University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

(USC Thesis Other)

Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content NONINTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED STUDENTS
OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
A Dissertation
Presented to
the Faculty of the School of Education
University of Southern California
In Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the
Doctor of Education
by
Harry Grady Walker, Jr.
September 1973
I
I
74-5880
f
1
f i
i
’ t
WALKER, Jr., Harry Grady, 1923-
NONXNTELLECTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF SELECTED
STUDENTS OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT.
University of Southern California, Ed.D., 1973
Education, higher
Microfilms, A XERO X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan Univers
© 1973
HARRY GRADY WALKER, JR
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
This dissertation, written under the direction
of the Chairman of the candidate's Guidance
Committee and approved by a ll members of the
Committee, has been presented to and accepted
by the Faculty of the School of Education in
partial fulfillm ent of the requirements fo r the
degree of Doctor of Education.
D ate September, .1973....................
/ Dean
Guidance Commit11
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am particularly grateful for the patience and
direction of my committee. The encouragement and help of
Dr. Leslie E. Wilbur, Dr. Earl V. Pullias, and Dr. D. Lloyd
Nelson made the completion of this dissertation a very
valuable learning experience.
I wish to thank the personnel of the Los Angeles
Community College District for their assistance. I am
indebted to Dr. Donald W. Click, the Chancellor, for
endorsing the study. The personnel of the Admissions
Office of each of the eight colleges of the district were
very helpful in assisting me to locate the information
which I needed for the survey.
Also, I wish to acknowledge my gratitude to my
family for the many occasions that they willingly gave up
some enjoyment because Daddy had to study. I am thankful
to my wife, Nan, who did all of my typing throughout my
doctoral program, and to my children, Frances, Harry III,
Linda, Janet, Carol, and Steven for their encouragement and
understanding.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Page
iii
LIST OF TABLES VI
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM 1
Background of the Problem
Significance of the Problem
Need for the Study
Statement of the Problem
Questions to be Answered
Delimitations
Limitations
Definition of Terms
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE................ 14
Factors Contributing to College Attendance
College Enrollment Statistics
Characteristics of the Collegiate
Population
Characteristics of the Junior College
Student
Prediction Research
Attrition Research
Summary
III. PROCEDURES................................... 51
Setting of the Study
Endorsement of the Study
Selection of the Sample
Development of Survey Instrument Form
Data Collection Procedures
Analysis of the Data
Summary
iv
Chapter Page
IV. FINDINGS...................................... 61
Survey Form Results
Questions Answered
Summary
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . 102
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFERENCES............................................ Ill
APPENDICES.......................... 117
A. Letter of Endorsement....................... 118
B. Survey Instrument ........................... 12 2
C. Sample of Telephone Conversation............ 124
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. High School Graduates Attending College the
Following Year, 1960, Based on Aptitude and
Socioeconomic Status (Percentage) ......... 19
2. Relationship Between Academic Ability and
Activity After High School Graduation, 1967
(In Percentages)............................. 22
3. Family Occupational Level of 1966 High School
Graduates Who Entered College ............. 23
4. U. S. Population, 1970 Census................ 28
5. Fall 197 0 Higher Education Enrollment by
Ethnic Origin ............................... 29
6. Distribution of Black Students in Higher Edu
cation in 19 70 (Estimated)................. 3 0
7. Freshmen Receiving Degrees Within Seven Years
of Entry into College (Per Cent)........... 46
8. Reasons Given by Junior College Students From
20 Colleges for Withdrawing from College
Between 1949 and 1957 ...................... 48
9. Colleges of the Los Angeles Community College
District (Fall, 1971) ...................... 52
10. Sexual Differences Between Enrollee and Non-
enrollee , Fall 1971-72 ...................... 62
11. Age Differences Between Enrollee and Nonen-
rollee , Fall 1971-72 ........................ 64
12. State-of-Birth Differences, California vs.
Non-California, Between Enrollees and Non-
enrollees, Fall 1971-72 .................... 65
13. Marital Status Differences Between Enrollees
and Nonenrollees , Fall 1971-72 ............. 66
vi
Table Page
1*+. Ethnic Origin Differences Between Enrollees
and Nonenrollees , Fall 1971-72 ............... 67
15. Citizenship Differences Between Enrollees and
Nonenrollees, Fall 1971-72 .................. 68
16. Veteran and Nonveteran Differences Between
Enrollees and Nonenrollees, Fall 1971-72. . 69
17. High School Graduate Differences Between
Enrollees and Nonenrollees, Fall 1971-72. . 70
18. Previous College Attendance Differences
Between Enrollees and Nonenrollees, Fall
1971-72 ..................................... 71
19. Student Classification Differences Between
Enrollees and Nonenrollees, Fall 1971-7 2. . 7 3
20. Reasons for Nonenrollment by College of
Application, Fall 1971-7 2 ................. 7 6
21. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Sex of Applicant
Fall 1971-72 ................................. 77
22. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Age of Applicant
Fall 1971-72 ................................. 78
23. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Birthplace of
Applicant, 1971-72 .......................... 79
2 4. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Marital Status
of Applicant, Fall 1971-72 ................. 80
25. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Race of Appli
cant, Fall 1971-72 .......................... 81
26. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Citizenship of
Applicant, Fall 1971-72 .................... 82
27. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Veteran Status
of Applicant, Fall 1971-72 ................. 83
28. Reasons for Nonenrollment by High School
Completion of Applicant, Fall 19 71-7 2 . . . 84
29. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Previous College
Experience of Applicant, Fall 1971-72 . . . 85
vii
Table Page
30. Reasons for Nonenrollment by Student Status
of Applicant, Fall 1971-7 2 ................. 8 6
31. Applicants "Admitted to Another College" by
College to Which Admitted, Fall 1971-72 . . 87
32. Breakdown of "Other" Category by Specific
Reasons of Nonenrollment, Fall 1971-72. . . 88
33. Breakdown of "Illness or Other Personal
Emergency" Category by Specific Reason for
Nonenrollment, Fall 1971-72 ............... 89
viii
- CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Background of the Problem
The two year community junior colleges in America
have had many changes in purpose and number since the days
of such early advocates as Henry A. Tappan of Michigan,
William Watts Folwell of Minnesota, and William Rainey
Harper of Chicago. In the latter portion of the Nineteenth
Century, these men saw the two year college as an institu
tion to provide a continuation of high school through the
two basic years of the university (Thornton 1972). Kelley
and Wilbur (197 0) list five additional purposes for the
existence of the comprehensive community junior college,
and it is these additional functions that have given the
two year colleges the rapid expansion that they have
experienced. While in 19 0 0 only eight two year colleges
were in operation, today, after a period of several years
in which a new junior college opened each week of the year
(Smith, 1969; Finch, 1972), there are over 1,00 0 two year
institutions, with a total junior college enrollment of
over 1,900,000 students.
Long a leader in the development and implementation
1
2
of the junior college concept, California has the largest
number of these colleges. California's state legislature
authorized the nation's first junior college state law in
1907, and its first public two year college was established
in 1910 at Fresno. Subsequent legislation in 1917 and 1921
authorized the fledgling institutions to broaden their
offerings into general education courses for citizenship
and vocational and technical courses.
Today, partially because of legislative funding
incentives, all California community colleges provide at
least two of the six purposes listed by Kelley and Wilbur
(1970): (1) the college transfer function, (2) occupa
tional education, (3) general education, (4) remedial
education, (5) guidance and counseling, and (6) community
service. Many community colleges seek to be truly compre
hensive in nature and try to satisfy all six functions to
some degree.
In this study, the term community means low cost
open to all, close to home, and lacking social barriers.
However, the degree to which California community colleges
are community and the degree to which they are comprehen
sive has been subject to much criticism nationwide.
The fact that these junior colleges are so readily
available and have an "open-door" leads many students to
enter with little or no purpose at the time of entrance.
In addition, Cross (19 71) pointed out that even though
3
America had made a commitment to open the door of educa
tional opportunity to all of her citizens, the opening of
the door— even three-quarters of the way— although a signi
ficant accomplishment, was not enough. For some students
who have been under-represented in college the door to
post-secondary education opens only on more of the same
kind of education that had failed to serve them in the
past.
Significance of the Problem
Cross (.1971) presented an interesting history of
higher education from the prevailing philosophies of
admissions to college. She stated that early in the
history of the country there was an "aristocratic" philo
sophy of college admissions, which advocated that those who
should go were those who could afford it and who needed it
for their station in life. People who attended the
private, high tuition colleges of Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton had money and social status.
The revolt against the aristocracy concept was led
by believers that a college education was an earned right,
not a birthright. Champions of the new land grant univer
sity, which heralded the rise of the "meritocracy,"
questioned the traditional role of tuition, and held some
untraditional ideas about the curricula that would best
serve the need of a new clientele. Advocates of the
4
meritocracy, which philosophically reached its peak in the
19 50's, felt that college admission should be based on
academic merit.
Both the aristocracy and the meritocracy believed
that only a small portion of the population could benefit
from a college education. In contrast, the President's
Advisory Commission on Higher Education of 1947 estimated
that 49 per cent of the population could profit from two
years' post-high school education and that about 3 2 per
cent had the capacity for a normal four-year college.
The meritocracy, in destroying the barriers to
higher education erected by the aristocracy, erected new
barriers of its own. Academic aptitude tests served both
to destroy the old barriers and to erect new barriers to
higher education. The talent searches of the 1950's were
active campaigns to bring into colleges those who did not
meet the aristocratic standards but who epitomized the
meritocratic ideals.
In the early 1970's the prevailing attitude of the
country appeared still to be meritocratic but there were
signs everywhere of a straining at the barriers. Once
again there was pressure to democratize higher education by
bringing it within the reach of a broader segment of the
population. This segment consisted of students new to
higher education and they were not so much breaking down
the barriers as they were flocking to a new type of college
5
dedicated to serving a different clientele.
The mingling of the meritocratic and "egalitarian"
philosophies in higher education in America is a cause of
controversy among educators as well as in the news media.
To date we have concentrated on making these new students
of higher education over into the image of traditional
students so that they can be served by traditional educa
tion. If the meritocracy philosophy required a different
type of institution in the land grant college, will not the
egalitarian philosophy also require a different type of
institution and is this new institution the budding com
munity college?
In the community college environment today
accessibility is the key to getting new students into
higher education. Having access to a college education is
today considered more of a right than a privilege by the
public, the students, and the courts. This change in
values over the last decade has taken place almost without
notice as education has come to be recognized as the
universal key to upward mobility.
The Carnegie Commission in its report, The Open
Door Colleges., (197 0) stated that in order to grant
universal accessibility, between 230 and 280 new colleges
must be established by 1980. These colleges should pre
ferably charge no tuition. This situation would enable 95
per cent of Americans to have access to the community
6
college.
Equality of access does not necessarily generate
equality of opportunity to succeed. Many critics see the
lack of equality of opportunity as the major problem of the
two year colleges today. Perhaps the statement of Cross
(1968) is typical of this concern:
Although the door of the junior college is open,
it is also frequently a revolving one, and we know
little about those who go in, only to go out again soon
after. What are the characteristics of the sizable
number of students who take the first step toward
higher education, only to withdraw within six months
or a year? Are they disillusioned at what they find
in junior colleges? Or does the brief exposure to
junior college give them the entree they need to the
labor market? We don't really know. [p. 5 2]
Thornton (1966), with data extracted from the Junior
College Directory, indicated the magnitude nationwide of
the dropout problem. These data showed that in 19 61 and
19 6 2 over 5 0 per cent of the freshmen class did not start
the sophomore year. Thornton also stated that as many as
ten per cent dropped out between fall registration and
Christmas vacation.
In California, where over one-half of the total
national junior college students are enrolled, the national
dropout problem has a particular significance. California
junior college administrators have long expressed concern
about the high level of withdrawal during the freshman year
as indicated by studies undertaken to obtain a perspective
on the problem (Kearney, 1966; Bossen, 1968; Deegan, 1969).
7
College administrators are concerned because the dropouts
represent a waste of the resources of the state and the
nation. The students leave college without achieving their
educational objectives and the community college district
has provided facilities, services, and personnel which are
not being efficiently used.
Dropout studies that have been made have been
criticized most consistently about the definition of a
dropout. Astin (1971), commenting on the nature of drop
out studies, stated that such studies are often criticized
on the grounds that the term "dropout" is imperfectly
defined: the so-called dropouts may ultimately become non
dropouts and vice versa. Students who leave college after
a year or two may eventually return and earn a bachelor’s
degree. Those students who are enrolled when the study is
done may still drop out before completing the bachelor's
degree and never return.
Continuing his discussion of dropouts, Astin
recognized that there might be some justification for these
criticisms, but he said that there seemed to be no practi
cal way out of the dilemma. A "perfect" classification of
dropouts versus non-dropouts could be achieved only when
all of the students had either died without ever finishing
college or had finished college. Any dropout, in theory at
least, can become a non-dropout if he returns to college
and completes his education before he dies. The imposition
8
of such a requirement on dropout research would obviously
make studies impractical if for no other reason than that
most of his subjects would probably outlive the researcher.
Any study of dropouts, therefore, must necessarily compro
mise to some extent its classification of students as
dropouts.
In the majority of attrition studies made to date,
researchers have concentrated on identifying individual
student characteristics related to the student’s departure
from college (White 1971). It is only recently that
studies have begun to take into account the equally impor
tant environmental factors which appear to influence the
student's decision to leave the institution prior to
graduation.
Need for the Study
In an effort to seek some answers to the question
of dropouts, the Los Angeles Community College District
(LACCD) began a study of the problem that was particularly
troublesome to them. The district was interested in deter
mining why there was such a large loss of prospective
students between the time when the individuals filed appli
cations for admission to a college and the time of sub
sequent enrollment at the college. Historically, more than
one in five students who apply for enrollment are not
enrolled at the fourth week of school. In the fall of the
9
1971-7 2 school year, this number rose to an estimated one
in three applicants, or 15 0,000 applicants for 100,69 2
students as of the fourth week of school.
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the study was to discover why
prospective students who had applied for admission to one
of the eight colleges of the Los Angeles Community College
District did not subsequently enroll at these colleges. It
was the plan of this study to use the college application
form to obtain certain nonintellective information. This
information was used in conjunction with the economic or
social reason for his nonenrollment given by the individual
in a telephonic interview.
Questions to be Answered
The study attempted to answer the following
questions:
1. To what extent, if any, were finances asso
ciated with the subsequent action of the prospective
student?
2. To what extent, if any, were dual applications
for enrollment related to the subsequent action of the
prospective student?
3. To what extent, if any, were the college appli
cation or registration procedures correlated with the
10
subsequent action of the prospective student?
*4. To what extent, if any, were job problems con
comitant with the subsequent action of the prospective
student?
5. To what extent, if any, was illness or personal
emergency related to the subsequent action of the prospec
tive student?
6. To what extent, if any, was the lack of trans
portation correlated with the subsequent action of the
prospective student?
7. To what extent, if any, was the nonavailabil
ity of desired classes associated with the subsequent
action of the prospective student?
8. To what extent, if any, was sex concomitant
with the subsequent action of the prospective student?
9. To what extent, if any, was entering the
military service a factor in the prospective students' not
enrolling?
10. To what extent, if any, was ethnic background
related to the subsequent action of the prospective
student?
Delimitations
In the study, the following major delimitations
were in effect:
1. The study was delimited to those students who
11
made application to enroll in one of the eight colleges of
the Los Angeles Community College District in the Fall of
1971.
2. The sample was restricted to those students who
listed a local telephone number on their application or for
whom a telephone number could be obtained from the tele
phone company.
Limitations
The study has the following major limitations:
1. The accuracy of the reason given for non
enrollment was dependent upon any bias which the respondent
held at the time of response.
2. No effort was made to verify the reasons that
were given for nonenrollment.
