University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

(USC Thesis Other)

Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content 70-10,863
GODOYj Charles Edward, 19.27-
VARIABLES DEFFERENTIATIN@ MEXICAN-AMERICAN
COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 19.70.
Education, psychology
University Microfilms, A X E R O X Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© CHARLES EDWARD GODOY 1970
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED
VARIABLES DIFFERENTIATING MEXICAN-AMERICAN
COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES
by
Charles Edward Godoy
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Educational Psychology)
January 1970
UNIVERSITY O F SO U TH ER N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
under the direction of h.jLs.. Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Gradu
ate School, in partial fulfillment of require
ments of the degree of
CHARLES EDWARD GODOY
D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES.............................. iv
Chapter
I. PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM............ 1
Introduction
Statement of the Problem
Justification of the Study
The Theoretical Model
Method
Scope of the Study
Definitions of Terms
Organization of the Remainder'
of the Dissertation
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............ 17
Introduction
Mobility
Communication
Economics
Civic Responsibility
Religion
Self
Parents
Related Variables
Summary
III. PROCEDURE.............................. 47
Construction of the Questionnaire
Validation of the Questionnaire
Initial Contact with the Mexican-
American Education Research
Project
Determination of the Nature of
the Sample
Administration of the Questionnaire
Treatment of the Data
ii
Chapter Page
IV. NATURE OF IDENTIFYING CHARACTER
ISTICS OF RESPONDENTS................ 54
Introduction
Pre-matched Characteristics
Pre-controlled Characteristics
"Discovered" Characteristics
Nature of the Interviewee
Population
V. STATISTICAL PRESENTATION OF
RESEARCH RESULTS .................... 71
Introduction
Mobility
Communication
Economics
Civic Responsibility
Religion
Self
Parents
Related Variables
VI. DISCUSSION OF RESPONSES TO
SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS ................ 144
Introduction
Procedure
Analysis of Responses
Summary
VII. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................... 159
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................ 171
APPENDIXES
Appendix A ................................ 185
Appendix B ................................ 198
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Positions Held by Subjects............ 55
2. Subjects' Yearly Salaries ........ 56
3. Who Paid for Your Last Years of
Education?.......................... 58
4. In What Type of Community Were
You Raised?.......................... 60
5. What Was Your Religious Denomina
tion While You Were Growing Up? .... 61
6. Where Were You Born?.................. 63
7. Where Were You Raised?................ 64
8. When Did Your Ancestors Come to
What Is Now the United States? .... 66
9. Did Your Parents Live Together
While You Were Growing U p ? .......... 67
10. While You Were Growing Up, How
Close Did You Feel to Your Parents? . . 68
11. Were There Neighborhood Delinquent
Gangs Where You Were Raised?........ 70
12. How Many Times Did Your Parents Move
During Your Public School Years? .. . 72
13. Did Your Mother Work Before You
Were Six Years Old?.................. 74
14. How Many Years of Schooling Did
Your Father Complete? ................ 76
15. How Many Years of Schooling Did
Your Mother Complete? ................ 77
iv
Table Page
16. What Percentage of Your High School
Peers Was Mexican-American?.......... 79
17. What Was the Language Spoken at Home? . . 80
18. What Were the Discipline Patterns
of Parents?.......................... 81
19. Were You Born in a Hospital or
at Home?.................. 83
20. Who Was Present at Your Birth?........ 84
21. How Many Children Were in Your
Family While You Were in School? ... 86
22. While You Were Growing Up, What
Kind of Work Did Your Father Do? ... 87
23. While You Were Growing Up, What
Kind of Work Did Your Mother Do? ... 89
24. Were Your Parents Registered Voters? . . 90
25. What Is Your Religious Denomination
at Present?.......................... 92
26. How Important Was Religion to You
While You Were Growing U p ? .......... 93
27. Now That You Are Grown Up, How
Important Is Religion to You?........ 94
28. How Did Your Parents Generally
Make You Feel Regarding Your
Mexican Ancestry? .................... 96
29. How Did Your Relatives Generally
Make You Feel Regarding Your
Mexican Ancestry? .... 97
30. How Did the Schools Generally
Make You Feel Regarding Your
Mexican Ancestry? .................... 98
v
Table Page
31. How Did the Newspapers and Other
Media Generally Make You Feel
Regarding Your Mexican Ancestry? . . . 100
32. How Did Other Ethnic Groups Gen
erally Make You Feel Regarding
Your Mexican Ancestry? .............. 101
33. How Did the Police Generally Make
You Feel Regarding Your Mexican
Ancestry?............................ 103
34. How Do You Feel Now Regarding
Your Mexican Ancestry? .............. 104
35. Did You Join Clubs in High School?
If So, How Many and What Types
Did You Join, and How Many
Offices Did You Hold?................ 106
36. Of What Ancestry Were Most of
Your High School Friends?............ 107
37. What Did You Consider Yourself
to Ee While Growing Up?.............. 109
38. What Do You Consider Yourself
to Be N o w ? .......................... 110
39. While in High School, Did You
Consider Going to College? .......... Ill
40. How Certain Were You of Entering
College?.......... 113
41. While You Were Growing Up, What
Vocation Did You Want to Enter? .... 114
42. Were You Involved in Delinquent
Gangs While Growing Up?.............. 116
43. How Old Were You When You Married? . . . 117
44. Who Most Influenced You, in Terms
of the Following Forced-Choice
Alternatives?.................. 119
vi
Table Page
45. How Interested Were Your Parents
in Mexican-American Matters? ........ 120
46. What Were His Father's Aspirations? . . . 121
47. What Were His Mother's Aspirations? . . . 123
48. Was Your Father Interested in Your
Getting an Education? ................ 124
49. Was Your Mother Interested in Your
Getting an Education? ................ 126
50. Did Someone Read to You While
You Were Growing U p ? ................ 127
51. If So, Who Read to You?................ 128
52. How Often Were You Read to?............ 129
53. Did Your Family Take You on
Educational Trips? .................. 131
54. How Many Members of Your Family
Had Attended or Graduated from
College Before Your High School
Graduation?.......................... 132
55. How Many Members of Your Family
Have Attended or Graduated from
College Since Your High School
Graduation?........................ . 134
56. Did Most of Your High School Friends
Have Plans for Their Future?........ 135
57. Did Teachers Generally Encourage
You to Further Your Education? .... 136
58. Did You Receive Any High School
Counseling?.......................... 138
59. Did Counselors Generally Encourage
You to Further Your Education? .... 139
vii
Table Page
60. Were You Counseled to Take
Vocational, Academic, or
Business Courses? ...................... 140
61. How Would You Characterize
Our Present Society's Re
actions to the Mexican-
American? ................................ 142
62. How Would You Characterize the
Schools' Reactions to the
Mexican-American? ...................... 143
63. Differences Between the High
School and College Groups on
Responses to All Questions
Directly Derived from the
Theoretical Model ...................... 199
viii
CHAPTER I
PRESENTATION OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
There has developed in the United States an in
creasing awareness of the groups within our society who
have not been able to share proportionally in the mate
rial rewards of our economic system.
John Kenneth Galbraith has written:
An affluent society, that is also both com
passionate and rational, would no doubt, secure
to all who needed it the minimum income essen
tial for decency and comfort . . . as a normal
function of the society and would help insure
that the misfortunes of parents, deserved or
otherwise, were not visited on their children. (15)
The Mexican-Americans comprise one group which
has become increasingly concerned with its place in rela
tion to other groups. The Mexican-American Study Project
stated in regard to this group:
It is singularly appropriate to deepen our
knowledge of a population group characterized
by widespread disadvantage on nearly every
yardstick at hand-education attainment, occupa
tional structure, income and wealth, housing,
effective community organization and political
strength, to name only a few. (123)
1
The Mexican-American Study Project (124) made a
comparison of Mexican-American urban males and Anglo
urban males in the five southwestern states. Based on the
year 1960, it found that 19 percent of the Mexican-
Americans were in nonmanual occupations with very little
employment in high-wage classifications. Anglo males from
the same area had 47 percent of their group in nonmanual
occupations and more than half of them were in managerial
and professional positions.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (80)
reported that in the Los Angeles area Mexican-Americans
held 4 percent of the white collar jobs and 18.5 percent
of the blue collar jobs. It stated that Mexican-Americans
represent 10.4 percent of the population and 9.7 percent
of the employed.
Penalosa and McDonagh (94) stated that economic
variables constitute the most conclusive evidence that
status has been achieved in our society. They stated
that schooling does prepare one for the achievement of
occupational status.
The Mexican-American Study Project (126) reported
that 13 percent of the people with Spanish surnames com
pleted high school compared to 19 percent of the nonwhites
and 28 percent of the Anglos. It further reported that
the discrepancy becomes still larger at the college level.
The rate of Mexican-American graduations was one-half of
the nonwhite rate.
The situation at the college level still shows a
significant discrepancy between the percentage of Mexican-
Americans in the area and Mexican-Americans on the college
campuses. The Los Angeles Times (83) reported that on one
college campus the Mexican-Americans make up 1 percent of
the students in the law school. On another campus in the
Los Angeles area, the Los Angeles Times (84) reported
that the Mexican-Americans comprised between 1 and 2 per
cent of the population. Rodriguez stated in May of 1969:
I cannot talk about higher education for the
Mexican-American without noting that higher edu
cation enrollments have increased 58 percent for
Anglos in the past five years, and yet less than
2 percent of our Mexican-Americans are in col
lege. And here in the center of the largest
concentration of Mexican-Americans in the U.S.A.,
California State at Los Angeles has dropped in
enrollment of Mexican-Americans from 6 percent
to less than 4 percent in a single year. (121)
It is quite evident that the Mexican-Americans
do not make up as large a proportion of the college campus
population as would be expected.
Statement of the Problem
The objective of this study was to compare the
achievement patterns of Mexican-American college and high
school graduates. The high school and college graduates
shared identifying characteristics which were either pre
matched, pre-controlled, and "discovered."
Justification of the Study
Various authorities have spoken out about the
need to give an equal educational opportunity to all.
Tumin has written:
Whatever the difficulties or temporary na
tional emergencies, we owe every single young
person in our country the right to equal,
equally good, and equally enduring education.
Our bill for eliminating second-class citizen
ship is long overdue. (49)
A slightly stronger statement was made by Clark
who stated:
The democratic pressures on our educa
tional institutions are no longer merely
verbal or sentimental. They are now seen
to have the imperative realities of sur
vival. (8)
Washington (81), former director of UCLA's Edu
cational Opportunity Program, stated that if the spread
of ability were comparable in all groups and the only
differences were cultural, then the university enrollment
should be 18 to 19 percent Mexican-American. He based
his statement on a prediction of 1970 census figures on
population percentages.
Leaders from all levels of government are sup
porting these programs. A statement was made recently
by the former California Assembly Speaker Jess Unruh:
California must work boldly and on a much
larger scale to help minority group students
attend colleges and universities. We must be
certain that all promises made to students,
and especially to disadvantaged students for
financial and other assistance are kept. There
will, on occasion be a reaction among majority
group students against what they may view as
preferential treatment and as a result of mani
festations of racism on the part of both the
majority and minority. These things will
happen and educators must be prepared to re
spond creatively if we are to build effective
multiracial communities on our campuses. (82)
In the investigator's opinion, a study of the
variables which have been significant in differentiating
the four-year Mexican-American college graduate from the
Mexican-American high school graduate would be instru
mental in bringing about a larger proportion of Mexican-
American students on college campuses.
Those factors which are significantly correlated
with a high level of academic achievement can be made
known to leaders of the Mexican-American community for
dissemination, as well as to universities.
Weiner and Murray (105) suggest that parents at
different socioeconomic levels may desire professional
occupations for their children but that lower status
parents are in need of adult education to make them
aware of ways in which their aspirations can be filled.
6
The Theoretical Model
It is here postulated that characteristics which
differentiate the Mexican-American college graduate from
the Mexican-American high school graduate can be identi
fied through recourse to the following taxonomic model of
critical variables as stated in question form.
Mobility
1. How many times did his parents move during
subject’s public school years (grades 1-12)?
Communication
1. Did the mother work before subject was six
years old?
2. How many years of schooling did the father
complete?
3. How many years of schooling did the mother
complete?
4. What percentage of high school peers was
Mexican-American?
5. What was the language spoken at home?
6. What were the discipline patterns of
parents?
7
Economics
1. Was the subject born in a hospital or at
home?
2. Who was present at his birth?
3. How many children were in the family while
subject was in school?
4. What kind of work was done by the father?
5. What kind of work was done by the mother?
Civic Responsibility
1. Were his parents registered voters?
Religion
1. What is the religious denomination of subject
at present?
2. How important was religion to the subject
while he was growing up?
3. How important is religion to the subject
now?
Self
1. How did the subject’s parents generally make
him feel regarding his Mexican ancestry?
2. How did the subject’s relatives generally
make him feel regarding his Mexican ancestry?
3. How did the schools generally make the sub
ject feel regarding his Mexican ancestry?
4. How did the newspapers and other media gen
erally make the subject feel regarding his
Mexican ancestry?
5. How did the other ethnic groups generally
make the subject feel regarding his Mexican
ancestry?
6. How did the police generally make the subject
feel regarding his Mexican ancestry?
7. How does the subject feel now regarding his
Mexican ancestry?
8. Did the subject join clubs in high school?
9. Of what ancestry were most of his high-school
friends?
10. What did subject consider himself to be while
growing up?
11. What does subject consider himself to be now?
12. Did the subject, while in high school, con
sider going to college?
13. How certain was the subject of entering
college?
14. What type of vocation did the subject want
to enter?
Was the subject involved in delinquent gangs
while growing up?
How old was the subject when he married?
Parents
Who most influenced him, in terms of the fol
lowing forced-choice alternatives?
a. Parents or Teachers ?
b. Teachers or Friends ?
c. Mother or Father ?
d. Parents or Relatives ?
e. Parents or Friends ?
f. Teachers or Relatives ?
q»
Relatives or Friends ?
How interested were his parents in Mexican-
American matters?
What were his father's aspirations?
What were his mother's aspirations?
Was his father interested in the subject's
getting an education?
Was his mother interested in the subject's
getting an education?
Did someone read to the subject while he was
growing up?
10
8. If so, who read to the subject?
9. How often was the subject read to?
10. Did the subject’s family take him on educa
tional trips while he was growing up?
Related Variables
1. How many members of his family had attended
or graduated from college before his high
school graduation?
2. How many members of his family have attended
or graduated from college since his high
school graduation?
3. Did his high school friends have plans for
their future?
4. Did teachers tend to encourage the subject
to further his education?
5. Did he receive any high school counseling?
6. Did counselors generally encourage the sub
ject to further his education?
7. Was the subject counseled to take vocational,
academic, or business courses?
8. How does the subject feel our present society
is reacting to the Mexican-American?
9. How does the subject feel the schools are
reacting to the Mexican-American?
11
Method
The data in this investigation were obtained
through a specially developed questionnaire validated
against research literature up to 1969, and were classi
fied according to the taxonomy of the theoretical model.
Four questions asked of each group were not considered
part of the theoretical model and are discussed sepa
rately in Chapter VI. The development of the question
naire is detailed in Chapter III.
Scope of the Study
The total sample consisted of a group of 51 col
lege graduates and 51 high school graduates of Mexican-
American descent.
The college graduate sample was obtained through
a list of names given to the writer by the Mexican-
American Education Research Project Office.
The names were those of some of the leaders of
education in California, all of Mexican descent.
The Mexican-American high school graduates were
obtained from Catholic clubs, Protestant churches, alumni
groups, civic groups, public agencies, PTAs, fellow
workers of respondents and little league club members.
12
The members of this group had either obtained a high
school diploma at the regular time or had gone back to
earn their diploma. Some had taken college work. Only
one had received a full two years of college.
Delimitations were determined by the eight areas
of the study, as covered in the questionnaire: mobility,
communication, economics, civic responsibility, religion,
self, parents, and related variables.
Definitions of Terms
For the purpose of this investigation, the fol
lowing definitions are employed:
Acculturation.— A two-way process of cultural
borrowing resulting from prolonged face-to-face contact
between different cultural groups.
Ambivalence.— Simultaneous liking and disliking
of an object or person; the conflict caused by an in
centive that is at once positive and negative.
Anglos.— American of non-Spanish descent, in
cluding Caucasian Americans born and residing in the
United States, but of European extraction.
Assimilation.— The reduction of social and cul
tural differences between two or more groups to a degree
13
where the differences are no longer perceived or are no
longer regarded as important.
Bilingual.— Using or able to use two languages,
especially with the fluency characteristic of a native
speaker.
Chicano.— A person of Mexican descent who largely
identifies with the attitudes and values of people of
Mexican background. Not all Mexican-Americans identify
with others in their ethnic group.
College Graduate.— A person who has had a minimum
of four years of college work and received a bachelor’s
degree from an accredited institution.
Compensation.--A form of defense mechanism by
which one attempts to cover up or balance failure in, or
lack of talent for, one activity, by a strenuous effort
to excel in either a different or an allied activity.
Continuum.— An ordering of observed or hypothet
ical data in uninterrupted graduated degrees ranging
from the lowest to the highest magnitude.
Correlation.— A relationship between two or more
variables whereby the magnitude of one variable can be
14
estimated more accurately with knowledge of the magni
tudes of the other variables than without this knowledge.
Culture.--A system of socially acquired and
socially transmitted standards of judgment, belief, and
conduct, as well as the symbolic and material products
of the resulting conventional patterns of behavior.
Environment.— In the broadest sense, everything
to which an object or organism responds.
Frame of Reference.— A system of concepts and com
parative standards by which observations are ordered and
thus interpreted.
High School Graduate.— A person who has graduated
from a high school, or completed an equivalent amount of
acceptable academic work. In the present study, several
high school graduates had, in fact, completed some college
work, but only one held an Associate of Arts degree.
Mexican-American.— The term Mexican-American in
this study denotes Americans of Mexican descent whose
family histories are traceable to Mexico. People within
this group might identify themselves as Mexican, Spanish-
American, Latin-American, American of Mexican descent,
or Chicano.
n
15
Perception*— Distinguishing awareness of environ
mental stimuli.
Reference Group.— Any group whose perspective or
standards are taken as relevant by a person in evaluating
and guiding his own behavior, regardless of whether he is
a member of that group.
Social Status.--Degree and level of prestige,
honor or social acceptance accorded to a person, by
virtue of background, material worth, type of profession,
or other factors.
Statistical Significance.--The degree of accept
ability given statistical results as statements about
reality.
Subsociety.— The distinctive social prescriptions
and style of life characterizing a specific group that is
more or less set apart from the larger society to which
it belongs.
Organization of the Remainder
of the Dissertation
Chapter II is a review of authoritative litera
ture dealing with variables which might differentiate
16
high school graduates from college graduates. Emphasis
is given to documentation of the taxonomy of the theo
retical model.
In Chapter III, the procedure and research design
of the study are outlined. It discusses the following
specific procedures relating to the development of the
study: (1) construction of the questionnaire; (2) vali
dation of the questionnaire; (3) the initial contact
with the Mexican-American Education Research Project;
(4) determination of the nature of the sample; (5) ad
ministration of the questionnaire in personal interviews;
and (6) treatment of the data.
The identification of respondent characteristics
as determined from the questionnaire appears in Chapter
IV. The data on total respondent reactions to the items
from the theoretical model are presented and analyzed in
Chapter V. In Chapter VI, the researcher presents a dis
cussion of responses to subjective questions which were
not considered a part of the theoretical model but were
found to be of importance following delineation of the
model.
Chapter VII contains a summary, conclusions, and
recommendations.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
This Chapter presents a review of literature as
related specifically to variables related to an individ
ual's level of educational achievement. An important
function of this Chapter is to identify those variables
that should be included in the research questionnaire.
Literature reviewed in this Chapter was drawn from vari
ous types of publications including professional text
books, periodicals, doctoral dissertations, and un
published research papers.
The basic organizational model of this Chapter
was developed around literature dealing with the following
factors: (1) mobility, (2) communication, (3) economics,
(4) civic responsibility, (5) religion, (6) self, (7)
parents, and (8) related variables.
Mobility
Palomares (112) in discussing the educational
problems of migrants found the following: (1) the person
17
18
who moves around more Is likely to start school late,
leave school early, and miss more school; (2) the parents
are less likely to have a favorable attitude towards the
school since pressure Is put upon them not to leave the
school attendance area early or start late; (3) children
see less reason for going to school; and (*0 the fact
