Pub Date Edrs Price Abstract
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED .069 255 HE 003 582 AUTHOR Clark, Burton R.; And Others TITLE Students and Colleges: Interaction and Change. INSTITUTION California Univ., Berkeley. Center for Research and Development in Higher Education. PUB DATE Oct 72 NOTE 333p. EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$13.16 DESCRIPTORS *College Students; *Higher Education; *Student Attitudes; *Student Characteristics; *Student Development ABSTRACT This is a study of differential student recruitment and of changes in student characteristics at 3 highlyselective, distinguished liberal arts colleges; 3 church-related colleges; and 2 large public institutions. The findings indicate how studentschanged from institution to institution in relation to theircharacteristics at entrance. These characteristics includededucational and vocational values; religious, political, and civicattitudes; personality characteristics; and intellectual disposition. Intellectual disposition was a construct and continuum inwhich one extreme represented broad intellectual and estheticinterests, theoretical orientation, and intellectual independence, and theother extreme represented a practical orientation,conventional and less flexible forms of thought, and lack of esthetic interests. Theonly statistically significant evidence of differential changein intellectual disposition was the percentage of students in oneof the elite colleges who changed from a pronounced pragmatic to a pronounced theoretical orientation over the 4 years. The reportof the study summarizes changes on the several scalesof the Omnibus Personality Inventory and changes in attitudesand values. (Author /HS) Ln L.n CV O 1:21 Students and Colleges: Interaction and Chancre BURTON R. CLARK PAUL HEIST T. R. McCONNELL MARTIN A. TROW GEORGE YONGE CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND 1)1iVELOPMENT IN IIICIIElt EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF (:ALIFORNIA, BERKELEY Th eCenter for Research and Development in I uglier Edit- cation is engaged in research designed to assist individuals and organi- zations responsible for American higher education to improve the quality, efficiency, and availability of education beyond the high school. In the pursuit of these objectives. the Center conducts studies which: 1) use the . theories and methodologies of the behavioral sciences; 2) seek to discover and to disseminate new perspectives on educational issues and new solutions to educational problems; 3) seek to add sub- stantially to the descriptive and analytical literature on colleges and universities; 4) contribute to the.systemat lc knowledge of several of the behavioral sciences, notably psychology. sociology, economics, and political science; and 5) provide models of research and development activities for colleges and universities planning and pursuing their own programs in institutional research. Students and Colleges: Interaction andChange BURTON R. CLARK PAUL HEIST T. R. McCONNELL MARTIN A. TROW GEORGE YONGE CENTER FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT IN IIICHER EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY 1972 3 A de nowl edgments The investigation reported herewas supported by a generous grant from the Carnegie Corporation ofNew York. The authorsare equally indebted to themany peoplt on the campuses who extended cooperation and assistance-t hepresidents and other administrators, faculty members whowere interviewed, students who participated ininterviews and the testingprogram, and especially the staff members who provided continuingliaison between the institutions andtheresearchers. Thelatter includedJ. D. Dawson. Ruth Churchill. William Warren. and PaulaJohns at Antioch: Leslie Squire and Frederick Courts (now deceased)at Reed: William C. Prentice and Susan Cobbs at Swarthmore;Dorothy Wells. Charles Palmer and Henry Hall at San Francisco'State; Edwin Betz at the University of the Pacific: Clinton Gilliamand Barbara ,Kirk at the University of California at Berkeley: OrinLofthus at St. Olaf; and Reverend William Botzum at the Universityof Portland. Among members of the Center forthe Study of Higher Education who were engaged inthe project. Harold Webster made a major contribution throughout the conductof the study, and important assistance was given byHelen Barr, Sue Blo land, Adrienne Gilman, Mildred Henry, Julie Hurst,Katherine Jako..Janet Ruyle, Karen Shirley. and Katherine Trow.This list does not byany means exhaust the members of the staffsof the Center for the Study of Higher Education and itssuccessor. the Center for Research and Development in Higher Education.who participated ina variety ways over the long period of research. Support from the Center for Researchand Development in Higher Education and theencouragement