3. The honesty of response for nonenrollment was
time-limited by having the respondent give the answer
during the course of a single telephone call.
Definition of Terms
For this study the following definitions were used:
Application - The completion of an application form
prescribed by the individual college.
Census Week - The fourth week of the semester, the
week when the official count of enrollment is made for
computing state support given to the school district in
12
California.
College - Any one of the eight colleges in the Los
Angeles Community College District:
Los Angeles City College
East Los Angeles College
"Los Angeles Harbor College
Los Angeles Pierce College
Los Angeles Southwest College
Los Angeles Trade-Technical College
Los Angeles Valley College
West Los Angeles College
Community Junior College - A two year institution
of higher education controlled at least in part by the
local community which it serves, and which is characterized
by an open door admissions policy and by a diversified
scope of curricular offerings which include both transfer
oriented and career oriented programs of study.
Continuing Student - A student who was enrolled at
the same college during the spring semester or summer
session of 1971.
Nonregistrant - An individual, either a prospective
student who had completed all the application procedures or
a continuing student who had indicated that he intended to
register for the Fall Semester of 1971, who did not
register or who dropped out of school prior to the fourth
week of the semester.
13
Open Door Admissions Policy - A policy of the
college to admit any applicant who has graduated from high
school, or who is 18 years of age or older and can profit
from the instruction.
Registrant - A student who had enrolled at one of
the colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District
for the Fall Semester of 19 71 and who had not withdrawn by
the fourth week of the semester (census week).
Organization of the Remaining Chapters
Chapter II is a review of the research dealing with
studies of intellective, nonintellective, and environmental
factors correlated with persistence of students in college.
Chapter III provides a description of the sample,
the assessment instruments, the research methodology, and
the treatment of the data.
Chapter IV presents the findings of the study
within the framework of the major variables investigated
and offers an interpretation of the findings.
Chapter V presents the summary and recommendations
resulting from the study.
CHAPTER II
A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
While this study is limited to ascertaining if
there is a causal relationship between the reasons for
students not enrolling in college and the nonintellective
biographical data on their applications, nonintellective,
intellective and socio-economic factors have been con
sidered in this review of literature.
A review of the research concerning minorities,
primarily blacks, is beyond the scope of this study. There
are a significant number of black students in the LACCD and
it is tempting to expand the review to include minority
studies. However, if minority studies are included should
not studies concerned with low socio-economic, and low
ability Caucasians also be embraced? Therefore, it was
decided to limit the review to studies concerning the non
intellective, intellective and socio-economic factors of
dropouts.
In order to study why students drop out of college,
one should first understand the factors contributing to
college attendance. The philosophies that have prevailed
in the history of higher education in America concerning
14
15
who should attend college were discussed, but it may be
that a quite different body of students actually attend.
Factors Contributing to College Attendance
The probability of a given individual going to
college depends upon the following factors: mental
ability, social expectation; individual motivation; finan
cial ability in relation to the cost of continued education
and propinquity to an educational institution (Havighurst,
1952). Beezer and Hjelm (1961) used these same factors in
their study of academically talented students, with the
exception of a more detailed breakdown in the influence of
social factors. Their study revealed these findings:
More men go to college than women.
The higher the rank in the graduating class, the
greater the percentage of students enrolling in college
The per cent of students enrolling in college
increases as mental ability increases.
Preparing for a vocation is the dominant motive for
enrolling in college.
Ability to pay the cost is a factor in college
attendance.
Being married or planning to marry reduces the
probability of a student’s enrolling in college.
As the education of parents increases so does the
likelihood of their offsprings attending college.
Parental attitude toward higher education in
fluences their children.
Peer group influences is a factor in students going
to college.
The proximity of a college increases the percentage
of students going to college.
16
College Enrollment Statistics
In actuality, the prevailing philosophy of higher
education, frequently augmented by government encouragement
and financial support, has been reflected in college
enrollment statistics. According to Deighton (1971), prior
to 1900 only 55 per cent of American youth attended school,
and completion of elementary school was the norm. By 19 0 0
the educational aims of the United States had shifted
upward, with 10 per cent of the youth completing high
school at this time. By 197 0 this percentage had risen to
80 per cent. After World War II the educational goals
again expanded to include some education beyond high school
for most people, and today 7 5 per cent of the American
people enter college.
In 19 69, according to the Projection of Educational
Statistics (1970), there were in the United States
7,917,000 students in higher education in both degree-
credit and nondegree-credit programs. This was a rise of
116 and 219 per cent respectively since 1959. A further
increase of 5 2 per cent in degree-credit enrollment and 91
per cent in nondegree-credit enrollment is expected by
1979 .
As a vital part of the above figures, the two year
colleges, in 1969, enrolled 1,397,000 persons for degree-
credit and 54-6 ,000 persons for nondegree-credit. These
17
figures represented a rise of 241 per cent and 257 per
cent, respectively, since 19 59. They are expected by 197 9
to rise an additional 7 5 per cent and 94 per cent, respec
tively.
Emphasis (1971-72) reported that in the Fall of
1971 the 9 3 California community colleges enrolled 9 0 0,000
students as a part of a 13.7 per cent increase in community
college enrollment in the United States. In California 85
per cent of all students entering college were entering the
community colleges.
Characteristics of the Collegiate
Population
College attendance is a selective rather than a
random phenomenon according to Feldman and Newcomb (197 0)
in their classic review of the past forty years of research
in higher education. Those high school students who aspire
to a college education as well as those who actually enroll
in college are not representative of all youths in the same
age group. Two of the most important determinants of
selection are the level of intelligence and the socio
economic background of the students.
The relationship between ability and socio
economic background factors in college attendance rates is
reported by Deighton (1971) in his Encyclopedia of Educa
tion. A student from the top fifth in socio-economic
18
status and measured ability is about nine times as likely
to enter college and about 50 times as likely to finish as
a youth from the bottom fifth in socio-economic status and
academic ability. The relationship of academic ability and
socio-economic status as factors in college attendance for
boys and girls is presented in Table 1.
Education of parents and family income are the next
most important determinants of college attendance. Only 22
per cent of youths whose parents had an elementary educa
tion went to college in 1966, while 8 2 per cent of those
whose fathers had a college education entered college.
Also, only 31 per cent of children from families with
average incomes of less than $6,000 per year went to
college while 87 per cent of the children from families
earning more than $15,000 per year went on to college.
Another important factor in college attendance is
race, and to a lesser extent religion. Deighton (19 71)
stated that blacks were less likely than whites to attend
college. One major reason for this was that fewer blacks
than whites finish high school. In 1968, 65 per cent of
blacks less than 21 years old had finished high school.
The relative percentages of blacks and whites between the
ages of 18 and 24 attending college during the same period
was 14.5 per cent and 27.5 per cent, respectively.
Lastly, the slightly unusual factor of religious
background has a bearing on likelihood of a student going
19
TABLE 1
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES ATTENDING COLLEGE THE FOLLOWING
YEAR, 1960, BASED ON APTITUDE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
STATUS (PERCENTAGE)
Socio-economic Status
Academic
Aptitude Low
Low
Middle Middle
High
Middle High Al]
Boys
Low 10 13 15 25 40 14
Low Middle 14 23 30 35 57 27
Middle 30 35 46 54 67 46
High Middle
High
44 51 59 69 83 63
69 73 81 86 91 85
All Boys 40 40 53 65 81 49
Girls
Low 9 9 10 16 41 11
Low Middle 9 10
16 V
24 54 18
Middle 12 18 25 * 40 63 30
High Middle
High
24 35 41 58 78 49
42 61 66 80 90 75
All Girls 15 24 32 51 75 35
on to college. Feldman and Newcomb (1970) reported that
most studies had shown that high school students of
Catholic background were less likely to aspire to and
attend college than were Protestant students, while Jewish
students were more likely than either group to do so.
Thus intelligence, socio-economic status, education
of parents, family income, race, and religious background
all are factors in determining the characteristics of the
collegiate population. Each of these factors is of varying
20
importance in forming a composite picture of a college
student. But how does the community junior college student
fit into the overall picture just described for the general
college student?
Characteristics of the Junior College Student
One thing stands out clearly in this review: Cross
(1968) stated:
We possess only traditional measures to describe a
student who does not fit the tradition. The inevitable
result is that we picture America's newest college
student as being less adequate than his peers at the
task of higher education - tasks which have been
developed over the years for a different type of
student. We must conclude that intellectual dimensions
sharply differentiate junior college students, as a
group, from senior college students. The junior col
lege student is less able - on our present tests; he is
less intellectually oriented - on our present measures;
and he is less motivated to seek higher education - in
our traditional colleges. If we pose the same tasks
for all institutions of higher education, then we run
the risk of having the junior college become a watered-
down version of the four year college. Such an
eventuality, of course, would subvert the purpose and
concept of the junior college, one of the most chal
lenging innovations in higher education of this
century, [p. 6]
In describing the characteristics of the junior college
student, the picture that emerges is not one of any indiv
idual college student but rather a mythical one whose sole
distinction is that he shares more characteristics with his
junior college peers than is likely for any real human
being.
21
Academic Ability
Studies to date of the academic ability of stu
dents, which has been one of the best researched areas in
higher education, have shown according to Cross (1968) that
the mean score for students of four year colleges exceeds
that of students of two year colleges, and the score of two
year college students exceeds that of high school graduates
who do not go to college.
Earlier, in a Cooperative Research Project for the
U. S. Office of Education, Medsker and Trent (19 65) found
that four year colleges drew approximately three-fourths of
their freshmen from the upper 40 per cent of the high
school graduating class, whereas about half the junior
college transfer students were in the upper 40 per cent of
their high school graduating class. These findings were
substantiated by unpublished data from the SCOPE study
(Table 2) illustrating the distribution of academic ability
based on the results from the Academic Ability Test (AAT),
by activity of the individuals in the fall following high
school graduation in 19 67.
In summary, studies of academic ability of junior
college students agree with the findings of Cooley and
Becker (19 66). They found, in a follow-up to their nation
wide Project TALENT study of 440,000 high school students
in grades 9 through 12, that the junior college student
group fell between the college and the noncollege groups
TABLE 2
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ACADEMIC ABILITY AND
ACTIVITY AFTER HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION,
19 67 CIN PERCENTAGES)
Total
AAT Score
Noncollege Junior College Four-Year College
Top Third 16 36 71
Middle Third 35 39 23
Lowest Third 49 25 __6
100 100 100
with a slight tendency to look more like the noncollege
group. They found in working with 14 variables of ability,
six measures of information and eight measures of aptitude
and achievement, that the differences between sexes in
ability was greater than the differences between the three
groupings of students; college, junior college, and non
college .
Socio-Economic Status
The influences of family occupational level on a
student attending college was reported by Medsker and
Tillery (19 71) and pertinent results of their report are
shown in Table 3. These results show that while family
occupation had a high influence on the probability of a
23
TABLE 3
FAMILY OCCUPATIONAL LEVEL OF 19 66 HIGH SCHOOL
GRADUATES WHO ENTERED COLLEGE
High Moderate Low
Per cent of Category in
College 73 62 46 35
Per cent Breakdown in Two
Year Colleges 21 27 33 19
student attending college, the two year college drew
students in approximately equal proportions from each
occupational category.
Two year college students, as a group, are from a
considerably lower socio-economic background than are
university students.
Many studies have shown that the existence of a
public two year college in a community materially increases
the number of high school graduates from lower socio
economic homes who continue their education while the first
effect on high school graduates from higher socio-economic
homes is negligible (Medsker and Tillery, 1971). In an
earlier study, Medsker and Trent (19 65) found that com
munities with junior colleges had the highest proportion of
students going to college, while those with state colleges
24
were next in order. Fifty-three per cent of the high
school seniors from communities with a junior college
entered college. This percentage dropped to 3 3 per cent in
communities with no junior college. Research on the avail
ability of a college in the community seems to indicate
that the accessibility of a college has a particular impact
upon students from lower socio-economic levels.
Finances
In citing characteristics of the collegiate popula
tion, finances were listed as a third factor in college
attendance. It was stated in Summerskill1s (195 8) report
that finances were listed as one of the top three reasons
for a student's dropping out of college in 16 out of 21
studies. However, results reported in surveys of the
junior college student showed finances played a more sub
ordinate role in determining college attendance. Even
though they are from a lower socio-economic group, Cross
(19 68) reported that only one per cent of the junior
college students and five per cent of the noncollege youths
stated that their parents would like for them to go to
college but felt that they could not afford it. Other data
are similar with only ten per cent of freshmen in junior
and senior colleges confessing to having a major concern
about financing a college education.
While most students are not too concerned about
25
finances keeping them from college, on the SCOPE question
naire (Tillery, et al. , 1966) almost half (46 per cent) of
the junior college students stated that low cost was a
major consideration in their choice of a college. The per
centages of noncollege youth and senior college student
responses to the same question were 44 per cent and 3 5 per
cent, respectively. In a similar report, in 19 67, the
California Coordinating Council for Higher Education study
concluded that of students in the three segments of public
higher education, those attending junior colleges demon
strated the greatest need.
Sex
Historically, studies have shown that more boys
than girls attend college, reported Beezer and Hjelm
(1961). Their three state study of high school graduates
showed that boys and girls intended to go to college on a
ratio of 13 to 10. Feldman and Newcomb (1970) substan
tiated these earlier studies and added the information
that, not only did more boys than girls go to college, but
this fact was true for each level of ability and socio
economic background. The differential between boys and
girls tends to be similar at the higher socio-economic
levels. In summary, yearly statistics between 19 60 and
1968 given by Medsker and Tillery (1971) showed that
although the two year colleges had experienced explosive
26
growth during this period, the ratio of male to female
students had remained at nearly three to two over the past
decade.
Marital Status
The probability that a youth will go on to an
institution of higher learning is reduced by the student's
being married or planning to be married, according to
Beezer and Hjelm (1961). Having one's education curtailed
by marriage or engagement is associated more with females
than males, and more with low ability than with high
ability students. In their 19 57 study of high school
graduates in Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Indiana, Beezer and
Hjelm found the percentages of girls and boys who married
and subsequently did not go on to college to be 6 8 and 37,
respectively.
While marriage is a detriment to a student's
entering college, the two year colleges in America commonly
accept married students on campus today. No national
studies are available on the number of junior college
students who are married, but Medsker (1960) reported that
2 3 per cent of the students were married based on a six
college survey. Blocker, Plummer and Richardson (1965)
estimated that 2 5 per cent of the community college
students were married.
27
Race
Race was listed next to last as an important factor
in the probability of a student going on to college, but
recent events are increasing its importance. The federal
government is demanding affirmative action on increasing
the percentage of minorities in the student bodies of our
colleges and universities. The faculty and administration
of institutions of higher education have an increased
awareness of the need for more students of minority races
on college campuses. The census of 19 70 presented the
government with an excellent opportunity to get better
figures on minorities in America and American higher educa
tion. According to Crossland (1971) the total population
figures for 197 0 were approximately as listed in Table 4.
These figures on the minorities are estimates but they are
believed to be realistic. Since 1900 the percentage of
Black Americans has remained fairly constant at about 11
per cent of the population. The Mexican-American popula
tion is difficult to define, locate, and study, but it is
estimated that 85 per cent of this group lives in five
Southwestern states, with major concentrations in Texas and
California. The Puerto Rican figures are for only the
continental United States, more than half of whom probably
live in the New York metropolitan area. (Virtually all of
this migration has taken place since World War II.)
Obtaining accurate figures for American Indians has special
28
TABLE 4
U. S. POPULATION 19 70 CENSUS
Ethnic Origin Number Per Cent
Black Americans 23,550,000 11.5
Mexican Americans 5,000,000 2.4
Puerto Ricans 1,500,000 0.7
American Indians 700 ,000 0 .4
ub Total 30,750,000 15.0
All Others 174,250 ,000 85 .0
Total 205,000,000 100.0
problems because nonreservation Indians are not easily
identified and counted.
Comparable enrollment figures by ethnic background
