University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

W-B data as indices of aptitude for law and engineering a contribution to vocational counselling

(USC Thesis Other)

W-B data as indices of aptitude for law and engineering a contribution to vocational counselling

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content W-B DATA AS INDICES OF APTITUDE FOR LAW AND ENGINEERING: A CONTRIBUTION TO VOCATIONAL COUNSELLING A Dtssertation Presented to the Faculty or the Gr du.ate School University of Southern California In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D egree Doctor of Philosophy by Charles Graham Foster February 1951 This dissertation, w1·itten by ____________________ CHABI~S ___ GRAHAM..F.0-5TER ........... __ under the guidance of h.1.s ___ Faculty Committee on Studies, and app1·oved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Council on Graduate Study and Research, in partial ful fillment of requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Dean Date .... .l ar.c.h ... 5., .... 19.5.1 .............. . Committee on Studies ----~-L--~---------------------••-• Chairman CKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator wishes to express h1s genuine appreciation and warm, heart-felt thanks to Dr. D. B. Klein tor his invaluable academic guidance, human understanding, and helpful criticism, which played a major part in making the presentation of this dissertation possible. Deep gratitude is also extended to Dr. s •• Wesley tor the opportunity of benefiting by his keen, intellectual observations. any of the high points of this dissertation have been stimulated into being through the contagious scientific curiosity of his objective thinking. It was he who planted the seed from which this tree of systematic investigation grew. Acknowledgment is also extended to rs. Lucile Alice Foster, my wife, for her spiritual support throughout the years of preparation which culminated in this scientific endeavor, as well as for her material assistance in the painstaking handwork and untiring exactness which was involved in copying the graphs of this study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • PAGE 1 2 Statement of the problem • • • • • • • • • • • Importance of the study ••••••••••• II. REVIE\"I OF 'l'HE LITERATURE • • • • • • • • • • • • III. THE MATERIALS USED AND GROUPS STUDIED • • • • • 6 9 10 10 10 10 16 IV. The Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence tests. • • Description of the materials used • • • • • Conditions of administration • • • • • • • • The group studied • • • • • • • • • • • • • • RESULTS OF THE STUDY. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Analysis of the Wechsler-Bellevue results • • 16 I •• level • ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • Deterioration index • • • • • • • • • • • • 16 22 Efficiency quotients • • • • • • • • • • • • 26 echsler-Bellevue profile results • • • • • 28 Deviations compared with control groups • • 35 Deviations within the professional groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 53 Follow-up study of engineering group • • • • 80 Follow-up study of law group • • • • • • • • 90 Point scale of engineering ap itude • • • • 92 Point scale of law aptitude • • • • • • • • 99 CHAPTER v. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . ~ . . . Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Conclusions • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIX A .APPENDIX B APPENDIX C ~PENDIX D APPENDIX E APPENDIX F APPENDIX G APPENDIX H APPENDIX I • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • iv PAGE 115 115 124 125 128 1:30 134 138 142 144 148 152 156 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Ages for Group Studied. • • • • • • • • • • • 12 II. Distribution of Dates State Bar Passed by Attorney Group.. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13 III. Full Scale I.Q.•s for Group • • • • • • • • • 17 IV. Verbal and Performance Scale I.Q.•s for Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 19 v. Analysis of I. ~••s. • • • • • • • • • • • • • 21 VI. "t" Scores Computed on Verbal and Performance . . Scale I.Q.•s •••• • • • • • • • • • • • VII. Deterioration Present for Group • • • • • • • VIII. Efficiency Quotients of Group • • • • • • • • . IX. Mean Subtest Scores for law Group • • • • • • 23 25 27 30 x. Mean Subtest Scores for Engineering Group • • 32 XI. "t" Scores Computed on Mean Subtest Scores. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 34 XII. Mean Deviations of Subtests from Vocabulary . . Level for Law Group • • • • • • • • • • • • 37 XIII. Mean Deviations of Subtests from Vocabulary Level for Engineering Group • • • • • • • • 39 XIV. "t" Scores Computed on Subtest Deviation from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • xv. A Comparison of Estes•, Rapaport•s, Engineer ing, and Law Group on Deviations of Bellevue- 41 TABLE Wechsler Subtest Scores from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XVI. Mean I.Q.•s of Law, Ingineering, Estes and v1 PAGE 48 Rapaport Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • 49 XVII. Comparison of Verbal and Performance Scales in Wechsler, Este~, Rapaport, Engineering, and Law Groups •••••••••••• • • XVIIIA. Deviations of echsler-Bellevue Subtest Scores from Voca ulary Level for Lower D1v1s1on, Junior, and Senior Engineering 51 Students. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 54 XVIIIB. Deviations of Bellevue-Wechsler Subtest Scores from Vocabulary Level for Attor neys, Third Year, Second Year, and First Year Law School Students. • • • • • • • • 55 XIXA. Mean Subtest Scores for Lower-Division Junior, and Senior Engindering Students ••••••••••• • • • • XIXB. Mean Subtest Scores tor Attorneys, Third Year, Second Year, and First Year Le.w School Students ••••••••••• xx. Per cent of Withdrawals and Dismissals • • • • in the School of Law • ••••••• • • • 58 59 64 TABLE XXI. Law School Year Levels • • • • • • • • • • • XXII. Course Units Completed by I.aw School XXIII. XXIV. Students Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • law School Numerical Grade Levels •• Numerical Grade Averages of I.aw School • • • • • • • XXV. Law School Senior Numerical Grade Averages and Per cent Passing California State Bar • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XXVI. Numerical Grade Levels of Graduate and . . Non-Graduate Iaw Students •••••• • • • XXVII. Follow-up Study on Eng1neer1~g G~oup T~o~ . and-One-Half Years later • • • • • • • • • XXVIII. I.Q. 1 s of Graduate and Flunk-out Eng1- vii PAGE 66 6? 68 69 ?8 ?9 81 nearing Students ••••••••••••• 84 XXIX. Degrees Received and Numerical Grade Levels for law School Students Group • • • • • • xxx. Engineering Aptitude Point Scale • • • • • XX.XI. Engineering Point Scale Applied to Engineering Group • • • • • • • • • • • • XX.XII. Engineering Point Scale Applied to Law Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • XX.XIII. Engineering Point Scale Applied to Eng1- nearing and Law Groups • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 86 93 95 96 viii TABLE PAGE XX.XIV. Percentage Distribution or Sign Scores for Engineer Group on Engineering Point Scale •••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • XXXV. Percentage Distribution of Sign Scores for I.aw Group on Engineering Point Scale • • • XX.XVI •• Percentage Distribution of Sign Scores for Law and Engineering Groups on Engineer ing Point Scale •• • • • • • • • • • • XXXVII. Sign Score Level of Engineering and Iaw Groups on Engineering Point Scale • • • XX.XVIII. Sign Score Level of Law and Engineering Groups on Engineering Sign Point Scale • • • • • • XX.XIX. law Aptitude Point Scale • • • • • • • • • • XL. Law Point Scale Applied to law Group • • • • XLI. Law Point Scale Applied to Engineering . .. . . 98 100 101 102 103 104 106 Group ••••••••••••••••••• 107 XLII. Percentage Distribution of Sign Scores for lawyer Group on Law Point Scale •••••• 108 XLIII. Percentage Distribution of Sign Scores for Engineering Group on I.aw Point Scale • • • 110 XLIV. Sign Score Level or Law and Engineering Groups on Law Point Scale • • • • • • • • • 111 XLV. Sign Score Level or Engineering and law Groups on Law Point Scale • • • • • • • • • 112 ix TABLE PAGE LVI. Sin core Level and 1 umer1cal Grade Level for Law Student Group on Law Point Scale •• 113 LVII. Distribution of Ages and I •• •son the Three echsler Scales for En ineering Group ••••••••••••••••••• 131 XLVIII . Distribution of I •• 'son the Three Wechs ler Scales and I .Q. Percentile Ratings for the Lawyer and Law chool tudents Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • LIX. Distribution of Ages, Academic Units Com- •• 135 pleted, Year Level, and Per cent of Dete rioration for the Lawyers and Law School Students Group ••••••••••••••• 139 L. Distributions of Dates Passed California State Bar , Efficiency Quotients, and E •• Percentile Ranks for Practicing Attorneys •• 143 LI. Distributions of Present Numerical Grade Averages, Past Degrees Received , ajor, Efficiency uotients, and E •• Percen- tile Ranks for Law School Students Group •• 145 LII . Weighted Scores on all Subtests for Engineering Group • • • • • • • • • • • •• 149 LIII. e1ghted Scores on all Subtests for La Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ••• 153 X TABLE PAGE LIV. Mean Subtest Scores and Mean I.Q.•s for Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 15'7 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Mean Weighted Scores of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests for 50 lawyers and law Students. 2. Mean Weighted Scores of Wechsler-Bellevue . . • • 29 Subtests for Engineering Group. • • • • • • • 31 3. Mean Weighted Scores ~r Wec~s;er-Be~l~vue Subtests ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 4. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level for 50 Lawyers and . . . law Stu.dents •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests trom Vocabulary Level _ for _ 50 Eng1~eer~ng Students •••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • 6. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests • • from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 7. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level tor Estes' General College Students and Recent Graduates • • • • a. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests trom Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 9. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level tor Rapaport's Kansas State Patrolmen • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 33 36 38 40 42 44 45 xii FIGURE PAGE 10. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 11. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Belleveu ubtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 12. Mean Deviations or We~hsler-Bellevue Subtests from Voca ul.ary Level for Engineering 47 52 Group • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 56 13. ean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subcests from Voca lary Level. • • • • • • • • • • • 57 14. Mean Ne1ghted Scores of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests for Engineering Student Group. 15. Mean Weighted Scores of Wechsler-Bellevue • • • Subtests ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 16. Mean Deviations or Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests . 60 61 trom Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 62 l?. Mean Deviations of echsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 63 18. Mean Deviations of ~echsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 70 19. Mean Deviations of echsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 72 20. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 73 xiii FIGURE PAGE 21. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 74 22. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 76 23. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 77 24. Mean Deviations or Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests . from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 82 25. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests . . . from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 83 26. Mean Dev ations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 88 27. Mean Weighted Scores of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests ••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 116 28. Mean Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue Subtests . . - . ,. from Vocabulary Level • • • • • • • • • • • • 118 C H APTER I THE PROBLEM The measurement of intellectual endowment by means of standardized intelligence tests has established itself as common practice among specialists in vocational guidance. Justification for this procedure is rooted in a multiplicity of studies demonstrating an impressive paral lelism between levels of intelligence and var ous occupa- tional hierarchies. This applies to a very broad utilization of intelligence test data for vocational guidance. However, as is well known, a much more restricted and specialized sphere of usefulness for such data has also emerged in the course of years. In other words, not only did vocational specialists concern themselves with problems of minimal intellectual competence for success in the professions as opposed to the trades, but also 1th analogous problems having to do with intra-trade and intra-professional levels of competence. This history is too well known to warrant detailed elaboration here (16). The echsler-Bellevue intelligence test is the most widely used test of adult intelligence in this country. It has been employed as routine procedure in vocational guidance for many years. 2 Because of its wide-spread use, any evidence hich can be marshall~d to demonstrate more refined and valid pre dictive power for this test would enhance the professional work of the vocational guidance specialists. The ch1et objective of the present investigation is to make such a contribution. Statement .2!, the problem. For some years the writer has been interested in the possibility or ascertaining whether there are significant differences in the cognitive organization of successful layers as compared to success ful engineers. On~ priori grounds such a possibility 1s rendered plausible in the light of psychological theories which Thorndike brought into sharp focus in sponsoring what for purposes or descriptive convenience might be called a tri-partite view or intelligence. This, as might be anticipated, refers to Thorndike's well known reference to social, mechanical, and abstract kinds ?f intelligence respectively (22). Furthermore, Thurstone's (23) subsequent development or his concept of primary mental abilities served to reinforce the~ prior~ plausibility of our working hypo- thesis. It will be recalled that the W-B test provides for separate determination of the verbal and performance con tribution to the total I •• Con~equently, it may be 3 possible to utilize a test of this kind as a means of dif ferentiating, at least in part, aptitude for law from aptitude for engineering. Such a possibility is based on the assumption that law, in contra-distinction to engineering, places a greater premium on verbal aptitude and contrariwise that engineer ing demands relatively more pronounced development of those psychological functions symbolized by the performance I •• This assumption stems from the popular conception that a lawyer's job 1s to debate in court while an engineer's work is to draw plans and build bridges. The purpose or the present study 1s to check on the foregoing possibility. Stated differently, in the present investigation the W-B test was administered to engineering students and to law students tor the purpose of comparing the resulting test profiles in the hope or finding statis tically significant differences between them. Importanc~ .2f. the stud7. As clinicians already administer the W-B scale in vocational guidance in an effort to determine the level ~f job ability the subject possesse~, certainly a method of profile interpretation that would also indicate the type of occupation for which the individual is most suited would be welcome. This would not entail any additional test administration yet would delineate more satisfactorily the occupational range 4 of the applicant and set the stage for the selection and administration of specific aptitude tests. Strong {20) contends that men engaged in a particular occupation have been found to have a characteristic pattern or likes and dislikes whi h distinguishes them from men following other professions. As this claim appears to be valid, it would be well to search for other common voca- tional attributes. This may be accomplished by an experimental consi- deration of the intelligence test subscores of specific vocational groups. More than the total intellectual ratings, the test subscores may furnish cues as to the type of mind which makes those ratings. An evaluation of the kind of intelligence which characterizes vocational groups may aid the counselor in deciding what general occupational field should be considered. Specific aptitude tests may then be selected to measure these occupational trends more precisely. In addition, a gross personality classification based on the profiles obtained may also prove of value especially when checked in the light of psychological tests dealing with dynamic personality factors. The clinician may thus be enabled to attain an evaluation of the subject's intellectual level, a measure ot his abstract or mechanical capacities, an indication of his personality trend, and evidence of his vocational incl nations. All this could be accomplished by the same W-B profile. 