.00 3 12.00 Other 6 22.00 8 29.63 2 7.41 3 11.11 2 7.41 2 7.41 51 38.64 25 18.94 10 7.58 11 8.33 10 7.58 12 9.09 516 44.37 151 12.98 82 7.05 114 9.80 104 8.94 70 6.02 Variable No. Mixed 50/50 51 Mixed-Large Mixed-Small Total % No. % No. % No. % 230 Unknown No. Table A.4 (cont'd.) Career Option Southwest % Foreign & Other Total % No. No. % No. % 99.98* Mo. Mixed 50/50 1 1.23 2 2.47 1 1.23 0 0.00 1 1.23 81 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 1 1.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.27 88 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 2 1.92 2 1.92 1 0.96 2 1.92 104 Small 6 1.37 5 1.14 28 6.38 1 0.23 4 0.91 439 Large 1 2.33 0 0.00 2 4.65 1 2.33 1 2.33 43 100.01* Education 3 3.90 1 1.30 9 11.69 0 0.00 1 1.30 77 100.00 Government 5 5.00 4 4.00 5 5.00 2 2.00 4 4.00 100 100.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 1 2.70 37 100.01* Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 2 20.00 10 100.00 Retired 2 8.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 100.00 Other 2 7.41 1 3.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 27 100.00 Unknown 1 0.76 1 0.76 8 6.06 0 0.00 3 2.27 132 100.01* 21 1.81 17 1.46 61 5.24 5 0.43 22 1.89 1163 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures No. U.S. Territories Far West Variable Total % Mountain No. % 100.00 99.98* 100.00 Table A.5 Date of Return by Sex, by Cohort Group, and by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Date of Return 11/1/76 - 1/12/77 Variable % No. 1/13/77 - 2/14/77 No. % 2/15/77 - 6/30/77 No. % Total Unknown No. % No. % Sex Male Female 87.03 37 3.53 94 8.96 5 0.48 1049 100.00 90 84.91 5 4.72 10 9.43 1 0.94 106 100.00 8 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 100.00 1011 86.93 42 3.61 104 8.94 6 0.52 1163 100.00 100.00 Sex not indicated Total Cohort Group 1913-1938 54 94.74 1 1.75 2 3.51 0 0.00 57 1939-1952 252 86.30 10 3.42 29 9.93 1 0.34 292 1952-June, 1967 332 88.30 11 2.93 31 8.24 2 0.53 376 100.00 Dec. 1967-1976 350 87.06 18 4.48 33 8.21 1 0.25 402 100.00 23 63.89 2 5.56 9 25.00 2 5.56 36 86.93 42 3.61 104 8.94 6 0.52 1163 Unknown Total 1011 *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 100.01* 100.00 232 913 Table A.5 (cont'd.) Date of Return 11/1/76 - 1/12/77 Variable % No. 1/13/77 - 2/14/77 No. % 2/15/77 - 6/30/77 No. 1 Unknown No. % Total No. % Career Option Mixed 50/50 69 85.18 5 6.17 7 8.64 0 0.00 81 Mixed-Large 71 80.68 4 4.55 13 14.77 0 0.00 88 100.00 Mixed-Small 94 90.38 5 4.81 4 3.85 1 0.96 104 100.00 Small 384 87.47 8 1.82 44 10.02 3 0.68 439 99.99* Large 37 86.05 5 11.63 1 2.33 0 0.00 43 100.01* Education 69 89.61 5 6.49 3 3.90 0 0.00 77 100.00 Government 89 89.00 2 2.00 8 8.00 1 1.00 100 100.00 Industry 28 75.68 1 2.70 8 21.62 0 0.00 37 100.00 Military 6 60.00 1 10.00 3 30.00 0 0.00 10 100.00 Retired 23 92.00 1 4.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 25 100.00 Other 22 81.48 2 7.41 3 11.11 0 0.00 25 100.00 119 90.15 3 2.27 9 6.82 0 0.76 27 100.00 1011 86.93 42 3.61 104 8.94 1 0.52 1163 100.00 Total *Error due to rounding of figures 233 Unknown 99.99* APPENDIX B SURVEY INSTRUMENT USED IN THE STUDY 234 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MHJICLSE • OFUCH OE THE DEAN ,, (AST LAMING • MICHIGAN • 4M24 Dear Colleague: The College of Veterinary Medicine at Michigan Stata Cniversity, in cooparaelon with the Office of Institutional Research, la conducting a study of Ita graduataa. Aa a graduate of our program you have an excellent vantage point from which eo aaalat the College in evaluating lta program and In keeping It abreaat of today*a profeaalonal demands. The College baa Just completed a comprehen­ sive self-study, and while some Insights were gained, questions still remain. Other baselines naed to be tapped to provide Information about curricular format and emphasis, class else, contributions to society, and other Important questions. The questionnaire used In this study has been developed through two pilot studies and reviewed by the College's Alumni Association together with Input from other colleges of veterinary medicine and the American Veterinary Medical Association. You should be able to complete the questionnaire in approximate­ ly forty-five minutes. An envelope has been provided for the return of the questionnaire. By cooperating in this study, you will be making a valuable contribution to your alma mater and to the veterinary medical profession. If you wish to make additional comments or suggestions to points raised in this study, X extend a personal Invitation to you to visit, telephone, or write me In this regard. The findings of this study will be provided In issues of College Report. Thank you for a prompt response to our questionnaire and continued support of the College of Veterinary Medicine. Thanks again, and best personal regards. Bast wishes. 235 >lrtttloaa: The aijarlty of the questions rtquln that you give a numbered response or a ehaek (V) In the appropriate blank. In soma lnatancaa, open-ended responeea are also solicited. If additional space la naaded for written responses, feel free to use the back page. Tour name la not requlrid. I PEKS02UL DATA l-l Age _________________ 1-3 Tear received D.V.M. dagraa _ _ _ _ _ 1-2 __ Sax: Tamale Male __________ 1-4 Asa raealvad D.V.M. degree 1-3 In what kind of setting did you live during the majority of your high school years? (check ona) _ _ _ urban or metropolitan area _ _ _ suburban area ____rural area, but lived la town ___ rural area, and lived on a farm 1-6 What was the location of your legal rasldanee Just prior to entering MSB Collage of Veterinary Medicine? (ehaek ona) Michigan another state or U.S. territory (specify) a foreign country (specify) __________________________________________ II CAREER PATTERN 2-1 Approximately whan did you decide to become a veterinarian? (check one) prior to entering high school _ _ _ during high school _ _ _ following high school, but before entering college during collage after completing a bachelors or masters degree _ _ _ other (specify) . 2-2 Describe any work experience related to veterinary medicine which you had prior to entering your D.V.M. program, (write responses or check the statement written below) Experience responsibilities, etc. Setting private practice, clinic, lab, etc. no previous work experience -1- length of Time years months Practice (✓) sm. lg. mixed 236 2-3 Cowplece tha following chart Indicating the type of work In which you wara Involved, the years of aaployaant, tha type of eaployar for whoa you worked, location of your residence, the number of other DVK'a with whoa you worked, approximate net peraonal Income from veterinary medicine, and workload for each professional position you have held. Respond using the appropriate code aa Indicated, (respond by number only) Profaeeional Type of Position Wbrk Year Year Starting Ending Eaployar Location Number of Othar DVM'a First Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh I W O K CLASSIFICATION (Aim) 1. nixed practice (SO-SO lg, sad cn.) 2. nixed practice (over 902 large) 3. nixed practice (ever 502 aaaU) *, mall anlasl practice (exclusive) 9. large atInal practice (exclusive) 0, equina practice (exclusive) 7, bovine practice (exclusive) S. porcine practice (exclusive) 9, poultry practice (exeluelve) 10. anatomy 11. biochemistry 12. clinician 13. aieroblolosy 14. nutrition 15. ophthalmology 16. parasitology 17. pathology IS. pathology, aviso 19. pathology, clinical 20. pharmacology 21. physiology 22. radiology 23. surgery 24. toxleology 23. veterinary public health 26. regulatory vet medicine 27. fur bearing animals 28. lab animal medicine 29. too animal* 30. extension 31. diagnostic vet medicine 32. military vet medicine 33. other vet medicine 34. occupation outside of vet mod 33. retired 36. other tanam 1. college or university 2. federal government (or dominion) 3. International government 4. state or local government 3. armed foreea 6. self-employed 7. privets practice employer 8. Industry employer 9. retired 10. other LOCATION I 1. Michigan 2. another state or U.S. territory 3. a foreign country naan or other dvm's with whom too ran 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. one two three to five more then five Ngt INCOME FROM VETERINARY MEDICINE DURING LAST TZAR IN EACH POSITION 1. 2. 3. 4. under 910,000 5. 930,001 to 940.000 910,001 to 919,000 .6. 940,001 to 930,000 913,001 to 920,000 7. 930,001 to 960,000 920,001 to 930.000 S. over 960,000 WDIXLOAD 1. full-time 2. part-time, 302 or greater 3. part-time, leas chan 502 Income Workload 237 Bov much did each of eh* following factors influence your decision eo become a veterinarian? Respond eo each using the following coda: (respond by number only) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5* very inch Influence s o m Influence very little Influence no Influence no opinion _____ desire to relieve animal suffering _____ owned or worked with large aalnals _____ owned or worked wleh smell animals worked and/or lived on a farm Interested In medical field _____ veterinarian la family (a.) Various career objectives are listed below. Indicate those which had the greatest Influence on your decislon(s) about the type(s) of work you have pursued In veterinary medicine, (eheck all that apply) love of animals acquainted with a veterinarian worked with a veterinarian desire for financial security other (specify) ____________ (b.) Again, review the list and Indicate which objectives you perceive may be satis­ fied adequately in the following career settings, (check all that apply) / Part b. Part a. / / /> being own boss . . . . setting own hours associating with colleagues • finding employment opportunities desiring financial security . working In a rural setting working In an urban setting . ualng a variety of medical skills ualng other skills in a medical setting fulfilling desire to help people 4 animals finding intellectual stimulation Investigating the unknown 'other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Please Indicate the professional organisations to which you belong and offices which you have held. Offices Organisation -3- 238 2-7 Hava you pub1ishad or pnintad research findings or rasults of professional axperlencas? (cheek one) yes no If yes, give number: books _ _ monographs articles (or chapters in books) _ _ _ case reports _____papers presentedatprofessional meetings 2-8 Describe your involvement in tha training of veterinary students. Employed high school and preveterinary students Supervised praeeptorships Employed recent graduates Taught In formal academic settings Tes Ho ____ ____ _____ _____ _____ _____ 2-9 Axe you currently affiliated (e.g. teaching, rasaareh) with aveterinary ___ yes no (check one) school? If yes, specify the school and nature of the affiliation.___________________ 2-10 Indicate the amount of consultation activities in which you are Involved. to each item with the following code: (respond by number only) Respond 1. frequent contacts 2. soma contact 3. none other veterinarians livestock Industry other industry (specify) ___________ farm organizations _____ schools of veterinary medicine ___ government agencies, local _ _ government agencies, national _____ other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2-11 To what extent are you Involved in community service activities? to a very great extent to a great extent (cheek one) _____ to some extent ' to no extent Remarks __________________________________________________ 2-12 In how many of each of the following community education activities have you participated per year? Respond using the following cods: (respond by number only) 1. less than one per year 2. one per year 3. two to five per year 4. more than five per year speaking engagements for special interest groups (e.g. saddle clubs,kennel clubs) speaking engagements for adult community groups(e.g. PTS, civic clubs,churches) speaking engagements for youth community groups(e.g. 4H, Scouts) public radio and television programming _ _ newspaper articles or columns other (specify) -4- 239 2-13 In general, bow satisfied or* you with your career to data? (ehaek ona) ___ greatly satisfied ___ vary graatly aatlaflad ___ no opinion _ _ not satisfied at all _ _ alightly aatlaflad somewhat aatlaflad 2-14 At tha praaant time, what ara your futura plana? .(ehaek all that apply) probably atay In ay praaant flald of vatarlnary medicine _ _ move Into another flald of veterinary aadlelna (apaelfy, ualng tha Work Classification coda froa question 2-3 on page 2) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ retire froa vatarlnary aadlelna within tha next five yaara ____ leave veterinary aadlelna for another full-tine occupation (apaelfy) __ _ _ _ atudy for apaelalty board eartlfieatloa _____ undertake atudy toward a graduate degree _ _ _ lavaatlgata other opportunities _ _ _ other (apaelfy) ________________________________________________ III ADMISSIONS 3-1 Bow much emphaala should be placed on eaeh of to profaaalonal veterinary training? Reapond number only) 1. vary strong 2. atrong 3. SOBS tha following criteria for admission eo each as follows: (respond by ____ grade point average vatarlnary aptitude test _ _ _ work experience with a veterinarian letters of recommendation personal interview exposure ___ degreea Initiative ___ ambition _ _ _ morals and ethics ___ other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3-2 4. S. none no opinion If the number of qualified applicants to the D.V.M. program at MSB exceeds ehe available openings, should a lottery system be used to determine admissions? (cheek one) — no _____ no opinion 3-3 What suggeation(a) do you have for modifying or Improving tha selection process? (use back page If necessary) -3- 240 IV TRAINING 4-1 What m s eh* required length of your prevatarlnary and vatarlnary program! (check on* from aaeh column) Pravatar<^f^» ^ " | p i 0, non* required _ _ 1 yaar 2 yaara _ _ _ 3 years _____ 4 yaars ____ mora than 4 yaara D.V.M. Program ____ 3 yaars _ _ _ 4 yaara _____ othar (apaelfy) 4-2 Considering tha total educational and emotional development of students what do you think is tha optimum length of pravatarinary and vatarlnary program! Pravatarinarv Program _____ 0, non* raqulrad _____ I yaar 2 yasrs 3 years _____ 4 yaars _____ mora chan 4 yaara D.V.M. Program * 3 yaara ____ 4 yaars _ _ _ «*har (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4-3 In term of adequate professional training, what do you perceive as tha advantage* and disadvantages of tha 3 vaar curriculum! Advantages Disadvantages Commenta 4-4 In t e r m of adequate professional training what do you parcaiva as tha advantages and disadvantages of tha 4 Tear curriculum! Advantages Disadvantages Comments -6- 241 4-3 Baaed on. your vatarlnary professional needs, what emphasis do you faal la optlaal for tha curricular araaa 11atad balov? Respond eo aach aa follova: (respond by number only) 1. 2. 3. 4. X X X no ballava X naadad mora training ballava X naadad laaa training ballava X had tha right tpmnt of training opinion ,anaCony (gross and hlatology) ,anatoay (neuroanatoay) anatony (applied) ,microbiology (virology, bacteriology, 'poultry dlaaaaaa mycology) ,paraaltology ’pathology (baalc and systamlc) ’clinical pathology |appllad pathology (nacropay) ’phyalology pharmacology ’toxicology ’public haalth |epidemiology \small animal clinlca 'amall animal aurgary amall animal medicine equina madlclna food animal madlclna larga animal aurgary larga animal clinics laboratory animal madiclna obstatrlcs 4 reproduction (aa. animals) obatatrlcs & reproduction (lg. animals) nutrition (amall animals) nutrition (large animals) radiology animal behavior aquatic and axoeic animal diseases ethics and jurisprudence economica and businaaa management personnel management other (apaelfy) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4-6 Satinets tha percentage of your work that deals primarily with aach of the following organ systems, (write responses which total 100X) t X g g g g g g g g g g 100 g urinary system hematopoietic system nervous system cardiovascular system respiratory system reproductive system digestive system Intagumaneary system musculoskeletal system endocrine system other systems other work not In organ systems TOTAL 4-7 How wall did tha D.V.M. curriculum in vatarlnary madlclna prepare you in the following areas? Respond to each as follows: (respond by number only) 1. extremely wall 2. adequately 3. poorly 4. not at all 5. no opinion history taking_____________________ ___ diagnostic skills__________________ ___ physical examination _ _ _ _ _ therapeutics _ _ problem solvingskills_______________ ___ 7- surgical skills emergency care patient management silent communications business management 242 4-8 Describe tha vatarlnary precapcorshlp or vatarlnary work experience you had during your D.V.M. aducaeion. (write raaponsaa or check cha statement written below) Experience raaponalbilltlaa, etc. Setting private practice, clinic, lab, etc. _____ no precaptorahip or work experience 4-9 Your praceptorship or work experience was: Langth_of_Tlme years montha Practice, (V) sm. lg. mixed (skip to question 4-10) (check one) the most valuable pert of your training _____ one of tha nore valuable parts of your training a valuable part of your training lass valuable Chan other parts of your training .of no value in your training ■ no opinion 4-10 Overall, how wall did your professional training at HSU prepare you for your career in veterinary aadlelna? (check one) not at all no opinion _____ extremely well adequately poorly Consent 4-11 Several components of the veeerinary program ae MSU are listed below. Rate them you perceived them when y o u ware a student according to the following code: (respond by number only) as 1. 2. 3. 4. 3. a very strong part of the MS? program a strong part of the MSU program a weak pert of the MSU program a very weak part of the MSU program no opinion curriculum _____ Informal faculty contact clinical experience(large animal) other (specify) Comment -8- _____ clinicalexperience (smell animal) _____ adylelng _____ relationships withotherstudents 243 4-12 At graduation what was your indebtedness for aducaClonal expenses? nono less than $1000 $1001 to $2300 $2301 to $5000 $5001 to $7500 (ehaek ona) ___ $7301 to $10,000 ___ $10,001 to $12,300 ___ $12,301 to $13,000 ___ over $15,000 4-13 Check, thoaa degrees or llat specialty board certification you have In addition to tha D.V.M. (ehaek all that apply) bachelors masters doctorate ___ M.D. or D.O. ___ specialty board certification (specify) _____ other ^specify) none 4-14 Llat poat-D.V.M. residency training or specialty training programs you have completed. Tyne Training Institution Tear 4-15 List state board exams which you have passed. Seate Date 4-16 Indicate which of the following types of veterinary related courses or training sessions you have attended since graduation, (eheck itll that apply) seminars short courses short courses with lab graduate courses toward degree graduaea courses not toward degree Internships residency training programs state and local meetings national meetings ocher (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4-17 How helpful are each of the following In your continuing education activities? Rsspond to each using the following code: (respond by number only) 1. extremely helpful 2. somewhat helpful 3. not helpful 4. no opinion field work self-designed study correspondence occasional short-term campus residence experience programed instruction wet lab experience tape casseetes ___ side band radio _____ computer assisted study ___ reading ___ drug salesmen _ _ _ ease referral letters ___ consultations ___ films _ _ _ other (specify) _______ _ _ _ none -9- 244 T PUBLIC HEALTH 5-1 What percentage of your activities in veterinary madlclna haa public haaleh Implications? (ehaek ona) laaa than 101 10X to 2SZ 5-2 ___ 26Z to SOX ___ 51% to 75X 76X to 100X To what extent do you eoatrlbuta professionally to the health and well-being of your community? Reapond ualng tha following eodat (reapond by number only) 1. 2. 3. 4. all of ay profeeelonal work is in thla area moat of ay professional work la la thla area soma of my professional work la in thla area none of my professional work is in this area _____ giving rabies vaccinations _____ discussing health probleaa related to rabies, ringworm, parasites, and other roonotlc diseases _____ advising the withholding from market food animals or their products for a period of time _____ inspecting food animal products working in a sale barn _ _ _ working with a board of health _____ working in regulatory veterinarymedicine _____ conducting research for disease control and eradication treating and caring for companion animals _____ otherpublic health implications 5-3 List other ways you contribute professionally to the health and well-being of your community (justification for support of veterinary medicine by society). 5-4 Are there other areas of public health In which veterinarians should Increase their Involvement? VI ANIMAL TECHNICIANS 6-1 How many animal taebnldans (animal caretakers, laboratory assistants) would you like to employ at each of the following salary ranges? Respond using the following code: (respond by number only) 1. none 2. one 3. two 4. three 5. more than three ____ $7,500 or leas $7,501 to $8,500 $8,501 to $9,500 $9,501 to $10,500 $10,501 or more 10- 245 fr-2 How many animal technicians are prasently employed in your place of employment? (check one) _ _ _ none (aklp to question 6-5) one ___ two _____ three more than three 6-3 Of the number of animal technicians checked above, how'manys a. Have received a certificate for completion of animal technician training? (check one) _____ none _____ one b. ______two ______ three Are registered by the state as animal technicians? _ _ none _ _ _ one _____ two _ _ _ three 6-4 In what areas do they performduties? anesthesiology and surgery _____ animal restraint clinical pathology client relations (examination and discharge) 6—5 more than three (check one) ____ more than three (check all that apply) _ _ _ kennel work _____ medical treatment _____ office procedures radiology _____ other (specify) ____________ What doyou feel are the effects ofanlstal technicians on veterinary medical practice? Respond to the statements below using the following eode: (respond by number only) 1. 2. 3. strongly agree agree disagree 4. strongly disagree 5. no opinion _____ they will enable tha veterinarian In food animal medicine to care for mora patients they will enable the veterinarian In small animal oraquine medicineto care for more patients they will enable the qualityofpatient carela foodanimal madlclna to be Improved they will enable the quality ofpatient careIn small animal or equine medicine to be Improved 6-6 Do you feel that veterinary practice statutory acts regarding closeness of supervision should be liberalised to expand the use of animal technicians by food animal practitioners? (check one) 7«* no no opinion -li- 246 6-7 Indicate tha appropriate emphasis chat you faal should bo placed on tha following araaa of animal technician training ualng tha following numbered raapoaaasi (reapond by number only) 1. 2. 3. 4. I I X no ballava ooro amphar.ls should ba placed on thla area ballavatha praaant emphasis la adequate ballava laaa emphasis should ba placed on this area opinion anesthesiology _____ animal behavior _ _ _ animal restraint client relations clinical pathology medical treatment skills 6-8 ___ microbiology _____ offlca procaduras (clerical) _ _ _ pharmacology _____ radiology _____ surgery ___ vatarlnary terminology other (specify) Considering cha role and future of the animal technician what comments and suggestions do you have for tha Collage of Veterinary Madlclna regarding thalr training? VII CONTINUING RELATIONSHIP WITH MSU 7 -1 Check as many of tha following contacts as you have had with MSU since you graduated. ____ jimww* events _____ athletic events ____ suanar school ______ evening school graduate school _____ MSU Placement Services professional and/or personal contactwith faculty of tha College of Veterinary Madlclna professional and/or personal contactwith otherfaculty outside the College of Veterinary Madlclna _____ «m«ut post-graduate conference _ _ _ other (apaelfy) . 7 -2 Asa you aware that contributions can be made to tha Collage of Vatarlnary Madlclna through tha MSU Development Fund? (check one) yes _____ no 7 -3 What Is your attitude about financial support of the College of Veterinary Medicine after graduation? (check ona) 1 believe it should be supported and I contribute regularly ____ x believe It should be supported and I have contributed, but not regularly X believe It should ba supported, but have never done so X believe support should come from other sources other (specify) ___________________________________________________ -12- 247 7-4 Several factors of eta* veterinary program me HSU ara listed below. Bat* then *■ you now perceive eh«a according eo eh* following codes (respond by number only) 1. * vary serong pare of eh* HSU program 2V a serong pare of eta* MSU program 3. a weak part of eh* HSU program 4. a vary weak pare of eh* HSU program 5. no opinion _____ curriculum (course content) clinical experiences (larga animal) _____ clinical experiences (small animal) referral system alumni ralatlona continuing education admissions process responsiveness eo your needs VIII FUTURE TRENDS 8-1 Indicate tha degree of emphasis the Collage of Veterinary Madlclna should place on Its activities within thee* areas. Respond to each as follows: (respond by number only) 1. very strong 4. none 2. serong 5. no opinion 3 . soma public health animal welfare _____ consumer advocacy environmental concerns _ _ _ efficiency In food animal production _ _ International veterinary madlclna ___ changing-human dietary patterns _ _ _ fees ___ malpractice _ _ _ position of pae animals in aoeleey other (specify) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ' I 3-2 Identify eh* amount of attention which should be directed toward the following groups or service areas by professionals In the field of veterinary medicine. Respond to each Item with tha following coda: (respond by number only) 1. 2. 3. 