for American higher education in the Fall of 19 70 were also
furnished by Crossland (.1971). Although the figures in
Table 5 do not reveal the fact, the enrollment of all four
minorities tend to be disproportionately concentrated in
the early undergraduate years, both because minority fresh
men enrollments have been increasing recently and because
academic survival rates continue to be lower for minority
students than for others.
Medsker and Tillery (.1971) stated that there was
widespread agreement that if minority youth were to have
equal educational opportunities, the public community
29
FALL 197 0
TABLE 5
HIGHER EDUCATION
BY ETHNIC ORIGIN
ENROLLMENT
Ethnic Origin Number Percentage
Black Americans 470,000 5.8
Mexican Americans 50 ,000 0.6
Puerto Ricans 20 ,000 0.3
American Indians
o
o
o
0.1
Sub Total 544,000 6.8
All Others 7 ,506 ,000 93.2
Total 8,050 ,000 100.0
colleges must serve as bridges between high school and
career employment for some and between high school and
advanced higher education for others.
Crossland (1971) presented enrollment estimates
(Table 6) which show the minority enrollment load which the
community colleges are carrying. White institutions of
higher education, in 1970, were enrolling two out of three
black college students, while as recently as 19 64 the
traditionally black institutions enrolled 50 per cent of
the black students. Of the 66 per cent of black students
that are enrolled in "white" institutions, approximately
one-half are enrolling in the community colleges. In con
sidering freshman enrollment only, in 1970, slightly over
30
TABLE 6
DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK STUDENTS IN HIGHER
EDUCATION IN 197 0 (ESTIMATED)
Colleges
Black
Students
Distribution
Traditionally Black Institutions
51 private, senior 53,050 11.3
11 private, two year 2,950 0.6
34 public, senior 102,025 21.7
4 public, two year 1,975 0.4
100 160,000 34.0
All Other Institutions
1150 private, senior 35,000 7.5
25 0 private, two year 2,0 00 0.4
400 public, senior 122,000 26.0
700 public, two year 151,000 32.1
2500 310 ,000 66.0
2600 470,000 100.0
50 per cent of all black freshmen were enrolled in the
public two year colleges.
The increase in institutional accessibility repre
sented by the opening of new urban community colleges is
probably the single most important reason for the increase
in minority enrollment in higher education during the 196O's.
If the under-representation of American minorities in higher
education .is to be reduced significantly within the next
decade, it seems clear that most of the expansion of
freshmen minority enrollment will continue to take place in
31
the public, low cost colleges in areas other than the
South and not in traditionally black institutions.
Prediction Research
The review of literature to this point has included
factors contributing to college attendance, college enroll
ment statistics, characteristics of the collegiate popula
tion and of the junior college student. Throughout each of
these sections, the common concept given was that college
did not include all adults or even all high school grad
uates. Because of the exclusion from college of a portion
of maturing adults, and the importance of being able to
know the likelihood of success of those students who do
attend, prediction studies have been conducted to determine
those students most likely to succeed in college.
The prediction studies are of two general types;
those which deal with intellective characteristics
Captitude-achievement scores or course marks) and those
which involve nonintellective characteristics (personality,
motivational and attitudinal measures) of individuals
(Tishman, 1960). Until this time more than 90 per cent of
prediction studies have dealt with intellective predictors.
Recently, studies involving nonintellective factors as pre
dictors have become increasingly popular. It seems likely
that the coming decade will bring closer the realization of
the true potential of nonintellective predictors.
32
In Lavin’s (196 5) theoretical analysis and review
of research concerning prediction of academic performance,
these factors emerge as basic correlates of academic per
formance. Ability, sex, and socio-economic status are
called "basic." correlates not because they are theoreti
cally more significant than other variables, but because
they are related to performance more consistently. Thus,
ability is directly related to school performance; females
have higher levels of academic achievement than males; and
students of higher socio-economic status perform at higher
levels than students of lower socio-economic status.
College achievement has been predicted upon high
school achievement for over 5 0 years according to Fricke
(1956), and the correlation coefficients have consistently
averaged about .55. For over 3 5 years college achievement
has been predicted from standardized tests of academic
ability, and the coefficients have consistently averaged
about .45. When college achievement is predicted from a
combination of high school achievement and ability test
scores, the multiple correlation coefficients have consis
tently averaged .64. Scholastic aptitude tests and rank in
class are the most highly regarded selection criteria.
With one limitation, Waller (19 64) confirmed the
use of ability as a predictor of success in college and
stated that high school rank is commonly used. She re
ported that researchers from 19 3 9 on had found correlations
33
between high school rank and freshman grades to range
between .47 and .70, with the validity of research limited
when applied to students from small high schools. Com
bining test scores and high school achievement have given
correlations of .64 over the past 3 5 years.
Recent studies by Weiss (1970) and Stefanich (1971)
have confirmed earlier studies on the reliability and sta
bility of high school rank as a predictor. Weiss and
Stefanich stated that using high school rank as a predictor
appears to be relatively independent of the ranking system
employed, year or years included in the rank, or the par
ticular courses or academic units comprising the rank. The
most important factor emerging from the literature with
regard to the value of other predictive variables is their
effect in increasing the predictability of college success
when combined with high school rank.
One of the early major prediction studies performed
involving primarily the use of social factors to predict
college dropouts, was accomplished by Slocum (19 56) at the
State College of Washington. He used two samples from
freshmen students who entered college for the first time in
the fall of 1951, 1952, and 1953. One sample consisted of
students still enrolled as of April 25, 1955, and the other
sample was made up of dropouts from the original freshman
class.
Using information gained from the student at the
34
time of application for admission to college, the student's
scholastic records at the college, and the student's per
formance on the American Council of Education Psychological
Examination (ACE), Slocum confirmed earlier studies on
ability and made new advances in knowledge in the non
intellective field. In the intellective area, he found
that scores on the ACE test or high school grades were good
predictors of college scholastic performance. The average
percentile from the ACE test for the persisters was 7 3
compared with 5 8 for the dropouts.
Concerning nonintellective factors, Slocum reported
findings in various socio-economic areas. Contrary to some
studies he found that there was no significant difference
between persisters and dropouts in their intention at time
of enrollment to complete four years of college. Uncer
tainty about the selection of a major field of study or
uncertainty about a chosen occupational field was found to
be of considerable significance for many dropouts, parti
cularly males and those in academic difficulty. Slocum
found that financial sources of support had little if any
bearing upon the academic mortality of women. However,
more of the male dropouts than the male persisters were
dependent upon their parents for primary support. More
male dropouts than persisters depended upon personal
savings, whereas more of the enrolled male students than
male dropouts depended upon part-time summer work as a
35
primary source of funds in college. Finally, the type and
size of the high school attended was of no significance for
survival at the State College of Washington.
Slocum also found that family background had a con
siderable bearing upon the chances of academic survival.
The higher the education of the parents, the greater the
probability of survival. The occupation of the parents
produced mixed results, with students whose fathers were in
service or manual labor occupations having the highest
attrition rates while children of farmers and foreman had a
very high survival rate.
Slocum found that sex was not a significant factor
in students who dropped out. There was practically no dif
ference in per cent of dropouts between males and females
the freshman year, but a larger percentage of females than
males dropped out each succeeding year. Overall, 60 per
cent of the enrollees and 5 0 per cent of the dropouts were
men.
Although no significant differences were found
between the number of males and females who dropped out,
Slocum did find significant differences between the sexes
in their reasons for leaving college. Inadequate finances,
which was listed in 3 9 per cent of the instances as either
important or very important, was of more concern to males
than females. Also of more importance to males than to
females was the uncertainty about the selection of a major
36
field of study or choice of occupation. Low grades,
acknowledged by only 34 per cent to be important or very
important, but reported by the college registrar to be a
factor in 51 per cent of the dropouts, was more important
to males than females. Marriage, the single factor most
frequently reported by women for dropping out of school,
was important or very important as a factor in 44 per cent
of the cases, 89 per cent of which stated that other
factors were also involved. Seventy-five per cent of the
males who listed military service as very important in
their dropping out also listed other reasons. For women
living in dormitories, homesickness was a factor in their
dropping out, not so much for the women in sororities as
for the independents.
Finger and Schlesser (1965) differed from Slocum,
believing that the student’s personal values were the key
to his persistence. The personal values which the student
holds, according to Finger and Schlesser, are the most
significant factors in a student’s underachieving and sub
sequently withdrawing. Their study showed that in most
cases underachievers were unconcerned about their under
achievement and this attitude was symptomatic of the pos
session of values that make it"unnecessary to strive for
school success. In a 50 college sample, Finger and
Schlesser reported the average correlation coefficient
between first semester grades and the Personal Values
37
Inventory was .40, the same correlation coefficient as that
between grades and the Scholastic Aptitude Test - Verbal.
It was their conclusion that these data suggested that
there was a factor domain of academic motivation which was
largely unrelated to the domain of intelligence.
A study based on institutional characteristics
affecting attrition was performed by Nelson (1966). Using
five per cent as a dividing line between high and low
attrition rates, he found that the higher the proportion of
men in relation to women in college, the greater the
probability of a low attrition rate if it were affluent,
highly selective in its admissions process, and relatively
small in a small community.
A somewhat different type of study was made by
Demos (196 8) involving all 2 50 dropouts from Long Beach
State College during one semester to determine if there was
a difference between the student's stated reason for
dropping out and the counselor's opinion, based on a
personal interview as to why the student was dropping out.
He found that while the student's most popular reason for
withdrawing was the need to get a job, the counselors felt
this reason was either second or third. They were con
vinced that the primary reason was more likely to be
motivational or poor academic performance and that the most
prevalent reasons for withdrawing were uncertainty as to
major, the difficulty of college level work, and psycholog
38
ical problems.
Deegan (19 69) made a study comparing delayed
college entrants with those entering immediately after com
pletion of high school. Several of his findings are of
import to this study. He reported that delayed entrants
came from family backgrounds different from regular
entrants and had less persistence in remaining in college.
Deegan's findings showed that the delayed entrants were
still trying to decide about going to college two and three
years after finishing high school. Also financial problems
more significant with the delayed entrants, in some cases
were the reason for the delay in entering school, and were
the chief reason for withdrawal in the delayed entrants.
Astin (.19 71) has made several extensive studies
concerning the prediction of academic success of students
in colleges and universities. In his latest report util
izing a large number of students attending a national
sample of 18 0 two year college, four year colleges, and
universities, he reported the following findings pertinent
to prediction of success of college students:
1. Women get higher grades than men in both high
school and college but are more likely to drop out of
college after their freshman year than men, in spite of
their superior academic performance.
2. A student's college grade point average can be
predicted with moderate accuracy from his average grade in
39
high school and his scores on one of the major college
admission tests. High school grades carry considerably
more weight in predicting college grades than aptitude test
scores do.
3. After the freshman year, dropout prediction on
the basis of high school grades and ability test scores has
a low degree of accuracy.
4. Generally speaking, students will do slightly
better in college than high school grades and test scores
predicted, if they demonstrated good study habits in high
school and if they regard themselves as being highly able
academically and highly motivated for achievement.
Students, whose chances of dropping out are somewhat
greater than would be predicted on the basis of high school
grades and test scores, tend to be older, less interested
in finishing college at the time of matriculation, and more
interested in an early marriage.
5. Although black students and students from less
educated and less well to do parents tend to get lower
grades in college and to drop out more frequently than do
average students, race and family background show no rela
tionship to college grades and dropping out if these
students are compared only with other students with similar
high school grades and aptitude test scores. The only
exceptions to this trend are nonwhite women and women with
relatively less educated parents; the dropout rates for
40
both of these groups are slightly higher than would be
expected from their high school grades and aptitude test
scores.
A study by Zaccaria and Creaser (1971) of a sample
of 409 students of an urban commuter university, the
University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, evaluated stu
dents from an environment more typical of the environment
of the average community college student than most of these
studies which we have reviewed. Their purpose was to in
vestigate differences in ability, personality characteris
tics , and social status between students who graduated
within five years of their initial enrollment in the fall
of 1963 and those who discontinued their studies.
Based on college academic achievement, they divided
the sample of 409 students, out of a population of 1,585
students, into four groups for evaluation: (1) those who
graduated, (2) those who had a grade point average of C or
better at withdrawal (called achieving withdrawals), (.3)
those whose grade point average was below C at withdrawal
(called non-achieving withdrawals), and (4) those who were
dismissed for failure to meet academic standards.
Their findings were that all students who withdrew
in good standing, having a grade point average of C or
better, resembled the graduates in ability and high school
achievement, while those who withdrew following academic
difficulty appeared to be similar to failures on both
41
variables. The findings concerning social status differen
tiated the male withdrawals with scholastic problems from
the other three groups, providing support for the inference
that males from lower socio-economic groups were more
likely to drop out of college when confronted with the
prospect of academic failure and dismissal than were higher
status males with comparability. The findings relative to
personality characteristics were inconclusive as compared
to graduates; both male and female withdrawals in good
academic standing appeared to conform less to rules, regu
lations , and expectations of others. Finally, a major
factor contributing to attrition appeared to be an unsatis
factory academic record, since 7 5 per cent of the students
who discontinued university attendance had a cumulative
grade point average below a C.
Attrition Research
While the studies made of predictive factors in
dropout research are important in a study of dropouts from
institutions of higher education, attrition research is of
equal importance if a complete case is to be presented.
Attrition research gathers the exact statistics which call
attention to problems which need the services of those who
engaged in predictive research. Administrators in institu
tions of higher education can then utilize the results of
the predictive research to approach the problem that
42
exists.
One of the major problems in attrition research is
the lack of a common definition of a dropout. Each
researcher generally starts his study by defining what
constitutes a dropout in his particular research. Some of
the limitations of defining a dropout were discussed in
Chapter 1, but Astin (1971) also stated a good reason for
defining a dropout as a student who does not return for his
second year of college. Using this definition enables the
researcher to study two and four year institutions simul
taneously. In addition, most of the early research and
probably a majority of the current research in the area of
dropouts is being accomplished using four year institu
tions. It is therefore important to review the research
on dropouts in four year colleges and universities as well
as those in two year colleges.
Research on Four Year Colleges
Most current research on attrition uses as a base
the four year descriptive study by Iffert (19 58) under the
auspices of the U. S. Office of Education. He began with
a sample of 12,667 students who entered 149 institutions of
higher education in 1950, selected on the basis of geo
graphical region, size of institution, and sex of students.
Iffert reported a dropout rate of 6 0.4 per cent over the
four year period as a national average. This rate varies
with type of institution, with public institutions showing
M-3
an average of 67 per cent while private institutions show
only 5 2 per cent.
Beginning in a similar time period as Iffert, Jex
and Merrill (1962) made a ten-year longitudinal study of
the fall of 194-8 freshman class at the University of Utah
in which they were able to follow-up on many of the so-
called dropouts. The results showed that many dropouts
were merely interrupted in their progress toward a degree
but later achieved completion of a degree program. It was
their conclusion that at least 60 per cent of the dropouts
would eventually graduate. The most crucial dropout period
was the freshman year according to Jex and Merrill with the
chances of survival increasing to 6 5 per cent or better by
the junior year.
Summerskill (1962), in his review of research on
college attrition, stated the central problem which the
studies revealed. Why did approximately half the students
attending American colleges and universities in the past 40
years leave before advancing their education to the point
of undergraduate degree completion? His answer was that
extensive literature addressed to this question had yielded
neither adequate nor conclusive answers. Summerskill con
cluded that some 40 per cent of college students graduate