that the children’s labors are needed In the fields tends
to discourage their attendance. Schools tend to feel
less responsible for them than for nonmigrant children.
Communication
Penalosa (11*0 wrote that while the Mexican-
Amerlcan has been In this country for 200 years, he has
retained his language because of his nearness to his na
tive culture, Gonzales (71) stated that the Mexican-
American child, with his blcultural learning patterns and
bilingual background, is just as motivated as his Anglo
counterpart when he enters school in kindergarten or the
first grade. Heller (23) reported that accents are com-
| mon in Mexican-Amerleans of the second and third gener-
t
j ations.
I Forbes wrote of the transition of the Southwest
|
from a Spanish-speaking to English-speaking areas
Between the l8*K)s and the 1880s English
language and Anglo-American procedures were
substituted In Southwestern public schools
19
for the Spanish language and Mexican procedures.
This change was brought about because the in
coming Anglo-Americans, as military conquerors,
did not wish to be assimilated into the Spanish
speaking Southwestern culture. They wished in
stead to transform the region’s way of life into
a replica of Ohio, Arkansas or Maine. This re
jection by the Anglo-Americans of assimilation
into Southwestern life has had important conse
quences. The burden of assimilation was removed
from the shoulders of the Anglo and forced onto
the backs of the conquered Spanish colonials,
Mexican-Americans and Indians. Cultural plural
ism was, in most cases, rejected and no fusion
of Hispano and Anglo culture was promoted by the
schools. Education was to be Anglo-oriented for
all pupils admitted to the schools, regardless
of their linguistic and ethnocultural back
grounds. (69)
Bossard (56) stated that the bilingual child is
placed in a position of strain, and that whenever lan
guage is a barrier to social mobility, the child is
likely to feel frustration that may turn into contempt.
Linn (111) found that Mexican-American children excelled
in using both Spanish and English in reading and language
development if they had been taught English as the first
language in the home. Jensen (7b) conducted research on
effects of bilingualism under five divisions: (1) speech
development, (2) language development, (3) intellectual
development, (4) educational progress, and (5) emotional
stability. Ausubel found a lack of sufficient proof that
bilingualism caused educational retardation in the Maori
child:
20
Competent observers have failed to note any
negative relationships between bilingualism, on
the one hand, and school marks. . . . Cook Is
landers, Fijians and Samoans tend to be more
bilingual than Maoris, and yet are academically
more successful in New Zealand secondary schools
and universities. . .. It may be tentatively
concluded that the language retardation of Maori
secondary school pupils is attributable to the
poor standard of English spoken in the home and
to the generally impoverished intellectual en
vironment in Maori rural districts, rather than
bilingualism itself. (2)
Gordon (20) wrote that community agencies should
help children of the second generation to develop a
healthy regard for their ethnic background as this will
help them in their confrontation with the American cul
ture and help give them a sense of identification with
their parents. He stated that this would not preclude
their development of good English speech patterns.
Andersson (52) strongly supports encouragement of
bilingualism in the Mexican-American. He wrote that when
a child enters school with a facility in a second language
we should not destroy it. Christian (58) stated that the
Spanish-speaking child might enter the world of litera
ture through the writings of Cervantes in a much more
real and intimate sense than he would ever be able to do
through the works of Shakespeare. By preserving this
entrance, we may maximize the student’s intellectual
development.
Arthur Jensen wrote of the low functioning of
21
certain segments of our population:
They are handicapped by the failure of
their particular environment to inculcate
a sufficiently complex system of verbal
mediation to enable the child to profit
from school learning or to engage in the
complex symbolic behavior known as human
thinking. (74)
Deutsch and Brown (62) found in their study of
Negro and Caucasian children who came from three socio
economic levels that intelligence test scores were
positively related to social class. Sewell, Haller and
Strauss (100) found that when intelligence is controlled,
there is a positive relationship between the level of
educational aspiration and parental social status. Olim,
Hess and Shipman (120) found that the child's ability to
handle abstraction was related to the maternal language
style. Frankel (70), in studying data on working and
nonworking mothers among intellectually gifted high and
low achievers, found that the working mothers of achievers
were professionally employed and had completed more
schooling than the nonworking mothers of achievers and
the working and nonworking mothers of the nonachievers.
Deutsch and Brown (62) presented data that sug
gested that preschool educational experiences and family
cohesion were important sources in variance in Negro-
white differences in intelligence test performance.
Gilbert (108) found one of the most significant
22
variable affecting prediction scores on elementary
achievement tests was whether there was a working mother
with children under six in the home. The correlation was
negative.
McCarthy (85) felt that there was a relationship
between verbal skills and parental availability, partic
ularly the amount and kind of contact the child ex
periences with his mother. Powell and Jourard (96) found
in comparing underachieving college students with ade
quately achieving students that the underachievers gave
evidence of a lack of emancipation from parents.
Schwartz (115) found that the Mexican-American's auton
omy, his independence from family authority, and concern
for peer over adult disapproval, were significantly
correlated with success. Rainwater (37), in a general
study of working-class mothers, wrote that the mothers
tended to stay with the known and the familiar, and ap
peared unable to grasp new ideas and opportunities
outside their adaptation to their place in society.
Milner (88) found in her study of reading readi
ness tests results that the group formed a social class
division: the high scorers came from a verbally rich
environment where conversation among family members was
the rule; whereas the poorer readers came from the less
verbal milieu of lower socioeconomic groups. In homes
23
of the lower group, as compared with those on a higher
socioeconomic level, mealtime conversations were sparse,
children made few trips with their parents, were read to
less frequently, spoke less with their parents and re
ceived more physical punishment.
Landes (29) wrote that in Mexico and New Mexico
each man is the acknowledged ruler in his own family, and
the wife and children must obey unquestioningly. Elders
silence others with the severe remark, "You are noisy!"
The highest praise for the child is to say, "How good she
is! She doesn’t talk!" Bernstein (55) has noted the
tendency of lower class parents to exercise arbitrary
authority and categorical demands in disciplining their
children, without giving an explanation or allowing the
child to deviate or question.
Sheldon (101) found that the Mexican-American
senior high school students of Los Angeles are more
likely to drop out than are students of other ethnic
groups. Wilson (106) wrote that the climate of the
school affects the occupational aspirations of the indi
vidual and that the segregation of social classes makes
for unequal moral climates which affect the aspirations
of the student when he is confronted with the majority
culture.
24
Economics
Hodgkinson wrote of the importance of the income
and occupation of parents:
If you knew the income and occupation of
a student’s father, you could predict whether
or not he will go to college almost as well
as you could by using intelligence test scores. (25)
Ausubel (2) found in his study of the Maoris that
they were reluctant to commit themselves to supporting
long-range education plans for their children because of
their small incomes and large families. Davie (60) re
ported that the schools in his study tended to perpet
uate the status of some children and served as channels
of upward mobility for others. The important variables
were: (1) financial resources of the family, (2) parents
tendency to provide their children an education com
parable to or slightly better than their own, and (3)
parental expectations regarding choice of vocation.
Edwards (13) found that 60 percent of the Negro profes
sional men in Washington, D.C., were children of white-
collar parents, and like other professional men in the
country had ’ 'inherited" their advantages. Rosen (97)
and Hieronymus (72) stated that middle-class children
achieve more due to higher expectations. Knupfer (79)
quoted the Austrian Lazarfelt as stating that lower-
25
status youth have "seen less, read less, heard about
less . . . experienced fewer changes than the socially
privileged, and . . . know of fewer possibilities."
Bloom (6) has estimated the long-term effect of extreme
environmental deprivation on measured intelligence to be
- about twenty IQ points.
The Mexican-American Study Project stated that in
the metropolitan area of the Southwest as a whole, over
one-third of the Spanish-surname families lived in over
crowded housing units in 1960. (123) This is a startling
ratio compared to the 8 percent found for Anglos and the
22 percent for nonwhites. Gilbert (108) found the best
predictor of achievement was the percentage of housing
with more than one person per room.
In a positive vein, Reissman (41) found the
crowded conditions of the lower-class home nurtured co
operativeness and a tradition of mutual aid within the
extended families. But John and Goldstein (76) found
that overcrowded homes and the absence of feedback from
adults result in incorrect pronunciation, poor grammar,
and faulty word association.
Schorr states:
The evidence is overwhelming: extremely
poor housing conditions perceptibly influ
ence behavior and attitudes. In poor housing,
the individual will experience considerable
and continued stress and frustration, which
26
influence his self-perception and the per
ception of others and thereby affect
adversely social interaction between groups
and persons. (42)
Pearl (36) writes that the poor have a poorer
self-image, greater sense of powerlessness, lack of
future orientation, greater potential impulse acting out,
unreal aspirations and more depressed expectations.
Pasamanick (92) found that mothers from lower-
class groups usually have more abnormal pregnancies and
prematurely born children, factors which in turn are
correlated with mental deficiency and retardation.
Civic Responsibility
Stein (45) wrote that many ethnic parents have
tried to orient the child to an ethnic past, but the child
often insists on being more American than the American.
Landes wrote:
To this day, a familiar characteristic of
the Mexican-American is to cope with Anglo
prejudice by withdrawing from Anglo life,
rather than meeting it directly. It was not
until the Second World War that Mexican-
American veterans and other Mexican-American
leaders began training their people to battle
head on, like Anglo-Americans and the success
ful groups. (29)
Diaz-Guerrero (11) noted the assumption, preva
lent in the native Mexican culture, that to endure
stress passively rather than actively is not only the
best but also the virtuous way.
27
Religion
Lasswell (110) reported in his study that pro
gressive members of the Mexican-American group raise
their status by attending the Protestant mission instead
of the Catholic church. The Mexican-American Study
Project (125) noted the unexpected tendency for the third
generation to demonstrate less adherence to Catholic
practice in marriage than the second generation.
Lasswell (110) found that non-Mexican Catholics do not
attend the Mexicans' church, and do not consider them
selves part of the Mexican parish.
Broom and Shevky (57) stated that the Catholic
church is the principal agency of cultural conservatism
for Mexican-Americans and reinforces the separateness
of the group. When Mexican-Americans become members of
Protestant churches, or of nonethnic Catholic parishes,
the phenomenon is an aspect of mobility. Villalobos
(122) stated that the Catholic church has not played a
significant role for the Mexican-American community in
working for civil rights.
Landes wrote:
The clergy of Mexico, Catholic and Protes
tant, dictate to their congregations. . . .
Both clergy and fathers discourage initiative
and leadership among the young, traits that
28
Anglos respect as showing self-reliance and
creativeness. (29)
Dollard (12) noted the role of religion in pro
moting caste acceptance; the church equating distress
on earth with reward in heaven, and providing an im
portant and immediate source of compensatory emotional
satisfaction through its highly charged ritual.
Self
Gross, Mason and McEachern (21) stated that
people do not behave in a random way; our expectations,
the expectations of others in the group, and the expecta
tions of society all influence our behavior. Shibutani
and Kwan (43) indicated the decisive point is that
people do not behave primarily in terms of reality, but
rather in terms of their conceptions of things. Again,
Banton (3) observed that persons faced with a similar
situation do not act in the same way, but instead react
to their "definition of the situation."
Ausubel wrote of the "acculturation continuum"
which helps to explain the variance found among Mexican-
Americans :
It only assumes (a) that personality changes
in the indigenous culture (from pre- to post
contact stages or from earlier to later
stages of contact) reflect in part the influ
ence of cultural determinants emanating from
29
the introduced culture; (b) that different
groups and individuals are exposed to and
adopt various features of the introduced
culture in varying degrees; and hence (c)
that differences in degree of acculturation
are related to both differences in exposure
to and familiarity with the introduced cul
ture and to individual differences in tem
perament, personality and experience. It
does not assume that the introduced culture
is superior to, more desirable than, and
passively accepted or totally uninfluenced
by the indigenous culture. Neither does it
assume that acculturation is an irreversible
or unidimensional process or that parallelism
in rate of acculturation occurs for all com
ponents of personality in a given individual.
Thus, efflorescence of native values or
practices may take place after they have al
ready undergone considerable acculturation,
and a particular individual can simultane
ously occupy opposite ends of the continuum
with respect to different dimensions.
The acculturation continuum construct is
also consistent with the possibility that
for the indigenous culture considered as a
whole, different components of personality
and behaviour may be characterized by marked
differences in degree of acculturation. (1)
Gordon (20) wrote of the marginal man as standing
on the border of two cultural worlds but not fully a
member of either. The minority group member is attracted
by the subsociety of the dominant group. If he is not
fully accepted by the broader social world, he adopts
ambivalent attitudes. Mowrer (34) saw that a person
choosing a life role may sell his "soul" or real self
much as in a Faustian drama; in other words, the roles
the person plays may not do justice to the self. Horney
30
(26) would speak of the danger of self-alienation — the
person might become estranged from his real self. Paz
(35) wrote of the Mexican-American:
They lived in the city for many years
wearing the same clothes and speaking the
same language as the other inhabitants and
they feel ashamed of their origin yet no
one would mistake them for authentic North
Americans. (35)
Berndt and Berndt (5) found that the younger gen
eration of Aborigines in Australia, educated in English
schools, try to conceal their background and ignore their
dark relatives on the street. Eisenstadt (65), studying
Israel's immigrants, found the choice of reference groups
was made in terms of an individual's estimate of the
possibilities of achieving satisfactory socioeconomic
status through each alternative. Shibutani and Kwan (43)
reported that most European groups become integrated
within a few generations. Other groups take centuries,
while Armenians, gypsies and Jews have been able to re
tain their consciousness of kind up to the present.
Penalosa (93) found that the trend to disguise
Mexican ethnic origin by self-identification as "Spanish"
appears to be on the wane; the highest status individ
uals, almost all of whom were children of immigrants,
preferred to call themselves "Mexicans" or "Mexican-
Americans."
31
Inkeles and Levinson (28) wrote that a culture
provides a series of patterned stimulus situations.
Society seeks to elicit specific responses through a con
stant drumfire of rewards and punishment. Individuals
incorporate a system of tensions, inhibitions, acquired
drives and motivations. The sharing of the system gives
rise to national character, a typical, culturally medi
ated personality structure.
Shibutani and Kwan (43) stated that perception is
always selective; we perceive only those things that are
relevant to our interests, and we tend to notice only
those cues that confirm our expectations. Once stereo
types are learned, people are perceived in terms of them.
The more firmly established the expectations, the more
easily they are confirmed.
McLuhan (32) insists the electronic media are
subtly and constantly altering our perceptual senses.
Man now lives in a global-sized village, and is returning
to the values and perceptions of a preliterate culture.
Himmelweit, Oppenheim and Vince (24) stated that tele
vision reminds us of the low status of manual work. The
world of television drama tends to be that of upper-
middle-class urban society. The occupations of people
of this social level are depicted as worthwhile or
glamorous, while manual labor is presented as uninter
32
esting.
Bandura, Ross and Ross (53) stated that tele
vision will increasingly provide models of behavior that
will influence the personality development, attitudes
and norms of viewers. Goodman (19) reported that some
young children appear to be aware of racial differences
at an early age. They absorb attitudes of social in
feriority and sometimes attempt to deny or reject
unalterable physical characteristics that the white
majority holds in disdain.
Goffman wrote:
In an important sense there is only one
complete unblushing male in America: a young,
married, white urban, northern European ex
traction, heterosexual, Protestant father of
college education, fully employed, of good
complexion, weight, and height and a recent
record in sports. Every American male tends
to look out upon the world from this perspec
tive, this constituting one sense in which
one can speak of a common value system. (18)
A similar statement was made by Tumin:
In American society one is generally con
sidered better, superior, or more worthy if
he is, (1) white rather than Negro, (2) male
rather than female, (3) Protestant rather
than Catholic or Jewish, (4) educated rather
than uneducated, (5) rich rather than poor,
(6) white collar rather than blue collar,
(7) of good family background rather than
undistinguished family origin, (8) young
rather than old, (9) urban or suburban
rather than rural dwelling, (10) of Anglo-
Saxon national origin rather than any other,
(11) native born rather than of foreign
33
descent, (12) employed rather than unemployed,
(13) married rather than divorced. (50)
Turner and Surace (104) found that during the
decade preceding the Zoot-Suit riots of 1943, the treat
ment of Mexicans in the mass media had gradually become
less favorable and the concept of "Zoot-Suiters" had been
built up as a negative symbol. Villalobos (122) reported
that in folklore and the first dime novels, the Mexican
was portrayed as lazy, ignorant, cruel, drunken, vio
lent, dirty and the perfect foil for the Anglo. Madsen
(33) wrote that the Mexican-American with an accent
dreaded reciting in class.
Lasswell (111) found that families like the
Jimenez and Zamoras did not want to be Mexicans.
Simmons (102) wrote that while the Mexican-
American might be affected by social images of inferi
ority, he clearly wanted equal opportunity and full
acceptance now.
Glueck and Glueck (17) found a positive corre
lation between emotional problems and school success.
They pointed out that there might be problems that did
not interfere with school work. McKenzie (87) wrote that
overachievers and underachievers are more anxious than
normal achievers, with underachievers tending to exter
nalize their conflicts, and overachievers tending to
34
internalize their anxiety. Brookover, Patterson and
Thomas (7) suggested that self-concept, under certain
conditions, has as marked an effect on academic achieve
ment as does socioeconomic status.
Ausubel (2), writing of the Maoris, stated that
racial discrimination might make it more difficult for
them to attain their goals. He felt that their situation
might be like that of the Jew and Greek in the United
States, in that when they met a difficulty they were
stimulated to greater striving. On the other hand, if
the discrimination takes root as it has against the
Negro, it might produce apathy and hopelessness.
Jacobson (109) found that teacher perception of
the American appearance of a child was affected by knowl
edge of his IQ. Since the obviously Mexican children be
gin to achieve less after the first few years in school,
they may be "learning their place" in the dominant cul
ture through lower expectations of teachers and/or
feelings of rejection by other children. Takesian (116)
found that Mexican-American high school graduates, as com
pared with high school dropouts, generally felt more
liked by teachers. Parsons (113), focusing on a small
Anglo and Mexican-American California community, found
that the school is an important contributor to the main
tenance of the ethnically differentiated social
structures.
35
Hummel and Sprinthall (73) pointed out that the
school cannot always be meaningful. There is a need to
be able to risk a controlled performance and hope that
it will be rewarding. Heller (118) reported that while
only 2 percent of the Mexican-Americans were in the pro
fessions or semi-professions, 35 percent of Mexican-
American students aspired to positions at these levels.
Wylie (107) found that children of lower socioeconomic
levels make more modest estimates of their ability than
do children of higher socioeconomic levels. Empey (68)
concluded that lower-class youth do aspire to get ahead
but do not aspire to the same absolute levels as the
higher status youth.
Cloward and Ohlin (9) wrote that the delinquent
gang member must be loyal, trustworthy, and honest in
his dealings with the group. He must prove himself re
liable and dependable in his contact with his associates.
Social controls are exerted to suppress undisciplined,
expressive behavior. There is no place for the impulsive,
unpredictable individual. As Dollard (12) suggested, one
safe way of reducing frustrations is aggression against
a substitute object. Thus, Mowrer (34) believed the de
linquent finds a definite identity, not always completely
satisfying, but important as a source of security.
36
Neugarten (90) found that when children were
asked to identify their best friends, they more often
named children above them in social class, than children
from their own social class. Most lower-class children
were chosen only by others of their social class.
Stendler (46) found that while young children crossed
social-class lines for their school associates, their
general tendency was to choose out-of-school friends from
within their own social class. Parsons (113) found that
Anglos show more extreme in-group preferences than do
Mexican-Americans. He found a 90 percent cleavage by
the sixth grade and 100 percent cleavage by the mid
eighth grade.
Simmons (127) found middle-class norms place
great emphasis on the ability to defer gratifications in
the interest of long-range goals. Readiness to sacrifice
the present for some possible gain in the future may not
be nearly as pervasive among lower-status people, who
may accord priority to immediate rewards. Battle and
Rotter (54) found that middle-class children were more
internally controlled than lower-class children.
DeSena (61) found that the consistent "over
achiever" is self-sufficient, and does not reveal a
strong need for companionship.
37
Parents
Hunt (27) stated that in order to learn one must
be able to interpret, make responses and receive satis
fying confirmations. Kahl (77) demonstrated that
parental influence and pressure to go to college are im
portant determinants as to whether a working-class boy
will obtain a higher education. Rau (39) found that
academically successful boys came from homes in which a