4. much greater attention greaeer attention present level of attention less attention 3 . no attention 6. no opinion ____ suburban pet owners ____ exotic and too animal madlclna Inner city pet owners ___ agricultural andbiological research livestock producers - herdhealth ___ comparative medical research livestock producers - Individualanimal _ _ _ meat Inspection _____ fisheries and wildlife management _ _ _ public health horse owners ___ other (specify) 13- 248 8-3 What new caraar opportunities for vstsrlnsrlsns will davalop in tha nut tan years? (uaa back pass If necessary) 8-4 What othar sociatal demands, future directions, and concerns for veterinary medicine do you forasaa in tha near future? (uaa back page if necessary) Thank you for your help and cooperation. If there is anything else you think va ought to know, please use the space below to write your contents. Results of this study will be reported to you in a future issue of the College Report. Please fold and return the completed questionnaire in the envelope provided to the Offiaa of Institutional Ssssarah, Miahtgm Stats University, East Lcsnsing, tHahigan 48824. -14- APPENDIX C TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE I Table C.l Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large Sex No. Z No. % No. Z No. Z No. Male 76 7.76 87 8.89 91 9.29 383 39.12 42 4.29 Female 6 5.77 3 2.88 14 13.46 56 53.85 1 0.96 Not Reported 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 60.00 0 0.00 82 7.54 90 8.27 105 9.65 442 40.63 43 3.95 249 Total % Table C.l (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Industry Military Sex Mo. % Mo. Mo. % Mo. Male 70 7.15 109 11.13 36 3.68 11 1.12 23 2.35 51 5.21 979 Female 8 7.69 2 1.92 4 3.85 0 0.00 4 3.85 6 5.77 104 100.00 Not Reported 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 100.00 80 7.35 111 10.20 40 3.68 11 1.01 27 2.48 57 Total % % Other No. Unknown % No. % Total Mo. % 99.99* 5.24 1088 100.00 250 Error due to rounding of figures Table C.2 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 Cohort Group No. X MixedLarge No. MixedSmall X Small No. X No. Large % No. % 1913-1938 1 2.08 3 6.25 0 0.00 7 14.58 0 0.00 1939-1952 14 5.26 22 8.27 23 8.65 66 24.81 7 2.63 1953-June 1967 27 7.83 35 10.14 36 10.43 139 40.29 17 4.93 Dec.1967-1977 39 9.90 29 7.36 44 11.17 213 54.06 18 4.57 1 2.86 1 2.86 2 5.71 17 48.57 1 2.86 82 7.54 90 8.27 105 9.65 442 40.63 43 3.95 Unknown Total Table C.2 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Cohort Group No. % No. No. No. 1913-1938 8 16.67 15 31.25 3 6.25 0 0.00 1 1939-1952 27 10.15 58 21.80 13 4.89 2 0.75 1953-June 1967 23 6.67 29 8.41 16 4.64 5 Dec. 1967--1977 20 5.08 5 1.27 6 1.52 Unknown 2 5.71 4 11.43 2 80 7.35 111 10.20 40 Total * Error due to rounding of figures % % Other % Total No. % No. % 2.08 10 20.83 48 99.99* 10 3.76 24 9.02 266 99.99* 1.45 6 1.74 12 3.48 345 100.01* 2 0.51 10 2.54 8 2.03 394 100.01* 5.71 2 5.71 0 0.00 3 8.57 35 99.99* 3.68 11 1.01 27 2.48 57 % No. Unknown 5.24 1088 100.00 252 Education Table C.3 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Location Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. Small % No. % No. % Michigan 52 11.16 45 9.66 65 13.95 218 46.78 12 2.58 Another State 25 4.60 44 8.09 38 6.99 221 40.63 31 5.70 Foreign Country 1 11.11 1 11.11 1 11.11 1 11.11 0 0.00 Michigan and Other States 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other and Foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan and Foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, Other and Foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 78 7.60 90 8.77 104 10.14 440 42.88 43 4.19 253 No. % No. Large Location Total % MixedSmall Table C.3 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Industry Other X No. X No. Michigan 21 4.51 26 5.58 16 3.43 1 0.21 8 1.72 Another state 59 10.85 78 14.34 24 4.41 4 0.74 18 Foreign country 0 0.00 3 33.33 0 0.00 1 1.11 Michigan and other state 0 0 .0 0 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other and foreign 0 0.00 1 20.00 0 0.00 4 80.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 7.80 110 10.72 40 3.90 80 10 X No. 2 0.43 466 100.01* 3.31 2 0.37 544 100.01* 1 1.11 0 0.00 9 99.99* 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100 .00* 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 100.00 0.0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 1 100.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.97 No. 27 X Total 2.63 No. 4 0.39 1026** Error due to rounding of figures ** There were 62 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for this specific position. X 99.00** 254 No. No. X Unknown Location Total X Military Table C.4 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice Career Option (Present) Number of Other DVM's in Practice No. MixedSmall MixedLarge Mixed50/50 % No. % No. Large Small % No. k % No. % 38 11.18 31 9.12 43 12.65 143 42.06 27 7.94 One 18 8.37 22 10.23 31 14.42 123 57.21 5 2.33 Two 14 11.38 13 10.57 11 8.94 67 54.47 2 1.63 Three to five 6 3.87 20 12.90 16 10.32 72 46.45 5 3.23 More than five 0 0.00 3 1.96 0 0.00 18 11.76 0 0.00 76 7.71 89 9.03 101 10.24 423 42.90 39 3.96 Total 255 None Table C.4 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Industry Military in Practice No. % No. % No. % No. None 9 2.65 26 7.65 8 2.35 One 2 0.93 3 1.40 5 Two 3 2.44 7 5.69 Three to five 6 3.87 17 More than five 57 37.25 Total 77 7.81 Other Unknown % No. 2 0.59 12 3.53 1 0.29 340 100.01* 2.33 1 0.47 5 2.33 0 0.00 215 100.02* 2 1.63 0 0.00 2 1.63 2 1.63 123 100.00* 10.97 7 4.52 3 1.94 3 1.94 0 0.00 155 100.00* 54 35.29 16 10.46 3 1.96 2 1.31 0 0.00 153 99.99* 107 10.85 38 3.85 9 0.91 24 2.43 3 0.30 986** 99.99* % No. % Total No. *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 102 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. % 256 other DVM's Table C.5 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Workload Career Option (Present) MixedLarge Mixed50/50 Small Large No. % No. % 7.81 87 8.94 100 10.28 419 43.06 40 4.11 1 4.00 2 8.00 3 12.00 13 52.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 4.00 8 32.00 79 7.72 89 8.70 10.17 440 43.01 Wo. Full-time 76 Part-time (50% <.) Part-time « 50%) % No. No. % 257 Workload Total MixedSmall 104 12.00 43 4.20 Table C.5 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Workload No. No. Fulltime 76 7.81 Part-time (50% < ) 0 Part-time (<50%) Total Industry % No. 109 11.20 36 3.70 11 0.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 78 7.62 111 10.85 38 3.71 % % Military Unknown No. % No. 1.13 17 1.75 2 0 0.00 4 16.00 0. 0.00 6 1.08 27 No. 11 % Other Total % No. % 0.21 973 100.00 0 0.00 25 100.00 24.00 1 4.00 25 100.00 2.64 3 0.29 1023<* 99.99* ♦Error due to rounding of figures ♦♦There were 65 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted data on workload for this specific position 258 Education 259 Table C.6 Location of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex Not Reported Female Male Total Location No. % No. % No. % No. % Michigan 413 44.65 51 53.13 2 40.00 466 45.42 Another state 496 53.62 45 46.88 3 60.00 544 53.02 Foreign country 9 0.97 0 0.00 0.00 9 0.88 Michigan and other state 1 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 Other and foreign 5 0.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.49 Michigan and foreign 1 0.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 925 100.00 96 100.01* 5 100.00 Total 1026** 100.01 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 62 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for this specific position. Table C.7 Location Of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 Location No. No. Michigan 11 56.41 89 37.08 148 44.71 196 51.17 11 33.33 466 45.42 Another state 17 43.59 148 61.67 177 53.47 180 47.00 22 66.67 544 53.02 Foreign country 0 0.00 1 0.42 2 0.60 6 1.57 0 0.00 9 0.88 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 Other and foreign 0 0.00 1 0.42 3 0.91 1 0.26 0 0.00 5 0.49 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39 100.00 240 383 100.00 33 100.00 % 100.01* No. 331 % 99.99* No. % Unknown No. % Total No. % 1026** 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 62 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted data on location for this specific position. 260 Total % 1953-June, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 261 Table C.8 Size o£ Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex „ , _ Number of Other DVM's in Practice Male Female Not Reported No. % No. % No. % No. % None 313 35.33 25 26.32 2 40.00 340 34.48 One 188 21.22 27 28.42 0 0.00 215 21.81 Two 106 11.96 16 16.84 1 20.00 123 12.47 Three to five 134 15.12 20 21.05 1 20.00 155 15.72 More than five 145 16.37 7 7.37 1 20.00 153 15.52 Total 886 100.00 95 100.00 5 100.00 986* 100.00 *There were 102 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. Table C.9 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. % No. % None 11 30.56 87 39.55 One 1 2.78 32 14.55 Two 4 11.11 18 8.18 Three to five 6 16.67 22 More than five 14 38.89 Total 36 100.01* 1953-June, 1967 * No. % Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % 39.88 106 28.12 8 25.00 340 34.48 63 . 19.63 107 28.38 12 27.50 215 21.81 37 11.53 61 16.18 3 9.38 128 12.47 10.00 50 15.58 71 18.83 6 18.75 155 15.72 61 27.73 43 13.40 32 8.49 3 9.38 153 15.52 220 100.01* 321 100.02* 377 100.00 32 128 100.01* 986** *100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 102 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. 262 H Number of Other DVM's in Practice 263 Table C.10 Income of Present Primary Professional Positions by Sex Sex Male Income No. Female Not Reported Total % No. % No. % No. % $10,000 and Under 45 4.97 21 21.65 0 0.00 66 6.55 $10,001 to $15,000 73 8.06 27 27.84 0 0.00 100 9.92 $15,001 to $20,000 172 18.98 23 23.71 0 0.00 195 19.35 $20,001 to $30,000 285 31.46 19 19.59 3 60.00 307 30.46 $30,001 to $40,000 175 19.32 7 7.22 1 20.00 183 18.15 $40,001 to $50,000 90 9.93 0 0.00 1 20.00 91 9.03 $50,001 to $60,000 28 3.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 28 2.78 Over $60,000 38 4.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 38 3.77 906 100.00 97 100.01* '5 100.00 Total 1008** 100.01 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 80 respondents who completed the employment grid but ommited data on income for this specific position. Table C.ll Income of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group 'Cohort Group 1913 -1938 Income Ho. % 1939-1952 1953-June, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 No. % No. % No. % Unknown Total No. % No. % 5 13.16 8 3.45 19 5.79 32 8.47 2 6.25 66 6.55 $10,001 to $15,000 4 10.53 17 7.33 15 4.57 61 16.14 3 9.38 100 9.92 $15,001 to $20,000 4 10.53 34 14.66 27 8.23 122 32.28 8 25.00 195 19.35 $20,001 to $30,000 13 34.21 78 33.62 97 29.57 109 28.84 10 31.25 207 30.46 $30,001 to $40,000 8 21.05 53 22.84 82 25.00 33 8.73 7 21.87 183 18.15 $40,0001 to $50,000 3 7.89 26 11.21 50 15.24 11 2.91 1 3.13 91 9.03 $50,0001 to $60,000 1 2.63 9 3.88 14 4.27 4 1.06 0 0.00 28 2.78 Over $60,000 0 0.00 7 3.02 24 7.32 6 1.59 1 3.13 38 3.77 38 100.00 232 Total 100.01* 328 99.99* 378 100.02* 32 100.03* 1008** 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 80 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted tye data on income for this specific position. 264 $10,000 and under 265 Table C.12 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex Male Workload Not Reported Total % No. % No. % No. 885 96.09 83 85.51 5 100.00 973 95.11 Part-time <50%< ) 16 1.74 9 9.28 0 0.00 25 2.44 Part-time («: 50%) 20 2.17 5 5.15 0 0.00 25 2.44 921 100.00 97 100.00 5 100.00 1023** 99.99* Full-time Total No. Female % *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 65 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. Table C.13 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939 -1952 % No. 1953-June, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown No. % Total No. % No. Full-time 34 91.89 225 95.34 319 96.37 364 94.30 31 93.94 973 95.11 Part-time (50%^) 0 0.00 4 1.69 7 2.11 13 3.37 1 3.03 25 2.44 Part-time (<50%) 3 8.11 7 2.97 5 1.51 9 2.33 1 3.03 25 2.44 37 100.00 236 100.00 331 386 100.00 33 100.00 Total % No. % 99.99* No. % 1023** 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 65 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. 266 Workload Table C.14 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Sex Career Option (First) MixedLarge Mixed50/50 Sex No. Male 110 11.24 192 19.61 90 9.19 Female 9 8.65 5 4.81 11 Not reported 0 0.00 0 0.00 119 10.94 197 18.11 Total % No. MixedSmall % No. Small No, Large Education % No. 311 31.77 44 4.49 68 6.95 10.58 63 60.58 1 0.96 7 6.73 0 0.00 1 20.00 0 0.00 2 40.00 101 9.28 375 34.47 45 4.14 77 7.08 % % No. % 267 Table C.14 (cont'.d) Career Option (First) Government Sex No. Industry Military No. 0 0.00 24 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 4 0.37 0 No. 121 12.36 13 1.33 4 0.41 Female 6 5.77 2 1.92 0 Not reported 2 40.00 0 0.00 129 11.86 15 1.38 Male Total *Error due to rounding of figures Other X No. % X Retired X No. Unknown Total No. X 2.45 2 0.20 979 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 104 100.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 100.00 0.00 2 2.21 2 0.18 1088 100.02' X No. X Table C.15 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group , Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 Cohort Group No. MixedLarge % MixedSmall No. % No. Small % No. Large % No. % 5 10.42 7 14.58 1 2.08 3 6.25 1 2.08 1939-1952 32 12.03 74 27.82 17 6.39 25 9.40 19 7.14 1953-June 1967 36 10.43 64 18.55 34 9.86 121 35.07 10 2.90 December 1978-1977 43 10.91 47 11.93 47 11.93 213 54.06 14 3.55 3 8.57 5 14.29 2 5.71 13 37.14 1 2.86 119 10.94 197 18.11 101 9.28 375 34.47 45 4.14 Unknown Total 268 1913-1918 Table C.15 (cont'd.) Career Option (First) Cohort Group Education Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. No. No. % % % % % Other Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % 7 14.58 20 41.67 2 4.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.08 2 2.08 48 99.99* 1939-1952 18 6.77 61 22.93 6 2.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 13 4.89 1 0.38 266 100.01* 1953-June 1967 34 9.86 38 11.01 3 0.87 1 0.29 0 0.00 4 1.16 0 0.00 345 100.00 December 1967-1977 15 3.81 6 1.52 3 0.76 1 0.25 0 0.00 5 1.27 0 0.00 394 99.99* 3 8.57 4 11.43 1 2.86 2 5.71 0 0.00 1 2.86 0 0.00 35 100.02* 7.08 129 11.86 1.38 4 0.37 0 0.00 24 2.21 2 0.18 1088 100.02* Unknown Total 77 *Error due to rounding of figures 15 269 1913-1918 Table C.16 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge Z MixedSmall Small Large No. 9 10.98 3 3.66 8 9.76 6 3.33 70 77.78 1 1.11 2 2.22 13 12.38 16 15.24 49 46.67 15 Small 18 4.07 35 7.92 26 5.88 Large 7 16.28 8 18.60 6 Education 8 10.00 9 11.25 Government 9 8.11 26 Industry 2 5.00 Military 2 Retired 7.32 1 1.22 4 4.44 3 3.33 14.29 1 0.96 2 1.90 297 67.19 10 2.26 15 3.39 13.95 1 2.33 12 27.91 4 5.00 2 2.50 16 20.00 4 5.00 35 43.75 23.42 5 4.51 9 8.11 2 1.80 5 4.51 3 7.50 1 2.50 5 12.50 3 7.50 9 22.50 18.18 3 27.27 1 2.50 1 9.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 2 7.41 4 14.81 5 18.52 7 25.93 0 0.00 2 7.41 Unknown 4 7.02 14 24.56 3 5.26 14 24.56 3 5.26 2 3.51 51 62.20 Mixed-Large 3 Mixed-Small Total No. No. Z Z Mixed-50/50 % % No. No. 270 Z Career Option (Present) No. Education Table C.16 (cont'd.) Career Option (First) Government Industry Military Retired (Present) No. Mixed-50/50 2 2.44 1 1.22 1 1.22 0 Mixed-Large 7 7.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Small 7 6.67 0 0.00 0 Small 34 7.69 2 0.45 Large 5 11.63 1 Education 5 6.25 47 Industry 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 82 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 90 99.99* 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.90 0 0.00 105 100.01* 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 1.13 0 0.00 442 99.98* 2.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 43 100.01* 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.25 0 0.00 80 100.00 42.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 6.31 1 0.90 111 100.01* 6 15.00 9 22.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.00 0 0.00 40 100.00 Military 2 18.18 0 0.00 3 27.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 11 99.99* Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 3 11.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 14.81 0 0.00 27 100.00 11 19.30 2 3.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 5.26 1 1.75 57 99.99* 129 11.86 15 1.38 4 0.37 0 0.00 24 2.21 2 0.18 1088 100.02* Unknown Total *Error due to rounding of figures No. % No. % No. % Total % Government % Unknown No. % No. Other No. % 100.00 Table C.17 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Location Career Option (First) Mixed 50/50 Mixed Large - MixedSmall - No. % No. % No. % No. % Michigan 69 13.29 93 17.92 49 9.44 198 38.15 15 2.89 Another state 49 9.04 102 18.82 50 9.23 176 32.47 30 5.54 Foreign country 0 0.00 1 8.33 1 8.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other state and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 118 10.90 197 18.19 100 9.23 374 34.53 45 4.16 No. % 272 Location Total Large Small Table C.17 (cont'd.) Career Option (First) Education Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. No. % No. Michigan 38 7.32 47 9.06 4 0.77 0 0.00 0 Another state 38 7.01 66 12.18 9 1.66 2 0.37 Foreign country 1 8.33 9 75.00 0 0.00 0 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 5 71.43 1 14.29 Other state and foreign 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 100.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 7.11 129 Total 77 % Unknown No. % 0.00 519 100.00 2 0.37 542 100.01* 0.00 0 0.00 12 99.99* 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 100.01* 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.27 0 0.00 24 2.22 2 0.18 No. % No. 0.00 6 1.16 0 0 0.00 18 3.32 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 50.00 0 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 11.91 14 1.29 3 % Total % % % *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 5 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location of this specific position. ' 100.00 0.00 1083** 99.99* 273 Location Other Table C.18 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 Number of Other DVM's in Practice No. None 37 One MixedLarge MixedSmall % No. 14.86 77 30.92 28 11.24 42 41 13.53 62 20.46 42 13.86 Two 25 13.59 30 16.30 17 Three to five 11 6.43 22 12.87 More than five 0 0.00 3 114 10.82 194 Total % No % No. % 16.87 23 9.24 130 42.90 7 2.31 9.24 91 49.46 7 3.80 12 7.02 88 51.46 6 3.51 2.04 0 0.00 21 14.29 0 34.69 18.41 99 9.39 372 35.29 43 7.02 274 No. % Large Small Table C.18 (cont'd.) Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice Career Option (First) Number of Other DVM's in Practice Education Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. No. No. % % % % Other % No. Unknown % No. % Total No. % 9 3.61 21 8.43 4 1.61 0 0.00 0 0.00 8 3.21 0 0.00 240 99.99* One 5 1.65 7 2.31 3 0.99 1 0.33 0 0.00 5 1.65 0 0.00 303 99.99* Two 3 1.63 9 4.89 1 0.54 0 0.99 0 0.00 1 0.54 0 0.00 184 99.99* Three to five 6 3.51 16 9.36 5 2.92 2 1.17 0 0.00 3 1.75 0 0.00 171 100.00 More than five 51 34.69 64 43.54 1 0.68 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 4.08 1 0.68 147 100.00 Total 74 7.02 117 11.10 14 1,33 3 0.28 0 0.00 23 2.18 1 0.09 1054** 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 34 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. 275 None Table C.19 Career Option of First Primary Professional Position by Workload Career Option (First) Mixed 50/50 MixedLarge % No. MixedSmall No. 94 9.04 366 5.56 3 6.67 4 25.00 3 196 18.25 100 No. Full-time 114 10.96 191 18.37 Part-time (50%< ) 2 11.11 1 Part time « 5 0 % ) 2 12.50 118 10.97 Total % No. % No. % 35.19 45 4.33 3 16.67 0 0.00 18.75 4 25.00 0 0.00 9.31 373 34.73 45 4.19 276 % Workload Large Small i Table C.19 (cont'd.) Career Option (First) Education No. % Industry No. % Military No. % Retired No. % Other No. % Unknown No. % Total Workload No. Full-time 69 6.63 123 11.83 13 1.25 3 0.29 0 0.00 21 2.02 1 0.10 1040 100.01* Part-time (50%<<) 7 38.89 1 5.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.56 0 0.00 18 100.02 Part-time (<50%) 0 0.00 1 6.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 12.50 0 0.00 16 100.00 76 7.08 125 11.64 13 1.21 3 0.28 0 0.00 24 2.23 1 0.09 1074**99.98* No. *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 14 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. % 277 Total % Government Table C.20 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex Male Location No. Reported Female % No. % No. % Total % No. 452 46.41 63 60.58 4 80.00 519 47.92 Another state 502 51.54 39 37.50 1 20.00 542 50.05 10 1.03 2 1.92 0 0.00 12 1.11 Michigan and other states 7 0.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 0.65 Other state and foreign 2 0.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.18 Michigan and foreign 1 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 104 100.00 5 100.00 Foreign country Total 974 100.01* 1083** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 5 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for this specific position. 278 Michigan Table C.21 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1939-1952 Location No. % No. % No. Michigan 28 59.57 105 39.62 154 44.77 213 Another state 17 36.17 151 56.98 186 54.07 Foreign country 0 0.00 4 1.51 2 Michigan and other state 0 4.26 4 1.51 Other and foreign 0 0.00 1 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 47 Total 1953-June, 1967 % Dec. 1967-1977 No. % Unknown Total No. % No. 54.34 19 54.29 519 47.92 173 44.13 15 42.86 542 50.05 0.58 5 1.28 1 2.86 12 1.11 1 0.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 0.65 0.38 0 0.00 1 0.26 0 0.00 2 0.18 0 0.00 1 0.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 100.00 265 100.00 344 100.00 392 100.01* 35 100.01* 1083** *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 5 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for this specific position. % 100.00 279 1913-1938 Table C.22 Location of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge Location No. No. Michigan 49 61.25 48 Another state 31 38.75 Foreign country 0 Michigan and other states No. Large % 53.33 57 54.81 222 50.34 16 37.21 41 45.56 46 44.23 212 48.07 26 60.47 0.00 1 1.11 1 0.96 4 0.91 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.45 1 2.33 Other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.23 0 0.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 80 100.00 90 100.00 104 100.00 441 100.00 43 100.01' *Error due to rounding of figures % Small No. Total % MixedSmall % No. % Table C.22 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Industry Military Location No. No. No. No. % No. X No. % Michigan 32 40.00 33 29.73 15 38.46 4 36.36 11 40.74 32 56.14 519 47.92 Another state 47 58.75 71 63.96 24 61.54 6 54.55 15 55.56 23 40.35 542 50.05 Foreign country 1 1.25 4 3.60 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 12 1.11 Michigan and other states 0 0.00 2 1.80 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.51 7 0.65 Other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 9.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.18 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39 100.00 11 100.00 27 100.00 57 Total 80 % 100.00 111 X 99.99* X Other Unknown Total No. X 100.00 1083** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 5 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data for location on this specific position. Table C.23 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex Number of Other DVM's in Practice Male No. % Female No. % Not Reported % No. Total No. % 235 24.87 13 12.50 1 20.00 249 23.62 One 276 29.21 27 25.96 0 0.00 303 28.75 Two 161 17.04 23 22.12 0 0.00 184 17.46 Three to five 141 14.92 29 27.88 1 20.00 171 16.22 More than five 132 13.97 12 11.54 3 60.00 147 13.95 Total 945 100.01* 104 100.00 5 100.00 1054** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 34 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the the data on size of practice for this specific position. 282 None Table C.24 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939 -1952 No. % No. X None 12 28.57 94 28.57 One 7 16.67 66 Two 1 2.38 Three to five 3 More than five Total 1953-June5 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 No. Unknown Total % No. % No. % 104 30.95 38 9.72 1 3.03 249 23,62 26.19 98 29.17 121 30.95 11 33.33 303 28.75 25 9.92 54 16.07 94 24.04 10 30.30 184 17.46 7.14 19 7.54 39 11.61 103 26.34 7 21.21 171 16.22 19 45.24 48 19.05 41 12.20 35 8.95 4 12.12 147 13.95 42 100.00 252 100.00 336 100.00 391 100.00 33 99.99* No. X 1054** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 34 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. 283 Number of Other DVM's in Practice Table C.25 Size of Practice of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Number of Other DVM's in Practice No. Mixed[Small Mixed Large Mixed" 50/50 % No. % No. % Large Small No. % No. % 21 26.58 30 34.09 24 23.76 75 17.36 11 26.83 One 26 32.91 22 25.00 36 35.64 133 30.79 11 26.83 Two 19 24.05 13 14.77 17 16.83 98 22.69 11 26.83 Three to five 10 12.66 16 18.18 14 13.86 86 19.91 4 9.76 More than five 3 3.80 7 7.95 10 9.90 40 9.26 4 9.76 79 100.00 88 99.99* 101 99.99* 432 100.01* Total *Error due to rounding of figures 41 100.01* 284 None Table C.25 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Military No. % No. % No. % No. None 15 19.23 34 31.48 7 18.92 4 36.36 10 37.04 18 One 19 24.36 25 23.15 10 27.03 2 18.18 8 29.63 11 Two 7 8.97 5 4.63 2 5.41 1 9.09 3 11.11 8 Three to five 8 10.26 15 13.89 7 18.92 3 27.27 4 14.81 4 More than five 29 37.18 29 26.85 11 29.73 1 9.09 2 7.41 Total 78 100.00 108 100.00 37 100.01* 27 100.00 No. % J J 11 99.99* Other Unknown % No. Total % No. % 34..62 249 ‘23.62 21.,15 303 28.75 184 17.46 7,.69 171 16.22 11 21..15 147 13.95 52 99..99* 1054**100.00 15. *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 34 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for this specific position. 285 Industry 00 „ . Other DVM's in Practice 286 Table C.26 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Sex Sex Male Workload No. Female % No. Not Reported % Total No. % No. % 936 96.99 99 95.19 5 100.00 1040 96.83 Part-time (50% < ) 15 1.55 3 2.88 0 0.00 18 1.68 Part-time « 14 1.45 2 1.92 0 0.00 16 1.49 104 100.00 5 100.00 Full-time Total 50%) 965 99.99* 1074** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 14 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. Table C.27 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 No. Full-time 42 Part-time (50%<) Part-time « 5 0 % ) Total 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown % No. % No. 95.45 250 96.53 332 96.51 382 97.45 34 97.14 1040 96.83 1 2.27 4 1.54 7 2.03 5 1.28 1 2.86 18 1.68 1 2.27 5 1.93 5 1.45 5 1.28 0 0.00 16 1.49 259 100.00 344 35 100.00 99.99* 99.99* % 392 100.01* No. % Total No. 44 % 1953-June No. % 1074** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 14 respondents who completed the employment gird but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. 