on schedule, and in addition approximately 20 per cent
graduate at some college some day. These have been the
facts for several decades in American higher education.
41+
In a follow-up study on Iffert’s earlier work,
Marsh (1966) concluded that dropouts should be classified
in accordance with their reasons for leaving college.
Marsh determined that all dropouts could be arranged into
three major divisions; vocational disorganization, uncon
trollable reasons, and discouragement. Those students in
the first group came to college primarily as a result of
external pressures such as parents, classmates, or status-
seeking. Those students in the second group left because
of financial troubles, family problems, and illness. The
discouraged students were those who did not seem to adjust
to competition with the standard of excellence expected of
them in college.
Marsh further concluded that the probability of
dropping out increased with the objectives for going to
college in the following order: (1) vocational objective,
(2) intellectual pursuit, (3) a decision for college but
indifference to a chosen curriculum, and (4) college
decision made by someone other than the student. In
summary, he stated that the dropout might be characterized
as more rigid and fearful of change, less willing to accept
the responsibility of adult independence, lacking inter
nalized goals and values, and somewhat of a social misfit.
In an approach to college attrition which was
different from all earlier studies, Trent and Medsker
(1967) followed the personal and vocational development of
45
10,000 high school graduates during the first four years
after graduation. These graduates were a sample from
sixteen communities throughout California, the Midwest, and
Pennsylvania. Four years later nearly half of the students
who had entered college full-time in September 19 59 had
withdrawn, and 2 3 per cent of the students who had remained
in college had not obtained their baccalaureate degree.
The remaining 2 8 per cent received their degree within the
conventional four years.
Using Iffert’s 19 50 nationwide study as a basis,
Max (1969) conducted a similar study between 1960 and 1967
at City University of New York (CUNY) for the National
Institute of Mental Health. She found that 4 8 per cent of
freshmen entering in 19 6 0 graduated within four years and
that 71 per cent graduated within seven years. Max con
structed a table depicting her results at CUNY and for
several other representative institutions (Table 7).
In a project for the National Institute of Mental
Health involving a group of small, coeducational liberal
arts colleges, Chickering (19 69) obtained much the same
results as Marsh. He reported the following reasons for
student withdrawal: Cl) emotional difficulties, (2)
absence of clear objectives, (3) goals different from the
college, (4) marriage, and (5) difficulty of the work.
46
TABLE 7
FRESHMEN RECEIVING DEGREES WITHIN SEVEN YEARS
OF ENTRY INTO COLLEGE (PER CENT)
Either College of
College of Original Entry or
College Original Entry Another College
University of Illinois 47 (males, w/i 69
10 years)
University of
Wisconsin 50 66
University of
California (Berkeley) 54 71
City University of
New York 71 82
Research on Two Year Colleges
Unlike research studies on four year college
students which have been conducted for some 60 years,
research studies specializing on junior college students
are all of recent origin. Because of the dearth of infor
mation on the junior college student, the Carnegie Corpora
tion commissioned the Center for Research and Development
in Higher Education to conduct an extensive series of
investigations of the junior college. The report of these
investigations by Clark (19 60) and Medsker (19 60) is the
foundation for most subsequent junior college studies.
In response to questions concerning their primary
47
reason for attending a two year college, approximately two-
thirds of the 3,000 students in four year colleges reported
either: (1) persuasion by parents, counselors, or friends;
(2) location of the college; or (3) lower cost (Medsker,
1960) .
In the same book, Medsker (19 60) reported that
dropout studies completed by 20 two year colleges between
1949 and 1957 enabled him to catagorize the reasons given
for dropping out into ten categories. Table 8 indicates
that full-time employment headed the list of reasons and
was followed by others characteristic of students of college:
age.
In a four-year study of attrition at San Jose
Junior College, Clark (196 0) concluded that one-third of
the freshmen left the college by the beginning of the
second semester, and that over 50 per cent of the remaining
freshmen left the college between spring enrollment and
registration the following fall. Thus, of the students on
campus at mid-year, about one out of two had disappeared
the following fall. This indicates that a large number of
students stay at the college only a short time and the
turnover is rapid.
On a much larger scale, involving 17,00 0 students
from a sample of 63 junior colleges, Medsker (1960) found
that only 3 5 per cent of entering freshmen graduated from
the community college. All freshmen entering college in
48
TABLE 8
REASONS GIVEN BY JUNIOR COLLEGE STUDENTS FROM 20
COLLEGES FOR WITHDRAWING FROM COLLEGE
BETWEEN 1949 and 19 57
Number of
Reason Students Percentage
Full-time Employment 2734 28
Personal S Health 1554 16
Moved or Transferred 1084 11
Nonattendance 1013 10
Academic or Faculty Action 860 9
To Enter Armed Forces 832 8
Not Interested in School 736 8
Financial 549 6
Marriage 264 3
Educational Goals Complete 55 __1
9898 100
the fall of 19 52 were utilized for his study and each
student was followed for the subsequent four years. He
reported that the percentage of graduates varied from 3 2
in the public institutions to 58 in the private institu
tions. Overall, two out of three entering students with
drew from college during the two-year period.
Using data from the American Association of Junior
Colleges on annual junior college enrollments between 19 5 8
and 1967, Medsker and Tillery (1971) stated that for public
two year colleges as a group second year enrollment tended
to be less than half of first year enrollment, thus sug-
49
gesting more than a 50 per cent attrition rate. In a
sample of 22,000 new students who entered college in 19 61,
they reported that more than 54 per cent withdrew with less
than 6 0 units and that about two-thirds completed no more
than one year. However, one-fourth of the group that left
transferred to another institution.
Summary
From elementary school to graduate school, the way
to education has become easier, and as educators move
toward maximizing the opportunity for higher education,
attention focuses upon the will of a democratic citizenry
to obtain education. Today nearly 40 per cent of students
clearly possessing college ability do not enter college and
over 50 per cent of those who do enter later withdraw.
This wasting of human resources is a proper concern for
people responsible for higher education.
What factors determine whether a person is likely
to enter college and if he will persist in the endeavor?
Most students from upper socio-economic families enter
college regardless of ability, whereas most students from
lower socio-economic levels do not go to college. If
students from lower socio-economic families do enter
college, they do not persist as well as others. Motivation
seems to make the difference, and parents provide this will
to succeed (Cross, 1967).
50
Studies show that the community junior college is
the greatest force in attracting a larger percentage of
high school graduates into higher education. According to
Fallows (19 69) three out of four students who say that they
are going to college are planning on entering the community
college, and most students in the community college are
first generation college students drawn from social levels
largely untapped for higher education a decade ago. In
addition, Finch (197 2) reported that in some states com
munity colleges are reporting that there are more students
transferring from four year colleges to two year colleges
than the reverse, which was the former pattern.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES
This chapter describes the procedures employed in
the study. Included is a description of the method of
sample selection, the development of the questionnaire, the
data collection process, and the statistical analysis
employed.
Setting of the Study
The study was conducted at seven of the eight
colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District, all
of which are located in Los Angeles County. Unfortunately,
the study could not be conducted at Los Angeles Trade-
Technical College because that college had no requirement
for all prospective students to complete an application for
enrollment. Therefore, it was impossible to obtain a
listing of all students who had applied for admission.
The Los Angeles Community College District sepa
rated from the Los Angeles Unified District on July 1,
1969, in accordance with legislation enacted by the 1967
California Legislature. The District now encompasses an
area of 882 square miles and has a population of 3,867,887
51
52
people. The student enrollment in the eight colleges at
census week 1971 was 100,692 students as shown in Table 9
(FACTS, 1971).
The Los Angeles Community College District offers
the residents of the District educational curricula which
are designed to provide for occupational skills, transfer
programs and general educational programs, as well as a
guidance program and community services activities. Each
college provides certain programs as an integral part of
the District and works closely with the community to pro
vide other courses and programs desired by the individual
area which the college services.
TABLE 9
COLLEGES OF LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE
DISTRICT (FALL 1971)
Date Size Enrollment
College Established (Acres) Day & Evening
Los Angeles City Sept. 9, 1929 40 + 17 ,802
East Los Angeles June 7, 1945 75 + 14 ,042
Los Angeles Pierce September 1947 427 + 16,317
Los Angeles Harbor September 19 49 85 + 9 ,130
Los Angeles Trade- September 1949 26 + 15,645
Technical
Los Angeles Valley September 19 49 104 + 19 ,066
Los Angeles September 1967 71 3 ,858
Southwest
West Los Angeles February 196 9 72 + 4,832
100 ,692
53
A resident of the District may enroll without
restriction at any of the eight colleges which he wishes to
attend. The District will accept all high school graduates
anyone over 18 years of age who can profit from the
instruction, and students from other college level institu
tions who have maintained at least a C average at those
schools and who have not been dismissed for disciplinary
reasons.
Endorsement of the Study
The District Chancellor requested and endorsed this
study after several discussions which included the
President of the District Board of Trustees. A letter of
endorsement (See Appendix A) was sent to the president of
each of the colleges.
Selection of the Sample
Two random samples were selected from the popula
tion of applicants to the seven colleges (Los Angeles
Trade-Technical College having been delimited from the
study, as indicated previously) for the Fall Semester of
1971. One sample was designated to function as a control
group, while the second was the experimental group. The
Deans of Admissions of each college were contacted during
the previous summer and arrangements were made for col
lecting the data.
54
Each dean was requested to furnish two computer
printout lists. One list was to contain the names of all
persons who did not enroll but who had filed an application
to enter the college or who were enrolled the previous
spring or summer and who indicated an intention to return
in the fall, 1971. The second list consisted of the names
of students who were enrolled in the college as of the
fourth week of school (census week). These lists were
obtained from each of the seven colleges in November, 1971.
The lists were accepted in any form which the
colleges could provide. Some were alphabetical and others
were by school number. The names on each list then were
numbered sequentially in the order in which they were
provided.
Sets of random numbers were obtained from the 37 0
Series Computer leased by the Los Angeles Community College
District. The computer produced sets of 100 random numbers
between zero and numbers approximately equal to the total
number of names on each list of applicants or students.
The names opposite the random numbers then were listed,
resulting in two lists of 100 names from each of the seven
colleges.
According to Krejcie and Morgan (197 0) a sample
size of 40 0 names is adequate for a population of over a
million. Prior to the decision to delimit Los Angeles
Trade-Technical College from the study, a sample of 50
55
names from each list of 100 from each of the eight colleges
was selected. This methodology would have resulted in 400
names in each sample. The remaining 50 names on each list
were retained and used sequentially as necessary when one
of the earlier names for some reason was not usable. Some
of the reasons that names were not usable were:
1. The student had graduated.
2. The student had not completed on the applica
tion the required information for the questionnaire.
3. The college had listed as a nonenrollee a
student who was actually enrolled in college.
4. No application blank could be found.
When it was determined that data from Los Angeles Trade-
Technical College would not be included in the study, the
sample was left with 350 names, slightly less than a
perfect sample size. However, it was decided to proceed as
originally planned and not to add additional names.
Development of Survey Instrument Form
In developing the survey instrument form, detailed
information was sought from the Chancellor as to what the
District hoped to obtain from the study. In discussions
with the Deans of Admissions, information was sought
regarding previous similar studies made in their respective
colleges. Questionnaires from two small similar studies
previously made at Los Angeles City College were obtained
56
and studied in developing the survey instrument.
Basically, the college application forms already in
use by the seven colleges contained most of the needed
information. Since each college had its own application
form, a copy of the application forms used at each college
was obtained during the initial visits to the colleges.
Detailed examination of the application forms
revealed that some of the necessary data was not provided
on all of the forms. It was then determined that, at those
particular schools, the missing information would have to
be obtained from other school records or would have to be
elicited during the telephone portion of the interviews.
When the preliminary survey instrument form had
been constructed, it was previewed by the Chancellor, some
of the college presidents, and others having expertise in
formulating such documents. After certain changes were
made in the form and the instrument approved, a large
number of the forms (Appendix B) was printed, with the
control group forms being printed in a different color from
the experimental group.
Data Collection Procedures
When the names of the individuals who were to be
included in the samples of the control group and the
experimental group had been transferred to a copy of the
survey instrument, each of the colleges was again visited.
57
This time it was necessary to locate the application form
of the desired individual and to extract the pertinent
information.
When all of the information needed from the appli
cation forms had been obtained from each of the colleges,
the institutions were visited again for the purpose of
making telephone inquiries as to why the applicant had not
enrolled as planned. In previous discussions with
advisors, considerable concern was expressed about obtain
ing unbiased responses to telephone inquiries as to why the
applicant had not enrolled. All, however, were in agree
ment that a greater percentage of responses could be
obtained from the telephone than from a mailed question
naire. In order to minimize the possibility of bias in the
response, an introduction which would put the respondent at
ease was agreed upon as vital. To accomplish this task, a
carefully worded introduction was prepared (Appendix C).
The success of the telephone inquiry was phenome
nal; no one refused to answer the questions. Most respon
dents were highly pleased that the college was interested
in them and they responded enthusiastically.
The biggest obstacle to the telephone questionnaire
was in instances where the applicant had moved since filing
his application. Wrong or disconnected telephone numbers
constituted approximately 2 0 per cent of the calls. When
this was the case, the person answering the telephone was
58
told the purpose of the call and was asked if he knew where
the applicant could be reached. If the answering person
could not be of any help, the local operator was contacted
for a new telephone number. If the applicant was a con
tinuing student, a current telephone number was sought from
the Emergency Data Card on file at the college from the
previous semester. These procedures resulted in lowering
the number of unreached numbers to about 15 per cent.
Where it was impossible to locate the applicant, the next
name on the random list was selected to become a part of
the survey.
Most telephone calls were made between 4:00 p.m.
and 7:00 p.m.; and when the applicant was home, the dura
tion of the telephone interview typically was from two to
four minutes. However, another problem of considerable
magnitude in the telephone inquiry was finding the respon
dent at home. When someone other than the applicant
answered the telephone, he was asked if the applicant was
there and, if he was not, when he would be at that number.
The answer was annotated on the survey instrument and a
second call was made at the time the applicant was expected
to return. An average of three telephone calls was
required in order to reach an applicant. This fact made
the telephone portion of the survey consume a considerable
amount of time.
59
Analysis of the Data
When the telephone portion of the survey was
finished, all 70 0 of the survey instruments (350 from each
of the control and experimental groups) were rechecked to
determine if they were complete. Afterwards, the informa
tion was coded and keypunched on computer cards for pro
cessing. The compilation of the data was done by elec
tronic data processing equipment. The information gained
from the analysis of the data is reported in the following
chapters of this study.
Summary
This study was conducted at seven of the eight
colleges of the Los Angeles Community College District.
One college did not participate because application forms
were not used in all cases for students entering the
institution.
The procedure used consisted of obtaining demo
graphic data from the application form for two groups, a
control group of enrollees, and an experimental group of
nonenrollees, and then seeking to determine differences
between the groups. With the nonenrollee group, telephone
interviews were conducted to ascertain why, after applying,
they had not enrolled at the college.
The telephone was found to be an excellent device
60
for insuring a good percentage of responses. Although this
approach was well received by the respondents, it had some
disadvantages. An average of three calls was necessary to
reach the respondent. Also, about 15 per cent of the
respondents were not reached due either because they had
moved or their telephone numbers had changed.
The information gained from the data, compiled by
electronic data processing equipment, is reported in
Chapter IV.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
The intent of this study was to determine why
prospective students who had applied for admission to one
of the colleges of the Los Angeles Community College
District subsequently did not enroll. While the preceding
chapter outlined the research procedures used in obtaining
the data for this study, it is the purpose of this chapter
to compare the findings of the college records and the
telephone interviews of the experimental group of non
enrollees with the characteristics of an equal sized con
trol group of enrolled students.
The chapter is organized according to the order in
which the information was requested on the survey form
shown in Appendix B. The findings pertinent to each ques
tion are placed in tables to make a more graphic presenta
tion, while the findings pertinent to each of the questions