feeling of warmth prevailed, mutual respect was exchanged
among members of the family, a high value was placed on
academic achievement and positive support was given to
develop self-sufficiency. Strodtbeck, McDonald and Rosen
(103) found that while both Italian and Jewish parents
had lofty goals for their children, the Jewish children
were under the impression their parents would be sorely
disappointed if they did not achieve their high aims,
whereas Italians felt their parents would be satisfied
with less. Rosen (98) found that Jewish children are
expected to develop self-reliance at an earlier age
than other children.
Elder (66) reported that boys with high scholas
tic achievement generally belong to egalitarian house
holds.
38
Dynes, Clarke and Dinitz (64) found unsatis
factory interpersonal relationships in the family were
significantly related to high aspirations. They found
satisfactory relationships were related to lower aspira
tions. Ellis and Lane (67) stated that lower-class
children turning to sources outside the community tend
to develop strong ambivalence towards their parents.
McClelland, et al. (31) found that children with
a high need for achievement tend to perceive parents as
relatively distant rather than close, whereas children
with a low achievement need described their parents as
more friendly and helpful.
Vidich and Bensman in writing of a lower-class
group stated:
In a manner of speaking the shack people
surrender their illusions before birth. The
process of socialization in shack cultures
does not include an internalization of high
aspirations. There are others who surrender
to the shack and surrender their aspirations
within their lifetime. (51)
Hunt (27) used the model of the computer for his
theory and compares thinking to data processing. He
suggested that the early years of development play a
significant role in providing the generalized conceptual
skills needed for later learning. MacDonald, McGuire and
Havighurst (86) found that the higher socioeconomic
strata participated more frequently in family activities
than the lower-class families. Metfessel (117) found
that the lower-class child does not experience the stim
ulus bombardment that the middle-class child finds.
Related Variables
Cronbach (10) stated that the school acts as a
sorting agency. It decides who will go into routine jobs
and who will get the better jobs. Gardner (16) reported
that the school, by stating who should go to college,
in effect determines who may exercise decision-making
powers in the larger society. Gonzalez (71) reported
that while Mexican-Americans in the total sample made up
12.2 percent of the pupils in the twelfth grade, they
made up only 7 percent. Klineberg (78) stated that a
cumulative deficit does exist. He inferred that children
i from low socioeconomic background and minority status be-
■come less able to handle intellectual and linguistic
tasks as they move through the grades. Schmeding (99)
found that a large proportion of lower-class subjects, de
fined as gifted on the basis of early intelligence test
scores, became "ungifted1 1 later on in their schooling.
Palomares and Johnson (91) have pointed to the
inadequacy of all present tests as measures of the in
tellectual capacity of Mexican-American children, even
40
when given in Spanish. The psychologist was a principal
variable in the evaluation process.
Tomkins cited certain conditions to be met before
acceptance of a standard intelligence test as a valid
measurement:
(1) All subjects have had the same motiva
tion to learn what is being tested.
(2) All subjects are highly motivated to
learn what is being tested.
(3) All subjects have had the same practice
on what is being tested.
(4) All subjects have had sufficient prac
tice so that the skill being tested is over
learned so that the extrapolation for insuf
ficient practice is not required and so that
all can be compared to the same ceiling of
ability.
(5) All subjects have had standardized
guidance so that one can compare performances
in depth of differential advantages and be
sure it is the same skill that is being
tested.
(6) All subjects have been exposed to
the same amount of guidance as well as the
same kind. (47)
Pearl (36) stated that differential tracks in
school are another way of denying the poor adequate
access to education. He considered tracking to be seg
regation by alleged ability and that it brought with it
a lack of stimulation. Reissman (41) stated that chil
dren learn in different ways and that schools should take
41
into account these differences in presenting subject
matter. Rasey and Menge (38) stated that the school
should extend the child’s operational limits. These
disadvantaged children came to school with strengths
such as competence in dealing with their home environ
ment and realistic views of themselves within the con
text of their lives.
Brookover, Patterson and Thomas (7) found that
children learn what they perceive they are able to learn.
A child's perception of his learning capacity comes from
his interaction with significant others who hold certain
expectations of him as a learner.
Cutts (59) felt that inappropriate teacher atti
tudes toward low verbal readiness may interfere with the
disadvantaged child's intellectual development. He sug
gested that grouping according to ability may often
isolate disadvantaged children and prevent them from
gaining important informal learning experiences through
contact with pupils from higher socioeconomic groups.
Bartky (4) pointed to the need for the teacher to
understand the cultural backgrounds of the children they
teach.
Friedenberg (14) recommended that teachers mini
mize their despair for middle-class reform and help the
adolescent understand to an increasing degree exactly
42
what his capabilities are. Bartky (4) contended that the
overwhelming middle-class culture of the schools is of
only limited utility in teaching many American subcul
tural groups of children.
Gonzalez has written:
Teachers must overcome their fear of
visiting parents at home and stop having
their parent conferences at school just
because they feel more secure in their
classrooms. Too long have too many
teachers and administrators continued to
function fruitlessly, unaware of the
poverty, poor self-image, and smoldering
hatred of the minority group parent. How
many times have school personnel failed
to recognize that extreme politeness has
disguised real emotional resentment toward
those in authority who have the power to
decide whether education shall be allowed
to continue for their children? (71)
McClelland (30) wrote that the school rewards
some children for talents that are of little ultimate
importance, and discourages others who have talents that
the school is not prepared to recognize.
Montez wrote of the treatment received by the
bicultural pupil in the schools:
Never is there any compensation for this
child’s personality, that part which is bi-
cultural-bilingual. Yet it is there. From
the educational standpoint, we have never
prepared our teachers with the necessary
tools to cope with this important aspect of
the bicultural child. When we strip a per
son of a part of his total self, the only
sound psychological conclusion that we can
make is that this personality is due for in
volvement in deviant behavior. (119)
43
Ravitz (40) proposed that textbooks should not
only reveal the vast range of racial, social-class and
occupational types that constitute our society, but also
indicate to the depressed-area Negro that there are suc
cessful Negro physicians, accountants, engineers, nurses,
teachers, and professors.
Gordon (20) reminds us that all immigrant groups
at one time confronted a society at best largely indif
ferent and at worst hostile to them and concerned mainly
with their instrumental economic skills.
Handlin (22) noted that organizations, such as
the "Native Sons of the Golden West," made California
birth a condition for membership. No Chinese, Mexicans,
Japanese or Negroes could become members.
According to Tuck (48), the Mexican immigrant was
considered the lowest of any group to enter the South
west. It was a belief shared by educators, clergymen
and social workers. Landes (29) wrote that Orientals,
Indians and Negroes have been segregated by state laws,
while Mexican-Americans have usually been confined by cus
tom. Pinkney (95) found that only 36 percent of the peo
ple in his study felt that Mexicans should have the right
to live in the same areas as other Americans. Mulligan
(89) found only 9 percent of the people in his study
would consider intermarriage with Mexican-Americans.
44
Dworkin (63) found that Mexican-Americans born
in the United States held more negative attitudes about
Anglos than those from Mexico. He suggested the possi
bility that the United States-born Mexican used the Anglo
as his frame of reference, whereas the immigrant used his
former peers as his frame of reference. The United
States-born Mexican-American reportedly disliked the
Anglo because "he has everything."
Simmons (102) found that lower-class Mexican-
Americans do not consider the disabilities of their
status nearly as severe as do middle-class Mexican-
Americans. He felt that this reflected the insulation of
the Mexican-American lower class from the Anglo-American
world. He found that all Mexican-Americans are aware of
Anglo attitudes and practices with regard to their group,
but the lower-class sectors have not been particularly
concerned with improving their status by acquiring Anglo
ways, as have their middle-class counterparts.
Summary
In this Chapter authoritative literature was re
viewed in terms of the variables that might have a bearing
on the level of educational achievement.
Literature dealing with mobility indicated that
it could cause a child to fall behind in class work.
45
Literature dealing with communication problems
gave arguments both for and against preserving a child's
bilingual facility. Some feel the schools must learn to
take the child as he is and build upon his strengths.
The family’s socioeconomic level largely deter
mines the child's aspiration level, firmness of aspira
tions, availability of supports, readiness for school,
and ability to take advantage of what schools offer.
Large family size and poor housing were found to have a
negative effect on educational attainment.
The Catholic church is reportedly losing its in
fluence with Mexican-Americans seeking assimilation by
the majority culture.
Literature in the area of psychology indicated
the Mexican-American experiences conflict due to bi
cultural conditioning. The influence of the media in
forming discriminatory attitudes was noted. The Anglo
cultural majority's cultural ideal male was described.
It was reported that the influence on educational attain
ment of socially engendered emotional problems was
dependent on their degree of severity.
It was found that parental influence is very
important in educational attainment. It was suggested
46
that parental attitudes might be as determining as socio
economic status.
The literature in general revealed that the
Mexican-American child faces neglect, misunderstanding
and discriminatory practice in the typical middle-class
school system.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURE
In this Chapter, procedures utilized in the de
velopment of this study are discussed. The procedures
fall into six major categories: (1) construction of the
questionnaire; (2) validation of the questionnaire; (3)
initial contact with the Mexican-American Education Re
search Project; (4) determination of the nature of the
sample; (5) administration of the questionnaire in per
sonal interviews; and (6) treatment of the data.
Construction of the Questionnaire
As a first step in the construction of the ques
tionnaire, the investigator analyzed authoritative
literature concerned with the Mexican-American, disad
vantaged groups, occupational mobility, deviant achieve
ment of pupils, status stratification, sociology of
education, and educational psychology. This literature
was derived from many sources, primarily professional
textbooks, periodicals, doctoral dissertations, reports,
pamphlets and newspapers. The original questionnaire
47
48
consisted of a list of twenty-six questions. The original
list of questions, while relevant, lacked a framework.
The final form of the research questionnaire was based on
a theoretical model suggested by the Chairman of the
writer's Dissertation Committee.
Validation of the Questionnaire
Eight Mexican-American educational leaders were
contacted. Each person gave generously of his time to
comment on the questionnaire. Practically every sugges
tion contributed to the final form of the questionnaire.
In the process of contacting these eight people,
the investigator was advised to seek the cooperation of
the State Department of Education's Mexican-American
Education Research Project. When contacted, the coor
dinator, John Plakos, made pertinent criticisms, re
sulting in further revision of the questionnaire.
The focus of the study was on those variables
differentiating the two groups. The first 58 questions
were objective. Certain items were designed to elicit
identifying characteristics. One question, "How was your
college education paid for?," pertained only to the col
lege educated group.
The objective part of the questionnaire fell
under eight major headings. These eight groupings were:
49
(1) mobility, (2) communication, (3) economics, (4) civic
responsibility, (5) religion, (6) self, (7) parents, and
(8) related variables.
The first 58 questions incorporated basic response
choices, including: (1) a five-point scale (very im
portant, important, somewhat important, not at all im
portant, and don’t know); (2) another five-point scale
(responsive, somewhat responsive, indifferent, somewhat
discriminatory, and discriminatory); and (3) a three-
point scale (yes, no, and don’t know).
Three questions of an open-ended type were asked,
in order to insure that certain important factors rele
vant to the topic would be adequately reflected in the
study. These were questions 59, 60 and 61.
After the interviewing had started, it was sug
gested that the investigator add one more question of an
open-ended type to the research instrument; that question
appears as item 62 on the questionnaire.
Initial Contact with the Mexican-American
Education Research Project
In helping the investigator develop the question
naire, the Coordinator of the Mexican-American Education
Research Project, Mr. Plakos, stated that his office
would be interested in providing further assistance. A
50
verbal and later written agreement was reached whereby a
part of the expenses of the study would be funded by his
office.
Determination of the Nature of the Sample
In order to make inferences from our study, it
was felt necessary to match each college graduate with
a high school graduate who was: (l) within two years of
the same age; (2) of the same sex; and (3) raised in the
same type of community, i.e., rural area, small town,
small city, or large city.
The college graduates were obtained from a list
presented to the researcher by the Mexican-American Edu
cation Research Project. The list contained the names of
some of the leaders of education, all of Mexican descent
and college graduates, all residing in California. Some
of the interviewees asked the interviewer to contact
other individuals who held similar positions and their
names were added to the list after notifying the Mexican-
American Education Research Project. Five names were
added to the list in this fashion. Of the original list,
only three persons did not participate in the study. One
person had been transferred to Washington, D.C., another
had moved and could not be located, and the third chose
not to become involved for personal reasons.
51
The high school graduates were obtained through
contacting Catholic church clubs, Protestant church clubs,
Parent Teacher Associations, high school alumni groups,
little league baseball team groups, governmental agencies,
civic associations, educator groups, and individuals.
The members of this group had either received their di
ploma at the usual age, or had gone to night school to
earn it. About half had taken college work but only one
had received an Associate of Arts degree.
Administration of the Questionnaire
The researcher's first contact with all partici
pants in the study was a phone call. The researcher
identified himself and explained the nature of the study.
They were informed that all information taken would be
treated in confidence, and could in no way ever be at
tributed to them.
One of the guidelines adopted for all the inter
views was that they be conducted face-to-face. Since all
of the interviewees were very busy people, it was neces
sary to make as many as four calls in order to arrange
for the subject’s interview.
The investigator did all the interviewing in
order to clarify any possible confusion as to what spe
cifically was being asked and to ensure uniform condi-
52
tions. The inverviews were conducted in classrooms,
offices, living rooms, restaurants, kitchens and airport
lobbies.
Since the respondents were employed in both
Northern and Southern California, it was necessary to
travel throughout the state. Many of the respondents
who worked outside of Los Angeles were able to have their
interviews while on trips to the Los Angeles area.
Treatment of the Data
In order to deal statistically with the data ob
tained in this investigation and to develop a basis for
interpreting the data, the following types of tests were
used: (1) Chi Square— Two Independent Samples (2x2
Table); (2) the Median Test; and (3) the Binomial Test.
In all cases, these tests were used to determine whether
a statistically significant difference occurred at the
.05 level of confidence. These tests were oriented
toward the "goodness of fit" concept.
Siegel (44) was the basic source for the descrip
tion and selection of the tests. Siegel wrote:
When frequencies in discrete categories
... constitute the data of research, the
test may be used to determine the sig
nificance of the differences among K inde
pendent groups. . .. In general the test
is the same for both two and K independent
samples. (44)
53
The Chi Square— Two Independent Samples (2x2
Table) was applied to practically all comparisons. The
Median Test was used on only two comparisons. Siegel
defined the purpose of the Median Test as follows:
The median test is a procedure for testing
whether two independent groups differ in cen
tral tendencies. More precisely, the median
test will give information as to whether it is
likely that two independent groups (not neces
sarily of the same size) have been drawn from
populations with the same median. The null
hypothesis is that the two groups are from
populations from the same median. (44)
The Binomial Test was used on certain comparisons.
Four open-ended questions were added at the end
of the questionnaire. Answers to the open-ended questions
were categorized, and examples selected for listing below
in Chapter VI.
CHAPTER IV
NATURE OF IDENTIFYING CHARACTERISTICS
OF RESPONDENTS
Introduction
A total of 102 Mexican-Americans were interviewed
between November, 1968 and June, 1969. Fifty-one of the
respondents were college graduates who held positions in
the field of education. They were employed throughout
the state of California at the time they were interviewed.
The 51 subjects with a high school diploma or its
equivalent were all residents of Los Angeles and Orange
counties at the time of their interviews. The types of
positions held by subjects in both groups are identified
in Table 1.
As might be expected, the yearly salaries of the
two groups did differ. Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the investigator found a significant dif
ference beyond the .05 level of confidence. The differ
ence was in the expected direction, with college
graduates earning the larger salaries. Table 2 lists the
salaries of all-respondents with the exception of one
54
55
TABLE 1
POSITIONS HELD BY SUBJECTS
Positions Held
High School Group College Group
Professional .... 1 Consultant . . .
White Collar .... 10 Administrator .
Business ...... 7 Professor . . .
Skilled ...... 18 Coordinator . .
Unskilled ........ 15 Other ........
. 18
. 16
. 9
. 6
. 2
Total 51 51
56
TABLE 2
SUBJECTS' YEARLY SALARIES
(1968-1969)
Yearly Salary High School Group College Group
$ 2,000 - 4,000 6
4,000 - 6,000 4
6,000 - 8,000 6
8,000 - 10,000 11
10,000 - 12,000 12 2
12,000 - 14,000 3 4
14,000 - 16,000 4 9
16,000 - 18,000 15
18,000 - 20,000 1 8
20,000 - 22,000 1 5
22,000 - 24,000 2 1
25,000 - Over _6
Total 50* 50*
*One member of each group declined to answer
57
member from each group. The two individuals chose not
to divulge the information.
Table 3 indicates the main sources of funds col
lege graduates used to pay for their higher education.
An effort was made to determine the role of governmental
assistance. No statistical test was applied, but it can
be seen that governmental assistance was important in
most cases.
The identifying characteristics were divided into
three groups: (1) pre-matched, (2) pre-controlled, and
(3) “discovered."
Pre-matched Characteristics
In order to make inferences from the study, the
investigator controlled the two groups on a one-to-one
basis for the following characteristics:
1. Sex. Were the groups identical in terms of
sex? There were forty-six men and five women in each
group.
2. Age. Were the groups identical in terms of
age? Each high school graduate matched in age and sex
a person who had already been interviewed in the college
graduate group. The investigator allowed a difference of
two years in age. The ages for the total group ran from
30 to 55 and the median age was 42.
58
TABLE 3
WHO PAID FOR YOUR LAST
YEARS OF EDUCATION?*
Source of Financing College Group
GI Bill (Government) 30
Parents 8
Self 13
Total 51
*Asked of college group only.
59
3. In What Type of Community Was Subject Raised?
Were the groups identical in terms of early community en
vironment? The categories were: (1) rural area (under
1,000 population); (2) small town (up to 50,000); (3)
small city (50,000 to 100,000); and (4) large city
(100,000 and over). Each college graduate was matched
by a high school graduate from the same size population
center; the pairs were also matched in terms of sex and
age. Responses to the above question are tabulated in
Table 4.
Pre-controlled Characteristics
The following three characteristics were somewhat
controlled but for different reasons:
1. What Was the Religious Denomination of the
Subject While He Was Growing Up? Were the respondent
groups different in terms of early religious influences?
Since the first high school graduates' names were picked
from the lists of a Catholic church club, the investi
gator contacted Protestant churches to obtain the names
of additional high school graduates. Table 5 records the
religious composition of the groups. Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no
significant difference between the two groups. The Chi
60
TABLE 4
IN WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNITY WERE YOU RAISED?
Type of Community High School Group College Group
Rural Area 4 4
Small Town 18 18
Small City 2 2
Large City 27 27
Total 51 51
TABLE 5
WHAT WAS YOUR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP?
Early Religious
Denomination High School Group College Group
Catholic Ethnic-*- 21 21
Protestant Ethnic-*- 7 8
Other
Catholic Non-Ethnic^ 23 22
Protestant Non-Ethnic-^
--- —
Total 51 51
■^"Ethnic" denotes a church or denomination
holding non-English services.
^"Non-Ethnic” denotes a church or denomination
holding services in English.
62
Square with one degree of freedom was .1. A Chi Square
Test was run to determine whether there was significant
difference in terms of ethnic vs. non-ethnic church
attendance. There was no significant difference.
2. Where Was the Subject Born? Were respondent
groups different in terms of birthplace? An effort was
made to control for birthplace. Applying a Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no significant
difference. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was .4. Table 6 summarizes the data on birthplace.
3. Where Was the Subject Raised? Were respondent
groups different in regard to the general areas in which
subjects were raised? Since the investigator tried to
obtain high school graduates from the same general areas
as the college graduates, it was not surprising to find
no significant difference between the two groups. The
Chi Square with one degree of freedom was .4. Table 7
lists the relevant data.
discovered** Characteristics
The following common characteristics of the two
groups were not discovered until tabulation of data and
statistical testing for differences were completed. They
are brought in at this point to further confirm the
general relevance of the findings.
63
TABLE 6
WHERE WERE YOU BORN?
Birthplace High School Group College Group
Los Angeles 20 13
Southern California 11 15
Texas 6 7
California 5 4
New Mexico 3 1
Arizona 2 5
Colorado 2 2
Mexico 1 3
United States^- _1 _1
Total 51 51
^•In the United States, but not in any of the
geographic areas listed.
64
TABLE 7
WHERE WERE YOU RAISED?
Geographic Area High School Group College Group
Los Angeles 23 18
