FACTORS INVOLVED IN SUCCESS IN

PROFESSIONAL CAREERS

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By EDWIN CLARK LEWIS, B.A., M.A.

**##*#

The Ohio State University 195?

Approved bys ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express his appreciation to

Dr. Sidney L. Pressey for his guidance and suggestions, to Dr. Horace B. English and Dr. John Kinzer for their helpful comments, and to his wife for her unfailing support.

ii TABLE OP CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Chapter I. HISTORY OF THE PROBLEM......

Present interest in Intellectual resources Nature vs. nurture of genius Approaches to the problem Studies of prominent people Summary II. MATERIALS OP THE STUDY......

The Ohio State Group Selection of the group and source of data ‘ Background information Present status Professional activities Appraisals and other information from The Ohio State faculty Other Materials Used Summary

III. THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANT FACTORS IN CAREER...... Present Differences Present positions Present areas of interest Background Differences Size of birthplace Age of receiving degrees Areas in which doctorates were received First positions after doctorate Number of different positions after doctorate Background Factors Making Little Difference Sizes of undergraduate schools Number of different areas Number of children Summary TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd. )

Chapter Page

IV. THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANT FACTORS IN CAREER: QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES ...... 70 Faculty Ratings and Comments Factors Common to All Groups Personal influence Early interests Factors Previously Discussed Factors Not Found in All Groups Health Flexible education Achievement drive Prediction of Later Performance Summary

V. DISCUSSION...... 83 Early start in career Flexible education Utilization of early interests Personal influence Opportunities in first position

VI. SUMMARY...... 95 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 98 AUTOBIOGRAPHY ...... 102

iv LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Size of Birthplace...... 28

2. Age of Receiving Bachelor's Degree ...... 30 3. Age of Receiving Doctorate...... 32 4. Number of Years between Bachelor's Degree and Doctorate...... 33 5. Number Receiving Doctorates Each Year. .... 34 6 . Areas in Which Degrees Were Received...... 34 7. First Position after Receiving Doctorate . . . 35 8 . Number of Different Positions Held during C a r e e r ...... 36

9. Age as of June 30, 1957...... 37 10. Present Position...... 38 11. Areas of Present Major Interest...... 38 12. Convention Participation...... 42

13. Years in Which Doctorates Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 51

14. Age as of June 30, 1957, of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 52 15. Present Positions of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 53 16. Areas of Present Interest of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 54 17. Size of Birthplace of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 55

v LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)

Table Page 18. Ages at Which Undergraduate Degrees Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 56 19. Ages at Which Doctorates Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 5? 20. Number of Years between Undergraduate Degree and Doctorate for Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 58 21. Areas in Which Doctorates Were Received by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 60

22. First Positions after Doctorate of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder .. . 61 23. Number of Different Positions Held by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder .. . 63

24. Number of Pages Published Two and Five Years after Doctorate by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 65

25. Sizes of Undergraduate Schools of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 66 26. Number of Areas of Psychology of. Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 67 27. Number of Children of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder...... 6?

vl INTRODUCTION

The gifted or talented student Is still referred to by many writers as the most neglected person In education. However, a perusal of the literature on this subject Indi­ cates that there has been progress In recent years in the development of special educational programs for the gifted and In an Increased awareness of the need to provide special arrangements for them.

Despite these advances, however, there has been relatively little study of the extent to which environ­ mental factors may play a part in the development of super­ ior talent or ability* Most of the work which has been done with the mentally superior seems to begin with the assumption that their abilities are so much a product of native constitution that the proper educational facilities release these potentialities but have little to do with their nature or amount. Becently there has been increased interest in the notion that a genius may be, to a considerable extent, the product of his environment, and that more attention should be paid to the possibilities of stimulating the realization of potential superior mental ability. Such approaches require, first of all, inquiry regarding environmental factors important in the development of superior persons in various fields. One method whioh has been used in attempts to isolate some of these important factors has been the study of men prominent in various fields to determine what factors seem to have been important in their success. In some studies,

eminent men have been compared with those who are less-so, in an attempt to introduce some sort of control. The most

recent example of the latter approach, and the most relevant

to psychologists, is the study of America's Psychologists by Clark. One of the purposes of this Investigation was

to determine factors which seemed to distinguish between

those members of the American Psychological Association

who were called *significant contributors" or "highly visible," and the psychologists-in-general (11). Although

Clark's work was published after the writer's investigation was already underway, it was possible to revise the present study so as to take into account several deficiencies which seemed to be present in Clark's investigation and others

of this type. One limitation of Clark's study was the narrowness of his criteria for selection of the highly visible people. An attempt was made to introduce broader criteria into the present study by having various members of the Ohio State department of psychology rate the individuals in the group studied as to present worth in the field, thus giving publication less weight in the total evaluation. Separate

ratings were also made as to contributions to society or success in career, whether primarily in psychology or not. A second limitation was that the information used was primarily of an objective and often relatively super­ ficial nature. In what would seem to be a unique approach to this problem, this writer investigated those individuals who received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State Univer slty prior to 1947. Not only could similar objective facts be obtained for the members of such a group, but it was also possible to obtain qualitative Information about these individuals from faculty members who had known them well as graduate students. The third disadvantage of the Clark study was that it was limited to psychologists of recent "vintage," with no attempt made to compare the results with information about other groups. In the present investigation, the Ohio

State group was compared with two other groups of superior scientists: (1 ) the psychologists whose autobiographies are included in Volume TV of A HiBtory of Psychology in Autobiography (23), and the scientists whose early lives are described in Cox's Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses (15). By comparing the information con­ cerning the early development and careers of these various groups, it was possible to Isolate factors which seem to have been influential in their success. CHAPTER I

HISTORY OP THE PROBLEM

Until recently, most of the attention paid to those

with superior mental ability has concerned their childhood

and youth. The leading work on this subject Is that of Terman, whose study of a large group of gifted children

is one of the classics In the field (42), Among others

who have published on this topic are Witty, who has edited

a book on The Gifted Child (46) 5 DeHaan and Havighurst, who

have written a new book on Educating Gifted Children (16); Worcester, who has been primarily interested in the early

education of the gifted (49) j and Miles, who has written the chapter on the gifted In The Manual of Child Psychology

(32). Present interest in intellectual resources.- Lately, however, the problem of the mentally superior has been made more insistent by its relation to the national security. More and more writers are stressing that this country is not using its ablest young people to the fullest advantage

in the cold war with the Soviet Union, a country which is apparently using its brainpower more efficiently. With regard to the differences in higher education between the

two countries, De Witt has reported, 5 6 Higher education is undoubtedly more accessible in the United States than in the Soviet Union. In 1953 the United States had about 5.800,000 persons with completed higher education (college or first professional degree). The Soviet Union had roughly two million persons with completed higher educa­ tion. However, in applied scienoes--suoh as engineering, agriculture, medioine— the number of Soviet professionals with completed higher education was about equal to or somewhat above the number of trained persons in these occupations in the United States (18, p. 255).

It is time that the United States may still be ahead

on sheer numbers, but the Soviet Union is turning out

scientists at a faster rate each year and has a larger

total population from which to draw these people. For

instance, De Witt stated that in 1954 Russia graduated

53,000 engineers, but the United States only 24,000 (18). Therefore, this country needs to lcnow more about what

produces a successful scientist in order to use its poten­ tial supply of technical manpower as efficiently as possible. As Ayers has said, "If it is possible to teach genius

instead of merely hoping it will come along, the future will belong to the society which first discovers how" (2). A recent publication which has done a great deal to

stimulate the realization that this country is wasting much of its intellectual resources and which has suggested ways to improve this situation is a book entitled America * s Besources of Specialized Talent, the report of the Commis­ sion on Human Be sources and Advanced Training by the director of the Commission, Dael Wolfle. He pointed out

that “survival Itself may depend upon making the most effective use of the nation's intellectual resources." He then went on to discuss the present manpower supply in

various specialized fields, the demand there, and ways of increasing the supply (48).

However, it should be noted that other fields of

learning should not be sacrificed to meet the demand for

specialists in the sciences. Actually, according to

de Kiewlet, the lack of trained people in the social

sciences and the humanities may be even more serious.

Neither the social sciences nor the humanities have done nearly as well as the physical and natural sciences in adapting teaching and research to the new context in which American society has its being....It is urged that there be a proper balance between the various skills by which a nation is made strong (24). In other words, the problem is not simply one of better utilization of superior people in the sciences, but rather one of better utilization of thoBe in all fields of learning. In more peaceful times, the problem of the gifted was looked upon with an absence of personal concern by most people as one which affected only a limited part of the population. Now, however, the problem is beginning to be seen as one which affects the security of the entire nation. As Pas sew has pointed out, "To find and nurture talented children and youth Is essential to the welfare of the country as well as to the self-fulfillment of the

Individual. Where talent is not developed or is misused, both society and the individual suffer" (33).

One problem which may hamper the development of

superior mental ability in this country, as Mead has sug­

gested, is that the American culture values only success

which is accompanied by hard work, abstinence, and suffer­

ing. Any degree of outstanding success, particularly suc­

cess which is gained by virtue of special abilities or presumably by special opportunities or nurturing, is represented as cutting one off from the group, especially during the school-age years (30). Nature vs. nurture of genius.- This necessity to use the nation’s mentally superior people more efficiently and to increase their productivity has led to a reexamination of the theory that genius is almost solely a product of heredity. If this theory were true, then little could be done to produce more brilliant individuals except to encourage the mentally superior to have more children. If, on the other hand, genius is thought of in terms of the end product, environmental factors may have a great deal to do at least with the extent to which superior potential is realized. As Lorge has said, "Genius will not always come to the top. Superiority needs nurture to maximize nature* (29). And Miles reported that *the follow- up studies so far made suggest that more effective per­

sonalities emerge when both heredity and environment are favorable." She went on to point out that "history and

biography show few examples of high achievement in adult­

hood along lines requiring special skills of manual or verbal expression where practice has not developed native ability from youth" (32).

This approach is further amplified in a recent

article discussing the effects of the culture on the stimulation or retardation of genius. Cultures in which musical abilities have been esteemed have produced such

prodigies as Mozart, Handel, Haydn, and Chopin. On the

other hand, the American society of today has tended to produce young "geniuses" in athletics since this is an area in which prestige is great* At the same time, a

society may tend to stifle those abilities which in reality it needs most and which will be of the greatest long-term value to it. An analysis of the development of great superiority in various cultures suggests certain factors as important. These include early opportunities for the ability to develop and encouragement from family and friends; superior early and continuing individual guidance and instruction; the opportunity to practice and extend the ability and to progress as one is able; close 10 association with others in the field; and the stimulation of many and Increasingly strong success experiences (34). These examples indicate that there is a need for research, based on this approach, which will illuminate

the environmental factors Important in the realization of superior ability. As Terman and Oden have pointed out, Intellect and achievement are far from per­ fectly correlated* Why this is so, what circum­ stances affect the fruition of human talent, are questions of suoh transcendent Importance that they should be investigated by every method that promises the slightest reduction of our present ignorance. So little do we know about our avail­ able supply of potential genius, and the environ­ mental factors that favor or hinder its expression (42).