posed in Chapter I are presented in the order in which the
questions were asked.
61
62
Survey Form Results
Sex
A question was posed to determine if the difference
in percentages of males and females between the enrollees
and nonenrollees was a factor in the prospective students
not enrolling. The enrollee group had 55.1 per cent males
and 44.9 per cent females while there were 53.7 per cent
males and 46.3 per cent females in the nonenrollee group.
Sexual balance, therefore, was not significantly different
between the enrollee and the nonenrollee groups.
TABLE 10
SEXUAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENROLLEE AND
NONENROLLEE, FALL 1971-72
Group
Male
Number Per Cent
Female
Number Per Cent
Total
Number Per Cent
Enrollee 193 55.1 157 44.9 350 100
Nonen 188 53.7 162
CO
to
350 100
rollee
Total 381 54.4 319 45.6 700 100
Age
The results of this study indicate that on the basis
of age the LACCD had a very heterogeneous student body. The
63
average chronological age of the students was approximately
22 years. Slightly less than half of the students were
less than 21 years old. Over 75 per cent of the students
were less than 31 years of age. It was also significant
that approximately 10 per cent of the students were over *+0
years old as shown in Table 11.
Unlike the results concerning sexual balance
between the two groups, where no significant difference was
evidenced concerning age, there did appear to be a tendency
for a greater percentage of the nonenrollees to be in the
two youngest age groups while the two older groups con
tained a larger percentage of enrollees. Of the 17-21 year
old applicants, there were 48.8 per cent of the non
enrollees and only 45.7 per cent of the enrollees. In the
22-30 year old applicants, the differences was much less,
but the balance was still in favor of the nonenrollee with
31.7 per cent versus 31.4 per cent for the enrollee. As
can be seen in Table 11, the balance swings in favor of the
enrollee in the 31-40 year old applicants and in the 41
year old and over applicants.
Birthplace
In an attempt to determine if place of birth was a
factor in an applicant’s not enrolling in college, a
question concerning the respondent's birthplace was
included in the survey. The question was delimited to
TABLE 11
AGE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENROLLEE AND NONENROLLEE, FALL 1971-7 2
Group
17-21 Years
No. Per Cent
Age
22-30 Years 31-40 Years
No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
Total
41+ Years
No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
Enrollees 160 45.7 110 31.4 46 13 .1 34 9.7 350 100
Nonenrollees 171 48.8 111 31.7 3_7_ 10.6 8.9 350 100
Total 331 47.3 221 31.6 83 11.9 65 9.3 700 100
cn
-P
65
whether the applicant was born in the state of California.
The results of the survey did not show any signifi
cant correlation between the state of birth and whether an
applicant would enroll in college. Forty-eight per cent of
the enrollees were born in California while 47.2 per cent
of the nonenrollees were born in the state. Table 12
presents both the percentages and numbers of individuals
in each category.
TABLE 12
STATE-OF-BIRTH DIFFERENCES, CALIFORNIA VS.
NON-CALIFORNIA, BETWEEN ENROLLEES AND
NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
Group California
No. Per Cent
Non-
No .
-California
Per Cent No.
Total
Per Cent
Enrollees 168 48.0 182 52.0 350 100
Nonenrollees 165 47.2 185 52.8 350 100
Total 333 47.6 367 52.4 700 100
Marital Status
A question concerning marital status was included
to determine if marital status was a significant factor in
a student's enrolling or not enrolling in college. The
enrollees consisted of 60.9 per cent singles, 37.4 per cent
66
married students, and 1.7 per cent divorced students. The
nonenrollees were composed of 64.6 per cent who were single,
34.3 per cent who were married and 1.1 per cent who were
divorced. When these data were studied, as presented in
Table 13, it could be seen that there was a tendency for
more of the enrollees to be married or divorced than there
was for the nonenrollees. More nonenrollees than enrollees
were single.
TABLE 13
MARITAL STATUS DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENROLLEES
AND NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
Single
No. Per Cent
Married
No. Per Cent
Divorced
No. Per Cent
Enrollees 213 60.9 131
r^
CO
6 1.7
Nonenrollees 226 64.6 120 34.3 _4 1.1
Total 439 62 .7 251 35.9 10 1.4
Race
A question concerning the respondent's race was
included to ascertain if race was a factor in influencing
an applicant to enroll or not to enroll in a college of the
LACCD.
The selection of which ethnic origins to use was
67
based on the ethnic breakdown available from the applica
tion. The percentage of Caucasian and Black nonenrollees
was 55.7 and 27.9, respectively, which was greater than
that of the enrollees by two per cent for Caucasians and
three per cent for Blacks. Conversely, the percentage of
Mexican-American and Oriental enrollees exceeded that of
the nonenrollees. The differences between the enrollee and
nonenrollee groups are not considered significant in regard
to race (Table 14-) .
TABLE 14
ETHNIC ORIGIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENROLLEES AND
NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification Enrollee Nonenrollee Total
No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
Caucasian 188 53 .7 195 55 .7 383 54.7
Black 87 24 .9 98 27.9 185 26.4
Mexican-American 50 14.3 35 10.0 85 12 .1
Oriental 15 4.3 12 3.4 27 3.9
Other 10 2.9 10 2.9 20 2.9
350 100.1 350 100 .1 700 100.0
Citizenship
In an effort to test for a possible new factor in
influencing student applicants to enroll in college, the
question concerning citizenship was introduced into this
68
survey. The results appear to be inconclusive. Between
the enrollee and the nonenrollee who were citizens, there
was little difference in numbers, but with the foreigners
the enrollees outnumbered nonenrollees on a six to four
ratio. This large difference is due in part to the small
number of noncitizens in the sample (Table 15).
TABLE 15
CITIZENSHIP DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ENROLLEES
AND NONENROLLEES , FALL 1971-72
No.
Citizen
Per Cent
Foreigner
No. Per Cent No.
Total
Per Cent
Enrollee 323 92.3 27 7 .7 350 100.0
Nonenrollee 331 94.5 19 5.5 350 100 .0
Total 654 93.4 46 6.6 700 100.0
Veteran
The role that being a veteran plays in whether an
applicant will enroll or not was tested in this survey with
no significant results. As shown in Table 16, among the
enrollees 18.9 per cent were veterans while 81.1 per cent
were not veterans; and among the nonenrollees, 18 per cent
were veterans while 8 2 per cent were nonveterans. The
likelihood that being a veteran is a factor in an appli-
69
cant's enrolling in college seems very remote.
TABLE 16
VETERAN AND NONVETERAN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ENROLLEES AND NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
Veteran
No. Per Cent
Nonveteran
No. Per Cent
Total
No. Per Cent
Enrollees 66 18.9 284 81.1 350 100.0
Nonenrollees 63 18.0 287 82 . 0 350 100.0
Total 129 18.4 571 81.6 700 100.0
High School Graduate
Since being a high school graduate traditionally
has been required for admittance into higher education, and
since the community college is the first institution of
higher education not to require high school graduation for
admission, a question concerning the influence of comple
tion of high school was included in this survey. For
purposes of the survey, if a person had taken and passed
the high school General Education Development Test, he was
considered a high school graduate.
Whether or not an individual had completed high
school did not seem to be an influence on his enrollment in
a community college (Table 17). There was a difference of
70
only 1.4 per cent between enrollees who had completed high
school and nonenrollees who had completed high school.
Based on the results of the sample almost 90 per cent of
all applicants to the LACCD had completed high school*
TABLE 17
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ENROLLEES AND NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
High School Non-High School Total
Graduate Graduate
No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
»
Enrollee 316 90.3 34 9.7 350 100 .0
Nonenrollee 311 88 .9 39_ 11.1 350 100.0
Total 627 89 .6 73 O
-P
700 100.0
Previous College Attendance
The factor of previous college attendance was used
to verify the importance of an earlier college experience
upon the applicant's returning to college. An applicant
was considered to have had previous college attendance if
he had attended for at least one semester prior to the Fall
Semester of 19 71. For purposes of the survey, if an
applicant had attended only a part of a semester and then
discontinued his attendance he was considered as having had
71
no previous college.
The fact that an applicant previously had attended
college seemed to have little effect upon his enrollment
(Table 18). Six out of ten applicants had not attended
college before applying. Of every 20 applicants who had
attended college before, nine actually enrolled. The
likelihood of those who had not attended college before
enrolling was one in two.
TABLE 18
PREVIOUS COLLEGE ATTENDANCE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ENROLLEES AND NONENROLLEES, FALL 1971-72
Attended College Not Attended Total
Before College Before
No. Per Cent No. Per Cent No. Per Cent
Enrollees 119
O
c o
231 66.0 350 100 .0
Nonenrollees 142 40.6 208 59.4 350 100.0
Total 261 37.3 439 62.7 700 100.0
Student Status
In an effort to determine if an applicant's student
classification was a factor in his enrolling in college,
his student status was made a part of the survey. The four
student classifications were: (1) New Student - Day, (2)
72
New Student - Evening, (3) Continuing Student - Day and
(4) Continuing Student - Evening. For those students who
were nonenrollees, their previous classification was used
if they were returning students. If an applicant had not
enrolled before, the classification which the applicant
indicated on the application blank was used for his student
status.
Overall, it appears that the intensity of the stu
dent* s desire to go to college may be a factor in his sub
sequent enrollment. The nonenrollees exceeded the
enrollees in the New Day students classification and in the
*
Continuing Evening students classification. Conversely,
the enrollees exceeded the nonenrollees in the tally of
Returning Day students and New Evening students (Table 19).
If the Day and Evening classifications are combined, the
Continuing enrollees outnumbered the New enrollees by a
ratio of approximately six to four, while the nonenrollees
were more equally divided between New and Continuing
applicants.
73
TABLE 19
STUDENT CLASSIFICATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN
ENROLLEES AND NONENROLLEES, FALL 19 71-7 2
Enrollee
No. Per Cent
Nonenrollee
No. Per Cent
Total
No. Per Cent
New Student -
Day
New Student -
93 26.6 130 37 .2 233 31.9
Evening
Continuing
59 16.9 34 9.7 93 13.3
Student— Day
Continuing
Student -
115 32.9 93 26.6 208 29.7
Evening 83 23 .7 93 26.6 17 6 25.1
Total 350 100 .1 350 100 .1 700 100 .0
Questions Answered
The ten questions posed in Chapter I to be answered
from this survey were obtained from three sources. One
source was the literature concerning attrition, summarized
in Chapter II. In the research certain reasons continue to
be given for a student's inability to continue studies at
an institution of higher education, and particular ques
tions were selected to ascertain if the same reasons were
equally valid for the community college. The second source
was the studies previously made at some of the colleges.
Some questions were included to see if the responses would
be identical on a district-wide basis. The third source of
74
questions was the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles
Community College District CLACCD). The board was inter
ested in what, factors prevented the enrollment of the .
student who had applied for admission to a college of the
LACCD.
This portion of the chapter is concerned primarily
with the experimental group since it involves reasons for
the experimental group members not enrolling in a college
to which application had been made. A complete listing by
individual college of the reason for nonenrollment is given
in Table 20. The facts used in answering each of the ten
questions of Chapter I were taken from Tables 21 through
33. In reporting the answers to each question, numerous
tables were used. The comments made under each of the ten
questions are so structured that the applicable table may
easily be identified.
Financial
To what extent, if any, were finances a factor in
an applicant's subsequently not enrolling in college?
Overall, 27 individuals Cor 7.7 per cent of the
nonenrollees) stated financial problems as the primary
reason for not enrolling. Of these 27 individuals, 16 were
male and 11 were female, or approximately 6 0 per cent male
and 40 per cent female. By age, approximately 45 per cent
of the individuals were less than 21 years old, 37 per cent
75
of the individuals were between 2 2 and 30, 15 per cent were
between 31 and 40, and less than four per cent were over
41. Only one person in three who listed financial problems
was born in California. Sixty per cent of those who listed
finances for nonenrollment were single and 40 per cent were
married, which is almost exactly the ratio of single to
married in the control group. By race, 3 3 per cent were
Caucasians, 48 per cent were Blacks, 11 per cent were
Mexican-Americans and seven per cent were Orientals. Based
on previous college attendance, 3 0 per cent had attended
college before and 7 0 per cent had no prior college. The
group was evenly divided between new and continuing stu
dents , with the day program having over 60 per cent of the
dropouts and the evening program slightly less than 40 per
cent.
Dual Applications
To what extent, if any, were dual applications for
enrollment related to the subsequent action of the prospec
tive student?
Overall, 95 individuals Cor 27.1 per cent of the
nonenrollees) stated that acceptance at another institution
of higher education was the reason for their nonenrollment.
This figure does not include those applicants who subse
quently enrolled in some other type of postsecondary educa
tion. Those who enrolled in another type of postsecondary
education are listed under the category of Other.___________
'•
TABLE 20
REASONS FOR NONSNROLLMENT Blr
COLLEGE OF APPLICATION, FALL 1971-72
Attend. Job Travel Illness- Classes Military
College Finances Another Problems Problems Pors. Emer. Closed Moved Service Other Total
College
‘ LA City No. 5 10 - 11 2 6 2 6 0 8 50
Row
% 10.0 20.0 22.0 4.0 • 12.0 4.0 12.0 0 . 0 16.0 100.0
■ Col.
%
18.6
10.5
16.4 25.0 14.3
20.0 16.7 0 . 0 14.3
East LA No. 3
«
6 10 3
6 1 6
* »
X 14 50
Row
%
o.O 12.0 20.0 6.0 12.0 2.0 12.0 2.0 28.0 100.0
Col.
%
11.1 6.3 14.9 37.5 14.3 10.0 16.7 11.1 25.0
Harbor No. A 12 5 1 4 2 6 2 14 50
Row
%
8.0 24.0 10.0 2.0 8.0 4.0 12.0 4.0 23.0 100.0
Col.
a
14.8 12.7 7.5 12.5 9.5 20.0 16.7 22.2 25.0
Pierce No. 3
16
15 2 5 3
x
1 4 50
Row
%
6.0 32.0 30.0 4.0 10.0 6.0 2.0 2.0 8.0 100.0
Col.
f i
11.1 15.8 £2.4 25.0 11.9 30.0 2.8 11.1 7.1
LA South-Wost Ho. 9 14 10 0 5 0 7 0 5 50
Row
o f
/ »
18.0 23.0 20.0 0 . 0 10.0 0 . 0 14.0 0 . 0 10.0 100.0
Col.
% 33.3 14.3 14.9 0 . 0 11.9 0 . 0 19.4 0 . 0 8.9
Valley Ho.
• *
U
16
7 0 10
n
X 8
A
1 50
Row
4
r ®
6.0 32.0 14.0 0.0 20.0 2.0 16.C 8.0 2.0 100. 0
Col.
%
11.1 16.8 10.5 0 . 0 23.8 10.0 22.2 44.4 1.8
Vest LA No. 0 21 9 0 6 1 2 1 10 50
Row
%
0 . 0 42.0 18.0 0 . 0 12.0 2.0 4.0 2.0 20.0 100.0
Col.
$
0 . 0 22.1 13.4 0 . 0 14.3 10.0 5.6 11.1 17.9
Column Total 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 . 350 < i
Row
i 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3
12.0 2.9 10.2 2.6 16.0' 100.0
cn
Col.
%
100.0 1C0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.1 100.0 100.0
TABLE 21
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT
BY SEX OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Attend Job Travel Illnesa-
Finances Another Problems Problems Pers. Emer.
College
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Male No. 16 61 30 5 10 5 23 8 30 188
Row
% 8.9
32.4 15.9 2.6
5.3
2.6 12.2 4.2 15.9 100.0
Col.
% 59.3 64.2 44.8 62.5 23.8 50.0 63.9 88.9 53.6
Female No. 11 34 37 3 32 5 13
1 26 162
Row
i
6.8 21.0 22.8 1.8 19.7 3.1 8.1 0.6 16.1 100.0
Col.
% 40.7 35.8 55.2 37.5
76.2 50.0 36.1 11.1 46.4
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row
%
7.7 27.1 ■ -19.1- - 2.3
12.0 • 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
-3
TAELS 22
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT
BY AGE OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Illness-
Pers. Emer
Classes
. Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
17-21 No. 12 66 39 4 13 2 13 8 14
171
Row
%
7.0 38.6 22.8 2.3 7.6 1.2 7.6
4.7 8.2 100.0
Col.
. %
44.4
69.5 58.2 50.0 31.0 20.0 36.1 88.9 25.0
22-30 No. 10 24 18 2 18 3 19 1 16 111
Row
%
9.0 21.6 16.2 1.8 16.2 2.7 17.2 0.9 14.4 100.0
Col.
. %
37.0
25.3 26.9 25.0 42.9 . 30.0 52.8 11.1 28.6
31-40 No. 4
5
4 2
c
3 2 0 12 37
Row
% 10.8 13.5 10.8 5.4 13.5 8.1 5.4 0.0 32.5 100.0
Col.
. %
14.8 5.3 6.0 25.0 11.9 30.0 5.6 0.0 .21.4
41+ No. 1 0 6 0 6 2 2 0 14
31
Row 3.2 0.0 19.4 0.0 19.4 6.4 6.4 0.0 45.2 100.0
Col.
c f
• / ® 3.7 0.0 9.0 0.0
14.3
20.0 5.6 0.0 25.0
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 .56 350
Row
% 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
' j
oo
TABLE 23
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT
B* BIRTHPLACE OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Birthplace Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Illness-
Pers. Eaer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Calif No. 9 51 36 5 21 3
10 7 23 165
Row %
5.5 30.9 21.9 3.0 12.8 1.8 6.1 4.2 13.8 100.0
Col. % 33.3 53.7 53.7 62.5
50.0 30.0 27.8 • 77.8 41.1
Non-Calif. No. 18 44 31 3 21 7
26 2 33 135
Row % 9.7 23.8 16.8 1.6 11.3 3.8 14.1 1.1 17.8 100.0
Col. % 66.7 46.3 46.3 37.5
50.0 70.0 72.2 22.2 58.9
Total No. 27 95 67
8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row %
7.7 ■ 27.1 - 19.1 • 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
i
C D
TABLE 24
REASONS FOR KONENROLLMENT BY
MARITAL STATUS OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Marital
Status Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Illness
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Single No. 16
79 51 5 17 4 22 9 23
226
Row
£ 7.1 35.0 22.6 2.2 7.5 1.8 9.7 4.0 10.1 100.0
Col.
$ 59.3 83.2 76.1 62.5 40.5
40.0 61.1 100.0 41.1
Married No. 11 14 !:16 3
24 6 14 0 32 120
Row
£ 9.2 11.7 13.3 2.5
20.0 5.0 11.7 0.0 26.6 100.0
Col.
■ % 40.7 14.7 23.9 37.5 57.1
60.0 38.9 0.0 57.1
Divorced - No. 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 4
Row
£
0.0 50.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0 100.0
Col.
• £
0.0 2.1 0.0 0.0, 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row
% 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
o
TABLE 25
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT
BY RACE OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Race
Attend Job Travel
Finances Another Problems Problems
College
Illness-
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Caucasian No. 9 56 37 5 19 7 22 6 34
195
Row
£
4.6
28.7 19.0 2.5 9.8 3.6 11.3 3.1 17.4 100.0
Col.
% 33.3 58.9 55.2 62.5 45.2 70.0 61.1 66.7 60.7
Black No. 13 27 20 2 16 0
9 1 10 98
Row
£
13.3 27.6 20.4 2.0 16.3 0.0 9.2 1.0 10.2 100.0
Col.
i
48.1 28.4 29.9 25.0 38.1 0.0 25.0 11.1 17.9
Hex.-Am. No. 3 6 8 1 6 1
3 „
0 7 35
Row
*
8.6
17.1 22.8 2.9 17.1 2.9
8.6 0.0 20.0 100.0
Col.
%
11.1 6.3 11.9 12.5 14.3
10.0 8.3 0.0
12.5
Oriental No. 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 1
3 12
Row
$ 16.7 33.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.3 8.3 8.3 25.0 100.0
Col.
%
7.4 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0 2.8 11.1 5.4
Other No. 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 10
Row 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 20.0 100.0
Col.
%
0.0 2.1 3.0 0.0 2.4 10.0 2.8 11.1 3.6
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9
56 350
Row
% 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3
2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
H
.
TABLE 26
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT BY
CITIZENSHIP OF APPLICANT FALL 1971-72
Attend Job Travel Illness- Classes Military
Finances Another Problems Problems Pers. Emer. Closed Moved Service Other Total
College
