University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Achievement In Junior College As Related To Eligibility Level On Entrance

(USC Thesis Other)

Achievement In Junior College As Related To Eligibility Level On Entrance

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was producad from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the originei submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Pagais)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the fiim along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and du[Micf«ting adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photopapher suspected thet the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the pegs in the adjacent frame. 3. Whan a map, drawing or chart, etc., was pert of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand comer of a large dteet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued agein — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate thet the textuel content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pagas you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed at received. Xsrox Unlvorslty Microfilms 300 Worth Z**b Road Ann Arbor, MteMgan 4S10S 74-11,717 WEGENER, Helen Margaret, 1918- ACHIEVB4ENT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE AS RELATED TO ELIGIBILITY LEVEL ON ENTRANCE. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1973 Education, higher University Microfilms. A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor. Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. ACHIEVEMENT IN JUNIOR COLLEGE AS RELATED TO ELIGIBILITY LEVEL ON ENTRANCE by Helen Margaret Wegener A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Education) August 1973 u n i v e r s i t y o f s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a T H E G R A D U A T E S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y P A R K L O S A N O E L S S . C A L IF O R N IA SO OOT This dissertation, written by — H sl*n-.M nrgsret„W egs«iiSr........................................... under the direction of h .D i s s e r ta tio n Com mittee, and approved by alt its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y D a te .jS ^ £ U L J X U ) z L J ^ .f .S .j i 9 7 3 DISSERTATION C O M M ITTER TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM introduction The Problem Questlone Hypotheses Assumptions Methodology Organization of the Study II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE............................. 13 Studies Related to the Challenge in Diversity of Student Population Studies Related to Drop-Out and Retention of the Junior College Student Studies Related to General Education and the Role of English III. DESIGN OF THE S T U D Y ............................. 41 IV. FINDINGS OF THE S T U D Y ........................... 50 English Courses Chosen and Grades Earned Choice of Majors by Eligibility Groups Achievement Related to Choice of Majors Eligibility Group Related to Achievement The Humanities Major Success in English Compared to Over-All Success V. DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS..................... 146 English Courses Chosen and Grades Earned by Eligibility Groups Choice of Majors by All Eligibility Groups Combined Achievement Related to Choice of Major Eligibility Group Related to Achievement The Humanities Major Success in English Compared to Over-All Success ii Chapter VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................161 Summary Conclusions Recommendations APPENDICES...............................................177 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................... 188 111 LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Percentage of Each Eligibility Group in First English Class Taken .................... 55 2. Grades Earned by Each Eligibility Group in First English Course, Expressed in Percentage.................................... 65 3. Percentage of Each Eligibility Group in Second English Class Taken .................. 75 4. Grades Earned by Each Eligibility Group in Second English Course, Expressed in Percentage.................................... 83 5. All Eligibility Groups Combined Related to Choice of Major............................... 91 6. Percentage of Successful Students Related to Choice of Major............................... 95 7. Choice of Major Related to Persistence .... 99 8. Eligibility Group Related to Success in English........................................ Ill 9. Eligibility Group Related to Over-All Success . 116 10. Eligibility Group Related to Persistence or Lack of Persistence........................... 121 11. Eligibility Group Related to Humanities Major— Broken Down Into Sex of Students........... 128 12. Eligibility Group Related to Success (Grade 2.0 or Higher) in First and Second English Courses— Broken Down Into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities...................... 132 13. Eligibility Group Related to Over-All Success (GPA 2.0 or Above) and Persistence (60 or More Units)— Broken Down Into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities...................... 137 iv Table 14. 15. Eligibility Group Related to a Comparison of Grades in English and Over-All Grade Point Average at the 2.0 Level of Achievement . . Eligibility Group Related to a Comparison of Grades in English and Over-All Grade Point Average at the 3.0 Level of Achievement . . Page . 144 . 145 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. University Eligible Students: Choice of First English Course........................ 56 2. State University Eligible Students: Choice of First English Course ................. 57 3. University Eligible and State University Eligible Students— Combined: Choice of First English Course........................ 58 4. College Prep— Non-Eligible Students: Choice of First English Course ............. 59 5. Non-College Prep Students: Choice of First Course........................................ 60 6. Unclassified Students: Choice of First English Course ............................... 61 7. University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in First English Course...................... 66 8. State University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in First English Course ............. 67 9. University Eligible and State University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in First English Course ............................... 68 10. College Prep— Non-Eligible Students: Grades Earned in First English Course ............. 69 11. Non-College Prep Students: Grades Earned in First English Course........................ 70 12. Unclassified Students: Grades Earned in First English Course........................ 71 13. University Eligible Students: Choice of Second English Course ...................... 76 14. State University Eligible Students: Choice of Second English Course .................... 77 vi Figure Page 15. University Eligible and State University Eligible Students Combined: Choice of Second English Course ...................... 78 16. College Prep— Non-Eligible Students: Choice of Second English C o u r s e .............. 79 17. Non-College Prep Students: Choice of Second English Course ............................. 80 18. Unclassified Students: Choice of Second English Course ............................. 81 19. University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course .................. 84 20. State University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course ........... 85 21. University Eligible and State University Eligible Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course ............................. 86 22. College Prep— Non-Eligible Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course ........... 87 23. Non-College Prep Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course .................. 88 24. Unclassified Students: Grades Earned in Second English Course ...................... 89 25. All Eligibility Groups Combined Related to Choice of Major......................... 92 26. Successful Students (2.0 GPA or Higher) as Related to Choice of M a j o r ............ 96 27. Business Major as Related to Persistence . . 100 28. Humanities Major as Related to Persistence . 101 29. Physical Sciences and Engineering Major as Related to Persistence.............. 102 30. Social Science Major as Related to Persistence.................................. 103 vii Figure Page 31. Technology Major as Related to Persistence............................. 104 32. Biology and Life Sciences Major as Related to Persistence........................ 105 33. Terminal Major as Related to Persistence . . 106 34. Fine Arts Major as Related to Persistence . . 107 35. Undecided as to Major as Related to Persistence............................. 106 36. Eligibility Group Related to Success in First English Course When Success is Defined as "C" or 2.0 or Above ......... 112 37. Eligibility Group Related to Success in Second English Course When Success is Defined as MC” or 2.0 or A b o v e ....... 113 38. Eligibility Group Related to Over-All Success in College When Defined as 2.0 Grade Point Average.................... 117 39. Eligibility Group as Related to Lack of Persistence, Showing Percentage of Each Group Earning Fewer than 10 Units..... 122 40. Eligibility Group as Related to Persistence Showing Percentage of Each Group Earning a Minimum of One Full Year's Credit but Less than Two Years' Credit . . . . . . . . 123 41. Eligibility Group as Related to Persistence, Showing Percentage of Each Group Earning a Minimum of One Full Year's Credit .... 124 42. Eligibility Group as Related to Persistence, Showing Percentage of Each Group Earning Two Full Years Credit or More.......... 125 43. Eligibility Group Related to Humanities Major— Broken Down as to Sex of Students . 129 44. Eligibility Group Related to Success in First English Course— Broken Down into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities . . 133 viii Figure Page 45. Eligibility Group Related to Succeas in Second English Course— Broken Down into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities . . 134 46. Eligibility Group Related to Success (GPA 2.0 or Above)— Broken Down into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities ........... 138 47. Eligibility Group Related to Persistence (60 Units or More)— Broken Down into Sex of Students Who Major in Humanities .... 139 ix CHAPTER I STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Introduction The typical student body in a California junior college has various goals, and displays a wide range of abilities and accomplishments, in part because of the requirements for entrance and, in part, because of the multiple functions of a community college. Requirements for entrance are simply that one be a high school graduate or be over eighteen years of age and be a bonafide resident of the junior college district in which he attends. The three major functions of the junior college are commonly recognized to be the following: (1) to provide the first two years of college for those students wishing to transfer to senior colleges; (2) to furnish terminal education for those students pursuing the Associate in Arts Degree or certification in a vocation; (3) and to render services to the community at large, such as adult courses for up-dating learned skills, cultural offerings, and courses for those who desire self- improvement but are not working toward a degree or certification. Thus, the services provided by the 1 2 community college are for the total community rather than for the student body of the college only (60:51-89). To complicate matters further, the total community often is in reality several communities with their full range of economic and cultural diversities, as is the case with Cerritos Community College, which is comprised of the cities of Norwalk, Downey, Artesia, Lakewood, La Mirada, Cerritos, Bellflower, and Hawaiian Gardens. These communities range on a socioeconomic scale from affluent to disadvantaged (63; 28:14-15). It is not surprising, therefore, that the student body of Cerritos College should reflect these extreme differences. According to statistics compiled by the Office of Admissions and Records, the average student attending Cerritos College in Spring, 1969, was male, was over twenty-one years of age, and attended college part-time. Of the 11,327 students in attendance, 6,688 were males, 3,925 were females. In addition 714 students were enrolled in adult education. Of the male students, 4,091 attended part-time; of the female students, 2,263 attended part- time. Of the total enrollment, 6,126 students were over twenty-one years of age, and only 4,487 students were under twenty-one (4:4). There are indications that many Cerritos College students attend this institution because of proximity, economic factors, and eligibility level, as well as from 3 choice. Thus, in dealing with the junior college, it is difficult to generalize because of the multiple purposes of the institution and the lack of homogeneity of the student body. Certainly, any study of Cerritos College is complicated by this diversity. The Problem During the years since 1957, when classes were first offered by Cerritos College, the counselling office has acquired literally tons of materials pertaining to the student body, but virtually nothing to date has been done with this volume of information. Although there exists this large quantity of data, records are complete for only one entering class: the class of 1965. For only this class, records were compiled as to the students' levels of eligibility. This information has been of basic importance to the present study. For the central concern of this study has been to determine how well the students of the various eligibility groups achieved, as measured by their degrees of success in English, as measured by their over all grade point averages, and as measured by the number of total units completed at Cerritos College. It should be noted that the author of this study has been a member of the English Department of Cerritos College since 1959 and has been actively involved in curriculum development of 4 the department. Secondarily, the study is concerned with the choices of majors of the several eligibility groups as related both to the courses pursued in English and to performance in those courses; as related to their over-all academic success; and as related to their persistence. A careful look was taken at the humanities student and his performance in college. A third concern was to note the comparison between the achievement of students in English with their over-all academic success. In checking the records for the entering class of full-time students {attending for twelve or more semester hours) for the Fall of 1965, who were pursuing the Associate in Arts Degree, planning transfer to a four-year institutions, or seeking a Certificate of Completion in a vocational area, the writer was impressed with the fact that the counselling office had gathered data concerning students' levels of eligibility at the time of entry. Examination of the files revealed that there were five such categories of eligibility: (1) those students fully eligible for entrance into the University of California system; (2) those students fully eligible for entrance into the California State University system; (3) those students who tried for university or state university eligibility, but failed to qualify because of over-all s grade point average or lack of some specific course or courses to meet the requirements for the institutions of their choicer (4) those students who had not taken college preparatory courses; and (5) those students whose eligibility level could not be classified because of insufficient information. It was considered desirable to limit the present study to the entering class of Fall of 1965 because of the availability of complete records for this one class. Also, since the majority of Cerritos College students require at least six semesters to complete the work necessary for Associate in Arts Degrees or Certificates of Completion, some lapse of time was needed to allow for completion of individual courses of study and for compiling of individual records. Studying these records should provide useful data to show how a typical community college class performed in pursuing its goals. Such a study should document how well the various segments of the student population have succeeded: what English courses the students attempted; what grades they received in English; what majors they pursued; how many units they completed at Cerritos College; what their over-all grade point average was; how the over-a11 grade point average compared with grades earned in English; how appropriate the curricular offerings were, and, if it can be ascertained, how effective the 6 counselling of this entering class was. Answers to these questions should be useful to administrators, faculty, and to all who have an interest in re-examination of the Master Plan for Higher Education in the State of California. Particularly, with respect to curriculum, a basic concern of the study has been with the appropriateness of the English department offerings in meeting student needs. Each student pursuing the Associate in Arts Degree or who is in the college transfer program is required to complete at least one three-unit course in English composition which meets for three hours per week for one semester. Also, he must complete one additional three-unit course in English, speech, or Business English, which meets for three hours per week for one semester. At present, there are no estimates available as to the degree of student success in these areas. Answers to many questions regarding these requirements are needed in order that a closer look may be taken at their relevance to aims and objectives of the college; another prime consideration is the appropriateness of the English curriculum to needs of the students. In the past, administrators and instructors alike have assumed that the English requirements are relevant to the goals of the institution and essential in the lower division general education program. Documenta tion is needed to validate this assumption, at least for Cerritos College students. 7 In large measure, the present study has dealt with a significant aspect of the broad question posed by the late Dr. Arthur Coons, then of the Coordinating Council for Higher Education, and pursued at length by Clark: is the "open door" policy of the junior college in truth an "open door" or a "revolving door" policy (18)? To cope with this larger question with reference to lower division English requirements, we need to seek answers to such questions as the following: Which students complete their Associate in Arts Degrees or a minimum of sixty units to be eligible for. transfer to the four-year institution? Which students drop out of college? How can the English department of the junior college better meet the needB of its students? The community colleges are at present educating the majority of freshmen and sophomores in California; about 80 percent of those going to college are starting in the junior colleges— some two million students per year, to be specific; it appears to be vital that the experiences provided in the English courses that are generally required should be adequate for students' needs (77:2). In addition to questions concerning both the success and the drop-out rate of students, there are a number of related questions to be answered. It will be recalled that for only the freshman class of the Fall of 1965 the Cerritos College Counselling Office established five categories of eligibility of students: (1) those students eligible for the University of California system; (2) those students eligible for the California State University system; (3) those students who attempted college preparatory courses, but who fell short in grade point average or in specific configuration of courses to meet the requirements for entry to the institutions of their choice; (4) those students who did not take college preparatory courses; (5) and those students whose records were not complete enough to allow classification into one of the first four categories. It should be noted, also, that though there were five levels of eligibility there were so few students who were eligible for the University of California system and the California State University system that it was necessary to consider the fully eligible students as one group for comparison with the other eligibility levels; however, so as not to lose the possible distinctions between the students who were eligible for the University of California system and the California State University system, these groups of students were also considered separately. Questions For each category of eligibility, this study has sought answers to the following questions: 1. What percentage of the eligibility group 9 completed an Associate In Arts Degree or sixty or more units to qualify for transfer to a four-year institution? 2. What percentage of the eligibility group took remedial English? With what degree of success? 3. What percentage of the eligibility group took English composition? With what degree of success? 4. What percentage of the eligibility group took additional English courses? 5. What were the declared majors of the group? 6. What percentage of the eligibility group was successful at the 2.0 or higher level of achievement? 7. What degree of persistence was shown by each eligibility group* at one year or more of college creditt at two years or more of college credit? 8. Who majors in the humanities? How well does he succeed in English, in over-all grade point average, and in persistence? 9. How does the grade earned in English compare with the student's over-all success in academic pursuits? Hypotheses In addition to the questions answered for each eligibility group, certain hypotheses were tested: 1. The university eligible students and the state university eligible students will tend to polarize, either completing sixty or more units or withdrawing after 10 completion of fifteen units of college. 2. The grade point average in English is consistently lower than other grades in the over-a11 grade point average. Assumptions The present study was based on the following assumptions: 1. The entering class for the Fall of 1965 was a typical community college freshman class; thus, findings pertinent to this class are applicable to other community college freshmen. 2. The English requirement is crucially important to the coiranunity college student in enabling him to achieve in college. Methodology A random sample was drawn for each of the five categories of eligibility. From the samples drawn, each transcript was checked to answer several basic questions! 1. What was the student's eligibility level on entrance to Cerritos College (as previously determined by the counselling office)? 2. what was the student’s declared major? 3. What was the student's first English course? 4. What was the grade in the first English course? 11 5. What was the second English course taken? 6. What was the grade in the second English course? 7. How many units did the student complete at Cerritos College? 8. What was the student's over-all grade point average at the time he completed his last course? 