Approaches to the problem.- To determine the factors influencing the extent to which superior ability is realized, a number of approaches have been attempted. One of the most common is to determine why some high school graduates with high ability do not go to college, as is too often the case. Wolfle, for example, reported that one-half of the top twenty per cent in ability of high school graduates do not go to college, and two-fifths of the top two per cent do not (48). Similarly, Berdie found that one-third of those with superior ability— defined as a score of 120 or better on the A.C.E. test— did not go to college (4); and Wrenn found in a ten-year follow-up study of the top 16 per oent of the 1938 high school graduates 11 In Minnesota that only 45 per cent had received a bachelor’s degree, while eight per cent had received advanced degrees (50). Wolfle concluded that the United States is wasting much of its talent. College graduating classes oould be twice as large as they currently are, and with no Io b s of quality....Society fails to secure the full benefit of a large fraction of its brightest youth because (they)do not get the education that would enable them to work at the levels for which they are potentially qualified (48, p. 8 ).

A number of writers have attempted to explain why

such a large proportion of qualified young people do not attend college. The two major reasons seem to be lack of money and lack of motivation. An effort is being made to overcome the first problem by an increase in financial aids for promising young people. Examples of nationwide pro­ grams to provide scholarships for worthy students include the Science Talent Searoh and the National Merit Scholar­ ships.

Despite these funds, however, there are still large numbers of potentially promising young people who seem uninterested in obtaining higher education. Causes of this situation have been explored by a number of people. Cole felt that the community can be quite important in stimulat­ ing interest in college. He reported that a community which has a tradition of college-going, good economic conditions, and an adequately supported public school 12 system will probably send more people to college than one

which lacks these advantages (12). Berdle stated that

"the family, and parents in particular, are perhaps the most influential factors determining whether or not children

utilize their potentials." He therefore advocated better

guidance work with parents as a means of stimulating more

able students to attend college (4). Perhaps these

approaches are not so different as they might seem at

first glance, since the attitudes of a community are made

up of the attitudes of individual families. According to Wolfle, the extent to which a person has been successful in school and has enjoyed his studies is a strong determiner of whether or not he will go on to college. He reported that high school grades are better predictors of the probability of entering college than are

intelligence test scores (48). In other words, an individ­ ual is not likely to seek to continue an activity which has been distasteful to him in the past (such as going to

school), even though he might have the ability to do well in a different scholastic environment. In the search for specific ways in which to Increase the number of qualified students who go to college, it seems that enlightened guidance of high school students can be of great benefit. Bothney and Hoens reported a study in which one high school group was given guidance 13 throughout their high school careers while another group,

matched with the first on intelligence and other factors, was not given such guidance. It was found that 27 per cent

of the guided group became honor students, while only ten per cent of the unguided group did so. More important, 53 per cent of the guided group entered college, while only

36 per cent of the unguided group did (38). Thus it seems that proper guidance while students are still in high

school may help to salvage many with high potential who would otherwise be lost. Another way to foster the realization of the poten­ tials of the mentally superior is to devise ways of making their educational programs more flexible. The argument in favor of greater flexibility was supported by Brown, who made the following statement concerning higher educations "The greatest error of all would be for such institutions to meet the increased diversity of talent and need for education with an averaged, standardized education process." He then went on to describe a flexible program which is now in operation at Princeton University (9). One of the foremost efforts in recent years to promote flexibility in higher education has been the series of experiments sponsored by the Ford Foundation. Their studies dealt with (a) improved articulation between three Eastern preparatory schools and three universities; Ik (b) early admission to college; (o) admission to college with advanced standing; and (d) enrichment in the Portland,

Oregon public schools. The results thus far show good

success for these programs (8 ). They are examples of ways in which the usual educational program could be modified so that the superior student might receive the maximum benefit from his education at all levels.

Despite the desirability of special programs, the importance of the Individual teacher in stimulating the mentally superior should not be overlooked. As Cole has said, "Perhaps the most important source of encouragement to future scientists is the teacher....The importance of individual encouragement in the shaping of future scien- tists cannot be overemphasized" (13)* In addition to the general modifications mentioned previously, special arrangements have also been devised to encourage the development of scientists. Among those which are nationwide is the Science Talent Search, spon­ sored by the Vestinghouse Corporation, which selects the outstanding teen-age scientists each year. Those selected have been studied by Edgerton and Britt to find relevant background characteristics. They noted that, despite anonymous choice and equal publicity, certain sections of the country, such as New England and the East coast, 15 have a disproportionately high number of contestants in

the finals, suggesting that there are geographical dif­ ferences in science talent, or in its motivation or nurture (20).

Witty and Bloom have described a number of high schools which have been highly successful in science train­ ing by such means as early identification and guidance, advanced courses, research opportunities, availability of extensive books and materials, science clubs and

organizations, and the opportunity to work with competent

and enthusiastic instructors (4?). A special science program at the Forest Hills High School in New York City

has been described by Brandwein, who has suggested some

ways in which young people's interest in science can be stimulated (6 ),

In this connection, the previous warning to the effect that not all of the nation's talent should be poured into science should be heeded. Special programs to stimulate interest in the humanities and in the social studies should also be considered. Related to the general topic are studies which attempt to examine the differences between achievers and non-achievers. For example, Dowd found that variables which differentiated between the two groups Included high school grades, skill in English, reading skill, study 16 time, study skills, and realism of vocational goals (19). Similarly, In their study of gifted children, Terman and Oden found that the factors which seemed to distinguish

between achievers and non-achievers lnoluded acceleration, an educational tradition in the family, social adjustment, and an achievement drive (42).

Studies of prominent people.- Prominent individuals have been studied to determine factors in their careers

which may have influenced their success. A thorough

discussion of this topic may be found in Differential Psychology, by Anastasi and Foley. Chapter 17 of this book deals with genius and surveys studies of eminent persons in various fields. The same chapter also discusses various theories of genius, such as the pathological, the psychoanalytic, and theories of qualitative and quantita­ tive superiority. The authors take the view that genius, or superior ability in any field, is the upper extreme of a continuous distribution of ability, with no distinctly different powers or entities which distinguish the genius from the average (1). If this is so, then genius is simply the greater extension and development of abilities which the average person has to some degree. This point of view suggests that environmental factors may well be important in determining the extent to which these abilities are developed. With this in mind, a number of investigators have

attempted to isolate important characteristics in the back­ grounds of prominent people. For example, Conant reported

that the states in which the starred individuals in American Men of Science were b o m were not represented in proportion to the total population of the states. In other words, some states have contributed a greater propor­

tion of outstanding scientists than have others. In attempting to account for this discrepancy, he noted that

there is a fairly good correlation between the number of

starred scientists per state and the expenditure per

child for education per state (1*0 , One of the most famous studies of genius, and one

which has had a strong influence on the thinking in this field, was that of Galton. In his early inquiry regarding

hereditary backgrounds of prominent British people, his primary purpose was to show that genius was to a large extent inherited, an idea which was unpopular then (22). He succeeded in making it so popular, however, that since

his time the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and environmental factors have been somewhat neglected. Studies of background factors in the development of eminent people have been made by Visher. In his first publication, Geography of American Notables, he reported that New England has produced the greatest proportion of notable people for its population. He also found that

there were differences in the locations which have produced

notable people within states, related to the locations

where superior people were already settled, or superior

opportunities existed. For example, college communities seem to have produced an exceptionally large number of individuals who became prominent later in life. In addi­

tion, he noted that a larger proportion of leaders were born in oities than on farms. These findings led him to

conclude that the chief factor which determines the birth­ place of leaders is the quality of the population. He stated, "It appears that the areas which yielded most notables are those which contain most mentally alert, ambitious, energetic people possessed of high ideals and not too greatly depressed by poverty, tradition, or ignorance" (43). In a later study of scientists starred in American Men of Science. Visher obtained similar results. He also concluded that "numerous individuals whc possess the biological potentialities of becoming notables fail to do so because of unfavorable environmental conditions*

(44). Knapp and Goodrich examined the undergraduate colleges of 18,000 scientists mentioned in the 1944 edition of Amerioan Men of Science in order to determine those schools which were producing the most notable graduates in proportion to their total enrollments. Most of those schools with the highest index of notables were found to be small liberal arts colleges; only six large unlversities

were in the top fifty (25). A similar study was made by Knapp and Greeribaum of the undergraduate institutions

which produced the most promising young American scholars as determined by those who had received fellowships and

Ph.D.*s recently. Here again, the schools which had produced the highest proportion of promising scholars were private liberal arts colleges, most with religious affilia­ tions, coeducation, and weak fraternity systems (26).

Another approach along this line is to compare notable people in various fields in order to find differences between the groups. Terman did this by dividing the occupations of the men in his gifted study into seven fields. Among other thingB, he found that the group with the poorest early health was the social scientists; that many in the social sciences and humanities arrived at their occupational choices by drifting; that the poorest college grades were made by the social scientists and the non­ research physical and biological scientists; and that the social scientists rated themselves highest and the research physical scientists rated themselves lowest on early social adjustment (41). Hoe both statistically and clinically compared out­ standing social scientists (psychologists and anthro­ pologists), biological scientists, and physical scientists. She found that, in comparison with the other groups,

the social scientists had made a later vocational choice,

showed greater evidence of rebelliousness and family dif­ ficulties in their youth, and had better social adjustment. Taking the groups together, she concluded that the follow­ ing factors seemed to be operating to produce the eminence of these peoples home backgrounds which encouraged

learning; a need to be independent; a feeling of apart­

ness as children; strong curiosity; and a strong achieve­ ment drive (37).

On a more speculative level, Carroll has divided

the kinds of factors involved in determining eminence into

two types: intrinsic and extrinsic. Among the intrinsic factors he has listed ambition, drive, health, physical

size and appearance, race, fluency in speaking or writing, singleness of purpose, the ability to get along with people, and character. The extrinsic factors include economic status of the family, size of home town, marriage, age and manner of death, strength of competition, nature of interests, and period of activity (10). Another study cf genius, although primarily descrip­ tive, is quite relevant here. This is the survey made by 21 Cox of the early development of three hundred geniuses,

In which the IQ's of famous people In history were estimated

and biographical material pertaining to their early lives

was presented (15)• Because of Its relevance to the problem being investigated, this study will be referred to In a later chapter in which the present Investigation will be given a broader perspective.

A further approach to the study of genius has been the comparison of the most and least prominent Individuals

in a particular group of people of high ability, in an

attempt to determine factors which differentiate them.

Terman reported of his gifted group that the most and

least successful differed in the education of their fathers, the cultural level of their homes, the marital status of

their parents (whether divorced or not), leadership, popularity, and the quality of their own marriages. In addition, they differed on certain personality charac­ teristics, such as prudence, self-confidence, perseverance, desire to excel, integration toward goals, freedom from Inferiority feelings, and common sense. Terman concluded that, within this group of gifted people, success was associated with stability (40).

The most recent study of this type, and the one which is the most relevant to the present Investigation, is that of Clark, who surveyed the members of the American Psychological Association in order to determine certain characteristics by which America’s psychologists could be

described. As a part of this study, he selected a group of "significant contributors" and compared them with psychologlsts-in-general in a search for important dif­

ferences (11). As was pointed out in the introduction,

the Clark study has a number of important limitations,

including a narrow criterion of success, an over-reliance on gross descriptive and possibly superficial data, and an absence of comparison with other groups of superior people.

The present investigation will attempt to overcome these limitations. Summary.- Historically, most of the work with the mentally superior has neglected the extent to which environmental factors influence the realization of high potential mental ability. The need for more highly skilled people at the present time to insure the national security has stimulated an interest in the improved utilization of this nation’s intellectual resources, which necessitates an increased knowledge of the ways in which potential abilities can be developed. Previous approaches to this problem have included studies of students of high ability who fall to go to college; attempts to make educational programs more flexible; comparisons of over- and underachievers; and studies of prominent individuals. The latter type of study has resulted in the differentiation of background factors which seem to be common to groups of eminent people, and factors which distinguish between successful and less successful members of the same groups. This Investigation will attempt to overcome limitations of previous studies of this type, particularly those in Clark*s study of

America's psychologists. CHAPTER II

MATERIALS OP THE STUDY

The major purpose of this investigation was to determine factors which seem to be important in stimulating and guiding individuals of high ability so as to realize their potentials. As pointed out in the previous chapter, most of the studies which have been made on this topic have Involved the examination of groups of prominent individuals of various types and from widely diversified backgrounds, with conclusions being drawn from analyses of these data. In order to Improve on this approach, and to isolate factors which might be more meaningful and useful to psychology, three groups of individuals were studied, In part by somewhat special methods, and the results compared.

The Ohio State Group

The group given the most intensive study was composed of the individuals who received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State University prior to 19^7. The examination of such a group has a number of advantages. For one thing, certain records relevant to the early careers of these individuals were available and could be consulted if needed. 2k Moreover, it could be assumed that differences in graduate training would be a less important variable since these people had all attended the same institution. Perhaps the most significant advantage for the purposes of this study, however, was the opportunity to collect qualitative informa­ tion relevant to the personalities, abilities, education, and careers of these individuals from the older faculty members who had known them as graduate students and usually since. In addition, the usual statistical information could be obtained for comparison with the results of previous studies of broader groups.

Selection of the group and sources of data.- The group of Ohio State psychologists studied was limited to those who received the doctorate prior to 19^7 -or a number of reasons. First, and most important, it was felt that a psychologist should be allowed at least ten years in which to establish a career pattern, and that not until at least that long would it be possible to make any satis­ factory estimation of the extent of his success. In addi­ tion, many factors have complicated the picture since the war, such as government-subsidized training programs, which have introduced special variables into the situation.

For these reasons, therefore, no one who received his doctorate after 1946 is Included in this study, although some of the newcomers have already achieved some success. 26 The first Ph.D. in psychology was granted by Ohio

State University in 191?. Prom then through 1946, 163 individuals received this degree. However, it did not seem practicable to include all of these people in this study. For example, it seemed best to exclude the 29 women who had received the doctorate. Many of them have

since married and have left their professional careers, and the careers of others may have been hampered because of the limitations of opportunities for women. It should

be noted, however, that some of these women have made

outstanding contributions to psychology and would be con­

sidered to be successful by any of the criteria applied to the men.

For obvious reasons, It seemed wise also to exclude

the eight people who are now connected with Ohio State University in some way, either as members of the psychology faculty or in some other capacity. Three men were dropped because they had died so soon after receiving the doctorate that the extent to which they might have realized their potential was not shown. Finally, eight were excluded because It was not possible to obtain enough information about them. Altogether, 48 people were eliminated for the reasons described, leaving a total of 115. Of these, nine are now dead; however, it was felt that these should be included 27 since their careers were nearly completed by the time of their deaths, or at least the potentials of their careers were reasonably well indicated. Information ooncerning these individuals was obtained

from a number of sources. Among these were the 1948, 1951, 1955, 1957 directories of the American Psychological

Association; the 1948 and 1956 editions of American Men of Science; and recent editions of Who*8 Who in America and

Leaders in American Education. The number of pages which each person had published was obtained from the Psychologi­ cal Abstracts and the Psychological Index, and the amount of participation at conventions was determined from examination of the convention programs printed in the American Psychologist and the Psychological Bulletin. Background information.- The members of the group were born in many different parts of the United States, and a few outside its boundaries. As would be expected, the largest number were born in Ohio, which contributed 39. Other states which produced more than one of these individuals include Pennsylvania, with 11; Kansas, with nine; Illinois, with six; New York, with five; Indiana and Michigan, with four each; Iowa and Nebraska, with three each; and Colorado, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Vermont, with two each. Fourteen states each contributed one person to the group, os did one 28 territory (Hawaii) and three foreign countries (Canada, Denmark, and Hungary). It was not possible to ascertain the birthplaces of three members of the group. The populations of the communities in which these people were born is shown in Table 1, in terms of the sizes of the cities at the present time. It is evident that the range is quite large. Six of the 104 people for whom this information was available were bora in Columbus, Ohio, the location of Ohio State University.

Table 1 Size of Birthplace More than 500,000 14 100,001— 500,000 13 50,001— 100,000 7 10,001— 50,000 15 1001 — 10,000 26 1000 or less 29 Unknown 11 Total 115

The states in which the members of the group obtained their undergraduate education are also widely scattered throughout the country, with Ohio the leader, 62 of the group having received their undergraduate degrees from a college in this state. Other states which educated members of this group Include Kansas, with thirteen; New York and Pennsylvania, with five each; Illinois and Massachusetts, with three each; Indiana, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, 29 South Carolina, Virginia, and Washington, with two each; and ten states with one each. As might be expected, the

department of psychology of Ohio State University has tended to draw its graduate students quite heavily from Ohio colleges. However, as communication and transporta­

tion facilities have improved during the past decade, the proportion of out-of-state students attending Ohio State is probably increasing. It is interesting to note that

Kansas, which is some distance from Ohio, runs a strong

second as the location of the undergraduate schools of this group. This is due to the fact that one of the early persons to receive the doctorate came from a college In Kansas as a result of a chance contact at a meeting with one of the Ohio State faculty, and was followed by a number of others who had known him there, or thus heard of oppor­ tunities at this school.

The enrollments of the undergraduate schools which these people attended are fairly well distributed* thirty- five attended universities of 10,000 or more, 62 went to schools with enrollments of between 1000 and 1.0 ,000, and 18 attended colleges with fewer than 1000 students, by present enrollment figures. Most of the individuals in the group moved from one institution to another at some point in their education; however, 23 received the bachelor*s, master's, and doctor's degrees all from Ohio State University. The most common arrangement, followed by 39 members of the group, was to come to Ohio State after the bachelor's degree had been obtained at another college, to receive both the master's and doctor's degrees here; but 2? obtained both the bachelor's and master's degrees from the same school and then came to Ohio State for the doctorate; and 19 moved even more, receiving the three degrees from three differ­ ent institutions. Two left Ohio State after receiving their bachlor's degrees, took their master's at another school, and then returned for their doctorates. Five did not receive the master's degree at all, four of these coming to Ohio State after receiving the bachelor's at another school, and, one obtaining both the bachelor's and the doctor's degrees from this institution. Table 2 shows the ages of the members of the group at the time of receiving their undergraduate degrees. In

Table 2 Age of Beceivlng Bachelor's Degree

Age 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Number 4 11 31 24 15 10 5 4 3 2 3 3 Total 115 Median 22. 5 this and subsequent tables the median is used as the measure of central tendency, unless otherwise noted, 31 because the distributions are, for the most part, markedly

skewed, resulting In misleading means. The age range Is from 19 to 30, with a median age of 22.5 a mode of 21, but 20 were past 25 when they re­ ceived their undergraduate degrees. These results may be

compared with a median age of 23 and 17 of 25 and over graduating from Ohio State in 1940-41, an average of 21.5 for college graduates in Who's Who, and an average of 23 years for all college graduates in the country (35, PP- 45-49). Terman and Oden, in their follow-up study of the Stanford gifted children, reported that the median age of college graduation of this group was 21.6 (42). In short, more able Individuals tend to finish college younger than graduates in general— and it might be presumed that these psychologists were, as a group, superior in abilities. More important for the present purpose, however, are the ages at which theBe individuals obtained the Ph.D., as shown In Table 3* Of the five past 40, one was 4l, one 42, two were 44, and one was 50. The most common ages of receiving the doctorate were 27 through 31, with the median age slightly over thirty. These findings may be compared with those of a survey in which it was found that the median age of receiving the doctorate by men in the 1938 edition of American Men of Science was 29.5 (35). 32

Table 3

Age of Receiving Doctorate

Age Number

40 up 5 39 1 38 3 37 2 3 6 4 35 3 3*+ 4 33 8 32 6 31 15 30 11 29 12 28 10 27 13 26 8 25 7 24 3 Total 115 Median 30.4

The number of years elapsing between the time of receiving the bachelor*s and doctor's degrees is shown in Table 4. The shortest period was three years, and one person allowed 28 years to go by between the two degrees. The majority of these people spent from four to seven years between the two, with a median time lapse of about six and one-half years. The number who received the doctorate each year covered by the study is shown in Table 5* Although the first Ph.D. in psychology was granted by Ohio State University in 19X7, because of the exclusions previously described the first man in the group used in this study obtained his degree in 1923. The number increases slowly, then falls off late in the depression and during World War II. Table 4 Number of Years between Bachelor’s Degree and Doctorate Years Individuals Over 15 1 15 5 14 2 13 4 12 7 11 4 10 8 9 5 8 9 7 16 6 20 5 11 4 20 3 3 Total 115

Median 6.5

The areas of psychology in which the doctorates were obtained as indicated by the departmental records is presented in Table 6a. The titles and alignments of the areas have been changed from time to time, designations sometimes being applied because of a special type of interest (such as aviation psychology). Table 6b is an 34

Table 5 Number Receiving Doctorates Each Year

Year Number Year Number Year Number

1923 1 1930 9 1940 7 1924 0 1931 10 1941 5 1925 2 1932 7 1942 6 1926 2 1933 4 1943 4 1927 3 1934 5 1944 1 1928 8 1935 6 1945 3 1929 8 1936 2 1946 7 1937 5 1938 4 1939 6 Total 115

Table 6

Areas In Which Degrees Were Received a. Original Area Titles b. Present Area Titles Title Number Title Number Abnormal 10 Clinical 23 Aviation 1 Educational and Clinical 13 Developmental 31 Comparative 4 General- Educational 31 Experimental 34 Experimental 9 Industrial and General 3 Statistics 23 Industrial 15 Counseling 4 Normal 17 Total 115 Personnel 4 Statistics 8 Total 115 35 attempt to translate the areas in which the degrees were recorded as received into the present area titles. In so doing, the abnormal and clinical areas have been combined as clinical; the educational area becomes educational and developmental; the aviation, comparative, experimental, general, and normal areas are combined as the general- experimental area; the Industrial and statistics areas are combined; and the personnel area changes its title to counseling.

Table 7 shows the nature of the first positions obtained after receiving the doctorate, except for those who entered the armed services immediately thereafter,

Table 7

First Position after Receiving Doctorate Teaching College 43 University 37 Public School Administration 1 School Psychologist 3 Clinic 3 Industrial Psychologist 1 Government Service 12 Research Academic 7 Industrial 5 Government 3 Total 115 36 in which case their first position after leaving the service is given. In this and similar tables, the distinction between college and university was made on the basis of

enrollment rather than the actual title of the institution, the dividing line being 2500 students. Mcst of the

graduates became teachers, a few more in colleges than

in universities. However, 15 went into research work, and 12 entered state or federal positions. In most cases, the positions which these people

originally accepted are not those in which they are now employed. Table 8 shows the number of different positions they have held during their careers thus far. Only about one-fifth have remained in the same Job, whereas an equal number have had five or more different positions, one person having moved nine times.