287 Workload 1939-1952 Table C.28 Workload of First Primary Professional Position by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Workload Full-time Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. No. % MixedSmall % No. Small % No. % Large No. % 75 94.94 88 98.88 101 97.12 443 98.41 43 100.00 (50% <) 2 2.53 1 1.12 2 1.92 1 0.23 0 0.00 Part-time « 2 2.53 0 0.00 1 0.96 6 1.36 0 0.00 79 100.00 89 100.00 104 100.00 440 100.00 43 100.00 Total 50%) 288 Part-time Table C.28 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Workload No. No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Full-time 73 93.59 108 98.18 38 97.44 11 100.00 25 92.59 45 Part-time (50% O 5 6.41 2 1.82 1 2.56 0 0.00 1 3.70 Part-time (^50%) 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 78 100.00 39 100.00 11 100.00 27 Total % 110 100.00 Other Unknown % Total No. % 83.33 1040 96.83 3 5.56 18 1.68 6 11.11 16 1.49 99.99* 54 100.00 1074**100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 14 respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for this specific position. 289 Education Table C.29 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex Career Option (All) Mixed50/50 Sex Male Female Total % No. 203 7.34 343 20 8.06 2 225 No. MixedSmall Small Large No. % 12.40 193 6.98 847 30.61 108 3.90 8 3.23 25 2.08 140 56.45 3 1.21 10.53 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 21.05 0 0.00 7.42 351 11.57 218 7.19 991 32.66 111 3.66 % No, % No. % 290 Not reported MixedLarge Table C.29 (cont'd.) Career Option (All) Education Government Sex Male Female Not reported Total No. % No. Industry % No. 258’ 9.32 396 14.31 89 19 7.66 11 4.44 5 26.32 2 282 9.29 409 Military % No. Retired % No. Other % No. Unknown % No. Total % No. % 3.22 164 5.93 26 0.94 82 2.96 58 2.10 2767 100.01* 5 2.02 1 0.40 0 0.00 8 3.23 8 3.23 248 100.01* 10.53 0 0.00 6 31.58 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 19 100.01* 13.48 94 26 0.86 90 2.97 66 2.18 *Error due to rounding of figures 3.10 171 5.65 3034 100.02* Table C.30 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group Career Option (All) MixedLarge Cohort Group No. % No. 1913-1938 12 5.69 18 8.53 1939-1952 70 7.99 126 1953-June, 1967 69 6.74 Dec. 1967-1976 70 Unknown Total MixedSmall Small Large % No. % No. 2 0.95 20 9.48 4 1.90 14.38 44 5.02 134 15.30 36. 4.11 129 12.60 80 7.81 59 35.06 36 3.52 8.47 71 8.60 87 10.53 442 53.51 33 4.00 4 4.12 7 7.22 5 5.15 36 37.11 2 2.06 225 7.42 351 11.57 218 7.19 991 32.66 111 3.66 % No. % 292 Mixed50/50 Table C.30 (cont'd.) Career Option (All) Government Industry Military Retired Other Unknown Cohort Group No. No. No. No. No. No. No. 1913-1938 36 17.06 61 28.91 9 4.27 16 7.58 14 1939-1952 86 9.82 205 23.40 38 4.34 60 6.85 11 1.26 1953-June, 1967 99 9.67 115 11.23 33 3.22 68 Dec. 1967-1976 48 5.81 18 2.18 11 1.33 15 Unknown 13 13.40 10 10.31 3 3.09 12 12.37 28 2 9.29 94 3.10 Total % 409 *Error due to rounding of figures % 13.48 % 171 % % % 6 2.84 % Total No. % 13 6.16 211 100.01* 4.68 25 2.85 876 100.00 6.64 1 0.10 22 2.15 13 1.27 1024 100.01* 1.82 0 0.00 10 2.42 11 1.33 826 100.00 4.12 97 99.98* 66 2.18 3034 100.02* 5.64 6.64 0 0.00 26 41 1 1.03 0.86 90 2.97 4 293 Education Table C.31 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (All) Career Option (Present) Mixed- Mixed- Mixed- 50/50 Large Small No. % No. % No. Small % No. Large % No. , % 113 66.86 14 8.28 5 2.96 11 6.51 7 4.14 Mixed-Large 3 1.70 136 77.27 1 0.57 3 1.70 8 4.55 Mixed-Small 23 9.66 23 9.66 122 51.26 26 10.92 3 1.26 Small 31 2.64 56 4.77 53 4.51 834 71.04 14 1.19 Large 10 8.13 13 10.57 10 8.13 9 7.32 55 44.72 Education 10 3.98 15 5.98 3 1.20 33 13.15 6 2.39 Government 13 3.69 51 14.49 9 2.56 18 5.11 8 2.27 Industry 3 2.27 8 6.06 2 1.52 9 6.82 2 1.52 Military 2 7.14 3 10.71 0 0.00 3 10.71 0 0.00 Retired 3 2.33 12 9.30 2 1.55 6 4.65 2 1.55 Other 2 2.27 4 4.55 6 6.82 13 14.77 1 1.14 12 6.90 16 9.20 5 2.87 26 14.94 5 2.87 225 7.42 351 11.57 218 7.19 991 32.66 111 3.66 Unknown Total 294 Mixed 50/50 Table C.31 (cont'd.) Career Option (All) Education Government No. % No. Mixed 50/50 3 1.78 6 Mixed-Large 6 3.41 Mixed-Small 4 Small Large Option Military Retired Other No. % No. Total % No. % No. 3.55 1 0.59 8 4.73 0 0.00 1 0.59 0 0.00 169 13 7.39 0 0.00 6 3.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 176 1.68 16 6.72 3 1.26 13 5.46 1 0.42 4 1.68 0 0.00 238 99.98* 27 2.30 69 5.88 8 0.68 60 5.11 0 0.00 20 1.70 2 0.17 1174 99.99* 8 6.50 10 8.13 1 0.81 6 4.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.81 123 100.00 147 58.57 15 5.98 2 0.80 13 5.18 0 0.00 6 2.39 1 0.40 251 100.02* Government 21 5.97 187 53.13 8 2.27 26 7.39 0 0.00 11 3.13 0 0.00 352 100.01* Industry 26 19.70 13 9.85 59 44.70 8 6.06 0 0.00 2 1.52 0 0.00 132 100.02* Military 0 0.00 4 14.29 0 0.00 16 57.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 28 99.99* 21 16.28 39 30.23 5 3.88 9 6.98 25 19.38 2 1.55 3 2.33 129 100.01* Other Unknown Total % No. 6.82 15 17.05 5 5.68 2 2.27 0 0.00 33 37.50 1 1.14 13 7.47 22 12.64 2 1.15 4 2.30 0 0.00 11 6.32 58 33.33 174 282 9.29 13.48 94 3.10 171 5.64 26 0.86 90 2.97 66 2.18 3034 ♦Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 100.00 88 100.01* 6 409 % 99.99 100.02* 295 Retired % Unknown No. Education % Industry Table C.32 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Location Career Option (All) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge Small Large No. % No. % No. 11.17 154 12.64 116 9.52 474 38.92 35 2.87 83 5.15 192 11.90 100 6.20 514 31.87 74 4.59 Foreign country 2 3.51 4 7.02 1 1.75 1 1.75 1 1.75 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 1 11.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other state and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 221 7.52 351 11.95 217 7.39 989 33.67 110 3.75 Location No. Michigan 136 Another state % No. % 296 Total % MixedSmall Table C.32 (cont'd.) Career Option (All) Education Government Location No. % No. % No. Michigan 98 8.05 135 11.08 33 2.71 5 0.41 11.10 242 15.00 58 3.60 96 0 0.00 24 Another state 179 Industry % Military No. % Retired No. % Other No. % Unknown No. Total % No. % 26 2.13 3 0.25 1218 100.00 5.95 10 0.62 59 3.66 6 0.37 1613 100.01* 42.11 0 0.00 1 1.75 0 0.00 57 99.99* 1 1.11 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 100.00 88.57 0 0.00 1 2.86 0 0.00 35 100.00 Foreign country 4 7.02 19 33.33 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 6 6.67 1 11.11 Other state and foreign 0 0.00 3 8.57 0 0.00 31 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 100.00 281 9.57 406 13.82 92 3.13 161 5.48 Total 13 0.44 87 2.96 9 0.31 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for 97 specific positions. 2937** 99.99* 297 0.25 3 Table C.33 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Size of Practice Career Option (All) Number of Other DVM's in Practice Mixed 50/50 No. MixedSmall MixedLarge % Small No. % No. % No. Large % No. % 88 10.88 143 17.68 75 9.27 234 28.92 57 7.05 One 73 10.43 110 15.71 86 12.19 331 47.29 22 3.14 Two 7 9.76 46 12.14 31 8.18 189 49.87 11 2.90 Three to five 16 4.24 36 9.55 21 5.57 171 45.36 10 2.65 More than five 0 0.00 5 0.91 0 0.00 42 7.61 1 0.18 214 7.60 340 12.07 213 7.56 967 34.33 101 3.59 Total 298 None Table C.33 (cont‘d.) Career Option (All) Number of Other DVM's in Practice Education Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. % No. % No. % No. % None 31 3.83 86 10.63 18 2.22 32 3.96 7 0.87 36 4.45 2 0.25 809 100.01* One 12 1.71 23 3.29 15 2.14 13 1.86 0 0.00 14 2.00 1 0.14 700 100.00 Two 12 3.17 23 6.07 8 2.11 13 3.43 0 0.00 6 1.58 3 0.79 379 100.00 Three to five 25 6.63 57 15.12 13 3.45 18 4.77 0 0.00 10 2.65 0 0.00 377 More than five 191 34.60 193 34.96 33 5.98 69 12.50 0 0.00 16 2.90 2 0.36 552 9.62 382 13.56 87 3.09 145 5.15 7 82 2.91 8 0.28 271 % 0.25 Unknown No. % Total No. % 99.99* 100.00 2817** 100.00* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were responsdents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for 217 specific positions. 299 Total % Other Table C.34 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions by Workload Career Option (All) Mixed- Mixed- 50/50 Large Mixed- Small No. % No. % Full-time 214 7.69 335 12.04 206 7.40 933 33.54 104 3.74 Part-time (50%<) 2 2.82 5 7.04 5 7.04 30 42.25 1 1.41 Part-time 6 8.82 7 10.29 6 8.82 24 35.29 4 5.88 222 7.60 347 11.88 217 7.43 987 33.79 109 3.73 No. % No. % 300 Total % Large Workload «50%) No. Small Table C.34 (coat'd.) Career Option (All) Workload Government Industry Military Retired No. No. % No. % No. % No. 391 14.05 84 3.02 163 5.86 6 0.22 74 2.66 8 0.29 2782 8 11.27 2 2.82 1 1.41 0 0.00 5 7.04 0 0.00 71 0 13.24 1 1.47 68 264 Full-time Part-time (50% <) Part-time « Total Education 50%) % 9.49 12 16.90 % 3 4.41 4 5.88 2 2.94 0 0.00 2 2.94 279 9.55 403 13.80 88 3.01 164 5.61 8 0.27 Other No. 88 % 3.01 Unknown No. 9 % Total No. % 100.00 100.00 99.98* 0.31 2921** 99.99* 301 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data for 113 positions. Table C.35 Location of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex Sex Male Location No. Not Reported Female % No. % No. % Total No. % 1101 41.10 109 45.61 8 42.11 1218 41.47 Another state 1479 55.21 111 53.14 7 36.84 1613 54.92 53 1.98 3 1.26 1 5.26 57 1.94 9 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 0.31 32 1.19 0 0.00 3 15.79 35 1.19 Michigan and foreigh 1 0.04 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 Michigan, other and foreign 4 0.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.14 19 100.00 Foreign country Michigan and other state Other state and foreign Total 2679 100.01* 239 100.01* 2937**100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for 97 specific positions. 302 Michigan Table C.36 Location of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 % 1939-1952 No. 1953-June,1967 No. % Dec.1967-1976 No. % Unknown . No. Total % Location No. Michigan 91 49.73 293 34.92 405 40.18 397 48.77 32 34.41 1218 41.47 Another state 82 44.81 507 60.43 572 56.75 397 48.77 55 59.14 1613 54.92 Foreign country 3 1.64 18 2.15 16 1.59 14 1.72 6 6.45 57 1.94 Michigan and other state 2 1.09 6 0,72 1 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 0.31 Other and foreign 4 2.19 13 1.55 12 1.19 6 0.74 0 0.00 35 1.19 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 Michigan, other and foreign 1 0.55 2 0.24 1 0.10 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.14 814 100.00 93 183 100.01* 839 100.01* 1008 100.01* No. % 100.00 2397** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for 97 specific positions. 303 Total % Table C.37 Location of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Positions Career Option (Present) Location Michigan Mixed- Mixed- Mixed- 50/50 Large Small No. % No. % No. Small % No. Large % No. Education % No. % 64.81 71 40.34 126 53.39 525 44.95 43 34.96 79 31.60 52 32.10 98 55.68 102 43.22 612 52.40 77 62.60 162 64.80 Foreign country 4 2.47 7 3.98 5 2.12 14 1.20 0 0.00 7 2.80 Michigan and other states 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.26 1 0.81 0 0.00 Other and foreign 1 0.62 0 0.00 3 1.27 13 1.11 2 1.63 1 0.40 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 0 0.00 1 0.40 162 100.00 176 100.00 236 123 100.00 250 100.00 Another state Total 100.00 1168 100.01* 304 105 Table C.37 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Military Retired No. No. % No. Michigan 92 26.21 44 33.33 8 28.57 47 42.34 32 237 67.52 86 65.15 11 39.29 61 54.95 10 2.85 1 0.76 4 14.29 1 Michigan and other states 2 0.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other and foreign 8 2.28 1 0.76 4 Michigan and foreign 1 0.28 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 1 0.28 0 132 Total 351 99.99* Total No. % No. 36.78 46 40.71 1218 41.47 52 59.77 63 55.75 1613 54.92 0.90 3 3.45 1 0.88 57 1.94 1 0.90 0 0.00 2 1.77 9 0.31 14.29 1 0.90 0 0.00 1 0.88 35 1.19 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.03 0.00 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.14 100.00 28 87 100.00 113 % 100.01* 111 99.99* No. Unknown % % 99.99* 2937**100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on location for 97 specific locations- 305 No. Foreign country % Other Location Another state % Industry Table C.38 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex Sex Number of Other DVM's in Practice Male No. Female % No. Not Reported % No. % Total No. % 754 29.52 49 20.85 6 31.58 809 28.72 One 632 24.66 67 28.51 1 5.26 700 24.85 Two 337 13.15 41 17.45 1 5.26 379 13.45 Three to five 322 12.56 50 21.28 5 26.32 377 13.38 More than five 518 20.21 28 11.91 6 31.58 552 19.60 2563 100.00 235 100.00 19 100.00 Total 2817** 100.00 **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for 217 specific positions. 306 None Table C.39 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group Cohort Group Number of Other DVM's in Practice No. None 45 26.47 278 35.64 311 31.96 158 19.63 17 19.10 809 28.72 One 24 14.12 153 19.62 252 ■ 25.90 246 30.56 25 28.09 700 24.85 Two 10 5.88 60 7.69 130 13.36 162 20.12 17 19.10 379 13.45 Three to five 20 11.76 73 9.36 118 12.13 155 19.25 11 12.36 377 13.38 More than five 71 41.76 216 27.69 162 16.65 84 10.43 19 21.35 552 19.60 99.99* 780 100.00 973 100.00 805 99.99^ 89 170 % 1939-1952 No. % 1953-June,1967 No. % Dec.1967-1976 No. % Unknown No. Total % No. % 100.00 2817^ 100.00 ♦Error due to rounding of figures ♦♦There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for 217 specific positions. 307 Total 1913-1938 Table C.40 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) MixedLarge Mixed50/50 MixedSmall No. % No. % No. None 58 36.25 55 32.35 70 31.25 305 One 47 29.38 44 25.88 71 31.70 Two 31 19.38 24 14.12 31 Three to five 15 9.38 31 18.24 9 5.63 16 170 More than five Total 160 100.03* *Error due to rounding of figures Large Small Education No. % No. 27.11 43 37.39 49 100.00 345 30.67 29 25.22 36 14.88 13.84 196 17.42 17 14.78 19 7.85 29 12.95 173 15.38 12 10.43 22 9.09 9.45 23 10.27 106 9.42 14 12.17 116 47.93 100.00 224 100.01* 1125 100.00 115 99.99* 242 100.00 % No. % % 308 Number of Other DVM’s in Practice 4 Table C.40 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. % No. % No. % None 98 28.99 28 22.22 8 30.77 29 27.88 29 35.37 37 35.24 809 28.72 One 54 15.98 19 15.08 6 23.08 9 8.65 18 21.95 22 20.95 700 24.85 Two 21 6.21 9 7.14 2 7.69 5 4.81 12 14.63 12 11.43 379 13.45 Three to five 44 13.02 16 12.70 5 19.23 11 10.58 9 10.98 10 9.52 377 13.88 More than five 121 35.80 54 42.86 5 19.23 50 48.08 14 17.07 24 22.86 522 19.60 Total 338 100.00 126 100.00 26 100.00 104 100.00 82 100.00 105 % % Other Unknown Total No. No. % 100.00 2817** **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on size of practice for 217 specific positions. 100.00 309 Number of Other DVM’s in Practive Table C.41 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions by Sex Sex Hale Workload No. Full-time 2565 Not Reported Female Total No. % No. 96.36 198 82.50 19 100.00 2782 95.24 % % No. % Part-time (50% O 47 1.77 24 10.00 0 0.00 71 2.43 Part-time (< 50%) 50 1.88 18 7.50 0 0.00 68 2.33 240 100.00 19 100.00 Total 2662 100.01* 2921** 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted data on workload for 113 specific positions. Table C.42 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913--1938 1939--1952 Workload No. % No. % No. % Full-time 168 94.92 795 95.90 961 95.34 766 94.33 92 96.84 2782 95.24 Part-time (50%<) 2 1.13 15 1.81 28 2.78 24 2.96 2 2.11 71 2.43 Part-time (< 50%) 7 3.95 19 2.29 19 2.88 22 2.71 1 1.05 68 2.33 177 100.00 829 100.00 1008 100.00 812 100.00 95 100.00 Total 1953-June ,1967 : Dec.1967-1976 No. % Total Unknown No. % *There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for 113 specific positions. No. % 2921** 100.00 Table C.43 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions by Career Option of Present Primary Position Career Option (Present) Workload Mo. Full-time MixedSmall Mixed Large Mixed50/50 % No. % No. Small % No. Educat ion Large % No. % No. % 157 95.73 168 97.67 225 95.34 1119 95.97 117 95.12 229 93.85 Part-time (50%<) 3 1.83 3 1.74 5 2.12 27 2.32 1 0.81 10 4.10 Part-time « 4 2.44 1 0.58 6 2.54 20 1.72 5 4.07 5 2.05 164 100.00 172 236 100.00 1166 123 100.00 244 100.00 Total 50%) *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 100.01* Table C.43 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Retired Workload No. % No. % No. No. Full-time 41 97.15 127 96.85 28 100.00 % % 102 94.44 Other Unknown No. Total No. % % No. % 77 88.51 92 82.88 2782 95.24 Part-time (5020 8 2.28 2 1.53 0 0.00 2 1.85 4 4.60 6 5.41 71 2.43 Part-time 50%) 2 0.57 2 1.53 0 0.00 4 3.70 6 6.90 13 11.71 68 2.33 51 100.00 131 28 100.00 108 Total 100.01* 99.99* 87 100.01* 111 100.00 2921**100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were respondents who completed the employment grid but omitted the data on workload for 113 specific positions. Table C.44 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed- Mixed- Mixed- 50/50 Large Small No. % No. % No. Mixed-50/50 51 62.20 3 3.33 13 Mixed-Large 9 10.98 70 77.78 Mixed-Small 3 3.66 1 Small 8 9.76 Large 6 Education Education No. % No. 12.38 18 4.07 7 16.28 8 10.00 16 15.24 35 7.92 8 18.60 9 11.25 1.11 49 46.67 26 5.88 6 13.95 2 2.50 2 2.22 15 14.29 297 67.19 1 2.33 16 20.00 7.32 4 4.44 1 0.96 10 2.26 12 27.91 4 5.00 1 1.22 3 3.33 2 1.90 15 3.39 3 6.98 35 43.75 Government 2 2.44 7 7.78 7 6.67 34 7.69 5 11.63 5 6.25 Industry 1 1.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.45 1 2.33 0 0.00 Military 1 1.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.90 5 1.13 0 0.00 1 1.25 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 82 100.00 90 80 100.00 Total *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 105 % Large 100.01* 442 99.98* 43 % No. 100.01* % 314 Option (First) ... bmaii Table C.44 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Option Government (First) No. % Mixed-50/50 9 8.11 2 5.00 2 18.18 0 0.00 2 7.41 4 7.02 119 10.94 Mixed-Large 26 23.42 3 7.50 3 27.27 0 0.00 4 14.81 14 24.56 197 18.11 Mixed-Small 5 4.51 1 2.50 1 2.50 0 0.00 5 18.52 3 5.26 101 9.28 Small 9 8.11 5 12.50 1 9.09 0 0.00 7 25.93 14 24.56 375 34.47 Large 2 1.80 3 7.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 5.26 45 4.14 Education 5 4.51 9 22.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 7.41 2 3.51 77 7.08 47 42.34 6 15.00 2 18.18 0 0.00 3 11.11 11 19.30 129 11.86 Industry 0 0.00 9 22.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.51 15 1.38 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 27.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.37 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 7 6.31 2 5.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 14.81 3 5.26 24 2.21 Unknown 1 0.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.75 2 0.18 111 100.01* 40 100.00 0 0.00 27 100.00 57 Government Total Industry Military No. No. % *Error due to rounding of figures % 11 99.99* Retired No. % Other No. Unknown % No. % 99.99* Total No. 1088 % 100.02* Table C.45 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Males by Career Option Of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Career Option Mixed-50/50 (First) No. Mixed - 50/50 48 63.16 Mixed - Large 9 Mixed - Small Mixed-Large 2.30 10 10.99 18 4.70 7 16.67 7 10.00 11.84 68 78.16 16 17.58 33 8.62 8 19.05 8 11.43 3 3.95 1 1.15 42 46.15 24 6.27 6 14.29 2 2.86 Small 5 6.58 2 2.30 13 14.29 246 64.22 1 2.38 15 21.43 Large 6 7.89 4 4.60 1 1.10 10 2.61 12 28.57 4 5.71 Education 1 1.32 3 3.45 1 1.10 15 3.92 2 4.76 29 41.43 Government 2 2.63 7 8.05 6 6.59 30 7.83 5 11.90 4 5.71 Industry 1 1.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.52 1 2.38 0 0.00 Military 1 1.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.20 5 1.31 0 0.00 1 1.43 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 91 100.00 383 100.00 42 100.00 70 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 87 100.01* No. % No. Education 2 100.01* % Large No. 76 No. Small % Total % Mixed-Small % No. % Table C.45 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Career Option (First) Government Industry Military Retired No. No. % No. No. Mixed - 50/50 9 8.26 2 5.56 2 18.18 0 0.00 2 Mixed - Large 26 23.85 3 8.33 3 27.27 0 0.00 Mixed - Small 5 4.59 1 2.78 0 0.00 Small 9 8.26 3 8.33 1 Large 2 1,83 3 8.33 Education 5 4.59 45 Industry J 3 5.85 4 17.39 14 27.45 192 19.61 0 0.00 3 13.04 3 5.88 90 9.19 9.09 0 0.00 5 21.74 11 21.57 311 31.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.92 44 4.49 8 22.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.70 2 3.92 68 6.75 41.28 6 16.67 2 18.18 0 0.00 3 13.04 0 0.00 8 22.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.96 13 1.33 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 27.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.41 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 7 6.42 2 5.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 17.39 3 5.88 24 2.45 Unknown 1 0.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.96 2 0.20 109 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 11 99.99* 0 0.00 No. % Total 8.10 36 100.00 % Unknown % Total % Other No. Government % J 23 100.00 11 21.57 51 99.99* No. % 110 11,24 121 12.36 979 100.00 Table C.46 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Females by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 No. MixedSmall MixedLarge % Small No. 1 No. % No. Education Large 1 No. % No. % Mixed 50/50 3 50.00 1 33.33 3 21.43 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 2 66.67 0 0.00 2 3.57 0 0.00 1 12.50 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 50.00 2 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 3 50.00 0 0.00 2 14.29 50 89.29 0 0.00 1 12.50 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 7.14 0 0.00 1 100.00 4 50.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 7.14 2 3.57 0 0.00 1 12.50 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 6 100.00 3 100.00 14 100.00 56 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 1 100.00 8 100.00 Table C.46 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Option (First) No. Mixed 50/50 0 Mixed-Large % Industry Military Retired Other No. No. No. % % No. % r:Total ' No. % 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 9 8.65 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.81 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 50.00 0 0.00 11 10.58 Small 0 0.00 2 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 50.00 3 50.00 63 60.58 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 1 0:96 Education 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 7.63 Government 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 5.77 Industry 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 2 1.92 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 2 100.00 4 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 100.00 6 100.01* 104 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures % Unknown No. % Table C.47 Career Option of Present Primary Position of Respondents Who did not Indicate Sex by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall No . Large Education No . Career Option (First) No Mixed-50/50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 66.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 % No. % No. Small % % No. % % 320 Table C.47 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Career Option (First) No. No. Mixed 50/50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 20.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 40.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0,00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 40.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 100.00 % % Military No. % Retired Other No. No. % % Unknown Total No. No. % % Table C.48 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents who Graduated Between 1913 and 1938 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed_ 50/50 No. % MixedLarge MixedSmall No. % No. Mixed-50/50 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 2 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 Small 0 Large Small Large % No. Education % No. % No. % 0 0.00 2 28.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 66.67 0 0.00 1 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 14.29 0 0.00 1 12.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 62.50 Government 1 100.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 2 28.57 0 0.00 2 25.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 1 100.00 3 100.00 0 0.00 7 100.01* 0 0.00 8 100.00 322 _ Career Option (First) Table C.48 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Qpt^on (First) Government No. % Industry No. % Military No., % Retired No. % Other No . % Unknown No . % Total No. % 2 13.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 5 10.42 Mixed-Large 3 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 7 14.58 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.08 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 3 6.25 Large 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.08 Education 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0. 0.00 0 10.00 7 14.58 Government 8 53.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 5 50.00 20 41.67 Industry 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 2 4.17 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.08 Unknown 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.08 15 100.00 3 99.99* 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 100.00 10 100.00 48 Total 99.99* 323 Mixed 50/50 Table C.49 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents who Graduated Between 1939 and 1952 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) 0pt£on Career Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large (First) No. No. No. No. No. % Education No. % 8 57.14 1 4.55 2 8.70 9 13.64 0 0.00 4 14.81 Mixed-Large 1 7.14 17 77.27 6 26.09 12 18.18 0 0.00 8 29.63 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 9 39.13 3 3.55 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 1 7.14 0 0.00 2 8.70 13 19.70 0 0.00 3 11.11 Large 3 21.43 1 4.55 0 0.00 6 9.09 3 42.86 2 7.41 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 6.06 0 0.00 8 29.63 Government 0 0.00 3 13.64 2 8.70 16 24.24 3 42.86 1 3.70 Industry 1 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52 1 14.29 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.70 2 3.03 0 0.00 1 3.70 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 14 99.99* 66 100.01* 27 99.99* Total *Error due to rounding of figures 22 100.01* 23 100.02* 7 100.01* 324 Mixed-50/50 Table C.49 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) 0pt£on Government (First) No., Mixed-50/50 5 Mixed-Large Industry Military Retired Other No. No. Unknown Z No. % 8.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 17 29.31 1 7.69 2 100.00 0 0.00 3 Mixed-Small 1 1.