9. What was the student's sex? The author completed an analysis of the foregoing materials and data to constitute original research of primary resources. Organization of the Study For Chapter II, general and specific related literature has been researched concerning the place of English in the general education program. Also researched was literature related to the diversity of characteristics of the community college student body, which seemed relevant to student achievement. Further reading was done on studies related to drop-out and retention of the junior college student. The final section on related literature deals with special problems in the teaching of English in the general education program. Chapter III covers the complete, expanded design of the study. Chapter IV presents the findings of the present study. Chapter V presents a discussion of the findings. The final chapter, number VI, includes summary recommendations, and suggestions for further related research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE The present chapter reviews the literature concerned with various aspects of this study, focusing particularly on the following topics: (1) the characteristics of community college students which bear on their ability to accomplish junior college level of work; (2) drop-out and retention of the community college students; and (3) the role of English in the general education program. Studies Related to the Challenge In Diversity of Student Population An institution's admission policy determines to a large degree the makeup of the student population. Clark stated that "central to the conception of the junior college is state policy on junior college admissions. As expressed in the [California] education code: 'The principal of any two-year junior college shall admit to the junior college any high school graduate and any other person over 18 years of age who in his judgment is capable of profiting from the instruction offered'" (19:44-45). This principle, which is a basic assumption of the so- called "Master Plan," has been construed by school 13 14 administrators in th« state to mean that Nthe junior college should not attempt to select. . ." (10t45). Clark gave this idea wide currency in his book The Open Door College in which he developed the concept of the "open door": "In effect the junior college is ex pected to admit all applicants without regard to ability, type of curriculum completed in high school, or any other aspect of background. It is to have an open door" (19:45). Clark and McConnell both stressed two of the implications of such an open door policy. "The open-door outlook is generally extended in junior colleges to the belief that the incoming student should also have unre stricted choice in selecting a field of study. This includes the basic alternative of whether to enter a transfer or a terminal curriculum" (19:45; 54:vii-xi). Inevitably, such an open admission policy encourages and attracts a broad cross section of the college student population, with its diversity of backgrounds, achieve ments, goals, and aspirations, as well as abilities. To prevent both their own dismay and student failure, educators must accept the challenge of diversity and seek positive ways to reach the minds of all who desire self- improvement . In his widely read, thought-provoking book A Search for Understanding, Earl V. Pullias thus stated the 15 challenge of the American experiment in mass educationi The content and process of the higher learning must be adapted to the varying interests and abilities of the population of the commonwealth. This does not mean the lowering of standards'; it means discovering appropriate ways for reaching and bringing out the full potential of thought, appreciation, and skill of varying types of individuals who are the citizenry of a democracy, including of course the phenomenally gifted. (67tl9) Pullias expressed hope that extending the privilege of higher education would not result in a lowering of standards: My plea is that we find, or at least seek for, ways to bring the ennobling process of the higher learning to the wide variety of abilities and interests that characterize the human family and thus begin to release the full potential of man. There is no implication that learning should level 'down* to the average man. The emphasis here is on variety, respect for variety, and the realization of full potential all along the spectrum of talent and ability. (67*19) Surely such an awareness and respect is needed nowhere more than in the community college. Pullias and other leading educators would agree that, in order to accomplish the task of developing student potential and of disseminating knowledge, our institutions of higher learning must maintain their independence and integrity. The mystic-philosopher poet Tagore has given poetic expression to these ideas in his lines describing the ideal institution of higher learning. As Tagore suggested, such institutions must be places Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high; Where knowledge is free; 16 Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls; Where words come out from the depth of truth; Where tireless striving stretches its anas toward perfection; Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit .... (35:xi; 89:27-28) From a more practical standpoint, as more and more students demand the services of the institutions of higher learning, the necessity for tailoring the learning to fit the individual becomes increasingly apparent. Frankel thus stated his conception of the role of the institution as rooted in the democratic tradition which places high value on the individual and on education as a means of upward socioeconomic mobility: The American college, with its Anglo-Saxon background, leans towards a student-oriented, rather than a subject oriented education. Subjects are taught; but for the most part the announced reason for doing so is that they are means to the development of the individual. . . . [A]11 American colleges . . . [see as their function! to bring out the best in the individual by providing him with something like a planned total environment. (35:154) According to Frankel, the necessity of such a role for higher learning lies in the fact that . . . the American college . . . is the great social escalator of contemporary American society, the major avenue by which the members of a mobile society are enabled to move upward on the social scene. . . . The college degree is one of the few symbols of status that exists in the United States, and its social importance is all the greater as a result. (35:157) The need for the positive approach to the challenge of diversity of abilities in our student population in 17 institutions of higher learning is highlighted by a look at some negative views of the role of the junior college and its attempt to educate all who desire to partake of the offerings. Among the outspoken critics are Hofstadter and Hardy, who expressed skepticism regarding academic standards of the junior college: A new institution, the junior college, has sprung up in large numbers to meet the demand for something like mass education beyond the normal four-year secondary school. . . . It is in many ways a transi tional institution. Its courses of study have the qualities of both secondary and higher education. . . . Over the years its relationship to higher educa tion will become clearer, but the junior college will, in all probability, borrow more than it will con tribute to the quality of higher education. (43:141- 142) Riesman in his book Constraint and Variety in American Higher Education took an equally dark view: As the junior college movement spreads, we may see many twilight colleges, which appear free from the perspective of the high school but almost unprotected and even obscurantist from the perspective of the traditional private college. At many of these junior colleges, as at some of the state or poorer private institutions, the chief academic freedom issues that arise do not involve ideas or associations, but rather the right of professors to flunk students who are plainly inadequate but who arguably may gain from postponing their entry on the job market. (75:123) In order to deal with such current criticisms of the junior college, it seems appropriate to ask, just who is the community college student and what are his capabilities? Numerous studies have attempted to assess his abilities. Even Clark, who is associated in the minds of many 18 with the "open door" policy/ appeared somewhat negative In hla assessment of the junior college clientele. He stated: "In sum, the junior college must base Itself on a clientele low In scholastic achievement and college aptitude" {19:51; 54:viii). He concluded that "the student who cannot or will not perform at the 'college level,' as this is defined by other colleges, needs to be convinced that he is not capable of undertaking a more extended college curriculum" (19:69). Kearney found relatively little literature dealing exclusively with characteristics of junior college students. However, she concluded that "the usual description of the junior college student population relies on averages and indices of central tendency to explain the greater diversity on almost every dimension which characterizes the junior college student" (50:12). With respect to academic ability, there appears to be a consensus that the median score is somewhat lower for the junior college freshman student than for his counter part in other institutions. Nevertheless, to stress the lower median may be to mask a possibly more important fact, that of wide variance of abilities. Wise found that junior college entering freshmen ranged in ability from a virtually non-reading level to the highest scores made nationally. He stated that ranges of aptitude and ability 19 far exceed the perception of the faculty and the administration (93:19). Medsker supported the view that a substantial number of junior college students are very able and that only 16 percent fall one deviation below the mean for the total population of two-year college entrants— which is equivalent to saying that those 16 percent are below 100 IQ (60:37-38). He found the junior college enrolling some 6 percent consisting of very able students and an additional 30 percent consisting of those who score above the mean of students entering the four year college (60: 38). Medsker made an important recommendation based on his findings: "Each college should accumulate a body of facts about its own student body which will serve as a guideline for educational policies and procedures. Much would be gained from cooperative studies by several institutions" (60:50). Wise and Adams strongly endorsed a similar view and also stressed the range of capabilities (93:v). Citing the range of academic ability in the junior colleges, Friedman concluded that "in truly democratic fashion all may enter the junior college, but not all survive. And those who do survive have comparatively greater academic ability than those who do not" (36:152). He coined a memorable phrase to describe this phenomenon: 20 "academic Darwinism" (36:152). Another metaphor which has been current is the "revolving door," which to many observers has superseded the "open door." Thornton, too, called attention to the fact that junior college freshmen have a wide range of abilities. He stressed the need for recognition of differences and the provision of a strong curriculum for the able transfer student (01:151). Seashore estimated that 25 percent of the junior college students are academically capable and are equal to or superior to students in four-year colleges (82:75-76). Writing in 1962, McConnell and Heist lamented a deficiency which is only beginning to be met in the decade of the seventies. This is a lack of studies in depth of the various factors contributing to the diversity of the student population in junior colleges. They wrote: Except for the striking diversity among students and institutions revealed in the Learned-Wood report (1938), little evidence of the great variation in students* characteristics, even in aptitude and achievement, much less in attitudes, values, and dispositions, within or among institutions, has been accumulated. Furthermore, there has been little discussion of the implications of the meager data that are available on student diversity for college objectives, curricula, or instructional methods, or for the pattern of institutions that would seem to be necessary in a diversified, coordinated statewide system of higher education. (53:228) They commented that the Center for the Study of Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley has made a beginning by its studies of the composition of 21 student bodies and of the differential selectivity of particular colleges and universities, as well as of groups of institutions (53:228-229). McConnell and Heist further noted that only recently have schools become aware that the characteristics of the student body are determinants of the institutions educational effectiveness. "Recent studies have shown that the product is a function of the 'input,' and so research has begun to turn to the inter action between student material and college environments (and/or subcultures) in explaining productivity and in charting the dynamics of student development" (53:228). Three recent dissertations probed for answers to such questions as, Who attends college and with what degree of achievement? Ellish, who reported that 40 percent of ablest high school graduates enter college, suggested that the junior college is a boon to these capable students. He found both the mean grade point average of junior college students and attitude value toward junior college lower than for students in four-year institutions. Students of high ability (3.00 gpa or better) do equally well at either a junior college or a four-year institution, but the junior college, in contrast to its four-year counterparts, has six times the number of students in the probation or expulsion range because of low grades (30). The findings of Hakanson supported the general view of the junior college as having a less able student body 22 than the four-year college. He reported that 76 percent of terminal junior college students in his study fell in the medium and low scholastic aptitude categories (39). Herridge described the high achievers in junior college as being older than the average, predominantly white, and mostly married. Most of them work part-time, attend evening classes, and are enrolled in terminal programs (41). Several writers have come to grips with the problem of the low-achiever in junior college. Clark, author of the well known book on the open door policy, has written an article on this type of student. He stated his belief that a major function of the junior college is to ease out those students of lesser academic ability in a process which he termed "cooling out." He described the process as one "whereby systematic discrepancy between aspiration and avenue is covered over and stress for the individual is minimized" (18:521). Commenting favorably on Clark's idea of the cooling-out process, Bossone said such an attitude lets the student's hopes down "gradually, gently, and peacefully, allowing the junior college to keep its cooling out function hidden and its other functions high lighted" (8:49). Bossone, however, did not preclude other ways of approaching the problem, for he recommended further study: "More intensive and extensive research is called for regarding students' interests, attitudes, 23 personality problems, patterns of class attendance, and academic progress" (8:49). Proliferating at the present time are numerous studies of such characteristics of the junior college student. Among those who have worked on these facets of the composition of the junior college student population are Havighurst, McConnell and Heist, and Koos (40; 53; 52). However, for purposes of this study, the literature per taining to factors other than academic abilities appeared to be irrelevant. Studies Related to Drop-Out and Retention of the Junior College Student A highly significant area of consideration for the junior college is that which concerns the problems of drop-out and retention. Limitations of the present study make it necessary to touch on the problem only briefly in this chapter. It is included, however, because the present study is concerned with units completed; thus, to some extent, drop-outs are a factor to be dealt with. The twin problems of drop-out and retention are not new. Iffart explored the causes of drop-out and its deteriorating effect on the student, the family, and on society (46). In 1960, one cause of drop-out was related by Clark to the unrealistic goals of junior college students, the great majority of whom enter as declared transfer students 24 whereas in actuality they are latent non-transfer students. In addition to transfer and non-transfer students, Clark identified an in-between group which further complicates the problem of retention. He stated: The basic problem of the junior college is the processing of the student who falls between the transfer and the terminal groups. Students with transfer intentions for the most part do not transfer, but neither do they complete terminal curricula. Most terminate their education while in college but do so as drop-outs while pursuing transfer work. (18:84) Clark concluded that the "modal" student does not fall clearly into either the transfer or the terminal category; therefore, the administration of curriculum and instruction is mainly concerned with the processing of this "in- between" type. According to Clark, the "battle of the production line" in the junior college is to retain most, if not all, of those students long enough to give them occupational training or to add to their general education (18:84). In 1962, Summerskill and Farnsworth suggested that study of the problem of drop-outs might induce certain reorganization of freshman programs in junior college to save resources. They tested voluntary withdrawal as related to certain selected non-intellective factors in the student background (87:636-637). A valuable study was done in 1965 by Extence on non-intellective factors which may be related to voluntary 25 withdrawal of college freshmen (32). A similar study in 1968 by Bossen explored reasons for drop-out and reported findings of a follow-up study on withdrawal students. An important finding of the study was that almost 50 percent of the withdrawal group had returned to a junior college, suggesting that the final attrition rate in the community college may not be as high as often estimated (7). Writing in 1971, Bossone highlighted the fact that the drop-out problem continues and is an issue which must be explored in greater depth. He stated: "If the junior college were to be judged by a student persistence rate, we would be alarmed— indeed shocked— by the great percentage of students who drop by the wayside" (8:223- 224) . The sampled existing studies of the drop-out and retention problems in the community college appear to be inconclusive, but open up interesting areas for further exploration, especially Bossen's speculations regarding the attrition rate studied over a period of time. Studies Related to General Education and the hole of English Introduction There appears to be general agreement among the authorities consulted that general education is a major aspect of the educational program of the junior college. A 26 concern of the present study is the place of English in the general education curriculum. A survey of the relevant literature shows that the following approaches have been made to this topic: significant studies reveal acceptance of the important role of English in the general education curriculum; another group of studies, based on the assumption that English is a necessary and recognized discipline included in the general education offerings, take up important problems in the teaching of English, such as teacher preparation, student confusion about educational goals, and the evaluation of junior college remedial English courses. In his landmark book The Community College Student, Koos has a chapter entitled "Implication for the Curricu lum," in which he listed four significant studies, noting the remarkable consensus among prominent scholars and authors concerning the major functions of the junior college: the Fifty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, edited by B. Lamar Johnson (62); Hedsker, in The Junior College: Progress and Prospect (60)? Thornton, in The Community College (91); and Reynolds, in The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum (71). In these books there is substantial agreement that the functions of the junior college are (1) preparation for advanced study, usually referred to as 27 the "transfer function"} (2) vocational education, typically designated as "terminal vocational education"} (3) general education; and (4) community service (52i435). The consensus is based in part on two important early studies in higher education by McConnell and Deutsch in which differential but overlapping functions were recommended for the different segments of education after high school (54; 27). The Place of English in General Education As to the nature of general education, which is the concern of the present study, Koos said that the most influential statement was made by the American Council on Education Studies in its "Design for General Education" prepared for members of the armed forces in 1944. He recalled that the formulation was made by a committee consisting largely of administrative officers of colleges and universities who had the help of faculty members in these institutions. The committee had been asked (1) to prepare a design for general education in the form of appropriate outcomes, and (2) to outline a series of courses that might be devised to contribute directly to these objectives (52:438). The role of English was stressed in the design with the statement that one of the "objectives of this general education, in the opinion of 28 the committee, as stated in the final report, should be for the individual to communicate through his own language in writing and speaking at the level of expression adequate to the needs of educated people" (52:438). That English is still accorded great importance in the general education program is clear from an examination of the 1971 edition of Koos' book, which repeats this statement. In 1947, the President's Commission for Higher Education reached a similar conclusion. The need for English as a part of the general education program was seen as twofold: the skills of communication-writing, reading, talking, and listening— were considered essential to the development of clear and precise thinking; in addition, it was stated that through great literature one gains insight into the emotions, drives, and aspirations of one's fellow-raen. Emphasis was placed on the fact that the English needed is not the specialized study of literary history, literary biography, or literary techniques, such as are needed for the English major, but the study of English for the individual to read and reflect upon the world's literary treasures to aid in broadening and deepening the perceptions and sympathies of the individual (66:52-55). In the literature there is a difference of opinion regarding the traditional liberal arts concept of general 29 education and a more functional approach. Koos noted in the 1971 edition of The Community College Student that the shift in general education is away from the traditional liberal arts concept of general education as expressed by Rapp to a more functional one such as that endorsed by Horse (52). Representative of the liberal arts concept of general education are Rapp and McKeon, especially. According to Rapp, the junior colleges sometimes tend to define general education loosely as all the non-technical curriculum* and subjects. Confusion arose because New York State specified that its students could taken "non technical courses which may be general education and/or liberal arts," which phrasing gave rise to the belief that general education and liberal arts might be equated; but, if so, why use both terms? The phrasing implies a difference in the two terms. Rapp stressed the persistence of the liberal arts curriculum from its origin in the trivium and the quad- rivium of the Middle Ages and their source in the Golden Age of Greece. The trivium consisted of grannar, rhetoric, and logic; the quadrivium, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. Renaissance man added to these the subject of science, whose pedigree also carries it back to the Golden Age of Greece. Though the original liberal arts 30 subjects have been modified through the centuries, and are still changing, the basic core persists as present day liberal arts. in contrast, Rapp pointed out, general education as a concept and as a curriculum has grown popular since the mid-1950's. There is a difference between liberal arts and courses originating in the liberal arts. Some subjects now offered as general education would barely be recognized by ancient teachers of liberal arts and sciences. As a result, some of the general education courses offered in community colleges are not recommended for full credit on transfer to the senior colleges. Historically, Rapp noted, America's schools have responded to the citizens' needs. During and after World War II, the prime need of America seemed to be for the technician: Ma person with better educational background and training than most skilled workers, yet with less education and training than a graduate engineer" (70:26). Still, there was a feeling that general aspects of learning must not be neglected. Therefore, a portion of the two- year training program was set aside for general education or liberal arts. The early comprehensive community colleges continued this basic pattern, but with a tendency to de-emphasize the traditional liberal arts and relegate them to a position secondary to the technical program, 31 resulting In an adulteration of the liberal arts. However, the demand by the student has tended to be for courses that will transfer, and this demand began to move general education courses toward liberal arts. The general education approach simply did not receive acceptance where it had to be accepted to survive. Rapp decided that the home and the world at large are the proper place for general education, as well as schools and colleges, which should provide opportunity for general education. By taking what ha has learned well and deeply in the disciplines and relating it to himself, to his experiences, and to the new knowledge which growth and development brings him, the individual student, not the curriculum nor the courses, becomes the catalyst and the generalizer. . . . Educators should place more responsibility on the individual to seek his own general education. (70t28) Furthermore, Rapp believed that the liberal arts free and sensitize the mind so that the individual will be able to educate himself generally for the remainder of his life. "By placing general education responsibility on the shoulders of the individual student and by structuring the college so that the disciplines may be related but not compromised or integrated, the goals of general education can be achieved without sacrificing the liberal arts" (70: 28) . Expressed by Richard McKeon, a prominent philoso pher, is the idea of general education as laying a 32 foundation for a higher education. General education should not be looked upon as the acquiring of specific, conventional accomplishments. Rather, as McKeon wrote, "The interests and opportunities and demands of life are not limited to any few subjects one may elect to study. They cover the entire range of nature and society. That is the best liberal education which best enables one to live a full life" (56:17). Commenting on a liberal arts approach as opposed to a more functional one, Koos summarized the conflicting views of Rapp and Morse thus: Liberal education is con cerned first with a body of subject matter content, drawn largely from the cultural heritage of the Western world. General education of the less conservative type as espoused by Morse is concerned first with the learner as a human being, who has certain needs and desires that make him distinct from his fellows (52:445). Morse, himself, noted that the "unity" of general education is the individual student. He believed that liberal education and his conception of general education could become partners, rather than partisans, as there is great over-lapping in the two concepts (61:399). It may be that Koos overstates the case for differences between Rapp and Morse, for Rapp, also, in his own way, stressed the individual as the center of the general education program. 33 In support of Rapp's view that there is a differ ence between liberal arts and general education, one may note that Thornton, in his book The Community Junior College, appeared to believe the two concepts were some what separate. He disapproved of the attempts by colleges to provide general education by recommending a sampling of established introductory courses from several disciplines, such as English, science, social studies, and humanities, because these courses are planned for the students who will study further in the various fields. He defined general education as referring to "programs of education specifically designed to prepare young people for the responsibilities which they share in common as citizens in a free society and for wholesome and creative partici pation in a wide range of life activities" (91:198). Thus, Thornton's views were somewhat in conflict with the emphasis made by Morse, who stressed individual differ ences, for Thornton said that general education "is called 'general' because its purposes are conceived to be common to all men; it is that part of the total collegiate offering which is concerned with men's likenesses rather than with their divergent interests. It intends to assist the student to feel intellectually and psychologically at home in a world which makes new economic, social, civic, spiritual, and intellectual demands upon him" (91:198). 