Table 8 Number of Different Positions Held during Career

Positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 ? 8 up People 22 33 25 13 11 7 2 2 Total 115 Median 2.6

Present status.- The present ages of the members of the group are shown in Table 9. Of the 106 who are still living, the majority are in their forties or fifties, with 37 a median age of 52. The youngest is 38 and the oldest 78.

Many of them are now nearing the end of their careers, and most are at least far enough along that the extent of their success can be ascertained.

Table 9 Age as of June 30, 1957

Age Under 41 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 Over 60 Number 2 21 23 34 16 10 Total 106

Median 51.9

Table 10 shows the positions now held by the members of the group, exclusive of the nine who have died and two who have retired. Comparison with Table 7, giving first jobs after receiving the doctorate, shows college teaching still claiming most, but less them, in the earlier period.

More are now in academic administration and in industrial psychology and consulting work. None are now in any form of public school work. Table 11 indicates the areas of psychology in which these individuals are now active or were at their deaths or retirement. Comparisons with Table 6b (areas in which the doctorates were taken) shows 31 in the educational and developmental area in both tables, and nearly the same Table 10

Present Position Teaching College 28 University 29 Admini stration Academic 10 Business 2 Clinic 1 Industrial Psychologist 3 Consulting 7

Government Service 8

Private Practice 2 Research Academic 3 Industrial 5 Government 2 Private Business 4

Total 10^

Table 11 Areas of Present Major Interest Clinical 21 Counseling 16 Educational and Developmental 31 General-Experimental 15 Industrial and Statistics 32 Total 115 39 number in both in clinical. However, the number in the

general-experimental area has dropped from 3^+ to 15, while counseling has increased from four to 16 and indus­

trial and statistics from 23 to 32. Not only do psycholo­ gists tend to change Jobs during their careers, but they

also tend to change their areas of major interest.

Of the 9^ for whom Information regarding marital status is available, all but four are married, 17 have no

children, 73 have at least one child, five have more than

three, and one person has seven. Professional activities.- The amount of publishing by an individual can be evaluated in at least two simple ways* by counting the number of publications he has produced, or the number of pages. The former method is easier, since it involves (for professional matter) simply the tabulation of the number of citations in the Psychologi­ cal Abstracts. However, it is the writer*s opinion that the latter is more accurate as a measure of contribution to the field, since a book, in most cases, requires a good deal more effort than a Journal article. Therefore, the number of pages will be the criterion used when publication is discussed in the next chapter. However, at this point both methods are included for comparison. Fifteen members of the group appear never to have published; 86 have published between one and 25 titles, and 14 more than 25. Of the 100 who have published, 46 have turned out between one and 100 pages, 39 between 100 and 500 pages, and 15 more than 500 pages. It is evident that a fairly small proportion of the group is responsible for most of the publishing. The median number of publica­ tions is 6.3 and of pages is 81.5; the means are 11.4 and 203.9 respectively. Both measures of central tendency are given because the scatter at the upper end Is so great that there is considerable difference between the two. The Pearson "product-moment" coefficient of correlation between the number of publications and number of pages is

.69, indicating that those who publish many titles also publish most pages. Although the above figures are for quantity of publication, it should be noted that there is evidence of a positive relationship to quality. Thus Dennis found quantity of publication highly related to the number of citations to a man*s work in the literature and the honors received by him (17). This relationship should be kept In mind when quantity of publication is used as a criterion of prominence in the next chapter. Another kind of professional activity considered Important by most psychologists is participation at the meetings of the American Psychological Association and its regional affiliates. The amount of such participation was determined by a thorough examination of the convention

programs published in the American Psychologist and, prior to its publication, in the Psychological Bulletin. Table 12a gives the figures for participation in the national

meetings of the American Psychological Association. The first column shows the number of different papers that

each individual has read at these conventions; thus 59 have never presented a paper. Second is the number of

other activities— e.g., serving as chairman of a section

program, being a participant in a symposium— for each

individual. The third column gives the total number of

times in which each individual has participated in A.P.A. conventions, including both the reading of papers and other activities, and shows that 46 of the 115 men have never participated in any way. Table 12b provides the same information for the conventions of the regional organizations* the Eastern Psychological Association, the Midwestern Psychological Association, the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, the Western Psychological Association, the Southern Society for Philosophy and Psychology, and the Southeastern Psychological Association. Also included are the conventions of the American Associa­ tion for Applied Psychology, now merged with the A.P.A. In Table 12c these coziventions are combined with those Table 12 42 Convention Participation a. American Psychological Association Other Total Occasions Papers Read Activities Participations 16-18 1 13-15 1 3 10-12 1 3 6 7- 9 4 4 10 4- 6 11 10 12 1- 3 4o 25 37 0 59 72 46 Total 115 115 115 Median .5 .4 1.3

b. Regional Psychological Associations Other Total Occasions Papers Read Activities Participations 19-21 1 16-18 1 13-15 1 10-12 1 1 7- 9 1 1 4 4- 6 9 2 14 1- 3 43 29 45 0 6o 83 49 Total 115 115 115 Median .5 .4 .8

c. Total Participation Other Total Occasions Papers Head Activities Participations 22 up 2 3 19-21 2 16-18 1 3 13-15 2 2 4 10-12 3 2 6 7- 9 6 9 11 4- 6 14 10 18 1- 3 47 29 37 0 41 62 31 Total 115 115 115 Median 1.3 .5 2.1 43 of the A.P.A. to show the total amount of convention participation by the individuals in this group. It Is evident from inspection of these tables that only a small minority have participated fairly frequently in any of the conventions. This substantiates the findings of Bennett and Kaye that only a small percentage of A.P.A. members are Involved in the work of the organization (3 ). There seems to be little difference in the amount of participation between the A.P.A. and the other organiza­ tions, and the median number of total participations at all meetings is little better than two; thirty-one people out of the 115 have never participated in any of these conventions, while 18 have been active ten or more times.

Obviously some of these participations (such as presiding at a small section meeting) amount to little, but the total is presumably an indication of professional activity and association.

Appraisals and other information from The Ohio State faculty.- In the previous chapter, the Clark monograph was criticized on the ground that his evaluations were too narrow and quantitative. It was also felt that, neces­ sarily in such an extensive Investigation, many special factors often of great importance in the individual case did not receive recognition. Since the department of psychology of Ohio State University is large and includes 44 a number who have been on the staff many years, and since most of these knew almost all of the 115 men. being studied, these older members of the department seemed a valuable possible source of special Information, Three steps were therefore taken. Perhaps most valuable were the one or more inter­ views in which the writer and his adviser (Dr. Pressey, who had himself been on the staff 36 years) talked over and reminisced about the 115 former students with each of these older members of the departmental faculty. In addition, three of the older faculty with widest acquaint­ ance rated each of the 115 on total success and value to society, rather than simply contribution to psychology. Further, the department is exceptionally broad— Including people in industrial, educational, clinical, counseling, and general— and training people in these various special­ ities. Batings were therefore obtained from the men in each specialty regarding the standing of each of the former students in his present major line of work. It was felt that by these means an intimacy of knowledge of the 115 and a broadness and adequacy of personal appraisal were obtained which could be very Illuminating, and which could not be obtained in most departments or in this one after the older members have retired. 45 Other Materials Used

Despite the amount and variety of the Information concerning the Ohio State people, It was felt that studying

them alone would be Inadequate; other and different groups needed to be considered at least sufficiently so that any

special features might be spotted. A major fault of the

Clark inquiry was said to be lack of a broader perspective. Two other groups were therefore considered, as presented in two source volumes. The first was Volume IV of A History of Psychology In Autobiography. Those included in this volume were Walter Bingham, Edwin Boring, Cyril Burt, Hichard Elliott, Agostino Gemelli, Arnold Gesell, Clark Hull, Walter Hunter, David Katz, Albert Michotte, Jean Piaget, Henri Pleron, Godfrey Thomson, L. L. Thurstone, and Edward Tolman (23).

The other source volume was The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses, by Cox. The 300 were the most eminent persons in history who attained their positions essentially by their own efforts and about whom a reason­ able amount of information was available, as selected by Cattell on the basis of space given them in encyclopedias and similar criteria. Prom this list the writer chose those scientists about whom enough information was readily available that he could use them for comparative purposes. U6 Included were Agassiz, Arago, Berzelius, Bichat, Boyle,

Candolle, Cuvier, Darwin, Davy, Faraday, Galileo, Gay- Lussac, Haller, Herschel, Humboldt, LaPlace, LaVolsler,

Liebig, Linnaeus, J. S. Mill, Newton, Pascal, and Watt

(15). The Information obtained about the last two groups, and the comparisons with the Ohio State people, will be presented in a later chapter.

Summary

This chapter has described the three groups of scientists which will subsequently be compared in order to seek factors which were influential in their careers.

One of these groups consisted of the 163 persons who received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State University prior to 19^7, of whom the 115 men who for various reasons could most feasibly be studied were the center of consideration. The typical man in this group was born in Ohio and received his undergraduate degree from an Ohio college. He obtained his bachelor’s degree at 22 years of age and his Ph.D. at 30. His first posi­ tion after receiving the doctorate was as a college teacher, and he has held either two or three different positions since obtaining this degree. However, the 115 men include a great variety as to specialization in graduate study, types of positions held, and mobility. k? At the present time, the average man is 52 years old. He is still a college teacher, but his area of major

interest may have shifted from that in which he obtained his degree. He is married and has either one or two children. He has probably published something, but not

much. He attends meetings of psychological organizations

infrequently and is not very active professionally. How­ ever, there are great differences in these last respectB.

Concerning the 115 men, a variety of information was obtained from the members of the department of psychology who knew or had known them. Each was rated as to his status in his specialty and as to his over-all success and worth to society, and about each the older members of the department supplied a great variety of reminiscence, anecdote, and appraisal.

For comparative purposes, two other groups were studied: (a) the psychologists in Volume IV of Psychology In Autobiography, and (b) the scientists in the Cox volume on 300 geniuses. CHAPTER III

THE SEARCH FOR SIGNIFICANT FACTORS IN CAREER

The preceding chapter has described the group of

115 men who received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio

State University prior to 19^7 and has also mentioned the two other groups with which they will be compared. This chapter and the succeeding one will deal with the main

problem of this investigation: the determination of factors which are related to success.

In order to isolate such factors in the Ohio State group, the most prominent and the least prominent members were compared in terms of a number of different character­ istics. The most and least prominent were selected on the basis of a combination of four criteria, each of which was given equal weight In the final selection.

The criteria employed consisted of (1) the number of pages each person had published; (2 ) the number of times each person had participated in conventions of psychological organizations; (3) the Important positions held by each person, including full-time Jobs and honorary offices; and (4) the ratings of present status of each person in his area of psychology by eleven Ohio State University faculty members. In maIcing this rating, each faculty member was, 49 as mentioned in the previous chapter, asked to rate each of the individuals who were in his area of Interest on a

scale from one (low) to five (high), leaving blank any whom he felt he did not know well enough to rate. These

ratings were then averaged for each person and this score

was included as the fourth criterion. Each individual in the group was assigned a score

between zero and thirty on each of these variables. The scores were then summated to give an over-all criterion

score for each person, with a possible total of 120. On

the basis of these totals, the twenty most prominent and the twenty least prominent individuals in the original group of 115 were selected by taking the twenty with the highest scores and the twenty with the lowest. These two groups were then compared with each other and with the remaining 75 persons on a number of different charac­ teristics. It is acknowledged that this criterion is indeed somewhat less than perfect and that there may be little Justification, aside from convenience, for giving equal weight to each of these variables. Of course, small dif­ ferences In scores between two individuals may not indicate the true relationship between them. However, since widely, separated groups are being compared, it Is felt that such Inaccuracies would not materially affect 50 the results of the study. Although a more precise criterion might possibly have resulted in a few transpositions of Individuals between the middle and the upper, or between

the middle and the lower, it almost certainly would not

have moved anyone from the upper to the lower twenty, or vice-versa. Therefore, the writer feels that for the purpose of this study it can be assumed that the contrasted groups are validly differentiated.

