INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy of a m anuscript sent to us for publication and microfilming. While th e m ost advanced technology h a s been used to pho­ tograph and reproduce this m anuscript, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. Pages in any m anuscript may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. M anuscripts may not always be complete. When it is not possible to obtain m issing pages, a note appears to indicate this. 2. When copyrighted materials are removed from the manuscript, a note ap­ pears to indicate this. 3. Oversize materials (maps, drawings, and charts) are photographed by sec­ tioning the original, beginning at the upper left hand com er and continu­ ing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each oversize page is also filmed as one exposure and fs available, for an additional charge, as a standard 35mm slide or in black and white paper format.* 4. Most photographs reproduce acceptably on positive microfilm or micro­ fiche b u t lack clarity on xerographic copies made from the microfilm. Fbr an additional charge, all photographs are available in black and white standard 35mm slide format.* *For more information about black and white slides or enlarged paper reproductions, please contact the Dissertations Customer Services Department TL JTA/TT D issertation 1 V 1 1 information S e rv ic e University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 8700459 Doubledee, Sara Lynn A SURVEY OF DOCTORAL PROGRAM RECIPIENTS FROM DECEMBER 1972 THROUGH JANUARY 1983 REGARDING THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PH.D. Michigan State University University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1986 by Doubledee, Sara Lynn All Rights Reserved 1986 PLEASE NOTE: In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V . 1. Glossy photographs or pages______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper or print_______ 3. Photographs with dark background_____ 4. Illustrations are poor copy_______ 5. Pages with black marks, not original copy_______ 6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages 8. Print exceeds margin requirements______ 9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine________ of pag e____ if 10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print_______ 11. Page(s)____________lacking when material received, and not available from school or author. 12. Page{s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows. 13. Two pages numbered . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled pages______ 15. Dissertation contains pages with print at a slant, filmed as received 16. iS ' Other__________________________ __ University M ic ro film s International A SURVEY OF DOCTORAL PROGRAM RECIPIENTS FROM DECEMBER 1972 THROUGH JANUARY 1983 REGARDING THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION PROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By Sara Lynn Doubledee A DISSERTATION Submitted t o Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f t h e r e q u ire m e n ts f o r t h e deg re e of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department o f Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n 1986 Copyright by SARA LYNN DOUBLEDEE 1986 ABSTRACT A SURVEY OF DOCTORAL PROGRAM RECIPIENTS FROM DECEMBER 1972 THROUGH JANUARY 1983 REGARDING THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION FROGRAM AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY By S ara Lynn Doubledee The purp ose of t h i s study was t o I d e n t i f y t h e p e r c e p t i o n s of alumni of t h e C o lleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y who r e c e i v e d t h e Ed IX or Ph.Cl deg re e from Ja nuary 1972 through J an u ary 1983. A n o r m a ti v e survey desig n was used 1n cond uc ting t h e study . The t y p i c a l program alumnus I s a m al e Ph.fX r e c i p i e n t w i th a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n focus? who was employed f u l l - t i m e durin g t h e f o u r and o n e - h a l f y e a r s needed t o com plete t h e program. Th is t y p i c a l alumnus 1s an a d m i n i s t r a t o r a t a postsec on dar y I n s t i t u t i o n t h a t o f f e r s a b accalau ­ r e a t e or h i g h e r degrees In a d d i t i o n t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s ? alumnus teaches ? r ese ar ch es ? and c o n s u l t s . the He m a i n t a i n s a c t i v e member­ s h i p s 1n h i g h e r e d u c a t io n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y focused o r g a n i z a t i o n s but u s u a ll y does n o t hold o f f i c e s . grants? He does n o t te n d t o publish? seek o r p r e s e n t pape rs u n l e s s th ey a r e a j o b req uiremen t. The alumni I n d i c a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n w it h t h e adm iss ion pr o c e ss and t h e i r permanent ad viso r. The s i n g l e most I m p o r t a n t f a c t o r In S a r a Lynn Doubledee choosing Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was p r o x im ity t o home o r work* f o ll o w e d by departmental* f aculty* and I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p u t a t io n . Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y would be t h e u n i v e r s i t y of c h o i c e I f t h e alumni were choosing a d o c t o r a l program today* although t h e m a j o r i t y of r e sp o n d e n ts would a l t e r t h e i r program 1n some manner. Theory-related c o u r s e s were l i s t e d most o f t e n a s most v a l u a b l e ; Theory and P r a c t i c e of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n was l i s t e d most ofte n. le a s t valuabla No one c o u r s e was I d e n t i f i e d as No one f a c t o r c o n t r i b u t e d most t o personal and p r o f e s ­ s io n a l growth* although e x p e r i e n c e s I n v o lv i n g f a c u l t y were l i s t e d most often. When e v a l u a t i n g t h e program* alumni were s a t i s f i e d w ith how t h e d o c to r a l program had p r epare d them f o r t h e c h a l l e n g e s of t h e w orld of work. The m a j o r i t y of alumni r a t e d t h e o v e r a l l program as good o r excellent. Respondents r a t e d d e c i s i o n making* planning* change* ev alu ­ ation* r e s e a r c h s k i l l s * e d u c a t i o n a l personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n * and bud­ g e t i n g a s I m p o r t a n t f o r c a r e e r success. Departmental e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n p r o v id in g e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s was r a t e d a s above av er ag e but not o u t s t a n d ­ ing. The m ost e f f e c t i v e d ep ar tm en tal e f f o r t s were 1n research* s t u d e n t development* and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s k i l l s . Generally* no s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s were I d e n t i f i e d 1n demographics o r pro­ gram e v a l u a t i o n . This d i s s e r t a t i o n I s d e d i c a t e d t o : Dr, Richard F e a t h e r s t o n ^ Professor# C o lleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m in i s t r a ­ tion# Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : a gentleman and a scholar# but f o r e ­ most a friend# who t a u g h t me t h a t kindn es s and f a i t h a r e t h e t o o l s of a g r e a t ed uca tor. James Raymond Doubledee# my f a th e r # who t a u g h t me t h a t f a i r n e s s e x i s t s In t h e h e a r t — not In t h e world. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish t o acknowledge t h e f o l l o w i n g I n d i v i d u a l s f o r t h e i r I n f l u e n c e on t h e accomplishment of t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n and deg ree : Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker* who t r u l y e x e m p l i f i e s e x c e l l e n c e a s an e d u c a to r . My committee* Dr s. M. Davis* R Gardner* and L Payne* who pro vide d I n s i g h t and s u p p o r t I was much more f o r t u n a t e th an many of my c o l l e a g u e s . Dr. S h e i l a Burns* who he lp ed w i t h t h e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s f o r t h i s study. Doris* who was j u s t a phone c a l l away. Art* who walked behind me on t h e moun tains but stood b e s id e me 1n t h e v a l l e y s . t y mother* whose p r i d e was Indeed an I n c e n t i v e . TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L IS T OF TA BLES............................................................................................................... vi Chapter I. II. INTRODUCTION TO THE S T U D Y .............................................................. 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n ......................................................................................... C u r r e n t E v a lu a ti o n E f f o r t s In t h e C o lleg e o f Educ ation a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ........................... S tate m ent o f t h e Problem .............................................................. Purpose of t h e S t u d y ....................................................................... Importance o f t h e S t u d y .............................................................. Design and Methodology ................................................................... Study D e s i g n ..................................................................................... The I n s t r u m e n t ................................................................................ The Study P o p u l a t i o n ....................................................................... Data C o l l e c t i o n and A n a l y s i s ...................................................... Research Q u e s tio n s ............................................................................ Primary Research Q u e s tio n s ...................................................... Secondary Research Q u e s tio n s ................................................. D e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e S u r v e y ...................................................... A s s u m p t i o n s ......................................................................................... D e f i n i t i o n s o f Terms ....................................................................... O v e r v i e w .................................................................................................. 1 4 5 6 6 9 9 10 12 12 13 13 14 16 16 17 19 REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................................................................ 20 The Role of Higher Educ ation 1n S o c i e t y ........................... A c c o u n t a b i l i t y 1n Education ...................................................... A c c o u n t a b i l i t y and Program Development ................................ Alumni Follow-Up S t u d i e s .............................................................. P e r t i n e n t S t u d i e s and E v a lu a tio n E f f o r t s In t h e C o l le g e o f Education ................................................................... Common Conclusions o f Follow-Up S t u d i e s ........................... S u m m a r y .................................................................................................. 20 21 22 24 26 26 30 III. ANALYSIS OF DATA: DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS .................................... 32 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM COMPONENTS 71 iv . . P age ................................ 110 S u m m a r y .................................................................................................. Alumni C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ............................................................... P r o f i l e o f t h e Typical Graduate o f t h e College and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Program ....................... Program E v a lu a tio n ....................................................................... C o n c l u s i o n s ......................................................................................... Methodological I s s u e s ................................................................... Recommendations f o r F u t u r e Research . . . ......................... 110 Ill APPENDICES.................................................................................................................... 127 A. QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMUNICATIONS WITHALUMNI ........................ 128 B. MISCELLANEOUS TABLES ........................................................................... 1^2 C. RESPONDENTS* WRITTEN COMMENTS ..................................................... 160 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................... 203 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS v 116 117 122 12*t 12h LIST OF TABLES Page 33 Terminal Degree Earned ....................................................................... Major Focus o f Program ....................................................................... 34 .......................................................................................................... 34 Gender ........................................ 35 Program Focus o f Ph.D. R e c ip ie n ts # C o n t r o l l i n g f o r Gender ...................................................................................................... 36 Number o f Ph.D. Gr ad ua tes P e r Year# by Gender ....................... 37 Alumni Age Comparisons ....................................................................... 37 ................................................................... 39 Types o f Employment I n s t i t u t i o n s # by Gender ........................... 40 Ph.D. R e c ip ie n ts * C u r r e n t Rank o r T i t l e .................................... 42 A l l o c a t i o n o f Work Time ....................................................................... 42 I s t h e C u r r e n t Employment P o s i t i o n S a t i s f a c t o r y ? . . . . 44 Does t h e C u r r e n t Employment P o s i t i o n Meet t h e Primary O b j e c t i v e Held a t Grad uation? ..................................................... 45 Have Alumni Employment O b j e c t i v e s Changed? ........................... 46 Number and P e r c e n t a g e o f Respondents Having Same Employer as When They Were S tu d e n t s ........................................ 47 Whether t h e M a jo r it y o f Employment Changes Were Made by Perso nal C h o i c e ....................................................................... .... 48 Number of P o s i t i o n s Considered Before Accepting C u r r e n t P o s i t i o n .................................................................................................. 49 Terminal Degree I d e n t i f i e d by Gender Years t o Complete Degree vi Median Number o f P o s i t i o n s Considered* by Year o f Graduation ................................................................................................. 49 Number o f P o s i t i o n s Held Sinc e Graduation 50 ............................... Number o f P o s i t i o n s Held* by Year o f Gr ad uation Number o f Upward Promotions .................. 51 .............................................................. 52 Upward Movement by Year o f Gra du ation ........................................ 52 Alumni Who Had Reached H ighes t P o s i t i o n A t t a i n a b l e 1n P r e s e n t O r g a n i z a t i o n ........................................................................... 53 Income Earned 54 ............................................................................................. .................. 55 Membership 1n P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s With an Admin­ i s t r a t i v e Focus .................................................................................... 58 Membership 1n P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s With a Focus on Higher Education ........................................................................... 60 Number of O f f i c e s Held 1n P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s . . . 61 Number o f Papers P r e s e n t e d a t P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n i z a t i o n s . 64 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Books ................................................................... 66 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Monographs ..................................................... 66 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : J u r i e d A r t i c l e s ............................................ 67 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Nonjuried A r t i c l e s .................................... 68 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Other ................................................................... 68 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Funded G r ants ................................................. 69 Alumni P u b l i c a t i o n s : Co-authored Funded Gra nts ...................... 70 Comparison o f Mean Number of P u b l i c a t i o n s * by Gender . . . 70 Respondents* P e r c e p t i o n s Regarding Whether T h e ir Admission I n q u ir y Had Received a Prompt Response . . . . 72 Summary of F i n a n c i a l Support Gr ad ua tes Received v 11 Page 4.2 Respondents' P e r c e p t i o n s Regarding Whether T h e i r I n i t i a l I n q u ir y Had Provided t h e Needed Answers . . . . 73 4.3 Completion o f F a c u l ty I n te r v i e w ..................................................... 74 4.4 Number o f Respondents Who Expressed S a t i s f a c t i o n With F a c u lt y I n te r v i e w ................................................................................ 74 4.5 I n fo r m a ti o n Regarding t h e Temporary Advisor 76 4.6 Number o f Respondents Who Had Earned C r e d i t Toward Degree a t Other I n s t i t u t i o n s .......................................................... 77 4.7 U n i v e r s i t i e s Where Gra dua tes Had Earned Doctoral C r e d i t 79 4.8 Were Program Requirements Completed a t Extension C e n t e r s ? .............................................................................................. . . . . . . . . 80 4.9 E xtension C e n te r s Attended by Respondents 4.10 Number o f Respondents Who Had Earned P o s t d o c t o r a l C r e d i t ................................................................................................... 81 I n s t i t u t i o n s a t Which Graduates Had Earned P o s t d o c t o r a l C r e d i t ................................................................................................... 81 4.11 ............................... 4.12 Cognates o r R elated Areas o f Study Reported by Alumni 4.13 Rating o f F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g Choice o f a Graduate I n s t i t u t i o n ...................................................................................... 4.14 80 . . 82 85 Respondents' Choice o f S i n g l e Most I m porta nt F a c t o r Considered When Choosing Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . . . 86 Number o f Alumni Who Would Choose Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Today .................................................................................... 87 4.16 Changes Gra dua tes Would Make 1n T h e i r Doctoral Program . . 88 4.17 Courses Respondents Would Add t o T h e ir Program ...................... 88 4.18 Courses Respondents Would D e l e t e From T h e ir Program . . . 89 4.19 Changes Respondents Would Make In T h e ir Major ...................... 90 4.20 Changes Respondents Would Make In T h e ir Cognate Areas 4.21 Respondents' R a ti n g s o f t h e Value o f Departmental C o u r s e s ............................................................................................... 4. 15 v! i i . . 91 93 Page 4 .22 Respondents' R atings o f t h e Value o f Courses in t h e Higher Education D i s c i p l i n e .......................................................... 94 Respondents' R ati ngs o f t h e Value o f Courses 1n t h e C o l le g e o f Education ............................................................................ 96 4 .24 Respondents' R a tin g s o f t h e Value o f U n i v e r s i t y Courses 97 4.25 Ten Courses Receiving H ig hes t Mean R a ti n g s .............................. 98 4.26 Respondents' R a t in g s o f F a c t o r s C o n t r i b u t i n g t o Growth . . 100 4.27 Respondent Report Concerning t h e Source o f a Mentor . . . 102 4.28 Responden ts ' Ratin g o f Program 1n P r e p a r i n g Them t o Meet S h o r t - and Long-Term Goals .............................................................. 104 Re spo nde nts' R a tin g s o f t h e P rogra m 's P r o v i s i o n o f S k i l l s Necessary f o r Success .......................................................... 104 Responden ts' R a tin g s o f Importance o f S k i l l s 1n P r e p a r in g Graduates f o r Career Goals .............................................................. 106 Res pon den ts' R a t in g s o f Departmental E f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n P r o v id in g I d e n t i f i e d S k i l l s .......................................................... 108 4.23 4.29 4.30 4.31 ix . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Introduction B a l d r i d g e e t a l . (1980) d e s c r i b e d c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s as complex o r g a n i z a t i o n s 1n which goal ambiguity has l e d t o t h e e v o l u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n s t r u c t u r e s designed t o deal with u n c e r t a i n t y and c o n f l i c t . These a u t h o r s a s s e r t e d t h a t goal am biguity r e s u l t s from t h r e e m ajor factors: t h e I n a b i l i t y o f academic o r g a n i z a t i o n s t o p r e d i c t f u t u r e d i r e c t i o n s because of t h e I n s t i t u t i o n ’s g e n e r a l i z e d need t o s e r v e s o c i e t y and t h u s be a l l t h i n g s t o a l l people# t h e d i f f i c u l t y 1n r e f u s ­ ing a d d i t i o n a l m i s s i o n s a n d / o r goals# and t h e h i g h l y d e b a t a b l e n a t u r e o f vague g o a l s and m i s s io n s . Add itional p r e s s u r e s on c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s stem from p u b l i c demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y as e d u c a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n s endeavor t o o p e r a t i o n a l i z e acknowledged g o a l s and mis ­ sions. Dressel (1978) d e s c r i b e d t h e s e p ress ure s # conc lu ding t h a t f i s ­ cal concerns u n d e r l i e p u b l i c demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . He enumerated t h e f o l l o w i n g a d d i t i o n a l demands f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y : 1. s t u d e n t c o m p l a i n t s ab o u t t h e I r r e l e v a n c e of c o u r s e s and programs; and abou t I n d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e i r r i g h t s and c o n c e r n s ; 2, m i n o r i t y co nce rns r e g a r d i n g t h e u n r e s p o n s iv e n e s s o f h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n t o t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r needs ; 1 2 3. I n c r e a s i n g t a x e s and I n ad eq u ate ev id en ce of t h e need f o r high t a x e s or t h e r e s u l t i n g b e n e f i t s ; 4. wides pread doubts a b o u t gen er al and s p e c i f i c e d u c a ti o n a l p r a c t i c e s and t h e i r r e s u l t s ; 5. concern t h a t p r o f e s s o r s have t o o much c o n t r o l over work l o a d s and working c o n d i t i o n s ; 6. Im p a ti e n c e w i th t h e a p p a r e n t antagonism o f t e a c h e r s and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s toward I s s u e s of change o r I n n o v a t io n ; and 7. r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have l o s t a u t h o r i t y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t only e x t e r n a l I n t e r v e n t i o n s can c o r r e c t e x i s t i n g d e f i c i e n c i e s and d e f e c t s , (p. 75) In general* a c c o u n t a b i l i t y e n t a i l s some ty p e o f a u d i t t o e n s u r e t h a t a l l o t t e d r e s o u r c e s have been used f o r t h e s p e c i f i e d purposes* usin g p r e s c r i b e d p r a c t i c e s or r e q u ire m e n ts (Dressel* 1978). Until t h e 1970s* t h e purpose of academic program review was q u a l i t y c o n t r o l ; th en t h e f o cus s h i f t e d t o u s a b le r e s o u r c e s . The f o u r foci I d e n t i f i e d by McCorkle (1982) were (1) d e t e r m i n a t i o n of r e s o u r c e s needed f o r new programs* (2) e x a m in a t io n of e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i ­ cien cy 1n r e s o u r c e use* (3) c o r r e c t i o n o f I d e n t i f i e d weaknesses* and (4) guidance of p r o g r a m - r e tr e n c h m e n t a c t i v i t i e s . S e l f - s c r u t i n y I s n o t easy. Graduate programs a r e l a r g e l y d e p a r t m e n t a l l y based and a r e j e a l o u s l y guarded (Dressel* 1978). In add ition* r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n r educes e v a l u a t i v e p r e s s u r e s through c l a i m s t h a t program e f f o r t s a r e long range and t h u s ca nnot be viewed a t c l o s e range or t h a t t h e program 1s t o o complex t o meas ure a c c u r a t e l y (F rle sne r* 1978). Avoiding program review 1s so common t h a t Suchman (1967) c a t e g o r i z e d 1n d e t a i l major t y p e s of p o l i t i c a l I n f l u e n c e on evaluative effo rts. Some w r i t e r s have even argued t h a t a l l programs 3 d i s s i p a t e w i th t i m e and t h a t t h e v a r i a t i o n s 1n per form an ce o f I n d i ­ v i d u a l s conduc ting e v a l u a t i o n s o r t r a i n i n g e v a l u a t o r s sho uld be reas on enough t o avoid e v a l u a t i o n e f f o r t s (Anderson & Ball# 1978). Many methods o f academic program review e x i s t # and I t a p p e a r s t h a t planned c h o i c e 1s b e t t e r than f o r e >d# d e f e n s i v e d e c i s i o n making under s t r e s s . Often c u r r i c u l u m and academic program u n i t s a r e n o t reviewed r e g u l a r l y because o f f a c u l t y s p e c i a l i z a t i o n and t h e l i m i t e d v i e w p o i n t s r e g a r d in g e x i s t i n g c o u r s e and program o f f e r i n g s (Dressel# 1980). Anderson and B a ll (1978) o r g an ized gen eral e v a l u a t i v e purposes I n t o t h e f o l l o w i n g s i x c a t e g o r i e s o f academic program e v a l u a t i o n : 1. program I n s t a l l a t i o n 2. program c o n t i n u a t i o n # expansion# o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n 3. program m o d i f i c a t i o n 4. s u p p o r t f o r a program 5. o p p o s i t i o n t o a program 6. c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e u n d e r sta n d in g o f b a s i c ps ych olog ical# sociolo g ical# or o th e r processes Although t h e r e a r e many methods f o r o r g a n i z i n g program re views such e v a l u a t i o n s a r e a l l based on t h e d e l i v e r y o f an or g a n iz e d c u r r i c u ­ lum. E v a lu a ti o n should be s y s t e m a t i c and I n c lu d e f a c u l t y # s tu d e n ts # gr aduates# and consumers In a s s e s s i n g how and t o what e x t e n t t h e s t a t e d philosophy# purposes# and o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e program a r e being met w i t h i n t h e co nce ptual framework ( National League f o r Nursing# 1977). 4 Dress el (1980) recommended In v o lv in g alumni 1n a s y s t e m a t i c evaluation e ffo rt. He I n d i c a t e d t h a t althou gh few alumni a r e s u f f i ­ c i e n t l y aware o f c u r r e n t campus o p e r a t i o n s t o o f f e r d e t a i l e d advice* I nfo rm ing them o f c u r r e n t I s s u e s and pr o v id in g an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r Involvement through mechanisms o t h e r th an t h e i r w a l l e t s 1s a p p r o p r i a t e . Once e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n t h e work force* program g r a d u a t e s a r e u s u a l l y e x p e r t s 1n t h e i r s p e c i a l t i e s . These e x p e r t s deal w ith t h e I s s u e s and demands of t h e work world and a r e o f t e n 1n I n f l u e n t i a l p o s i t i o n s . In a d d it io n* they become program consumers when g r a d u a t e s e n t e r t h e i r companies and t r a i n i n g programs. and s o l v e c r i s e s . As p r o f e s s i o n a l s they s e t s t a n d a r d s T h e ir feedback p r o v id e s f a c u l t y with a measure f o r gauging c u r re n c y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Both p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e I n p u t a r e I m p o r t a n t 1n t h e e x a m in a tio n o f program components. and Ball (1978) reminded e v a lu a to r s* As Anderson pr o v id in g n e g a t i v e l y o r i e n t e d I n d i v i d u a l s with o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r Inp ut may s t i m u l a t e program s u p p o r t . C u r r e n t E v a lu a tio n E f f o r t s 1n t h e C o lleg e o f Education a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y The Program E v a lu a tio n Cen ter of t h e College of Education a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y 1s a n a l y z i n g d a t a c o l l e c t e d In a t o t a l c o l l e g e program review undertaken 1n 1981-82 by means of an alumni questionnaire. Graduates were asked t o pro vide feedback 1n t h e following areas of I n t e r e s t : f i n a n c i a l support* u n dergra duate programs* a f f i r m a t i v e action* deg re e Impact* employment h isto r y * and t h e program of g r a d u a t e s tu d y ( I t s q u a l i t y * s u p p o r t s erv ices * a d v i s o r s and guidance committees* comprehensive examinations* and 5 dissertations). The I n f o r m a t i o n glean ed from t h e s e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s should be v a l u a b l e t o f a c u l t y members Inv olved 1n e v a l u a t io n . In a d d i t i o n , Colleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n f a c u l t y p e r i o d i c a l l y review t h e program and c o u r s e s f o r cu rrency and appropriateness. In December 1982, t h e f a c u l t y pr ep are d a document c o n t a i n i n g t h e i r m is s i o n s t a t e m e n t and l o n g - r a n g e p lanning g u i d e l i n e s . Because a l l alumni feedback had been gained th rough Inform al mechan­ isms, t h e f a c u l t y vo iced s t r o n g I n t e r e s t In an alumni f o ll o w - u p surv ey f o r t h e y e a r s 1972 through 1902, In which alumni would be asked t o a p p r a i s e v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h e e x i s t i n g program. The p r e s e n t study was an a t t e m p t t o f u l f i l l t h a t need. S t a t e m e n t of t h e Problem Hos t e d u c a t o r s f i n d 1 t d i f f i c u l t t o be o b j e c t i v e when c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r own programs. I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f program components and e v a l u a t i o n methodology I s t i m e consuming. Educators may have become so s p e c i a l i z e d In and Involved w i th t h e p r o c e ss of t h e program t h a t they a r e unaware of t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s between In te nded and a c tu a l program e f f e c t on grad uat es . Knowing t h e common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of program g r a d u a t e s would be h e l p f u l t o e d u c a t o r s who a r e I n t e r e s t e d In t h e s u c c e s s of program g r a d u a te s . The c u r r e n t C ollege and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program may not be c o m plete ly f u l f i l l i n g t h e competency needs of g r a d u a t e s who s e r v e as a d m i n i s t r a t o r s . Therefore* a program a p p r a i s a l by d o c to r a l alumni co uld p r o v id e v a l u a b l e I n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t t h e cu rrenc y and a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of v a r i o u s program components. 6 Purp ose of.-the Study The purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h was t o I d e n t i f y t h e p e r c e p t i o n s o f g r a d u a t e s o f t h e C ollege and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program concer n­ ing v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of t h a t program. Alumni who r e c e i v e d an Ed,D. o r a Ph.D. de gr ee from January 1972 through Ja nuary 1983 were surveyed. Responses were ana ly ze d t o d e te r m in e t h e degree t o which t h e g r a d u a t e s b e l i e v e d s p e c i f i c program components were a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f e c t i v e . A summary o f c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e g r a d u a t e s 1s p r e s e n t e d as a c o m p o site p i c t u r e of t h e '• ty p ic a l " alumnus. Importance o f t h e Study Demands on e d u c a t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s change as s o c i e t y I t s e l f changes. F a c u lt y s e r v e a s l e a d e r s and mold programs t o meet p u b l i c demands. Because of t h e c o n t i n u a l s t a t e of development* e d u c a t o r s must c o n s t a n t l y contend w it h a s en se of vagueness about t h e i r g o als. In p r e p a r i n g programs t o meet t h e s e vague and I n c o n s i s t e n t m i s s i o n s and goals* e d u c a t o r s must c o n t i n u a l l y l i s t e n and analyze . Consequent a c t i o n r e q u i r e s f l e x i b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s t o a d a p t t o changing I s s u e s and p u b l i c o u t c r i e s f o r a c c o u n t a b i l i t y . Alumni who a r e employed f u l l t i m e 1n c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have I n t i m a t e knowledge o f t h e scope of t h e i r r o l e s . T h e ir v a l u a b l e I n s i g h t s can hel p guid e e d u c a t o r s 1n t h e i r e f f o r t s t o m a i n t a i n program cu rre ncy In a manner des igned t o meet s o c i e t a l needs. 7 The primar y focus o f t h e s tudy was t o I d e n t i f y f a c t o r s w i t h i n t h e C o lle g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y t h a t a r e a s s o c i a t e d w it h s t u d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n s of (a) p e r ­ sonal and p r o f e s s i o n a l development w h i l e In t h e program* . 05, df = 1 ) . 36 Table 3 . 5 . — Program focus o f Ph.D. r e c i p i e n t s * c o n t r o l l i n g f o r gender. Program Focus Gender Higher Education Mai e Female Column f r e q . 5. S tu d e n t Personnel Row Frequency 108 36 14 1 122 37 144 15 159 Are there differences In gender when examined by year of graduation? The number o f g r a d u a t e s by y e a r of g r a d u a t i o n 1s shown 1n Table 3.6. Fewer f e m a le s t h a n males gr a d u a te d each y e a r ; no d e g r e e s were awarded t o f e m a l e s 1n 1978. The pe r c e n ta g e o f f e m a l e Ph.D. r e c i p i e n t s ranged from 0 In 1978 t o 39S (7 o f 19 t o t a l g r a d u a t e s ) 1n 1981* with no ap p a r e n t t r e n d 1n t h e p e r c e n t a g e s . 6. Are there differences between males and females in terms of th eir mean ages: a. at entrance Into the degree program? b. at completion of the degree program? c . 1n the time period between entrance and completion o f the degree program? The mean age o f r e sp o n d e n ts a t t h e t i m e o f data c o l l e c t i o n was 42.64 y e a r s . The sample d i s p l a y e d a s l i g h t l y p o s i t i v e skew* w ith a mean o f 42.64 y e a r s and a median o f 4 0 3 y e a r s (Table B.2). from Appendix Ta bles B-3 and B-4 a r e summarized 1n Table 3.7. The d ata The mean age a t ac ce ptan ce I n t o t h e program (Tab le B-3) was 32.18 y e a r s (34.92 y e a r s f o r 37 f e m a le s and 3 1 3 8 y e a r s f o r 119 males). A t-test 37 on t h e mean ages dem onst rated t h a t f e m a l e s e n t e r e d t h e d eg r ee program a t a l a t e r a g e t h a n d i d m a l e s ( t = 3.17# d f = 15# p < .01). Table 3 . 6 . — Number o f Ph.D. g r a d u a t e s p e r year# by gender. Mai e s Year % Total % N P e r Year li 75.0 93.3 69. 6 87.5 /7.8 81.8 100.0 76.9 68. 8 61.1 73.3 4 1 7 1 4 2 0 3 5 7 4 25.0 6.7 3 0.4 12.5 2 2.2 18.2 0.0 23.1 31.2 38.9 26.7 16 15 23 6 18 11 10 13 18 18 15 9.7 9.1 13.9 4.8 10.9 6.7 6.1 7.9 10.9 10.9 9.1 125 100.0 38 100.0 165 100.0 12 14 16 7 14 9 10 10 n n Valid c a s e s = 165 Table 3.7.- -Alumni N of Total Sampl e Missing c a s e s = 0 agei comparisons. Age a t Acceptance Mean N S t . dev. Range % Per Year N 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 Combined Femal e s Male Female Combined 31.3 8 119 5. 5 22-47 34.92 37 7.15 25-55 32.18 156 6.13 22-55 Age a t Completion Male Female Combined 36 .16 119 6.01 24-57 37.51 37 6.51 26-58 3 6 .48 156 6.14 24-58 38 The mean age a t deg re e c o m pleti on (Table B-4) was 36.48 y e a r s (37.51 y e a r s f o r f e m a l e s and 36.16 y e a r s f o r males). Thus t h e 156 g r a d u a t e s an swering t h e s e q u e s t i o n s had com pleted t h e i r program 1n an average o f 4.53 y e a r s ; t h e 119 males had f i n i s h e d 1n 4.72 y e a r s , and t h e 37 f e m a l e s had f i n i s h e d 1n 3.89 y e a r s (Table 3.8). There was no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e 1n d e g r e e -c o m p le t lo n t im e ( t = 1.62, df = 154, p > .05). Although t h e women were s i g n i f i c a n t l y o l d e r when th ey e n t e r e d t h e program and t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f ­ f e r e n c e between males and f e m a le s r e g a r d i n g age a t program completion , t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between t h e sexes 1n t h e t i m e 1 t took t o c om plete t h e program. 7. Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between males and females In te r m s o f employment I n s t i t u t i o n s ? Of t h e 163 I n d i v i d u a l s respon ding t o t h i s Ite m, 161 I n d i c a t e d t h e i r employer i n s t i t u t i o n t y p e ; two were unemployed. Those I n d iv i d u ­ a l s who I n d i c a t e d 1n o t h e r p a r t s of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t th e y had r e t i r e d s t i l l gave an I n s t i t u t i o n ty p e when a ns w eri ng t h i s q u e s tio n . The w r i t e r s p e c u l a t e d t h a t the y gave t h e ty p e of I n s t i t u t i o n a t which they had l a s t been employed or a t which th ey had s p e n t t h e m a j o r i t y of th e i r career. The breakdown of t y p e s of employment I n s t i t u t i o n s 1s shown 1n T able 3 . 9 . 39 Ta ble 3 . 8 . — Years t o complete deg re e. Mai es Years N 2 4 2 1 1 1 1.7 13.5 37.0 62.3 70.7 81.6 90.8 92.5 95 .9 97.6 98.4 99.2 100.0 6 m1ss1 ng 2 14 28 30 10 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 16 23 n No response Total N Mean S t . dev. Cumulat1ve Valid % Femal es N 2 7 11 6 5 2 2 1 — — 1 — 1 Cumulative Valid % 5.4 24.3 54.0 70.3 83.6 89.2 94.6 97.3 — — 100.0 119 4.72 2.87 N —— 4 21 39 36 15 15 13 3 4 2 2 1 1 miss ing 7 Hut Cumul at1 ve Valid % 2.6 16.1 41.1 64.1 73.8 83.4 91.7 93.6 96.2 97.5 98.8 99.4 100.0 m1ss1ng 163 38 125 Combined 37 3.89 2. 16 156 4.53 2. 74 40 Table 3 . 9 . — Types of employment I n s t i t u t i o n s * by ge nder . Males Type o f Empl oyment N Unemployed P u b l i c h i g h e r educ. P r i v a t e h i g h e r educ. Community c o l l e g e P r iv a te business Retired P u b li c s c h o o ls Health r e l a t e d Government Overseas s c h o o ls R e l i g i o u s s c h o o ls Total Females Va lid 5 1 52 20 21 10 — 6 7 6 1 1 .8 41 .6 16.0 16.8 8.0 125 100.0 — 4.8 5.6 4.8 .8 .8 Valid c a s e s - 163 N 1 15 3 7 3 2 1 2 4 — — 38 Combined N Valid 5 Valid 5 — 2 67 23 28 13 2 7 9 10 1 1 1.2 41.1 14.1 17.2 8.0 1.2 4. 3 5.5 6.1 .6 .6 100.0 163 100.0 2.6 39 .5 7.9 18.4 7.9 5. 3 2. 6 5.3 10.5 - - Missing c a s e s - 2 One hundred e i g h t e e n I n d i v i d u a l s (72.45) were employed a t pos ts econ dary I n s t i t u t i o n s ; 90 alumni (55.25) were employed a t i n s t i t u t i o n s g r a n t i n g b a c c a l a u r e a t e o r h i g h e r degrees. T w e n ty -e ig h t I n d i v i d u a l s (17.25) were employed a t community c o l l e g e s . l a r g e s t group (8.05) was 1n p r i v a t e b u s in e s s . The n e x t As m ight be expected* some I n d i v i d u a l s were Involved with s t a t e or f e d e r a l government employment (6.15); h e a l t h - r e l a t e d I n s t i t u t i o n s * (5.55); p u b l i c school system s (4.35); and r e l i g i o u s s c h o o ls (0.65). and two (1.25) were r e t i r e d . e.g.* p h y s i c i a n s o v e r s e a s school s yst em s (0.65); Two I n d i v i d u a l s (1.25) were unemployed* Before per fo rm ing a ch 1 - sq u ar e t e s t * employment d a ta were c o l l a p s e d i n t o f i v e c a t e g o r i e s : h i g h e r education* 41 community co lleg e# secondary education# governmental a g e n c ie s , and o th e r . No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found between m ales and fe m a le s 1n te r m s o f employment I n s t i t u t i o n s (ch 1 -sq u a re « 2.58# p > .05# d f = 4 ) . 8. Are there differences between males and females In terms of employment rank or position descriptions? P a r t i c i p a n t s w ere asked t o I n d i c a t e t h e i r c u r r e n t rank o r t i t l e (se e Appendix C# pages 161-66 ). C u rre n t ran k s o r t i t l e s f o r degree r e c i p i e n t s a r e d isp la y e d 1n T able 3.10. A ch 1 -sq u a re t e s t showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and fem ales 1n t e r m s o f rank o r p o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n (ch 1 -s q u a re = 3.52# p > .05, df = 5). The t y p i c a l alumnus was most o f te n employed 1n upper o r m id d le management a t a c o l l e g e o r u n i v e r s i t y . 9. How do degree recipients allocate th eir work time? Based on t h e f in d in g s f o r t h e q u e s ti o n s re g a rd in g p a r t i c i p a n t s ’ c u r r e n t rank# 1 t was ex pected t h a t C o lleg e and U n iv e r s ity A d m in istra ­ t i o n alumni would spend t h e m a j o r it y of t h e i r t i m e 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c tio n s . T able 3.11. A summary o f r e s p o n d e n ts ' a l l o t t e d work tim e 1s shown 1n One hundred th 1 r ty - n 1 n e I n d iv i d u a l s I n d ic a te d t h a t some o f t h e i r tim e was s p e n t 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , o f whom 38 I n d iv i d u a l s (25%) I n d ic a te d t h a t th e y s p e n t 99% o r more of t h e i r a l l o t t e d work h ou rs 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c tio n s . A l a r g e r group# 69 o f t h e 139 I n d iv i d u a l s (49.6%)# s p e n t a minimum o f 90% o f t h e i r work t i m e on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e 42 T able 3 . 