34 Thornton believed that since there is not time for all students to take unlimited, specific courses every instructor should became aware of general education goals and be committed to them so that "every course in every department contributes as it can to general educationt conscious planning is essential" (91:201). A further endorsement of the need for English in general education came from Phenix, who saw skill in language as essential to all. Although acknowledging individual differences, he stressed common needs of man. While intellectual abilities differ, he observed, the "intellect is a universal human property. . . . Intellec tual life is crucial to democracy because it is the source of the human community. The power of reason is developed in and through communication" (65:33). Thus, he contin ues, it follows that common education is necessary for each individual in order . . . to make good his membership in the common humanity, to participate in the responsible conduct of corporate life (through the power of communication), to exercise wisely the obligations and privileges of choice, and to achieve identity as a person. In the democratic commonwealth, therefore, education should be universal, socially oriented, aimed at the develop ment of mature judgement, and cognizant of individual differences. (65:35) Another prominent writer, Sidney Hook, in discus sing the content of education, stated his belief that there is less controversy about the necessity for 35 composition and literature than for any other subject in the curriculum, whether it be traditional or modern. English composition, in his view, can be made important as an aid to clear thinking, as a study of logic in action, and as necessitating the learning how to write clearly, effectively, and interestingly (44*148-153). In addition, he considered literature even more significant. "Literature in all its forms is the great humanizing medium of life" (44:153). As early as 1952, Hofstadter and Hardy had reached a conclusion in substantial agreement. "Without language, both written and spoken, the intellectual life as we know it is impossiblet language is the means by which we take possession of experience and put it to use in our own lives and that of society" (43:219). Perhaps the strongest endorsement for the need to develop facility in the use of the language came from Nathan Pusey, then President of Harvard University, who wrote: What we are depends in very considerable measure on the intellectual experiences we have had, or have not had— on the meaning we have found in life, or have not found. Such experiences do not have to be found in books, but chiefly it is in books, in the best books, that the most illuminating experiences are apt to be found. . . . To live apart from books is not to turn toward life but deliberately to cut one's self off from it. . . . Books, as another has said, are men thinking. . . . They are also at their best the work of men whose thoughts are most worth knowing. . . . Education for free men is what used to be called a liberal education. (69:37-41) 36 In order to attain a general or liberal education, Taba stressed the need for a balanced curriculum and a balanced education. According to Taba, each discipline has a logic of its own, its way of viewing and organizing the events and phenomena with which it deals. Facility in English must continue to be a part of that balanced education (88:161-184). Thus one may note that while there is consensus on functions of the junior college, there is a lack of agreement on means of achieving general education and no unanimity on the nature of general education. Medsker pointed up the lack of consensus in noting that for some writers and faculties general education means a common basic curriculumj to others it means common outcomes of a fundamental educational experience, which may rely on diverse means. To others it means an understanding of the major concepts, principles, and methodologies of major fields of knowledge. To still others general education is given a behavioral definition, as that education which prepares a man to live more fully as a person and more effectively as a citizen (59:56-57). Special Problems in the Teaching of English in the General Education Program Kitzhaber, writing in 1963, and Christensen, writing in 1966, independently reached the conclusion that one 37 great difficulty in the teaching of English effectively is that teachers of English for the most part have little or no preparation in English in areas other than litera ture. They found that few English teachers have competence in teaching either language or composition (51:15). While students spend more time studying English than any other subject in the curriculum, they need remedial English in college and often have to repeat remedial English before graduation, largely because their teachers lack training in language or composition (17:269-270). The basic assumption of both writers is that English composition plays a highly significant role in the general education curriculum. Bossone saw the student as equally to blame for the relatively poor levels of accomplishment in English. Commenting on the fact that two-thirds of junior college students profess to be transfer students, whereas in fact only about one-third do actually transfer (54:vii; 63), Bossone thus described the situation: Many of these students who are unrealistic about their curricular preference are attracted to the junior college by its open-door policy and through their own desire for status, coupled with immature fantasies about college being a lot of fun. The situation is further complicated by the carry-over of immature high school attitudes, by half-hearted class attendance, and by the naive belief on the part of the students that they can hold a full-time job and have time and energy left to study. In addition to this, approximately 70 percent of these students reflect deficiencies which they optimistically believe 38 will be remedied immediately. (9:218) Inasmuch as the great majority of the students mentioned in Bossone*s study took remedial English as a part of their general education requirements, his findings concerning the remedial program in California junior colleges become particularly apt. His study called "Remedial English Instruction in California Public Junior Colleges: An Analysis and Evaluation of Current Practices" has as one of its objectives to discover on what basis junior college students are being classified as remedial English students and what the institution's general policy is regarding remedial English. Generally speaking, his appraisal of the remedial program was discouraging. He observed that "the data in this study indicate that remedial English classes in California junior colleges are not very effective and are in need of reappraisal by all concerned with improving the teaching of English in the two-year college" (9:219). Some factors which Bossone believed were causing the ineffectuality of the program were (1) questionable placement procedures, (2) lack of communication between those involved in the testing and counseling and guidance and those involved in the teaching of remedial English, (3) vague objectives, (4) high percentage of student failures, and (5) insufficient experimentation (9:219-220). 39 Bossone*s summary of the characteristics of the remedial student showed that they have deficiencies in all four areas of communication: 1. Listening— the student has too short an attention span, resulting in the loss of the gist of lectures; the student cannot select important detail; he forgets what he hears. 2. Speaking— oral communication depends upon speaking, but the student is not an effective speaker; he has an impoverished vocabulary, repeats phrases, speaks in elliptical phrases, employs simple or immature sentence structure, enunciates poorly, and reflects a general lack of social poise. 3. Reading— again the student has noticeable inadequacy of vocabulary, inability to grasp the central idea of long passages and find the supporting ideas; the problem is complicated by his poor concentration and short attention span. 4. writing— the student has problems with correct usage, avoiding gross errors, mechanics, organizing ideas, and maintaining interest in assigned material (9:221-222). In light of the above appraisal of the junior college remedial student, teachers must take a close look at their approach to teaching the remedial student if they are to provide an adequate program of English to meet 40 general education standards. Bossone concluded that "if the junior college . . . is to achieve its goal of good teaching, it must develop the courage to adroit what is ineffectual, the courage to invite analysis and evaluation, and the courage to seek new means of resolving its problems” (9:224). Rice would agree with Bossone that the English teacher has his job cut out for him. In his essay ”Higher Education in the 1970's,” Rice emphasized the increasing importance of the role of the English teacher. He wrote: As traditional learnings fade in importance, the English teacher will increasingly become a guide and interpreter in the wilderness of the here and now, through which so many are striving to find their way. Helps he will get from the past; but what he will need chiefly is a clear vision of the world that lies about him. (74) CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY It will be recalled that the entering students for the class of Fall semester, 1965, at Cerritos College were divided into five categories of eligibility. The central purpose of the present study was to determine how well the various groups of entering freshmen achieved in English and in their entire program of courses, as measured by their grades in English, by their over-all grade point averages, and by the total number of units they completed. The second area of concern was the majors chosen by the students in the several eligibility groups and the success of the groups of majors--both in their degrees of success in English and in their over-all success in college as measured by over-all grade point averages and total number of units completed. An especially close look was taken at the humanities major and his performance in college. A third major consideration was the comparison of success in English with the students' over-all academic performance. In the Fall semester, 1965, approximately 2,000 41 42 full-time students comprised the entering freshman class at Cerritos College in Norwalk, California. To be classified as full-time, the entering student had to be carrying twelve or more semester hours of work and had to be pursuing the Associate in Arts Degree, be entered in the college transfer program, or be enrolled in an area of study which would lead to a certificate of completion, such as in nursing or dental assisting. At the time of registration, counselors classified each entering student according to his eligibility level which was determined by his grade point average in high school, as shown on his transcript; by his choice of college preparatory courses in high school, again as shown on his transcript; and by his scores on the college entrance examination. Five distinct categories of level of eligibility were established by the counselors: (1) university eligible— those students who qualified for admission to the University of California system; (2) state college eligible (now state university eligible)— those students who qualified for admission to the California State University system; (3) college prep— non-eligible— those students who attempted university or state university preparatory work, but who either fell short in grade point average or lacked the proper configuration of courses to 43 satisfy the requirements at the institutions of their choice; (4) non-college prep— those students who did not attempt university or state university preparatory courses, but decided belatedly to become college students; and (5) unclassified— those students who could not be classified because of incomplete records or information. Of the 2,000 entering freshmen, the numbers falling into the various eligibility categories were as follows: 1. university eligible 50 2. state university eligible 100 3. college prep— non-eligible 800 4. non-college prep 350 5. unclassified 700 For purposes of this study, a true random sample was drawn from each category of eligibility level. Inas much as there were so few university eligible and state university eligible students, these two categories were combined, for both groups of students were eligible for admission to four-year institutions. However, the university eligible and state university eligible cate gories were considered separately, as well as being combined for certain aspects of the study. Because a sample group of 100 students was desired in each category of eligibility, and inasmuch as the combined total of university eligible and state university 44 eligible students numbered 150, two of each three names were drawn for the sample. The drawing was done thusi numbers one, two, and three were placed on slips of paper, the papers shuffled, and two slips drawn. Numbers two and three were dram; hence, each second and third name was drawn for this combined eligibility group— thirty-four from university eligible and sixty-six from state university eligible, for a total of 100 names. In the college prep— non-eligible category, 800 names were available, and 100 names were needed for the random sample. Numbers one through eight were placed on slips of paper, the papers shuffled, and number seven was drawn. Beginning with number seven, each eighth name was drawn— number seven, fifteen, twenty-three, and so forth— to obtain the total of 100 names. In the non-college prep eligibility category, 350 names were available. Numbers one through three were placed on slips of paper, the papers shuffled, and number three was drawn. Beginning with number three, each third name was drawn, except that in order to give the remaining fifty names an equal chance to be drawn it was necessary after each series of six choices was made to skip one name before the counting was begun once more. In this manner, 100 names were dram for the category. In the last category of eligibility, the unclas sified, 700 names were available; the same procedure was 45 followed. Numbers one through seven were placed on slips of paper, the papers shuffled, and number four was drawn; therefore, beginning with number four and choosing each seventh name thereafter, the desired 100 names were drawn. For each student whose name was selected for the sample, a computer card was made containing the student's name, sex, and eligibility level as pre-determined by the counselors. Transcripts were pulled for each individual student after six full semesters had elapsed to allow for as many as possible of the students to complete their courses of study at the junior college. Information was marked on the computer cards, indicating the following items of information: 1. Sex 2. Eligibility level 3. Major 4. First English course taken 5. Grade in first English course taken 6. Second English course taken 7. Grade in second English course taken 8. Total units completed after six semesters 9. Over-all grade point average The students whose names were chosen had designated majors which were grouped by the counselors into the following nine categories. 1. Business 46 2. Humanities 3. Physical Sciences and Engineering 4. Social Sciences 5. Technology 6. Biology and Life Science 7. Terminal (Home Economics, Nursing, Dental Assisting, and so forth) 8. Fine Arts 9. Undecided The possibilities for choice of first English course taken were these: 1. None 2. Remedial English 3. Reading improvement 4. Freshman Composition (first half) 5. Business English (first half) 6. Supervision 7. Freshman Composition (second half)— a few students take the second half before the first half, by petitioning; this half is called "Composition and Types of Literature " The possibilities for choice of second English course taken were these: 1. None 2. Remedial English 3. Reading Improvement 4. Freshman Composition (first half) 5. Business English (first half) 6. Supervision 7. Business English (second half) 8. Freshman Composition (second half) 9. Miscellaneous (American Literature, World Masterpieces, Creative Writing, Poetry, Novel, and so forth) For number of units completed, the following seven categories were established, from lowest to highest number of units completed: 1. 0 - 9 1/2 units 2. 10 - 19 1/2 units 3. 20 - 29 1/2 units 4. 30 - 39 1/2 units 5. 40 - 49 1/2 units 6. 50 - 59 1/2 units 7. 60 or more units In a similar fashion, eight categories of grade point averages were established, from highest to lowest earned grade point average. 1. 4.0 A 2. 3.5 - 3.9 B plus 3. 3.0 - 3.4 B 48 4. 2.5 - 2.9 C plus 5. 2.0 - 2.4 c 6. 1.5 - 1.9 D plus 7. Less than 1.5 D or F 8. All Grades Withdrawal Passing After all 400 cards in the random sample had been mark sensed, they were key punched in the data processing office at Cerritos College; sheets were run off, showing numbers and percentages of students falling into each category of classification. in the first sequence, sheets were run first for each eligibility level, thus: the university eligible group of thirty-four cards and the state university eligi ble group of sixty-six cards were run separately and then as a combined group of 100. Numbers and percentages of students who chose each major, each English class, and so forth, were listed. Next, the college-prep— non-eligible group of 100 cards was run off, showing numbers and percentages of students who chose each major, each English class, and so forth. Then, the non-college prep eligibility group of 100 cards was run off, and, finally, the unclassified eligibility group of 100 cards was run off. In each instance, the numbers and percentages of students who chose each major, each English class, and so forth, were listed. 49 In the second sequence, the cards were first sorted according to the students' choices of majors. For each choice of major, sheets were run off, listing numbers and percentages for each category who chose certain English classes, earned certain grades, finished certain numbers of units, and so forth. Using the figures compiled by the computer, the author prepared a series of charts showing the relationship between eligibility level and the remaining categories of information being studied. Additional charts were made showing the relationship between choice of major and the remaining categories of information. In specified cases, relationships between sex, choice of major, and achieve* ment in English were measured. inasmuch as most of the anticipated readers of the present study will be teachers of English, the findings were expressed throughout in percentages to facilitate communic ation. CHAPTER IV FINDINGS OF THE STUDY In the present chapter, the findings of the study are presented without author comment. The following chapter contains a discussion of the significance of the findings. The findings of the present study are related to six major tasks set by the author. The first area for consideration was the choices of English courses made by the students in the various eligibility groups and the configuration of the grades they earned. Tables 1 and 2 and Figures 1 through 24 summarize these data. The second task undertaken was the determination of the choices of major made by the students in the various eligibility groups. Table 5 and Figure 26 present the relevant findings. Appendix I presents additional detail. The third major area of concern was the achievement of the students in the various categories of major as measured by their earning of grades of ”C” or higher and by their persistence in college. Tables 6 and 7 and Figures 26 through 35 present the findings in summary form. 50 51 Appendices II and III give additional information. A fourth task set for the study was the measuring of achievement of the students in the various eligibility groups, with emphasis on success in English, over-all success in college, and persistence. Tables 8 through 10 and Figures 36 through 42 present the results of the study in this area. Appendices IV and V present a more detailed accounting. The purpose of the fifth task was to find informa tion about the humanities major. Three sub-areas were explored in this task: the relationship between the eligibility group and the choice of the humanities major} the relationship between the eligibility group and the success in English of the humanities major; and the relationship between the eligibility group and over-a11 success and persistence in college. In all three areas students were classified according to sex. Tables 11 through 13 and Figures 43 through 47 present the relevant findings. The sixth and final task undertaken was to ascer tain the students' degree of success in English compared with their over-all success in college. Two sub-areas were measured: success at the 2.0 level of achievement and success at the 3.0 level of achievement. Tables 14 and 15 summarize this data. 52 English Course* Chosen and trades Earned The first major consideration of the present study was to examine the relationship between the student's level of eligibility at the time of entrance to Cerritos College, his choices of English courses, and the grades he earned. For purposes of review, the eligibility levels, or groups, as determined by the Cerritos College counsel ling division, were university eligible; state university eligible; university eligible and state university eligible, combined; college prep— non-eligible; non college prep; and unclassified as to eligibility. The First English Course Chosen The choices of first English class available to entering freshmen were as follows; no English; remedial English; composition; composition and literature; reading; business communication, first half; and English for foreign students. The university eligible students made the following choices: none elected to take no English; 2.9 percent enrolled in remedial English; 94.1 percent registered for composition; none took composition and literature; none signed up for reading; 2.9 percent under took business communication; and none took English for foreign students. Students eligible for the state university system made the following choices: 3.0 percent elected to take no 53 English; 15.2 percent enrolled in remedial English; 75.8 percent registered in composition; 1.5 percent received permission to enroll in the second half of freshman composition, called "composition and literature," before taking the standard first composition course; 1.5 percent took reading; 3.0 percent chose business communication; and none enrolled in English for foreign students. In order to obtain a large enough sample of fully eligible college students for purposes of making comparison with students in other eligibility groups, the investigator considered that it was necessary to combine the university eligible and the state university eligible groups, though it was desired, also, to keep separate the information concerning the two smaller groups. The combined group of 100 students made the following selections for their first English course: 2.0 percent took no English; 11.0 percent enrolled in remedial English; 82.0 percent registered in standard freshman composition; 1.0 percent took reading; 3.0 percent enrolled in business communication; and none took English for foreign students. Combining the two eligibility groups somewhat dulls the distinctions in the choices made by each group. Of those students who took college preparatory work but who fell short in grade point average or in a specific configuration of courses to be eligible for senior colleges 54 of their choice, herein designated college prep— non- eligible, 3.0 percent elected to take no English; 36.0 percent chose remedial English; 51.0 percent enrolled in composition; none took composition and literature; 2.0 percent enrolled in reading; 7.0 percent registered in business communication; and 1.0 percent enrolled in English for foreign students. Another eligibility group, herein called non-college prep, did not attempt college preparatory courses in high school. Of this group, 9.0 percent took no English; 47.0 percent enrolled in remedial English; 11.0 percent selected composition; none enrolled in composition and literature; 30.0 percent chose business conmunication; and none took English for foreign students. The final eligibility group, the unclassified students, lacked complete records and could not be included in the former eligibility groups. Of this final group, 5.0 percent took no English; 51.0 percent enrolled in remedial English; 29.0 percent selected composition; none took composition and literature; 3.0 percent enrolled in business communication; and 1.0 percent undertook English for foreign students. For a tabular presentation of the foregoing information, refer to Table 1. Also see Figures 1 through 6, which depict the above information in graphic form, 55 TABLE 1.— Percentage of each eligibility group in firet English class taken First English Class Taken Eligibility Group N o English Remedial Composition Composition and Lit Reading Business Com. For Foreign Students University 0.0 2.9 94.1 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 State Univ 3.0 15.2 75.8 1.5 1.5 3.0 0.0 Univ and State U Comb. 2.0 11.0 82.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 3.0 36.0 51.0 0.0 2.0 7.0 1.0 Non-Col Prep 9.0 47.0 11.0 0.0 3.0 30.0 0.0 Unclassified 5.0 51.0 29.0 0.0 3.0 11.0 1.0 * ft H- H* • I I STH O * 1 O I a No English * h* • < • 8 ft *< • ft C a Remedial Composition >n £ Composition and £ Literature Reading % Business Communication o g' For Foreign h* Students o e o First English Course Frequency of Choice Ul 01 n m r t p* MU) 3 • <Q M K> P- • ■ I S' I n “ No English o » C rt n • Remedial < h Composition rt K Composition and Literature Reading a Business £ Communication a 5 For Foreign Students rt o ? H- O • First English Course Frequency of Choice U1 0 ® 9 H C M * HiO < 1 M- • er • «l H- • * 0 ft • S. w • • 3 I rt I m c I 3 I H* 0 < I s H* H* 3 ft O <Q 3 " H * * 0 ET H- H n e 0 i. M l 0> M l • H * ft H » m rt rt • S S i f l H- H» # « H 3 * ■ ft ■< Frequency of Choice No English Rosedial Composition Composition and h* Literature » S' Reading Business • Communication For Foreign Students Ul 00 Percent 100 I V C - 0 g- H- o A o m h- •Q m • H- H * A • ft I 98 « M No English M M H* S ■ <0 ** * Remedial o d o n £ • « i Composition e i • 8 ? Composition and S, Literature <n £ Reading « Business £ Communication & * For Foreign Jf Students First English Course Fig. 5.