U.S. No. 27 91 64 8 41 10 28
9 53 331
Citizen Row 8.2 27.5 19.3 2.4 12.4 3.0
8.5 2.7 16.0 100.0
Col.
%
100.0 95.8 95.5
100.0 97.6 100.0 77.8 100.0 94.6
Non-U.S. No. 0 4
3 0 1 0 8 0 3 19
Citizen Row 0.0 21.0 15.8 ' 0.0 5.2 0.0 42.2 0.0 15.8 100.0
Col.
%
0.0 4.2 4.5 0.0 2.4 0.0 22.2 0.0 5.4
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row
% 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
TABLE 27
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT BY
VETERAN STATUS OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Illness-
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Veteran No. 7 12 7 1 3 4 12 1 16 63
Row
t
11.1 19.0 11.1 1.6 4.8 6.4 19.0 1.6 25.4 100.0
Col.
% 25.9 12.6 10.4 12.5 7.1 40.0 33.3 11.1 28.6
Nonveteran No. 20
83 60 7 39 6 24 8 40 287
Row
%
7.0 28.9 20.9 2.4 13.6 2.1 8.4 2.8 13.9 100.0
Col.
%
74.1 87.4
89.6 87.5 92.9 60.0 66.7 88.9 71.4
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row -- % 7.7 27.1 19.1 - 2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
CO
TABLE 28
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMEN T BY
HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Status
Attend Job
Finances Another Problems
College
Travel
Problems
Illness-
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
High School No. 24 90 63 7 34 10 31 9 43 311
Grad. Row 7.7 28.9 20.3 2.3 10.9 3.2 10.0 2.9 13.8. 100.0
Col.
% 88.9 94.7 94.0 87.5
81.0 100.0 86.1 100.0 76.8
Non High No. 3 5 4 1 8 0
5
0
13 39
School Grad.
. Row
i
7.7 12.8 10.2 2.6 20.5 0.0 12.8 0.0 33.4 100.0
Col.
i
11.1 5.3 6.0 12.5 '
19.0 0.0 13.9 0.0 23.2
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row
% 7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3 .
12.0 2.9 10.3
2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
-P
TABLE 29
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT BY
PREVIOUS COLLEGE EXPERIENCE OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Status Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Iliness-
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed Moved
Military
Service Other Total
Previous No. 8 40
19 2 15 9
10 1 38 142
College Row % 5.6 28.2 13.4 1.4
10.5 6.3 7.1 0.7 26.8 100.0
Col. % 29.6 42.1 28.4 25.0 35.7 90.0 27.8 11.1 67.9
No Previous No. 19 55 48 6 27 1 26 8 18 208
College Row % 9.1 26.4 23.1 2.9 13.0 0.5 12.5 3.8 8.7 100.0
Col. f 70.4 57.9 71.6 75.0 64.3
10.0 72.2 88.9 32.1
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
... Row ■ %
7.7 27.1 19.1 • -2.3 12.0 2.9 10.3
2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
cn
TABLE 30
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT BY
STUDENT STATUS OF APPLICANT, FALL 1971-72
Status Finances
Attend
Another
College
Job
Problems
Travel
Problems
Illness-
Pers. Emer.
Classes
Closed
%
Moved
Military
Service Other Total
New Day No. 12 48 22 2 18 2 15 5 6 130
Row
%
9.2 36.9 16.9 1.5 13.9 1.5
11.6
3.9 4.6 100.0
Col.
%
44.4 50.5 32.8 25.0 42.9
20.0 41.7 55.6 10.7
New Evening No. 2 4 6 2 7 4 2 3 6 36
Row
%
5.6 11.1 16.6 5.6 19.5 11.1 5.6 8.3
16.6 100.0
Col.
%
7.4 4.2 9.0 25.0 16.7 40.0 5.6
33.3 10.7
Continuing
Day
Row
No. 5 33 17 1 8 3
8 1
15 91
% 5.5 36.3 18.7 1.1 8.8 3.3 8.8 1.1 16.4 100.0
Col.
% 18.5 34.7 25.4 12.5 19.0 30.0 22.2 11.1 26.8
Contlnulnt No. 8 10 22
3 9 1 11 0 29 93
Evening
Row
%
8.6 10.8 23.6 3.2 9.7 1.1 11.8 0.0 31.2 100.0
Col.
%
29.6 10.5 32.8 37.5
21.4 10.0 30.6 0.0 51.8
Total No. 27 95 67 8 42 10 36 9 56 350
Row
%
7.7 27.1 19.1 2.3
12.0 2.9 10.3 2.6 16.0 100.0
oo
cn
87
TABLE 31
APPLICANTS "ADMITTED TO ANOTHER COLLEGE" BY
COLLEGE TO WHICH ADMITTED, FALL 1971-7 2
College Number
Los Angeles City College 16
East Los Angeles 1
Los Angeles Pierce 7
Los Angeles South-West 2
Los Angeles Trade-Technical 3
Los Angeles Valley 3
West Los Angeles 1
California State University, Los Angeles 7
California State University, Long Beach 5
California State College , Dominguez Hills 2
California State University, Pomona 1
California State University, San Diego 1
California State University, San Jose 1
California State University, Northridge 11
California State University, Fullerton 2
University of California, Santa Barbara 1
University of California, Santa Clara 1
University of California, Riverside 1
University of California, Los Angeles 6
Chapman College 1
College of the Canyon 1
Compton College 1
El Camino College * +
Orange Coast College 1
Pasadena City College 1
Rio Hondo College 1
Santa Barbara City College 1
Santa Monica City College 2
Spokane Falls City College 1
Victor Valley City College 1
Pepperdine University 2
University of Southern California 1
Loma Linda University 1
Mt. St. Mary's College 1
Biola College 1
California Institute of the Arts 1
University of Albuquerque _1
Total 9 5
88
TABLE 3 2
BREAKDOWN OF "OTHER" CATEGORY BY SPECIFIC
REASONS FOR NONENROLLMENT, FALL 1971-72
Reason Number
Per Cent of
Nonenrollees
Interested Only in Certain Courses 29 8.29
Attending Vocational School 7 2.00
Interference with Other Activities 5 1.43
College Too Difficult 4 1.14
Not Interested 3 .86
Academic Deficiency 2 .57
Administrative Error 1 .29
Inferior Education at S.W. 1 .29
Lazy 1 .29
Not Out of Military Service 1 .28
Too Much Red Tape 1 .28
Dissatisfaction with Instruction _1
00
C M
•
Total 56 16 .00
89
TABLE 3 3
BREAKDOWN OF "ILLNESS OR PERSONAL EMERGENCY" CATEGORY
BY SPECIFIC REASON FOR NONENROLLMENT, FALL 1971-72
Reason Number Per Cent of Nonenrollees
(N = 350)
V t r r* * f j
Family Problems 10 2 .85
Personal Illness 9 2.57
Pregnancy 7 2.00
Marriage 5 1.43
Injury 4 1.14
Declined to State 3 .85
Death in Family 1 .29
Heart Trouble 1 .29
Unable to Locate Housing 1 .29
On Vacation _1 .29
Total 42 12 .00
Of the 9 5 individuals who attended another college,
the male to female ratio was approximately two to one.
Almost 7 0 per cent of those applicants were less than 2 2
years of age; and if the age limit were raised to 30, over
9*+ per cent of the applicants would be included. Approxi
mately one-half of the applicants who enrolled in another
college were born in California. Over 8 0 per cent of those
who went to another institution were single, while slightly
less than 15 per cent were married. By race, approximately
59 per cent were Caucasian, 29 per cent were Black, six per
cent were Mexican-American, four per cent were Oriental,
90
and two per cent were Other. Considering veteran status,
13 per cent were veterans and 87 per cent were nonveterans.
Ninety-five per cent of those who enrolled in another
institution were high school graduates, and five per cent
were not graduates. Slightly over 40 per cent of this
group had attended college previously. Those individuals
who were accepted by another college were 8 5 per cent day
students and 15 per cent evening students. However, they
were relatively equally divided between new and continuing
students, being 55 per cent to 45 per cent, respectively.
The 9 5 applicants who were accepted by another
institution of higher education enrolled in 37 different
colleges and universities (Table 31). Thirty-three of the
applicants, over one-third, enrolled in other colleges of
the LACCD. Of these 9 5 applicants, 30, or 31.6 per cent,
enrolled in the California State University and Colleges,
while nine or 9.5 per cent enrolled in the University of
California system. Eight applicants (8.4 per cent of the
group) enrolled in local private four year institutions of
higher education.
Registration Procedures
To what extent, if any, were the college applica
tion or registration procedures correlated with the sub
sequent action of the prospective student?
Previous smaller studies in colleges of the
91
district had shown these procedures to be a significant
factor in students not enrolling. However, these studies
had included only a portion of the total applicants en
rolled at the particular college. In one case, it included
only those taking the English placement test at a particu
lar time.
The findings in this study showed that in only
slightly over one-half of one per cent of the cases were
registration procedures a factor in a student not enrolling
There were two responses that could be classified in this
category (Table 32); one listed "too much red tape" in the
enrollment process, and the other was not cleared to enroll
due to an "administrative error" in the admissions process.
Job Problems
To what extent, if any, were job problems concomi
tant with the subsequent action of the prospective student?
Job related problems were listed by 19.1 per cent
of the nonenrollees as the primary reason for their non
enrollment. A slightly smaller percentage of men than
women listed job problems (44.8 per cent versus 55.2 per
cent, respectively), as the reason for nonenrollment. The
age of applicants with job problems showed that approxi
mately 60 per cent were between the ages of 17 and 21;
another 2 6.9 per cent were between 2 2 and 3 0 years of age.
Fifty-four per cent had been born in California and 46 per
92
cent were born outside the state. In regard to marital
status, over 76 per cent were single, with the remaining 24
per cent being married. Fifty-five per cent were Caucasian
30 per cent were Black, 12 per cent were Mexican-American,
and three per cent listed Other ethnic backgrounds.
Citizenship status showed 9 5 per cent to be United States
Citizens while five per cent were foreign-born. Only 10
per cent of the nonenrollees with job problems were vet
erans while 90 per cent were nonveterans. Ninety-four per
cent were high school graduates, and six per cent were not
high school graduates. Only 28 per cent had attended
college previously while 72 per cent had no previous
college experience. Fifty-eight per cent were continuing
students and 42 per cent were new students.
Illness or Other Personal
Emergency
To what extent, if any, was illness or other
personal emergency related to the subsequent action of the
prospective student?
A total of 12 per cent of the nonenrollees listed
this category as a reason for not enrolling in college.
This 12 per cent was broken down as follows: family
problems, 2.8 5 per cent; personal illness, 2.57 per cent;
pregnancy, 2 per cent; marriage, 1.43 per cent; personal
injury, 1.14 per cent; declined to state a reason, .85 per
cent; and .29 per cent was due to death in family, heart
93
trouble, inability to locate housing, and vacations (Table
33) .
Of the 12 per cent of the nonenrollees who listed
illness or other personal emergency as a reason for not
enrolling, 7 6 per cent were female and 2*+ per cent were
male. The age grouping was distributed among all age
groups with 31 per cent between 17 and 21, 43 per cent
between 22 and 30, 12 per cent between 31 and 40, and 14
per cent over 41. The birthplace of these nonenrollees
with personal emergencies was equally divided between
California and non-California. By marital status, 41 per
cent were single, 57 per cent were married, and two per
cent were divorced. The racial composition of the group
was 45 per cent Caucasian, 3 8 per cent Black, 14 per cent
Mexican-American, and two per cent listed as Other.
Ninety-eight per cent were United States citizens and two
per cent were noncitizens. Seven per cent were veterans
and 93 per cent were nonveterans. This group of non
enrollees had the second lowest percentage of high school
graduates, 81 per cent, of all the groups of nonenrollees.
Thirty-six per cent had some previous college experience
while 64 per cent had no previous college experience.
Finally, approximately 60 per cent were new students and 40
per cent were continuing students. The above figures for
new and continuing students were almost identical for day
and evening students, being 62 per cent and 3 8 per cent,
94
respectively.
Transportation
To what extent, if any, was the lack of transporta
tion correlated with the subsequent action of the prospec
tive student?
Much has been written regarding the need for com
munity colleges to be within commuting distance of the
students since the nearness of a college has been shown to
affect the percentage of high school graduates going on to
college. The question of how many students did not enroll
because of transportation problems was included to obtain
an answer for the Los Angeles Community College District.
Of the total nonenrollees in the sample, only
approximately two per cent mentioned the lack of transpor
tation as the reason for their nonenrollment. Only four of
the seven colleges had applicants included in this two per
cent.
As might be expected with a small percentage of non
enrollees reporting transportation problems, a small change
in numbers caused a large change in percentages. By sex,
63 per cent of those with travel problems were male and 3 7
per cent were female. Fifty per cent were between 17 and
21 years old, 2 5 per cent between 2 2 and 3 0 and 2 5 per cent
31 to 40. Sixty-three per cent were born in California and
3 7 per cent were born elsewhere. The same percentage held
95
true for single and married, 63 and 37 per cent, respec
tively. The racial composition of these nonenrollees was
63 per cent Caucasian, 2 5 per cent Black, and 12 per cent
Mexican-American. All of the individuals who reported
transportation as the reason for nonenrollment were United
States Citizens. The nonveterans had 87 per cent of the
travel problems to the veterans' 13 per cent. The percent
age was identical for the high school graduates in relation
to the non-high school graduates. Twenty-five per cent had
previous college experience while 7 5 per cent had no pre
vious college experience. New students and continuing
students each had 50 per cent of the casualties due to
travel problems, but the evening program lost 63 per cent
while the day program suffered only 37 per cent loss.
Nonavailability of Desired
Classes
To what extent, if any, was the nonavailability of
desired classes associated with the subsequent action of
the prospective student?
The question of nonavailability of desired classes
was one that has frequently been considered in the LACCD as
a reason for students not enrolling in college. It was for
this reason that the question was included in this survey.
Table 3 2 shows that about 8.3 per cent of the non
enrollees could be listed under the category of nonavail
ability of desired courses. In all these cases, the
96
responses suggested limited student desires rather than
meager course offerings. In addition, 2.9 per cent of the
nonenrollees attempted to enroll and found desired classes
already closed.
Sex
To what extent, if any, was sex concomitant with
the subsequent action of the prospective students?
As was stated earlier in this chapter concerning
the sexual differences between the enrollee and nonenrollee
groups, sex differences do not appear from this study to be
an overall factor in an applicant's enrolling or not
enrolling. There were 5 5.1 per cent males in the enrollee
group and 53.7 per cent males in the nonenrollee group.
Military Service
To what extent, if any, was entering the military
service a factor in the prospective student's not enroll
ing?
It was believed that this question was particularly
appropriate because of the average age of the prospective
students, the draft laws currently in effect, and the fact
that the Vietnam War was in progress.
Overall, 2.6 per cent of the nonenrollees listed
"entering the military service" as their reason for not
enrolling in college. Of this group almost 9 0 per cent
were male. Also, 89 per cent were between the ages of 17
97
and 21, with the additional 11 per cent represented in the
22 to 30-year-old category. Seventy-eight per cent were
born in California, and 10 0 per cent were single. This
group of nonenrollees had a racial composition of 67 per
cent Caucasian, 11 per cent each of Black, Oriental, and
Other. One hunder per cent were U. S. citizens, and 8 9 per
cent were nonveterans. Those entering the military service
were all high school graduates, and 89 per cent had no
previous college experience.
Ethnic Background
To what extent, if any was ethnic background
related to the subsequent action of the prospective
student?
The effects of ethnic origin on the actions of
individuals is subject to much study and discussion in
higher education today. This question was included to see
if any verifiable relationship was existent.
Caucasians and Blacks, as shown in Table 14, were
in greater proportions in the nonenrollee group that in the
enrollee group by two and three per cent, respectively.
Mexican-Americans and Orientals were in smaller proportions
in the nonenrollee group than in the enrollee group by 4.3
and .9 per cent, respectively.
The Caucasians, who represented 55.7 per cent of
the total nonenrollee group, had fewer financial problems
than did the experimental group, more of them attended_____
98
another college, and they had a higher percentage of travel
problems. Caucasians also had a lower percentage of
illnesses or other personal emergencies; and a higher per
centage of them moved, entered the military service, found
desired classes closed, or had other reasons for not
enrolling in college (Table 25).
Blacks had a 2 8 per cent representation in the
experimental or nonenrollee group. They had almost twice
the proportion of financial problems and 3 8.1 per cent of
the personal emergencies. Blacks had fewer travel problems
(25 per cent), fewer moved (25 per cent), fewer entered the
military service (11.1 per cent), and they had proportion
ately less of Other types of problems.
Mexican-Americans were represented by 10 per cent
of the nonenrollee group. They had 11 per cent of the
financial problems, approximately 12 per cent of the travel,
job, and Other types of problems. The Mexican-Americans
had over 14 per cent of the personal emergencies.
Orientals represented only 3.4 per cent of the
experimental group. They had over twice this proportion of
financial problems, 11.1 per cent entered the military
service, and 5.4 per cent had Other types of problems.
All other ethnic groups were represented by 2.9 per
cent of the total. They suffered approximately this per
centage of attrition in most of the various problem areas
except for financial and travel problems, of which they had
99
a greater percentage.
Summary
This chapter reported the findings of selected
information taken from the application forms and from
telephone interviews with two random samples of applicants
to colleges of the LACCD. The random samples consisted of
a control group of 3 50 applicants who did enroll in college
in Fall 19 71, and an experimental group of 3 50 applicants
who did not enroll in the college to which they had applied
Reported first were the results of information
taken from the application forms. There was a difference
of 1.4 per cent in favor of the male enrollees over the
nonenrollees. The average age of a student of the LACCD
was about 2 2 years, which was close to the national aver
age. The nonenrollees tended to exceed the enrollees in
the age groups below 3 0 years with the reverse occurring in
those groups older than 30. California born nonenrollees
exceeded the enrollees by 1.6 per cent. Single non
enrollees exceeded the enrollees by 3.7 per cent. The per
centage of Caucasian and Black nonenrollees exceeded that
of the enrollees, with the reverse being true with the
Mexican-American and Oriental applicants. There was a
difference of 2.2 per cent in favor of the citizen non
enrollees over the enrollees, with the reverse being true
for the noncitizens. There was little difference in the
100
two samples in regard to veteran status. High school
graduate enrollees exceeded nonenrollees by 1.4 per cent,
while among those who had attended college before, the non
enrollees outnumbered the enrollees by 3.4 per cent.
The latter portion of the chapter was concerned
with the answer given by the sample of nonenrollees to the
ten questions expressed in Chapter I. The following
reasons were given for nonenrollment.
Number Per Cent
Finances 27 7.7
Dual Applications 95 27.1
Job Problems 67 19.1
Illness or Other Personal Emergency 42 12.0
Transportation 8 2.3
Nonavailability of Classes 10 2.9
Moved 36 10.2
Military Service 9 2.6
Other (Registration Problem 2) 56 16.0
350 100.0
In addition, the importance of sex as a factor in non
enrollment was also questioned. From the findings, sex did
not appear to be a significant factor. Lastly, the
importance of ethnic origin in an applicant's not enrolling
was studied. Caucasians and Blacks were found in greater
numbers in the nonenrollee group than in the control group,
with the reverse being true for Mexican-Americans and
101
Orientals. The summary, conclusions, and recommendations
from the study are presented in Chapter V.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Community colleges are known as open-door colleges,
but recently there has been some criticism that perhaps the
open-door of the college is really only a revolving door.
Therefore, the reasons that prospective students who apply
for admission to college give for subsequently not enroll
ing should be of concern to administrators and the general
public alike. This study has attempted to ascertain the
reasons for the nonenrollment of large numbers of appli
cants in the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD)
during Fall, 1971.
Summary
According to Cross (1971), the history of higher
education's philosophies of admission in the United States
has had three distinct periods. The earliest philosophy
was the aristocratic, which stated that the persons to be
admitted to college were those who could afford it and who
needed it for their station in life. The second was the
meritocracy, during which time admission was to be based on
academic merit. The last period, which appears to be a
102
103
product of the 1970's, is the egalitarian, under which the
key phrases are equality of access and opportunity.
Recent studies in attrition of college students
have considered numerous environmental factors such as
accessibility, opportunity, and student characteristics.
Like other community colleges throughout the nation, the
LACCD has a major attrition problem. In addition, the
LACCD has a problem of major proportions in the attrition
of applicants prior to enrollment. It is estimated that
one in three applicants to the LACCD did not enroll in the
Fall Semester of 1971.
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to discover why
prospective students who had applied for admission to one
of the eight colleges of the LACCD did not subsequently
enroll. It was the plan of this study to examine certain
nonintellective information from the college application
forms in conjunction with economic or social information
given by the applicants during telephone interviews.
The study attempted to answer ten questions con
cerned with possible causes for an applicants' failure to
enroll. These questions were developed from a review of
the literature, a study of previous small scale surveys
made at certain LACCD colleges, and from conversations
with district administrators and members of the board of
trustees.
104
Procedure
The procedure involved taking two random samples
from lists supplied by seven of the eight colleges of the
district. One college could not participate because appli
cation forms had not been obtained from all prospective
students at this college. It is estimated that the popula
tion consisted of approximately 150,000 applicants from
which two random samples were selected. One sample con
tained 35 0 enrollees and the second consisted of a similar
sized group of nonenrollees.
The desired information was compiled from the
application forms and other records on file at each college
and from telephone inquiries to each of the nonenrollees.
The information thus gained was coded and keypunched on
computer cards for processing by electronic data processing
equipment.
Findings
The analysis of the data shows that a variety of
factors influence whether or not an applicant to an urban
multi-college community college district will enroll at the
college to which he applies. The findings point generally
to the following factors regarding an applicant’s decision:
1. The sex of an applicant has little to do with
the decision to enroll.
2. An applicant 3 0 years old or younger is more
_____________likely to be a nonenrollee than an applicant
105
over 30.
3. Whether or not a student was born in California
has little or no influence on his enrolling.
4. A single applicant is more likely to be a non
enrollee than a married or divorced applicant.
5. A Caucasian or Black applicant is more likely
to be a nonenrollee than is a Mexican-American
or Oriental applicant.
6. Citizenship appeared to have no bearing on
whether an applicant would enroll.
7. Whether an applicant is a veteran is of no
consequence in the likelihood of his enrolling.
8. High school graduates have no greater predilec
tion for enrolling than non-high school
graduates.
9. An applicant's previous college experience
seems to have little bearing on his enrolling.
10. Continuing students are more likely to enroll
than new students.
11. Finances do not seem to be very important to
nonenrollees (7.7 per cent).
12. Dual applications represent a significant
reason (27.1 per cent) for nonenrollment.
13. Difficult registration procedures are insigni
ficant (slightly over one-half of one per cent)
as a factor for not enrolling.
106
14. Job problems are important (slightly less than
20 per cent) to the nonenrollees in a community
college.
15. Illness or other personal emergency (12 per
cent) does seem to be significant as a cause
for nonenrollment.
16. Transportation (2.3 per cent) does not seem to
be as large a factor for nonenrollment as some
writers would have us believe.
17. Nonavailability of desired classes (8.3 per
cent) is significant for community colleges
because of the limited desires of applicants.
In addition, 2.9 per cent found classes that
they wanted already closed when they tried to
enroll.
18. Enlistment in the military service (2.6 per
cent) is a minor factor in applicants not
enrolling.
Conclusions
From the findings of the study certain generaliza
tions were made regarding the applicant who applies for
admission to a large urban multi-college community college
district. The validity of the study must be dependent in
part upon the degree to which these applicants are repre
sentative of the population. The following generalizations
107
were made subject to the limitations of this research:
1. Certain factors measured seem to have no effect
on whether or not an applicant will enroll in
college. These factors are sex, place of
birth, citizenship, veteran status, high school
graduation, and previous college experience.
2. Based on the findings of this study, the appli
cant who will most likely not enroll in the Los
Angeles Community College District is single,
less than 3 0 years old, Caucasian or Black and
a new student in college.
3. Almost one-third of the nonenrollees actually
have been enrolled in another institution of
higher education, and almost ten per cent of
the nonenrollees are even enrolled in another
college of the LACCD.
•+. Very few students fail to enroll because of
desired classes being full and closed or
because of difficult registration procedures.
5. Job related problems are a significant factor
in an applicant's not enrolling, but finances
as such do not appear to be a major problem.
Taken together, these two factors account for
2 5 per cent of the nonenrollees.
6. Transportation problems are not a significant
deterrent to a student's enrolling in LACCD.
108
7. Illness or other personal emergency is a
significant deterrent to a student's enrolling
and must be considered in forecasting enroll
ment .
Recommendations
The findings and conclusions of the study lead us
naturally to make certain recommendations.
1. This study has covered only an initial segment
of the attrition problem, a problem which per
vades the entire two year program. Some
factors, such as dual applications, appear to
be more important to the community college in
California than to the four year institutions.
Some factors, such as transportation, seem to
be of less importance in the California two
year college. The causes of attrition that
exist between application and census week cer
tainly do not cease to exist after this period.
However, other factors involved with the
academic process come into play with the onset
of studies. It would therefore appear to be
highly desirable that other studies be made to
determine the influences on attrition as a
student progresses through college.
Zaccaria and Creaser (1971) , in their
109
review of the literature on attrition, noted
that attrition rates in various studies ranged
from 12 per cent to 8 2 per cent. They recom
mended that conclusions on studies be confined
to a particular environmental setting.
2. A second recommendation, coming as a natural
result of such a study as this, is. the recom
mendation of a standard application form for
all eight colleges of the district. Initial
effort in this direction has already been made
by the district, but the present document is
too long and involved and a much simpler docu
ment should evolve.
3. If this study is replicated at a later date,
the number of applicants in the samples from
each school should be sufficient to make the
study directly applicable to each school in
addition to being valid for the district. This
aspect was considered too late to be used in
this study.
4. No attempt should be made to include "academic
majors" as a factor in a study of the community
college. Data were collected on "majors" for
this study, but there was such a large per
centage of recorded unknown majors that the
idea was dropped because the results would have
110
included only a small proportion of the sample.
Also, the student records in many instances
listed several different majors.
REFERENCES
111
REFERENCES
Astin, Alexander W. Predicting academic preformance in
college. New York: Free Press, 1971.
Beezer, Robert H., and Hjelm, Howard F. Factors related to
college attendance. U. S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare Cooperative Research Mono
graph No. 8 (OE-5423). Washington: U. S. Govern
ment Printing Office, 19 61.
Blocker, C. E.; Plummer, R. H.; and Richardson, R. C., Jr.
The two year college: A social synthesis.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965.
Bossen, Doris S. A follow-up study of the junior college
withdrawal. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1968.
Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, The open-door
colleges: Policies for community colleges . New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1970.
Chickering, Arthur W., and Hannah, William. The process of
withdrawal. Liberal Education, 55, 1969, 551-558.
Clark, Burton R. The open door college: A case study.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 19 60.
Cooley, William W., and Becker, Susan J. The junior
college student. Personnel and Guidance Journal,
January, 1966 , , M-6^-M-69 .
Cross, K. Patricia. Beyond ability. The Research
Reporter. Berkeley, California: Center for
Research and Development in Higher Education, 1967,
1, !-*+•
Cross, K. Patricia. The junior college student: A
research description. Princeton, New Jersey:
Educational Testing Service, 196 8.
112
113
Cross, K. Patricia. Beyond the open door— new students to
higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
1971.
Crossland, Fred E. Minority access to college: A Ford
Foundation report,
1971.
New York: Schocken Books,
Deegan, William L. A study of delayed entrants to college:
Factors in background and persistence. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of California at
Berkeley, 19 69.
Deighton, Lee C.
States:
1971.
(Ed.) Encyclopedia of education. United
Crowell-Collier Educational Corporation,
Demos, George D. Analysis of college dropouts— some mani
fest and covert reasons. Personnel and Guidance .
Journal, 1968 , 46_, 681-684.
Ecklund, B. K. Sources of error in college attrition
studies. Sociology of Education, 1964, 55^, 60-72
Emphasis, Junior college journal. December 1971/January
1972 , 42, 3.
FACTS, Los Angeles: Los Angeles Community College
District, 1971.
Fallows, Marjorie R. I'm having the time of my life. AAUW
Journal, 1969 , 62_, 177-178 .
Feldman, Kenneth A., and Newcomb, Theodore M. The impact
of college on students. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, 1970.
Finch, Robert. The challenge and commitment: What is it
again. Speech given to 42nd Annual Conference of
California Junior College Association, Los Angeles,
California, November 1, 197 2.
Finger, John A., and Schlesser, George E. Nonintellective
predictors of academic success in school and
college. The School Review, 1965 , 7_3, 14-29.
Fishman, Joshua A., and Pasanella, Ann K. College
admission— selection studies. Review of Educa
tional Research, 1960, 30, 298-310.
114
Fricke, B. G. Prediction, selection, mortality and quality
control. College and University, 1956 , 32_, 34-52.
Havighurst, Robert J., and Rodgers, Robert R. The role of
motivation in college attendance. In Byron S.
Hollinshead's Who should go to college. New York:
Columbia University Press, 1952.
Huther, John W. The open door: How open is it. Junior
College Journal, 1971, 41, 24-27.
Iffert, R. E. Retention and Withdrawal of College
Students. U. S. Department of Health, Education
and Welfare Bulletin, 1958, No. 1. Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1958.
Jex, F. B., and Merrill, R. M. Study in persistence:
Withdrawal and persistence rates at the University
of Utah. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1962, 40,
762-769.
Kearney, Dorothy L. Selected non-intellectual factors as
predictors of academic success in junior college
intellectually capable students. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 19 6 6.
Kelley, Win, and Wilbur, Leslie. Teaching in the community
college . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 197 0.
Krejcie, Robert V., and Morgan, Daryle W. Determining
sample size for research activities. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 1970, ££, 607-610.
Lavin, David E. The prediction of academic performance: A
theoretical analysis and review of research. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965.
Marsh, Lee M. College dropouts--A review. The Personnel
and Guidance Journal, 1966 , 4_5 , 475-481.
Max, Pearl. How many graduates? College and University,
1969, 45, 63-76.
Medsker, Leland L. The junior college: Progress and
prospect. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960.
Medsker, Leland L., and Tillery, Dale. Breaking the access
barriers: A profile of two-year colleges. New
York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
115
Medsker, Leland L., and Trent, J. W. The influence of
different types of public higher institutions on
college attendance from varying socioeconomic and
ability levels. USOE Cooperative Research Project
No. 43 8. Berkeley: Center for Research and
Development in Higher Education, University of
California, 1965.
Nelson, A. Gordon. College characteristics associated with
freshman attrition. Personnel and Guidance
Journal, 1966, 44, 1046-1050.
Projection of Educational Statistics to 1979-80. National
Center for Educational Statistics, Department of
Health, Education and Welfare. Washington, D.C.:
U. S. Government Printing Office, 197 0.
Slocum, W. L. Social factors involved in academic
mortality. College and University, 19 56, 32,
53-63.
Smith, Albert K. Bridging the gap--high school to com
munity college. Junior College Journal, 1969, 40,
33-36.
Stefanich, Gregory P. University of Montana dropout study,
1968-1970. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Montana, 1971.
Summerskill, John. Dropouts from college. In N. Sanford's
(Ed.) The American College. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, 1962.
Thornton, James W., Jr. The community junior college. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 197 2.
Tillery, Dale; Donovan, D.; and Sherman, B. SCOPE Four-
State Profiles, Grade Twelve 1966 , California~
Illinois, Massachusetts, North Carolina"! New York:
Center for Research and Development in Higher
Education and College Entrance Examination Board,
1966 .
Trent, James W., and Medsker, Leland L. Beyond High School
Berkeley: Center for Research and Development m
Higher Education, 1967.
Vaughan, Richard P. College dropouts: Dismissed versus
withdrew. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1968,
46, 24-26.
116
Waller, Constance. Research related to college persis
tence. College and University, 1964, 39., 281-294.
Weiss, Kenneth P. A multi-factor admissions predictive
system. College and University, 1970 , 4_5 , 203-210 .
White, James H. Individual and environmental factors
associated with freshman attrition at a multi
campus community college. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, George Washington University, 19 71.
Zaccaria, Lucy, and Creaser, James. Factors related to
persistence in an urban commuter university.
Journal of College Student Personnel, 1971, 12,
286-291.
APPENDICES
117
APPENDIX A
LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT
118
119
C O P Y
INTER-OFFICE CORRESPONDENCE
Los Angeles Community College
August 2, 1971
TO: COLLEGE PRESIDENTS
Dr. Wendell C. Black
Dr. Fred J. Brinkman
Dr. Leadie M. Clark
Dr. Morris J. Heldman
Dr. Robert Horton
Dr. Louis Kaufman
Dr. John R. Nicklin
Dr. John K. Wells
FROM: D. W. Click, Chancellor-Superintendent
SUBJECT: SURVEY
I mentioned to you earlier that Mr. Harry G. Walker, a
doctoral student at the University of Southern California,
would be conducting a survey for the district in the Fall
of 1971 on those individuals who make application to enroll
at one of the colleges in the district and who fail to
complete their enrollment. He has now visited each of the
colleges and spoken with your personnel about the survey.
The study seems to be feasible and the results should give
the district and each of the colleges information which will
be helpful for future planning.
I would like for each of the institutions to assist him in
getting the required data from extant files in your
college. He will have a need to extract certain informa
tion from applications for enrollment of approximately 100
students at each institution. He will need the use of a
desk and a telephone for about one week.
A detailed list of the information which he will be seeking
is enclosed on a separate sheet of paper. Please insure
that the individual in the Admissions Office who will be
assisting him receives a copy of the enclosure.
120
Mr. Walker will make another visit to each of the institu
tions in August to answer any other questions about the
survey.
DWC:emc
Enc.
cc Harry Walker
121
C O P Y
Fall 1971 Non-Registrant Survey
Information Required From Each College
1. Number of Applications:
New Students_____________________
Continuing Students ______________
Total_____________________________
2. Number Registered:
New Students ___________________
Continuing Students _____________
Total _______________________________
3. Print-out (or list) of the names of those who did not
enroll.*
4. Print-out (or list) of the names of those who did
enroll.*
*It is desirable (not mandatory) that print-out of names be
in alphabetical order and a numerical order be indicated.
APPENDIX B
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
122
123
C O P Y
DISSERTATION SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Date ______________
1. Name_________________________School _________________
2. Address _______________________________________________
3 . Telephone _________________________
4. Sex: Male ____ Female_____
5. Age: _______ 6 . Place of birth State ____
7. Marital Status: Single ____ Married ____ Divorced
8. Race: Caucasian _____ Black Mexican-American _
Oriental _____ Other _____
9. Citizen: Yes No ____
10. Veteran: Yes No ____
11. High School Grad: Yes ____ No ____
12. Attended College Before: Yes ____ No ____
13. Student Status: New ____ Returning ____ Day____
Evening ____
14. What was your reason for not enrolling?
Couldn't afford to go to college at this time _
Admitted to another college ____ Which ________
Obtained full-time job __________________________
Transportation __________________________________
Illness or personal emergency __________________
Too many classes closed _________________________
Other
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
124
125
C O P Y
SAMPLE OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
Hello, this is Harry Walker of ____________________ College
May I speak to _______________________________
(Mr.)
(Miss) the college is
(Mrs.)
conducting a survey to try to better serve the community.
We need your help. You filed an application to attend
_________________________ College this Fall and according
to our records did not complete your enrollment. In order
to help us to serve you better, we would like to know why
you did not enroll at ____________________________ College.
(Reply)
(If the response was that he (she) had been admitted to
another college, I would ask for the name of the institu
tion) . Then ask questions on not completed or asked on
application. Thank you for your help in this project.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Probation And Dismissal Policies In California Community Colleges