5 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATU RE The literature abounds with studies on the investi gation of characteristic W-B patterns or various clinical classifications and also special groups such as Negroes, alcoholics, problem children, epileptics, and narcotic drug addicts. However, as far as is ascertainable, little experimental evidence has been published to determine whether data from an intelligence test may be used as indices or aptitude tor any professional or sub-professional occupation. Studies of the Wechsler-Bellevue published prior to 1945 have been very adequately summarized by Rabin (17) and . , also by Watson (24). Wechsler (25, p. 146) notes that a variance in verbal and performance intellectual abilities relative to certain sub-professional occupational groups does occur. He points this out as a possible feature of his test without further elaboration when he statesi The most obviously useful feature of the Wechsler Bellevue scales is their division into a verbal and performance part. We have already discussed the general significance of this division. Its a priori value is that it makes possible a comparison between a subject's facility in using words and symbols and his ability to manipulate objects, and to perceive visual patterns. In practice this division is substantiated by differences between posited abilities and various occupational , aptitudes. Clerical workers and teachers, 7 in general, do much better on verbal tests, whereas manual workers and mechanics do better on performance. The correlations are sufficiently high to be of value in vocational guidance, particularly with adolescents ot high school age. Altus and Mahler(2) report on a verbal form or the Wechsler Mental Ability Scale given Army illiterates. Approximately ten minutes 1s required to administer this shortened form of the A-rmy Wechsler which is an individu ally administered test composed of the information, arithmetic, comprehension, and similarities subtests. These tour subtests were found to be indicative of occupational level since the higher scores were made by those who held more highly skilled jobs. Estes (10) reports the vocabulary scatter for a group composed of 102 college students and recent graduates on the Wechsler-Bellevue. A third or the group were in graduate school or had recently received graduate degrees. A fifth were concentrating in the field of psychology, while the remainder were fairly evenly distributed over the other fields of academic concentration. All were volunteer subjects. His study presents a mean verbal-performance scale discrepancy of nine I. e points in favor of abstract intelligence. Rapaport (18) reports the vocabulary scatter of a control group consisting of fifty-four randomly chosen members of the Kansas State Highway Patrol. These men 8 range in extent of academic education from one year of high school to one year of graduate training. This group pre sented a mean verbal-performance scale discrepancy of four I.Q. points in favor of mechanical intelligence. Foster (11) found that engineering students evidenced an atypical test profile indicating higher performance I.Q.s in comparison to general college students and state patrol- men. Diamond (9) divided the sub-tests of the Wechsler Bellevue into three groups designated as linguistic, clerical, and spatial. He compared these group scores with scores on the 0 1 Rourke Survey of Vocabulary, the Minnesota Clerical Test, and the Minnesota Spatial Relations Test. He found a fairly high degree of correspondence between each group of W-B sub-tests and the aptitude test with which it was paired. This present study will endeavor to determine the relationship of divergent professional groups to each other, rather than to a mixed academic group such as gen eral college students, or a non-academic vocation such as state patrolmen. An attempt will be made to set up point scales for the quantitative evaluation of the types of intelligence found in law and engineering, based upon the statistically valid aspects of the comparison. 9 CHAPTER III THE MATERIALS USED AND GROUPS STUDIED Before the publication of the Wechsler-Bellevue in 1939, clinicians were forced to rely upon such measures as the Stanford-Binet and the Arthur in evaluating the general intelligence of adults. These individual scales were not strictly applicable to adults. Although the 1937 Stanford Binet does incl de tests for age fourteen, for the average adult, and also three levels of difficulty for the superior adult, the test is better adapted for use with children than for older adolescents or adults. One can make esti mates of adult intelligence only by going beyond the age groups on which the scales were standardized, and by assuming that average adult mental age neither increased nor decreased after a designated maximum age. The 1944 revision of the Wechsler-Bellevue~ an instrument standard ized on an adult population, is consequently steadily gain ing in popularity when adults are to be tested. In support of this, Goodenough (13) states, "Of the intelligence tests used in vocational guidance, the Wechsler-Bellevue is generally to be recommended if an individual test can be given." 10 I. THE WECI-ISLER-BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE TESTS Description of the materials used. The echsler Bellevue is an individual intelligence examination designed primarily for the use of persons between the ages of four teen to fifty, although age groups as young as seven years were used in the derivation of scores and tables of I •• 's are available up to the age of sixty. A complete description of the W-B scales is given in Appendix A. Conditions of administration. The test was ad.minis- - tered to attorneys in their private downtown offices. An appointment for an hour and a half was usually set aside for taking the test. Law students were tested in a side room of the law library . Engineering students took the examination in their homes after classes . The test administration was standard for all and followed the directions as given in the manual. The examiner gave all eleven of the subtests in the order numbered on the examination sheet. All tests were uninter rupted and completed in one session. The full-scale Form I Wechsler- Bellevue was administered in all cases. II. THE GROUP STUDIED The group of one hundred subjects was composed of twenty Los Angeles area practicing attorneys who had passed 11 the California State Bar; ten third year law students; ten second year law students; ten first year law students; eighteen senior and graduate engineering students; sixteen junior engineering students; and sixteen lower-division engineering students. There were, as a res ult, an approxi mately equal number of students in the various year levels of law school and engineering college. All students were enrolled in the law school or engineering college of the University or Southern California, Los Angeles. Table I sho s the mean age in years and the range tor the group studied. Table II shows the mean year of passing the California state bar by the attorney group. Volunteer attorneys were obtained by calling per- sonally at their downto n offices and requesting their cooperation. The type of research being conducted was explained, as well as the time required 1n taking the inventory. The time factor involved as exceedingly unattractive in all cases. The reeling was often expressed that if some type of questionnaire could be mailed in they would be willing to answer that at their leisure, but an individually conducted test was virtually out of the question. Most of the attorneys wanted to give advice or be interviewed on hat they believed should be involved in vocational guidance; the selection or future law school 12 TABLE I AGES FOR GROUP STUDIED lean age Group N in zears Md Range Total Group 100 26 27 19-59 Attorneys 20 41 42 30-59 Third Year Law 10 27 27 25-30 Second Year Law 10 26 26 24-29 First Year La 10 27 27 24-30 Total Law Student Group 30 27 26 24-30 Total Law Group 50 28 29 24-59 Sr. Eng. Group 18 22 23 20-26 Jr. Eng. Group 16 23 23 19-28 Lower-Division Eng. Group 16 24 23 19-29 Total Eng. Group 50 23 23 19-29 TABLE II DISTRIBUTION OF DATES STATE BAR PASSED BY A TTORNEY GROU P Number of Year att~rnezs I 1949 0 1948 0 1947 1 1946 2 1945 0 1944 0 1943 0 1942 0 1941 0 1940 1 1939 2 1938 2 1937 1 1936 0 1935 1 1934 2 1933 1 1932 2 1931 0 1930 1 1929 0 1928 2 1927 1 1926 ' O 1925 0 1924 1 I Mean year Ran5e 1935 1924-1947 13 ; aspirants; requirements of the state bar; standards for attorneys, etc. They would willingly talk about their views of psychological testing, but shied away from the suggestion or their taking an inventory in the research project themselves. 14 Approximately sixty per cent of the attorneys con tacted refused, directly or indirectly, to participate. Many ot the attorneys who did take the test offered referrals. The referrals later suggested colleagues or their own. Thus, a fanning out procedure of volunteers as initiated. The law and engineering students were obtained by sitting in the front lobby of the law school or engineering college and asking any men who were available to take the test. The research project was explained to the students individually or while they were standing around in discus sion groups between classes. The examiner also looked up the schedule of various classes limited to designated year levels. When these classes were dismissed the examiner would talk to the men as they walked down the hall. All the students expressed an interest in the research project and listened to the examiner's explanation or what it involved. Only when the testing time required was presented did students lose interest or express regret at not being able to participate . 15 Of the students approached in this way, approximately forty per cent declined to participate. The entire group of one hundred subjects were volun- teers. All were asked if they had taken the Wechsler Bellevue Intelligence test before. Some parts of the instructions were vaguely given to those who were uncertain if the Wechsler was the intelligence teat they had taken or not. Any who had taken it before ere eliminated so th.at all the subjects used were presented with this test for the first time. Estes' (10) 102 general college students, Rapa- port's (18) Kansas state patrolmen, and Wechsler's (25) sixty-to adults of superior intellectual endowment were used as control groups. CHAPTER IV RESU LTS OF THE STUDY This chapter deals with an analysis of the data obtained from the administration of the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence test to one hundred subjects. It shows a com parison of law and engineering groups to each other, as well as comparisons between results of this study and that of Stanley G. Estes of Harvard University who administered the echsler-Bellevue to a group of 102 general college students, part of echsler's stan ardization population ot sixty-two superior adults, and David Rapaport's group of fifty-four randomly chosen members of the Kansas State Highway Patrol. I. ANALYSIS OF THE \YECHSLER-BELIE VUE RESULTS y. level. The group presented a full-scale I •• range of from 110 to 139. As shown in Table III, the lower end of the I •• range tends to drop out in the progression from lower-division to upper-division status. The attor neys, some of whom went to college quite a few years back when law school admission and state bar requirements were not as high as the present time, are responsible for the lowest of the I •• levels. - In the lower-division group of engineering students 17 TABLE III FULL SCALE I.Q.•S FOR GROUP No. ol No. 1 ot No. ot No.' ot No. ot 9 No: ol ; . No. ot Lower- Junior Senior 1st Yr 2nd Yr 3rd Yr Total I.Q. Attor. Div. E E. E. L. L. L. Group 139 138 137 136 136 134 133 132 131 130 129 128 12'7 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 11'7 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 1 1 l 1 l 1 l 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 Tot. 20 l 1 l 1 2 2 l l l 2 1 1 1 16 1 2 3 1 l 4 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 l l 1 3 2 2 2 2 1 18 l 1 1 1 1 3 1 l 10 1 l 1 1 2 2 l 1 10 l 2 2 2 2 l 10 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 3 4 9 5 8 2 10 5 7 2 4 1 '7 6 2 5 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 100 18 alx subjects had I.Q.'a below 119. In the Junior Engineer ing group, and in the Senior Engineering group, only one student had an I.Q. below 119. The law school group goes on to an even higher level. This 1s as would be expected, in that over fifty per cent ot the law school subjects had graduated from college with either an A.B. or B.S. degree. Although ten of the practic ing attorneys had I.Q.'s below 121, only one of the first year law students had an I.Q. below 121. Only one ot the second year and none or the third year law students had an I. • below 121. Table IV presents the mean I.Q.•s or the groups. The engineering group attained a performance I.Q. five points higher than their verbal I.Q. The law group attained a verbal I.Q. eighteen points higher than their performance I.Q. The mean performance I.Q. for the engineering group was 126; tor the law group, 115. Thus, the engineering group scored eleven I.Q. points above the law group on the performance scale. The mean verbal I.Q. tor the engineering group was 121; tor the law group, 133. Thus_ the law group scored twelve I.Q. points above the engineering group on the verbal scale. The mean full scale I.Q. for the engineering group was 125, and for the law group 126. This is 1n cloae agreement with the results presented by H arrell (14), who gives intelligence standards for certain representative occupations expressed in terms ot Army General Classlf1cat1on TABLE IV VERBAL AND PERFORMANCE SCALE I .Q. , S FOR GROUP •a - • • ,-tcY .c • '-t<Y ' ,-tl-t . . Jot H ,.. . ~G) t) t>H C >• s= Poe C ,... al G) ~ rt II ., ., • • QCl1 .,... bO • C al ... ~ • C r-t .,.. ~ • '11 () 'd s:l A 0 al 0 'O C ~ al .. 'd A 4P) • ~ • ~ Gell • ! • ., 0 ., m • ::s {I) 0 :;s z g) ::s ca a C'll ~ I ttorneys 129 129 114-146 7.03 115 114 96-135 10.59 123 121 110-139 7.78 ' 3rd Yr. L. 137 136 131-145 4.36 115 117 96-126 9.11 128 129 122-132 3.38 2nd Yr. L. 137 138 126-145 4.94 113 , 111 106-126 6.24 127 128 120-135 4.21 - lat Yr. L. 134 134 12, .. 145 6.46 117 116 108-127 6.63 128 128 11'7-136 5.35 Total I.aw Stud. Group 136 137 124-145 5.28 115 115 96-12'7 7.33 128 128 117-136 4.31 Tot. L. Gr. 133 133 llt-146 6.15 115 ' 114 96-135 e.96 126 127 110-139 6.04 - Senior B. 123 125 113-133 5.67 124 125 111-133 6.98 125 126 117-135 4.90 . Junior E. 122 122 113-131 4.93 128 128 116-141 7.35 128 127 117-138 4.84 Low.-Div. E. 118 119 101-137 10.51 126 126 115-135 5.65 123 124 113-137 '7.43 Tot. E. Gr. 121 122 101-146 7.04 126 126 96-141 6.66 126 126 113-138 5.72 20 Test scores and equivalent I •• •s. The figures were based on the testing of Army Air Force personnel d.rawn from vari ous civilian occupations during World War II. Engineers attained a mean I.Q. ot 124, and lawyers a mean I.Q. of 125. It is of interest to note that the average member ot the eng nearing group falls in the ninety-seventh I •• percentile, and the average of the law group falls into the ninety-eighth. This indicates that engineering stooents have an I.Q. better than, or equal to, ninety-seven per cent of the estimated population ot the United States; and that only two per cent or the ge ral population are more intel ligent than members of the law group. This is, of course, what one would tend to expect from a professional group. Thia high level of functioning is indicated by Bingham (6) when he states that, "Law• medicine and the ministry; teaching and librarianship; accountancy, Journalism, and architecture, all resemble engineering in that they presuppcse mental capacity or a relatively high order." (p. 1'76) Wechsler (25, p. 136) considers large differences between performance and verbal I.Q.'s as being ten to fif teen points or :nx>re. An analysis of the I.Q.'s• Table v, shows that ninety .. four per cent of the law group had a verbal I.Q. higher than their performance I.Q. The median difference was twenty I.