1 0 . — Ph.D. r e c i p i e n t s ' c u r r e n t rank or t i t l e . Females Males Combined T itle /R a n k U n iv e r s ity o r c o l le g e management Upper Middle Comm, c o l l e g e admin. P u b lic school admin. F a c u lty — h ig h e r educ. F a c u lty — comm, c o l l e g e P r i v a t e b u s in e s s P h y sic ia n Unemployed Board c h a l r Law enforcem ent R esearch Government R e lig io u s S p o r ts Ret1 red T otal N V alid % N ValId % 36 29 16 S 12 2 9 1 1 2 2 1 4 1 1 —— 2 9 .6 2 3 .9 13.2 4 .0 9 .8 1.6 7.3 .8 .8 1.6 1.6 .8 3 .3 .8 .8 —— 7 9 4 1 4 2 4 18.4 23.7 10.5 2 .6 10.5 5 .3 10.5 122 2 5.3 43 38 20 6 16 4 13 1 2 2 2 1 8 1 1 2 38 100.0 158 — 1 — 2 .6 — — — — 4 — — 100.0 N ■0.5 — — ValId % 27.1 2 4 .0 12.5 3 .7 10.0 2 .5 7 .9 .6 1.2 1.2 1.2 .6 5 .0 .6 .6 1.2 100.0 T able 3 . 1 1 . — A llo c a tio n o f work tim e . Area A d m in istra tio n Teaching Research C o n s u lta tio n Other N 139 83 /3 71 80 Mean % o f Time S.D. 72.54 29.57 16.58 15.70 14.76 28.71 3 2 .6 2 20.87 14.83 214.04 Median % o f Time 85.00 10.20 9 .8 2 9.95 .93 In te rq u a rtile Range (X) 55.00-99+ 3 8 .0 0 -4 0 .3 0 3 .3 0 -1 5 .7 5 3 . 5 6 - 2 0 . OS 0 .4 7 -1 5 .2 9 43 f u n c t io n s (Table B-5). T ab le 3.11 c o n t a i n s a summary of t h e a l l o t t e d work t im e d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r resp o n d en ts. The d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each are a d is c u s s e d can be found 1n Appendix B# T a b le s B-5 through 8 - 9 . E i g h t y - t h r e e I n d iv i d u a l s I n d ic a te d they s p e n t some tim e te a c h ­ ing (Table B-6). Of t h e s e 83 In d iv id u a ls» of t h e i r work t im e te a c h in g . 10 (12%) s p e n t 90% o r more S e v e n ty - th r e e I n d iv i d u a l s a l l o c a t e d tim e t o r e s e a r c h ; 50% o f t h a t group s p e n t 10% o r l e s s o f t h e i r work ho urs 1n such f u n c t io n s (T able B-7). C o n su ltin g t i m e was I d e n t i f i e d by 71 I n d iv i d u a l s ; 13 respond­ e n t s (18%) c o n s u lte d more than 30% o f t h e i r t o t a l work tim e (Table B-8). F o rty I n d iv i d u a ls (56%) c o n s u lte d between 5% and 10% o f t h e i r tim e , which I n d i c a t e s t h a t c o n s u lta tio n # a s a rule# com prised l e s s th an 10% o f t h e work t i m e f o r t h e m a jo r ity of respo nd ents. Eighty I n d iv i d u a l s I n d ic a te d t h a t th ey s p e n t some of t h e i r a l l o c a t e d work hours c a r r y in g o u t o t h e r th an a d m in is tr a tiv e # teaching# o r c o n s u l t a t i o n r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ; however# 51 I n d iv i d u a l s (63%) I n d ic a t e d t h a t they s p e n t only 5% o r l e s s o f t h e i r t i m e on t h e s e t a s k s (Table B-9). The a r e a s r e s p o n d e n ts r e p o r t e d under t h e l i s t i n g of o th e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s v a r i e d g r e a t l y and may be reviewed 1n Appendix C# pp. 167-68. In summary# t h e t y p i c a l a l l o t t e d work tim e breakdown I n d ic a te d t h a t r e s p o n d e n ts s p e n t t h e g r e a t e s t p r o p o rtio n o f t h e i r t i m e on a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d u ties# fo llo w e d by teach in g# research# c o n s u lta tio n # and o t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . 44 10. Are d e g ree r e c i p i e n t s s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n o r rank o f employment? When asked 1f th ey were s a t i s f i e d w ith t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n o r rank o f employment* 122 re sp o n d e n ts (73.93) s a id " y e s *11 whereas 37 (22.43) voiced a n e g a tiv e resp o n se (Table 3.12). (3.53) chose n o t t o answer t h i s q u e s tio n . S ix I n d iv i d u a l s Of t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s answ er­ ing both t h e gender and t h e j o b - s a t l s f a c t l o n q u estio ns* 96 o f t h e 123 m ale re sp o n d en ts (783) and 24 o f t h e 34 fe m a le re sp o n d e n ts (713) ex pressed s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s it i o n s . No g e n d e r - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s were I d e n t i f i e d (c h 1 -s q u a re = 0.823* d f = 1* p > .0 5 ) . T a b le 3 . 1 2 . - - I s t h e c u r r e n t employment p o s i t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r y ? Frequencl es Unknown Combined Combined Val 1d 3 2 76.7 23.3 m iss in g 100.0 S a tl s f l e d Male Yes No No answ er T otal Femal e 96 27 2 234 10 4 - 122 37 6 125 38 2 165 V alid c a s e s = 159 11. - M issing c a s e s = 6 Had t h e prim ary o b j e c t i v e h e ld a t t h e tim e o f g r a d u a tio n changed? The m a j o r i t y of alumni surveyed (623) r e p o r te d t h a t t h e i r c u r r e n t employment p o s i t i o n f u l f i l l e d th e prim ary o b j e c t i v e th ey had h e ld a t t h e t i m e of g ra d u a tio n . T h ir ty -e ig h t percent rep o rted t h a t t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n did n o t m eet t h a t prim ary o b j e c t i v e (Table 3.13). Of th o s e who answered both t h e gender and t h e p r im a r y - o b je c t i v e 45 questions* 83 o f t h e 123 male re sp o n d e n ts (67%) and 16 o f t h e 36 Temale re sp o n d e n ts (44%) s a id t h a t t h e i r c u r r e n t employment p o s i t i o n ach iev ed t h e prim ary o b j e c t i v e h e ld a t g r a d u a tio n . T his gender d i f f e r e n c e was su p p o rted by a p o s i t i v e c h 1 -sq u a re t e s t (ch 1 -sq u a re = 6.28* d f = 1* p < .02). Thus# m ales' employment p o s i t i o n s g e n e r a l ly did m eet t h e i r prim ary g r a d u a tio n o b j e c t i v e . However* fe m a le s l e s s o f te n r e p o r te d t h e same p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e i r c u r r e n t employment and p rim ary g r a d u a tio n o b j e c t i v e . S in ce a l l o f t h e s e i n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d s a t i s ­ f a c t i o n w ith t h e i r Jobs* t h i s f in d in g m ig h t be r e l a t e d t o a change 1n prim ary o b je c tiv e * e i t h e r upon e n t e r i n g t h e work f o r c e o r a f t e r expe­ r ie n c i n g t h e r e a l i t y of t h e work world. T able 3 . 1 3 . — Does th e c u r r e n t employment p o s i t i o n meet th e prim ary o b j e c t i v e h e ld a t g ra d u a tio n ? F req u en cles P e rc e p tio n Yes No No answer T otal Male Female Unknown Combined Combined Val Id % 83 40 2 16 20 2 1 1 — 100 61 4 62.1 3 7 .9 m issin g 125 38 2 165 100.0 V alid c a s e s = 159 M issing c a s e s = 4 Appearing t o be c o n s i s t e n t w ith t h i s assu m p tio n was t h e f in d in g t h a t t w o - t h t r d s o f t h e fem ales resp on din g r e p o r te d changes In t h e i r employment o b j e c t iv e . S p e c i f ic a l ly # 63 of t h e 123 male resp o n d en ts 46 (51%) and 24 o f t h e 36 fem ale r e s p o n d e n ts (67%) I n d ic a te d t h a t t h e i r employment o b j e c t i v e s had undergone changes s in c e d egree co m p le tio n (T able 3.14). However# a c h i - s q u a r e t e s t r u le d o u t g e n d e r -r e l a te d d i f f e r e n c e s ( c h i - s q u a r e = 2.68# d f » 1# p > .0 5 ) . T ab le 3 . 1 4 . --H ave alumni employment o b j e c t i v e s changed? Frequencl es Change Yes No No answer T otal Male Female Unknown Combined Combined V alid % 63 60 2 24 12 — 2 2 87 74 2 5 4 .0 4 6.0 m issin g 125 38 2 165 100.0 V alid c a s e s = 161 12. M issing c a s e s = 4 I s t h e employer a t t h e tim e o f s c h o o lin g t h e c u r r e n t employer? Of t h e 148 I n d i v i d u a l s resp o n d in g t o t h i s qu estio n # 57 (36.5%) were s t i l l w ith t h e same em ployer a s a t t h e tim e of s c h o o lin g (Table 3.15). T h is f in d i n g may I n d i c a t e t h a t some alumni had pursued t h e d o c to ra l d egree t o m eet an em ployer's c o n d i t i o n s f o r employment o r t o g ain upward m o b i li t y . U nfortunately# t h e survey I n s tr u m e n t did n o t I n v e s t i g a t e t h e r e a s o n s why alumni so u g h t t h e d o c to ra l d eg ree; t h a t t o p i c may be o f I n t e r e s t in f u t u r e s t u d i e s . 47 T a b le 3 . 1 5 . — Number and p e rc e n ta g e of re sp o n d e n ts h aving same employer a s when th e y were s t u d e n t s . N Same Employer V alid % Yes No No re s p o n s e 57 91 17 3 8 .5 6 1.5 m issin g Total 165 100.0 V alid c a s e s = 148 13. M issing c a s e s = 17 Are there differences between males and females 1n terms o f job changes made by personal choice? T h is q u e s tio n was o f I n t e r e s t because of t h e p o t e n t i a l s c a r c i t y of jo b s f o r d o c to ra l r e c i p i e n t s . Although 123 o f t h e 134 i n d i v i d u a l s resp on din g t o t h i s q u e s tio n (923? of m ales and 96% o f fe m a le s I d e n t i ­ f ie d ) I n d ic a te d t h a t th ey had made t h e m a j o r i t y o f jo b changes by perso n al c h o ic e (T able 3.16)f t h i s Item o n ly r e f l e c t e d t h e re s p o n d e n ts ' r e t r o s p e c t i v e p e r c e p tio n s . T here w ere no d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and fe m a le s 1n t e r m s o f Job changes made by personal c h o ic e (c h 1 -s q u a re = 1.45# df = 1# p > . 0 5 ) . D eterm in in g t h e number o f Jo b s c o n s id e re d b e f o re a c c e p tin g t h e c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n m ig h t be more I n fo r m a tiv e because such I n fo r m a tio n would allo w one t o gauge t h e number of Jobs e x i s t i n g 1n t h e m a rk e tp la c e . 48 T able 3 . 1 6 . — Whether t h e m a j o r i t y o f employment changes were made by p erso n al c h o ic e . F req u en cies Male Female Unknown Combined Combined V alid % 96 7 —— 25 4 2 — 31 123 11 31 9 1 .8 8 .2 m issin g 33 165 100.0 P e r c e p tlo n Yes No No answer Total mm m 29 103 Val 1d c a s e s = 134 14. M issing c a s e s = 3 1 How many p o s i t i o n s were c o n s id e re d b e f o r e a c c e p ta n c e o f t h e c u r r e n t p o s it i o n ? Of t h e 112 I n d iv i d u a l s an sw erin g t h i s q uestion* 84 (75%) had c o n s id e re d t h r e e o r few er p o s i t i o n s b e f o r e a c c e p tin g t h e c u r r e n t employment (Table 3.17). The re sp o n s e s ranged from 1 t o 99 o r more c h o ic e s (av erag e = 4.59* median = 2.62). However* when t h e two e x trem e re sp o n s e s I n d i c a t i n g 99 o r more p o s i t i o n s w ere removed* t h e average number o f p o s i t i o n s (2.88) c o n s id e re d by 110 I n d iv i d u a l s approxim ated t h e median p o s it io n . The median p e r y e a r v a r ie d from 1.3 (1979) t o 3.0 (1972* 1975* and 1977)* w ith no c o n s i s t e n t tr e n d s . The median numbers o f p o s i t i o n s considered* d is p la y e d by y e a r of graduation* s u g g e s t t h a t t h e e a r l i e r g r a d u a te s did n o t c o n s id e r more p o s i t i o n s th an did r e c e n t g r a d u a te s (T able 3.18). A P earso n c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e number of p o s i t i o n s c o n s id e re d and t h e y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n 49 w as n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( r = -.5 2 * d f = 9» p > .0 5 ). D ie paw d a t a a r e p re s e n te d In Appendix T a b le B-26. T able 3 . 1 7 . — Number o f p o s i t i o n s c o n s id e re d b e f o r e a c c e p tin g c u r r e n t p o sitio n . V alid Number o f Pos1 t l o n s N 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 22 99+ T otal Cum ulative % 33 19 32 12 6 2 2 2 1 1 2 29.5 17.0 2 8.6 10.7 5 .4 1.8 1.8 1 .8 .8 .8 1.8 112 100.0 % 29.5 46.5 75.1 85.8 91.2 93.0 94.8 96.6 97.4 98.2 100.0 M issing c a s e s = 53 S t. dev. = 13.05 V alid c a s e s = 1 1 2 Mean = 4 .6 9 T able 3 . 1 8 . — Median number o f p o s i t i o n s considered* by y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n . Year o f G radu ation 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 3 .0 2 .7 2 .8 3 .0 2 .0 3 .0 2 .3 1.3 1.5 2 .5 2 .5 so 15. How nany employment positions have been held since graduation? One hundred f i f t y - f i v e I n d iv i d u a l s responded t o t h i s q u e s tio n . A m a j o r i t y (69.7%) r e p o r t e d t h a t th ey had h e ld one (36.2%) o r two (33.5%) p o s i t i o n s . (2.0%) (Table 3.19). The h i g h e s t number of p o s i t i o n s r e p o r t e d was f i v e One hundred se v e n te e n m ales averaged 2.10 p o s i­ t i o n s ; fe m a le s averaged 1.94 p o s it i o n s . A t - t e s t was perform ed but y i e l d e d no g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s ( t = .8 9 , d f = 185, p > .0 5 ). T a b le 3 . 1 9 . — Number o f p o s i t i o n s h e ld s i n c e g r a d u a tio n . Frequency Number of P o s i ti o n s Male Female Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 No answer 43 35 26 10 3 8 13 15 5 3 _ 125 2 .1 0 T otal Mean 2 - - — - 2 — 2 38 1.94 V alid c a s e s = 155 Median * 1.91 V alid % Cumul a t l v e % 56 52 31 13 3 10 3 6 .2 3 3 .5 20.0 8.4 1.9 m issing 3 6 .2 6 9 .7 89.7 98.1 100.0 165 2 .1 2 100.0 T o tal M issing c a s e s = 10 S t. dev. = 1.05 The number o f p o s i t i o n s h e ld by y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n I s shown 1n T able 3.20. Alumni who g ra d u a te d In t h e e a r l i e r y e a r s In clu d ed 1n t h e s tu d y tended t o have h eld one t o tw o more p o s i t i o n s t h a n r e c e n t gradu­ a t e s , a s would be expected. A Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n and number o f p o s i t i o n s h e ld s i n c e 51 g r a d u a tio n y i e l d e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t t r = -.91* df = 11# p < .01)# s u p p o rtin g t h e f a c t t h a t o l d e r g r a d u a te s had h e ld more p o s i t i o n s th a n younger ones. T able 3 . 2 0 . — Number of p o s i t i o n s held# by y e a r o f g ra d u a tio n . Year o f G raduation Number o f P o sitio n s 1 2 3 4 5 Total Mode Mean 16. 72 73 74 75 76 77 76 79 80 81 82 1 3 9 2 1 3 6 3 2 3 14 2 3 1 2 2 2 4 4 6 3 1 5 3 2 2 2 2 1 8 2 2 5 9 1 11 5 11 3 1 IS 9 2 .8 15 6 3 .1 22 14 2 .2 7 2 2 .7 18 6 2 .6 10 5 2 .2 7 2 2 .3 12 8 1.5 - * 15 9 1.7 16 11 1.3 15 11 1 .2 How many upward p o s i t i o n movements have been made s i n c e g r a d u a tio n ? E1ghty-f1ve re sp o n d e n ts r e p o rte d an av erage o f 2.19 upward movements (Table 3.21). Recent g r a d u a te s were advancing upward a t a f a s t e r r a t e th a n was t r u e o f t h e e a r l i e r alumni (Table 3.22). There were no d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o gender (c h 1 -s q u a re = 5.0# d f = 5# p > .05). When no respo n se was In dicated # 1 t c o u ld n o t be d eterm in e d w h ether t h a t meant no upward movement o r t h e alumnus J u s t did not answer t h e q u e s tio n . For In stance# new g r a d u a te s e n t e r i n g t h e i r f i r s t Job may n o t y e t have had o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r upward movement. However# 52 t h e s e d a ta l e d t h e r e s e a r c h e r t o q u e s tio n w hether t h e re sp o n d e n ts p e rc e iv e d t h a t th e y had reached t h e h i g h e s t p o s i t i o n a v a i l a b l e 1n t h e c u r r e n t employment o r g a n i z a t i o n . T able 3 . 2 1 . — Number o f upward prom otions. Frequency Number o f Promotions V alid Male Female Unknown 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 No answer 31 15 14 8 1 1 13 4 3 2 1 - - - - - - 65 1 15 - 35 19 17 11 1 1 1 80 T otal 125 38 2 165 T o ta l - 1 V alid c a s e s s= 85 Cum ulative % % 4 1 .2 22.3 2 0 .0 12.9 1 .2 1 .2 1.2 m lssl ng 4 1 .2 6 3 .5 83.5 96.4 97.6 9 8.8 100.0 165 100.0 Mean = 2 .1 9 M issing c a s e s = 8 T a b le 3 . 2 2 . - -Upward movement by y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n . Year o f G rad u atio n Number o f Movements 1 2 3 4 5 D 7 T otal 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 4 2 4 - 4 2 1 9 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 5 1 1 1 2 1 4 2 1 - 6 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1 3 3 ** 11 1 11 7 14 4 8 7 4 7 10 8 6 53 S e v e n ty -fo u r of t h e 161 re sp o n d e n ts (44.8%) f e l t t h a t th ey had reach ed t h e h i g h e s t p o s i t i o n a t t a i n a b l e a t t h e i r I n s t i t u t i o n o f employ­ m ent (Table 3.23). This I n d i c a t e s t h a t more th a n o n e - h a l f o f t h e alumni (54%) p e rc e iv e d a p o t e n t i a l f o r upward m o b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e i r p r e s e n t employment i n s t i t u t i o n s . There w ere no d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o gender (c h 1 -s q u a re = 2.26# d f = 1# p > . 0 5 ) . T a b le 3 . 2 3 . — Alumni who had reach ed h i g h e s t p o s i t i o n a t t a i n a b l e 1n p resen t o rg an izatio n . F req u en cies R ep ort V a lid % Yes No No answ er Total Male Female Unknown 60 62 3 13 24 1 1 1 — 74 87 4 46.0 5 4 .0 m iss in g 125 38 2 165 100.0 ValId c a s e s = 161 17. T o ta l M issing c a s e s = 4 tfhat 1s the level of Income earned by alumni? The p a r t i c i p a n t s ' median s a l a r y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e survey was $38*250# u s in g raw f r e q u e n c i e s f o r com pu tatio n (Table 3.24). The mean c o u ld n o t be determ ined because t h e h ig h e r s a l a r i e s were n o t known. 54 T able 3 .2 4 .-* -Income e a rn e d . B ra c k e t p er 1000 M ldpolnt 0-999.999 1 0.0-14 .9 99 15 .0 -1 9 .9 9 9 2 0 .0 -2 4 .9 9 9 2 5 .0 -2 9 .9 9 9 3 0 .0 -3 4 .9 9 9 3 5 .0 -3 9 .9 9 9 4 0 .0 -4 4 .9 9 9 4 5 .0 -4 9 .9 9 9 5 0 .0 -5 4 .9 9 9 5 5 .0 -5 9 .9 9 9 60.0-H 1gher No answer 7 .5 12.5 17.5 2 2.5 27.5 3 2 .5 3 7 .5 4 2 .5 4 7.5 52.5 57 .5 6 2.5 — N 3 1 5 9 26 16 30 24 15 14 5 11 6 T o tal 165 V a lid c a s e s = 159 18. V alid % Cum ulative % 1.9 .6 3 .1 5 .7 16.4 10.1 18.9 15.1 9 .4 8 .8 3 .1 6 .9 m lssln g 1.9 2 .5 5 .6 11.3 2 7.7 3 7 .8 5 6 .7 7 1 .8 8 1 .2 90.0 93.1 100.0 100.0 M issing c a s e s c 6 What typ® o f f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t was so u g h t d u rin g t h e program o f stu d y ? One hundred tw e n ty -tw o re sp o n d e n ts (74.8%) r e p o r te d f u l l - t i m e employment d u rin g t h e i r program of study* and 28 (26.4%) r e p o r t e d p a r t t i m e employment (Table 3.25). Of t h e 105 alumni who responded t o both q u e s tio n s * 59 I n d i v i d u a l s (56.2%) had worked o n ly f u l l time* 22 (21%) had worked o n ly p a r t time* 19 (18.0%) had n o t worked a t a ll* (4.8%) r e p o r te d both f u l l - and p a r t - t i m e employment. and 5 I t I s u n c le a r w hether th o s e p eo ple who r e p o r t e d both f u l l - and p a r t - t i m e employment had worked two o r more jo b s c o n c u r r e n t l y o r had worked on d i f f e r e n t sc h e d u le s a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s d u rin g t h e i r program o f study. 55 T able 3 . 2 5 . — Summary o f f i n a n c i a l s u p p o rt g ra d u a te s r e c e i v e d . Type o f S upport Did You R eceiv e: A s s 1 s t a n t s h lp / Fellow ship Loans F u ll-T im e Employment P art-T im e Employment N 3 N 3 N 3 N 3 Yes No No resp on se 63 98 4 39.1 6 0 .9 43 122 26.1 7 3 .9 122 41 2 7 4.8 2 5 .2 28 78 59 2 6 .4 7 3 .6 T otal 165 165 The q u e s tio n o f I n t e r e s t was: 165 165 Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and f e m a le s In te r m s o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f fe l l o w s h l p s / a s s l s t a n t s h l p s f o r d o c to r a l stu d y ? S i x t y - t h r e e I n d iv i d u a l s (39.13) r e p o rte d r e c e i v i n g e i t h e r a f e l lo w s h i p o r an a s s l s t a n t s h l p (Table 3.25). F o r ty - f o u r o f 123 m ales (36.03) and 19 o f 36 fem ales (53.03) r e p o r te d r e c e iv in g a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p (Table 3.25). A ch i-sq u are t e s t was performed# I n d ic a t i n g no d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and fe m a le s In te r m s o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f g r a d u a te a s s l s t a n t s h l p s / f e l l o w s h i p s ( c h is q u a r e = 3.37# d f = 1# p > .0 5 ). A p p en d ix C» pp. 168-71 » c o n t a i n s a 1 1 s t o f f e l l o w s h i p s and a s s l s t a n t s h l p s by y e a r of g ra d u a tio n . Forty- t h r e e re sp o n d e n ts r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g l o a n s . One hundred e i g h te e n o f t h e 122 re sp o n d e n ts r e p o r t i n g f u l l - t i m e employment responded t o t h e q u e s tio n s co n cernin g w hether th ey had r e c e iv e d e i t h e r a lo a n o r an a s s l s t a n t s h l p / f e l l o w s h l p . Eleven I n d i v i d ­ u a ls (9.33) had r e c e iv e d both a lo a n and a f e l low s h i p / a s s i s t a n t ship# 56 39 (33%) had r e c e iv e d e i t h e r a lo a n o r a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p # and 68 (57/6%) had r e c e iv e d n e i t h e r . Of t h e 28 re sp o n d e n ts r e p o r t i n g p a r t - t i m e employment# 7 (25%) r e p o r te d r e c e i v i n g both a f e l l o w s h i p / a s s i s t a n t s h i p and a loan# 17 (60.7%) had r e c e iv e d e i t h e r a lo a n o r a f e l l o w s h i p / a s s i s t a n t ship# and 4 (14.3%) had r e c e iv e d n e i t h e r ty p e o f s u p p o r t. T h i r t e e n m ale re sp o n d e n ts d id n o t r e p o r t f u l l - o r p a r t - t i m e employment# b u t two (15.4%) r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g both a f e l l o w s h i p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p and a loan# seven (53.8%) r e p o rte d having e i t h e r a lo a n or a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p # and fo u r (30.8%) r e p o r t e d n e i t h e r . Of s i x females# one (16.7%) r e p o r te d r e c e i v i n g both a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p and a loan# fo u r (66.7%) r e p o r te d o n ly a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t shlp# and one (16.7%) r e p o r te d n e i t h e r . Five p eo ple (fo u r m ales and one fem ale) gave no I n d i c a t i o n o f employment o r r e c e i p t o f f i n a n c i a l a i d w h i le co m p letin g t h e i r program. The f in d i n g s I n d ic a te d t h a t t h e m a j o r i ty of survey re sp o n d e n ts had been employed f u l l tim e d u rin g t h e i r d o c to ra l program. F o rty -tw o p e r c e n t of t h e s e I n d iv i d u a l s had a l s o r e c e iv e d e i t h e r a lo an o r a f e llo w s h ip . 19. What professional a c tiv itie s are alumni Involved 1n7 Alumni Involvem ent 1n p r o fe s s io n a l a c t i v i t i e s I n d ic a te d t h e i r l e a d e r s h ip a c t i v i t i e s . d i f f i c u l t t o d e f in e . However# t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s w ere m u l t i f a c e t e d and For t h e p u rp o ses o f t h i s survey# p ro fe s s io n a l a c t i v i t i e s w ere l i m i t e d t o membership In o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith e i t h e r 57 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r h ig h e r e d u c a tio n foci* o f f i c e s h e ld 1n t h e s e o rg a n i­ z a tio n s * papers presented* and p u b l i c a t i o n s . The r e s e a r c h e r ex p ected t h a t l e a d e r s 1n a p r o f e s s io n would d e m o n stra te high v i s i b i l i t y In o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t deal w ith I s s u e s e x p l i c i t t o t h e p r o fe s s io n . Therefore* g r a d u a te s o f t h e C olleg e and U n iv e r s ity A d m in is tr a tio n program would be ex p ected t o belong t o p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a fo cu s In e i t h e r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r h ig h e r e d u c a tio n . Respondents w ere r e q u e s te d t o I n d i c a t e w hether th ey belonged t o such o r g a n i z a ti o n s and t h e number o f o r g a n i z a t io n s a t each le v e l t o which th ey belonged* d e s ig n a tin g d u es-p ay ln g o r a c t i v e membership. Such a d i s t i n c t i o n was made because a c t i v e membership was th o u g h t t o be a b e t t e r I n d i c a t i o n o f l e a d e r s h i p th a n J u s t a d ues-p ay ln g membership. When asked w hether th ey were members o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a fo cu s 1n a d m i n is t r a t i o n * 76 m ales (61.7% o f 123 m ales responding) and 20 fem ales (55.6%) o f 36 fem ales responding) answered y es. No d i f f e r ­ e n ces r e l a t e d t o gender w ere found ( c h i - s q u a r e = .229* d f = 1* p > .05). The re sp o n s e s became more complex when r e s p o n d e n ts w ere asked t h e number of a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r g a n i z a t io n s t o which th ey belonged a t each l e v e l . Some I n d i v i d u a l s who I n d ic a te d t h a t th e y belonged t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n iz a ti o n s d id n o t g iv e t h e number a t each l e v e l . N in ety -tw o g r a d u a te s i n d ic a t e d h aving d u e s -p a y ln g -o n ly memberships In 111 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o rg a n iz a tio n s * an average o f 1.21 d u es-p ay ln g mem­ b e r s h ip s p er resp o n d en t. F i f t y m ales h eld 97 d u es-p ay ln g m emberships and n in e fe m a le s h e ld 14 d u es-p ay ln g memberships* w ith no gender SB dl f f e r e n c e s f o u n d ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 3.36* d f = 1* p > .0 5 ) . One h u n d re d sev en teen I n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d 157 o r g a n iz a tio n s * an averag e o f 1.34 a c t i v e m emberships p er re sp o n d e n t (Table 3.26). F i f t y - t h r e e m ales h e ld 129 a c t i v e m em berships and 15 fe m a le s h e ld 28 a c t i v e memberships* w ith no g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s ( c h i - s q u a r e = .102* d f = 1* p > .0 5 ). T able 3 . 2 6 . --M embership 1n p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e fo c u s. F req u en cies Dues Paying Only Level Male Female Total * of 165 1 1 10 3 1 Local 1 2 3 9 2 D 1 strlct 1 2 10 1 2 3 4 17 2 1 3 1 *4 ** 1 2 3 4 27 5 1 1 4 1 2 3 5 1 1 S tate N atio nal In te r­ na t1 onal O ther A c tiv e - - - — - Femal e Total 6.1 1 .8 11 3 1 2 1 13 4 1 8 .0 2 .5 .6 10 1 6.1 .6 7 1 2 1 9 2 5 .5 1.2 20 3 1 12.3 1.8 .6 19 6 4 1 8 2 27 8 4 1 16.6 4 .9 2 .5 .6 31 5 1 1 19.0 3 .1 .6 .6 22 9 - 6 1 28 10 17.1 6.1 5 3.1 — " 7 1 1 - 7 1 1 4 .3 .6 .6 .6 1 - 1 .6 - M - % of Male 1 ** - - 165 — * 59 A s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n o c c u rre d r e g a rd in g o r g a n i z a t i o n s focu sed on h ig h e r e d u c a tio n . E1ghty-n1ne m ales (71.2% o f 125 m ales) and 25 fe m a le s (65.8% o f 38 fe m a le s) responded t h a t th e y belonged t o h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o r g a n i z a t io n s . A c h 1 -sq u a re t e s t I n d ic a te d no gender d i f f e r e n c e s ( c h i - s q u a r e = .189* df = 1* p > .05). One hundred tw e n ty - f o u r I n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d h aving d u e s -p a y ln g -o n ly m emberships In 175 o r g a n iz a tio n s * an av erag e o f 1.41 memberships p er respo n dent. S ix t y - o ne m ales I n d ic a te d 135 d u es-p ay ln g mem berships and 18 fe m a le s I n d ic a t e d 43 d u es-p ay ln g mem berships. A ch 1 -s q u a re t e s t i n d i c a t e d no g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e s ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = .024# d f - 1# p > .0 5 ). The 154 I n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t i n g 198 a c t i v e m emberships 1n o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a h ig h e r e d u c a tio n fo cu s had an average o f 1.29 m em berships each (Table 3.27). S i x t y - f o u r m ales I n d ic a t e d 161 a c t i v e m emberships and fem ales I n d ic a te d 37 a c t i v e m em berships w ith no gender d i f f e r e n c e s found u sin g a c h 1 -s q u a re t e s t ( c h i - s q u a r e = .964* d f = 1# p > . 0 5 ) . I t would seem l o g i c a l t o assume t h a t h o ld in g an o f f i c e 1n a p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t io n would r e q u i r e q u a l i t i e s reco g n ized by o r g a n i­ z a t i o n members as l e a d e r s h i p a b i l i t i e s . I n t e r e s t was: The r e s e a r c h q u e s tio n of Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between m a le s and fe m a le s 1n te rm s o f th e number o f o f f i c e s h e ld 1n h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o rg an izatio n s? The r e s e a r c h e r s p e c u la te d t h a t t h e re sp o n s e s I n d ic a te d c u m u la tiv e numbers o f o f f i c e s and n o t only c u r r e n t o f f i c e s . When exam ining T a b le 3.28* I t m u st be remembered t h a t an I n d iv id u a l may have h e ld o f f i c e s a t more th a n one l e v e l . There w ere 83 r e s p o n s e s I n d i c a t ­ in g 160 o f f i c e s w ere h e ld In o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h a t focu sed on h ig h e r 60 T able 3 . 2 7 . — Membership 1n p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a focus on h i g h e r e d u c a tio n . F req u en cies Level Dues Paying Only A ctive % of % of Malei Female Local D is tric t S ta te N a tio n a l Total 165 6 20 1 1 1 12.3 .6 .6 .6 9 2 5 .5 1.2 41 7 2 2 5 .2 4.3 1.2 39 13 1 1 1 2 3 .9 8 .0 .6 .6 .6 - - - 1 1 6 2 3 .7 1.2 7 2 2 24 3 1 7 1 31 4 1 19.0 2 .5 .6 32 6 2 9 1 28 10 2 1 38 l4 2 2 1 1 23.3 8 .6 1.2 1.2 .6 .6 29 12 1 1 10 1 - 1 - 10 1 b 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 11 1 2 Femal e 14 1 1 1 1 2 O th er Mai e 9 .2 .6 — .6 11 1 2 165 15 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 In te r­ n a l onal 4 1 1 Total - 1 1 \2 1 2 «• - - - 1 1 - 5 - 5 3.1 ** - - - - - - ----- - 2 1 - - - - 1 - - 11 1 6 .7 .6 2 1 1 .2 .6 61 T a b le 3 . 2 8 . — Number o f o f f i c e s h e ld In p r o fe s s io n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . O rg a n iz a tio n a l Focus Level No. of O f f ic e s Higher Education Total Male 7 4 3 - 6 3 2 1 1 8 - - - - 1 — 1 2 3 4 8 12 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 7 10 1 2 4 1 Male Local D is tric t S tate Natl onal In te r­ n a tio n a l O ther 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 4 8 6 1 - 1 1 Female A d m in istra tio n 2 2 Female 1 1 - Toti 8 5 3 - - - - - - 1 - - 4 2 1 - 5 2 1 1 — — — 4 3 1 1 1 16 12 6 1 1 4 16 - 6 1 2 2 3 - - - 11 3 1 2 1 4 4 2 12 2 3 1 1 - 14 3 3 1 1 - 1 15 7 3 2 1 1 - - - - - — 1 - 1 1 1 - — 1 4 1 1 - — 1 1 1 - 4 1 1 1 _ 1 — - — - 8 - - - - 6 5 1 1 2 1 - 62 e d u c a tio n (a v e ra g e = 1.93 o f f i c e s , ran g e = 1 -8 ). C o n s id e rin g g en d er, 34 m ales h e ld 100 o f f i c e s (a v e ra g e = 3.4 o f f i c e s , ra n g e = 1-8) and 12 fe m a le s h e ld 64 o f f i c e s (av erag e = 5.33 o f f i c e s , ran g e ■ 1 -7). E ig h ty r e s p o n s e s I n d i c a t i n g 144 o f f i c e s were h e ld 1n o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e fo c u s (av erag e = 1.8 o f f i c e s , ran g e = 1-10). In t e r m s o f g e n d e r, 36 m ales r e p o r t e d h o ld in g 121 o f f i c e s (a v e ra g e = 3.36 o f f i c e s , ran ge = 1 -1 4 ), w hereas 8 f e m a le s r e p o r te d h o ld in g 23 such o f f i c e s (a v e ra g e = 2.88 o f f i c e s , ran g e = 1-15). Fem ales who h e ld o f f i c e s h e ld a h ig h e r av e ra g e o f o f f i c e s t h a n m ales who h e ld o f f i c e s 1n both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l ty p e s . Looking a t t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f o f f i c e s h e ld a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f both t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s , t h e o n ly s i g n i f i ­ c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was found In t h e number o f m a le s a s compared t o fe m a le s who h e ld any o f f i c e a t t h e h i g h e r e d u c a tio n n a t i o n a l l e v e l . Eleven o f 37 f e m a le s (29.755) r e p o r t e d h o ld in g one o r more n a t i o n a l h ig h e r educa­ tio n o f fic e , w h ile only 18 o f 124 m ales (14.5%) r e p o r t e d h o ld in g any n a t i o n a l h ig h e r e d u c a tio n o f f i c e . Using a tw o by tw o c h i - s q u a r e t e s t (gender by yes o r no f o r any o f f i c e s h e l d ) , t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t g e n d e r d i f f e r e n c e ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 4 .4 7 , d f = 1, p < .0 5 ). No o t h e r a p p a r e n t t r e n d s w ere d e t e c t e d 1n t h e number o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o f f i c e s h e ld a t v a r i o u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n l e v e l s , nor w ere f u r t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s e s u n d ertak en b ecau se o f t h e s m a ll number p r e s e n t In each c e l l . E igh ty p e o p le r e p o r t e d h o ld in g 144 o f f i c e s 1n o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e fo c u s (a v e ra g e = 1.80 o f f i c e s , ran g e = 1-10). In t e r m s o f g e n d e r, 67 m ales r e p o r te d h o ld in g 118 o f f i c e s (a v e ra g e = 1.76 o f f i c e s , ran g e = 1-10), w hereas 13 fe m a le s r e p o r t e d h o ld in g 26 such 63 o f f i c e s (average » 2.0 o f fic e s * range = 1-5). No a p p a re n t t r e n d s w ere d e te c te d 1n t h e numbers o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l o f f i c e s h e ld a t v a r io u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n le v e ls* nor w ere f u r t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s e s un dertaken because o f t h e sm all number p r e s e n t 1n each c e l l . Respondents w ere asked t o r e p o r t t h e number o f p ap ers th ey had p re s e n te d t o p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n i z a t io n s a s an I n d i c a t i o n o f t h e e x t e n t o f t h e i r Involvem ent 1n p r o f e s s io n a l I s s u e s (Table 3.29). One hundred f o r t y - s e v e n re sp o n d e n ts had p r e s e n te d 538 papers t o o r g a n iz a t i o n s w ith a focu s 1n h ig h e r e d u c a tio n (average = 3.66 papers* range = 1-50). One hundred t h r e e m ales had p re se n te d 391 papers (av erag e = 3.9 papers* range = 1-50)* and 44 fe m a le s had p r e s e n te d 147 p a p e rs (average = 3.34 papers* rang e = 1-15). Ninety re sp o n d e n ts had p re se n te d 364 pap ers t o o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e fo cu s (average = 4.04* range 1- 62). Male re sp o n d e n ts averaged 3.5 pap ers (71 m ales had p re se n te d 306 papers* range = 1-62)* whereas fe m a le s averaged 3.1 p ap ers p r e ­ s e n te d t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s (19 fe m a le s had p re s e n te d 58 papers* range = 1-11). P u b l i c a t i o n s were t h e n e x t c o n s id e re d p r o f e s s io n a l a c t i v i t y . Respondents were asked t o I n d i c a t e how many books* monographs* a r t i ­ cles* and o t h e r ty p e s o f p u b l i c a t i o n s th e y had com pleted. o f I n t e r e s t was: The q u e s tio n Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and fe m a le s In te rm s o f t h e nunbers and t y p e s o f a r t i c l e s p u b lish e d ? 64 Table 3 . 2 9 . — Number of papers p re s e n te d a t p r o f e s s io n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Frequency Level No. o f Papers H igher Education Male Female Adhi1n1 s t r a t l o n Total Male Female Tot; 1 2 3 5 7 10 11 IS 20 50 62 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 — 2 2 1 1 — 6 5 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 - 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - D istric t 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 2 2 2 - 3 1 2 - 7 3 2 2 2 - 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 - 2 4 1 1 2 1 S tate 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 9 10 5 5 1 3 2 1 3 b 1 1 2 — 13 lO 6 2 3 2 2 1 5 3 6 5 1 1 - 3 2 1 — 8 b 6 5 2 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 14 15 18 10 14 3 2 4 1 3 1 1 6 2 1 3 - 16 (6 4 5 4 1 3 2 1 1 6 7 3 3 1 2 2 1 1 - 8 8 3 3 1 1 2 - mm - 1 1 - Local N atio nal - mm - 1 1 - - 3 5 1 2 1 2 mm - 1 1 1 65 T able 3 . 2 9 . — C ontinued. Frequency No. o f P ap ers Level Higher Education Mai e In te r­ n a tio n a l O ther 1 2 3 4 8 10 1 3 Total 5 1 1 A d m in is tra tio n Female Total Male _ 5 2 l 2 3 1 1 1 - Female Total 2 3 1 1 - - - - - 1 - 1 - - - - 1 - 1 4 1 1 _ 1 - - - - 2 1 103 2 - 44 147 71 - 90 19 The f i r s t ty p e o f p u b l i c a t i o n c o n s id e re d was books (Table 330). F i f t e e n re sp o n d e n ts had p u b lis h e d a t o t a l o f 23 books. Six fem ales o r 16% o f t h e fem ale g r a d u a te s had p u b lish e d 10 books (433% of 23 t o t a l books)* f o r an averag e o f 1.67 books p e r fem ale a u th o r. Nine m ale re sp o n d e n ts o r 7% o f t h e m ale g r a d u a te s had p u b lis h e d 13 books (56.5% o f 23 t o t a l books)* an average o f 1.44 books p er m ale au th o r. A c h 1 - s q u a r e t e s t I n d ic a t e d t h a t t h e gender d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s i g n i f i ­ c a n t ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 2 .4 8 , d f = 1* p > .0 5 ). Twenty re sp o n d e n ts I n d ic a t e d th e y had p u b lis h e d 139 monographs, an average o f 6.95 p er re sp o n d e n t (Table 3 3 1 ) . S ix te e n m ales had p u b lish e d 134 monographs (av erag e = 0 3 8 , range ■= 1-99); to u r fe m a le s had p u b lish e d f i v e monographs (av erage = 1 3 5 , ran g e = 1-2). Removing 66 t h e one m ale re sp o n d e n t who r e p o r t e d 99+ a r t i c l e s from t h e sample* t h e av erag e f o r m ales became 2 3 3 monographs published* w ith 15 m ales p u b lis h in g 35 monographs. T able 3 . 3 0 . — Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : books. Number o f Books Gender Male Female T otal T able 3 . 3 1 . --Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : 1 2 3 4 6 4 2 1 I - . 1 10 3 1 1 monographs. Ntmiber o f Monographs Gender Male Female Total 1 2 3 5 99 7 3 2 1 3 3 - - 1 - 10 3 3 3 1 P u b lish e d a r t i c l e s w ere c o n s id e re d under two c a te g o r ie s * J u r i e d and n o n ju rie d . J u r i e d a r t i c l e s a r e review ed by a panel of I n f l u e n t i a l c o lle a g u e s b e f o r e being cho sen f o r p u b lic a tio n * th u s c a r r y i n g g r e a t e r p r e s t i g e th an n o n ju rie d a r t i c l e s . T h ir ty - o n e alumni had p u b lis h e d 157 J u r i e d a r t i c l e s (av erage = 5.06 a r t i c l e s * range = 1-50) (Table 3 3 2 ) . 67 N ineteen m ale re sp o n d e n ts had p u b lish e d 130 j u r i e d a r t i c l e s (average = 6.84 a r t i c l e s * ran ge = 1-50). Twelve fem ale re sp o n d e n ts had p u b lish e d 27 such a r t i c l e s (average = 2.25 a r t i c l e s * range = 105). Removing t h e m ale re sp o n d e n t who had p u b lish e d 50 J u r i e d a r t i c l e s * t h e male average dropped t o 4.44 a r t i c l e s ; t h e combined average th e n became 2.67 f o r 30 alumni who had p u b lis h e d 80 j u r i e d a r t i c l e s . T able 3 . 3 2 . — Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : ju rie d a r tic le s . Number o f A r t i c l e s Gender Male Female T otal 1 2 3 6 5 3 4 3 - 11 7 3 4 5 I 1 6 - 1 2 9 2 10 20 50 J 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 F o r t y - f i v e alumni had p u b lis h e d a t o t a l of 141 n o n ju rie d a r t i c l e s (av erag e = 3.13 a r t i c l e s * range = 1-12) (T able 3.33). T h irty - t h r e e m ales had p u b lis h e d 110 a r t i c l e s (average = 3.33* range = 1-12)* and 12 fe m a le s had p u b lish e d 31 a r t i c l e s (av erag e = 2.58* ran ge = 1- 10). F i f t y - o n e alumni r e p o rte d having 304 o th e r p u b l i c a t i o n s (average = 5* ra n g e = 1-51) (Table 3.34). F o rty -se v e n m ale re sp o n d e n ts r e p o r te d 237 v a r io u s o th e r p u b l i c a t i o n s (average *= 6.04 p u b lic a tio n s * rang e = 1-51). F o urteen fe m a le s r e p o r te d having 67 v a r ie d p u b l i c a t i o n s (average = 4.79 p u b lic a tio n s * range = 1-33). These e f f o r t s In clu d ed 68 s e l f - h e l p b o o k lets* new spaper a r t i c l e s * I n s t i t u t i o n a l and governm ental r e p o r ts * and e n c y c lo p e d ia a r t i c l e s . Appendix C# pp. 171-73, l i s t s th e s e t y p e s o f p u b l i c a t i o n s by y e a r o f g r a d u a t i o n . T a b le 3 . 3 3 . — Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : n o n ju ried a r t i c l e s . Number o f A r t i c l e s Gender Hale Female T o ta l 1 2 10 S 5 15 13 3 8 4 4 5 5 - - I - 4 7 1 S T able 3 . 3 4 . — Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : 6 10 1 12 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 33 51 - 1 11 o th er. Number o f O ther P u b l i c a t i o n s Gender Male Female To tal 1 2 3 4 5 6 15 7 9 2 3 1 6 4 3 22 11 4 - 2 6 6 8 1 - 3 1 9 1 1 10 15 30 1 - 1 - 3 1 1 2 1 - 1 1 1 The l a s t ty p e o f p u b l i c a t i o n c o n s id e r e d was s i n g l e - and c o -a u th o re d g r a n t s . G ra n t w r i t i n g 1s I n v a l u a b le 1n o b t a i n i n g fu n d in g f o r program s and r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s . In t h i s study* o n ly funded g r a n t s were c o n s id e re d a s s u c c e s s f u l w r i t i n g a tte m p ts * In t h e same way t h a t 1 69 only p u b lish e d books and a r t i c l e s w ere c o n s id e re d . As a s i n g l e author# 60 alumni had w r i t t e n 295 funded g r a n t s (av erag e = 4.12# rang e = 1-35) (T able 3 3 5 ) . F i f t y male alumni had w r i t t e n 257 g r a n t s (average = 5.14 g ran ts# ran ge = 1-10)# and 10 fe m a le s had w r i t t e n 38 g r a n t s (av erag e = 3.8# r a n g e = 1 - 1 2 ) . T a b le 3 . 