— Non-college prep students: choice of * e r t O No English Remedial Composition Composition and Literature Reading Business Coemunication For Foreign Students First English Course Frequency of Choice J M u * g i m « : a w o o o oo o oo 100 No English Remedial Composition Composition and Literature Reading Business Communication For Foreign Students First English Course Frequency of Choice i - * w w o o o Ul o Oi «J f l » « o o o •s e -8 e 18 62 showing separately ths choices of first English course made by each eligibility group* Grades Earned in First English Courss In conjunction with the findings pertaining to students' selections of first English course, the study provided answers to the question of how well the various eligibility groups did in English as reflected in the grades earned. The university eligible group of students earned the following grades: 14.7 percent, A; 50.0 percent, B; 29.4 percent, C; 2.9 percent, D; none earned an incomplete grade; none failed; 2.9 percent withdrew with passing grades; none withdrew with a failing grade. Of the state university eligible group of students, 6.3 percent earned A's; 43.8 percent earned B's; 37.5 percent earned C 's; 4.7 percent earned D's; none had an incomplete grade; 3.1 percent earned F's; 3.1 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 1.6 percent were failing at the time of withdrawal. When the university eligible group of students was considered together with the state university eligible group of students, the combined results were as follows: 9.2 percent achieved at the A level; 45.9 percent earned B's; 34.7 percent earned C'sj 4.1 percent earned D's; none 63 had an incomplete grade; 2.0 percent failed; 3.1 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 1.0 percent were failing at the time of withdrawal. Of those students attempting college preparatory courses, but who were ineligible for senior colleges, the following results were observed! 3.1 percent earned A*s; 7.2 percent earned B's; 53.6 percent earned C 's; 13.4 percent earned D 's; none had an incomplete grade; 5.2 percent earned F's; 14.4 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 3.1 percent were failing at the time of withdrawal. Students who did not take college preparatory work in high school achieved at the following levels: 5.5 percent earned A's; 19.8 percent earned B's; 36.3 percent earned C's; 16.5 percent earned D's; none had an incom plete grade; 7.7 percent earned F's; 11.0 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 3.3 percent withdrew with failing grades. The final group, those students who were unclassi fied as to eligibility group, earned the following gradesi 4.2 percent earned A's; 22.1 percent earned B's; 40.0 percent earned C's; 11.6 percent earned D's; none earned an incomplete grade; 8.4 percent earned F's; 11.6 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 2.1 percent withdrew with failing grades. 64 For a tabular presentation of the above data, refer to Table 2. Figures 7 through 12 depict graphically the earned grades of the separate eligibility groups in the first English courses attempted in college. The Second English Course Chosen Next, the present study considered the choice of a second English course, if any, made by the students in the various eligibility groups. The eligibility groups remained the same as described in the previous discussion, but the possibilities of choice for the second English course vary to some extent from those of the first English course. In general, the range of choice for the second semester student is somewhat greater than for the entering student. The possible choices were as follows: no English* remedial English* composition* composition and literature* reading* business communication, first half; business communication, second half* and miscellaneous English courses, such as in American literature, world literature, creative writing, or a literary genre. The university eligible group of students made the following choices: 11.8 percent took no further English* none enrolled in reading nor in the first half of business communication; 8.8 percent took the second half of business communication; and 2.9 percent took miscellaneous English courses. 65 TABLE 2.--Grades earned by each eligibility group in first English course, expressed in percentage Eligibility Grades Group A B C D E p HP HP University 14.7 50.0 29.4 2.9 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 State Univ. 6.3 43.8 37.5 4.7 0.0 3.1 3.1 1.6 Univ.and State U. Comb. 9.2 45.9 34.7 4.1 0.0 2.0 3.1 1.0 Col. Prep-- Non-Elig 3.1 7.2 53.6 13.4 0.0 5.2 14.4 3.1 Non-Col Prep 5.5 19.8 36.3 16.5 0.0 7.7 11.0 3.3 Unclas sified 4.2 22.1 40.0 11.6 0.0 8.4 11.6 2.1 Note: "E" represents incomplete; "HP" represent with drawal passing; "WF" represents withdrawal failing. Percent 100 90 • 80 SO 40 30 20 £ 10 o WP WF F D E C A B Grades Fig. 7.— University eligible students: grades earned in first English course. Fig. 8.— State university eligible students: grades earned i n first English course. Ok -j 68 Percent 100 * 30 WVffirWj C D E Grades Fig. 9.— University eligible and state university eligible students: grades earned in first English course. Percent 100 90 BO 2 60 a» ° 40 >i C 30 « ^ 20 * 10 D E Grade* HP HP Fig. 10.--collage prep— non-eligible studentst grades earned in first English course. 70 Percent 100 90 A B C D E F W P M F Grades Fig. 11.— Non-college prep students: grades earned In first English course. Percent 100 90 • 80 13 S 70 ? 60 A B C D E F HP HF Grades Fig. 12.— Unclassified students: grades earned In first English course. 72 State university eligible students made the following selections* 22.7 percent took no additional English; 1.5 percent enrolled in remedial English; 21.2 percent registered in composition; 47.0 percent undertook composition and literature; none enrolled in reading nor the first half of business communication; 4.5 percent enrolled in the second half of business communication; and 3.0 percent registered for miscellaneous English courses. When findings pertaining to the university eligible group of students were combined with those for the state university eligible group, averaged percentages were as follows: 19.0 percent took no English; 1.0 percent studied remedial English; 16.0 percent enrolled in composi tion; 55.0 percent registered for composition and litera ture; none enrolled in reading; none registered in the first half of business communication; 6.0 percent took the second half of business communication; and 3.0 percent selected one of the miscellaneous English courses. Comparing these percentages with those given for each group separately (see preceding page) shows an elevation of the performance of the state university eligible group and a lowering of the performance of the university eligible group. Of those students who attempted college preparatory high school courses but were not eligible for senior 73 colleges, 25.0 percent took no English; 5.0 parcant studlad remedial English; 38.0 parcant anrollad in composition; 21.0 parcant studied composition and litera ture; none took reading; 4.0 percent elected business communication, first half; 4.0 parcant chose business communication, second half; and 3.0 percent took miscel laneous English courses for their second English selection. The students who did not taka collage preparatory work chose the following courses or chose not to take a second English course: 42.0 parcant, no English; 7.0 percent enrolled in remedial English; 2.4 percent took composition; 4.0 percent studied composition and literature; 2.0 percent enrolled in reading; 3.0 percent selected business communication, first half; 17.0 percent regis tered in business communication, second half; and 1.0 percent enrolled in miscellaneous English courses. The students who were unclassified as to eligibility level took the following configuration of courses: 41.0 percent registered for no second English course; 6.0 percent selected remedial English; 27.0 percent enrolled in composition; 15.0 percent elected to take composition and literature; 3.0 percent chose reading; 4.0 percent took business communication, first half; 3.0 percent signed up for business communication, second half; and 1.0 percent selected miscellaneous English courses. 74 Information presented in tha foragoing paragraph* is given in tabular form in Table 3. In addition, Figures 13 through 18 present in graphic form the selection of second English course for each separate eligibility group. Grades Earned in the Second English Course' In conjunction with the choice of second English course, the present study was also concerned with the degree of success in English of each of the eligibility groups, as shown by the grades earned. The university eligible students earned the following grades: 23.3 percent earned A's; 40.0 percent earned B's; 33.3 percent earned C's; none had an incom plete grade nor earned a failing grade; 3.3 percent withdrew with a grade of withdrawal, passing; none with drew with a grade of withdrawal, failing. The state university eligible students earned 11.8 percent A's; 29.4 percent earned B's; 47.1 percent earned C'si 2.0 percent earned D's; none earned an incomplete grade; none failed; 9.8 percent withdrew with a passing grade; none withdrew with a failing grade. When considered as a combined group, the university eligible and state university eligible students performed thus: 16.0 percent earned A's; 33.3 percent earned B's; 42.0 percent earned C's; 1.2 percent earned D's; none 75 TABLE 3.--Percantags of each eligibility group in second English class taken Second English Class Taken Eligibility Group No English Remedial c o •H 4i ■H f Composition and Lit Reading Business Com— 1st Business Com— 2nd Miscellaneous University 11.8 0.0 5.9 70.6 0.0 0.0 8.8 2.9 State Univ 22.7 1.5 21.2 47.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 3.0 Univ and State U. Comb. 19.0 1.0 16.0 55.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 25.0 5.0 38.0 21.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 3.0 Non-Col Prep 42.0 7.0 24.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 17.0 1.0 Unclassified 41.0 6.0 27.0 15.0 3.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 o o 9 ? <0 «Q ■ M Er u > * o I c c f i 3 a h- fS H * H- ft *< H- cr f 3 rt o o No English Remedial Composition Composition and Literature Reading g Business Com— 1st Business Com— 2nd Miscellaneous Second Bnglish Course Frequency of Choice e M O o o o o o o o o o o os ft A Fig. 14.— State univarsity eligible students: choios of sscond English courss. No English Remedial Composition Composition and Literature Reading Business Cam— 1st Business Com— 2nd Miscellaneous Second English Course Frequency of Choice H i o u » u i A < g e o t A o o o o o o o o o Percent 100 o • 0 H C H- htO e h- • v • H* • *Q ft * 8 w j+ * i No English e i c O 9 I < Renedial f f s & {* Conposition « K of. s s H-H* o t r • M O "*8 ■ a Conposition and Literature Reading Business § a Coa— lat I * e Business g c Con— 2nd « 5 p H* h- < Miscellaneous 9 Second English Course -4 00 o ? p - o • O * 4 H- tQ m • • O M O ot fr * i No English 98 «0 M M H H*S S<0 0'S o *o Composition * 9 s 1 Remedial •e e j Composition and Literature Reading «o tr Business e Com— 1st & Business & Com— 2nd s 9 ft Miscellaneous Second English Course Frequency of Choice o o o o o o o o Percent 100 Fig. X7.— Non-college prep students* choice of second Engliah course. No English Remedial Composition Composition and Literature Reading Business Com— 1st Business Cost-* 2nd Miscellaneous Second English Course Frequency of Choice o o o o o o o o Perce: 100 > I iQ V O H- O <0 fi* • a • • i i No English 9 0 H J Remedial M K M l Composition e £ Composition and J Literature 9 ff Reading 8 0 1 Business Co*— 1st n ? M* O * Business o com— 2nd Miscellaneous Second English Course Frequency of Choice M K> W © © O in oi o o o *0 e H H 0 a oe O 0 9 ft 82 earned an Incomplete grade; none failed} 7.2 percent with drew with passing grades; and none withdrew with a failing grade. Again, combining the groups blurs the superior performance of the university eligible group. Students who took college preparatory work, but were ineligible for senior institutions, performed in the following manner; 6.7 percent earned grades of A; 16.0 percent earned grades of B; 44.0 percent earned grades of C; 9.3 percent earned grades of D; none had an incomplete grade; 5.3 percent earned F's; 17.3 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 1.4 percent withdrew with failing grades. Students who did not attempt college preparatory courses in high school earned the following grades: 10.2 percent earned A's; 23.7 percent earned B's; 23.7 percent earned C's; 15.3 percent earned D's; none earned an incomplete grade; 5.1 percent earned F's; 15.3 percent withdrew with passing grades; and 6.8 percent withdrew with failing grades. For tabular presentation of the foregoing data, see Table 4. Graphic presentation of the data is contained in Figures 19 through 24, showing earned grades in second English course for each eligibility group separately. S3 TABLE 4.— Grades earned by each eligibility group in second English course, expressed in percentage Eligibility Grades Group A B C D E p HP HP University 23.3 40.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.0 State Univ 11.8 29.4 47.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0.0 Univ and State U Comb. 16.0 33.3 42.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 6.7 16.0 44.0 9.3 0.0 5.3 17.3 1.4 Non-Col Prep 10.3 17.2 36.3 12.1 0.0 5.2 15.5 3.4 Unclas sified 10.2 23.7 23.7 15.3 0.0 5.1 15.3 6.8 Percent 100 B C D E Grades HP Fig. 19.— University eligible students: earned in second English course. HP grades Percent e 9 'S u ■2 o & s u U * 100 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 C A D B E F WP HP Grade* Pig. 20.— State university eligible studentsi grades earned in second English course. 86 Percent 1 u o s u •M o >» c e u fa 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 C D F HP MF A B E Grades Fig. 21.— University eligible and state university eligible students: grades earned in second English course. 87 Percent 100 90 ■ e •o 80 « H o 70 | 60 s 50 o 40 >1 o 30 s 1 20 e u u * 10 0 C D E Grades Fig. 22.——College prep——non-eligible students: grades earned in second English course. \ V* > 88 Percent i 8 o s U h 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 HP HP 0 A c E F A B D Grades Fig. 23.— Non-college prep studentsi grades earned In second English course. v ; 89 Percent XOO u 2 o > 1 o s 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Fig. 24.— Unclassified students: grades earned in second English course. 90 Choice of Major* by Eligibility Groups The second major consideration of the present study was the relationship between the eligibility level of the entering freshman and his choice of major. The eligibility levels or groups remained constant, as they were presented previously. The possible choices of major were these: business, humanities, physical sciences and engineering; social sciences; technology; biology and life science; terminal; fine arts; and undecided. Of the total sample of 400 students, 21.75 percent elected to be business majors; 10.25 percent chose the humanities major; 10.25 percent chose physical sciences and engineering as their major; 19.0 percent chose social sciences as their major; 11.0 percent entered the field of technology as majors; 7.25 percent chose biology and life science as major; 4.25 percent entered terminal programs; 6.5 percent chose the fine arts major; and 9.75 percent were undecided as to major field. Table 5 presents the aforementioned material in tabular form. Figure 25 gives a graphic representation of the choices of major. In addition, Appendix I contains detailed information concerning the percentages of each eligibility group who chose specific majors. 91 TABLE 5.— All eligibility groups combined related to choice of major Major Number Percent Business 87 21.75 Humanities 41 10.25 Physical Sciences and Engineering 41 10.25 Social Sciences 76 19.00 Technology 44 11.00 Biology and Life Sciences 29 7.25 Terminal 17 4.25 Fine Arts 26 6.50 Undecided 39 9.75 Fig. 25.— All •ligibility groups combined related to choice of major. Business Humanities Physical Sciences Social Sciences Technology Biology and Life Sci Terminal Fine Arts Undecided Major Frequency of Choice u * in o o o o o 00 o 10 93 Achievement Related to Choice of Major* A third major concern of the present study was the success of the students as related to their choices of major field. Achievement was measured in terms of success and persistence. Success Related to Choice of Major For purposes of the present study, success was defined as an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher or grade c. Any average lower than 2.0 was considered unsuccessful. Of the business majors, 55.2 percent were success ful, whereas 44.8 percent were unsuccessful. Of the humanities majors, 75.6 percent were successful, with 24.3 percent unsuccessful. Among the physical sciences and engineering majors, 82.9 percent were successful and 17.1 percent were unsuccessful. Of the social science majors, 61.8 percent were successful and 38.2 percent were unsuccessful. Among the technology majors, 54.6 percent were successful, whereas 45.5 percent were unsuccessful. Biology and life science majors were 48.3 percent successful and 51.6 percent unsuccessful. The terminal majors were 82.4 percent successful, whereas 17.7 percent were unsuccessful. Of the fine arts majors, 65.5 percent were successful, and 34.6 percent were unsuccessful. Of those students who were undecided as to major, 38.4 percent 94 were successful and 61.6 percent were unsuccessful. The foregoing data are presented In Table 6. Also, Figure 26 gives a graphic representation of the data. For more detailed information as to earned grade point averages, refer to Appendix II. Persistence Related to Choice of Major An area of concern to the present study was the relationship between the student's choice of major and the total number of units he completed. In an effort to determine persistence, observations were made as to the number of students earning fewer than 10 units of college study, those earning 30-39 1/2 units of credit, those earning 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit, and those earning a full 60 or more units to complete the junior college program. The choice of major was related to each of the above categories of earned units and expressed in percentages. Of the business majors, 19.6 percent earned between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit; 10.3 percent earned between 30 and 39 1/2 units of credit; 28.7 percent earned between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit; 18.4 percent completed the full 60 or more units of credit. Of the humanities majors, 9.8 percent completed 95 TABLE 6.— Percentage of successful students related to choice of major Major GPA 2.0 or Higher GPA Less Than 2.0 Business 55.2 44.8 Humanities 75.6 24.3 Physical Sciences and Engineering 82.9 17.1 Social Sciences 61.8 38.2 Technology 54.6 45.5 Biology and Life Sciences 48.3 51.6 Terminal 82.4 17.7 Fine Arts 65.4 34.6 Undecided 38.4 61.6 V* «■ H H » ft I *4 ft P- O <Q O A a • 3 ft m K> * > 0 n <o 3* Humanities g | Business o? * 8 e : O " * & Physical Science • p . _ and Engr ■ rt £ Social Sciences Technology Biology and ei Life Sciences Terminal Fine Arts Undecided \ Major Frequency •0 GPA 2.0 or Above GPA Less Than 2.0 e n HO PK)U)*UIAsl«\0 OS O O O O O O O O O O 03 ft 97 between 0 and 9 1/2 units of college crsdit; 12.2 psrcsnt completed between 30 and 39 1/2 units of credit; 34.1 percent completed between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit; and 39.0 percent completed a full 60 or more units of credit. Among the physical sciences and engineering majors, 2.4 percent completed between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit; 7.3 percent completed between 30 and 39 1/2 units of credit; 31.7 percent completed between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit; 48.8 percent successfully completed the full 60 or more units of credit. Of the social science majors, 3.9 percent completed between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit; 15.8 percent completed between 30 and 39 1/2 units of credit; 42.5 percent earned 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit; and 38.8 percent earned the full 60 or more units of college credit. The technology majors performed thus: 16.2 percent earned 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit; 11.2 percent earned 30 to 39 1/2 units of credit; 40.9 percent earned 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit; and 15.9 percent completed the full 60 or more units of credit. Among the biology and life science majors, 10.3 percent completed 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit; 10.3 percent completed 30 to 39 1/2 units of credit; 27.6 percent earned 98 between 30 and 59 1/2 unlta of credit; and 17.3 percent completed the full 60 or more unlta of credit. Of the terminal majora, 5.9 percent completed 0 to 9 1/2 unlta of credit; 11.8 percent earned 30 to 39 1/2 unlta of credit; 23.6 percent earned 30 to 59 1/2 unlta of credit; and 29.4 percent completed the full 60 or more unlta of credit. Among the fine arta majora, 11.8 percent earned 0 to 9 1/2 unlta of credit; 11.5 percent completed 30 to 39 1/2 unlta of credit; 26.9 percent earned 30 to 59 1/2 unlta of credit; and 34.6 percent completed the full 60 or more unlta of credit. Of the atudenta who were undecided aa to major, 30.8 percent earned between 0 and 9 1/2 unlta of credit; 7.7 percent earned between 30 and 39 1/2 unlta of credit; 30.8 percent completed between 30 and 59 1/2 unlta of credit; and 2.6 percent completed 60 or more unlta of credit. See Table 7 for the aforementioned data in tabular form. Alao, refer to figurea 27 through 35 for graphic repreaentation of the relationahip between choice of major and number of unlta earned. A more detailed breakdown of performance of the varioua majora in relationahip to the number of unlta earned la contained in Appendix III. 99 TABLE 7.— Choice of major related to persistence Major Total Number of Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60-60+ Business 19.5 10.3 28.7 18.4 Humanities 9.8 12.2 34.1 39.0 o S’ Physical Sci £ and Engr 2.4 7.3 31.7 48.8 u js Social Sci 3.9 15.8 42.5 38.8 u 5 Technology 18.2 11.2 40.9 15.9 Biology and « Life Sci o* 10.3 10.3 27.6 17.3 e £ Terminal 5.9 11.8 23.6 29.4 e u Fine Arts 11.8 11.5 26.9 34.6 e a* Undecided 30.8 7.7 30.8 2.6 100 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 SO 40 30 20 10 0 Unite Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 27.— Bueineee major as related to persistence. 101 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Fig. 28.— Human!ties major as related to persistence. Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More 102 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 29.— Physical sciences and engineering major as related to persistence. 'I £ a* 103 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 30.— Social science major as related to persistence. . V 104 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Pig. 31.— Technology major as related to persistence. Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More 105 Percent 100 90 ao 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Unite Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 32.— Biology and life sciencee major as related to persistence. 106 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Unite Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 33.— Terminal major as related to persistence. 10 0 107 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More Fig. 34.— Fine arts major as related to persistence. 108 Percent 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Fig. 35.— Undecided as to major as related to persistence. Units Completed 0-9 1/2 30-39 1/2 30-59 1/2 60 or More 109 Eligibility Group Related to Ac»11*vtn*nt A fourth major concarn or task of the present study was the eligibility level of the entering student as related to his achievement in three areast success in English, over-all success in college; and over-all persistence rate. Eligibility Group Related to Success in English In order to examine the success of students in English, the investigator again defined success as an earned grade of 2.0 or higher, for each of the two selected English courses. Of the university eligible students, 94.1 percent achieved 2.0 or higher grades in their first English courses, of the same group, 96.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. Of the state university eligible students, 87.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their first English courses; 88.3 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. When the university eligible students and the state university eligible students were combined into one group, 89.8 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their first 1 1 0 English courses; 91.3 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. Again, combining performance levels for the two groups conceals the superior achievement of the university eligible group. Of those students who attempted college preparatory work but were ineligible for senior institutions on entering college, 63.9 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their first English courses; 66.7 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. Those students who did not attempt college prepara tory work made the following record: 61.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their first English courses; 63.8 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. Among the unclassfied students, 66.3 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their first English courses; 57.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English courses. See Table 8 for tabular presentation of the afore mentioned data. Figure 36 gives a graphic representation of the various eligibility groups' degrees of success in their first English courses. Figure 37 presents in graphic form the various eligibility groups* degrees of success in their second English courses. I l l TABLE 8.