Southern California 14 16
Texas 5 5
California 2 3
Colorado 2 1
New Mexico 2 1
United States-*- 2 1
Arizona 1 5
Mexico
—
_1
Total 51 51
*In the United States,
geographic areas listed.
but not in any of the
65
1• When Did His Ancestors Come to the United
States? Were respondent groups different in regard to
when their ancestors first came into this country?
Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator
found no significantdifference. The Chi Square with one
degree of freedom was 2.0 (see Table 8).
2. Did the Subject's Parents Live Together?
Were respondent groups different in regard to whether
their parents lived together? The possible answers were:
(1) lived together; (2) lived together most of public
school years; (3) lived together some of public school
years; and (4) did not live together. Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no
significant difference. The Chi Square with one degree
of freedom was 2.2 (see Table 9).
3. How Close Was the Subject to His Parents?
Were respondent groups different in regard to their close
ness to their parents? The possible answers to the ques
tion were: (1) very close, (2) close, (3) somewhat close,
and (4) not close at all. Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the researcher found no significant dif
ference between the two groups. The Chi Square with one
degree of freedom was .2 (see Table 10).
66
TABLE 8
WHEN DID YOUR ANCESTORS COME TO WHAT
IS NOW THE UNITED STATES?
Period of Family's
Immigration High School Group College Group
1840 - 1860 or Before 4 7
1860 - 1880 2 2
1880 - 1900 10 6
1900 - 1910 14 9
1910 - 1920 13 21
1920 - 1930 6 5
1930 - 1940 or After 1
Don11 Know _2 __
Total 51 51
67
TABLE 9
DID YOUR PARENTS LIVE TOGETHER
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP?
Parents Lived Together High School Group College Group
Lived together 41 34
Lived together most of
public school years 3 4
Lived together some of
public school years 4 7
Did not live together _3 _6
Total 51 51
68
TABLE 10
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP, HOW CLOSE
DID YOU FEEL TO YOUR PARENTS?
How Close Was He
to His Parent(s) High School Group College Group
Very close 36 38
Close 12 7
Somewhat close 2 4
Not at all close 1 2
Total 51 51
69
4. Were There Delinquent Gangs Where He Was
Raised? Were the respondent groups different in regard
to whether there were delinquent gangs in the area in
which subjects were raised? Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the investigator found no significant
difference. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was .16 (see Table 11).
Nature of the Interviewee Population
Each college graduate was matched by someone in
the high school graduate group of the same sex, within
two years of the same age, and from the same size popu
lation center.
The high school graduate group was selected in
such a way that it matched the college graduate group in
terms of early religious denomination, birthplace, and
where subjects were raised.
After the interviews were completed and the re
sults processed, certain similarities between the two
groups appeared. There was no statistically significant
difference between the groups in terms of the following
categories of information: when ancestors came to the
United States, whether parents lived together, degree of
closeness of respondents to parents, and whether delin
quent gangs were active in respondents’ early neighbor
hoods.
70
TABLE 11
WERE THERE NEIGHBORHOOD DELINQUENT GANGS
WHERE YOU WERE RAISED?
Were There Delinquent
Gangs in His Area High School Group College Group
Yes 33 31
No 18 20
Total 51 51
CHAPTER V
STATISTICAL PRESENTATION
OF RESEARCH RESULTS
Introduction
The results of the research are presented ac
cording to the form used in the original statement of
the problem in Chapter I. The main categories of vari
ables were: (1) mobility, (2) communication, (3) economics,
(4) civic responsibility, (5) religion, (6) self, (7)
parents, and (8) related variables.
Mobility
1» How Many Times Did His Parents Move During
Subject’s Public School Years (Grades 1-12)? Were re
spondent groups significantly different in terms of
mobility? Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
investigator found no significant difference. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 1.5 (see Table 12).
71
72
TABLE 12
HOW MANY TIMES DID YOUR PARENTS MOVE
DURING YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL YEARS
(GRADES 1-12)?
Number of Times
Parents Moved High School Group College Group
0 16 22
1 10 6
2 9 6
3 5 6
4 4 3
5 2 3
6 1
7 2 1
8
9 or more _3 __3
Total 51 51
73
Communication
1. Did the Mother Work Before Subject Was Six
Years Old? Were respondent groups significantly differ
ent in regard to whether mothers of subjects worked be
fore the subject was six years old? Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found a sig
nificant difference to exist beyond the .05 level of
confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 7.2. The direction of the difference was unexpected.
The investigator had assumed that the presence of the
mother in the home would provide the psychological sup
ports needed for a successful school experience and,
therefore, be more prevalent in the college group (see
Table 13).
2. How Many Years of Schooling Did the Father
Complete? Were respondent groups significantly different
in terms of the fathers' educational backgrounds?
Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the investi
gator found a significant difference beyond the .05 level
of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 4.0. The direction of the difference was again un
expected. It was assumed that the fathers of the college
graduates would be better educated than the fathers of
74
TABLE 13
DID YOUR MOTHER WORK BEFORE YOU
WERE SIX YEARS OLD?
Did Your Mother Work
Before You Were
Six Years Old? High School Group College Group
Yes 8 20
No 43 31
Total 51 51
75
the high school graduates. The Median Test was applied
to the results and a Chi Square of 4.55 was obtained
(see Table 14).
3. How Many Years of Schooling Did the Mother
Complete? Was there significant difference between the
two groups in terms of the mother's education? Applying
a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found
a significant difference beyond the .05 level of con
fidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was
7.5. The direction of the difference was opposite to
that expected. It was assumed that the mothers of col
lege graduates would be better educated than the mothers
of high school graduates. The Median Test was also ap
plied to the results, and Chi Square of 12.9 obtained.
Perhaps this finding is not indicative, since 2 college
and 12 high school respondents could not answer the
question (see Table 15).
4. What Percentage of High School Peers Was
Mexican-American? Was there significant difference be
tween the two groups in terms of percentage of Mexican-
American peers in high school? Applying a Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found a significant
difference beyond the .05 level of confidence. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 5.0. The differ-
76
TABLE 14
HOW MANY YEARS OF SCHOOLING DID
YOUR FATHER COMPLETE?
Years of Father's
Schooling High School Group College Group
Less than 3 years 7 13
3 Years and over 9 14
6 Years and over 13 10
9 Years and over 5 3
12 Years and over 5 2
14 Years and over 3 5
16 Years and over 1
Don't know 8 4
Total 51 51
77
TABLE 15
HOW MANY YEARS OF SCHOOLING DID
YOUR MOTHER COMPLETE?
Years of Mother's
Schooling High School Group College Group
Less than 3 years 7 17
3 Years and over 7 15
6 Years and over 17 14
9 Years and over 5 1
12 Years and over 3 2
14 Years and over
16 Years and over
Don’t know 12 2
Total 51 51
78
ence was in the piedicted direction. The college gradu
ates generally come from high schools where they formed
a smaller proportion of the population than the high
school graduates had (see Table 16).
5. What Was the Language Spoken at Home? Was
there significant difference between the two groups in
regard to languages spoken in the home? A five point
scale was used: (1) Spanish, (2) Mostly Spanish, (3) Half
Spanish and Half English, (4) Mostly English, and (5)
English. Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
investigator found a significant difference beyond the
.05 level of confidence when the two groups were compared
with respect to the number of monolinguals in each. The
Chi Square was 5.0 (see Table 17).
6. What Were the Discipline Patterns of Parents?
Was there significant difference between the two groups
as to parents' discipline patterns? Applying a Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no significant
difference. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was .1 (see Table 18).
Economics
1• Was the Subject Born in a Hospital or at Home?
Were respondent groups notably different in terms of
79
TABLE 16
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF YOUR HIGH SCHOOL
PEERS WAS MEXICAN-AMERICAN?
Percentage High School Group College Group
0 - 10 Percent 11 13
1
o
H
20 Percent 6 12
1
o
C M
30 Percent 7 6
30 - 40 Percent 4 8
40 - 50 Percent 3 3
50 - 60 Percent 4 1
60 - 70 Percent 4 4
70 - 80 Percent 6
80 - 90 Percent 2
90 - 100 Percent 2 3
Don’t know 2 1
Total 51 51
80
TABLE 17
WHAT WAS THE LANGUAGE SPOKEN AT HOME?
Language Spoken
at Home High School Group College Group
Spanish 10 17
Mostly Spanish 13 6
Half Spanish, Half
English 21 19
Mostly English 7 6
English _3
Total 51 51
81
TABLE 18
WHAT WERE THE DISCIPLINE
PATTERNS OF PARENTS?
Discipline Patterns
of Parents High School Group College Group
Very strict 19 19
Strict 15 16
Somewhat strict 13 10
Not strict at all _4 _6
Total 51 51
82
whether they were born in a hospital or in a home?
Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the researcher
found no significant difference between the two groups.
The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 1. It was
predicted that more college graduates than high school
graduates would have been born in hospitals (see Table
19).
2. Who Was Present at His Birth? Were re
spondent groups notably different in terms of whether a
doctor or midwife was present at the birth of the re
spondent? The possible answers were: (1) doctor, (2)
midwife, (3) others, and (4) don't know. Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no
significant difference between the two groups. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was .1. It has been
expected that doctors would more frequently have attended
the birth of college graduates than high school gradu
ates (see Table 20).
3. How Many Children Were in the Family While
Subject Was in School? Were respondent groups notably
different in terms of the number of children in the home
during a subject's childhood? Applying a Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found a significant
difference beyond the .05 level of confidence. The Chi
83
TABLE 19
WERE YOU BORN IN A HOSPITAL OR AT HOME?
Born in a Hospital
or at Home High School Group College Group
In a hospital 13 17
At home 38 32
Don't know 2
No answer
Total 51 51
84
TABLE 20
WHO WAS PRESENT AT YOUR BIRTH?
Who Was Present
at Your Birth? High School Group College Group
Doctor 34 37
Midwife 12 13
Other 3 1
Don’t know 2
No answer
Total 51 51
85
Square with one degree of freedom was 5.8. The differ
ence was in the predicted direction. It had been pre
dicted that college graduates would come from smaller
families than high school graduates (see Table 21).
4. What Kind of Work Was Done by the Father?
Were respondent groups notably different in terms of the
occupations of the fathers? Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the investigator found a significant dif
ference beyond the .05 level of confidence. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 6.3. The differ
ence was in the expected direction. It had been pre
dicted that the fathers of the college graduates would
have higher status occupations (see Table 22).
5. What Kind of Work Was Done by the Mother?
Were respondent groups notably different in terms of the
occupations of the mothers? Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the investigator found a significant dif
ference beyond the .05 level of confidence. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 6.8.
The groups were compared in terms of the number
of subjects whose mothers were housewives rather than
employed. The direction of the difference was opposite
to that expected. It had been predicted that the college
graduates would have more mothers that were housewives
86
TABLE 21
HOW MANY CHILDREN WERE IN YOUR FAMILY
WHILE YOU WERE IN SCHOOL?
Number of Children
in Family High School Group College Group
1 1
2 2 5
3 4 9
4 10 9
5 7 6
6 7 6
7 5 6
8 4 4
9 5 1
10 2 1
11 2 2
12 1
13 2
14 1
Total 51 51
87
TABLE 22
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP, WHAT KIND
OF WORK DID YOUR FATHER DO?
Father’s Occupational
Status High School Group College Group
Professional 2 5
White collar 2 2
Business 1 1
Skilled 5 13
Unskilled 40 27
Don't know 1 3
Total 51 51
88
than would the high school graduates (see Table 23).
Civic Responsibility
1. Were His Parents Registered Voters? Were re
spondent groups notably different in terms of whether
their parents were registered voters? Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no
significant difference. The Chi Square with one degree
of freedom was .0 (see Table 24).
Religion
1. What Is the Religious Denomination of Subject
at Present? Were respondent groups significantly differ
ent in terms of present religious denomination? The Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table) was applied twice to the re
sults. Significant results were obtained both times. In
one table, “other" and Protestant were combined and com
pared against Catholic. The Chi Square was 7.2 which
was beyond the .05 level of confidence. There were sig
nificantly more Catholics in the high school group than
the college group. In the other table, "other" was com
pared with Catholic and Protestant combined. The Chi
Square was 8.2 which was beyond the .05 level of con
fidence. The college graduates had significantly more
members in the "other" category than did the high school
89
TABLE 23
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP, WHAT KIND
OF WORK DID YOUR MOTHER DO?
Mother's Occupational
Status High School Group College Group
Professional
White collar 1 3
Businesswoman 2 2
Skilled 1 4
Unskilled 12 20
Housewife 35 22
Total 51 51
90
TABLE 24
WERE YOUR PARENTS REGISTERED VOTERS?
Were Your Parents
Registered
Voters? High School Group College Group
Both 10 10
Father only 4 6
Mother only 4 4
Neither 31 30
Don’t know 2 1
Total 51 51
91
graduates (see Table 25).
2. How Important Was Religion to the Subject
While He Was Growing Up? Were respondent groups signif
icantly different in terms of religious influences in
the formative years? The response categories were:
(1) Very important, (2) Important, (3) Somewhat important,
and (4) Not important at all. The Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) was applied to the results and a Chi Square
of 2.6 obtained. The results were not significant (see
Table 26).
3. How Important Is Religion to the Subject Now?
Were respondent groups significantly different in terms
of the present importance of religion in the subjects'
lives? The possible answers were: (1) Very important,
(2) Important, (3) Somewhat important, and (4) Not im
portant at all. The Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was
applied to the results and a Chi Square of 3.8 was ob
tained. The score was "not quite" significant (see
Table 27).
Self
1. How Did the Subject's Parents Generally Make
Him Feel Regarding His Mexican Ancestry? Were respondent
groups significantly different in terms of parental
TABLE 25
WHAT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS DENOMINATION
AT PRESENT?
Present Religious
Denomination High School Group College Group
Catholic ethnic-*- 8 2
Protestant ethnic*- 4 2
Other 1 10
Catholic non-ethnic^ 35 29
Protestant non-ethnic^ __3 _8
Total 51 51
^■"Ethnic" denotes a church ox denomination
holding non-English services.
^"Non-ethnic" denotes a church or denomination
holding services in English.
93
TABLE 26
HOW IMPORTANT WAS RELIGION TO YOU
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP?
Early Importance
of Religion High School Group College Group
Very important 33 25
Important 6 10
Somewhat important 9 11
Not important at all _3 _5
Total 51 51
94
TABLE 27
NOW THAT YOU ARE GROWN UP, HOW IMPORTANT
IS RELIGION TO YOU?
Present Importance
of Religion High School Group College Group
Very important 28 18
Important 13 13
Somewhat important 8 12
Not important at all _2 _8
Total 51 51
95
attitudes toward Mexican ancestry? The answer choices
were: (1) Very accepting, (2) Accepting, (3) Somewhat
accepting, (4) Not at all accepting, and (5) Didn’t
notice. A Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was applied and
no significant differences were found between the two
groups. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was
.2 (see Table 28).
2. How Did the Subject's Relatives Generally
Make Him Feel Regarding His Mexican Ancestry? Were re
spondent groups significantly different in terms of re
latives' attitudes toward Mexican ancestry? Applying a
Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found no
significant differences between the two groups. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was .1 (see Table 29).
3. How Did the Schools Generally Make the Sub
ject Feel Regarding His Mexican Ancestry? Were respond
ent groups significantly different in terms of school
attitudes toward subjects' Mexican ancestry? A Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table) was applied to the results,
revealing a significant difference beyond the .05 level
of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 7.2. The difference was in the predicted direction,
the college graduates noting more discriminatory bias
than the high school graduates (see Table 30).
96
TABLE 28
HOW DID YOUR PARENTS GENERALLY MAKE YOU FEEL
REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived Parental
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 26 26
Accepting 12 11
Somewhat accepting 7 5
Not at all accepting 5 4
Didn't notice 1 5
Total 51 51
97
TABLE 29
HOW DID YOUR RELATIVES GENERALLY MAKE YOU FEEL
REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived Relatives'
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 21 21
Accepting 9 7
Somewhat accepting 3 6
Not at all accepting 6 4
Didn't notice 12 13
Total 51 51
98
TABLE 30
HOW DID THE SCHOOLS GENERALLY MAKE YOU FEEL
REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived School
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 16 2
Accepting 9 5
Somewhat accepting 2 5
Not at all accepting 19 28
Didn't notice 5 11
Total 51 51
99
4. How Did the Newspapers and Qthex Media Gen
erally Make the Subject Feel Regarding His Mexican
Ancestry? Were respondent groups significantly differ
ent in terms of subjects’ perceptions of mass media at
titudes toward Mexican ancestry? The Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) was applied and no statistically signifi
cant differences were found. The Chi Square with one
degree of freedom was .0 (see Table 31).
5. How Did Other Ethnic Groups Generally Make
the Subject Feel Regarding His Mexican Ancestry? Were
respondent groups significantly different in terms of
subjects’ perceptions of other ethnic groups’ attitudes
toward Mexican ancestry? Applying a Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table), the researcher found a significant differ
ence beyond the .05 level of confidence. The Chi Square
with one degree of confidence was 9.0. The college
graduates noted more discriminatory bias than the high
school graduates (see Table 32).
6. How Did the Police Generally Make the Sub
ject Feel Regarding His Mexican Ancestry? Were respond
ent groups significantly different in terms of subjects'
perceptions of police attitudes toward Mexican ancestry?
Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the researcher
100
TABLE 31
HOW DID THE NEWSPAPERS AND OTHER MEDIA GENERALLY
MAKE YOU FEEL REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived Mass Media
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 7 5
Accepting 4 4
Somewhat accepting 3
Not at all accepting 15 20
Didn't notice 25 19
Total 51 51
101
TABLE 32
HOW DID OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS GENERALLY MAKE YOU
FEEL REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived Ethnic Group
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 14 3
Accepting 3 10
Somewhat accepting 7 4
Not at all accepting 21 29
Didn't notice 6 5
Total 51 51
102
found a significant difference beyond the .05 level of
confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 4.6. The college graduates noted more discriminatory
bias than the high school graduates (see Table 33).
7. How Does the Subject Feel Now Regarding His
Mexican Ancestry? Were respondent groups significantly
different in terms of subjects' attitudes toward their
Mexican ancestry? The Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was
applied and no statistically significant difference was
found. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was
1.2 (see Table 34).
A special comparison was made on the basis of
data in Tables 33 and 34. The attempt here was to bring
into focus the difference between attitudes of Mexican-
American college graduates toward their ancestry and
their perception of police attitudes toward such ancestry.
The categories of "very accepting" and "accepting" were
combined and compared with the combined categories of
"somewhat accepting" and "not at all accepting."
The Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) revealed a sig
nificant statistical difference beyond the .05 level of
confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 29.7. The college graduate was more positively
accepting with regard to his ancestry than he felt the
103
TABLE 33
HOW DID THE POLICE GENERALLY MAKE YOU FEEL
REGARDING YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Perceived Police
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 19 7
Accepting 8 5
Somewhat accepting 2 1
Not at all accepting 21 24
Didn't notice 1 14
Total 51 51
104
TABLE 34
HOW DO YOU FEEL NOW REGARDING
YOUR MEXICAN ANCESTRY?
Subjects’ Present
Attitudes Toward
Mexican Ancestry High School Group College Group
Very accepting 30 35
Accepting 15 12
Somewhat accepting 2 3
Not at all accepting 4
No answer __1
Total 51 51
105
police were.
8. Did the Subject Join Clubs in High School?
Were there any significant differences between the two
groups in terms of club membership in high school? The
Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was applied to the results
and a significant difference found beyond the .05 level
of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of free
dom was 7.2. The difference was in the predicted direc
tion with more nonjoiners among high school graduates
than among college graduates (see Table 35).
9. Of What Ancestry Were Most of His High School
Friends? Were there any significant differences between
the two groups in terms of ancestry of high school
friends? The possible answers were: (1) Mexican-American,
(2) Mixed, and (3) Non-Mexican-Americans. The Chi Square
with one degree of freedom was 2.6. The results were not
significant (see Table 36).
10. What Did Subject Consider Himself to Be
While Growing Up? Were there any significant differences
between the two groups in terms of the subjects' identi
fication of themselves while growing up? The high school
graduates identified themselves more as Americans and
Americans of Mexican descent than did the college
106
TABLE 35
DID YOU JOIN CLUBS IN HIGH SCHOOL? IF SO,
HOW MANY AND WHAT TYPES DID YOU JOIN,
AND HOW MANY OFFICES DID YOU HOLD?
Types of Clubs High School Group College Group
Social 2 16
Religious 7 12
Athletic 12 15
Academic 8 13
None 25 10
Offices held 11
Total 54* 77*
*While some joined no clubs, others joined three
or four.
107
TABLE 36
OF WHAT ANCESTRY WERE MOST OF YOUR
HIGH SCHOOL FRIENDS?
High School
Friends’
Ancestry High School Group College Group
Mexican-Americans 24 16
Mixed 21 26
Non-Mexican-Americans 6 9
Total 51 51
108
graduates. This information was found by the use of the
Binomial Test. Probability was .0035. More college grad
uates than high school graduates identified themselves as
"myself.” The Binomial Test was used. Probability was
.0359 (see Table 37).
11. What Does Subject Consider Himself to Be
Now? Were there any significant differences between the
two groups with respect to subjects’ present identifica
tion of themselves? The Binomial Test was applied. It
was found that high school graduates tended to identify
themselves more as Americans and Americans of Mexican
descent than did the college graduates. Probability was
.0244. By applying the Binomial Test, it was found that
college graduates identified themselves more as "myself"
than did the high school graduates. Probability was
.0099 (see Table 38).
12. Did the Subject, While in High School. Con
sider Going to College? Were there significant differ