~. points in favor or the verbal • Cl • H ~ ~ • C) ti 0 ~ C).,.. 0 P-4 .Q Attorneys 15% Third Yr. L. 0% Second Yr. L. 0% First Yr. L. 0% Tot. L. Stud. 0% Tot. L. Group 6% Senior E. so% Junior E. ,., 5% Low.-Div. E. 75~ Tot. E. Group 66% TABLE V ANALYSIS OF I.Q. 1 S G IQ ~..I,) • a, ~ Ci C) ...-f • • :a 0 H a Pt • "" ~ H 0 • .... <::Y fl r-f~ • • C) .µ aS C) \-tH ~~ fi \-t .,... s:: &! 8. ~:a A..-f 3 3-4 85% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 0 0 100% 3 3-4 94% 8 3-15 39% 10 2-21 25% 12 4-27 25% 10 2-27 30% 21 CO CD • ~..I,) • \-t as C Cf ~ C) .... • ., :a 0 H p.. .... A. • '-t ~ o8 ~ 0 • .... "' Ci fJ r-f ., • • ., .µ as ~H ~Sl .0 • ~ s:: !& f.t <'Y • • A -rt >H 17 3-37 0% 22 5-49 0% 24 13-39 0% 17 3-33 O'I, 21 3-49 0% 20 3-49 0% 7 1-14 11% 5 1-15 0% 6 4-9 0% 6 1-15 4% 22 scale. Only thirty per cent of the engineers had a verbal I.Q. higher than their perfornance I.Q. The ditterence was only six I.Q. points in favor of the verbal scale. Sixty-six per oent of the engineering group had a performance I.Q. higher than their verbal I.Q,. The median difference was ten I.Q. points in favor of the performance scale. Only six per cent of the law group had a performance I . Q. higher than their verbal I.Q. This difference was merely three points in favor or the performance scale. Table VI shows that there is less than one chance in one hundred that the difference between the verbal am performance scale I.Q.•s of the law and engineering groups is due to chance. Deterioration Index. The measurement or mental deterioration involves determination of the 1nd1v1dual 1 s present level or functioning, an evaluation or his previous level, and the expression of the difference between the two in meaningful, quantitative terms. One of the interesting tacts revealed by the age curves tor different abilities obtained on the same groupa of individuals with the Wechsler-Bellevue_ is that certain abilities decline more slowly with age than others. Thus_ the abilities called for by the Information, Comprehension, Object Assembly, Picture Completion and Vocabulary subtests hold up mucl1 better than do the ab111 ties called for by the TABLE VI "t" SCORES COMPUTED ON VERBAL AND PmFORMANCE SCALE I.Q.'S 23 -· 'Level o? Group r.Q.'s M S.D. Pl A Law Verbal Scale 133 6.15 with ------------ 18 Pert. Scale 115 8.96 Engineer- Pert. Scale 126 6.66 ing with ------------ 5 Verbal Scale 121 7.04 "t" s1gn1f. 11.51 Below 1% 3.59 Below 1% 24 Digit Span, r1tb.met1c, Digit S1111bol, Block Design, Sim la r1t1es, and Picture Arrangement tests. To obtain a measure of deterioration, the sum or the weighted scores of the tests which hold up with age are com pared with the tests which do not hold up with age. Following Wechsler's (25, p. 66) method, the sum or the "don't hold" tests, namely Digit Span, Digit Symbol, Arithmetic, and Block Design, is subtracted from the sum of the "hold" tests, namely Information, Comprehension, Object Assembly, Picture Completion. This is in turn divided by the sum ot the "hold" tests and multiplied by one hundred. The average deterior tion loss for the given age level, as presented 1n tabular form for different ages by Wechsler (25, p. 66), is then subtracted. The resultant figure is the per cent of deterioration present. Wechsler states that, "An individual may be said to show signs of possible deterioration if he shows a greater than ten per cent loss, and or definite deterioration if a loss greater than twenty per cent than that allowed tor by the normal decline with age." (25, P• 66) Table VII shows the very low deterioration index ot the professional group. The mean deterioration index of the group is -1.1%. Only two per cent of the entire profes sional group showed what Wechsler would classify as definite deterioration present. It is interesting to note that the Group Attorneys Third Yr. L. Second Yr. L. First Yr. L. Tot. L. Stud. Tot. L. Group Senior E. Junior E. Low.-D1v. E. Tot. E. Group Total Group TABLE VII DETERIORATION PRESENT FOR GROUP Mean Deter. Index Range .e% -15%-13% -2.7% -21%- 9% -3.6'1, -23%-1'7% .1% -14%-14% -2.1% -23%-17% -o.7% -23%-17% -3.8% -18~-21% -4.3% -14~- 7% 3.9% -28%-21% -1.4% -28%-21% -1.1% -28%-21% 25 % falltnf above 20 I 0% 0% 0,, 0% 0% 0% 6% o% 6% 4% 2% 26 highest deterioration measured was only one per cent above Weohsler's definite deterioration level o~ twenty per cent, and was only present in the engineering group. Efficiency Quotien~!• An 1nd1v1dual's efficiency quotient is his mental ability score, on the full Wechsler Bellevue scale, when compared with the score ot the average individual twenty to twenty-four years of age. This is the age at which education tor most adults is pretty much com plete, and after which, again tor most individuals, 1ntel~ ligence scores begin to tall ott. To get an E •• one obtains a subtest's test score in the usual way, but instead or looking up its positional rating under the sub~ ject'a own age, one looks for it under the indices given tor the age group ot twenty to twenty-four. Although the professional group attained an I.Q. that placed it 1n the ninety-eighth percentile, its E.Q. placed 1t in the ninety-sixth. The major part of this decrease may be attributed, as Table VIII shows~ to the attorney group. The attorney group had an age range trom thirty to fifty nine years, with a mean ot forty-one. Their mean E.Q. percentile rank had a range trom the forty-seventh to the ninety~ninth ~lus, with a mean in the ninetieth. This was the lowest ranking of the entire professional group and con tributed substantially to the lowering of the group as a whole. Group N Attorneys 20 Third Yr. L. 10 Second Yr. L. 10 First Yr. L. 10 Tot. L. Stud. 30 Tot. L. Group 60 Senior B. 18 Junior E. 16 IDw.-Div. E. 16 Tot. B. Group 50 Total Group 100 TJ.BLE VIII EFFICIENCY QUOTIENTS OF G ROUP Mean Mean E.~. E.Q. Md Range %1le rank 118 11'7 100-13'7 90th 12'7 129 11~133 98th 12'7 128 119-135 98th 12'7 128 116-136 98th 12'7 128 116-136 98th 123 125 100-13'7 95th 126 126 117-~5 9'7th 127 12'7 ll '7-138 98th 123 123 113-13'7 95th 125 126 113-138 97th 124 126 100-138 96th Md 89th 98th 98th 98th 98th 97th 98th 98th 95th 98th 98th Range 47th-99th plus 9lst-99th plus 9lat-99th pl,~s 87th-99th plus 8'7th-99th plus 4'7th-99th plus 89th-99th plus 89th-99th plus 82nd-99th plus 82nd-09th plus 47t:tl-99th plus l\) -'2 28 The engineering students had a mean E •• percentile rank or ninety-seven, and the law students, exclusive of the attorneys, ot ninety-eight. Wechsler-Bellevue profile results. Figure 1 presents the mean law group test profile based on weighted scores. It nay readily be seen tha.t the outstanding aspects or this profile is the high level or attainment on all the verbal scale subtests except digit span; and the low standing, in compa~iaon, on all the performance subtests plus digit span. The range and standard deviations tor these weighted scores are given in Table IX. Figure 2 gives the mean engineering group test pro tile based on weighted scores. The outstanding aspects ot thi• prot1le is the lower level ot attainment on all verbal scale subtest• in comparison with the law group; and the higher level reached on all subtests of the performance scale. The range and standard deviatims of these scores are presented in Table x. A presentation ot both the law and engineering pro tilea, baaed on mean weighted scores, is given in Figure 3. Data on the comparison ot these two profiles is given in Table XI. The "t" scores obtained for the vocabulary, comprehension, picture arrangement, and block design sub tests show that there is less than one chance in one hundred that the difference between the two professional groups on 10 2 ... EA E~GHTED SCORES OF EC S~ER BELLE TE SUB ES FOR 50 LA ERS AD LA ~TUD TS 29 oca • • Co • • • s • 0 0 D • 30 TABLE IX MEAN SUBTEST SCORES FOR IAW GROUP 1 Mean I SUbtest Score Range s.n. Vocab. 15.0 13-1'7 1.13 Intor. 15.1 13-18 1.31 Compr. 16.0 12~1s 1.39 Ar1th. 15.6 9-18 1.94 Dig. Sp. 12.'7 6-1'7 2.'74 s1m11. 16.0 11-18 1.55 Pie. Arr. 10.2 4-16 2.64 Pie. Compl. 12.0 6-15 1.99 Obj. Aasem. 11.4 0-17 2.77 Block Des. 12.4 6-18 2.53 Dig. Symb. 11.8 6-16 2.11 10 6 1 GURE 2 EA EIGHT D COHE OF ECHSLER B LLE UE ~uE ET FORE GI EERII ROUP 31 oca . 0 • Compr .. • c, m • c . A r. 1 • Com 0 ss m. Bloc< Des . s . .. 32 TABLE X MEAN SUBTEST SCORES FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Mean I Subtest Score Range S.D. Vocab. 12.9 10-15 1.~ Intor. 13.l 10-15 1.15 Ooapr. 12.a 7-17 2.07 Ar1th. 13.7 7-18 2.92 Dig. Sp. 11.3 3-17 3.60 s1m11. 13.8 8-17 1.88 Pie. Arr. 13.l 8-17 2.39 Plc. Oompl. 13.9 12-15 1.01 Obj. Aaaem. 13.3 10-16 1.56 Block Dea. 15.4 12-1'7 1.22 Dig. SJlllb• 13.4 10-16 1.78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 FIGURE 3 MEAN WEIGHTED SCORES OF WECHSLER-BELLEVUE SUBTESTS I I I Group of Fifty Lawyers and Law Students -- Group of Fifty Engineering Students 33 Vocab. Infor. Compr. Arith. Dig. Sp. S1m11. Pie. Arr. Pie. Compl. Obj. Assem. Block Des. Dig. Symb. 34 TABLE XI "t" SCORES COMPUTED ON MEAN SUBTEST SCORES Level o'l • Groul? Subtest M S.D. Dv t S1gn1t •• Iaw 1S.b 1.13 • with Vocab. ------------- 2.1 3.05 Below Engineers 12.9 1.03 1% !iw ls.I 1.31 with ------·------ 2.0 2.54 Between Engineers In:for. 13.l 1.15 1% & 2% law 16.0 1.39 - with Compr. ------------- 3.2 2.84 Below Engineer, 12.e 2.07 1~ law 15.6 1.94 with Ar1th. ------------- 1.9 1.96 Between Engineers 13.7 2.~2 1% & 5% raw • 12.7 2.74 with D1g. ------------- :J..4 1.29 Between Engineers Sp. 11.3 3.60 10% & 20% t.w 16.0 1.55 with Sim.11. ---------...-~ ,,_ .- 2.2 2.00 Between Engineers 13.8 1.88 1% & 5% uiw 10.2 2.64 with Pie. ------------- 2.9 5.71 Below Engineers Arr. 13.l 2.39 1% law 12.6 1.99 with Pie. ------------- 1.9 1.88 Between Engineers Compl. 13.9 1.01 5% & 10% ta. I 11.4 2.'77 with Obj. ------------- 1.9 2.13 Between Engineers Asaem. 13.3 1.56 1% & 5% Iiw 12 • .{ 2.53 with Block ------------- 3.0 4.57 Below Engineers Des. 15.4 1.22 1% Ia• 11.s 2.11 with Dig. ------------- 1.6 1.28 Between Engineers Symb. 13.4 1.78 10% & 20% 36 these verbal and perrornanoe subtests are due to chance. The mean deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue subtests from vocabulary level tor the law group 1s presented in Figure 4 w1th the standard deviations 1n Table XII. It may be seen that the most outstanding feature ot this profile 1a the negative deviation trom vocabulary level of all the performance subteata and digit span. The mean deviations of subtests from vocabulary level for the engineering group la presented 1n Figure 5. The standard deviations are given in Table XIII. The most outat nding feature ot t his profile is the positive devia tion from vocabulary level or all the performance subtests plus arithmetic. Figure 6 presents the mean dev1at1ons ot Wechsler Bellevue subtests from vocabulary level tor both profes sional groups. Table XIV shows that upon comparison of the two profiles the "t" scores obtained for all the performance subtests are well below the one per cent level or s1gn1t1- cance. This indicates that statistically there is less than one chance in one hundred that the difference between the two groups on the picture arrangement, picture comple~ tion, block design, object assembly, and digit symbol subtests are due to chance. Deviations comEared with control groups. Figure 7 shows the mean deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue subtests from - 5 - -2 - 0 2 F GURE 4 MEA DE I A TIONS OF ECHS ER BEL EVUE SB ESTS FRO CABULA RY LE EL OR 50 LAWYERS AND LAWS UDENTS n C Ar p B D 36 • • m • c. Arr. Com • A • D Sy b TABLE XII MEAN DEVI.TIONS OF SUBTESTS FROM VOCABUIARY IEVEL FOR !AW GROUP lean SUbteat Deviat. Range Compr. 1.0 - 3 to 4 Intor. 0.1 -2 to 2 Dig. Sp. -2.3 -10 to 2 Ar1th. 0.6 .. 6 to 4 s1m11. 1.0 - 5 to 4 Pie. Arr. -4.8 -10 to 1 Pie. Com.pl. -3.0 - 8 to 2 Block Des. -2.6 - 7 to 3 Obj. Aasem. -3.6 -14 to 2 Dig. SJ'Dlb. -3.2 - 8 to l 37 S.D. 1.69 1.04 2 . 47 1.32 1.49 2 . 56 2 . 10 2 . 26 3.10 2 . 22 - 6 -5 - .. 2 FIGURE 5 EA N DE IAT ONS OF WECHSLER-BELLEVUE SUBTES S FRO VOCABULARY LEVEL FOR FIFTY ENGINEERI NG STU E S 38 n o • Co p. A • D • Sp Sim c . r . Pc Com • 0 B o D • TABLE XIII MEAN DEVIATIONS OF SUBTESTS FROM VOCABULARY LEVEL FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Dean Subtest Deviat. Range S.D. Compr. -0.1 - 7 to 4 2.40 Infor. 0.2 - 3 to 3 1.38 Dig. Sp. -1.8 -10 to 5 3.69 Arith. o.a - 6 to 6 2.88 Slmil. o.e - 5 to 5 1.94 Pie • .\rr. 0.3 - 7 to 5 2.60 Pie. Compl. 1.1 - 2 to 4 1.31 Block Des. 2.5 - 2 to 6 1.60 Obj. Aasem. 0.4 - 5 to 4 l.'74 Dig. Symb. 0.5 - 4 to 5 2.11 39 4 0 - - 2 0 n o r • s • m r c Com • 0 ' • ck e D E 6 E OF WECHS E BEL El • S s ro l OC B ARY LE I I I yer a d e c-, u Group Law with Engineers I.aw with Engineers tiw with Engineers Law with Engineers Law with Engineers law with Engineers law with Engineers r.iw with Engineers Iaw with Engineers t.iw with Engineers TABLE XIV "t" SCORE> COMPUTED ON SUBTEST DEVIATION FROM VOCABULARY LEVEL Subtest M S.D. D14 t 1.0 1.69 Compr. ------------- 1.1 1.32 -0.1 2.40 0.1 1.04 Infor. ------------- 0.1 0.13 0.2 1.38 -2.3 ~.4'7 Dig. ------------- 0.5 0.'79 Sp. -1.8 3.69 6.6 1.32 Arith. ------------- 0.2 0.2s 0.8 2.88 1.0 1.49 S1m11. ------------- 0.2 Q.18 o.a 1.94 -4.8 2.56 Pie. ------------- 5.1 9.81 Arr. 0.3 2.60 -3.0 2.10 Pie. ------------- 4.1 6.19 Compl. 1.1 1.31 -2.6 2.26 Block ------------- 5.1 6.45 Des. 2.5 1.60 -3.6 3.10 Obj. ------------- 4.0 4.43 Assem. 0.4 1.74 -3.2 2.22 Dig. 3.7 8.49 ------------- Symb. 0.5 2.11 41 Level or S1gn1f'. Between 10% & 20% Above 20% Above 20% Above 20% Above 20% Below 1% Below 1% Below 1% Below 1% Below 1% -6 -5 2 2 FIG E 7 A DE A O ~ OF ECHSL -BELLE E SUB ESTS F 0 OCABU Y LEVE FO ESTES GEE A L CO LEGE DE s AD hECE l GhAD ATES D () 42 nfc. om • s • r • .SQ P • n k D 43 vocabulary level for Estes' group of 102 general college students. Estes (10, p. 226) adm i ni stered the test to volunteer college students and recent graduates . A third were in graduate school or had recentl y received graduate degrees. A fifth were concentrating i n the field of psycho logy, while the remainder were fairly evenly distributed over the other fields of academic concentrati on . The obvious feature of the general college student's profile is the tendency for the verbal subte sts t o be hi her than the performance teats. Estes considers this tendency signifi - cant 1n view or the fact that: ••••• in aw 11-adjusted person there should be little discrepancy among the subtest sc ores , little or no deviation from vocabulary level. This is a plau sible inference from the fact that 1n the echsler standardization group the mean weighted standar d scores for the eleven scales are almost i dentica l , as are the mean verbal and performance I •• 's (10 , P• 226) . Although the general colle ge student ' s profile does deviate from the engineering group t o the same extent that it does the law group, it does not do so in the same manner . By reference to Figure 8 one may see t hat on the performance scale the general colle ge students fall midway between the two divergent professional groups of law and engineering . Rapaport (19, p. 521) reports the vocabulary scatter , Figure 9, or a control group consis t i. ng of fifty- four randomly chosen members of the Kansas State Highway Patrol . Their chronological ages ranged from twenty- fi ve to fifty- 5 EA D VA 0 ••• I I I • 2 G 0 WECHSL R VOCA ULA 0 8 R 44 2 C s s r 0 0 n G du -5 4 2 0 1 2 FIGURE 9 MEA_ DEV ATIO S OF ECHSLER- BELLEVU SUBTE S FRO 1 0,AB ULA rY LEVEL FOR RAPAP R~ S KA ~AS TATE PATR LME 45 In or. Comp • • D S • A • Com 1. Ob .• A e • p - D Sy b 46 one. These men varied in extent or academic education from one year ot high school to college graduate with graduate training. The obvious feature of the patrol group is t he tendency tor the verbal subtests to be higher than the pertormance subtests. This nay be considered significant in view ot Rapaport•s statement that, "All the subtest scores ot the Bellevue-Weohsl~r Scale are translated into weighted scores, which are equated and directly comparab l e ; thus a well-adjusted person should have little discrepancy among his eleven weighted scores" (18, p. 29). This profi l e alao falls midway between the two divergent professional groups on the pertormance scale as nay be seen by reference to Figure 10. Table XV presents the mean subtest deviations from vocabulary level of the tour groups. Converting these aoorea into r.Q.•s, Table XVI, we find that the law group has the highest verbal scale I.Q. (133), and the engineeri ng group has the highest performance scale I.Q. (126). There is an average or ten I.Q. points difference on the full scale between the academic and non-academic groups_ but onl y one I.~. point difference between the various university groups. Thia supports the statement made by Bingham (6, P• 177): Colleges of law, like those of medicine, have for years been gradually stiffening their standards. State examinations for admission to the bar and to medical practice have likewise been made more thorough and 6 EA 4 FIGURE 10 E A ONS OF WECHSLER BELLE 0 A ULARV LEVEL 0 S 'IESTS F 0 )C " ,, RApapo t Kn a St Patr lm n I I I, n 47 In • Comp. Ar D • • 1m Pc A r. c. Comp. 0 • B D • .p fl I) .µ ~ a., Compr~ Infor. Dig. Sp. Arith~ Simil. Pie. Arr. TABLE XV . A COMPARISON OF ESTES', RAPAPORT'S, ENGINEERING, AND LAW GROUP ON DEVIATIONS OF BELLEVUE-WECHSLER SUBTEST SC ORES FROM VOCABULARY LEVEL ~ .µ ,.. .,._., . ,..._. • 0 • .µ 0) · .P • .µ De .p aS e I) aS ,.. e a1 cas I) cas ~ s:: ..... .p w d.,.. W w s:: .... P. ~ d.,.. ~ 411~1D d al &> s:: s:: -~~ as > ~ I) I) f;l1 as I) t! Jzl as al G) G) ~A'-' 0:: ::s ""' ~ ~ t!""' ~ =aA_, o· -6 to 5 -0~1 - 7 to 4 0;2 ~4 to 5 1;0 0~4 ~4 to 5 "0~2 - 3 to 3 0;4 .,;.3 to 5 ·0;1 -1~0 -9 to 5 -1~8 -10 to 5 .,;.1.4 -8 to 7 -2~3 -0;7 -6 to 4 o;e - 6 to 6 .,;.1;0 -6 to 7 0~6 0;7 -4 to 5 0~9 - 5 to 5 -0;3 -3 to 4 ·1;0 -2.0 -8 to 3 0~3 - 7 to 5 -1;9 -7 to 5 .4;9 Pie. Compl. -1.4 -7 to 4 l~l - 2 to 4 -1;0 -6 to 4 -3~0 Block Des. . 0 -8 to 5 2~5 - 2 to 6 .,;.o; 7 -6 to 4 -2;6 Obj. Assem. -2.0 -8 to 3 0;4 - 3 to 4 ~1~8 -9 to 4 -3;s Dig. SymQ. -1.0 -7 to 4 o.s - 4 to 5 -0.9 -7 to 4 -3.2 l I) ~ d al i:x: - 3 to 4 - 2 to 2 ~10 to 2 .;.: 5 to 4 - 5 to 4 .:10 to 1 .;.: a to 2 ~ 7 to 3 .,;.14 to 2 - 8 to 1 ~ (X) Group Law Engineers Estes Rapaport TABLE XVI MEAN I.Q.'S OF LAW~ ENGINEERING, ESTES AND RAPAPORT GROUPS Mean Verbal Mean Per?. N Scale I .Q. Scale I .Q. 50 133.0 115.0 50 121.0 126.1 102 128.0 119.0 53 115.0 110.a 49 - Mean Full Scale I .g. 126.0 125.4 127.0 115.7 50 severe. Even so, the average level of mental ability found among students admitted to the professional schools 1s little, if any, hi her than among college students. It 1s recognized, however, that Bingham is not taking into consideration regi nal differences which in given cases may produce marked diversity between general college students and students admitted to professional schools. Wechsler (25, p. 126) presents information on a group of sixty-two superior adults between the ages of twenty and forty-nine. They are subjects whose full scale I •• was 120 or higher. All were taken from Wechsler•s standardization population. A comparison of the verbal and performance scale I.Q.'s of the five groups, Table XVII, shows that the law group had the highest percentage of subjects measuring higher on the verbal scale than the performance scale. The engineering group shows the highest percentage of subjects measuring higher on the performance scale than the verbal scale. It is also interesting to note that the law group had the lowest percentage of subjects rating higher on the performance scale than the verbal scale, and the engineering group had the lowest percentage of subjects rating higher on the verbal sea e tha the performance scale. Rapaport•s non-academic group shows the highest percentage of subjects with a balance between the two scales. The groups are pre sented in graphic form in Figure 11. Grou12 Law Estes Wechsler Rapaport TABLE XVII COMPARISON OF VERBAL AND PERFORMANCE SCALES IN WECHSLER, ESTES, RAPAPORT, ENGINEERING, AND LAW GROUPS Perr. Verbal Mediaf higher higher No diff. diff. . 6.0% 94.0% 0.0% 18.0 No data 79.0% No data 12.0 21.0% 77.4% 1.6% 11.1 54.0% 39.0% 7.0% 5.6 l!:ngineer1ng 66.0% 30.0% 4.0% 8.5 1 Without respect to sign. 51 No. of cases 50 102 62 54: 50 2 - 0 o r • • .._ . • "c A r 0 • oc • UR 11 EA J E A 0 ~ 1 'ECHS ~:B LE UE S VOCA .JLARY L )( )( w ~{ r K n ta ·o n • • • E Gene le e ... 1de . I I I Ja. Er :.,1 1 0 53 Deviations within the professional groups. The mean deviations of subtest scores from vocabulary level for the law and engineering grou s, broken down into academic year levels, are presented in Table XVIII A and Table XVIII B. This material is presented graphically in Figures 12 and 13. The mean subtest scores for the various academic year levels are presented in Table XIX A and Table XIX B for the law and engineering groups. By reference to Fi ures 14 and 15, it may be seen that there are no particularly outs t anding vocational profiles to distinguish between the various academic year levels. Comparing lover-division law students to senior law students, Figure 16 does not i dicate any obvious differ ences in profiles. There is considerable overlapping in the two patterns. However, by comparing upper division law students to first year law students we find that upper division students tend to rate lower on the performance subtests, Figure 17, and higher on the verbal subtests. This may be attributed to the fact that, Table XX, almost fifty per cent of the first year law students are either dismissed, or withdraw from law school due to poor scholarship or other causes. Thus, we have selection taking place. Those students with higher verbal abi l ities in comparison to performance TABLE XVIII A DEVIATIONS OF WECH SLER-BELLEVUE SUBTEST SCORES FROM VOCABUIARY LEVEL FOR LOWER-DIVISION , JUNIOR, AtID SEN IOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS .p • • • ro .µ +lS.. .µ ,.. G) aS H «> CISO G) aS 0 CD .µ t:: ~ G) ~ • ~ ..-4--' bO • s::: 1M 1M ~ • i GS ~ • A GS ~ § d A GS ~ S:: d Q G) G) .s ~ • «> G) ~ • G) G) G) ~ • ~A ell ~At-:, f/l ~ACll Cl) Infor. 0 -3 to 2 l.le 0 -2 to 3 1.50 o.s - 2 to 3 1.42 Compr. 0.2 -2 to 4 l.P6 -0.3 -7 to 4 2.76 -0.2 - 3 to 4 2.43 Dig. Sp. -3.l -0 to 5 4.52 -o.s -5 to 4 2.63 -1.1 -10 to 5 3.68 Arith. -0.7 -6 to 5 3.37 1.4 -2 to 6 2.6'7 1.7 - 3 to 5 2.58 Simil. 1.2 -2 to 4 1.55 o.a -5 to 5 2.24 o.s - 3 to 4 1.98 Pie. Arr. 0.7 -2 to 5 2.16 1.0 -3 to 5 2.45 -0.8 - '7 to 4 3.04 Pie. Compl. 1.1 -1 to 3 1.08 1.3 -2 to 4 1.39 o.s - l to 3 1.43 Block Des. 2.6 l to 5 1.11 2.6 -1 to 6 1.76 2.2 - 2 to 6 1.81 ObJ. Assem. 0.1 -2 to 3 1.55 o.s -2 to 4 2.02 0.3 - 3 to 3 1.63 D1g. Symb. 0.3 -3 to 4 2.05 o.s -4 to 5 2.29 0.6 - 3 to 4 l.~8 en ~ TABLE XVIII B DEVIATIONS OF BELIEVUE-1.'ECHSLER SUBTEST SCORES FROM VOCABUIA RY LEVEL FOR ATTORNEYS, TH IRD YEAR, SECOND YEAR• AND FIRST YEAR ~W SCHOOL STUDENTS • . .. . . .p . +> ~ OJ .µ • C) as ~ G) m>t G) tJO A ...-i ti) .lo) S::tr-f 0 • i "' :> ., A A as t> '2 s:: ., e .µ ~ • CD CD &! ==1~◄ C/l ~Atr.> Intor. -0.2 - 2 to 2 1.29 0.1 - 2 to l Oompr. 0.3 - 3 to 4 1.97 1.1 - 2 to 3 D1g. Sp. -4.7 - 10 to 0 2.44 -1.8 ... 6 to 2 Arith. -0 ~9 - 5 to 3 2~42 1.3 - 2 to 3 s111111. -0;4 - 5 to 2 1.80 2.1 1 to 3 Pie~ Arr. -6.7 - 10 to l 2.86 -5.1 - 8 to -3 Pie. Compl. -3. 8 - 8 to -1 2.29 .. 2.e - 8 to 1 Block Des. -3.7 - 7 to -1 2.00 -1.'7 - 7 to 3 Obj. Assem. -5.4 -14 to l 3.25 -3.l --12 to 1 Dig. Symb. -4.3 - 8 to l 2.42 -3.0 - 6 to 0 .p ••• ' • • m ~~ .µ Sot Cl) G) GS >t ~ ..., ~; '8 ~ • ~t+> A ~ ~ Cl) Cl) CIS • CD CD CD ~ :;ii A rt tll ::.A t\l = C/l Intor. 0.4 -1 to 2 o.eo 0.3 - l to 1 Compr. 1~5 - 2 t o 3 1.43 l~O - 2 to 3 Dig. Sp. -0.3 -3 t o 2 1.74 -2.5 - 7 to 2 Ar1th~ 1;s Oto 4 1~1'7 0.4 - 2 to 3 S1m1l. 1.2 - 1 to 3 1~17 1.3 - 2 to 4 Pie~ Arr. . -3.6 -e to .. 1 2.11 -4.6 - 9 to 1 Pie. Compl. -3.l .. s to -1 1.66 -2.4 - 5 to 2 Block Des. -3.0 - 5 to -1 1.67 -1.e. - 4 to~ Obj. Aasem. -3.2 -e to 0 2~32 -2.8 -10 to 2 Dig. SJmb• -2.9 - 7 to 0 2.34 -2.4 - 7 to l 55 • A • CJl 0.90 1.58 2.60 1.35 0.'70 1.64 2~36 3.28 3.64 1.30 • A • Cll 0;79 1.41 2.98 1.96 1.68 3.04 1.80 1.99 2.89 2.38 f I I ••• - ar . V S 0 d s - f -R R E tu en 56 lr • A • s c . A C rr. • 0 B o - • D EA t I I ••• )t )( M -5 - S OF 2 3 R B LE u 0 A 7 o .... • • • .._ n • 0 . ock D • .p 0 Ol ..... G) J.4 Ol .p Q) trl ,,c .g • I> .9a Vocab. 12.8 Intor. 12~8 Compr~ 13;0 Ari th. 12~1 Dig. Sp. 9.7 S1m11. 14.0 Pie. Arr. 13.5 Pie. Compl~ 13.9 Obj. Assem. 12~8 Block Des. 15.4 Dig. Symb. 13.1 TABLE XIX A MEAN SUBTEST SCORES FCR LOWER-DIVISION, JUNIOR, AND SENIOR ENGI~EERING STUDRNTS CD IJ So. J.t G) 0 G) 0 ~ • trl ~ • ~ C: A ~ I A s:: &, • • G) Cll ell ell 11-14 ~806 12~9 11-14 ~900 12~9 10~15 1;47 12~9 11~15 ~ 97 13~6 10-17 1;04 12;e 7~16 2~23 12;9 '7~18 3;91 14;3 10~18 2;29 14;7 3-17 4.35 12.2 9-17 2.63 11.8 12-17 1~54 13;s 8-17 2~28 13~6 9-17 2.15 13;p 11-17 2~08 12;1 12-15 1~08 14;2 12-15 0~88 13~6 10-15 1;43 13~'7 11-16 1~69 13~3 13-1? 1~17 15~6 12-17 1~32 15;2 10-16 1.97 13.6 10-16 1.87 13.6 G) bO C: ~ 10-15 12-15 10~18 10-18 4-16 11-16 8~17 12~15 10~16 13~17 10-16 • A • ell 1;21 . ;96 2;12 2;47 3.54 1.74 2;s3 1;04 1;ss 1;17 1.50 en 0) T ABLE IX B MEAN SUBTEST SCORES FOR ATTORNEYS, THIRD YEAR, SECOND YEAR, AND FI RST YEAR LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS .µ rn . • +> co . • ~~ Cl) J.t Q) G> +> 0 ~ • '(j ~ • ,g .µ d A re ::;j ~ A .µ a, • '-4 .µ ~ • ell ; <C p;; rD tQCO 0:: ca Vocab. 15~1 13-17 1;30 15.0 14-16 .25 Intor; 14 ~ 9 13-18 1 . 51 15~1 13-17 1 . 22 Compr. 15.4 12-18 1 . 43 16 . l 14-18 1 . 38 Ar1th. 14.2 9-18 2 . 54 16.3 13-18 1.35 Dig. Sp. 10.4 6-17 2 . 51 13.2 9-17 2 . 79 S1mil. 14.7 11-18 2~08 17.1 16-18 . 54 Pie. Arr. 9.4 4-14 3.04 9.9 7-12 1.45 Pie. Compl. 11~3 6- 14 2 . 43 12.2 8-14 2.04 Obj. Assem. 9.7 0-17 3.39 11.9 4-15 3.15 Block Des. 11~4 6-16 2 . 71 13.3 8-18 2.90 Dig. Symb. 10.a 6-15 2.51 12 . 0 9•14 1.55 OJ M ~ . Q) ~ . «> Cl) .µ 'O bO • 'O bO • ~ 'O ::s ~ A .p ::s s:l A s:l .p G1 • G'l +> GS • q) WR) ~ ro rl co ~ w Vocab. 14.8 13-16 . 87 15;0 13-17 1 . 26 Intor~ 15.2 13-18 1~25 15.3 13-18 1.19 Compr. 16.3 14-18 1;27 16.0 14-18 1.10 Arith. 16;6 15-18 . 92 15~4 13-18 1.86 Dig. Sp. 14.5 11- 17 1. 86 12.5 7-17 3.69 sim11. 1s;o 14-18 1. 27 16.3 14-18 1.20 Pie. Arr. 11.2 8- 14 2 . 27 10.4 5-16 3.01 Pie. Compl; 11.7 10-14 1.55 12.6 10-15 1.20 Obj. Assem. 11.6 8- 15 1.so 12.2 7-15 2.04 Block Des. 11 ~8 9-15 2 . 18 13.2 10-16 2.04 Dig. Symb. 11.g 8- 14 1.92 12.6 10-16 1.86 59 60 9 6 nf Comp D ("I • .:.,p '° S m l C • A • C. Compl Block s. D g vmb FIGURE 14 MEA rrEIGHTED SCORES OF' WECH ER~BEL EVUE 8UB'lE8TS FOR E.nINE RING STUDE T GR UP , 1 , o ·s end Gra uates ••• I U Lo is on , uden .. s 61 C • • s rr. • r • 0 F URE 1 EA D 8CO •'-'S F /ECHt;LE .. ,E E ' I I r A • • • " " ~ d ~ . y a L 6 5 EA A t I t n o 0 2 0 F ,URE 16 0F . E JISLER BE L V ~ ~u T 'I' OCABULAH LF. EL ud n 0 2 0 0 • A • • A .. • 0 0 • • 6 5 4 -2 - or Com p .J . • ,J 0 D • D E 17 A E I A'rro OP SLER- UE U E p 0 OC AHV LE I I t 8 d n TABLE xx 1 PER CENT OF WITHDRAWALS AND DIS MISSALS IN THE SCHOOL OF LAW Group Per cent 2 - Withdrawals 19% First Year Dismissals 25% Total 44% Second Year Total 4% Third Year Total 3% 1 stat1st1cs based on figures of Dean D. Elliott, u.s.c. College or Law. 2 Based on Academic School Ye1rs of 1946, 1947, and 1948. 64 65 capacities tend to continue on in la school. Academic year levels at the u.s.c. Law School are determined on the basis of the number of units completed as presented in Table XXI. The mean number of units completed by the various year levels of the law group presented in this study were computed on this basis and are shown in Table XXII. The u.s.c. Law School computes a student' relativ scholastic standing on the basis of a standard point sys tem. This is shown in Table XIII. A student is subject to dismissal if he drops below a seventy point average. It is interesting to note that in the progression from first year to senior status, there 1s a corresponding progression of increasing scholastic level, Table XXIV. Senior law students do better scholastically than freshman students. On the basis of these classifications, sixteen stu dents of average or above average scholarship were com pared, Figure 18, with fourteen students who fell below the law school grade point average. Students with average or above average scholarship scored higher on the verbal scale and lower on the performance scale than students below the law school grade point average. This is in agreement with the similar results achieved by upper divi sion students in comparison with first year students These TABLE XXI LAW SCHOOL YEAR LEVELS No. of Units Year Level ---------------· - 57 or more 28 to 56 Less than 28 Third Year Second Year First Year 66 TABLE XXII COURSE UNITS COMPLETED BY LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP Mean No. of Units Group Completed Md Third Year 75 80 Second Year 50 51 First Year 24 25 67 Range 57-86 42-56 20-25 68 TABLE XXIII LAW SCHOOL NUMERICAL GRADE LEVELS Letter Level in E Scholastic rating grade Law School 83 points or over A Top 10% 78 to 82 points B Next 10% 70 to 77 points C Average Subject to 69 points or less D dismissal TABLE XXIV 1 NUMERICAL GRADE AVERAGES OF LAW SCHOOL Group Seniors Second Year First Year Class average 2 75 74 72 1 Statistics based on fi gures of Dean Shelden D. Elli ott, u.s.c. College of Law 2 Based on Academic School Years of 1946, 1947, and 1948. 69 7 -5 4 - 0 n o omp • omp . 0 J' 1 • F' Gl' E 18 ,E E r TO SOP C LE -BE E U E ~BE SF o~ OC U rY L~ EL 1 • I udents t r ge or Abo A 1·a Scho rsh p ent s B o L S b.oo nr 71 differences are at the twenty per cent level of significance and above statistically, however, and consequently, m ay be considered only as trends. Breaking the law students down into groups based on grade point averages, we find that "D" students tend to have a lower verbal scale attainment level, Figure 19, than the "A", "B", or "C" groups. There were three students in the "A" group, seven in the "B" group, seventeen in the "c" group, and three in the "D" group, following the usual normal curve of distribution. There is much overlapping of the various profiles, however. Students with a "D" law school average and subject to dismissal rated lower on verbal ability, Figure 20, than ten students in the upper twenty per cent of the law school scholasticall7. Students with a "D" law school average tend to rate higher on the performance scale than the Los Angeles area practicing attorneys, Figure 21. In this respect they become more similar to the engineering group than to the law group. Again there was some overlapping in the profiles obtained. We may conclude from the observati ons of these pro- r files that succese in law school tends to be dependent upon a high attainment level on the verbal scale, rather than on the performance scale, although with such few cases involved 6 5 - - - 0 F GURE 19 EA DE ATIONS OF WECHSLER Bh~LE UE • .; UB'I·ES S FRO I ' ' L • • • >ff M le Schoo s 1-oo School Schoo V C BULAR" LEVEL 72 fo • Cop. m Pc. A • • Cop• 0 Blo 1 • D 8 - 6 5 EA D AT n ' ' t - -2 - F URE 20 OF NECHSLEH-BF. OC BULA. E pp % 0 "D" 73 C r • ,. Co ) 0 • R C D 8 - A 74 6 ~ 0 • Co • D • c. rr p Co 0 :.J oc { D • E 21 ., IA O 8 0~ 1 • ECHf; V , LA s 75 the conclusion must be regarded as highly speculative. Figure 22 shows that the practicing attorneys mea eured lower on the Wechsler-Bellevue subtests than the law students. This discrepancy is further accentuated by com paring the attorneys to senior law students, Figure 23. Although age is a predominant factor, these differences may also be indicative of professional progress. The attorneys tested passed the California State Bar between 1924 and 1947, the mean year being around 1935. The fact that law etudents of today show a higher level of intellectual func tioning may be attributed in part to the higher standards required for admission to current law schools. The raising or law school admission requirements has been one of the aims of the legal profession for many years. Particularly in view of the findings that a high positive correlation does exist between law school grades and per cent of chances to pass the State Bar. As Table X:XV shows, an "A" or "B plus" student will in all probability pass the Bar examination. Recently the University of Southern Califor nia Law School raised its entrance requirements to make the possession of a college degree mandatory. This stipulation places its standards among the highest in the nation. The logic behind this rise in standards 1s exempli fied by the fact that students in the law group who had college degrees had higher law school grades, Table XXVI, -6 A A A C 5 IGURE 22 OF ,ECHSLEI-BEL CB LAY L E a Pr o l 2 UE SUB E 'SF 0 A o 76 0 Com A h s S m 1 P • Ar • • Co 1 0 A Bock D • -6 -5 - 2 0 2 FIG E 23 MEA DE I A IONS OF WECHSLER BELLE UE SUB ESTS F 0 OCABULARY LEE _. , 1 Lo An Area P act cing ,, or eys -- Sen o La Shoo Stud n 77 nfor. Comp. Ar h. D • p C? m • Pie. Arr. P • Comp. 0 • am • Bo k D s s • TABLE xxv 1 'LAW SCHOOL SENIOR NUMERICAL GRADE AVERAGES AND PER CENT PASSING CALIFORNIA STATE BAR Per cent Numerical passing average State Bar 2 80 or more 100.0% 75 through 79 92.4% 70 through 74 59.8% 1 Statistics based on figures or Dean Shelden D. Elliott, u.s.c. School of Law. 2 California State Bars from Octo ber 1947 through April 1949. 78 p. :=$ 0 M 0 Degrees No degree TABLE XXVI NUMERICAL GRADE LEVELS OF GRADUATE AND NON-GRADUATE LAW STUDENTS :=$ I ~o ii OH • ~ ,.... a .p ,-t • e= z J,t s:: .p fH ~,....o Q) s:: () Q) Q) Q) Ori (I) M 'g ~r-f bO ~ 0 aS bO CIS CIS ~ QS .c () i;: Q)..., (I) () as (I) () .,-( "' p.. l7l == ell 0:: :ai Ul H cc: 57% 128 122-134 77.292 71.000-87.333 43% 127 117-136 73.999 60.360-82.076 79 80 than law students without degrees. Follow-uE study 2!