— Eligibility group related to success in English Eligibility Group Grade 2.0 or Higher for First English Course Grade 2.0 or Higher for Second English Course Percentage Earning Grades University 94.1 96.6 State Univ 87.6 88.3 Univ and State U Comb. 89.8 91.3 Col Prep— Non-Elig 63.9 66.7 Non-Col Prep 61.6 63.8 Unclassified 66.3 57.6 1 1 2 Percent 100 r Eligibility Group Fig. 36."Eligibility group related to success in first English course when success is defined es ”C” or 2.0 or above. #<Q t {J University E T I* • H 9 H* State Univ c < 1 (O O M S § Univ and ••o State U h> * i Coeib. ■ e a e Col Prep— • J Non Elig S’ Non-Col iff Prep S S Unclassified o • o n e * M ■ o « P- 3 h i Frequency Frequency *e 2.0 or Above GPA Less Than 2.0 e n H fci U > * W « » o o o — 100 114 Eligibility Group Related to Over-Aii Success The next area of concern of the present study was the relationship between eligibility level at the time of the student's entering college and his over-a11 success in college. It will be recalled that success was defined as an earned grade point average of 2.0 or higher. Of the university eligible students, 97.1 percent earned a 2.0 or higher grade point average. Of the state university eligible students, 87.9 percent earned a 2.0 or higher grade point average. When the university eligible and state university eligible students were combined into one group, 91.0 percent earned a 2.0 or higher grade point average. Once more, averaging the achievement of the two eligibility groups obscures the higher level of performance of the university eligible group. Of those students who attempted college preparatory work, but who were ineligible for entrance into senior institutions, 54.0 percent achieved a 2.0 or higher grade point average. Of those students who did not take college prepara tory high school courses, 45.0 percent achieved a 2.0 or higher grade point average. In the final category, those students who were unclassified as to eligibility level on entering college, 115 54.0 percent earned a 2.0 or higher grade point: average. The aforementioned data are presented in Table 9 in tabular form. Figure 38 depicts in graphic form the percentage in each eligibility category who earned a 2.0 or higher grade point average. In Appendix IV, there is a more detailed accounting of the relationship between eligibility level and over-all earned grade point average. Eligibility Group Related to Persistence A close look was taken at the relationship between eligibility level and persistence or lack of persistence on the part of the student. Four categories of persistence were examined: the completion of 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit; the completion of 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit; the completion of 30 to 60 or more units of credit; and the completion of 60 or more units of credit. Students in the category of 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit showed very low persistence. The university eligible students had 0 percentage in that range. Of the state university eligible students, 4.5 percent earned 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit. When the university eligible and state university eligible students were considered as one group, 3.0 percent of their members earned between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit. 116 TABLE 9.— Eligibility group related to over-all success Eligibility Group GPA 2.0 or Higher for Total Units Attempted Percentage Earning GPA University 97.1 state University 87.9 University and State University Comb. 91.0 Col Prep— Non Eligible 54.0 Non-Col Prep 45.0 Unclassified 54.0 ■ c A O • ■ * •S H-H* 3*0 * 0 0 ui H a> M • • I < 0 I • w H t H - ETtO • ^ University M- 0*H e h* State Univ 9 S.'S Q Univ and e c State U •o Comb. K»h o h Col Prep— 03 5 J . Hon Elig 3 & pi Non-Col s i ft * 1 I e » < M e h H p *0 a Prep Unclassified Eligibility Group Frequency GPA 2.0 or Above GPA Less Than 2.0* h MO H M u a v i A > j a i o of O O O O O O O O O O 0 9 ft 117 118 Students who attempted college preparatory work, but were ineligible for senior institutions, had 5.0 percent of their members earning between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit. Of the students who did not take college preparatory work, 23.0 percent earned between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit. Among the unclassified students, 21.0 percent earned between 0 and 9 1/2 units of credit. The second category considered, students finishing 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit, included all who had successfully completed a minimum of one full year of credit, but who had not completed two full years of credit, in this category, the university eligible students group had 47.1 percent of its members earning between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. Of the state university eligible students, 33.4 percent earned between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. When the university eligible and the state university eligible students were considered as one group, 38.0 percent of the group completed between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. Students who took college preparatory work had 34.0 percent of their number earning between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. For the non-college preparatory group, the percentage was 21.0 for those who completed between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. The final group, the 119 unclassified, had 29.0 percent of its students who earned between 30 and 59 1/2 units of credit. In order to have a complete picture of the total number of students completing a minimum of one year's work one must include the number of students who successfully completed two full years of work. Therefore, the total number of those earning 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit was combined with the total number of those students earning 60 or more units of credit, and the following results were produced: the university eligible students had 94.2 percent of their number complete a minimum of one full year's credit. Of the state university eligible students, 81.9 percent completed one full year of credit. Eighty- six percent of the combined university eligible and state university eligible students completed one full year's credit. Of those students who attempted college preparatory work, 62.0 percent of their number completed one year of college credit. Among the non-college group, 36.0 percent of their number earned the full year's credit. In the final group, the unclassified, 46.0 percent of its number completed one year of college credit. The highest rating of persistence was the success ful completion of two full years of credit, 60 or more units. Of the university eligible students, 47.1 percent 12 0 completed two full years of credit. Among the state university eligible students, 40.5 percent of their number completed 60 or more units of credit. When the two groups were considered jointly, 48.0 percent of the college eligible students completed 60 or more units of credit. On the basis of the criterion of persistence, there was a barely discernible difference between the university eligible and state university eligible groups. This finding is in sharp contrast to findings regarding grade point averages and other factors. Among those students who took college preparatory work, 28.0 percent of their number completed 60 or more units of work. Of the non-college preparatory students, 15.0 percent completed 60 or more units, of the unclas sified students, 17.0 percent completed 60 or more units of credit. Table 10 presents the above data in tabular form. Figures 39 through 42 depict graphically the percentage of each eligibility group falling within the categories of 0 to 9 1/2 units of credit, 30 to 59 1/2 units of credit, 30 to 60 or more units of credit; and 60 or more units of credit. More detailed information concerning eligibility level as related to persistence is presented in Appendix V. 121 TABLE 10.— Eligibility group related to persistence or lack of persistence Eligibility Group Percentage in Each Category of Units Completed 60 or More 30-59 1/2 30-60 or More 0-9 1/2 University 47.1 47.1 94.2 0.0 State Univ 48.5 33.4 81.9 4.5 Univ and State U Comb. 48.0 38.0 86.0 3.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 28.0 34.0 62.0 5.0 Non-Col Prep 15.0 21.0 36.0 23.0 Unclas sified 17.0 29.0 46.0 21.0 Fig. 39.— Eligibility group as rslatsd t o lack of parsistanca, showing parcantaga of aach group aarning fawar than 10 units. University State Univ Univ and State U Comb. Col Prep— Non-Elig Non-Col Prep Unclassified Eligibility Group •P Earned Units: 0-9 1/2 K)u»moi<g«to o o o o o o o o 100 123 Percent 100 «n 50 Eligibility Group >1 0 > +J -g o C e e D 3 e M +5 V V * *4 > +J > -M * •H (0 c +» C a to a o 0* YS C 04 K e « H 8 D Fig. 40.— Eligibility group ae related to persistence, showing percentage of each group earning a minimum of one full year's credit but less than two years' credit. s ? c a • H-H- a m University State Univ Univ and State U Conb. Col Prep— Non-Elig Non-Col Prep Unclassified Eligibility Group Earned units 124 • ► * • m m n ft ■ • -"3 a o n • *n &* £ H- ■ • ft a* p i £ s*i 8*° ti University H • IH> * H'O 3 S' State Univ s H- ft M * h- e *< Univ and o ^ State U * % Comb. * § S v Col Prep— O’ 2 Non-El ig «Q h m •0 » ft 8 ft j t ; v M l c Non-Col Prep 3 J, Unclassified Eligibility Group Earned Units: 60 or More 126 The Humanities Hal or Three areas of Information were explored to give a picture of the humanities major: eligibility group related to the humanities major, classified according to sex of students} eligibility group related to success in English, classified according to sex of students; and eligibility group related to over-all success and persis tence, classified according to sex of students. Eligibility Group Related to Humanities Major, Classified’ According to Sex of Students Of the total sample of 400 students, forty-one or 10.25 percent chose the humanities major. Of this number, sixteen were male and twenty-five were female. Classified according to eligibility groups, the following results were noted: of the university eligible students, ten chose the humanities major; of this number, two were male and eight were female. Of the state university eligible students, five chose the humanities major; of this number, one was male and four were female. Considered as a combined group, the university eligible students and the state university eligible students had fifteen of their number who chose the humanities major; of this number, three were male and twelve were female. Among the college preparatory group who were ineligible for senior institutions, eleven students chose 127 the humanities major; of these, four were male and seven were female. Of the non-college preparatory group, seven students chose the humanities major; of this group, six were male and one was female. Among the unclassified students, eight chose the humanities major; of this number, three were male and five were female. The above stated data are contained in tabular form in Table 11. Also, Figure 43 presents the information graphically. Eligibility Group Related to Success In English^ Classified According to Sex of Students In considering the success of humanities majors in their first and second English courses, the investigator obtained the following data. Of the university eligible students, all took both a first and a second English course. Also, in both courses, 100 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher. Of the state university eligible students, all took both a first and a second English course. In both courses, 100 percent of this second eligibility group earned grades of 2.0 or higher. Considered as a combined group, the university eligible and the state university eligible students who elected humanities as their major all took both a first and a second English course and earned 2.0 or higher grades. 128 TABLE 11.— Eligibility group ralatad to humanities major— broken down Into sax of studants Eligibility Group Sax Numbar Mala Famala Univarsity 10 2 8 stata Univ 5 1 4 Univ and Stata U Comb. 15 3 12 Col Prap— Non-Elig 11 4 7 Non-Col Prap 7 6 1 Unclassifiad 8 3 5 Sub-totals Totals 41 (10.25 parcant of total sampla) 16 25 41 g 0 h I I V * * H P- &■? s * UI O* • § n H » H* «<Q 8* University J £ State Univ. ** Univ and o« State U 0 Comb. rt*0 . • • Col Prep— 3- £ Non-Elig • ft Non-Col Prep Unclassified Eligibility Group Humanities Majors *d n H KJ O O U> * O O U I A o o o os o • o o 09 _________ ft o ac a e x 129 130 Among the college preparatory group of students who were not eligible for senior colleges, of those students who chose humanities as their major, three of the four males took a first English course and all seven of the females did so. Of the males, 33.0 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades) of the females, 86.0 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades. A second English course was taken by three of the four males and by all seven of the females. Of the males, 33.0 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher; of the females, 71.0 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher. Among the non-college preparatory students, of the six males who elected humanities as their major, 67.0 percent of their number earned grades of 2.0 or higher. The only female who took a first English course fell below 2.0 in grade earned. Again in the second English course, five males took English, and all earned grades of 2.0 or higher; the woman repeated the English course and again failed to earn a grade of 2.0 or higher. Among the unclassified students who majored in humanities, three males took a first English course, and 100 percent of them earned grades of 2.0 or higher. Of the five females who took a first English course, 80 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher. In the second English course, two of three males, or 67 percent of their number, earned grades of 2.0 or higher; only three women 131 took a second English course, with 67 percent of their number earning grades of 2.0 or higher. The data concerning the success of the humanities majors, analyzed according to sex of students, is presented in Table 12. In Figure 44, the eligibility level and sex of students are shown in relation to their earned grades in the first English course. Figure 45 related the eligibility level and sex of the students to their success in their second English course. Eligibility Group Related to Over-All Successand Persistence, Classified According to Sex of giudents The last category of information sought concerning the humanities major was the relationship between the over-all success of the students and the persistence rate, both considered with reference to eligibility level and sex. Among the humanities majors, 100 percent of the university eligible students were successful, but only part of them finished sixty units or more. The breakdown by sexes follows: none of the males completed sixty units or more of college credit; 75 percent of the females completed the full sixty units or more. Among the state university eligible students, all were successful in grade achievement, but only part of 132 TABLE 12.— Eligibility group related to success (grade 2.0 or higher) in first and second English courses— broken down into sex of students who major in humanities Eligibility Group First English Students N Grade 2.0 or Higher (Percent) M F Students 8econd English Grade 2.0 or Higher (Percent) M F University State Univ Univ and State U Comb. Col Prep-- Non-Elig Non-Col Prep Unclas sified 2 1 8 4 12 100 100 100 33 67 100 100 100 100 86 2 1 8 4 12 80 100 100 100 33 100 67 100 100 100 71 0 67 i? 0*2 H rt 9 9 1 <0 H* ETHUJ H*0 • ft 0 t § t H , University • H • I < 0 I H* o h State Univ. JTH- 55 &«q Univ. and 3 5 State U 3 c Conb. 5" h ct e 0 s Col Prep— S • Non-Elig x & as Non-Col *S Prep as s : cte e ^ H* r Unclassified Success (GPA 2.0 or Above) in First English Course ^ e H t O U * m 0 t ^ O D « o o o o o o o o o 100 sru» University State Univ. Univ. and State U Coad>. Col Prep— Non-Elig Non-Col Prep Unclassified 3 Eligibility Group Success (GPA 2.0 or Above) in Second English Course 2 2 7///////A A 134 135 them completed sixty or more units of credit. One hundred percent of the males who were humanities majors completed sixty or more units of credit; 50 percent of the females completed sixty or more units of credit. When the university eligible students and state university eligible students were combined into one group, their record was as follows: 100 percent of both males and females were successful in their efforts to earn 2.0 or higher grades. Of the males, 33.0 percent earned sixty or more units of credit. Of the females, 75.0 percent completed sixty or more units of credit. Of the humanities majors who were college prepara tory students, but who were ineligible for senior colleges, 25.0 percent of the males were successful in earning 2.0 or higher grades; 43.0 percent of the females were successful. Of these students, 25.0 percent of the males persisted in earning sixty or more units of credit, and 43.0 percent of the females earned sixty or more units of credit. Among the non-college preparatory students, 57.0 percent of the males were successful students; none of the females was successful. As to persistence, 33 percent of the males earned sixty or more units of credit, while none of the women earned the full two years of credit. Of the unclassified students, 100 percent of the 136 males were successful, earning 2.0 or higher grades; 20.0 percent of the females earned 2.0 or higher grades. As to persistence, 33.0 percent of the males who majored in humanities earned sixty or more units of credit; none of the unclassified women who chose humanities as major completed sixty or more units of credit. Table 13 summarizes the aforementioned data clas sified according to eligibility groups of the humanities majors, divided in terms of the sex of majors, and related to over-all success and persistence. Pigure 46 shows the eligibility group as related to success, divided to show sex of the humanities majors. Pigure 47 shows the eligibility group as related to persistence, divided to show sex of the humanities majors. The sixth and final major concern of the present study was to show the relationship existing between the students1 achievement in English and their over-all achievement in college. Comparisons were made at two levels: at the 2.0 or higher level of achievement and at the 3.0 or higher level of achievement. 2.0 or Higher Level of Achievement When comparing percentage of students earning 2.0 Success in English Compared to Over-All Success 137 TABLE 13.— Eligibility group related to over-all success (GPA 2.0 or above) and persistence (60 or more units)— broken down into sex of students who major in humanities Successful Students Persisters Eligibility Group M r (Percent) M V (Percent) University 100 100 0 75 State Univ 100 100 100 50 Univ and State U Comb. 100 100 33 75 Col Prep— Non-Elig 25 43 25 43 Non-Col Prep 57 0 33 0 Unclassified 100 20 33 0 t o . c r t * » ft 9 O C o o • s University State Univ ct Univ and o h state U • e Costb. S ' H o e Col Prep— £ Non-Elig l Non-Col Unclassified Success (Over-All GPA 2.0 or Above)5 HO HNW^UinolOSW OS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 on 3 * * / / //////.Z/////////7/ 3 * * w H H 3*0 H t r h H H- / 7 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / W / * 5 C l H - 8 w/m • 0 X M M M 3 ' / ) / / . i S." University State Univ Univ and State U Comb. Col Prep— Non-Elig Non-Col Prep Unclassified Persisters {€0 Units or More) o o o o o o o o o •d e n - o « os X M P* P- x « q p- tr S*< a H * n o e V 3 3 Y / / / / / / / / / / / / / / A / / 7 / / 7 / 7 / / / y / W ///// mm mm 09 ft 139 140 or higher grades In English with the same group's over-all grade point average, one finds that percentages are not drastically different. However, on examination of the percentage of students earning 3.0 or higher grades in English with the same group's over-all achievement, a more sharply differentiated picture emerged. First, the comparison of earned grades in first and second English courses as related to the over-all grade point averages was undertaken, with comparison made at the 2.0 or higher level of achievement. The results followi for the university eligible students, it was observed that 94.1 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their first English course; 96.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English course, whereas 97.1 percent earned an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher. In the state university eligible group of students, 87.6 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their first English course; 86.3 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their second English course, while 87.9 percent of the group earned an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher. When the university eligible students and the state university eligible students were combined into one group, 89.8 percent achieved grades of 2.0 or higher in their first English course; 91.3 percent earned grades of 141 2.0 or higher in their second English course, whereas 91.0 percent of the group earned an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher. Of the college preparatory group of students, 63.9 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their first English course; 66.7 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their second English course; and 54.0 percent earned an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher. The non-college preparatory students performed thus: 61.6 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their first English course; 63.8 percent earned grades of 2.0 or higher in their second English course; and 45.0 percent earned an over-all grade point average of 2.0 or higher. The last group, the unclassified students, made the following record: 66.3 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 57.6 percent earned 2.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 54.0 percent earned 2.0 or higher over-all grade point averages. Success in English and Over-All Success inCollege Compared at the 3.0 or Higher level of Achievement A comparison of grades earned in English and over all grade point averages, with comparison made at the 3.0 level of achievement, revealed the following data: among the university eligible students, 64.7 percent earned 3.0 142 or higher grades in their first English course; 63.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 38.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher over all grade point averages. Of the state university eligible students, 50.1 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 41.2 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 27.0 percent earned 3.0 or higher over-all grade point averages. When the university eligible students and the state university eligible students were combined into one group, 55.1 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 49.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 31.0 percent earned 3.0 or higher over-all grade point averages. Among the students who attempted college prepara tory work but were ineligible for senior institutions, 10.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 22.7 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 10.0 percent earned an over-all grade point average of 3.0 or higher. Among the non-college preparatory students, 25.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 27.5 percent earned grades of 3.0 or higher in their second English course; and 9.0 percent earned over all grade point averages of 3.0 or higher. 143 The final group, the unclassified students, performed thust 26.3 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their first English course; 33.9 percent earned 3.0 or higher grades in their second English course; and 8.0 percent earned over-all grade point averages of 3.0 or higher. Table 14 is a comparative analysis at the 2.0 or higher level of achievement of the grades in first and second English courses and the over-all grade point average. Table 15 is a tabular comparison at the 3.0 or higher level of achievement of the grades earned in the first and second English courses and the over-all grade point average. 144 TABLE 14.— Eligibility group related to a comparison of grades in English and over-all grade point average at the 2.0 level of achievement Comparison of Grades in English and Over-All gpa Eligibility Group Grade 2.0 or Higher: 1st Engl. (Percent) Grade 2.0 or Higher: 2nd Engl. (Percent) Over-All GPA 2.0 or Higher (Percent) University 94.1 96.6 97.1 State Univ 87.6 88.3 87.9 Univ and State U Comb. 89.8 91.3 91.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 63.9 66.7 54.0 Non-Col Prep 61.6 63.8 45.0 Unclassified 66.3 57.6 54.0 145 TABLE 15.— Eligibility group related to a comparison of gradas in English and ovar-all grads point avsrags at the 3.0 level of achievement Comparison of Grades in Over-All GPA English and Eligibility Group Grade 3.0 or Higher: 1st Engl. (Percent) Grade 3.0 or Higher: 2nd Engl. (Percent) Over-All GPA 3.0 or Higher (Percent) University 64.7 63.3 38.3 State Univ 50.1 41.2 27.3 Univ and State U Comb. 55.1 49.3 31.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 10.3 22.7 10.0 Non-Col Prep 25.3 27.5 9.0 Unclassified 26.3 33.9 8.0 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS In Chapter IV, the author related the findings of the study to the six major tasks which had been designed to determine the success of students in relationship to their levels of eligibility at the time of entering college and their choices of major with subsequent degrees of achievement. The first task was to examine the choices of English courses and the grades earned by the students in the various eligibility levels. The second task was the determination of the choice of majors made by these students. The third task was to assess the achievement of the students in the categories of majors as measured by their grades and persistence. The fourth task was the measuring of achievement of students in the various eligibility groups with emphasis on success in English, on over-all grade point average, and on persistence. The fifth task was to find information concerning the humanities major related to his eligibility group, his success in English, and his over-all success and persistence. 