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 3 5.17 1 7.69 0 0.00 0 Large 2 3.45 1 7.69 0 0.00 Education 1 1.72 4 30.77 0 26 44.83 4 30.77 Industry 0 0.00 2 Military 0 0.00 Retired 0 Other Unknown Government Total % No. 2 8.33 32 12.03 30.00 7 29.17 74 27.82 2 20.00 2 8.33 17 6.39 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.33 25 9.40 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.17 19 7.14 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 18 6.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 25.00 22.93 15.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.17 61 6 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 5.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 30.00 2 8.33 13 4.89 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.17 1 0.38 99.99* 13 99.99* 2 100.00 0 0.00 10 100.00 24 100.00 266 58 % *Error due to rounding of figures % % No. % 2.26 100.01* 325 No. Total Table C.50 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents Who Graduated between 1953 and June, 1967 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. MixedSmall % No. % Mixed-50/50 18 66.67 1 2.86 Mixed-Large 4 14.81 23 65.71 5 Mixed-Small 2 7.41 1 2.86 Small 1 3.70 2 Large 1 3.70 Education 0 Government % 4 . 11.11 No . Education Large % No. % No. % 2 1.44 3 17.65 3 13.04 13.89 14 10.07 6 35.30 0 0.00 14 38.89 8 5.76 1 5.88 1 4.35 5.71 8 22.22 90 64.75 1 5.88 5 21.74 2 5.71 1 2.78 2 1.44 1 5.88 1 4.35 0.00 3 8.57 0 0.00 8 5.76 3 17.65 12 52.17 0 0.00 3 8.57 4 11.11 13 9.35 2 11.76 1 4.35 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 1 3.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.72 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 99.99* 35 99.99* 36 100.00 17 100.00 23 100.00 Total 27 *Error due to rounding of figures 139 100.01* 326 No. Small Table C.50 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Career Option Government Industry Military Retired No . Other Unknown No Mixed-50/50 1 3.45 1 6.25 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 4 13.79 2 12.50 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 Mixed-Small 4 13.79 1 6.25 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 5 17.24 2 12.50 0 0.00 0 Large 0 0.00 1 6.25 0 0.00 Education 2 6.90 5 31.25 0 10 34.48 2 12.50 Industry 0 0.00 2 Military 0 0.00 Retired 0 Other Unknown Government Total No. 1 8.33 36 10.43 0.00 5 41.67 64 18.55 2 33.33 0 0.00 34 9.86 0.00 2 33.33 5 41.67 121 35.07 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8.33 10 2.90 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 34 9.86 2 40.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 38 11.01 12.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.87 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.29 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 10.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 1.16 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 99.99* 16 100.00 5 100.00 0 0.00 6 100.00 12 100.00 345 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures No. ' % No. % % No. No . % 29 % % % 327 (First) Total Table C.51 Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position of Respondents Who Graduated between December, 1967 and 1976 by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large Education Career Option (First) No. % Mixed-50/50 25 64.10 1 3.45 7 15.91 4 1.88 3 16.67 1 5.00 Mixed-Large 3 7.69 27 93.10 4 9.09 7 3.29 2 11.11 1 5.00 Mixed-Small 1 2.56 0 0.00 26 59.09 12 5.63 5 27.78 1 5.00 Small 6 15.38 0 0.00 5 11.36 183 85.92 0 0.00 7 35.00 Large 2 5.13 1 3.45 0 0.00 1 0.47 8 44.44 1 5.00 Education 1 2.56 0 0.00 2 4.55 2 0.94 0 0.00 9 45.00 Government 1 2.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.94 0 0.00 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 39 99.98* 29 100.00 44 100.00 213 100.01* 18 100.00 20 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures % No. % No. % No. % No. % 328 Total No. Table C.51 (coat'd.) Career Option (Present) Career Option Government % Industry No. No. % Retired No. Other % Mixed-50/50 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 Mixed-Large 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 1 16.67 1 50.00 0 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 Government 2 40.00 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 3 Military 0 0.00 Retired 0 Other No. Total % No. % 0 0.00 43 10.91 10.00 0 0.00 47 11.93 1 10.00 1 12.50 47 11.93 0.00 5 50.00 5 62.50 213 54.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 14 3.55 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 15 3.81 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 6 1.52 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.76 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.25 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 10.00 1 12.50 5 1.27 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 5 100.00 6 100.01* 2 100.00 0 0.00 10 100.00 8 100.00 394 99.99* 329 Ho, % No. Unknown (First) *Error due to rounding of figures % Military Table C.52 Career Option of Present Professional Position of Respondents Whose Graduation Date was Unknown by Career Option of the First Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Career Option (First) Mixed50/50 No. MixedLarge % No. MixedSmall % No. Large Small % No. V /o No. Education % No. % 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.88 1 100.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 1 100.00 1 100.00 1 50.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 11.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 58.82 0 0.00 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 1 50.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 1 50.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 1 100.00 1 100.00 2 100.00 17 99.98* 1 100.00 2 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 330 Mixed-50/50 Table C.52 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. (First) No. Mixed-50/50 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 1 25.00 1 Large 0 0.00 Education 0 Government % Unknown No. % 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 8.57 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.00 5 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.71 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 13 37.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.86 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 3 8.57 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 11.43 Industry 0 0.00 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.86 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.71 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 2.86 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 4 100.00 2 100.00 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 99.99* 35 100.00 % No.. Total % *Error due to rounding of figures % Other % No. % Table C.53 Location of Present Primary Professional Position by Location of the First Primary Professional Position Location (Present) Michigan Location (First) Another State No. 374 80.26 102 86 18.45 Foreign country 1 Michigan and other state Michigan & Other No. % No. % 18.75 5 55.26 1 100.00 432 79.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.21 7 1.29 4 44.44 0 0.00 3 0.64 2 0.37 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other state and foreign 1 0.21 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 1 0.21 1 0.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 544 100.00 9 100.00 1 100.00 Michigan Another state Total No. 466 *Error due to rounding of figures 99.98* % 332 % Foreign Country Table C.53 (cont'd.) Location (Present) Other & Foreign Location (First) No. % Michigan & Foreign No. % Mich.,Other & Foreign No. Unknown % No. Total % No. % 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 35 56.45 519 47.70 Another state 2 40.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22 35.48 542 49.82 Foreign country 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 12 1.10 Michigan and other state 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.23 7 0.64 Other state and foreign 1 20.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.18 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.09 Michigan, other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.84 5 0.46 Total 5 100.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 62 100.00 1088 99.99- *Error due to rounding of figures 333 Michigan Table C.54 Size of Practice of Present Primary Professional Position by Size of Practice of the First Primary Professional Position Number of Other D.V.M.'s in First Practice Number of Other D.V.M.,'s in Present Practice None No. One Z No. Two % No. % Three to Five No. Z More Than Five No. % Unknown Total No. % No. Z 131 38.53 21 9.77 18 14.63 13 8.39 34 22.22 32 31.37 249 22.89 One 89 26.18 112 52.09 19 15.45 32 20.65 32 20.92 19 18.63 303 27.85 Two 43 12.65 40 18.60 61 49.59 15 9.68 12 7.84 13 12.75 184 16.91 Three to Five 32 9.41 28 13.02 14 11.38 78 50.32 13 8.50 6 5.88 171 15.72 More than Five 40 11.76 9 4.19 9 7.32 17 10.97 60 39.22 12 11.76 147 13.51 5 1.47 5 2.33 2 1.63 0 0.00 2 1.31 20 19.61 34 3.13 340 100.00 215 100.00 123 100.00 155 100.01* 102 100.00 1088 Unknown Total *Error due to rounding of figures 100.01* 153 100.01* 334 None Table C.55 Workload of Present Primary Professional Position by Workload of the First Primary Professional Position Full-Time Part-Time (50% ) Part-Time ( 50%) Workload (First) No. No. % No. % No. % No. Full-Time 955 98.15 19 76.00 20 80.00 46 70.77 1040 95.99 Part-Time (50% O 8 0.82 6 24.00 1 4.00 3 4.62 18 1.65 Part-Time (<50%) 6 0.62 0 0.00 4 16.00 6 9.23 16 1.47 Unknown 4 0.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 15.38 14 1.29 973 100.00 25 100.00 25 100.00 65 100.00 1088 100.00 Total % 335 Total % Unknown Table C.56 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Mixed50/ 50 No. Mixed-50/50 68 Mixed-Large Mixed-Small MixedSmall No. % No. 48.57 6 3.02 17 17 12.14 108 54.27 3 2.14 5 Small 16 11.43 Large 6 Education Government Small Large Education No. % No. % No. 10.56 30 4.11 7 9.33 4 1.90 21 13.04 34 4.66 11 14.67 20 9.48 2.51 60 37.27 49 6.71 8 10.67 3 1.42 6 3.02 27 16.77 461 63.15 3 4.00 30 14.22 4.29 10 5.03 4 2.48 6 0.82 20 26.67 8 3.79 4 2.86 9 4.52 5 3.11 23 3.15 8 10.67 92 43.60 14 10.00 22 11.06 17 10.56 44 6.03 14 18.67 26 12.32 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.24 7 0.96 0 0.00 6 2.84 Military 9 6.43 31 15.58 5 3.11 56 7.67 2 2.67 13 6.16 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.62 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 3 2.14 1 1.01 2 1.24 18 2.47 1 1.33 6 2.84 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.27 1 1.33 3 1.42 140 100.00 161 100.00 Total % *Error due to rounding of figures 199 100.02* % 730 100.00 75 100.01* 211 % 99.99* 336 Shifted From MixedLarge Table C.56 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Career Option Government Industry Military Retired No. % No. % No. No. % Mixed-50/50 24 8.22 2 2.44 11 8.21 Mixed-Large 36 12.33 8 9.76 26 Mixed-Small 12 4.11 2 2.44 Small 31 10.62 4 Large 8 2.74 Education 25 Government Unknown % No. % 1 2.85 4 5.71 3 4.62 177 8.10 19.40 •2 7.69 3 4.29 14 21.54 300 13.73 7 5.22 1 3.85 2 2.86 4 6.15 156 7.14 4.88 35 26.12 3 11.54 15 21.43 17 26.15 648 29.66 0 0.00 7 5.22 0 0.00 4 5.71 3 4.62 76 3.48 8.56 22 26.83 6 4.48 4 15.38 4 5.71 8 12.31 210 9.61 113 38.70 9 10.98 27 20.15 11 42.31 15 21.43 8 12.31 320 14.65 Industry 7 2.40 27 32.93 2 1.49 3 11.54 5 7.14 0 0.00 59 2.70 Military 22 7.53 5 6.10 12 8.96 1 3.85 5 7.14 2 3.08 163 7.46 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.05 13 4.45 3 3.66 1 0.75 0 0.00 13 18.57 4 6.15 66 3.02 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.08 9 0.41 292 100.00 134 100.00 26 100.01* 70 Other Unknown Total 82 100.02* *Error due to rounding of figures No. % Total 99.99* 65 100.01* No. 2185 2 100.01* 337 Shifted From Other Table C.57 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Males by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Mixed50/ 50 No. Mixed-50/50 60 Mixed-Large Mixed-Small MixedSmall Small No. % No. 48.00 5 2.56 15 10.64 17 13.60 106 54.36 21 3 2.40 4 2.05 Small 11 8.80 6 Large 6 4.80 Education 4 Government Education No. % No. 28 4.43 7 9.59 3 1.55 14.89 31 4.91 11 15.07 19 9.79 49 34.75 46 7.28 8 10.96 3 1.55 3.08 23 16.31 387 61.23 3 4.11 24 12.37 10 5.13 4 2.84 6 0.95 19 26.03 8 4.12 3.20 9 4.62 4 2.84 17 2.69 7 9.59 88 45.36 13 10.40 22 11.28 15 10.64 40 6.33 14 19.18 25 12.89 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.42 7 1.11 0 0.00 5 2.58 Military 8 6.40 31 15.90 5 3.55 55 8.70 2 2.74 11 5.67 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.71 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 3 2.40 2 1.03 2 1.42 15 2.37 1 1.37 5 2.58 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.37 3 1.55 125 100.00 632 100.00 Total % *Error due to rounding of figures 195 100.01* 141 % 100.01* No. Large . % 73 100.01* % 194 100.01* 338 Shifted From MixedLarge Table C.57 (cont’d.) Career Option Shifted To Career Option Government Industry Military Retired No. % No. % No. Other No. % Mixed-50/50 23 8.04 2 2.56 10 7.87 1 3.85 3 4.84 2 3.51 159 7.97 Mixed-Large 36 12.59 8 10.56 26 20.47 2 7.69 3 4.84 14 24.56 294 14.73 Mixed-Small 11 3.85 2 2.56 7 5.51 1 3.85 1 1.61 4 7.02 139 6.96 Small 28 9.79 3 3.85 34 26.77 3 11.54 10 16.13 13 22.81 545 27.30 Large 8 2.80 0 0.00 7 5.51 0 0.00 4 6.45 2 3.51 74 3.71 Education 25 8.74 21 26.92 4 3.15 4 15.38 4 6.45 7 12.28 194 9.72 Government 112 39.16 9 11.54 26 20.47 11 42.31 14 22.58 7 12.28 308 15.43 Industry 7 2.43 26 33.33 2 1.57 3 11.54 5 . 8.06 0 0.00 57 2.86 Military 22 7.69 4 5.13 10 7.87 1 3.85 5 8.06 2 3.51 156 7.82 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.05 13 4.55 3 3.85 1 0.79 0 0.00 13 20.97 4 7.02 62 3.11 1 0.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 3.51 7 0.35 78 100.00 127 Unknown Total 286 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures 99.98* 26 100.01* 62 99.99* No. % No. X 57 100.01 1996 100.01* 339 Other % Total Shifted From X No. Unknown Table C.58 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Females by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed - 50/50 8 61.54 1 25.00 2 10.00 1 1.05 0 0.00 Mixed - large 0 0.00 2 50.00 0 0.00 3 3.16 0 0.00 Mixed - small 0 0.00 1 25.00 11 55.00 3 3.16 0 0.00 Small 5 38.46 0 0.00 4 20.00 73 76.84 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 50.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.00 6 6.32 1 50.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 10.00 4 4.21 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 3.16 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.11 0 0.00 13 100.00 4 100.00 20 100.00 95 100.01* 2 100.00 Total *Error due to rounding of figures 340 No. Table C.58 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Career Option Education Military Retired Shifted From No. % No. % No. % No. No. % No. % No. % No. Mixed - 50/50 1 7.14 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 1 12.50 16 9.14 Mixed - large 1 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 3.43 Mixed - small 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 0 0.00 17 9.71 Small 6 42.86 3 50.00 1 25.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 5 62.50 4 50.00 102 58.29 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 2 1.14 Education 3 21.43 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 13 7.43 Government 1 7.14 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12,50 1 12.50 10 5.71 Industry 1 7.14 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.14 Military 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.57 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 1 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 2.29 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.14 14 99.99* 6 100.01* 1 100.00 0 0.00 8 100.00 8 *Error due to rounding of figures Industry 4 100.00 % Other Unknown . Total 100.00 175 % 99.99* 341 Total Government Table C.59 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Did Not Indicate Sex by Career Option of Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Mixed50/50 No. MixedLarge % MixedSmall Large Small No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 Mixed - large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed - small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 1 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 2 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 99.99* 0 0.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 342 Mixed - 50/50 Table C.59 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Education Government Retired Shifted From No. % No. % No. Mixed - 50/50 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed - large 0 0.00 0 Mixed - small 0 0.00 Small 0 Large Other Unknown Total % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 14.29 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 21.43 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 16.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 14.29 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 2 66.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 42.86 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 3 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 14 100.01* 343 Military *Error due to rounding of figures Industry Table C.60 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated Between 1913 and 1938 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Mixed' 50/50 MixedLarge Mixed Small Small Large % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed - 50/50 1 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 35.29 0 0.00 Mixed - large 0 0.00 2 15.38 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed - small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 1 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 29.41 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 3 42.86 7 53.85 1 100.00 3 17.65 2 66.67 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.88 0 0.00 Military 2 28.57 4 30.77 0 0.00 2 11.76 0 0.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 7 100.01* 13 100.00 1 100.00 17 99.99* 3 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 344 No. Table C.60 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Education Government No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Mixed - 50/50 0 0.00 2 4.88 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 1 20.00 0 Mixed - large 1 3.33 5 12.20 2 28.57 5 33.33 1 7.14 0 0.00 Mixed - small 0 0.00 1 2.44 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 0 Small 1 3.33 4 9.76 0 0.00 1 6.67 0 0.00 Large 0 0.00 1 2.44 0 0.00 2 13.33 0 20 66.67 3 7.32 1 14.29 1 6.67 Government 3 20.00 18 43.90 0 0.00 4 Industry 0 0.00 1 2.44 3 42.86 Military 3 10.00 3 7.32 1 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 1 3.33 2 Unknown 1 3.33 1 30 99.99* Education Total *Error due to rounding of figures 41 Industry Military Retired Other Unknown Total No. % 0.00 11 6.67 1 8.33 17 10.30 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.21 0 0.00 1 8.33 13 7.88 0.00 1 20.00 0 0.00 4 2.42 3 21.43 0 0.00 4 33.33 32 19.39 26.67 7 50.00 2 40.00 3 25.00 53 32.12 0 0.00 3 21.43 1 20.00 0 0.00 9 5.45 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8.33 16 9.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.88 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8.33 5 3.03 2.44 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8.33 3 1.82 100.02* 7 100.01* 5 100.00 12 15 100.01*14 100.00 % 99.98* 165 99.99* 345 Career Option Shifted From Table C.61 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated Between 1939 and 1952 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Career Option Shifted From Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed - 50/50 19 45.24 2 3.08 6 17.14 13 11.50 1 5.00 Mixed - large 4 9.52 31 47.69 8 22.86 10 8.85 0 0.00 Mixed - small 0 0.00 1 1.54 8 22.86 11 9.73 0 0.00 Small 3 7.14 1 1.54 2 5.71 31 27.43 0 0.00 Large 3 7.14 3 4.62 2 5.71 3 2.65 6 30.00 Education 1 2.38 4 6.15 2 5.71 2 1.77 2 10.00 Government 6 14.29 7 10.77 4 11.43 21 18.58 10 50.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 5.71 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 3 7.14 15 23.08 1 2.86 14 12.39 1 5.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 3 7.14 1 1.54 0 0.00 8 7.08 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 99.99* 65 100.01* 35 99.99* 99.98* 20 100.00 Total 42 *Error due to rounding of figures 113 346 No. Table C.61 (cont*d.) Career Option Shifted To Career Option Education Shifted From No. Mixed - 50/50 Government Industry Military Retired Other % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. 1.47 12 8.05 0 0.00 3 5.88 1 9.09 1 12 23.53 1 9.09 Unknown Total No. % No. % 3.23 2 8.00 61 9.49 3 9.68 6 24.00 114 17.73 % 15 22.06 21 14.09 3 9.09 Mixed - small 0 0.00 5 3.36 0 0.00 1 1.96 1 9.09 0 0.00 2 8.00 29 4.51 Small 5 7.35 12 8.05 0 0.00 8 15.69 3 27.27 2 6.45 6 24.00 73 11.35 Large 2 2.94 7 4.70 0 0.00 3 5.88 0 0.00 2 6.45 1 4.00 32 4.98 Education 18 26.47 10 6.71 12 36.36 4 7.84 0 0.00 3 9.68 1 4.00 59 9.18 Government 16 23.53 54 36.24 7 21.21 16 31.37 4 36.36 7 22.58 4 16.00 156 24.26 Industry 3 4.41 6 4.03 10 30.30 2 3.92 0 0.00 3 9.68 0 0.00 26 4.04 Military 5 7.35 13 8.72 0 0.00 2 3.92 1 9.09 3 9.68 1 4.00 59 9.18 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 2 2.94 9 6.04 1 3.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 22.58 2 8.00 33 5.13 Unknown 1 1.47 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 68 99.99* 99.99* 33 99.99* 100.01* 25 100.00 Total *Error due to rounding of figures 149 51 99.99* 11 99.99* 31 643 100.01* 347 Mixed - large 4 Table C.62 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated Between 1953 and June, 1967 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Mixed50/50 MixedSmall MixedLarge Small Large No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed - 50/50 19 44.19 2 2.67 3 5.08 4 1.53 4 14.81 Mixed - large 7 16.28 42 56.00 8 13.56 13 4.98 8 27.63 Mixed - small 2 4.65 2 2.67 19 32.20 19 7.18 0 0.00 Small 5 11.63 4 5.33 10 16.95 154 59.00 2 7.41 Large 0 0.00 4 5.33 2 3.39 2 0.77 5 18.52 Education 2 4.65 5 6.67 0 0.00 12 4.60 5 18.52 Government 4 9.30 7 9.33 11 18.64 16 6.13 2 7.41 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 1.92 0 0.00 Military 4 9.30 8 10.67 3 5.08 31 11.88 1 3.70 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 1 1.33 2 3.39 5 1.92 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 43 100.00 75 100.00 59 99.98* 100.01* 27 100.00 Total *Error due to rounding of figures 261 348 Career Option Shifted From Table C.62 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Education Government Industry Military No. No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Mixed - 50/50 2 2.90 9 10.98 1 10.98 6 12.50 0 0.00 1 Mixed - large 3 4.35 7 8.54 3 9.68 7 14.58 0 0.00 Mixed - small 2 2.90 5 6.10 2 6.45 4 8.33 0 Small 11 15.94 12 14.63 3 9.68 19 37.58 Large 3 4.35 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 Education 36 52.17 9 10.98 6 19.35 Government 5 7.25 33 40.24 2 Industry 2 2.90 0 0.00 Military 2 2.90 5 Retired 0 0.00 Other 2 Unknown 1 Total ' Retired Other Unknown Total No. % No. 5.56 0 0.00 51 7.02 0 0.00 5 38.46 103 14.17 0.00 0 0.00 1 7.69 56 7.70 0 0.00 7 38.89 4 30.77 231 31.77 4.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 7.69 19 2.61 1 2.08 1 100.00 1 5.56 1 7.69 79 10.87 6.45 6 12.50 0 0.00 3 16.67 1 7.69 90 12.38 9 29.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.56 0 0.00 17 2.34 6.10 4 12.90 3 6.25 0 0.00 2 11.11 0 0.00 68 8.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.14 2.90 2 2.44 1 3.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 16.67 0 0.00 16 2.20 1.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.14 82 100.01* 31 100.00 48 99.99* % 69 100.01* *Error due to roimding of figures 1 100.00 % 18 100.02* 13 % 99.99* 727 100.01* 349 „ Career Option Shifted From Table C.63 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Who Graduated between December, 1967 and 1976 by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Mixed50/50 MixedSmall MixedLarge Small Education Large Career Option Shifted From No. Mixed-50/50 29 61.70 2 4.65 8 12.70 6 1.93 1 4.17 1 2.94 Mixed-Large 5 10.64 32 74.42 4 6.35 10 3.22 3 12.50 1 2.94 Mixed-Small 1 2.13 2 4.65 33 52.38 17 5.47 8 33.33 1 2.94 Small 7 14.89 0 0.00 14 22.22 253 81.35 1 4.17 12 35.29 Large 3 6.38 3 6.98 0 0.00 1 0.32 9 37.50 2 5.88 Education 1 2.13 0 0.00 3 4.76 6 1.93 1 4.17 14 41.18 Government 1 2.13 1 2.33 0 0.00 3 0.96 0 0.00 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.32 0 0.00 0 0.00 Military 0 0.00 3 6.98 1 1.59 7 2.25 0 0.00 2 5.88 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 1.61 0 0.00 1 1.24 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.64 1 4.17 0 0.00 47 100.00 63 100.00 34 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures No . % 43 100.01* No. % No . % 311 100.00 No . % 24 100.01* No., % 350 Total % Table C.63 (cont'd.) Career Option Shifted To Government Industry Retired No. No . Other Unknown Shifted From No Mixed-50/50 0 0.00 1 12.50 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 6.25 Mixed-Large 1 7.69 0 0.00 2 20.00 0 0.00 0 Mixed-Small 1 7.69 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 3 23.08 1 12.50 6 60.00 0 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Education 2 15.38 1 12.50 0 Government 6 46.15 0 0.00 Industry 0 0.00 4 Military 0 0.00 Retired 0 Other Unknown Total No. Military No . % No. 1 9.09 51 8.79 0.00 1 9.09 59 10.17 2 12.50 1 9.09 66 11.38 0.00 6 37.50 5 45.45 308 53.10 0 0.00 1 6.25 1 9.09 20 3.45 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 9.09 29 5.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 18.75 0 0.00 14 2.41 50.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 0.86 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 14 2.41 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 18.75 1 9.09 11 1.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.52 13 99.99* 8 100.00 10 100.00 0 0.00 16 100.00 11 99.99* % *Error due to rounding of figures % % % No. Total % 580 % 99.99* Table C.64 Career Option of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Respondents Whose Graduation Date was Unknown by Career Option of the Previous Primary Professional Position Career Option Shifted To Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Education Large Small Career Option Shifted From No. Mixed-50/50 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.57 1 100.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Large 1 100.00 1 33.33 1 33.33 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 7.14 0 0.00 0 0.00 Small 0 0.00 1 33.33 1 33.33 18 64.29 0 0.00 1 10.00 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 Education 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 10.71 0 0.00 4 40.00 Government 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 33.33 1 3.57 0 0.00 2 20.00 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 Military 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 2 7.14 0 0.00 1 10.00 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Total 1 100.00 3 99.99* 3 99.99* 28 99.99* 1 100.00 10 100.00 % No . No . % No,. % No. % No. % 352 *Error due to rounding of figures % Table C.64 (cont’d.) Career Option Shifted To Career Option Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. % No. % No. % Total No. Mixed-50/50 1 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.29 Mixed-Large 2 28.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 7 10.00 Mixed-Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 4.29 Small 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 23 32.86 Large 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.43 Education 1 14.29 2 66.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 11 15.71 Government 2 28.57 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 10.00 Industry 0 0.00 1 33.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 2.86 Military 1 14.29 0 0.00 6 60.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 11 15.71 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.43 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 25.00 1 1.43 Total 7 100.01* 3 100.00 10 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 100.00 70 100.01* 353 No. *Error due to rounding of figures % Unknown Shifted From % % Other Table C.65 Location of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Location of the Previous Primary Professional Position Location Shifted To Location Shifted From Michigan No. % Another State No. % Michigan 637 75.74 176 14.99 13 31.71 1 50.00 Another state 171 20.33 939 79.98 17 41.46 0 0.00 Foreign country 6 0.71 31 2.64 11 26.83 0 0.00 Michigan and other states 4 0.48 3 0.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other state and foreign 15 1.78 14 1.19 0 0.00 1 50.00 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Michigan, other and foreign 2 0.24 2 0.17 0 0.00 0 0.00 Unknown 6 0.71 9 0.77 0 0.00 0 0.00 1174 100.00 41 100.00 2 100.00 Total 841 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures Foreign Country No. % Michigan & Other No. % Table C.65 (cont'd.) Location Shifted To Location Other and Foreign Michigan and Foreign No. % No. % No. % Michigan 18 64.29 0 0.00 3 75.00 39 41.49 887 40.00 Another state 8 28.57 0 0.00 1 25.00 43 45.74 1179 53.96 Foreign country 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.06 50 2.29 Michigan and other states 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.06 8 0.37 Other state and foreign 1 3.57 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 31 1.42 Michigan and foreign 0 0.00 1 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.05 Michigan, Other and foreign 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.18 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 10 10.64 25 1.14 28 100.00 1 100.00 4 100.00 94 99.99* 2185 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures % No. Total % Total No. Unknown 355 Shifted From Michigan, Other and Foreign Table C.66 Size of Practice of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Size of Practice of the Previous Primary Professional Position Number of Other DVM's in Practice Shifted To None One Two No. % No. % No. % None 216 35.75 80 16.99 35 14.58 One 153 25.33 180 38.22 56 23.33 Two 70 11.59 72 15.29 85 35.42 Three to five 55 9.11 57 12.10 24 10.00 More than five 90 14.90 68 14.44 35 14.58 Unknown 20 3.31 14 2.97 5 2.08 100.01* 471 100.01* Total *Error due to rounding of figures 604 240 99.99* 356 Nun&er of other DVH's in practice shifted from Table C.66 (cont'd.) Number of Other DVM’s in Practice Shifted To Number of other DVM's in practice shifted from Three to Five No. More than Five No. % Total Unknown No. % No. % 35 13.06 98 23.67 57 30.32 521 23.84 One 59 22.01 71 17.15 31 16.49 550 25.17 Two 29 10.82 33 7.97 14 7.45 303 13.87 Three to five 101 37.69 34 8.21 11 5.85 282 12.91 More than five 39 14.55 170 41.06 24 12.77 426 19.50 5 1.87 8 1.93 51 27.13 103 4.71 268 100.00 414 99.99* 188 100.01* 2185 100.00 Unknown Total *Error due to rounding of figures 357 None Table C.67 Workload of All Primary Professional Positions Shifted to by Workload of the Previous Primary Professional Position Workload Shifted To Full-Time Workload Shifted From Part-Time (50% <) Part-Time (< 50%) Unknown Total % No. % No. % No. % No. % 1906 96.65 39 68.52 45 81.82 67 66.34 2057 94.14 Part-time (50% <) 32 1.62 13 22.81 3 5.45 2 1.98 50 2.29 Part-time (< 50%) 24 1.22 4 7.02 7 12.73 10 9.90 45 2.06 Unknown 10 0.51 1 1.75 0 0.00 22 21.78 33 1.51 1972 100.00 57 100.00 55 100.00 101 100.00 2185 100.00 Full-time Total 358 No. Table C.68 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by Sex Sex Female Male Total Not Reported No. % No. % No. 0 (No shifts) 208 21.25 31 29.81 0 > 0 - S.10 283 28.91 14 13.46 >.10 -£.20 254 25.94 16 >.20 -£.30 129 13.18 >.30 -£.40 52 >.40 -£.50 No. % 0.00 239 21.97 3 60.00 300 27.57 15.38 1 20.00 271 24.91 13 12.50 1 20.00 143 13.14 5.31 16 15.38 0 0.00 68 6.25 10 1.02 3 2.88 0 0.00 13 1.19 >.50 43 4.39 11 10.58 0 0.00 54 4.96 Total 979 100.00 104 99.99* 5 100.00 1088 *Error due to rounding of figures % 99.99* 359 Number of shifts Table C.69 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 Shifts No. % No. % No. % 2 4.17 33 12.41 48 13.91 > 0 - 5.10 28 58.33 150 56.39 113 >.10 -*.20 18 37.50 72 27.07 >.20 - 5.30 0 0.00 10 >.30 -*.40 0 0.00 >.40 - 5.50 0 >.50 Total 0 (No shifts) 1953-June, 1967 Dec.1967-1976 Total % No. % 148 37.56 8 22.86 239 21.97 32.75 0 0.00 9 25.71 300 27.57 108 31.30 68 17.26 5 14.29 271 24.91 3.76 52 15.07 73 18.53 8 22.86 143 13.14 0 0.00 18 5.22 46 11.68 4 11.43 68 6.25 0.00 0 0.00 4 1.16 9 2.28 0 0.00 13 1.19 0 0.00 1 0.38 2 0.58 50 12.69 1 2.86 54 4.96 48 100.00 266 99.99* 394 100.00 35 *Error due to rounding of figures 100.00* 345 No. Year Unknown No. 100.01* 1088 % 99.99* 360 Number of Table C.70 Number of Career Shifts Divided by Number of Years in Career by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Number of Shifts No. % No. % No. % 0 (No Shifts) 33 40.74 37 42.05 42 40.38 >0 - £. 10 14 17.28 25 28.41 20 >.10 - £.20 15 18.52 17 19.32 >.20 - £.30 13 16.05 2 >.30 -£.40 3 3.70 > .40 -£.50 0 >.50 3 Total1 81 % % No. % No. 96 21.87 8 18.60 5 6.49 19.23 101 23.01 9 20.93 21 27.27 19 18.27 102 23.23 11 25.58 25 32.47 2.27 7 6.73 66 15.03 8 18.60 14 18.18 4 4.55 8 7.69 37 8.43 2 4.65 9 11.69 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.92 6 1.37 1 2.33 0 0.00 3.70 3 3.41 6 5.77 31 7.06 4 9.30 3 3.90 439 100.00 43 99.99* 77 100.00 99.99* ^Unadjusted for Retirement *Error due to rounding of figures 88 100.01* 104 99.99* No. Education Large Table C.70 (cont'd.) Career Option Government Industry Military Retired No. % No. No. % No. 0 (No Shifts) 11 11.00 2 5.41 2 20.00 0 >0 -$.10 43 43.00 11 29.73 2 20.00 >.10 -$.20 30 30.00 12 32.43 3 >,20 - < .30 12 12.00 10 27.03 >.30 - $ .40 2 2.00 1 >.40 “ $-50 0 0.00 >.50 2 100 Total*' J Unknown % Total % No. 0.00 3 11.11 0 0.00 239 21.97 12 48.00 6 22.22 36 63.16 300 27.57 30.00 13 52.00 9 33.33 15 26.32 271 24.91 1 10.00 0 0.00 5 18.52 5 8.77 143 13.14 2.70 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 0 0.00 68 6.25 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 2 7.41 1 1.75 13 1.19 2.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 0 0.00 54 4.96 100.00 37 100.00 10 100.00 25 100.00 27 99.99* 57 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures % Other No. Unadjusted for Retirement % 1 No. % 1088 99.99* 362 „ , Number of Shifts Table C.71 Reported Inclusion of Bach Career Option during the Course of Respondents' Careers by Sex Sex Male Career Option No. Not Reported Female % No. % No. .Total % No. % 164 15.63 13 12.26 1 12.50 178 15.31 Mixed-large 249 23.74 7 6.60 0 0.00 256 22.01 Mixed-small 171 16.30 20 18.87 0 0.00 191 16.42 Small 485 46.23 77 72.64 3 37.50 565 48.58 Large 90 8.58 2 1.89 0 0.00 92 7.91 Education 149 14.20 16 15.09 2 25.00 167 14.36 Government 236 22.50 10 9.43 2 25.00 248 21.32 Industry 58 5.53 5 4.72 0 0.00 63 5.42 Military 152 14.49 1 0.94 3 37.50 156 13,41 Retired 26 2.48 0 0.00 0 0.00 26 2.24 Other 67 6.39 8 7.55 0 0.00 75 6.45 Unknown 56 5.34 8 7.55 0 0.00 64 5.50 Total possible respondents 1049 106 8 1163 363 Mixed 50/50 Table C.72 Reported Inclusion of Each Career Option During the Course of Respondents' Careers by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913--1938 1939--1952 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed 50/50 10 17.54 51 17.47 54 14.36 59 14.68 4 11.11 178 15.31 Mixed-large 13 22.81 94 32.19 89 23.67 53 13.18 7 19.44 256 22.01 Mixed-small 2 3.51 41 14.04 70 18.62 73 18.16 5 13.89 191 16.42 Small 13 22.81 93 31.85 187 49.73 252 62.69 20 55.56 565 48.58 Large 3 5.26 31 10.62 28 7.45 28 6.97 2 5.56 92 7.91 Education 14 24.56 57 19.52 58 15.43 32 7.96 6 16.67 167 14.36 Government 33 57.89 119 40.75 75 19.95 13 3.23 8 22.22 248 21.32 Industry 6 10.53 26 8.90 22 5.85 7 1.74 2 5.56 63 5.42 Military 15 26.32 55 18.84 64 17.02 15 3.73 7 19.55 156 13.41 Retired 14 24.56 11 3.77 1 0.27 0 0.00 0 0.00 26 2.24 5 8.77 35 11.99 17 4.52 17 4.23 1 2.78 75 6.45 Unknown 12 21.05 25 8.56 13 3.46 11 2.74 3 8.33 64 5.50 Total possible respondents 57 292 376 Dec. 1967-1977 402 36 Total No. 1163 % 364 Other 1953-June , 1967 Unknown Career Options Table C.73 Reported Inclusion of Each Career Option During the Course of Respondents' Careers by Career Options of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Large Small No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Mixed - 50/50 81 100.00 3 3.41 19 18.27 28 6.38 9 20.93 Mixed - large 11 13.58 88 100.00 19 18.27 46 10.48 10 23.26 Mixed - small 4 4.94 1 1.14 104 100.00 46 10.48 9 20.93 Small 10 12.35 3 3.41 21 20.19 439 100.00 4 9.30 Large 6 7.41 7 7.95 2 1.92 14 3.19 43 100.00 Education 2 2.47 4 4.55 4 3.85 24 5.47 6 13.95 Government 6 7.41 9 10.23 12 11.54 52 11.85 6 13.95 Industry 1 1.24 0 0.00 2 1.92 7 1.59 1 2.33 Military 8 9.88 6 6.82 11 10.58 60 13.67 6 13.95 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.96 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 1 1.24 0 0.00 4 3.85 17 3.87 0 0.00 Unknown 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.46 1 2.33 Total possible respondents 81 88 104 439 43 365 Career Option Table C.73 (cont’d.) Career Option (Present) Education Government Industry Military Retired Other Unknown Career Option No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Mixed - 50/50 10 12.99 11 11.00 3 8.11 2 20.00 3 12.00 2 7.41 7 5.30 178 15.31 Mixed - large 11 14.29 36 36.00 7 18.92 2 20.00 7 28.00 4 14.81 15 11.36 256 22.01 Mixed - small 3 3.90 9 9.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 2 8.00 6 22.22 5 3.79 191 16.42 Small 24 31.17 17 17.00 9 24.32 3 30.00 5 20.00 10 37.04 20 15.15 565 48.50 Large 5 6.49 6 6.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 2 8.00 1 3.70 4 3.03 92 7.91 Education 77 100.00 14 14.00 17 45.95 0 0.00 9 36.00 3 11.11 7 5.30 167 14.36 Government 11 14.29 100 100.00 8 21.62 4 40.00 18 72.00 7 25.93 15 11.36 248 21.32 37 100.00 0 0.00 3 12.00 3 11.11 2 1.52 63 5.42 No. % Total No. % 2 2.60 5 5.00 Military 9 11.69 23 23.00 8 21.62 10 100.00 9 36.00 2 7.41 4 3.03 156 13.41 Retired 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 25 100.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 26 2.24 Other 5 6.49 10 10.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 2 8.00 27 100.00 7 5.30 75 6.45 Unknown 1 1.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 57 43.18 64 5.50 Total possible respondents 77 100 37 10 25 1 27 3.70 132 1163 366 Industry Table C.74 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents' Career by Sex Sex Male Female Not Reported Total No. % No. % No. % No. % Employment in Michigan* 562 53.57 70 66.04 4 50.00 636 54.69 Employment in another state or U.S. Territory* 653 62.25 59 55.66 3 37.50 715 61.48 42 4.00 3 2.83 1 12.50 46 3.96 Employment in a single-person practice 505 48.14 34 32.08 3 37.50 542 46.60 Employment in a practice with one other D.V.M. 468 44.61 49 46.23 1 12.50 518 44.54 With two other D.V.M.'s 284 27.07 34 32.08 1 12.50 319 27.43 With three to five other D.V.M.'s 264 25.17 43 40.57 2 25.00 309 26.57 With more than five other D.V.M.'s 312 29.74 23 21.70 3 37.50 338 29.06 Full-time employment 957 91.23 102 96.23 5 62.50 1064 91.49 Part-time employment (50% or greater) 41 3.91 19 17.92 0 0.00 60 5.16 Part-time employment (less than 50%) 47 4.48 15 14.15 0 0.00 62 5.33 Any part-time employment 85 8.10 28 26.42 0 0.00 113 9.72 Employment in a foreign country* Total possible respondents 1049 106 8 *Does not include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 1163 367 Various factors Table C.75 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents’ Careers by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 Various factors No. % No. Employment in Michigan* 34 59.65 Employment in another state or U.S. Territory 33 1953-June, 1967 No. % 136 46.58 204 54.26 57.89 196 67.12 245 65.16 3 5.26 18 6.16 12 3.19 Employment in a single-person practice 26 45.61 165 56.51 209 55.59 Employment in a practice with one other D.V.M. 18 31.58 110 37.67 175 46.54 9 15.79 54 18.49 109 28.99 With three to five other D.V.M.’s 14 24.56 55 18.84 92 24.47 With more than five other D.V.M.'s 34 59.65 127 43.49 103 27.39 Full-time employment 44 77.19 258 88.36 342 90.96 Part-time employment (50% or greater) 2 3.51 13 4.45 22 5.85 Part-time employment (less than 50%) 6 10.53 16 5.48 18 4.79 Any part-time employment 7 12.28 28 9.59 38 10.11 Employment in a foreign country* With two other D.V.M.'s Total possible respondents 57 292 *Does not include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 376 368 % Table C.75 (cont'd.) Cohort Group Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % Employment in Michigan* 242 60.20 20 55.56 636 54.69 Employment in another state or U.S. Territory 217 53.98 24 66.67 715 61.48 9 2.24 4 11.11 46 3.96 Employment in a single-person practice 128 31.84 14 38.89 542 46.60 Employment in a practice with one other D.V.M 195 48.51 20 55.56 518 44.54 With two other D.V.M.'s 131 32.59 16 44.44 319 27.43 With three to five other D.V.M.'s 137 34.08 11 30.56 309 26.57 64 15.92 10 27.78 338 29.06 385 95.77 35 97.22 1064 91.49 Part-time employment (50% or greater) 21 5.22 2 5.56 60 5.16 Part-time employment (less than 50%) 21 5.22 1 2.78 62 5.33 Any part-time employment 37 9.20 3 8.33 113 9.72 Employment in a foreign country* With more than five other D.V.M.'s Full-time employment Total possible respondents 402 36 *Does not Include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 1163 369 Various factors Table C.76 Reported Inclusion of Various Factors During the Course of Respondents' Careers by Career Option of Their Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) 1 f Various factors Employment in Michigan* 57 70.37 51 57.95 70 67.31 260 59.23 20 46.51 44 57.14 Employment in another state or U.S. terr.* 37 45.68 51 57.95 57 54.81 269 61.28 36 83.72 69 89.61 Employment in a foreign country* 1 1,23 5 5.68 4 3.85 14 3.19 0 0.00 6 7.79 Employment in a single­ person practice 45 55.56 41 46.59 51 49.04 207 47.15 30 69.77 33 42.96 40 28 49.38 34,57 33 19 37.50 21.59 54 25 51.92 24.04 247 163 56.26 37.13 19 16 44.19 37.21 25 15 32.47 19.48 11 13.58 26 29.55 27 25.96 145 33.03 11 25.58 17 22.08 7 8.64 13 14.77 17 16.35 89 20.27 10 23.26 61 79.22 Full-time employment 77 95.06 87 98.86 102 98.08 436 99.32 43 100.00 75 97.40 Part-time employment (30% or greater) 3 3.70 2 2.27 4 3.85 23 5.24 1 2.33 8 10.39 Part-time employment (Less than 50%) 3 3.70 1 1.14 6 5.77 18 4.10 4 9.30 5 6.49 Any part-time employment 5 6.17 2 2.27 10 9.62 38 8.66 4 9.30 12 15.58 Total possible respondents % % Small No. % Large No. % Education No. % 370 Employment in a practice With one other D.V.M. With two other D.V.M.'s With three to five other D.V.M.'s With more than five other D.V.M.'s % MixedLarge No. MixedSmall No. Mixed50/50 No. 81 88 104 439 *Does not include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 43 77 Table C.76 (cont'd) Career Option (Present) Various factors Govem■ment No. % Industry No. % * Military No. % « Retired No. % * Employment in Michigan* 48 48.00 21 56.76 •4 40.00 16 64:00 Employment in another state or U.S. terr.* 84 84.00 31 83.78 6 60.00 22 88.00 Employment in a foreign country* 9 9.00 1 2.70 3 30.00 1 4.00 Employment in a single­ person practice 54 54,00 18 48.65 5 50.00 17 68.00 39 20 39.00 20.00 16 7 43.24 18.92 5 2 50.00 20.00 8 4 32.00 16.00 33 33.00 13 35.14 4 40.00 6 24.00 71 71.00 23 62.16 4 40.00 20 80.00 Full-time employment 100 100.00 37 100.00 10 100.00 24 96.00 Part-time employment (50% or greater) 7 7.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 2 8.00 Part-time employment (Less than 50%) 2 2.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 4 16.00 Any part-time employment 9 9.00 4 10.81 0 0.00 5 20.00 Employment in a practice With one other D.V.M. With two other D.V.M.'s With three to five other D.V.M.'s With more than five other D.V.M. 's Total possible respondents 100 37 10 *Does not include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 25 Table C.76 (cont'd) Career Option (Present) Other Various factors No. Unknown % No. Total % No. % 13 48.15 32 24.24 636 54.69 Employment in another state or U.S. terr.* 22 81.48 31 23.48 715 61.48 Employment in a foreign country* 1 3.70 1 0.76 46 3.96 Employment in a single­ person practice 16 59.26 25 18.94 542 46.60 14 8 51.85 29.63 18 12 13.64 9.09 518 319 44.54 27.43 8 29.63 8 6.06 309 26.57 8 29.63 15 11.36 338 29.06 Full-time employment 25 92.59 48 36.36 1064 91.49 Part-time employment (50% or greater) 4 14.81 4 3.03 60 5.16 Part-time employment (Less than 50%) 6 22.22 11 8.33 62 5.33 Any part-time employment 10 37.04 14 10.61 113 9.72 Total possible respondents 27 Employment in a practice With one other D.V.M. With two other D.V.M.'s With three to five other D.V.M.'s With more than five other D.V.M.'s 132 1163 *Does not include positions reported to be in more than one location option. 372 Employment in Michigan* APPENDIX D TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE II Table D.l Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Sex Sex Male Female Not Reported Total % No. % No. % No. % Urban or metropolitan area 217 20.73 24 22.64 2 40.00 243 20.98 Suburban 250 23.88 50 47.17 2 40.00 302 26.08 Rural - town 209 19.96 11 10.38 0 0.00 220 19.00 Rural - farm 371 35.43 21 19.81 1 20.00 393 33.94 1047 100.00 106 100.00 5 100.00 1158* 100.00 Total *There were 5 non-respondents on this item (2 Males and ,3 Not reported) 373 No. Residential Setting Table D.2 Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 15 26.32 63 21.95 83 22.07 77 19.15 5 13.89 243 20.98 Suburban 9 15.79 29 10.10 89 23.67 160 39.80 15 41.67 302 26.08 Rural - town 9 15.79 70 24.39 65 17.29 70 17.41 6 16.67 220 19.00 Rural - farm 24 42.11 125 43.55 139 36.97 95 23.63 10 27.78 393 33.94 Total 57 100.00* 287 99.99 376 100.00 402 99.99* 36 Residential Setting Urban or metropolitan area **There were 5 non-respondents on this item Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total 100.01* 1158**100.00 374 *Error due to rounding of figure 1953-June, 1967 Table D.3 Residential Setting During the Majority of High School Years by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedSmall MixedLarge Small Large % No. % No. % No. % No. % Urban or metropolitan area 9 10.98 15 16.67 18 17.14 117 26.53 5 11.63 Suburban 8 9.76 9 10.00 18 17.14 177 40.14 5 11.63 Rural - town 17 20.73 9 10.00 22 20.95 7 17.46 12 27.91 Rural - farm 48 58.54 57 63.33 47 44.76 70 15.87 21 48.84 Total* 82 100.01* 90 100.00 105 99.99* 44 100.00 43 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures 375 No. Residential Setting Table D.3 (cont’d.) Career Option (Present) Education Government No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Urban or metropolitan area 17 21.25 17 15.45 10 25.00 2 18.18 7 25.93 26 Suburban 26 32.50 15 13.64 11 27.50 2 18.18 9 33.33 Rural - town 7 8.75 38 34.55 2 5.00 4 36.36 4 Rural - farm 30 37.50 40 36.36 17 42.50 3 27.27 7 Total* 80 100.00 110 100.00 40 100.00 11 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 5 non-respondents on this item. Industry Military 99.99* Other Unknown Total No. % 20.16 243 20.98 22 17.05 302 26.08 14.18 28 21.71 220 19.00 25.93 53 41.09 393 33.94 27 100.00 129 % No. 100.01* 1158** 100.00 376 Residential Setting Table D.4 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by Sex Sex Male Female Not Reported Total % No. % No. % No. % Indicated Michigan 713 67.97 75 70.75 4 50.00 792 68.10 Did not indicate Michigan 336 32.03 31 29.25 4 50.00 371 31.90 1049 100.00 106 100.00 8 100.00 1163 100.00 Total 377 No. Table D.5 Indication of Michigan as legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by Cohort Group Cohort Group Indication of Michigan 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. No. Indicated Michigan 42 73.68 157 53.77 262 69.68 305 75.87 26 72.22 792 68.10 Did not indicate Michigan 15 26.32 135 46.23 114 30.32 97 24.13 10 27.78 371 31.90 Total 57 100.00 292 100.00 376 100.00 402 100.00 36 100.00 1163 100.00 % % 1953-June, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 No. % No. % Unknown No. % Total No. % 378 Table D.6 Indication of Michigan as Legal Residence Prior to Entering MSU College of Veterinary Medicine by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Indication of Michigan Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. No. % MixedSmall Small % No. % No. Large % No. Education % No. % 65 79.27 69 76.67 74 70.48 308 69.68 27 62.79 48 60.00 Did not indicate Michigan 17 20,73 21 23.33 31 29.52 134 30.32 16 37.21 32 40.00 Total 82 100.00 90 100.00 105 100.00 442 100.00 43 100.00 80 100.00 379 Indicated Michigan Table D.6 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Indication of Michigan Government Industry Military Retired No. % No. % No. % No. Indicated Michigan 69 62.16 30 75.00 6 54.55 0 Did not indicate Michigan 42 37.84 10 25.00 5 45.45 111 100.00 40 100.00 11 100.00 Total % Other No. Unknown Total No. % % No. % 0.00 15 55.56 81 61.36 792 68.10 1 100.00 12 44.44 51 38.64 371 31.90 1 100.00 27 100.00 132 100.00 1163 100.00 380 Table D.7 Factors Having Some or Very Much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Sex Sex Male Female Not Reported Factors No. X No. X No. % Desire to relieve animal suffering 683 65. 11 98 92.45 5 62.5 786 67..58 Owned or worked with large animals 581 55. 39 59 55.66 3 37.5 643 55..29 Owned or worked with small animals 651 62. 06 96 90.57 4 50.0 751 64..57 Worked and/or lived on a farm 563 53. 67 40 37.74 3 37.5 606 52..11 Interested in medical field 856 81. 60 102 96.23 6 75.0 964 82,.89 Veterinarian in the family 113 10.77 4 3.77 1 12.5 118 10..15 Love of animals 813 77.50 104 98.11 5 62.5 922 79..28 Acquainted with a veterinarian 581 55. 39 58 54.72 3 37.5 642 55..20 Worked with a veterinarian 366 34. 89 58 54.72 1 12.5 425 36,.54 - 610 58. 15 45 42.45 3 37.5 658 56..58 93 8.87 10 9.43 0 0.0 103 8, .86 Desire for financial security Other Total possible respondents 1049 106 % No. Total 8 1163 Table D.8 Factors Having Some or Very Much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 1953-June,1967 Dec.,1967-1976 Unknown Total Factor No. Desire to relieve animal suffering 22 38.60 189 64.73 258 68.62 292 72.64 25 69.44 786 67.58 Owned or worked with large animals 23 40.35 182 62.33 233 61.97 185 46.02 20 55.56 643 55.29 Owned or worked with small animals 11 19.30 150 51.37 264 70.21 301 74.88 25 69.44 751 64.57 Worked and/or lived on a farm 31 54.39 171 58.56 222 59.04 163 40.55 19 52.78 606 52.11 Interested in medical field 31 54.39 219 75.0 312 82.98 372 92.54 30 83.33 964 82.89 9 15.79 46 15.75 34 9.04 26 6.47 3 8.33 118 10.15 Love of animals 26 45.61 217 74.32 314 83.51 335 83.33 30 83.33 922 79.28 Acquainted with a veterinarian 27 47.37 148 50.68 225 59.84 225 55.97 17 47.22 642 55.20 Worked with a veterinarian 11 19.30 77 26.37 140 37.23 184 45.77 13 36.11 425 36.54 Desire for financial security 18 31.58 146 50.0 204 54.26 267 66.42 23 63.89 658 56.58 1 1.75 23 28 7.45 48 11.94 3 8.33 103 8.86 Other Total possible respondents 57 No. 292 % 7.88 No. 376 % No. 402 % No. 36 1 No. 1163 % 382 Veterinarian in the family % Table D.9 Factors Having Some or Very Much Influence on Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) MixedLarge Mixed50/50 MixedSmall Small No. % No. % No. % No. Desire to relieve animal suffering 52 63.40 49 54.44 78 74.29 336 Owned or worked with large animals 71 86.59 76 84.44 80 76.19 Owned or worked with small animals 56 68.29 43 47.78 83 Worked and/or lived on a farm 67 81.71 77 85.56 Interested in medical field 63 76.83 75 5 6.10 Love of animals 56 Acquainted with a veterinarian No. % 76.02 22 51.16 50 62.50 153 34.62 38 88.37 45 56.28 79.05 341 77.15 22 51.16 43 53.75 66 62.86 142 32.13 33 76.74 43 53.75 83.33 88 83.81 388 87.78 36 83.72 67 83.75 7 7.78 11 10.48 39 8.82 1 2.33 9 11.25 68.29 66 73.33 88 83.81 386 87.33 34 79.07 56 70.00 42 51.22 58 64.44 63 60.00 231 52.26 29 67.44 49 61.25 Worked with a veterinarian 34 41.46 27 30.00 39 37.14 180 40.72 18 41.86 26 32.50 Desire for financial security 39 47.56 49 54.44 54 51.43 288 65.16 21 48.84 40 50.00 8 9.76 6 6.67 8 7.62 49 11.09 3 6.98 10 12.50 Veterinarian in the family Other Total possible respondents 82 90 105 442 % 43 No. 80 % 383 Factors Education Large Table D.9 (cont’d.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military No,. No. % No. % Desire to relieve animal suffering 66 59.46 30 75.00 8 Owned or worked with large animals 60 54.05 25 62.50 Owned or worked with small animals 51 45.95 26 Worked and/or lived on a farm 67 60.36 Interested in medical field 83 Veterinarian in the family Unknown Total No. % No. % No. 72.73 17 62.96 78 59.09 786 67.58 4 36.36 17 62.96 74 56.06 643 55.29 65.00 6 54.55 16 59.26 64 48.48 751 64.27 23 57.50 5 45.45 14 51.85 69 52.27 606 52.11 74.77 32 80.00 8 72.73 23 _85.19 101 76.52 964 82.89 24 21.62 3 7.50 0 0.00 4 14.81 15 11.36 118 10.15 Love of animals 79 71.17 32 80.00 10 90.91 22 81.48 93 70.45 922 79.28 Acquainted with a veterinarian 56 50.45 23 57.50 8 72.73 13 48.15 70 53.03 642 55.20 Worked with a veterinarian 28 25.23 14 35.00 5 45.45 11 40.74 43 32.58 425 36.54 Desire for financial security 61 54.95 18 45.00 6 54.55 18 66.67 64 48.48 658 56.58 6 5.41 2 5.00 1 9.09 3 11.11 7 5.30 103 8.86 Other Total possible respondents 111 40 11 % 27 132 1163 % 384 Factors Other Table D.10 Influence of Factors on Decision to Become a Veterinarian Influence Factors Very Much Influence Some Influence Very Little Influence No Influence No Opinion No. % No. No. % No. No. % % % Number Not Responding No. % Total No. 280 24.08 506 43.51 176 15.13 87 7.48 25 2.15 89 7.65 1163 100.00 Owned or worked with large animals 384 33.02 259 22.27 68 5.85 321 27.60 41 3.53 90 7.74 1163 100.00 Owned or worked with small animals 325 27.94 426 36.63 151 12.98 140 12.04 14 1.20 107 9.20 1163 100.00 Worked and/or lived on a farm 369 31.73 237 20.38 62 5.33 347 29.84 60 5.16 88 7.57 1163 100.00 Interested in medical field 632 54.45 332 28.55 66 5.67 43 3.70 13 1.12 77 6.62 1163 100.00 83 7.14 35 3.01 10 0.86 701 60.28 156 13.41 178 15.31 1163 100.00 Love of animals 449 38.61 473 40.67 102 8.77 58 4.99 6 0.52 75 6.45 1163 100.00 Acquainted with a veterinarian 282 24.25 360 30.95 115 9.89 268 23.04 34 2.92 104 8.94 1163 100.00 Worked with a veterinarian 239 20.55 186 15.99 81 6.96 431 37.06 76 6.53 150 12.90 1163 100.00 Desire for financial security 188 16.17 470 40.41 168 14.45 197 16.94 36 3.10 104 8.94 1163 100.00 79 6.79 24 2.06 3 0.26 5 0;43 19 1.63 1033 88.82 1163 100.00 Veterinarian in the family Other 385 Desire to relieve animal suffering Table D.ll Career Objectives Influencing Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Sex Sex Male Career Objectives No. Female % No. Not Reported % No. % Total No. % 740 70.54 48 45.28 4 50.00 792 68.10 Setting own hours 399 38.04 33 31.13 3 37.5 435 37.40 Associating with colleagues 397 37.85 52 49.06 449 38.61 Finding employment opportunities 305 29.08 47 44.34 2 354 30.44 Desiring financial security 649 61.87 39 36.79 3 691 59.42 Working in a rural setting 473 45.09 25 23.58 498 42.82 Working in an urban setting 106 10.10 9 8.49 116 9.97 1 .25 37.5 12.5 386 Being own boss Table D.ll (cont'd.) Sex Hale Career Objectives No Female % No. Not Reported % No. % Total No, % 742 70.73 83 78.30 6 75.0 831 71.45 Using other skills in a medical setting 327 31.17 46 43.40 4 50.0 377 32.42 Fulfilling a desire to help people and animals 679 64.73 87 82.08 7 87.50 773 66.47 Finding intellectual stimulation 601 57,29 75 70.75 6 75.0 682 58.64 Investigating the unknown 335 31.94 36 33.96 5 62.50 376 32.33 59 5.62 8 7.55 0 0.0 67 5.76 Other Total possible respondents 1049 106 8 1163 387 Using a variety of medical skills Table D. 12 Career Objectives Influence Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 Career Objectives Ho. % Being own boss 26 45.61 Setting own hours 12 Associating with colleagues 1939-1952 Dec. 1967-1977 % No. No. % 198 67.81 271 72.07 274 68.16 23 63.89 792 68.10 21.05 89 30.48 154 40.96 165 41.04 15 41.67 435 37.40 14 24.56 98 33.56 141 37.5 179 44.53 17 47.22 449 38.61 Finding employment opportunities 14 24.56 75 25.68 94 25.0 156 38.81 15 41.67 354 30.44 Desiring financial security 32 56.14 165 56.51 214 56.91 255 63.43 25 69.44 691 59.42 Working in a rural setting 25 43.86 133 45.55 162 43.09 166 41.29 12 33.33 498 42.82 6 10.53 36 12.33 34 9.04 39 9.70 1 2.78 116 9.97 Using a variety of medical skills 29 50.88 179 61.30 279 74.20 20 79.60 24 66.67 831 71.45 Using other skills in a medical setting 10 17.54 75 25.68 137 36.44 146 36.07 10 27.78 377 32.42 Fulfilling a desire to help people and animals 30 52.63 183 62.67 259 68.88 280 69.65 21 58.33 773 66.47 Finding intellectual stimulation 18 31.58 155 53.08 216 57.45 271 67.41 22 61.11 682 58.64 Investigating the unknown 13 22.81 99 33.90 142 37.77 112 27.68 10 27.78 376 32.33 3 5.26 11 3.77 22 5,85 28 6.97 3 8.33 67 5.76 Total possible respondents 57 292 376 402 No. 36 % Total 1163 388 No. Other % Unknown % Working in an urban setting No. 1953-June, 1967 Table D.13 Career Objectives Influence Decision to Become a Veterinarian by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No,. Small No. Large No . Education No, Career Objectives No. Being own boss 66 80.49 67 77.44 81 77.14 342 77.38 37 86.05 24 30.00 Setting own hours 39 47.56 22 24.44 45 42.86 206 46.61 16 37.21 16 20.00 • 29 35.37 27 30.00 29 27.62 194 43.89 13 30.23 47 58.75 Finding employment opportunities 15 18.29 17 18.89 29 27.62 150 33.94 6 13.95 32 40.00 Desiring financial security 44 53.66 45 50.00 58 55.24 298 67.42 25 58.14 25 31.25 Working in a rural setting 71 86.59 82 91.11 70 66.67 87 19.68 33 76.74 19 23.75 Working in an urban setting 5 6.10 5 5.56 8 7.62 62 14.03 1 2.33 5 6.25 % % % % % 389 Associating with colleagues % No. MixedSmall Table D.13 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. MixedSmall No. Small % No. Large No. No. Using a variety of medical skills 66 80.49 57 63.33 78 74.29 367 83.03 23 53.49 47 58.75 Using other skills in a medical setting 27 32.93 27 30.00 31 29.52 153 34.62 7 16.28 29 36.25 Fulfilling a desire to help people and animals 57 69.51 69 76.67 77 73.33 317 71.72 25 58.14 38 47.50 Finding intellectual stimulation 43 52.44 42 46.67 52 49.52 284 64.25 18 41.86 65 81.25 Investigating the unknown 24 29.27 19 21.11 25 23.81 129 29.29 11 25.58 49 61.25 4 4.88 2 2.22 10 9.52 25 5.66 3 6.98 5 6.25 Total possible respondents 82 90 105 442 43 80 % 390 Other % % No. Career Objectives % % Education Table D.13 (cont’d.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Retired No. No. No. Career Objectives No. Being own boss 43 38.74 12 30.00 3 27.27 Setting own hours 24 21.62 5 12.50 2 Associating with colleagues 39 35.14 15 37.50 Finding employment opportunities 9 44.14 16 Desiring financial security 76 68.47 Working in a rural setting 49 Working in an urban setting 9 Other Unknown No. Total % No. 0 0.00 20 74.07 97 73.48 792 68.10 18.18 0 0.00 9 33.33 51 38.64 435 37.15 3 27.27 0 0.00 7 25,93 36 34.85 449 38.61 40.00 2 18.18 0 0.00 8 29.63 30 22.73 354 30.54 23 57.50 5 45.45 0 0.00 17 62.96 75 56.82 691 59.42 44.14 12 30.00 2 18.18 0 0.00 8 29.63 65 49.24 498 42.82 8.11 1 2.50 1 9.09 0 0.00 2 7.41 17 12.88 116 9.97 % % % % % No. % Table D.13 (cont’d.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military Retired No. 0.00 13 48.15 82 62.12 831 71.45 0 0.00 4 14.81 36 27.27 377 32.42 54.55 Q 0.00 13 48.15 87 65.91 773 66.47 6 54.55 0 0.00 17 62.96 74. 56.06 682 58.64 62.50 4 36.36 0 0.00 8 29.63 45 34.09 376 32.33 2.50 2 18.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 5.30 67 5.76 % 55.86 28 70.00 8 72.73 0 45 40.54 14 35.00 4 36.36 Fulfilling a desire to help people and animals 58 52.25 26 65.00 6 Finding intellec­ tual stimulation 55 49.55 26 65.00 Investigating the unknown 37 33.33 25 8 7.21 1 Using a variety of medical skills 62 Using other skills in a medical setting Other Total possible respondents 111 40 11 0 % 27 No . 12 % No. 1163 % 392 No. % Total % % No. Unknown No. No. Career Objectives Other Table D.14 Adequate Satisfaction of Career Objectives in Various Career Settings by Respondents Working in Those Areas Career Settings Private Practice Industry Government Agency Education Military No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % Being own boss 637 83.70 1 2.50 13 11.71 5 6.25 2 18.18 Setting own hours 506 66.49 3 7.50 11 9.91 14 17.50 2 18.18 Associating with colleagues 393 51.64 24 60.00 53 47.75 59 73.75 4 36.36 Finding employment opportunities 407 53.48 22 55.00 56 50.45 39 48.75 1 9.09 Desiring financial security 493 64.78 21 52.50 69 62.16 31 38.75 6 54.54 Working in a rural setting 484 63.60 6 15.00 31 27.93 5 6.25 0 0.00 Working in an urban setting 363 47.70 17 42.50 27 24.32 24 30.00 2 18.18 Using a variety of medical skills 546 71.74 21 52.50 40 36.04 43 53.75 3 27.27 393 Career Objectives Table D.14 (cont'd.) Career Settings Private Practice Industry Career Objectives No. % No. Using other skills in a medical setting 370 48.62 21 Fulfilling a desire to help people and animals 554 72.80 Finding intellectual stimulation 415 Investigating the unknown 207 Total possible respondents 761 Education Military No. No. % No. % 52.50 43 38.74 43 53.75 3 27.27 19 47.50 51 45.95 48 60.00 4 36.36 54.53 26 65.00 50 45.05 61 76.25 1 9.09 27.20 18 45.00 25 22.52 49 61.25 1 9.09 40 % Government Agency 111 80 11 % 395 Table D.15 Type of Experience in Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex Sex Male Female Experience No. Lived on a farm 81 10.84 4 3.96 0 Cared for large animals 75 10.04 2 1.98 1 Cared for small animals 131 17.54 31 30.69 1 Family relative a D.V.M. 48 6.43 1 .99 163 21.82 33 35 4.69 Other 214 28.65 Total 747 100.01* Worked with a veterinarian Laboratory work % *Error due to rounding of figures No. Not Reported % No. % Total No. % 85 9.99 33.33 78 9.17 33.33 163 19.15 0 49 5.76 32.67 0 196 23.03 7 6.93 0 42 4.92 23 22.77 1 33.33 238 27.97 99.99* 3 99.99* 851 99.99* 101 Table D.16 Type of Experience in Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 1953-June, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total No . % % No. % No. % No. % No. Lived on a farm 9 29.03 34 18.68 27 9.71 12 3.57 3 12.50 85 9.99 Cared for large animals 8 25.81 16 8.79 25 8.98 29 8.63 0 0.00 78 9.17 Cared for small animals 0 0.00 15 8.24 54 19.42 90 26.79 4 16.67 163 19.15 Family relative a D.V.M. 4 12.90 21 11.54 15 5.40 9 2.68 0 0.00 49 5.76 Worked with a veterinarian 0 0.00 26 14.29 67 24.10 93 27.68 10 41.67 196 23.03 Laboratory work 2 6.45 6 3.30 21 7.55 13 3.87 0 0.00 42 4.94 Other 8 25.81 64 35.16 69 24.82 90 26.79 7 29.17 238 27.97 Total 31 100.00 182 100.00 278 99.98* 336 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures 24 % 100.01* 851 100.01* 396 No. Experience Table D.17 Type of Experience in Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 Experience MixedLarge % No. Lived on a farm 7 12.07 8 Cared for large animals 6 10.34 Cared for small animals 6 Family relative a D.V.M. Small Education Large No. % No. % No. 14.55 5 5.81 19 5.54 3 7.50 6 11.11 9 16.36 6 6.98 28 8.16 5 12.50 4 7.41 10.34 7 12.73 16 18.60 98 28.57 5 12.50 11 20.37 2 3.45 3 5.45 3 3.49 14 4.08 1 2.50 4 4.71 22 37.93 18 32.73 18 20.93 73 21.28 9 22.50 14 25.93 2 3.45 2 3.64 3 3.49 20 5.83 1 2.50 3 5.56 Other 13 22.41 8 14.55 35 40.70 91 26.53 16 40.00 12 22.22 Total 58 99.99* 86 100.00 343 99.99* 40 100.00 54 100.01* Worked with a veterinarian Laboratory work *Error due to rounding of figures 55 % 100.01* % No. % 397 No. MixedSmall Table D.17 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government % Industry Military Retired No. No. No. No. Lived on a farm 9 14. 75 3 9.68 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Cared for large animals 12 19. 67 1 3.23 0 0.00 1 100.00 Cared for small animals 3 4.92 7 22.58 0 0.00 0 Family relative a D.V.M. 10 16. 39 3 9.68 0 0.00 Worked with a veterinarian 9 14. 75 6 19.35 5 Laboratory work 4 6 .56 4 12.90 Other 14 22.95 7 Total 61 99. 99* 31 ♦Error due to rounding of figures Total No. % 0.00 25 26.04 85 9.99 0 5.00 6 6.25 78 9.17 0.00 4 20.00 6 6.25 163 19.15 0 0.00 1 5.00 8 8.33 49 5.76 71.43 0 0.00 3 15.00 19 19.79 196 23.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 10.00 1 1.04 42 4.94 22.58 2 28.57 0 0.00 9 45.00 31 32.29 238 27.97 100.00 7 100.00 1 100.00 20 100.00 96 99.99* 851 % No. Unknown % No. % 100.01* 398 Experience % % Other 399 Table D.18 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex Sex Male Female No. Home 55 8.15 3 3.13 1 33.33 59 7.62 Farm 116 17.19 3 3.13 1 33.33 120 15.50 Private practice 349 51.70 70 72.92 1 33.33 420 54.26 Clinic 20 2.96 5 5.21 0 0.00 25 3.23 Government agency 22 3.26 1 1.04 0 0.00 23 2.97 Laboratory 33 4.89 10 10.42 0 0.00 43 5.56 Industry 15 2.22 0 0.00 0 0.00 15 1.94 2 0.30 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.26 Other 63 9.33 4 4.17 0 0.00 67 8.66 Total 675 100.00 96 100.02* 3 99.99* 774 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures No. % No. % Total Setting Zoo % Not Reported No. % Table D.19 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1939-1952 1953-June, 1967 No. % No. % No. Home 5 18.52 15 11.11 18 Farm 9 33.33 28 20.72 Private Practice 4 14.81 62 Clinic 0 0.00 Government Agency 2 Laboratory Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total No. % No. % No. 7.00 18 5.45 3 12.00 59 7.62 52 20.23 28 8.48 3 12.00 120 15.50 45.93 132 51.36 208 63.03 14 56.00 420 54.26 2 1.48 5 1.95 16 4.85 2 8.00 25 3.23 7.41 2 1.48 9 3.50 9 2.73 1 4.00 23 2.97 0 0.00 6 4.44 20 7.78 17 5.15 0 0.00 43 5.56 Industry 2 7.41 2 1.48 4 1.56 6 1.82 1 4.00 15 1.94 Zoo 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.39 1 0.30 0 0.00 2 0.26 Other 5 18.52 18 13.33 16 6.23 27 8.18 1 4.00 67 8.66 Total 27 100.00 135 257 100.00 330 99.99* Setting *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* % 25 100.00 % 774 100.00 400 1913-1938 Table D.20 Type of Setting in Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 . MixedLarge MixedSmall Setting No Home 4 6.90 8 16.33 Farm 10 17.24 7 Private Practice 31 53.45 Clinic 1 Government agency % No . Large % No. 5 6.67 16 4.92 14.29 9 12.00 36 27 55.10 45 60,00 1.72 3 6.12 5 1 1.72 1 2.04 Laboratory 4 6.90 2 Industry 1 1.72 Zoo 0 Other Total % No. Small No . Education, . % No 4 11.11 1 2.13 11.08 7 19.44 7 14.89 193 59.38 20 55.56 27 57.45 6.67 9 2.77 0 0.00 1 2.13 1 1.33 10 3.08 1 2.78 1 2.13 4.08 3 4.00 24 7.38 1 2.78 4 8.51 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 2.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 1 2.04 1 1.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 10.34 0 0.00 6 8.00 30 9.23 3 8.33 6 12.77 58 99.99* 49 100.00 75 100.00 325 *Error due to rounding of figures % 99.99* 36 100.00 47 % 100.01* Table D.20 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government % Industry Military No. No. No. % Home 5 9.09 1 3.85 0 0.00 Farm 18 32.73 4 15.38 0 Private Practice 19 34.55 12 46.15 Clinic 1 1.82 1 Government agency 3 5.45 Laboratory 2 Industry No. Total % No. % No. % 2 10.53 13 16.88 59 7.62 0.00 1 5.26 21 27.27 120 15.50 7 100.00 11 57.89 28 36.36 420 54.26 3.85 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 5.19 25 3.26 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 5.26 4 5.19 23 2.97 3.64 3 11.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 43 5.56 2 3.64 1 3.85 0 0.00 2 10.53 2 2.60 15 1.94 Zoo 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.26 Other 5 9.09 4 15.38 0 0.00 2 10.53 5 6.49 67 8.66 Total 55 100.01* 26 100.00 7 100.00 19 100.00 77 99.98* 774 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures % Unknown 402 Setting Other Table D.21 Type of Setting for Different Types of Preveterinary Work Experiences Experience Lived on a Farm Setting No. Home 32 Farm Cared for Large Animals Cared for Small Animals No . Family Relative a D.V.M. No . Worked with a D.V.M. No,. No. % 37.65 12 15.38 3 1.84 2 4.08 1 0.51 37 43.53 48 61.54 0 0.00 1 2.04 1 0.51 Private practice 3 3.53 0 0.00 134 82.21 37 75.51 167 85.20 Clinic 0 0.00 1 1.28 5 3.07 0 0.00 11 5.61 Government agency 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 2.04 Laboratory 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 3.07 1 2.04 1 0.51 Industry 1 1.18 0 0.00 1 0,61 0 0.00 1 0.51 Zoo 0 0.00 1 1.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 0 0.00 6 7.69 7 4.29 1 2.04 4 2.04 Type of experience indicated but not setting 12 14.12 10 12.82 8 4.91 7 14.29 6 3.06 Total** 85 100.01* 78 99.99* 49 100.00 196 % % % 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures **Total represents all work experiences listed for which type of experience or setting or both were indicated by the respondents. 403 163 100.00 % Table D.21 (cont'd.) Experience Laboratory Work Setting indicated but not type of experience Other Setting No,. % No. Home 0 0.00 8 3.36 1 20.00 59 6.89 Farm 1 2.38 32 13.45 0 0.00 120 14.02 Private practice 3 7.14 75 31.51 1 20.00 420 49.07 Clinic 1 2.38 7 2,94 0 0.00 25 2.92 Government agency 7 16.67 12 5.04 0 0.00 23 2.69 21 50.00 13 5.46 2 40.00 43 5.02 Industry 5 11.90 7 2.94 0 0.00 15 1.75 Zoo 0 0.00 1 0.42 0 0.00 2 0.23 Other 2 4.76 46 19.33 1 20.00 67 7.83 Type of experience indicated but not setting 2 4.76 37 15.55 0 0.00 82 9.58 99.99* 238 100.00 5 100.00 Total** 42 No. % % 856 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **Total represents all work experiences listed for which type of experience or setting or both were indicated by the respondents. 404 Laboratory % No. Total** 405 Table D.22 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex Sex Female Male Not Reported Total Practice Type No. % No. % No. % No. % Small 175 38.21 58 68.24 2 66.67 235 43.04 Mixed 105 22.93 9 10.59 1 33.33 115 21.06 Large 178 38.86 18 21.18 0 0.00 196 35.90 Total 458 100.00 85 100.00* 3 100.00 546 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures Table D.23 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. % No. % Small 5 41.67 17 18.68 Mixed 1 8.33 30 Large 6 50.00 Total 12 100.00 Practice Type 1953-June, 1967 No. Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total % No. % No. % No. % 58 33.72 145 56.85 10 62.50 235 43.04 32.97 43 25.00 39 15.29 2 12.50 115 21.06 44 48.35 71 41.28 71 27.84 4 25.00 196 35.90 91 100.00 172 100.00 255 99.98* 16 100.00 546 100.00 406 *Error due to rounding of figures Table D.24 Practice Type of Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed 50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Practice Type No. % No. % No. % Small 10 27.78 5 14.29 19 35.19 Mixed 4 11.11 13 37.14 10 Large 22 61.11 17 48.57 Total 36 100.00 35 100.00 Small Large Education % No. % No. % 144 58.54 6 22.22 16 47.06 18.52 43 17.48 10 37.04 7 20.59 25 46.30 59 23.98 11 40.74 11 32.35 54 100.01* 246 100.00 27 100.00 34 100.00 No. Table D.24 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military No. % No. X No. % No. % No. % Small 6 20.69 9 60.00 4 66.67 4 28.57 12 24.00 235 43.04 Mixed 9 31.03 2 13.33 0 0.00 1 7.14 16 32.00 115 21.06 Large 14 48.28 4 26.67 2 33.33 9 64.29 22 44.00 196 35.90 Total 29 100.00 15 100.00 6 100.00 14 100.00 50 100.00 Practice Type Unknown Total No. % 546 100.00 408 *Error due to rounding of figures Other Table D.25 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by Sex Sex Male No. % No experience 451 42.99 Not indicated 598 1049 Total Not Reported Female Indication of No Experience No. Total % No. % No. % 29 27.36 3 37.50 483 41.53 57.01 77 72.64 5 62.50 680 58.47 100.00 106 100.00 8 100.00 1163 100.00 409 Table D.26 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group Indication of No Experience 1913-■1938 No. % 1939--1952 No. % 1953-June,1967 No. Dec.1967-1976 % No. Unknown No. % Total % No. % No experience 29 50.88 141 48.29 163 43.35 137 34.08 13 36.11 483 41.53 Not indicated 28 49.12 151 51.71 213 56.65 265 65.92 23 63.89 680 58.47 Total 57 100.00 292 100.00 376 100.00 402 100.00 36 100.00 1163 100.00 410 Table D.27 No Reported Preveterinary Work Experience by Career Option In Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) MixedLarge Mixed50/50 No. No experience 34 Not indicated Total % Small No. % No. % 41.46 43 47.78 44 41.90 178 48 58.54 47 52.22 61 58.10 82 100.00 90 100.00 105 100.00 No. Education Large % No. % No. % 40.27 12 27.91 39 48.75 264 69.73 31 72.09 41 51.25 442 100.00 43 100.00 80 100.00 Table D.27 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Indication of No Experience Government Industry Military Other No. % No. % No. % No. No experience 52 46.85 16 40.00 4 36.36 9 Not indicated 59 53.15 24 60.00 7 63.64 111 100.00 40 100.00 11 100.00 Total Total Unknown No. % 33.33 52 39.39 483 41,53 18 66.67 80 60.61 680 58.47 27 100.00 132 100.00 1163 100.00 % No. % 411 Indication of No Experience MixedSmall Table D.28 Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex Sex Male Experience No. Female No. % Not Reported % No. 366 50.69 26 32.10 3 3 .42 0 0.00 0 Laboratory or research assistance 48 6.65 6 7.41 Kennel work or caretaker of laboratory animals 58 8.03 12 Make calls with a veterinarian 41 5.68 Surgery assistance 14 Assumed all responsibilities % No. X 395 48.95 0.00 3 .37 0 0.00 54 6.69 14.81 0 0.00 70 8.67 8 9.88 0 0.00 49 6.07 1.94 4 4.94 1 25.00 19 2.35 75 10.39 12 14.81 0 0.00 87 10.78 Observation 17 2.35 3 3.70 0 0.00 20 2.48 Regulatory work or inspection 24 3.32 1 1.23 0 0.00 25 3.10 Other 76 10.53 9 11.11 0 0.00 85 10.53 722 100.00 81 99.99* 4 100.00 807 99.99* General or unspecified Janitorial work Total Experience Reported *Error due to rounding of figures 75.0 Total Table D.29 Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group Experience 1913-1938 No. % General or unspecified 13 56.52 104 57.46 192 53.19 72 33.33 14 53.85 395 48.95 Janitorial work 0 0.00 1 .55 2 .55 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 .37 Laboratory or research assistance 2 8.70 7 3.87 33 9.14 11 5.09 1 3.85 54 6.69 Kennel work or caretaker of laboratory animals 1 4.35 8 4.42 35 9.70 23 10.65 3 11.54 70 8.67 Make calls with a veterinarian 1 4.35 11 6.08 24 6.65 13 6.02 0 0.00 49 6.07 Surgery assistance 0 0.00 4 2.21 9 2.49 5 2.31 1 3.85 19 2.35 Assumed all responsibilities 0 0.0 9 4.97 22 6.09 53 24.54 3 11.54 87 10.78 Observation 1 4.35 3 1.66 5 1.39 10 4.63 1 3.85 20 2.48 Regulatory work or inspection 0 0.00 7 3.87 17 4.71 0 0.00 1 3.85 25 3.10 Other 5 21.74 27 14.92 22 6.09 29 13.43 2 7.69 85 10.53 361 100.0 216 807 99.99* Total ♦Error due to rounding of figures 23 100.01* 1939--1952 % No. 181 100.01* 1953-June, 1967 No. % Dec. 1967-1976 Unknown % No. No. % 100.0 26 100.02* Total No. % Table D.30 Type of Experience in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option Of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Experience Mixed50/50 No. % MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. General or unspecified 28 50.00 32 50.00 40 49.38 130 Janitorial work 1 1.79 0 0.00 1 1.23 Laboratory research or assistance 2 3.57 3 4.69 4 Kennel work or caretaker of lab. animals 3 5.36 1 1.56 Make calls with a veterinarian 2 3.57 8 Surgery assistance 1 1.79 Assumed all responsibilities 16 28.57 Large No. % Education No. % 43.19 13 43.33 34 53.97 1 0.33 0 0.00 0 0.00 4.94 20 6.64 4 13.33 9 14.29 5 6.17 41 13.62 0 0.00 6 9.52 12.50 5 6.17 16 5.32 5 16.67 -4 6.35 1 1.56 1 1.23 9 2.99 0 0.00 2 3.17 11 17.19 11 13.58 31 10.30 4 13,33 4 6.35 % Observation 1 1.79 3 4.69 4 4.49 4 1.33 1 3.33 0 0.00 Regulatory work or inspection 0 0.00 1 1.56 3 3.70 8 2.66 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 2 3.57 4 6.25 7 8.64 41 13.62 3 10.00 4 6.35 64 100.00 81 301 100.00 30 Total experience reported *Error due to rounding of figures 56 100.01* 99.98* 99.99* 63 100.00 Table D.30 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry No. No. % Military % No. Other % No. Unknown % No. Total % No. % 40 57.97 19 57.58 3 50.00 8 50.00 48 54.55 395 48.95 Janitorial work 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.37 Laboratory research or assistance 4 5.80 2 6.06 1 16.67 2 12.50 3 3.41 54 6.69 Kennel work or caretaker of lab. animals 1 1.45 1 3.03 2 33.33 2 12.50 8 9.09 70 8.67 Make calls with a veterinarian 2 2.90 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 6.25 6 6.82 49 6.07 Surgery assistance 1 1.45 1 3.03 0 0.00 1 6.25 2 2.27 19 2.35 Assumed all responsibilities 3 4.35 2 6.06 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 5.68 87 10.78 Observation 1 1.45 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 6.82 20 2.48 Regulatory work or inspection 7 10.14 1 3.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 5.68 25 3.10 Other 10 14.49 7 21.21 0 0.00 2 12.50 5 5.68 85 10.53 Total experience reported 69 100.00 33 100.00 6 100.00 16 100.00 88 100.00 807 99.99* General or unspecified *Error due to rounding of figures 416 Table D.31 Type of Setting in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex Sex Male Setting No. Female % No. Not Reported % No. % Total No. % 444 63.88 50 62.50 3 75.00 497 63.80 Clinic 99 14.24 20 25.00 1 25.00 120 15.40 Government agency 47 6.76 0 0.00 0 0.00 47 6.03 Laboratory 43 6.19 5 6.25 0 0.00 48 6.16 Industry 1 0.14 1 1.25 0 0.00 2 0.26 Zoo 0 0.00 1 1.25 0 0.00 1 0.13 Other 61 8.78 3 3.75 0 0.00 64 8.22 Total 695 80 100.00 4 100.00 779 100.00 Private practice 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures - Table D.32 Type of Setting in Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913 -1938 1939-1952 Setting No. No. Private practice 14 60.87 117 68.82 236 66.48 Ill 53.88 19 Clinic 2 8.70 12 7.06 47 13.24 58 28.16 Government agency 0 0.00 18 10.59 25 7.04 2 Laboratory 5 21.74 7 4.12 21 5.92 Industry 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 Zoo 0 0.00 0 0.00 Other 2 8.70 16 9.41 Total 23 *Error due to rounding of figures % 100.01* % 170 100.00 1953-June, 1967 No. % Dec, 1967-1976 No. % Unknown No. % Total No. X 76.00 497 63.80 1 4.00 120 15.40 0.97 2 8.00 47 6.03 15 7.28 0 0.00 48 6.16 0.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.26 0 0.00 1 0.49 0 0.00 1 0.13 24 6.76 19 9.22 3 12.00 64 8.22 355 100.00 206 100.00 25 100.00 779 100.00 Table D.33 Type of Setting of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option Of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Setting Mixed50/50 No. % Private practice 41 75.93 51 79.69 50 Clinic 9 16.67 7 10.94 Government agency 1 1.85 0 Laboratory 0 0.00 Industry 0 Zoo Other Total settings reported MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. % Large No. % Education No. % 64.10 173 59.25 18 60.00 40 66.67 14 17.95 55 18.84 8 26.67 5 8.33 0.00 5 6.41 18 6.16 0 0.00 4 6.67 2 3.13 4 5.13 19 6.51 1 0.00 8 13.33 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.34 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 5.56 4 6.25 5 6.41 26 8.90 3 10.00 3 5.00 30 100.00 60 100.00 54 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures 64 100.01* 78 100.00 292 100.00 Table D.33 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Setting No. No. Private practice 39 60.00 14 42.42 5 6 9.23 7 21.21 10 15.38 3 Laboratory 5 7.69 Industry 0 Zoo Other Clinic Government agency Total settings reported % Military No. % Other Unknown % Total % No. 83.33 9 60.00 57 69.51 497 63.80 0 0.00 2 13.33 7 8.54 120 15.40 9.09 0 0.00 2 13.33 4 4.88 47 6.03 3 9.09 0 0.00 0 0.00 6 7.32 48 6.16 0.00 1 3.03 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.26 1 1.54 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.13 4 6.15 5 15.15 1 16.67 2 13.33 8 9.76 64 8.22 65 99.99* 33 99.99* 6 100.00 15 *Error due to rounding of figures 99.99* 82 100.01* No. % No. % 779 100.00 420 Table D.34 Practice Type of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex Sex Male Female % No. Not Reported % No. % Total Practice Type No. No. % Small 189 30.53 31 43.66 2 66.67 222 32.03 Mixed 297 47.98 27 38.03 1 33.33 325 46.90 Large 133 21.49 13 18.31 0 0.00 146 21.07 Total 619 100.00 71 100.00 3 100.00 693 100.00 Table D.35 Practice Type of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group Practice Type 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. % No. % 1953-June, 1967 No. % Dec. 1967-1976 Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % Small 1 7.14 30 19.23 114 36.89 66 34.92 11 44.00 222 32.03 Large 3 21.43 48 30.77 49 15.86 40 21.16 6 24.00 146 21.07 Mixed 10 71.43 78 50.00 146 47.25 83 43.92 8 32.00 325 46.90 Total 14 100.00 156 100.00 309 100.00 189 100.00 25 100.00 693 100.00 Table D.36 Practice Type of Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option In Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Practice Type Mixed50/50 No. % MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. % Large No. % Education No. % 6 11.32 7 11.86 15 21.13 121 46.90 1 3.57 20 37.74 Mixed 37 69.81 35 59.32 42 59.15 89 34.50 17 60.71 21 39.62 Large 10 18.87 17 28.81 14 19.72 48 18.60 10 35.71 12 22.64 Total 53 100.00 59 99.99* 71 100.00 99.99* 53 100.00 258 100.00 28 422 Small Table D.36 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Industry Military No. No. No. % % % Other Unknown No. % No. Total % No. % Small 9 16.67 12 50.00 5 83.33 4 26.67 22 30.56 222 32.03 Mixed 31 57.41 6 25.00 1 16.67 6 40.00 40 55.56 325 46.90 Large 14 25.93 6 25.00 0 0.00 5 33.33 10 13.87 146 21.07 Total 54 100.01* 15 100.00 72 99.99* 693 100.00 24 100.00 6 100.00 Z Z *? Government 424 Table D.37 No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experience by Sex Sex Indication of No Preceptorship Male No. % Female No. % Not Reported No. % Total No. % No preceptorship 447 42.61 50 47.17 4 50.0 501 43.0 Not indicated 602 57.39 56 52.83 4 50.0 662 56.9 106 100.00 8 100.00 Total 1049 100.00 1163 100.0 Table D.38 No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experience by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1913-1938 1939-1952 Indication of No Preceptorship No. No. No preceptorship 28 49.12 136 46.58 107 28.46 216 53.73 14 38.89 501 43.08 Not indicated 29 50.88 156 53.42 269 71.54 186 46.27 22 61.11 662 Total 57 100.00 402 100.00 36 100.00 % % 292 100.00 1953-June, 1967 No. % 376 100.00 Dec. 1967-1976 No. % Unknown No. Total % No. % 56.92 1163 100.00 Table D.39 No Reported Preceptorship or Work Experience by Career Option In Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Indication of No Preceptorship Mixed50/50 No. % MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. % Large No. % Education No. 1 No preceptorship 32 39.02 37 41.11 39 37.14 209 47.29 19 44.19 31 38.75 Not indicated 50 60.98 53 58.89 66 62.86 233 52.71 24 55.81 49 61.25 Total 82 100.00 43 100.00 80 100.00 90 100.00 105 100.00 442 100.00 Table D.39 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Indication of No Preceptorship Government No. % Industry No. % Military No. % Other No. % Unknown No. % Total No. % No preceptorship 47 42.34 14 35.00 6 54.55 15 55.56 52 39.39 501 43.08 Not indicated 64 57.66 26 65.00 5 45.45 12 44.44 80 60.61 662 56.92 11 100.00 27 100.00 132 100.00 1163 100.00 Total 111 100.00 40 100.00 APPENDIX E TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE III Table E.l Recommended Length of Preveterinary Programs by Program Length of Respondents Recommended Length Three-Year Four -Year No. % No. % No. 0, None required 1 .27 3 .50 1 .58 5 .44 One year 1 .27 22 3.69 10 5.78 33 2.89 97 26.08 350 58.72 87 50.29 534 46.80 Three years 169 45.43 141 23.66 48 27.75 358 31.38 Four years 104 27.96 79 13.26 27 15.61 210 18.40 0 0.00 1 .17 0 0.00 1 .09 Program Length of Respondents More than four years Total* 372 100.01* *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 22 non-respondents on this item. 596 100.00 Total % 173 100.01* No. % 1141** 100.00 428 Two years Other Table E.2 Recommended Length of Veterinary Programs by Program Length of Respondents Program Length of Respondents Four-Year Recommended Length No. % No. Three years 99 27.05 26 254 69.40 Other 13 Total 366 Four years % Other Total No. % 4.40 14 8.09 139 12.30 521 88.16 150 86.71 925 81.86 3.35 44 7.45 9 5.20 66 5.84 100.00 591 100.01* 173 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures **There were 33 non-respondents for this item. No. % 1130** 100.00 429 Three -Year Table E.3 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Comments about the Three Year Curriculum by Program Length Program Length Comments Three-Year Four-Year No. No. % Other % No. Total % No. % Advantages 204 53.97 138 22.70 35 19.77 377 32.42 Lower cost 84 22.22 104 17.11 27 15.25 215 18.49 Graduate more 26 6.88 56 9.21 24 13.56 106 9.11 Better use of facilities and resources 40 10.58 44 7.24 8 4.52 92 7.91 More continuity 73 19.31 17 2.80 8 4.52 98 8.43 None 10 2.65 53 8.72 22 12.43 85 7.31 2 .53 21 3.45 8 4.52 31 2.67 48 12.70 61 10.03 19 10.73 128 11.01 No opinion Other comments 430 Less time Table E.3 (cont'd.) Program Length Comments Three--Year Four--Year No. No. % % Other No. Total % No. % Disadvantages Too little time: For practical application 126 33.33 112 18.42 28 16.38 267 22.96 For work 83 21.96 64 10.53 21 11.86 168 14.45 For maturity 24 6.35 74 12.17 20 11.30 118 10.15 To absorb and synthesize 92 24.34 98 16.12 26 14.69 216 18.57 To explore options 29 7.67 22 3.62 5 2.82 56 4.82 Other reasons 39 10.32 70 11.51 20 11.30 129 11.09 153 40.48 119 19.57 29 16.38 301 25.08 22 5.82 34 5.59 16 9.02 72 6.19 None 2 .53 8 1.32 1 .56 11 .95 No opinion 1 .26 11 1.81 5 2.82 17 1.46 48 12.70 82 13.49 18 10.17 148 12.73 Too much stress-no breaks Limits offerings Other comments Table E.3 (cont'd.) Program Length Comments Three-Year Four--Year No. No. % % Other No. Total % No. % Other Types of Comments 26 6.88 9 1.48 7 3.95 42 3.61 Concern about three years 20 5.29 48 7.89 11 6.21 79 6.79 Other comments 15 3.97 60 9.87 12 6.78 87 7.48 Total possible responsents 378 608 177 1163 432 Supportive of three years Table E.4 Advantages, Disadvantages, and Comments about the Four Year Curriculum by Program Length Program Length Comments Three-Year No. % Four-Year % No. Other No. % Total No. % Advantages 157 41.53 106 17.43 24 13.56 287 24.68 For work 73 19.31 70 11.51 23 12.99 166 14.27 For maturity 17 4.50 73 12.01 14 7.91 104 8.94 To absorb and synthesize 73 19.31 77 12.66 28 15.92 178 15.31 To explore options 52 13.76 45 7.40 14 7.91 111 9.54 In general 21 5.56 49 8.06 18 10.27 88 7.57 Less stress, more breaks 79 20.90 71 11.68 16 9.04 166 14.27 Could offer broader program 38 10.05 47 7.73 11 6.21 96 8.25 None 4 1.06 5 0.82 2 1.13 11 0.95 No opinion 2 0.53 13 2.14 7 3.95 22 1.89 31 8.20 88 14.47 25 14.12 144 12.38 For practical application Other comments €£V More advantages: Table E.4 (cont'd.) Program Length Comments Three-Year Four-Year No. No. % % Other Total No. % No. % Disadvantages 102 26.98 72 11.84 15 8.47 189 16.25 Greater expense 75 19.84 92 15.13 26 14.69 193 16.60 7 1.85 13 2.14 4 2.26 24 2.06 Less efficient use of facilities and resources 17 4.50 20 3.29 4 2.26 41 3.53 Less continuity 29 7.67 6 0.99 1 0.56 36 3.10 None 11 2.91 49 3.07 12 6.78 72 6.19 2 0.53 10 1.65 6 3.39 18 1.55 45 11.90 50 8.24 16 9.04 111 9.54 Graduate fewer No opinion Other comments 434 More time spent Table E.4 (coat'd.) Program Length Comments Three-Year Four-Year No. No. % % Other Total No. % No. % Other Types of Comments 21 5.56 60 9.98 7 3.95 88 7.57 Concerns about four years 6 1.59 5 .82 3 1.69 14 1.20 21 5.56 68 11.20 16 9.04 105 9.03 Other comments Total possible respondents 378 608 177 1163 435 Supportive of four years APPENDIX F TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE Table F.l Recommended Emphasis on Curricular Areas Recommended Emphasis More Training Needed Curricular Areas Anatomy (gross and histology) No. % Right Amount of Training Less Training Needed Not Indicated or No Opinion No. % No. % No. % Total No. 1 89 7.65 872 74.98 131 11.26 71 6.10 1163 Anatomy (neuroanatomy) 383 32.93 581 49.96 97 8.34 102 8.77 1163 100.00 Anatomy (applied) 529 45.49 531 45.66 25 2.15 78 6.71 1163 100.01* Microbiology 202 17.37 752 64.66 133 11.44 76 6.53 1163 100.00 Poultry disease 139 11.96 590 50.73 304 26.14 130 11.18 1163 100.01* Parasitology 138 11.87 829 71.28 129 11.09 67 5.76 1163 100.00 and systems) 265 22.79 775 66.64 49 4.21 74 6.36 1163 100.00 Clinical pathology 627 53.91 460 39.55 10 .86 66 5.67 1163 Applied pathology 480 41.27 585 50.30 23 1.98 75 6.45 1163 100.00 Physiology 253 21.75 754 64.83 78 6.71 78 6.71 1163 100.00 Pharmacology 357 30.70 663 57.01 68 5.85 75 6.45 1163 100.01* 99.99* 99.99* 436 Pathology (basic Table F.l (cont'd.) Recommended Emphasis Curricular Areas More Training Needed Right Amount of Training No. No. % % Less Training Needed Not Indicated or No Opinion No. % No. % Total No. % Toxicology 560 48.15 482 41.44 39 3.35 82 7.05 1163 Public health 238 20.46 645 55.46 148 12.73 132 11.35 1163 100.00 Epidemiology 285 24.51 620 53.31 115 9.89 143 12.30 1163 100.01* Small animal clinics 476 40.93 579 49.79 39 3.35 69 5.93 1163 100.00 Small animal surgery 530 45.57 535 46.00 33 2.84 65 5.59 1163 100.00 Small animal medicine 494 42.48 567 48.75 30 2.58 72 6.19 1163 100.00 Equine medicine 390 33.53 450 38.69 189 16.25 134 11.52 1163 Food animal medicine 370 31.81 496 42.65 144 12.38 153 13.16 1163 100.00 Large animal surgery 456 39.21 433 37.23 145 12.47 129 11.09 1163 100.00 Large animal clinics 411 35.34 483 41.53 145 12.47 124 10.66 1163 100.00 Laboratory animal medicine 491 42.22 292 25.11 137 11.78 243 20.89 1163 100.00 Obstetrics and reproduction (small) 562 48.32 478 41.10 32 2.75 91 7.82 1163 99.99* 99.99* 437 99.99* Table F.l (cont’d.) Recommended Emphasis Right Amount of Training Less Training Needed Curricular Areas No. % No. % No. Obstetrics and reproduction (large) 342 29.41 559 48.07 132 Nutrition (small) 606 52.11 397 34.14 Nutrition (large) 400 34.39 475 Radiology 499 42.91 Animal behavior 676 Aquatic and exotic animal disease Total No. % 11.35 130 11.18 1163 100.01* 53 4.56 107 9.20 1163 100.01* 40.84 148 12.73 140 12.04 1163 100.00 563 48.41 23 1.98 78 6.71 1163 100.01* 58.13 275 23.65 30 2.58 182 15.65 1163 100.01* 501 43.08 250 21.50 83 7.14 329 28.29 1163 100.01* Ethics and jurisprudence 300 25.80 673 57.87 63 5.42 127 10.92 1163 100.01* Economics and business management 795 68.36 237 20.38 31 2.67 100 8.60 1163 100.01* Personnel management 746 64.14 216 18.57 33 2.34 168 14.45 1163 100.00 75 6.45 10 .86 4 .34 1074 92.35 1163 100.00 Other *Error due to rounding of figures % Not Indicated or No Opinion No. % 438 More Training Needed Table F.2 Recommended Additional Emphasis on Curricular Areas by Program Length Program Length Curricular Areas Anatomy (gross and histology) Three-Year Four-Year No. No. % No. % No. % % Other Total 7.67 35 5.76 25 14.12 89 7.65 Anatomy (neuroanatomy) 127 33.60 184 30.26 72 40.68 383 32.93 Anatomy (applied) 188 49.74 248 40.79 93 52.54 529 45.49 Microbiology 62 16.40 108 17.76 32 18.08 202 17.37 Poultry disease 43 11.38 79 12.99 17 9.60 139 11.95 Parasitology 28 7.41 82 13.49 28 15.82 138 11.87 Pathology (basic and systems) 79 20.90 137 22.53 49 27.68 265 22.79 Clinical pathology 180 47.62 348 57.24 99 55.93 627 53.91 Applied pathology 146 38.62 256 42.11 78 44.07 480 41.27 86 22.75 134 22.04 33 18.64 253 21.75 Pharmacology 144 38.10 178 29.28 35 19.77 357 30.70 Toxicology 148 39.15 333 54.77 79 44.63 560 48.15 Physiology 439 29 Table F.2 (cont'd.) Program Length Three-Year Four-Year Curricular Areas No. % No. Public health 54 14.29 Epidemiology 53 Small animal clinics Other % Total No. % No. 135 22.20 49 27.68 238 20.46 14.02 175 28.78 57 32.20 285 24.51 164 43.39 233 38.32 79 44.63 476 40.93 Small animal surgery 145 38.36 289 47.53 96 54.24 530 45.57 Small animal medicine 172 45.50 238 39.14 84 47.46 494 42.48 Equine medicine 137 36.24 208 34.21 45 25.42 390 33.53 Food animal medicine 153 40.48 170 27.96 47 26.55 370 31.81 Large animal surgery 149 39.42 223 36.68 84 47.46 456 39.21 Large animal clinics 153 40.48 188 30.92 70 39.55 411 35.34 Laboratory animal medicine 168 44.44 241 39.64 82 46.33 491 42.22 Obstetrics and reproduction (small) 246 65.08 231 37.99 85 48.02 562 48.32 Obstetrics and reproduction (large) 131 34.66 158 25.99 53 29.94 342 29.41 % 440 Table F.2 (cont'd.) Program Length Three-Year Curricular Areas No. % Four-Year No. Other % No. Total % No. % Nutrition (small) 186 49.21 325 53.25 95 53.67 606 52.11 Nutrition (large) 127 33.60 207 34.05 66 37.29 400 34.39 Radiology 106 28.04 283 46.55 110 62.15 499 42.91 Animal behavior 253 66.93 323 53.13 100 56.50 676 58.13 Aquatic and exotic animal disease 181 47.88 252 41.45 68 38.42 501 43.08 71 18.78 176 28.95 53 29.94 300 25.80 Economics and business management 209 55.29 453 74.51 133 75.14 795 68.36 Personnel management 226 59.79 409 67.27 111 62.71 746 64.14 25 6.61 40 6.58 10 5.65 75 6.45 Ethics and jurisprudence Other Total possible respondents 378 608 177 1163 Table F.3 Over Ten Percent of Work in Organ Systems by Program Length Program Length Three-Year Four--Year Other Total No. % No. % No. % Urinary system 55 14.55 81 13.32 20 11.30 156 13.41 Hematopoietic System 16 4.23 24 3.95 8 4.52 48 4.13 6 1.59 16 2.63 0 0.00 22 1.89 15 3.97 37 6.09 6 3.39 58 4.99 Respiratory system 102 26.98 133 21.88 34 19.21 269 23.13 Reproductive system 112 29.63 143 23.52 38 21.47 293 25.19 Digestive system 234 61.90 235 38.65 73 41.24 542 46.60 Integumentary system 192 50.79 138 22.70 48 27.12 378 32.50 93 24.60 75 12.34 24 13.56 192 16.51 3 .79 11 1.81 3 1.69 17 1.46 50 13.23 118 19.41 42 23.73 210 18.06 Nervous system Cardiovascular system Musculoskeletal system Endocrine system Other work not in system Total possible respondents 378 608 177 No. 1163 % 442 Organ System Table F.4 Over Ten Percent of Work in Organ Systems by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedSmall MixedLarge Small % No. % No. Urinary system 9 11.11 2 2.27 15 14.42 89 Hematopoietic system 2 2.47 1 1.14 4 3.85 Nervous system 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 Cardiovascular system 3 3.70 2 2.27 Respiratory system 30 37.04 41 Reproductive system 36 44.44 Digestive system 33 Integumentary system Muscular system % No. % 20.27 1 2.33 11 14.29 9 2.05 2 4.65 10 12.99 0.96 5 1.14 0 0.00 6 7.79 2 1.92 26 5.92 1 2.33 7 9.09 46.59 32 30.77 75 17.08 17 39.53 17 22.08 66 75.00 28 26.92 74 16.86 26 60.47 11 14.29 40.74 49 55.68 58 55.77 262 59.68 23 53.49 24 21 25.93 7 7.95 43 41.35 263 59.91 2 4.65 8 10.39 13 16.05 6 6.82 21 20.19 89 20.27 18 41.86 11 14.29 0 0.00 2 2.27 1 0.96 1 0.23 0 0.00 4 5.19 Other work not in system 13 16.05 13 14.77 14 13.46 62 14.12 6 13.95 17 22.08 Total possible respondents 81 Endocrine system 88 104 No. Education 439 % 43 No. 77 % 31.17 443 No. Organ System Large Table F.4 (cont'd) Career Option (Present) Government Industry Military No. % No. Z No. Urinary system 2 2.00 3 8.11 1 Hematopoietic system 8 8.00 6 16.22 Nervous system 1 1.00 0 Cardiovascular system 5 5.00 1 Respiratory system 9 Reproductive system Organ System Other Unknown No. % No. Z 10.00 1 4.00 1 3.70 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 0.00 0 0.00 1 4.00 4 2.70 1 10.00 1 4.00 9.00 8 21.62 2 20.00 3 7 7.00 5 13.51 0 0.00 15 15.00 6 16.22 1 Integumentary system 2 2.00 2 5.41 Muscular system 2 2.00 3 Endocrine system 3 3.00 46 46.00 Digestive system Other work not in system Total possible respondents 100 Z 21 15.91 156 13.41 4 3.03 48 4.13 14.81 4 3.03 22 1.89 2 7.41 7 5.30 8 4.99 12.00 7 25.93 28 21.21 269 23.13 2 8.00 5 18.52 33 25.00 293 25.19 10.00 6 24.00 10 37.04 55 41.67 542 46.60 1 10.00 2 8.00 4 14.81 23 17.42 378 32.50 8.11 2 20.00 1 4.00 5 18.52 21 15.91 192 16.51 2 5.41 0 0.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 3 2.27 17 1.46 9 24.32 5 50.00 4 16.00 3 11.11 18 13.64 10 25 27 No. 132 Z Total No. 37 Z Retired 210 28.06 1163 Table F.5 Preparation Rated Adequate Or Better In Various Areas By Program Length Program Length Various Areas Three-Year No. % Four-Year No. % Other No. % Total No. % 337 89.15 452 74.34 127 71.75 916 78.76 Diagnostic skills 331 87.57 489 80.43 131 74.01 951 81.77 Physical examination 359 94.97 530 81.17 144 81.36 1033 88.82 Therapeutics 259 68.52 500 82.24 134 75.71 893 76.78 Problem solving skills 264 69.84 351 57.73 92 51.98 707 60.79 Surgical skills 323 85.45 401 65.95 87 49.15 811 69.73 Emergency care 236 62.43 261 42.93 63 35.59 560 48.15 Patient management 287 75.93 401 65.95 102 57.63 790 67.93 Client communication 172 45.50 199 32.73 50 28.25 421 36,20 Business management 111 29.37 51 8.39 14 7.91 176 15.13 Total possible respondents 378 608 177 1163 445 History taking Table F.6 Preparation Rated Adequate or Better in Various Areas by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Various areas Mixed50/50 No. History taking 67 82.72 74 84.09 92 88.46 347 79.04 37 86.05 57 74.03 Diagnostic skills 66 81.48 75 85.23 94 90.38 372 84.74 36 83.72 58 75.32 Physical examination 73 90.12 84 95.45 96 92.31 398 90.66 38 88.37 65 84.42 Therapeutics 64 79.01 68 77.27 83 79.81 332 75.63 31 72.09 60 77.92 Problem solving skills 56 69.14 65 73.86 64 61.54 274 62.41 29 67.44 37 48.05 Surgical skills 60 74.07 66 75.00 80 76.92 328 74.72 33 76.74 53 68.83 Emergency care 39 48.15 46 52.27 61 58.65 207 47.15 25 58.14 31 40.26 Patient management 59 72.84 57 64.77 80 76.92 301 68.56 31 72.09 54 70.13 Client communication 35 43.21 36 40.91 40 38.46 137 31.21 17 39.53 40 51.95 Business management 13 16.05 20 22.73 13 12.50 69 15.72 10 23.26 18 23.38 Total possible respondents 81 43 77 % MixedLarge No. 104 Small No. 439 % Large No. % Education No. % 446 88 % MixedSmall No. % Table F.6 (cont'd) Career Option (Present) History taking 71 71.00 31 83.78 6 Diagnostic skills 73 73.00 31 83.78 7 Physical examination 82 82.00 34 91.89 Therapeutics 76 76.00 24 64.86 Problem solving skills 61 61.00 19 Surgical skills 50 50.00 Emergency care 54 Patient management Client communication Business management Total possible respondents Retired No. X Other No. % Unknown No. % Total No. X 60.00 12 48.00 21 77.78 101 76.52 916 78.76 70.00 17 68.00 18 66.67 104 78.79 951 81.77 10 100.00 18 72.00 22 81.48 113 85.61 1033 88.82 7 70.00 18 72.00 19 70.37 111 84.09 893 76.78 51.35 4 40.00 13 52.00 11 40.74 74 56.06 707 60.79 28 75.68 5 50.00 4 16.00 17 62.96 87 65.91 811 69.73 54.00 15 40.54 5 50.00 6 24.00 10 37.04 61 46.21 560 48.15 67 67.00 25 67.57 8 80.00 52.00 12 44.44 83 62.88 790 67.93 36 36.00 12 32.43 6 60.00 6 24.00 5 18.52 51 38.64 421 36.20 8 8.00 4 10.81 1 10.00 1 4 14.81 15 11.36 176 15.13 100 Industry No. % 37 Military No. X 10 13 25 4.00 27 132 1163 447 Various areas Govern­ ment No. X Table F.7 Rating of Preparation in Various Areas Rating Extremely Well Adequately Various areas No. % No. % No. % History taking 201 17.28 715 61.48 188 16.17 15 1.29 Diagnostic skills 143 12.48 806 69,30 174 14.96 3 0.26 Physical examination 254 21.84 779 66.98 100 8.60 1 0.09 Therapeutics 108 9.29 785 67.50 234 20.12 4 0.34 80 6.88 627 53.91 345 29.66 47 4.04 249 21.41 562 48.32 300 25.80 22 1.89 Emergency care 87 7.48 473 40.67 505 43.42 64 5.50 Patient management 72 6.19 718 61.74 278 23.90 48 4.13 Client communication 45 3.87 376 32.33 522 44.88 168 14.45 Business management 12 1.03 164 14.10 531 45.66 390 33.53 Surgical skills Not at All No. % 448 Problem solving skills Poorly Table F.7 (cont'd) Rating No Response No Opinion Various areas No. % No. Total % No. % History taking 7 0.60 37 3.18 1163 100.00 Diagnostic skills 6 0.52 29 2.49 1163 100.01* Physical examination 3 0.26 26 2.24 1163 100.01* Therapeutics 7 0.60 25 2.15 1163 100.00 24 2.06 40 3.44 1163 Surgical skills 4 0.34 26 2.24 1163 100.00 Emergency care 8 0.69 26 2.24 1163 100.00 Patient management 10 0.86 37 3.18 1163 100.00 Client communication 19 1.63 33 2.84 1163 100.00 Business management 28 2.41 38 3.27 1163 100.00 Problem solving skills 449 *Error due to rounding of figures. 99.99* Table F.8 Rating of Freceptorship by Program Length Program Length Rating Three-Year Four-Year No. No. % % Other No. Total % No. % 18 12.08 24 6.25 5 7.25 47 7.81 One of more valuable parts 70 46.98 157 40.89 23 33.33 250 41.53 A valuable part 43 28.86 153 39.84 27 39.13 223 37.04 Less valuable than other parts 15 10.07 42 10.94 12 17.39 69 11.46 3 2.01 8 2.08 2 2.90 13 2.16 149 100.00 384 100.00 69 100.00 Of no value Total* *There were 561 non-respondents or "no opinions" on this item. 602 100.00 450 Most valuable part Table F.9 Rating of Preceptorship by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Rating Mixed50/50 No. % MixedLarge No. % MixedSmall No. % Small No. % Large No. % Education No. % Government No. % 19.57 4 8.33 4 6.45 15 7.25 2 8.70 2 4.35 4 7.14 One of more valuable parts 20 43.48 25 52.08 37 59.68 85 41.06 13 56.52 13 28.26 18 32.14 A valuable part 14 30.43 16 33.33 16 25.81 69 33.33 6 26.09 25 54.35 26 46.43 Less valuable than other parts 3 6.52 1 2.08 4 6.45 33 15.94 2 8.70 5 10.87 7 12.50 Of no value 0 0.00 2 4.17 1 1.61 5 2.42 0 0.00 1 2.17 1 1.79 Total 46 100.00 48 62 100.00 207 100.00 23 46 100.00 56 100.00 Total possible respondents 81 88 104 439 77 100 Most valuable part 9 *Error due to rounding of figures. 99.99* 43 100.01* Table F.9 (cont'd) Career Option (Present) Rating Industry No. % Military No. % Retired No. % Other No. % Unknown No. % Total No. Z 0.00 0 0.00 1 12.50 0 0.00 6 8.96 47 7.81 10 45.45 1 20.00 1 12.50 4 33.33 23 34.33 250 41.53 A valuable part 9 40.91 4 80.00 4 50.00 5 41.67 29 43.28 223 37.04 Less valuable than other parts 2 9.09 0 0.00 2 25.00 2 16.67 8 11.94 69 11.46 Of no value 1 4.55 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 8.33 1 1.49 13 2.16 Total 22 100.00 5 100.00 12 100.00 67 100.00 Total possible respondents 37 One of more valuable parts 10 8 100.00 25 27 **There were 561 non-respondents or "no opinion" responses on this item. 132 602** 100.00 1163 452 0 Most valuable part Table F.10 Rating of Preceptorship or Other Work Experience by Type of Experience Rating Experience Most Valuable Part of Training % No. One of the Most Valuable Parts No. % A Valuable Part of Training No. % Less Valuable Than Other Parts No. % 6.84 169 42.78 156 39.49 26 6.58 Janitorial work 1 33.33 1 33.33 1 33.33 0 0.00 Lab/research asst. 1 1.85 18 33.33 20 37.04 9 16.67 Kennel work/caretaker of lab animals 3 4.29 22 31.43 21 30.00 16 22.86 Make calls with a veterinarian 5 10.20 17 34.69 20 40.82 6 12.24 Surgery assistance 1 5.26 3 15.79 10 52.63 4 21.05 13 14.94 42 48.28 24 27.59 4 4.60 Observation 1 5.00 9 45.00 5 25.00 3 15.00 Regulatory work 0 0.00 6 24.00 8 32.00 7 28.00 Other 4 4.71 42 49.41 21 24.71 13 15.29 Total 56 6.94 329 40.77 286 35.44 88 10.90 Assumed all responsi­ bility 453 27 General, unspecified Table F.10 (cont'd) Rating Experience No Value in Training No. % No Response or No Opinion No. % Total No. % 100.00 General, unspecified 4 1.01 13 3.29 395 Janitorial work 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 Lab/research asst. 1 1.85 5 9.26 54 100.00 Kennel work/caretaker of lab animals 5 7.14 3 4.29 70 100.01* veterinarian 0 0.00 1 2.04 49 99.99* Surgery assistance 1 5.26 0 0.00 19 99.99* Assumed all responsi­ bility 0 0.00 4 4.60 87 100.01* Observation 0 0.00 2 10.00 20 100.00 Regulatory work 0 0.00 4 16.00 25 100.00 Other 0 0.00 5 5.88 85 100.00 Total 11 1.36 37 4.58 807 99.99* *Error due to rounding of figures. 99.99* 454 Make calls with a Table F.ll Type of Setting for Preceptorship or Work Experience by Type of Experience Setting Experience Private Practice No. % Clinical No. % Government Agency No. % Laboratory No. % Industry % No. 75.19 50 12.66 5 1.27 6 1.52 0 0.00 Janitorial work 2 66.67 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Lab/research asst. 5 9.26 5 9.26 7 12.96 26 48.15 2 3.70 Kennel work/caretaker of lab animals 48 68.57 6 8.57 1 1.43 8 11.43 0 0.00 Make calls with a veterinarian 41 83.67 7 14.29 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Surgery assistance 15 78.95 3 15.79 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Assumed all responsi­ bility 49 56.32 36 41.38 1 1.15 0 0.00 0 0.00 Observation 19 95.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 1 4.00 18 72.