3 5 . --Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : funded g r a n t s . Number o f Funded G ran ts Gender 1 Male Female 2 12 12 4 2 T otal 16 14 3 4 5 - 2 1 5 5 5 - 3 5 6 2 1 3 7 8 10 12 20 26 35 2 3 1 3 - 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 2 1 1 1 - C o-authored g r a n t s w ere c o n s id e re d s e p a r a t e l y . F or1y-s1x alumni had c o -a u th o re d 177 funded g r a n t s (average = 4,85# range = 1-25) (T able 3 3 6 ) . Of t h a t number# 37 m ales had c o -a u th o re d 155 g r a n t s (av erag e = 5.19 g ran ts# ra n g e = 1-25)# and 9 fe m a le s had co -a u th o re d 22 g r a n t s ( a v e r a g e » 2.44# r a n g e = 1 - 1 0 ) . In r e v ie w in g p u b l i c a t i o n s by gender# women p u b lis h e d few er e f f o r t s th a n men# w ith t h e e x c e p tio n o f books. Removing e x trem e cases# t h e com parisons shown 1n T a b le 3 3 7 were made t o d e m o n stra te th a t# 1n t e r m s o f mean number o f p u b lic a tio n s # m ales who p u b lish e d did so 1n g r e a t e r numbers th a n d id fem ales who p u b lis h e d . 70 T able 3 . 3 6 . — Alumni p u b l i c a t i o n s : c o -a u th o re d funded g r a n t s . Number of Funded1 G ran ts Gender Male Female T otal 1 2 3 4 5 11 6 6 1 6 4 1 2 - - 17 7 8 5 2 1 7 8 10 12 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - 1 2 1 1 1 20 1 25 1 i T able 3 . 3 7 . — Comparison o f mean number o f pub! I c a t l o n s , by g en der. Books Monographs Ju ried a r t i c l e s N onjuried a r t i c l e s Other ty p e s S in g le -a u th o r e d g r a n t s C o-authored g r a n t s Males Females 1.44 2.33 4 .4 4 3.33 6 .0 4 5 .1 4 5 .1 9 1.67 1.25 2 .2 5 2 .5 8 4 .7 9 3 .8 0 2 .4 4 CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA: EVALUATION OF PROGRAM COMPONENTS Study p a r t ic ip a n ts * re sp o n s e s t o q u e s ti o n s ab ou t s p e c i f i c com­ po nents o f t h e h ig h e r e d u c a tio n program a r e d is c u s s e d 1n C hap ter IV. As In C hapter I I I / t h e d i s c u s s io n I s o rg a n iz e d by q u e s ti o n ; t h e sam ple s i z e f o r each q u e s tio n var1es> depending on t h e number o f re s p o n s e s t o t h a t Item. All p e rc e n ta g e s p ro vid ed a r e v a l i d p e r c e n ta g e s / based on t h e number o f a c tu a l re sp o n s e s t o each q u e s tio n . T ab les n o t p r e s e n te d 1n t h i s c h a p te r may be found 1n Appendix B u n le s s t h e r e a d e r 1s d i r e c t e d else w h e re . The f i r s t fo u r q u e s t i o n s focused on t h e r e s p o n d e n ts ' percep ­ t i o n s o f t h e i r I n t e r a c t i o n s w ith d ep artm en tal r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o r o t h e r u n i v e r s i t y d e p a rtm e n ts d u rin g t h e a d m iss io n p erio d . 1. Here the In itia l responses to Inquiries for admission to the program prompt? The m a j o r i t y of re sp o n d e n ts (93.0%) s a i d th e y had r e c e iv e d prompt re sp o n s e s t o t h e i r I n q u i r i e s ; 92.5% o f t h e 120 m ales and 94.4% o f t h e 36 fe m a le s I n d ic a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e resp o n se t i m e (Table 4.1). There were no g e n d e r - r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s In te r m s o f s a t i s f a c ­ t i o n ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 0 .1 6 / d f = 1» p > .0 5 ) . T h o se who i n d i c a t e d a l e s s - th a n -p ro m p t re sp o n s e (11 I n d i v i d u a l s o r 7.0%) w ere asked t o s p e c i f y th e 71 72 reason f o r t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . More th an 11 re sp o n s e s were re c e iv e d because some I n d i v i d u a l s who I n d ic a te d a prompt re sp o n se a l s o provided a w r i t t e n comment. N eg ativ e comments focused on delays* l o s t forms* poor com m unication w ith co m m ittee members who to o k 1 t upon th e m se lv e s t o make d e c i s io n s f o r t h e re sp o n d e n t w ith o u t r e q u e s tin g more Inform a­ tio n* and I n a c c u r a te /o u t d a t e d d a ta given t o t h e resp on dent. m ents may be found 1n Appendix C, pp. All com­ 173-75 * o rg a n iz e d by y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n . T ab le 4 . 1 . --R e s p o n d e n ts ' p e r c e p tio n s r e g a rd in g w hether t h e i r adm ission In q u ir y had r e c e iv e d a prompt re s p o n s e . Frequency Prompt Response Male Female Unknown Combined Combined V alid 8 Yes No No answer 111 9 5 34 2 2 2 - 147 11 7 93.0 7 .0 m issin g 125 38 2 165 100.0 Total Val1d c a s e s = 158 2. - M issing c a s e s = 7 Did t h e I n i t i a l re sp o n s e t o y o u r I n q u iry answer q u e s ti o n s and e x p l a i n t h e program w ith in reaso n? Again* t h e m a j o r i t y o f th o s e resp o n d in g t o t h e su rv ey 1151 I n d iv i d u a l s o r 94.48) I n d ic a te d t h a t th ey had re c e iv e d t h e in fo r m a tio n th e y were se e k in g o r t h a t was needed t o e x p l a i n t h e program (Table 4.2). One hundred tw e l v e o f 120 m ales (93 38 ) and 37 o f 38 fe m a le s (97.48) I n d ic a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n * w ith no d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o gender 73 ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 0.875* d f = 1* p > .0 5 ) . N in e I n d i v i d u a l s (5.6%) I n d i ­ c a t e d d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ( e i g h t m a le s and one fem ale). When t h e s e n in e r e s p o n d e n ts w ere asked t o I n d i c a t e t h e n a t u r e o f t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n * an sw ers fo cu sed on t h e i r own la c k of knowledge r e g a r d in g program options* which th e n h in d e re d t h e i r a b i l i t y t o make choices# o r p rob lem s w ith vague com m unication. The re s p o n s e s a r e c i t e d 1n Appendix C> pp. 175-76. T a b le 4 . 2 . — R e sp o n d e n ts' p e r c e p t i o n s r e g a r d i n g w h ether t h e i r I n i t i a l i n q u i r y had p ro v id e d t h e needed answ ers. Frequency Response Yes No No answer T o ta l Male Female Unknown 112 8 5 37 1 2 — 125 38 V alid c a s e s » 160 3. Combined Combined V a lid % — 151 9 5 94.4 5 .6 m lss ln g 2 165 100.0 — H is s in g c a s e s = 5 Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between m ales and fe m a le s In te rm s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e ad m issio n I n te r v ie w ? Of 140 g r a d u a t e s (89.5%) who I n d i c a t e d th e y had had an I n t e r ­ view w ith a f a c u l t y member (T able 4.3)# 130 resp on ded t o t h e q u e s ti o n r e g a r d in g I n te r v ie w s a t i s f a c t i o n ; o f t h a t number# 123 (94.6%) I n d ic a t e d s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith t h e i n t e r v i e w (T able 4.4). By gender# 109 of t h e 123 m ales (88.6%) and 30 o f t h e 36 fe m a le s (78.9%) re sp o n d in g I n d ic a t e d 74 th ey had had an I n te rv ie w . There w ere no gender d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o co m p letin g an I n te r v ie w (ch 1 -sq u a re = 2.3# d f = 1# p > .05). In te r m s o f I n te rv ie w s a t i s f a c t i o n # 96 o f t h e 102 m ales (94.15) and 26 o f t h e 27 fem ales (9 6 3 5 ) responded p o s it i v e l y # w ith no d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o g e n d e r ( c h i - s q u a r e = 0,197# d f = 1# p > .0 5 ). T able 4 . 3 .--C o m p letio n o f f a c u l t y I n te rv ie w . Frequency Response Yes No No answer Total Female Unknown 109 14 2 30 8 — 1 1 - 140 23 — 85.9 14.1 m issin g 125 38 2 165 100.0 ValId c a s e s = 163 Combined Combined V alid 5 Male M issing c a s e s = 2 Table 4 . 4 . - -Number o f re sp o n d e n ts who e x p re sse d s a t i s f a c t i o n w ith f a c u l t y I n te rv ie w . Frequency S at1 sfled ? Yes No No answer Total Male Female Unknown 96 6 23 26 1 11 - 125 38 V alid c a s e s = 130 Combined Combined Valid % 1 123 7 35 9 4.6 5 .4 m issin g 2 165 100.0 1 M issing c a s e s = 35 75 The seven I n d iv i d u a l s who gave n e g a tiv e re sp o n s e s w ere asked t o Id e n tify th e n atu re of t h e i r d is s a tis f a c tio n . The o v e r a ll re sp o n se s v a r ie d from t h e p o s i t i v e p e r c e p tio n t h a t an a d v is o r had given t h e Im p ression t h a t t h e d ep a rtm e n t was r e a l l y I n t e r e s t e d In t h e cand idate* t o n e g a tiv e comments r e g a rd in g vagueness o r p e rc e iv e d p r e s s u r e t o f o r c e c e r t a i n m ajor l i f e c h o ic e s . These comments may be found 1n Appendix C# pp. 176“78. 4. Has the assignment of a temporary advisor helpful? Of t h e 141 I n d iv i d u a l s who I n d ic a te d w hether th e y c o n s id e re d t h e i r tem porary a d v i s o r h e lp fu l# 100 (69%) responded p o s i t i v e l y (Table 4.5). Those who responded n e g a tiv e ly were asked t o I n d i c a t e t h e n a tu r e o f t h e i r d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n (se e Appendix C# pp. 178-80. These responses focused on f o r g e t t i n g t h e assig n m en t o f a tem po rary advisor# t h e mech­ anism o f beginning 1n o th e r u n i v e r s i t y d e p a rtm e n ts and th en being a ssig n e d a perm anent a d v is o r 1n t h e Higher E ducation departm ent# m1sadvlsement# a d v i s o r 's la c k o f I n t e r e s t In stu dent# a d v is o r being to o busy# a d v i s o r n o t e x p la in in g a v a i l a b l e program op tio ns# and t h e g en eral f e e l i n g o f being l e f t t o one's own r e s o u r c e s . Some alumni m entioned t h e p o l i t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y o f changing o n e's a d v is o r a f t e r t h e I n i t i a l assig n m e n t o f a tem p o rary a d v is o r . Some g r a d u a te s a l s o made p o s i t i v e comments on t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r a d v is o r ; t h e a b i l i t y o f s t u d e n t s t o use s e v e r a l f a c u l t y members t o guide t h e i r p r o g re s s ; t h e f e e l i n g o f l o s s when a p r o f e s s o r th ey had enjoyed working w ith died# l e f t t h e 76 u n iv e r s ity # o r went on s a b b a t i c a l ; and t h e need th e y f e l t t o move on t o t h e i r perm anent a d v is o r. Because o v e r a l l re sp o n s e s re g a rd in g t h e h e l p f u ln e s s o f t h e tem p o rary a d v i s o r were p o s itiv e # 1 t m igh t be assumed t h a t t h e tem porary a d v i s o r had become t h e perm anent a d v is o r . In fa c t# 96 o f 141 I n d i v i d u a l s (68.1&) d id I n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r tem po rary a d v i s o r had become t h e i r perm anent a d v is o r . In a d d itio n # I t m ig h t be expected t h a t t h e 96 I n d i v i d u a l s who I n d ic a t e d t h a t t h e i r tem p o rary a d v i s o r had become t h e i r perm anent a d v is o r would a l s o I n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r perm anent a d v is o r had s a t on t h e i r co m m ittee. J u s t one I n d iv id u a l (l.OJ?) I n d i­ c a te d t h a t t h e perm anent a d v is o r had n o t been on t h e com m ittee. Of t h e 45 alum ni who i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r tem po rary a d v is o r had not become t h e i r perm anent advisor# s i x (13.3%) s a id t h a t t h e tem p orary a d v is o r had become a co m m ittee member (Table 4.5). T able 4 . 5 . — In fo rm a tio n re g a rd in g t h e tem porary a d v i s o r . Became Permanent Advisor Was H elpful Response N Yes No No answer V a lid % N V a lid % 100 45 20 6 9 .0 3 1.0 m issin g 96 45 24 68.1 3 1 .9 m issin g T o tal 165 100.0 165 100.0 V a lid c a s e s 141 141 S a t on Committee N 95 1 64 165 96 V alid % On Committee Not as C hair N V a lid % 99.0 1 .0 m issing 6 39 120 13.8 86.2 m issing 100.0 165 100.0 45 77 The n ex t a r e a of I n t e r e s t concerned t h e amount o f g r a d u a te c r e d i t t h e alumni had earn ed a t o th e r u n i v e r s i t i e s o r a t e x te n s io n s ite s . 5. Was graduate cred it toward the doctoral degree earned a t In stitu tions other than Michigan State University? Of t h e 165 g r a d u a te s who responded t o t h i s q uestion * 47 (28.5%) had earned g r a d u a te c r e d i t s a t I n s t i t u t i o n s o f h ig h e r l e a r n i n g o t h e r th a n M ichigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity (Table 4.6). T able 4 . 6 . — Number o f re sp o n d e n ts who had earn ed c r e d i t tow ard degree a t o th er I n s titu tio n s . Response V alid % N Yes No T o ta l V alid c a s e s = 165 47 118 28.5 71.5 165 100.0 M issing c a s e s = 0 When asked t o e s t i m a t e t h e number o f q u a r t e r c r e d i t s earned a t o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s * 44 i n d i v i d u a l s i n d i c a t e d a ran ge from 3 t o 250 c r e d i t s (T able B-14). T his q u e s ti o n was In te n d ed t o e l i c i t an e s t i m a t e o f t h e number of c r e d i t s e a rn ed and was p la c e d Im m ed iately a f t e r th e q u e s ti o n co n cern in g w here t h e c r e d i t s had been earned* y e t 1 t appeared t h a t some alumni became confused and r e p o r t e d c r e d i t s e a rn ed f o r o t h e r d eg rees o r perhaps d u rin g t h e i r t o t a l program. The r e s e a r c h e r made 78 t h i s s p e c u l a t io n because only a l i m i t e d number o f t r a n s f e r c r e d i t s may be a p p lie d t o any g r a d u a te program# and I f one earn ed 12 g r a d u a te c r e d i t s p e r term 1 t would t a k e 8.3 te r m s t o co m p lete 100 q u a r t e r c r e d i t s o r 20.8 te rm s t o co m p lete 250 c r e d i t s . Therefore# t h e extrem e re sp o n s e s giv en f o r t h i s q u e s tio n were u nreaso nable. A m ajo rity of re sp o n d e n ts (71.5%) had earned no c r e d i t s elsew here# and f o r t h e 44 alumni who d id I n d i c a t e they had earn ed c r e d i t s a t o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s # t h e median number o f u n i t s earn ed was 12. F o r t y - f i v e g r a d u a te s l i s t e d 26 d i f f e r e n t u n i v e r s i t i e s a t which th ey had earn ed c r e d i ts # which means t h a t some I n d i v i d u a l s had s t u d i e d a t more th an one u n i v e r s i t y (T able 4.7). Twenty resp o n d en ts (40.8%) (40.8%) had earn ed c r e d i t to w ard t h e i r g r a d u a te deg ree a t c o l l e g e s and u n i v e r s i t i e s w ith in Michigan— 11 (24.4%) a t The U n iv e r s ity o f Michigan# 4 (8.9%) a t C en tral Michigan U n iv e rsity # 3 (6.7%) a t Wayne S t a t e U n iv ersity # 1 (2.2%) a t Andrews U n iv ersity # and 1 (2.2%) a t E a ste rn (assumed t o be E a stern Michigan U n i v e r s i t y ) . 6. Were g r a d u a te c r e d i t s e a rn ed a t MSU e x te n s io n c e n t e r s ? Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity has e s t a b l i s h e d s e v e ra l e x te n s io n c e n t e r s away from t h e main campus t o f a c i l i t a t e c o n tin u e d academ ic growth by Michigan r e s i d e n t s . When asked w hether th ey had used M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y e x te n s io n c e n t e r s t o com p lete program req u irem en ts# 32 (19.4%) alumni I n d ic a te d th e y had f u l f i l l e d program r e q u ire m e n ts a t t h e s e c e n t e r s (Table 4.8). T h ir ty -o n e o f t h e s e re sp o n d e n ts prov id ed t h e names o f 13 e x te n s io n c e n t e r s a t which th ey 79 had earned c r e d i t ; t h e Grand Rapids c e n t e r was used m ost o f te n (22.6%). The c e n t e r s a tte n d e d by re sp o n d e n ts a r e l i s t e d 1n T able 4.9. T able 4 . 7 . — U n i v e r s i t i e s where g ra d u a te s had earned d o c to ra l c r e d i t . Un1 v e r s l ty American U n iv e rs ity Andrews Aquinas A tla n ta B all S t a t e Boston U n iv e r s ity C al-P oly Tech CMU Drake U n iv e r s ity Duke U n iv e r s ity E a s te rn Elmira C o lleg e FI o r ld a Iowa S t a t e Kent S t a t e M arquette U n iv e r s ity M is s is s ip p i S t a t e N orthw estern Oklah an a Ph 11 a del phi a P r in c e to n SUNY-A1 bany U n iv e r s ity of Iowa U n 1verslty o f Michigan U n iv e r s ity o f Texas Wayne S t a t e U n iv e r s ity Wharton W orcester T otal aDoes n o t equal 100.0% due t o rounding. N V alid % 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 3 1 1 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 4 .4 2 .2 8 .9 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 4 .4 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 .2 2 4 .4 2 .2 6 .7 2 .2 2 .2 45 9 9 .7 a 80 T a b le 4 . 0 . — Were program req u irem en ts com pleted a t e x te n s io n c e n te r s ? Response Yes No Total N V alid % 32 133 19.4 80.6 165 100.0 T able 4 . 9 . — E x ten sio n c e n t e r s a tte n d e d by resp o n d en ts. Response Birmingham B loom field Camp ZAM F lin t Grand Rapids H ealth Department J ackson Kellogg Lake S u p e rio r S t a t e Macomb County Name unknown Oakland Saginaw T otal 7. N V alid % 1 1 1 4 7 1 4 1 3 1 2 3 2 3 .2 3 .2 3 .2 12.9 2 2 .6 3 .2 12.9 3 .2 9 .7 3 .2 6.5 9 .7 6 .5 31 100.0 Was graduate cred it earned at any Institution since completion of the doctorate degree? In a d d i t i o n t o i n d i c a t i n g t h e number of c r e d i t s earned tow ard t h e d o c to r a l degree a t o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s o r a t Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity e x te n s io n c e n t e r s , t h e r e s p o n d e n ts w ere asked w hether they 81 had done p o s td o c to r a l academ ic work. E ighteen I n d iv i d u a ls Cl 1.1%) r e p o rte d e a rn in g p o s td o c to r a l c r e d i t (Table 4.10). Id e n tify th e In s titu tio n * In stitu tio n s (Table 4.11). When asked t o 14 p eople r e p o r te d e a rn in g c r e d i t a t n in e Although fo u r I n d iv i d u a l s (28.5%) r e p o rte d t a k i n g c o u rs e s a t Michigan S t a t e U n iv ersity # j u s t 14 re sp o n d e n ts named t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s a t which they had done p o s td o c to r a l work. T able 4 . 1 0 . — Number o f re sp o n d e n ts who had earn ed p o s td o c to r a l c r e d i t . Response N V alid % Yes No No re sp o n s e 18 144 3 11.1 88 .9 m issin g Total 165 100.0 Val1d c a s e s = 162 M issing c a s e s = 3 T a b le 4 . 1 1 . — I n s t i t u t i o n s a t which g r a d u a te s had earned p o s td o c to r a l c re d it. Response E a ste rn Washington U n iv e r s ity E a ste rn Michigan U n iv e r s ity J e s u i t S. Lansing Community C o llege Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity P o r tl and U n iv e r s ity o f Michigan Wayne S t a t e U n iv e r s ity Western Michigan U n iv e r s ity Total N V alid % 1 1 1 1 4 1 3 1 1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 2 8 .5 7.1 2 1 .4 7.1 7 .1 14 100.0 82 8. What were the designated cognates or related areas? Of I n t e r e s t were t h e ty p e s o f co g n ate o r s u p p o r t iv e a r e a s o f s tu d y chosen by g ra d u a te s . Sociology was t h e m ost p o p u la r c o g n a te ; 37 I n d i v i d u a l s (22.72) chose t h i s area. B u sin ess drew 19 I n d iv i d u a l s (11.72)* L a b o r / I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t io n s 13 (8.02)* and B u sin e ss Labor R ela1 t l o n s 1 (.62). Combining B u siness and L a b o r / I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s* 33 I n d i v i d u a l s (20.22) were found w ith in t h i s co gn ate a r e a . The Manage­ ment c o re drew t h e n e x t l a r g e s t group o f I n d i v i d u a l s ; 17 (10.42) men­ t io n e d a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r management as t h e i r cog nate ( A d m in is tra tio n : H igher E d u c atio n ; P ersonnel Management; P o l i t i c a l A d m in is tr a tio n ; and Risk and Management). The w r i t e r s p e c u la te d t h a t t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e program a c c o u n ts f o r t h e l a r g e number o f co gn ate o r r e l a t e d a r e a s chosen by g r a d u a te s t o supplem ent t h e i r m ajor. The co g n ate o r r e l a t e d a r e a s r e p o r te d by g r a d u a te s a r e l i s t e d 1n T able 4.12. T ab le 4 . 1 2 . — Cognates o r r e l a t e d a r e a s o f study r e p o rte d by alumni. Cognate o r R e la te d Area Adult/Cont1nu1ng E ducation A d m in is tr a tio n : Higher E ducation A rt E ducatio n A rts P r a c t i c e A th le tic s B io p h y sics B u s in e ss /L a b o r R e la ti o n s B u siness C l i n i c a l Psychology Community C o lleg e Communications Computers Counsel1ng Crim inal J u s t i c e Currlculurn N 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 1 1 8 3 2 4 3 T a b le 4 . 1 2 . — C o n tin u ed . Cognate o r R e la te d Area N Data P ro c e ss in g E d u c atlo n a l Psychology E d u c atio n a l Sociology E d ucation Employee Development Government Higher Education H is to ry H o rtic u ltu re I n d u s tr y Labor and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Law L earning L1ngu1st1cs Management Mass Communications M athematics Medical Research Mixed N u rsing O r g a n iz a tio n a l B ehavior P ersonnel Management Philosophy P o l i t i c a l A d m in is tra tio n P o l i t i c a l S cien ce Psychology P u b l ic H ealth Research Risk and Management S o clal Sc1ence Soclology S p ecial E ducation S t a f f Development Systems Theology Urban S o c ie ty V o cational Education 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 13 1 1 1 13 1 1 4 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 5 1 1 1 4 37 1 1 1 1 1 1 T otal Number o f l i s t e d c o g n a t e s / r e l a t e d a r e a s = 52 T otal number o f re sp o n d e n ts = 163 V alid c a s e s = 163 K is sin g c a s e s - 3 163 84 9. Did any Item sig n ifica n tly Influence choice of HSU as the university to enter? The r e s e a r c h e r was I n t e r e s t e d 1n I d e n t i f y i n g t h e m ajor re a so n s alumni had chosen t o a t t e n d Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity . S everal In v es­ t i g a t o r s who have conducted s t u d i e s o f g r a d u a te programs have I d e n t i ­ f i e d Im p o rta n t f a c t o r s I n f lu e n c in g g r a d u a te s 1 c h o ic e o f a p a r t i c u l a r I n s t i t u t i o n a t which t o pursue a g r a d u a te degree. A 1 1 s t of t h e s e f a c t o r s was com piled f o r use 1n t h e p r e s e n t study# and r e s p o n d e n ts were asked t o r a t e t h e Im p o rtan ce o f each f a c t o r 1n onefs d e c i s io n t o a t t e n d a p a r t i c u l a r g r a d u a te s c h o o l. R atin g o p t i o n s ranged from 4 = o f ex trem e Im portance In making t h e c h o ic e o f i n s t i t u t i o n f o r d o cto ral stu d y t o 1 = o f no Im p ortance In t h e d e c is io n a t a l l . In stitu tio n a l r e p u t a t i o n was t h e s i n g l e f a c t o r r e c e i v i n g t h e h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g (333)# fo llo w e d by d ep artm en tal# c u r r i c u l a r # and f a c u l t y r e p u t a t i o n s (mean r a t i n g s = 3.29# 3.10# and 2.64# r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . an ce was given t h e l o w e s t r a t i n g : 1.74 (Table 4.13). F in a n c ia l a s s i s t ­ T w e n ty -e ig h t o f 162 resp o n d e n ts I n d ic a te d t h e " o th e r " c a te g o ry (mean r a t i n g = 3 . 6 8 ) . Alumni were a l s o asked t o I n d i c a t e t h e one f a c t o r t h a t th e y c o n s id e re d t h e most I m p o r ta n t elem en t 1n t h e i r d e c i s io n s t o a t t e n d Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity . F i f t y - f i v e re sp o n d en ts (33.8®) r a t e d prox­ im ity t o work o r home as t h e s i n g l e m ost Im p o rta n t f a c t o r a f f e c t i n g t h e i r choice# fo llo w e d by d epartm ental# fa c u lty # and I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n ( r a te d most Im p o rta n t by 153®# 123®# and 9.8® o f t h e respondents# r e s p e c t i v e l y ) (Table 4.14). I t I s I n t e r e s t i n g t h a t when asked which o f t h e f a c t o r s sho uld be m ost Im p o rta n t 1n cho osing a 85 g r a d u a te I n s t i t u t i o n , t h e resp o n d e n ts c i t e d I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p u t a t io n ; b u t when asked which f a c t o r had been m ost I m p o r ta n t t o them when ch oo sin g M ichigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity , 3335 I n d ic a te d p ro x im ity t o work o r home. T able 4 . 1 3 . — R ating o f f a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g c h o ic e of a g ra d u a te In stitu tio n . 56 o f Respondents G iving Im portance R ating N Mean S.D. 2.5 3.1 6.3 14.5 161 160 160 159 3 .3 3 3 .2 9 3 .1 0 2.64 .71 .75 .89 .94 14.8 61.3 155 1.74 1.07 16.8 10.3 49.0 155 2.15 1.26 2 3 .7 3 1 .q 24.4 3 9 .5 13.5 11.5 3 8 .5 17.2 156 157 2 .3 3 2.86 1.21 1.05 P ro x im ity 46.3 12.4 4 .9 3 6 .4 162 2 .6 9 1.37 Other f a c t o r s 85.7 3 .6 3 .6 7.1 28 3 .6 8 .86 F a c to r Extreme 4 Some 2 L ittle 3 None 2 44.1 43.1 3 8 .6 18.2 4 7 .2 4 5.6 3 8 .6 4 1 .5 6 .2 8.1 16.3 2 5.8 11.6 12.3 23.9 Advice: Alumnus F r ie n d /c o lle a g u e R e p u ta tio n : In stitu tio n a l Departm ental Facul ty C u rric u la r A ss1 stan ce: F1 n a n d al F e llo w sh ip / a s sls ta n ts h lp . employment When asked t o I n d ic a t e t h e m ost I m p o r ta n t f a c t o r 1n t h e i r d e c i s io n t o a t t e n d M ichigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity (Table 4.14), 11 respond­ e n t s (6.756) I n d ic a te d " o th e r" f a c t o r s . E la b o r a tin g on t h i s re sp o n s e , 86 th ey mentioned such f a c t o r s as a f f o r d a b i l i t y # m ajor 1n c o l l e g e s tu d e n t personnel* f i n a n c i a l o ffe rs # co n ta c ts# a p p l i c a t i o n o f c r e d i t s earned# fa c u lty # n a tio n a l re p u ta tio n # employment# s u p p o rtiv e a t t i t u d e o f fa c u lty # c u rric u lu m t h a t allo w ed p a r t - t i m e study# spouse c o n s id e r a ­ tio n s# f a m i l i a r i t y # E a st Lansing as a p la c e t o liv e# f l e x i b i l i t y 1n program design* and e x te n s io n c l a s s e s 1n a r e a s f a r from t h e main cam­ pus. (See Appendix C# pp. 180-82.) T able 4 . 1 4 . — R espondents' c h o ic e of s i n g l e most Im p o rta n t f a c t o r c o n s id e re d when choosing Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity . F a c to r N P roxim ity of MSU t o heme o r jo b Departm ental r e p u t a t i o n F a c u lty r e p u t a t i o n I n s titu tio n a l re p u ta tio n C olleague o r f r i e n d ' s ad v ice O ther f a c t o r s A ss1 stan tsh 1 p /fello w sh Ip /e m p lo y m en t o f f e r s C u rric u la r a lte r n a tiv e re p u ta tio n MSU alumni advice F in a n c ia l a s s i s t a n c e o f f e r s Total V alid c a s e s = 163 10. Val Id % 55 25 20 16 15 11 7 6 5 3 3 3 .8 15.3 12.3 9 .8 9 .2 6 .7 4 .3 3 .7 3 .1 1.8 163 100.0 M issing c a s e s = 2 Would graduates choose HSU If entering a degree program today? A f te r r a t i n g t h e f a c t o r s th ey th o u g h t should be most Im p o rta n t In choosing an I n s t i t u t i o n f o r d o c to ra l stud y and t h e r e a s o n s they chose Michigan S t a t e U n iv ersity # t h e re sp o n d e n ts w ere asked I f they 87 would a t t e n d M ichigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity 1f choosing a d o c to r a l program to day . Of t h e 157 alumni responding t o t h i s q u estio n* 130 (82.83!) s a id th e y would choose MSU today (Table 4.15). This p e rc e n ta g e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from a chance le v e l o f 503! (z = 8.25* p < .0 1 ) . T a b le 4.15.— Number o f alumni who would choose Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r s ity to d a y . Response N V alid % Yes No No answ er 130 27 8 8 2.8 17.2 m issin g 165 100.0 Total V alid c a s e s - 157 11. M issing c a s e s = 8 What changes would be made In programs 1 f r e s p o n d e n ts were t o e n t e r to d ay ? T h i r t y - n i n e resp o n d e n ts (23.7%) s a i d th e y would n o t change t h e i r program 1f th e y w ere t o r e p e a t 1 t today* w hereas 57 I n d i v i d u a l s (34.53) would add c o u r s e s (Table 4.16). When asked t o s p e c i f y t h e c o u r s e s th ey would add* 55 g r a d u a te s I d e n t i f i e d 24 c o u rs e s or c o u rse work a r e a s . Budgeting (7)» M arketing and Management (7)» and c o u r s e s 1n t h e co g n ate a re a (10) were t h e most common re sp o n s e s (T ab le 4 . 1 7 ) . 8B T a b l e 4 . 1 6 . — C hanges g r a d u a t e s w ou ld make In t h e i r d o c t o r a l Change Major Cognate Add c o u r s e s D e le te c o u r s e s No change N 18 27 24 24 39 program . V alid % 10.9 16.4 3 4.5 14.5 23.7 T a b le 4 . 1 7 . - -C o u rs e s r e s p o n d e n ts would add t o t h e i r program. Course Name Accounting Budgeting Buslness/Management C l i n i c a l Nursing Cognate Courses Cost Accounting E x te rn s h ip F1 nance Fund R aisin g H igher Education A d m in is tra tio n H is to ry o f American H igher E ducation Human Development Labor and I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s Marketlng/Management Management Systems Research S ta tistic s Theory O rg a n iz a tio n a l Theory P o l1 t1 c s Program Development P u b lic S e rv ic e S tu d e n t A f f a i r s Total re sp o n se s N 2 7 3 1 10 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 7 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 55 89 Tw enty-four resp o n d e n ts (14.58) s a i d th e y would change t h e i r program by d e l e t i n g c o u rse s (Table 4.16). T w e n ty -th re e I n d iv i d u a l s I n d ic a t e d 16 c o u r s e s o r c o u rse a r e a s th ey would d e l e t e (T able 4.18). No more th an t h r e e p eop le I d e n t i f i e d any one co u rse th e y would d e l e t e ; Sociology c o u rs e s and S tu d e n t A f f a i r s w ere each I d e n t i f i e d by t h r e e alum ni. Courses t h a t some alumni s a id th e y would add w ere ones o t h e r s sa id t h ^ would d e le te # such as H is to ry o f American H igher Education# S tu d e n t A ffa irs# o r t h e S t a t i s t i c a l sequence. Hence what b e n e f i t s one p erson w i l l n o t n e c e s s a r i l y p l e a s e a n o th e r . T ab le 4 . 1 8 . — C ourses re sp o n d e n ts would d e l e t e from t h e i r program. Course Name A dolescence A d u lt E d ucation Courses t a u g h t by g ra d u a te s t u d e n t s Education c o u r s e s Education 804 Foreign language H is to ry o f American Higher E ducation In stru c tio n Higher E ducation Media Occupational In fo rm a tio n Philosophy o f Education P sy ch om etrics Reduce number o f Education c o u rs e s Sociology c o u r s e s S t a t i s t i c s sequence S tu d e n t A ffa 1 rs T otal re sp o n s e s N 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 3 23 90 E ighteen p eo p le (10.9%) s a i d th ey would change t h e i r m ajo r 1f they w ere r e p e a t i n g t h e d o c to ra l program (Table 4.16). These I n d i­ v i d u a l s I n d ic a t e d 15 d i s c i p l i n e s th e y would now s e l e c t a s a m ajor (Table 4.19); no c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d was I d e n t i f i e d . T a b le 4 . 1 9 . --C hanges re sp o n d e n ts would make 1n t h e i r m ajo r. O rig in a l Major D esired Major A d m in istra tio n A d m in is tra tio n C o lleg e S tu d e n ts E ducation al A d m in istra tio n H igher Education H igher Education Higher Education H igher E ducation H igher Education H igher E ducation H igher Education H igher Education Higher Education S tu d e n t Personnel Engl1sh Labor Relations/M anagem ent Psychol ogy Counseling (2) A rts E ducation B u sin ess (3) H isto ry C l i n i c a l Psychology HYPER Law S c h o o l (2) Management Nursing O rg a n iz a tio n a l B ehavior Adult & C on tinuing Education Total re sp o n se s = 1 8 Twenty-seven g ra d u a te s (16.4%) I n d ic a t e d a d e s i r e t o change t h e i r cog nate a r e a (Table 4.16). T w en ty -six o f them s p e c i f i e d t h e change th ey would make (Table 4.20). E ig h t g ra d u a te s (31%) i n d i c a t e d some form of management o r admlnl s t r a t i on, 10 (38%) c i t e d some form of b u s in e s s o r m arketing* and 4 (15%) m entioned com puters or com puterr e l a t e d programming. F inally * 15 alumni (58%) who s a id th e y would make changes 1n t h e i r co g n ate a r e a would drop t h e Sociology co g n a te . 91 T a b l e 4 . 2 0 . — C h anges r e s p o n d e n t s w o u ld make In t h e i r c o g n a t e a r e a s . O rig in a l Cognate D esired Cognate A rt Education B u sin ess C l i n i c a l Psychology Communlcatlons Communications Labor & I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s Management Management O r g a n iz a tio n a l B ehavior Psychology Soclology S o d ol ogy Soc1ology Soc1ology Sociology Soc1 ol ogy Sociology S t a f f Development Management Computers Management Bus1ness Marketing O rg a n iz a tio n a l Development Computers Q u e s tio n a b le H igher E du cation Management B u siness (8) Computers Data P ro c e ssin g Higher Education H is to ry Management (2) Management Systems I n s t i t u t i o n a l Development T o tal Responses = 26 12. Did alunnl Identify any one course as most or lea st valuable? Respondents w ere asked t o 1 1 s t t h e t h r e e c o u r s e s t h a t were most v a lu a b le and t h e t h r e e t h a t w ere l e a s t v a lu a b le . Almost 90 c o u rs e s w ere l i s t e d # and a good number o f them were on both t h e m ost v a lu a b le and t h e l e a s t v a l u a b l e l i s t s . In te r m s of t h e m ost v a lu a b le course# th o s e l i s t e d w ith g r e a t e s t frequency tended t o be th e o ry -b a s e d c o u r s e s ; t h e c l a s s 1n Theory and P r a c t i c e o f A d m in is tr a tio n was l i s t e d m ost f r e q u e n t l y (50 tim e s ) . No one c o u rs e was I d e n t i f i e d a s a l e a s t v a lu ­ a b le co u rse by more th a n 14 resp o n d en ts. L e a s t v a lu a b le c o u rs e s w ere 92 I d e n t i f i e d l e s s c o n s i s t e n t l y th a n m ost v a l u a b l e c o u rse s . E ig h t t o 14 i n d i v i d u a l s I n d ic a te d s e v e ra l c o u r s e s a s h aving l i t t l e v a lu e (Community College# C areer Development# 13 p eo p le I d e n t i f i e d v a r io u s s t a t i s t i c s courses# E v a lu a tio n 1n Higher Education# H is to ry o f American Higher Education# and S tu d e n t P e rso n n e l). c o u rs e s I s shown 1n T able B—15. The l i s t o f most and l e a s t v a l u a b l e The d ata a r e o rg a n iz e d so t h a t t h e r e a d e r can view c o u r s e s t h a t re c e iv e d both most v a l u a b l e and l e a s t v a lu a b le r a t i n g s . 13. How essential to career goals would advanced graduate study In the following course content areas be If study were begun today? Respondents w ere asked t o e v a l u a t e how e s s e n t i a l advanced stu d y In s p e c i f i c c o u rs e s would be 1n co m p le tin g c a r e e r g o a ls . Courses were c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o rd in g t o t h e a r e a 1n which th ey a r e o f f e r e d : ment# d i s c i p l in e # co lleg e# o r u n i v e r s i t y . d ep art­ G rad u ates r a t e d a l l c o u rs e s on a 5 -p o 1 n t scale# w ith 5 - E s s e n tia l# 4 = Highly Valuable# 3 = Useful# 2 = M inim ally Valuable# and 1 = Of No Value. The dep artm en tal c o u rse r a te d h i g h e s t In t e r m s o f v a lu e was Theory and P r a c t i c e o f A d m in is tr a tio n (mean r a t i n g = 4.27); P lanning Change 1n O r g a n iz a tio n s fo llo w e d c l o s e l y 1n second p la c e (mean r a t i n g = 4.22) (Table 4.21). Two c o u rs e s 1n t h e d ep artm en t r e c e iv e d r a t i n g s low er th a n 3.0 (U seful) on t h i s s c a l e : C areer Development# which had a mean r a t i n g o f 2.90# and E ducatio nal Society# w ith a mean r a t i n g of 2 .7 8 . For c o u r s e s o f f e r e d w i th i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e o f Higher Education# t h e mean r a t i n g s ranged from 2.96 t o 3.96 (Table 4.22). The c o u rs e s 1n 93 Independent Research (mean r a t i n g = 3.96) and E v a lu a tio n 1n Higher Education (mean r a t i n g = 3.95) came very c l o s e t o t h e 4.0 (Highly U seful) c a te g o ry . No c o u rse f e l l below 2.78, which 1s c l o s e t o t h e Useful c a te g o ry ( 3 . 0 ) . T a b le 4 . 2 1 . — R espondents’ r a t i n g s o f t h e v a lu e of departm ental c o u rs e s . % o f Responses Course Name 5 Course R ating 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 Theory 4 P r a c t i c e o f A d m in istra tio n 5 9.6 18.5 13.9 5 .3 2 .7 151 4.27 1.06 P lan nin g Change 1n O rg a n iz a tio n s 48.7 3 3.6 11.2 3 .9 2 .6 152 4 .2 2 0 .9 8 Law of Higher Education 3 2 .4 31.1 2 5 .0 6 .1 5 .4 148 3 .7 9 1.13 Community R e la tio n s 23.1 27.3 3 3 .6 11.9 4 .2 143 3.53 1.10 F u t u r l s t l c s and E ducation 19.3 2 6 .9 3 3 .8 13.1 6 .9 145 3 .3 9 1.14 C o ntin uin g Edu­ c a ti o n a l L ead ership 14.3 2 1.8 31.3 23.1 9 .5 147 3 .0 8 1.19 C areer Development 11.8 13.2 3 5 .4 2 9 .9 9 .7 144 2 .9 0 1.13 E ducational S o ciety 9 .7 12.7 34.3 32.1 11.9 134 2 .7 8 1.11 Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s f o llo w s : 5 = E s s e n t i a l , 4 = Highly V a lu a b le , 3 = U s e fu l, 2 = M inimally V alu ab le, 1 = Of No Value 94 T a b le 4 . 2 2 . — R espondents' r a t i n g s o f t h e v alu e of c o u rs e s 1n t h e Higher Education d i s c i p l i n e . % o f Responses Course Name S Course R atin g 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 Independent Research 3 7 .0 3 4 .8 18.1 7 .3 2 .9 138 3 .9 6 1.15 E v a lu a tio n In H igher Education 3 0 .0 43.4 18.9 7 .0 0 .7 143 3 .9 5 0.91 D octoral I n t e r n s h i p 3 8 .7 2 8 .5 17.5 12.4 2 .9 137 3 .8 8 1.15 In d ep en d en t Research 1n H ig her Education 3 7 .0 29.7 2 1.0 8.7 3 .6 138 3 .8 8 1.12 Management Systems 1n H igher E ducation 3 5 .2 2 9.7 23.4 8.3 3 .5 145 3 .8 5 1.10 Readings* In de­ pendent Study 3 0 .9 3 0 .9 2 1 .6 11.5 5 .1 139 3.71 1.17 P o litic a l Issues 1n H igher E ducation 2 0 .6 34.9 3 6.3 6 .2 2.1 146 3 .6 6 0.94 Contemporary I s s u e s 1n American H igher E ducation 14.5 29.4 3 9 .4 15.2 1.5 138 3 .4 0 0.96 Workshops 1n Adm1n1strati on and Currlculurn 15.9 3 1 .9 3 3.3 13.0 5 .8 138 3 .3 9 1 .0 8 American C olleg e S tu d en t 18.6 23.5 3 4 .5 16.6 6 .9 145 3 .3 0 1.16 P r i n c i p l e s and Problems o f In stru c tio n 15.5 2 3 .9 3 7.3 21.1 2.1 142 3 .3 0 1.04 U.S. S o c ie ty and Higher E ducation 18.4 18.4 4 0 .4 14.2 3 .6 141 3 .2 9 1 .09 S tu d e n t A f f a i r s in H igher E ducation 13.6 29.3 3 4 .3 15.7 7.1 146 3 .2 6 1.10 95 T able 4 . 2 2 . — c o n tin u e d . % o f Responses Course Name Course R ating 5 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 H i s t o r i c a l 4 Com­ p a r a t i v e F oundations o f H igher E ducation 1 6 .2 19.0 3 7 .3 2 3 .2 4 .2 142 3 .2 0 1.10 Community C o lleg e 1 8 .4 18.4 2 7 .7 2 6 .2 9 .2 141 3 .1 0 1 .2 5 C o lleg e S tu d e n t A ffa 1 rs 1 3 .6 2 0 .0 3 0 .7 2 4.3 6 .4 140 3 .0 5 1.14 17.3 18.7 2 5 .2 2 7.3 11.5 139 3 .0 3 1.27 Department In H ig h er E d u c a tio n n .i 2 0 .6 3 2.5 27.0 8.7 126 2.98 1.13 Community C o lleg e A d m in is tr a tio n 1 5 .0 19.3 2 5 .0 2 7 .9 12.9 140 2 .9 6 1.26 P ractlcum 1n S tu d e n t A f f a i r s A d m in is tra tio n Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s f o llo w s : 5 = E s s e n tia l * 4 = Highly Valuable* 3 = Useful* 2 = Minimally Valuable* 1 = Of No Value The mean r a t i n g s o f C o llege of E ducation c o u rs e s ranged from 3.04 t o 3.80. The c o u rse w ith t h e h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g was Q u a n t i t a t i v e Methods (mean r a t i n g = 3.80)* whereas t h e l o w e s t - r a t e d c o u rs e was D if fu s io n o f In n o v atio n (mean r a t i n g = 3.04) (Table 4.23). 96 T a b le 4 . 2 3 . — R espondents' r a t i n g s o f t h e v alu e o f c o u rs e s In t h e C o lleg e o f E ducation. % o f Responses Course Name 5 Course R ating 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 Q u an titativ e Methods 33.6 29.7 29.3 10.0 1.4 140 3 .8 0 1.06 F i e l d Research Methods 3 1 .6 29.4 24.3 13.2 1.5 136 3 .7 6 1.08 Fieldw ork R esearch 2 9 .6 2 5 .9 2 5.2 17.8 1.5 135 3.64 1.13 P ro c e s s o f I n s t r u c ­ t i o n a l Development 17.4 2 9.7 3 4.8 13.0 5.1 138 3.41 1.08 S t r e s s Management 2 2 .6 19.7 3 2 .9 2 0.4 4 .4 137 3 .3 6 1.17 Development o f Sel f - U nderstanding 15.8 2 2 .6 32.3 20.3 9 .0 133 3 .1 6 1.19 D iffu s io n o f In n o v a tio n 17.4 15.9 34.1 18.1 14.5 138 3 .0 4 1 .28 Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s fo llo w s : 5 = E s s e n t i a l . 4 = Highly V a lu a b le . 3 = U s e fu l. 2 = M inimally V alu ab le. 1 = Of No Value U n iv e r s ity c o u r s e s w ere r a t e d s l i g h t l y h ig h e r th a n t h o s e 1n t h e p recedin g groups. Means ranged from 3.49 f o r S o c ia l O rg a n iz a tio n and A d m in is tra tio n t o 3 .9 7 f o r O rg a n iz a tio n a l Communications (T able 4 . 2 4 ) . 97 T a b le 4 . 2 4 . — Respondents' r a t i n g s o f t h e v alu e o f u n i v e r s i t y c o u r s e s . % o f Responses Course Name S Course R ating 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 O rg a n iz a tio n a l Communications 3 7 .2 33.1 21.0 6 .8 2 .0 148 3 .97 1.02 O r g a n iz a tio n a l Development 36.5 3 2 .4 2 1 .6 6.1 3 .4 148 3.93 1.06 Communication and Change 33.1 3 2 .4 24.1 8.3 2.1 145 3 .8 6 1.04 Complex O rganiza­ tio n s 3 1 .0 3 3 .8 22.1 9.7 3 .5 145 3 .7 9 1.09 31.3 3 0 .7 2 4.0 10.0 4 .0 150 3 .7 5 1.12 O rg a n iz a tio n a l Psychology 25.7 3 7.2 24.3 10.1 2 .7 148 3.73 1.04 S o cial O rg an izatio n and A d m in is tra tio n 2 1.2 27.4 3 4 .9 12.3 4.1 146 3 .4 9 1 .0 8 O r g a n iz a tio n a l B eh av io r: Labor R e la tio n s Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s f o llo w s : 5 « E s s e n tia l* 4 = Highly Valuable* 3 = Useful* 2 = M inimally Valuable* 1 - Of No Value When re v ie w in g t h e r a t i n g s f o r a l l groups o f courses* 1 t appeared t h a t n o t a l l g ra d u a te s r a t e d any one c o u rse a s e s s e n t i a l . However* a m a jo r ity of resp o n d e n ts (59.6S) r a t e d Theory and P r a c t i c e of A d m in is tr a tio n a s e s s e n t i a l . N e ith e r did a m a j o r i t y o f re sp o n d e n ts r a t e any one c o u rse as being w ith o u t v alu e. Most c o u r s e s w i t h i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s w ere r a t e d 1n t h e Useful and Highly V aluable c a t e g o r i e s . T h is may be because of program g r a d u a te s ' wide v a r i e t y of c a r e e r g o a ls 98 and achievem ents. Theory c o u r s e s had t h e h i g h e s t v a lu e (e.g.# "Theory and P r a c t i c e o f A d m in istra tio n )# whereas g e n e r a l - a p p l 1c a tio n c o u rs e s (e.g.# E ducational S o ciety and H is to ry of American Higher Education) and th o s e w ith s p e c i f i c a p p l i c a t i o n s (e.g.# Community C o lleg e Adm inis­ t r a t i o n and S tu d e n t A f f a i r s 1n H igher Education) were r a t e d low er. The t e n c o u rs e s w ith t h e h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g s a r e shown 1n T able 4.25. T able 4 . 