146 147 The sixth end final task was to determine the students' level of achievement in English compared with their over-all success in academic pursuits. Discussion of the findings has been arranged in the same general pattern. English Courses Chosen and Grades Earned by Eligibility Groups In the choice of first English course, 94.1 percent of the university eligible students entered standard freshman composition; 75.8 percent of the state university eligible students enrolled in freshman composition. When the two groups of fully eligible students were averaged, it was found that 82.0 percent of them selected composi tion. By contrast, only 11.0 percent of the non-college preparatory students took composition. Two significant facts emerged. First, as noted, there was a noticeable difference in the percentages of the university eligible students and the state university eligible students enrolling in composition. Moreover, the college eligible students seemed to be in a different population than were the non-college prep students, for even the average of the eligible students chose composition at more than seven times the rate of choice of the non-college preparatory group of students. Of the non-college prep group, 47.0 percent enrolled 148 in remedial English, which fact indicated that many were ineligible for composition. In addition, whereas none of the university eligible students and only 3.0 percent of the state university eligible students elected to take no English, 9.0 percent of the non-college prep group took no English. Their rate of selection of no English was four and one-half times greater than for the combined university eligible and state university eligible groups of students. In grades for the first English course, a similar pattern emerged. Of the university eligible students and state university eligible students, an average of 89.8 percent earned C or higher grades. Of the non-college prep students, only 61.6 percent earned C or higher grades. The 21.0 percent difference is appreciable, but again the figure obscures the superior achievement of the university eligible students, who had 94.1 percent of their number earn C or higher grades. The contrast between groups is even sharper at the grade level B or highert university eligible, 64.7 percent} state university eligible* 51.1 percent; and non-college prep, 25.3 percent. Even the state university eligible students did twice as well as the non-college prep students. The university eligible students averaged nearly 30.0 percent higher than the non-college prep students or achieved more than two and one-half times as well. 149 In the choice of second English course, sharp contrasts emerged. Eleven and eight-tenths percent of the university eligible students took no second English; 22.7 percent, or twice as many, of the state university eligible students took no second English. A huge 42.0 percent, nearly four times as many as the university eligible and twice as many as the state university eligible students, of the non-college prep students took no second English. On combining composition taken as a first and as a second English course, the investigator noted that 100 percent of the university eligible students took composi tion; 96.0 percent of the state university eligible students took composition; of the non-college prep students, only 35.0 percent took composition. Of the university eligible students, 70.6 percent took second semester composition and literature; 48.5 percent of the state university eligible students took composition and literature; only 4.0 percent of the non college prep students took composition and literature. The contrast here is even sharper than in the figures for first semester composition; seventeen and one-half times as many university eligible students and twelve times as many state university eligible students took second semester composition and literature as did the non-college prep students. 150 In considering grades earned in composition and literature, the author observed that 96.7 percent of the university eligible students earned C or higher grades, whereas 88.3 percent of the state university eligible students earned C or higher grades. Of the non-college prep students, 63.8 percent earned grades of C or higher. Considered at the B level of achievement, 63.3 percent of the university eligible students earned B or higher grades; 41.2 percent of the state university eligible students earned B or higher grades; and 27.5 percent of the non-college prep students earned B or higher grades. Again, the university eligible students clearly achieved at a higher rate than the other groups of students and more than twice as well as the non-college prep students. Choice of Majors by All Eligibility Groups (jombinefr Far and away the most popular choice of major was business, with 21.75 percent of the total sample making this choice. Social sciences was a relatively close second choice, with 19.0 percent of the total sample. The terminal major was the least frequent choice, with 4.25 percent. Thus, business was chosen five times more fre quently as a major than was the terminal major. 151 Achievement Iflafd to Choice of Major The most successful students were the physical science and engineering majors. Though these students comprised only 10.25 percent of the total sample, 82.9 percent of their number earned C or higher grades. Of those students who had made a choice as to major, the biology and life science students had the poorest level of achievement. Only 7.25 percent of the sample chose this major, and only 48.3 percent of the majors earned C or higher grades. However, the students who were undecided as to their major had only 38.4 percent successful students. In another area of success, that of persistence, the physical science and engineering majors again placed first, with 48.8 percent of these students completing 60 or more units of college credit. Of those students who had chosen their majors, the three lowest groups were the majors in technology, biology and life science, and business, with 15.9 percent, 17.3 percent, and 18.4 percent, respectively, earing 60 or more units. However, the students who were undecided as to major fell far below the other majors, with only 2.6 percent of their number completing 60 or more units of credit. In the area of least persistence, earned units 0 to 9 1/2, business and technology majors, with 19.5 percent 152 and 18.2 percent, respectively, had the highest percentage of their members completing fewer than ten units. Eligibility Group Related to Achievement Achievement in three areas was measured: the achievement in first and second English courses undertaken; the over-all rate of success; and the rate of persistence. In the first English course undertaken, the university eligible students again took first place with 94.1 percent of their group earning C grades or higher. The lowest achievement in English was earned by the non college prep students, with 61.6 percent of the group earning C or higher grades. In the second English course, 96.6 percent of the university eligible students earned C or higher grades. Only 57.6 percent of the students who were unclassified as to eligibility level earned C or higher grades. Of those students who were classified as to eligibility group, again the non-college prep students were at the bottom on achievement in English, with only 63.8 percent of their number earning C or higher grades. Therefore, in both first and second English courses taken, the university eligible students were decidedly superior in performance, having 32.5 percent and 32.8 percent, respectively, more of their number attaining C or higher grades than did the 153 non-college prep students. It should be noted, too, that the university eligible students were performing in standard progression of four-year college transferable English composition courses, whereas many of the non-college prep students were attempting remedial work and business communication. Specifically, only 35.0 percent of the latter group of students were taking first semester composition and only 4.0 percent were taking composition and literature. The university eligible students, on the other hand, had 100 percent of their number taking composition and 70.6 percent taking composition and literature. A look at the rate of over-all success of the groups of students, as measured by C or higher grades, revealed that the university eligible students were 97.1 percent successful; the state university eligible students were 87.9 percent successful; and the average of the success of both groups was 91.0 percent. The non-college eligible students were only 45.0 percent successful, less than half the percentage of success of the fully eligible students. A final measure of achievement by eligibility groups of students was the degree of persistence exhibited. Persistence was measured at four levels according to units of credit earned: 0 to 9 1/2 units, 30 to 59 1/2 units, 30 to 60 or more units, and 60 or more units. The first 154 category represented very low persistence; the last represented very high persistence. The middle group, a combination of those students earning 30 to 59 1/2 units and those earning 30 to 60 or more units, marked completion of a minimum of one full year's credit up to and including two full years of credit. The non-college prep group had the greatest per centage of students earning fewer than 10 units of credit— 23.0 percent. None of the university eligible students displayed such lack of persistence, and only 4.5 percent of the state university eligible students earned fewer than 10 units. An average of the fully eligible students' performance showed 3.0 percent earning fewer than 10 units, demonstrating performance nearly B times as good as that of the non-college prep students. A check of performance at the mid-point showed the university eligible students having 94.2 percent of their number earning the minimum of 30 units. The average performance for fully eligible students was 86.0 percent having a minimum of 30 units of credit. By contrast, of the non-college prep students only 36.0 percent remained in college for a minimum of one full year, 50.0 percent fewer than the fully eligible students. The highest persistence was shown by the state 155 university eligible students, 48.5 percent earning sixty or more units of credit. A very close second was the university eligible group of students with 47.1 percent, making an average for the fully eligible students of 48.0 percent earning two full years of credit. Only 15.0 percent of the non-college prep students, or less than one-third as many as the fully eligible students, completed two full years of college credit. The Humanities Major A close look at the category "the humanities major" — including the English major— revealed the following data. Of the total sample of students, 10.25 percent chose the humanities major. Of this group, 61.0 percent were female and 39.0 percent were male. The fully eligible students comprised 36.6 percent of the total of humanities majors. The smallest percentage choosing the humanities major was from the non-college prep group of students, 17.1 percent. With respect to success in English, the fully eligible students displayed no difference in performance between university eligible students and state university eligible students nor between female and male students. In each instance, all the students took English, and 100 percent of them earned C or higher grades in both the first and the second English courses. 156 Of the non-fully eligible groups of students, one male elected not to take a first English course, and two males and two females elected not to take a second English course. The poorest performance was on the part of the non-college prep females, none of whom successfully completed an English course. The second poorest perform ance was on the part of the college prep— non-eligible group of males who had only 33.3 percent success in English. With regard to over-all success at the 2.0 or higher level of achievement, the fully eligible students, both male and female, had 100 percent success. Among the college prep— non-eligible students who majored in humanities, only 25.0 percent of the males and 43.0 percent of the females were successful. Of the non college prep students, 57.0 percent of the males were successful, and none of the females was successful. Again, the degree of success of the fully eligible students is overwhelmingly greater than that of the non-college eligible students who major in humanities. in considering persistence rate at the level of 60 or more units completed, the author noted an unusual configuration of data. Of the university eligible males who major in humanities, none completed 60 or more units; of the university eligible females, 75.0 percent completed 60 or more units. Of the state university eligible males 157 who major In humanities, 100 percent completed 60 or more units; 50.0 percent of the state university eligible females completed 60 or more units. An average of the performances of the fully eligible students obscures the wide variance between university eligible students and state university eligible students as noted above. Among the fully eligible, when performance is averaged, 33.0 of the male majors in humanities and 75.0 percent of the female majors in humanities earned 60 or more units of credit. The poorest performance among humanities majors was made by the non-college prep students: 33.0 percent of males and no females completed 60 or more units of credit. Success in English Compared to Over-All success Success of students in English as compared to their over-all success in college was considered for each eligibility group at two levels: the 2.0 or C level of achievement; and the 3.0 or B level of achievement. When achievement was measured at the C level, performance in English was very near to over-all scholastic performance. However, at the B level of achievement, success in English ran markedly higher than over-all academic achievement. At the C level of achievement, once again the fully eligible students performed more than twice as well as the 158 non-college prep students. The highest percentage of success was attained by the college eligible students who were 91.0 percent successful. The non-college prep students were 45.0 percent successful. At the B level of achievement, grades in English were startlingly higher than for over-all achievement. Whereas of the fully eligible students 55.1 percent earned B or higher grades in first English and 49.3 percent earned B or higher grades in second English, only 31.0 percent of their number maintained an over-all B or higher grade point average. The college prep— non-eligible students earned 10.3 percent and 22.7 percent B or higher grades in first and second English courses, respectively. Only 10.0 percent of these students earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. For the non-college prep students, the contrast was more striking. Of their number, 25.3 percent earned B or higher grades in first English course, and 27.5 percent earned B or higher grades in second English course, whereas only 9.0 percent of the non-college prep students earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. Admittedly, both the college preparatory group of students who were ineligible for entrance to the four-year institutions and the students who did not attempt college preparatory work showed up relatively poorly when compared 159 with the university and state university eligible students. When one examines the records of the first two groups independently, however, it becomes evident that they achieved a degree of success that should not be over looked . Even though these lower achieving students started their college careers with some academic shortcomings, 91.0 percent of the non-college preparatory students took a first English course with 61.6 percent of them earning grades of C or higher. Of this same group, 58.0 percent enrolled for a second English course, and 63.8 percent of these students earned grades of C or higher. Furthermore, 45.0 percent of the non-college preparatory students maintained a 2.0 or higher grade point average during their stay at Cerritos College. Moreover, 36.0 percent of the group remained for a minimum of one year, and 15.0 percent received two full years of college credit. As for the students who attempted college prepara tory work, but were ineligible for four-year institutions, 97.0 percent enrolled in a first English course; 63.9 percent of these students gained C grades or higher. Of this same group, 75.0 percent of the students registered for a second English course and 66.7 percent of them achieved C grades or higher. 160 Furthermore, 54.0 percent of thle group of students maintained 2.0 or higher grade point averages. In addition, 62.0 percent of the students remained in college for a minimum of one year, whereas 28.0 percent of the students of this group remained to finish two full years of credit. Thus, it can be concluded that these students who would have been deprived of experience at the college level because of their previous academic records have come to the junior college, and that great numbers of them have succeeded in the academic adventure. These findings appear to implement the philosophy of the community college, which aims to extend educational opportunity to all segments of the college population. These findings also cast doubt on too easy an acceptance of the idea that the "open door" of the community college has became a "revolving door," admitting students and promptly ushering them out. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Preface Tha central purpose of the present study was to determine how well the various eligibility groups of entering freshmen achieved in three areas: English, over all success in college, and persistence. A secondary purpose was to find what majors were chosen and how well the groups of majors achieved in the three areas: English, over-all academic success, and persistence. An especially close look was taken at the humanities major because it included the English majors. A third purpose was to compare the achievement of the students in English with their over-all academic performance. Procedure The Cerritos College entering class of approximately 2,000 full-time students for the Fall semester, 1965, was divided by the counselling division into five levels of eligibility: those eligible for the University of 161 162 California; those eligible for the California state university system; those who attempted college preparatory work but fell short in grade point averages or in configuration of courses taken; those who did not attempt college preparatory work; and those whose records were not complete enough to be classified in one of the other groups of eligibility. A true random sample was drawn, made up of thirty- four university eligible students and sixty-six state university eligible students to form a group of 100 fully eligible students; a group of 100 students who attempted college preparatory work; a group of 100 students who did not attempt college preparatory work; and 100 students whose level of eligibility could not be classified. The university eligible students were considered separately from the state university eligible students, and then the two groups were combined and considered as one group. For each student whose name was drawn, a transcript was pulled and computer cards were marked as to the student's sex, eligibility level, major, first English course taken, grade earned in first English course, second English course taken, grade earned in second English course, total number of units completed at the end of six semesters, and over-all grade point average. The computer cards were key punched and sheets were run off, showing 163 the percentages of students falling within each category of classification. Next, the author compiled a series of tables and graphs summarizing the findings. The results were left in percentage form for pur poses of ready communication with the anticipated readers of the study— the teachers of English. Findings In presenting the summary of findings, the investi gator preserved the same order in which the original questions and hypotheses were listed in Chapter I. Dealt with first were the answers to the questions. 1. The percentages of each eligibility group completing an Associate in Arts Degree or completing sixty or more units of credit to be eligible for transfer were as follows: university eligible students, 47.1 percent; state university eligible students, 48.5 percent; the combined group of eligible students, 48.0 percent; the college prep— non-eligible students, 28.0 percent; the non-college prep students, 15.0 percent; and the unclas sified students, 17.0 percent. 2-4. Questions two, three and four were considered jointly with respect to grades, because success in the English courses was not kept separate according to courses but according to success in first and second choice of English courses. 164 2. Of the university eligible students, 2.9 per* cent took remedial English as their first course; none took remedial English as the second course. Of the state university eligible students, 15.2 percent took remedial English as their first English course, and 1.5 percent took remedial English as their second English course. Of the combined eligible groups, 11.0 percent of the students took remedial English as a first English course; 1.0 percent took remedial English as their second English course. Of the college prep--non-eligible group of students, 36.0 percent took remedial English as their first English course; 5.0 percent took remedial English as their second English course. Of the non-college prep students, 47.0 percent took remedial English as their first English course; 7.0 percent took remedial English as their second English course. Of the unclassified students, 51.0 percent took remedial English as their first English course; 6.0 percent took remedial English as their second English course. 3. Of the university eligible students, 94.1 percent took composition as their first English course, and the remaining 5.9 percent took it as their second English course, for a total of 100 percent. 165 Of the state university eligible students, 75.8 percent took composition as their first English course and 21.2 percent took composition as a second course, for a total of 97.0 percent. For the combined group of eligible students, 82.0 percent took composition as a first course, and 16.0 percent took it as a second course, for a total of 98.0 percent. Of the college prep— non-eligible students, 51.0 percent took composition as a first course, and 38.0 percent as a second course, for a total of 89.0 percent. Of the non-college prep students, 11.0 percent took composition as a first course, and 24.0 percent as a second course, for a total of 35.0 percent. Of the unclassified students, 29.0 percent took composition as a first course, and 27.0 percent as a second course, for a total of 56.0 percent. 4. As to other English courses for a first choice, business communication was the most frequently chosen: 3.0 percent of the university eligible students and state university eligible students took business communication; 7.0 percent of the college prep— non-eligible students took business communication; 30.0 percent of the non college prep students took business communication; and 11.0 percent of the unclassified students took business communication. Only a handful of students took remedial 166 or developmental readingx 1.5 percent of the state university eligible students; 2.0 percent of the college prep— non-eligible students; 3.0 percent of the non-college prep students; and 3.0 percent of the unclassified stu dents . For a second English course, there were minimal selections of courses other than remedial, composition, and composition and literature. Again, business communication was the most frequent choice, for students tended to continue with the second half of the course; remedial reading and miscellaneous English courses in no case recruited more than 3.0 percent of the students. Success in the choices of first and second English courses was as follows: university eligible students, 94.1 percent were successful in a first English course; 96.3 percent were successful in a second English course. For state university eligible students, the figures were 87.4 percent successful in a first English course; 88.3 percent successful in a second English course. Of the college prep— non-eligible students, 63.9 percent succeeded in a first English course; 66.7 percent succeeded in a second English course. Of the non-college prep students, 61.6 percent succeeded in a first English course; 63.8 percent succeeded in a second English course. 167 Of the unclassified students, 66.3 percent succeeded in their first English couras; 57.6 percent succeeded in their second English course. 5. The declared majors of the combined eligibility groups were as follows: business, 21.75 percent: humani ties, 10.25 percent; physical science and engineering, 10.25 percent; social sciences, 19.0 percent; technology, 11.0 percent; biology and life science, 7.25 percent; terminal, 4.25 percent; fine arts 6.50 percent; and undecided, 9.75 percent. 6. The over-all success of the eligibility groups was measured at the 2.0 level of achievement, and the groups succeeded as follows: university eligible, 97.1 percent successful; state university eligible, 87.9 percent successful; combined eligible groups, 91.0 percent successful; college prep— non-eligible, 54.0 percent successful; non-college prep, 45.0 percent successful; and unclassified, 54.0 percent successful. 7. The degree of persistence shown by each eligibility group was as follows: of the university eligible students, 94.2 percent finished a minimum of one year of credit; 47.1 percent finished two full years of credit. Of the state university eligible students, 81.9 percent completed one full year of credit; 48.5 percent 168 completed two full yeara of credit. Of the combined group of fully eligible students, 86.0 percent completed a minimum of one year of credit; 48.0 percent completed two full years of credit. Of the college prep— non-eligible students, 62.0 percent completed a minimum of one year of credit; 28.0 percent completed two full years of credit. Of the non-college prep students, 36.0 percent completed a minimum of one year of credit; 15.0 percent completed two full years of credit. Of the unclassified students, 46.0 percent completed one full year of credit; 17.0 percent completed two full years of credit. 8. The humanities major was comprised of students from the several eligibility groups as follows: college eligible, combined, 36.6 percent; college prep— non-eligible, 26.8 percent; non-college prep, 17.0 percent; and unclassified, 19.5 percent. Of the humanities majors, 100 percent of the college eligible students succeeded in English. Of the college prep--non-eligible students, 33.0 percent of the males and 86.0 percent of the females succeeded in first English; 33.0 percent of the males and 71.0 percent of the females succeeded in second English. 169 Of the non-coliege prep students, 67.0 percent of the males and none of the females succeeded in first English; 100 percent of the males but none of the females succeeded in second English. Of the unclassified students, 100 percent of the males and 80.0 percent of the females succeeded in first English, and 67.0 percent of both males and females succeeded in second English. As to over-all success and persistence, the humanities ma performed thus: 100 percent of the fully eligible students were successful at the 2.0 level of achievement; 33.0 percent of the college eligible males finished 60 or more units of credit; 75.0 percent of the females finished 60 or more units of credit. Of the college prep--non-eligible students who majored in humanities, 25.0 percent of the males and 43.0 percent of the females were successful; as to persistence, 25.0 percent of the males and 43.0 percent of the females finished 60 or more units of credit. Of the non-college prep students, 57.0 percent of the males were successful, and none of the females was successful; as to persistence, 33.0 percent of the males completed 60 or more units of credit; none of the females completed 60 or more units of credit. Of the unclassified students, 100 percent of the 170 malts finished 60 or mors units, but none of the females who majored in humanities finished 60 or more units of credit. 