of its director, Leland L. Medsker. made it possibleto complete the writing of thereport. The authorsareindebtedtoHarriet Renaud for editing the manuscript. ACKNOWLEOCAIENTS iii 1 THE PROBLEA1 OF CHANCE 2 THE RESEARCH SEMNG: A DIVERSITY OF SCHOOLS AND A1ETHODS 13 3 THE EIGHT COLLEGES 26 4 CHANNELS OF ENTRY 55 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ENTERINGSTUDENTS 101 6 CHANGES IN PERSONALITYCHARACTERISTICS 148 7 CHANGES IN ATTITUDES ANDVALUES 205 8 DISPOSITION TO CHANGE 230 9 THE INSTITUTION AND THEFACULTY 271 10 THE INFLUENCE OF COLLEGE 301 REFERENCES 322 5 The ProblemofChange For the founding fathers,"Education was to be the instrument of change, change of nature ... and of human nature (Commager, 1966, p.4)." Yet during the ensuingtwo centuries, the American people have never fully embracedthis philosophy. That basic skillsof social participationreading, writing, and arithmeticshould be imparted, they havehad no doubt. That knowledge of sheer historical fact is appropriate,they have long and widely supported. But thateducation should reach to the deepest sources of virtue, belief, and character,or even to the highest levels of intellectual criticism,the people have not so completely accepted. In every era, the majority ofparents and society at large have really feared certain kinds ofchange. They have not wanted the schools and colleges toencourage students to appraise, and perhaps to alter, their social,moral, or religious attitudes. They have expected educational institutionsto confirm, not criticize, the values which family and social classhave inculcated in young people. In recent years, many parents have becomedeeply perturbed when college studentshavequestioned acceptedmoralstandards; challenged the values and practicesof a materialistic, acquisitive society; denounced the Vietnamwar and the alliance between industryandthemilitary(andtheuniversities); or flouted established authority. As Commager (1966, p.11) observed, "...at almost every level schoolswere expected to adapt the young to their society; the prospect ofconfronting young people with ideas alien to society has commonlyfilled parents with alarm." That this may be less true of highly educated,upper-middle class parents is suggested by a study (Watts,Lynch, & Whittaker, 1969) of the 1 6 parental relationships of student activists; these students were more likely to have warm associations with their parents even whenthere were ideological differences betweenthem. Nevertheless, a study of students who were admitted to the Irvine campus of theUniversity of California in the fall of 1970 showed that they disagreedsharply with their parents on issues ranging from dormitory rules topolitics. Parents expressed a desire for their sons and daughters to develop independence while at college, but seemed reluctant to lose their influence over them (Oak, W.. 1970). The American people have had a strong faith in education, but the great majority of them have valued its schools andcolleges mare as means of occupational training and social mobility than as instruments for modifying beliefs or alteringpersonal character. Thereisconsiderablevariationamong colleges and universities themselves in theirattitudestoward student development. Some of them, instead of encouraging students to express their feelings more freely and stimulatingthem to approach ideas and social institutions critically and imaginatively, surround students with subtle limitations and constraints. The emphasisin certain institutions, for example,isto strengthen the religious orientations which students had previously acquired in home and church. Others may encourage studentsor at least not discourage themfrom questioning the religious beliefs they had absorbed from their earlier environment, and to arrive independently attheir religious conceptions. Church-related colleges themselves vary in the nature and impact of their religious atmosphere andcommitment. As later sections of this volume will show, students in one such institution changed little on a measure of religious orientation, remaining essentially as conservative as when they entered, while those in another denominational college changed to a more liberal position over the four years. Itis not only institutions with a strong, fundamentalist religious orientation which may circumscribe the range and reach of attitude and intellect. Other colleges and universities, or particular parts ur :nstitutions,such as some professionalschools, may conscinumy or unconsciously serve to confirm or inculcate the dominant values of the occupations or the class to which students aspire. And in contrast, the general climate, or that of a dominant 2 subculture in another institution, may dispose students to a more critical approach toward social and professional values and practices. Those who do not want