ences between the two groups with respect to college
plans in high school? A Chi Square Test (2x2 Table)
was applied to the results and no significant difference
was found. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was .4 (see Table 39).
109
TABLE 37
WHAT DID YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE
WHILE GROWING UP?
Early Self-
Designation High School Group College Group
Mexican 17 19
Mexican-American 7 9
Chicano 3 4
Latin-American 1 1
American of Mexican
Descent 11 3
American 9 4
All of these
Myself 2 9
Spanish 1 1
Other 1
Total 51 51
110
TABLE 38
WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF TO BE NOW?
Present Self-
Designation High School Group College Group
Mexican 8 2
Mexican-American 15 21
Chicano 6
Latin-American 1
American of Mexican
Descent 13 6
American 12 6
All of these 1
Myself 1 9
Spanish 1
Other __ __
Total 51 51
Ill
TABLE 39
WHILE IN HIGH SCHOOL, DID YOU CONSIDER
GOING TO COLLEGE?
While in High School,
Did You Consider
Going to College? High School Group College Group
Yes 32 35
No 19 16
Total 51 51
112
13. How Certain Was the Subject of Entering
College? Weie there any significant differences between
the two groups with respect to subjects' assurances of
going to college? A Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was
applied to the results and a significant difference
found beyond the .05 level of confidence. In high school,
the college graduates felt more certain they would attend
college. The subjects who answered this question were
those who indicated they had planned for college. Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 11.7 (see Table 40).
14. What Type of Vocation Did the Subject Want
to Enter? Were there any significant differences between
the two groups in terms of vocational aspirations? The
Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 10.8. This
was beyond the .05 level of confidence and significant.
The difference was in the predicted direction, with the
college graduates revealing higher aspirations than the
high school graduates (see Table 41).
15. Was the Subject Involved in Delinquent Gangs
While Growing Up? Were there any significant differences
between the two groups with respect to their involvement
in delinquent gang activities when they were growing up?
The possible answers were: (1) Much involved, (2)
113
TABLE 40
HOW CERTAIN WERE YOU OF ENTERING COLLEGE*
Subjects’ Certainty
of Entering College High School Group College Group
Very certain 6 15
Certain 5 3
Somewhat certain 3 5
Not certain at all 18 12
Total 32 35
*Only those answering "Yes" on Table 39 were
asked this question.
114
TABLE 41
WHILE YOU WERE GROWING UP, WHAT VOCATION
DID YOU WANT TO ENTER?
Projected
Vocational
Areas High School Group College Group
Professional 18 32
White collar 4 2
Business 2 1
Skilled 6 6
Unskilled 2 5
Don’t know 19 5
Total 51 51
115
Involved, (3) Involved somewhat, and (4) Not at all in
volved. Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
investigator found a significant difference beyond the
.05 level of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree
of freedom was 6.3. The difference was not in the direc
tion predicted. The college graduates had been more
involved in delinquent gangs than the high school
graduates (see Table 42).
16. How Old Was the Subject When He Married?
Were there any significant differences between the two
groups with respect to age at marriage? Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the investigator found a sig
nificant difference beyond the .05 level of confidence.
The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 5.6. The
difference was in the predicted direction with the col
lege graduates marrying at a later age than the high
school graduates (see Table 43).
Parents
1. Who Most Influenced Him in Terms of the Fol
lowing Forced-Choice Alternatives? Were there signifi
cant differences between the two groups with respect to
sources of early influence? It was interesting to note
that both high school graduates and college graduates
116
TABLE 42
WERE YOU INVOLVED IN DELINQUENT
GANGS WHILE GROWING UP?
Degree of
Involvement
in Gangs High School Group College Group
Much involved 1 7
Involved 2 3
Somewhat involved 4 8
Not at all involved 26 13
Total 33* 31*
*Combined totals equal number of subjects from
areas where delinquent gangs had formed.
TABLE 43
117
HOW OLD WERE YOU WHEN YOU MARRIED?
Age at
Marriage High School Group College Group
18 2
19 3 2
20 7 4
21 11 3
22 3 10
23 5
24 8 5
25 7 5
26 2 5
27 4
28
29 2
30 1 2
31
32 1
33 2
34 3
35 2
36 1
Total 50* 50*
*One member of each group was single.
118
felt that the mother exerted more influence than the
father. Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
investigator found one pairing that produced a signifi
cant difference. The Chi Square with one degree of
freedom was 4.6. The high school graduates in comparing
roles of relatives and friends ascribed more influence
to relatives than did the college graduates (see Table
44).
2. How Interested Were His Parents in Mexican-
American Matters? Were there any significant differences
between the two groups with respect to parental involve
ment in Mexican-American activities and concerns? The
latter might include Mexican-American church activities,
incidents involving Mexican-Americans, Mexican-American
political affairs, and so on. The Chi Square with one
degree of freedom was 3.7, almost but not quite signifi-
n
cant (a X of 3.84 would have indicated significant
difference) (see Table 45).
3. What Were His Father's Aspirations? Were
there significant differences between the two groups with
respect to fathers' aspirations? Applying a Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the researcher found no significant
difference. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom
was 2.8 (see Table 46).
TABLE 44
WHO MOST INFLUENCED YOU, IN TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING
FORCED-CHOICE ALTERNATIVES?
High School Group
1. Parent 42 Teacher 13
2. Teacher 32 Friends 15
3. Mother 35 Father 19
4. Parents 41 Relatives 6
5. Parents 40 Friends 8
6. Teacher 29 Relatives 14
7. Relatives 25 Friends 20
College Group
1. Parent 39 Teacher 13
2. Teacher 29 Friends 15
3. Mother 32 Father 16
4. Parents 42 Relatives 5
5. Parents 42 Friends 6
6. Teacher 29 Relatives 16
7. Relatives 15 Friends 30
120
TABLE 45
HOW INTERESTED WERE YOUR PARENTS
IN MEXICAN-AMERICAN MATTERS?
How Interested Were Your
Parents in Mexican-
American Matters? High School Group College Group
Very interested 15 24
Interested 7 5
Somewhat interested 17 11
Not at all interested 10 10
Don't know 2 1
Total 51 51
121
TABLE 46
WHAT WERE HIS FATHER'S ASPIRATIONS?
Occupational Status
Father Aspired
to Attain High School Group College Group
Professional 14 25
White collar 3
Business 4 6
Skilled 4 5
Unskilled 4 1
Don't know 22 14
Total 51 51
122
4. What Were His Mother’s Aspirations? Were
there significant differences between the two groups with
respect to mothers' aspirations? Applying the Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the researcher found no significant
difference. The Chi Square with'one degree of freedom
was 3.4 (see Table 47).
5. Was His Father Interested in the Subject's
Getting an Education? Were there significant differences
between the two groups with respect to the fathers' in
terest in the subjects' education? A Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) was applied and the researcher found a sig
nificant difference beyond the .05 level of confidence.
The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 4.1. The
difference was in the predicted direction with fathers
of the college graduates evincing greater interest in
the subjects' education than the fathers of the high
school graduates (see Table 48).
6. Was His Mother Interested in the Subject's
Getting an Education? Were there significant differences
between the two groups with respect to the mothers' in
terest in the subjects' education? A Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) was applied and a significant difference
found. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was
123
TABLE 47
WHAT WERE HIS MOTHER'S ASPIRATIONS?
Occupational Status
Mother Aspired
to Attain High School Group College Group
Professional 16 22
White collar 2
Business 2
Skilled 2
Unskilled 1
Housewife 7 13
Don't know 23 14
Total 51 51
124
TABLE 48
WAS YOUR FATHER INTERESTED IN YOUR
GETTING AN EDUCATION?
Father’s Attitude
Toward Subject's
Education High School Group College Group
Very interested 17 27
Interested 10 9
Somewhat interested 9 6
Not at all interested 9 4
Don't know 6 5
Total 51 51
125
4.7. Mothers of college graduates took greater interest
in the respondents' education than did the mothers of
high school graduates (see Table 49).
7. Did Someone Read to the Subject While He Was
Growing Up? Was there significant difference between the
two groups in regard to whether subjects were read to
when they were children? The possible answers were: (1)
Yes, (2) No, and (3) Didn't know. A Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) was applied and no significant difference
found. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was .0
(see Table 50).
8. If So, Who Read to the Subject? This ques
tion did not elicit evidence of significant differences
between the groups. The Binomial Test was applied to the
results and a probability of .06 obtained. The results
were not significant (see Table 51).
9. How Often Was the Subject Read to? This ques
tion did not elicit evidence of significant differences
between the two groups. The Chi Square Test (2x2 Table)
was applied and the results were insignificant. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was .8 (see Table 52).
10. Did Subject's Family Take Him on Educational
Trips While He Was Growing Up? Were there significant
126
TABLE 49
WAS YOUR MOTHER INTERESTED IN YOUR
GETTING AN EDUCATION?
Mother's Attitude
Toward Subject's
Education High School Group College Group
Very interested 25 36
Interested 12 8
Somewhat interested 7 2
Not at all interested 4 4
No answer 3 1
Total 51 51
127
TABLE 50
DID SOMEONE READ TO YOU WHILE YOU
WERE GROWING UP?
Did Someone Read
to You While You
Were Growing Up? High School Group College
Yes 23 23
No 26 27
Don't know 2 1
Total 51 51
128
TABLE 51
IF SO, WHO READ TO YOU?
Who Read
to You? High School Group College Group
Mother 9 12
Father 5 8
Brother 4 3
Sister 3 5
Relative 1 8
Other 1
Total 23* 36*
*Twenty-three individuals in each group were read
to while growing up.
129
TABLE 52
HOW OFTEN WERE YOU READ TO?
How Often
Were You
Read to? High School Group College Group
Often 14 17
Sometimes 6 6
Seldom 3
Never
— —
Total 23* 23*
*Twenty-three individuals in each group were read
to while growing up.
130
differences between the two groups in terms of whether
they were taken on educational trips to museums, zoos,
planetariums and places of that nature as children?
Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the researcher
found no significant difference. The Chi Square with
one degree of freedom was 1.0 (see Table 53).
Related Variables
1. How Many Members of His Family Had Attended
or Graduated from College Before His High School Gradua
tion? Were there significant differences between the
two groups with respect to the number of members of sub
jects' extended families with college backgrounds prior
to subjects' high school graduation? A Chi Square Test
(2x2 Table) revealed no significant difference. The
Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 2.68 (see
Table 54).
2. How Many Members of His Family Have Attended
or Graduated from College Since His High School Gradua
tion? Were there significant differences between the
two groups with respect to the number of members of sub
jects' extended families attending or graduating from
college since subjects' high school graduation? A Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table) was applied to the results and
131
TABLE 53
DID YOUR FAMILY TAKE YOU ON EDUCATIONAL TRIPS?
Educational Trips
Taken by Family High School Group College Group
Often 8 9
Sometimes 4 7
Seldom 8 9
Never 31 26
Total 51 51
132
TABLE 54
HOW MANY MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY HAD ATTENDED
OR GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE BEFORE YOUR
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION?
Number of
Members High School Group College Group
0 36 28
1 8 14
2 2 3
3 3 1
4 2
5 2 1
6 1
7
8 1
Total 51 51
133
no significant difference was found. The Chi Square with
one degree of freedom was .47 (see Table 55).
3. Did Most of His High School Friends Have Plans
for Their Future? Were there significant differences be
tween the two groups with respect to friends' occupational
goals? The possible answers were: (1) Yes, (2) No, and
(3) Don't know. A Chi Square Test (2x2 Table) was ap
plied to the results and no significant difference was
found. The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was .8
(see Table 56).
4. Did Teachers Generally Encourage the Subject
to Further His Education? Were there significant dif
ferences between the two groups with regard to teacher
reinforcement of educational goals? Applying a Chi
Square Test (2x2 Table), the researcher found a sig
nificant difference beyond the .05 level of confidence.
The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 8.8. The
difference was not in the expected direction. The col
lege graduates indicated less teacher encouragement than
the high school graduates (see Table 57).
5. Did He Receive Any High School Counseling?
Was there a significant difference between the two groups
in terms of whether subjects received high school coun-
134
TABLE 55
HOW MANY MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY HAVE ATTENDED
OR GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE SINCE YOUR
HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION?
Number of
Members High School Group College Group
0 15 15
1 7 7
2 5 8
3 7 4
4 4 5
5 4
6 3 2
7 2
8 2 3
9 1
10 1
11
12 4 3
Total 51 51
135
TABLE 56
DID MOST OF YOUR HIGH SCHOOL FRIENDS
HAVE PLANS FOR THEIR FUTURE?
Did Most of Your High
School Friends Have
Plans for Their
Future? High School Group College Group
Yes 12 16
No 39 34
Don't know 1
Total 51 51
136
TABLE 57
DID TEACHERS GENERALLY ENCOURAGE YOU
TO FURTHER YOUR EDUCATION?
Did Teachers Generally
Encourage You to
Further Your
Education? High School Group College Group
Yes, definitely 33 18
Yes, somewhat 3 9
They were neither
encouraging nor
discouraging 12 19
They were somewhat
discouraging 3 5
Total 51 51
137
seling? Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
researcher found no significant difference. The Chi
Square with one degree of freedom was 1.3 (see Table 58).
6. Did Counselors Generally Encourage the Sub
ject to Further His Education? Were there significant
differences between the two groups in terms of coun
selors' influence? Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2
Table), the investigator found no significant difference.
The Chi Square with one degree of freedom was 3.3 (see
Table 59).
7. Was the Subject Counseled to Take Vocational,
Academic, or Business Courses? Were there significant
differences between the two groups with respect to courses
they were encouraged to take? A Chi Square Test (2x2
Table) was applied to the results and no significant dif
ference was found. The Chi Square with one degree of
freedom was .8 (see Table 60).
8. How Would -He Characterize Our Present So
ciety's Reaction to the Mexican-American? Were there
significant differences between the two groups in terms
of subjects' perceptions of society's reaction to Mexican-
Americans? Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
researcher found a significant difference beyond the .05
138
TABLE 58
DID YOU RECEIVE ANY HIGH SCHOOL COUNSELING?
Did You Receive
Any High School
Counseling? High School Group College Group
Yes 16 22
No 33 28
Don’t know 2 1
Total 51 51
139
TABLE 59
DID COUNSELORS GENERALLY ENCOURAGE YOU
TO FURTHER YOUR EDUCATION?*
Did Counselors Gener
ally Encourage You to
Further Your
Education? High School Group College Group
Yes, definitely 7 5
Yes, somewhat 2 1
They were neither
encouraging nor
discouraging 4 8
They were somewhat
discouraging 3 8
No answer
— —
Total 16 22
*Only those answering "Yes" in Table 58 were
asked this question.
140
TABLE 60
WERE YOU COUNSELED TO TAKE VOCATIONAL,
ACADEMIC, OR BUSINESS COURSES?
Types of
Courses High School Group College Group
Vocational 28 22
Academic 20 23
Business 3 4
Don't remember
_
2
Total 51 51
141
level of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of
freedom was 32.2. The college graduates were more criti
cal of society’s response to the Mexican-American than
the high school graduates (see Table 61).
9. How Would He. Characterize the Schools’ Re
actions to the Mexican-American? Were there significant
differences between the two groups with respect to their
appraisals of the reaction of the schools to the Mexican-
Americans? Applying a Chi Square Test (2x2 Table), the
researcher found a significant difference beyond the .05
level of confidence. The Chi Square with one degree of
freedom was 13.8. The college graduates were more criti
cal of the schools’ attitudes toward Mexican-Americans
than the high school graduates (see Table 62).
142
TABLE 61
HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE OUR PRESENT SOCIETY'S
REACTIONS TO THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN?
Perceived Type
of Reactions High School Group College Group
Responsive 17 3
Somewhat responsive 18 4
Indifferent 5 23
Somewhat discriminatory 3 4
Definitely discriminatory 7 16
No answer 1 1
Total 51 51
143
TABLE 62
HOW WOULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE SCHOOLS'
REACTIONS TO THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN?
Perceived Type
of Reactions High School Group College Group
Responsive 22 6
Somewhat responsive 8 6
Indifferent 14 21
Somewhat discriminatory 3 8
Definitely discriminatory 3 10
Total 50* 51
*0ne member of high school group did not answer.
CHAPTER VI
DISCUSSION OF RESPONSES TO
SUBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
Introduction
The main objective of this study was to find
which variables differentiate between college and high
school graduates of Mexican-American descent. In addi
tion to the critical variables identified for objective
study, interviewees were given the opportunity to state
their personal beliefs regarding the topic under study
in an open-ended manner.
Procedure
Each group was consequently asked four open-ended
questions. Each high school graduate was asked: (1) How
were you able to earn a high school diploma when so many
Mexican-Americans of your age didn't? (2) Why didn't
you go to college? (3) What do you think would help the
Mexican-American group to do better? (4) How do you ex
plain the Mexican-American group's relative failure to
improve its position in the larger society?
144
145
Each college graduate was asked: (1) When did
you decide to go to college and why? (2) What factors
do you feel have enabled you to succeed? (3) What do
you think would help the Mexican-American group to do
better? (4) How do you explain the Mexican-American
group's relative failure to improve its position in the
larger society?
Analysis of Responses
High School Graduates — How were you able to earn a
high school diploma when so many Mexican-Americans of
your age didn't?
1. The largest group cited parental support.
The following answers were typical:
I felt a family obligation to finish.
I had interested parents that were concerned.
Dad kept an eye on us. My dad believed in
the value of a high school education.
Because my mother encouraged me. I was
ready to join the CCC camp where there was
an opening and my mother said that was out.
I wanted to make my parents happy. I had
five sisters and none of them finished.
2. The second largest group felt they were able
to finish due to economic support;
146
Jobs were not plentiful and a lot of the
guys had to help by bringing home some money.
This was why they dropped out. My father was
employed.
We had peace and tranquility in the home
and no money problems.
3. Other responses may be grouped under the
broad category, positive attitudes toward formal educa
tion:
Getting a high school diploma then was
just like getting a college degree now.
I liked high school math and accounting.
I wanted to finish high school. Nobody
forced me. A lot of guys got married young.
I figured I'd better myself by getting
an education.
College Graduates — What factors do you feel have en
abled you to succeed?
1. The largest group cited support from parents
and siblings:
We are a highly competitive family.
I have brothers that are in the profes
sions.
There was encouragement and support
in the family. My brother helped me with
geometry in college.
Our home life was stable. We did not
move around like other families. We had
a good family name to uphold.
147
My sister told me about the variety of
positions that a person could prepare for.
I was aware that most of my peers were go
ing to work in the cement plant, on rail
road track crews while others would pick
oranges.
My mother was very pushy and ambitious.
She always wanted me to be somebody.
I received a lot of encouragement from
my brother and sister, even being as poor
as we were.
I learned diligence and tenacity from
my father and my grandfather.
We have a close family unit in which my
father became the stabilizer. If there were
no pushy parents I might have slipped off.
2. The second largest group of answers were
grouped as personal affective reasons:
I wanted to prove myself in a competi
tive culture that degrades us.
I have a desire to mingle with people.
I’ve always had an interest in traveling.
I lived in abject poverty and couldn’t
enjoy the social graces of others in ath
letics, therefore I excelled in the academic
area.
Basic to me was my desire to always be
first. I received great amounts of en
couragement from my folks.
3. Another important reason was peer values:
Everybody was going to college.
In our area it was assumed that you
would go to college. The kids weren't
satisfied with a high school education.
148
Although we were poor my mother pre
ferred we live with poor whites.
I was going with a girl who had fin
ished college.
A couple of my friends were bright
and they were going to college.
High School Graduates — Why didn’t you go to college?
1. The majority of the answers revealed a lack
of economic support:
My folks didn’t have that kind of money.
I had to go out to work. There was no
choice. I never had a chance.
I had to help my father in the family
business. I had to work as long as 15
and 18 hours a day.
I couldn't afford it. There was no
four year college nearby.
I had to go out and work. My dad be
came sick and we had three smaller chil
dren still going to school.
It was strictly financial. I had to
help my dad.
I had to help my dad support our large
family.
Because of our large family. I was the
eldest son. I tried working on the con
struction job and going to Junior College
but it didn't work out.
I didn't want my wife to have to go
and work.
149
2. The next largest group indicated poor prepa
ration for college;
I didn't take the college preparatory
courses.
I was not counseled to take college
preparatory classes.
I couldn't qualify because I hadn't
taken the right courses.
College Graduates — When did you decide to go to college
and why?
1. The largest group of answers were classified
as economic reasons:
The number one reason is that when I
got out of the service after three years
I had the economic resources.
Wouldn't have gone if there wasn't a
J.C. in the area.
Because the government was going to
pay me.
In the service I was able to buy the
comforts of life. Decided there was a
connection.
2. The second largest group of answers came
under the affective area:
When in the service, I found out
about the better life. I didn't want
to be a donkey. I wanted to work for
the recreation department.
150
Because I realized what the alternatives
were >
Because through involvement in the ser
vice I began to recognize I had the physical
potential and began to set goals.
I knew I didn’t want to become a miner.
After the service, I went to college.
I didn’t want to pick beans.
I wanted to help Spanish-speaking
people.
Since high school, I wanted to work in
a profession and not in a cannery.
3. Another reason given was parental support:
Because my mother had hoped I would go
ever since I was in high school.
I was never allowed to think any other
way.
It had been decided for me by my parents.
My parents encouraged me to have a total
education.
My father worked his head off to keep
me in college.
High School Graduates — What do you think would help the
Mexican-American group to do better?
I. The largest group of replies had to do with
changes in schools. Examples are:
Teach the Mexican-Americans about the
history of their culture.
151
Help the group to understand their
culture. A lot of Mexican kids think
we are nothing.
We should develop the pride in being
a Mexican-American.
2. The second largest group of answers came under
the personal affective area:
Too many succeed and forget where they
came from.
We need good leadership. More idealism
and realism.
We have to overcome many years of indif
ference and brainwashing.
3. The third largest group had to do with
parental support:
Get to the parents. You’re not going
to do anything with the kids of this age.
The majority are set in their ways.
We should teach them to accept re
sponsibility. We should be taught to
get along with others. The student
should be taught to accept the school
course.
The parent should give guidance to
his kids. We can't blame the school.
Start at the beginning of school to
try to encourage the kids that they
should want more education.
152
College Graduates — What do you think would help the
Mexican-American group to do better?
1. The largest group of replies had to do with
changes in the schools:
The schools should allow the Mexican-
American to recognize himself. The child
should be told there is a child in Mexico
who looks just like him and is going to
become a doctor.
We should take education to the home.
It should be mandatory that teachers visit
the home. The Chicano hasn't learned the
system.
We should start teaching an understand
ing of the system and what the personality
makeup is.
The teacher should understand the child.
It shouldn't be a crime to speak Spanish.
We should learn how to teach the middle-
class Mexican-American.
We should have pre-school experiences
for the child in order to provide him with
the tools to survive.
Each child should be assessed as to his
experiential background and any deficiencies
should be made up.
We should teach history as it really was
and stress the Chicano background to make up
for the years of its neglect.
We should have counseling in the ele
mentary grades.
We should get the Mexican-American
mother involved as a room mother.
153
We should raise the teacher's expect
ancies of pupils.
We should take advantage of the bi
lingual education programs.
We should treat children as first-class
citizens with some potential.
We should teach more than the subject.
We should have people interpreting the
school to the community and vice-versa.
2. The second largest category had to do with the
affective area:
We should do things for ourselves. We
should develop cohesion in the group.
We should participate in the running
of the society.
We should develop community organizations.
We should develop an economic and polit
ical base.
Every single student should develop a
responsibility to the group.
We should enlarge the concept of '•machismo"
to include education.
We should develop a different attitude in
industry and in public agencies.
Should never admit defeat, do away with
defeatism.
Should develop better employment oppor
tunities.
154
High School Graduates — How do you explain the Mexican-
American group’s relative failure to improve its position
in the larger society?
1. The answers given by the majority of the re
spondents in this group were in the affective area:
We are complacent. We are a happy people.
We have a lack of ambition.
Parents show no interest.
The Mexican-American wants to be there.
Because the home teaches him to be there.
Because the family wants him to go to
work rather than get an education.
We have a defeatist attitude that has
been planted by our parents.
Unfortunately, we are extremely proud
and don't want something for nothing.
We are complacent. We don't strive.
We are lethargic.
Mexican-Americans get discouraged easily.
2. The only other large group of replies was
classified as de facto discrimination:
We have to reach out a lot farther to
get an education.
The Mexican-American isn't given better
jobs as long as there are Anglos available.
He has been denied a good education.
155
We are discriminated against and have
a lack of education.
We are battered down. They promote
who they know.
College Graduates — How do you explain the Mexican-
American group’s relative failure to improve its position
in the larger society?
1. The largest group of replies had to do with
de facto discrimination:
We were a surrendering people and the
spirit still prevails today.
We were conquered. We were subjugated
and discriminated against.
The Anglo culture is antagonistic and
suspect of the foreign.
We are in complete isolation. There
is no program geared to the Mexican-
American community.
We are made to feel we should negate
our cultural heritage.
Unconcern by the majority.
The schools don't meet the needs of
the group.
Mexican politeness is taken advantage
of.
The system is geared for the Anglo-
American.
At the time of Fremont, everything was
going to be bilingual, 30 years later that
was changed. Things have steadily deteri
orated since.
156
Old Anglos are owners, managers, fore
men, and Mexicans are field workers.
Insensitivity, incompetence in that the
low IQ for the Mexican is accepted on slight
evidence.
We don't count as a problem.
Racial discrimination has caused a low
concept of self.
2. The next largest group of answers were clas
sified as affected objectives:
Our defeatist attitude. The Germans
knew what to do. [The respondent of
course refers to post-World War II
Germany.]
We are the benign Mexicans.
We have no political muscle.
Our basic personality set is one of
acquiescence to their severe system.
We never identified with what we were.
We identified ourselves as whites.
Parents take no responsibility.
The Mexican does not value achieve
ment. He just adjusts to where he is at.
We are not aware of opportunities,
and when we are aware we are not sure
they are worth it.
We don’t know how or care to move out.
We hesitate to take any radical action.
We are unable to identify our needs
and organize ourselves into a potent force.
157
Summary
This Chapter summarizes the open-ended questions
asked in this study.
When asked how they had been able to earn a high
school diploma when so many other Mexican-Americans of
their age had not, the high school graduates gave answers
falling in three major areas: (1) parental support, (2)
economic support, and (3) positive attitudes toward
formal education.
When asked how they had been able to succeed, the
college graduates provided responses in three major
areas: (1) support from parents and siblings, (2) personal
affective reasons, and (3) peer values.
When asked why they did not go to college, the
high school graduates gave as the main reasons lack of
economic support and poor preparation for college.
When asked what had motivated them to go to col
lege, the college graduates provided responses in three
major areas: (1) economic ability, (2) affective reasons,
and (3) parental support.
When asked what might help the Mexican-American
group to do better, the high school group stressed the
need for changes in the schools and affective motivations.
158
When asked what would help the Mexican-American
group to do better, the college group gave as the main
answers changes in the schools and the affective areas.
When asked to explain the Mexican-American
group's relative failure to improve its position in the
larger society, the high school graduate group cited as
major obstacles the lack of affective motivation and the
prevalence of discriminatory attitudes.
The college graduate group cited the same diffi
culties, but in general considered discrimination the
primary hindrance.
CHAPTER VII
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
Purpose of the Study
In an attempt to arrive at a more realistic basis
for making proposals relative to needs and problems of
Mexican-Americans, this study was undertaken to identify
those factors which differentiate Mexican-American col
lege graduates from high school graduates.
It was hoped that the results of the study would
be meaningful to leaders of the Mexican-American com
munity, as well as to public school boards, teacher
training institutions, and legislators.
Procedures
As a first step in identifying variables which
might differentiate the two groups, a comprehensive re
view of the literature was made. A set of 26 questions
was prepared. On the basis of recommendations of a panel
of eight concerned authorities, the set of questions was
159
enlarged to its final total of 62 questions. One set of
questions helped to identify the entire sample in terms
of these sets of identifying characteristics: (1) pre
matched, (2) pre-controlled, and (3) "discovered."
The balance of the first 58 questions were clas
sified in accordance with a theoretical model with eight
main headings: (1) mobility, (2) communication, (3)
economics, (4) civic responsibility, (5) religion, (6)
self, (7) parents, and (8) related variables.
A group of 51 Mexican-American college graduates,
all employed in the field of education in the state of
California, and a group of 51 high school graduates with
the same identifying characteristics, were administered
the questionnaire in individual, personal interviews.
The data were analyzed by means of the Chi Square
Test (2x2 Table), the Median Test and the Binomial Test
In an effort to identify all relevant variables,
responses to four open-ended questions were sought, and
are discussed in Chapter VI.
Findings
In the following summary, the term "significantly
refers to significance beyond the .05 level.
161
Communication
1. More mothers of college graduates than of
high school graduates worked before the subject was six
years old.
2. Mothers of the high school graduates had
significantly more schooling than mothers of the college
graduates.
3. Fathers of the high school graduates had
significantly more schooling than fathers of the college
graduates.
4. The college graduates came from schools where
Mexican-Americans formed a significantly smaller percent
age of the population than noted for their schools by
high school graduates.
5. Significantly more college than high school
graduates came from homes where only one language was
spoken. The ratio was approximately six to one favoring
Spanish only.
Economics
1. College graduates reported significantly
fewer siblings than high school graduates.
2. Fathers of college graduates held signifi
cantly higher occupational status than fathers of high
162
school graduates.
3. Among mothers of college graduates were sig
nificantly fewer housewives and significantly more em
ployed mothers than reported for the high school group.
Religion
1. Significantly more high school graduates
than college graduates were Catholics. Significantly
more college graduates than high school graduates could
not classify themselves as either Catholics or Prot
estants.
Self
1. The college graduates reported significantly
less favorable public school attitudes toward Mexican
ancestry than were reported by the high school graduates.
2. With regard to other ethnic groups, the col
lege graduates reported significantly less favorable
attitudes toward Mexican ancestry than were indicated by
the high school graduates.
3. The college graduates reported significantly
less favorable police attitudes toward Mexican ancestry
than were noted by the high school graduates.
163
4. College graduates tended to view their an
cestry more positively and favorably than the police
appeared to do.
5. The college graduates joined significantly
more clubs in high school and held more offices than the
high school graduates.
6. Significantly more high school than college
graduates identified themselves as Americans and Ameri
cans of Mexican descent while growing up.
7. Significantly more college than high school
graduates identified themselves as "myself1 1 while grow
ing up.
8. Significantly more high school than college
graduates identified themselves as Americans and Ameri
cans of Mexican descent at the time of the study.
9. Significantly more college than high school
graduates identified themselves as "myself" at the time
of the study.
10. Both high school and college graduates con
sidered going to college while in high school; there was
no significant difference in this area.
11. While in high school, the college graduates
were significantly more certain they would attend college
than high school graduates at the comparable stage.
164
12. While in high school, significantly more
college graduates than high school graduates had thought
seriously of what they wanted to become.
13. Significantly more college than high school
graduates were involved in delinquent gangs while in
high school.
14. The college graduates married at a signif
icantly later age than the high school graduates.
Parents
1. Both high school graduates and college gradu
ates ascribed significantly greater influence to their
mothers than to their fathers.
2. The college graduates ascribed significantly
greater influence to peers as opposed to relatives than
did the high school graduates.
3. The fathers of the college graduates were re
ported significantly more interested in the subject
obtaining an education than were the fathers of the high
school graduates.
4. The mothers of the college graduates were
reported significantly more interested in the subject
obtaining an education than were the mothers of the high
school graduates.
Related Variables
165
1. Teachers reportedly encouraged high school
graduates significantly more than they did college grad
uates at the high school or other levels.
2. There was no significant difference between
types of courses high school graduates and college grad
uates were counseled to take in high school.
3. High school graduates were significantly less
critical of society's treatment of the Mexican-American
than the college graduates.
4. High school graduates were significantly less
critical of the schools' treatment of the Mexican-
American than the college graduate.
Open-Ended Questions
Important variables affecting educational attain
ment were identified through responses to the open-ended
questions. These were: (1) affective or motivational
factors, (2) general attitudes toward Mexican descent,
(3) economic factors, (4) extent of parental and sibling
support, (5) subject's attitude toward formal education,
(6) peer values, (7) school attitudes toward the bi-
cultural child, and (8) high school preparation for
college.
166
Conclusions
The following conclusions appear to be warranted
on the basis of evidence provided by this study.
1. The Mexican-American college graduate had a
stronger sense of identity with people of his cultural
heritage than the high school graduate.
2. The Mexican-American college graduate was
more influenced by individuals outside the home than was
the high school graduate.
3. The college graduate participated more in
group activities both in and out of high school than the
high school graduate.
4. Support from both parents and siblings for
subjects’ educational goals was greater in the college
group than in the high school group.
5. The person with the most influence on all
respondents was the mother.
6. High school teachers and counselors were in
effective in working with the college group subjects.
7. The college graduate generally could rely on
greater :economic resources than the high school graduate,
due to differences in the outside employment of the
mother, the occupational level of the father, and family
size.
167
8. The college graduates lived in areas where
Mexican-Americans formed a smaller proportion of the
population than in areas reported by the high school
graduates.
9. Due to many factors the members of the col
lege graduates extended family have not been able to
follow in his footsteps leading to a college degree.
10. Fewer college than high school graduates
were Catholic.
11. The Mexican-American college graduate was
more critical of society's and the school system's re
sponses to the Mexican-American than the high school
graduate.
12. The high school graduate felt that home con
ditions were the main reason for the Mexican-American's
relative failure to improve his position in the larger
society while the college graduate felt that discrimi
nation in various forms was the chief cause.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were derived from
an analysis of the data and from consideration of the
pertinent literature reported in Chapter II:
1. Programs should be developed to restore a
168
strong sense of identity in the Mexican-American. Some
suggestions are:
a. We should consider introducing new mate
rials dealing with the Mexican-American cultural herit
age. The new materials would be available at all levels
of instruction.
b. The schools should invite prominent Mex
ican-Americans who have been able to succeed in the
larger culture to return as guest speakers.
c. Community members should be used as re
source people and aides in the school. Their physical
presence will help the pupil to identify with the edu
cational program.
d. Teacher training institutions should
stress courses on educational psychology, sensitivity
training, role analysis and reference groups, with a view
to making adults who work with Mexican-Americans aware of
what they can do to help develop a strong sense of cul
tural identity.
e. Mexican-American student organizations
should be available.
f. Bilingual education and English as a
Second Language should be made available.
g. People of Mexican-American descent should
be brought into all organizations in the society and
169
especially in the school. They should reflect the com
plete range of occupations found in the larger society.
h. Mexican-American professionals and leaders
should be visible in all the mass media.
2. Parental and sibling support of the further
ance of the Mexican-American1s education is to be en
couraged. Some ways to promote this support are:
a. Educational programs designed to teach
the Mexican-American parent the requirements and ways of
a technological society should be made available.
b. When Mexican-American parents cannot be
persuaded to come to the school, whether due to fear,
resentment or apathy, then teachers should meet them in
their home.
c. The professional educator should speak
Spanish, or have someone who can translate for him when
communicating with Mexican-Americans who find it diffi
cult to verbalize in English.
3. Sound educational practices should be ap
plied. Some suggestions are:
a. Each child should be individually assessed
as to his potentiality as early as possible in his school
career.
b. Each child should receive counseling early
in his school experience, to insure maximum development
of his capacities.
c. The curriculum should be geared to the
individual.
4. Programs which recruit then provide financial
assistance, tutoring and counseling for Mexican-American
students on college campuses should be expanded and
<
BIBLIOGRAPHY
171
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books
Ausubel, David P. Maori Youth. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1965.
________. "Psychological Acculturation in Modern
Maori Youth," Problems of Youth. M. Sherif
and C. Sherif leds.). Chicago: Aldine Pub
lishing Co., 1965.
Banton, Michael. Roles. New York: Basic Books,
1965.
Bartky, A. John. Social Issues in Public Educa
tion. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963.
Berndt, Ronald M., and Berndt, Catherine. From
Black to White in South Australia. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1952.
Bloom, Benjamin S. Stability and Change in Human
Characteristics. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1964.
Brookover, Wilbur; Patterson, Ann; and Thomas,
Shailer. Self-Concept of Ability and School
Achievement! East Lansing: Office of Research
and Publications, Michigan State University,
1962.
Clark, Kenneth. "Educational Stimulation of
Racially Disadvantaged Children," Education
in Depressed Areas. Harry Passow (ed.). New
York: Teachers College Press, 1963.
Cloward, Richard A., and Ohlin, Lloyd. Delinquency
and Opportunity. New York: Free Press of
Glencoe, i960.
Cronbach, Lee J. Educational Psychology. 2d ed.
New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963.
173
11. Diaz-Guerrero, Rogelio. “Sociocultural and Psy
chodynamic Processes in Adolescent Transition
and Mental Health," Problems of Youth. M.
Sherif and C. Sherif (eds.J. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Co., 1965.
12. Dollard, John. Caste and Class in a Southern Town.
3d ed. New York: Doubleday and Co., 195^.
13. Edwards, G. Franklin. The Negro Professional Class.
Glencoe, 111.: The Free Press, 1959.
14. Friedenberg, E. Z. The Vanishing Adolescent.
Boston: Beacon, 1959.
15. Galbraith, John Kenneth. The Affluent Society.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1958.
16. Gardner, John W. Excellence. New York: Harper,
1961.
17. Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. Unraveling Juvenile
Delinquency. New York: Commonwealth Fund,
1950. ---
18. Goffman, E. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1963.
19. Goodman, Mary Ellen. Race Awareness in Young Chil
dren. 2d ed. New York: Collier Books, 1964.
20. Gordon, Milton M. Assimilation in American Life.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1964.
21. Gross, Neal; Mason, Ward S.; and McEachern, Alex
ander W. Explorations in Role Analysis. New
York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956.
22. Handlin, Oscar. Immigration as a Factor in American
History. Enqlewood cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
HaTI, 1959.
23. Heller, Celia Stopnicka. Mexican-American Youth:
Forgotten Youth at the Crossroads. New York:
Random House, 1966.
24. Himmelweit, Hilde; Oppenheim, N. A.; and Vince,
Pamela. Television and the Chiid. New York:
Oxford University Press, i960.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
174
Hodgkinson, Harold. Education in Social and Cul
tural Perspectivesl Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1961.
Homey, Karen. Neurosis and Human Growth. New
York: Norton^ 1950.
Hunt, J. Intelligence and Experience. New York:
Ronald t’ ress Company, 1961.
Inkeles, Alex, and Levinson, Daniel J. "National
Character: The Study of Modal Personality and
Sociocultural Systems," Handbook of Social Psy
chology. Gardner Lindsay (ed.). Vol. II.
Cambridge, Mass.: Addison Wesley Publishing
Company, 1954.
Landes, Ruth. Latin-American of the Southwest.
New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1^65.
McClelland, David C. "Review and Prospects,"
Talent and Society. David C. McClelland (ed.).
Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1958.
________; Atkinson, J. W.; Clark, R. A.; and Lowell,
E. L. The Achievement Motive. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.
McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media: The Exten
sions of Man. New York: The New American
Library, 1964.
Madsen, William. The Mexican-American of South
Texas. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
T9547
Mowrer, Hobert Orval. Morality and Mental Health.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 196/.
Paz, Octavio. The Labyrinth of Solitude. New York:
Grove Press'^ 1961.
Pearl, Arthur. "Youth in Lower Class Settings,"
Problems of Youth. M. Sherif and C. Sherif
(eds.). Chicago: Aldine Publishing Co., 1965.
Rainwater, Lee. "The Inner Life and Outer World of
the Workingman’s Wife," Sourcebook in Marriage
and the Family. Compiled by Marvin B. Sussman.
New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1968.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
175
Rasey, Marie, and Menge, J. W. What We Learn from
Children. New York: Harper, 1966.
Rau, Lucy. Child-Rearing Antecedents of Achieve
ment Behaviors in School Grade BoysT Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1964.
Ravitz, Mel. "The Role of the School in the Urban
Setting." Education in Depressed Areas. Harry
Passow (ed.). New York: Teachers College
Press, 1963.
Reissman, Frank. The Culturally Deprived Child.
New York: Harper and Row, 1961.
Schorr, Alvin. Slums and Social Insecurity.
London: Nelson, 1964.
Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kwan, Kian M. Ethnic
Stratification. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1965.
Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill
Book Company, 1956.
Stein, Maurice R. The Eclipse of Community. New
York: Harper and Row, I960.
Stendler, Celia Burms. Children of Brasstown.
Urbana: University of Illinois, 1949.
Tomkins, Silvan. In Dyer, Henry; Tomkins, Silvan;
Turner, Ralph; and Washburn, Sherwood. Race and
Intelligence. Melvin Tumin (ed.). New York:
Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1963.
Tuck, Ruth D. Not with the Fist. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1946.
Tumin, Melvin. The Process of Integration, in
Integrating the Urban SchooTI Gorden J. Klopf
and Israel Laster (eds.). New York: Teachers
College,^Columbia University, 1963.
________. Social Stratification. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 196"/.
176
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
Vidich, Arthur J., and Bensman, Joseph. Small Town
in Mass Society. New York: Doubleday and
Company, 1956.
Articles and Periodicals
Andersson, Theodore. "A New Focus on the Bilingual
Child," Modern Lanquaqe Journal, XLIX (March
1965), 156-165':--- ---------
Bandura, Albert; Ross, D.; and Jones, James A.
"Imitation of Film Mediated Aggressive Models,"
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LXVI
(January 1964), 3-ll.
Battle, Esther S., and Rotter, Julian. "Children’s
Feelings of Personal Control as Related to
Social Class and Ethnic Group," Journal of
Personality, XXXI (December 1963), 482-490.
Bernstein, Basil. "Language and Social Class,"