9. By eligibility group, the success in English was measured at both the 2.0 or higher level of achieve ment and at the 3.0 or higher level of achievement. The results were then compared with the various groups' over all success in academic pursuits. At the 2.0 or higher level of achievement, the English grades and the over-all success were almost identical, with perhaps a minor superiority of over-all success for the fully eligible students and a slight superiority in English grades for the non-college prep students. However, at the 3.0 or higher level of achievement, the contrasts were greater. University eligible students earned 64.7 percent and 63.3 percent B or higher grades respectively in first and second English courses, but only 38.3 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. State university eligible students earned 50.0 percent and 41.2 percent B or higher grades respectively in first and second English courses, but only 27.3 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. Of the total combined group of college eligible 171 students, 55.1 parcant and 49.3 parcant earned B or higher grades respectively in first and second English courses, but only 31.0 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. Of the collage prep— non-eligible students, 10.3 percent and 22.7 percent earned B or higher grades respectively in first and second English, yet only 10.0 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. Of the non-college prep students, 25.3 percent and 27.5 percent earned B or higher grades respectively in first and second English courses, but only 9.0 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. Of the unclassified students, 26.3 percent and 33.9 percent earned B or higher grades respectively in first and second English, but only 8.0 percent of their number earned B or higher over-all grade point averages. The first hypothesis was stated thus: The univer sity eligible students and the state university eligible students will tend to polarize, either completing sixty or more units or withdrawing after completion of fifteen units of college. The hypothesis proved false. None of the univer sity eligible students and only 4.5 percent of state 172 univarsity eligible students dropped out with fewer than 10 units of credit, for an average of 3.0 percent showing very low persistence, whereas 86.0 percent of the combined group of eligible students completed a minimum of one full year of credit and 48.0 percent completed two full years of credit. The second hypothesis was stated thusi The grade point average in English is consistently lower than other grades in the oversell grade point average. The second hypothesis also proved false. The grades in English were consistently higher than the over all grade point averages at the 2.0 level of achievement and markedly higher at the 3.0 or higher level of achieve ment. Conclusions 1. In general, the entering students who qualify as fully college eligible perform better in English, take a higher level of English courses, succeed better in over all grade point averages, and are more persistent than are their non-college eligible counterparts. 2. The students who take college preparatory courses in high school, but are ineligible for entrance to senior colleges, often do less well than the non-college preparatory students and the unclassified students. 3. Students who are unsuccessful in college 173 preparatory work do lees well In English than any other eligibility group. 4. A significant difference in achievement is noticeable on almost every measure of success when univer sity eligible students and state university eligible students are compared, with university eligible students consistently displaying superior abilities. 5. The business major is the most popular, with social sciences running a close second. The least popular major is the terminal major. The humanities major ranked about in the middle in popularity. 6. The most successful students are the physical science and engineering majors and the terminal majors. The least successful group of students is the undecided as to major, which perhaps indicates uncertain goals and, hence, lack of motivation. Similar ratios exist for persistence, with the physical science and engineering major being the most persistent and the undecided as to major being the least persistent. 7. More women than men major in humanities, a ratio of four to one at the university eligible and state university eligible levels. 8. The community college does aid large numbers of students who could not enter four-year institutions to achieve some considerable degree of success. 174 Recommendations Further Relatad Research 1. Raaaarch la needed aa to why tha atudanta who attempt collage preparatory couraaa but are ineligible for four year inatitutiona do not achieve batter in high echool and in collage. Datermination muat be made aa to whether atudant goals are realistic and whether this group of students needs tutoring or other special help at both the high school and college levels. 2. Research is needed as to why the terminal major lacks appeal. Many students who would be highly successful in a terminal major apparently cannot succeed in an academic area. It may be that to entering students there is a halo effect around "the academic1 * and that students are not fully aware of what the terminal major has to offer. 3. Study is needed as to why student persistence rate is low. Again, this drop-out problem may relate to unrealistic goalst nearly three-fourths of entering freshmen declare themselves to be transfer students but in reality only about one-fourth actually transfer to a four- year institution. 4. Research is needed as to why the English grade runs higher than the rate of over-all success in college. Are those entering students who write well being unduly 175 rewarded for what they already know? Are English depart ments giving higher grades because they are subject to various kinds of pressures to retain students or to offset an unfavorable image of English courses? Educational Recommendations 1. The already over-burdened counselling department needs to be given funds for additional staff in order that batteries of tests and further counselling may be given to aid students in choosing more adequate goals. 2. Again, there appears to be need for additional counsellors in the vocational area. Many entering fresh men appear unaware of the myriads of possibilities for which education may prepare them. There appears to be the need for such counselling at the point where students are not achieving in their first choice of major. Encourage ment and guidance is needed or such students may become drop-outs. 3. In the community colleges, university eligible students and state university eligible students who are able to pass- a writing test should be able to bypass standard freshman composition in favor of advanced compo sition, which would provide greater challenge and enrich ment. Such students should not "coast” on previously learned skills. 4. Studies should be undertaken on how to make 175 rewarded for what they already know? Are Engliah depart ments giving higher grades because they are subject to various kinds of pressures to retain students or to offset an unfavorable image of English courses? Educational Recommendations 1. The already over-burdened counselling department needs to be given funds for additional staff in order that batteries of tests and further counselling may be given to aid students in choosing more adequate goals. 2. Again, there appears to be need for additional counsellors in the vocational area. Many entering fresh men appear unaware of the myriads of possibilities for which education may prepare them. There appears to be the need for such counselling at the point where students are not achieving in their first choice of major. Encourage ment and guidance is needed or such students may become drop-outs. 3. In the community colleges, university eligible students and state university eligible students who are able to pass- a writing test should be able to bypass standard freshman composition in favor of advanced compo sition, which would provide greater challenge and enrich ment. Such students should not "coast” on previously learned skills. 4. Studies should be undertaken on how to make 176 English offering* more Interesting and practical for the non-academic major. 5. Studies of attitudes of instructors toward the various categories of students should be made in order to determine to what extent traditional ideas of freshman composition courses tend to produce an overly academic emphasis unfavorable to non-transfer students. APPENDIX I PERCENTAGE IN EACH ELGIBILITY GROUP OP ENTERING FRESHMEN RELATED TO CHOICE OF MAJOR 178 179 Major Eligibility Group Business Bumanities Physical Sciences Social Sciences Technology Biology and Life Sci Terminal Fine Arts Undecided University 11.8 29.4 20.6 14.7 2.9 5.9 14.7 0.0 0.0 State U 4.5 7.6 25.8 24.2 3.0 9.1 6.1 7.6 12.1 Univ and State U Comb. 7.0 15.0 24.0 21.0 3.0 8.0 9.0 5.0 8.0 Col Prep— Non-Elig 20.0 11.0 6.0 23.0 13.0 8.0 4.0 2.0 13.0 Non-Col Prep 41.0 7.0 3.0 11.0 18.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 8.0 Unclassified 19.0 8.0 8.0 21.0 10.0 8.0 9.0 7.0 10.0 APPENDIX II CHOICE OF MAJOR RELATED TO OVER-ALL GRADE POINT AVERAGE 180 Business Humanities Physical Sci and Engr Social Sci Technology Biology and Life Sci Terminal Fine Arts Undecided All WP 0.0— 1.4 H* 4 Ul 1 1 I - * • IO W a 0 1 i Kl • * Kl a Ul I 1 Kl a VO bl a 0 > 1 Ul a *> Ul a Ul i i *> a o Grade Point Average IO H> Kl M K) o \ Oi Ul H* Ul bl • » 4 • 4 4 4 bl * H bl Ul o * H Kl Kl Kl Kl * sj Oi Kl Kl • • 4 4 4 a 4 * OI bl 00 o *> * bl bl O • s i VO IO J f c * * 9 4 4 a 4 4 4 »o O w 0D o M IO IO e n Kl M bl H* H1 a O bl * H IO O o 0 • ■ • a 4 4 4 5 O sj Ul OI • s i Ul o Kl Kl bl |Q o Ul O OI « OI Kl e a t 4 4 4 4 a ® , 9 , i r * H CO bl w H* bl bl 0 M bi -J M * OI OI O S a • 4 4 4 4 a H- kl o Ul « IO o D |Q M Kl bl H H O o Ul H bl Ul H H 2 4 . 4 4 a a 4 > o i© 0D Ul bl 00 00 K> H Kl Kl H o bl H bl bl Ul bl 4 • 4 4 4 a 4 o H* Ul H M * 00 * H H H> K) OI K> sj O Ul Ul « » 4 4 a e 4 OI M CD IO bl H H 181 APPENDIX III CHOICE OF MAJOR RELATED TO TOTAL UNITS COMPLETED 182 Business Humanities Physical Science and Engr Social Sciences Technology Biology and Life Science Terminal Fine Arts Undecided Major H IO Ul Ul Ol c o O o o O O O 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 H 10 H IO Ul J U Ul 0 ft « 10 10 10 10 H n H \ H H H* H H a o to \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 IO Kl Kl Kl Kl H e I H H H H H H 10 U l ® O O CO C O • • • • • • * U l o Ul Ul H * H H H Ul 10 * Kl Kl - 0 * 10 * • * • • « • 0 0 10 Kl 10 Ul 01 o H H K> •o 10 -o to Kl <0 i • « • • * • * Ul 00 Ul Kl IO a> • O H M H* M Ut Ul O H* 10 • • • • * • * « Ul A SB O CD k b* H H H H U I H H Ul H O Ul * • • • * • • • ui ui * ui o * oi Ul K> M M 0 Ul IO -1 IO O IO • * • • • • • 01 H n o n u os 183 APPENDIX IV ELIGIBILITY GROUP RELATED TO OVER-ALL GRADE POINT AVERAGE 184 University State Univ Univ and State U Comb. Col Prep— Non-Eli? Non-Col Prep Unclassified Eligibility Group All WP 0.0 I 0.0 0.0 o M K» K) Ul Ui > Cl * • * • • ■ < n o Ul © Ul o ui e a 1 1 1 1 1 1 n o> 1 1 1 1 1 1 m a H H K) to Ul * vQ • * . * • * • *0 * VO « * o 0 -ct_ to Ui Ui O to Ui Ul to Ul • . « • * • o VO Ul Ui Ok VO to Ui to OV Ov Ul * H ov 0 . t . • * 00 00 to to U i to U l U l U l U l O I • . • * • a o o o o o o to to Ui H o OV o o Ui • • • • • • a o o o © o o o U i to to H to to M to * . . . t . o o o o o 00 M * . o o H a s r t » vQ S' « 9 M- 3 Cl *0 > 185 APPENDIX V ELIGIBILITY GROUP RELATED TO TOTAL UNITS COMPLETED 186 University State Univ Univ and State U Ccaib. Col Prep— Non-Eli? Non-Col Prep Unclassified H* K> U •a Ul OV o e O o O o O 1 i 1 I 1 1 <0 H* KJ LD * Ul o H « vo VO VO VO H \ ( - » I - * I - * 1- M 3 KJ \ \ \ \ S 0 KJ KJ KJ KJ KJ 4 e H KJ ■a o KJ KJ * Ul OV -j a a * * a • a o vo vo vo Ui H H* a n * OI -J Ol ■ s j VO 09 M a a * * * * a M- Ul o OI H Ol - s i m v f l H* tr K* K> a H W Ul Oi VO Nl KJ 09 P- • # * * * a a ft o o o M o o o o H p* H H KJ 4 UI Ul 00 m -J KJ 1 0 a * * a * a a c o o o o o o o *a K> H H H H P» C jJ Ul Ol H KJ 00 Ul S • « a * a a o o o o O o o KJ KJ H P* H M H KJ P* VO VO a « * a * a a o O O o o o o c 9 H- ft M O * 0 4 n e 9 it a « e 187 BIBLIOGRAPHY 188 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams " “ ^ — — - for tha ucatlon, The American College; A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning. Edited by Sanford Nevitt. New York; John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. "A Design for General Education." For Members of the Armed Forces. American Council on Education Studies. Series I, Reports of Committees and Conferences, No. 18, Vol. VIII. Washington! American Council on Education, 1944. "Average Student Characteristics at Cerritos College,” Your Community College Reports. An official publication of Cerritos College as a Community Service Supplement to the college catalog, April, 1959, p. 4. Baker, Robert Munson. "An Empirical Validation of the SRA Primary Mental Abilities Test in Predicting Success in College as Measured by Freshman Grades by Robert Munson Baker and Lucrezia Denton McMullen.” Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1954. Bloom, Benjamin S., and Peters, Frank R. The Use of Academic Prediction Scales. New York! The Free Press of Glencoe, Inc., 1961. Bossen, Doris Stephens. "A Follow-up Study of the Junior College Withdrawal Student." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Ohio State University, 1968. Bossone, Richard M. "Understanding Junior College Students." Teaching Basic English Courses. New Yorki Van Nostrand ReinhoId Co., 1971. Best of Reasonsi Colleae Students Tod, 1958 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 190 "Remedial English Instruction in California Public Junior Colleges: An Analysis and Evaluation of Current Practices." Sacramento: California State Department, 1966. Boyce, Richard w. "Predicting Success in College.” Vocation Guidance Quarterly, Cl (Summer, 1963), rar-aw. — - - - - *■ Brown, Donald R. Social Changes and the College Student. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1960. California, State of. Education Code. Sec 10602. Sacramento: The State of California, 1955. ________ . Education Code. Sec 25503. Sacramento: The State of California, 1963. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California in Higher Education. Comnltteo on the Conduct of tne Study of Higher Education in California, Sacramento, 1948. . A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1955. Carlson, J. Spencer, and Milstein, Victor. "The Relation of Certain Aspects of High School Performance to Academic Success in College.” College and University, Winter, 1958, pp. 185- 192. Christensen, Frances. "The Child's Right to a Teacher Who Knows." English Language in the School Program. Edited by Robert F. Hogan. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1966. Clark, Burton. "The Cooling-Out Function in Higher Education." Education. Economy, and Society. Edited by A. H. Holsey, Jean Fioud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1961. Clark, Burton R. The Open Door College: A Case Study. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., i960. 191 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Conant, James B. Education in a Divided World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1948. Cooperative Test Division. Technological Report; Cooperative English Lists. Princeton, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, I960. Cooper, Leiand R. "The Difficulty of Identifying the Real Transfer Student." Junior College Journal, XXXVIII (December-January, 1967-68), 34-40. Cross, K. Patricia. The Junior College Student: A Research Description. Princeton, New Jerseyi Educational Testing Service, 1968. Cuff, Noel. "Problems of Elimination from College." School and Society, XXX (1929), 550-552. Daly, Joseph La Vernce. "An Analysis of the Number and Kind of High School Credit Units as Related to Academic Performance at University of Utah." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Utah, 1968. Deutsch, Morton. "Forward." The American Collegei A Psychological and Social interpretation orthe Higher Learning. ~Ea~ lYe3'- bv ffevitt gahTordT"TIew York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Deutsch, Monroe E., et al. A Report of a Survey of the Needs of California in Higher Education. Berkeley, California: University o£ California Press, 1948. Diaz, Irene, et al. "Trouble in Hawaiian Gardens." Wings, January 2, 1973, pp. 14-15. Educational Policies Commission. Universal Opportunity for Education Beyond the High School■ Washington, 6 .C.: Educational Policies Commission, 1963. Ellish, Arthur Donald. "The Effects of Attitude on Academic Achievement." Unpublished Bd.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1968. Elton, Charles F. "Three-Year School Averages as a Predictor of Success in College." College and University, XL (Winter, 1965), 165-167. 192 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. Extence, Dorothea. "Non-Intellective Factors which May Ba Relatad to Voluntary Withdrawal of Collage Freshman.1 * Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1965. Farnsworth, D. S. "Academic Success or Failure in College Students." College Board Review, XXIV (1954), 3-7. Ferguson, George A. Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill fiooli to., Inc. , 1959. Prankel, Charles. "Conclusion: Critical Issues in American Education." Issues in University Education: Essays by Ten American Scholars. Edited by Charles Frankel. New York: flarper and Brothers Publishers, 1959. Freidman, Stuart M. "Predicting Students' Success in a Comprehensive Junior College." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. School of Education, University of Southern California, 1965. General Education: An Account and Appraisal. Edited by Lewis B. Mayhew. New York: Harperand Brothers, 1960. Gleazer, Edmund J., Jr. This is the Community College. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968. Hakanson, John Warren. "Selected Characteristics, Socioeconomic Status, and Levels of Attainment of Students in Public Junior College Occupation- Centered Education." Unpublished Ed.D. disser tation, University of California, Berkeley, 1967. Havighurst, Robert J., and Neugarten, Bernice L. Society and Education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon inc., 1957. Herridge, Eileen Louise. "The Relationship of Se lected Non-Intellectual Variables to Academic Achievement of Students at an Open Door Community College." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1971. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 193 Higher Education for American Democracy! A Report of the President1 a ComalaeIon for Higher Educa tion. 5 vole, tfew Vorki Harper Brothers, Publishera, 1947. Hofstadter, Richard, and Hardy, C. DeWitt. The Development and Scope of Higher Education in the United States. New York: Columbia University tress, 1952. Hook, Sidney. Education for Modyn Hani A New Perspective"! New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966. Hoopes, Robert, and Marshall, Hubert. The Under- graduate in the University. Stanford: Stanford Oniveir'srty trio a, ' 17577 Iffert, R. E. "Drop-Outs: Nature and Causes; Effects on Student, Family and Society.” Association for Higher Education: Current Issues In Higher Education, 1955"! Washington: Hationai Education Association, 1956. Iffert, Robert E. Retention and Withdrawal of College Students. Bulletin No. 1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Education, 1958. Iffert, R. E. "What Ought Colleges and Universities Do About Student Mortality?" Association for Higher Education: Current Issues in riigher Education. Washington, D.C.: Nations1 Education Association, 1954. Inglinsky, Clyde Lee. "Intellectual and Non-Intel lectual Factors Affecting Academic Success of College Freshmen." Unpublished Ph.D. disserta tion, East Texas State University, 1968. Kearney, Dorothy Lucille. "Selected Non-Intellectual Factors as Predictors of Academic Success in Junior College Intellectually Capable Students." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. School of Education, University of Southern California, 1966. Kitzhaber, Albert R. Themes, Theories and Therapy. New York: McGraw Hill, 1963. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 194 Koos, Leonard V. The Community College Student. Gainsville, Florida t university o£ Florida Press, 1970. McConnell, T. R., and Heist, Paul. "The Diverse College Student Population." The American College. Edited by Sanford Nevitt. New Yorki John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. McConnell, T. R., et al. A Restudy of the Needs of California in Higher Education^ Sacramento: dalif'ornla State Department of Education, 1955. McGee, Jim Ed. "Selected Factors Associated with Success or Failure of the Junior English Examination at the University of Arkansas." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. University of Arkansas, 1968. Meteon, Richard. "Universities in the Modern World,'' in The Report of the University Education Commission, December 1948-August 1949. 2 vole. Simla: Government of India Press, 1950. Master Plan Survey. A Master Plsn for Higher Education inCallfornia, 1966-1970. Sacramento: California State Department of Education, 1960. Mayhew, Lewis B., ed. General Education: An Account and Appraisal. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960. Medsker, Leland L., and Trent, James W. The Influ- ences of Different Types of Higher Institutions on CoiToqe Attendance*from Varying Soclo- Economic and Ability Levels. Cooperative Research Project No. 438. 'Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. Berkeley: University of California, 1965. Medsker, Leland L. The Junior College: Progress and Prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1960. Morse, H. T. "Liberal and General Education-- Partisans or Partners?" Junior College Journal. XXIV (March, 1954), 395-39T! 62. 63. 64. 65. 61. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 195 The National Society for the Study of Education. "The Role of the Public Junior College. " The Public Junior College; Fifty-fifth Yearbook, Port I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. Nogle, Donald Guy. "A Comparison of Selected Characteristics of Transfer and Terminal- occupational Students in a California Junior College.1 * Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation. School of Education, University of Southern California, 1965. O'Donnell, Patrick Ian. "Predictors of Freshman Academic Success and Their Relationship to Attrition." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, School of Education, University of Southern California, 1968. Phenix, Phi1ip H. Education and the Common Good* A Moral Philosophy of the Curriculum^ New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1961. The President's Committee on Education Beyond the High School. Second Report to the President. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957. Pullias, Earl V. A Search for Understanding. Dubuque, Iowa: Wta. C. Brown Co., Publishers, 1965. The Pursuit of Excellence: Education and the Future of America. Special Studies Report V. Rockefeller Brothers Fund. New York: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1958. Pusey, Nathan M. The Age of the Scholar: Observa tions on Education In a Troubled Decade. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap ~Press of Harvard University Press, 1964. Rapp, Marvin A. "Liberal Arts and General Education." Junior College Journal, XXXVI (May, 1966), 24-28. Reynolds, James W. The Comprehensive Junior College Curriculum. Berkeley, California: McCutchan Publieking Corp., 1969. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 70. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 196 Reynolds, James W. The Junior College. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. Rice, James G. General Education: Current Ideas and Concerns. Washington, b.c.: National Education Association, 1964. Rice, Warner G. "Higher Education in the 1970's." The Promise of English: NCTE Distinguished Lectures, 1970. Champaign, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, 1970. Riesman, David. Constraint and Variety in American Education. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1956. _________. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven, Conn.: Vale University Press, 1950. Ringwald, S. C. "President's Message." Your Community College Reports. An official publica tion of Cerritos Collegeas a Community Service Supplement of the college catalog, April, 1969, p. 2. Roper, Elmo. Factors Affecting the Admission of High School Seniors in College. Washington, P.C.: American Council on Education, 1949. Roueche, John E. Salvage, Redirection or Custody? Washington, D.CT* American Association ot Junior Colleges, 1968. Rudolph, Frederick. The American College University. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1962. Sanford, Nevitt, ed. The American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning- ! New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Seashore, Harold. "Academic Abilities of Junior College Students." Junior College Journal, xxix (October, 1958), 74-80. Selznick, Philip. Leadership in Administration: A Social Interpretation. Evanston, Illinois: How Peterson and Co., 1957. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 197 Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametrie Statletlce for the Behavioral Sciences. hew York: McGraw-Hill book do., Inc., 1956. Simpaon, Edwin Merrilies. "A Preliminary Study of the Predictability of College Academic Success from High School Grade Point Average.** Project report, University of Southern California, 1967. Smith, George B. Who Would Be Eliminated? Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas, 1956. Summerski11, John, et al. "Drop-Outs from College." The American College: A Psychological and Social Interpretation of the Higher Learning, ttdited l)y Sanford Nevitt. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Taba, HiIda. Curriculum Development: Theory and Practice. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1962. Tagore, Sir Rabindranath. Gitanjali and Fruit- Gathering . New York: The Macmillan Co., 1918. Thomas, Russell. The Search for a Common Learning: General Education, 1800-1960. Mew York* HcGraw ftill Kook do.. Inc., 1962.— Thornton, James W., Jr. The Community Junior College. Rev. ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1366. Weingarten, Samuel. English in the Two Year College. Champaign, Illinois: National douncil of Teachers of English, 1965. Wise, W. Max. They Come for the Be«t of Reasons; College Students ttodayT Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 19 58.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Transfer Purpose Of The Public Community Junior College In Californiahigher Education: A Study In Purpose And Development