2 5 . — Ten c o u rs e s r e c e i v i n g h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g s . Course Name Source Mean R ating Theory and P r a c t i c e o f A d m in is tra tio n Department 4 .2 7 Planning Change 1n O rg a n iz a tio n a l S e t t i n g s Department 4 .2 2 O rg a n iz a tio n a l Communications U n iv e r s ity 3 .9 7 E v a lu a tio n 1n Higher Education D1sc1 pi 1ne 3 .9 5 O rg a n iz a tio n a l Development U n iv e r s ity 3 .9 3 Independent Research 1n Higher Education D1sc1 pi 1ne 3 .8 8 D octoral I n t e r n s h i p D isci pi1ne 3 .8 8 Communication and Change U n iv e r s ity 3 .8 6 Management Systems 1n Higher E ducation D isc ip lin e 3 .8 5 Q u a n t i t a t i v e Methods Col 1ege 3 .8 0 1 99 14. What learning experience or content would degree recipients Incorporate Into the program? The r e s p o n d e n ts were asked t o mention any p a r t i c u l a r c o u r s e c o n t e n t o r l e a r n i n g e x p e r i e n c e th ey s t r o n g l y f e l t should be I n c o r p o r a t e d I n t o a d o c t o r a l program. The r e s p o n s e s were widely v a r i e d , and no s p e c i f i c t r e n d was I d e n t i f i e d . Many o f t h e e a r l i e r g r a d u a t e s sugges ted an 1 n te r n s h 1 p / e x t e r n s h 1 p e x p e r i e n c e , which has now been i n c o r p o r a t e d I n t o d o c t o r a l programs a t Michigan S t a t e . Some I n d i v i d u a l s were h i g h l y c r i t i c a l of t h e o v e r a l l c o u r s e c o n t e n t 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o f f e r e d ways t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e program. L a te r g r a d u a t e s ten d ed t o s u g g e s t t h e a d d i t i o n o f c o u r s e s 1n management/ human r e l a t i o n s , l a b o r and I n d u s t r i a l r e l a t i o n s , o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l behavior. Some alumni mentioned a need f o r a c o u r s e on how t o w r i t e a d issertation. 15. Comments may be found In Appendix C, pp. 182-87. Did degree recipients Identify any one factor 1n th eir program as contributing most to personal and professional growth? Survey resp ondents were asked t o r a t e a 1 1 s t o f f a c t o r s 1n t e r m s o f t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o perso na l and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth dur in g t h e d o c to r a l program. Degree o f c o n t r i b u t i o n was r a t e d as f o l l o w s : 5 = H ig h , 4 = Some, 3 = M o d e r a t e , 2 = Low, an d 1 * None. l i s t e d In Ta ble 4.26, from high t o low mean r a t i n g s . R esults are Individuals rated t h e "Other” ca te g o r y a s t h e one t h a t had promoted t h e most personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth, with a mean of 4.67. Respondents provided a g r e a t v a r i e t y o f ans w ers when asked t o s p e c i f y what " o t h e r " f a c t o r s promoted growth. Work on c o m m it te e s o r t a s k f o r c e s w i t h f a c u l t y members, work- r e l a t e d e x p e r i e n c e s , e x p e r i e n c e s r e l a t e d t o spouse and c h i l d r e n , and 100 T a b le 4 . 2 6 . — R esp o n d en ts' r a t i n g s o f f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g t o g row th . % o f Responses Factor Degree o f C o n t r i b u t i o n High Sane Mod. Low None N Mean S.D. Other S3.3 11.1 — — 5.6 107 4.67 1.03 D issertation 63.8 31.9 3.1 — 1.3 160 4.57 0.6 8 A s s o c i a t i o n with major p r o f e s s o r 72.8 13.3 5.7 7.0 1.3 158 4.49 0.97 Independent s tu d y and r e s e a r c h 45.3 38.0 8. 7 6.7 1.3 150 4.19 0.95 Course work 40.9 42.8 10.1 — 6.3 159 4 .12 1.03 A s s o c i a t i o n with committee f a c u l t y 44.3 32.3 14.6 8.2 0.6 158 4.11 0.98 Seminars 37.7 35 .5 18.7 5.2 1.9 155 4.04 0.98 A s s o c i a t i o n with mentor 55.3 15.9 3.8 9.1 15.9 132 3.86 1.18 Internships 46.6 17.1 12.5 17.1 6.8 88 3 .80 1.37 A s s o c i a t i o n with f e llo w s t u d e n t s 29.2 35.7 15.5 11.7 5.8 154 3.71 1.18 Employer* I n s t i ­ tu tio n a l support 51.8 16.1 5.1 5.1 21.9 137 3.71 1.18 A s s o c i a t i o n with other f a c u lty /s ta f f 31.4 32.7 17.0 12.4 6.5 153 3.70 1.22 A s s o c i a t i o n with department f a c u l t y 21.6 37.8 16.0 13.5 5.1 156 3.69 1.16 Canprehenslve exams 26.1 27.4 20.4 15.3 10.8 157 3.43 1.32 P rac tlc ums 24.4 22 .6 16.5 6.1 30.4 115 3.04 1.58 A ssistantship/ f e l lowshlp 2 9.8 12.5 5.8 2.9 10.4 104 2.71 1.80 101 s u p p o r t i v e f a c u l t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s t h a t encouraged program com p l e tio n were c i t e d . Comments a r e quoted In t h e i r e n t i r e t y 1n Appendix C# pp, 187-88. The d i s s e r t a t i o n p r o c e s s (mean r a t i n g = 4-57) and a s s o c i a t i o n w i th t h e m ajor p r o f e s s o r (mean r a t i n g = 4.49) r e c e i v e d t h e n e x t h i g h e s t ratings. According t o t h e res p o n d e n ts , t h e f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g l e a s t t o growth were a s s 1 s t a n t s h 1 p s / f e l l o w s h 1 p s (mean r a t i n g = 2.71) and f i n a n c i a l a id (mean r a t i n g = 2.22). Some I n d i v i d u a l s l i s t e d t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s 1n f e l l o w s h i p s / a s s i s t a n t s h i p s as g r e a t l y c o n t r i b u t i n g t o t h e i r per so na l and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth a s w o r k - r e l a t e d e x p e r i e n c e s under t h e " o t h e r c a t e g o r y ." The w r i t e r s p e c u l a t e d t h a t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was r e l a t e d t o r e s p o n d e n ts ' I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e q u e s ti o n . 16. Are there differences between males and females In terms of Identification with a mentor? S 1 x t y - e 1 g h t p e r c e n t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts (111 I n d i v i d u a l s ; 82 m a l e s , 28 females# and 1 of unknown gender) I n d i c a t e d th ey had been a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p dur in g d o c t o r a l study (Table 4.27). Of t h e 111 pe op le who had e s t a b l i s h e d such r e l a t i o n s h i p s # 88 or 54.3% (65 m a l e s o r 73.9% o f t h e 88 t o t a l and 23 f e m a l e s o r 26.1% o f t h e 88) s a i d t h a t t h e i r mentor had come from t h e departm ent. Another 23 r e sp o n d e n ts (14.2%) r e p o r t e d a r e l a t i o n s h i p wit h a mentor from t h e i r co g n ate a r ea (17 m ales o r 73.9% o f t h e 23; 5 f em ales o r 21.7%; and 1 I n d iv i d u a l o r 4.4% of unknown gender). F i f t y - o n e people o r 31.5% of t h e sample (39 males# 10 females# and 1 unknown gender) did n o t Iden­ t i f y a mentor. Three peo ple d id n o t answer t h e q u e s ti o n . No gender 102 d i f f e r e n c e s r e l a t e d t o m ento r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n were found ( c h i - s q u a r e = 1 . 0 , df = 2 , p > . 0 5 ) . T a b le 4 . 2 7 . — Respondent r e p o r t c o n c e r n i n g t h e s o u r c e o f a mentor. F r e q u e n c ie s Source Male Female Unknown Combined Combined ValId 3 Department Cognate No mentor No answer 65 17 39 3 23 5 10 — 1 2 — 88 23 51 3 54.3 14.2 31.5 missing Total 124 38 3 165 100.0 V a li d c a s e s = 162 Kissing ca s e s = 3 No t r e n d was I d e n t i f i e d when c o n s i d e r i n g w h e th e r t h e r e was a d i f f e r e n c e betw een m a le s and f e m a l e s c o n c e r n in g t h e s o u r c e o f a me ntor ( c h 1 - s q u a r e = 0 . 1 0 7 8 , d f = 1, p > . 0 5 ) . S 1 x t y - f 1 v e o f t h e 124 m a l e s (52.4%) r e s p o n d i n g t o t h i s q u e s t i o n I d e n t i f i e d a mentor w i t h i n t h e d e p a r t m e n t , whe re as 23 of t h e 38 f e m a l e s (6056) made t h e same I d e n t i f i ­ cation. Seventeen o f t h e 124 m ales 03.73!) and 5 o f t h e 38 f e m a l e s (13.23) I d e n t i f i e d a me ntor 1n t h e i r c o g n a t e ar e a . T h 1 r ty - n 1 n e o f t h e 124 males (31.43) and 10 o f t h e 38 f e m a l e s ( 263%) had n o t I d e n t i f i e d w i th a mentor. When as ked t o I d e n t i f y t h e i r m e n t o rs , 124 r e s p o n d e n t s named 55 i n d i v i d u a l s I n c l u d i n g V i r g i n i a Wiseman, t h e E r ic k s o n Hall s e n i o r s e c r e ­ t a r y who h e lp e d many g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s c o m p l e t e e n t r a n c e and g r a d u a t i o n 103 paperwork and s o lv e d d i f f i c u l t b u r e a u c r a t i c d i f f i c u l t i e s . I n d i v i d u a l s from t h e d e p a r t m e n t w e r e named a s mentors. Nine teen S ev er al p e r s o n s were m e n to r s f o r more th a n one s t u d e n t ; one I n d i v i d u a l was named 15 times# tw o were m en tione d 11 t i m e s each# one I n d i v i d u a l 9 tim es# and one 8 t i m e s . 17. Mentors a r e l i s t e d 1n Appendix Table B-16, How did alumni evaluate the graduate program as preparation for short- and long-term career goals? When c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i r p r e p a r a t i o n f o r m e e tin g s h o r t - t e r m goals# 84.4% of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d t h e C o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program a s e i t h e r E x c e l l e n t o r Good (Tab le 4.28). In a d d i t i o n # 82.9% o f t h e r e s p o n d in g alumni r a t e d t h e program a s e i t h e r Good o r E x c e l l e n t 1n p r e p a r i n g them t o m eet l o n g - t e r m g o a l s . These d a t a I n d i c a t e d t h a t alumni were more t h a n s a t i s f i e d w i th t h e p r e p a r a ­ t i o n t h e i r d o c t o r a l program had g iv e n them f o r t h e c h a l l e n g e s o f t h e work world. Less t h a n 5% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s f e l t t h a t t h e program had g iv e n them Below Average o r Poor p r e p a r a t i o n f o r m e e tin g e i t h e r t h e i r s h o r t - o r l o n g - t e r m g o a ls . 18. Was the department e ffe c tiv e In providing the a b ility to develop those s k ills necessary for success In subse­ quent positions or Jobs? When r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e as ke d t o r a t e how w e l l t h e i r program had pr ovid e d t h e o v e r a l l a b i l i t y t o develop s k i l l s t h a t would promote s u c c e s s In s u b s e q u e n t p o s i t i o n s o r Jobs# t h e r e s p o n s e s were s t r o n g l y p o s i t i v e ; 79.4% o f t h e alumni r a t e d t h e program a s Good o r E x c e l l e n t . Another 17.5% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d t h e program as Average In 104 p r o v id i n g such s k i l l s * whereas J u s t 3.1% r a t e d 1 t Below Average o r Poor (T able 4.29). T able 4 . 2 8 . — Respondents' r a t i n g o f program 1n p r e p a r i n g them t o meet s h o r t - and lo n g -ter m g o a l s . Respondents' Rating Goals Excel l e n t Good Average Bel ow Average (%) 1%) {%) (%) Poor CSC) S h o r t- t e r m 40.6 43.8 11. 9 3.1 0.6 Long-term 34.8 48.1 13.3 3.2 0.6 S h o r t term: Long ter m: N = 160 N = 158 Mean = 4.21 Mean - 4.1 3 S t . dev. = 0 .82 S t. dev. = 0.81 Ta ble 4 . 2 9 . — Respondents' r a t i n g s o f t h e progra m 's p r o v i s i o n o f s k i l l s necessary fo r success. Respon den ts' Ra ting s (N = 160) Excellent (%) 40.0 Good (.%) 39.4 Average Below Average Poor i%) (%) {%) 17.5 2.5 .6 105 19. Did alunnl Identify s k ill- 1 1st components as Inportant to career success? Using t h e work o f N1gro (1973) and t h e Long-Range Plan ning document g e n e r a te d by t h e F a c u l ty o f C ollege and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a ­ t i o n (1982), t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r compiled a l i s t o f s k i l l s s h e con­ s i d e r e d p o t e n t i a l l y I m p o r t a n t f o r g r a d u a t e s ' s u c c e s s 1n m e e tin g t h e i r ca re e r goals. Respondents were asked t o r a t e each s k i l l 1n t e r m s o f I t s I m portance In p r e p a r i n g g r a d u a t e s t o meet t h e i r c a r e e r g o als . A f1 v e-p o 1 n t s c a l e was used f o r t h e s e r a t i n g s , w i th 5 = Very I m p o r t a n t , 4 = F a i r l y I m p o r t a n t , 5 = Moderate Im po rtan ce , 2 = Minimal Im por tance , and 1 = Not Im p o r t a n t. The ca t e g o r y "not 1n program" was o f f e r e d f o r t h o s e I n d i v i d u a l s who f e l t t h e i r expos ure t o t h e s k i l l had been m i n i ­ mal. Seven s k i l l s r e c e i v e d mean r a t i n g s h i g h e r t h a n 4.0 ( d e c i s i o n m akin g = 4 . 4 4 , p l a n n i n g = 4 . 3 8 , c h a n g e = 4 . 2 7 , e v a l u a t i o n = 4 . 2 3 , r e s e a r c h s k i l l s = 4.21), e d u c a t i o n personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n = 4.19, and budgeting = 4.07), I n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t s c o n s id e re d t h e s e s k i l l s F a i r l y I m p o r t a n t 1n g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s ' development (Table 4 3 0 ) . Almost 7735 o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d r e s e a r c h s k i l l s Very I m p o r t a n t o r F a i r l y I m p o r t a n t , whereas 62% r a t e d s t a t i s t i c a l s k i l l s 1n t h e s e two categories. Near ly 8735 o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d d e c i s io n making 1n t h e to p tw o c a t e g o r i e s , and 83,435 r a t e d change s k i l l s Very I m p o r t a n t o r F a i r l y Im p o r t a n t . The l o w e s t mean r a t i n g given t o any s k i l l was 2.99 (management techno lo gy s k i l l s and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ) , J u s t under Moderate Importance. o r Not Im p o r t a n t. No s k i l l was r a t e d as of Minimal Impor tance Thus r e s p o n d e n ts viewed a l l o f t h e i d e n t i f i e d s k i l l s 106 Ta ble 4 3 0 . — Respondents' r a t i n g s o f Importa nce o f s k i l l s 1n p r e p a r i n g graduates fo r career goals. % of Responses Skill 5 Importance Rating 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 D ec is ion making 64. 7 22.1 7.4 4.4 1.4 136 4. 44 .92 Planning 59. 0 25.2 12.2 2.2 1.4 139 4.38 .89 E duc ationa l p e r ­ sonnel admin. 5^ .3 2 2.7 11.4 6.8 3.8 132 4.29 1.12 Change 50.4 3 3.3 10.4 5.2 .7 135 4.27 .90 Eva! u a t l o n 51 .0 27 .6 15.9 4.8 .7 145 4.23 .94 Research s k i l l s 49.7 27.2 19.7 1.4 2.0 147 4.21 .95 Budgetlng 52.1 24 .0 10.7 6.6 6.6 121 4.08 1.22 General f i n a n c e 41 .7 30.0 12.5 9.2 6.7 120 3.91 1.23 S tatistical sk ills 36.9 25.5 21.5 11.4 4.7 149 3.79 1.19 I n s t i t u t i o n a l dev. 30.6 31.3 21.5 12.5 4.2 144 3.72 1.15 Ed ucational law 30.4 29.6 15.7 13.0 11.3 115 3. 55 1.35 S tu d e n t develop­ ment ar ea 25.0 21.7 3 4.2 13.3 5.8 120 3.47 1.17 Management t e c h n o lo g l es 16.8 16.8 27.1 27 .2 23.3 107 2.99 1.27 Student a f f a i r s adm inistration 16.2 18.0 28.8 22.5 14.4 111 2.99 1 .29 Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s f o l l o w s : 5 = Very Important* 4 = F a i r l y Important* 3 = Moderate Importance* 2 = Minimal Importance* 1 c Not Im po rtan t. 107 as being m o der ately t o very I m p o r t a n t 1n p r e p a r i n g I n d i v i d u a l s f o r c a r e e r goals. 20. Did d eg r ee r e c i p i e n t s e v a l u a t e t h e departm ent a s e f f e c t i v e In providing s k i l l s e s s e n tia l t o c a re e r success? Next# survey p a r t i c i p a n t s were asked t o r a t e t h e depar tm en t In t e r m s of I t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n p r o v id in g t h e I d e n t i f i e d s k i l l s . In making t h i s ra tin g# th ey used a f 1 v e -p o 1 n t scale# with S = Highly E ffective# 4 = Above Average# 3 = Average# 2 = Below Average# and 1 = Poor. To ex clu d e s k i l l s t h a t had n o t been I nclu ded In an I n d iv i d u a l program# t h e res ponse of " n o t 1n program” was o f f e r e d Respondents gave t h e h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g (4.15 or Above Average) t o e f f e c t i v e p r o v is i o n of r e s e a r c h s k i l l & The s t u d e n t development a r e a (4.10) and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n (4.0) f o ll o w e d c l o s e l y 1n t e r m s of evaluation ratin g s. Mean e f f e c t i v e n e s s r a t i n g s ranged from 3.14 t o 4.15# I n d i c a t i n g t h a t r e sp o n d e n t s p er ceiv ed t h a t t h e depar tm en t was above av er ag e In p r o v id i n g e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s # but 1 t was not o u t s t a n d i n g 1n su pply ing any one s k i l l (Tab le 4.31). I t 1s I n t e r e s t i n g # however# t h a t 50.8X of t h e r e sp o n d e n ts b e l i e v e d t h e d e par tm ent was h i g h l y e f f e c ­ t i v e 1n p r o v id in g r e s e a r c h s k i l l s # although i t was n o t uncommon f o r resp o n d e n ts t o i d e n t i f y a need f o r more hands -on e x p e r i e n c e I n v o lv in g research# ag# o p p o r tu n i t y t o work w it h f a c u l t y a lr e a d y engaged 1n research. 21. General comments. F inally# g r a d u a t e s were given an o p p o r t u n i t y t o make general comments. T h e ir comments were broad In scope; some fo cu sed on p o r t i o n s 108 Ta ble 4 . 3 1 . — Respondents' r a t i n g s of departmental e f f e c t i v e n e s s In p r ovid ing I d e n t i f i e d s k i l l s . % o f Responses Skill 5 E f f e c t i v e n e s s Rating 4 3 2 N Mean S.D. 1 Research s k i l l s 50 .8 25.4 15.4 5.4 3.1 130 4.15 1.07 S tu d e n t develop­ ment a r e a 47.9 24.0 21.5 3.3 3.3 121 4.10 1.06 Student a f f a i r s a d m l n l s t r a t i on 41.5 26.3 25.4 4.2 2.5 118 4.00 1.04 Planning 44.0 2 2.7 23.4 6.4 3.5 141 3.9 7 1.12 Change 34.3 34.3 26.6 4.2 .7 143 3.97 .92 Decision making 44.1 20.6 18.4 11.0 5.9 136 3.86 1.26 Institutional development 28.0 33.3 31.1 4.5 3.0 132 3.79 1.00 Educ atio nal law 28.7 31.5 30.8 7.0 2.1 143 3.78 1.02 Budgetlng 30.5 30.5 29.0 6.1 3.0 131 3.78 1.07 General f i n a n c e 32.2 27. 8 27.8 9.0 3.0 133 3.7 7 1.09 Management techno! o g l e s 2fi.5 29.7 31.4 9.9 2. 5 121 3.68 1.05 S tatistical s k ills 40.2 17.4 18.9 13.6 9.9 132 3. 64 1.38 Eva! u a t l o n 19.7 36.4 31.8 9.1 3.0 132 3.61 1.00 Educationa l p er ­ sonnel admin. 14.3 21.9 36. 2 19.1 8. 6 105 3.14 1.15 Note: The r a t i n g s c a l e was a s f o l l o w s : 5 = Highly Effec tive# 4 = Above Average# 3 = Average# 2 = Below Average# 1 = Poor. 109 of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and o t h e r s concerned t h e g r a d u a t e program. Threaded th ro u g h o u t a l l comments by alumni was t h e general concern f o r t h e f u t u r e of t h e College and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program. Alumni s p e c i f i c a l l y I d e n t i f i e d t h e l a c k of f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t f o r t h e Department by t h e Univer sity# nonreplacement of e x p e r ie n c e d facu lty# and t h e general l o s s of I d e n t i t y w i t h i n t h e School. There were com­ ments a b o u t t h e many changes t h a t were o c c u r r i n g In t h e l a t e r y e a r s o f t h e survey. These comments may be found In Appendix C» PP- 189~202. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The purpose o f t h i s study was t o I d e n t i f y t h e p e r c e p t i o n s of alumni of t h e C ollege and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program who r e c e i v e d t h e Ed.D. o r Ph.D. d eg r ee from January 1972 through Jan ua ry 1983. The study was based on t h e b e l i e f t h a t alumni who a r e employed In c o l l e g e and u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n have f i r s t - h a n d knowledge of t h e scope o f t h e i r r o l e s . This knowledge, coupled w i th e x p e r i e n c e s r e l a t e d t o t h e work wor ld , 1s v a l u a b l e i n a r e t r o s p e c t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of t h e d o c t o r a l program. A nor mative survey design was used 1n conduc ting t h i s study. The w r i t e r developed t h e survey I n s t r u m e n t a f t e r r e v i e w i n g q u e s t i o n ­ n a i r e s s e n t t o g r a d u a t e s o f o t h e r programs w i t h i n t h e de par tm en t, e s p e c i a l l y t h e work o f N1gro (1973) and t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s used by t h e Program E v a lu a tio n Cen ter of t h e C olleg e o f Education. In a d d i t i o n , t h e r e s e a r c h e r reviewed c o u r s e s 1n t h e program In r e f i n i n g t h e t o o l . The d a ta a n a l y s i s was d iv id e d I n t o two major components: r esp o n d en t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and program e v a l u a t i o n . The major f i n d i n g s f o r each component a r e d i s c u s s e d 1n t h e f o ll o w in g pages. 110 1)1 Alumni C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I t 1s I m p o r t a n t t o I d e n t i f y t h e s u c c e s s of an e d u c a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t i o n ' s pro duct : I t s g r a d u a te s . For t h e College and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program* 1 t 1s t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f I t s g r a d u a t e s t h a t Indicate success. The m a j o r i t y (75.8%) of t h e survey res p o n d en ts were male; p a r t i c i p a n t s I n clu ded 125 males* 38 females* and 2 i n d i v i d u a l s who did n o t I n d i c a t e t h e i r gender. The m a j o r i t y o f res p o n d en ts had r e c e i v e d a Ph.D. deg ree ; only two r e s p o n d e n t s had earned an Ed.D. One hundred f o r t y - f i v e r e sp o n d e n ts I d e n t i f i e d t h e m ajor f oc us o f t h e i r program as h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n ; 15 o t h e r s I d e n t i f i e d s t u d e n t personnel a s t h e major focus of t h e i r program. Both Ed.D. r e c i p i e n t s were males* whereas a l l 38 f e m a le s had r e c e i v e d t h e Ph.D. degree. One hundred e i g h t of t h e males chose t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n focus (88.5%)* as did 36 o f t h e 37 fem ales (973%). recipients* Because t h e r esp o n d en t group Inc lu de d o n l y two Ed.D. no comparison was made between Ph.D. and Ed.D. degree h o l d e r s 1n f u r t h e r a n a l y s e s . The average r esp o n d en t had e n t e r e d t h e program a t 32.18 y e a r s of age and completed t h e program a t 36.48 y e a r s — t h u s f i n i s h i n g 1n 4.53 years. When c o n s i d e r i n g gender* f em ales were 1n t h e m i n o r i t y f o r each y e a r diplomas were gran ted . In general* f e m a le s were 3.54 y e a r s o l d e r th an m ales when the y e n t e r e d t h e d o c t o r a l program* b u t the y completed t h e program .88 y e a r s sooner th a n did males. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between males and f e m a l e s 1n t e r m s o f age a t program com­ p l e t i o n o r t h e t i m e 1n took them t o complete t h e program r e q u i r e m e n t s . 112 No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between m ales and f e m a l e s 1n te r m s o f employment p o s i t i o n s . The m a j o r i t y o f resp o n d e n ts (72.45) were employed a t postsec on dar y I n s t i t u t i o n s t h a t g r a n t e d b a c c a l a u r e a t e o r h i g h e r degrees. In a d d itio n * no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between m ales and f e m a l e s 1n t e r m s of rank o r p o s i t i o n d e s c r i p t i o n s ; t h e t y p i c a l alumnus was employed 1n upper o r m id dle management a t a c o l l e g e or u n i v e r s i t y . The r e s p o n d e n ts I n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y s p e n t t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e i r t i m e 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s and s p e n t l e s s t i m e on t e a c h i n g , c o n s u l t i n g , and o t h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . S e v e nty-fo ur p e r c e n t o f t h e g r a d u a t e s ex p r e ss e d s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s i t i o n o r rank o f employment; no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between m ales and f em ales conc er ning t h i s p e r c e p tio n . More m ales (675) t h a n f e m a l e s (445) s a i d t h a t t h e i r c u r r e n t employment p o s i t i o n met t h e primary o b j e c t i v e h e l d a t g r a d u a t i o n , b u t t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . Fifty-one percent of t h e m ales and 675 o f t h e f em ales r esp on di ng I n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r employment o b j e c t i v e s had changed s i n c e deg re e co m p le tio n ; a g a i n t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . One m ig ht s p e c u l a t e t h a t many changes oc cu r once g r a d u a t e s e n t e r t h e work world. Th is f a c t o r m ig ht a l s o a c c o u n t f o r t h e lo wer pe r c e n t a g e of f e m a l e s who r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e i r c u r r e n t employment d id n o t meet t h e prim ar y o b j e c t i v e th ey he ld a t graduation. T h i r t y - e i g h t p e r c e n t of t h e alumni were s t m employed by t h e same employer a s when th ey had been 1n g r a d u a t e s ch ool. This may I n d i c a t e t h a t some alumni so ug ht t o meet an e m plo yer's c o n d i t i o n s f o r 113 employment by c o m ple ting a d o c to r a l degree. S i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f ­ f e r e n c e s were not found when comparing r e s p o n d e n t s who I n d i c a t e d t h a t j o b changes had been made by personal c h o ic e (92% m ales and 86% f em ales). F i f t y - o n e p e r c e n t had c o n s id e r e d t h r e e or f ew er p o s i t i o n s b e f o r e a c c e p t i n g t h e i r c u r r e n t p o s it io n # which I n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e Job m a r k e t o f f e r e d alumni o p t i o n s f o r employment— a s i t u a t i o n t h a t did not change g r e a t l y between 1972 and 1983. The m a j o r i t y of t h e alumni (67%) s a i d th e y had h e l d one or two p o s i t i o n s s i n c e g r a d u a ti o n . There was no c o r r e l a t i o n between y ear of g r a d u a t i o n and number of p o s i t i o n s con­ s id e r e d . E i g h t y - s i x I n d i v i d u a l s had had an av er ag e of 2.21 upward movements i n t h e i r o r g a n i z a t i o n s . There was no c o r r e l a t i o n between y e a r of g r a d u a t i o n and number of p o s i t i o n s held. Half of t h e respond­ e n t s (54%) p er ceiv ed a p o t e n t i a l f o r upward m o b i l i t y w i t h i n t h e i r employment I n s t i t u t i o n . The median s a l a r y resp ondents ear ned was ap p r o x im a te ly $38»250. The r e s e a r c h e r was I n t e r e s t e d 1n d e t e r m in in g what f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t t h e r e s p o n d e n ts had r e c e i v e d du rin g t h e i r d o c to r a l study. F 1 f ty - s 1 x p e r c e n t of them r e p o r t e d f u l l - t i m e employment# whereas 21% r e p o r t e d only p a r t - t i m e employment. Another 18.2% had n o t worked a t a ll# and 4.8% had worked both f u l l and p a r t time# although 1 t 1s not c l e a r whether th ey had both f u l l - and p a r t - t i m e Jobs durin g t h e same period. S ix ty -th re e Individuals reported receiving e i t h e r a fellow ship or an a s s i s t a n t ship# w ith equal gender d i s t r i b u t i o n . I n d i v i d u a l s r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g loan s. Forty-three Of t h o s e working f u l l time# 11 I n d i v i d u a l s (93%) r e c e i v e d both a loan and a fe 1low sh 1p/ass1 stants h1p# 114 39 (33!?) r e c e i v e d e i t h e r a lo a n o r a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p f and 68 (57.6%) r e c e i v e d n e i t h e r form of s u p p o rt . Of t h o s e working p a r t t i m e , 7 I n d i v i d u a l s (25%) r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g both a l o a n and a f e l l o w s h i p / asslstantshlp, 17 (60.7%) r e c e i v e d e i t h e r a lo a n o r a f e l l o w s h i p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p , and 4 (143%) r e c e i v e d n e i t h e r form o f a s s i s t a n c e . T h i r t e e n male r e s p o n d e n t s had n o t been employed e i t h e r f u l l o r p a r t t i m e , b u t two (15.4%) d id r e p o r t r e c e i v i n g both a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p and a l o a n , and s e v e n (53.8%) r e p o r t e d n e i t h e r . Of s i x f e m a l e s , one (16.7%) r e p o r t e d r e c e i v i n g both a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p and a lo a n , f o u r (66.7%) r e p o r t e d o n l y a f e l l o w s h l p / a s s l s t a n t s h l p , and one (16.7%) r e p o r t e d n e i t h e r . When r e v i e w i n g g r a d u a t e s ' Involvement 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n s , 1 t was found t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between m ale s and f e m a l e s 1n t e r m s o f dues-pay1ng o r a c t i v e memberships In a d m in is tr a tiv e or higher education organizations. Several In d iv id u a ls I n d i c a t e d m u l t i p l e memberships a t v a r i e d l e v e l s . The r e s e a r c h e r assumed t h a t h o l d i n g o f f i c e In p r o f e s s i o n a l organizations requires leadership a b ility . Thus r e s p o n d e n t s were asked t o i n d i c a t e t h e number of o f f i c e s th e y had h e l d 1n p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i ­ z a t i o n s f o c u s i n g on e i t h e r h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n o r s t u d e n t p e r s o n n e l . It 1s t h o u g h t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s I n d i c a t e d t h e c u m u l a t i v e r a t h e r th a n c u r ­ r e n t number of o f f i c e s h e l d a s 83 I n d i v i d u a l s c i t e d 160 o f f i c e s In o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i t h a h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n f o c u s , and 80 p e o p l e I n d i c a t e d 144 o f f i c e s In o r g a n i z a t i o n s w ith a s t u d e n t person nel focus. Female o f f i c e h o l d e r s had h e l d more o f f i c e s t h a n had m ale o f f i c e h o l d e r s . No 115 s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d a t t h e v a r i o u s l e v e l s (local# district# s t a t e # nati onal# I n t e r n a t i o n a l # and o t h e r ) e x c e p t In t h e n a t i o n a l h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n o r g a n iz a tio n s # 1n which f e m a le s had h e l d more o f f i c e s t h a n males. Papers p r e s e n t e d t o p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s were a l s o con­ s i d e r e d an I n d i c a t i o n of I nvolv ement In p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Ninety resp o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d an average of 4.04 p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o admin­ i s t r a t i v e o r g a n i z a t i o n s # and 147 res p o n d e n ts r e p o r t e d an av er ag e o f 3.66 p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o h i g h e r e d u c a t io n o r g a n i z a t i o n s . P u b l i c a t i o n s were t h e n e x t - c o n s i d e r e d p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t y . Respondents were asked t o i n d i c a t e how many books# monographs# a r t i c l e s # and o t h e r types of p u b l i c a t i o n s th e y had completed. No s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between males and f e m a le s 1n t e r m s o f number of p u b l i c a t i o n s . However# t h e small number o f resp ondents r e p o r t i n g p u b l i c a t i o n s made 1 t d i f f i c u l t t o make com­ p a r is o n s . Fifteen p u b lish ed 10 books [56.5%]). r e sp o n d e n ts had p u b l is h e d 23 books (6 f e m a l e s had [43.5%]# and 9 males had p u b lis h e d 13 books Twenty peo ple had p u b l i s h e d 139 monographs (16 males had p u b lish ed 134 monographs# and 4 f e m a l e s had p u b li s h e d 5 monographs). T h i r t y - o n e alumni had p u b l i s h e d 157 j u r i e d a r t i c l e s (19 males had p u b li s h e d 130 a r t i c l e s # and 12 fe m ales had p u b lis h e d 27 a r t i c l e s ) . F o r t y - f i v e alumni r e p o r t e d th ey had p u b li s h e d 141 n o n j u r i e d a r t i c l e s (33 males had p u b lis h e d 110 a r t i c l e s # and 12 f em ales had p u b li s h e d 31 art1 c le s ) . 116 S1xty-one alumni r e p o r t e d having had 304 o t h e r t y p e s of publications* These In cluded s e l f - h e l p b o o k l e t s , newspaper a r t i c l e s , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and governmental r e p o r t s , and e n c y c lo p e d ia a r t i c l e s . Funded g r a n t s were t h e l a s t c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of p u b l i c a t i o n s c o n s id e re d . As a s i n g l e a u t h o r , 60 alumni had w r i t t e n 295 g r a n t s . F o r t y - s i x g r a d u a t e s had c o - a u t h o r e d 177 g r a n t s . The f i n a l e v a l u a t i o n o f p r o f e s s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s concerned postgraduate c r e d it. Eighteen I n d i v i d u a l s 01.15?) r e p o r t e d e a r n i n g p o s t d o c t o r a l c r e d i t , 14 of whom had ea rned c r e d i t a t n i n e u n i v e r s i t i e s . P r o f i l e o f t h e Typic a l Graduate o f t h e C o ll e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m in i s t r a t i o n Program I t 1s i m p o r t a n t t h a t any program c o n s i d e r I t s product. In e d u c a t i o n a l e f f o r t s t h e p r oduct 1s, of course , t h e program grad uat e. The t y p i c a l g r a d u a t e of t h e Colleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program I s d e s c r i b e d 1n t h e f o l l o w i n g parag ra ph s, based on data c o l l e c t e d In t h i s s tu d y . The t y p i c a l alumnus o f t h e C ollege and U n i v e r s i t y A dm in istr a ­ t i o n program 1s a male Ph.D. r e c i p i e n t w ith a h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n focus. He was abou t 32 when ac ce pted I n t o t h e program and was about 36 and o n e - h a l f upon degree com pletion. and one-hal f y e a r s . Thus he f i n i s h e d t h e program 1n f our During h i s s t u d i e s , he was employed f u l l tim e. The t y p i c a l alumnus 1s an a d m i n i s t r a t o r , employed 1n upper o r mid dle management a t a posts ec ondar y I n s t i t u t i o n t h a t o f f e r s a bacca­ l a u r e a t e o r h ig h e r degree. The m a j o r i t y of h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ; h e spends l e s s t i m e 1n t e a c h i n g , r e s e a r c h , or 117 consultation. He 1s s a t i s f i e d w ith h i s c u r r e n t p o s it io n * which meets t h e pr imary employment o b j e c t i v e s h eld a t gra duation* even though t h o s e o b j e c t i v e s have changed over t i m e . When s e e k i n g employment* t h e t y p i c a l alumnus c o n s id e r e d an aver ag e o f 4.6 p o s i t i o n s and has h e ld 1.5 j o b s 1n t h e s i x y e a r s s i n c e graduation. Promotions have r e s u l t e d 1n 2.2 upward movements- and t h e r e 1s s t i l l room f o r more upward m o b i l i t y . The alumnus e a r n s about $39*230. The av er ag e C o ll e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program g r a d u a t e m a i n t a i n s a c t i v e membership 1n o r g a n i z a t i o n s w i th both h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e fo ci* although he does n o t ten d t o hold o f f i c e s In t h e s e o r g a n i z a t i o n s . T h is alumnus does n o t ten d t o publish* seek gran ts* o r p r e s e n t pap er s u n l e s s t h e y a r e a r e q u i r e m e n t o f h i s Job ( e . g . * brochures* s e l f - h e l p r e p o r t s * and so o n ) . Program E v a lu a ti o n When u n d e r ta k in g a program e v a lu a t io n * 1 t 1s i m p o r t a n t t o remember t h a t no e v a l u a t i o n 1s comprehensive. The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n c o ncerns t h e f i n d i n g s r e g a r d in g program components s e l e c t e d f o r e v a l u a ­ t i o n 1n t h i s study. Program e n t r y . Respondents p e r c e iv e d prompt r e s p o n s e s t o program I n q u i r i e s (93,1%), w it h no s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s . Neg ativ e r e sp o n s e s r e g a r d i n g program I n q u i r i e s focused on delays* l o s t forms* poor communication w i th co m m it te e members* p e r c e i v e d p r e s s u r e t o change d ecis io ns * and I n a c c u r a t e o r o u t d a t e d I n f o r m a t i o n . The m a j o r i t y 118 of g r a d u a t e s (94*) were s a t i s f i e d w it h t h e I n f o r m a t i o n th e y had r e c e i v e d ab out t h e program# again w i t h no s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r ­ ences. The I n f o r m a t i o n r e c e i v e d was what they had sought o r what was needed t o e x p l a i n t h e program. Individuals reporting d is s a tis f a c tio n I n d i c a t e d th ey e i t h e r lacke d t h e I n f o r m a tio n n e c e s s a r y t o choose pro­ gram o p tio n s o r had r e c e iv e d vague communications. I t was found t h a t 88.6* of males and 78.9* of f em ales r e p o r t e d having a s a t i s f a c t o r y a d m i ss io n I n t e r v i e w w i th a f a c u l t y member. The d i f f e r e n c e between groups was n o t l a r g e enough t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e whether more f e m a le s t h a n m ale s had been a d m i t t e d t o t h e d o c to r a l program w i t h o u t an I n t e r v i e w . In a d d i tio n # no s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s were found 1n t e r m s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i th t h e I n te r v i e w . The m a j o r i t y of I n d i v i d u a l s who had been a s s i g n e d a tem p o ra ry a d v i s o r found t h e a d v i s o r h e l p f u l (69*); n e g a t i v e r e sp o n s e s concerned problems remembering t h e a s signm ent of a tempora ry advisor# m l s a d v l s e ment# be g in nin g e l s e w h e r e in t h e u n i v e r s i t y and being a s s i g n e d a permanent a d v i s o r 1n t h e department# a d v i s o r f a l l i n g t o e x p l a i n a v a i l ­ a b l e program options# and t h e general f e e l i n g of being l e f t t o one’s own dev ices . Some r e sp o n d e n t s mentioned t h e p o l i t i c a l d i f f i c u l t y 1n changing a d v i s o r s a f t e r t h e I n i t i a l a s signm ent of a tem pora ry a d v iso r . The m a j o r i t y o f I n d i v i d u a l s (68*) I n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e i r tem pora ry a d v i s o r had e i t h e r become t h e permanent a d v i s o r or had s a t on t h e a d v i s o r y committee. Choice o f u n i v e r s i t y . The s i n g l e most i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r 1n choo sing Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y was p r o x im it y t o work o r home# 119 f o llow e d by d e p a r tm e n t a l * f a c u lty * and I n s t i t u t i o n a l r e p u t a t i o n . E1ghty-two p e r c e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s a i d th e y would s e l e c t Michigan S t a t e 1f choosin g a d o c t o r a l program today . (This p e r c e n ta g e was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from a chance l e v e l of 50%.) S i t e o f degree c r e d i t . Michigan S t a t e campus. Not a l l degree c r e d i t was earned on t h e T w e n ty -e i g h t I n d i v i d u a l s had ea rn ed g r a d u a te c r e d i t s to w a r d t h e d o c t o r a l degree a t 28 I n s t i t u t i o n s of h ig h e r learning. Forty p e r c e n t (20 I n d i v i d u a l s ) o f t h o s e e a r n i n g g r a d u a te c r e d i t had e ar n ed 1 t a t Michigan s c h o o ls . Nineteen p e r c e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n ts (32 I n d i v i d u a l s ) had ea rn ed c r e d i t s a t 16 e x t e n s i o n c e n t e r s run by Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . Cognate o r r e l a t e d a r e a . Sociology was t h e most po pular cognate* drawing 23% of t h e resp o n d en ts . B u s i n e s s and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s c o m b i n a ti o n s drew 20%* whereas c o m b in a t io n s surr o u n d in g t h e Management c o r e drew 10.4% o f t h e re sp ondents. The w r i t e r s p e c u l a t e d t h a t t h e f l e x i b i l i t y of t h e program accounted f o r t h e unique combina­ t i o n s o f a r e a s chosen by g r a d u a t e s t o sup plem en t t h e i r maj ors . Program changes. Only 23% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n ts s a i d th ey would not change t h e i r program 1f e n t e r i n g ag ai n today. Th 1 r ty - f1 v e p e r c e n t (57 people) would add c o u r s e work (Budgeting* Marketing and Management* and c o u r s e s In t h e i r cogn ate area). F i f t e e n p e r c e n t (23 I n d i v i d u a l s ) s a id th ey would d e l e t e 16 I d e n t i f i e d c o u r s e s o r c o u r s e a r e a s . There was no trend* although co u r se s t a k e n In s ocio logy and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s would be d e l e t e d by t h r e e I n d i v i d u a l s each. Ei ghte en res p o n d e n t s (10.9%) s a i d th e y would change t h e i r m ajor and I n d i c a t e d 15 d i s c i p l i n e s 120 t o which they would switch* with no c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d . S ix te e n p e r c e n t of t h e sample (27 alumni) would change t h e i r cog nate t o such a r e a s as management/adm1n1 s t r a t i o n * b u s in e s s /m a r k e ti n g * or c o m p u t e r - r e l a t e d programs; 589S (15 I n d i v i d u a l s ) noted th e y would drop s o cio lo g y a s t h e i r cogn ate. Most o r l e a s t v a l u a b l e c o u r s e s . The c o u r s e s r e s p o n d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y l i s t e d as most v a l u a b l e were th e o r y based; Theory and P r a c t i c e o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n was l i s t e d most o f t e n (50 t i m e s ) . No one co u r s e was I d e n t i f i e d a s l e a s t v a l u a b l e by more th a n 14 I n d i v i d u a l s . Fewer c o u r s e s were l i s t e d as l e a s t v a l u a b l e t h a n a s most v a l u a b l e . Course v a l u e 1n meeting c a r e e r - g o a l s . G raduate s were given a 1 1 s t of c o u r s e s t o e v a l u a t e 1n t e r m s o f how v a l u a b l e t h e c o u r s e would be In t e r m s of h e l p i n g s t u d e n t s meet c a r e e r goal s. The c l a s s e s were d iv id e d I n t o departmental* d i s c i p l i n e * college* and u n i v e r s i t y * depend­ ing on t h e i r base. Theory and P r a c t i c e of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and P l anning Change 1n O r g a n iz a tio n were t h e two c o u r s e s r a t e d h i g h e s t among t h o s e based In t h e department. Career Development and Educational S o c ie ty both r e c e i v e d a r a t i n g s l i g h t l y lo wer t h a n 3.0 (Useful) on a 5-p o1 nt s c a l e ra nging from 5 = E s s e n t i a l and 1 =Of No Value. No d i s c i p l i n e - b a s e d c o u r s e s r e c e i v e d a r a t i n g low er t h a n 2.96 on t h e same s c a l e ; Independent Research and E v a lu a ti o n In Higher Edu­ c a t i o n were r a t e d h i g h e s t . Courses based 1n t h e C o lleg e of Education r e c e i v e d r a t i n g s from 3.04 t o 3.80; Q u a n t i t a t i v e Methods was r a t e d 121 h ig h est* and D i f f u s i o n o f I n n o v a t i o n was r a t e d l o w e s t . U niversity- based c o u r s e s r e c e i v e d h i g h e r o v e r a l l r a t i n g s * which ranged from 3.49 t o 3.97. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Communications was r a t e d h i g h e s t o f t h e u n iv e r s ity - b a s e d courses. Eflc-tors_coji trJ-bii t l Jio_t o__^er5 on a 1 and p r o f e s s i o n a l . , g r o w th . Survey r e s p o n d e n t s were as ke d t o r a t e s e l e c t e d f a c t o r s 1n t e r m s o f t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o per so nal and p r o f e s s i o n a l growth d u r in g t h e d o c t o r a l program. No one f a c t o r emerged a s m ost I n f l u e n c i n g p e r s o n a l and p r o f e s s i o n a l development. Rather* r e s p o n d e n t s mo st o f t e n chose t h e c a t e g o r y o f "other*" 1n which th e y l i s t e d a v a r i e t y of I te m s such a s c o m m i t t e e and t a s k f o r c e work, w o r k - r e l a t e d e x p e r ie n c e s * s u p p o r t i v e f a c u l t y r e l a t i o n s h i p s * and f a m i l y e x p e r i e n c e s . Factors re la te d to the d i s s e r t a t i o n p r o c e s s and a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h t h e m a j o r p r o f e s s o r w er e a l s o r a te d highly. F a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t i n g l e a s t t o t h e growth p r o c e s s were ass1 s t a n t s h 1 p s / f e l l o w s h l p s and f i n a n c i a l a i d . Mentor r e l a t i o n s h i p s . One hundred el e v e n g r a d u a t e s (68%) s a i d t h e y had been a b l e t o e s t a b l i s h a men tor r e l a t i o n s h i p d u r in g t h e i r d o c t o r a l s tu d y . department* The m a j o r i t y (54%) I d e n t i f i e d 19 m e n to r s from t h e T w e n t y - t h r e e I n d i v i d u a l s (26%) I d e n t i f i e d m e n to r s from t h e i r cognate areas. No s i g n i f i c a n t gender d i f f e r e n c e s were I d e n t i f i e d In t e r m s o f me ntor I d e n t i f i c a t i o n o r o r i g i n . Program e v a l u a t i o n . Respondents were more th a n s a t i s f i e d w i t h how t h e d o c t o r a l program had p r e p a r e d them f o r t h e c h a l l e n g e s o f t h e work world. S p e c i f i c a l l y * 84.4% o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r a t e d t h e program as e i t h e r Good o r E x c e l l e n t 1n p r e p a r i n g them t o meet s h o r t - t e r m g o a l s . 122 E i g h t y - t h r e e p e r c e n t of t h e r e s ponding alumni r a t e d t h e program as e i t h e r Good o r E x c e l l e n t In p r e p a r i n g them t o a c h i e v e l o n g - t e r m goals. Likewise# 79.435 o f t h e alumni r a t e d t h e program a s Good o r E x c e l l e n t 1n p r o v id in g g r a d u a t e s t h e a b i l i t y t o develop s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s 1n f u t u r e en dea vors. Ne ce ssa ry s k n i s . Respondents r a t e d se ven s k i l l s ( d e c i s i o n making# planning# change# e v alu atio n # r e s e a r c h s k i l l s # e d u c a ti o n a l personnel a d m i n i s t r a t i o n # and budgeting) a s Very I m p o r t a n t or F a i r l y Important fo r career success. The l o w e s t r a t i n g (2.99 on a 5 - p o 1 n t s c a l e on which 3.0 I n d i c a t e d Moderate Importance) was given t o both management-technology and s t u d e n t - a f f a 1 r s - a d m 1 n 1 s t r a t 1 o n s k i l l s . No s k i l l was r a t e d o f minimal Importance or n o t Important# which may I n d i c a t e t h a t g r a d u a t e s viewed a l l of t h e I d e n t i f i e d s k i l l s a s essential In p r e p a r a t i o n f o r meeting c a r e e r g o a l s . Departmental e f f e c t i v e n e s s 1n pr o v id in g e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s . Respondents r a t e d t h e dep a r t m e n t above av er ag e but not o u t s t a n d i n g In p r o v id in g g r a d u a t e s with e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s . The h i g h e s t mean r a t i n g was give n t o e f f e c t i v e p r o v i s i o n o f r e s e a r c h s k i l l s # f ollowed by s t u d e n t development and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s k i l l s . C onclus ions Based on t h e f i n d i n g s d i s c u s s e d In t h e preceding s ec tio n# t h e f ollow ing c o n c l u s i o n s were drawn. 1. The o v e r a l l focus of t h e c o l l e g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m in is tr a ­ t i o n program a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y should not be changed 1n p r e p a r i n g s t u d e n t s f o r c a r e e r s In h ig h e r e d u c a ti o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . 123 2. The f a c u l t y of t h e C o lleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program should c o n t i n u e t o f o s t e r program f l e x i b i l i t y * which a l l o w s development of unique co m b in a t io n s of program components t o m eet s t u d e n t s ' needs. 3. Departmental f a c u l t y should c a r e f u l l y c o n s i d e r t h e I n f l u e n c e t h e i r personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s have 1n f o s t e r i n g s t u d e n t s ' personal and p r o f e s s i o n a l development. 4. In f u t u r e co u r s e reviews* f a c u l t y should t a k e I n t o c o n s id ­ e r a t i o n t h e t r e n d In which t h e o r y - b a s e d c o u r s e s were most o f t e n I d e n t i ­ f i e d a s *toost v alu ab le* " w h i l e " a p p l i c a t i o n " c o u r s e s t h a t pr ovide ^ e s s e n t i a l s k i l l s " were l e s s o f t e n I d e n t i f i e d a s " v a l u a b l a " 5. The C olleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program p r o v id e s g r a d u a t e s t h e s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r s u c c e s s 1n f u t u r e end ea vors. 6. F a c u lt y sho uld s t r i v e t o I n c r e a s e d ep ar tm en ta l e f f e c t i v e ­ ness 1n p r o v id i n g s k i l l s deemed e s s e n t i a l by alumni 1n t h e d i s c i p l i n e . 7. Although g r a d u a t e s I n d i c a t e d t h a t f a c u lty * departmental* and u n i v e r s i t y r e p u t a t i o n s a r e I m p o r t a n t 1n choos ing a u n i v e r s i ty * p r o x im i ty played t h e most I m p o r t a n t p a r t 1n s t u d e n t s ' f i n a l d e c i s i o n t o e n t e r t h e C o l le g e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program a t Michigan S ta te University. F a c u lt y need t o f ocu s on nearby geo graphic a r e a s f o r student recruitm ent. 8. F a c u lty should change t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n of t h e r o l e of tem porary a d v i s o r t o allow s t u d e n t s g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y I n t h e i r c h o ic e of a permanent a d v i s o r . 1 2k Methodological I s s u e s The f o l l o w i n g m ethodolog ic al I s s u e s a r e d i s c u s s e d and sugge s­ t i o n s made t o a l e r t i n v e s t i g a t o r s using a survey methodology t o poten­ t i a l problems Involved 1n such a method. 1. Survey q u e s t i o n n a i r e s should be c o n s i d e r a b l y s h o r t e r t h a n t h e one used 1n t h i s study. The r e s e a r c h e r b e l i e v e d t h e le n g t h of t h i s I n s t r u m e n t was n e c e s s a r y t o a d d r e s s t h e q u e s t i o n s o f departm ental faculty. However# In r e t r o s p e c t # t h e le n g th of t h e t o o l may e x p l a i n t h e low r e t u r n r a t e and why some resp o n d e n ts d i d n o t ans wer a l l o f t h e survey Items. 2. When us in g bulk m ail ings# t h e I n v e s t i g a t o r must be aware t h a t t i m e d e l a y s may oc c u r 1n mall d e l i v e r y . To t h e wr1ter*s embar­ rassment# 1n some c a s e s t h e f o ll o w - u p package a r r i v e d b e f o r e t h e I n i ­ t i a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e p ack et— a f a c t q u i c k l y p o i n t e d o u t by concerned p a r tlc l pants. 3. Numbering s y stem s sho uld be used w ith c a r e . The w r i t e r used a numbering system on t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o p r e v e n t f o ll o w - u p m a i l i n g s t o I n d i v i d u a l s who had a l r e a d y responded. This system caused •problems# however# because some I n d i v i d u a l s removed t h e code number b e f o r e r e t u r n i n g t h e completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Hence# numbering s y s te m s should be l e s s obvious — per haps typed I n s t e a d o f h a n d w r i t t e n o r n o t placed on t h e f i r s t page o f t h e survey. Recommendations f o r Fu tu re Research Based on t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study# t h e f o l l o w i n g recommenda­ t i o n s a r e made f o r f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . 125 1. The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s between male and f e m a l e g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s a t t h e t im e of a d m iss io n and th ro u g h o u t t h e i r program o f study m ight h e l p dep ar tm en tal a d v i s o r s i n g u id in g f e m a l e s t u d e n t s w i t h i n t h e d octoral program. Of t h e 165 g r a d u a t e s who responded t o t h e q u e s ti o n n a i r e * only 36 were females. The unanswered q u e s t i o n I s w h ether f e w e r f e m a l e s th a n m ale s choose Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a s compared t o o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s I f equal numbers of males and f e m a l e s e n t e r Michigan State* a r e f e w e r f e m a l e s a b l e t o co mplete t h e program? At what p o i n t In t h e program do f e m a l e s drop out* and f o r what re a s o n s ? Females and m ales d i f f e r e d l i t t l e 1n t e r m s of per so nal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and program p e r c e p t i o n s Special needs o f women In t h e de partm ent have been r eco g n ized through t h e f o c u s of some courses* such a s Problems of t h e P r o f e s s i o n a l 1n Higher Education. In ad dition* s p e c i a l programs* ag.* t h e Women 1n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n extern ship* have been designed t o f a c i l i t a t e f e m a l e s ' achievement. However* I t 1s s t i l l I m p o r t a n t t o co n tin u e t o r e c o g n i z e any d i f f e r e n c e s based on gender. 2. F ac ul ty may wish t o I n v e s t i g a t e why alumni sought t h e d o c to r a l deg ree program 1n Higher Education. I t may be of I n t e r e s t t o I n v e s t i g a t e what prompted alumni t o choose t h e College and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n program o v e r o t h e r v i a b l e program o f f e r i n g s a t Michigan S t a t e University. 3. F u r t h e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o t h e v a l u e of s p e c i f i c c o u r s e s would a s s i s t f a c u l t y 1n a d v i s i n g s t u d e n t s of c o u r s e s t h a t may f a c i l i t a t e a t t a i n m e n t of t h e i r c a r e e r goals. For example* f u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s could examine g r a d u a t e s ' c a r e e r p a t t e r n s and i d e n t i f y 126 c o u r s e s t h o s e g r a d u a t e s found v a l u a b l a R e s u l t i n g d a t a may hel p doc­ t o r a l s t u d e n t s e n t e r i n g t h e program t o s e l e c t c o u r s e s t a i l o r e d t o t h e i r career needs. 4. I t would be of b e n e f i t t o I n v e s t i g a t e which f a c t o r r e s u l t s In t h e l a b e l " pop ular” o r % o s t valued": co u r se c o n t e n t o r f a c u l t y personalIty. 5. Program e v a l u a t i o n s should be under taken more f r e q u e n t l y . The C o ll eg e of E d u c a tio n 's E v a lu a ti o n Cen ter would probably h e l p g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s and f a c u l t y members s e l e c t t i m e l y I s s u e s f o r f u t u r e evaluation e f f o r t s ; 6. T h is survey was designed t o pro v id e a gen er al overview of t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e g r a d u a t e pop u lati o n and t h e i r e v a l u a t i o n of p a r t i c u l a r program components. Where possible* t r e n d s were I d e n t i f i e d ; however* p a r t i c u l a r I s s u e s were n o t examined 1n depth. I t Is therefore recommended t h a t f a c u l t y members w i t h i n t h e d i s c i p l i n e guide f u t u r e r e s e a r c h e r s i n I d e n t i f y i n g program components f o r study. APPENDICES 127 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH ALUMNI 128 129 M ICHIGAN STATE UNIV ERSITY COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN ■ 48624 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM ERICKSON HALL September 6 ,.1 9 8 3 Dear Alumnus: The v a l i d i t y o f i t s g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s i s an im p o rta n t c o n s id e r a t i o n f o r every program o f s tu d y . One avenue f o r e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f th e p rog ram 's d e li v e r a n c e o f th o se g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s i s a survey o f th e g r a d u a te s o f th e program. Sara Doubledee i s a Ph.D. c a n d id a te in t h e program o f C o lleg e and U n iv e r s ity A d m in is tr a tio n . The f a c u l t y o f th e program have encouraged h er t o u n d e rta k e t h i s a lu m n i/a e survey which w i l l cu lm in a te in a d o c to r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n . I r e a l i z e t h a t s e v e ra l q u e s ti o n n a i r e s have been com pleted d u rin g th e l a s t few y e a r s , however none o f th e s e a tte m p ts has f u l l y met our programmatic n eeds. I have been a s su re d by Ms. Doubledee t h a t th e s e d a ta w i l l be handled in a p r o f e s s i o n a l manner and t h a t no in d iv id u a l w il l be quoted o r i d e n t i f i e d in any way. Your re sp o n s e s a re v i t a l to th e su ccess o f th e s u r v e y 's e f f o r t t o i d e n t i f y th e p e r c e p tio n s o f g r a d u a te s from th e program in C o lleg e and U n iv e r s ity A d m in is tr a tio n . I a p p r e c i a t e y o u r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in t h e p r o j e c t . p le a s e f e e l f r e e to c o n t a c t me (517-355-4538). C o r d ia lly Samuel A. Moore, II P r o f e s s o r and C h airp erson SAM/1h Enclosure I f you have any concerns 130 Dear Colleague: I am a doctoral candidate in College and University Administration, Department of Administration and Curriculum, College of Education. The focus of my dissertation research is graduate perceptions of the academic program in College and University Administration. I believe that since your graduation you have established yourself in the work world to become an expert as well as a consumer. This places you in an excellent position to supply data regarding the appropriateness of the academic program. The faculty of the program in College and University Administration have demonstrated interest in the results of this dissertation study and have voiced the need to know how well you believe you were prepared to meet your short and long term goals. All respondents will remain anonymous and only pooled or summarized data will be reported. A number appears on the right upper corner of your questionnaire. follow up purposes only. This is intended for Be assured that once the completed questionnaire is returned, this number will be removed. Strict confidence will be observed and data collection will be handled only by myself. The completion and mailing of the completed questionnaire constitutes your voluntary consent to participate in this research. The questionnaire has been designed with a minimum bf open ended questions because I appreciate your time investment. Your input is extremely important to the research study. out your response, the total data pool is reduced and will provide less insight. Sincerely, ^ Sara Doubledee Ph.D. Candidate College and University Administration Michigan State University With­ 131 November 1, 1983 Dear Colleague: Approximately three weeks ago the enclosed packet arrived in your mail. I understand that this is a very busy time for you, but I hope that by providing a second copy of the questionnaire you will be able to take the time to complete the survey soon. Your input is extremely important to the results of my doctoral reasearch. In addition, your input will be pooled to be summarized and presented to the faculty of the program. This is your opportunity to have input to the faculty in terms of the appropriateness of the program. Again, I wish to assure you that your response will be handled in a confidential manneT, and of course, anonymously. IF YOU HAVE ALREADY MAILED YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE, PLEASE DISCARD THIS PACKET. I wish to take this opportunity to thank you for considering the completion of the questionnaire. If possible, please mail the questionnaire by November 21, 1984, 5incerely, Sara Doubledee Ph.D. Candidate College and University Administration College of Education Michigan State University 132 November 28, 1983 Dear Colleague: A few weeks ago you received the second copy of a questionnaire being completed to study the perceptions of graduates of the Program in College and University Administration. The survey is the focus of my dissertation. This card serves as a reminder of just how important your input is. Data analysis must begin soon. Please mail your completed questionnaire today. Sincerely Sara Doubledee Ph.D. Candidate College and University Administration Michigan State University College of Education 133 A S tu d y o f C h a r a c te r is tic s o f G r a d u a te s o f T h e P r o g r a m in C o lle g e a n d U n iv e r s it y A d m in is tr a tio n a n d T h e ir P e r c e p t io n s o f T h e ir D o c to r a l P r o g r a m A Q u estio n n aire To P e rso n s Who R eceived A D octoral D egree In E ducation Betw een The Y ears J a n u a ry 1972 and J a n u a ry 1983 M ichigan S ta te U n iv ersity College of E d u catio n D epartm ent of A d m in istratio n and C u rricu lu m P ro g ram in C ollege and U n iv ersity A d m in istratio n D octoral D issertatio n R esearch S a ra D oubledee Ph.D. C andidate 134 DOCTORAL PROGRAM GRADUATE SURVEY FACULTY OF COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND CURRICULUM COLLEGE OF EDUCATION GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS: (1). IF, FOR ANY REASON, YOU FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE PROVIDING THE INFORMATION REQUESTED IN AN ITEM, PLEASE SKIP THAT QUESTION AND CONTINUE ON WITH THE SURVEY. (2). ALTHOUGH SOME QUESTIONS CALL FOR SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO RECALL, WE ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WILL RELY ON YOUR MEMORY RATHER THAN FORMAL RECORDS AND WILL FEEL FREE TO ESTIMATE OR TO PROVIDE YOUR BEST GUESS WHEN NECESSARY. BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA: Degree Earned; Ed.D. Ph.D. Major Program Focus: ___ Higher Education Student Personnel Uncertain Year You Received Your Diploma: Gender: Male Female Age: Present Age: Age When Accepted: Age At Completion: 19 EMPLOYMENT DATA: Present Position: Current Rank Or Title: Type of Institution Please Provide The Percentage 0£ Time You Spend In The Following Categories Within The Responsibilities Of Your Present Position: . Administrative ____ Teaching ___ Research _____ Consulting Other (Please Explain): Are You Now Employed In A Position Which Fully Satisfies The Primary Employment Objective You Held While Working Toward The Doctorate Degree: _ _ _ YeB ____ No Are You Satisfied With This Current Position? ___ Yes ____ No Have Your Employment Objectives Changed Since You Entered The Work Force? Yes No How Many Different Positions Have You Held Since Doctoral Degree Completion? Have You Made The Majority Of These Changes Through Your Own Personal Choice? Yes No How Many Different Position Or Job Offers Did You Consider Before You Chose Your Current Position? _ _ _ How Many Upward Position Changes Have You Made, Or Promotions Have You Received Within Your Present Organization? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Is Your Current Position The HlgheBt Ranking Position Which You Might Most Likely Achieve Within This Organization? _ Yes __ No FINANCIAL DATA: What Is Your Current Income? nelow $9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000-19,999 20,000-24,999 25,000-29,999 30,000-34,999 35,000-39,999 40,000-44,999 45,000-49,999 50,000-54,999 55,000-59,999 Over $60,000 ---- Did You Receive A Fellowship Or Assistantshlp While Engaged In Doctoral Study? _ _ Yes __ No If You Answered Yes, Who Provided The Fellowship Or Assistantshlp? Was It Necessary For You To Seek A Loan To Complete Your Doctoral Degree? ___ Yes Did You Complete Your Degree While In Pull Time Employment? _ _ Did You Complete Your Degree While In Part-Time Employment? ___ Yes ___ No ___ No Yes ___ No If You Answered Yes To Either Of The Last Two Questions, Is Your Current Employer The Same Employer You Worked For During Doctoral Study? ___ Yes ___ No 135 PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES: Do You Belong To Any Professional Organizations Yes ___ No With A Primary Focus In Higher Education? Do You Belong To Any Professional Organizations Yes ___ No With A Primary Focus In Administration? Please Indicate The Number Of Organizations At The Indicated Organizational Levels In Which You Consider Your Status As Either Dues Paying Only Or Active: Organizations Higher Education Administration Dues Paying Only Active Membership Local.......... ...... ...... District...... ...... ...... State.......... ...... ...... Dues Paying Only Active Membership Organizational Level ...... ...... ______ ...... ...... National....... ...... ______ ______ International.. ______ ______ ______ Other, specify. ______ _____ ______ _____ Please Indicate The Number Of Offices You Have Held For One Or More Terms In Each Type Of Organization: Higher Education Administration Local.......... District...... State.......... National....... International.. Other, specify. _^ _ _ _ _ _ If You Have Presented Scholarly Papers At Professional Association Meetings, Please Indicate TheNumber Of Papers Presented At Each Level: Higher Education Local.......... ...... Administration ' District....... State.......... National...... _ _ _ International.. ______ ______ ______ Other, specify.___________________________________________________ If You Have Published Since Doctoral Degree Completion, Please Indicate The Number Of Each Type: Books Monograph Article, Non-juried Journal _____ Article, Juried Journal Other, Please Explain: How Many Grant Proposals Have You Authored Which Have Been Funded Since Doctoral Degree Completion? How Many Grant Proposals Have You Co-Authored Which Have Been Funded Since Doctoral Degree Completion? ______ EDUCATIONAL DATA: Was The Initial Response To Your Inquiry For Admission To The Program Prompt? Yes No 136 EDUCATIONAL DATA CONTINUEDi If You Answered No To The Previous Question Regarding Promptness Of The Response To Your Initial Inquiry, Please Specify Any Difficulties You Met; Did The Initial Response To Your Inquiry Answer All Your Questions And Explain The Program Within Reason? Yes No If You Answered No, Please Specify Any Difficulties You Had: Did You Have An Interview With A Faculty Member? ___ Yes No. Yes, Did You Find That Interview Satisfactory? Yes Answered No, Please Specify The Nature Of Your Dissatisfaction: If You Answered No. If You Did You Find The Assignment Of A Temporary Advisor Helpful In Establishing Yourself Within The Department? _ _ Yes ____ No. If No, Please State The Nature Of Your Dissatisfaction: Did Your Temporary Advisor Become Your Permanent (Major) Advisor? Did Your Temporary Advisor Serve On Your Advisory Committee? ___ Yes Yes No No GRADUATE CREDIT: Was Any Graduate Credit Toward Your Doctoral Degree Earned At Any Institution Other Than Michigan State University? Yes No. If Yes, At What Institution: Please Estimate The Number Of Quarter Credits Earned: Did You Complete Any Of Your Program Requirements At Michigan State Extentlon Centers? Yes No. If You Answered Yes, At Which Extentlon Centers Were Credits Earned? ___ __________________________ ___________ ____ _____ ___ ___ Have You Earned Graduate Credit At Any Institution Since Completing Your Doctoral and Program? _____ Yes ___ No.It Yes, Please Name All Of Those Institutions ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF QUARTER CREDITS EARNED AT EACH INSTITUTION:______________ What Was Your Designated Cognate Or Related Area? 137 GRADUATE C R E D IT CONTINUED: Using The Following Scale, Please Indicate How Important Each 0£ The Following Items Were In Your Decision To Enroll In The Doctoral Program At Michigan State University: 1. 0£ Extreme Importance 2. Of Some Importance 3. Of Little Importance A. ____ Reputation B. ____ Reputation Of The Department C. ____ Reputation Of Faculty Members D. ____ Reputation Of Curricular Alternatives E. ____ Offer Of Financial Assistance F. ____ Offer Of Assistantships/ Fellowships/ or Employment G. ____ Advice Of Graduates Of Michigan H. ____ Advice Of Friends Or Colleagues I. ____ Proximity Of Michigan State University To Home Or Job J. ____ Other: 4. Of No Importance Of The Institution State University Please Specify: . Which Of The Above Was The Single Most Important Factor In Your Choice of MSU? ENCIRCLE ONE LETTER: A B C D E F G H I J THE PROGRAM: If You Were To Begin Your Doctoral Program Again, Would You Attend MSU? If No, Where Would You Attend? ___ Yes No ^ If Yes, Why?____________________________________________________________ What Changes Would You Make In Your Program If You Were To Repeat It? No Changes Change Major: From What To What ________________ Change Cognate Or Related Area: Add Courses: Which Delete Courses: One(s)? Which One(s)? From What To What Provide Name(s):__________________ Provide Name(s): Identifying Courses By Course Name, Which Three (3) Courses On Your Program Were: Most Valuable Least Valuable 2. 1. 2. 3. 3. 1. Of These, Which One (1) Course In Your Program Was Most Valuable: Of These, Which One (1) Course In Your Program Was Least Valuable: Sometimes, During A Program Of Study, Students Find A Learning Experience Or Content Which They Believe Should Be Offered To Other Doctoral Students. This Content Might Have Been Provided In A Workshop, Externship, Or Within A Course Taught In Another Department, College Or School. Please Identify This Content, Describing The Source (Where Was It Presented), And Why You Believe It Should Be Incorporated Into Doctoral Study In The Program In College And University Administration. Additional Space Will Be Found On The Next Page: 138 THE PROGRAM CONTINUED: In Your Opinion, How Essential To Your Career Goals Would Advanced Graduate Study In The Following Course Content Areas Be, If You Were Completing Your Program Today? Use The Following Scale: 1. Essential 2. Highly Valuable 3. Useful 4. Minimally Valuable Unit Based: Departmentally Based: Educational Society Futuristics And Educ. Theory And Practice Of Administration Community Relations Planning Change In Organizational Settings Law Of Higher Educ. Continuing Educ. Leadership Career Development College Based: Diffusion Of Innovation Stress Management Development Of Self Understanding Process Of Instructional Development Quantitative Methods Field Research Methods Fieldwork Research 5. Of No Value University Based: U.S. Society And Higher __ Education Historical And Comp. __ Found. Of H.E. Political Issues In H.E. __ Cont. Issues In Am. H.E. Principles And Problems __ Of Instruction Community College __ Student Affairs In H.E. Department In H.E. __ Management Systems In H.E. __ Evaluation In H.E. Community College Admin­ istration American College Student College Student Affairs Praeticum In Student Affairs Administration Independent Research In H.E. Workshops In Admin, and Curr. Readings, Independent Study Independent Research Doctoral Internship Organizational Devopment Organizational Com­ munications Communications And Change Soc. Crg. And Administration Organizational Psychology Complex Organizations Organizational Behavior: Labor Relations Using The Following Scale, Rate Each Of These Items As You Feel It Contributed To Your Personal And Professional Growth While At Michigan State University: 1. High Contribution Note: Some Contribution 3. Moderate Contribution 4. Low S. No Contribution Contribution Use N/A for Not Applicable Internships Practicians Seminars Course Work Independent Study And Readings Assistantshlp/ Fellowship Comprehensive Exams Dissertation Association With Major Professor (Advisor) Association With Faculty On Your Committee Association With Departmental Faculty Or Staff Association With Faculty Or Staff Outside The Department Association With A Mentor Association With Fellow Students Financial Aid Support From The Institution In Which I Was Employed At The Time I Was Enrolled In Doctoral Study Other: Please S p e c i f y : __________ _______________________________________ _____________ 139 THE PROGRAM CONTINUED: Did You Establish A Relationship With An Individual Who Became Your Mentor During Doctoral Study? ____ Yes No If Yes, Please Identify This Individual: _____________________________________________ Was This Individual A Member Of The Department In Which You Were Admitted? Yes No If No, Was The Individual A Member Of The Department Or Dlclpline Designated As Your Cognate Or Related? ___ Yes ___ No On The Whole, How Would You Evaluate Your Program Of Graduate Studies As Preparation For Your Short Term Goals Using The Following Scale: 1. Excellent 2. Your Rating: Good 3. Average ' 4. Less Than Average 5. Poor _____ Using The Same Scale, How Would You Evaluate Your Program Of Graduate Studies As Preparation For Your Long Term Goals: Your Rating: ____ Using The Same Scale Once Again, How Would You Evaluate Your Program Of Graduate Studies As Providing You With The Ability To Develop Those Skills Necessary For Success In Your Subsequent Positions Or Jobs: Your Rating: Please Take This Opportunity To Make Any Comments You Wish Regarding Your Doctoral Program. We Welcome All Comments. Additional Paper. If You Need Additional Space, Please Attach .1>0 Using Chis scale, Using chis scale please race Che please rate Che importance of these effectiveness of Items in your grad­ the department in uate program as preparing you for preparation for your career goals: your career goals : 0 1 12 hr Research Skills (The design, analysis and interaction of educational administrative studies and their applications to specific problems in the field} Statistical Skills (Mathmatical application to studies as noted a b o v e )............ ................. Planning (Identification of short and long range goals for optim;I levels of operations)... Decision Making (The ability to plan and execute determinations within reasonable time limits, which increase organisational effectiveness in meeting goals). Change (Transformation of organ­ izational short and long range goals into organizational activities involving varied levels of personnel)............. Educational Law (ConstitutLonfcl law and statutory requirements relating to higher education)... General Finance (Broad under­ standing of fiscal affairs relating to higher education)... Budgeting (Transformation of educational goals Into financial terms; planning goals followed by development of appropriate budgets) Evaluation (Evaluation method­ ology in higher education)....... Educational Personnel Adminis­ tration (effective personnel man­ agement, recruitment, selection, orientation, training, salary, fringe, benefits, welfare, morale, negotiations, eCc.)................. 3 A 5 Using chis scale, Using chis scale please race the please race Che importance of these effectiveness of items in your grad- Che department in uate program as preparing you for preparation for your career goals: your career g o a l s : 0 1 12 3 A 5 0 1 2i: A rh rn ID n IT r* < o n » Average < > *■* Poor zr r— > cr o < o > < a u n o Below Important Importance Importance o rf *-* a na n o r> H a B 1 [ Not MLnlmal Moderate Important Program Important In Fairly Very Not , ! I Management Technologies (The range, purposes, pro­ cesses and problems assoc­ iated with the diffusion and operations of management information systems in higher education).................... . 55 X 5 Student-Affairs Administration (Effective management of student facilities, resources, and environment within Che educational setting. Includes dealing directly with student problems in groups or on an individual b asis)................ Institutional Development (The knowledge of the pro­ cesses and conditions by which universities, liberal arts colleges, and community colleges can fulfill their missions in society, which would Include knowledge of organizational development, change, commun­ ications, behavior and relations)........................ Student Development Area (Focus on the increasingly diverse range and develop­ ment of traditional and nontradittonal students in higher education. Provides conceptual understanding of student development theories, nature and characteristics of college students, purposes, processes, and problems associated with development of student affairs programs)....................... This Is The End! Thank-You For Your Time And Assistance Please Return In The Provided Envelope. APPENDIX B MISCELLANEOUS TABLES 143 T able B - l . Terminal deg ree I d e n t i f i e d by gender. Ed .D. Ph .D. V alid Gender Male Female Column t o t a l V alid c a s e s = 163 V alid N % N % 2 0 1.6 123 38 98.4 100.0 2 161 M issing c a s e s - 2 Row Frequency 125 38 163 1i»i# T a b le B - 2 . — Age a t t i m e o f s u r v e y . V alid Age N 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 46 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 59 60 61 67 2 2 1 4 13 6 10 15 21 13 7 8 8 6 12 8 3 1 5 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 .2 1.2 .6 2 .5 8.1 3 .7 6 .2 9 .4 13.1 8.1 4.3 4 .9 4 .9 3 .7 7 .4 4 .9 1.9 .6 3 .0 1.2 1.9 1.2 .6 1.2 1.2 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 162 100.0 T otal Mean - 42.64 S td . dev. = 5 . 9 % Range = 3 5 .0 Cum ulative V alid % 1.2 2 .4 3 .0 5 .5 13.6 17.3 23.5 3 2.9 46.0 54.1 5 8.4 63.3 6 8 .2 7 1 .9 79.3 84.2 86.1 86.7 89.7 90.9 9 2 .8 9 4.0 9 4 .6 9 5.8 97.0 9 7.6 9 8 .2 9 8.8 99.4 100.0 Median = 40.3 1*5 T a b l e B - 3 . — Age a t a c c e p t a n c e I n t o program* by g e n d e r . Hal es 1Combined Femal es Age V alid 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 36 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 51 55 T otal N S t . Dev. N % 1 2 1 5 11 15 8 9 10 10 9 6 7 5 3 1 2 1 2 .8 1.7 .8 4 .2 9 .2 12.7 6 .9 7 .6 8 .4 8.4 7 .6 5 .0 5 .7 4 .2 2 .5 .8 1.7 .8 1.7 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 .5 .8 2 .5 .8 .8 1.7 % 2 1 2 2 6 1 5 .4 2 .7 5.4 5 .4 16.3 2 .7 2 5 .4 2 1 1 3 4 2 3 1 5 .4 2 .7 2 .7 8.1 10.8 5 .4 8.1 2 .7 1 2 .7 1 1 1 2 .7 2 .7 2 .7 37 119 119 5 .5 V alid V alid N N 1 2 1 7 12 17 10 15 11 10 11 6 9 6 4 4 6 3 5 1 3 1 4 1 1 3 1 1 % .6 1.3 .6 4 .6 7 .7 10.9 6 .4 9 .6 7.1 6.4 7 .1 3 .8 5 .9 3 .8 2 .6 2 .6 3 .8 1.9 3 .3 .6 1.9 .6 2 .6 .6 .6 1.9 .6 .6 156 37 7.15 156 6 .1 3 H6 T a b le B -4 .— Age a t degree c o m p le tio n , by gen der. Females Males Combined Age V alid V alid N % S t. 2 1 7 6 9 8 13 8 6 9 10 8 7 1 4 4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 1.7 .8 5 .9 5 .0 7 .6 6 .8 10.9 6 .8 5 .0 7 .6 8 .4 6 .8 5 .9 .8 3 .4 3 .4 .8 .8 .8 1.7 1.7 1.7 .8 .8 1.7 .8 1 .8 119 Total N D ev. % .6 1 24 26 27 26 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 53 54 57 58 N 119 6.01 1 2 .7 3 1 1 5 8.1 2 .7 2 .7 13.5 5 3 3 1 3 3 2 13.5 8.1 8.1 2 .7 8.1 8.1 5 .4 2 5 .4 1 2 .6 1 2 .7 1 2 .7 1 37 2 .7 37 6 .5 2 V alid N 1 1 2 1 7 9 10 9 18 8 '11 12 13 9 10 4 6 4 3 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 156 % .6 .6 1.3 .6 4 .6 5 .9 6 .4 5 .9 11.5 5.1 7.1 7 .7 8 .3 5 .9 6 .4 2 .6 3 .8 2 .6 1.9 .6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 .6 1.3 1.3 .6 .6 .6 .6 156 6 .1 4 147 T a b l e B - 5 . — P r o p o r t i o n o f work t i m e s p e n t 1n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i v i t i e s . Valid P e rc e n ta g e o f Time 1 5 10 15 17 20 30 35 37 40 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 91 95 96 98 99+ T otal Mean = 72.54 Cum ulative V alid % N % 1 4 6 4 1 1 3 1 1 2 10 2 5 1 10 6 7 5 20 1 10 1 2 35 .7 2 .9 4 .3 2 .9 .7 .7 2 .2 .7 .7 1.4 7 .2 1.4 3 .6 .7 7 .2 4 .3 5 .1 3 .6 14.6 .7 7 .2 .7 1.4 25.4 .7 3 .6 7 .9 10.8 11.5 12.2 14.4 15.1 15.8 17.2 2 4 .4 2 5 .8 2 9 .4 2 9 .8 3 7 .0 41.3 46 .4 5 0 .0 6 4.6 65.3 7 2 .5 7 3 .2 7 4 .6 100.0 139 100.0 100.0 S t. dev. = 29.71 1*8 T a b l e B - 6 . — P r o p o r t i o n o f work t i m e s p e n t In t e a c h i n g a c t i v i t i e s . V alid P erc e n ta g e o f Time 1 2 3 5 8 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 50 60 66 00 90 95 99+ % 2 2 2 18 1 20 3 3 A 1 2 3 2 1 5 2 1 7 2 .4 2 .4 2 .4 2 1 .8 1 .2 2 4 .2 3 .6 3 .6 4 .8 4 .0 1 .2 2 .4 3 .6 2 .4 1.2 6 .0 2 .4 1 .2 8 .4 2 .4 4 .8 7 .2 2 9 .0 3 0 .2 54.4 5 8 .0 61 .6 6 6 .4 7 1 .2 7 2 .4 7 4 .8 78.4 80.8 82.0 8 8 .0 90.4 9 1 .6 100.0 83 100.0 100.0 k Total Val1d c a s e s = S3 Mean = 29.57 Cum ulative V alid % N M issing c a s e s = 82 S t . dev. “ 3 2 .62 1^9 T a b l e B - 7 P r o p o r t l o n o f work t i m e s p e n t 1n r e s e a r c h a c t i v i t i e s . V alid P e rc e n ta g e o f Time 1 2 3 5 7 10 15 20 25 30 35 50 70 85 99+ Total V a l i d c a s e s = 73 Mean = 1 6 . 5 8 Cumulatl ve V alid % N % 4 4 1 22 1 14 5 8 4 1 2 3 1 1 2 5 .5 5 .5 1.4 3 0 .0 1.4 19.2 6 .8 11.0 5 .5 1.4 2 .7 4 .1 1.4 1.4 2 .7 5 .5 11.0 12.4 42.4 4 3.8 63.0 6 9 .8 8 0 .8 86.3 8 7.7 90.4 94.5 9 5 .9 97.3 100.0 73 100.0 100.0 M i s s i n g c a s e s = 92 S t . dev. = 2 0 .8 7 150 T a b l e B - 8 . — P r o p o r t i o n o f work t i m e s p e n t 1n c o n s u l t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Valid P erc e n ta g e o f Time 1 2 3 5 10 15 17 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 60 65 T otal V a l i d c a s e s = 71 Mean = 1 5 . 7 U’umul at1 ve V alid % N % 1 3 2 21 19 1 1 5 5 3 2 3 1 2 1 1 1.4 4 .2 2 .8 29.7 2 6 .9 1.4 1.4 7.0 7 .0 4 .2 2 .8 4 .2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 5 .6 8 .4 3 8.1 6 5.0 66.4 6 7 .8 74.0 8 1 .8 86.0 8 8 .8 9 3.0 9 4 .4 9 7.2 9 8.6 100.0 71 100.0 100.0 z.8 M i s s i n g c a s e s = 94 S t . d e v . = 1 4 .8 3 151 T a b l e B - 9 . — P r o p o r t i o n o f work t i m e s p e n t In o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s . Valid P e rc e n ta g e o f Time 1 2 3 5 10 15 20 25 30 40 50 55 60 75 80 99+ T o tal V a l i d c a s e s » 80 Mean = 1 4 . 7 6 Cumul a t l v e V alid * N % 43 1 1 6 3 4 7 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 5 3.7 1.3 1.3 7 .5 3 .7 5 .0 8 .6 1.3 2 .5 2 .5 2 .5 1.3 2 .5 1.3 2 .5 2 .5 53.7 5 5.0 56.3 6 3.8 67.5 72.5 81.1 82.4 8 4.9 87.4 8 9 .9 9 1 .2 93.7 9 5.0 97.5 100.0 80 100.0 100.0 M i s s i n g c a s e s - 85 S t. dev. = 2 4 ,0 4 152 T able B -10.— Number o f c o n s id e re d p o s i t i o n s by y e a r o f g r a d u a tio n . Number of P o sitio n s 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10 12 22 99+ Total Year 72 73 74 2 1 4 2 3 2 5 1 0 5 d 1 3 1 75 2 76 6 2 5 1 77 3 1 1 78 79 80 81 82 2 2 2 1 6 1 4 2 4 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 10 1 1 12 18 2 14 7 7 10 8 12 10 T a b le B - l l . — Number of o r g a n i z a t io n a l o f f i c e s r e p o r t e d by l e v e l . Number of O f f ic e s 1n S p e c i a l ty Focus Level Higher Education Local D is tric t S tate N ational In te rn a tio n a l O ther T otal A d m in is tr a tio n 15 9 30 29 5 1 16 8 27 23 6 0 89 80 153 T a b le B -1 2 .— Summary o f alumni who r e p o r te d p u b l i c a t i o n s . Frequency Publ 1cat1 ons Books Monographs O th er N onjuried a r t i c l e s J u ried a r tic le s G ran ts C o-authored g r a n t s T otal 15 20 63 45 31 60 46 280 V a lid % 5 .4 7.1 22.5 16.1 11.1 2 1.4 16.4 T able B-13.— C r e d its earned a t o t h e r I n s t i t u t i o n s toward d o c to ra l d egree. Q u a r te r C r e d i t s Frequency 0 3 4 5 6 9 10 12 IS 16 18 20 30 35 40 45 60 75 luo 118 250 Total 121 1 4 2 6 5 3 7 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 165 V alid c a s e s = 165 M issing c a s e s = 0 V alid % 73.3 .6 2 .4 1.2 3 .6 3 .0 1.8 4 .2 .6 1 .2 1 .2 1 .2 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 .6 100.0 15* T ab le B -1*.~-C ourses l i s t e d as most v a lu a b le and l e a s t v a l u a b l e . Course Name Frequency Least Val u ab le Frequency Most V aluable Choice 1 2 3 Theory 4 P r a c t i c e A d m in is tra tio n A d olescen t P e r s o n a l i t y A r ts Management Advanced Q u a n t i t a t i v e A d m in is tr a tio n : General A dult E d u c atio n /L earn in g A f f e c t i v e Domain A11 Courses American C ollege American S o c ie ty Applied Q u a n t i t a t i v e A pp raisal o f Higher Education Norm B e l l — any c o u r s e B u s in e ss Education C areer Development Change Community C o lleg e C o lleg e S tu d e n ts Community R e la tio n s Community S e r v ic e Complex O rg a n iz a tio n s Computers C o ntin u in g E d ucation C r o s s - C u ltu re C u ltu r e C u ltu r e and P e r s o n a l i t y Curriculum Development Departm ent 1n Higher Education D ir e c te d S tu d ie s D isse rta tio n D ressel E d u c atio n a l A d m in istra tio n E ducation al C ourses: Ed 804 H Ed 606 Ed 822 A 34 Choice 1 2 3 3 1 16 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 5 3 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 3 1 1 1 3 5 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 4 7 1 1 3 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 6 2 1 3 3 1 155 T a b le B - H . — C o n tin u ed . Course Name Frequency L east Val uable Frequency Most Val uab le Choice 1 2 3 Ed 822 C Ed 822 E Ed 824 D Ed 828 E Ed 682 Ed 928 D Ed 951 E Ed 967 Ed 983 E du catio nal C ourses: General E du catio nal Goals E du catio nal Finance E d u catio nal Law or Law E du cation al Psychology E ducation al Research E v a lu a tio n In H igher Education E v a lu a tio n : I n s t i t u t i o n a l E xecutive Management F e a t h e r s t o n e 's Courses F i e l d Study F u t u r l s t i e s & H igher Education Group Dynamics Higher Education A d m in is tra tio n H is to ry of American Education Independent Study I n s t i t u t i o n a l Design Ind ep en den t Research I n d u s t r i a l R e la ti o n s In stru c tio n I n te r n s h i p J e n n i n g s 's Management Labor & I n d u s t r i a l R e la tio n s L eadership L e g a litie s Choi ce 1 2 3 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 1 4 1 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 2 5 1 1 1 4 2 2 3 1 5 3 2 1 1 5 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 4 156 T a b le B - 1 4 . — C o n t i n u e d . Course Name Frequency Most Val u ab le Frequency L e ast V aluable Choi ce 2 3 1 Learnlng Management S y stem s/S cien ce Management Systems and In fo rm a tio n Management Sequence Mental H ealth MET 818 O r g a n iz a tio n a l B ehavior/Theory OMERAD P e r s o n a lI ty P hilosophy o f Education P lannl ng P lanning Change P o l1 t1 c s P ractlc u m s P ro cess Program P lanning Psychology Psychology o f Higher Education Psychom etrics Readings Research School FI nance School Law Secondary E ducation Seminars A d m in is tra tio n Community C o lleg e Computers General Higher Education In stru c tio n S tu d e n t A f f a i r s S o cial O rg a n iz a tio n s S o cial S t r a t a Soclology 1 4 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 Choi ce 1 2 3 1 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 2 1 1 1 5 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 157 Table B—T4 .—Continued. Course Name Frequency Most Valuable Frequency L e ast Val uable Choi ce 1 2 3 Sociology of Education S tu d e n t A f f a i r s S tu d e n t Housing S tu d e n t Per sonnel Stamatakos S t a t Courses General Ed 669 Ed 882 C Ed 982 S t a t Sequence Survey Research Theory o f Change W. Johnson Teaching T e s t s and Measurements Testlng U.S. S o c ie ty Women In Higher Education Choice 1 2 3 5 1 3 3 7 1 3 1 6 2 6 1 1 1 1 1 3 6 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 158 T a b l e B -1 5. - - M e n t o r s . Name o f Mentor W. Anderson N. Bell BUsony Brookover Burnett Buschman Cofer R. Col 11ns M. Davis P. Dress el El s t e i n Featherstone Fitzgerald G1ul 1 B. Given R. Green Gross Groty Henson Hickey Hooker Hunter Ivey Jacobson J e n n in g s J . Johnson V. Johnson W. Johnson R. K ie ls A. K1oster Lorlmer Mercer McKee McK1nney Frequency 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 B 15 2 1 1 1 1 1 159 T a b l e B - 1 5.— C o n ti n u e d . Name o f Mentor McSweeney Nelson North Nonnamaker 01mstead Paolucc1 Parker Raines M. R1st Schaffer G. Smith Stamatakos Steltelbaum Sweetland Thorton Useem Vandusen Weaver Wharton V. Wiseman Yelon Frequency 1 5 3 4 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 APPENDIX C RESPONDENTS' WRITTEN COMMENTS 160 161 C u r r e n t Rank o r T i t l e The r e s p o n d e n ts l i s t e d t h e i r c u r r e n t rank o r t i t l e . These a r e l i s t e d by diploma y e a r . C u r r e n t rank Is l i s t e d in a l p h a b e t i c a l o r d e r . I f more than one I n d iv i d u a l gave s i m i l a r r e s p o n s e s , t h e a c t u a l number is shown In p a r e n t h e s e s a f t e r t h e t i t l e . Date o f G r a d u a tio n : 1972 A s s i s t a n t Chairman A s s i s t a n t Dean f o r S t u d e n t A f f a i r s A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , C ar ee r S e r v i c e s Cen ter A s s is ta n t Vice-Chancellor Dean Dean, A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e s Dean, Community Coll ege Dean o f I n s t r u c t i o n D i r e c t o r o f Academic Outreach Program D i r e c t o r , Continuing E n g in ee rin g Educator Independent Counselor and C o n s u l t a n t , F r e e l a n c e W r i te r President, P rivate Enterprise Reti red S u p e r v is o r II V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Academia V ice-President, P rivate E nterprise Year o f G r a d u a ti o n : 1973 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e C o o r d i n a t o r , C o lle g e o f Human Medicine A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f Placement A s s o c i a t e Dean o f S t u d e n t s ( P u b li c Four Year + Masters) A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r o f Adult Ed ucat io n (Land Grant I n s t i t u t i o n ) Chairman o f Board, and P r e s i d e n t (I manage s e v e r a l companies) D e a n / V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Community C o lleg e Academic A f f a i r s D i r e c t o r o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l R es ear ch, Community College D i r e c t o r , Four-Year I n s t i t u t i o n 162 Insurance Agent P h y s i c i a n - l n - C h a r g e , Alcohol and Drug Treatment Program P r e s i d e n t , Li beral Arts College President/Owner o f P r i v a t e , f o r P r o f i t , A l t e r n a t i v e Health Deliver y System P r e s i d e n t , P u b l i c Community College Unemployed, but had s e v e ra l temporary p o s i t i o n s s i n c e le aving MSU. Earning some income a s commercial bookeeper V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Development, P r i v a t e Four-Year I n s t i t u t i o n Year of Graduat ion: 197^ Acting V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Student A f f a i r s , Four-Year S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t o r , S t a t e Government A s s i s t a n t t o Dea n/Associate D i r e c t o r , Criminal J u s t i c e C e n t e r , P u b l i c A s s i s t a n t V i c e - P r e s i d e n t For A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , and A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r o f Higher E duc atio n, Large Four-Year U n i v e r s i t y A s s i s t a n t t o th e Dean o f Engineering A s s i s t a n t S u p e r in t e n d e n t, P u b lic Schools A s s o c i a t e Dean o f Stude nt Development, P r i v a t e L i b e r a l A r ts A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r o f Mechanical En g in ee ri n g , U n i v e r s i t y A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , P ublic U n i v e r s i t y Chairman of t h e Board, Research C on sultin g C orpo ration Dean, School o f General S t u d i e s £ P r o f e s s i o n a l Ed ucat io n/an d P r o f e s s o r , Highly S e l e c t i v e Graduate Research U n i v e r s i t y Dean of S t u d e n t s / P r o f e s s o r , P u b lic Community College D i r e c t o r , Cleveland S c h o lo a r sh ip Program D i r e c t o r , Emeritus D i r e c t o r , P r e v e n t a t i v e M ed ic in e /P u b l ic Health Department D i r e c t o r , Stud en t Development, Four Year U n i v e r s i t y w ith Graduate Program Education C o n s u l t a n t , S t a t e Department o f P u b li c Health Executive D i r e c t o r F a c u l t y , Full-Time Teaching, Community College P o l i c e S e r g e a n t, M e tr o p o lita n P o l i c e Department P r o f e s s o r and A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , P u b l ic Criminal J u s t i c e Center P r o v o s t, Community College 163 V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Development, P r i v a t e L i b e r a l A r ts U n i v e r s i t y Year o f Graduat ion: 1975 A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E xecu tive S e c r e t a r y / T r e a s u r e r , S ta te Professional Association A s s o c i a t e S u p e r i n t e n d e n t, Michigan I n te r m e d i a te School D i s t r i c t P s y c h o t h e r a p i s t tn P r i v a t e P r a c t i c e P r e s i d e n t , Four-Year S t a t e College P r o f e s s o r , Community College U. S. Government, no t i t l e , rank Year o f Graduat ion: 1976 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A s s i s t a n t to t h e P r e s i d e n t , Co-op. Five-Year P r i v a t e Engineering and Management College A s s i s t a n t Dean f o r Plan ning and A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Medical School A s s i s t a n t D ean /D ir ecto r o f Graduate Program, P u b l ic U n i v e r s i t y A s s i s t a n t V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Academic A f f a i r s A s s o c i a t e Dean, Stud en t A f f a i r s - M e d i c in e A s s o c i a t e Dean f o r A t h l e t i c s , U n i v e r s i t y w it h 16,000 S tu dents A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r Stude nt A f f a i r s , Health S cien ce U n i v e r s i t y Dean, Community College Dean of Admissions, Comprehensive U n i v e r s i t y , P r i v a t e Dean, School of Business A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , P r i v a t e Four-Year Li beral Arts U n i v e r s i t y , Coed D i r e c t o r , Educ atio na l U n i v e r s i t y D i r e c t o r o f Graduate Medical Education & A s s o c i a t e Dean f o r C l i n i c a l A f f a i r s (Medical School) D i r e c t o r of S a l e s , P r i v a t e Business S ector P r o f e s s o r , Community College P r o f e s s o r o f E duc atio n , Community College Unemployed V ic e - C h a n c e l lo r , U n i v e r s i t y R e l a t i o n s and Development, P h .D .- G ra nti n g U niversity, P rivate V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Stu de nt A f f a i r s , Small independent Church-Related P r i v a t e Col lege V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Studen t A f f a i r s , P u b l ic U n i v e r s i t y 164 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1977 A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Higher E duc ation, U n i v e r s i t y A ssistant Professor, I n s t r u c t i o n a l Development, U n i v e r s i t y A s s i s t a n t V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Academic A f f a i r s , I n s t i t u t i o n with Ph.D. Programs A s s o c i a t e Executive D i r e c t o r , A s s o c i a t i o n f o r Retarded C i t i z e n s D i r e c t o r o f Admissions, S t a t e Four-Year U n i v e r s i t y D i r c t o r , Large P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t y Manager, S a le s and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e T r a i n i n g , In dust ry P r e s i d e n t , P u b l ic Community College P r o v o s t , Community College Res ea rch er , S t a t e Governmental Agency, Noneducation Teacher, 8th Grade, H i s t o r y and Math Year o f Gr aduation : 1978 A ssistant D irector, University A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , S t a t e College Curriculum C oo r d in ato r and E d i t o r , B ib le I n s t i t u t e Dean, Stud en t and A d m i n i s t r a t i v e A f f a i r s , P r i v a t e Graduate D i r e c t o r o f Residence L i f e , P r i v a t e Four-Year Education C o n s u l t a n t , Michigan Department o f Education Exe cu tive D i r e c t o r , Social S e r v ic e Agency P r e s i d e n t , College P r o f e s s o r o f Psychology, Four-Year L ib er al Arts V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Academic A f f a i r s , A g r i c u l t u r e and Technology Year o f Graduat io n: 1979 A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r o f th e Campus, Charge o f S tudent A f f a i r s , Regional Campus/Four-Year P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t y A s s i s t a n t Dean, College o f Human Medicine, Medical School A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Four-Year Chai r p er so n , D iv is io n o f General and P u b li c S e r v ic e S t u d i e s , Community Col lege C le r k s h i p C o o r d in a to r, Department of Family P r a c t i c e 165 Dean o f S t u d e n t s , Four-Year P r i v a t e Small College Department Chairper son and A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , U n i v e r s i t y , P u b li c D i r e c t o r , Ex ter nal Courses and Programs D i r e c t o r o f Student A c t i v i t i e s , P h .D .- G ra nti ng U n i v e r s i t y Headmaster, Overseas School P r e s i d e n t , Community College Program A d m i n i s t r a t o r , U n i v e r s i t y V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Advancement, A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r o f Speech, P r i v a t e , C hurch-R elated, Coed, Liber al A r t s / P r o f e s s i o n a l Program Year o f Graduat ion: 1980 A d m i n i s t r a t i v e V i c e - P r i n c i p a l , J u n i o r High School A s s i s t a n t Dean, Community College A ssistant Professor A s s i s t a n t t o th e V i c e - P r e s i d e n t For S tudent A f f a i r s , Four-Year A s s i s t a n t S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , Nonpublic System A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , Career Plan ning and Placement, P r i v a t e Li beral A r t s / Business College A s s o c i a t e V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Academic A f f a i r s and Dean o f t h e School o f Adult Ed u cat io n, Four-Year C a t h o l i c U n i v e r s i t y Dean o f Continuing E duc ation, Community College Dean o f L i b r a r i e s Dean of S t u d e n t s , High School D i r e c t o r o f Campus A c t i v i t i e s , Large S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y D i r e c t o r o f Program A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Business and Community Development, Department o f Commerce D i r e c t o r o f Stud en t S e r v ic e s and A t h l e t i c s , P r i v a t e , Independent School P r e s i d e n t , Criminal J u s t i c e C o n s u l t a n t s , Self-Employed P r o f e s s o r , F u l l , C oo r d in ato r Criminal J u s t i c e Program Professor, State University S e c u r i t y C o n s u l t a n t , Self-Employed V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Student A f f a i r s , Four-Year P r i v a t e Year o f Gr aduation: 1981 Area D i r e c t o r , Land Grant U n i v e r s i t y 166 A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Big Ten U n i v e r s i t y A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Four-Year College A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r , Extended Degree Program, P u b l i c U n i v e r s i t y A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , S t a t e College Dean o f S t u d e n t s , Community College D i r e c t o r o f Housing and Residence L i f e , P u b l i c Four-Year U n i v e r s i t y D i r e c t o r o f Nonprofi t Educational O r g aniz atio n Execu tiv e D i r e c t o r , J u d i c i a l Faculty, i n s t i t u t e (Government Continuing Education) Independent C o n s u l t a n t , Community College I n s t r u c t o r , Chemistry, Community College Law Enforcement S p e c i a l i s t , U n i v e r s i t y Manager, P r i v a t e Psy c holo gical Co nsulting Firm P o l i c e I n s p e c t o r , Municipal P o l i c e P r o f e s s o r , Undergraduate School o f Management V i c e - P r e s i d e n t o f Advancement, Seminary Wage and S a la r y A d m i n i s t r a t o r , P u b l i c U t i l i t y Year of Graduat io n: 1982 A s s i s t a n t Commissioner, Big Ten A t h l e t i c Conference, I n t e r c o l l e g i a t e A thletics A s s o c i a t e Dean, A rts and S c ie n c e s , Community C olleg e A s s o c i a t e Dean o f S t u d e n t s , P r i v a t e College A s s o c i a t e D i r e c t o r , R e c r e a ti o n a l S ports A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r / B u s i n e s s , A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r E xter na l Plan o f Study, P r i v a t e Four Year A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r o f B us ines s, S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y A s s o c i a t e P r o f e s s o r , Community College C l i n i c a l A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , P r o f e s s i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t e a t University C oordin ator L i f e Planning S t u d i e s , Liber al Arts College Dean o f Freshmen, P r i v a t e U n i v e r s i t y D i r e c t o r o f S t a f f and Program Development, Community College Head o f En gli sh Department, Language I n s t i t u t e U n i v e r s i t y O f f i c e r , Big Ten U n i v e r s i t y V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Community College V i c e - P r e s i d e n t , Community College 167 Defined Use o f Time As L is te d Under " O th er 11 Year o f Graduation: 1972 85% Counseling 20% Task Force and Committee Work 30? S e r v ic e 50% W riting and Counseling Year o f Graduat ion: 1973 80% C l i n i c a l Medicine 25% S e r v ic e ( U n i v e r s i t y and P u b li c ) 100% Insurance Agent 60% Fund-Raising and P u b li c R e la t io n s 20% Marketing and Sales Year o f G rad ua tion : 197^ 5% Student Advising and C o n s u l t a t i o n 30% W riting S t a t e P l a n s , Reports t o Federal O f f i c e ] 5 t P ub li c S ervic e ^0% Fund-Raising Year o f G rad uation: 1975 1*0% I n t e r s h i p S u per vis ion and P r o f e s s i o n a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n 10% Se r v ic e 60% L e g i s l a t i o n , P o l i c i e s , P o l i t i c s 80% P r i v a t e P r a c t i c e Year o f G rad ua tion : 1976 10% Other 2% Community S e r v ic e Year o f G rad uation; 1977 20% Community and S t a t e A c t i v i t i e s 168 50% I n s t r u c t i o n a l Development, C o n s u l t a t i o n t o U n i v e r s i t y F a c u lty on Campus 15% P r e s i d e n t - e l e c t o f National P r o f e s s i o n a l O r g a n iz a tio n 15% Coaching Year o f Gr aduation: 1978 5% P r o f e s s i o n a l Development 55% Special Assignments f o r Governor and S t a t e S u p e r in t e n d e n t Year o f Graduation: 1979 20% Program Research and Development 10% Proposal Writing Year o f Gr aduation: 1980 20% Raising 5% Travel 20% W r i t i n g / E d i t i n g Reports Year o f Gr aduation: 1981 5% P o l i c e P a tr o l 15% Publ1c Se r v ic e 5% Atten ding Student Events 75% F reelance W r i ti n g , Photography, Other 20% Program and Curriculum Development 5% Development o f I n s t r u c t i o n a l M a t e r i a l s 1% I teach one co u r se ov er load per year Year o f Gr aduation : 1982 3% Speaking Engagements Who Provided Fellowship or A s s i s t a n t s h i p ? Year of Graduation: 1972 169 College o f Education Employer Provided T u i t i o n Refund NDEA, T i t l e IV Fellowship Residence H a l ls a t MA and ED.S. Levels Only U n i v e r s i t y General Fund and USOE ( R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Council) Fellowship Year of Graduat io n; 1973 College of S oc ial Sciences and C olleg e of Communication Arts Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education Kellogg (2) Ke11ogg Founda t ion MSU NDEA O f f i c e o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research, MSU R.H.P.D. Student P e r s o n n e l , MSU Year o f Graduation: 197** College o f Education: NDEA Dean o f S tu dents O f f i c e and Department o f Higher Education A d m i n i s t r a t i o n Department o f Higher Education A d m in i s t r a t i o n Doctor Eldon Nonnamaker Kellogg Michigan School Bus. O f f i c i a l s - O n e Year Grad A s s i s t a n t s h i p Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : Residence Halls-Head Advisor R o c k e f e l l e r Foundation Studen t S e r v i c e s , MSU V i c e - P r e s i d e n t f o r Stud en t A f f a i r s : J u d i c i a l Program Year o f Graduation : 1975 LEAA Fellowship Grant For D i s s e r t a t i o n and Worked as I n s t r u c t o r in J u d i c i a l School, MSU NIH U.S. Government 170 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1976 Dean o f S t u d e n t s ; C o ll eg e o f B u s i n e ss ; College o f Education Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y : USOE Grant 1 Year; Graduate A s s i s t a n t 1 Year O f f i c e o f Medical Education Research and Development: MSU Residence Hall Programs S tudent A f f a i r s a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y T u i t i o n Refund From Employer U.S. Government— KHEW Year o f Graduat ion: 1977 College o f Education College o f Education and J u s t i n M o r r i ll College EDP Program Kellogg Foundation Community College Le aders hip Program MSU National A s s o c i a t i o n For Women Deans, A d m i n i s t r a t o r s and Cou ns elors ; C ollege o f Education (Erick so n S c h o l a r s h i p ) Residence H all s Program O f f i c e School o f Nursing, and Worked Emergency Weekend Maintenance a t MSU Year o f Graduat ion: 1978 Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y and Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n & Higher Education Residence H a l ls System Year o f Graduat ion: 1979 . D iv is i o n o f Nursing Kellogg I n t e r n , MSU Graduate A s s i s t a n t MSU Residence Hall Graduate A s s i s t a n t Residence Hall Programs O f f ic e RHPO 171 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1980 C o lleg e o f Education Dean's O f f ic e Law Enforcement A s s i s t a n c e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (LEAA) O f f i c e o f I n s t i t u t i o n a l Res ear ch, MSU R e s i d e n t i a l L i f e Department/MSU; Phi Delta Kappa/MSU Year o f Graduation : 198 1 College o f Education College o f Urban Development Danforth Department o f Residence L i f e , MSU Law Enforcement Education Program (LEEP) Year o f Graduat ion: 1982 Human Fellowship (MSU C olleg e o f Education; Russell Sage Research Gr ant; Klels S c h o l a r s h i p (MSU)) MSU A s s i s t a n t s h i p None—However, I Worked Full Time In The Residence H alls Social S cien ce and H um an itites Research Council of Canada and Fellowship/MSU What Other P u b l i c a t i o n s Have You Completed? Year o f Gradu ation: 1972 Local Workshops, Manuals, Follow-up Reports One Monograph C hapter, One Book Cha pter , 50+ A r t i c l e s For National Pubi i c a t i o n S t a te - L e v e l R e p o r t s / I n s t i t u t i o n a l Reports Ten S t u d i e s , P a r t s o f G r a n ts, Book Chapters Three Handbooks Year o f Graduat ion: 1973 Four Conference Proceedings 172 Reviews, T e s ts ( 2 ) , Book C h ap ter s , Essays Year o f G ra du ation: 197*> A s s o c i a t e E d i t o r —J u r i e d J o u r n a l , E d i t o r i a l Board—J u r i e d Journal Author With Colleagues a Continuing A n a l y t i c a l N ew s le tte r o f Comments About P u b l ic P o l i c y Issues Four+ S t a t i s t i c a l R e p o r ts, S t a f f Trends in Special E duc ation, Special Education Trends— 1972-82 Two T r a i n i n g Manuals Two Unpublished Major Reports f o r S t a t e Board o f E d u c a t io n / S t a t e Legislators Year o f Gr aduation : 1975 Newspapers Year o f Gr aduation : 1976 Two A r t i c l e s in th e N ew s le t te r o f t h e Macomb Engl ish Teachers 1 A s s o c i a t i o n Encyclopedia A r t i c l e Paper Presented At National Meeting P ub lish ed In "Pro ce ed in g s" Several A r t i c l e s , T r a i n i n g Manuals, and Books f o r P r o p r i e t a r y O r g a n iz a tIo n s Year o f Gr aduation : 1977 Chapters in Three Books Two Papers Year o f G ra du ation: 1978 No P u b l i c a t i o n s Noted Year of G ra duatio n: 1979 Book Chapters (2 I n d i v i d u a l s ) Chapter In Book 173 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1980 Three Papers P r esen ted At S t a t e / N a t i o n a l Meetings One T r a i n i n g Manual At S t a t e Level Year o f Graduation: 1981 Five C o m p u te r -a ss is te d I n s t r u c t i o n Modules Two Educational Manuals Essay in Book; S e l f - P u b l i s h e d Workbook Short S t o r i e s {Small L i t e r a r y Magazines) Year o f Graduation: 1982 Three A r t i c l e s P ublished p r i o r t o D o c to r a l: 2 j u r i e d , 1 n o n j u r i e d Two A r t i c l e s p r e s e n t l y being reviewed in J u r i e d J o u r n a l s f o r p u b l i c a t i o n (su b m itt e d , not p u b l i s h e d - - u n d e r review) What Was The D i f f i c u l t y You Experienced With Receiving A Prompt Response From The Department At The Time Of Admission? Year o f Graduation: 1972 I was i n i t i a l l y d i s a p p o i n t e d in t h e time t h e program admission committee took to d e c id e where my focused i n t e r e s t was. They guessed and then asked me l a t e r i f they had made a c o r r e c t d e d u c t i o n . Year o f Gr aduation: 1973 One in d iv id u a l (named) was a major b a r r i e r c a u s in g I n a c c u r a te in formation t o be given th e p r o s p e c t i v e c a n d i d a t e Year o f Graduation: 197^ I n i t i a l l y d e c l i n e d —had to appeal d e c i s i o n None, thanks t o Dr. Max Raines A l o t o f Hot a i r in Stu de nt Advisement O f f i c e My a p p l i c a t i o n l i t e r a l l y f e l l between t h e c r a c k s . passed i t along to th e proper perso n. Someone had not Year o f G r a d u a t i o n ; 1975 No a d v i s o r a v a i l a b l e G e tti n g someone to d i s c u s s program p o s s i b i l i t i e s Year o f Graduat io n: 1976 Much d ela y t did not w a i t long, but a f r i e n d got me an i n t e r v i e w . I got a c a l 1. After th at Year of Gradu ation: 1977 There were t h r e e problems: 1. Concern o v e r my d e s i r e t o a t t e n d p a r t time while working f u l l time 2. Delay t a c t i c s w h i l e I was p r e s s u re d t o q u i t my j o b , and 3. A d ditional s c r e e n i n g i n t e r v i e w s b e f o r e th e d e c i s i o n . Year o f Graduat ion: 1978 No Comments Year o f Graduation: 1979 I t is u n c l e a r whether or not some o f my c r e d e n t i a l s were l a t e , but a lth o u g h a p r o v i s i o n a l d e c i s i o n had been made t o a c c e p t me i n to th e M.A. program I was not Informed u n t i l a f r i e n d was a b l e t o t a l k d i r e c t l y to one o f th e p r o f e s s o r s . I was a t f i r s t ac ce pted i n t o t h e M.A. program (August 1975) and s u b s e q u e n t l y , I was asked t o jump i n t o th e Ph.O. p r o ­ gram (Spring 1976). There was some d i f f i c u l t y In g e t t i n g th e M.A. a cce p ta n c e s o l i d i f i e d and t h i s was long d i s t a n c e . Since I was on t h e s p o t f o r t h e Ph.D. program, t h e r e were c o n s i d e r a b l y fewer problems. Year of Graduation: 1980 Someone m i s f i l e d my GRE s c o r e s and I had t o make s e v e r a l a d d i t i o n a l I n q u ir e s t o g e t my admission d e c i s i o n p ro c e s s e d . Year o f Graduation: 1981 No Comments 175 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1982 Perhaps i t was because I l i v e o v e r s e a s , but cor respon den ce has been difficult There were no d i f f i c u l t i e s : t h e p r o c e s s simply took s e v e r a l months because o f t h e time I a p p l i e d . What Was The Nature o f Your D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With The Answers To Your Questions? Year o f G ra dua tion : 1972 I was not s u f f i e c i e n t l y c l e a r about program o p t i o n s and a r e a s o f s p e c i a l i z a t i o n t o make a focus d e c i s i o n o r d e c l a r a t i o n a t t h a t e a r l y s t a g e . An e x p l o r a t o r y c o n f eren c e would have speeded t h i n g s up; I l o s t t h a t one s e m e s te r . Year o f G ra dua tion : 1973 (Name D e l e t e d ) , Chairman o f HYPER Department was a p p a r e n t l y making th e r u l e s as he went. No s t r a i g h t answers. Year of Graduat ion: 197*» I made s e v e r a l phone c a l l s t o o b t a i n info rm ati o n and two v i s i t s to HSU campus. Year of Graduat ion: 1975 The answers were q u i t e vague; t h e ap proach, u n t i l I met w i th Dr. Sweetland, was more o f a "no time f o r d i s c u s s i o n " r e s p o n s e . They asked me what my intended a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s p e c i a l t y was, and thus i n d i c a t i n g t h e c u r ri c u l u m t r a c k on a p r i n t e d c h a r t . None o f t h e t r a c k s f it t e d m e!t! They had no idea who I was o r which program I d e s i r e d . from o f f i c e t o o f f i c e . I was s h u t t l e d The program was e x p la i n e d well enough, but th e s t r u c t u r e appeared t o be too r i g i d l y tra c k e d toward s e v e r a l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and s u b - s p e c i a l t i e s . My I n t e r e s t s were more g e n e r a l . Year o f Gr aduation : 1976 No Comment 176 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1977 Only t h a t 1 must q u i t my jo b I have no r e c a l l Year o f G rad ua tion ; 1978 Host, I t h i n k . There was no explanation as to the availability of graduate assistantships. Year o f Graduat io n: 1980 Advisor was Dr. Walt Johnson, who was s u p e r , and V i r g i n i a was i n d i s p e n sible. C atalog survey o f c u r r i c u l u m changed over 25 y e a r s . Year o f Graduat io n: 1981 No d i f f i c u l t i e s , but a l l q u e s t i o n s and e x p l a n a t i o n s had a l r e a d y been handled v ia t h e p r o f s te a c h i n g e x t e n s i o n c o u r s e s in S a u l t S t e . Marie. Year o f Gradu ation: 1982 No Comment What Was The Nature o f Your D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With Your In terview? Year o f Gradu ation: 1972 No Comment Year o f Gradu ation: 1973 (Name w i t h h e l d ) , Chairman o f HYPER Department, " m i s le d " p r o s p e c t i v e c a n d i d a t e . L a t e r , s e v e r a l p r o f e s s o r s in Higher Education were extrem ely h e l p f u l and went th e " e x t r a " mile t o g e t th e c a n d i d a t e i n t o h i s d o c t o r a l program. 177 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1974 I t Is d i f f i c u l t t o r e l a t e t o t h e s e Items. At th e time o f ap p l y in g f o r an e a r l i e r program I was r e a l l y l o s t and re ceived l i t t l e i n f o r m a ti o n . Since I was on campus when a p p ly in g f o r th e Ph. D. program I did not need much a s s i s t a n c e . I had an o r a l i n t e r v i e w by phone. There was no d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n —c r e d e n t i a l s were s tr o n g enough, no i n te r v ie w was n e c e s s a r y . 1 knew a l l depar tm en tal f a c u l t y . I was r e j e c t e d f o r Ph.D, program. Year o f Gradu at io n: 1975 My f i r s t e n c o u n te r was w it h a f a c u l t y member. q u e s ti o n answered. See my n o t e s under Year o f Graduat ion: 1976 No d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n i n t e r v i e w n o t r e q u i r e d f o r admission Very s u p e r f i c i a l Year o f Graduat ion: 1977 See n o te s under prompt resp on se (concern over my d e s i r e t o a t t e n d p a r t time and work f u l l tim e, d e la y t a c t i c s t o p r e s s u r e me to q u i t my j o b , and a d d i t i o n a l s c r e e n i n g b e f o r e d e c i s i o n ) . Year o f Gradu at io n: 1978 I do not r e c a l l having an admission i n t e r v i e w . I was not d i s s a t i s f i e d w it h t h a t , but i t did not seem e s s e n t i a l to have. They had no idea who I was o r what program 1 wanted. o f f ic e to o f f i c e . Year o f Graduat ion: 1979 No Comment Year o f Graduat ion: 1980 Catalog survey o f c u r ri c u l u m changed over 25 y e a r s . I was s e n t from 178 Dr. W. Johnson made me f e e l l i k e t h e department was r e a l l y i n t e r e s t e d in me. Year o f Gr aduation : 1981 No Comment Year of Gr aduation : 1982 No Comment What Was The Nature Of Your D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n With Your Temporary Advisor? Year o f G rad ua tion : 1972 I do not remember having a temporary a d v i s o r I s t a r t e d w i t h Dr. James Nelson and s ta y e d with him t h r o u g h o u t —a good relationship Was i n i t i a l l y in OMERAD and got permanent a d v i s o r In Higher Education Year o f Gr aduation : 1973 Was i n i t i a l l y in OMERAD and was a b l e t o g e t permanent a d v i s o r in Higher Educ ation. Temporary a d v i s o r was n o t very well informed about Higher Educ ation; was new on f a c u l t y . The a d v i s o r t r i e d t o push me in an unwanted d i r e c t i o n Advisor was t o o busy t o g iv e c a n d i d a t e time n e c e s s a r y t o be o f any h e l p . Candidate was on h i s own. Year o f G rad uation: 197** i t is d i f f i c u l t t o r e l a t e t o t h e s e Items. I had p r e v i o u s l y a t t e n d e d MSU f o r a one ye a r Ed.D. program. At th e time of applying o f the Ed.S. program I was r e a l l y l o s t and r e c e i v e d l i t t l e i n f o r m a ti o n . I had an o r a l i n t e r v i e w by phone. A f t e r acce p ta n c e I fle w t o Michigan f o r jo b i n t e r v i e w s . I had two a s s i s t a n t s h i p o f f e r s and two head advisor/hall directorship o ffers. There was no d i s s a t l s f a c t i o n - - c r e d e n t i a l s were s tr o n g enough, no i n t e r ­ view n e c e s s a r y . I knew a l l departm ental f a c u l t y . I was r e j e c t e d as a c a n d i d a t e f o r admission t o t h e Ph.D. program. 179 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1975 I would not have e n r o l l e d had not th e temporary a d v i s o r c a l l e d me. He under stood my s i t u a t i o n and c r a f t e d th e program t h a t b e s t f i t me. The a d v i s o r did not provid e t h e c a r e e r c o u n s e lin g t h a t I needed. Year o f G ra du ation: 1976 The temporary a d v i s o r was u s e l e s s —had no Idea o f my s p e c i a l needs o r programming. Year of G ra du ation: 1977 Dr. Bet ty F i t z g e r a l d —one of th e b e s t MSU ever had; too bad t h e d e p a r t ­ ment drove her away--MSU's l o s s . Year of Graduation: 1978 I f you mean by t h i s , l e a r n i n g d eg r ee r e q u ire m e n ts , y e s . I am not d i s s a t i s f i e d but simply was a b l e and chose to do my planning w i th ad v ic e from a range o f f a c u l t y members and o t h e r c o l l e a g u e s . Year o f Graduation: 1979 The human dynamics a r e such In a small department t h a t s w itc h in g a d v i s o r s seemed to c r e a t e problems and bad f e e l i n g s f o r o t h e r s , so I and o t h e r s s ta y e d w ith t h e temporary. Year o f Gr aduation : 1980 Had to choose my own Had no temporary a d v i s o r (2) Temporary a d v i s o r was t e r r i b l e . change. Alo of, d i s i n t e r e s t e d . I r e q u e ste d a Misguided ad v ic e on which c o u r se s t o t a k e and a gen er al l a c k o f know­ ledge o f th e d e p a r t m e n t 's program and r e q u ire m e n t s . I had r e c e iv e d my MA and S p e c i a l i s t deg ree s from MSU and thus did not f eel a need f o r help in e s t a b l i s h i n g myself w i t h i n th e d ep ar tm en t. Very l i t t l e c o n t a c t . Year o f Gr aduation : 1981 No d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n — I a l r e a d y knew the department 180 1 was c o n c erned/anxious t o become " s e t t l e d " w ith my permanent a d v i s o r . Year o f G ra duatio n: 1982 Helpful but not having th e i n t e n s e i n t e r e s t o f my major p r o f e s s o r whom I knew b e f o r e but was on lea ve du rin g my e a r l y program. Poor r e l a t i o n s h i p w it h temporary advisoi— 1 found i t d i f f i c u l t t o change. Other Reasons L i s t e d For Choosing MSU Year o f Graduation: 1972 t n - s t a t e u n i v e r s i t y and a f f o r d a b i l i t y Major in College S tudent Personnel Best f i n a n c i a l o f f e r 1 had done my m a s t e r ' s de gr ee t h e r e and knew them Year o f Graduation: 1973 No Comments Year o f Graduat ion: 197^ Contac ts from department and RHPO Had Ed.S. c r e d i t s t h a t would apply t o Ph.D. a t MSU. program. Knew f a c u l t y and The o p p o r t u n i t y t o study w i th s t u d e n t s who would become n a t i o n a l l e a d e r s in h igher e d u c a t i o n . F r ie n d s h i p o f s e v e r a l f a c u l t y and knowledge o f i n s t i t u t i o n . When pic k in g a Ph.D. program, I t h i n k one should choose th e school on the b a s i s of A, B, C, D, G, and H. Year of Graduat ion: 1975 Reputation o f Van Johnson f o r a s s i s t i n g th o s e whom he a d v i s e d . Evening courses Year of Graduation : 1976 A b i l i t y to f i n d f u l l - t i m e employment a t MSU 181 P o s i t i v e f r i e n d , and s u p p o r t i v e a t t i t u d e o f f a c u l t y In department F l e x i b i l i t y o f program. A c u r ric u lu m which 1 could complete a l a r g e p e r c e n t a g e o f as a p a r t time s t u d e n t . Year o f G ra du ation: 1977 C o n tin u a ti o n o f Doctoral Program a t U n i v e r s i t y where MA d eg r ee was comp] eted . Personal g o a l s . J o i n t d e c i s i o n o f spouse. Kellogg T r a i n i n g Program is where in tro duce d t o f a c u l t y two y e a r s e a r l i e r . Year o f G rad uation: 1978 F a m i l i a r i t y w i th MSU and th e d o c t o r a l program based on e x p e r i e n c e s a t the MSU l e v e l . Night c o u r s e s , e x t e n s i o n c o u r s e s , f l e x i b i l i t y o f th e program. Year o f G rad uation; 1979 Graduate housing. Employment o p p o r t u n i t y f o r sp ou se, q u a l i t y o f th e schools and o f East Lansing a s a p l a c e t o l i v e . Year o f Graduat io n; 1980 F l e x i b i l i t y in d e s ig n i n g a program. Year o f Graduation : 1981 My husband had been a c c e p t e d . Helpfulness and flexibility of faculty members extension courses). (initially obtained via W il lin g n e s s t o a c c e p t t r a n s f e r c r e d i t s from UCB and LSSC. Proximity o f MSU t o p a r e n t s ' and s i s t e r ' s home. O f fe r in g of e x t e n s i o n c l a s s e s In S a u l t S t e . Marie. 182 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1982 R ep u tati o n o f f a c u l t y members and c o l l e g e o f co gn ate a r e a . My husband was a c c e p te d a t MSU— I came w ith him. Did You Find Other Expe riences o r Courses You Would Recommend? Year o f Graduat ion: 1972 Computer P r e p a r a t i o n C la s se s t a u g h t by computer c e n t e r s t a f f . Modern American S o c i e t y : A s o c io l o g y co u r s e I took As much e x p e r i e n c e as p o s s i b l e should be i n c o r p o r a te d i n t o th e program. Higher e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n does not lend i t s e l f t o d i d a c t i c t e a c h i n g . 1 had a p r actic um w i t h th e Bureau o f th e Budget. I t i s t h e b e s t way to i n t e g r a t e f i n a n c i a l and p o l i t i c a l r e a l i t i e s . For t h o s e in Community Colleg e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o r i e n t a t i o n , I would s t r o n g l y urge them t o b u i l d in a o n e - s e m e s te r i n t e r n s h i p a t a community college. I f i t is a community i n t e r n s h i p , make i t two s e m e ste r s long. R e s i d e n t i a l i n t e r n s h i p s might be f e a s i b l e f o r l i m i t e d times I f combined w ith independent s t u d y , t h e s i s work p r o j e c t s , f i n a n c i a l r e m u n e ra tio n , e t c . As mentioned above, my co u r s e work w i t h Dr. Je nnin gs on e x e c u t i v e s t r e s s , e x e c u t i v e m o b i l i t y m o n i t o r i n g , e t c . proved very u s e fu l both tn and o u tsid e of educational s e t t i n g s . My b u s i n e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c o u r s e s were e x tr em ely v a l u a b l e . Research c o u r s e s could and should be, much more s o. Legal a s p e c t s —good and have much more r e l e v a n c e now. Year o f G r ad u atio n : 197fr O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Theory— I gnatov ich Educ atio na l Theory— E l l i o t Research Design: Mary E llen McSweeny Computer a s an A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Tool Governmental R e l a t i o n s Marketing o f Higher Education How t o S u p e r v is e , (S u p e rv is o ry and Management Development) Computer A p p l i c a t i o n s t o Higher Education General comment: S tu dents p u rsuing h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n should be cou ns eled Into s tr o n g academic cognates t h a t p r o v id e Increas ed knowledge plus a l l o w f o r f l e x i b i l i t y in p u r sin g c a r e e r p a t h s . 183 O ffer a s p e c i a l t o p i c s co u r s e which might brea k I nto t h r e e a r e a s o f emphasis: major i s s u e s f a c i n g p u b l i c f o u r - y e a r i n s t i t u t i o n s / p r i v a t e h ig h e r education/community J u n i o r c o l l e g e s . E x t e r n s h ip e x p e r i e n c e s in government ag e n c ie s became th e b a s i s f o r my c a r e e r s u c c e s s . R e a l - l i f e hands-on e x p e r i e n c e s w ith t h e Department o f Education and t h e l e g i s l a t u r e were i n v a l u a b l e . The two c o n t e n t a r e a s which s e v e r a l o f us s ugg ested when we were a t MSU were f i n a n c e s and p o l i t i c s in h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e key i n g r e d i e n t f o r a h ig h e r e d u c a ti o n d o c t o r a l program is e x p e r i e n c e s which l i n k t h e o r y w ith p r a c t i c e . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , th e o r y is o f t e n d e a l t w ith In c l a s s whil e p r a c t i c e i s th e focus o f i n t e r n s h i p s , e t c . but t h e two a r e seldom e f f e c t i v e l y I n t e g r a t e d . 1 ta u g h t f u l l - t i m e a s an i n s t r u c t o r a t MSU In th e S ocial Science D e p a r t­ ment w h ile doing my Ph.D. co u r s e work. I t was g r e a t t o be Involved in t h e p r o c e s s o f t e a c h i n g c o l l e g e w h ile s tu d y in g how c o l l e g e s a r e supposed t o be run. I was a b l e t o a s k q u e s t i o n s which b e n e f i t e d me more t h a t a pe rson who had never ta u g h t c o l l e g e . I un derst ood more in general abou t c o l l e g e s than s t u d e n t s who had never been on both s id e s o f t h e f e n c e : s t u d e n t and t e a c h e r . I r e a l i z e not a i l h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s can f i n d t e a c h i n g j o b s w h il e g e t t i n g a Ph.D ., but t h i s e x p e r i e n c e helped me tre mendously. Year o f Graduat io n: 1975 Extern program: chance to exchange ideas Dr. Norm B e l l ' s c o u r s e r e l a t i n g t o te a c h i n g and r e s e a r c h in e d u c a t i o n . His classr oom management and c o n t e n t were f a r beyond most c o u r s e s . I have used h i s ideas and methods a g r e a t deal in my own t e a c h i n g / consulting experiences. O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Behavior and Communication Financing and Budgeting More Study in Planning and E v a lu a tio n Systems Proposal Writing I n t e r n s h i p s w ith A d m i n i s t r a t o r s More S t a t i s t i c s Year o f G r aduati on: 1976 1 do not know i f t h i s is a p p r o p r i a t e h e r e , but I wish I had been r e q u i r e d to work on a r e s e a r c h team w i t h a p r o f e s s o r and s e v e r a l o t h e r s t u d e n t s . P a r t o f t h i s work would have included s u b m i t t i n g a paper f o r p u b l i c a t i o n and s u b m i t t i n g a proposal t o be p a r t o f a c o n f e r e n c e . Some s t u d e n t s In Educational Psychology did t h i s a t MSU, and I have heard o f i t being 184 done e lse w h ere. Such a program would have helped me overcome a f e a r of s u b m it tin g p r o p o s a l s and a r t i c l e s . The o p p o r t u n i t y f o r I n t e r n s h i p s in th e MSU a t h l e t i c de p a r tm e n t. anyone I n t e r e s t e d In a t h l e t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . For Dr. J e n n i n g s ' s co u r se In Executive Management was most v a l u a b l e because I t helped s t u d e n t s under stan d r e a l i s t i c a l l y the s t r e s s e s and p r e s s u r e s o f management p o s i t i o n s and how t o s u r v i v e them. This co u r s e focused upon e x e c u t i v e b e havior under s t r e s s and th e way they r e a c t t o same; how to read nonverbal b e h a v i o r ; u n d e r s t a n d i n g , I n t e r p r e t i n g , and d e v e l ­ oping i n d iv id u a l s t r a t e g i c p la n s f o r t h e s ucc es s o r a t l e a s t s u r v i v a l o f th e manager o r e x e c u t i v e . I believe th is individual, s tr a t e g i c plan ning and s e n s i t i v i t y is e s s e n t i a l t o s uc ce ss In a d m i n i s t r a t i v e or c o r p o r a t e management p o s i t i o n s . More about t h e r o l e o f management In Higher E ducation. Strong L e a d e rs h ip . Exposure t o t h e co ncept o f Academic Support S e r v i c e s —more b r o a d l y , how academic and s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a r e m u tuall y s u p p o r t i v e . Management c o u r s e s and s em in ar s . not a t MSU. E x te r n s h ip In Ex. VICE PRESIDENT, but Year o f Graduation : 1977 College o f B us iness —management t h e o r y and P r a c t i c e - - s t r e s s on s t y l e s of l e a d e r s h i p r o u t e s to th e t o p , un d e r sta n d in g o r g a n i z a t i o n s , p e r c e p t i o n s o f competence—a s p i r a t i o n s , o p p o r t u n i t y , and te c h n iq u e s f o r being "Maze minded" n o t , "Maze D u l l . " Also College of Education: p r acticum or e x t e r n s h i p d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o program of s tu d e n t and c a r e e r o r i e n t a t i o n - t h e r e is no s u b s t i t u t e f o r j o b o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o r e l a t e l e a r n i n g t o a practical application. Good s o l i d c o u r s e s in p r a c t i c a l people management. T h e r e ' s been a l o t o f good r e s e a r c h in management te c h n iq u e s and some very p r a c t i c a l , almost cookbook, methodologies developed. An e x c e l l e n t so urc e is th e IBM manage­ ment c u r ric u lu m which i n c o r p o r a t e s management t h e o r y w it h very p r a c t i c a l h o w - t o 's . I had one co u r s e In t h i s a r e a — I t Is management— i f you do not know how, you might as well hang I t up. I n t e r n s h i p s In t h e o f f i c e o f i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h provided by major p r o f e s s o r . Reason: allow s one to apply th e o r y and o b t a i n hands-on experiences. My program was Ph.D. f o r c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s ( i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y . ) The seminar on Higher Education was a w as te. The co u r s e work in s o c io l o g y and c o u n s e lin g was e x c e l l e n t . Developmental t h e o r y —have become involved with t h i s as a t e a c h i n g / r e s e a r c h a r e a s i n c e d o c t o r a l work. I f e e l some b a s i s In th e a r e a is c e n t r a l f o r u n d e r sta n d in g c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s . Dr. Steven Yelons, c u r ric u lu m and program c o n s t u c t l o n through h i s howt o - d o - t t manuals. Dr. Max Raines—u n i t on a d m i s s i o n s - - t e s t i n g and 185 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . We took t e s t s and analyzed o u r s e l v e s , and developed c 1a s s / g r o u p p r o f l i e s . Year of G ra dua tion : 1978 My e x p e r i e n c e , alth o u g h h r i e f , with Fred Whims, l e a r n i n g about h ig h e r e d u c a tio n f i n a n c i n g was e x trem ely v a l u a b l e , and s e v e ra l r e l a t e d e x p e r ­ ien ce s could have developed t h e r e f r o m , i n c l u d in g e x p e r ie n c e s w it h th e governing board s, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , e t c . A c t u a l l y , t do not t h i n k any o f my i n t e r n s h i p s o r o t h e r e x p e r i e n c e s should be a r e q u i r e d p a r t of the program. The nominal group process by Dr. Max Raines. Year o f G ra duatio n: 1979 i took th e un d er g rad u ate i n t r o d u c t o r y F o r t r a n co u r s e one summer and found i t very h e l p f u l in un d e r sta n d in g computers. Should have more on c a r e e r development f o r people and pe ople whom you s u p e r v i s e . More on e d u c a t i o n and t h e law, a l s o more on b r in g i n g groups to co nsen su s. This i s not r e a l l y answering your q u e s t i o n but some ge ner al comments. Dr. Gross and Dr. Nelson—work in s p e c i a l p r o j e c t s . Concept o f c a r e e r e d u c a t io n in College o f Education co u r se work and th e th e o r y and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e CtPP pr o g ra m - e v a l u a tl o n model through both co u r se work and independent study In t h e C ollege o f Edu cation . Year o f Graduation: 1980 Internships opportunity. The need o f p r a c t i c a l kinds o f e x p e r i e n c e s . Hands-on e x p e r i e n c e s , v i s i t a t i o n s , e t c . I thoro ughly enjoyed my c o u r s e in t h e School o f Labor and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s . A program in Higher Education A d m i n i s t r a t i o n should c o n t a i n a co u r s e w ith t e a c h e s t h e th e o r y and s k i l l s needed in l a b o r and manage­ ment i s s u e s . The l a t e Dr. Russel Kleis provided one w i th a two-year i n t e r n s h i p program through ENABLE which was extr em ely v a l u a b l e . Also, Dr. F e a t h e r s t o n e o f f e r e d a co u r s e in management systems in Higher Education which was extr emely v a l u a b l e . Outside v i s i t a t i o n s t o o t h e r a r e a i n s t i t u t i o n s Independent s tu d y , c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g . ( t h i n k a co u r s e should be o f f e r e d : C o l l e c t i v e Bargaining in E du cation. John Useem's seminar on th e development of Americal s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r ­ spectives. 186 Externship program was extremely valuable Year o f Graduation: 1981 I took co u r s e work o v e r a t e n - y e a r p eriod and do n o t f e e l my answers can be o b j e c t i v e . The most v a l u a b l e c o u r s e s d e a l t wit h management, systems t h e o r y , and decis io n-m ak in g ta u g h t tn College o f Human Ecology by Dr. B. Paolucci ( r e c e n t l y d e c e a s e d ) . All o t h e r v a l u a b l e c o n te n t was found in independent study o r informal o n e - t o - o n e ex changes, e s p e c i a l l y In cog na te a r e a (John Useem, 69-71 and Ruth H il l Useem), and with d i s s e r t a t i o n committee (R. H. Useem, W. Johnson, R. F e a t h e r s t o n e and H. Hic key). O r g a n iz a t io n a l development t a u g h t by Dr. M. Hoore, Department o f LIR, provided much in fo rm ation In g e n e r a l , not j u s t b u s in e s s w o r ld . D i f f u s i o n o f In n o v atio n —communications, key co nce pts a t h e a r t o f change th e o r y . The i n t e r n a l p o l i t i c s w i th i n s t r u c t i o n o f h ig h e r e d u c a t io n Human R e l a t i o n s In Management—p r a c t i c a l in form atio n was provided in t h i s co u r s e which was t a u g h t In th e College o f B u s i n e s s . Such c oncep ts as t h e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f women and m i n o r i t i e s in b u s i n e s s , th e s u b t l e t i e s of r a c i a l and sexual har as sm en t, d r e s s c odes , e t c . These t h i n g s a r e p r a c t i c a l and a person ( p a r t i c u l a r l y a female or black ) w i l l f i n d them worthwhile. Labor and i n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s co u r s e work on g r ie v a n c e a r b i t r a t i o n , c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g , and o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e o r y a r e a l l v i t a l f o r people In h i g h e r e d u c a t io n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n who w i l l be personnel manage­ ment s p e c i a l i s t s . P r i n c i p l e s o f t e a c h i n g and program de sig n f o r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s who should have a b e t t e r u n d e r s ta n d in g o f what goes on in t h e clas sr oom . Commun­ i c a t i o n and change th e o r y . I t h i n k MSU o f f e r s a t e s t s and measurements c o u r s e s i m i l a r t o t h a t o f f e r e d by Dr. Susan Ratwick a t LSSC. That c o u r s e would be my c a n d i d a t e because o f th e i n v a l u a b l e I n s i g h t s i t provided I n to t e s t i n g , t h e p r a c t i c a l e x p e r i e n c e , her nonjudgmental app ro ac h, e t c . Should be r e q u i r e d f o r a l l t e a c h e r a d m i n i s t r a t o r s a t a l l l e v e l s - - t o f in d o u t waht ( i f an ything) t e s t s a r e good f o r , and which t e s t s a r e good f o r what. As p a r t of an independent s tu d y , I ta u g h t a c o u r s e a t a local community c o l l e g e . The e x p e r i e n c e o f te a c h in g in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f Higher Educa­ t i o n I f one is not r e g u l a r l y employed t h e r e Is i n v a l u a b l e . LIR 823. O r g a n iz a tio n a l Behavior. Th is co u r se Is e s s e n t i a l t o u n d e r ­ s ta n d i n g t h e human dynamics in any o r g a n i z a t i o n . Trying t o des ig n systems t h a t b r in g out th e b e s t in the i n d iv id u a l Is im portant no m a t t e r where you a r e . Higher e d u c a ti o n i n s t i t u t i o n s a r e behind In t r y i n g t o under sta nd th e dynamics o f the c u r r e n t work f o r c e . 187 Year o f G r a d u a t i o n : 1982 Research a s s l s t a n t s h l p or t e a c h i n g a s s i s t a n t s h l p (with or w it h o u t p a y ) . I did not have a co u r s e in w r i t i n g d i s s e r t a t i o n s , which I t h i n k would have been most h e l p f u l . Management S ci en ce . The small work groups t o s o l v e p r a c t i c a l problems were most b e n e f i c i a l t o me. The l e a r n i n g was much more s t i m u l a t i n g t o work In group p r o j e c t s . My e x p e r ie n c e as c o o r d i n a t o r o f t h e Women's r e s o u r c e c e n t e r provided me w i th marvelous e x p e r i e n c e s In program development and e v a l u a t i o n , p e r ­ sonnel management, and more b r o a d l y , i n s t i t u t i o n a l development. I h i g h ly recommend t h a t any d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s In h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n be employed a t l e a s t p a r t time as a program a d m i n i s t r a t o r . My p o s i t i o n was a g r a d u a te a s s i s t a n t s h i p . The b e s t p a r t o f my d o c t o r a l e x p e r i e n c e , al t h o u g h t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e was p r i c e l e s s . Other Areas That C o n t r ib u te d To P r o f e s s i o n a l Or Personal Growth Year o f Gr aduation: 1972 P a r t i c i p a t i o n In and o b s e r v a t i o n s o f f a c u l t y meetings and a c t i v i t i e s . P a r t i c i p a t i o n on some f a c u l t y t a s k f o r c e s . My jo b a t MSU. Worked f u l l time in s t u d e n t a f f a i r s a t MSU and Oakland U w h i l e pur su ing doctorate. Year o f Graduat ion; 1973 Wife, i n s t i t u t i o n a l g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t t r a v e l g r a n t . Year o f Gr aduation : 197** Residence h a l l programs a t MSU Wife and c h i l d r e n A s s o c i a t i o n w it h n a t i o n a l a s s o c i a t i o n s and n a t i o n a l p r o f e s s i o n a l meeting (not s t a t e o r l o c a l ) . F u l l - t i m e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n a t MSU I was on s e v e r a l u n i v e r s i t y committees and a l s o s p e n t a y e a r as a P r e s ­ i d e n t i a l Fellow. These added s u b s t a n t i a l l y t o t h e s t r e n g t h o f my program. 188 Year o f Gradu ation: 1975 No Comments Year o f Gradu at io n: 1976 Exposure t o th e many f a c e t s o f MSU, in c lu d in g my employment in th e C o l l ­ eges o f V e t e r i n a r y and O s t e o p a t h ic Medicine a t MSU w h ile working on Ph.D. and working a s a s s i s t a n t t o Van Johnson, then depar tm en tal chairman. O p p ortunit y to work in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t MSU. Year o f Gradu at io n; 1977 S u p p o r ti v e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f h ig h e r e d u c a t io n dep ar tm en tal p r o f e s s o r s and pe rsonnel In terms o f t h e i r d e s i r e t o see me complete th e program. Job In r e s i d e n c e h a l l s . Year o f Graduat ion: 1978 No Comments Year o f G ra dua tion : 1979 No Comments Year o f Gr aduation : 1980 O p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r committee membership In t h e depar tment and t h e College o f Edu cation . F u l l - t i m e employement. Year of Graduat ion: 1981 My own s e l f - m o t i v a t i o n . Year o f Gradu at io n: 1982 F u l l - t i m e employment In MSU in fo rm ation s e r v i c e s f o r overview o f the I n s t i t u t i o n and p o l i t i c s . 189 Other Comments: Year o f G r a d u a t t o n : 1972 t regard th e combination o f th e de gree program and my work e x p e r i e n c e s t o be e x c e l l e n t . They did not always go hand In hand, but balanced o u t well In t h e end. 1 was, am, and c o n t i n u e t o be p l e a s e d with t h e d e p t h , b r e a d t h , and q u a l i t y o f my d o c t o r a l s t u d i e s . Drs. V. Johnson, W. Johnson, McSweeney, J . McKee, Nelson, Stamatakos, and Raines were a l l very Important t o me and my s u c c e s s a t MSU. My a s s o c i a t i o n s with p r o f e s s o r s and f e l l o w s t u d e n t s who were e x p er ien ced a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were o f tremendous v a l u e . The emphasis on formal r e s e a r c h and documentation o f knowledge were th e c o r e o f my program. My co gnate In s o c io l o g y allowed me t o broaden r a t h e r than narrow my h o r iz o n s . My only r e g r e t , a s Implied e a r l i e r . Is t h a t because o f budget c u t s , and changing p r i o r i t i e s , th e Department o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher Education has not communicated t o th o s e In t h e f i e l d t h a t f t has found rep lace m en ts o f th e q u a l i t y and e x p e r t i s e as t h o s e who have r e t i r e d s i n c e 1970. The t a i l o r i n g o f a program t o my s p e c i f i c needs and g o a l s was more than I had e x p e c t e d . Walter Johnson, Paul D r e s s e l , Margaret LorImer, and Dr. Useem (so cio lo g y ) s ta n d o u t in my memory as per sons who were e x c e p t i o n a l . The f a c u l t y in th e program were n o t , in my o p i n i o n , accomplished managers. Dr. Nelson has been a c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t (community c o l l e g e ) , which Is why I chose him. The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n co u r se s were not r i g o r o u s o r c u r r e n t in e i t h e r th e o r y o r th o u g h t. The b e s t co u r se s were th e s t a t i s t i c s s e r i e s and t h e c o u r s e s t took in th e School o f Labor and i n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s . There were too many d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s , which meant t h a t t h e r e was not much in th e way o f a s tu d e n t - m e n to r r e l a t i o n s h i p . I did as much independent study and work o u t s i d e o f formal c o u r s e s as p o s s i b l e . These were my best experiences. I would encour age t h e i n c l u s i o n o f o u t s i d e r e s o u r c e s ( e . g . , p a s t c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n t s , l e g i s l a t o r s , e t c . ) in t h e program. They could conduct seminars o r even workshops, I would encourage MSU t o focus t h e i r e f f o r t s in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , s e l e c t fewer c a n d i d a t e s , do a few t h i n g s and do them w e l l . My program opened new a r e a s o f t h ought and pre pare d me t o add t o and e expand s k i l l s and knowledge. A Ph.D. program is o n ly a b e g i n n i n g —and s t a r t s a per son on a l i f e o f c o n t i n u i n g e d u c a t i o n . The d e g r e e provided a f o u n d a tio n t o bul Id on and a c r e d e n t i a l which opened d o o r s . I have continue d s tu d y through s e m i n a r s , workshops, and p r o f e s s i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . I was a s t u d e n t o v e r a decade ago and th e MSU program Is and you can t e l l Sam t h a t . In t h e dumps I was a number and s t i l l am a number a s i n d t c a t e d on t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I was f o r t u n a t e t o have l i v e d on campus two y e a r s and was a b l e t o develop l i m i t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s w it h f a c u l t y members as a r e s u l t o f my c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t s . Those u n f o r t u n a t e commuter s t u d e n t s were n o t even a b l e t o do 190 t h a t much. Doctoral s t u d e n t s were p a s s i n g through t h e program not I n t e r a c t i n g w i th th e peo ple p r o v id in g t h e program. F i n a l l y , o t h e r than through t h e placement bure au , no a s s i s t a n c e was given to o h t a l n a p o s i t i o n f o r which t h e program was e d u c a ti n g u s . For me a t th e age and time I took my d o c t o r a l co u r s e work, a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and h igher e d u c a t i o n were somewhat d i f f u s e c o n t e n t a r e a s t o t r y t o s i n k my t e e t h I n t o , Thus, t b e l i e v e 1 b e n e f i t e d more o r most In t h e more a p p l i e d c o u r s e s I found in my management c o g n a t e , t th o ro u g h ly a p p r e d a t e d th e I n d iv id u a l f a c u l t y In a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and h i g h e r e d u c a t io n and c o n ti n u e d t o keep some c o n t a c t w it h Drs. Johnson, Stam atakos, and F i t z ­ g e r a l d , and 1 am not s o r r y I completed t h e program. At t h i s p o i n t In my c a r e e r , I am moving o u t o f t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n and i n t o p r i v a t e c o u n s e l in g and c o n s u l t i n g work, tn t h i s r e g a r d , a l t h o u g h i t remains h e l p f u l t o have my d o c t o r a t e f o r c r e d i b i l i t y , t h e s p e c i f i c c o n t e n t o r t i t l e o f my d o c t o r a t e , namely a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n , does not do much f o r me. A d o c t o r a t e In psychology o r in b u s in e s s would be a b e t t e r v e h i c l e f o r my g o a l s . But I could not have f o r e s e e n t h i s c a r e e r ten y e a r s ag o, so i t Is not th e f a u l t o f th e program. I t was a f i n e program then and 1 t r u s t I t s t i l l I s . Although I have moved too f a r away t o s t a y involved and Walt Johnson Is r e t i r e d . HEW is g r e a t - a s Is (was Lou Stamatakos and B e tt y F i t z g e r a l d ] . Year o f Graduat ion: 1973 No program o f s t u d i e s can be p e r f e c t when planned and c a r r i e d o u t ; however, my e x p e r i e n c e s a t HSU were an a l t o g e t h e r p o s i t i v e one. I say t h i s l a r g e l y because o f the h i g h - q u a l i t y f a c u l t y I was p r i v i l e g e d t o study under and th e high q u a l i t y o f th e s t u d e n t s w ith whom I was a b l e t o a s s o c i a t e w h ile a t HSU. I t is not c l e a r t o me, in r e t r o s p e c t , t h a t th e Department has e v e r achieved consensus on what s k i l l s were I m p o r t a n t / e s s e n t i a l t o be e f f e c t i v e c o l l e g e / u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . There was an ab sence o f Ideology and I n t e g r a t i o n o f l e a r n i n g e x p e r ie n c e s among t h e c o u r s e s . Hy Ph.D. program hung t o g e t h e r . Courses a r e d i f f i c u l t t o d i s t i n g u i s h tod ay : none jumps o u t as t h e b e s t o r worst as In my B.S. o r H.A. The program des ig n o f 10-15 y e a r s ago needs c r i t i c a l ex a m i n a ti o n . I would be happy t o d i s c u s s w it h you. The above comments a r e not to Imply t h a t I did not enjo y t h e c o u r s e s I took. I had g r e a t fun with them. What i s needed i s : (l) I d e n tif ic a tio n of s k i l l s required for e f fe c tiv e c o lle g e /u n iv e rs ity adm inistration ( e .g . , e f f e c tiv e smallgroup s k i l l s , how t o develop and implement a c t u a l u n i t [ d ep artm en t/ d i v i s i o n ] p l a n s , e t c . ) ; (2) commitment of t h e f a c u l t y In t h e program t o b u i l d c u r ric u lu m t o i n t e g r a t e c o u r s e s t o t h e s k i l l s and u n d e rstanding as needed; (3) d es ig n o f much more s im u l a t i o n and a c t u a l ( I n t e r n s h i p and workshop) e x p e r i e n c e s which s p e c i f i c a l l y l i n k th e o r y t o p r a c t i c e ; and (4) much more r i g o r in th e program. I would welcome an opp­ o r t u n i t y t o t a l k t o you In d e t a i l . The d es ig n o f the program around co u r se t i t l e s misses th e p o i n t of c u r ric u l u m renewal in a fundamental way. Almost a l l o f t h e s e c o u r s e s a r e n i c e . . . d e s i g n i n g 191 around th e e x i s t i n g co u r s e t i t l e s w i l l g iv e you a n i c e program. want q u a l i t y , l e t ' s s t a r t a t t h e b eg in n in g . If we 1 b e l i e v e t h a t the de pa rtm en t has tremendous c h a l l e n g e and o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o t i g h t e n I t s program and commit i t s e l f t o q u a l i t y p r e p a r a t i o n . There Is a need f o r t h e Department t o d e c id e whether I t Is p r e p a r i n g practitioners. I f I t i s , then t h e r e a r e s k i l l s r e q u i r e d , and t h e d e p a r t " ment needs t o i d e n t i f y t h e s e s k i l l s Cthere a r e models f o r t h e above processes- a t t h e g r a d u a t e l e v e l , e s p e c i a l l y medical s c h o o l s , n u r s i n g s c h o o l s , and o t h e r competency"Based c u r r i c u l a r a p p r o a c h e s ) . There is a s p e c i a l Irony In our (’Department o f Higher Education A d m in i s tr a tio n ) not employing such a model. With th e assumption t h a t t h i s stu d y is p e rtin e n t to an a t te m p t t o s t r e n g t h e n th e g r a d u a t e program, I would welcome a c a l l from you or t h e departm ent. I have s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a tio n . There is a need f o r s im u l a t i o n o f a P r e s i d e n t C a b in e t, f o r example, over two q u a r t e r s . Each in d i v i d u a l needs to work as thorough in a r e s p o n s i b l e p o s i t i o n and apply th e t h e o r y o f t h e t o p i c a l a r e a s t o work s e t t i n g dur ing t h a t ti m e. [Notei There is no way to t r a c e t h i s In d iv id u al because o f th e b l In d c o d i n g .] I t is th e people t h a t make t h e d i f f e r e n c e . I t does not m a t t e r what th ey c a l l th e c l a s s . The f a c u l t y make t h e d i f f e r e n c e ! I f th ey ex pect high performance, I f th ey a r e warm and s u p p o r t i v e o f th e s t u d e n t , and i f they a r e r e a so n a b ly knowledgeable, then t h e s t u d e n t has a g r e a t chance o f making th e e x p e r i e n c e w or thwhile . I was always c h a lle n g e d but t r e a t e d with r e s p e c t . I t Is a g r e a t program, and a g r e a t f a c u l t y . My d o c t o r a l program w ith a few e x c e p t i o n s was more o f a r i t e o f pa ssage o r i n i t i a t i o n with h u r d le s to overcome. I would not change a t h i n g from my program. Mine was done in th e Commun­ i c a t i o n Department f o r two y e a r s and then in Higher Ed ucat io n. My v i s i o n o f what "was11 good f o r my f u t u r e needs turn ed out not t o be a p p r o p r i a t e . My e f f o r t s were m i s d i r e c t e d . I had t o make a l o t o f ad ju s tm e n ts and changes . Hin dsig ht Is 20/20. I was " i n v i t e d " t o Michigan S t a t e t o t a k e a Ph.D. In t h e HYPER Department. I l e f t a c o l l e g e te a c h in g j o b f o r t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y . The chairman o f t h e HYPER Department e i t h e r changed h i s mind o r had a n o t h e r reas on f o r not wanting me ta k in g a de gre e w i th emphasis in a t h l e t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Dean o f the College o f Ed ucat io n, John Ivey, took i n t e r e s t in my p a s t e x p e r i e n c e and c r e d e n t i a l s f o r d o c t o r a l s tu d y . Dean Ivey became my a d v i s o r and saw t h a t I got a d o c t o r a l program des igned t o " e d u c a t e " me In a t h l e t i c a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I must g iv e c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n th e College o f Education most o f t h e C r e d i t f o r MSU's d o c t o r a l program c r e a t e d f o r me. Walter Johnson (probably r e t i r e d ) was very h e l p f u l , alt hou gh I never had a c l a s s from him. Year o f Gr aduation : 197fr I t has been 9 and 1/2 y e a r s s i n c e th e completion o f my d o c t o r a l d e g r e e , and some o f th e Info rm atio n is approximated. My employment has been in 192 h e a l t h I n s t i t u t i o n s r a t h e r than e d u c a t i o n a l o n e s . T h e r e f o r e , my emphasis f o r b u s in e s s and r e l a t e d co u r s e work i s based upon t h e needs r e q u i r e d by th.e Jobs which, t have had. I enjoyed my two y e a r s on campus. The adva ntag e o f an a s s l s t a n t s h i p In t h e depar tment helped me f e e l I was making a g r e a t e r c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e depar tment and th e c o l l e g e . Dick F e a t h e r s t o n e was chairman and he Included [ g ra d u a t e a s s i s t a n t s ] in th e de par tm en tal m e e ti n g s . On th e d o c t o r a l l evel you a r e encouraged and made t o f e e l w o r t h w h i le —as much as a pre-Ph.D. can be. Once you have made I t you a r e ac c e p te d f u l l y I nto t h e c i r c l e . You need t h e o r y , t h e seminars b r in g t h e o r y I n to r e a l i t y , meetings and I n t e r n s h i p s he lp cap t h e e x p e r i e n c e on campus and o f f to your c a r e e r d i r e c t i o n . The program was f i n e . My need was not f o r th e program but f o r t h e a s s o c ­ i a t i o n s , f o r e x p e r i e n c e s o f t h e MSU envir onment, and s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t h e d e g r e e . The " s t u f f " around th e program was o f v a lu e t o me. The program (and th e w o r l d , e t c . ) was on t h e b r in k o f d r a s t i c change in t h e early 7 0 's. I did not need e d u c a t i o n and s o c io l o g y c o u r s e s , I needed law, computer s c i e n c e , f i n a n c e , management, l a b o r r e l a t i o n s , e t c . Now— these courses a re invaluable. I came t o MSU o u t o f s t a t e s o l e l y f o r t h e h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n d ep ar tm en t, not th e c o l l e g e and not t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . I am concerned w i th th e c u r r e n t l a c k o f v i s i o n , s u p p o r t , and endorsement o f h i g h e r e d u c a t io n w i t h i n t h e t o t a l department and w i t h i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n . MSU needs t o r e - e v a l u a t e and r e - a s s e s s t h e r o l e o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n w i t h i n th e " e d u c a t i o n a l " world and s t r e n g t h e n th e s t a f f i n g {which has been d e l e t e d u n m e r c i f u l l y but q u a l i t y remains in s p i t e o f t h i s phenomenon) and commitment t o th e program. Courses t h a t were v a l u a b l e o r n o t so v a l u a b l e . . .be c a r e f u l when you i n t e r p r e t t h i s r espons e. The c o u r s e s l i s t e d a s l e a s t v a l u a b l e were not n e c e s s a r i l y unimportant t o p i c s - t h e co u r s e as ta u g h t may not have contributed. Although much " c o n t e n t " has been f o r g o t t e n , t h e p r o c e s s c o n t i n u e s . Com­ p l e t i o n has provided many v a r i e d and e x c i t i n g work o p p o r t u n i t i e s . Would have s t r e n g t h e n e d co gn ate c o n t e n t —-were d i s c i p l i n e o r i e n t e d . Great v alu e In working in r e l a t e d f i e l d w h il e pu rsu ing d o c t o r a t e . E x c e l l e n t s u p p o rt from major a d v i s o r . Can be s tr e n g t h e n e d by t i e i n g i n t e r n s h i p e x p e r i e n c e s more c l o s e l y to work o b j e c t i v e s . At the time I a t t e n d e d , t h e r e were o n ly a few d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s In h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ; most were In s t u d e n t a f f a i r s , academic a f f a i r s , i n s t i t u t i o n a l r e s e a r c h , and community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Since I worked f o r MSU and had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o work c l o s e l y w it h major o f f i c e s o f th e u n i v e r s i t y , I gained more o f an u n d e r sta n d in g o f h ig h e r e d u c a ti o n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n from work than pro bab ly many s t u d e n t s In t h e g r a d u a te program. I do t h i n k a more s t r u c t u r e d program In a d m i n i s t r a t i o n would be h e l p f u l . F a c u lt y o f th e Department and th o s e on t h e committee welcomed and e n c o u r ­ aged me In my work. My d i s s e r t a t i o n was a high p o i n t in my c r e a t i v e l i v e and n in e y e a r s l a t e r i t is s t i l l o f s o c i a l and I n t e l l e c t u a l importance. 193 Drs. F e a t h e r s t o n e , Ra in es , Hooker and Van Johnson were and a r e o u t ­ s ta n d i n g i n d i v i d u a l s ( U n f o r t u n a t e l y , P r o f e s s o r Hooker o f th e h i s t o r y depar tment di ed t r a g i c a l l y in a f i r e . ) 1 pro bably learned as much from f a c u l t y and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o u t s i d e th e cl as sroom . I was a f u l l - t i m e s t u d e n t and s pent a l o t o f time o u t s i d e th e c l a s s i n t e r a c t i n g w ith f a c u l t y , a d m i n l s t r a t I o n , a a n d s t u d e n t s . I p a r t t c u l a r a l y a p p r e c i a t e d Walt J o h n s o n 's encouragement. My program a b s o l u t e l y missed th e mark on s u b j e c t s germane t o admin­ i s t r a t i o n . The one law co u r s e a v a i l a b l e was e i t h e r not o f f e r e d when I needed i t , o r was f u l l by t h e time 1 signed up f o r c o u r s e s . The c o u r s e - s e l e c t ion p r o c e s s and management in t h e " p i t " was a sham. Edu catio na l law, b u s in e s s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , a c c o u n ti n g p r i n c i p l e s , f i n a n c i a l management, funding s o u r c e s , l e g i s l a t i v e re view , e t c . , was d r a m a t i c a l l y needed. In i t s p l a c e we (I and my c o h o r t s ) had to l i s t e n t o e m p ir i c a l r h e t o r i c on a b s t r a c t v i s i o n s o f e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I am convinced t h a t many o f t h e f a c u l t y In th e C olleg e o f Education had no idea o f t h e f i e l d in which they ta u g h t and we were r e q u i r e d to t a k e c o u r s e s t o keep them employed. A r e t r o s p e c t i v e a n a l y s i s o f th e c u r r i c u l u m in h i g h e r e d u c a t io n (or e d u c a tio n in general a t MSU) a d e ­ q u a t e l y d em o n s t r a t e s how f a r they ( t h e f a c u l t y ) were from t h e midstream o f development. The e x p e r i e n c e was worthwhile and i t d id g e t me a s t a r t in a f i e l d o f my i n t e r e s t , but 30 - ^ 5% o f study was u s e l e s s . I had a t e r r i f i c e x p e r i e n c e a t MSU. The f a c u l t y were t a l e n t e d and w i l l i n g to g iv e me t h e i r tim e. The program was f l e x i b l e enough f o r me t o t a i l o r my c o u r s e s and b u i l d t h e c u r ri c u lu m t h a t was r i g h t f o r me. I was f o r t u n a t e to be s e l e c t e d a P r e s i d e n t i a l Fellow and served on th e Lif e lo n g Education Task Force. F i n a l l y , I had s e v e r a l mentors who were w i l l i n g t o commit themselves t o my development. I b e l i e v e d then and b e l i e v e now t h a t d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s must t a k e per so nal r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the q u a l i t y o f t h e i r programs. I worked hard t o g e t t h e e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t I wanted, and I t r i e d t o le a r n a s much as I c o u l d . So o f t e n peop le do not t a k e t h e i n i t i a t i v e t o make t h e i r program what they want i t to be. At t h e d o c t o r a l l e v e l , I do not b e l i e v e t h a t s t u d e n t s can a b d i c a t e t h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . F i n a l l y , I am concerned about t h e f u t u r e o f h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n d o c t o r a l programs. So o f t e n they seem t o s u f f e r from a l a c k o f c l e a r s en se o f miss io n conce rning what they a r e t r y i n g to produce. I b e l i e v e t h a t h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n d o c t o r a l programs l i k e MSU's a r e e s s e n t i a l l y p r o f e s s i o n a l programs designed t o e d u c a te and t r a i n s c h o l o a r l y p r a c t i t i o n e r s . Once t h e s e e s s e n t i a l o b j e c t i v e s a r e acknowledged, c u r r i c u l u m can be des ign ed t h a t l i n k s th eory w ith p r a c t i c e and dev elops p r o c e ss s k i l l s ( a l a D r e s s e l ) t h a t w i l l s e rv e th e s t u d e n t ov er time. Ex plan ation o f f our mentors: my program was unique in t h a t i was th e f i r s t Ph.D. in p o l i c e and s e c u r i t y and h i g h e r e d u c a tio n a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a t I know o f . Because my program was an "example" f o r o t h e r s , i t was very demanding on me. I had to r e l y on Sam Moore t o push me i n t o the f r o n t i e r s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , to demand p e r f e c t i o n In w r i t i n g , and to encourage me t o r e s e a r c h and w r i t e paper s on tough s u b j e c t s tn admin­ i s t r a t i o n . He and I would t a l k about t h e mill a r e a s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and o f th o s e on th e f r o n t i e r f o r me to w r i t e a paper on. Max Raines helped me 19* from d a y - t o - d a y t o keep what t was dolnq In p e r s p e c t i v e . He would l e t me g e t e x c i t e d about t h i n g s t h a t would help me f i n i s h my Ph.D. program, but he would down play an y th in g t h a t would d e p r e s s me o r g e t me o f f th e t r a c k . Leon Weavor was my m a s t e r ' s major a d v i s o r (Communication c h a i r ­ man), and t h e one who sug ges ted t h a t I apply f o r a Ph.D. program. He was a l s o on my Ph.D. committee. Bet ty G i u l i a n i helped me w it h my r e s e a r c h d e s ig n and d u r i n g c r i s e s in my Ph.D. program t h a t could have led t o my n o t g e t t i n g my degr ee . I r e l i e d on a l l f o u r mentors in th e a r e a in which each was a b l e t o help me b e s t . I was f o r t u n a t e t h a t a l l f o u r were w i l l i n g t o spend so much time w ith me when I needed them. The r e p u t a t i o n o f MSU's h i g h e r e d u c a tio n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e program helped me choose MSU, but th e f o u r f a c u l t y members were t h e reas on I s ta y e d a t MSU. Year o f G r ad u atio n : 1975 Suggest t h a t t h e improvement should be made In s t a f f i n g . b e t t e r p eo p le who a r e g e n u i n e ly i n t e r e s t e d in s t u d e n t s . B e t t e r pay and I do not know i f I could have r e c e i v e d b e t t e r p r e p a r a t i o n a t a n o t h e r c o l l e g e ; however, I do know t h a t w ith o u t t h e MSU program, I would not be In t h e p o s i t i o n I c u r r e n t l y occupy. I enjoyed t h e program, and many o f th e shortcom ings were t h e r e s u l t o f l e a r n i n g f a i l u r e s and inadequate e f f o r t s on my p a r t . I would never completed th e degree i f I t had not been f o r t h e e f f o r t s o f Van Johnson—and 1 have s e v e r a l f r i e n d s who had t h e same e x p e r i e n c e (whether th ey t h i n k t o mention i t o r n o t ) . I would encourage you t o support i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y programs In h i g h e r e d u c a t i o n . My com bination o f e d u c a ti o n a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n p l u s a p r o f e s s i o n a l co gnate in Criminal J u s t i c e has se rved me ver y w e l l . The s u b j e c t a r e a s where I could use more p r e p a r a t i o n included a p p l i e d e v a l u a t i o n / r e s e a r c h , o r g a n ­ i z a t i o n a l and f a c u l t y p r o d u c t i v i t y , time management, p a r t i c i p a t o r y d e c is io n - m a k in g t e c h n i q u e s , and management a d m i n i s r a t i v e r o l e performance ( i . e . , I s s u e s such a s how t o say ' n o ' , when t o do n o t h i n g , how t o avoid u n neces sary b a t t l e s , how t o d e l e g a t e , d e a l i n g w i t h power and powerful o t h e r s , e t c . ) , o f f i c e management, policy -d evel opm ent t e c h n i q u e s . B a s i c a l l y , I am very p l e a s e d with t h e e d u c a t i o n I r e c e iv e d and g r a t e f u l t o th e School and U n i v e r s i t y f o r p r o v id in g t h e o p p o r t u n i t y (and to th e S t a t e ) . I r e c e iv e d a Ph.D. In a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n only because K-12 would n o t approve my r e s i d e n t r e q u i r e m e n t s ; t h i s was r i d i c u l o u s a t th e time and Is s t i l l so. All o f my t r a i n i n g , e x p e r i e n c e , and g o a l s a r e in K-12. The o t h e r p a r t s o f my program made s e n s e . One o f th e s t r e n g t h s of my program was th e f l e x i b i l i t y which Dr. Sweetland a llow ed. That f l e x i b i l i t y made I t p o s s i b l e f o r me t o work in E n g l i s h , Communication, and Higher E d uc ation . This s tu d y gave me an o p p o r t u n i t y t o dev elop a broad er t e a c h i n g b a s e , which Is im portant a t t h e community c o l l e g e l e v e l . Too o f t e n , f a c u l t y a t MSU and o t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s f o r g e t t h a t t e a c h i n g a t the two-year c o l l e g e r e q u i r e s d ep th and d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n . Too o f t e n , a s 1 found b e f o r e meeting Dr. Sweetland, p r o f e s s o r s wanted f u l l - t i m e p e o p l e to stu d y In a n a r r o w - s u b j e c t a r e a . Because o f Dr. S w e e t l a n d ' s un d e r sta n d in g o f t h e tw o-year c o l l e g e t e a c h e r , I was a b l e t o do what many g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s p r e p a r e t o t e a c h a t t h e two-year level were un ab le to d o - - d l v e r s i f y . 195 We all wish we could do It again and do it better! Perceived Inade­ quacies of the program are likely to be a reflection of inadequacy In the perverse, f believe that the program gave me much that 1 needed-among other things, the degree itself. The degree in education, however, suffers from an image problem which may be a career handicap. In the course of the MSU program, "education" was Interpreted specifically as "an applied social science." 1 believe an optional alternative should be Its treatment as "applied humanities" and curricular adjustment made accordingly. Perhaps more emphasis should be placed on the cognitive field, giving the candidate some "anchorage" in the academy other than admin istrat ion. Year o f Graduat ion: 1976 Concerning changes In program— I am not s u r e how t o answer t h i s p a r t . 1 do not have a n ything a g a i n s t MSU's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e program in th e c o l l e g e o f e d u c a t i o n , but I have found I am more i n t e r e s t e d in te a c h i n g English and doing r e s e a r c h in t h a t a r e a than I am in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . I f I were to go to MSU a g a i n , I ' d major in Educational Psychology. Almost everyone I worked with a t MSU was f r i e n d l y , and h e l p f u l , and en co u r ag in g . In p a r t i c u l a r , I want t o p r a i s e B i l l Schmidt, Jim Nelson, and Steve Yelon. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , a s I I n d i c a t e d on page f o u r o f t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , I would have been h a p p i e r in a Doctor o f Arts program In t h e Teaching o f E n g li s h . Although I have enjoyed s tu dying about a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and management, 1 have very l i t t l e d e s i r e t o become an a d m i n i s t r a t o r ! ! Since s t a r t i n g my program a t MSU I have become more i n t e r e s t e d in E n gli s h te a c h in g and l e s s i n t e r e s t e d in a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , but t h i s change Is d e f i n i t e l y not th e f a u l t of MSU's program. Prev iou s r a t i n g s and comments a r e a p p r o p r i a t e . Major weakness was th e u n b e l i e v a b l e r a t i o between f a c u l t y and d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t s ; some f a c u l t y had 30 t o 40 d o c t o r a l a d v i s e e s , and may have been on 50+ committees. S t u d e n ts were o f t e n "on t h e i r own" in completing t h e s i s r e q u i r e m e n ts , and q u a l i t y o f r e s e a r c h s u f f e r e d . C e r t a i n l y t a u g h t s e l f - r e l i a n c e though! In my o p i n i o n , th e e s s e n t i a l component o f an e d u c a t i o n a l program is th e f a c u l t y with i t s a t t i t u d e s , s k i l l s , a b l i l i t i e s , and commitment. Next to th e f a c u l t y , t h e environment of a program in h igher e d u c a t i o n a l a d m i n i s t r a ­ t i o n is im port ant. In my e x p e r i e n c e in t h e Ph.D. program, th e above two components, t h e f a c u l t y and th e environment, were e x c e l l e n t . Also an important i n d r e d i e n t in my e x p e r i e n c e was th e h e t e r o g e n e i t y o f s t u d e n t s in my c l a s s , i . e . , c o l l e g e v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s in many a r e a s , a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from p u b l i c and p r i v a t e i n s t i t u t i o n s , and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s from i n d u s t r y . I t was then and s t i l l is my o p in i o n t h a t th e f l e x i b i l i t y o f th e Ph.D. program and t h e d i v e r s i t y o f MSU o f f e r t h e s tu d e n t an e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r ­ ience equal o r s u p e r i o r t o any program in th e c o u n t r y . I b e l i e v e i t is e s s e n t i a l f o r more meetings o f a d o c t o r a l a s p i r a n t and t h e e n t i r e committee. I doubt t h a t t h i s w i l l ev er o c c u r , but i t c e r t a i n l y would hel p pr e v e n t f u t u r e m isunderstandin g o f methodology a s well as c o n t e n t In t h e d i s s e r t a t i o n . 196 When I came o u t o f MSU In 1976, t h e r e was a r e c e s s i o n - - n o j o b s a v a i l a b l e in a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s I could q u a l i f y f o r a t MSU. Since I had a fa m ily t o f e e d , I moved s outh and took a p o s i t i o n in i n d u s t r y in t r a i n i n g and management development, which I was q u a l i f i e d t o do. From t h i s I went i n t o s a l e s management--hiring and t r a i n i n g s a l e s r e p s . I became so s u c c e s s f u l t h a t a n o t h e r company made me d i r e c t o r o f s a l e s and i s going t o promote me to v i c e - p r e s i d e n t o f s l a e s . I was very lucky to make the t r a n s i t i o n t o b u s in e s s a t a time when h ig h e r e d u c a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s were n o n e x i s t e n t . More p r o f e s s o r s were not committed. Most course s were a t l e v e l s f a r below th o s e I had a t e i t h e r th e B.S. o r M.S. l e v e l . E v a lu a ti o n g u i d e l i n e s and s ta n d a r d s were poor. MSU needs to put in more applied work: Budget Management— How to do the Job!! Good school and good people when I was there--they made the program. Being a t MSU opened many doors f o r me. The program Is well r e s p e c t e d , and th e network o f people a s s o c i a t e d w ith MSU has been very h e l p f u l . What I le arned h e l p s me a s k many o f th e r i g h t q u e s t i o n s now, and what I remember even p r o v id e s a few answers! I had a mentor but not from t h e Department or my committee. I s i n c e r e l y r e g r e t t h e lack o f commitment on t h e p a r t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y t o s u s t a i n i n g th e h igher e d u c a t io n program as ! knew i t in th e e a r l y 1970s. I have watched t h e cutba ck in s t a f f s u p p o r t , r e s e a r c h monies, o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f a c u l t y t o m a i n t a in p r o f e s s i o n a l netw or ks, e t c . I r e a l i z e t h i s demise f i t s i n t o th e t o t a l scheme of MSU r e tre n c h m e n t, but never th e l e s s r e g r e t the r e s u l t on A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Higher E d u c a t i o n - - t o th e p o i n t where i t seems t o have no I d e n t i t y l e f t . As I read through my r e s p o n s e s , i t would seem t h a t I was not impressed by th e q u a l i t y of e d u c a t io n r e c e i v e d . Maybe I went through th e motions or did not have a good and c h a l l e n g i n g a d v i s o r . I got very f r u s t r a t e d in many co u r se s o f being d iv id e d i n t o small groups f o r "seminar d i s c u s s i o n " with o t h e r s t u d e n t s from whom I was expected t o le a r n but who had l e s s knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e than m yself. I t seemed l i k e an easy way o u t f o r the p r o f e s s o r s . Year o f Graduation : 1977 Dr. E. J e n n i n g s , Dr. Ceea B r a s te n , Dr. Max Smith, Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Dr. James Nelson—not one but f i v e —played a c r i t i c a l theme in my development. Both my M.A. and Ph.D. a r e from MSU. I am i n t e n s e l y proud o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y , my a s s o c i a t i o n s d u r in g my work on t h e two deg ree s from 1960-1977, and th e deg ree s I e a r n e d . The Kellogg Fellowship program (under which I was funded from 1963-1965) and my s t u d i e s a t MSU changed my c a r e e r r o u t e and s t a r t e d me I nto community c o l l e g e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . This r e p r e s e n t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t c a r e e r change from j u n i o r high school te a c h i n g and c o u n s e l i n g . My p r o f e s s i o n a l o p por­ t u n i t i e s a t th e community c o l l e g e l e v e l , two y e a r s as a s s i s t a n t t o th e p r e s i d e n t , and two community c o l l e g e p r e s i d e n c i e s (Note: names of u n i v e r s i t i e s l e f t o u t t o mai ntai n I d e n t i t y cover f o r study) 197 r e s u l t e d from my work a t HSU. I f e e l I owe my t o t a l p r o f e s s i o n a l c a r e e r s a t i s f a c t i o n t o my g r a d u a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a t HSU and a s a r e s u l t o f th e Kellogg Fell ow sh ip. Hy t o t a l d o c t o r a l program was marked by s u p p o r t i v e , e ncouraging, i n t e r e s t e d people ( s t a f f , f a c u l t y , and u n i v e r s i t y personnel In g e n e r a l ) . I c o n t i n u e t o s h a r e with o t h e r s who were w i l l i n g t o s h a r e w i th me du r in g t h o s e wonderful y e a r s In my d o c t o r a l program when I lea rne d about m yself from o t h e r s . General comment: I found t h i s q u e s t i o n n a i r e d i f f i c u l t t o complete s i n c e i have been employed o u t s i d e o f h i g h e r e d u c a tio n s i n c e t h e time I completed my coursework. I c e r t a i n l y do not r e g r e t my d e g r e e , but I ' v e changed my focus through c ir c u m s ta n c e s and chance—and i do n o t r e g r e t t h a t e i t h e r . But i t d id make t h i s hard t o complete. I had th e f l e x i b i l i t y t o d es ig n my program t o f i t my g o a l s and was not r e q u i r e d to make a l i s t o f c o u r s e s . This was perhaps th e s i n g l e most Important a s p e c t o f my d o c t o r a l program. I was a b l e to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e my need s. I a l s o t h i n k t h a t my d o c t o r a l program pro vide d a s o l i d fou n d atio n from which t o l e a r n p o s t g r a d u a t e s c h o o l. I f e e l t h i s f o u n d a tio n was l a i d . The u n i v e r s i t y simply must sup ply more r e s o u r c e s t o e n a b l e t h e program to m ai n ta i n t h e impact and r e p u t a t i o n i t had when 1 was f o r t u n a t e enough t o a t t e n d HSU. Ph.D. f o r c o l l e g e t e a c h e r s e x c e l l e n t f o r l i b e r a l a r t s p r o f e s s o r s . . w h i c h I was a t t h e tim e. I am s t i l l proud o f my background even though I am In t h e p u b l i c school cl as sroom . I f t h e pay and b e n e f i t s were not as good as they a r e , I would seek a c o l l e g e p o s i t i o n . I have never a s p i r e d to a d m i n i s t r a t i o n simply because I have never met an a d m i n i s t r a t o r w it h any a p p r e c i a t i o n f o r t h e f a c t t h a t t h e e a r l y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s were given t h e jo b by [ i l l e g i b l e ] o r s e n i o r p r o f e s s o r s . As a r u l e th ey a r e n o t humble pe ople—o r i e n t e d to s e r v i c e . Is my program s t i l l in e x i s t e n c e ? I make $32,000 w ith f u l l v i s i o n , d e n t a l and m e d i c a l . . . $ 2 0 , 0 0 0 l i f e i n s u r a n c e . I probably am a t y p i c a l as my c a r e e r g o a l s changed s u b s t a n t i a l l y dur in g my d o c t o r a l s t u d i e s . Likewise, 1 found pursu ing a de gree in s t u d e n t per sonnel w ith o u t work e x p e r i e n c e In t h a t a r e a was a ha nd icap. Year o f Gradu ation: 1978 f am p r e t t y d i s g u s t e d , f r a n k l y , w ith a l l th e time and e f f o r t and money I I nves ted i n t o t h e d o c t o r a l program. Five y e a r s a f t e r r e c e i v i n g my d e g r e e , I am e s s e n t i a l l y doing what I was b e f o r e ( a lth o u g h my r e s p o n s i ­ b i l i t i e s Incre ased as t h e agency e n l a r g e d ) . To my knowledge, n e i t h e r th e placement o f f i c e , nor t h e committee membership o f t h e c o l l e g e o f e d u c a t i o n , made any e f f o r t s t o s e c u r e o t h e r Job o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r me. A f t e r sending out c o u n t l e s s resumes, I gave up. I f e e l t h a t t h e College o f Education g i v e s i t s s t u d e n t s ( a t l e a s t in my c l a s s ) u n r e a l i s t i c e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d in g employment. I f I sound somewhat b i t t e r , I guess I am. 1 hope you have b e t t e r luck! I might comment t h a t my committee chairman provided very poor guidan ce w h ile I was working on my d i s s e r t a t i o n , w i th t h e r e s u l t t h a t I had t o redo a l o t o f work n e e d l e s s l y . 198 I t h o ro u g h l y enjoyed and h e n e f i t e d from my Involvement tn both t h e d o c t o r a l program and employment a t HSU. The program was sound tn t h e mid 7 0 ' s and Is s t i l l a good one, I t h i n k . But t h e s t u d e n t s tn th e program and f a c u l t y a t t h e I n s t i t u t i o n r e a l l y make a program. Hy e d u c a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e in t h e HSU d o c t o r a l program was , w i th o u t e x c e p t i o n , t h e b e s t I e v e r had. However, even w ith th e improvement o f e x p e r i e n c e s , t h e r e ts always room f o r Improvement. The program should p r o v id e g r a d u a t i n g s t u d e n t s J o b - s e e k i n g a s s i s t a n c e and h e lp them to l u r e some m i n o r i t y and female p r o f e s s o r s . Also I t needs t o r e c r u i t some m i n o r i t y s t u d e n t s f o r t h e program. All Ph.D. c a n d i d a t e s should be r e q u i r e d t o t a k e an i n t e r n s h i p a t a c o l l e g e o r governmental agency and work d i r e c t l y w i th a key a d m i n i s t r a t o r t o observ e t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e , t r a t o r t o o b s erv e t h e i r l e a d e r s h i p s t y l e . C la s se s in p u b l i c speaking and J o u r n a l i s m would be h e l p f u l . F a c u lt y could be more p e r s o n a b l e . Year o f Graduat ion: 1979 Hy a d v i s o r . Dr. F e a t h e r s t o n e , was e x c e l l e n t , as well as a l l t h e members o f my committee. Dr. Hary lee Davis from e d u c a tio n ! Aspects (of some p a r t s ) o f t h e coursework a r e now becoming v a l u e d , p a r t i c ­ u l a r l y some o f t h e r e s e a r c h m eth odologies. On t h e main, my committee was good, and 1 now t r e a s u r e t h e i r admonishments and recommendations. Since my d o c t o r a t e was a h i s t o r i c a l t r e a t m e n t - - ! f e l t a good deal o f l a t i t u d e - al t h o u g h th e committee d id recommend s t r u c t u r e and d es ig n e l e m e n t s . In a l l c a ndor, t h e q u a l i t y o f many f a c u l t y members was q u i t e f o r g e t t a b l e . Fall 1975- Summer 1979— th e members o f t h e d ep ar tm en tal f a c u l t y a t t h a t time r e p r e s e n t e d a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f knowledge and e x p e r i e n c e . This i n t e r e s t In th e s t u d e n t s en abled t h e s e p r o f e s s o r s t o Impart h e l p f u l i n f o r ­ mation I n fo r m a ll y . However, t h e r e was no s e n s e o f d i r e c t i o n o r purpose in th e c u r r i c u l u m , c l a s s e s , o r t h e i r r e s e a r c h . The o n ly one engaged In r e s e a r c h (Raines) was headed In a d i r e c t i o n o f l i t t l e use t o t h o s e p r e p a r ­ ing f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . There was no s e n s e o f e x citem en t f o r t h e l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s , no s en se o f being on t h e c u t t i n g edg e— in e s s e n c e a t i r e d , l i f e l e s s f e e l i n g . The r e p u t a t i o n o f th e program and I t s g r a d u a te s has s u f f e r e d . Q u a l i t y o f s t a f f key— t h e i r a b i l i t y t o t e a c h —background, c o n t a c t s , n a t i o n a l and I n t e r n a l . I need a s t r o n g e r r e s e a r c h background i n c l u d in g working c l o s e l y w ith f a c u l t y a c t u a l l y engaged in s o p h i s t i c a t e d r e s e a r c h . Almost a l l o f my c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h In fa m il y p r a c t i c e d e r i v e s from t h e I n t e l l e c t u a l I n s p i r a t i o n o f th e y e a r s when I was a g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t a t HSU. I cannot say t h a t much o f t h a t i n s p i r a t i o n came from t h e Department o f A d m in i s t r a t i o n and Higher E du cation, but ( g i v e them c r e d i t f o r al lo w i n g me th e freedom t o t a k e c o u r s e s tn th e Department o f E l e c t r i c a l Enginee ring and Systems Science and in the Department o f Psychology. I s tu d Ted 199 mathematical systems t h e o r y under John Hurts tn Psyc hology, and have been seeking ev er s i n c e t o a p p ly h i s Idea t o fa mily p r a c t i c e . P r o f e s s o r Bell ta u g h t the two r e s e a r c h co u r se s I took In t h e College o f E du c atio n, and they were f i r s t r a t e . I exp ec t t h a t I should have p r o f i t e d from ta k i n g more r e s e a r c h method c o u r s e s a s in nonpa ra metrlc s t a t i s t i c s . I took one co urse in m a t r i x a l g e b r a (from t h e math department) and wish I had taken more. I a p p r e c i a t e d t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f d e s ig n i n g a program which addres sed my s h o r t - t e r m and long-t erm g o a l s . Course work In community c o l l e g e admin­ i s t r a t i o n and c a r e e r e d u cati o n was p a r t i c u l a r l y h e l p f u l . Also, o p p o r t u ­ n i t i e s for independent s t u d i e s were h e l p f u l . Year o f Gradu at io n: 1980 During my f u l l - t i m e study a t HSU th e department and t h e c u r ric u l u m were undergoing many ch anges. Sometimes I have wondered wh ethe r I l o s t out on some needed coursework because o f t h a t s i t u a t i o n . O v e r a l l , I am very p lea sed w it h my MSU " e x p e r i e n c e . " I c r e d i t my s a t i s f a c t i o n t o : my a d v i s o r , Lou Stamatakos; o t h e r f a c u l t y who r e s p e c t e d and made use o f my n in e y e a r s h ig h e r e d u c a t io n e x p e r i e n c e s , namely Doctors Sam Moore, Horace King, Dick F e a t h e r s t o n e , Mary Lee Davis, and Gary North; th e g r e a t cad r e o f s t u d e n t s in 1978-1980; and th e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t h a t were given to me t o g e t involved in dep ar tm en tal and c o l l e g e committees and issues. Dr. Richard F e a t h e r s t o n e was my p r i n c i p a l a d v i s o r and chairman o f my d o c to r a l committee, i t is my s i n c e r e b e l i e f t h a t t h i s i n d iv id u a l made i t p o s s i b l e f o r me t o s t a y on my goal and a c h ie v e i t w i t h maximal r e s p e c t . He has been an e x c e l l e n t f r i e n d and a d v i s o r t o me ov er t h e y e a r s . One of t h e key p o i n t s t h a t came out o f my own d i s s e r t a t i o n was t h e need to have a mentor, a f r i e n d , o r someone t o t u r n to f o r h e lp when needed. Although Dr. F e a t h e r s t o n e was not my mentor, he se rved as a major f i g u r e in my c o u r s e work and achievement o f th e d e g r e e . I was r e a l l y pl e a s e d w it h my g r a d u a t e e d u cati o n e x p e r i e n c e in th e Higher Education Department a t MSU. There were a co uple o f courses (and i n s t r u c t o r s ) t h a t were not t e r r i b l y good but t h a t i s t r u e o f any program. If I can s ugg es t anything i t would be In in c l u d e more about computers In h i g h e r e d u c a t io n because anyone going i n t o t h e f i e l d had b e t t e r know. An i n t r o d u c t i d n t o programming and co mputers, and t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n t o te a c h in g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Is e s s e n t i a l . V ir g in ia Wiseman, w h ile not a " m e n t o r , " was very h e l p f u l In p r a c t i c a l aspects. The l a c k o f o p p o r t u n i t y t o Involve o n e s e l f In s h o r t - or long-r an ge r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t s and t o i n t e r a c t w ith f a c u l t y on t h a t lev el was perhaps th e g r e a t e s t weakness o f th e program. I b e l i e v e f a c u l t y a d v i s o r is e s s e n t i a l to th e t o t a l development o f th e person and h i s / h e r program—f a c u l t y a d v i s o r s should be w i l l i n g to g iv e time and t a l e n t to a d v i s e e s , not simply add them t o t h e i r l i s t of 200 doctoral candidates. I h a d ' a superb a d v i s o r , Dr. L. Romano, however, I know o f many d o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e s who s u f f e r e d from a d v i s o r s who gave l i t t l e o f t h e i r time and e x p e r t i s e . Year o f Graduation : 1981 I began my Ph.D. program In 1969, a t th e age o f 27. When 1 r e tu r n e d a t age 38, I had developed new I n t e r e s t s , wanted d i f f e r e n t e x p e r i e n c e s , and changed t h e co u r se o f my program. The t e n c o u r s e s I took In 1978— 79, t h e r e f o r e , seem more r e l e v a n t and u s e fu l than an y th i n g I did when I f i r s t began. I a p p r e c i a t e th e s u p p o rt and f l e x i b i l i t y o f t h e f a c u l t y who helped me proceed toward new g o a l s . I have tr a n s p o s e d much o f what I le arned In my Ph.D. program t o what I now do and what I plan to do. 1 always thought my p r o f e s s i o n a l goals were " out o f sync" w it h the depar tm en t, but t h e f a c u l t y helped me f in d what I wanted and needed. The n a t u r e o f personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s w it h f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s was th e most i n f l u e n t i a l and b e n e f i c i a l in t h e program. I did n o t f in d t h e program ver y i n v i t i n g o r r e s p o n s i v e t o me, a black female. The " o l d boys" network seemed t o work f i n e f o r th e w h i t e males In t h e program but was v i s i b l y a b s e n t f o r me. For example, In c l a s s p r o f e s s o r s whould make comments and r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e i r personal a s s o c i a t i o n s w i th the males who were my f e l l o w c l a s s m a t e s . This seemed t o i s o l a t e me from th e " i n crowd." Also upon compeletion o f t h e program, no f a c u l t y made any a tte m p t t o he lp t o f i n d a j o b , y e t I know t h e "network" was in f u l l o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e w h i t e males. There were too many d o c t o r a l a d v i s e e s as s i g n e d t o each f a c u l t y member. Had t o work hard t o f i n d a mentor. Dr. Raines convinced me t o come t o S t a t e and Stamatakos mentored me. Some o t h e r i n s t r u c t o r s ( I ' v e even r e p r e s s e d names) were aw fu l. Fred Ign ato v ic h was th e b e s t I n s t r u ­ c t o r I ' v e e v e r had p e r i o d . My b e s t coursework was In th e Labor and I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s Department. Coursework t h e r e and in th e College o f Business should be mandatory f o r Higher Education A d m i n i s t r a t i o n s t u d e n t s . Coursework was r e a l l y vary p a l t r y In Community C ollege and in I n s t r u c t i o n a l Improvement Techniques. This program o f f e r e d poor s u p p o rt to th e d o c t o r a l s t u d e n t in terms o f th e q u e s ti o n s asked above— l i t t l e m e n to rin g , poor to minimal a d v i s i n g by a d v i s o r , and l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e w it h c a r e e r p l a n n i n g . Everyone involved was h e l p f u l , f l e x i b l e , and kind! Given my circum­ s ta n c e s l i v i n g 300 miles from MSU, one young c h i l d , a n o t h e r f our midway through my program, s e r i o u s I l l n e s s , e t c . , i t ' s a m i r a c l e t h a t I f i n i s h e d and I'm I n f i n i t e l y g r a t e f u l t o th e f a c u l t y t h a t 1 d i d . And I must admit 1 was s u r p r i s e d by t h i s . The c o u r s e s were I n t e r e s t i n g , u s e f u l , and did a g r e a t deal f o r me In i n t e g r a t i n g p r e v i o u s l y a cq u ir ed knowledge. I was very f a v o r a b l y impressed. Support from t h e i n s t i t u t i o n r a t e d a l . . . b u t n o t because I was employed by them, but because I used i t s f a c i l i t i e s , d a t a , e t c , t o answer a q u e s t i o n f o r them and t o w r i t e my d i s s e r t a t i o n . This would have occu r re d even had I not been working t h e r e p a r t time. 201 I approached my s t u d i e s as a t a s k to be completed a s soon as p o s s i b l e . V i r t u a l l y a l l c o u r s e s were taken tn t h e e v ening, so t did not develop t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s e i t h e r w i t h s t u d e n t s o r f a c u l t y which a r e supposed t o be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f d o c t o r a l s tu d y . I would s u g g e st t h a t a mechanism be developed to a t t e m p t t o compensate f o r t h a t p a r t o f t h e program which most working a d u l t s m i s s , w ith o u t f o r c i n g them t o a t t e n d day c l a s s e s , which would e l i m i n a t e them from t h e program. I f e l t my program was almost t o t a l l y u n d i r e c t e d — I picked c o u r s e s , e t c , w i th o u t much guidance o r any person al g o a ls s p e c i f i e d , I was seeking a r a t h e r p o o r ly de f in e d deg ree -P h.D . in Higher Education I n s t r u c t i o n . When my a d v i s o r d i e d , I was t r u l y l e f t an orphan . My de gr ee got me th e "magic" l e t t e r s a f t e r my name, and th e r e s p e c t and job p o t e n t i a l t h a t go with th e b e s t o f them now. I am not s u r e I'm a b e t t e r I n s t r u c t o r because o f an y th in g I le arned In any coursework. My d i s s e r t a t i o n p r o j e c t was u s e fu l and p e r t i n e n t , however. Year o f Gr aduation : 1982 As one who completed th e program on a p a r t - t i m e b a s i s w h i l e working (even worked f u l l time d u r in g p e r io d o f r e s i d e n c e ) , I never became p a r t of t h e de p a r tm e n t. I always f e l t l i k e one who dropped in once in a w h ile r a t h e r than one who belonged t h e r e . From a p r a c t i c a l p o i n t o f view, t h i s was t h e o n ly way I could do i t , but t h e l a c k o f a f e e l i n g of co nn ectedness to th e department and t h e c o l l e g e was a d e tr im e n t t o my o v e r a l l program. I missed t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o s i t down over c o f f e e and g e t to know f a c u l t y members and o t h e r s t u d e n t s . I believe t h a t t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y was t h e r e , but I was not around t o t a k e advantage of i t . Courses of S t r e s s Management and Development o f S e l f - U n d e r s t a n d i n g . . . not a t Ph.D. l e v e l ! ! ! These a r e th e c o u r s e s which undermine our academic r e s p e c t a b i l i t y ! ! The b e n e f i t o f my program was the synergy between th e s t u d e n t s , my r e l a t i o n s h i p s w it h f a c u l t y , my employment In the residence h a l l s . I cannot h ig h ly e v a l u a t e most o f my co u r s e work alth o u g h some o f i t was e x c e l l e n t . In one c o u r s e , t h e p r o f e s s o r simply read t h e manu sc ri pt from h i s upcoming book ver batim! In a n o t h e r , th e i n s t r u c t o r d i s c u s s e d h i s t r i p s to E u r o p e . . . i t was supposed to be a h i s t o r y c o u r s e . My o v e r a l l asse ssm en t was and i s t h a t th e f a c u l t y were t i r e d . They g e n e r a l l y did not c h a l l e n g e t h e i r s t u d e n t s —did n o t demand r i g o r and gave l i t t l e o f themselves (Lou Stamatakos, however, was the e x c e p t i o n —he was great-Max Ra ines , t o o l ! ) I was f o r t u n a t e enough to enjoy some o u t - o f - c l a s s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w ith s e v e r a l f a c u l t y who made I t wort hw hile : a g a i n , namely Stamatakos, Ra in es , and North. Very s a t i s f i e d with my e d u c a ti o n program a t MSU. The program was f l e x i b l e and allowed me th e o p p o r t u n i t y t o complete my co urse s t u d i e s w i th o u t having t o q u i t my j o b . An emphasis on coursework and more emphasis on d i s s e r t a t i o n would have been u s e fu l fn my c a s e . I am c u r r e n t l y concerned t h a t th e department o f h ig her e d u c a ti o n has only a s tu d e n t per sonnel emphasis as one looks a t th e c u r r e n t f a c u l t y 202 members' c r e d e n t i a l s , a r e a s of e x p e r t i s e , and c o u r s e s o f f e r e d . I believe t h e r e should be given s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n to a program emphasizing i n s t i t u t i o n a l advancement. My s i t u a t i o n was very unique because 1 am r e s i d i n g in a f o r e i g n la nd. I need a d o c t o r ' s d e g r e e , and MSU s t a f f were very w i l l i n g t o h elp me in g e t t i n g my de gre e in a minimum le n g th o f time. I am extremely g r a t e f u l f o r t h e i r encouragement and h e l p . Without t h e i r kindness I could not have succeeded. Being a t MSU gave me v a l u a b l e , hands-on e x p e r i e n c e s as a program d e v e l ­ oper and a d m i n i s t r a t o r . I viewed my p r o f e s s o r s a s valued c o l l e a g u e s t o d i s c u s s MSU a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and p o l i c y . MSU was a f i v e - y e a r c a s e study f o r me, and my co ntinued involvement in u n i v e r s l t y - w t d e committees and governance gave me p r i c e l e s s p e r s p e c t i v e —a t MSU. The retrenchment p rocess (1980-82) was of p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t t o me— i n c r e d i b l y powerful learning experiences. I found t h e most v a l u a b l e co u r s e t o be In philosophy and h i s t o r y of e d u c a t i o n . Any a d m i n i s t r a t o r needs a BROAD base o f knowledge and th e development o f a p h i l o s o p h i c a l and e t h i c a l framework w ith which t o e v a l u a t e e d u c a ti o n a l p o l i c y and p r o c e s s e s . I am very ple a s e d t h a t I completed my Ph.D. work. My c a r e e r o p p o r t u n i t i e s have been expanded, and I have a pending promotion a t th e p r e s e n t time which would have been im po ss ib le had I not completed my d o c t o r a l program. I am a l s o ple a s e d w ith MSU in ge ne ral and th e f a c u l t y in c u r ric u l u m and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n t h a t work w ith h i g h e r e d u c a t io n c a n d i d a t e s , My committee chairman, Dr. James Nelson, was very s u p p o r t i v e , c o n s t r u c t i v e l y c r i t i c a l , and important t o me as 1 completed my program. The program r i g o r was s u r p r i s i n g and i n v i g o r a t i n g - - e s p e c i a l l y th e d i s s e r t a t i o n . There w i l l always be new Inform ation to add t o a program, i . e . , computer s, megatrends in f o r m a ti o n , s t r e s s management; however, 1 b e l i e v e th e most important co u r se s a r e t h e o r y c o u r se s and most important s i n g l e l e a r n i n g environment Is th e d i s s e r t a t i o n . Much importance should be plac ed on demanding both q u a l i t y and q u a n t i t y in th e d i s s e r t a t i o n work. BIBLIOGRAPHY 203 BIBLIOGRAPHY A lc la to r e # R. T. "The R e l a t i o n s h i p of Conventional and Experimental Ph.D. Programs t o L a t e r F a c u l ty S e r v ic e and S a t i s f a c t i o n . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y o f Minnesota# 1965. Anderson# D. a # and Ball# S. Jie P r o f e s s i o n .and Erac_t1.ce o f Program E v a l u a t i o n . San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass# 1978. Baldridge# J. V. e t a l . P o l i c y Making and E f f e c t i v e Le aders hip . F r a n c i s c o : Joss ey-Bass* 1980. San Beaty# E. "Follow-up Study of Teacher Education as a B a s i s f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Improvement." Peabody J o u rn a l 46 (March 1969): 398402. Behunln# I. £# J r . "An Appraisal o f t h e Doctor o f Philosophy Degree Program 1n E d u c atio n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah# 1950-70." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Utah# 1974. Booth# E. M. "A Follow-up Study o f Alumni Who Completed Doctoral Programs 1n t h e C olleg e of Education a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of G e o r g ia ." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia# 1970. Bostford# J. F. "A Word Task I n v e n to r y and A n a ly s is o f I n d u s t r i a l Technology Graduates." Nat io nal A s s o c i a tio n si£ I n d u s t r i a l jaild T e c h n ic a l Teacher Education 13 ( F a l l 1975): 74. Brantner# S. T. "Follow-up S t u d i e s : Who B e n e f i t s ? " Vocational J o u rn a l 50 (March 1975): 26-27. American Brown# D. D. "A Comparative Study of Doctoral Degrees In Education Conferred by In dian a U nive rsi ty# as P e r ceiv ed by a Group o f R e c i p i e n t s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # I n d ia n a U niv er sity # 1968. Brown# R. D. " Student Development 1n Tomorrow's Higher Education— A Return t o t h e Academy." ACPA Monograph 16 (1972). Burnett# C. W. H i g h e r Educ ation as a S p e c i a l i z e d F i e l d of Study: A Review and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e L i t e r a t u r e . " I n Higher Education as j F i e l d s i l Study. P roce ed ings of t h e F i r s t Annual Meeting of t h e A s s o c i a t i o n of P r o f e s s o r s o f Higher Education# Chicago# I l l i n o i s # 1972. 20h 205 C a r r , W. D. "A Survey A naly s is o f Doctoral Gr aduates 1n Higher Educ ation as a S p e c i a l i z e d F i e l d o f Study." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974. C h r i s t i a n s e n , G. V. T. "An Apprai sa l of t h e Education D o c to r a t e Program 1n Ed uc atio nal A d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah, 1950-74." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Utah, 1975. C r i t e r i a l o r ± h s Appraisal M B a c c a l a u r e a t e And Higher Degree Programs In Nursing. 4 t h ed. P u b l i c a t i o n No. 15-1251. New York: National League f o r Nursing, 1977. Davis, J. V. "A Follow-up Study o f t h e R e c i p i e n t s o f t h e Earned D o c to r of P hilosophy and t h e Doctor o f Education Degrees Awarded a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s i s s i p p i , 1892-1967." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of M i s s i s s i p p i , 1969. Douglas, E. E. "An Appr aisal o f t h e Doctoral Program 1n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama a s P e r ceiv ed by Doctoral R e c i p i e n t s , 1970-1975." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y o f Alabama, 1976. D r e s s e l , P. L. Handbook o f Academic E v a lu a t i o n . J o s s e y - B a s s , 1978. . Improving Degree Programs. 1980. , and Francisco: Mayhew, L. B, Higher J o s s e y - B a s s , 1974. San F r a n c i s c o : San F r a n c is c o : Jossey-Bass, Education AS A F i e l d Af Study. San El ken, E. H. "The Doctoral Program In Educ ation a t Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Colorado S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1965. Ewing, J. C., and S t i c k l e r , W. H, " P r o g r e s s In t h e Development of Higher Educ ation a s F i e l d o f P r o f e s s i o n a l Gra du ate Study and Research." The J o u rn al o f Teacher Education 15 (December 1964): 397. F a c u lt y of C o lleg e and U n i v e r s i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and Curr iculum , C o lleg e o f Education, Michigan S t a te University. Long Range Program P la n n in g . December 14, 1982. Fellabaum, J. R. "An E v a lu a tio n of t h e Doctoral Program 1n A d m i n i s t r a ­ t i o n and S u p e r v is io n 1n t h e C o lleg e of Education and A l l i e d P r o f e s s i o n s a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Toledo as P e r c e i v e d by I t s Gradu­ a t e s . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Toledo, 1982. 206 Fendley, W. R., J r . "A D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s is and Follow-up P r o f i l e o f Doctoral S t u d e n t s o f t h e Department o f Higher Educ ation a t t h e F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y From 1958-1976." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , F l o r i d a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1977. F M e s n e r , A. F i v e Models f a r Program E v a l u a ti o n : An Overview. P u b l i c a t i o n No. 15-1788. New York: N a tio n a l League f o r Nursing, 1978. F u r s t , E. J. C o n s t r u c t i n g E v a lu a ti o n I n s t r u m e n t s . McKay C o . , 1964. New York: David G a r r is o n , L. L. "A Follow-up Study o f Doctoral Gr ad ua tes 1n E ducation, U n i v e r s i t y o f M i s s o u r i . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f M is s o u r i , 1951. G las s, G. V. "The Growth o f E v a lu a tio n Methodology." Quoted 1n Caro, Frances G. " I s s u e s 1n t h e E v a lu a ti o n o f Social Programs." Review o f Ed ucat io nal Research 41 (April 1971): 88. H ar clero a d , F. F. "Hie C ontext o f Academic Program E v a lu a ti o n ." New D i r e c t i o n s I s l I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research—Academic Program Review 7 (1980): 1-20. Hels s, A. M. "Berkeley Doctoral S t u d e n t s A pprais e T h e ir Academic Programs." Ed u cat io nal Record (Winter 1967): 30. Kayla, C. A. e t a l . " S tuden t E v a lu a tio n o f Graduate Programs 1n S e l e c t e d Southern U n i v e r s i t i e s . " Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e J o i n t c o n f e re n c e o f t h e Southern A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research and t h e North C a r o l i n a A s s o c i a t i o n f o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l Research, C h a r l o t t e , North C a r o l i n a , October 1981. K e i t h , N. R.» J r . "A S tudy o f t h e Ph.D. G r a d u a t e s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Georg ia, 1966-1970." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Geo rgia, 1971. Kenny, M. J. "An Ap prai sa l o f t h e Doctoral Programs 1n t h e Department o f Secondary Education and Curriculum a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Based on a Follow-up Study of I t s Graduates." Ph.d. d i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1973. Klrkby, M. S. "A Follow-up Study of t h e Do cto r's Degree G rad ua tes 1n t h e School o f Education a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y o f Montana, 1975. Lawrence, B.; Weathersby, G.; and P a t t o n , V. W. The O utp uts s i Higher Education: T h e ir I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Measurements, an d E v a lu a ti o n . Boulder, Col.: Western I n t e r s t a t e Commission f o r Higher Educa­ t i o n , 1970. 207 Marler# J. CL# J r. "An Apprai sa l of t h e Doctoral P r e p a r a t i o n of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and H igh er Education a t Michigan S t a t e Univer sity# 1965-1977." Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r sity # 1977. Margulles# R# and Blau# P. "America’s Leading P r o f e s s i o n a l Schools.” Change (November 1973): 21-27. Mayhew# L Graduate an d P r o f e s s i o n a l Education: .196Q, McGraw-Hill# 1970. New York: ________ # and Ford# P. J. Reform i n Graduate and P r o f e s s i o n a l E ducation. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass# 1974. McCorkle* CL a# and Archebald# S. Cl Management and L ead er ship i n Higher Education. San F r a n c i s c o : Jossey-Bass# 1962. Meeks# W. E, "A Follow-up Study of t h e Doctoral Graduates From t h e Department of V o c a tio n a l- T e c h n i c a l Education# t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee# Knoxville*" Ph.CL d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Tennessee# Knoxville# 1980. Messlck# SL m ent" "Educational E v a lu a t i o n as Research f o r Program Improve­ Childhood Educ ation 46 (1970): 413. Nagle# J. M.» and Nagle* E. E. D o c t o r a l Programs 1n Educational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n . ” In P r e p a r a t i o n Programs f o r Educational AdmirtI s t r a t o r s in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . E d i t e d by P. F. S i l v e r and D. W. Spuck. The U n i v e r s i t y Council f o r Educatio na l f o r Educ ationa l Adm1n1 s t r a t o r s» 197 fit Nle# R# e t al. S t a t i s t i c a l Package f o r t h e Soc1 al Sciences. York: McGraw-Hill, 1983. New Nlgro# 1C A "An A n a l y s i s of an Appraisal# by Graduates# of t h e S p e c i a l i s t and Doctoral Programs 1n Ed ucational A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t Michigan S t a t e Unive rsity# 1965-1972." Ph.R d i s s e r t a t i o n # Michigan S t a t e U n iv e r sit y # 1973. Nolen# CL B. "An Appraisal of t h e Program Leading t o Doctor of Education Degree In Edu cation al A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of V i r g i n i a . " Curry Memorial School of Education# U n i v e r s i t y of V ir g in i a # 1974. Parker# CL J. D o c t o r a l G raduates 1n Educ ational A dm in istr atio n# U n i v e r s i t y of Arkansas 1965-70." Ph.CL d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Arkansas# 1972. 20 8 Plaweckl# H, M. "The P e r c e p t i o n s and Recommendations of G r a d u a te s About t h e Doct oral Program 1n E d u c a tio n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa." Ph.Dt d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Iowa# 1974. Popham# W. J. An E v a l u a t i v e Guidebook: A O f. P r a c t i c a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r t h e E d u c a tio n a l E v a lu a to r . Los Angeles: The D i s t r i b u t i v e O b j e c t i v e Exchange# 1972. Raby# E. P. " A Follow-Up Study of S p e c i a l i s t ’s and Doctoral G r a d u a t e s R e c e iv in g Degrees During t h e Years 1962-1975# 1n t h e Areas o f Elementar y and Secondary Ed ucat io n 1n t h e Department of C u rric ulu m and I n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of S o u th e rn M i s s i s s i p p i . ” Ph.D, d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of Sou th ern M i s s i s s i p p i # 1977. Rush# Q & "An E v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Doctoral Program In School Adminis­ t r a t i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f V i r g i n i a . " Ph.DL d i s s e r t a t i o n # Uni­ v e r s i t y of V i r g in i a # 1967. Sanderson# R. L Development of a Model S e t of G oals and O b j e c t i v e s f o r C o n t in u i n g E d u c atio n P r o f e s s i o n a l Development and Relevance of Those G o a l s and O b j e c t i v e s and C o n t r i b u t i o n s o f Doctoral Study Toward T h e i r A t t a i n m e n t a s Asses se d by G r a d u a t e s of t h e Doct oral Program 1n C o n ti n u in g E d u c a t io n a t Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty # 1956- 19 76 .” Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y # 1977. Sharpe# a S. "A Follow -up Study of Former G r a d u a t e S t u d e n t s of t h e C o lleg e of Education# U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s . " Ph.tX d i s s e r t a ­ tion# U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s # Urbana# 1949. Sk1 nner# E. E. A Follow-Up Study f lf Doct oral G r a d u a te s l a Educ atio n. The U n i v e r s i t y o f S ou the rn M i s s i s s i p p i # 1962-1970. H a t t i e s b u r g : Bureau of E d u c a tio n a l Research# The U n i v e r s i t y of S ou ther n M i s s i s s i p p i # 1972. Somers# W. R "An A p p r a i sa l of t h e G r a d u a te Program Leading t o Doctoral Degrees a t B a ll S t a t e U n iv e r s it y # Based on a Follow-Up Study of I t s G r a d u a t e s " Ph.D, d i s s e r t a t i o n # I n d ia n a U n i v e r s ity # 1970. S t u a rt # M, R "The Doctoral Program 1n E d u c atio n a l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n and S u p e r v i s i o n a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y of S o u th ern C a l i f o r n i a . " Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n # U n i v e r s i t y of S ou the rn C a l i f o r n i a # 1972. Suchman* E. A. E v a l u a t i v e R e s e a r c h t i o n # 1967. New York: R u s s e ll Sage Founda­ 209 Tyler# R. W. B as ic P r i n c i p l e s flf Curriculum a n d I n s t r u c t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago# 1967. Welsman# S, & "Alumni Feedback and Curriculum R e v l s l o a " C o ll eg e a n d U n i v e r s i t y Teaching 18 ( S p rin g 1970). Chicago: Improving