The significance of the differences between the two groups was determined by means of a non-parametric ranking technique, called the "Mann-Whltney U-test." By means of this technique, the extent of the significance of the differences between two distributions can be indicated in terms of levels of confidence. The question may be raised as to why no allowance has been made for the different years in which the degrees were obtained or for the ages of the individuals at the present time. Some of the differences between the upper and lower groups could be easily explained If the prominent individuals were the older, since they would have had more time in which to attain prominence. Likewise, they might have received their doctorates during periods when status in the field was easier to attain. However, as Tables 13 and l*f indicate, such differences do not exist. Table 13 shows no significant difference in the distribution of years of obtaining the doctorate between the most and least prominent groups, and Table 14 shows no significant dif­ ference in age at the present time. If anything, the least

Table 13 Years in Which Doctorates Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Year Most Least Remainder

1923 1 1924 1925 1 1 1926 2 1927 3 1928 1 3 4 1929 2 2 4 1930 2 7 1931 4 3 1932 1 2 4 1933 4 1934 2 3 1935 3 3 1936 2 1937 2 3 1938 1 1 2 1939 6 1940 1 1 5 1941 5 1942 1 1 4 1943 1 3 1944 1 1945 1 2 1946 1 1 5 Total 20 20 75 Median 1931.5 1932 1934.3

prominent group tends to be slightly older, although age should be an advantage In attaining status. Apparently, 52

year in which the degree was obtained and present age can

be eliminated, for the purpose of this study, as important

factors in attainment of prominence.

Table 14

Age as of June 30, 1957, of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Age Most Least Remainder Over 70 1 66-70 4 61-65 1 1 3 56-60 1 4 11 51-55 9 6 19 46-50 3 4 16 41-45 5 2 14 36-40 2 Deceased 1 2 6 Total 20 20 75 Median 52.2 5^.0 52.1

Present Differences

Present positions.- Table 15 shows that the groups differ with regard to the positions in which the members are presently employed. The 19 active individuals in the most-prominent group are in universities, or are engaged in administrative, consulting, or research work. On the other hand, most of the 17 members of the least prominent group who are still active are in colleges or in government service, with a small minority employed by universities or in administration. Apparently, those individuals now

prominent in psychology tend to be in positions in which they have the opportunity to be productive and Influential, whereas the least prominent are in situations usually not

Table 15 Present Positions of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Position Most Least Remainder

Teaching College 8 20 University 10 4 15 Administration Academic 2 1 7 Industrial 1 1 Clinic 1

Industrial 3 Government Service 4 4 Private Practice 2

Consulting 2 5 Research Academic 2 1 Industrial 1 4 Government 2 Private Business 1 3 Retired 1 1

Total 19 18 69 providing such opportunities. The question may be raised as to whether, if the latter individuals were in positions providing greater opportunity and stimulation, they would be more prominent. This problem will be discussed later. These data show some correspondence with Clark's comparisons between the Significant Contributors and Psychologists-ln-General. However, he did not distinguish between colleges and universities, a distinction which seems from the date presented here to be quite important. Present areas of interest.- There are also some differences in the areas of psychology in which the members of the contrasting groups are now or were last interested, as indicated in Table 16.

Table 16 Areas of Present Interest of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Area Most Least Remainder

Clinical 2 6 13 Counseling 2 6 8 Educational and Developmental 3 6 22 General- Experimental 4 1 10 Industrial and Statistics 9 1 22

Total 20 20 75 Background Differences

Size of birthplace.- Table 1? shows the number of people In each group who were born In communities of various sizes. Although the data are Incomplete, they suggest that the most prominent Individuals tended to have been born In larger communities, the difference being signifi­ cant at the one per cent level of confidence.

Table 17 Size of Birthplace of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Population Most Least Remainder

Over 100,000 8 2 17 50,001— 100,000 2 5 10,001— 50,000 5 2 8 1001— 10,000 4 5 17 1000 or less 1 5 23 Unknown 6 5 Total 20 20 75 Median 55* 000 2500 6000

Age of receiving degrees.- Table 18 shows the ages at which the undergraduate degrees were received by the most and least prominent members of the group. Although the contrast Is not great, there is nevertheless a dif­ ference of one and one-half years in the median ages, 56

which is significant at the one per cent level of confidence. In addition, the least prominent group shows a wider range

of ages.

Table 18 Ages at Which Undergraduate Degrees Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Bemalnder

Age Most Least Remainder

30 1 2 29 1 2 28 2 27 3 26 1 2 1 25 2 3 24 3 7 23 3 3 9 22 7 4 13 21 7 3 21 20 2 9 19 1 3 Total 20 20 75 Median 22.1 23.7 22.3

Even more striking, however, is Table 19, which shows the ages at which the most and least prominent individuals received their doctorates. The difference between the medians is three and one-half years, which Is significant at the one per cent level. Both Tables 18 and 19 Indicate that the members of the most prominent group tended to have completed both undergraduate and professional education younger than 57 the others, Clark foimd the same to he true. Table 20 shows the number of years spent between the undergraduate degree and the doctorate by the most and least prominent Individuals. The difference of almost two and one-half years is significant at the one per cent level of confi­ dence. This Is quite similar to the results of Clark's study* he found a difference of about three years between the medians of the Significant Contributors and the

Psychologists-in-General in this respect.

Table 19 Ages at Which Doctorates Were Obtained by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Age Most Least Remainder

40 up 3 2 39 1 38 1 2 37 2 36 4 35 1 2 3^ 1 3 33 2 1 5 32 1 5 31 2 4 9 30 2 4 5 29 1 2 9 28 3 1 6 27 2 1 10 26 3 5 25 3 4 24 2 1 Total 20 20 75 Median 28.0 31.5 30.5 58 There is thus considerable evidence that the most prominent psychologists tend to have reached the various stages of higher education earlier than the least prominent ones. However, in all respects there is considerable overlap between the two groups.

Table 20 Number of Years between Undergraduate Degree and Doctorate for Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Years Most Least Remainder 16 up 1 15 5 14 1 1 13 1 3 12 7 11 1 3 10 2 2 4 9 1 1 3 8 2 5 2 7 4 2 10 6 1 5 14 5 1 10 4 8 1 11 3 1 2 Total 20 20 75 Median 5.5 7.9 5.8

One reaction to these age differences might be that they are to be expected since those who had the motivation to obtain their education early would also have been motivated to attain success. On the other hand, it should be noted that those who finished early had

a two-fold advantage over those who finished later: (1) They had a longer period of time in which to attain prominence, having completed their education sooner; and

(2) they finished their formal education while still in

the age range during which Lehman found the best work in nearly all fields of endeavor to have been produced: the late twenties and the thirties (28). In other words, the differences in prominence between these individuals may not have been entirely the result of differences in their native abilities. Circumstances affecting age of completing education and beginning career may have played a considerable part, and these circumstances might be of a sort which could be changed to further the success of future psychologists. Areas in which doctorates were received.- Table 21 shows the areas in which the most and least prominent individuals received their doctorates, by present area titles. Judging from these data, the best area in which to begin in order to become prominent was general-experi­ mental. This is plausible, since this area concerns theory and research and has therefore tended to draw people into it who were interested in research; it has little applica­ tion or service work to absorb time and energy. On the other hand, the least favorable balance is In the clinical 60 area, since it deals more In applied work which is less likely to make a strong Impact on the general field of psychology.

Table 21 Areas In Which Doctorates Were Received by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Areas Most Least Remainder

Clinical 2 6 15 Counseling 1 1 2 Educational and Developmental 5 7 19 General- Experimental 7 3 24 Industrial and Statistics 5 3 15 Total 20 20 75

It is interesting to compare these data with those in Table 16, which showed the areas of present interest of those in both groups. It is evident that the indus­ trial and statistics area has drawn some of the most prominent people from the others (particularly from general-experimental), while counseling has drawn some of the least prominent people from other areas. First positions after doctorate.- A striking dif­ ference between the most and least prominent Is evident in Table 22, which shows their first positions after receiving the doctorate. Four-fifths of those now best-

known began their careers either in a large university or

in some sort of research work, whereas only one-fifth

Table 22 First Positions after Doctorate of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Position Most Least Remainder Teaching College 3 9 31 University 11 4 22 Public School Administration 1 School Psychologist 2 1

Clinic 3 Industrial Psychologist 1

Government 1 3 8 Research Academic 2 5 Industrial 1 4 Government 2 1

Total 20 20 75

of the least prominent individuals began in such settings. It is probable that these kinds of positions offer more in the way of facilities, time, and opportunities for research and also more professional contacts than do the others. Whether the individual with superior ability will 62 seek or be able to obtain this sort of position or whether

the position produces superiority is a question to be discussed later.

Table 22 may be compared with Table 15, which showed the present positions of these individuals. Apparently

the three people in the most prominent group who began in small colleges are no longer there. This suggests that for a person to begin his career in a small college does not necessarily mean that he will not become prominent in psychology, but the longer he stays there the poorer become his chances of attaining prominence, Clark also found that a large proportion of psycholo­ gists began their careers in an academic setting and that the Significant Contributors were more likely to have done so than were the others. However, he did not distinguish between colleges and universities so that a comparison with his findings on this feature cannot be made. The writer feels that this is an important distinction, since the duties, the facilities and opportunities, and the professional contacts are quite different in the two types of institutions. Number of different positions after doctorate.- Table 23 shows the number of different positions which the most and least prominent individuals have had since receiving the doctorate. Although the difference between 63 the two groups is not great, it is nevertheless significant at the one per cent level, indicating that those who are now prominent have changed Jobs more frequently. Perhaps this means that one needs to move around a little in order

Table 23 Number of Different Positions Held by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Positions Most Least Remainder 10 1 9 8 1 7 2 6 2 1 4 5 3 3 5 4 2 2 9 3 4 2 19 2 4 5 24 1 3 7 12 Total 20 20 75

Median 3.3 2.1 2.6

to acquire a broad perspective and to widen his profes­ sional contacts. On the other hand, it may mean that some of the members of the most prominent group had a strong achievement drive and therefore moved from one job to another until they found one in which they could be successful. The latter hypothesis is supported by the fact that a few members of this group have remained in the same positions in which they began their careers, 64

suggesting that they found that they could achieve success

in their first positions without further exploration. Early publication.- Table 24 shows the number of pages published during the first two years and during the

first five years after the doctorate by the most and least

prominent individuals. The differences are obvious. By

the time they were two years past their doctorates, all

but one of the twenty who were to be prominent had pub­

lished at least one article, whereas only seven of the

twenty who were not to achieve prominence had published anything, and only one of these had published more than fifty pages. After five years past their doctorates,

all twenty of the most prominent group had published at least fifty pages, while nine of the least prominent group had still not published at all. A momentary departure from comparison of most and least prominent persons of the total group provides further evidence of the importance of early publication. The Pearson "product-moment* coefficient of correlation between the number of pages published during the first two years and the total number published during a career was found to be .61, while the correlation between the number of pages published during the first five years and the total number was .56, Apparently, early publication is a good 65 predictor of probable total publication, the number of pages during the first two years being slightly more accurate.

Table 24 Number of Pages Published Two and Five Years after Doctorate by Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Most Least Remainder Pages 2! yrs. 5 yrs. 2 yrs. 5 yrs. 2 yrs. 5 yrs.

451— 500 l 401— 450 1 351— 400 1 301— 350 2 251— 300 2 2 3 201— 250 2 1 1 3 151— 200 1 l 1 2 101— 150 1 5 6 6 51— 100 9 7 1 1 13 18 1— 50 4 6 10 38 31 0 1 13 9 16 11 Total 20 20 20 20 75 75 Median 76 130 1 10 24 43

Background Factors Making Little Difference

The preceding sections have presented factors in the backgrounds of the most and. least prominent members of the Ohio State group which showed differences between them. However, not all of the factors studied produced such differences. 66 Sizes of undergraduate schools.- The sizes of the colleges or universities at which the undergraduate degrees were obtained are shown In Table 25. The distributions do not differ significantly.

Table 25 Sizes of Undergraduate Schools of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Enrollment Most Least Remainder Over 20,000 5 2 19 10,001— 20,000 2 7 5001— 10,000 1 5 17 2501— 5000 5 5 1001— 2500 10 k 15 1000 or less 2 k 12 Total 20 20 75 Median 2000 3500 7600

Number of different areas.- Table 26 shows the number of different areas in which the members of the contrasting groups have been engaged. Presumably changing from one area to another does not necessarily Increase one's changes of attaining prominence, since there is no significant difference between the groups. Number of children.- Table 27 shows that, although there is a slight tendency for those in the most prominent group to have larger families, the difference is not significant. In this case, the lack of a significant Table 26

Number of Areas of Psychology of Twenty Most and Least Prominent and Remainder

Areas Most Least Remainder

4 1 9 3 4 4 9 2 10 9 30 1 5 7 27 Total 20 20 75 Median 2.0 1.8 1.8

Table 2?

Number of Children of Twenty Moat and LeaBt Prominent and Remainder

Children Most Least Remainder 7 1 6 5 1 4 1 2 3 4 1 10 2 8 1 22 1 3 4 15 0 4 2 11 Unmarried 1 3 Unknown 1 10 10 Total 20 20 75 Median 1.7 1.1 1.7 68

difference ia interesting, since it seems to disprove two

conflicting assumptions: that a large family is a handi­

cap in attaining prominence, or that a large family

motivates a person to attain status.

Summary

This chapter has attempted to isolate some of the

factors which differentiate the twenty most prominent and the twenty least prominent professionally of the group of

115 men who received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State University prior to 19^7. The most and least promi­ nent were determined by a combination of four criteria: number of pages published, amount of participation in conventions of psychological organizations, positions of importance, and ratings by faculty members in the department of psychology at Ohio State University. Three factors seem to be strongly associated with success. First is the age at which the various academic degrees were obtained. The most prominent received the undergraduate degree one and one-half years earlier and the doctorate three and one-half years earlier than did the other group. The second factor is the position which a man enters after receiving the doctorate. Sixteen of the twenty most prominent began either by teaching in a university or in research, whereas twelve of the twenty

least prominent began either in a college or in the public schools, while only five began in a large university or in a research position. The third major factor is early publication. Even within the first two years after

receiving the doctorate, there is a marked difference between the most and least prominent individuals.

Apparently, those who do not publish soon after receiving

the doctorate are not likely ever to become well known professionally. CHAPTER IV

THE SEARCH FOR SIGlflFICANT FACTORS IN CAREER: QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES

Thus far the data presented with regard to signifi­

cant factors promoting visibility have been primarily of

the quantitative sort. They have also been similar to data emphasized in many other studies of eminent people, as described earlier. But to leave the investigation at this point, as many previous studies have done, would be

to ignore certain types of information difficult to treat

statistically but nevertheless highly important for both appraisal of career and understanding of influences affecting It.

Faculty Ratings and Comments

In an earlier chapter two advantages were mentioned of studying a group of men all from the same university: They have come through similar graduate programs, and certain faculty members long in the department remembered them well. These older faculty were able to supply informa­ tion about these Individuals concerning their backgrounds and experiences, and the ways in which these factors seem to relate to their present status. This information in 70 71 turn has suggested certain ways in which educational programs might be improved so as to promote greater suc­ cess among graduates, in addition to those improvements which can be inferred from the quantitative data already discussed.

It has been mentioned that the criteria of profes­

sional status were broader in this investigation than in many others because of the inclusion of ratings by certain members of the departmental faculty regarding the status of each of the Ohio State alumni in his special field of psychology. For the most part, these ratings were in close agreement with the other evidence regarding profes­ sional activity, such as amount of publication and conven­ tion participation. However, there were occasional dif­ ferences. Those who knew him agreed that the numerous publications of one man were of negligible worth and so rated him as a psychologist, though certain of the objective criteria put him higher. In contrast, the two faculty members who knew him well agreed that another man who had published little and was not active in associations was an outstanding teacher, an Important influence In his university, and very Influential in his field of psychology in his state. Such instances were only occasional 5 but there were enough of them— and the ratings were sometimes sufficiently corrective of other evidence— to suggest that, 72 where possible, judgments as well as objective data should

be lnoluded In professional evaluations. It would have been well If Clank could have Included such ratings. However, it was evident from the faculty interviews and other evidence that broader appraisals than ratings of statuB in psychology as a scienoe or contributions thereto of the usual sort needed to be Included. An Important group of the alumni had gone Into academic or other administration work. Others had gone into industry or government service or research, where publica­ tion and similar evidence of activity were often not feasible. Therefore, certain of the older faculty were asked to rate all of the 115 men again, on total success in career and value to society. Again, most standings changed little, but some changed considerably. In a science reaching as widely as psychology and a department as broad as the one at Ohio State, some such broad evalua­ tion seemed especially desirable, and the Clark Investiga­ tion was at fault in not giving more recognition to such individuals. Heminiscen.ces by the faculty about former students were often of decided value. However, they mostly involved special factors such as Included In Psychology in Auto­ biography and the biographical material regarding the Cox 73 "geniuses.*' They will therefore be included in the next

section.

Factors Common to All Groups

One of the major problems in dealing with qualitative material is that of organizing it in some meaningful manner.

The factors discussed below are those which seemed to the writer to be evident in comparisons of the three groups: the Ohio State cases, the Cox cases, and the autobiographies. It might be said that the method used was a sort of implicit, non-matheaatica1 factor analysis. When possible, discus­ sion of the factors is bolstered by references to specific individuals in one or more of the three sources; however, references to those in the Ohio State group are not made by name. Personal influence.- One factor which seems to be quite important, especially to the young person, is the influence on him of a special Individual. This influence may take two forms. In many cases, an Individual's interest has been directed into a particular type of work because of the influence of an older person there. In graduate education, a faculty member with a strong Interest in a fairly specialized topic may orient a student in this direction, and a fruitful career may follow. For example, two graduates of Ohio State University are active in driver ?4

research, an interest which they apparently acquired from

a faculty member who was working in this area when they

were students. Another student did his doctoral disserta­ tion on a subject which was of special Interest to his

adviser. As a result of this study, he was hired to do

further research along the same line by a large industry for which he is now director of research. In the volume of autobiographies, among those who reported having been stimulated by psychologists in choosing specific careers were Boring, Burt, Elliott, Gesell, and Hunter. Among those in the Cox group for whom a personal influence seems to have been an important factor were Agassiz, Bichat, Candolle, Linneaus, and Faraday. In addition to steering an individual into a par­ ticular area of work, personal contact can also be a factor in his obtaining an important and stimulating posi­ tion. A number of those in the most prominent Ohio State group owed their first and distinctly favorable jobs to such a contact. Similar instances can also be found

in the autobiographies and in the Cox volume. Early interests.- Early interests were clearly an important feature of the careers of many of the scientists Included in the Cox volume. For example, Davy was inter­ ested in natural history In early childhood; Pascal worked out the basic principles of geometry before he was twelve; 75 Newton showed an interest as a child in construction and invention; Darwin liked to collect natural history objects

before he was eight; Berzelius was interested in botany at

eight; Liebig used his drugglst-father*s laboratory for chemistry experiments at twelve. Probably because

psychology is a relatively new science and because it is

not usually taught in secondary schools, psychologists

seem not to have shown early interest in their science and to have made their final vocational choices fairly

late in their education. However, early Interests not strictly psychological may nevertheless be utilized in a psychological career. For example, Thurstone's early mathematical interests, which first led him into engineering, appeared in his later work in psychological statistics. The Ohio State group provides a number of Instances in which early Interests were thus influential in later success. Before attending graduate school, one man was for a short time an industrial arts teacher. He also had an adviser whose hobby was

radio. As part of his doctoral dissertation he constructed an apparatus which attracted the attention of the officials of one of the large radio networks. He was hired by this company and is now its president. Had his interest and ability in the construction of apparatus not been recog­ nized he might never have obtained this opportunity. 76 Another man Interested In music became an authority on aesthetics and obtained a university position partly as a result of this Interest. A third utilized his early

Interest and experience in the business world for a career in industrial psychology.

Factors Previously Discussed

A number of the factors for which quantitative dif­ ferences were found between the most and least prominent of the Ohio State group are also evident in the other source materials. Thus nearly all of the soientists in the Cox volume completed their formal education early, had an important and stimulating first position, and published early. For example, Davy published at twenty and was a lecturer at the University of London at 22; Cuvier graduated from the Gymnasium at 14 and from the academy at Stuttgart at 19; Pascal first published at eleven and Mill at 17J Haller received his M.D. at 19; Agassiz published at 20, received the Ph.D. at 22 and the M.D. at 23, and was appointed professor at Neuchatel at 24; Candolle first published at 21 and Humboldt at 19; Arago received a degree in mathematics at 19; LaPlace was / professor of mathematics at the Ecole Mllltalre in Paris at 18; Darwin first published at 1? and Berzelius at 21; Liebig published his first paper at 18, and at 20 received 77 his doctorate in ohemistry and became an associate professor at the University of Giessen,

The same characteristics are true of some of those in Psychology in Autobiography. Most of the men in Volume IV received their doctorates before they were thirty, most

began their professional careers In a university, and most published early in their careers. For example, Bingham

went to Columbia after receiving his doctorate and Boring went to Cornell; Elliott received his doctorate at 26 and

took his first position at Harvard; Hull stayed at Wisconsin after receiving his doctorate; Hunter received his B.A. at 21 and his Ph.D. at 23, published his first paper at

22, and took his first position at the University of Texas; Thurstone first published at 18 and went to Carnegie Tech

after his doctorate; Tolman went to Northwestern after receiving the doctorate. Among the Europeans in Psychology in Autobiography, early professional recognition was even more common. For example, Katz received his Ph.D. at 22 and published the same year; Piaget published his first paper (on mollusks) at ten and received his Ph.D. at 22; Pieron first pub­ lished at 19. It Is recognized that the present-day American professional situation Is different from that of earlier times, particularly the period in which Cox’s group was ?8 active. However, it seems regrettable that such opportuni­

ties for early professional recognition hardly exist in psychology today.

Factors Not Found in All Groups

In addition to the characteristics thus far dis­

cussed, the data from some of the groups suggest factors

which, for a number of reasons, do not appear in all of

the others.

Health.- The generalization from the groups studied seems to be that the more recent the period in which the

people have lived the less important poor health is as a factor in success, either as a stimulator or a handicap.

In the Cox volume, there is evidence that many of the scientists were in poor health. For example, Haller

had rickets as a child; Candolle was delicate; Humboldt was a weak child; Watt had periods of ill health in child­ hood and as a result attended school irregularly; Pascal was ill most of his life, dying at the age of 39. This factor seems to be much less evident in the autobiographies, only Hull and Tolman having mentioned physical disabilities. Poor health seems to be even less important in the Ohio State group. Only two were noted by the faculty as having been in poor health, and neither of these has been par­ ticularly successful. Part of this difference may be due 79 to differences in the kinds of data used for each group, but the better health of the recent groups may simply be a reflection of general better health in more recent times.

Flexible education.- This term refers to the fact that a large number of the scientists in Cox’s volume had

an irregular education, and did not progress through the

schools in the lock-step method so common today. In many

cases they had private tutors as children or were taught by members of their own families, John Stuart Mill being an outstanding example of the result of the latter form of education. These individuals could thus move at their own speed, delve deeply into subjects which interested them— often at the expense of the "cultural" subjects of the day— and complete their formal education at an earlier age. In addition, in this earlier period the requirements for academic positions were apparently baBed less on amount of formal education and more on actual ability. Many of these people thus obtained positions at early ages which they could not obtain at the present time. There are Indications that the present-day lock-step method extends, at least to some extent, through the doctoral program; certainly a scientist’s chances of obtaining an important position without the prerequisite degrees are slim Indeed. 80 The writer is not advocating the irregularities and

special characteristics of European education of 200 years ago, nor is he suggesting that professional requirements should be eliminated as standards for academic positions.

However, these data do have implications for modern educa­ tion, some of which will be discussed in the next chapter. Achievement drive.- This is a factor which seemed to be evident particularly in the Ohio State group; unfortunately it was not the sort of thing examined by Cox. The Ohio State faculty members who were interviewed mentioned concerning at leaBt five of the people in the most prominent group that, as graduate students, they had showed a strong drive to succeed. On the other hand, four of those in the least prominent group were noted as having had little ambition as graduate students. In addition, both Boring and Tolman emphasized their strong achievement drives in their autobiographies.

Prediction of Later Performance

Presumably faculty members of long experience in a graduate program would develop considerable ability to estimate the extent to which a new graduate will probably be successful. Such seems to have been the case for the Ohio State faculty who were interviewed. They remarked concerning a number of the former students in the least prominent group— without knowing that they had been thus differentiated— that their performances as graduate students were poor and that very little had been expected of them. In addition, each faculty member interviewed was asked which of the graduate students whom he had known had surprised him by their later achievements, being either considerably higher or lower than had been expected. Surprisingly few of the individuals were mentioned as having been predicted inaccurately. However, when such a situation did occur, the discrepancy was usually in the direction of underachievement rather than overachieve- ment. The faculty apparently felt that some of those who are not very prominent in the field should be doing better, indicating that these individuals had the ability but had not been stimulated to use it. Of course, these opinions were expressed later, but are believed a fair recollection of Judgments of these people when they were students.

Summary

In this chapter various factors, largely qualita­ tive, which seem to have been important in the development and early careers of the Ohio State group, the psychologists in Volume IV of Psychology in Autobiography, and Cox's scientists have been described. These included factors 82 common to all groups, such as personal Influence and early interests; factors previously discussed, such as early start in career, first position of high potential, and early publication; and factors not found in all groups, such as health, flexible education, and achievement drive. Examples from the three groups were introduced when relevant. In addition, the problem of prediction of later success from graduate school performance was briefly touched upon. CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

Certain implications which the materials presented in the previous chapters have for higher education, and especially for dootoral programs in psychology, remain to be discussed. Five generalizations and recommendations are presented.

Early start in career.- The data indicate that the earlier a person begins his professional career the more likely he is to become prominent. Both the Ohio State cases and the psychologists studied by Clark who were highly visible had, for the most part, received both their undergraduate degrees and their doctorates at an earlier age than had the others, and were therefore started on their careers earlier in life. The same is true of many of the psychologists whose autobiographies were studied and for the scientists in Cox's group. Many of the latter especially began their careers early. To be sure, an individual's prominence is probably at least partially due to the same motivation which spurred him to complete his education quickly. Never­ theless, it cannot be overlooked that these men also had more of what is called the "prime of life" in which

83 6k to operate than did the others. It will toe recalled that Lehman, in a series of studies of eminent people in many different fields, found that the most outstanding creative work was done, for the most part, while the men were in their twenties or thirties (28). Therefore, the earlier in this period that a man begins his career, the greater should be his chances of making a significant contribution to the field.

On the other hand, the man who completes his formal education later in life is handicapped in many ways. For one thing, he probably no longer has the energy and initiative which he had when he was younger. There is probably a greater temptation on his part to find a posi­ tion with security and little emphasis on production as a criterion of salary and promotion. In addition, he has probably already begun raising a family, thereby assuming additional responsibilities. Many factors may thus conspire against such a person to make it difficult for him to utilize his ability as well as possible. Not only are an individual's chances for success better if he starts early, but they improve greatly if he begins various professional activities early in life. Nearly all of the prominent people studied— by Clark, by Cox, those in the autobiographies, and those in the Ohio State group— began to publish early in their professional careers. Very few of those who waited until later in life to publish achieved prominence in the field. In various phases of one's career, therefore, an early start is important. What does this mean as far as education is concerned? Increased use of various methods for facilitating the progress of bright students, both in the public schools and in the colleges, would seem desirable. Various such methods have been described by Pressey (35) and by DeHaan and Havighurst (16). It is possible that more could be done to reduce the time spent in graduate education. One obvious need is for increased financial support for qualified young people, not only for their undergraduate degrees but also for their graduate education. Many could then attend school full-time who now must find part-time work In order to support themselves. In addition, it might be desirable to encourage students to complete their doctoral programs more quickly than they now do. Many students do not realize the value of an added year in their careers during this period and therefore do not push themselves to finish their education early. Another suggestion is to reduce the number of courses taken and to provide greater oppor­ tunities for wide reading under the guidance of faoulty members. Advanced undergraduates might be allowed, some­ what more than at present, to anticipate their graduate 86 programs in order to speed their graduate education. It will be recalled that Clark found his most visible people

to have most often majored in psychology as undergraduates. Another aspect of graduate education which might

be improved in order to facilitate progress is the planning which the typical candidate gives to his graduate program. Although he knows the various stages through which he must go in order to obtain the doctorate, In many cases he does

too little over-all planning for these steps. To be

sure, it is often difficult for the new student to see the complete picture and the way in which all of the pieces fit together. Nevertheless, he should be aided more in looking ahead and integrating the various steps, rather than waiting to begin the next until the present one has been completed. An example of poor planning Is often seen in the writing of the doctoral dissertation. Too often, the student does not think seriously about this project until the prerequisite examinations have been successfully completed, nor is he encouraged to do so in many cases* If the planning of the dissertation were begun earlier, considerable time might sometimes be saved in the latter stages of the program. Forty years ago, the doctoral program usually took only three years, but now usually four or more. 87 Flexible education.- The education of bright people, in doctoral programs as well as elsewhere, might well be more flexible. Flexibility is particularly evident in the histories of the scientists in Cox's group, as was brought

out in the preceding chapter. There it was noted that

these individuals had not, for the most part, followed

any sort of rigid system of education, but had instead proceeded at their own pace with freedom to explore areas

in which they became interested. This is a principle somewhat exemplified in a few of the programs for the education of gifted children in the public schools, which

could well be extended to higher education more fully than has heretofore been the case. In collegiate and graduate education nearly all students follow relatively rigid programs and attempt the same hurdles at approximately the same stages of their programs. It is true that a student is allowed to concentrate in an area of interest, after certain departmental requirements have been fulfilled, but his

opportunities to explore widely, either early or later, are limited. Perhaps this state of affairs is in part due to the fact that all of the students are to receive

the same degreesj therefore the requirements must be the same for all up to a certain point. However, when the present system is compared with that under which the 88 individuals In Cox's study received their education, the differences are striking— and believed to be of some

significance now, even though conditions then were quite different. Even the autobiographies of the well-known psychologists which have been referred to show evidence of a greater flexibility in their education than seems usual at the present time.

The lack of flexibility is also evident in the requirements for positions, as has already been mentioned.

Many of those in Cox's group began their careers at an early age in academic positions for which the requirements at the present time would be beyond them. They had not gone through the process of obtaining the degrees which would be prerequisite now for comparable positions. Nevertheless, this discrepancy does not seem to have hindered them. In fact, it may well have helped them by enabling them to begin their professional careers earlier. It is true that the situation in Europe 200 years ago is hardly comparable to the present in this country, but English universities now often encourage able young men to begin their careers after only an M.A. or even a B.A. It would also seem desirable to have better com­ munication between the various areas of a department. A student should have the opportunity to examine a number of areas in his field before he commits himself in his 89 first position. It Is evident in the Ohio State group,

the Clark study, and the autobiographies that psychologists

often move into different areas even after receiving their doctorates. Perhaps It would be better if more of this trial-and-error process could take place before the doctorate instead of after it.

Utilization of early interests.- Too often there is a failure to utilize a person’s early Interests and special abilities so as to supplement his training in

psychology. Examples of the ways in which early interests

can lead directly to careers are evident in the backgrounds

of Cox’s scientists. However, early interests may also Influence one’s later career Indirectly. Many examples

of this are found In the Ohio State group, such as the man whose early interest in the construction of mechanical devices led to a position in industrial research with a

large radio network and, ultimately, to the presidency of this organization. Similar examples were cited from the autobiographies of famous psychologists. Those directing graduate training might well make a greater effort than now to ascertain the Interests of new graduate students. Many Interests of undergraduate or earlier days are dropped when one enters graduate school because one feels that he must exclude all else to concentrate on his major field. Perhaps the graduate 90 student should be encouraged In some way to continue his previous Interests. Even If these Interests never become directly related to his work In psychology, they may nevertheless serve to make him a more widely educated person.

Various previous interests might be utilized more than they are. For example, an individual who has been active in speech work as an undergraduate might be a good candidate for an instructor in an undergraduate course in which a considerable amount of lecturing is required. On the other hand, a student with a background of mechanical interests might do better in a research position which required the construction of apparatus.

Personal influence.- The importance of personal influence in orienting a young person toward a particular field was brought out in the preceding chapter. Graduate programs might well provide more opportunities by which new graduate students could get to know, and to work with, faculty members in a close relationship. This is ac­ complished to some extent by the practice of assigning most of the students to the faculty as assistants. In many cases this relationship has proved to be stimulating to the student, and its value could probably be increased. 91 It might be preferable to assign each student to more than one faculty member so that he might broaden his acquaint­ anceships.

Another possible approach is to assign new students to research teams. It will be recalled that two of those in the most prominent group of Ohio State alumni became interested in the field of driver research as a result of their work on this topic with one of the faculty. It seems likely that the opportunity for research at an early stage of his career might be quite stimulating to the new graduate student. There might be several "minor studies." In this connection, Hoe found the turning point in the careers of many of the scientists whom she studied to have been the opportunity to do original research (37). Too often this opportunity is not provided until the student has already committed himself to a specialty. It is obvious that initial research projects need not be extensive, or at least that a student need not be kept on one for a great length of time. If money could be found to subsidize the research, thereby paying each student something for his work, so much the better. However, the major issue here is not one of finances, but rather of providing opportunities by means of which a new student can get a taste of research early in his 92 career, while at the same time receiving stimulation from

the faculty, and preferably several tastes from more than one person. Opportunities in first position.- It Is evident from all of the groups studied that one's chances of achieving success are considerably better if he begins his career in certain types of positions rather than others. Students who are interested In achieving promi­ nence in the field should be made aware of this, and effort should be made to place promising graduate students in challenging positions. In addition, those who obtain

less important jobs should be kept in mind when other

positions become open. This raises questions about small colleges, since

it has been shown that positions in them seem less likely

to lead to success in one's special field. To be sure, in emphasizing success and prominence in a field this study has failed to consider an attribute which is of great importance in academic work: good teaching. This factor was not included for two reasons. First of all, efforts to measure the excellence of teaching have not yet been fruitful; therefore it would be quite difficult to compare individuals on this attribute. Second, good teaching is too often not associated with prominence in a field, although many people would argue that it should be. 93 The opportunities for good teaching may be better in small colleges than In large universities, although such a situation would not be evident from this study. However, with regard to the problems of the small

college, two additional points should be considered. First,

it seems only fair that a new graduate should be aware of

all of the possible outcomes before accepting a college position. If he hopes some day to be prominent in his

field, he should know that his chances of attaining this

status are greater if he takes a position in a university. On the other hand, there are many graduates for whom prominence is not a major goal and who are Interested primarily in teaching. Such people might well be quite satisfied in a small college. The second point is that perhaps small colleges could do more than they now are to overcome this discrep­ ancy. If one examines the work load of the faculty of large small institutions it becomes obvious that those in the universities have more time and opportunities in which to further their professional careers. If small institutions hope to attract young people who are inter­ ested in contributing to their fields, time and opportuni­ ties for such contributions should be allowed them. 94

SummaryThis discussion has suggested five ways in which educational programs might be modified so as to enable students of high ability better to realize their potentials. First, the student should have the oppor­ tunity to progress at his own pace and to begin his professional career as early as possible. Second, the program should also be flexible, giving the student freedom and opportunity to explore widely. Third, other interests of the student should be ascertained and integrated with his work in psychology. Fourth, oppor­ tunities should be provided whereby the Btudent could establish personal relationships with more faculty members for greater stimulation. Fifth, after the doctorate has been obtained, the student should be guided in finding opportunities appropriate to his abilities. CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

The purpose of this.investigation was to determine factors which influence professional success, so that young people of high ability could he aided in realizing their potentials. A survey of the literature showed that, although a number of studies have been made with this

purpose in mind, most of these suffered from serious

limitations. These limitations included the study of

isolated groups, with little attempt to relate various

groups under different conditions; and reliance on descrip­

tive and quantitative data of a statistical sort, thereby overlooking the type of Information which could be obtained only through personal contact, but which might be quite important for individual cases. The present Investigation sought to overcome these problems in two ways. Three groups of superior individuals were used, so that influential factors found might be compared among them. These groups included (1) those individuals who had received the Ph.D. in psychology from Ohio State University prior to 19^7; (2) the psychologists in Volume XV of A History of Psychology in Autobiography! and (3) the scientists appearing in Cox's Early Mental 95 9 6 Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. The Ohio State group

was described in detail. In addition, certain of the psychology faculty at Ohio State contributed information as to important factors in the education and early careers of these individuals and ratings concerning their present status in the field. Of the Ohio State group, the most prominent were

differentiated from the least by four criteria: publica­ tions, convention participation, positions of importance, and ratings of status. These two groups were then compared on a number of different characteristics to determine those in which they differed significantly. It was found that the most prominent had completed their formal education at an earlier age, entered positions which provided greater opportunities after their doctorates, and began to publish earlier in their careers. The information concerning the individuals in the other two sources substantiated these general conclusions. The qualitative information obtained from the faculty concerning the members of the Ohio State group was then compared with that concerning the individuals in the other sources: the psychologists in Psychology in Autobiography and Cox's scientists. Factors found to be important from this analysis included personal relationships 97 with faculty members, the utilization of early interests, and flexibility in education. Prom these findings, suggestions can be offered as to ways in which this country's intellectual resources might be better utilized. First, more attention should be given to the early discovery of individuals with high ability. Second, these individuals should be given financial aid, when needed, in order to obtain education commensurate with their abilities. Third, their education should be facilitated, possibly by providing for reduced time and greater flexibility in the programs. Finally, the encouragement of interests in addition to those in the major field, provisions for broader personal contacts with faculty members, and increased awareness of oppor­ tunities in various kinds of positions may help students in realizing their potentials.

Such a program would not be designed to make each person prominent in his field, even if that were possible. Rather, it seems desirable that each person should be educated so as to make the best possible use of his abilities in whatever position he may most appropriately be. BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Anastasi, Anne, and Poley, John P. Differential Psychology. New Yorks The Macmillan' Company,

2. Ayers, Eugene. "Social Attitude toward Invention," American Scientist, 1955* 43:521-540. 3. Bennett, Chester C., and Kaye, Joyce. "Participation in the APA," American Psychologist, 1956, lit 145-147. 4. Berdie, Ralph F. After High School— What? Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of hlxmesofca ^Press, 1954.

5. Bowerman, Walter G. Studies In Genius. New Yorks Philosophical Library, 1^7. 6 . Brandweln, Paul F. The Gifted Student as Future Scientist. New Yorks Barcourt, ferace and Company, 1955. 7. Bray, Douglas W, Issues in the Study of Talent. New York t King * s Crown Press, 195**. 8. Bridging the Gap between School and College. Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1953. 9. Brown, J, Douglas. "Curriculum Adjustments for Talented Students." Journal of Higher Education, 1956, 27:57-62. 10. Carroll, Herbert A. Genius in the Baking. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 194d. 11. Clark, Kenneth E. Americans Psychologists. Washing­ ton, D.C.s American Psychological Association, 1957. 12. Cole, Charles C. "Current Loss of Talent from High School to College." Higher Education, 1955, 12:35-38. 13.______. Encouraging Scientific Talent. New Yorks College iintranoe Examlnatlon Board, 1956.

98 99 14. Conant, James B. "Public Schools and the Talented," Understanding the Child, 1948, 17:52.

15. Cox, Catherine M. The Early Mental Traits of Three Hundred Geniuses. Stanford, Cal 1 fornia: Stanford University Press, 1926. 16. Dehaan, Robert F., and Havighurst, Robert J. Educating Gifted Children. Chicago: University of Chicago Ffessfl$57’:---- 17. Dennis, Wayne. "Productivity among American Psy- cologists," American Psychologist, 1954, 9*191-194. 18. De Witt, Nicholas. Soviet Professional Manpower. Washington, D.CTi National Science jPoundation, 1955. 19. Dowd, Robert J. "Underachieving Students of High Capacity," Journal of Higher Education. 1952. 23*327-330. 2 0 . Edgerton, Harold A., and Britt, Stewart H, "The Science Talent Search in Relation to Educational and Economic Indices," School and Society. 1946, 63*172-175. 2 1 . Flesher, Marie, and Preseey, Sidney L. "War-time Accelerates Ten Years After," Journal of Educa- tional Psychology. 1955* 46:228-238. 22. Galton, Francis. Hereditary Genius. London* Macmillan and Company, 1914.

23. History of Psychology in Autobiography. A . Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 1952, Vol. IV.

24. Kiewiet, Cornells W. de. "Education for Survival," Scientific Monthly. 1953, 76:57-62.

25. Knapp, Robert H., and Goodrich, H. B. Origins of American Scientists. Chicago* University of Chicago Press, 1952.

26. , and Greenbaum, Joseph. The Younger American Scholar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, IWT. 100

27. • , and Wertheimer, Michael. "Becent Undergraduate Origins of Scholars In the Behav­ ioral Sciences," American Psychologist, 1953, 8*479-483. 28. Lehman, Harvey C. Age and Achievement. Princeton, New Jersey: Prlnoeton University Press, 1953. 29. Lorge, Irving. "Social Gains in the Special Education of the Gifted," School and Society, 1954, 70:4-7. 30. Mead, Margaret. "The Gifted Child in the American Culture of Today," Journal of Teacher Education, 1954, 5:211-214.

31. Melster, Morris. "The Ford Foundation Experiments," Science Teacher, 1953, 20:107-110. 32. Miles, Catherine Cox. "Gifted Children." In Carmichael, Leonard (ed.), Manual of Child Psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1954, p p . 984-1063. 33. Passow, A. Harry, "Talented Youth: Our Future Leaders," Teachers College Becord, 1955* 57sl64-171. 34. Pressey, Sidney L. "Concerning the Nature and Nurture of Genius," Scientific Monthly, 1955, 81:123-129. 35. Educational Acceleration:Appraisals and Basic Problems 'I Columbus, Ohio: Onlo state Uni vers'ity ' Bres s, 195^. 36. _____ , "The New Program for the Degree with Dis- tinction at Ohio State University," School and Society, 1932, 36:280. 37. Roe, Anne. "A Psychological Study of Eminent Psy­ chologists and Anthropologists and a Comparison with Biological and Physical Scientists,". Psychological Monographs. 1953, Vol. 67, No. 2. 38. Bothney, John M., and Roens, Bert A. Guidance of American Youth: An Experimental Study. Cambrldge, Massachusetts: Harvard university Press, 1950. 101 39• Strang, Ruth, "The Psychology of Gifted Children," Journal of Teacher Education, 1954, 5:215-21?. 40. Terman, Lewis M* "The Discovery and Encouragement of Exceptional Talent," American Psychologist, 1954, 9*221-230. 41. ______. "Scientists and Nonscientists in a Group of 800 Gifted Men," Psychological Monographs, 1954, Vol. 68, No. ?. 42. Terman, Lewis M., and Oden, Melita H. The Gifted Child Grows Up. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1947. 43. Vlsher, Stephen S. Geography of American Notables. Bloomington, Indiana: university of Indiana Press, 1928.

44. ______. Scientists Starred 1903-1943. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 194?. 45. Witty, Paul. "Education for the Talented and for Leadership," Teachers College Record, 1956, 57*295-300. 46. _____(ed.). The Gifted Child. Boston: D, C. Heath and Company, 1951.

and Bloom, Samuel W. "Concerning Ability in the Sciences," Exceptional Children, 1955, 22:10-16. 48. Wolfle, Dael. America*s Resources of Specialized Talent. New fork: Harper and Brothers, l£34. 49. Worcester, Dean A. The Education of Children of Above-Average Mentality. Lincoln, Nebraska: University of NebrasJcajPress, 195°. 50. Wrenn, C. Gilbert. "Potential Research Talent in the Sciences Based on Intelligence Quotients of Ph.D.’s," Educational Record, 1949, 30:20-22. Autobiography

I, Edwin Clark Lewis, was born in Shelby, Ohio, on December 1, 1933, and received my public school educa­ tion in the schools of that community. I received the degree Bachelor of Arts from Wittenberg College in the spring of 1955, having completed the requirements in

August, 1954, and I received the degree Master of Arts from The Ohio State University in August, 1955. While in resldenoe at The Ohio State University I acted In the capacity of graduate assistant to Professor Horace B.

English during the year 195^-55. In September, 1955, I was appointed as a teaching assistant in the department of psychology and have held this position for two years while completing the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.

102