PDF

Community Service Programs In California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

The Use Of Masterpieces Of World Literature In California Public Community Colleges: A Study In Purposes And Trends

PDF

Factors Involved In Determining What Grade Levels Should Be Included On Opening A New High School

PDF

A Study Of Philosophy Curriculum Dissonance In Selected Colleges And Universities In California

PDF

A Critical Evaluation Of The Undergraduate Accounting Curriculum In The Philippine College Of Commerce

PDF

Mandatory Chapel Attendance At Small Church-Related Colleges

PDF

Nietzsche'S Philosophy Of Education: A Critical Exposition

PDF

The Educational Philosophy Of Horace Mann

PDF

Leisure And Recreation In The Rancho Period Of California--1770 To 1865

PDF

The Effectiveness Of A Simulation-Game Approach To The Teaching Of Budgetand Finance In Athletic Administration

PDF

Major Themes Of Undergraduate Professional Preparation In Physical Education From 1860 To 1962

PDF

Policies Pertaining To Hiring And Teaching Assignments Of Coaches Of Interscholastic Athletic Teams In Southern California Secondary Schools

PDF

Opinions Of Beginning High School Business Teachers Regarding Their College Preparation For Teaching

PDF

Administrative Behavior Of Successful And Unsuccessful Athletic Directorsin Small Colleges And Universities

PDF

Geology In The Junior College

PDF

The Relationship Of Ethnic Origin To Performance On A Visual Photographic Task At Different Mental Ability Levels

PDF

Tachistoscopic Training And Its Effect Upon Visual Perceptual Speed Of Ice-Hockey Players

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of Sport In England And The United States

PDF

Leadership Considerations Within Selected Summer Recreational Sports Programs For Urban Disadvantaged Youth

Asset Metadata

Creator Wegener, Helen Margaret (author)

Core Title Achievement In Junior College As Related To Eligibility Level On Entrance

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee chair), O'Neill, William S. (committee member), Perry, Richard H. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-833172

Unique identifier UC11355787

Identifier 7411717.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-833172 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7411717.pdf

Dmrecord 833172

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Wegener, Helen Margaret

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA