College achievement and vocational efficiency

Front matter

& to Cbutation

^satttns College ^ttkn mM m^ i i

. '.'.1 ,•

Introduction

The study presented in this monograph is an attempt to discover the relation between the vocational efficiency of college graduates as measured by income twelve and a half years after graduation and undergraduate achievement as measured (1) by scholarship and (2) by extra-curricular activity and success.

It was the writer's original purpose to include as a part of this investigation a measurement of the relation of certain other factors to income : (1) time of choosing the vocation; (2) reasons for entering the first occupation after graduation; (3) change in occupation and reasons for change; (4) self-support while in college; (5) amount and kind ot professional study after graduation; (6) time of marriage and size of family. Because of insuperable obstacles inherent in the nature of the available, data this phase of the investigation had to be abandoned.

The data gathered with reference to time of choosing the life career reasons for entering the initial occupation and reasons for change are presented in Chapter V in an attempt to measure the influence of the college upon the determination of the life careers of its graduates. The facts in regard to self-support, graduate study, and marriage have been summarized in Chapter VI mainly for the interest which attaches to the occupational variations which the statistics reveal. No attempt is made to measure the relation of these factors to vocational success.

The initiation of the investigation was prompted by the hope of contributing in some small measure to the factual basis of the movement for the more effective educational and vocational guidance of college students. It is the writer's hope that the study may also serve to focus attention upon a number of other problems of college administration. These problems include (1) ways and means of increasing student respect for scholarship; (2) more effective methods of measuring the raw material which the college matriculates and the finished product which it graduates; (3) ways and means of utilizing more effectively the educational posibilities of extra-curricular activities; (4) the urgency of a reexamination of the aims and function of the American liberal arts college.

vu

COLLEGE ACHIEVEMENT AND VOCATIONAL

EFFICIENCY

Chapter I

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLEGE RANK AND SUCCESS IN LIFE. THE PROBLEM DEFINED

Aside from the sheer interest of the question, it is a matter of no sHght importance to know whether or not the attainment of high grades in college is prophetic of equally great achievement in life. If college is a preparation for life, the student who is most successful in measuring up to its standards should, in the long run, be the most successful in meeting the tests of life. This thesis has been generally accepted by college officials, who have been greatly interested in proving that a positive and close relationship does exist between undergraduate standing and success after graduation. Indeed, the measurement of the relationship in question is the one scientific way of testing the results ot college education.

The worth of the measurement will depend, of course, upon the validity of the measures applied and on the appropriateness of the method used. Care must be taken, also, in interpreting the results of such measurements and in drawing conclusions therefrom. For example, the establishing of a positive relationship will not prove, necessarily, as has sometimes been assumed, that the graduate's success was produced by the studies in which, as an undergraduate, he achieved distinction, and that the college curriculum has, therefore, been acquitted of the indictment of impracticality and aloofness from the real needs of life. Nor would it prove that distinguished alumni had achieved their success because of the hard study which won the high grades in college.^ To the writer it would seem safe to assume from a close, positive relationship between the facts in question, little more than this: that the methods of selection used by the college had succeeded in discovering and distinguishing those individuals who possessed the qualities which would finally operate to distinguish them among their fellows after graduation — that the criteria of college and those of life were identical. This identity, or lack of identity, of measures between college and life outside of college is in itself worthy of test, however.

^ Note the impHcation in the title of Foster's article in Harper's Magazine, Sept. 1916, "Should Students Study?"

I

2 College Achievement and Vocational Eijiciency

On the other hand, a failure to establish positive relationship between the factors in question would admit of several possible interpretations. ^

In the first place it might indicate that the qualities essential to success in college, as now measured, were not the same as those essential to success in life. This conclusion, however, would not necessarily follow. It might easily be true that the lack of relationship was due to a failure on the part of the college to make the course of study appeal to the student as worthy of the effort, the result of which would really test his ability to succeed. In other words it might mean that the course of study was either unrelated to life in any vital way, or that it was so presented that this relationship was not clear to the student and hence, for him at least, did not exist. Until this latter possibility was disposed of, indeed, it would be unsafe to assume the correctness of the first interpretation mentioned above. Still another possible explanation of lack of relationship would have to be considered. It may easily be true that the abilities tested by success in the college curriculum are the same abilities required for success in some occupations and quite different from those required for success in other occupations. By massing the data for all occupations such relationship as exists may be obscured. In order to test this last interpretation, therefore, it would be necessary to analyze the result of our measurement if it were negative by testing separately the relationship in question for graduates in different occupations.

Apart from its obvious value as a check upon the results of college education, a knowledge of what relationship actually exists between college achievement and life achievement could be utilized in a number of important ways. For example, if college authorities could prove to students that the high stand man has a very much better chance of success in life than has the low stand man — if they could prove this on the basis of facts rather than offer it as a professicmal faith — if the success achieved in life is of a kind to stir the ambition and emulation of undergraduates, knowledge of this relationship might be expected to increase student respect for high rank as a goal worthy of attainment and hence of effort. At present it is a well authenticated tact that undergraduates do not so regard high academic rank in spite of the fact that the college has marked it with the stamp of highest approval. The desire for approval is a powerful incentive to human endeavor, but it is the approval of one's peers that counts, and this is

^ Granted always that the measure used is a valid one, and the method of its application is sound.

Relationship Between College Rank and Success 3

especially true in the case of the adolescent. Whether it be true or false, so long as the tradition holds that college life is the thing and that college studies do not count, high scholastic honors will be an incentive of very limited appeal. In any case the attainment ot the mark itself is not, of course, the goal to stress. But if success in the college course is prophetic ot life success, then it is desirable that the honors attached to scholastic achievement be valued by the student as are the equivalent honors in life outside of college. If, however, there is no very close relationship between the factors in question, or if the relationship holds only for certain occupations or when certain measures of success are applied, college authorities should be clear as to the facts when they attempt to use the "success motive" as an aid to winning student respect for scholarship.

The men who employ college graduates, and those who are charged with the responsibility of recommending college graduates for positions need to know the extent to which a student's marks are prophetic of his later achievement. School superintendents, as well as business men, tend very strongly to discount marks as a basis oi selecting men and women for positions. Are they right or wrong? If they are right, the college needs to recognize this fact and to give grave thought to its significance. If they are wrong the college officers charged with the placement of graduates should in fairness to the high grade students try to convince the employing public of its error. This employing public can not be convinced by a reiteration of the beliefs of college officers. These men demand proofs, and if the evidence offered is to have weight with them the measures used for testing success must be measures which appeal to them as valid.

A number of studies of the relation between success in college and success in life have been made. These studies will be reviewed in Chapter II, as a preliminary to the presentation in Chapters III and IV of the writer's investigation of this question by the application of somewhat different tests of success and the use of a different method of measurement.

CHAPTER n

PREVIOUS STUDIES OF SUCCESS IN COLLEGE IN RELATION TO SUCCESS IN LIFE

Dexter 's study of "High Grade Men in College and Out"^ is "an attempt to follow the subsequent careers of high grade men in order to determine their valuation by the world at large . . . The high grade man in college has realized most nearly the ideals of his Alma Mater ... if he fails in life it means that judged by another criterion — that of society in the broadest sense — he is not a success: that the two criteria are different, based upon different ideals, and as a corollary, since life is the final test, that the college ideal is not a practical one and that the aim of higher academic education is false."

The study includes the living graduates of twenty-two typical American colleges which have had a chapter of Phi Beta Kappa for at least twenty years previous to 1900. In the first part of the study membership in this honorary Greek letter society, which includes from 8 per cent to 33 per cent of the highest scholars graduating in any year, was used as the criterion of success in college. Mention in Who's Who was the test of success in life.

The first method of comparison used was to determine the percentage of Phi Beta Kappa men whose names were included in Who's Who, then the number of graduates regardless of rank who attained this distinction. The result of the comparison in terms of percentages is given in Table I.

The table shows lor each college and for the group as a whole the number of living Phi Beta Kappa graduates; the number of Phi Beta Kappa graduates in Who's Who; the percentage of Phi Beta Kappa's in Who's Who; the percentage of living graduates in Who's Who; the percentage elected to Phi Beta Kappa each year (weighted in terms of the number of living graduates); the percentage of Who's Who men, gradu ates of these colleges, who were elected to Phi Beta Kappa.

In interpreting this table Dexter says, "In the two columns d and e, we have the basis of what seems to me an important comparison, the first representing the percentages of high grade men who were successful

^Popular Science Monthly, 62:424.

TABLE I

Comparison of Phi Beta Kappa Graduates and Rank and File Graduates OF Twenty-Two Colleges as to Who's Who Success

[Dexter]

Colleges

Living

P. B. K.

Grads.

P. B. K.

Grads.

in

Who's

Who

%P.B.K.

Grads.

Who's Who

% Living

Grads.

Who's Who

%Who's

Who Elected

a b c d e g

Amherst

Bowdoin _ _

12 23 21 5 33 56

2.6 2.2 1.8 1.7

.8

.4 1.6 4.1 3.0 3.4

.4 2.8 2.3

20 25 25 25 20 12 16

40.3 59.8

Brown

Colgate. -

52.4 57.0

Columbia.-.-

Cornell

Dartmouth

39.6 30.0 45.2

Hamilton . .

45.0

Harvard

Hobart

Kenyon

8 25

40.8 40.0 33.0

Marietta

Middlebury

N. Y. City College___ N. Y. University.

33 33 12

33.0 30.0 10.0 42.0

Rutgers

Trinity. _ ... . .

25 33 25 25

83.0 40.0

Union. . .

34.3

Wesleyan

Western Reserve ..

47.7 45.5

Williams_.

20 12

54.1

Yale

24.5

39.3

^ Weighted in terms of number of living graduates (1432).

in life according to our criterion, and the second the percentage of good,

bad and indifferent college men who achieved success in terms of the

same criterion. The averages at the bottom of these columns are very

expressive — 5.9 per cent for the former to 2.1 for the latter. If we are

to accept these figures our conclusion must be that the Phi Beta Kappa

man's chances of success are nearly three times those of his classmates

as a whole, ^ that the upper stratum of college life is the upper stratum

^ Jastrow points out (Educational Review, 31:25, "Distribution of Distinction in American Colleges") that Dexter's figures as to total number of living alumni are grossly inaccurate. The figures were taken from the New York World's Almanac. They were corrected by Jastrow from actual alumni lists of the colleges in question. Dexter finds that 2.8 times as many Phi Beta Kappa men as alumni in general are found in Who's Who. Jastrow's correction reduces the figure to 1.55.

still when put to the test, and to borrow still further irom the nomenclature of the geologist, the cataclysm of graduation does not produce a subversion of strata."

As a second measure of attainment in college Dexter secured the exact class standing of the graduates of two of the larger New England colleges. Inclusion in Who's Who was again used as the measure of life success. These data not only make it possible to determine the percentage of high grade men included in Who's Who, but also enable us to see the distribution of Who's Who distinction through the lower scholar - ship ranks of the class. The results are shown in Table II.

TABLE II Comparison of the; Distribution of Who's Who Distinction Through Successive Scholarship Ranks of the Class [Dexter]

Divisions of the Class

First 10th of Class- _ Second 10th of Class.

Third 10th of Class_.

Fourth 10th of Class.

Fifth 10th of Class- _ Last Half of Class. _ Rank and File

Percentages in

Who

's Who

5.4

2.9

2.5

1.8

1.8

1.9

2.2

Again the results are impressive, the 1st 10th of the class having to its credit nearly two and one half times as many Who's Who men as the r ank and file of the group. The percentage of distinction decreases, too, as we pass downward through the deciles until we reach the fourth 10th. After that, however, there is no decrease. In fact, the lowest half oi the class furnishes a slightly larger percentage of Who's Who men than do the two deciles just above the middle point in scholarship for the class. Professor Dexter states that this irregularity with reference to the percentage of Who's Who men in the lower half is even more pronounced for those who graduated practically at the foot of the class. He states that his figures for these men are not sufficiently accurate to form the basis of percentages for these tenths considered separately. Professor Dexter is at a loss for an adequate explanation of the situation here revealed. "I know of no way to account for this," he says, "unless it be that those students who were able to keep a foothold among their classmates only with the greatest difficulty gave up all hope of success in t hose pursuits ordinarily chosen by college graduates, following others for which they were fitted by nature rather than by training, but in which competition would be with a weaker class, while those who made a moderate success of college work continued in a losing competition with their classmates." It would be interesting and probably illuminating to know the occupational distribution of each tenth of the group. Unfortunately this distribution is not available.

Foster, in a study of the "Relation Between College Studies and Success in Life," made in 1910, uses the class of 1894 of Harvard College for his subjects.^ He rejects membership in Who's Who as a measure of life success because it unduly weights certain occupations and because "there is a kind of life which does not express itself in offices or publicacations or advertised philanthropy which, nevertheless, the best men of our colleges would be glad to promote, if possible, by the administration of the curriculum." For this measure he substitutes the judgment of three men: LeBaron R. Briggs, dean of Harvard College when these men were undergraduates, Edgar H. Wells, secretary of the Harvard Alumni Association, and Frederick B. Farrington, associate professor of educational administration at Teachers College, and a member of the class in question. There was no attempt by the investigator either to define success or to specify methods or standards for measuring it. Presumably each judge made his own definition of success. He was simply asked to "choose those men who had achieved the kind of success which he would be glad to have Harvard College promote, if possible, by the administration of its curriculum. The only qualification was that men whose careers appeared to be greatly aided by social position or hereditary wealth should not be included in the successful group." Twenty-three men were marked successful by two of the three judges. The report does not offer any facts as to the deviations in the judgments of the three.

The exact academic records of these twenty- three "successful" men were copied, and the number of A's, B's, C's, etc., was used as the measure of scholastic success. As a check group twenty-three men were selected at random, the membership being constituted by taking every fifth name in alphabetical order from the lists of living members of the class of 1894. The exact academic records of these twenty-three men were also copied. The comparative results are given in Table IH.

It will be seen that the "successful" group received about three and one-half times as many higher grades as the group chosen at random. Foster concludes that "contrary to the popular notion, success in college as indicated by marks attained in college courses does give promise of succ ess in later life."

1 Foster: Administration of the College Curriculum, p. 212.

TABLE III

Comparison of the Scholarship of 23 Successful Men and 23 Men Selected AT Random, Showing Relative Rank in All Courses of the Two Groups

[Foster]

Group A 'Successful" Men

Group B Random Selection

A

A

B

C

D

E

Absent

No Returns

B

C

E

Absent

No Returns.

8 1

Nicholson made a study of "Success in College and After Life"^ based upon the high grade men of Wesleyan University. The purpose of the study was to disprove the assertion so often made that the high scholar seldom achieves success in life. As to the definition of success he says, "For the purposes of this investigation, success is to be understood in the sense in which the world generally uses it, too often synonymous with income. For the purpose of^this study is to disprove the assertions that the high scholar seldom achieves success in life, and those who are fond of making such statements have always in mind the practical and not the ideal — the success ot position and income." As a measure of this success in life he selected J mention in Who's Who or such accomplishment as would justify such"" mention. Achievement of scholastic honor was the criterion ofjcollege success. The 16,067 graduates, li\4ng and dead, were arranged in three groups. The first group comprised the oldest graduates, from 1833 to 1859, most of whom were no longer living. Since Who's Who is too recent a publication to include men from these classes,^ Nicholson, assisted by certain of his colleagues, selected those whom he judged to be of Who's Who rank, making use of the data as to their careers found in the Alumni Record. A second group included the classes from 1860-1889. The measure of their achievement was actual mention in Who's Who. The third group consisted of the members of ten recent classes, those of 1890-1899. Since the youngest

^ School and Society, Aug. 14, 1915. 2 The first edition appeared in 1900.

of these classes had been out of college only fifteen years, the Who*s Who record was supplemented by the judgment of contemporaries, three men from each class being asked to pick out the most successful men in their respective classes. As to scholastic record, each of these groups was divided into three sections: (1) honor men (the valedictorians and salutatorians until 1873, then by a new system of honors, from 1 to 7 in a class; trom 1874 to 1906, the average was a little over three to a class); (2) Phi Beta Kappa men (the top third until 1893, after that the upper fourth of a class); (3) plain degree men. The

TABLE IV

Comparison of Various Degrees op Scholastic Honors With Who's Who

Distinction [Nicholson]

Group 1 : 643 Men Classes 1833-1859

Per Cent Judged by Faculty to be of Who's Who Rank

Honor Men

53 167 476

P. B. K.

Plain Degree

Group II: 604 Men Classes 1860-1889

Per Cent Found in 1914-15 Edition of Who's Who

Honor Men _ .

P. B. K

Plain Degree. _

59 185 419

48 31 10

Group III

Per Cent in Who's Who or Judged by Classmates as About to be There

Honor Men

P. B. K

Plain Degree

28 109 311

50 30 11

Total 1667 Alumni

Per Cent of Who's Who Rank

Honor Men _ _ _

P. B. K

Plain Degree comparison of these three degrees ot scholastic attainment with reference to achievement of success in life as measured by Who's Who distinction is presented in Table IV. The arrangement is essentially that used by Rolling wor th. ^

On the basis of these statistics he concludes that "we are justified in assuming, that, for this college at least, the chances of distinction for a high honor graduate, one of the two or three leading scholars of the class, are just even. That one out of three of those elected to Phi Beta Kappa is likely to achieve pronounced success in life; and that each of the remaining members in the class has less than one chance in ten of becoming famous."

In the Harvard Graduate Magazine for March, 1916,^ Knapp reports an interesting study based upon the latest Harvard Quinquennial, in which is recorded the rank attained by certain high grade students His study covers the Harvard graduates from 1851-1900 who were living in 1915. He considers only high grade men, but compares the attainment of various degrees of success in college among this high grade group, with the chances of attaining success in life as measured by mention in Who's Who. His report may be summarized as follows:

TABLE V

Comparison of Different Degrees of Scholastic Distinction with Reference to Percentage Gaining Who's Who Mention

[Knapp]

Living Graduates

No. Mentioned in

1851-1900

Who's Who

Per Cent Mentioned in

Who's Who

First Scholars

First 10 Scholars- - Summa cum Laude Magna cum Laude

Cum Laude

73.3

42.5

41.5

17.2

He concludes, "These figures indicate that rank in college seems to have a relation to success in later life, the percentage of success being in direct relation to such rank, and that the marking systems and examinations really show something of the merits of the man and his chances in the future — a thing which we certainly doubted as undergraduates and concerning which some of us have been skeptical in later life." One other fact is noted by this investigator. Each successive decade of

^ Vocational Psychology, p. 194.

' "The Man Who Led His Class in College— and Others."

the half century shows a smaller percentage of men who have attained Who's Who success. This he thinks is due to the fact that the younger graduates have not yet worked out their salvation and fully demonstrated their worth.

Kunkel's "Standing of Undergraduates and Alumni"^ is based upon a study of the classes of 1876-1905, inclusive, of Lafayette College. Judgment of classmates is used as the criterion of high standing of alumni. Scholarship rank within one's class when the class is divided into tenths or fifths, is the measure of undergraduate standing. Letters were sent to ten men from each class, asking them to select the five most successful men in their respective classes. Each judge was left to define success in his own way, the only limitation being that men who had inherited wealth or position and had done nothing with it should be excluded. Three hundred letters were sent out, and 171 replies were received, but of this number only 123 gave the names of five successful classmates. A number showed hesitancy in making the selection because they were out of touch with their classmates, or felt themselves incapable of judging, while a few had scruples against a supposed injustice to many worthy men who had not become wealthy or conspicuous. Thirty names of non-graduates were sent, though the letters had asked for graduates only, and some of the men included had incomplete records. The final group of successful men studied included 301 names, one-fifth thus being rated as most successful out of a total of 1,593 alumni. In the tables following, the results of the comparison between highest of undergraduates and alumni are summarized.

The tables show that the first tenth or the first fifth of the class in scholastic rank is more likely to be judged successful than are the successive tenths or the fifths below the first, but that among the lower ranks the percentages judged successful fluctuate, with a decided tendency to increase in the lowest fifth of the class.

In respect to this last tendency, Kunkel says, " The frequency with which successful men are found in the last fifth of the class — seems to afford some slight basis for the tradition . • . that the low-stand men in college rank high in life. I suspect, however, that this excess of men in the lowest fifth of the class is due to the more or less unconscious defenders of the low-stand men. At least one alumnus in reply to the letter stated in so many words that he had called successful one man who had done poorly in college because he had so far surpassed the promise of his college record."

1 School and Society, May 12, 1917.

College Achievement and Vocational Efficiency TABLE VI

Percentage of "Successful" Men in Successive Tenths of Class, Rank

IN Class Being Reduced to Percentage Basis

[Kunkel]

Basis of Success

No. of Men

Tenths of Class

Judgment

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5 th

6th

7 th

8th

9th

10th

One or More

Classmates _____

301 150

20.5 26.0 21.2

11.2 10.4 11.2

9.0 12.0 11.2

11.2

10.0

9.9

9.3 8.0 6.2

10.2 8.0 9.0

7.0 5.3 5.6

7.3 3.3 3.4

7.3

7.3

11.2

Two or More Classmates

9 3

All or All but One Classmate

9.9

TABLE VII

Percentage of "Successful" Men in Successive Fifths of Class, Rank

IN Class Being Reduced to Percentage Basis

[Kunkel]

No.

of Men

Fifths of Class

Basis of Success Judgment

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

One or More

Classmates

Two or More

Classmates

All or All but One Classmate

31.7 36.4 32.4

20.2 22.0 21.1

19.5 16.0 15.2

14.3 8.6 9.0

14 3 16.6 21.1

As a further means of throwing light on this inconsistency in the results, Kunkel made an analysis of the "successful" group which to the mind of the present writer is very important. The group was first analyzed as to the occupation of its members, and then the scholastic distribution of each occupational group was determined. As to occupation the group was distributed as follows: lawyers, 65; teachers, 55; business men, 50; engineers, 42; ministers, 40; physicians, 29; iournalists, 11; scientific workers, 10.

The scholarship distribution is given for teachers and business men only in Table VIII.

TABLE VIII

Percentage of Teachers and Business Men in Successive Fifths of the

Class According to Scholarship [Kunkel]

Group

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

62 16

20 18

5.5 22.0

9.1 22.0

3.6

22.0

The distribution of successful teachers, he says, conforms most closely to expectations; that is, that the numbers of successful men will decrease as one passes from the head to the foot of the class. The business group, on the other hand, "formed the only group in which there appeared to be an inverse ratio between class stand and alumni success

. . . This group affords the only basis for the belief which has been mentioned." He expresses the belief that ''the large number of men at the foot of the class who go into business do so because they recognize that the learned professions are closed to them largely because of their scholarship failure." This, he believes, is one explanation for the large percentage of low-stand men who prove successful in business. As a further explanation, he suggests that success in business depends somewhat upon geniality and affability, which he believes lead all too frequently to the undoing of a student's college career.

He concludes that, "While a high stand does not carry with it any sound guarantee of success in after life, on the average, it is wise to attain that rank. Except in a business career, the poor students apparently have a generally smaller chance of success than the leaders in the classroom."