British Journal of Socioloqy, XI (September
1960), 271-276.
Bossard, J. H. S. "The Bilingual as a Person,
Linguistic Identification with Status."
American Sociological Review, X (1945;, 699-
709.
Broom, Leonard, and Shevky, Esherf. "Mexicans in
the United States: A Problem in Social Dif
ferentiations," Sociology and Social Research,
XXXVI (January-February 1952), 150-158.
Christian, Chester C., Jr. "The Acculturation of
the Bilinqual Child," Modern Lanquaqe Journal,
XLIX (March 1965), 160-165.
Cutts, Warren G. "Reading Unreadiness in the
Underprivileged," NEA Journal, LII (April
1963), 23-24.
Davie, H. "Social Class Factors and School Attend
ance," Harvard Educational Review, No. 3,
XXIII (Summer 1953), 175-185.
177
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
De Sena, Paul A. "The Role of Consistency in
Identifying Characteristics of Three Levels
of Achievement," Personnel and Guidance
Journal, XLIII (October 19£>4), 145-149.
Deutsch, Martin, and Brown, Bert. "Social Influ
ences in Negro-White Intelligence Differences,"
Journal of Social Issues, XX (April 1964),
24-35.
Dworkin, Anthony G. "Stereotypes and Self-Images
Held by Native-Born and Foreign-Born Mexican-
Americans," Sociology and Social Research,
XLIX (January 1965), 214-224.
Dynes, Russell; Clarke, Alfred; and Dinitz, Simon.
"Levels of Occupational Aspiration: Some As
pects of Family Experience as a Variable,"
American Sociological Review, XXI (April 1956),
212-215.
Eisenstadt, S. N. "Reference Group Behavior and
Social Integration," American Sociological
Review, XIX (April 1954), 175-185.
Elder, Glenn H., Jr. "Family Structure and Educa
tional Attainment," American Sociological
Review, XXX (February 19^5), 83-85.
Ellis, A. Robert, and Lane, Clayton W. "Structural
Supports for Upward Mobility," American Socio
logical Review, XXVIII (October 1963), 743-756.
Empey, L. "Social Class and Occupational Aspira
tion," American Sociological Review, XXI
(December 1956), 703-709.
Forbes, Jack. "Our Plural Heritage," Frontier, XV
(July 1964), 16-17.
Frankel, E. "A Comparative Study of Achieving and
Underachieving High School Boys of High Intel
lectual Ability," Journal of Educational Re
search, LIII (January I960), 172-180.
Gonzales, Eugene. "Mexican-American in California,"
California Education, IX (November 1965), 19-
m -------------------
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
178
Hieronymus, A. "Study of Social Class Motivation:
Relationships Between Anxiety to Educational
and Certain Socioeconomic and Intellectual
Variables," Journal of Educational Psychology,
XLII (April 1951), 193-205.
Hummel, R., and Sprinthall. N. "Underachievement
Related to Interests, Attitudes, and Values,"
Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLIV (December
1965), 388-395.
Jensen, Arthur. "Learning in the Preschool Years,"
Journal of Nursery Education, XVIII (January
1963), 133-139.
Jensen, J. Vernon. "Effects of Childhood Bilin
gualism," Elementary English. XXXIX (February
and April, 1962), 132-143, 358-366.
John, Vera P. "The Intellectual Development of Slum
Children: Some Preliminary Findings." American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XXXIII (October
1963), 813-882.
Kahl, Joseph A. "Educational and Occupational As
pirations of ’Common Men' Boys," Harvard Educa
tional Review, No. 3, XXIII (Summer 1963),
183-203.
Klineberg, 0. "Negro-White Differences in Intel
ligence Test Performance," American Psycholo
gist. XVIII (April 1963), 198-203.
Knupfer, G. "Portrait of the Underdog," Public
Opinion Quarterly (Spring 1947), 103-114.
Los Angeles Times, August 8, 1967.
________, November 22, 1967.
________, October 30, 1968.
________, February 26, 1969.
________, April 5, 1969.
179
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
McCarthy, Dorothea A. "Affective Aspects of Lan
guage Learning." Presidential Address to the
Division of Developmental Psychology of The
American Psychological Association, September,
1961. APA Newsletter, Fall, 1961.
MacDonald, E.; McGuire, C.; and Havighurst, R.
"Leisure Activities and the Socioeconomic
Status of Children," American Journal of
Sociology, LIV (May 1949), 505-519.
McKenzie, James E., Jr. "The Dynamics of Deviant
Achievement," Personnel and Guidance Journal,
XLII (March 1964), 683-686.
Milner, Esther. "A Study of the Relationship Be
tween Reading Readiness in Grade One School
Children and Patterns of Parent-Child Inter
action," Child Development, XXII (June 1951),
95-122.
Mulligan, Raymond A. "Socioeconomic Background and
Minority Attitudes," Sociology and Social Re
search, XLV (April 1961), 2&9-29fe.
Neugarten, Bernice L. "Social Class and Friendships
Among School Children," American Journal of
Sociology, LI (January 1946), 305-313.
Palomares, Uvaldo Hill, and Johnson, Laverne G.
"Evaluation of Mexican-American Pupils for
EMR Classes," California Education, III
(April 1966), 27-29.
Pasamanick, Benjamin, and Knoblock, Hilda. "The
Contribution of Some Organic Factors to School
Retardation in Negro Children," Journal of
Negro Education, XXVII (Winter 1958), 4-9.
Penalosa, Fernando. "The Changing Mexican-American
in Southern California," Sociology and Social
Research: An International Journal, No. 4, LI
(July 1967), 405-417.
, and McDonagh, Edward C. "A Socioeconomic
Class Typology of Mexican-Americans." Socio
logical Inguiry, XXXVI (Winter 1966), 19-30.
180
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
104.
Pinkney, A. "Prejudice Toward Mexican and Negro
Americans: A Comparison," Phylon, XXIV (Winter
1963), 353-359.
Powell, James W., and Sidney, Jourard. "Some Objec
tive Evidence of Immaturity in Underachieving
Colleqe Students," Journal of Counselinq Psy
chology No. 3, X (Fall 1963), 276-^82.
Rosen, Bernard C. "The Achievement Syndrome: A
Psychocultural Dimension of Social Stratifica
tion," American Socioloqical Review, XXI
(April 1 95 5 ') ' ;' 203-2117 -----------
________. "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement
Syndrome," American Socioloqical Review, XXII
(February 1959), 48-66.
Schmeding, Robert W. "Group Intelligence Test
Scores of Gifted Children: Degree of Consistency
and Factors Related to Consistency," Personnel
and Guidance Journal, XLII (June 1964), 991-996.
Sewell, W. H.; Heller, A. O.; and Straus, M. A.
"Social Status and Educational and Occupational
Aspiration," American Socioloqical Review, XXII
(February 1957), 67-73.
Sheldon, Paul. "Mexican-Americans in Urban Public
Schools: An Exploration of the Dropout Prob
lem," California Journal of Educational Re
search, XII (January 1961), 2l-£7.
Simmons, Ozzie G. "The Mutual Images and Expecta
tions of Anglo-Americans and Mexican-Americans,"
Daedalus, XC (Spring 1961), 286-299.
Strodtbeck, Fred L.; McDonald, Margaret R.; and
Rosen, Bernard C. "Evaluation of Occupations:
A Reflection of Jewish and Italian Mobility
Differences," American Socioloqical Review,
XXII (October 1957), 546-553.
Turner, Ralph H., and Surace, Samuel J. "Zoot-
Suiters and Mexicans: Symbols in Crowd Be
havior," American Journal of Socioloqy, LXII
(July 19567, "14-26:--- ----------'
181
105.
106.
107.
108.
109.
110.
111.
112.
Weiner, M., and Murray,'W* "Another Look at the
Culturally Deprived and Their Levels of As
piration," Journal of Educational Sociology
XXXVI (March 1963), 319-321.
Wilson, Alan B. "Residential Segregation of Social
Classes and Aspirations of High School Boys,"
American Socioloqical Review. XXIV (December
1959), 836-845.
Wylie, Ruth G. "Children's Estimates of Their
Schoolwork Ability, as a Function of Sex,
Race, and Socioeconomic Status," Journal of
Personality, XXXI (June 1963), 203-^24.
Unpublished Dissertations
Gilbert, Mitchell Louis. "Community Character
istics that Contribute to the Prediction of
Student Achievement." Unpublished Doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern Cali
fornia, 1968.
Jacobson, Lenore Francis. "Explorations of Vari
ations in Educational Achievements Among
Mexican Children, Grades One to Six." Un
published Doctoral dissertation, University
of California, Berkeley, 1966.
Lasswell, Thomas E. "A Study of Status Stratifi
cation in a Selected Community." Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1952.
Linn, George Byron. "A Study of Several Linguistic
Functions of Mexican-American Children in a
Two-Language Environment." Unpublished Doc
toral dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1965.
Palomares, Uvaldo Hill. "A Study of the Role of
Mobility in the Acculturation Process of Rural
Migrant and Non-Migrant Disadvantaged Mexican-
Americans in the Coachella Valley." Unpub
lished Doctoral dissertation, University of
Southern California, 1967.
182
113. Parsons, Theodora, William, Jr. "Ethnic Cleavage
in a California School." Unpublished Doc
toral dissertation, Stanford University,
1965.
114. Penalosa, Fernando. "Class Consciousness and
Social Mobility in a Mexican-American Com
munity." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of Southern California, 1963.
115. Schwartz, Audrey James. "Affectivity Orientations
and Academic Achievement of Mexican-American
Youths." Unpublished Doctoral dissertation,
University of California at Los Angeles, 1967.
116. Takesian, Sarkis Armen. "A Comparative Study of
the Mexican-American Graduate and Dropout."
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California, 1967.
Unpublished Reports
117. Heller, Celia Stopnicka. "Background and Ambition
of Male Mexican-American High School Seniors in
Los Angeles." Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Sociological Associa
tion, Los Angeles, California, 1963.
118. Metfessel, N. S. "Conclusions from Previous Re
search Findings Which Are Validated by the
Research and Evaluation Conducted by the Staff
of Project Potential, University of Southern
California." Paper presented at the 17th
Annual State Conference on Educational Re
search, Los Angeles, November, 1965.
119. Montez, Philip. "The Psychology of the Mexican-
American Student." Paper presented to the
Subcommittee on Race Relations and Urban
Problems of the California State Senate. The
State Building, Los Angeles, California,
September 30, 1964.
183
120.
121.
122.
123.
124.
125.
126.
127.
Olim, E.; Hess, R.; and Shipman, V. "Relationship
Between Mothers’ Language Styles and Cogni
tive Styles of Urban Pre-School Children."
Paper presented to the Society for Research
in Child Development. Urban Child Study
Center, Chicago, Illinois, March 25, 1965.
Rodriguez, Armando. "The Mexican-American and
Higher Education." Paper presented at the
Conference on Increasing Opportunities for
Mexican-Americans in Higher Education,
California State College at Long Beach,
May 15-16, 1969.
Villalobos, Richard J. "The Mexican-American: An
Enigma in Search of an Identity." Paper pre
sented to the Los Angeles County Commission
on Human Relations, February 9, 1966.
Other Sources
Mexican-American Study Project. The Burden of
Poverty. Advance Project V. Los Angeles:
Graduate School of Business Administration,
University of California, July, 1966.
________. Education and Income of Mexican-Americans
in the Southwest. Advance Project I. Los
Angeles: Graduate School of Business Adminis
tration, University of California, November,
1965.
________. Intermarriage of Mexican-Americans.
Advance Project VI. Los Angeles: Graduate
School of Business Administration, University
of California, November, 1966.
________. The Schooling Gap. Advance Project VII.
Los Angeles: Graduate School of Business Admin
istration, University of California, March,
1967.
Simmons, Ozzie. Social Status and Public Health.
New York: Social Science Research Council,
Monograph No. 13, 1958.
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNAIRE
185
186
GROUP _________________________ 1. High School
2. College
SUBJECT: NUMBER
AGE
YEARLY SALARY
1. $ 2,000
-
4,000
2. 4,000
-
6,000
3. 6,000
-
8,000
4. 8,000
-
10,000
5. 10,000
-
12,000
6. 12,000
-
14,000
7. 14,000
-
16,000
8. 16,000
-
18,000
9. 18,000
-
20,000
10. 20,000
-
22,000
11. 22,000
(
or
24,000
' over)
POSITION_______________________
1. Consultant
2. Administrator
3. Professor
4. Coordinator
5. Other
ENVIRONMENT
Where were you born?
Where were you raised?
In what type of community were you
raised? _______________________
1. Rural Area 3. Small City
2. Small Town 4. Large City
When did your ancestors come to what is
now the United States?
How many times did your parents move
during your public school years
(grades 1-12)?
COMMUNICATION
Did your parents live together while
you were growing up?
1. Lived together.
2. Lived together most of your public
school years.
3. Lived together some of your public
school years.
4. Did not live together.
Did your mother work before you were 6
years old? ___________________________
1. Yes 2. No
How many years of schooling did your
father complete? _____________________
1. 0 - 2 4. 9-11
2. 3-5 5. 12-13
3. 6 - 8 6. 14 - 15
7. 16 - over
188
9. How many years of schooling did your
mother complete? ___________________
1. 0 - 2 4. 9-11
2. 3 - 5 5. 12 - 13
3. 6 - 8 6. 14 - 15
7. 16 - over
10. What percentage of your high-school
peers was Mexican American? _______
11. What was the language spoken at
home?
1. Spanish 4. Mostly English
2. Mostly Spanish 5. English
3. Half Spanish,
Half English
12. How strict were your parents with you?
1. Very strict 3. Somewhat strict
2. Strict 4. Not strict at all
ECONOMICS
13. Were you born in a hospital or at home?
1. In a hospital
2. At home
14. Who was present at your birth?
1. Doctor
2. Midwife
3. Other
15. How many children were in your family
while you were in school? ___________
16. While you were growing up, what kind of
work did your father do? _____________
189
17. While you were growing up, what kind of
work did your mother do? ______________
18. Who paid for your last years of educa
tion? _____________________________
CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY
19. Were your parents registered voters?
1. Both were 3. Mother only
2. Father only 4. Neither
RELIGION
20. Now I'd like to ask you a few questions
about religion. What was your religious
denomination while you were growing up?
1. Catholic Ethnic 4. Catholic Non-Ethnic
2. Protestant Ethnic 5. Protestant Non-Ethnic
3. Other
21. What is your religious denomination a't
present?________________________________
1. Catholic Ethnic 4. Catholic Non-Ethnic
2. Protestant Ethnic 5. Protestant Non-Ethnic
3. Other
22. How important was religion to you while
you were growing up? ___________________
1. Very important 3. Somewhat important
2. Important 4. Not important at all
23. Now that you are grown up, how important
is religion to you? ____________________
1. Very important 3. Somewhat important
2. Important 4. Not important at all
190
SELF
24. While you were growing up, how did your
parents generally make you feel regard
ing your Mexican ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting 5. Didn't notice
3. Somewhat accepting
2b. How did your relatives generally make
you feel regarding your Mexican ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting 5. Didn't notice
3. Somewhat accepting
26. How did the schools generally make you
feel regarding your Mexican ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting 5. Didn't notice
3. Somewhat accepting
27. How did the newspapers and other media
generally make you feel regarding your
Mexican ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting 5. Didn’t notice
3. Somewhat accepting
28. How did other ethnic groups generally
make you feel regarding your Mexican
ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting b. Didn't notice
3. Somewhat accepting
191
29. How did the police generally make
you feel regarding your Mexican
ancestry?
1. Very accepting 4. Not at all accepting
2. Accepting 5. Didn't notice
3. Somewhat accepting
30. How do you feel now regarding your
Mexican ancestry?
1. Very accepting 3. Somewhat accepting
2. Accepting 4. Not at all accepting
31. While you were growing up, how close
did you feel to your parents?
1. Very close 3. Somewhat close
2. Close 4. Not at all close
32. Did you join clubs in high school? If
so, how many and what types did you
join, and how many offices did you hold?
33. Of what ancestry were most of your high-
school friends?
1. Mexican
2. Mixed
3. Non-Mexican
34. What did you consider yourself to be
while growing up?
1. Mexican 6. American
2. Mexican-American 7. All of these
3. Chicano 8. Myself
4. Latin-American 9. Spanish
5. American of 10. Other
Mexican Descent
192
35. What do you consider yourself to be now?
1. Mexican 6. American
2. Mexican-American 7. All of these
3. Chicano 8. Myself
4. Latin-American 9. Spanish
5. American of 10. Other
Mexican Descent
36. While in high school, did you consider
going to college? _____________________
1. Yes
2. No
37. If yes, how certain were you of entering
college? _______________________________
1. Very sure 3. Somewhat sure
2. Sure 4. Not sure at all
38 While you were growing up, what type of
vocation did you want to enter?
39. Were there neighborhood delinquent gangs
such as White Fence, Little Eastside,
Mara, El Hoyo, etc., in your area? _____
1. Yes
2. No
40. Were you involved in delinquent gangs
while growing up?
1. Much involved
2. Involved
3. Involved somewhat
4. Not involved at all
41. How old were you when you married?
193
PARENTS
42. Who most influenced you, in terms of
the following forced-choice alterna
tives?
1. Parents ___ or Teachers ?
2. Teachers ___ or Friends ?
3. Mother ___ or Father ?
4. Parents ___ or Relatives ?
5. Parents ___ or Friends ?
6. Teachers ___ or Relatives --- ?
7. Relatives or Friends ?
43. How interested were your parents in
Mexican-American matters?
1. Very interested
2. Interested
3. Somewhat interested
4. Not at all interested
5. Don't know
44. If your father could have completed all
the education he wanted, what would he
have liked to become?
45. If your mother could have completed all
the education she wanted, what would
she have liked to become?
46. Was your father interested in your
getting an education?__________________
1. Very interested
2. Interested
3. Somewhat interested
4. Not at all interested
47. Was your mother interested in your
getting an education?__________________
1. Very interested 3. Somewhat interested
2. Interested 4. Not at all interested
194
48. Did someone read to you while you were
growing up?___________________________
1. Yes
2. No
If so, who read to you? ______________
1. Mother
2. Father
3. Brother
4. Sister
5. Relative
How often were you read to? __________
1. Often
2. Sometimes
3. Seldom
49. While you were growing up, did your
family take you on educational trips
such as visits to zoos, museums,
libraries, the planetarium, etc.?
1. Often
2. Sometimes
3. Seldom
4. Never
RELATED VARIABLES
50. How many members of your family had
attended or graduated from college
before your high school graduation?
51. How many members of your family have
attended or graduated from college
since your high school graduation?
195
52. Did your high school friends have plans
for their future?______________________
1. Yes
2. No
53. Did teachers generally encourage you to
further your education?
1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, somewhat
3. They were neither encouraging nor
discouraging
4. They were somewhat discouraging
54. Did you receive any high school coun
seling? ______________________ _______
1. Yes
2. No
How often?
55. Did counselors generally encourage you
to further your education?
1. Yes, definitely
2. Yes, somewhat
3. They were neither encouraging nor
discouraging
4. They were somewhat discouraging
56. Were you counseled to take vocational,
academic or business courses?
1. Vocational 3. Business
2. Academic 4. Don't remember
57. How would you characterize our present
society's reaction to the Mexican American?
1. Responsive 4. Somewhat discrimina-
2. Somewhat responsive tory
3. Indifferent 5. Definitely discrim
inatory
196
58. How would you characterize the schools'
reaction to the Mexican-American?
1. Responsive
2. Somewhat responsive
3. Indifferent
4. Somewhat discriminatory
5. Definitely discriminatory
OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS
CG 59. When did you decide to go to college and why?
HSG How were you able to earn a high school diploma
when so many Mexican-Americans of your age
didn’t?
CG 60. What factors do you feel have enabled you to
succeed?
HSG Why didn't you go to college?
197
61. What do you think would help the Mexican-
American group to do better?
62. How do you explain the Mexican-American group's
relative failure to improve its position in the
larger society?
APPENDIX B
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HIGH SCHOOL AND
COLLEGE GROUPS ON RESPONSES TO ALL
QUESTIONS DIRECTLY DERIVED FROM
THE THEORETICAL MODEL
198
199
TABLE 63
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE
GROUPS ON RESPONSES TO ALL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY
DERIVED FROM THE THEORETICAL MODEL
Question
X2
or
P
Significant
Differences
Mobility
1. How many times did his parents
move during subject's public
school years (grades 1-12)? 1.5
Communication
1. Did the mother work before sub
ject was six years old? 7.2 S
2. How many years of schooling
did the father complete? 4.0 S
3. How many years of Schooling
did the mother complete? 7.5 S
4. What percentage of high-
school peers was Mexican-
American? 5.0 S
b. What was the language spoken
at home? 5.0 S
6. What were the discipline
patterns of parents? .1
Economics
1. Was the subject born in a
hospital or at home? 1.0
200
TABLE 63 (Continued)
Question
X2
or
P
Significant
Differences
2. Who was present at his birth? .1
3. How many children were in the
family while subject was in
school? 5.8 S
4. What kind of work was done by
the father? 6.3 S
5. What kind of work was done by
the mother? 6.8 S
Civic Responsibility
1. Were his parents registered
voters? .0
Religion
1. What is the religious de
nomination of subject at
present?
Catholic
Other
7.2
8.2
S
S
2. How important was religion
to the subject when he was
growing up? 2.6
3. How important is religion
to the subject now? 3.8
TABLE 63 (Continued)
201
Question
X2
or
P
Significant
Differences
Self
1. How did the subject's parents
generally make him feel re
garding his Mexican ancestry? .2
2. How did the subject's rela
tives generally make him feel
regarding his Mexican an
cestry? .2
3. How did the schools generally
make the subject feel regard
ing his Mexican ancestry? 7.2 S
4. How did the newspapers and
other media generally make
the subject feel regarding
his Mexican ancestry? .0
5. How did other ethnic groups
generally make the subject
feel regarding his Mexican
ancestry? 9.0 S
6. How did the police gener
ally make the subject feel
regarding his Mexican an
cestry? 4.6 S
7. How does the subject feel
now regarding his Mexican
ancestry? 1.2
Special:
Comparison of difference be
tween Mexican-American col
lege graduates' attitude
toward their Mexican ancestry
202
TABLE 63 (Continued)
Questions
X2
ox
P
Significant
Differences
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Did the subject, while in
high school, consider going
to college? .4
How certain was the subject
of entering college? 11.7
What type of vocation did
the subject want to enter? 10.8
Was the subject involved in
delinquent gangs while grow
ing up? 6.3
How old was the subject
when he married? 5.6
S
S
and their perception of police
attitudes toward such ancestry. 29.7
Did the subject join clubs
in high school? 7.2
Of what ancestry were most
of his high school friends? 2.6
What did the subject consider
himself to be while growing
up?
American .003*
Myself .03*
What does the subject con
sider himself to be now?
American .024*
Myself .009*
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
*Binomial Test Probability.
203
TABLE 63 (Continued)
Questions
X2
or
P
Significant
Differences
Parents
1. Who most influenced him in
terms of the following
forced-choice alternatives? 4.6 S
2. How interested were his par
ents in Mexican-American
matters? 3.7
3. What were his father's
aspirations? 2.8
4. What were his mother's
aspirations? 3.4
5. Was his father interested
in the subjects getting
an education? 4.1 S
6. Was his mother interested
in the subjects getting
an education? 4.7 S
7. Did someone read to the
subject while he was
growing up? .1
8. If so, who read to the
subject? .06*
9. How often was the subject
read to? .8
10. Did subject's family take
him on educational trips
while he was growing up? 1.0
*Binomial Test Probabilities
204
TABLE 63 (Continued)
Question
C M H
X ocu
Significant
Differences
Related Variables
1 . How many members of his family
had attended or graduated from
college before his high school
graduation? 2.7
2. How many members of his family
have attended or graduated from
college since his high school
graduation? .5
3. Did most of his high school
friends have plans for their
future? .8
4. Did teachers generally encour
age the subject to further his
education? 8.8 S
5. Did he receive any high
school counseling? 1.3
6 . Did counselors generally en
courage the subject to further
his education? 3.3
7. Was the subject counseled to
take vocational, academic,
or business courses? .8
8. How would he characterize
our present society’s re
action to the Mexican-
American? 32.2 S
9. How would he characterize
the schools' reactions to
the Mexican-American? 13.8 S

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Critical Factors Related To Achievement And Underachievement Of High School Students

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Group Test Of Creativity (Gtoc) Scores And Achievement Test Scores Of Students With Spanish And Non-Spanish Surnames

PDF

Reversal And Nonreversal Shift Performance Of Retardates Under Various Motivational And Stimulus Conditions

PDF

A Comparison Of The Values Of High And Low Creative Seventh Grade Students In Selected Junior High Schools In The Los Angeles District

PDF

Rigidity Factors And Value Choices

PDF

The Effects Of Pretraining In Auditory And Visual Discrimination On Texting In First Grade Boys

PDF

A Four-Year Follow-Up Of Educationally Disadvantaged Preschool Children, Analyzing Home Environment Variables Facilitating Achievement

PDF

A Comparison Of Degrees Of Bilingualism And Measure Of School Achievementamong Mexican-American Pupils

PDF

Frustration Versus Secondary Reinforcement In Children Under Continuous And Partial Primary Reinforcement

PDF

An Attitude Survey Of High School Dropouts By Means Of The Semantic Differential Process

PDF

The Relation Of Sense Of Humor To Creativity, Intelligence, And Achievement

PDF

Ethnic Group Differences In Certain Personal, Intellectual, Achievement, And Motivational Characteristics

PDF

The Relationship Of Father-Absence, Socio-Economic Status, And Other Variables To Creative Abilities In Fifth-Grade Boys

PDF

Validity Concomitants Of Various Scoring Procedures Which Attenuate The Effects Of Response Sets And Chance

PDF

Behavioral Seriousness And Impulse-Control Balance In Delinquency

PDF

The influence of social intelligence and social teaching methods upon academic achievement

PDF

A Semantic Differential Investigation Of Significant Attitudinal Factors Related To Three Levels Of Academic Achievement Of Seventh Grade Students

PDF

Junior High School Size

PDF

An Analysis Of The Selection Criteria For Assignment Of Students To Advanced Placement Classes In The Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Educational Group Counseling Within A Remedial Reading Program

Asset Metadata

Creator Godoy, Charles Edward (author)

Core Title Variables Differentiating Mexican-American College And High School Graduates

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Educational Psychology

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

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Berg, Richard H. (committee member), Lasswell, Thomas E. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-402876

Unique identifier UC11360997

Identifier 7016863.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-402876 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7016863.pdf

Dmrecord 402876

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Godoy, Charles Edward

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