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 Other 19 22.35 12 14.12 15 17.65 7 8.24 0 0.00 Total 497 Regulatory work 120 47 48 2 455 297 General, unspecified Table F.ll (cont'd) Setting Total No. % General, unspecified 0 0.00 37 9.37 395 Janitorial work 0 0.00 1 33.33 3 100.00 Lab/research asst. 0 0.00 9 16.67 54 100.00 Kennel work/caretaker of lab animals 0 0.00 7 10.00 70 100.00 Hake calls with a veterinarian 0 0.00 1 2.04 49 100.00 Surgery assistance 0 0.00 1 5.26 19 100.00 Assumed all responsi­ bility 0 0.00 1 1.15 87 100.00 Observation 0 0.00 1 5.00 20 100.00 Regulatory work 0 0.00 3 12.00 25 100.00 Other 1 1.18 31 36.47 85 100.01* Total 1 *Error due to rounding of figures. % Other No. % No. 92 807 100.01* 9S* Zoo Experience APPENDIX G TABLES DISPLAYING DATA RELATED TO OBJECTIVE V Table G.l Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by Cohort Group Cohort Group 1939-1952 Areas No. % No. Public health 40 70.18 258 88.36 342 90.96 Animal welfare 37 64.91 251 85.96 342 Consumer advocacy 27 47.37 203 69.52 Environmental concerns 34 59.65 245 Efficiency in food animal production 39 68.42 International veterinary medicine 31 Changing human dietary patterns % 1952-June,1967 Dec.1967-1976 % No. 33 91.67 1050 90.28 92.79 32 88.89 1035 88.99 297 73.88 31 86.11 840 72.33 88.56 376 93.53 33 91.67 1021 87.79 344 91.49 373 92.79 33 91.67 1049 74.66 297 78.99 314 78.11 28 77.78 888 76.35 165 56.51 209 55.59 216 53.73 19 52.78 627 53.91 54.39 184 63.01 271 72.07 281 69.90 27 75.00 794 68.27 32 56.14 239 81.85 338 89.89 361 89.80 33 91.67 1003 86.24 34 59.65 237 81.16 323 85.90 366 91.04 33 91.67 993 85.38 1 1.75 14 4.79 13 3.46 19 4.73 3 8.33 50 4.30 % No. 377 93.78 90.96 373 282 75.00 83.90 333 260 89.04 54.39 218 18 31.58 Fees 31 Malpractice Position of pet animals in society Other Total possible respondents 57 292 No. 376 % No. Total Unknown 402 36 1163 % 90.20 457 1913-1938 Table G.2 Areas Recommended to Receive at Least Some Emphasis by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall Small Large Education Areas No. Public health 76 93.83 79 89.77 98 94.23 406 92.48 39 90.70 70 90.91 Animal welfare 74 91.36 78 88.64 99 95.19 402 91.57 38 88.37 69 89.61 Consumer advocacy 61 75.31 59 67.05 80 76.92 332 75.63 28 65.12 54 70.13 Environment al concerns 74 91.36 77 87.50 95 91.35 400 91.12 38 88.37 69 89.61 Efficiency in food animal production 75 92.59 82 93.18 101 97.12 398 90.66 38 88.37 71 92.21 International veterinary medicine 63 77.78 64 72,72 74 71.15 343 78.13 31 72.09 67 87.01 Changing human dietary patterns 41 50.62 42 47.73 70 67.31 239 54.43 28 65.12 36 46.75 Fees 58 71.60 58 65.91 75 72.12 318 72.44 31 72.09 43 55.84 Malpractice 73 90.12 75 85.23 95 91.35 398 90.66 39 90.70 61 79.22 Position of pet animals in society 71 87.65 67 76.14 96 92.31 400 91.12 37 86.05 65 84.42 0 0.00 0 0.00 5 4.81 17 3.87 2 4.65 4 5.19 Total possible respondents 81 No. 88 % No. % No. % No. % No % 458 Other % 104 439 43 77 Table G.2 (coat'd.) Career Option (Present) Industry Areas No. No. Public health 94 94.00 35 94.59 10 100.00 19 76.00 19 70.37 105 Animal welfare 87 87.00 35 94.59 10 100.00 18 72.00 19 70.37 Consumer advocacy 77 77.00 25 67.57 10 100.00 14 56.00 15 55.56 Environmental concerns 86 86.00 34 91-89 10 100.00 17 68.00 21 77.78 Efficiency in food animal production 93 93.00 33 89.19 10 100.00 18 72.00 23 International veterinary medicine 81 81.00 31 83.78 10 100.00 17 68.00 17 Changing human dietary patterns 59 59.99 20 54.05 Fees 67 67.00 25 Malpractice 83 83.00 Position of pet animals in society 81 8 Other Total possible respondents 100 % % Military Retired No. No. % Other % No. Unknown % No. % Total No. % 79.55 1050 90.28 106 80.30 1035 88.99 85 64.39 840 72.23 100 75.76 1021 87.79 85.19 107 81.06 1049 62.96 90 68.18 888 76.35 90.20 70.00 12 48.00 11 40.74 62 46.97 627 53.91 67.57 10 100.00 11 44.00 16 59.26 82 62.12 794 68.27 33 89.19 10 100.00 15 60.00 22 81.48 99 75.00 1003 86.24 81.00 31 83.78 10 100.00 17 68.00 20 74.07 98 74.24 993 85.38 8.00 5 13.51 1 4.00 5 3.79 50 4.30 37 7 1 10 10.00 25 2 27 7.41 132 1163 459 Govern­ ment Table G.3 Degree of Emphasis Recommended for Various Areas Degree of Emphasis Very Strong Strong Some None No Opinion No Response Total Areas No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Public health 210 18.06 496 42.65 344 29.58 6 0.52 43 3.70 64 5.50 1163 100.01* Animal welfare 226 19.43 471 40.50 338 29.06 14 1.20 45 3.87 69 5.93 1163 99.99* 65 5.59 258 22.18 517 44.45 111 9.54 123 10.58 89 7.65 1163 99.99* Environmental concerns 181 15.56 365 31.38 475 40.84 21 1.81 46 3.96 75 6.45 1163 100.00 Efficiency in food animal production 424 36.46 0d0* - H 41.36 144 12.38 11 0.95 38 3.27 65 5.59 1163 100.01* International veterinary medicine 73 6.28 194 16.68 621 53.40 82 7.05 114 9.80 79 6.79 1163 100.00 Changing human dietary patterns 56 4.82 113 9.72 458 39.38 271 23.30 181 15.56 84 7.22 1163 100.00 Fees 64 5.50 200 17.20 530 45.57 216 18.57 80 6.88 73 6.28 1163 100.00 Malpractice 129 11.09 314 27.00 560 48.15 33 2.84 54 4.64 73 6.28 1163 100.00 Position of pet animals in society 167 14.36 379 32.59 447 38.44 42 3.61 54 4.64 74 6.36 1163 100.00 30 2.58 11 0.95 9 .77 3 0.26 26 2.24 1084 93.21 1163 100.01* Other •k Error due to rounding of figures No. % 09V Consumer advocacy % Table G.4 Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention Cohort Group Groups or Service Areas 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. No. Suburban pet owners 10 17.54 53 Inner city pet owners 10 17.54 Livestock producersherd health 31 Livestock producersindividual animal 23 Fisheries and wild­ life management Unknown Total % No. % No. 18.15 81 21.54 82 20.40 4 11.11 230 19.78 71 24.32 123 32.71 183 45.52 12 13.33 339 34.31 54.39 183 62.37 215 57.18 268 66.67 21 58.33 718 61.74 40.35 122 41.78 117 31.12 136 33.83 10 27.78 408 35.08 20 35.09 127 43.49 179 47.61 247 61.44 15 41.67 588 50.56 8 14.04 54 18.49 85 22.61 100 24.88 8 22.22 255 21.93 Exotic and zoo animal medicine 12 21.05 74 25.34 124 32.98 161 40.05 9 25.00 380 32.67 Agricultural and biological research 26 45.61 158 54.11 200 53.19 223 55.47 20 55.56 627 53.91 Comparative medical research 19 33.33 132 45.21 179 47.61 220 54.73 20 55.56 570 49.01 Meat inspection 14 24.56 52 17.81 46 12,23 43 10.70 7 19.44 162 13.93 Public health 23 40.35 118 40.41 116 30.85 136 33.83 16 44.44 409 35.17 3 5.26 9 3.08 7 1.86 10 2.49 1 2.78 30 2.58 Other Total possible respondents 57 292 % Dec.1967-1976 No. Horse owners % 1952-June,1967 376 402 36 % No. 1163 % Table G.5 Groups or Service Areas Recommended to Receive Greater or Much Greater Attention By Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) MixedLarge MixedSmall Service Areas No. % No. % Suburban pet owners 15 18.52 6 6.82 Inner city pet owners 20 24.69 18 Livestock producersherd health 56 Livestock producersindividual animal No. Small % No. Large % Education No. % No. % 21 20.19 119 27.11 5 11.63 11 14.29 20.45 30 28.85 206 46.92 13 30.23 28 36.36 69.14 68 77.27 75 72.12 213 48.52 32 74.42 59 76.62 31 38.27 49 55.68 46 44.23 102 23.23 21 48.84 30 38.96 Fisheries and wildlife 39 48.15 34 38.64 48 46.15 229 52.16 22 51.16 52 67.53 Horse owners 22 27.16 17 19.32 31 29.81 83 18.91 16 37.21 19 24.68 Exotic and zoo animal medicine 19 23.46 11 12.50 35 33.65 162 36.90 7 16.28 31 40.26 Agiculture and biological research 46 56.79 52 59.09 58 46.15 208 47.38 24 55.81 56 72.73 Comparative medical research 36 44.44 36 40.91 49 47.12 213 48.52 21 48.84 52 67.53 9 11.11 7 7.95 6 5.77 48 10.93 3 6.98 7 9.09 27 33.33 20 22.73 37 35.58 128 29.16 14 32.56 32 41.56 2 2.47 1 0.96 8 1.82 0 0.00 2 2.60 Meat inspection Public health Other Total possible respondents 81 1 88 1.14 104 439 43 77 462 Groups or Mixed50/50 Table G.5 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Groups or Service Areas Government No. % Industry Military Retired No. No. No. % No. % 2 20.00 4 16.00 4 14.81 30 22.73 230 19.78 % % Unknown Other No . % Total No. % 6 16.22 Inner city pet owners 21 21.00 10 27.03 4 40,00 4 16.00 11 40.74 34 25.76 399 34.31 Livestock producersherd health 73 73.00 24 7 70.00 14 56.00 16 59.26 81 61.36 718 61.74 Livestock producersindividual animal 43 43.00 11 29.73 2 20.00 10 40.00 5 18.52 58 43.94 408 35.08 Fisheries and wildlife 59 59.00 24 64.86 8 80.00 11 44.00 12 44.44 50 37.88 588 50.56 Horse owners 14 14.00 11 29.73 2 20.00 1 4.00 25.93 32 24.24 255 21.93 Exotic and zoo animal medicine 38 38.00 16 43.24 3 30.00 9 36.00 11 40.74 38 28.79 380 32.67 Agriculture and biological research 65 65.00 30 81.08 7 70.00 14 56.00 14 51.85 63 47.73 627 53.91 Comparative medical research 55 55.00 22 55.46 5 50.00 11 44.00 10 37.04 60 45.45 570 49.01 Meat inspection 34 34.00 5 13.51 1 10.00 6 24.00 5 18.52 31 23.48 162 13.93 Public health 67 67.00 15 40.54 5 50.00 12 48.00 7 25.93 45 34.09 409 35.17 6 6.00 4 10.81 0 0.00 1 3.70 5 3.79 30 2.58 Other Total possible respondents 7 100 37 64.86 10 0 25 0.00 7 27 132 1163 463 7.00 Suburban pet owners Table G.6 Recommended Attention for Various Groups or Service Areas Recommended Attention „ Groups or Service Areas Much Greater Attention Greater Attention Present Level of Attention Less Attention No. % No. % No. % No. Suburban pet owners 47 4.04 183 15.74 727 62.51 61 5.25 Inner city pet owners 83 7.14 316 27.17 544 46.78 45 3.87 Livestock producersherd health 219 18.83 499 42.91 238 20.46 5 0.43 Livestock producersindividual animal 101 8.68 307 26.40 474 40.76 67 5.76 Fisheries and wildlife 104 8.94 484 41.62 283 24.33 31 2.67 Horse owners 39 3.35 216 18.57 615 52.88 84 7.22 Exotic and zoo animal medicine 50 4.30 330 28.37 508 43.88 57 4.90 Agricultural and biological research 174 14.96 453 38.95 333 28.63 14 1.20 Comparative medical research 159 13.67 411 35.34 354 30.44 25 2.15 Meat inspection 34 2.92 128 11.01 660 56.75 134 11.52 Public health 75 6.45 334 28.72 548 47.12 30 2.58 Other 16 1.38 14 1.20 14 1.20 2 0.17 % Table G.6 (cont'd.) Recommended Attention „ Groups or Service Areas No Attention No. % No Opinion r No. % No Response r No. % Total No. % 0.77 44 3.78 92 7.91 1163 100.00 Inner city pet owners 10 0 .86 74 6.36 91 7.82 1163 100.00 Livestock producersherd health 12 1.03 107 9.20 83 7.14 1163 100.00 Livestock producersindividual animal 12 1.03 116 9.97 86 7.39 1163 99.99* Fisheries and wildlife 24 2.06 146 12.55 91 7.82 1163 99.99* Horse owners 14 1.20 103 8.86 92 7.91 1163 99.99* Exotic and zoo animal medicine 19 1.63 107 9.20 92 7.91 1163 99.99* Agricultural and biological research 9 0.77 90 7.74 90 7.74 1163 99.99* Comparative medical research 15 1.29 104 8.94 95 8.17 1163 100.00 Meat inspection 20 1.72 94 8.08 93 8.00 1163 100.00 Public health 9 0.77 75 6.45 92 7.91 1163 100.00 Other 4 0.34 26 2.24 1087 93.47 1163 100.00 *Error due to rounding of figures 465 9 Suburban pet owners Table G.7 New Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years by Cohort Group Cohort Group Career Opportunities 1913-1938 1939--1952 1953-Junes, 1967 Dec. 1967-1977 Unknown Total No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. Narine biology, aquatic animals 4 7.02 22 7.53 36 9.57 58 14.43 1 2.78 121 10.40 Wildlife animals and environmental concerns 3 5.26 27 9.25 37 9.84 40 9.95 3 8.33 110 9.46 Exotic animal care 1 1.75 2 0.68 5 1.33 7 1.74 0 0.00 15 1.29 Space animal research 0 0.00 6 2.05 5 1.33 7 1.74 0 0.00 18 1.55 Laboratory animal research 1 1.75 7 2.40 7 1.86 4 1.00 0 0.00 19 1.63 Public Health 4 7.02 21 7.19 16 4.26 5 1.24 1 2.78 47 4.04 Comparative Medicine 1 1.75 16 5.48 7 1.86 15 3.73 1 2.78 40 3.44 Toxicology 1 1.75 4 1.37 10 2.66 5 1.24 2 5.56 22 1.89 Drugs and chemicals 0 0.00 2 0.68 7 1.86 4 1.00 0 0.00 13 1.12 Various research opportunities 1 1.75 9 3.08 21 5.59 22 5.47 0 0.00 53 4.56 Regulatory and food inspection 0 0.00 9 3.08 7 1.86 3 0.75 1 2.78 20 1.72 Food animal medicine 7 12.28 16 5.48 15 3.99 21 5.22 3 8.33 62 5.33 % 466 Table G.7 (cont'd.) Cohort Group 1913--1938 1939-1952 No. % No. % No. % No. % More large animal 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 0.53 4 1.00 0 0.00 Less large animal 1 1.75 2 0.68 2 0.53 9 2.24 0 0.00 Increased quality and sophistication of small animal care 0 0.00 2 0.68 2 0.53 4 1.00 0 0.00 8 0.69 Less concern for small animal and pet care 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.27 6 1.49 0 0.00 7 0.60 Increased quality in general 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.27 2 0.50 0 0.00 3 0.26 Quality approaching human care 0 0.00 1 0.34 1 0.27 2 0.50 0. 0.00 4 0.34 Government 2 3.51 2 0.68 1 1.86 9 2.24 1 2.78 21 1.81 Industry 1 1.75 8 2.74 7 1.86 5 1.24 2 5.56 23 1.98 Increased specialization 1 1.75 19 6.51 22 5:85 32 7.96 3 8.33 77 6.62 No opinion 3 5.26 12 4.11 24 6.38 5 1.24 3 8.33 47 4.04 Other opportunities 3 5.26 43 14.73 42 11.17 41 10.19 2 5.56 Other comments 0 0.00 25 8.56 21 5.59 11 2.74 6 16.67 Total possible respondents 57 Career Opportunities 376 Dec. 1967-1977 402 Unknown No. 36 % Total No. % 6 0.52 14 1.20 131 11.26 63 1163 5.42 467 292 1953-June, 1967 Table G.8 New Career Opportunities Developing in Next Ten Years by Career Option of Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge MixedSmall No. Marine biology and aquatic animals 5 6.17 6 6.82 9 Wildlife and environ­ mental concern 6 7.41 5 5.68 Exotic animal care 0 0.00 1 Space animal research 0 0.00 Lab animal research 1 Public health No. Education No. No. % 8.65 58 13.21 2 4.65 9 8.65 43 9.79 2 4.65 9 11.69 1.14 1 0.96 10 2.28 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.96 9 2.05 0 0.00 1 1.30 1.23 1 1.14 0.00 4 0.91 0 0.00 5 6.49 3 3.70 3 3.41 7 6.73 9 2.05 2 4.65 6 7.79 Comparative medicine 1 1.23 2 2.27 1 0.96 17 3.87 0 0.00 6 7.79 Toxicology 2 2.47 1 1.14 1.92 2 0.46 0 0.00 3 3.90 Drugs and chemicals 1 1.23 0 0.00 1 0.96 4 0.91 0 0.00 1 1.30 Various research opportunities 2 2.47 3 3.41 4 3.85 14 3.19 1 2.33 9 11.69 Regulatory and food inspection 2 2.47 3 3.41 1 0.96 3 0.68 1 2.33 0 0.00 Food animal medicine 3 3.70 6 6.82 4.81 14 3.19 2 4.65 6 7.79 More large animal 3 3.70 0 0.00 1 0.96 1 0.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 Less large animal 3 3.70 1 1.14 1 0.96 2 0.46 2 4.65 2 2.60 % No. % No. Large % % Z 10 12.99 468 Career Opportunities Small Table G.8 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government No. No. % Marine biology and aquatic animals 8 8.00 3 8.11 13 13.00 5 13.51 Exotic animal care 1 1.00 0 Space animal research 1 1.00 Lab animal research 3 Public health Military 1 4.00 4 14.81 13 9.85 121 10.40 1 10.00 2 8.00 3 11.11 12 9.09 110 9.46 0.00 0 0.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 15 1.29 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 4 3.03 18 1.55 3.00 3 8.11 0 0.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 1 0.76 19 1.63 9 9.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 3 12.00 0 0.00 4 3.03 47 4.04 Comparative medicine 6 6.00 1 2.70 1 10.00 1 4.00 2 7.41 2 1.52 40 3.44 Toxicology 5 5.00 6 16.22 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 22 1.89 Drugs and chemicals 2 2.00 4 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 13 1.12 Various research opportunities 8 8.00 6 16.22 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 4 3.03 53 4.56 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.76 20 1.72 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 10 7.58 62 5.33 1 2.70 Food animal medicine 10 10.00 4 10.81 % No. % Total 2 20.00 :8 "8.00 No. Unknown % Regulatory and food inspection % Other No. 10.81 No. Retired More large animal 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.76 Less large animal 1 1.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.76 No. % 6 0.52 14 1.20 469 Career Opportunities Wildlife and environ­ mental concern % Industry Table G.8 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 Career Opportunities No. . MixedLarge % No . MixedSmall % No. Small % No. Large % No . Education % No. % 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.96 3 0.68 0 0.00 1 1.30 Less concern for small animals 2 2.47 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.23 1 2.33 2 2.60 Increased quality in general 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.23 0 0.00 0 0.00 Quality approaching human 1 1.23 0 0.00 1 0.96 2 0.46 0 0.00 0 0.00 Government 2 2.47 1 1.14 3 2.88 7 1.59 0 0.00 1 1.30 Industry 0 0.00 1 1.1.4 2 1.92 8 1.82 0 0.00 2 2.60 Increased specialization 6 7.41 2 2.27 5 4.81 45 10.25 1 2.33 6 7.79 No opinion 1 1.23 3 3.41 6 5.77 21 4.78 2 4.65 2 2.60 Other opportunities 3 3.70 4 4.55 11 10.58 40 9.11 3 9.68 17 22.08 Other comments 5 6.17 5 5.68 27 6.15 1 2.33 3 2.60 Total possible respondents 81 88 8 104 7.69 439 43 77 470 Increased quality and sophis­ tication of small animal care Table G.8 (cont'd.) Government Industry Military Retired No. % Nc % No. Other No. Unknown Total Career Opportunities No. Increased quality and sophistication of small animal care 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 2 1.52 8 0.69 Less concern for small animals 0 0.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 7 0.60 Increased quality in general 1 1.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 0.26 Quality approaching human 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 0.34 Government 2 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 7.41 3 2.27 21 1.81 Industry 1 1.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 1 4.00 2 7.41 4 3.03 23 1.98 Increased specialization 0 0.00 2 5.41 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 8 6.06 77 6.62 No opinion 6 6.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 2 8.00 0 0.00 3 2.27 47 4.04 14 14.00 8 21.62 2 20.00 4 16.00 4 14.81 21 15.91 131 11.26 Other comments 6 6.00 1 0 0.00 2 8.00 1 3.70 5 3.79 63 5.42 Total possible respondents 100 Other opportunities % 37 2.70 10 25 % 27 % No. 132 % No. 1163 % Table G.9 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Concerns by Cohort Group Cohort Group Comments 19131-1938 % No. 1939--1952 % No. 1953-Junei, 1967 Z No. Dec. 1967 -1976 % No. Unknown No. Z Total No. Z 0 0.00 9 3.08 17 4.52 11 2.74 0 0.00 37 3.18 Increased specialization 0 0.00 4 1.37 9 2.39 11 2.74 1 2.78 25 2.15 Increased communication with public 0 0.00 4 1.37 13 3.46 18 4.48 0 0.00 35 3.01 Better quality, more accountable 3 5.26 14 4.89 20 5.32 29 7.21 3 8.33 69 5.93 Growing surplus of veterinarians 1 1.75 12 4.11 12 3.19 12 2.99 2 5.56 39 3.35 Public health, disease control 4 7.02 11 3.77 8 2.13 15 3.73 1 2.78 39 3.35 Increased food animal production and efficiency 5 8.77 12 4.11 18 4.79 26 6.47 1 2.78 62 5.33 Need to justify emphasis on pets in society 1 1.75 4 1.37 1 .27 5 1.24 0 0.00 11 .95 Increased concern for pet population control 2 3.51 7 2.40 12 3.19 20 4.98 0 0.00 41 3.53 More emphasis on pets 0 0.00 3 1.03 2 .53 10 2.49 0 0.00 15 1.29 Less individual private practice 1 1.75 4 1.37 8 2.13 6 1.49 1 2.78 20 1.72 472 Increased government intervention Table G.9 (coat'd) Cohort Group Comments 1913-1938 1939-1952 No. No. % No. % 1953-June,1967 % Dec.1967-1976 Unknown Total No. No. % No. % % 0 0.00 6 2.05 15 3.99 16 3.98 1 2.78 38 3.27 Increased inflation 1 1.75 1 .34 15 3.99 12 2.99 0 0.00 29 2.49 Concern for under­ developed nation 0 0.00 5 1.71 2 .53 6 1.49 0 0.00 13 1.12 Style of veterinarians will change-less of technician role 0 0.00 3 1.03 5 1.33 9 2.24 1 2.78 18 1.55 Increased concern for malpractice 0 0.00 6 2.05 5 1.33 6 1.49 1 2.78 18 1.55 No opinion 1 1.75 10 3.42 13 3.46 2 .50 1 2.78 27 2.32 Other optimistic comments 1 1.75 18 6.16 11 2.93 7 1.74 0 0.00 37 3.18 Other pessimistic comments 0 0.00 7 2.40 19 5.05 8 1.99 1 2.78 35 3.01 Other comments 5 8.77 36 12.33 51 13.56 44 16.75 5 13.89 141 12.12 Total possible respondents 57 292 376 402 36 1143 473 Socialized veterinary service Table G.10 Societal Demands, Future Directions, and Concerns by Career Option of Present Primary Professional Position Career Option (Present) Mixed50/50 MixedLarge % MixedSmall No. Increased government intervention 1 1.23 1 1.14 5 Increased specialization 3 3.70 1 1.14 Increased communication with public 3 3.70 0 Better quality, more accountability 3 3.70 Growing surplus of veterinarians 5 Public health, disease control No. % No, % Education Large No. % 4.81 26 5.92 0 0.00 2 2.60 2 1.92 11 2.51 1 2.33 1 1.30 0.00 3 2.88 22 5.01 2 4.65 0 0.00 2 2.27 4 3.85 35 7.97 4 9.30 4 5.19 6.17 4 4.55 4 3.85 17 3.87 3 6.98 1 1.30 0 0.00 4 4.55 2 1.92 15 3.42 0 0.00 1 1.30 Increased food animal production and efficiency 3 3.70 9 10.23 5 4.81 18 4.10 1 2.33 4 5.19 Need to justify emphasis on pets in society 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.92 3 0.68 0 0.00 3 3.90 Increased concern for pet population control 1 1.23 0 0.00 5 4.81 21 4.78 1 2.33 5 6.49 More emphasis on pets 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.88 5 1.14 0 0.00 3 3.90 Less individual private practice 2 2.47 0 0.00 1 0.96 11 2.51 0 0.00 2 2.60 No. % No. % 474 Comments Small Table G.10 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Government Comments No. % Industry No. Military 1 No. % Retired No . Other % No . Unknown % No. Total % No. % Increased government intervention 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 1.52 37 3.18 Increased specialization 1 1.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 3 2.27 25 2.15 Increased communication with public 1 1.00 2 5.41 0 0 0.00. 0 0.00 2 1.52 35 3.01 Better quality, more accountability 5 5.00 2 5.41 2 20.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 7 5.30 69 5.93 Growing surplus of veterinarians 2 2.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 1 0.76 39 3.35 Public health, disease control 6 6.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 2 8.00 1 3.70 6. 4.55 39 3.35 Increased food animal production and efficiency 8 8.00 3 8.11 1 10.00 0 0.00 2 7.41 8 6.06 62 5.38 Need to justify emphasis on pets in society 1 1.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 11 0.95 Increased concern for pet population control 3 3.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 2 7.41 2 1.52 41 3.53 More emphasis on pets 1 1.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.27 15 1.29 Less individual private practice 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 10.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 2.27 20 1.72 0.00 . Table G.10 (cont'd.) Career Option (Present) Comments Mixed50/50 MixedLarge No. No. % MixedSmall % No. Small % No. Large % No. Education % No . % 1 1.23 0 0.00 4 3.85 19 4.33 0 0.00 5 6.49 Increased inflation 0 0.00 0 0.00 4 3.85 19 4.33 0 0.00 1 1.30 Concern for under­ developed nations 0 0.00 0 0.00 2 1.92 5 1.14 0 0.00 4 5.19 Style of veterinarians will change-less of technician role 2 2.47 3 3.41 4 3.85 3 0.68 0 0.00 1 1.30 Increased concern for malpractice 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 0.96 9 2.05 1 2.33 4 5.19 No opinion 1 1.23 1 1.14 1 0.96 8 1.82 1 2.33 2 2.60 476 Socialized veterinary service Other optimistic comments Other pessimistic comments 1 1.23 1 1.14 6 5.77 7 1.59 1 2.33 5 6.49 4 1 1.14 3 2.88 20 4.56 1 2.33 0 0.00 Other comments 6 7.41 11 12.50 15 14.42 56 12.76 1 2.33 Total possible respondents 81 4.94 88 104 439 43 12 15.58 77 Table G.10 (cont'd.) Cohort Group Government Industry Military Retired Other No. Socialized veterinary service 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 Increased inflation 3 3.00 1 2.70 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 Concern for under­ developed nations 2 2.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 Style of veterinarians will change-less of technician role 2 2.00 2 5.41 0 0.00 Increased concern for malpractice 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 No opinion 7 7.00 1 2-70 Other optimistic comments 6 6.00 2 Other pessimistic comments 3 3.00 Other comments 16 16.00 Total possible respondents 100 % No. % No. No. 8 6.06 38 3 27 0.00 1 0.76 29 2.49 0 0.00 0 0.00 13 1.12 1 4.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 18 1.55 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 2 1.52 18 1.55 0 0.00 1 4.00 0 0.00 4 3.03 27 2.32 5.41 0 0.00 0 0.00 3 11.11 5 3.79 37 3.18 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 1 3.70 2 1.52 35 3.01 5 13.51 2 20.00 6 24.00 3 11.11 8 6.06 141 12.12 10 % 25 % No. 27 % No. % 37 No. Total 132 1163 % 477 Comments Unknown APPENDIX H TABLES DISPLAYING HIGHLIGHTS OF FINDINGS FOR THE FIVE OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 478 Table H.l Highlights of Findings for the First Objective of the Study Regarding Career Employment Patterns. Null Hypothesis Highlight of Findings Sex Women tended to work in small and mixed animal practices more than men. II. Cohort group Later graduates tended to work in small and mixed animal practices more than earlier graduates. III. Career option All graduates tended to work in small and mixed animal practices more than other career options. The career option of present positions reflects the career option of all positions during the career of graduates. IV. Location of practice Graduates working in Michigan tended to be in small or mixed animal practices. V. Size of practice Graduates in multiple person practices tended to be in small animal practices or other career options. VI. Workload No significant findings were made regarding workload of graduates and career options. VII. First and present positions in career Although most graduates had no major shift in career option from the first to present positions, there was a tendency for some shifting from private practice to other career options. VIII, Positions before and after career shifts Shifts made during graduates' careers tended to involve changes in career options more than other variables. 479 Table H.2 Highlights of Findings for the Second Objective Of the Study Regarding Preveterinary Factors Null Hypothesis/ Research Question Highlight of Findings Null Hypothesis I. Sex Women tended to be from an urban or suburban area during high school. Women were more likely to be influenced by the career objectives of associating with colleagues and finding employment opportunities than men. II. Cohort group Graduates in the latest cohort group tended to be from an urban or suburban area during high school more than earlier graduates. III. Career option Graduates from urban or suburban areas during high school tended to be in small animal practice. IX. Setting and exper­ ience of preveter­ inary work Preveterinary experience with large animal care tended to take place in the home. Preveterinary experience with small animal care or other experience tended to take place in a private prac­ tice setting. Research Question I. Factors influencing decision to become a veterinarian Graduates most often reported interest in the medical field, love of animals, desire to relieve animal suffering, and owned or worked with small animals as factors having at least some influence on their decisions to become a veterinarian. II. Career objectives influencing type of veterinary work pursued The career objectives most often reported by grad­ uates as influencing the type of veterinary work pursued included using a variety of medical skills, being own boss, fulfilling the desire to help people and animals, desiring financial security, and finding intellectual stimulation. III. Career objectives influencing and career objectives perceived satisfiable Correlation between career objectives influencing the type of veterinary work pursued and those deemed by graduates as satisfiable was higher for veterinarians working in private practice and education Bettings 480 Table H.3 Highlights of Findings for the Third Objective Of the Study Regarding Program length Null Hypothesis II. Cohort Group Highlight of Findings While the graduates of the three-year veterinary program had a greater tendency to recommend the three-year program than the four-year graduate, the overwhelming majority of all graduates recommended the four-year program. 481 Table H.4 Highlights of Findings for the Fourth Objective Of the Study Regarding Curricular Emphasis Null Hypothesis/ Research Question Highlight of Findings Null Hypothesis II. Cohort group Three-year graduates recommended to a greater extent than four-year graduates more training was needed in anatomy (applied), obstetrics and reproduction (small animal), and animal behavior, while four-year graduates recommended to a greater extent than three—year graduates more training was needed in clinical pathology, toxicology, nutrition (small animal), economics and business management, and personnel management. III. Career option Graduates working in anatomy (growth and histology), public health, small animal clinics, small animal surgery, small animal medicine, equine m e d i c i n e , laboratory animal m e d i c i n e , obstetrics and reproduction (both small and large animal) indicated more training in their respec­ tive areas of practice than graduates working in other career o p t i o n s . Research Question IV. Preparation in various areas Less than one half of the graduates rated preparation was adequate or better in emergency care, client communication, and business management. 482 Table H.5 Highlights of Findings for the Fifth Objective Of the Study Regarding Future Trends Research Question Highlight of Findings V. Areas recommended to receive emphasis Public health, efficiency in food animal production, animal welfare, environmental concerns, malpractice, and the position of pet animals in society are areas recommended to receive emphasis in the future by the College of Veterinary Medicine. VI. Groups or service areas to receive attention Livestock producers - herd health, agricultural and biological research, and fisheries and wild­ life management are three groups or service areas recommended to receive greater or much greater attention.