PDF

An Analysis Of The Role Of The Church Related College In California

PDF

A Study Of Undergraduate Education In Selected Seventh-Day Adventist Colleges

PDF

The Relationship Of Teacher Preparation And Experience To The Appraisal Of Classroom Effectiveness By The Principal

PDF

Community Service Programs Of California Community Colleges: An Analysis Of Recent Developments

PDF

The Remedial Mathematics Curriculum In Selected California Community Colleges

PDF

The Impact Of Selected Colleges On Students' Values

PDF

Evaluation Of The Effectiveness Of Student Personnel Services Of Small Junior Colleges In California

PDF

Selective Variables In The Achievement Or Nonachievement Of Junior College Students From Different Socioeconomic Backgrounds

PDF

Procedural Due Process Considerations In The Establishment Of Student Disciplinary Procedures For California Public Community Colleges

PDF

The Relationship Of Size To Current Expense Of Education In California Single-College Public Junior College Districts

PDF

Community College Health Education Classroom And Television Instruction: A Comparative Study Of Student Characteristics And Achievement

PDF

Programs For Professional Preparation Of Instructors For California Public Junior Colleges

PDF

A Suggested Journalism Curriculum For California Junior Colleges

PDF

The Image Of Higher Education In American Novels, 1920-1966

PDF

An Analysis Of Reactions Of Recent Graduates Of The Kamehameha Schools To Their High School Educational Experience

PDF

A Study Of Freshman Orientation Programs Of Selected Southern California Community Colleges

PDF

The Preparation Of Teachers Of French And Spanish In Southern California Secondary Schools

PDF

Art Education Programs Of The California State Colleges For Elementary Teachers

PDF

The Selection, Training And Evaluation Of School Bus Drivers In California

Asset Metadata

Creator Walker, Harry Grady, Jr. (author)

Core Title Non-Intellective Characteristics Of Selected Students Of Los Angeles Community College District

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

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

Tag education, higher,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Wilbur, Leslie (committee chair), Nelson, D. Lloyd (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-818035

Unique identifier UC11364367

Identifier 7405880.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-818035 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7405880

Dmrecord 818035

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Walker, Harry Grady, Jr.

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