_ engineering group. Two and one half years atter the period tested, a follow-up study was conducted on the engineering group. Aa Table XXVII shows, fifty per cent of the group studied had received their engineering degrees, and thirty:eight per cent were still enrolled 1n engineering college. Comparing the group ot twenty-five engineers who received their degrees with a group ot tour engineering students who were dismissed trom the University or with drew because of poor grades, Figure 24, we find that good students tend to measure higher on the arithmetic subtest, and show less anxiety as indicated by the digit span sub test. There is too much overlapping, however, to allow a specific profile differentiation. As shown in Figure 25, engineering students with good grades tend to measure higher on the arithmetic sub test in comparison with students with poor grades. e also find that good engineering students tend to measure higher on the majority of performance subtests than poor engineer- ing students. Table XXVIII shows that engineers who received their engineering degree have a higher mean Wechsler-Bellevue tull scale I.Q. than do students who were dismissed or dropped out or the University because of poor grades. TABLE XXVII FOLLOW-UP STUDY ON ENGINEERING GROUP TWO-AND-ONE-HALF YEARS LATER Disposition Received their degrees in engineering Still enrolled in engineering at u.s.c.; no degree as yet Enrolled in another University Received degrees in other majors: (l B.S. · public Admin.; 1 B.S. Geology) Dropped out ot the University because or poor grades Dismissed from the University for failure to meet academic standards Per cent ---- -- 81 -5 2 - 0 F hE 24 AEA- D~ IA~ 0 SO NECHSL R BELLE ES OCAR JLARY LEVE I I I e of ES S FRO e U 82 n • Co • Ar 1 • C Co l B ock D s 6 5 -4 I I I - J F E 25 L BE L~ TlE ~ u B 'ESJ , :, F H • RY LE EL ~ 1 Enro .ed en s ,t 0 p 0 .,nr le 8 0 .s 83 Co .• ) • D • 0 • E ock s TABLE XXVIII I.Q. 1 8 OF GRADUATE ND FLUNK OUT ENGINEERING STUDENTS !I ol: total Mean Full Group Engr. group Scale I.Q. Received Bngr. Degree 50% 126 Flunked out ot Univ. 8% 124 84 Range 11'7-135 113-133 85 It is not being contended that a matter of two I •• points will differentiate between good or poor students, however, Beyond a basic required intellectual level other factors besides native intellectual endowment undoubtedly come into play. These qualities are what Wechsler (26) refers to as the non-intellective factors of intelligence. Breaking the law students down into year levels, Table XX.IX, we find that although around fifty per cent of first year, second year, and third year law students have college degrees, grades within these year levels do range from "A" to "D". A few students with degrees do fail in law school. This again points up the non-intellective factors involved in professional school accomplishment. Admission to law school and engineering college is a very selective process. Those finally admitted are unques tionably of superior intellectual caliber. The progression from freshman to senior status, however, after admittance to these professional schools, is largely dependent upon the use the student makes of his test-demonstrated superior mental facilities. Such factors as motivation, interest, drive, emotions, perseveration, adjustment, desire to . , , achieve, temperament, etc., play a predominant role in the attainment of a professional level commensurate with inherent intellectual capacity. Alexander (1) maintains that besides verbal ability §4 0 H C, Third Year TABLE XXIX DEGREES RECEIVED AND NUMERICAL GRADE LEVELS FOR LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP I • > ,d • • Cl1 D'l () al CJ) .d G) Cl) • • Q) rl ~ fXl .> M ~ t'O D'l OJ ~ bO ~~ Ol C+-4 G) ~ CJ) G> CD 0 Q) 0 G) () 'd H+> Q) H M ,:: § ,:: bO • w . ~ H bO cd -,-4 ~ 0 Q) 0 CD CJ) ~ Q) 0 GS ~'d ~,c, fl.. ..... ::as:: 0. ex: 4 1 50% 79 73-87 Second Year 5 l 60% 75 68-82 First Year 2 4 60% 74 60-86 Total 11 6 57%, 76 60-87 86 M CJ) .µ +> Q) ,-t Q) G) s:: 'CJ t)() Qj QS ~ G> M 8l ::ltbO B C-A C D-B C D-A C D-A 87 and practical ability, there are factors of a non-intellec tual nature which enter into a subject's scholastic achieve ment in school. He considers these factors as being an individual's interests and concerns, and an aspect of temperament directly related to achievement. Wechsler (26) stresses the i m portance of factors other than intellectual which contribute to achievement when he states~ "My main point has been that general intelligence cannot be equated with intellectual ability, but must be regarded as a manifestation of the personality as a hole." The mean profile of the engineering group in Figure 26 resembles the mean profile of Rapaport's (19, p. 306) simple schizophrenic group. The law group, on the other hand, resembles Rapaport's (19, p. 310, 312) obsessive-like group, Fi gure 26 . Such comparisons must be considered as highly specu lative as many recent studies have presented results vary ing fro1 n Rapaport' s f 1nd1ngs • Studies show that engineers do tend to be self conscious, inhibited, and retiring (12). Bingham (5) states that engineers tend to be lone workers, meditative, thoughtful, subjective, introverted, solitary. He found that fundamentally they prefer to work by themselves with out very many personal contacts, being more inclined toward material objects rather than persons. 6 - -2 -.... 0 DE 1 riro S OF . CH3L.uR-BE ~LE UE S T~~STS F VOCABU ARY LE EL 1 , t Rapapor R .. por rolp .e cch zophre G ou 88 0 • Comp • r • s • A r • . Be • lo~ c D • 89 Bedford (4, p. 318) indicates some possible advan tages for a lawyer to have perseverance and a desire for routine as components of his personality, when he describes the usu.al work of an attorney in the following manner : Much of the lawyer's work is done in gathering evi dence, looking up authorities and points of law, pre paring briefs, and writing legal papers. Such work requires close attention to detail as well as great ingenuity and persistence. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the contributing factors involved in producing various mani festations of intellectual behavior would probably involve a blend of the multitude of circumstances influencing personality and intellectual development. In intelligence and personality, nature and nurture are a part of the same process of growth. As clinical and experimental studies capitalize on new techniques for studying how intellects function, the separate aspects of ability and behavior will increasingly merge into a con cept of the person as a whole. Thus, the qualitative and quantitative aspects of intelligence, as well as tl1e composite whole, is deter mined in part by, influenced by, and dependent upon, innate predisposition, experiential background, culture, personality, and education. To the extent that any one factor operates may, of course, vary with the individual case •. 90 Follow-up study of law grouR• One year after the period tested, a follow-up study was conducted on the law group. One hundred per cent of the third year law students had graduated from law school. Of those graduating, eighty per cent passed the California State Bar. Those who passed the Bar ranged from first position in their graduating class, composed of seventy-four students, to sixty-fourth place. Twenty per cent failed the State Bar. They were situated around the fortieth place in relative class standing. One student who failed the State Bar for two conse cutive times had a full scale I.Q. of 134, which placed him in the ninety-ninth plus I.Q. percentile. He had an E •• of 133 which placed him in the ninety-ninth plus E.Q. per centile. He was forty-first in his graduating class of seventy-tour students, and had a grade point average of 75.8. One of the students who passed the Bar the first time attempted had a full scale I.Q. of 122, placing him in the ninety-fourth plus I.Q. percentile. He had an E.Q. of 119 placing him in the ninety-first percentile. He was seventeenth in his graduating class of seventy-four stu dents, and had a grade point average of 80.3. This points up, in a practical way, the non-intellective aspects of intelligence previously dis cussed. Ninety per cent or the second year students or one year ago graduated from law school and are waiting for an opportunity to take the State Bar. 91 The range was from ninth place to ninety-second place in relative graduating class standing. The class was composed or one hundred students. The full scale I.Q.'s ranged from 122 to 135, with an I •• percentile range of ninety-fourth to ninety-ninth plus. The E.~.•s ranged from 122 to 135 with an E.Q. per centile range of ninety-fourth to ninety-ninth plus. The lowest grade point average was 71.8, the highest was 82.2. One student was dismissed because of poor scholar ship. His full scale I.Q. was 120, placing him in the ninety-second I •• percentile. He had an E.~. of 119 which placed him in the ninety-first E.Q. percentile. Ninety per cent of the first year law students are still enrolled in law school. One student was dismissed because he dropped below a seventy point average. His full scale I.Q. was 117, which placed him in the eighty-eighth plus percentile. His E.Q. of 116 plus, 92 placed him in the eighty-seventh plus percentile. It is interesting to note that the two men dismissed trom law school because of poor scholastic attainment had the lowest I.Q.•s of the first year and second year law groups (refer to Table III, p. 17 and Table v, p. 21). It appears the second year student was able to last out one year longer because his I.Q. was a few points higher than the student who was dismissed in his first year. This indicates that the Wechsler-Bellevue is useful in indicating those who will more than likely not be able to remain in law school because of inability to meet the minimum intellectual level required. Point scale of engineering aptitude. On the basis of the "t" scores computed on the mean subtest scores and deviations of subtests from vocabulary level for the law and engineering groups, it seemed feasible to develop a point scale which might be useful in indicating the degree of engineering aptitude manifested in a given intelligence test record. Only those "t" scores below the one per cent level of significance were accepted as suitable for drawing up this point scale. In use, one point is assigned for each of the eight features, Table XXX, found characteristic of the typical TABLE XXX ENGINEERING APTITUDE POINT SCALE 93 (a) Block Design subtest deviates positively from Vocabu lary level by one point or more . (b) Picture Completion subtest equal to, or deviates positively from vocabulary level. (c) Majority of performance subtests are equal to, or deviate positively from Vocabulary level. (d) A Performance Scale I •• of 118 or more. (e) Digit Symbol subtest equal to, or deviates positively from Vocabulary level. (f) Object Assembly subtest equal to, or deviates posi tively from Vocabulary level. (g) Performance Scale I •• higher than Verbal Scale I •• (h) Picture Arrangement subtest equal to, or deviates positively from Vocabulary level. 94 mechanical intelligence profile derived. The degree of mechanical intelligence shown may be taken as an indication of a subject' similarity to the type of mental functioning found 1n engineering and possibly related professions. Strong (21) considers engineers, chemists, physi cists, and mathematicians as being a group of related professions. Beckman (3) groups under professional occupations, scientific, the following professions, technical engineers, artists, sculptors, teachers of art, chemists, assayers, metallurgists, dentists, physicians, surgeons, osteopaths, veterinary surgeons, county agents, farm demonstrators, accountants, auditors, and actuaries. Applying the eight engineering signs singularly to the various levels of the engineering, Table XXXI, and law groups, Table XXXII, we find that the engineering signs were displayod by the engineering group in a percentage range from sixty-four percent for sign "h" to ninety-two per cent for sign "a", Table XXXIII. The law group had a low percentage range of from four per cent for sign "b", "c", and "h", to thirty-eight per cent for sign "d". Using the method of assigning one point for each of the mechanical intelligence signs shown on the Wechsler Bellevue profile, Table XXXIV showa that only thirty-three Sign a b C d e r g h TABLE XX.XI ENGINEERI G POINT SCALE APPLIED TO ENGINEERI N G GROUP l'er cent of Per cent of Per cent of Engr. Graduate Engr. Stu- Flunk-outs and Engrs. (25) dents ( 19) Change of Major (6) 84% 100% 100% 84% 95% 83% 80% 84% 100% 84% 79%, 100% 68% 63% 83% 68% 63% 66% 60% 74% 67% 68% 58% 67% 95 96 TABLE XXXII ENGINEERING POINT SCALE APPLIED TO LAW GROUP Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Per cent or- Attor. show- 3rd year 2nd year 1st year Sign ing sign showing sign showing sign showing sign - a 0% 40% 0% 10% b 0% 10% 0% 10% C 0% 10% 0% 10% d 40% 40% 30% 40% e 10% 10% 20% 30% f 5% 20% 10% 10% g 15% 0% 0% 0% h 5% 0% 0% 10% Sign a b C d e f g h TABLE XXXIII ENGINEERING POINT SCALE APPLIED TO ENGINEERING AND LAW GROUPS I Per cent of Total l5er cent 5 0f Law Group showing Engr. Group sign 1ng sign 1016 92% 4% 88% 4% 84% 58% 84% 16% 68% 10% 66% 6% 66% 4% 64% 97 Total show- Sign Score 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 ABLE XXXIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SI SC RES FOR E GINEER GROUP ON ENGINEER! ~ G POINT SCALE Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Engr . Graduate Engr. Stu- Flunk-outs and Engrs. {25) dents (19) Change of Major (6) 36% 26% 33% 12% 37% 0% 24% 16% 33% 8% 0% 17% 0% 5% 17% 8% 0% 0% 8% 16% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0% 8 99 per cent of the engineering students with a poor scholastic standing attained a sign score of six points, while seventy two per cent of the graduate engineers, who had obtained their degree in the follow-up study two years later, attained a mechanical sign score of six. Table XX:XV shows that whereas ten per cent of the first year law students attained a sign score as high as six on the engineering scale, none of the second or third year law students went that high. None of the practicing attorneys went above a sign score of four. Based on the figures of Table XX:XVI, Table XX:XVII shows that while eighty-eight per cent of the total engi neering group attained an engineering sign score of three or more, only ten per cent of the total law group went that high. Table XX:XVIII shows that none of the law group ever attained the high levels of seven or eight points on the engineering point scale. Applying the engineering key to the mean profiles of Estes' general college students, and Rapaport's non-academic group, we find the former attaining a concrete sign point score of one, and the latter a score of zero. Point scale Ef law aptitud~. Using only those "t" scores below the one per cent level of significance, a sign pattern of law aptitude was also developed. Table XX:XIX Sign Score 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 100 TABLE XXXV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIGN SCORES FOR LAW GROUP ON ENGINEERING POINT SCALE Per cent of Per cent ~f Per cent of Pei~ cent of Third Year Second Year First Year Attorneys Students Students Students 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 5% 10% 0% o:t 5% 20% 10% 20% 25% 10% 40% 20% 60% 50% 50% 50% TABLE XX.XVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIGN SCORES FOR LAW AND ENGINEERING GROUPS ON ENGINEERING POINT SCALE Per cent or Per cent o? Sign Total Law Total Engr. Score Group Group 8 0% 32% 7 0% 20% 6 2% 22% 5 2% 6% 4 2% 4% 3 4% 4% 2 12% 10% 1 24% 0% 0 54% 2% 101 Sign Score Level 8 7 or more 6 or more 5 or more 4 or more 3 or more 2 or more 1 or more 0 or more TABLE XXXVII SI GN SCORE LEVEL OF ENGINEERING AND LAW GROUPS ON ENGINEERI G POINT SCALE 102 Percent of Total Per cent of Total Engr. Group Law Group Attaining Leve l Attaining Level 32% 0% 52% 0% 74% 2% 80% 4% 841& 6% 88% 10% 98% 22% 98% 46% 100% 100% Sign Score Level 8 or less 7 or less 6 or less 5 or less 4 or less 3 or less 2 or less 1 or less 0 TABLE XXXVIII SIGN SCORE LEVEL OF LAW AND ENGINEERING GROUPS ON ENGINEERING SIGN POINT SCALE 103 Per cent of Total Per cent of Total Law Group Engr. Group Attaining Level Attaining Level Level not attained 100% Level not attained 68% 100% 48% 98% 26% 96% 20% 94% 16% 90% 12% 78% 2% 54% 2% 104 TABLE XXXIX LAW APTITUDE POIN T SCALE (a) Object Assembly subtest deviates negatively from Voca bulary level by one or more points. (b) Block Design subtest deviates negatively from Vocabu lary level by one or more points. (c) Picture Arrangement subtest deviates negatively from Vocabulary level by more than two points. (d) Digit Symbol subtest deviates negatively from Vocabu lary level by one or more points. (e) Picture Completion subtest deviates negatively from Vocabulary level by two or more points. (f) A Verbal Scale I.Q. of 128 or over. (g) Verbal Scale I.Q. higher than Performance Scale I •• by fourteen or more points. (h) Comprehension subtest deviates positively from Vocabu lary level. 105 shows the eight signs found indicative of abstract intel lectual functioning. Abstract intelligence may be utilized in law and such related professions as advertising men, or author journalist (20). Beckman (3) lists under professional occupati ons, linguistic, the following professions: authors, editors, reporters, clergymen, college presidents, professors, lawyers, judges, justices, teachers, musicians, teachers of music, librarians, social workers, and welfare workers. Applying the eight law signs singularly to the various levels of the law, Table XL, and engineering groups, Table XLI, we find that the law signs were dis played by the law group in a percentage range from sixty four per cent for sign "h" to ninety per cent for sign "a". The engineering group had a low percentage range of from two per cent for sign "e" to thirty-eight per cent for sign "h". Using the method of assigning one point for each of the -law aptitude signs shown on the Wechsler-Bellevue profile, Table XLII shows that five per cent of the prac ticing attorneys and ten per cent of the first year law students had a sign score as low as two, while none of the second or third year law students had a score aa low as two, or even three. 106 TABLE XL LAW POINT SCALE APPLIED TO LAW GROUP Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Third Year Second Year First Year Attorneys Sin showin s1 n showin Sin showin sin showin · sin a 80% 90% 90% 95% b 60% 100% 80% 100% C 100% 70%, 80%' 85% d 90% 80% 70% 90% e 70% 80% 90% 85% f 100% 90% 80% 70% g 70% 90% 70%, 55% h 70%, 90% 80% 40% 107 TABLE XLI LAW POINT SCALE APPLIED TO ENGINEERING GROUP Per cent of Per cent or Per cent of Per cent of Upper-Div. Lower-Div. Total Engr. Total Law Engineers Engineers Group Group Sign showins sign showing sign showing sign showing sign a 32% 38% 34% 90% b 6% 0% 4% 88% C 21% 0% 14% 84% d 32% 31% 32% 84% e 3%' 0% 2% 82% f 15% 19% 16% 82% g 9% 0% 6% 68% h 35% 44% 38% 64% s1gn Score 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 TABLE XLII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIGN SCORES FOR LAWYER GROUP ON LAW POINT SCALE 108 Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Per cent of Third Year Second Year First Year Attorneys 10% 30% 20% 25% 40% 40% 40% 25% 40% 20% 30% 20% 0% 10% 0% 15% 10% 0% 0% 10% O'/i 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 109 Table XLIII shows that none of the engineering stu dents attained a sign score above five. Table XLIV shows that while ninety-six per cent of the total law group attained an abstract sign score of four or more, only eight per cent of the total engineering group went that high . Referring to Table XLV, we note that none of the total engineering group attained the high levels of six, seven, or eight points on the law aptitude point scale. Table XLVI shows that the law student with the lowest score in the law group, a score of only two, bas a point average of only 70 . 720, which indicates very poor scholar ship and the possibility of dismissal from the University Law School . Applying the law ey to the mean profiles of Estes' general college students, and Rapaport•s non-academic group, we find the former attaining an abstract sign point score of three, and the latter a score of two . Thus, we find that engineers, general college stu dents, non-academic subjects, and law students with poor scholastic ratings, may be expected to rate low on the law key . It is apparent that the law and engineering point scales, based on the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence test, are useable instruments for measuring the type of Sign Score 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 110 TABLE XLIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SIGN SCORES FOR ENGINEERING GROUP ON LAW POINT SCALE Per cent or fler cent 6f Per cenl o? lier cent oP Upper-Div. wwer-Div. Total Engr. Total Law Engineers Engineers Group Group 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0~ 34% 0% o:t 0% 26% 6% 0% 4% 8% 6% 0% 4% 6% 9'I, 13% 10% 0% 21% 31% 24% 4% 32% 31% 32% 0% 26% 25% 26% 0% .. Sign Score Level 8 '7 or more 6 or more 5 or more 4 or more 3 or more 2 or more l or more O or more TABLE XLIV SIGN SCORE LEVEL OF LAW AND ENGINEERING GROUPS ON 'LAW POINT SCALE I Per cent of Total Per cent of law Group Engr. Group 111 Total Attaining Level Attaining Level 22% 0% 56% 0% 82% 0% 90% 4% 96% 8% 96% 18% 100% 42% 100% 74% 100% 100% sign Score Level 8 or less 7 or less 6 or less 5 or less 4 or less 3 or less 2 or less 1 or less 0 TABLE XLV SIGN SCORE LEVEL OF ENGINEERING AND aw GROUPS ON LAW POINT SCALE 112 Per cent or ,otai Per cent of !otal Engr. Group law Group Attaining Level Attaining Level Level not attained 100% Level not attained 78% Level not attained 44% 100% 18% 96% 10% 92% 4% 82% 4% 58% o'f, 26% 0% • a s!sn 9 Score I I 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 113 TABLE XLVI SIGN SCORE IEVEL AND NUMERIC.AL GRADE IEVEL FOR IAW STUDENT GROUP ON IAW POINT SCALE I of Stu- 1 'Per cent of Meari law School No. dent Grou12 Student Groul? Numerical Grade 6 20!( 76.381 12 40% 76.523 9 30% 74.589 - l 3% 76.000 1 3% 81.370 0 0% ------ 1 3% 70.720 0 0% ------ 0 0% ------ 114 intellectual functioning that const tutes an 1rrl1v1dual's measured intelligence level. That the final test of these keys rests, however, upon their application to subjects other than volunteers in law and engineering is recognized. It is hoped that future research will further validate and revise these signs in light or accumulated findings. CHAPTER V SUMMARY A ND CONCIDSIONS I. SUMMARY The W-B profiles or a group of fifty volunteer law students and fifty volunteer engineering students were sta tistically compared. It was found that ninety-four per cent or the law group and thirty per cent of the engineering group had a verbal I.Q. higher than their performance I.Q. The median difference was twenty I.Q. points in favor of the verbal scale for the lawyers and only six I.Q. points in favor of the verbal scale tor the engineers. As may be seen in Figure 27, the mean law group test profile based on weighted scores shows a positive deviation on the vocabulary, 1nfor:me.t1on, comprehension, arithmetic, digit span, and similarities subtests in comparison to the engineering group. On the basis of a statistical evaluation, a point seal~ of law aptitude was set up based on "t" scores below the one per cent level or significance. Assigning one point for each sign present, it was found that none of the engineering group attained the l~vel of six, seven, or eight points on the law scale, whereas eighty-two per cent of the law group attained a score of six or more. /J 1~ • ' ,~- ~_, i-h'1' 1 ~ (• er , '- I )0 bO . , .... . 'J }S ' ~ K I e I t I I .I. r ' J .J • I ~ \I,.. - J 1~ 28 \- -: . H ' ,, - .J .,., J C 1 ( r 118 l. ( . • ,, ) r.. - I • ...., . , • • • 119 performance scale. Estes' group an:1 Wechsler's subjects or high intellectual eniowment had a verbal I •• higher than their performance I.Q. in seventy-nine per cent and seventy seven per cent of the cases, respectively. Rapaport's State patrolmen attained an approximate balance bet een the two scales. Estes' mean group profile attained a score of three on the law aptitude scale and zero on the engineering apti tude scale. Rapaport's patrolmen mean profile rated a score ot two on the law aptitude scale and one on the engineering aptitude scale. The law group mean profile rated a legal aptitude score of eight and an enginee1•ing apt1 tude score of zero. The engineering group was found to rate an engineering aptitude score of eight and a law aptitude score of zero. Thus, the keys proved specific for each professional group. The foregoing may be sinn:med up by the statement that the Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scale presents itself as a serviceable instrument for indicating law and engineering aptitude. In addition to the foregoing findings based on sta tistically significant relationships there were some incidental observations of possible interest to vocational guidance experts. These observations lack cogent statisti cal support and hence do not merit more than casual 120 cons1derat1on. Because of their potential value in stimula ting further research they are introduced here in the following series or statements: (a) While ninety-six per cent of the law gro,1p attained a score of four or more on the law key, only eight per cent of the engineering group attained that level. Conversely, while eighty-eight per cent of the engineering group attained a score of three or more on the engineering aptitude point scale, only ten per cent of the law group attained that level. Thus, it may be seen that very few engineers show any law aptitude~ and very few law students show engineer ing aptitude. (b) Whereas ten per cent of the first year law stu dents attained an engineering aptitude score as high as six, none of the second or third year law students went that high. None of the practicing attorneys went above a score of tour on the engineering key. Thus, the higher the stu dents year in law school the lower his engineering aptitude score. Five per cent of the practicing attorneys and ten per cent of the first year law stud.ants had a law aptitude score as low as two, while none or the second or third year law students had a score aa low as two or even three. The law student with the lowest score in the law group, a score 121 or two, had the lowest permissable grade point average and was on the borderline as tar as remaining in law school was concerned. This stgnifies that the higher the student's year in law school the less frequently we find low law aptitude scores. Only thirty-three per cent or the engineering stu dents with a poor scholastic standing attained an engineer ing aptitude score of six points, while seventy-two per cent or the graduated engineers attained that level. This indi cates that successful engineers attain higher scores on the engineering aptitucle scale. Thus, we may conclude that scholastically successful engineering students rate high on the engineering key while scholastically successf~l law students do not. Scholasti cally successful law students tend to rate high on the law key, however. (c) Concerning I.Q.•s, it was found that: 1. The mean full scale I.Q. ot the law group was 126 and for the engineering group it was 125. 2. Estes' group or general college students had a mean full scale I.Q. of 127 and Rapa.port's Kansas State patrolmen had 116. 3. Students in the law group who had college degrees not only had an accompanying higher I.Q. than students without a degree, but they also had higher 122 law school grades. 4. The lower end of the I •• range tends to drop out in the progression from freshman to graduate status in the professional group as a whole. 5. Engineering students who received their engineeri ng degree during the two-and-one-half year interim preceding the follow-up study had a higher mean full scale I •• than did the students who were dismissed or dropped out of the University because of poor grades. 6. The two la students who were disquali fied in law school because of poor scholarship dur- ing the one year interim before the follow-up study, had the lowest I •• •s of the law group. Thus, we see that students with I •• •sat the lower end of the range tend to be unable to meet the educational requirements of the law school or engineering colle ge and either drop out of the curriculum or are dismissed. (d) The total professional group, law and engineer ing, had an erficiency quotient of 124 placing it in the ninety-sixth E •• percentile. The professional group as a whole had a very low deterioration index. The mean of the group was -1.1 per cent. Only two per cent showed what W echsler would classify as definite deterioration. 123 (e) Upper division law students rate higher on the verbal aubtests, and lower on the performance subtests, than do lower division law students. Law students with average or above average scholar ship score higher on the verbal scale and lower on the performance scale than do law students below the law school grade point average. law students with a "D" average and subject to dismissal tave a lower verbal scale attainment level than the "A", "B", or "C" students. This indicates that success in law school is depen dent upon a high attainment level on the verbal scale, rather than on the performance scale where DDlch overlapping was evidenced. These differences were at the twenty per cent of significance and above statistically and consequent ly may be considered only as trends. Possibly wl'B.t Wechsler terms the non-intellective aspects of intelligence may play a major role in law school and engineering college success. basic intellectual aptitude and minimum I.Q. level would be prerequisite, however motivation, interest, drive, eiootion, perseveration, adjustment, temperament, desire to achieve, etc., would determine the use a student made of his inherent mental ability. 124 II. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions seem to be warranted in the light of the data presented: (1) Lawyers and law students measure relatively higher on the verbal scale of the - B while engineers and en ineering students measure higher on the performance scale of the W-B . (2) The engineering and law point scales may be used for the measurement of engineering and law aptitude by the simple procedure of assigning one point for each of the features present on either of the scales . (3) A score of five or more on the engineering key , (page 93) may be considered as indicative of engineering aptitude as eighty per cent of the engineering group rated that high, while only four per cent of the total law group attained that level . (4) A score of five or more on the law key, (page 104) may be considered as indicative of law aptitude as ninety per cent of the law group rated that high, while only four per cent of the total engineering group ever attained that level . In view of these results, it appears that W-B data, when converted into point scales as here described, may aid vocational counsellors in one delimited, but not uncommon, phase of their professional or~. BIBLI 00 RA. PHY 1. 2. 126 BIBLIOGRAPHY ALEXANDER,•• P. Intelligence, concrete and abstract. Brit. J.• Paychol., Monogr. SUppl., 1935, ~, No. 19 ALTUS, w. D., & MAHLER, c. A. Significance of verbal aptitude in the type or occupation pursued by illiterates • .!.• appl. Pszchol., 1946, ~, 155-160. BBCKM.AB, R. o. A new scale tor gauging occupational rank. Person. J.•, 1934, ~, 225-233. BEDFORD, J. H. Your future iob: a ~ to personal and oocufationai orlenf"at on orl~ --r.cis Angeles: !oc1e£y or Occupational Reseirc, 1950, 366 pp. 5. BINGHAM, w. V. Personality and vocations. Paychol., 1926, .!£, 35?. Brit. J. - e. a. 10. 11. 12. 13. BINGHAM, W. V. Aptitudes and a~titude testing. York: Harper and 13ros., 1~ • · New BUR'f'f, H.K. Principles of em!lof:ep~ psycholosz. Boston: Houghton ll?:r'lYn, 92 . DARLBf, J. G~ Clinical aspects and interpretation of the Stro~ Vocational Interest mink. ltew Yorli: Psychoiog cal Corporation, l94l. DUMOND, s. The Wechsler-Bellevue Intelligence Scales and certain vocational aptitude tests. l• Psychol. 194'7, !!, 2'79. BSTES, s. o. Deviations of Wechsler-Bellevue subtest aoorea tram vocabulary level in superior adults. l• abnorm. aoc. Pa7choi., 1946, .!!, 22-6. FOSTER, c. G., • study or the Wechsler-Bellevue Intel ligence Scale aa a vocational guidance 11Yl1cator ot engineering aptitude. Los 4ngelea: Unpub. Mas ter'• theaia, Univ. or South. Calif., 1947. FRE?D, M. The personalities or the socially and mechan1call7 inclined. Psychol. Monogr., 1924, 33, Ho. 151. - GOODENOUGH, F. L. Mental testing: its history, prin o~les, and appllcations. 'New York: Rinehart, 1 O, 609 PP• 127 14. HARRELL, T. W., & HARRELL, M. S. Army General Classi fication test scores for civilian occupations. Educ. Psychol. Measur., 1945, 5, 231-232. - 16. 16. 17. 18. LAIRD, D. A. The psychologi of selecting employees. New York: Rc~raw-Hlll, 9'3"1,·316 PP• PROCTOR, W. M. A thirteen year follow-up of high school pupils. Occupations, 193?, ~. 306-310. RABIN, A. I. The use of the Wechsler-Bellevue Scales with normal and abnormal persons. Pszchol. Bull. 1945, 42, 410-422. - RAPAPORT, D., et al. Manual 2.! diagnostic !ii_cholog1- cal test1,: diafrost!e test!n~ of lnte gence and concep forna on. New Yor :-Josiah Macy Jr. Founaatlon. 1944. 19.\ RAPAPORT, D. Diagnostic Rsychological testing. Vol. l Chicago: Year Book Pub., l945, 5'3 pp. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. STRONG, E. K. Vocational interests or men and women. Stanford Univ. Press, 1943. · - STRONG, E. K. Manual for vocational interest blank for men. Stanfora Univ. Press, 1938. THORNDIKE, E. L. Human nature and the social order. New York: Macmillan, 1940, lo19 pp. THURSTONE, L. L., & THURSTONE, T. M. Factorial studies of intelligence. ?sychometr. Monogr., 1941, No. 2. WATSON, R. I. The use of the Wechsler-Bellevue Scales: a supplement. Psych~l. Bull. 1946, _g,, 61-88. WECHSLER; D. The measurement of adult intelligence. Baltimore: Williams & Wl!kTns, 1~4, 258 pp. WECHSLER, D. Cognitive, conative, and non-intellective intelligence. Amer. Psychol., 1950, ~, 78-83. APPENDIX A 1 1 1 i' APPENDIX A WECHSLER-BELLEVUE INTELLIGENCE SCALE RECORD FOR ADOLESCENTS AND ADULTS FORM ~ AGE EDUC. DATE OF EXAM NO_ IP NAT BIRTHDATJ: COLOD I OF EXAM. EXAM. BY PREVIOUS EXAM. TABLE OF WEIGHTED SCORESt SUMMARY ! RAW SCORE -0 TEST R.S. WT.S. QI .... .s: INFORMATION >, "' C Ji ·- 0 E 0 -; ·- ... COMPREHENSION Ill C C Cl C C C "' ?- Cl C -~ lit ..0 0 Cl Cl u • • E . -~ < l ... • J: • Cl "" C Cl • Q. • :.: -; ._ Cl ..... G> _!! Cl DIGIT SPAN Cl) ·- j? "' :, G> C ... V) E ... E ... ... - Cl ._ Q. Cl ..0 U C u Q. u > 0 .. E ± -= - Cl •- Cl ·- E ~ .!. :!: ·- u 0 ·- 8 A. ... u :, V') ~ ~ "' ·- E A. 0 0 ..0 "' ARITHMETIC ·- < < ·- O' IC Q in > u a:i 0 C LU - SIMILARITIES 25 20 14 23-2-4 -41--42 20+ 38+ 18 (VOCABULARY) ( ) ( ) 24 19 17 13 21-22 39-40 20 38 26 17 I 23 18 16 12 20 37-38 19 35-37 25 66-67 16 VERBAL SCORE* 21-22 17 II 19 35-36 18 15 33-34 24 62-65 IS 20 16 IS 17-18 32-34 16-17 14 30-32 23 57-61 14 P. ARRANGEMENT 18-19 IS 14 10 16 29-31 15 13 28-29 22 53-56 13 P. COMPLETION 17 14 9 15 27-28 14 12 25-27 20-21 49-52 12 BLOCK DESIGN 15-16 12-13 13 13-14 25-26 12-13 23-24 19 45-48 II OBJECT ASSEMBLY 13- I .f II 12 8 12 22-24 11 II 20-22 18 41-44 10 • 12 10 11 7 II 20-21 10 10 18-19 17 37--40 9 DIGIT SYMBOL i I 0-11 9 9-10 17-19 9 9 16-17 16 33-36 8 9 8 10 6 8 15-16 7-8 8 13-15 1.f-15 29-32 7 PERFORMANCE SCORE* I 7-8 7 9 5 7 12-14 6 7 11-12 13 24-28 6 TOTAL SCORE 6 5-6 . 5-6 10-11 5 8-10 12 20-23 s *Proration is necessary if four or six Verbal tests 4-5 4 8 4 4 7-9 4 6 6-7 10-11 16-19 4 are given or four Perfomance tests. 2-3 3 7 3 3 5-6 2-3 5 3-5 9 12-15 3 VERBAL SCALE 1.Q I 2 6 1-2 3--4 I 4 1-2 8 8-11 2 0 I 2 0 1-2 0 3 0 7 4-7 I PERFORM. SCALE 1.Q I 0 5 I 0 2 5-6 0-3 0 FULL SCALE 1.Q. 1 ans who wish to draw a "psychograph" on the above table may do so by connecting the appropriate raw scores; however, one must recognize the relati~ tility of these subtest scores when they are thus treated. ~ ~NALYSIS AND OBSERVATIONS I ~ • ..._______ APPENDIX B TABU XLVII DISTRIBUTION OF AG~S AND I.Q.'S O THE THREE WECHSLER SCALES FOR ENGINEERING GROUP = Full Scale Subject Age Verbal I .Q. Perf. I. • I.Q. 1 26 113 134 124 2 26 122 136 130 3 23 119 129 126 4 24 115 128 123 5 26 130 130 132 6 25 113 125 120 7 22 115 132 126 8 20 127 118 126 9 29 113 122 118 10 23 126 133 133 11 21 122 125 126 12 23 104 126 116 13 28 131 122 128 14 24 119 125 124 15 27 137 133 137 16 25 120 124 124 17 24 107 118 113 18 24 129 141 138 19 22 126 128 130 20 22 126 135 133 131 Subject 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 TABLE XLVII (continued) DISTRIBUTION OF AGES AND I •• 'SON THE THREE WECHSLER SCALES FOR ENGINEERING GROUP 132 Full Scale 5 Age Verbal I •• Perf. I. • I.Q. I 23 122 130 129 21 122 139 133 22 107 126 117 22 113 118 117 20 113 122 119 22 120 132 128 21 119 118 120 19 123 122 126 22 117 130 125 22 122 126 127 22 114 117 117 21 119 115 119 25 125 129 128 20 124 132 130 21 114 129 123 20 126 132 131 27 121 128 126 25 133 133 135 22 131 117 126 21 127 126 130 TABLE XLVII {continued) DISTRIBUTION OF AGES AND I •• 'SON THE THREE WECHSLER SCALES FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Full 133 Scale Subject Age Verbal I •• Perf. I. • I.Q. 41 28 131 116 125 42 26 125 122 125 43 22 101 128 115 44 20 125 111 120 45 22 125 128 129 46 21 121 117 121 47 20 120 111 117 48 20 119 117 119 49 25 136 128 134 50 19 123 133 132 APPENDIX C TABLE XLVIII DISTRIBUTION OF I.Q.'S ON THE THREE WECHSLER SCA~ AND I.Q. PERCENTILE RATINGS FOR TH E LA.WYERS AND IAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP 135 I fu:11 2 Sca!e 2 PercentIIe $ubject Verbal I.Q. Pert. I.Q. I.Q. rating 61 128 10'7 119 91 52 114 104 110 75 122 110 75 122 112 118 88 55 132 135 135 99+ 56 129 111 122 94 57 125 129 128 98 58 130 120 12'7 9'7 59 123 114 120 92 60 129 106 119 91 61 lS6 121 130 99 62 146 125 139 99+ 63 130 113 124 96 64 133 105 119 91 65 133 116 87 66 ~6 132 136 99♦ 67 137 121 131 99+ 68 117 . 120 120 92 69 129 108 120 92 '70 128 11'7 124 96 TABLE XLVIII (continued) DISTRIBUTION OF I.Q.•S ON THE THREE WECHSLER SCAIES AND I.Q. PERCENTILE RATINGS FOR THE LlWYERS ~D LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP 136 'i'ulf scaie Percentile SUbject Verbal I.Q. Pert. I.Gi. I.Q. rating 71 131 126 130 99 72 136 118 129 98 73 136 126 134 99+ 74 142 114 130 99 '75 145 96 122 94 '16 136 11'7 128 98 7'7 139 102 124 96 '78 13'7 117 J.29 98 79 131 113 124 96 80 132 121 128 98 81 137 108 125 97 82 140 112 129 98 83 126 110 120 92 84 138 118 130 99♦ 85 137 120 131 99+ 86 137 108 125 9'7 87 131 107 122 94 - 88 139 126 135 99♦ 89 145 106 128 98+ 90 140 112 128 98+ Sub.Ject 91 92 93 94 95 96 98 99 100 TABLE XLVIII (continued) DISTRIBUTION OF I.Q.rs ON THE THREE WECHSLER SCALES AND I.Q. PERCENTILE RATINGS FOR THE LA.WYERS AND !AW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP . 13'7 Verbal I.Q. Pert. I.Q. Piiii Seale I Percentile I.Q. rating 140 126 136 99t, 133 114 126 97+ 145 112 132 99+ 132 124 130 99 125 122 126 fTI+ 134 115 126 97+ 135 127 133 99+ 131 109 122 94♦ 142 116 131 99+ 124 108 117 88♦ APPENDIX D TABLE XLIX DISTRIBUTION OF AGBS, ACADEMIC UNITS COMPLETED, YB.AR IEVEL, AND PER CENT OF DETERIORATION FOR THE LAWYERS AND I.AW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP lo. ot unita Per cent ot 139 Subject Age completed Year le,,el deterioration 51 44 Passed Bar In practice 13% loss 52 s~ Passed Bar In practice s!( loss 53 4'"1 Passed Bar In practice 12% loss 54 38 Passed Bar In practice 6% loss 65 40 Passed. Bar In practice 12% loss 66 43 Passed Bar In practice 3% loss - 5'7 41 Passed Bar In practice 0% (-4%) 68 se Passed Bar In practice 0% (~2%) 59 51 Passed Bar In practice 0% (-5%) 60 44 Passed Bar In practice 1% loss 61 33 Passed Bar In practice al, (-15~) 62 82 Passed Bar In practice 0% (-13%) 63 36 Passed Bar In practice ?'I, loss e, 69 Passed Bar In practice 0% (-9%) 65 4:6 Passed Bar In practice o% (-8%) 66 ,.., Passed Bar In practice 0% (-6%) 6'"1 42 Passed Bar In practice 1% loss 68 30 Passed Bar In practice 2% loss 69 34 Passed Bar In practice 13~ loss '"10 43 Passed Bar In practice 2% loss TABLE XLIX (continued) DISTRIBUTION OF AGES, ACADEMIC UNITS COMPLETED, YEAR IEVEL, AND PER CENT OF DETERIORATION FOR THE LAWYERS AND IAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP 140 No. ot units Per cent or ~ubject Age completed Year level deterioration 71 29 81 Third 3% loss 72 27 81 Third 6% loss 73 25 80 Tl1ird 0% (-14%) '74 27 80 Third 0% (-3%) 75 30 86 Third 0% (-21%) 76 25 73 Third 0% (-10%) 77 26 57 Third CY!, (-3%) 78 27 61 Third 0% (-1%) 79 29 84 Third 7% loss 80 26 62 Third 9% loss 81 26 50 Second 5% loss 82 26 48 Second 0% (-8%) 83 26 42 Second 0% (-1%) 84 26 48 Second o'I, (-23%) 85 29 54 Second 0% (-8%) 86 27 52 Second 17% loss 87 24 52 Second 0% (-0%) 88 27 53 Second 0% (-5%) 89 24 56 Second 0% (-6%) 90 25 47 Second 0% (-8%) TABLE XLIX {continued) DISTRIBUTION OF AGES, ACADEMIC U ITS COMPLEn1ED, YEAR IEVEL, AND PER CENT OF DEI'ERIORATION FOR THE IAWYERS ND LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP 141 lo. of units Per cent of Subject Age com;eleted Year level deteriora t1on 91 25 25 First 0% (-8%) 92 25 25 First 0% (-8%) 93 27 25 First 0% (-14%) 27 20 First 8% loss 95 24 25 First 5% loss 96 30 22 First a% loss 97 30 25 First 0% (-6%) 98 26 23 First 1% loss 99 25 22 First 1% loss 100 28 25 First 14% loss APPENDIX E Subject 51 52 53 54 55 56 5'7 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 6? 68 69 ?0 TABLE L DISTRIBUTIONS OF DATES PASSE:D CALIFORNIA STATE BAR, EFFICIENCY QUOTIENTS, AND E.Q. PERCENTILE RANKS FOR PRACTICING ATTORNEYS Date passed E.Q. percen- Cal. State Bar E.Q. tile rank 1938 112 80 194'7 106 65 1924 100 47 1938 113 81 1934 131 99+ 1935 116 8'7 1933 123 95 1940 123 95 1930 109 72 1934 112 80 1939 128 98 1939 137 99+ 193'1 119 91 1928 106 65 1928 106 65 1927 130 99 19Z2 126 1946 117 89 1946 117 89 1932 118 90 143 APPENDIX F Subject '71 '72 '13 '74 '75 '76 '7'7 '78 '79 80 81 82 83 TABLE LI DISTRIBUTIONS OF PRESENT NUKJIBICAL GRADE .tVERAGES, P.AST DEGREES RECEIVED, - ~ JOR, EFFICIENCY QUOTIENTS, AND E.Q. PERC!§ITILE RANKS FOR IAW SCHOOL STUDENTS GROUP nw scSooi Date Degree 1.4. percen! averase received Major -- _ B~~• tile rank I 81.3'70 A.B. •~5 Pol. Sci. 130 99 . 87.333 A.B. 1 43 Pol. Soi. 129 98 ·' . '75.838 A.B. 1 48 Pol. Sci. 133 99+ . . . '72.838 A _ .B. 1 46 Pol. Sci. ~o 99 . 80.Sl3 No A.B. 119 91 eo.ooo B.S. 1 46 Accounting 128 98 . 76.632 No A.B. 123 95 . '77.033 Ho A.B. 129 98 . 82.076 Ho A.B. 123 95 '74.113 lfo A.B. 128 98 80.920 A.B. 1 4'7 Economics 124 96 . '74.312 A.B. 1 43 Psychology 128 98 68.262 - No A.B. 119 91 .., .... °' Subject 84 85 86 8'7 88 89 90 91 ' 92 93 94 95 TABIE LI (continued) DISTRIBU'l'ION OF PRESENT . NUMERICAL GRADE AVERAGES, PAST DEGREES RECEIVED, MAJOR, EFFICIENCY QUOTIENTS, A . ND B.Q. PERCENTILE RANKS FOR LAW SCHOOL STUDgNTS GROUP i1w !cSooi Date Degree a I average received Major E.Q. 82.208 B.S. 1 48 Commerce 130 . - . '71.8'70 A.B. 1 4'7 Pol. Sci. ~o . ... . .. '71.000 A.B. 1 4'7 Economics 124 . . '71. '789 A.B. 1 4'7 Pol. Sci. 122 ~ '76.000 No A.B. 135 . ~ . '73.589 No A.B. 12'7 - '18.61'7 No A . • B. 128 - . '75.000 No A.B. 136 . '75.600 B.S. 1 49 Commerce 125 85.480 A.B. 1 43 Pol. Sc1.· ~l 11.s. ,,, ~ournaliam ~ 70.300 B.S. 1 49 Commerce 130 . 70.'720 No A.B. 126 I.&. percen- tile rank 99+ 99 96 94 99♦ 98 98 99♦ 97 99+ 99 98 .., .. 0) SUbJect 96 V( 98 . 99. 100 TABLB LI (continued) DISTRIBUTION OF PRBSENT -!fUJ4BRICAL GRADE AVERAGES, PAST DIDRBES RECEIVED, MAJOR, EFFICIENCY QUOTIENTS, AND E.Q. PERCENTILE RANKS FOR LAW SCHOOL STUDEIP.l'S GROUP law School Date Degree average received MaJor B.g. 84.363 B.S. 1 41 Inter. Rel. 124 .. - . - 76.480 A.B. 1 4:~ Inter. Rel. 132 - .. .. ~ - ........ - .. 72.261 B.s.- 1 ,e Indus. Mgmt. 121 • - 69.2'73 No A.B. ~l 60.360 No A.B. 116 I.Et. percen- tile rank 96 99+ 98 99'- 87 ..., • ~ - l APPENDIX G . . Su. I 0 l 14: 13 2 13 12 3 13 13 4 15 11 5 15 13 6 10 11 7 13 7 8 14 12 9 13 12 10 12 15 11 14 10 12 11 10 13 14 14 14 13 12 15 15 13 16 14 14 17 12 11 18 15 16 19 14: 14 20 13 13 TABLE LII RIGHTED SCORES ON ALL SUBTESTS FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Ver. D s V Tot. PC PA OA BD 10 10 10 12 58 13 17 14 15 13 14 14 13 66 14 15 16 15 15 14 12 63 15 14 14 17 12 4 16 14 60 14 13 16 17 16 13 15 14 72 14 15 14 16 13 9 14 13 58 13 13 12 15 12 9 17 14 60 15 13 15 17 16 13 14 15 70 15 8 14 13 10 7 14 13 58 14 14 12 15 16 14 16 11 69 15 12 15 17 15 16 13 11 66 14 13 13 15 7 7 13 12 50 15 17 10 14 18 14 14 13 73 12 11 13 14 12 16 13 63 15 13 13 14 18 17 17 14 78 14 16 12 17 13 7 16 13 64 14 11 15 16 10 4 15 11 53 14 9 14 15 18 13 11 12 71 16 17 16 17 18 11 1, 12 69 14 14 12 16 17 11 15 14 69 15 16 15 17 149 Per. Fiiii DS Tot. Scale 15 74 132 15 75 141 12 72 135 11 71 131 12 71 143 14 67 125 14 74 134 14 64 134 10 65 123 16 75 144 14 69 135 14 70 120 15 65 138 14 69 132 14 73 151 I 10 66 130 12 64 117 16 81 162 15 71 140 13 76 145 Su. I C 21 14 11 22 12 13 23 12 11 24 12 15 26 13 10 26 15 13 27 12 14 28 13 14 29 13 15 30 13 9 31 11 11 32 13 17 33 13 11 34 13 12 35 13 10 36 13 13 37 12 13 38 15 14 39 14 16 40 13 14 TABLE LII (continued) . . WEIGHTED SCORES ON ALL SUBTESTS FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Ver. A D s V Tot. PC PA OA BD 18 g 14 13 66 14 17 14 16 15 11 14 14 66 15 17 15 16 7 6 15 13 53 15 13 13 16 9 9 12 12 58 14 14 12 13 13 10 13 10 68 13 12 12 16 12 11 12 14 64 15 13 14 16 13 10 13 14 63 14 9 12 16 13 11 14 13 65 14 14 11 15 10 7 16 12 61 14 13 15 16 15 13 16 13 66 14 13 15 16 13 9 14 13 59 16 14 11 12 13 7 12 13 63 14 11 11 16 • 18 13 12 14 68 14 17 12 14 18 10 14: 13 67 15 14 14 16 17 7 11 13 59 13 14 15 16 16 16 11 14 69 15 13 15 15 13 13 13 14 65 15 11 12 16 16 16 15 14 75 15 14 15 15 17 14 14 12 73 16 9 12 7 12 16 15 14 70 13 12 15 16 150 Per. Full DS Tot. Scale 12 73 139 16 79 145 13 70 123 11 64 122 14 67 125 16 74 138 13 64 127 13 67 132 15 73 134 12 70 136 11 63 122 10 62 125 13 70 138 15 74 141 14 72 131 16 74 143 15 69 134 14 73 148 10 63 136 14 70 140 Su. I C 41 13 12 42 14 11 43 11 13 44 12 16 45 15 16 46 12 15 47 13 11 48 13 15 49 15 16 50 12 13 TABLE LII (continued) WEIGHTED SCORES ON ALL SUBTESTS FOR ENGINEERING GROUP Ver. A D s V Tot. PC PA OA 16 16 16 14 73 12 12 12 12 16 16 13 68 13 9 14 7 12 12 48 16 16 12 16 9 15 13 68 9 9 10 10 13 14 13 68 17 17 12 13 17 8 13 65 11 11 12 13 16 11 13 64 8 8 12 16 10 11 11 63 11 11 12 18 17 13 13 77 14 14 12 10 17 14 12 65 15 15 15 151 Per. Ful! BD DS Tot . Scale 14 10 60 133 15 14 65 133 16 15 71 119 15 13 59 127 14 16 71 139 14 12 63 128 14 13 59 123 13 13 63 126 16 13 69 146 17 16 75 140 152 APPENDIX H 153 TABLE LIII WEIGHTED SCORES ON ALL SUBTEST$ FOR LAW GROUP Ver. Tot. Per . Full Su. I C A D s V 5/6x PC PA OA BD DS Tot. Scale 51 15 17 17 6 15 14 70 12 6 8 9 11 46 116 52 13 12 10 10 11 14 58 6 12 12 9 10 49 107 53 13 16 13 11 11 13 64 8 4 10 6 6 34 98 54 16 15 9 10 14 14 65 13 4 8 13 14 52 117 55 17 15 12 13 15 16 73 14 13 17 13 12 69 142 56 15 16 13 9 15 17 71 10 11 7 12 9 49 120 57 14 13 17 9 11 16 67 14 13 12 14 11 64 131 58 15 15 13 11 16 16 72 13 13 7 14 12 59 131 59 13 15 12 10 12 15 64 10 11 7 10 9 47 111 60 15 16 12 11 16 15 71 9 7 9 9 11 45 116 61 13 15 18 13 17 15 76 10 13 13 14 12 62 138 62 18 16 16 17 18 17 85 12 11 11 16 15 65 150 63 16 17 13 11 14 15 72 12 8 10 12 11 53 125 64 14 17 17 10 15 14 73 6 6 9 7 6 34 107 65 15 18 15 11 16 14 74 12 7 0 7 7 33 107 66 15 15 17 11 16 17 76 14 11 12 13 14 64 140 67 18 15 17 9 17 17 78 13 8 10 14 12 57 135 68 13 13 13 7 14 13 61 12 14 10 11 14 61 122 69 15 15 16 6 17 16 71 12 8 10 13 9 52 123 70 15 16 13 13 13 14 70 13 7 12 12 10 54 124 154 TABLE LIII (continued) WEIGHTED SCORES ON ALL SUBTESTS FOR LAW GROUP Ver. Tot. Per. Full Su. I C A D s V 5/6x PC PA OA BD DS Tot. Scale 71 15 16 16 10 17 14 73 15 11 13 15 14 68 141 72 15 18 13 14 17 15 77 13 7 15 16 11 62 139 73 13 17 17 14 6 14 77 13 10 14 18 13 68 146 74 16 18 17 13 18 16 82 12 12 10 12 13 59 141 75 17 16 18 16 18 16 84 8 11 4 9 10 42 126 76 15 15 15 16 17 14 77 9 10 15 15 12 61 138 77 16 14 17 17 17 15 80 12 8 10 8 12 50 130 78 16 14 16 14 17 16 78 13 9 12 13 14 61 139 79 13 17 17 9 17 14 73 13 11 12 13 9 58 131 80 15 16 17 9 17 15 74 14 10 14 14 12 64 138 81 16 16 17 13 16 15 78 10 12 12 11 9 54 132 82 15 16 18 16 17 15 81 12 7 13 14 11 57 138 83 13 14 15 13 15 13 69 12 10 12 9 13 56 125 84 15 18 16 17 14 15 79 10 14 10 14 14 62 141 \ 85 15 14 16 16 16 16 78 14 12 10 15 12 63 141 86 16 17 16 13 16 15 78 14 10 12 10 8 54 132 87 14 17 17 11 14 14 73 10 12 12 13 56 129 88 15 l'l 16 16 17 15 80 12 14 15 14 13 68 148 89 18 17 17 14 18 16 83 10 13 8 12 12 55 138 90 15 17 18 16 17 14 81 13 8 12 10 14 57 138 155 TABLE LIII (continued) 'WEIGHTED SCORE ON ALL SUBTESTS FOR LAW GROUP Ver. Tot. Per. Full Su. I C A D s V 5/Sx PC PA OA BD DS Tot. Scale 91 15 18 15 17 17 15 81 13 16 12 14 13 68 149 92 15 16 16 13 16 14 75 10 9 13 14 13 59 134 93 18 16 18 17 16 17 85 12 12 7 13 13 57 142 94 16 16 13 13 16 15 74 13 14 13 14 12 66 140 95 13 14 16 9 16 13 68 15 9 15 15 13 67 135 96 15 17 13 14 16 15 75 13 12 11 11 10 57 132 97 15 17 18 11 14 16 76 13 9 14 15 16 67 143 98 15 16 17 7 18 14 73 12 10 12 10 11 55 128 99 16 15 15 17 18 17 82 13 8 13 16 10 60 142 100 15 15 13 7 16 14 67 12 5 12 10 15 54 121 APPENDIX I TABLE LIV MEAN SUBTEST SCORES AND MEAN I.Q.•S FOR GROUP Lower First Second - .. Div. - Juni"or Senior Total ~ . . Year Year Subtest Bng~s. Engrs. Ensrs. Engra •--~ttor. Iaw Iaw a Vocab; 12~8 12;9 12~- 9 12.9 15~1 15~0 14~8 Intor~ 12~8 12~9 13.6 13~1 14.9 15~3 15~2 Compr~ 13.0 12~6 12~8 12~8 15~4 16~0 16.3 Arith. - . 12~1 14:~3 14~'7 13~7 14.2 15.4 16~6 Dig. Sp. 9~'7 12~2 11~8 11~3 10;4 12~5 14~5 Sim.l. . 14~0 13~6 13~6 13~8 1-4~'1 16~3 16~0 Pio~ Arr- . · 13~5 13;9 12~1 13;1 9;4 10;4 11~2 Pie~ compl; 13;9 14;2 13;a 13~9 11~3 12;a 11;7 Obj~ Assem. 12~8 13~7 13;3 13~3 9;7 12~2 11;s Block Des. 15.4 15.6 15.2 15~4 11~4 13.2 11~8 Dig. Symb • 13.l 13.6 13.6 13.4 10.8 12.6 11.9 . Pert. I.Q. 126 128 124 126 115 117 113 Verbal I.Q. 118 122 123 121 129 134 137 Total I.Q. 123 128 125 125 123 128 127 Third Year Law 15~0 15~1 16." l 16.3 13.2 17;1 9~9 12~2 11~9 13~3 12.0 115 137 128 Total Ia• 15~0 15.1 16~0 15~6 12~7 16~0 10;2 12~0 11~4 12~4 11.8 115 133 126 .., a, -...:i

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An analysis of the integration of arithmetic and algebra in eighth grade mathematics textbooks

PDF

The isolation of personality traits in the domain of military leadership

PDF

A survey of theatre organization as practiced by a selected group of community theatres in the Los Angeles area

PDF

Clothing as a factor in the social status rating of men

PDF

The relationship of the pretreatment strength of social responses of schizophrenic patients to improvement with electric shock treatment

PDF

An experimental study in fluctuations among successive play performances

PDF

A study of the organic basis for behavorial deviations in school children

PDF

The effects of partial reinforcement on a whole human response

PDF

A factor-analytic study of the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory using a transpose matrix (Q-technique)

PDF

Radical disenfranchisement and the constitutional conventions of 1867

PDF

Studies on cactus alkaloids and related synthesic [i.e. Synthetic] compounds

PDF

The effects of anxiety on the alpha rhythm of the electroencephalogram

PDF

Social functions of the churches in a changing community with special reference to social processes

PDF

An analysis of the research literature used by American writers in the field of speech

PDF

Sociological aspects of training programs in selected industrial organizations in the Los Angeles metropolitan area

PDF

Social stratification as reflected in selected novels of Sinclair Lewis

PDF

The fisherman and his wife : theme and variations for soprano, narrator, and chamber orchestra. Text from Grimm's Fairy tales

PDF

Claus Spreckels of California

PDF

The selection of textbooks and other instructional materials in the high schools of California

PDF

An investigation into the equipment, techniques, and problems associated with underwater cinematography

Asset Metadata

Creator Foster, Charles Graham (author)

Core Title W-B data as indices of aptitude for law and engineering a contribution to vocational counselling

School Graduate School

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 1951-03

Publication Date 03/05/1951

Defense Date 02/01/1951

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Wechler-Bellevue intelligence scales

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112724845

Unique identifier UC112724845

Identifier BF no.9 (Film) (call number),etd-FosterCharles-1951.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-FosterCharles-1951

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Foster, Charles Graham

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230207-usctheses-microfilm-box7 (batch), 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 author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu