INFORMATION TO USERS
This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “ target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they arc spliced into the film along with adjacent psges. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photo graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. I f necessary, sectioning is continued again-beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we have filmed the best available copy.
University, Microfilms International 300 N. 2EEB ROAD. ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 18 BEDFORD ROW. LONDON WC1R 4EJ, ENGLAND 8115094
D a v is , R a y J.
SELECTED FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION, ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION
The Ohio State University P H .D . 1981
University Microfilms . International 300 N. Zceb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1981 by Davis, Ray J. All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE:
In all case 9 this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been Identified here with a check mark V .
1. Glossy photographs or pages ______
2. Colored illustrations, paper or print _____
3. Photographs with dark background _____
4. Illustrations are poor copy ______
5. Pages with black marks, not original copy ______
6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______
7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages A -""
8'. Print exceeds margin requirements ______
9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______
10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print
11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.
12. Page(8) ______seem to be missing In numbering only as text follows.
13. Two pages numbered ______. Text follows.
14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______
16. Other ______
University Microfilms International SELECTED FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SELECTION,
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT OF
BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND DOCTORAL-DEGREE
RECIPIENTS IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By . Ray J. Davis, B.S,, M.A. *****
The Ohio State University
1981
Reading Committee Approved By
Dr. James J. Buffer, Jr.
Dr. W1111S E, Ray
Dr. George P. Ecker C j ^ t r i a l Technology To Gwen Gwen
Whose Encouragement, Sacrifice, and
Support Enabled Me to Complete this Dissertation
11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No doubt, the process of completing this scholarly work was the most d iffic u lt scholastic experience confronted by the w riter.
However, there were several persons who helped to make this experience both endurable and successful. Therefore, I t 1s with sincere thanks and grateful appreciation that the w riter acknowledge those persons.
First, the writer would like to extend sincere thanks to his doctoral advisory committee. To Dr. James J. Buffer, J r., my major adviser, who provided counsel, foresight, and patience; and who In spired and never gave up on me from the start to the conclusion of this study. Special appreciation 1s also expressed to Dr. Will 1s E.
Ray and Dr. George P. Ecker for th eir wisdom, knowledge, and support which enabled the w riter to produce a scholarly document which he can be proud.
Without the 279 or more persons who responded to the question naires, this study would not have been completed. Therefore, the w riter wishes to thank each of those Individuals who took the time to complete and return questionnaires.
Special appreciation 1s also expressed to Dr. Donald G. Lux and
Dr. Edwin Novak for evaluating the early drafts of the questionnaires and for providing recommendations for Improving the Instruments.
111 Through the untiring and persistent typing skills of Ms. Ellene
Reece* the w riter was able to meet various deadlines and submit a
presentable Dissertation. Your efforts, Ms. Reece, are greatly
appreciated.
The w riter also wishes to thank Ms. Constance Hines and Mr. Greg
W1neg for th eir assistance 1n the data analysis aspect of this study.
Appreciation 1s expressed to Ms. Janice L. Gilmore who spent
countless hours assisting the w riter 1n mailing and coding the
questionnaires. A warm thank you 1s also extended to Ms. Eliza Glover
and Ms. Kavita Pandit for sacrificing th eir time to assist the w riter
in mailing questionnaires and proofreading drafts of the Dissertation.
Without financial assistance 1t would have been Impossible to
undertake this Investigation. Therefore, the writer wishes to thank
Dr. Frank W. Hale, Jr. and the Office of Minority Affairs at The Ohio
State University for th eir financial support.
Finally, sincere gratitude 1s being expressed to my wife
Gwendolyn who has given more and has sacrificed more than anyone dur
ing this educational pursuit.
1 v VITA
March 3, 1951...... Born - Charleston, South Carolina
June, 1969 ...... Graduated, Colonel Richardson Senior High School, Federalsburg, Maryland
May, 1973 ...... B. S., University of Maryland-Eastern Shore, Princess Anne, Maryland
June, 1974 ...... M. A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
1974 - 1977 , Instructor, Graphic Arts, Ponus Rl.dge Middle School, Norwalk, Connecticut
1977 - 1980 . Graduate Teaching Associate, Indus tr ia l Technology Education, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1980 - Present Assistant Professor, Industrial Educa tion and Technology, Alcorn State University, Lorman, Mississippi
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field ...... Industrial Technology Education Dr. James J. Buffer, Jr. Dr. W Hlis E. Ray
Minor Field ...... Education Administration Dr. George P. Ecker
v TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DEDICATION...... 11
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 111
VITA ...... v
LIST OF TABLES ...... xl
LIST OF FIGURES...... xvii1
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY...... 1
Statement of the Problem ...... 4 Statement of the Objectives ...... 5 Selection ...... 6 Academic Achievement ...... 7 Vocational Selection and Development ...... 8 Assumptions...... 9 Definition of Terms ...... 9 Limitations ...... 12 Summary of Chapter I ...... 13
I I . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 14
Introduction ...... 14 Graduate and Professional School Admission Requirements ...... 16 Grade Point Average (GPA) ...... 17 Standardized Test Scores ...... 23 Letters of Recommendation ...... 24 Interview s ...... 26 Issues and Concerns Regarding Admission C riteria . 27 An Overview ...... 27 Introduction to Minority Preference ...... 31 Philosophical and Empirical Rationale for Minority Preference ...... 32 Philosophical and Empirical Rationale Against Minority Preference ...... 36 Page
Testing and Minority Students ...... 37 Characteristics of Standardized Tests ...... 37 Test Bias ...... 40 Evidence of the Use of Standardized Tests. . . 46 Social and Educational Policy Implications . . 49 Long Range Issues and Alternatives for Minority Students ...... 52 Alternatives to Traditional Standardized Tests ...... 52 Retraining Test Users ...... 53 Measures of Environmental Factors ...... 53 Biographical D a ta ...... 55 Cultural-Fair Tests ...... 56 Cultural-Specific Tests ...... 58 Academic Performance of Blacks 1n Graduate and Professional Schools ...... 62 Career Patterns of Black American Doctoral Recipients ...... 65 Factors Influencing Career Choice ...... 65 The Current Status of Black American Doctoral Recipients 1n the American Marketplace ...... 67 Summary of Chapter I I ...... 69
III. METHODOLOGY...... 71
Introduction ...... 71 Target Populations ...... 71 The Instruments ...... 72 Instrument #1: Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data Questionnaire. . 72 Instrument 02; Education and Employment Data for Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral- Degree Recipients Questionnaire ...... 73 Instrument #3: Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Questionnaire ...... 74 Validation of the Instruments ...... 75 Phase 1 ...... 75 Phase I I ...... 77 Procedure for Data Collection ...... 78 Phase I I I ...... 78 Sensitivity of the Study ...... 85 Data Analysis ...... 87 Phase I V ...... 87 Summary of Chapter I I I ...... 89
v ii Page
IV. PRESENTATION OF THE DATA...... 90
Introduction ...... 90 Selection ...... 90 Research Question 1 (Selection) ...... 91 Summary of Research Question 1 (Selection) ...... f...... 101 Research Question 2 (Selection) ...... 104 Summary of Research Question 2 (Selection) ...... 106 Research Question 3 (Selection) ...... 107 Summary of Research Question 3
(Selection)...... j ...... I l l Research Question 4 (Selection) ...... 112 Summary of Research Question 4 (Selection) ...... 119 Research Question 5 (Selection) ...... 119 Summary of Research Question 5 (Selection) ...... 122 Academic Achievement ...... 123 Research Question 1 (Academic Achievement). 124 Summary of Research Question 1 (Academic Achievement) ...... 128 Research Question 2 (Academic Achievement). 128 Summary of Research Question 2 (Academic Achievement) ...... 142 Research Question 3 (Academic Achievement). 144 Summary of Research Question 3 (Academic Achievement) ...... 148 Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 (Academic Achievement) ...... 148 Summary of Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 (Academic Achievement) ...... 159 Research Question 7 (Academic Achievement). 160 Summary of Research Question 7 (Academic Achievement) ...... 174 Research Questions 8 and 9 (Academic Achievement) ...... 176 Summary of Research Questions 8 and 9 (Academic Achievement) ...... 188 Research Question 10 (Academic Achievement) ...... j ...... 190 Summary of Research Question 10 (Academic Achievement) ...... 197 Research Question 11 (Academic Achievement) ...... 197 Summary of Research Question 11 (Academic Achievement) ...... 211 v111 Page
Research Question 12 (Academic Achievement)...... 213 Summary of Research Question 12 (Academic Achievement) ...... 216 Vocational Selection and Development ...... 217 Research Question 1 (Vocational Selection and Development) ...... 217 Summary of Research Question 1 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment) ...... 224 Research Question 2 (Vocational Selection and Development) ...... 225 Summary of Research Question 2 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment) ...... 238 Research Question 3 (Vocational Selection and Development) ...... 240 Summary of Research Question 3 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment) ...... 241 Research Question 4 (Vocational Selection and Development) ...... 241 Summary of Research Question 4 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment) ...... 249 Summary of Chapter IV ...... 249
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 2 5 1
Summary...... 251 Statement of the Problem ...... 251 Statement of the Objectives ...... 252 Development of the Instruments ...... 253 Procedures ...... 254 Findings...... 256 S election ...... 256 Academic Achievement ...... 256 Vocational Selection and Development. . . . 264 Conclusions...... 265 S electio n ...... 266 Academic Achievement ...... 270 Vocational Selection and Development. . . . 277 Recommendations ...... 278 Recommendations for Educational Practices. . . 278 Recommendations for Future Research ...... 280
1 x Page
APPENDIXES
A. Draft of Chairpersons' Questionnaire Used During P ilo t Test ...... 282
B. Draft of Black Doctoral*Students' and Recipients' Questionnaire Used During P ilot Test ...... 288
C. Draft of Advisers' Questionnaire Used During P ilo t Test ...... 303
D. In itia l Cover Letters to Department Chairpersons. . . .307
E. Information Sheet Completed by Department Chairpersons.309
F. Special Follow-Up Letters Addressed to Chairpersons 1n Predominantly White and Black In s titu tio n s ...... 311
G. In itia l Cover Letters Addressed to Black Doctoral Students and Recipients and to Faculty Members Having Advised Black Doctoral Students ...... 314
H. Standard Evaluation Form Used to Evaluate Applicants for Doctoral Program (Submitted by a Responding Chairperson) ...... 318
I. Black Doctoral Students and Recipients' Actual Responses Regarding Factors Which Affected or Will Affect Their Selection of Employment ...... 320
J. Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data Questionnaire ...... 324
K. Education and Employment Data for Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral-Degree Recipients Question naire ...... 333
L. Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Questionnaire . . .352
BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 357
x LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Data Collected from Target Populations ...... 83
2. Data Collected from Institutions ...... 84
3. Racial Composition of the Institutions Studied by Institutional Support ...... 92
4. Support Systems of the Institutions Studied by Degree Offerings ...... 93
5. Racial Compositions of the Institutions Studied by Degree Offerings ...... 94
6. Racial Composition of the Institutions Studied by Institutional Support and Oegree Offerings ...... 96
7. Selection Criteria by Institutional Use ...... 97
8. Selection Criteria by Institutional Ranking ...... 98
9. Institutions by Minimum Acceptable Graduate Record Examination Test Scores and Overall Scores. . . 100
10. Institutions by Minimum Acceptable M iller Analogies Test Scores ...... 101
11. Institutions by Minimum Required GPAs for Admission Into Doctoral-Degree Programs ...... 102
12. Policies Regarding Standardized Test Scores Used by Admission Officials to Select Applicants Into Doctoral-Degree Programs by Frequencies and Per centages ...... 105
13. Institutional Support by Response Regarding Efforts to Recruit Blacks into Doctoral-Degree Programs. . . . 114
14. Institutions by Special Effort to Identify and Recruit Black Applicants for Doctoral-Degree Programs ...... 115
x1 Table Page
15. Special Recruitment Effort by U tilization of Test Scores as a Criterion In Selecting Black Applicants for Doctoral-Degree Programs ...... 117
16. Correlations Between Institutional Characteristics and the Number of Black Doctoral-Degree Students Enrolled Full-Time 1n Industrial Teacher Education Programs ...... 121
17. Institutional Size (Student Body Enrollment) by the Reported Number of Full-Time Black Doctoral Students Enrolled in the Industrial Education Department ...... 123
18. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Sex ...... 125
19. Black Doctoral Respondents With and Without a Baccalaureate 1n Industrial Education by Rank and Sex ...... 126
20. Black Doctoral Respondents' Undergraduate Majors by S e x ...... 127
21. Racial Composition of the Institution Where Under graduate Degree was Obtained by Rank and Sex of Black Doctoral Respondents ...... 130
22. Black Doctoral Respondents With and Without a Baccalaureate 1n Industrial Education by the Racial Composition of the Institution Attended ...... 132
23. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by the Support of the Institution Where Their Baccalaureate was Earned ...... 1 3 3
24. Racial Composition of the Institution Where Master's Degree was Earned by Black Doctoral Re- spondents' Rank and Sex ...... 134
25. Black Doctoral Respondents With and Without a Baccalaureate 1n Industrial Education by Racial Composition of the Institution Where Their Master's Degree was Earned ...... 136
x ii Table Page
26. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by the Institutional Support Where Their Master's Degree was Earned ...... 137
27. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Course Work or Counsel Taken From Black Faculty Members During Their Baccalaureate Programs ...... 138
28. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Course Work or Counsel Taken from Black Faculty Members During Their Master's Degree Programs ...... 140
29. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Course Work or Counsel Taken From Black Faculty Members During Their Doctoral-Degree Programs ...... 141
30. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents and Ratings of Their Baccalaureate Programs as Preparation for Doctoral Studies ...... 146
31. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents and Ratings of Their Master' s Degree Program as Preparation for Doctoral studies ...... 147
32. Number of Years Reported by Black Doctoral- Degree Recipients in Industrial Education to Complete Their Doctoral Studies ...... 150
33. Age of Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients When Their Doctoral Program was Completed ...... 151
34. Enrollment and Employment Status of Black Doctoral- Degree Recipients in Industrial Education When Their Doctoral Programs Were Completed ...... 152
35. Reported Years 1n Which Doctorates Were Conferred to Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients 1n Industrial Education ...... 154
36. Approximate Ch1 Square of Factors Pertaining to Academic Achievement and the Years Doctorates Were Conferred ...... 155
37. Years Doctoral Degrees Were Conferred by Black Doctoral Recipients' Approximate Grade Point Averages ...... 157
x iii Table Page
38. Enrollment Status of Black Doctoral Recipients When Doctorate was Conferred by Reported Years Required to Complete Doctoral-Degree Programs. . . . 158
39. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Providing Some Financial Support During Their Baccalaureate Programs...... 162
40. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Some Financial Resources Used to Finance Their Baccalaureate Programs ...... 165
41. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Providing Some Financial Support During Their Master's Degree Programs...... 168
42. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Some Financial Resources Used to Finance Their Master's Degree Programs...... 169
43. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Providing Some Financial Support During Their Doctoral-Degree Programs...... 171
44. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Some Financial Resources Used to Finance Their Doctoral- Degree Programs ...... 173
45. Race and Number of Doctoral Students AdviscJ by Faculty Members ...... 178
46. Doctoral Students' Race by Advisers' Reported Involvement in Professional Activities with Former Doctoral Students ...... 181
47. Areas of Academic Achievement and Race (Group) of Doctoral Students Rated Most Deficient by Advisers ...... 183
48. Number of Black Doctoral Students Advised by Group Rated Most Deficient in Overall Academics . . . 184
49. Number of Black Doctoral Students Advised by Group Rated Most Deficient 1n Teaching Skills . . . . 185
xlv Table Page
50. Black and White Doctoral Students Completing and Never Completing Their Doctoral Programs ...... 186
51. A ttrition of Black and White Doctoral Students Due to Academic Deficiencies and Social/Personal Problems ...... 187
52. Other Reasons Reported by Advisers for A ttritio n Among Black and White Doctoral Students . . 189
53. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Self-Rated Performances on the Verbal Test of the Graduate Record Examination ...... 191
54. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Self-Rated Performances on the Quantitative Test of the Graduate Record Examination ...... 193
55. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Self-Rated Performances on the Analytical Test of the Graduate Record Examination ...... 194
56. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Responses to Whether or Not Respondents* Performance on Standardized Tests are Good Indicators of Their Academic Capabilities ...... 195
57. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Responses to Whether or Not Standardized Tests Should Be Used 1n Selecting Minorities into Doctoral-Degree Programs ...... 196
58. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Mothers’/ Female Guardians' Occupations at the End of Respondents' Secondary Schooling ...... 199
59. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Fathers1/ Male Guardians' Occupations at the End of Re spondents' Secondary Schooling...... 200
60. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Who Reared Respondents During Early Childhood and Adolescent Years ...... 202
61. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Mothers'/ Female Guardians' Highest Educational Levels at the End of Respondents' Secondary Schooling ...... 203 xv Table Page
62. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Fathers'/ Male Guardians' Highest Educational Levels at the End of Respondents' Secondary Schooling ...... 204
63. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Birth Order Among Siblings ...... 205
64. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Number of Siblings 1n the Household During Respondents' Elementary and Secondary Schooling ...... 207
65. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Domicile During Respondents' Elementary School Years...... 208
66. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Domicile During Respondents' Secondary School Years ...... 209
67. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Who Disciplined Respondents During Their Elementary School Years ...... 210
68. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Persons Who Disciplined Respondents During Their Secondary School Years ...... 211
69. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Responses to Whether or Not Respondents Felt Alienated From Non-Blacks While Pursuing the Doctorate ...... 215
70. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by Respondents' Feeling to Whether or Not They Had Alienated Non- Black Professors and Non-Black Students While Pursuing the Doctorate ...... 216
71. Rank of Black Doctoral Respondents by the Time Period 1n Which Respondents' Decision Was Made to Pursue the Doctorate ...... 218
72. Reported Factors Influencing Doctoral Students and Recipients to Pursue Doctorates in Industrial Education (I.E .) ...... 221
73. Professional Levels Black Doctoral Students and Recipients Had Worked 1n Prior to Beginning Their Doctoral-Degree Program ...... 227
xvi Table Page
74. Black Doctoral Respondents VI1th and Without Baccalaureates 1n Industrial Education by Post- High School Technical Work Experience ...... 229
75. Institutional Support by Special Efforts to Em ploy Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients 1n the Industrial Education Departments ...... 231
76. Institutional Race by Special Efforts to Employ Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients in the Indus tr ia l Education Departments ...... 233
77. Institutional Race by the Reported Number of Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients Employed 1n the Industrial Education Departments ...... 234
78. Institutional Race by the Reported Number of Black Doctoral-Degree Reclolents Employed in Industrial Education Departments ...... 236
79. Institutional Size by the Reported Number of Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients Employed 1n the Industrial Education Departments ...... 237
80. Institutional Race by Chairpersons' Comparisons of Blacks' Overall Professional Preparation to that of Whites ...... 244
81. Institutional Race by Chairpersons' Comparisons of Blacks' Potential as Scholars/Researchers to That of Whites ...... 245
82. Institutional Race by Chairpersons' Comparisons of Blacks' Potential as Leaders/Managers to That of W h ite s ' ...... 247
83. Institutional Race by Chairpersons' Comparisons of Blacks' Potential as Teachers to That of Whites'. . 248
xvi1 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Operational Model of Research Procedures 76
x v ili CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Graduate education has gained much attention from the American public 1n recent years. Degrees offered 1n graduate and professional schools "enable one to obtain certificatio n and license to practice a profession (e.g. law or education), gain prestigious titles (e.g. doctor or professor), make career changes (e.g. from social worker to attorney), and obtain salary Increments or Improve employment classification"
(Buffer, 1979, p. 290). A problem, however, 1s that blacks (and other minorities) are not receiving equal access to these benefits when compared to whites (Blackwell, 1975).
A cursory review of the lite ra tu re Indicates that several factors affect minority access to graduate and professional schools. Two of the most prevalent are traditional graduate admission practices and minority preference programs. Some graduate Institutions select appli cants Into th eir programs based solely upon performance on standardized tests (e.g. Graduate Record Examination, Law School Admission Test, e tc .).
Recent studies conclude that most blacks obtain scores on these exami nations that are 1 to 1.5 standard deviations below the scores of most whites (Humphreys, 1973). Thus, when standardized test scores are the sole criterio n, many blacks are eliminated from selection (Klnneary,
1974).
1 2
Some graduate Institutions and degree programs consider factors other than standardized test scores when selecting candidates. Some of these programs have given preference to minority applicants. This admission practice has come under attack by various members of the
American society. Some opponents to this practice have Initiated law suits against respective colleges and universities. An example 1s the suit filed by Allan Bakke against the University of California at Davis.
An excerpt from the California Supreme Court Decision describes the case as follows:
In this case we confront a sensitive and complex Issue: whether a special admission program which benefits disadvantaged minority students who ap ply for admissions to the medical school of the University of California at Davis. . .offends the constitutional rights of better qualified applicants denied admission because they are not Identified with a minority. {Bailey, 1978, p. 93)
In the fie ld of Education, the doctorate (Ed.D. and Ph.D.) 1s the most coveted degree awarded by graduate degree programs. This "degree, with emphasis 1n Industrial education, 1s rapidly becoming a require ment for Industrial arts teacher educators" (Buffer, 1979, p. 298).
Black recipients are few. Blackwell (1975) reported that blacks are recipients of less than one percent of a ll the doctorates awarded each year. Bryant's (1973, pp. 7-8) survey indicated that approximately 70 percent of the black doctorates are employed 1n predominantly black
Institutions; 16 percent 1n predominantly white colleges and univer s ities ; and 14 percent employed by government, social agencies, Indus try, and other organizations. A more recent survey reporting the status of minorities 1n indus tr ia l education was conducted by Bakamis (1978). This "study was limited to colleges and universities offering degree programs both in
Industrial arts and Industrial vocational education" (p. 16). Data were collected from 108 Institutions comprising a total of 1,845 full-tim e faculty members engaged 1n Industrial teacher education. Results of this study revealed that approximately 84 percent of the reporting In stitutions (105) had no black full-tim e faculty member, and 80 percent reported no black part-time faculty member.
Bakamis also Inquired why existing vacancies 1n industrial teacher education programs were not being fille d by blacks and other minorities. Two major reasons seem to emerge among the chairpersons surveyed. Insufficient Interest by minorities to enter the Industrial teacher education profession was cited by 62 percent of the respondents, whereas 54 percent Indicated that minority applicants lacked qualifica tion for university teaching. Chairpersons also reported that the minorities' lack of the doctoral degree was another reason why this group did not occupy these vacancies. This la tte r response seems to support Buffer’s findings that the doctorate 1s becoming the sine qua non for teaching 1n colleges and universities—at least 1n predominantly white Institutions.
The status of black doctoral candidates 1n Industrial teacher education 1s not encouraging. Bakamis' study Identified 20 black doctoral students enrolled 1n graduate degree programs 1n industrial education beginning 1n the fa ll semester of 1977 (p. 19). No data are available on the potential a ttritio n rate of this group. Bryant (1973, p. 5), however, reported that " It has taken Negro Ph.D.'s considerably longer to obtain the doctorate than Ph.D.'s 1n general." Thirteen years 1s the median number of years for blacks to earn the doctorate.
Seven-and-a-half years 1s considered to be the average length of time
1t takes to earn the doctorate 1n the humanities and social sciences.
In the natural sciences, Bryant reported that five years 1s the median length of time.
The above discussion argued that the number of black Ph.D.'s 1n this country are few. I t was suggested that the lack of this creden tial (the doctorate) may be related to the underrepresentation of blacks employed 1n Industrial teacher education programs. Unless greater numbers of qualified blacks enter doctoral-degree programs, there
1s l i t t l e chance of ameliorating this problem. Consequently, this w ill also necessitate the review of entrance and ex it c rite ria which significantly influence the selection and success of minority students.
Statement of the Problem
As stated 1n the Introduction, this investigation 1s concerned with the status of black doctoral students and degree recipients 1n
Industrial teacher education. A cursory review of the literatu re in dicates a scarcity of empirical data on the major areas of concern:
(1) admission policies of graduate degree programs awarding doctoral degrees 1n Industrial education; (2) academic achievement of black doctoral students and black recipients of the doctorate 1n Industrial education; and (3) factors Influencing career choice and development of black doctoral students and recipients 1n Industrial education.
The scarcity of empirical data on this topic makes 1t difficult for graduate admissions staff, chairpersons, and other professional members to make rational decisions toward providing equal educational and employment opportunities to a ll groups. Graduate-degree programs attempting to abide by affirm ative action guidelines (T itle V II) are confronted by legal and social obstacles. Such cases as Bakke vs. the University of California at Davis and Defunis vs. Odegaard are two exemplary legal tests addressing that Issue. Although such landmark cases have not appeared In graduate-degree programs 1n Industrial education, th eir Implications may be similar. Empirical data generated from this investigation would provide graduate program o ffic ia ls pertinent data that would fa c ilita te the Implementation of equal educa tional and employment opportunities for blacks 1n Industrial education
(specifically at the doctoral lev el). These data are also needed to sensitize administrators 1n higher education. Industrial teacher educa tors, and society of the problems described above.
Statement of the Objectives
The following major objectives will be the concern of this In vestigation:
1. To identify and describe admission practices of graduate-
degree programs offering the doctorate in Industrial teacher
education. Specific consideration w ill be given to the degree to which these practices affect minority admissions
(e.g. standardized tests* grade point averages, letters of
reconmendation, etc .).
2. To generate empirical data related to the academic per
formance of black doctoral students and recipients during
their doctoral studies in industrial education. The in
vestigator will seek this Information from the students,
graduates, and their advisers.
3. To identify and describe those factors which Influence
career choice and development of black doctoral students
and black recipients of the doctoral degree in Industrial
education.
This investigation w ill also attempt to provide answers to the research questions outlined in three categories: (1) selection of black applicants into doctoral-degree programs in Industrial education;
(2) academic achievement of black doctoral students and recipients of the doctorate 1n industrial education; and (3) vocational selection and development of this group. These 21 research questions are as follows:
Selection
1. What are the criteria used by academic Institutions to se
lect applicants Into their doctoral programs in industrial
education?
2. Are there special considerations given to black applicants
applying for admissions Into doctoral programs 1n indus
tria l education? I f so, specifically what are these con
siderations? 3. What are some alternate strategies currently used to select
blacks Into doctoral programs in Industrial education 1n con
junction with or 1n lieu of standardized tests and/or grade
point averages?
4. Do affirmative action programs affect the selection of black
doctoral students?
5. What 1s the relationship between Institutional characteris
tics and the number of black doctoral students enrolled 1n
Its doctoral program 1n Industrial education?
Academic Achievement
1. Did black doctoral students and recipients major
1n industrial education or some other discipline during their
undergraduate studies?
2. What are the characteristics of the academic Institution
attended by black doctoral students and doctoral recipients
during their undergraduate and graduate programs (e.g. pre
dominantly black, predominantly white, public, private, etc.)?
3. Do black doctoral students and recipients believe that their
undergraduate and graduate programs prepared them adequately
for graduate work at the doctoral level?
4. How long does 1t take black doctoral students in Industrial
education to obtain the doctorate?
5. What percentage of black professors with doctorates 1n In
dustrial education complete th eir degrees while 1n residency?
What percentage complete the doctorate while employed fu ll
time o ff campus? 6. Is there a difference in the academic achievement of black
doctoral recipients and the time period in which the degree
was conferred? I f so, what are some of these differences?
7. What is the major source of funds used by black doctoral
students and doctoral recipients to finance their graduate
education (teaching assistantships, fellowships, loans,
e tc .)?
8. How do faculty compare the academic achievement of their
black doctoral advisees with their non-black advisees?
9. What 1s the attritio n rate of black doctoral students in
industrial education 1n comparison to non-blacks (due to
academic deficiencies, or other reasons)?
10. How do black doctoral students and doctoral recipients rate
their performance on graduate school admission tests?
11. What are some demographic factors (parental education,
parental employment, domicile, etc.) which may have in
fluenced the academic achievement of black doctoral students
and doctoral recipients in industrial education?
12. What are some social problems confronting black doctoral
students and doctoral recipients during their pursuance
of the doctorate in industrial education?
Vocational Selection and Development
1. What are the major factors which motivate blacks to pursue
a terminal degree in industrial education? In what specific types of Institutions and/or agencies are
most black doctoral recipients employed before and after
the doctorate is completed?
What are some factors which Influenced (or will influence)
black doctoral students' and doctoral recipients' selection
of their current or prospective place of employment?
How do department chairpersons (or other administrators)
rate the professional preparation, potential scholarship,
and leadership of black doctoral recipients when compared
to non-blacks?
Assumptions the course of writing this paper, the investigator assumes
The professional staff administering doctoral programs In
industrial education and their graduate students and degree
recipients will: (a) be willing to participate in the
study; and (b) respond honestly to the questionnaire.
The survey procedures are appropriate for assessing selected
factors Influencing career development and occupational success.
Definition of Terms
Academic Predictors: Generally, those Instruments, course
grades, and class standings used in education to determine
the probability of a person achieving academic success in a
given educational setting. Academic Achievement: The knowledge attained or sk ills de veloped in the school subjects, usually designated by test scores or by marks assigned by teachers, or by both
(Dictionary of Education, 1973).
Standardized Test: A test for which content has been se lected and checked empirically, for which norms have been established, for which uniform methods of administering and scoring have been developed, and which may be scored with relatively high degree of objectivity (Dictionary of
Education, 1973).
Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT): A standardized test which
1s generally given to those persons seeking admission to an undergraduate program of a college or university. " It 1s used to predict the facility with which the Individual will progress 1n learning academic school subjects" (Dictionary of Education, 1973). Another test serving this function Is the American College Test (ACT).
Graduate Record Examination (GRE): A standardized test given to persons seeking admissions Into a Graduate School
Program 1n many colleges and universities. I t 1s another type of scholastic aptitude test which Includes the following basic test offerings: "an aptitude test with verbal, quantitative, and analytical sections and 20 ad vanced tests" (Conrad, et a l., 1977, p. 2). Minority Preference: An admissions practice adopted by some Institutions. The scope of this practice can range from fixed quotas of admitted minorities to certain c rite ria by which "ties" are broken or "scales tipped" 1n favor of one applicant or group. Minority preferences also Includes giving preference to specific groups (or individuals) by adding or subtracting points. . .discounting test scores
for certain groups, making admission conditional upon a
specified minimum performance, and using the same c rite ria with different emphasis (Bailey, 1978, p. 49).
Industrial Arts: Those phases of general education which
deal with technology—its evolution, u tiliza tio n , and
significance; with industry—its organization, materials,
occupations, processes, and products; and with the problems
and benefits resulting from the technological and indus
trial nature of society (Maley, 1973, pp. 2-3).
Industrial Education: A generic term which refers to a ll
education which focuses upon the study of Industry—its
organization, practices, products, and occupations. In
clusive 1n this term are Industrial arts, industrial tech
nology, vocational-Industrial and occupational education,
and Industrial-technical education.
Blacks: For the purpose of this study "blacks" refer to those
persons born 1n the United States and of the Negro race. Limitations
The major lim itations of this study are as follows:
1. The use of the questionnaire w ill be the primary source
for collecting data. Therefore, the reliability and
validity of the findings depend upon: (a) adequate returns
of the questionnaires; (b) the mood of the respondents
when they f i l l out the questionnaires; and (c) the quality
of the questionnaire Items (Turney and Robb, 1971, p. 29).
2. Because this study 1s limited to persons currently enrolled
or employed in teacher education Institutions 1n the Indus-
Teacher Education Directory (1979), this Investigation may
not Include a ll living black doctoral recipients 1n Indus
tria l education.
3. Limitation #2 will limit the Investigator to generalizing
the results of this study to current and prospective blacks
1n Industrial education programs.
4. The concern for confidentiality of students' personal re
cords and informal university/department policies may
reduce the amount of information shared 1n the survey.
5. Some respondents may perceive certain Items 1n the ques
tionnaires as sensitive or offensive. This perception may
reduce or in h ib it the responses on certain Items or the
return rate of the questionnaires. Summary of Chapter I
The 'nature of the problem concerning black doctoral students and
recipients 1n Industrial education was Introduced 1n this chapter.
Three problem areas were Identified which provided a bases for data
collection: (1) admission policies of graduate degree programs award
ing doctoral degrees 1n Industrial education; (2) academic achievement
of black doctoral students and black recipients of the doctorate 1n Indus
tria l education; and (3) factors Influencing career choice and develop
ment of black doctoral students and recipients 1n Industrial education.
Twenty-one research questions were generated under the three afore
mentioned areas. This chapter also reported the assumptions* definition
of terms, and lim itations of this investigation. CHAPTER I I
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
Morris (1972, p. 314), 1n quoting a study by the Ford Foundation, stated that only 2,100 of the 300,000 doctorates 1n this country are black. Considering blacks represent 11.1 percent of the U.S. population
(S tatistical Abstract of the United States, 1979, p. 28), this figure
Indicates that blacks are disproportionately underrepresented as recipients of this academic credential (the doctorate).
Graduate and professional schools are the channels through which our nation's doctorates are produced. How minority representation among this e lite group of scholars can be Increased, however, has pro duced much public debate and controversy. Some educators and other professionals (1n both the black as well as the white community) advo cate that graduate and professional schools' admission requirements discriminate against blacks. They (Clark & Plotkin, 1964; Samuda, 1975) contend that traditional criteria (e.g. standardized tests) are not valid predictors of the academic potential of black students. Also, because blacks traditionally score lower on standardized tests than their white counterparts, they are handicapped when such criteria are the basic predictive factors used in selection to graduate and pro fessional school. Opposing groups (Stanley & Porter, 1967; Cleary,
14 1968) argue that traditional predictive Instruments are valid for both black and white applicants. I t 1s also asserted that graduate and professional schools that use quota and minority preference to increase minority representation in the professions are accused of reverse discrimination (Bailey, 1978).
Unfortunately, there appears to be a lack of consensus among re searchers, educators, and other professionals regarding graduate and professional school admission practices to resolve these controversies.
Therefore, this chapter objectively reports empirical data and philosophical rationales on traditional c rite ria used by graduate and professional school admission officers. Whenever a professional Issue became apparent during the review, both sides of the Issue were ob jectively studied. A separate section 1n this chapter 1s devoted to
"Testing and Minority Students," followed by a discussion of selected social and educational policy Implications. This section is concluded with a discussion on alternative admission c rite ria used 1n selecting minority students Into higher education.
The la tte r part of this chapter provides a discussion on the aca demic performance of blacks 1n graduate school, and the career patterns
(and status) of black American doctoral recipients after they obtain th eir degrees.
The paucity of literature addressing both Industrial education and the Issues related to this Investigation made i t Impossible to speak specifically to the target population. Therefore, articles which dealt with blacks 1n higher education were selected. Graduate and Professional School Admission Requirements
Bailey (1978, pp. 15-16) reported that "numerous studies have emerged which focus upon predicting success 1n graduate school." These studies were precipitated by the Increased enrollment and selectivity.
However, S h e rrill's (1976) survey revealed that there 1s congruence among admission practices u tilized among graduate schools. Respondents to Sherrill's survey consisted of 172 Institutions listed as members of the Graduate Council of Education. These Institutions responded to a form entitled "Graduate Admissions Policies and Practices 1975-76."
The results revealed that graduate admission requirements are s t ill largely determined by standardized admission tests. An average of three letters of recommendation were required by 138 or 84.7 percent of the responding Institutions. "The minimum undergraduate grade point average required for acceptance to the master's program ranged from
2.00 to 3.80 on a 4.00 scale" (p. 526).
Although Sherrill comments that his study was not conclusive, i t does suggest that graduate and professional admission 1s distinguished by extremely high selectivity. Bailey (1978) reported that in the academic graduate schools and professional schools (law, medicine, education, e tc .), the demand for meeting specific academic prere quisites 1s very important. Also, there 1s great concern for personal qualifications and Interviews are used widely. In most academic graduate schools, these admission decisions are made by "autonomous committees from each department" (p. 15). These findings suggest that the standards for most graduate and
professional schools are relatively high. Admission to these programs
are frequently based upon: (1) grade point averages; (2) standardized
test scores; (3) letters of recommendation; and (A) Interviews. The
following section examines the use of each criterion relative to its
use as an academic predictor. The investigator also presents studies
addressing Issues for and against the respective predictive criterion.
Grade Point Average (GPA)
In this decade, studies and philosophical views have been es
poused regarding the use of undergraduate GPA 1n predicting academic
success of graduate and professional school applicants. These views
Include the expressed concern for: (1) grade inflation 1n colleges
and universities; (2) the instability of grades from one institution
to another; (3) the use of grades in predicting academic success of
minorities; and (4) other factors affecting students' GPAs.
Grade Inflatio n 1s one of the salient obstacles confronting gradu ate and professional school admissions o ffic ia ls . This problem 1s characterized by an overwhelming number of applicants' GPAs being clustered at the top end of the grading scale. Consequently, the problems of weeding out the bright applicants from the mediocre appli cants are compounded. Etzlonl (1975) elucidated the problem of grade
Inflation in the following way: "College transcripts are becoming so crowded with grades of A and B that chapters of Phi Beta Kappa are
reported to be raising the minimum grade average required, to safe
guard the honor society's traditional exlusivlty" (p. 501). Hendrickson
(1976) accounted for grade inflation by citing the following evidence: 18
A study by a Michigan State University professor concludes that grade averages at 1972 colleges have risen about half a le tte r grade on the av erage since 1960. The Seattle Times on December 12, 1974 reported the Fall Quarter 72 percent of all letter grades awarded to undergraduates at the University of Washington were A's and B's. At Yale 42 percent of a ll undergraduate Spring- term grades last year were A's. In June 1975 sixty percent of Dartmouth College's graduates won some sort of honor. Between 1962 and 1972 the University of North Carolina doubled the per centage of A's 1t handed out. The average grade at the University of Wisconsin has soared from C+ to a B+ In just nine years. The Dean's 11st at the University of Virginia Included 53 percent of the student body compared to 21 percent In 1965. The Dean of Dickinson College dropped the Dean's List by saying: ' I didn't feel 1t was an honor when 1t embraced so many people', (p. 113)
Several reasons are dted for the Inflation of grades. Scully
(1975) reported a variety of possible theories:
Faculty members, faced with the need to keep en rollments up 1n economic hard times, have become less willing to grade rigorously for fear of turning away students.
Colleges have been recruiting Increasingly di verse students bodies 1n terms of socio-economic background and Intellectual ab ilities . So faculty members have shifted their grading practices rather than judge a ll students on traditional bases.
Grade inflation Its e lf becomes a spiral1ng pro cess. Once faculty members hear of I t on other campuses, they consciously or unconsciously be gin to Inflate the grades of their own students, to give them an edge 1n the competition for jobs or places 1n professional schools.
Faculty members have lost confidence 1n the value of what they are doing. Because they have doubts about the value of the "learning" they are offering students, they are unwilling to make rigorous, judgements of whether stu dents have learned. The addition of more "relevant and contemporary" materials to many courses has made mastering the subject matter easier for students» since they are being tested on materials that are part of th e ir everyday experience rather than "relics from the high culture", (p.7)
Grade inflation Is having an adverse effect upon employers and admission committees. The major concern 1s that grade in flatio n de creases the reliability and validity of grades (Singleton & White,
1978). Employers and admission o ffic ia ls are now complaining that transcripts are becoming meaningless. According to Donaldson (1975, p.
124), this has subsequently precipitated the replacement of grades by recommendations and standardized test scores.
Goldman and Slaughter (1976) advocate that GPAs, as academic predictors, lack both validity and reliability. They believe that
GPAs which are composites formed from other grades 1n many classes, are not made up of Identical components. " It 1s a composite made of decidely (sic) nonequivalent components" (p. 13). One reason for this phenomenon 1s that students with high a b ility tend to gravitate toward stringent courses. Conversely, students with low a b ility gravitate toward courses that are easy grading. Goldman and Slaughter contend that until radical differences 1n grading standards are eliminated and the freedom of students to select their own classes are restricted, GPAs w ill have only moderate effect as academic pre dictors.
There have been studies investigating the combination of under graduate grade point averages with other variables to predict the aca demic success of students 1n graduate and professional school. One such study was conducted by Covert and Chansky (1975). These Investi gators examined the use of the Graduate Record Examination (verbal and quantitative) scores and undergraduate grade point averages in pre dicting graduate grade point averages (GGPA) of males and female stu dents. The sample of this investigation Included 306 students accepted
Into the Master of Education Program at a large urban university from
September 1968 to September 1969. The total group was divided into three levels according to undergraduate grade point average (UGPA):
(1) low GPA (less than 2 .5 ), (2) moderate GPA (2.5 to 2.0 ), and (3) high
GPA (greater than 2.9). Each level contained two subgroups: male and female. After obtaining graduate grade point averages for each group member, multiple correlations were computed. Covert and Chansky
(1975, pp. 948-949) reported the following results:
1. the correlation between UGPA and GGPA was .24;
2. students 1n the low UGPA group were least predictable
(r B .15);
3. students 1n the high UGPA group were most predictable
(r = .35);
4. females could be significantly predicted in both the
highest and lowest UGPA group (r *= ,45 and r *= .33 res
pectively); and
5. males could only be significantly predicted within the
moderate UGPA'range (r = .44).
Covert and Chansky provided two Important suggestions regarding
th eir findings. F irst, since sex and UGPA have only a moderate 21 e ffe c t» the elimination of candidates on the basis of one validity
coefficient seems unjustified. Covert and Chansky fin a lly suggested
that "the use of the three predictors (UGPA, sex, and GRE) as the only selection device (sic) for candidates would be questionable since, at
best, these predictors were accounting for no more than 20 percent of the variance 1n the criterion measure of success" (p. 950).
McDonald and McPherson (1975) also demonstrated that other fac tors affect academic achievement of college students. They attempted
to predict grade point averages of undergraduate university students.
This writer, however, feels that the findings from this study may have some Implications for predicting the academic achievement of graduate
school and professional school students.
The sample 1n McDonald and McPherson's study consisted of 152
students In the Principles of Economics class at the University of
Illin o is . Using regression analysis with high school type, sex, and
socio-economic factors to predict GPA, the Investigators concluded
that a "knowledge of high school type, sex, number of credit hours
taken, and perhaps dollar value of scholarships and number of hours
of outside work could significantly Increase high school class and
American College Testing Program (ACT) Composite Score" (p. 299).
McDonald and McPherson (1975) also reported the following results:
Graduating from a suburban parochial school added significantly to grades (.42 of a letter grade). . . Female students achieved significantly higher grades than male students did (.38 of a le tte r grade). . .Students who took more credit hours made slightly higher than those who took fewer credit hours. . .Students who worked might re ceive slightly lower grades than those who did not work. . .Students with scholarship support might earn higher grades than those without such support, (p. 932) 22
Empirical data are also available which demonstrate that vari
ables related to academic performance (GPA) may be different for re spective graduate and professional school disciplines (Baird, 1975).
Baird's study provided completed data from 2,540 graduate and profes
sional school students In six disciplines: (1) arts and humanities,
(2) social sciences, (3) biological and physical sciences, (4) medical
school, (5) law school, and (6) graduate business school. These stu
dents had responded to a questionnaire covering a great deal of bio
graphical, personal, attltu dlnal, and educational Information. "In
relation to grades 1n each field as a criterion, stepwise multiple
regression analysis were employed to Identify the factors that were
most strongly associated with grades 1n each area of study" (p. 943).
Selected results from Baird's study are reported below:
Parental education was related only 1n arts and humanities and business. . .Consideration of graduate or professional school at an early age was most positively related to grades 1n arts and humanities. . .Grades in a ll courses con stituted a more valid predictor than did grades in major field course 1n every area except bio logical and physical science. . .Several vari ables reflecting self-confidence of students 1n their a b ility to handle academic work were re lated 1n every area most consistently 1n law and business. . .Admission test scores were less efficient predictors than grades in every field except law. . .Almost a ll nonacademic achievements, such as being president of student body, were un related to grades 1n any area, with exceptions of having an award 1n the fie ld 1n science and business and holding a scientific asslstantshlp 1n medicine and business, (pp. 943-945)
• Baird's study 1s significant in that he attempted to observe the ef
fects of numerous variables as predictors of subsequent graduate and 23 professional school grades. However, he also reported that minority students were slightly underrepresented 1n this study.
Standardized Test Scores
Applicants aspiring admission Into specific graduate and profes sional schools are often required to take one of several standardized tests. The applicant's score 1s then submitted to the graduate or professional school where admittance 1s desired. In addition to other criteria (e.g. GPA, letter of recommendation, Interview, etc.), many graduate and professional school programs require a minimum score on these tests before admission 1s considered.
The program where admittance is sought often determines which test the applicant w ill take. The Graduate Record Examination (GRE) and the M iller Analogies Test (MAT) are the two major examinations used 1n graduate admissions. The GRE has three components: an aptitude test measuring general verbal and quantitative a b ility ; an achieve ment examination; specialized knowledge tests 1n twenty academic fields; and an analytical test. The MAT, requiring an hour for examina tion, consists entirely of analogies.
Separate admission tests are often required by professional schools (e.g. medical, law, and business). Applicants applying for admission Into medical school, for example, take the Medical College
Admissions Test (MCAT). Law school applicants take the Law School
Admission Test (LSAT). Also, "many graduate schools of management require the Graduate Management Admission Test designed to measure mental capabilities Important 1n the study of management" (Bailey,
1978, p. 14). 24
Serious attention has been given to the use of standardized test scores as predictive tools of academic success 1n graduate and profes sional schools. Specifically, the effect which these tests have upon the admission and academic achievement of blacks and other minorities is being debated. The substance of this Issue 1s discussed
1n a subsequent section of this chapter under "Testing of Minority
Students."
Letters of Recommendation
As indicated by Sherrill's (1976) survey, letters of recommenda tion are frequently utilized by admission committees to facilitate the selection process. However, a cursory review of the literatu re also suggests that this selection tool has its advantages and dis advantages.
Zuckerman (1968) noted the positive values in using letters of recommendation. In paraphrasing Zuckerman's findings, Bailey (1978) stated the following advantages:
1. they 'personalize' the objective records of grades and scores and elaborate any appli cant's checklist of characteristics. 2. they enable admissions officers to discrim inate among large numbers of students with similar grades and scores; 3. they reduce the importance of personal in ter view's (sic) role; 4. they 'flesh out' the person and personality of students so their unique qualities can be appreciated; and 5. they aid the admissions office in predict ing success potential 1n cases where program and divisions vary significantly 1n quality, challenge, preparation, etc. (I.e. schools of engineering, education, commerce), (p. 22) 25
These findings obviously support the use of letters of reconmendatlon by graduate and professional school admission committees.
Lewis (1972), however, reports that letters of recommendation should be viewed with skepticism. According to Lewis, these letters are sometimes "ceremoniously general" and "sketchy." Further, letters of recommendation "reflect what academicians consider Important for admission to and success 1n graduate school; they may reflect either what a w riter feels 1s germane and/or what he believes others feel 1s germane" (p. 22).
Lewis1 study of letters of recommendation, written on behalf of applicants seeking admission to a graduate department 1n sociology, showed that certain distinct qualities are valued by the "gatekeepers"
(e.g. le tte r writers and admission o ffic ia ls ) of the academic community.
I t was apparent that "the more Inoffensive the student the more lik e ly that a description will be enthusiastic, while the more mediocre the
Inoffensive student the greater the le tte r w riter's dependence on non academic qualities" (p. 24). Due to the infrequency of remarks about annoying behavior 1n the letters examined lends support to the con tention that students who are perceived as rebels are not encouraged, or may have difficulty finding sponsors to support their applications to graduate school. Lewis summarizes his findings by stating that:
"Intelligence is Important, but by Its e lf 1s not seen as guaranteeing admission, Determination 1s also prized. At the same time, one should know his place, f i t Into a subordinate position easily, and
have no Irritating habits" (p. 28). 26
Interviews
Admissions committees* In graduate and professional schools* frequently use Interviews to aid 1n the selection process. Their use can provide additional data about applicants unobtainable by other aca demic predictors (e.g. grades, test scores, e tc .). White et a l. (1974* p. 338) reported that Interviews can serve one of two functions, or both; (1) to obtain additional Information from the applicant, and
(2) for evaluation purposes. Inclusive 1n the latter function might be the assessment of personal qualifications (e.g. honesty, personal appearance, articulation, e tc .).
Several recent studies have been conducted to assess the effec tiveness of Interviews. These studies suggest that there are various factors which Influence 1nterv1ewer-1nterv1ewee relations. Subse quently, such factors could have a positive or negative Impact upon the outcome of the Interview. Some of the tenable factors are;
(1) sex and race (Casc1an1, 1978); (2) test anxiety and the effects of being interviewed (Sarason, et a l., 1972); (3) body languages (S1esk1,
1979); and (4) 1nterv1ewer-1nterv1ewee sim ilarity (Frank & Hackman,
1975).
Frank and Hackman (1975) specifically noted that Interviewer objectivity 1s significantly affected by the similarities between in- terv1ewer-1nterv1ewee. These researchers demonstrated that "the more similar the candidate 1s to the Interviewer, the more I t Is lik e ly that the interviewer w ill be favorably disposed toward the candidate"
(p. 359). Frank and Hackman provided the following conclusions from their study: . . .Interviewers who are Inexperienced and unsure of themselves (or who are generally low 1n se lf esteem or social confidence) would be particularly attentive to opportunities for self-evaluation 1n their 1nterv1ew»and perhaps especially distressed by any prospect of a socially stressful Interview experience.
Such Individuals, then, should find Interviews with people similar to themselves especially re warding—and interviews with highly dissimilar Individuals anxiety-arousing. Following the theory of Byne, these Individuals should be highly susceptible to attltudlnal bias toward candidates who are similar to themselves. More self-con fident Interviewers, on the other hand, should be relatively Immune to sim ilarities—Induced bias. (p. 35$)
Contrary to the problem (e.g. bias) Inherent 1n using the In ter view, 1t remains a viable tool by selection committees. However, Its effectiveness could be enhanced 1f the users (selection commmlttee members) would c ritic a lly analyze the empirical data from studies as those presented 1n this section.
Issues and Concerns Regarding Admission C riteria
An Overview
Since the passage of T itle VII of the C1v1l Rights Act in 1964, there has been a growing concern for minority representation 1n higher education. S till blacks and other minorities are grossly underrepre sented, especially at the graduate and professional levels. Re searchers, educators, and other persons have espoused numerous speculations and scientific data regarding this problem.
Most black college graduates apply for graduate studies at pre dominantly white institutions (Brown & Stent, 1977, p. 144). Black 28 students graduating at the top of their class usually have l i t t l e d if ficu lty getting accepted into graduate school. Brown and Stent sug gest that this is typified by graduate schools' "long tradition of seeking or considering academically superior blacks for their programs"
(p. 144). Blacks not graduating 1n the top quarter of their class most often have d iffic u lty obtaining acceptance.
Nieves (1976) suggests that "the admission policies of graduate institutions should receive careful scrutinizing when assessing the barriers to graduate admission for minority students" (p. 11). The use of alternate admission models should be used. Each model, accord ing to Nieves, has different implications for the role of standardized tests as well as definitions of bias for "test" as a predictor variable.
Grade point average is one of the factors considered by graduate and professional school selection committees (S h errill, 1976; Bailey,
1978). According to recent studies (Covert & Chansky, 1975; McDonald
& McPherson, 1975), factors surrounding students influence their GPAs.
Brown and Stent (1977) stated that: "White colleges usually fa ll to look at the overall picture of the black graduate applying for an advanced degree. . .Graduate schools have not adjusted their graduate admission policies to realize that a black graduate with a grade point average of 2.6 (on a 4.0 system) who worked 30 or even 40 hours per week is probably capable of greater achievement than the student who finished his undergraduate education with a 3.0 and did not have to work for pocket money" (pp. 144-145).
One of the problems in the graduate education community has been the definition of success. Researchers and psychometriclans frequently 29 define success as high grade point averages 1n the fir s t year of graduate education (Nieves, 1976, p. 13). Labln and S11berste1n (1975), however, Indicated that firs t year GPAs for minority students are notoriously low and do not reflect subsequent year performance. There fore, many minority educators prefer to use degree attainment as a criterion for success.
Nieves (1975) postulates that the graduate community may be less concerned with predicting survivors of their program than predicting who w ill excel. Most graduate departments concur that their task 1s to predict who will excel exceptionally well. However, they also agree that "many rejected students can, by some criterion, complete their program" (p. 14).
The status and characteristics of graduate schools were examined in a survey conducted by the Graduate Record Examination Board in conjunction with the Council of Graduate Schools In the United States.
This survey was particularly concerned with efforts toward Increasing minority admissions. The following findings were reported:
1. Of the 110 schools surveyed, 80 Indicated that they had specifically designed policies or procedures aimed at meeting the needs of minority disadvantaged students at the graduate level; 2. The number of minority students at the graduate levels has continued to Increase since the In itia l survey was conducted In 1969; 3. Continuous evaluation of an Institution's efforts for minority students has been lacking generally, or for the most part, based only on the simplest criterion—l i t t l e attention has been given to the students' lif e outside the classroom or to his/her post degree requirements; and 30
4. The size of an Institu tio n 's graduate pro gram and its location on a rural to urban con tinuum are powerful determinants of Its a b ility to respond to pressures for Increases 1n minority enrollments—size has the function of Increasing an Institution's ability to finance such students— location tends to determine what kinds of ac tiv itie s are undertaken. (Sedlacek, 1976, pp. 1- 2)
These findings suggest that graduate programs, 1n general, are attempt ing to respond to the problems of minority admission. Also pointed out are some of the Inherent problems (e.g. institutional size and location) confronted by Institutions 1n an attempt to attract blacks and other minority students. Finally, this survey indicates that graduate Institutions have not given much attention to personal prob lems of minority students. Recent studies (Yates, 1973; Reed, 1977;
P feifer, 1976) suggest that disadvantaged students have unique prob lems which affect th eir academic success In large predominantly white institutions.
While attempting to address the problem of minority admissions,
Blackwell (1975) Indicated that the graduate education community has expressed several complaints. The most persisted complaints, accord ing to Blackwell, are as follows:
1. Lack of knowledge about the process as ap plied to blacks; 2. Lack of financial and personal resources for the special recruitment of black students; 3. difficulties 1n locating competent black students; 4. quotas of blacks 1n graduate departments and professional schools; 5. the degree to which blacks would feel either isolated or Integrated In predominantly white Institutions; 31
6. The social and psychological Impact of pos sible racial Isolation on the performance of black students 1n predominantly white Institutions; 7. The possible negative responses from white professors and white students to a black critic al mass 1n predominantly white Institutions; and 8. The a b ility of blacks to compete In the rigorous graduate and professional programs 1n view of poor and disadvantage backgrounds* presumed to be uni versal among black students, (p. 15)
The concerns expressed by graduate education o fficials seem to ju s tify and support the need for extended research concerned with minority admissions 1n graduate and professional schools. These concerns, coupled with others Identified 1n this chapter, demonstrate that a more extensive examination of the problem 1s warranted.
Introduction to Minority Preference
The advent of "minority preference" occurred during the 1960's.
Federal government pressures (e.g. C1v1l Rights Act, 1964) caused admission programs (In predominantly white Institutions) to Increase minority enrollment at a time when minority students did not have competitive test scores and grades (Bailey, 1978). According to
Bailey:
The developing novelty (test scores) was the addi tion of race to the other subjective factors. This movement rode on the same wave as Educational Op portunity Programs (EOPs) and other ’preferential' admission programs. Not until the 1960's did the general public and higher education establishments become concerned and more aware of the plight of minorities and the necessity for providing In creased access to higher education, (p. 37)
Predominantly white colleges and universities responded to legislative and social pressures by establishing special programs for 32
minorities (e.g. financial assistance for the economically disadvan
taged, special minority recruitment programs, e tc .). Federal affirma
tive action guidelines also pressured admission personnel "to give
minority applicants an edge over white applicants" (p. 37). Some
colleges utilized different evaluating criteria 1n lieu of traditional
admission crite ria (e.g. GPA, standardized test scores) to Increase
minority enrollment. Consequently, these two standards of admission
precipitated public controversy and legal action from some U.S. citizens.
Philosophical and Empirical Rationale for Minority Preference.
Numerous philosophical views and empirical data have been espoused 1n
support of minority preference. Bailey (1978) attempted to delineate
the rationale for such support Into four categories: (1) minority
underrepresentation 1n college and society; (2) colleges should reflect
the diversity of the larger society; (3) black and other minorities
should be compensated for the efforts of prior discrimination; and
(4) traditional entrance criteria handicap minority students.
Data reviewed by this Investigator suggest that blacks are
acutely underrepresented among doctoral-degree recipients 1n the United
States. "In graduate school, blacks account for less than 1 percent
of doctoral candidates, most of them 1n education, and constitute
less than 3 percent of law students and 3 percent of medical students"
(Flaugher, 1977, p. 2).
The number of doctoral faculty members has always been one of
• the crite ria used to access the quality of academic departments.
Buffer (1979) suggests that the doctoral degree 1s increasingly 33
becoming the prerequisite for teaching at the college level. S t ill,
there exist fewer doctorates in predominantly black institutions when compared to predominantly white institutions.
The Industrial Teacher Education Directory (1979) 1s a good in
dicator of the "degree" distribution 1n industrial teacher education
departments 1n this country. A cursory review of this document sug
gests the paucity of doctorates 1n traditionally black institutions.
This single factor could account for one reason black institutions are
unable to compete with their white counterparts.
Bakamis1 (1978) findings demonstrated that blacks are underrepre
sented at the doctoral level in industrial education. The exclusion
of this group (blacks) from doctoral programs 1n Industrial education would seem to indicate their perpetual underrepresentation at all
teacher education Institutions. This would be especially true in
status institutions within higher education, namely, prestigious uni
versities and four year colleges where the doctorate 1s usually the
initial criterion for admissions.
The Importance of minority representation was expressed by
Bailey (1978), who stated that:
Minority of a ll races are underrepresented 1n a ll academic field s , some to a shameful degree. The social, psychological, and particularly economic effects of underrepresentation are extremely important to an 1nher1tly egalitarian society. Minorities need role models to emulate; they need to have active participa tion in decision making. Since college de grees become Increasingly important 1n our society, i t 1s necessary through race conscious remedies to particularly address the under representation question, (p. 50) 34
Several scholars advocate that colleges and universities should reflect the diversity of the larger society. Kendrick (1967) stated that colleges will remain racially segregated 1f their efforts are confined to discovering talented black students resembling the white students already enrolled. When graduate and professional schools re fle ct a social diversity, they create what Carrington (1978) calls a community of leaders; notably minority communities.
Compensation for the effects of prior discrimination 1s another argument for minority preference. President Lyndon B. Johnson articulated this argument at a Howard University commencement 1n 1969.
He stated that: "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with others', and s t ill ju stly believe that you've been completely fa ir" (Ploskl et a l., 1971).
An amicus curiae b rie f, from the U. S. Department of Justice, addressed the Issue of compensatory programs to eratlcate the effects of societal discrimination. The brief Indicated that race may be taken Into account to counteract the effects of prior discrimination and that minority-sensitive decisions are essential to eliminate the effects of discrimination 1n this country. It also suggested that minority-sensitive relief 1s not limited to correction of discrimina tion perpetrated by the Individual Institution itself, but can correct societal discrimination. Finally, the brief notes that there 1s no need for a professional school to await judicial decisions that 1t has Itself violated principles of equality before 1t may begin to 35 redress Inequality created by others. The Justice Department granted educational Institutions extensive latitude 1n making admissions decisions, because of the Inherit subjectivity and Intangible considera tions.
Bailey (1978) suggested that "a large part of the preference argument against preferential treatment for minorities resolves on the Issue of Individual merit and Its place In higher education" (p.
50). This position was vehemently attacked by Ron Brown (1977) of the
Urban League, 1n an Interview by Newsweek. Brown noted that:
Americans believe 1n the merit system and they argue that the nation has prospered because of 1t. But special treatment has always been pro vided to some. The Federal c iv il service gives preference to veterans 1n Its hiring. Most private universities provide extra admission points to children of alumni or big contributors. Other institutions favor students from certain geographical areas. I t 1s easier for Instance, to get Into Harvard by living 1n Mississippi than 1n Massachusetts. 'A ll of these traditional preference (notes Brown). . .who wonders why "when we're trying to redress a major societal grievance, people act as 1f they've never heard of preference", (p. 58)
The use of preference even exists 1n the recruitment of athletes at colleges and universities. Bailey noted (1978, p. 50): "There has been no uproar regarding six feet ta ll fullbacks admitted with C averages to elite Institutions".
The fin al argument espoused for minority preference 1s that traditional entrance c rite ria handicaps minority students. This argument 1s discussed 1n the section, "Testing and Minority Students". 36
Philosophical and Empirical Rationale Against Minority Preference.
The primary arguments against minority preference are as follows:
1. Our country 1s extremely meritocratic. Theo re tic a lly , every citizen has an equal opportunity to succeed. Therefore, race should not be a con sideration for promotion or admissions; 2. Consideration of race (whether helpful or harm fu l) o ffic ia lly sanctions a distinction that should not be made, and which the equal protection clause forbids; 3. Empirical data Indicates that the general public 1s against special considerations given to uni versities 1n employment and college admissions; 4. Racial preference may dampen the public's faith 1n the ultimate fairness of Its government; 5. The distinction between quotes and goals 1s dubious and unfair. (Bailey, 1978, p. 52)
George H. Gallop (1977) conducted a study to assess the public's position on the use of minority preference 1n employment and college admissions. The sample for this survey was grouped by sex, race, and occupation. Each member of the group was presented the following issue:
Some people say that to make up for past dis crimination, women and members of minority groups should be given preferential treatment 1n getting jobs and places in college. Others say that a b ility , as determined by test scores, should be the main consideration. Which point comes closer to how you feel on this matter? (p. 1057)
This public opinion poll revealed that 83 percent of those sampled opposed giving minorities preference. They believed that employment and college admission should be based upon a b ility . Only six percent of the sample favored giving minorities preferential treatment. A breakdown of the sample by race revealed the following: 86 percent of the white respondents opposed preferential treatment and 8 percent 37
favored 1t; and 64 percent of the non-white respondents opposed pre
ferential treatment while 27 percent favored 1t. Respondents with
no opinions comprised the remaining percentages. In concluding remarks.
Gallop noted:
Rarely 1s public opinion, particularly on such controversial issue, as united as 1t 1s over this question. Not a single population group supports affirmative action. Attitudes are fa irly uniform from region to region and among a ll age groups. Some differences do exist by education, but all groups back objective data such as test scores as the main qualification 1n jobs and education, (p. 1059)
Testing and Minority Students
Characteristics of Standardized Tests
Another Issue confronting the educational community 1s the use
of standardized testing as a criterion for minority admissions. To
understand the nature of this Issue, a general knowledge of the
characteristics of standardized tests 1s Important.
Standardized tests are usually based upon normed references.
That 1s, the scores from these tests (by Individuals) are compared with
other persons who have taken the test. Ebel (1977) points out that
tests are standardized in three basic ways: (1) explicit definition of the area of achievement to be sampled by the tasks presented 1n
the test; (2) exact directions for uniform administration of the test
to a ll examinees; and (3) provisions of the standards for Inter
preting Individual scores, In reference to certain normative Informa
tion. In other words, the test 1s standardized with respect to what
1s tested, how 1t 1s tested, and how the score Is Interpreted. 38
When analyzing standardized tests there are two Important terms which merit understanding: va lid ity and re lia b ility . These two characteristics are the necessary conditions for the existence of a test as a viable tool of measurement (Samuda, 1975, p. 19). "Reli a b ility refers to the consistency of scores obtained by the same in dividuals when re-examined with the same test on different occasions, or with different sets of equivalent Items, or under other variable examining conditions" (Anastasi, 1968, p. 71). The validity of a test refers to the degree to which a test provides Information that is relevent to the decision that 1s to be made; in other words: "does the test measure what 1s purports to measure" (Thorndike & Hagan, 1978, p. 56).
Most psychometriclans agree that the most c ritic a l of the two characteristics 1s "valid ity." There are several types of va lid itie s.
However, Samuda (1975, p. 21) asserts that the Standards for Develop ment and Use of Educational and Psychological Tests recognizes three types of validation procedures: content validity; criterion-related validity; and construct validity. Content validity and construct valid ity of a test are logically determined. That 1s, they are deter mined by experts about the fie ld , or people who know something about testing. Content valid ity is demonstrated by showing how well the content of the test samples the class of situations or subject-matter about which conclusions are to be drawn" (Gronlund, p. 166). "A test has good content validity if Its items relate well to the particular objectives to be assessed (Samuda, 1975, p. 22). Samuda further asserts: . . .The appropriateness of a test Item can only be determined by careful and c ritic a l examination. Furthermore, in the selection of test Items, ef forts must be made to ensure that a ll possible relevant source (textbooks, curriculum, experts, and so on) have been sampled so as to cover a ll major aspects of the area under consideration and to avoid the Intrusion of extraneous factors that could lower the tests content va lid ity. Such a validation procedure Is particularly essential for evaluating achievement tests, (p. 22)
Construct v a lid ity , also logically determined, H1s the extent to which a test measures an abstract psychological t r a it or construct"
(Bailey, 1975, p. 57). It 1s evaluated by Investigating what qualities a test measures, that 1s, by determining the degree to which certain explanatory concepts or constructs account for performance on the test" (Gronlund, 1968, p. 167).
Criterion-related validity 1s determined by statistical pro cedures. This type of valid ity 1s predictive 1n nature. I t "1s demonstrated by comparing the test scores with one or more external variables considered to provide a direct measurement of the character istics or behavior 1n question" (Gronlund, 1968, p. 167). On graduate and professional school admission examinations, for example, academic success 1n the respective programs Is the criterion against which test scores are validated. Presumably, a high test score obtained on these examinations predicts academic success 1n an academic program.
Conversely, low test scores Indicates a relatively low chance of academic success.
The degree to which standardized tests have good predictive valid ity depends upon the degree to which both the criterion and the test scores are devoid of contaminants (Samuda, p. 23). Several 40 studies have purported that standardized tests discriminate against blacks and other minorities (Clark & Plotkin, 1964). These studies have shown that black students score lower than white students. Sub sequently, the poor performance of black students handicap their chances for admissions Into graduate and professional schools. The following sections present potential biases of standardized tests relative to blacks and other minorities. Evidence for and against the use of these tests as a predictive tool of academic success are also discussed. Finally, societal and educational policy Implications are presented.
Test Bias
Samuda's (1975) assertion that the validity of standardized test can be Influenced by external contaminants is supported by numerous findings. As Indicated In an earlier discussion, blacks and other minorities are most affected by these biases. Thorndike and Hagen
(1977) espoused this assertion by suggesting that general cultural background Influences aptitude test performance. Delineated below are cultural factors that can affect performance on standardized tests:
1. A home language other than standard English— either a foreign language or a non-standard dialect. 2. Home values that place l i t t l e emphasis on book learning and getting ahead 1n school. 3. Home social and economic pressures that make I t d iffic u lt for parents to provide a stable and supportive environment for the child. 4. Parents who have not learned how to function as teachers of th eir young children. 5. A shortage of material possessions that pro vide toys, books, and comfortable living conditions. 6. A sense of separation and alienation from the dominant culture, (p. 332) Opponents of standardized tests also argue that the norms used
to standardized these Instruments are not representative of blacks and other minorities. Organizations like the Association of Black
American Psychologist and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People assert that standardized tests are based upon white norms, and are Invalid 1n assessing the potential of blacks. Members of these organizations contend that "the experiential background of the American Negro child differs appreciably from that of the white upon whom these tests were standardized; consequently, a grave In justice 1s done to those who are evaluated by means that are foreign to them" (Samuda, 197S, p. 7).
In summarizing a study by M. E. Shlmberg entitled, An Invesltga- tlon Into the Validity of Norms with Special Reference to Urban and
Rural Groups (1929), Samuda states: "It Is not surprising, then, that the scores on aptitude and achievement tests are consistently lower for those subjects who d iffe r from the white sample fo r, . . .when a
test designed for one culture group 1s administered to a different cultural group, the test automatically favors the first group and gives low results for the other group" (p. 7). Canady's (1946) com ments seem to support Shlmberg1s findings. Canady asserts that "tests are applicable only to individuals similar 1n their experiential background to the group whom they were standardized11 (p. 411). To
use a test 1n any other manner, according to Canady, 1s unjustifiable.
The unfairness of standardized tests was lucidly depicted 1n
a resolution delineated by the NAACP in Its 65th annual convention,
July 5, 1974. This resolution states: WHEREAS, a disproportionate large number of black students are being misplaced In special education classes and denied admissions to higher educa tional opportunities,
WHEREAS, standardized tests, e.g. Stanford-B1net and the Wechsler Scale for Children excludes blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mex1can-Amer1cans from the representative sample, and,
WHEREAS, such tests label black children as un- educable, assign them to lower educational tracks than whites, deny black children higher education opportunities; perpetuate Inferior education; place black children In special classes and destroy growth and development of black children, and,
WHEREAS, students who fa ll to show a high verbal or numerical a b ility , score low on the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT), the Law School Admissions Test (LSAT), the Graduate Record Examination (GRE), e tc ., and are routinely excluded from college and graduate or professional education,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the NAACP demand a moratorium on standardized testing whenever such a test have not been corrected for cultural bias and direct Its units to use all administrative and legal remedies to prevent the violation of stu dents' constitutional rights through the mlsue of tests, and,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NAACP calls upon the Association of Black Psychologists to assert leadership 1n aiding the College Entrance Examina tion Board to develop standardized tests which have been corrected for cultural bias and which fa irly measure the amount of knowledge retained by students regardless of his or her Individual background.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the NAACP directs Its units to use all administrative remedies 1n the event of violation of students constitutional rights through the misuse of test scores and directs National Office staff to use Its In fluence to bring the CEEB and ABP together to revise such test. (In Samuda, 1975, pp. 4-5) 43
The use of standardized tests scores 1s also believed to elim i nate disproportionate numbers of blacks from academic programs In higher education. "In Georgia, for example, in 1964-65 a ll blacks entering Georgian college and university system averaged 266 on the
SAT Verbal; this contrast to the national mean of 473 for that year. . .
In Texas. . .the average score on the SAT Verbal at the University of
Texas-Austln. . .was 540; the national norm was 445; the norm of a private black school 1n Texas was 340" (Klnneary, 1977, p. 5). During
1973, 1n Georgia, only 3 percent of the blacks made 400 or above on the SAT Verbal. Considering the cut o ff score by some selective In stitutions for the SAT Verbal was 400, I t 1s easy to perceive how standardized test scores might handicap the admissions of blacks 1n predominantly white e lite Institutions.
O'Neil (1975) espoused the belief that there are students who simply do not perform well on standardized tests yet have demonstrated a b ility and promise. In quoting a professor who had fir s t hand ex perience of this phenomenon, O'Neil writes:
Over the past quarter of a century I have known perhaps a hundred students who were extremely talented but tested badly; two years ago I had a young man who graduated summa cum laude, did brilliant work 1n constitutional law, and per sistently turned up 1n the 40th percentile on tests.
Under normal conditions he would not have been admitted to the Zonko Law School, but my faculty colleagues, and I mounted a fu ll court press 1n his behalf. Ue wrote to the admissions com mittees of several distinguished law schools, explaining that Mr. X went catatonic when forced by those tests. . .and that we were con fident that he would do well In law school. He was admitted to a top school and, last I heard, was well on his way to being editor of the law review, (p. 51) 44
Empirical data generated by Clark and Plotkin (1964) support the belief that college board examinations are not valid predictors of the academic success of blacks in Integrated colleges. The popula tion in their study consisted of Negro students, during 1952 to 1956, who had applied for aid from the National Scholarship Service and Fund for Negro Students in order to enter Interracial colleges. In using these students' SAT scores 1n comparison to subsequent academic success, Clark and Plotkin stated: "the academic performance of the * students. . .studied was far beyond the level that would be Indicated by such predictive indices as college board scores, e.g. SAT" (p. 21).
Thus, 1f black students perform better than th eir scores on widely used admissions tests indicate, then 1t 1s lik e ly that capable blacks who have lower than average test scores are being denied admission to college.
The debate concerning standardized tests and especially, the
Interpretations placed on the results or scores of minorities, con tinues to intensify. As suggested ea rlier, some opponents claim that standardized tests are invalid as predictors of Negro academic success because these instruments do not account for the cultural differences between the races. Another problem with standardized tests stem from their misuse by teachers, counselors, admission officers, and adminis trators (Sowell, 1972). William W. Turnbull, President of the Educa tion Testing Service stated that scores should never be used alone in selection. His rationale 1s delineated in the Foreword of Samuda's
(1975) book, Psychological Testing of American Minorities. Turnbull states: 45
There is no test score that can te ll you ex post facto the native potential that a student may have had at birth. Scores on a test of scholastic aptitude—-or developed a b ility to reason with words and numbers posing college-like problems— te ll you something about how much trouble a stu dent may expect to have in moving inmedlately into college work. They te ll you nothing about the odds against which he or she has had to struggle in developing those particular a b ilitie s or about the energy and determination the individual w ill put Into his college work. His a b ility to solve problems posed 1n a different language or culture context may or may not be reflected 1n the scores, depending on how widely divergent the two cultures at Issue may be. (Samuda, 1975, p. iv)
This discussion has attempted to elucidate rationales opposing the use of standardized tests. The most salient argument to this issue seems to be that standardized tests are biased against blacks and other minorities; and that they are invalid as predictors of subsequent minority students' academic success. This Issue of test bias seems to become even more complex when one considers Cleary's
(1968) definition of test bias; coupled with empirical data which suggest that standardized tests used in college admissions are valid for blacks and non-blacks students. Cleary asserts:
A test is biased for members of a subgroup of the population if, in the prediction of a criterion for which the test was designed, consistent non zero errors of prediction are made for members of the subgroup. In other words, the test is biased i f the criterion score predicted from the common regression line is consistently too high or low for members of the subgroup. With this definition of bias, there may be a connotation of 'unfair', particularly if the use of the test produces a prediction that 1s too low. I f the test 1s used for selection, members of a sub group may be rejected when they were capable of adequate performance. (P. 115) 46
Recent studies seem to Indicate that standardized test scores predict academic success of black students at least as well as they do of the non-black students. In cases where test bias was discovered, i t tended to be 1n favor of black students. That Is, black students' test scores, occasionally over predicted their academic performance (Bailey, pp. 60-61). In examining the research on the fairness of standardized tests, O'Neil (1975) concluded:
F irst, that the use of standardized tests (and grades) has served to exclude disproportionate numbers of minority applicants who have lower than average scores and grades. Secondly, how ever, standardized tests do not underpredict the performance of minority students, and may 1n fact slightly overpredict the performance of minority persons. Third, tests appear valid and reasonable crite ria for selecting someone among non-minority applicants; while they do not correlate perfectly with later performance, their record Is sufficiently good to warrant their retention for most groups, (p. 99)
O'Neil asserts that "the juxtaposition of these three propositions creates a paradox for the admissions officer who wants to be both fa ir and rational 1n selecting among applicants" (p. 99).
In the following discussion, rationales w ill be presented 1n support of standardized tests as a criterion for selection.
Evidence for the Use of Standardized Tests
Many researchers, educators, psychometriclans, and others pro test the thought of abolishing standardized tests. They contend that
1f standardized tests were eliminated, other alternatives would have to be devised for selecting applicants Into graduate and professional schools. These alternatives, as suggested by supporters of 47
standardized tests, could cause serious consequences. For example,
Messlck and Anderson (1n H ille r, 1970) suggested four major con
sequences that might result 1f objective and standardized tests were abolished:
1. People would revert to the uses of past-to- subjective appraisals such as the interview and Inquiries Into ancestry. 2. Without tests 1n educational and job train ing programs, teachers and counselors would be forced to rely only upon observations of s k ills and deficiencies during the course of the program. 3. The elimination of tests would mean the loss of one of the best ways for teachers to acquire a useful appreciation of the broad range of com petencies and tra its that characterize human be havior or to develop needed sensitivities to the nuances of cognitive growth. 4. And of utmost Importance, there would be an absence of yardsticks for gauging the effectiveness of educational programs and for evaluating the equity of the educational system, (p. 87)
Messlck and Anderson's lis t of concerns Indicate that the only sub stitute to standardized tests would be highly subjective criteria; as a selection and an evaluation tool.
O'Neil (1975) and Ebel (1963) also concur with Messlck and
Anderson's belief. O'Neil prognosticates that subjective criteria
1n selection of students Into higher education would have a greater adverse affect upon minorities. The sole use of personal Interviews,
letters of recommendation* and endorsement from alumni, as c rite ria
for admissions, are potentially more racially and ethically bias than
standardized tests. At least standardized tests are objective.
O'Neil purports that while standardized tests disproportionately eliminates many minorities, they are not capable of the bias which
has often Infected more personalized selection systems (p. 116). 48
Ebel's enumeration of the possible societal consequences* culminating from the abolishment of standardized tests, is also congruent with that of Messlck and Anderson. Ebel asserts:
I f the use of educational tests were abandoned, the distinctions between competence and Incom petence would become more d iffic u lt to discern . . .the encouragement and reward of individual efforts to learn would be made more d iffic u lt. Excellence in programs of education would be come less tangible as a goal and less demon strable as an attainment. Educational oppor tunities would be extended less on the basis of aptitude and merit and more on the basis of ancestry and influence; social class barriers would become less permeable. Decisions on 1m- ortant Issues of curriculum and method would Ee made less on the basis of solid evidence and more on the basis of prejudice or caprice. (pp. 142-143)
Thus, the rationale provided by these scholars suggests that the abandonment of standardized tests would be both unwise and counter productive. In conjunction with the latter discussion, empirical evidence is available which supports the use of tests scores as a valid criterion 1n admitting minority students to colleges and universities.
An exemplary study providing such data was conducted by Cleary (1968).
Cleary's study focused on three colleges (two eastern and one south western college) with combining totals of 21,000 students. The salient objective was to determine 1f the Scholastic Aptitude Test was a valid predictor of the performance of blacks 1n Integrated colleges. Results from this study Indicated that there was l i t t l e evidence that the Scholastic Aptitude Test 1s bias as a predictor of college grades. Cleary further stated: 49 In the two eastern schools, there was not signif icant differences 1n the regression lines for Negro and white students. In the one college 1n the southwest, the regression lines for Negro and white students were significantly different: the Negro students' scores were overpredicted by the use of the white or common regression lines. {p. 123)
Cleary's findings seem to sanction the continued use of standardized tests 1n selecting blacks and non-blacks Into higher education In s titu tions (specifically those that are predominantly white). The obvious
Indication from this study 1s that 1f standardized tests (e.g. SAT) are bias, the bias 1s 1n favor of black applicants. And fin a lly , as reported by Cleary and other studies (Samuda, p. 14), the predictive valid ity of the SAT 1s as high for blacks as I t Is for whites.
Some psychometrldans contend that the "difference 1n score distributions (between black and white applicants) do not per se, con stitu te evidence of unfairness" (Thorndike, 1971, p.64). The discre pancies which might exist may be recording the unfairness of some human conditions. Wechsler (1966) delineated these conditions as: poor housing, broken homes, a lack of basic opportunities, etc. Con sequently, psychometrldans suggest that unless children enjoy equality of opportunity to learn what 1s required to perform. . . differences will Inevitably recur because of varied backgrounds of the children" (Good, 1954).
Social and Educational Policy Implications
The debate regarding the use of standardized tests and minority students remains an Intense one. The previous discussion presented defensible cases for and against this Issue. This discussion continues 1n this section; however. Issues regarding the societal and educational Implications of testing and the legal forum are pre sented.
The legal Implications of employment and educational discrimina tion through testing 1s now an Issue within our legislative and judicial systems. The potential legal problems were espoused 1n the concluding remarks 1n the Columbia Law Review (1968). The author stated:
The fie ld of testing presents new problems for the law, problems which are only now beginning to obtrude on the legal consciousness. The discussion 1n this note has focused on the remedies of a Negro-applleant against an em ployer or educational Institution using stan dardized tests as part of Its selection pro cess. The assumption has been that tests, despite th eir drawbacks, are an Improvement over the conventional 'subjective1 techniques. Whether this 1s a correct assumption 1s debatable. The best of tests have a validity coefficient of only .5. One must add to that the real problem of discrimination, the tech nical d iffic u ltie s 1n conducting adequate validation studies, the practical and legal problems of differential scoring; one 1s le ft with the uneasy sensation that perhaps tests are not worth the trouble. . .
It 1s too early to conclude that regulation can not ensure fairness to all applicants. But is likewise too early to deny the possibility that the technical d iffic u ltie s w ill prove over whelming. I t Is to be hoped that testing techniques can be sufficiently refined to produce legally acceptable results. Other wise regulation 1n this area may ultimately give way to prohibition, (pp. 743-744)
During the Hay, 1977 session 1n the U. S. House of Representa tives, a b ill was Introduced which addressed Its e lf to standardized 51 testing. This b ill, entitled "The Limits of Education Testing", was mainly concerned with ameliorating the abusive use of standardized tests and to protect the rights of test subjects. Bailey (1978) out lined three major purposes of this b ill:
. . .to define and strengthen consumer rights so that subjects w ill know what the test measures, the margin of error Involved, and the way test scores are distributed. Secondly. . .to encourage educational Institutions to decrease reliance on standardized test scores 1n admissions 1n the interest of minority and disadvantaged access to college. Third, . . .to add a learning element Into the testing process by making available at a low cost to the student the test questions, to correct answers, and the Individual student's answers, (pp. 66-67)
It appears that Institutions and testers are becoming Increasingly responsive to the unfair discrimination of the use of standardized test scores in selecting minority applicants. In a research study conducted by the National Board on Graduate Education (1976), I t was reported that 97 percent of graduate schools that normally require a minimum score on the Graduate Record Examination were w illing to liberalize that requirement for minority/disadvantaged students (p.
152). In an earlier report by the College Entrance Examination Board
(1970), it was reported that a wider array of talents should be assessed for college entrance and developed as a profile of a b ilitie s .
These documents are representative of other reports which advocate the use of non-traditional selection procedures 1n conjunction with or 1n lieu of standardized test scores.
Graduate and professional schools attempting to respond to the special needs of minority applicants, however, have recently become 52 the victims of lawsuits. Some white applicants having higher admis
sion scores than some minority applicants were denied admissions 1n
preference of the la tte r group. The white applicants claimed that they were the victims of reverse discrimination. Two exemplary cases ad
dressing this Issue were Defunis vs. Odegaard (1974) and Bakke vs.
the University of California at Davis (1977).
However, O'Neil (1975) pronostlcates that the modicum minority
representation 1n higher education (namely predominantly white in stitutions) will not be ameliorated unless one or more of the following
changes occur:
1. the quality of secondary education for minority students Improves dramatically; 2. financial and social barriers that now im pede advancement of minority students are dramatically reduced; 3. alternative tests and predictive measures are developed that do not disproportionately exclude minority applicants; or 4. the use of traditional admission criteria 1s adjusted to overcome the effects of their uni form application, (p. 106}
Some of these concerns are discussed 1n the following sections.
Long Range Issues and Alternatives for Minority Students
Alternatives to Traditional Standardized Tests
Other alternatives that might be used 1n Heu of or 1n conjunc
tion with traditional standardized tests are as follows: (1) retrain
ing test users; (2) measures of environmental factors; (3) biographical
data; (4) cultural-fair tests; and (5) cultural-specific tests. These
alternatives are discussed 1n the following sections. 53 Retraining Test Users, One suggested outline for coping with the testing of blacks was delineated by Fisherman et al. (1964).
Fisherman advocated the need for training and sensitizing test users to the possible misinterpretations of test scores as a result of technical and psychological contamination. The suggestion for using this approach is concerned with three major concerns regarding minority testing:
1. Lack of reliable differentiation 1n the range of minority
group scores which tend to cluster at the lower end of
the total range;
2. Lack of predictive valid ity when scores are compared with
standardization samples of a different soclo-cultural
background; and
3. Emphasis on adequate understanding of socio-cultural back
ground of the group being tested 1n order to make a true
Interpretation of scores.
This outline encompasses the need to Interpret test results with the understanding that certain variables, extraneous to test content, in fluence them. Standardized tests, according to Fisherman, should continue to be used as a means of comparing the performance of the minority child with that of advantaged white, middle-class children in order to determine "the magnitude of the deprivation to be over come" (Fisherman et a l., 1964).
Measures of Environmental Factors. Measuring the environment to predict academic success is not new. However, educators have encountered 54 d iffic u lty In this approach due to the absence of adequate Instruments to measure these determinants. Instruments, presently existing for
this purpose, are generally limited to yielding an Index of soda! status and economic well-being with the consequent result that they
"give l i t t l e Information about the specific ways 1n which environmental factors might affect the development of specific behavioral character istics" (Wolf, 1954).
In the study conducted by Wolf, an attempt was made to remedy problems encountered measuring environmental factors. Wolf's approach concentrated on the Identification and description of the optimal characteristics of an environment that facilitates the development of general Intelligence, academic achievement, physical growth, creativity, and so on. His study Indicated that by obtaining a measure of what parents do 1n the home with their children, academic achieve ment can be predicted with a fa irly high degree of accuracy. Wolf also concluded that a measurement of the environment Implies better indices of prediction of academic success. Of Immediate Importance to education was the Implication that this information could provide useful guidelines for "the development of new curricula designed to help overcome Identified environmental deficiencies among students"
(Wolf, 1964). Other studies have supported the significance of environmental factors 1n predicting academic achievement. Petersen (1977) stated that studies of concurrent relationships for home environment to school achievement have demonstrated that socioeconomic status and 55 the number of children 1n a family are potent correlates of school ac hievement; socioeconomic status and fewer children were more favorable
(Petersen, 1977).
Nuttal et al. (1976) found sex specific patterns in the home environment to be related to academic achievement. They found family size to be an Important variable for boys and birth order to be an
Important variable for girls, both when l.Q. 1s controlled.
Greenberg and Davidson (1972) conducted a study of blacks who were high and low achievers. The difference between these two groups were typified by the following factors:
1. Structure and orderliness of the home;
2. Parental awareness of the child;
3. Rationality of discipline 1n the home;
4. Parental occupation; and
5. Education level of the parents.
Biographical Data. The use of biographical data has also proven an effective academic predictor of college grades. E ll1son (1973) defines biographical Information as:
. . .a collection of multiple choice questions (often similar to those found on an application blank) 1n which an Individual describes himself and his background. The rationale 1n using such an approach is very simple—that past be havior can be used as an Indicator of future performance, (p. 8)
Ellison conducted a study using a sample of 1,640 students: 982 were
1n special admissions programs; 554 were regular admission students; and 104 were students In a black university. Students were 56 administered form ALPHA I I of the biographical Inventory. Results In dicated the biographical data were generally equally effective or slightly superior to the high schools' performance measures 1n pre dicting college GPA. Most Important, biographical scoring keys did not provide any differentiation between blacks and whites.
Price (1969) also conducted a biographical Information (BI) study. This study demonstrated that the academic performance score of the ALPHA BI had a validity of .41 against GPA on a sample of 630 freshmen. The SAT verbal and SAT mathematical had a valid ity of .36 and .31 on the same sample. These findings suggest that B .I. data might be more predictive of students' academic performance than, the
SAT.
Cultural-Fair Tests. Anastasi (1976) reported that every test tends to favor persons from the culture In which the test was developed. In America, the problem of "cross-cultural testing have been associated chiefly with subcultures or minority cultures with the dominant culture" (p. 287). Heightened social and political developments 1n this country have Increased this concern. A major
Issue of this problem is basically expressed 1n the following excerpt:
. . .There has been widespread concern regarding the applicability of available tests to culturally disadvantaged groups. I t should be noted paren thetically that cultural disadvantaged 1s a rela tive concept. Objectively there 1s only cultural differences between any two cultures or subcultures. Each culture fosters and encourages the develop-, ment of behavior that 1s adapted to Its values and demands. When an Individual must adjust to and compete within a culture or subculture other than that in which he was reared, then cultural difference 1s likely to become cultural disadvan tage. (p. 287) 57 Proponents of cultural-fair tests purport that this cultural advantage could
be eraticated by selecting only those experiences, knowledge, and
s k ills conmon to different cultures. These proponents also suggest
that "when cultural factors are controlled, no significant difference
exists between the average intellectual ability of children from dif
ferent socioeconomic background" (Samuda, p. 133).
Unlike traditional standardized tests, cultural-fair tests have
attempted to eliminate one or more parameters in which cultures vary.
Examples of such parameters are language, reading, speed, and test con
tent. Empirical data suggests that such parameters d iffe r culturally.
To compensate for these parameters, cu ltu re-fair tests are administered
d ifferently than most conventional standardized tests. These tests
usually require non-verbal tasks, placing l i t t l e or no emphasis upon writing or spoken language from the examinee. Directions are given
orally. Item selection for the tests are based upon their universal
quality. That 1s, only those samples of knowledge, s k ills , and ex periences which are equally common or universally common to a ll groups
are contained. The Influence of speed 1s eliminated by allowing the examinee long time lim its to respond to Items. There are no premiums for persons who are fast test performers (Samuda, 1973; Anastasi, 1976).
Although cultural-fair tests (e.g. Davls-Eells Game Test,
Raven's Progressive Matrices, and Lelter International Performance
Scale) emerged 1n response to the need for measures suitable for use with persons from dissimilar cultures, they have not been well accepted by the testing community. Psychologists generally agree that 58 one test cannot be universally applicable and fa ir to persons from a ll cultures and s t ill assess Important psychological characteristics
(Matuszek & Oakland, 1978). There 1s also skepticism among critics of the possibility for a single test to be universally applicable or equally "fair" to all cultures. Moreover, It is Improbable that any test can be equally "fair" to more than one cultural group, particularly
1f the cultures are quite different. Samuda summarizes the opposing view for using cultural-fair tests by stating:
I t is the consensual opinion of psychometriclans and psychologists that cultural-free or cultural fa ir tests have proved disappointing and have fallen short of their goals, for minority students have been shown to perform, i f not more poorly, at least just as badly as they do on conven tional Intelligence measures, (p. 148)
Thorndike and Hagen (1977) suggest that the use of cu ltu ral-fair tests should not be completely abandoned. They contend that the validity of such tests has not been very thoroughly or comprehenlsvely explored.
Cultural-Specific Tests. The movement to develop tests which are specifically standardized on the cultural group to be tested has also received support. I t Is believed that such "tests could be used to determine the child's a b ility to function symbolically or to think 1n terms of his own culture and environment" (Barnes 1n Williams,
1975, p. 122). This is what traditional standardized tests does for the middle class white child. Supporters of this movement believe that a child's a b ility to learn 1n one environment means that he can learn in another. Williams (1975) eloquently espouses this belief 59 when he states: If the black child can learn, survive, cope and deal effectively "with his own environment, 1t 1s strongly Indicated that he has the a b ility to 'deal effectively' with another environment"
(p. 123).
Several cultural-specific tests were developed during the past decade. Two such tests were discussed in Robert Williams' (1975) book en titled, Ebonics: The True Language of Black Folks. The tests discussed were the American Cross Cultural Ethnic Nomenclature Test
(ACCENT) and the Black Intelligence Test for Cultural Homogeneity
(BITCH).
In 1970, Howard Layment et al. developed the ACCENT. This In strument contained 20 black-biased and 20 white-biased Items. One hundred-ten undergraduates (91 white and 19 blacks) 1n education were administered the test. The results revealed that black students obtained a mean score of 15.3 on the black Items and 11.1 on the white
Items. This difference was significant at the .001 probability level.
The BITCH 1s a cultural-specific test developed by Robert
Williams. Williams (1975, p. 123-124) stated that the research leading to the development of this Instrument was directed in the following manner:
1. Item selections were drawn from the black experience,
using a variety of sources, e.g. the Dictionary of
Afro-American Slang, the Word in the APGA Journal, as
sociates and the authors personal experiences within the
black community; 60 2. Items were edited to eliminate careless phraseology,
ambiguity, and duplication;
3. Items were administered to black and white experimental
groups to: (a) define words, (b) determine Items common
to both groups, and (c) determine those Items peculiar
to the white group—words which discriminated poorly
between the two groups were eliminated; and
4. Tryout session of the Items with a group of judges (two
blacks and two whites) who rated the Items for ambiguity,
clarity, and objectivity.
The above stages .resulted In the selection of 100 items for the
BITCH. To standardized the instrument, Williams administered 1t to
100 white and 100 black high school students ranging 1n ages from 16 to 18 years. Half the subjects were from low socio-economic levels and half came from middle socio-economic levels. The mean score earned by black subjects was 87.07. White subjects' mean score was
51.07. This difference was reported to be significant beyond the .001 probability level. Williams (1975) reported his observations of the groups during the administration of the test. He stated that:
Conments were made such as: "Man, this 1s a bad test." "This 1s really hip." "It's outta sight." Black Ss frequently came across items which were humorous and quite fam iliar to them. White Ss seemed to be quite challenged by the test and ap peared tense. Many sighed showed other signs of discomfort. A few questioned the validity of the Instrument; others stated that 1f the test Is valid, then they have l i t t l e knowledge of the black experience. S till others showed a sudden awareness of the "agony" experienced by blacks on white-oriented tests, (p. 125) 61 Williams reported that the Interpretation of his results are twofold: "(1) a culture-specific test clearly shows the ability of the group for which the test was Intended and (2) a culture-specific test does not accurately reflect the a b ility for a nonrepresenting group"
(p. 125). Individuals who make high scores on the BITCH "reveal that they have had intimate contact with and knowledge of blacks' life styles, values, folkways, and so on" (Samuda, 1975).
Culture-specific tests have received more support from the testing community than c u ltu ra l-fa ir tests. However, there are con cerns about this movement espoused by some psychometriclans. Three major concerns are: (1) the general1zabil1ty of these tests beyond the specific culture; (2) the cost of standardization; and (3) de lim iting the boundaries of each cultural group.
When such test are undertaken on a large scale, I t is d iffic u lt to Imagine the usefulness of culture-specific tests for the Individual
Interacting within the larger society. Opponents to this movement suggest that no performance on these tests can possibility be generalized beyond the culture for which they were developed.
The enormous expense in the standardization of a multiplicity of tests is another argument opposing the practical use of cultural- specific tests. This argument 1s coupled with the extreme d iffic u lty and complexities Involved in delimiting the boundaries of each cultural group for which tests should be developed (Samuda, pp. 142-
143). Academic Performance of Blacks In TTraduate and Professional Schools
A cursory review of related literatu re suggests that the academic success of blacks in graduate and professional school (primarily those that are predominantly white) 1s contingent upon several fac tors. These factors can be categorized as: (1) financial assistance; and (2) student support systems within the institu tio n . There have been studies, however, that attempted to determine 1f black graduate students from predominantly black Institutions achieve d ifferently
1n predominantly non-black Institutions than black graduate students from predominantly white colleges.
Anderson and Hrabowskl (1977) conducted such a study. This study consisted of 350 black American graduate students who entered master's or doctoral degree programs at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champalgn (a major research oriented Institution) between June
1968 and February 1973. Two groups of students—those who completed their undergraduate studies at black Institutions and those who graduated from predominantly white institutions—were categorized
Into four fields of study: (1) Education; (2) Social Science and
Public Services, (3) Humanities; and (4) Pure and Applied Sciences.
Anderson and Hrabowskl reported that there was no significant d if ference on mean graduate grade point average or graduate rate. Also, there existed a positive correlation between both groups within the four fields of study. These researchers made the following con clusions based upon their findings: 63 There Is no advantage for blacks to receive their undergraduate degree from either a black or white college in regard to aca.demic achievement as mea sured by grades and retention in graduate school. This is not to say, however, that there may not be perceived or real differences in the cultural and personal development between the two groups of students, but these variables were not considered 1n this study, (p. 302)
The Ohio State University (OSU) has been an exemplary Institu tion In the recruitment and graduation of black graduate and pro fessional school students. Dr. Frank W. Hale, Jr. (1979) Vice Provost for Academic Affairs at OSU, espoused this success in his address to the 1979-80 black graduate and professional school students at OSU.
Hale stated that from 1971 through 1978, there were 569 fellowships awarded to minority students at this Institution. From that total,
443 (77.8%) students graduated with the Master's or Ph.D. degree.
Studies show that 1t takes black doctoral students comparably longer to obtain their degrees than their white counterparts (Bryant,
1973; National Board on Graduate Education, 1976). One reason, in dicated by these studies, Is that black graduate and professional students have greater financial difficulties than whites. Many blacks are faced with the task of repaying educational loans
Incurred during their undergraduate studies. Consequently, blacks are sometimes forced to interrupt their studies to meet financial obligations. This subsequent postponement has also resulted 1n black doctoral students being older than their white counterparts upon receiving the degree. University climate 1s another factor affecting academic achieve ment of black graduate and professional school students. Pfeifer
(1976) stated that " It 1s a variable that should not be overlooked when considering racial bias 1n the academic setting" (p. 341). The differences 1n university climate for black students versus white students makes this factor extremely Important to ensure the equality of the educational experience for blacks and whites.
Reed (1976) suggests that alienation of black students 1s an other problem at large Institutions. This problem, according to Reed, leads to frustration and withdrawal by the black student. Further,
"the opportunity to sharpen one's s k ills , to test Ideas and to c u lti vate a sense of belonging is severely restricted" (p. 145). The culmination of this interaction 1s usually reflected 1n low academic performance, frequently below the black student's a b ility .
Yates (1973) advocated the need to provide minority students support 1n fa c ilita tin g adjustment and academic achievement 1n white colleges and universities. For example, 1t was noted that black students' cognitive learning styles are generally different than that of white students. This sometimes presents problems for the black student. Yates suggested that there 1s a need to help black students evaluate and adjust their learning styles to respective courses
(pp. 25-30).
This discussion Indicated that black students do achieve aca demically well In graduate and professional schools 1n which enroll ment Is predominantly white. However, the degree to which they 65 achieve may depend upon such factors as finance, university climate,
and the adjustment of their learning styles. Yates also suggests
that there is a need for faculty to be a more sensitive when working
with blacks and other minority graduate and professional school students.
Career Patterns of Black American doctoral Recipients
Factors Influencing Career Choice
The doctorate 1s the most prestigious degree that can be awarded
in the education profession. Recipients of this degree generally have a considerably high level of occupational aspiration, as exemplified by their strong desire to achieve. This aspiration 1s obvious when one considers the requirements Imposed upon aspirants of this degree:
(1) a very rigorous academic program (e.g. courses, general and oral examinations, research projects, e tc .); (2) a long period of time committed to acquire the degree (an average of four or more years be yond the bachelor's degree); (3) personal sacrifice (e.g. loss of social Interaction with family, friends, and community; financial pressure, e tc .). Black recipients of the doctorate are markedly few as indicated
1n an ea rlier discussion. One might surmise, then, that blacks have lower occupational aspirations when compared to that of white members of our society. However, numerous studies have espoused that there are various constraints which influence the occupational aspirations of the black culture, Gurin (1966) asserted that evidence exists which suggests that children's educational and vocational aspirations 66 are affected by class situation in which they grow up. These studies reveal "that such factors as high parental education* high status job, and high family income serve to heighten the level of children's occupational and educational aspirations" (p. 336). Past trends 1n the nation's census reveal that members of the black community, in general, have not been the recipients of such rewards (e.g. high parental Income, high job status, e tc .). Such data could be invaluable
In accounting for one of several reasons why black doctoral students and recipients are disproportionally few.
Gurln (1966) conducted a study to "explore the facilitatin g and constraining effects of social class on several dimensions of occupational aspiration: the prestige of the choice; the a b ility demands of the choice; and the non-traditionality of the choice for degrees" (p. 337). Subjects for this study consisted of 2,000 males and 2,000 females undergraduate college students representing a diversity of predominantly black colleges. These subjects completed a questionnaire covering a variety of areas: family background; high school experiences; educational and occupational goals; motiva tional characteristics; political and social attitudes; and college experiences. Selected results Indicated that:
The higher the father's education the more likely i t is that the son's occupational choice w ill be highly prestigeful (sic) and highly demanding of ability. . .If the son's choice Is highly prestigeful (sic), the fact of having a father with high educational attainments increases the likelihood that the choice will also be tradi tional Instead of nontraditlonal for Negroes. . . The social class of the family does relate to how Important each parent has been in the stu dent's college and occupational choices. . . 67
The father's influence is greater the higher the family Income, the higher the education of both parents, and the more intact the home. . .Girls who grew up in intact homes, 1n contrast to homes with a female head of the family, are more lik e ly to choose desirable occupations but less likely to choose ones that are prestigeful (sic) or demanding of a b ility . . .On the whole, mothers are more important than fathers in In fluencing the student's decision to go to college and his occupation choice, (pp. 341-343)
Further findings and implications regarding constraints on vocational aspiration of blacks were presented by Gurln (1966):
Yet the results, especially for the male student, Indicate that growing up in a lower-income home or a home where the parents have l i t t l e educa tion does condition aspirations, 1t decreases the likelihood that the male students w ill aspire for prestigeful jobs or ones that provide opportunity for expression of great a b ility . . .Students should be made aware of th eir opportunities and the extent to which their considerations and choices are considered by th eir social backgrounds . . .To help students Increase th eir awareness of the way in which class background and sex-role considerations may condition the roles they choose to play 1n the post-college world 1n an Important aspect of enhancing their capacity to make real choices, (pp. 347-349)
The Current Status of Black Doctoral Recipients in the American Marketplace
Several studies have been conducted to report the employment status of black American doctoral recipients. Two exemplary studies were conducted by Mommsen (1973) and Moore and Wagstaff (1974).
Another study, funded by the Ford Foundation, was directed by James
Bryant (1970). These studies concur that most black doctoral recipients are employed in predominantly black colleges and universities. 68 One of the Issues related to the status of black American doc toral recipients is their migration Into predominantly white colleges and universities. According to Monmsen (1973), the concern for this issue has been voiced by members of the black community. Some black academicians, and particularly black students, suggested that white institutions are recruiting their best scholars (those blacks with the doctorate). Mommsen referred to this occurence as the "brain drain" hypothesis.
Mommsen's study appears to indicate that the brain drain does exists, but not substantially. The majority of black doctoral re cipients who resign their positions 1n predominantly black Institutions and obtain employment 1n .predominantly white institutions are between the ages of 52-59 years old.
This age group represents 21 percent (n = 748) of the respondents studied by Mommsen. "The highest proportions of respondents locating in white Institutions for their first [ 26%) and present (3135) posi tions are among the youngest black doctorates" (p. 198). Mommsen further states that although his data support the notion of a "brain drain" in the black institutions of higher education, this movement
1s relatively small 1n respect to the number of black doctoral re cipients who remain (6756).
Moore and Wagstaff (1974) conducted a survey Involving 3,228 black educators in the United States. Their findings also seem to suggest that the number of black doctoral recipients employed 1n predominantly white institutions is minimal. However, selected studies 69 reviewed 1n this study also suggest that the feeling of alienation by blacks 1n predominantly white Institutions may account, 1n part, for their underrepresentation 1n these Institutions.
This discussion attempted to provide information related to the status of black American doctoral recipients 1n the marketplace. Findings revealed that most black recipients of the doctorate are employed in predominantly black colleges and universities. Although some are migrating into white Institutions, the occurence is few.
Summary of Chapter 11
Chapter II presented empirical data and philosophical rationales on selected factors related to the selection, academic achievement, and career development of blacks in higher education. Some of the literature Indicated that there is a lack of consensus among profes sional members on Issues related to minority preference, the use of standardized tests, and alternatives to standardized tests.
Admissions practices of graduate and professional schools was a factor Identified and discussed 1n this chapter. Empirical data indicated that most graduate and professional school officials utilize the following admission criteria in selecting applicants into their respective programs: grade point averages; standardized test scores; letters of recommendation; and interviews. Most researchers concur that these academic predictors are viable as academic predictors; however, there are weaknesses regarding each criterion or which ad mission o fficials should be aware. 70 Minority preference as an admission practice has also precipi tated much debate among educators, society» and 1n the legal forum.
In discussing this Issue, the Investigator attempted to objectively report both sides of the controversies.
The literature review Indicated that the use of minority stu dents' standardized test scores as a criterion for their selection Into higher education has received much debate. This Issue was presented
1n this chapter by delineating and c ritic a lly analyzing the character istics of standardized tests. The Investigator then presented empirical data and philosophical rationales for and against the use of standardized test scores as an admissions criterion for minority students.
A discussion of selected alternatives to standardized tests was also discussed 1n this chapter. These alternatives Included:
(1) measures of environmental factors; (2) biographical data;
(3) cultural-fair tests; and (4) cultural-specific tests. Also of paramount performance was the need to retrain consumers of standardized and/or alternative tests to ensure the appropriate application of evaluation data.
This chapter was concluded by discussing the academic performance of blacks 1n graduate school and the career patterns of black
American doctoral-degree recipients. CHAPTER I I I
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of Chapter I I I is to describe the research proce dures used in this investigation. This includes a discussion of the following: (1) the target populations from which data were obtained to answer the 21 research questions; (2) the instruments used for collecting data from target population members; (3) procedures used for validating the instruments; (4) the procedures used for data collection and the percentages of questionnaires returned; and
(5) the procedures used to analyze the data. The "sensitivity" and its effect upon this Investigation are also discussed in this chapter.
Target Populations
Members from four target populations were used to generate data for this study. Each target member was associated with an indus tria l teacher education program. The target members included: (1) de partment chairpersons (including deans and coordinators); (2) black doctoral students; (3) black doctoral-degree recipients; and
(4) faculty members having advised black doctoral students.
Department chairpersons were selected from Industrial education departments listed in the 18th edition of the Industrial Teacher Educa tion Directory. This document is sponsored annually by the American
71 72 Council on Industrial Arts Teacher Education (ACIATE) and the National
Association of Industrial and Technical Teacher Educators (NAITTE).
The Directory Includes a 11st of industrial teacher educators and educational Institutions offering Industrial education programs.
Two hundred thirty-seven Industrial education programs were
Identified 1n the Directory. A letter, a questionnaire, and an Infor mation sheet were mailed to department chairpersons in each program.
Data collected from chairpersons enabled the researcher to Identify . and locate other target population members 1n this study.
The Instruments
Three questionnaires were developed and used to collect data from members of the four target populations in this study. These questionnaires were designed to generate the needed data for answering the 21 research questions under the three categories: selection; academic achievement; and career development of black doctoral stu dents and doctoral-degree recipients 1n Industrial education. The three Instruments are described below:
Instrument #1: Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data Questionnaire
Department chairpersons comprised the target population that was to respond to this questionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to collect departmental data from Industrial education programs and personnel In the United States. There were two parts to this ques tionnaire. Items 1 through 11 comprised Part I. All chairpersons were asked to complete these Items. The major concerns of Item 1 through 11 (Part I) are outlined below: 73 1. type of Institution (e.g. support system and predomi nant race of student body); 2. size of Institution;
3. degree programs offered;
4. number and rank of personnel by race;
5. employment of personnel; and
6. comparison of blacks' professional skills to non-blacks.
Part I I (Items 12-16) was completed by chairpersons 1n Institu tions offering a doctoral degree in Industrial teacher education.
Items 1n Part I I were mainly concerned with:
1. enrollment of black doctoral students;
2. faculty having advised black doctoral students;
3. primary sources of university funding available to black doctoral students;
4. recruitment of black doctoral students; and
5. admission crite ria of doctoral-degree programs.
Instrument #2: Education and Employment Data for Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral-Degree Recipients Questionnaire
This Instrument was designed to collect data from black doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients. There were three parts to this questionnaire. Part I (Items 1-22) and Part I I I (Items 29-57) were completed by both doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients.
The major concern of Parts I and I I I was to generate data about these target respondents regarding the following:
1. current academic status;
2. professional work experience;
3. academic and vocational motivating factors; 74
4. educational financing;
5. educational experiences;
6. demographic data; and
7. academic achievement.
Only target members who were recipients of the doctoral degree completed Part I I . Items in Part I I generated data regarding the following:
1. nature of doctoral-degree program and year graduated;
2. educational and employment status when doctorate was conferred;
3. time (years) required to earn doctorate; and
4. age when doctorate was received.
Instrument #3: Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Questionnaire
This instrument was completed by advisers of current and former black doctoral students. Data regarding the professional experiences of these faculty members as doctoral advisers were obtained. Advisers responding to this questionnaire also provided data regarding the following concerns:
1. attritio n rate of black and non-black doctoral students;
2. quality and scope of graduate performance of black and non-black doctoral students; and
3. race of advisers.
The three questionnaires described above were the major sources for generating data to answer the 21 research questions. Each questionnaire was designed to be completed by specific target popula tion members in this study. 75 Validation of the Instruments
Figure I provides an operational model of the research procedures
Incorporated 1n this study. Phases I and II depict the operational procedures utilized 1n validating the three Instruments. Phase I consisted of preliminary steps that were the bases from which the ques tionnaires were designed. The development evaluation, and revisions of the three questionnaires were completed during Phase I I . Phases
I I I and IV consisted of the following procedures: (1) data collection;
(2) analysis of the data; and (3) recommendations for graduate and professional development of blacks 1n Industrial teacher education.
I t should be noted that a discussion of Phase IV begins in this chapter under the heading, Data Analysis. Phase IV of this investiga tion Is continued in Chapters IV and V.
Phase I
After the problem area had been Identified, an outline was de veloped by the researcher which guided the c ritic a l examination of related lite ra tu re. The following areas were contained 1n the outline and subsequently examined 1n the literatu re review:
1. graduate and professional schools admission policies;
2. philosophical Issues regarding admission c rite ria ;
3. testing and minority students;
4. long range Issues and alternatives regarding minority
admissions;
5. academic performance of blacks 1n graduate and profes
sional schools; and 76
Phase I Identification of Problem i Critical Examination of Related Literature
I ------Formulation of Three Research Topics I Graduate School Se* Career Choice Academic lectlon/Admfssion Achievement and Policies Development of Blacks
Development of 21 Research Questions TFase 11 pPeslgned questionnaires for Three Target Populations |
Black Doctoral Stu Chairpersons Advisers of Black dents and Recip Doctoral Stu Questionnaire ients Questionnaire dents Questionnaire
Review of Questionnaires by Panel of Research Experts
Revision of Questionnaires
P ilot Test
Final Revision of Questionnaires
FHase I I T " Survey/Data Collection
T H asTT V ™ Analysis of Data and Reconrnendatlons for Graduate and Professional Development of Blacks In Industrial Teacher Education
Figure 1
Operational Model of Research Procedures 77
6. career patterns of black American doctoral-degree re
cipients.
From the literatu re review, three major research topics were formulated
for this investigation: (1) selection/admission policies of doctoral
programs 1n Industrial education; (2) the academic achievement of
blacks 1n Industrial education; and (3) factors Influencing career
choice and development of black doctoral students and a total of 21
research questions were generated under the three research topics.
Phase I I
Three questionnaires were designed and developed for collecting
data for answering the 21 research questions. Two procedures were
used to validate the three questionnaires during Phase I I: (1) review
by a panel consisting of three faculty members and (2) pilot testing.
The In itia l drafts of the Instruments were reviewed by the re
searcher's graduate adviser. After modifying the questionnaires,
three faculty members from The Ohio State University were asked to
c ritic a lly evaluate the three questionnaires, the objectives of the
study, the 21 research questions, and oral directions regarding their
tasks. After reviewing the questionnaires, each faculty member pro
vided oral and written comments for Improving the Instruments. These
comments were mostly of an editorial nature. Each faculty member agreed that: (1) the questionnaires were appropriate for data collec
tion and analysis, and (2) the questionnaire Items addressed the con
cerns of the objectives 1n this study and the 21 research questions.
Other than editorial changes, no substantive changes were made In the original questionnaires. A p ilo t test Involving one target member from each population 1n this study also helped to validate the three questionnaires. Each member was orally asked to: (1) "time" his completion of the ques tionnaires and (2) provide further reconmendations for Improving c la rity of Items and content valid ity. These target members Included one each of the following types of persons: department chairperson; adviser having advised black doctoral students; black doctoral student; and black doctoral-degree recipient. The approximate time Indicated for completing each questionnaire was as follows:
1. Instrument #1: Industrial Teacher Education Departmental
Data Questionnaire (20 minutes);
2. Instrument #2: Education and Employment Data for Black
Doctoral Students and Doctoral-Degree Recipients Ques
tionnaire (20 minutes); and
3. Instrument #3: Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Ques
tionnaire (18 minutes).
The final revisions to the Instruments were based upon the recommenda tions provided by each target member. Developmental and final drafts of each questionnaire are Included 1n Appendix A, B, and C.
Procedure for Data Collection
Phase I I I
Data for this study were generated by using the mall survey technique. The fir s t questionnaire, Industrial Teacher Education De partmental Data Questionnaire, was mailed on February 18, 1980. Target members for this questionnaire consisted of 237 department chairpersons 79 (or other department officials) listed 1n the 18th edition of the
Industrial Teacher Education Directory. Accompanying each question naire mailed were: (1) cover le tte r typed on The Ohio State University stationary (letterhead); (2) yellow Information sheet; and (3) self- addressed stamped envelope. Chairpersons having other target popu lation members (advisers, black doctoral students, and black doctoral recipients) In their department were asked to provide the names and addresses on the yellow Information sheet (see Appendix E ). I f chair persons were unwilling to provide specific names, they were asked to coordinate the distribution of subsequent questionnaires to target persons. Only four chairpersons were unwilling to provide specific names.
Two weeks were permitted for chairpersons to respond to the ques tionnaires. A total of 164 (69.2% of 237) chairpersons responded during the fir s t mailing. Only 136 (57.416) of the 164 questionnaires were completed and thus usable. Twenty-eight (11.856 of 237) queslon- naires were not usable. Of the 28, 16 chairpersons responded, but did not complete the questionnaire. These respondents reported the following reasons for not completing the questionnaires: (1) no blacks In their program and (2) no doctoral program. It was decided that a special follow-up would be directed to these 16 chairpersons.
Two of the 28 unusable questionnaires were returned by chairpersons who asked to be exempted from the study.
The remaining 10 of the 28 unusable questionnaires were returned by respondents who provided different reasons. These respondents reported that their department did not have an Industrial teacher 30 education program. All 10 respondents were eliminated from the study.
This gave an adjusted total of 227 Industrial education departments
from which data were to be generated. One hundred th1rty-s1x (60% of
227) usable questionnaires had been returned and used 1n the analysis
as a result of the In itia l mailing.
Before the firs t follow-up, the returned questionnaires were
analyzed. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the number
of predominantly black and white Institutions that were among the fir s t
returns. Since most black doctoral-degree recipients were employed
In predominantly black Institutions, 1t was Important to obtain valid
responses from most of the chairpersons 1n those Institutions. A
review of the fir s t questionnaires Indicated that 10 of the 136 usable questionnaires were from predominantly black Institutions. A comparison
of the Institutions listed 1n the Directory of Predominantly Black
Colleges and Universities 1n the United States (1975) and the Indus
trial Teacher Education Directory (1979-1980) revealed that 22 pre
dominantly black Institutions have Industrial education programs.
On March 17, 1980, a mail follow-up was made to department chair
persons who had not returned their completed questionnaire. Eighty- nine department chairpersons 1n Industrial education programs were
the target for this follow-up which Included:
1. 16 chairpersons who had returned their questionnaires
incompleted during the fir s t mailing;
2. 11 chairpersons 1n predominantly black Institutions; and
3. 62 chairpersons in predominantly white Institutions. 81 A special le tte r was developed and addressed specifically to the three target groups (see Appendix G).
The In itia l mailing to the other three target populations (other than chairpersons) was also Initiated on March 17, 1980. Names and addresses of these members were made available from department chair persons in the fir s t returns. The number of questionnaires and the population 1n which questionnaires were mailed were as follows: 25 doctoral-degree recipients; 20 doctoral students; and 36 faculty mem bers having advised black doctoral students. Four questionnaires were given to a dean of a predominantly black Institution at the
American Industrial Arts Association (AIAA) Annual Conference 1n St.
Louis, Missouri. This Individual was asked to distribute the four questionnaires to black doctoral-degree recipients 1n his department.
All four questionnaires were completed and returned to the Investigator.
On April 14, 1980, a mall follow-up was sent to black doctoral students, black doctoral-degree recipients, and advisers having advised black doctoral students. This mailing Included another ques tionnaire and a cover le tte r requesting their response. The le tte r sent to black doctoral recipients was a personal le tte r addressing them individually. The Investigator also wrote HELP! on The Ohio State
University memo and checked "Urgent." This memo was clipped on each potential respondent's questionnaire.
A special effo rt was also made to Increase the response rate among doctoral-degree programs. These programs were the major source for Identifying black doctoral students and faculty members having ad vised black doctoral students. Prior to April 14, persons from 29 doctoral-degree Institutions had completed and returned questionnaires.
In scanning the Industrial Teacher Education Directory, 43 doctoral degree granting programs were Identified. The Directory lis ts each
Institution with Industrial teacher education programs and reports the degrees awarded by each department. After Identifying these In s titu tions, another questionnaire (for chairpersons) and a personalized typed le tte r were mailed to the 14 non-responding doctoral Institutions.
This material was mailed on April 14, 1980. In some Instances, en- t closures were addressed and sent to different administrators within a department.
A summary of target population members and the response rates are reported 1n Tables 1 and 2.
In Table 1, specific note 1s given to the total response and usable questionnaires. Two-hundred and nine (92% of 227) persons re sponded to the questionnaire for department chairpersons. However, 28 of these respondents returned the questionnaire Incompleted; ten of the 28 were exempted from the study because they did not have an
Industrial education program. This le ft a total of 181 (79.7% of 227) usable questionnaires.
Forty-eight faculty members were Identified as having advised black doctoral students. Six faculty members were eliminated after they had reported no experience 1n advising black doctoral students.
A total of 40 (95.2% of 42) advisers responded to the questionnaire addressed to them. Thirty-three (78.6% of 42) of the questionnaires were usable. The seven advisers not represented returned the Incomplete 83 TABLE 1
DATA COLLECTED FROM TARGET POPULATIONS
Target question TAffli Usable Percent Popula naires Question- age tion Mailed Response nalres Usable
Chairpersons *227 209 181 79.7 (Overall)
Advisers ** 42 40 33 78.6
Black Doctoral- 59 43 43 72.0 Degree Recip ients
Black Doctoral 35 22 22 62.8 Students
* Adjusted from a total of 237 (10 were eliminated) ** Adjusted from a total of 48 (6 were eliminated) questionnaire or letter and stated that they did not wish to partici pate in this study.
Thirty-five black doctoral students were Identified as potential respondents for this Investigation. Of the 35 students, chairpersons provided names and addresses for 25. The Investigator therefore mailed 25 questionnaires directly to these students. Names and ad dresses for 10 of the 35 students reported by one department were not provided. Through a telephone conversation on April 23, 1980, the chairperson who had refused to provide the names and addresses agreed tp distribute the 10 questionnaires to black doctoral students 1n that department. A le tte r assuring the anonymity of this investigation,
10 self-addressed stamped envelopes, and the 10 questionnaires were mailed to this chairperson on April 23, 1980. 84
None of the 10 questionnaires was returned after a month wait.
On May 22, 1980 another telephone call was made to this chairperson.
This person reported that the questionnaires had been received, but
not distributed because the department was unable to locate the stu
dents. The chairperson was then asked to return the ten incompleted
questionnaires. This non-response was the major cause for the reduced
percentage (62.8% of 35) of unusable questionnaires for black doctoral
students reported 1n Table 1.
Table 2 reports return rates of the department chairpersons as classified by the racial composition of their Institutions and the availability of doctoral programs 1n Industrial teacher education.
The total length of time data were collected was three and one- half months. This time period for data collection was allowed to obtain as many completed questionnaires as possible. The last com pleted questlonnlare arrived on May 30, 1980.
TABLE 2
DATA COLLECTED FROM INSTITUTIONS
Question Question Popula naires tion naires Percentage Mailed Returned
Doctoral-Degree 43 34 75.0 Programs
Predominantly White 205 160 79.0 Institutions
Predominantly Black 22 21 95.0 Institutions 85 Sensitivity of the Study. The sensitivity of some questionnaire items was a major concern throughout this investigation. This concern was supported by the oral and written comments addressed to the In vestigator and dissertation committee members by potential and actual target population members.
Some respondents Indicated orally (at the AIAA Conference) that they were not completely honest in completing certain questionnaire
Items because of the coding system used on each questionnaire. Most of the concerns were addressed to Items 8 and 9 in the Adviser's questionnaire that dealt with the following: (1) advisers' preference to advise black or white doctoral students and (2) advisers' compari son of black and white doctoral students In 10 areas pertaining to academic and professional development.
There were also target population members who returned the questionnaires without providing data. Selected written comments addressed to the Investigator were as follows:
. . .blacks and whites are a ll people. I find no difference between the groups. There are Individual differences. I choose not to answer this questionnaire.
Please exempt me on this one.
Not Interested.
There were also target population members who completed the questionnaires* and also expressed Individual concerns for the validity of the study or particular questionnaire items. Selected comnents were taken from the Adviser's questionnaire; the last comment was cited from department chairpersons questionnaire: I find this questionnaire to be offensive, we work with all Individuals, not groups.
These (questions) are too Individual to be generalized.
I pay l i t t l e attention because each one (doctoral student) is treated personally.
This study 1s 10 years too old.
I really cannot generalize on any of these 1 terns.
Do you really think this to be an appropriate question?
I really do not care what race, creed or religion they (doctoral student) are. . ..
BLACK IS REALLY NOT AN INDICATOR!
Black target population members 1n this Investigation appeared
In itia lly to respond more slowly than whites. Moore and Wagstaff
(1974, p. 14) noted 1n their study that there Is a high level of tension and resistance among the black community regarding their participation 1n research that may picture blacks as the "wretched people 1n society" (p. 14). Their study was concerned with the recruitment, selection, hiring, and professional activities of black educators 1n predominantly white colleges and universities. The target population consisted of some 6,000 blacks 1n two-year and four-year colleges. Moore and Wagstaff reported that more than 200 blacks
1n th eir study demanded assurance of the researchers' Identify as black researchers before participating. Even with that written assurance, many fe lt suspicious of the researchers and their Intent
1n conducting the study. 87 Moore and Wagstaff's findings suggested a major concern for this
Investigation regarding blacks' resistance to participate 1n research when they are the targets of the study. Therefore, this Investigator, who 1s black, assured black target population members of his Identity when corresponding during the follow-up stage of the study. Respon dents were also assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of the reported data.
Data Analysis
Phase IV
Since the Instruments were designed u tilizin g closed-ended questions, based upon multiple choice methods, data were transferred from the respondents' questionnaires to IBM keypunched cards. The data were then analyzed u tilizin g the S tatistical Analysis System
(SAS) computer program and processing equipment (SAS User's Guide,
1979).
Selected variables 1n this study were crosstabulated utilizing
SAS frequency tables. The S tatistical Analysis System produces one way to n-way tables of frequencies and percentages. In a ll cases of missing values, SAS prints a period to represent numeric missing values. Calculation of frequencies and percentages were based solely upon reported data.
Data reported 1n the frequency tables were analyzed using one of three statistical tests. These tests Included: median 1-way analysis (approx. chi square); ch1 square; and the t-te s t. In most of the analyses, SAS cautioned that the tables were too sparse to 88 consider ch1 square a valid test. Siegel (1956, p. 110) Indicated that when the expected cell frequency Is too small chi square may not be properly or meaningfully used. In such cases the median 1-way analysis (approx. ch1 square) was performed to test significance between groups.
The median test 1s a non-parametric (distribution-free) test.
* It provides information as to whether i t 1s likely that two independent groups (not necessarily of the same size) have been drawn from popula tions with the same median (Siegel, p. 111). The SAS statement
PROC NPARIWAY MEDIAN was used to compute the median 1-way analysis.
After computing median scores for each cell 1n the table, SAS per formed an approximate ch1 square test. Significant approximate ch1 square values were reported 1n Chapter IV for each analysis. Chi square tests were performed in lieu of the median 1-way analysis
(approx. ch1 square) when expected cell sizes were not too small.
The t-tes t was used to generate analysis for Research Question
3 (academic achievement) and Research Question A (vocational selec tion and development). This sta tis tic computes a t. s ta tis tic for testing the hypothesis that the means of two groups of data are equal.
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) was used to compute ;t prob a b ility levels. This computer system reported £ statistics based on the assumption that the variances of the two groups are equal, and also an approximate jt based on the assumption that variances are un equal (SAS User's Guide, 1979, p. 424). The t probability levels reported 1n Chapter IV were based upon unequal variances. 89 Research Question 5 (Selection) was analyzed by computing cor relation coefficients between variables. The SAS statement PROC CORR was used to compute Pearson product-moment correlations.
Summary of Chapter I I I
Chapter I I I described the methodology that was used to generate
Information for answering the 21 research questions delineated 1n
Chapter I. The target populations which provided this Information consisted of the following: (1) department chairpersons (Including deans and coordinators); (2) black doctoral students; (3) black doctoral-degree recipients; and (4) faculty members having advised black doctoral students.
The Instruments used for collecting the data were also discussed.
These Instruments consisted of three questionnaires which were developed by the investigator and specifically designed for each of the target population members.
An operational model of the research procedures used 1n this study was also presented 1n this chapter. This model delineated the procedures for the following operations: (1) validation of the three questionnaires (Phases I - I I ) ; (2) survey/data collection (Phase I I I ) ; and (3) analysis of the data and reconvnendatlons for graduate and professional development of blacks 1n Industrial teacher education
(Phase IV). A discussion of each research procedure was presented under Phases I-IV . CHAPTER IV
PRESENTATION OF THE DATA
Introduction
The purpose of Chapter IV Is to report the findings of this study. Findings are presented by answering the 21 research questions pertaining to selected factors Influencing the selection, academic achievement, and career development of black doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients In Industrial education.
Research questions and findings are reported under three major categories: Selection, Academic Achievement, and Career Development.
In answering each question, a table of frequencies and percentages are provided. The median 1-way analysis (approximate chi square), ch1 square, and t-te s t probability values are reported when comparing groups. Whenever appropriate, other major findings related to the research questions also are reported.
Selection
Data generated under the category "Selection" Identify and de scribe admission practices of graduate-degree programs offering the doctorate 1n industrial teacher education. Answers for five research questions are reported under this category.
90 91
Research Question 1 (Selection)
The selection criteria used by doctoral degree granting In stitutions in this study are reported under Research Question 1
(Selection). Representative Institutions are characterized by the following variables: (1) racial composition; (2) institutional sup port; and (3) degree offerings. Research Question 1 1s as follows:
What are the c rite ria used by academic In s titu tions to select applicants into their doctoral programs 1n Industrial education?
In answering Research Question 1, the researcher addressed two major concerns. The fir s t concern was to Identify the nature of those academic Institutions that have doctoral-degree programs 1n
Industrial education. Institutional support and racial composition are the two major independent variables. Degree offerings of these
Institutions are considered the dependent variables. The second con cern addressed the "criteria" (dependent variable) used by the institutions in this study to select applicants Into their doctoral- degree programs. The independent variables are the respective In stitutions using the selection criteria.
Data for answering Research Question 1 are reported 1n nine tables. Tables 3-6 deal with the racial composition, Institutional support, and degree offerings of institutions in this study. Selec tion criteria used by the Institutions are reported 1n Tables 7-11.
Table 3 presents a descriptive breakdown of the Institutions
1n this stud(y. Data regarding th eir racial composition and financial support are included. 92 TABLE 3
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED BY INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Racial Institutional Support Composition Privately Publicly Total Supported Supported
f 18 142 160 Predominantly White % 9.9 78.5 88.4
f 1 20 21 Predominantly Black X .5 11.1 11.6
Total f 19 162 181 Total % 10.5 89.6 100.0
Table 3 Indicates that black institutions represent a modicum (21 of
181) of the Institutions in this study. Most of the black institu tions 1n this sample are publicly supported (20 of 21). Predominantly white institutions that are publicly supported represent 88.8 per cent (142 of 160) of these institutions. Based on these data, predominantly white institutions that are publicly supported repre sent the major portion of the Institutions in this study.
Tables 4 and 5 provide additional data regarding the charac teristics of doctoral degree granting Institutions. The independent variables analyzed are Institutional support and racial composition.
Degree offerings are the dependent variables. 93
Table 4 provides a descriptive breakdown of Institutional sup port by degree offerings.
TABLE 4
SUPPORT SYSTEMS OF THE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED BY DEGREE OFFERINGS N « 181
Institutional Degree Offerings Support Bachelor Masters Specialist Doctorate
f 19 7 1 2 Privately Supported % 100 36.8 5.2 10.5
f 157 132 32 32 Publicly Supported % 96.9 81.5 19.8 19.8
The difference 1n percentages at each degree level by In stitu tional support 1s apparent 1n reviewing Table 4. The data indicate that a greater percentage of public Institutions studied offer degrees
1n Industrial education at every level except the baccalaureate when compared to privately supported institutions. One-hundred percent of private institutions offer the baccalaureate degree compared to 96.9 percent of the public Institutions 1n this study. More important to
Research Question 1 1s that most of the doctoral-degree programs In
Industrial education are In public Institutions. Table 4 Indicates that of the 34 doctoral programs 1n this study, 32 are offered by public Institutions and only two by privately supported Institutions.
A breakdown of the racial composition of Institutions 1n this study by degree offerings 1s provided in Table 5. This table most
Importantly reveals that none of the 34 doctoral-degree programs 1n
Industrial education Is offered 1n predominantly black Institutions.
TABLE 5
RACIAL COMPOSITIONS OF THE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED BY DEGREE OFFERINGS
Racial Degree Offerings Composition Bachelor Masters Specialist Doctorate
f 155 129 31 34 Predominantly White % 96.9 80.6 19.4 21.25
f 21 10 2 0 Predominantly Black * 100 47.6 9.52 0
Table 6 provides a summary of the data reported 1n Tables 3-5.
Table 6 suggests that predominantly black Institutions tend to pro vide degree offerings at the master's and baccalaureate levels. Ninety- five percent (20 of 21) of the black Institutions 1n this study are publicly supported. Table 6 also indicates that most of the pre dominantly white Institutions represented 1n this study are publicly 95
supported. Ninety-four percent (32 of 34) of the doctoral institutions
studied are characterized as predominantly white and publicly supported.
None of the predominantly black institutions reported 1n Table 6
offers a doctoral degree in industrial education.
The second concern addressed in Research Question 1 involves the
criteria used by doctoral-degree programs to select applicants. An
analysis of the literature in Chapter II suggests several criteria
used by graduate and professional schools to select applicants:
(1) letters of recommendation; (2) interviews; (3) standardized admis
sion test scores; and (4) grade point averages. Departmental o ffic ia ls
in doctoral degree granting Institutions were asked to respond to the
degree in which these criteria were used In the selection of applicants.
Frequencies and percentages of those Institutions u tilizin g the afore
mentioned c rite ria are provided in Table 7. Two additional categories
reported 1n this table are "standardized evaluation forms" and
"others".
Table 7 suggests that five of the six selection c rite ria are
used by nearly 80 percent of the doctoral degree granting institutions
1n this study. Letters of recommendation and Interviews represent
the largest considerations; both criteria are used by 85.3 percent of
the respondents. A reported 82.4 percent of the chairpersons or other
officials responding to this survey Indicated that standardized test
scores and grade point averages are each used by admission o ffic ia ls
• in their programs. Standardized evaluation forms are used by 79.4
percent of the institutions. TABLE 6
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTIONS STUDIED BY INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT AND DEGREE OFFERINGS N = 181
Racial Institutional Degree Offerings Composition Support Bachelor Master Specialist Doctorate
Publicly Supported 20 9 2 0 Predominantly Black Privately Supported 1 1 0 0
Publicly Supported 137 123 30 32 Predominantly White Privately Supported 18 6 1 2
Total 176 139 33 34 97 TABLE 7
SELECTION CRITERIA BY INSTITUTIONAL USE
Selection Institutional Use Criteria f %
1. Letter of Recommendation 29 85.3
2. Interview 29 85.3
3. Standardized Test Scores 28 82.4
4. GPA 28 82.4
5. Standardized Evaluation Forms 27 79.4
6. Other 28 82.4
Department chairpersons and/or other o ffic ia ls were also asked to rank the degree of Importance to which the crite ria 1n Table 7 are used in the selection of applicants. Most o ffic ia ls , however, were either reticent In providing this information, or they did not take the time to respond. Table 8 gives the ranking of the criteria listed 1n Table 7 provided by respondents willing to share this in formation.
A cursory review of Table 8 suggests that the ranking of selection criteria are close. Grade point average, however, has a definitely lower mean rank than the other criteria based upon a fre quency of eighteen. This suggests that among these respondents, grade 98 TABLE 8
SELECTION CRITERIA BY INSTITUTIONAL RANKING
Selection Institutional Ranking Criteria f Mean Final Response Rank Rank
1. Letters of Recommendation 18 2.23 2
2. Interviews 16 2.43 4
3. Standardized Test Scores 20 2.35 3
4. Grade Point Average 18 1.50 1
5. Standardized Evaluation Forms 5 4.20 6
6. Other 7 3.00 5
point average is given fir s t priority when making a selection decision among applicants. Letters of recommendation is ranked second; stan dardized test scores and interviews tied and are ranked third as selection c rite ria . The crite ria used least among respondents are represented by the "other" and "standardized evaluation forms" cate gories.
Respondents were further asked to specify the minimum acceptable standardized admission test score and grade point average. The literature review reported in Chapter I I indicates that the Graduate
Record Examination (GRE) and the M iller Analogies Test (MAT) are most 99 frequently used by Graduate Schools. Respondents were asked to reveal the minimum acceptable score under each category of the GRE: Verbal;
Quantitative; Advanced Education Test; and Analytical.
Three categories were listed under GPA: Undergraduate GPA;
Graduate GPA; and Overall GPA. Respondents were asked to indicate the minimum GPA accepted at each level, or the levels used by their departments.
Tables 9, 10, and 11 report the data available from respondents who addressed questions regarding GPAs and standardized test scores.
Table 9 reports the minimum acceptable scores under each test of the GRE. The Advanced Education Test 1s not Included 1n this table since no data were reported by respondents. I t should also be noted that only 15 (44%) of the 34 doctoral-degree programs are repre sented in this table. Table 7 shows that 28 (82.4%) of the 34 doctoral
Institutions use standardized admission tests as a criterion for selection. Most Institutions not represented 1n Table 9 Indicated that they had no cut-o ff scores. Other institutions failed to respond.
Eight of the fifteen Institutions reported minimum acceptable scores for the GRE tests. However, seven Institutions provided only overall scores (Indicated by asterisks). One could infer that some
Institutions consider only the overall GRE score, rather than specific minimum scores for each test.
Reported data from this study Indicate that the GRE is used more often than the M ille r Analogies Test. Accordingly, Table 10 pro vides minimum MAT scores from three Institutions. TABLE 9
INSTITUTIONS BY MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION TEST SCORES AND OVERALL SCORES
Graduate Record Examination Overall Institutions Mean Verbal Quantitative Analytical Scores
A 500 500 1000 B 500 500 1000 , C* 1000 D* 800 E 500 500 1000 F* 900 G* 1500 H* 1000 I 400 400 400 1200 J* 1000 K 500 500 L 500 500 1000 M* 1000 N 380 870 1250 0 500 500 1000
Total: 15 Mean: 468.6 533.8 400 1010
* Institutions listing overall GRE scores only. 101
TABLE 10
INSTITUTIONS BY MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE MILLER ANALOGIES TEST SCORES
M iller Analogies Institutions Test Scores
A 40
B 30
C 40
Mean: 36.7
Only three (8.9%) of the thirty-four chairpersons or other de
partmental o fficials reported that they use MAT scores in considering
admission of applicants.
According to Table 8, admission officials from participating
Institutions give greater priority to an applicant's GPA 1n the
selection process. Table 11 provides a distribution of GPAs at three
levels: undergraduate; graduate; and overall.
The responses of 25 departmental officials 1n Table 11 Indicates
that undergraduate and graduate GPAs are more frequently used 1n
selection. The mean GPAs for these two categories are 2.59 and 3.17.
A mean GPA of 2.79 1s reported as the minimum acceptable standard for
an overall composite by nine respondents.
Summary of Research Question 1 (Selection). Two major concerns are addressed 1n Research Question 1: (1) the characteristics of the 102 TABLE 11
INSTITUTIONS BY MINIMUM REQUIRED GPAs FOR ADMISSION INTO DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Institutions ' Grade Point Average Undegraduate Graduate Overall
A 2.70 3.50 B 3.00 3.00 C 3.00 3.00 3.00 D 3.00 3.50 E 3.00 3.40 F 2.00 2.50 G 3.00 K 3.00 3.20 I 2.00 3.00 J 2.00 3.00 2.50
K 2.80 , L 3.00 3.00 M 2.00 3.50 N 2.50 3.50 0 3.25 P 3.00 Q 2.75 3.00 2.75 R 2.00 3.50 S 2.50 3.00 2.50 T 2.50 3.00 U 3.00 V 3.00 u 2.50 3.30 X 2.70 Y 3.00 2.70
Total: 25 Mean: 2.59 3.17 2.79 103 Institutions studied and (2) the selection criteria used by doctoral* degree programs Identified 1n this study.
Tables 3-6 provide data which address the fir s t concern of
Research Question 1. Only 21 of the 181 Institutions 1n this study are predominantly black; 20 of the 21 predominantly black Institutions studied are publicly supported. Ten of these black
Institutions offer a master's degree 1n Industrial education whereas none offer a doctoral-degree program 1n Industrial education.
In contrast to the aforementioned black Institutions, predominantly white Institutions that are publicly supported represent 142 (78.5% of 181) of the Institutions 1n this study. Eighteen (9.9% of the
181) predominantly white Institutions are privately supported. I t was shown that 32 of the 34 doctoral programs studied are 1n Institutions characterized as predominantly white and publicly supported. The two remaining doctoral programs are 1n privately supported institutions that are predominantly white.
Selection criteria used by doctoral-degree programs in this study are reported 1n Tables 7-11. The four most frequently used criteria are as follows: (1) grade point average; (2) letters of recommenda tion; (3) standardized test scores; and (4) Interviews. A review of
Tables 9 and 10 Indicate that most of the doctoral-degree programs require scores from the Graduate Record Examination 1n lieu of the
M iller Analogies Test. Analysis of Table 11 Indicates that the minimum
(mean) undergraduate, graduate, and overall GPAs required for admis sions Into the doctoral programs studied are 2.59, 3.17, and 2.79 respectively. Research Question 2 (Selection)
Data reported for Research Question 1 indicates that standardized test scores are used as a selection criteria by doctoral-degree pro grams 1n this study. An analysis of how these test scores are used
1n the selection of black and non-black applicants are reported under
Research Question 2 (Selection). Research Question 2 1s as follows:
Are there special considerations given to black applicants applying for admission Into doctoral programs 1n Industrial education? I f so, specifically what are these considerations?
Data reported for Research Question 2 are concerned with the use of standardized test scores 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants. These data were obtained from department chairpersons'
(or representatives) responses to the following question:
I f standardized test scores are used 1n the selec tion of doctoral students, which of the following Is most true of their utilization in the selection process?
A summary of these data are reported in Table 12.
Numerous studies such as Bryant's (1970) reported that black doctoral-degree recipients are markedly few in comparison to whites.
Other studies reported In Chapter I I suggest that blacks typically obtain lower standardized test scores than whites. Because of lower test scores, most blacks are unable to compete with white applicants who generally receive higher test scores. Subsequently, the use of standardized test scores by admission o ffic ia ls could reduce the number of black applicants selected Into doctoral-degree programs. 105 Table 12 provides a 11st of the multipie-choice responses which
participants used to Indicate their use of standardized test scores
1n the selection of black and non-black applicants.
TABLE 12
POLICIES REGARDING STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES USED BY ADMISSION OFFICIALS TO SELECT APPLICANTS INTO DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS BY FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES
Policies Regarding f % Standardized Test Scores
Waived 1n the selection of black applicants 3 12.0
Used In the selection of black applicants, but given less weight 6 24.0
Used equally 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants 15 60.0
Other 1 4.0 .
Total 25 100.0
Twenty-five (73.5%) of the thirty-four doctoral-degree programs In
this study are represented by the data reported 1n Table 12, The overwhelming response (15 of 25) was that standardized test scores
are "used equally 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants"
by admission o ffic ia ls .
Responses to the two In itia l choices 1n Table 12 suggest that
black applicants are given special consideration when standardized 106 test scores are used as criteria for selection. The number of insti tutions represented by these two choices are comparatively lower than the responses to the third choice. Only three (1256 of 25) of the responding institutional o ffic ia ls indicated that standardized test scores are waived in the selection of black applicants. However, six
(248 of 25) respondents indicated that their departments use stan dardized test scores in the selection of black applicants, but these scores are given less weight in the selection process.
One respondent reported a different policy regarding the use of standardized test scores. This policy 1s that standardized test scores (GRE) are used only when the applicant's overall GPA is below 2.7.
Summary of Research Question 2 (Selection). Data reported for
Research Question 2 were generated from department chairpersons' responses to the following question.
I f standardized test scores are used in the selection of doctoral students, which of the following 1s most true of their utilization 1n the selection process?
Department chairpersons' responses regarding the use of standardized test scores in the selection of black and non-black applicants are provided 1n Table 12.
Sixty percent (15 of 25) of the institutional o ffic ia ls in dicated that black applicants are not given special consideration through testing. Thirty-six percent (9 of 25) of the o ffic ia ls re ported that test scores for black applicants are either waived or 107 given less weight 1n the selection process. One department o ffic ia l reported that standardized test .scores are used only when the ap plicant's overall GPA 1s below 2.7; no Information was provided to
Indicate whether special consideration 1s given to minority students.
Research Question 3 (Selection)
Alternate selection strategies used by admission officials in
Industrial education doctoral programs are reported under Research
Question 3 (Selection). Department chairpersons reported strategies used 1n conjunction with or 1n Heu of standardized test scores and/or grade point averages. Research Question 3 1s as follows:
What are some alternate strategies currently used to select blacks Into doctoral programs 1n industrial education 1n conjunction with or 1n lieu of standardized tests and/or grade point averages?
Alternate selection strategies (dependent variable) used by admission o ffic ia ls 1n doctoral-degree programs (independent variable) are the variables examined under Research Question 3. Data for
Research Question 3 were generated from department chairpersons' (or other Institutional representatives') free-responses to the following item in the questionnaire designed for department chairpersons:
Please Identify and describe departmental c rite ria (that may not be a part of your formal university guidelines) and strategies used for admitting blacks into your doctoral program; 1n conjunction or In Heu of standardized test scores and/or grade point average.
Respondents were also asked to provide any additional comments re garding admission requirements for black doctoral candidates and/or 108 potential black faculty members. The data for Research Question 3 are
reported by providing a summary of each institutional official's
response.
Eight (23.5% of 34) respondents provided data which could be
used to address the third research question. As most responses did not make specific reference to blacks in modifying their admission c rite ria , i t 1s possible that many of the crite ria reported are used
1n the selection of black as well as non-black applicants. A few respondents did indicate this policy in their responses.
One institutional official reported that an applicant's adviser is given a great deal of freedom in requesting admission variances.
For this practice a le tte r of request from an adviser w ill allow a potential candidate to prove him/herself. A stipulation, however, is that the student must earn a minimum 3.25 GPA within the fir s t twelve hours of formal study. This Institutional o ffic ia l reported great success with this policy, with a ll students admitted in this manner earning the necessary GPA.
The above institutional official also made additional comments regarding departmental admission policy. I t was reported that a l though the university requires an applicant to submit GRE scores, the
Industrial education department does not always use these scores in evaluating applicants. However, the department does require the stu dent to maintain the necessary 3,25 GPA during the in itia l twelve semester hours. 109
The use of a portfolio was also reported as a departmental c ri terion for admission. This criterion is used only when the applicant's combined GRE score (verbal and quantitative) is less than 1000. The respondent did not address the nature of this portfolio, except that the portfolio was developed to meet five crite ria used by the depart ment. The portfolio 1s evaluated by departmental faculty and an
Admissions Appeal Conrnittee who then decide upon the applicant's ad mission. (Note: the five criteria were not lis te d .)
Comments reported by one department o ffic ia l Indicated that GRE scores are waived for applicants If their overall GPA is 2.5 (on a
4 point system) or above. A GPA less than 2.5 has to be accompanied by a GRE score of approximately 1000 for admission. This departmental o ffic ia l also reported that although no blacks have applied for their doctoral-degree program, there is a departmental Interest 1n having blacks enrolled. This interest is also shared by another department o ffic ia l who reported that no black candidate had been refused admis sion in the last five years.
Another department o ffic ia l reported that standardized test scores are given less weight in the selection of black applicants in his department. I t was reported that the overall record of per formance is given consideration for a ll applicants. However, blacks may be given more of the benefit in marginal cases. In fact, black applicants "are given the opportunity to demonstrate a b ility ", according to the respondent. 110
Five crite ria were also reported to be used for screening ap
plicants. These criteria are as follows:
1. Achievement record
a. Undergraduate b. Graduate
2. M iller Analogies Test
3. Cooperative English Test
4. Graduate Record Examination
5. Letters of Recommendation
Test results from either Criterion 2, 3, or 4 have to be submitted for consideration. The applicant 1s required to submit Criteria 1 and 5. I f the applicant's submitted credentials do not meet depart mental standards, the department has the option of admitting the applicant on provisional status. A standard recommendation form 1s used to evaluate and determine an applicant's status (see Appendix H).
This decision is made by three graduate faculty members who review the applicant's materials and respond to the form. The performance of those applicants admitted provisionally are closely observed by faculty.
Two department o ffic ia ls stated that an applicant's previous work experience 1s a significant factor to admission o ffic ia ls 1n their department. Other factors Include the following: (1) appli cant's Interest In specific areas of concentration and (2) desire to become a leader In Industrial education.
The belief that black students have easier accessibility to doctoral-degree programs was also expressed by one of the eight I l l respondents. To support this rationale the following comments were made:
I t is generally easier for blacks to be admitted. They can receive minority fellowships and because predominantly black undergraduate programs have experienced grade escalation at a higher than average rate. I t is widely understood that a 2.7 at one Institution may not represent the same ability/achievement level at another.
There were no indications 1n this study that other department of fic ia ls shared this concern; however, one might suspect that some officials did. It could be postulated that the views expressed 1n the aforementioned statement could affect strategies used in the selection of black and non-black applicants. The availability of minority fellowships would seem to enhance minority enrollment. Con versely, 1f the GPA of black applicants were not given credence, this could re stric t th eir admissions.
Summary of Research Question 3 (Selection). Respondents pro vided alternative strategies 1n lieu of standardized tests and GPAs when selecting potential black doctoral students. Most respondents did not report separate selection strategies for blacks, but Implied that reported strategies were used 1n the selection of all applicants.
Selected departmental crite ria and strategies used 1n admissions are as follows: (1) waiver of test scores i f GPA meets departmental standards; (2) test scores used I f GPA does not meet departmental standards; (3) provisional admissions i f departmental c rite ria are not met; (4) submission of a professional portfolio; (5) open-door policy with the stipulation that a required GPA be obtained after a 112 predetermine period of time; and (6) a waiver of test scores in lieu
of other criteria, e.g. successful professional experience, interest
in profession, etc. A concern was also expressed regarding the
quality of undergraduate educational experience at black institutions and the validity of the GPA as an Indicator of potential success.
Research Question 4 (Selection)
Data for Research Question 4 (Selection) addressed the Issue of affirmative action 1n the selection of black doctoral students. Three major analyses are reported: (1) the effect of institutional support upon the recrultment of blacks; (2) special recruitment strategies used by Institutions; and (3) the effect of special recruitment efforts upon the use of standardized test scores by institutions 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants. Some of the data re ported for Research Questions 2 and 3 are also used to answer Research
Question 4. Research Question 4 is as follows:
Do affirmative action programs affect the selec tion of black doctoral students?
The intent of Research Question 4 Is to determine to what ex tent Industrial teacher education programs in this study u tiliz e affirmative action strategies 1n the selection of blacks. Data for answering this Question are reported In three tables. Table 13 pre sents data on institutional support (Independent variable) and In stitutions' efforts to recruit (dependent variable) blacks Into their doctoral-degree programs. Table 14 presents a lis t of special recruit ment strategies (dependent variable) reported by departmental 113 o ffic ia ls representing Institutions (Independent variable) 1n this study. Table 15 presents a combined analysis of the data 1n Table 12 and responses to the following question: Is there a special effort to recruit blacks Into your doctoral program? The variables analyzed
1n Table 15 are: special recruitment efforts (Independent variable) and u tiliza tio n of test scores 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants (dependent variable).
Since the 1960's many graduate and professional programs have attempted to Increase th eir enrollment of minority students.
Chapter II (p. 32) reports that several strategies under affirmative action programs are utilized to facilitate minority enrollment:
(1) special recruitment programs; (2) waiver of test scores; (3) guar anteed financial assistance (e.g. fellowships* asslstantshlps* etc.).
The manipulation of test scores 1n favor of minorities was one strategy precipitated by affirmative action. Such action could be Implied as an e ffo rt to Increase minority enrollment since this group would be given the advantage over th eir white counterparts. I f this is true* Table 12 does provide appropriate data useful for answering Research Question 4.
Three Institutions providing comments for Research Question 3
Indicated the following: (1) no black applicant was refused admis sion during the past five years; (2) there is an Interest In having blacks apply to th eir doctoral program; and (3) black applicants are given the advantage 1n marginal cases during the selection process.
The other respondents may have had an Interest 1n making th eir program 114 more accessible to black students; however, it 1s difficult to infer
this from th eir comments.
A better indication of possible affirmative action was obtained
from responses to the following question: "Is there a special effort
to recruit blacks into your doctoral program?". Table 13 provides a summary of responses by institutional support.
TABLE 13
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT BY RESPONSE REGARDING EFFORTS TO RECRUIT BLACKS INTO DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Institutional Response Total Support NO YES
f 2 0 2 Privately Supported % 100 0 6.9
f 9 18 27 Publicly Supported % 33.3 66.7 93.1
Total f 11 18 29 % 37.9 62.1 100
Twenty-nine (85.3%) of the th irty-fo u r doctoral-degree programs are represented 1n Table 13. Of these, two privately supported In stitutions Indicated that there is no special effort to recruit blacks into th eir doctoral-degree programs. Nine (33.3% of 27) of 115
the publicly supported Institutions responded "No", while 18 (66.7%
of 27) responded "Yes" to the same question.
Institutional officials responding affirmatively were asked to
"briefly describe those special efforts being made to identify and recruit black applicants for their doctoral programs". Table 14 pro vides a summary of these responses.
TABLE 14
INSTITUTIONS BY SPECIAL EFFECTS TO IDENTIFY AND RECRUIT BLACK APPLICANTS FOR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Institutions Special Recruitment Efforts
A Waived requirement for GRE scores. Made special plea on basis of other qualifications. B Identifying and recruiting blacks, women, and other minorities. C Contact predominantly black colleges with master's degree programs. D Planned visits to traditionally black post secondary education Institutions. Work with alliance for traditionally black Institutions. E Affirmative action listing extra-funds available for scholarships, etc. F Personal recruitment visits have been made to such schools are Mississippi Valley State, Grambling, Virginia State, Petersburg. These efforts have been Ineffective. No student has been recruited by this means. G Letter to 21 black colleges regarding NRC Fellow ship Programs for minorities. Letter to 93 appropriate technology centers in foreign countries. H We recruit everybody we can get—white, blacks, and others. Our black graduates are our best recruiters—word of mouth. At. . .100% of a ll applicants are admitted into the graduate programs regardless of test scores. 116 TABLE 14 (continued)
Institutions Special Recruitment Efforts
I We can admit 10% by exception. 0 A special effort 1s made to recruit any qualified student, this of course Includes qualified blacks, whites, etc. K Contacts have made with predominantly black in stitutions. Use of a minority recruiter. L We have Mr. . . . in our Graduate College who's job 1s to recruit black graduate students for. . . M Graduate school employs minority recruiters. N Contacts with other professionals across the country. 0 There are 2 predominantly black schools close-by— We recruit there. P Special brochure developed. Recruitment from predominantly black institutions. Q Recruit aid of known blacks who have related with us. R A special effort 1s made to recruit any qualified student, this of course includes qualified blacks, whites, etc.
A cursory review of Table 14 Indicates that over half (52.9%) of the 34 doctoral Institutions 1n this study are involved in af firmative action strategies. One might conclude from these data that most of the institutions with doctoral-degree programs are Involved
1n special efforts to recruit blacks. Most of these responses appear to Involve special recruitment practices which include the following:
(1) paid minority recruiters; (2) brochures and letters mailed to pre dominantly black institutions; and (3) personal recruitment visits to 117 predominantly black Institutions. Other reported efforts Include
waiver of test scores and special fellowship programs.
Further analysis of Research Question 4 was accomplished by
comparing the responses In Table 12 with responses in Table 14, This
comparison 1s presented 1n Table 15.
TABLE 15
SPECIAL RECRUITMENT EFFORT BY UTILIZATION OF TEST SCORES AS A CRITERION IN SELECTING BLACK APPLICANTS FOR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
SPECIAL Utilization of Test Scores RECRUITMENT .1 Waived Used,But Used Other Total EFFORT Less Weight Equally
f 3 4 8 1 16 Yes % 18.7 25.0 50.0 6.3 68.0
f 0 2 7 0 9 No % 0 22.2 77.8 0 36.0
f 3 6 15 1 25 Total % 12.0 24.0 60.0 4.0 100.0
The two categories, "Yes and No", were the choices available to the question, "Is there a special effort to recruit blacks Into your doctoral-degree program?". The four categories at the top (see Table
15) were multiple-choice responses to the following question: If 118 standardized test scores are used in.the selection of doctoral stu
dents, which of the following Is most true of their utilization In
the selection process?
Table 15 shows that 16 (68%) of the 25 respondents Indicated
that their departments are Involved in special efforts to recruit blacks Into their doctoral programs. These 16 respondents also ex pressed how standardized test scores are used 1n the selection of
black applicants. Of these 16, seven (43.7%) respondents Indicated
that the use of test scores 1s manipulated 1n the selection of black ap plicants; three respondents reported that test scores are waived, while four Indicated that test scores are used 1n the selection of blacks, but given less weight. Eight (50% of 16) respondents In dicated that test scores are used equally 1n the selection of black and non-black applicants. Only one respondent reported In the "other" category. The data 1n Table 15 suggest that approximately half of
the respondents Involved 1n special recruitment efforts also manipulate
test scores in favor of black applicants. The other recruiting re
spondents use test scores equally for a ll applicants.
I t was reported that at least nine (36% of 25) doctoral-degree programs are not Involved In special recruitment of black applicants.
Table 15 shows 77.8 percent (7 of 9) of these respondents reported
that test scores are used equally 1n the selection of black and non black applicants. The "No" respondents seem to suggest that there is no preference for Increasing minority enrollment through special
recruitment efforts or manipulation of test scores 1n favor of black applicants. 119
The approximate chi square s ta tis tic was used to determine i f the recruiting respondents and non-recruiting respondents differed s ta tis tic a lly 1n their use of test scores. The result was not significant at the .05 level, a finding which suggests that the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. Both recruiting and non-recru1t1ng
Institutions were equal 1n their use of standardized tests to select black applicants.
Summary of Research Question 4 (Selection). Data for answering
Research Question 4 are reported 1n Tables 13, 14, and 15. Table 13
Indicates that 18 {62% of 29) doctoral Institutions are engaged 1n special efforts to recruit black doctoral students. Table 14 reports recruitment strategies for 18 of the 34 doctoral Institutions 1n this study. Most of the strategies seem to entail the following:
(1) paid minority recruiters; (2) brochures and letters mailed to predominantly black Institutions; and (3) personal recruitment visits to predominantly black Institutions. Table 15 presents a combined analysis of the data 1n Table 12 and responses to the following question: "Is there a special e ffo rt to recruit blacks Into your doctoral program?". The statistical analysis revealed no difference
1n the use of test scores by recruiting respondents and non-recruiting respondents.
Research Question 5 (Selection)
Selected Institutional characteristics and their relationship to the number of black doctoral students enrolled in industrial educa tion are reported under Research Question 5 (Selection) which follows: 120 What 1s the relationship between Institutional characteristics and the number of black doc toral students enrolled 1n Its doctoral program 1n industrial education?
The relationship between two variables 1s examined for Research
Question 5: Institutional characteristics (independent variable) and the number of black doctoral students enrolled In Industrial educa tion (dependent variable). Data for answering this question are reported in Tables 16 and 17. Table 16 presents Pearson product- moment correlation ( r) values for Institutional characteristics and the number of black doctoral students enrolled full-tim e In Industrial teacher education programs. Table 17 provides a summary of In stitu tional sizes and the number of full-tim e black doctoral students enrolled.
Research suggests that the number of blacks enrolled In gradu ate and professional programs may be dependent upon certain Institu tional characteristics. Some of these characteristics Include in stitutional size and location. Chapter II reports that Institutional size may affect the institution's a b ility to provide fellowships and other financial assistance for black applicants.
Reported 1n Table 16 are Pearson product-moment correlation values between selected factors and the number of black doctoral stu dents enrolled full-tim e In Industrial teacher education programs.
Of the six institutional characteristics analyzed 1n Table 16, only Institutional size shows significant correlation (£ .< .0 5 ).
However, the correlation between Institutional size and the number of 121 TABLE 16
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INSTITUTIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND THE NUMBER OF BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE STUDENTS ENROLLED FULL-TIME IN INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Institutional Characteristics r
Institutional Size -.39*
Recruitment Efforts .25
Availability of Teaching Assoclate- ships .03
Availability of Research Assoclate- ships -.03
A vailability of Fellowships -.22
U tilizatio n of Standardized Test Scores -.05
* £ < .05 full-tim e black doctoral students enrolled is negative, suggesting that larger Institutions have fewer black doctoral students enrolled full-time 1n Industrial education.
Data 1n Table 13 Indicates that 18 (of 29) Institutions 1n this study are engaged In special efforts to recruit blacks Into doctoral- degree programs. According to Table 16, there Is no significant cor relation between special recruitment efforts and the number of fu ll time black doctoral students enrolled. Financial resources avail able to blacks 1n respective departments 1s also not significantly related to the number of full-tim e black doctoral students enrolled. 122 Nine Institutions which are reported 1n Table 15 Indicated that test scores are either waived or given less weight In the selection of black applicants. Analysis of the utilization of test scores 1n selecting black applicants revealed no significant correlation with the number of black doctoral students enrolled 1n Industrial education programs.
The relationship between Institutional size and the number of fu ll-tim e black doctoral students enrolled 1s further explored 1n
Table 17. This table reports the size of institutions having doctoral- degree programs in industrial education by the number of fu ll-tim e black doctoral students enrolled.
Thirty-one doctoral-degree programs are represented In Table 14.
These Institutions reported a total of 37 full-time black doctoral students enrolled 1n th eir departments. Nineteen (61.356 of 31) In stitutional officials reported that they have no black doctoral students enrolled fu ll-tim e. Eleven (35.5% of 31) doctoral-degree programs have one to five blacks enrolled fu ll-tim e; only one (3.2% of 31) program has over five such students.
Summary of Research Question 5 (Selection). The relationship between Institutional characteristics and the number of full-time black doctoral students enrolled 1n Industrial education programs are analyzed under Research Question 5. Data for answering this question are presented 1n Tables 16 and 17. An analysis of these data reveals that institutional size 1s negatively correlated with the number of fu ll-tim e black doctoral students in Industrial education 123 TABLE 17
INSTITUTIONAL SIZE (STUDENT BODY ENROLLMENT) BY THE REPORTED NUMBER OF FULL-TIME BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS ENROLLED.IN THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Institutional Reported Number of Full- Time Black Doctoral Students Enrolled Total Size None 1 3 4 5 10
Less than 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4999 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% . 0% 0%
5000- 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9999 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 3.3%
10000- 2 1 0 1 0 0 4 14999 50% 25% 0% 25% 0% 0% 12.9%
15000- 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 19999 50% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 12.9%
20000- 5 1 0 1 1 0 8 29999 62.5% 12.5% 0% 12.5% 12.5% 0% 25.8%
More Than 10 1 3 0 0 0 14 20000 71.4% 7.1421 21.4% 0% 0% 0% 45.2%
Total 19 5 3 2 1 1 31 Institutions 61.3% 16.1% 9.7% 6.5% 3.2% 3.2% 100%
Doctoral 8 5 10 37 Students 0 5 9 programs. This finding suggests that the larger the institution, the fewer black doctoral students enrolled.
Academic Achivement
Data generated under the category "Academic Achievement" is con cerned with the academic performance of black doctoral students and 124 black doctoral recipients during their doctoral studies 1n Ind ustrial- education. Answers for 12 research questions are reported under
this category.
Research Question 1 (Academic Achievement)
The undergraduate major of black doctoral students and re cipients 1s a major concern 1n this Investigation. Data presented under Research Question 1 (Academic Achievement) provides answers to this concern. Research Question 1 1s as follows:
Did black doctoral students and recipients major 1n Industrial education or some other discipline during their undergraduate studies?
The principal concern addressed In Research Question 1 1s the undergraduate major of black doctoral students and recipients. Data regarding the respondents' sex are also reported.
Data which addressed the concerns of Research Question 1 are reported In Tables 18, 19, and 20. Table 18 presents a summary of the "doctoral students and recipients" (Independent variable) In this study by their sex (dependent variable). Respondents' "affirmative or negative responses" (dependent variable) to having an undergraduate major in Industrial education are reported in Table 19. The under graduate majors (dependent variable) of respondents who reported majoring 1n other disciplines are reported by th eir sex (independent variable) in Table 20.
Table 18 categorizes the number of students and recipients in this study by their sex. 125 TABLE 18
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SEX
Respondents' Sex Total Rank Male Female
f 10 12 22 Doctoral Students % 45.5 54.5 34.4
f 41 2 43 Doctoral Recipients % 93.2 4.7 65.6
f 51 14 65 Total % 78.5 21.5 100.0
Of the 65 target respondents reported 1n Table 18, 22 Indicated
that they were students while 43 were Identified as recipients of the
doctoral degree. Table 18 also shows that 85.7 percent (12 of 14) of
the female respondents are doctoral students. As expected, however,
males represent a majority (51 of 65) of the target respondents.
To determine 1f respondents had majored 1n Industrial education
during their undergraduate studies, the following question was asked:
Did you major In Industrial education during your undergraduate pro
gram? Persons responding "No" were asked to specify their undergraduate
. majors. Tables 19 and 20 report the responses to both questions by
rank (students and recipients) and sex. 126 TABLE 19
BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A BACCALAUREATE IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION BY RANK AND SEX
Baccalaureate Rank ih Industrial Recipients Students Total Education Male Female Male Female
f 41 0 8 2 51 With % 80.4 0 15.7 3.9 78.5
f 0 2 2 10 14 Without % 0 14.3 14.3 71.4 21.5
f 41 2 10 12 65 Total % 63.1 3.0 15.4 18.5 100.0
Hence, Table 19 Indicates that most of the 14 black females in
this study reported undergraduate majors other than Industrial educa
tion. Only two female students had undergraduate majors 1n indus tr ia l education.
Forty-nine of the 51 male respondents indicated that their
undergraduate majors were Industrial education. Only two male re spondents, both students, reported different majors.
Table 19 Indicates that there was more discrepancy among the
responses of students than among the responses of recipients. Twelve
(54.5%) of the twenty-two students did not major in industrial education. Of these 12 students, 10 (83.3%) were females, and only two 127 (16.7%) were males. Conversely, of the 10 respondents who did major in industrial education, 8 (80%) were males and only 2 (20%) were females.
Table 20 reports the undergraduate majors of those persons re sponding "No" in Table 19.
TABLE 20
BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS' UNDERGRADUATE MAJORS BY SEX
Sex Undergraduate Total Majors Male Female
Urban Education 0 1 1
Zoology-Medical Tech. 1 0 1
Business Education 0 6
Business Admin. Mgnt. 0 1 1
Health Education 1 0 1
Institutional Management 0 1 1
Vocational Home Economic Education 0 1 1
No Response 0 2 2
Total 2 12 14
Table 20 shows that seven different undergraduate majors were reported by 12 respondents. Two respondents did not Indicate their undergraduate majors; one of the non-respondents was a doctoral-degree recipient. Only one undergraduate major shown in Table 20 was 128 reported by a non-student; a major in vocational home economics educa tion was reported by a female doctoral-degree recipient.
Summary of Research Question 1 (Academic Achievement). Data re garding the undergraduate major and sex of doctoral students and recipients are the principal concerns addressed 1n Research Question
1. These data are analyzed and presented in Tables 18, 19, and 20.
Of the 65 target respondents, 22 (34.4%) were doctoral students and 43 (65.5%) were doctoral recipients. I t was also revealed that
93.2 percent (41 of 43) of the recipients were males while only 45.5 percent (10 of 22) of the doctoral students were males. This disparity suggests an Increase In female representation 1n graduate industrial education programs.
Most of the recipients (41 of 43) reported having undergraduate majors in Industrial education. The two recipients who reported different majors were females. Only 10 of the 22 doctoral students reported having undergraduate majors 1n industrial education. Of the
10 students, eight were males and two were females. Ten of the 12 students who had different majors were females.
Research Question 2 (Academic Achievement) Data presented under Research Question 2 (Academic Achievement) show the institutional characteristics (racial composition and in stitutional support) of the undergraduate and graduate institutions attended by black doctoral students and recipients. Research Question
2 is as follows: What are the characteristics of the academic Institutions attended by black doctoral stu dents and doctoral degree recipients during their undergraduate and graduate programs (e.g. predominantly black, predominantly white, public, private* etc.)?
"Institutional characteristics" (dependent variables) of under graduate and graduate Institutions attended by "black doctoral stu dents and recipients" (Independent variables) are the major concerns
1n reporting data for Research Question 2. However, additional analyses also examined the relationships between the following vari ables: (1) racial composition of baccalaureate and master's degree granting Institutions (dependent variable) and respondents who majored or did not major 1n Industrial education (Independent variable); and
(2) course work or counsel taken with black faculty members (dependent variable) at each degree level by doctoral students and recipients
(Independent variable).
Data for answering Research Question 2 are reported 1n Tables
21-29. Tables 21-26 show the relationships between the characteristics of the Institutions attended by black doctoral students and recipients at each degree level. Analyses between respondents and course work or counsel taken with black faculty members at each degree level are presented in Tables 27-29.
Brown and Stent (1977) reported that most blacks received their baccalaureates from predominantly black institutions. Black doctoral students and recipients in this study appear to be representative of this finding. Table 21 provides an indication of the racial 130 composition of the institutions where baccalaureates were obtained.
Respondents are also categorized by sex.
TABLE 21
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTION WHERE UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE WAS OBTAINED BY RANK AND SEX OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS
Rank Racial Composition Recipients Students Total Male Female Male Female
f 36 2 2 10 50 Predominantly Black % 72.0 4.0 4.0 20.0 78.1
f 5 0 6 3 14 Predominantly White 56 35.7 0 42.9 21.4 21.9
f 41 2 8 13 64 Total % 64.1 3.1 12.5 20.3 100.0
Approximate chi square ® 7.93, df = 1, £ < .01
Seventy-eight percent (50 of 64) of the doctoral students and recipients represented in Table 21 indicated that their undergraduate degrees were obtained from predominantly black Institutions. Twenty- two percent (14 of 64) Indicated that their baccalaureates were from predominantly white institutions.
The response pattern between doctoral-degree recipients and students was quite interesting. Thirty-six (87 . 856 of 41) of the 131 male recipients reported that th eir baccalaureates were from predomi nantly black institutions. In contrast, only two (2556) of the eight male doctoral students reported likewise. Both female doctoral- degree recipients received baccalaureates from predominantly black institutions, as did ten (76.9%) of the 13 female students.
Statistical analysis indicated that there 1s a significant dif ference ( £ < .05) between doctoral students and recipients and the racial composition of the undergraduate Institution attended. Con sequently, the null hypothesis which states that the groups are equal
1s rejected.
Regarding the racial composition of undergraduate institutions attended, respondents having undergraduate majors 1n Industrial educa tion differed from non-1ndustr1al education majors. An analysis of this data Indicated that this difference 1s significant at the .01 probability level. Table 22 reports how the two groups compare.
Table 22 indicates that of the 48 (75% of 64) doctoral students and recipients who have baccalaureates in Industrial education, the majority (87.5% of 42) received their degrees from predominantly black
Institutions. The 16 (25% of 64) respondents who have baccalaureates in fields other than Industrial education, 1n contrast, were equally divided as graduates from predominantly black and predominantly white
Institutions.
No statistical difference (j) > .05) was found between doctoral- degree recipient and student responses to institutional support of undergraduate Institutions attended. (See Table 23.) 132 TABLE 22
BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS WTH AND WITHOUT A BACCALAUREATE IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION BY THE RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTION ATTENDED
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE Baccalaureate INSTITUTION ATTENDED In Industrial Total Education Predominantly Predominantly White Black
f 6 42 48 With % 12.5 87.5 75
f 8 8 16 Without % 50.0 50.0 25
f 14 50 64 Total % 21.9 78.1 100
Approximate chi square = 9.72, df = 1, £ < .01 133 TABLE 23
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY THE SUPPORT OF THE INSTITUTION WHERE THEIR BACCALAUREATE WAS EARNED
Institutional Support Respondents' Total Rank Public Private
f 13 3 16 Doctoral Students % 81.3 18.7 29.6
f 32 6 38 Doctoral Recipients * 84.2 15.8 70.4
f 45 9 54 Total % 83.3 16.7 100.0 134
Brown and Stent (1977) also reported that most blacks received
their master's degrees from predominantly white Institutions. This
finding 1s also supported by the data reported in this study. Table
24 shows the racial composition of institutions where master's degrees
were obtained by black doctoral students and recipients 1n this study.
Doctoral students and recipients are further categorized by sex.
TABLE 24
RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTION WHERE MASTER'S DEGREE WAS EARNED BY BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS' RANK AND SEX
Rank Racial Composition of Recipients Students Total the Institution Male Female Male Female
f 8 0 2 1 11 Predominantly Black % 72.7 0 18.2 9.1 17.7
f 33 2 6 10 51 Predominantly White % 64.7 3.9 11.8 19.6 82.3
f 41 2 8 11 62 Total % 66.1 3.2 13.0 17.7 100.0
Table 24 indicates that 82.3 percent (51 of 62) of the doctoral
. students and recipients have master's degrees from predominantly white
institutions. 135 These data are markedly reversed for Institutions where the
baccalaureate was obtained. Table 21 reports that seventy-eight percent
(50 of 64) of the respondents received baccalaureates from predominantly
black Institutions.
No significance difference (£ > .05) was found between respon
dents and the racial composition of the Institutions where their master's degrees were obtained. Hence, the null hypothesis that the groups are
equal, on these factors, cannot be rejected. Further analysis of the
data also show no significant difference ( £ > .0 5 ) 1n responses between
persons with an undergraduate major 1n Industrial education and persons with other undergraduate majors. (See Table 25.)
Table 25 shows that a ll 16 (100%) of the non-industrial education majors obtained their master's degrees from predominantly white In stitutions. The proportions differed for respondents with under graduate majors 1n Industrial education. Th1rty-s1x (76 . 656 of 47) of the Industrial education majors received th eir master's degrees from predominantly white Institutions, while the remaining 11 (23.4% of 47) graduated from predominantly black Institutions.
The support of the Institution attended by doctoral students and recipients for their master's degrees 1s reported In Table 26.
The greater proportion (71.755 of 53) of respondents Indicated that they received their master's degrees from publicly supported In stitutions. E1ghty-two percent (14 of 17) of the students and 66.6 percent (24 of 36) of the recipients had master's degrees from these
1nst1tutions. 136
TABLE 25
BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT A BACCALAUREATE IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION BY RACIAL COMPOSITION OF THE INSTITUTION WHERE THEIR MASTER'S DEGREE WAS EARNED
Baccalaureate RACIAL COMPOSITION 1n Industrial Total Education Predominantly Predominantly White Black
f 36 11 47 With % 76.6 23.4 74.6
f 16 0 16 Without % 100 0 25.4
f 52 11 63 Total % 82.5 17.5 100.0 137
TABLE 26
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY THE INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT WHERE THEIR MASTER'S DEGREE WAS EARNED
Institutions: Financial Support
PRWMTElfCY PERCENT Respondents1 ROW FCT Rank COL PCT 14 17 Doctoral 26.42 8.66 32. OB B2.3B 17.65 Student 36. B4 20.00 36 Doctoral 4 8 .2B 22.64 67.92 66.67 33.33 Recipient 63. 16 ee.ee TOTAL 3B 83 71.70 2B.30 iee.ee 138
The degree to which doctoral students and recipients Interacted with black faculty members at each degree level was also analyzed.
These data were obtained by asking respondents to Indicate "yes" or
"no" to the following question: Did you take course work or counsel with black faculty members during the following degree programs:
Undergraduate; Master's; and Doctoral? Tables 27, 28, and 29 present
data for each degree level.
TABLE 27
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE WORK OR COUNSEL TAKEN FROM BLACK FACULTY MEMBERS DURING THEIR BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS
Course Work or Counsel From Black Faculty Members
FREQUENCY PERCENT Respondents' ROW PCT Rank COL PCT 12 I Doctoral 14.06 IB .78 I 32.81 42.B6 I 87.14 I Student 69.23 I 23.83 I 39 I 43 Doctoral 6.28 I 60 .9 4 I 67.19 9 .3 0 90.70 I R e c ip ie n t 30.77 I 76.47 I TOTAL 64 20.31 79.69 100.00 approximate chi square ■ 9.66, df * 1, £ .01 139
Sixty-four (98.5% of 65) of the doctoral students and recipients are represented In Table 27. One student did not respond. Fifty-one
(79.7%) of the 64 respondents Indicated that they had taken course work or counsel with black faculty members during th eir undergraduate programs whereas 13 (20.3%) responded that they had not.
Analysis of Table 27 Indicates that the responses between stu dents and recipients are statistically different at the .01 level of significance. The responses between students seem more evenly pro portioned than the responses between doctoral-degree recipients.
Proportionately more black doctoral-degree recipients (90.7% of 43) had taken course work or counsel with black faculty members at the undergraduate level as compared to black doctoral students (57% of 21).
There 1s no significant difference (£ > .05) between Industrial education majors and non-majors and course work or counsel taken with black faculty members during respondents' undergraduate programs.
A summary of those respondents who had and had not taken course work or counsel from black faculty members during th eir master's degree programs 1s provided 1n Table 28. This table reveals that seventy-one percent of the students reported that they had not taken course work or counsel with black faculty members a t this level.
Seventy-four percent of the doctoral-degree recipients responded sim ilarly. TABLE 28
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE WORK OR COUNSEL TAKEN FROM BLACK FACULTY MEMBERS DURING THEIR MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS
Course Work or Counsel From Black Faculty Members
FREOmtGTI FEftCEirr I Respondents1 now p c t I Rank____ COL PCT I -♦ 6 i Doctoral 2 3 .4 4 I 9 . OB I 32.01 71 .4 3 I 2B.07 I Student 31.91 I 05.29 I 32 I D octoral 09.99 17.19 I 67.19 R e cip ie n t 74.42 I 20.50 60.99 I 64.71 TOTAL 7 3 .4 4 26.06 199.99 Analysis of Table 28 Indicates that course work or counsel taken with black faculty members by students and recipients are not statistically different at the .05 level of significance. No difference
1s also found for responses between persons having an undergraduate major 1n Industrial education and non-industrial education majors.
This finding suggests that a ll respondents had a similar degree of
Interaction with black faculty members at the master’s degree level.
Most Interesting Is the response at the doctoral-degree level.
Chapter I I indicates that most black faculty members are employed 1n predominantly black Institutions. However. Table 29 suggests a change
1n this trend. TABLE 29
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY COURSE WORK OR COUNSEL TAKEN FROM BLACK FACULTY MEMBERS DURING THEIR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Course Work or Counsel From Black Faculty Members
fueudbtcy FERCEirr Respondents1 ROW PCT Rank COL PCT TOTAL 10 Doctoral 15.63 17.19 3 2 .8 1 4 7 .6 2 02.08 Student 23.26 02.38 33 16 Doctoral 5 1 .56 10.63 67.19 76 .7 4 23.26 R e cip ie n t 76.74 47 .62 TOTAL 43 21 64 67 .19 02.81 163.6# approximate chi square ■ 5.34. df ■ 1. £_ < .02 142
Doctoral students are closely divided regarding th eir interaction with black faculty members at the doctoral-degree level. Percentages of students who had or had not taken course work or counsel with black faculty members at the doctoral level are 52.4 and
47.6, respectively.
Doctoral-degree recipients reported less Interaction with black faculty members at the doctoral level than was reported by students.
Seventy-six percent {33 of 43) of the recipients indicated that they did not have course work or counsel from black faculty members during their doctoral-degree programs. Table 29 reports that only 23.2 per cent of the recipients had Interaction with black faculty members.
Approximate ch1 square results Indicate that responses between doctoral students and recipients are s ta tis tic a lly different at the
.02 level of significance. One might conclude that most black doc toral students are currently having more frequent Interaction with black faculty members at the doctoral-degree level. This conclusion is contrasted with recipients who reported having less course work or counsel with black faculty members during th eir doctoral-degree programs. No difference 1n response was found between persons having an undergraduate major 1n Industrial education and persons whose undergraduate major was 1n another discipline.
Summary of Research Question 2 (Academic Achievement). Research
Question 2 1s concerned with the characteristics of undergraduate and graduate Institutions attended by black doctoral students and re cipients 1n this study. In reporting data for this question, the 143 researcher also examined the relationships between'other variables:
(1) racial composition of undergraduate and master's degree granting institutions and respondents who majored or did not major in indus tria l education; and (2) course work or counsel with black faculty members at each degree level and doctoral students and recipients.
Analyses of these data are reported in Tables 21-29.
Tables 21-26 show the relationships between the characteristics of the institutions attended by black doctoral students and recipients at each degree level. These data indicate that 78 percent (50 of 64) of the respondents received their baccalaureates from predominantly black institutions. However, a greater percentage of doctoral re cipients (88.4% of 43) compared to students (573! of 21) received bac calaureates from predominantly black Institutions. This difference
1s significant at the .01 probability level. Further research revealed that 82.3 percent (51 of 62) of the respondents received master's degrees from predominantly white Institutions.
Data reported for Research Question 1 indicate that most of the degree programs 1n industrial education are 1n publicly supported institutions. This datum 1s supported by doctoral students and re cipients who Indicated that their degrees (baccalaureate, master's, and doctorate) were obtained from Institutions that were publicly supported.
The difference in the racial composition of baccalaureate and master's degree granting institutions attended by respondents who majored and had not majored In Industrial education (I.E .) during their undergraduate program was analyzed. At the baccalaureate level, 144 a greater percentage (50% of 16) of respondents without an undergradu ate major 1n I.E . than respondents majoring 1n I.E . (12.5% of 48), attended predominantly white Institutions. This difference is significant at the .01 probability level. However, no statistical difference was shown between these groups at master’s degree level.
Tables 22-29 provide analyses between doctoral students and recipients regarding course work or counsel taken with black faculty members at each degree level. A greater percentage of doctoral re cipients (91% of 43) compared to students (57% of 21) had taken course work or counsel with black faculty members during th eir undergraduate programs. In contrast, more students (52.4% of 21) than recipients
(23.3% of 43) reported greater Interaction with black faculty members at the doctoral degree level. These differences are significant at the .01 and .02 probability levels, respectively. No difference was found between doctoral students' and recipients' Interaction with black faculty members at the master's degree level.
Research Question 3 (Academic Achievement)
Doctoral students and recipients provided data which revealed the degree to which their baccalaureate and master's degree programs prepared them for doctoral studies. These data are reported under
Research Question 3 (Academic Achievement) which follows:
Do black doctoral students and recipients be lieve that their undergraduate and graduate programs prepared them adequately for graduate work at the doctoral level? 145
The relationships between the following variables are analyzed
In answering Research Question 3: (1) doctoral students and recipients
(Independent variable) and (2) rating of baccalaureate and master's degree programs (dependent variable). Results of these analyses are presented in Tables 30-31. Table 31 provide respondents' ratings of their baccalaureate programs. A comparison of respondents' ratings of their master's degree programs is reported 1n Table 31.
Data for Research Question 3 were obtained from respondents' ratings of their baccalaureate and master's degree programs. The follow ing Instruction guided the ratings of doctoral students and re cipients: Please circle the degree to which you feel that your (under graduate/graduate) program was satisfactory in preparing you for graduate work at the doctoral degree level. . .. Ratings were on a continuum of 1-5; 1 signified the least satisfaction, and 5, the greatest. The Jt-test was used to determine 1f the mean difference between doctoral students and recipients 1s significantly different.
Table 30 reports students' and recipients' ratings of th eir undergraduate programs 1n preparing them for doctoral studies. Data for 61 (93.8%) of the 65 doctoral students and recipients are reported.
The mean rating for the two groups 1s 3.95. Doctoral recipients, with an overall mean rating of 4.14, have a more positive rating than doctoral students which 1s 3,55. T-test results Indicated that this difference 1s significant {£<.02). 146 TABLE 30
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS AND RATINGS OF THEIR BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS AS PREPARATION FOR' TOCTORAL' STUDIES'
Respondents' nowrcr !N° ^ Rank ool rcr iResponsej » i a t o j a i total _ ' .1 11 II II T I II M Doctoral i . i i .m t ta.ii i u.ea i 4.*a i aa.r* atuoentStudent , ' ^* ' M **•** ( ' 4T *••*• >> , ' HlM u.e# j i ltttt ».«• , I
_ . . I • I II I I 14 I IT I 41 Doctoral i . i 1.44 t u.n 1 u.ta 1 ar.ar 1 er.ai RecipientRedolent , 1 # • , • N ■•*4 u , 1 >Jhf4 * , **•<■ w>4? 1 , *1.44 H ,M .|■ ■" ♦ «— ...... >. 1 TOTAL a IT 81 aa 41 4 .4a ar.or 44.49 aa.r* 144.44 £■*2.50, df ■ 36.5, £ c. .02
These data suggest that black doctoral students and doctoral- degree recipients view th eir undergraduate programs d ifferently.
Recipients reported a greater degree of satisfaction 1n their under graduate program as preparation for graduate work at the doctoral level. Students appear less satisfied with th eir undergraduate programs as preparation for doctoral studies.
The degree of satisfaction of master's degree program as pre paration for doctoral studies 1s reported 1n Table 31.
Ratings of Table 31 are sim ilar to those 1n Table 30. Recip ients gave higher ratings for the degree 1n which their master's 147 TABLE 31
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS AND RATINGS OF THEIR MASTERS DEGREE PROGRAM AS PREPARATION FOR DOCTORAL STUDIES
I Ratings Respondents' now rcT !jj° I-0* High Rank co l pct iResponsei l i a i a a I TOTAL a t ■ n a t 94 Doctoral •.as i.e i 4.S4 IT . T4 4.B 4 I sa.34 ie.ee e.ee ie.ee aa.ee ia.ee i Student e«.*7 iee.ee 84.47 10.44 I • 4- i a 14 I 14 I 4a Doctoral i i.e i e.ee 4 .0 4 8B.4B I S 4.4 5 I 4 7 .7 4 Recipient { a. sa. e.ee T . 14 4B.84 I 4B .84 t as.se e.ee •e.ee ——40.S3 f-1 B4.04 I TOTAL a I 4 23 42 4 .0 4 1.41 f .4 B 48.04 00.48 iee.ee
t —2.50, df • 28.5, fi, < ‘.02
program prepared them for doctoral studies. Students rated their master's degree programs less favorably. The difference 1s reflected
1n the mean score values. Overall mean rating for recipients 1s 4.1, while the overall mean rating for doctoral students 1s 3.6. The difference between the ratings of doctoral students and recipients is significant (£ < .0 2 ). These results suggest that doctoral recipients view their master's degree program differently. Recipients rated their master's degree programs Higher than.students as preparation for doctoral studies. 148 Summary of Research Question 3 (Academic Achievement). Two variables were analyzed 1n reporting data for Research Question 3:
(1) doctoral students and recipients and (2) ratings of baccalaureate and master's degree program as preparation for doctoral studies.
These data are presented 1n Tables 30-31.
The baccalaureate and master's degree programs were rated higher as preparation for doctoral studies by doctoral recipients than by students.
Research Questions 4» 5. and 6 (Academic Achievement)
Combined analyses of Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 are reported in the preceding section. Data for these questions address the fo l lowing concerns: (1) the number of years required of blacks to obtain doctorates; (2) the enrollment and employment status of blacks at the time doctorates are conferred; and (3) the relationship between academic achievement and the time period 1n which doctorates are conferred. Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 are as follows:
How long does 1t take black doctoral stu dents in Industrial education to obtain the doctorate?
What percentage of black professors with doc torates 1n Industrial education complete their degrees while 1n residency? What percentage complete the doctorate while employed full-tim e o ff campus?
Is there a difference 1n the academic achieve ment of black doctoral recipients and the time 1n which the degree was conferred? I f so, what are some of these differences? Combined analyses are required for Research Questions 4, 5, and
6. Research Question 4 is concerned with the "length of time" (de
pendent variable) required for "blacks 1n Industrial education" (In
dependent variable) to earn the doctorate, while the status (depen
dent variable) of doctoral recipients (independent variable) when the
doctorate was conferred is the principal concern of Research Question
5. Both concerns expressed In Research Questions 4 and 5 could also
be factors which affect the academic achievement of blacks in Indus
tr ia l education. Subsequently, these factors are further analyzed
and reported for Research Question 6. Other variables analyzed and
reported are as follows: (1) age of doctoral-degree recipients when
doctorate was conferred; (2) grade point average at various educa
tional levels; and (3) doctoral-degree recipients' self-reported
performance on standardized tests. Data related to respondents'
terminal degree (Ph.D. and Ed.D.) are also reported. Data for answer
ing Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 are presented In Tables 32-38.
The average length of time 1t took black doctoral-degree
recipients to earn the doctorate was 4.1 years. This datum was
obtained by asking doctoral-degree recipients to respond to the fo l
lowing question: From the time you began your doctoral-degree program
(afte r earning the master degree) how many calendar years did I t
take you to complete the work for your doctorate? This datum Is
based upon 42 (97.8% of 43) of the doctoral recipients 1n this study.
The minimum and maximum years reported are 2 and 15. Table 32 pro
vides a more descriptive breakdown of the reported number of years. 150 TABLE 32
NUMBER OF YEARS REPORTED BY BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION TO COMPLETE THEIR DOCTORAL STUDIES
Reported f % Years
2 12 28.5
3 15 35.7
4 3 7.1
5 3 7.1
6 2 4.8
7 2 4.8
8 2 4.8
9 2 4.8
15 1 2.4
Mean: 4.1 Total: 42 100.0
Table 32 indicates that 64,3 percent {27 of 43) of the recipients required two to three years to earn the doctorate. A total of four to nine years was reported by 33.4 percent (14 of 42) of the doctoral recipients. One recipient reported that It took 15 years to earn the doctorate.
The terminal degrees held by black doctoral recipients 1n this study are the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and the Doctor of Education
(Ed.D.). Most doctoral recipients are recipients of the Ed.D.; 151 twenty-five (59.5% of 42) of the respondents have Ed.D.'s compared to seventeen {40.5% of 42) who reported having Ph.D.'s.
Significant to Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 were the ages of recipients when the doctorate was conferred. (See Table 33.)
TABLE 33
AGE OF BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS WHEN THEIR DOCTORAL PROGRAM WAS COMPLETED
Age When Doctorate f % Was Conferred
25 - 29 7 16.7
30 - 34 10 23.8
35 - 39 5 11.9
40 - 44 8 19.0
45 and Over 12 28.6
Total: 42 100.0
Table 33 shows that 47.6 percent (20 of 42) of the respondents were age 40 or above when the doctorate was completed. Graduates In the middle age group (35-39) are least represented (11.9% of 42).
The two lowest ranges also acquired high responses with 40.5 percent
(17 of 42) of the recipients Indicating that their age was between 25 and 34 when the doctorate was conferred.
Doctoral recipients 1n this study were also asked to Indicate their status when the work for their doctorate was completed. These 152 data are used to provide answers for Research Question 6. Recipients' enrollment and employment status are reported 1n Table 34.
TABLE 34
ENROLLMENT AND EMPLOYMENT STATUS OF BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION WHEN THEIR DOCTORAL PROGRAMS WERE COMPLETED
Status f %
Enrollment Status:
Full-Time Students 24 70.6 Part-Time Students 10 29.4
♦Total: 34 100.0
Employment Status:
Employed Full-Time on Campus 7 26.9 Employed Part-Time on Campus 6 23.1 Employed Full-Time Off Campus 10 38.5 Employed Part-Time Off Campus 3 11.5
♦♦Total: 26 100.0
Note: The number of respondents reporting th eir status (e.g. student and employment) was unequal. * Only 34 black doctoral recipients Indicated their enrollment status when their doctoral programs were completed. ♦♦Only 26 black doctoral recipients Indicated their employment status when their doctoral programs were completed. 153 Only 34 (79.1%) of the 43 respondents reported their status when the doctorate was conferred. Table 34 shows that 70.6 percent
(24 of 34) of the respondents to this question were full-tim e students, while 29.4 (10 of 34) percent reported part-time status.
Twenty-six (60.5%) of the 43 doctoral recipients in this study reported their employment status when the doctorate was received.
A plurality (38.5% of 26) was employed full-tim e o ff campus. Only
11. 5 percent of the doctoral recipients Indicated that they were em ployed part-time o ff campus when the doctorate was conferred.
Forty-two (97.6% of 43) of the respondents indicated the year in which they received the doctorate. The years range from 1956 to
1980. Fifty-seven percent (24 of 42) of the doctorates in this study were conferred between 1975 and 1980. The year 1977 received the most frequent response with eight (19% of 42) respondents receiving their degrees that year. A more descriptive breakdown of the years doctorates were conferred to blacks in this study is provided in
Tahle 35.
Table 35 Indicates that doctorates were sporadically conferred between 1956 and 1969. Only six (14.4% of 42) doctoral recipients reported that their degrees were received during that time period.
However, doctorates were conferred to doctoral recipients each suc cessive year between 1970 and 1980. 154 TABLE 35
REPORTED YEARS IN WHICH DOCTORATES WERE CONFERRED TO BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION
Year Doctorate f % Was Conferred
1956 1 2.4 1962 1 2.4 1965 1 2.4 1966 1 2.4 1969 2 4.8 1970 3 7.1 1971 2 4.8 1972 4 9.5 1973 2 4.8 1974 1 2.4 1975 4 9.5 1976 3 7.1 1977 8 19.0 1978 4 9.5 1979 3 7.1 1980 2 4.8
Total: 42 100.0
The data reported for Research Question 4 and 5 are used to re spond to Research Question 6. Research Question 6 asked 1f there 1s a difference 1n the academic achievement of blacks with doctorates and the time period when the degree was conferred. The time period when the doctoral degree was conferred 1s compared with the following 155 factors: (1) number of years to complete doctoral program; (2) age
of doctoral-degree recipient when the degree was conferred; (3) re
ported performance on standardized tests; and (4) grade point averages
earned from high school through the doctoral program. Table 36 reports
approximate chi square values for the four aforementioned factors and the years doctorates were conferred.
TABLE 36
APPROXIMATE CHI SQUARE OF FACTORS PERTAINING TO ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND THE YEARS DOCTORATES WERE CONFERRED
Academic Approximate Achievement Chi Square
Number of Years to Complete Doctoral Program 16.02 Age of Recipient When Doc torate was Conferred 14.75 SAT/ACT 15.83 GRE (Verbal) 14.34 GRE (Quantitative) 14.20 GRE (Analytical) Not Reported GPA (High School) 17.80 GPA (Undergraduate Program) 7.09 GPA (Master's Program) 21.73 GPA (Doctoral Program) 26.41*
* df « 16, £ < .05 156
Table 37 provides a crosstabulation of the years 1n which re
spondents received their doctorates and GPAs. The years are pre
sented In Intervals of four years.
Table 37 Indicates a gradual percentage increase 1n GPAs that
were 3.5 and above over the years. Between 1964 and 1967. two re
cipients 1n this study received doctorates. Of these recipients,
one reported an earned GPA for the doctoral program between 3.00 -
3.49, while the other recipient reported an earned GPA of 3.5 or
above. From 1964-1967, the percentage of GPAs that were 3.5 and above
gradually increased. These results may support studies (Hendrickson,
1976; Scully, 1975) which suggest that GPAs are gradually increasing
over the years.
Further analysis Indicate that there 1s a significant difference
(£ < .01) between students' enrollment status and the number of years
required to earn the doctorate. No difference ( £ > .0 5 ) was reported
between respondents' employment status during doctoral program, and
the number of years required to complete the doctorate. Table 38
reports a summary of doctoral recipients enrolled full-time and part-
time by the years required to complete the doctoral program.
Thirty-three (76.756 of 43) doctoral-degree recipients provided
responses for Table 38. As Indicated 1n Table 34, most recipients
studied were enrolled full-tim e when their doctoral programs were
completed. Table 38 shows that of the 22 persons completing their
programs 1n two to three years, 20 (9156) were enrolled full-tim e while only two (956) were enrolled part-time. TABLE 37
YEARS DOCTORAL DEGREES HERE CONFERRED BY BLACK DOCTORAL RECIPIENTS' APPROXIMATE GRADE POINT AVERAGES
Grade Point Averages Years Between Between Between Between 2.00 - 2.49 2.50 - 2.99 3.00 - 3.49 3.5 & Above
f * f % f % f *
1956 - 1959 - - 1 100 --
1960 - 1963 - - - - 1 100
1964 - 1967 - - 1 50 1 50
1968 - 1971 - - 2 28.6 5 71.4
1972 - 1975 - - 2 20.0 8 80.0
1976 and Above -- - - 19 100.0
Total: 6 15.0 34 85.0 TABLE 38
ENROLLMENT STATUS OF BLACK DOCTORAL RECIPIENTS WHEN DOCTORATE WAS CONFERRED BY REPORTED YEARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Years to Complete Doctoral Program Enrollment Total Status 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15
Full-time f 9 11 1 1 1 1 24 Student % 37.0 45.8 4.2 - 4.2 - 4.2 4.2 - 72.7
Part-time f 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 9 Student % - 22.2 11.1 11.1 - 22.2 11.1 11.1 11.1 27.3
• f 9 13 2 1 1 2 2 2 1 33 Total % 27.3 39.4 6.1 3.0 3.0 6.1 6.1 6.1 3.0 100.0 approximate chi square = 10.76, df = 2, £ < .01
on CD 159 Table 38 also Indicates that respondents enrolled part-time when
their degrees were conferred required more years to complete their
programs. Further analyses show that 71.4 percent (5 of 7) of the
respondents requiring between 7 and 15 years to complete their pro
grams were enrolled part-time; only 28.6 percent were enrolled fu ll
time.
Summary of Research Question 4, 5, and 6 (Academic Achievement).
Several variables are analyzed and reported for answering Research
Questions 4, 5, and 6. Analyses of "recipients" {Independent vari ables) and the following dependent variables are reported: (1) length of time required to earn the doctorate; (2) enrollment and employment status when the doctorate was conferred; (3) age when the doctorate was conferred; (4) grade point average at various educational levels;
(5) self-reported performance on standardized tests; and (6) degrees
(Ed.D. and Ph.D.) earned. Data for answering Research Questions 4,
5, and 6 are presented in Tables 32-38.
A plurality {47.655 of 42) of doctoral recipients in this study were over 40 years old when their doctorates were conferred. I t was also found that 57 percent {24 of 42) of the recipients received their degrees between 1975 and 1980. This may suggest that there has been a growing consciousness among blacks to pursue doctorates. The social and legal pressures precipitated by affirmative action may also account for the Increased number of black doctoral recipients during the 1970's. Once 1n the doctoral program, the average length of time taken to earn the doctorate (after the master's degree) 1s 4.1 years. 160 This finding does not support Bryant's (1973) study which suggests
that blacks take considerably longer to earn the doctorate. The fact
that 70.6 percent (24 of 34) of the recipients were enrolled full-time
suggests that recipients 1n this study had more time to devote to
their doctoral studies. Table 38 Indicates that there 1s a signifi
cant difference (j)<.01) in enrollment status (e.g. full-time and part-time) when the doctorate was conferred and the years required to
complete the doctoral program. Recipients enrolled full-time required
less time to complete their doctoral programs, while recipients en
rolled part-time required a longer period of time.
The phenomenon of grade Inflation reported by Hendrickson (1976) and Scully (1975) 1s supported 1n this Investigation. I t was found
that between 1956 and 1980, there was a gradual Increase in GPAs
that were 3.5 or above (see Table 37).
Other findings show no difference In most of the selected aca demic achievement factors and the time period 1n which the doctorate was conferred (see Table 36). The only difference found was an In crease 1n GPAs earned during the doctoral program between 1956 and
1980. The data for Research Questions 4, 5, and 6 also show that 59.5 percent (25 of 42) of the black doctoral recipients had Ed.D. degrees, compared to 40.5 percent (17 of 42) who had Ph.D.'s.
Research Question 7 (Academic Achievement)
Data regarding persons and resources that provided financial support toward black doctoral students' and recipients' undergraduate 161 and graduate education are reported under Research Question 7 which
follows:
What 1s the major source of funds used by black doctoral students and doctoral recipients to finance th eir graduate education (teaching as- sistantships, fellowships, loans, etc.)?
The data reported for Research Question 7 are concerned with
the major sources of "funds" (dependent variable) used by "black doc
toral students and recipients" (independent variable) to finance their
undergraduate and graduate education. Persons providing financial
support and supplemental resources are reported for each degree level.
Data for answering Research Question 7 are presented in Tables 39-44.
Tables 39-40 show the financial sources used by respondents during
their baccalaureate programs. Financial sources used during the mas
ter's degree programs are reported 1n Tables 41-42. Tables 43-44
show financial sources used by black doctoral students and recipients
during th eir doctoral-degree programs.
For each degree program, doctoral students and recipients were
asked to Indicate any or a ll of the people who provided financial
support toward th eir undergraduate education. Respondents could
choose from three categories: (1) parents/guardians; (2) spouse;
and/or (3) other. "Yes" or "no" were used by respondents to Indicate whether or not these persons provided financial support at the respec
tive levels.
Table 39 reports frequencies and percentages of persons pro
viding financial support to respondents during th eir baccalaureate
programs. The approximate chi square s ta tis tic indicate significant TABLE 39
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS PROVIDING SOME FINANCIAL SUPPORT DURING THEIR BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS
Persons Providing Financial Support Respondents' Rank ♦Parents/Guardi ans Spouse Other NO YES NO YES NO YES
Doctoral f 1 21 7 7 16 6 • Student % 4.5 95.5 50.0 50.0 72.7 27.3
Doctoral f 14 26 16 7 31 8 Recipient % 35.0 65.0 69.6 30.4 79.9 20.4
f 15 47 23 14 47 14 Total % 24.2 75.8 62.2 37.8 77.1 22.9
* approximate chi square = 7.06, df = 1, £ < .01 163 difference ( £ < .0 1 ) 1n the financial support of doctoral students and recipients provided by parents/guardians during the undergraduate level.
Parents/guardians were reported to have provided some financial support to 21 (95.5%) of the 22 doctoral students. Only 1 (4.5%) of the 22 students Indicated that th eir parents/guardians did not pro vide financial assistance.
Proportionately fewer parents/guardians provided financial sup port to black doctoral-degree recipients during th eir undergraduate program. Th1rty-f1ve percent (14 of 40) of the recipients Indicated
"no" to parent/guardian financial support. S1xty-f1ve percent (26 of
40) of the recipients reported that th eir parents/guardians did pro vide assistance toward th eir undergraduate studies.
Overall, 75.8 percent (47 of 62) of the students and recipients
Indicated "yes" to financial support from parents/guardians, while
24.2 percent (15 of 62) reported "no". The null hypothesis that stu dents and recipients were equal on financial support from parents/ guardians at the undergraduate level 1s rejected. Table 39 Indicates that doctoral-degree recipients received less financial support from parents/guardians at the undergraduate level than did doctoral students.
Statistical differences (£ > .05) were not Indicated for doc toral students and recipients on financial support from spouses at the undergraduate level. Thirty-seven (72.3%) of the 65 respondents provided data fo r this question: 14 (63.6%) of the 22 students and
23 (53.5%) of the 43 recipients. The majority (62.2% of 65) of 164 respondents Indicated that their spouses did not provide financial support during baccalaureate programs. Fourteen (37.8%) of the re spondents reported that their spouses did provide financial support at this level.
S1xty-one (93.8%) of the 65 respondents indicated whether or not other persons provided financial support during th eir baccalaureate programs. The majority (77.1%) of respondents Indicated that other persons did not provide financial support at this level. The ap proximate chi square statistic indicated that there 1s no difference
(j)> .05) in responses between students and recipients. The null hypothesis that the two groups are equal on support from other persons at the undergraduate level cannot be rejected.
Table 40 reports resources used by doctoral students and re cipients to finance their undergraduate education. Respondents were asked to indicate any or a ll of the following resources used to sup port their studies at this level: (1) part-time job(s); (2) scholar- ship(s) and/or grant(s); (3) federal student loan(s); (4) college loan(s); and (5) other resources.
Fourteen (32.6%) of the 43 doctoral recipients reported the use of other resources to finance th eir undergraduate studies. Of these respondents, 23.3 percent reported that the other resources used came from the G .I. B ill. The remaining 9.3 percent of the respondents reported state assistance and full-tim e employment.
The data reported under "other" resources indicated that re cipients used other resources to finance th eir undergraduate studies TABLE 40
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SOME FINANCIAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THEIR BACCALAUREATE PROGRAMS
Respondents' Financial Resources Rank Part-Time Scholarships Federal Stu College ♦Other Job(s) and/or Grant(s) dent Loan(s) Loan(s)
Doctoral f 20 10 7 2 2 Student % 90.9 45.4 31.8 9.1 9.1
Doctoral f 35 14 9 8 14 Recipient % 81.4 32.6 20.9 18.6 32.6
f 55 24 16 10 16 Total % 84.6 - 36.9 24.6 15.4 24.6
* approximate chi square = 4.45, df = 1, £ < .05
tn 166 comparatively more than students. Table 40 reports that 9.1 percent
(2 of 22) of the students Indicated the "other" resources used to finance their education were namely, state loans and full-tim e employ ment. This difference Is significant at the .05 probability level.
Table 40 Indicates that most (55 of 65) respondents had part- time jobs during their undergraduate studies. Of the 22 doctoral students in this study, 20 (90.9%) reported working part-time; 35
(81.4%) of the 43 doctoral-degree recipients also worked part-time to finance their undergraduate studies. The approximate chi square statistic reveal no significant difference (£ > .0 5 ) between students and recipients on their use of part-time jobs to finance their under graduate education. Scholarships and/or grants were recorded as the third most used resource by doctoral students and recipients at the undergraduate level. Of the 24 respondents who had scholarships and/or grants, 10
(41.6% of 24) were doctoral students and 14 (53.3% of 24) were doc toral recipients. The difference in the acquisition of scholarships and/or grants between doctoral students and recipients, during their baccalaureate programs, 1s not significantly different ( £ > .0 5 ) .
Doctoral students' and recipients' undergraduate education was also financed through federal student loans and college loans. Six teen (24.6% of 65) respondents were provided student loans; 10 (15.4% of 65) financed their undergraduate education through college loans.
The approximate chi square s ta tis tic show no difference ( £ > .0 5 ) In financing undergraduate education through loans between black doctoral students and recipients. 167 Table 41 reports frequencies and percentages of persons providing financial assistance to respondents during th eir master's degree pro grams. Again, analyses of this data show no significant difference
(£ > .0 5 ) between persons providing financial support to doctoral students and recipients.
The overall financial support provided by parents/guardians and spouses changed at the master's degree level. Table 39 indicates that undergraduate financial support from parents/guardians was reported by 75.8 percent (47 of 62) of the respondents. At the master's degree level, th eir percentage was markedly reduced to 9.4 percent (6 of 64).
There was an Increase 1n spouse support from baccalaureate to master's degree programs. Whereas 37.8 percent (14 of 37) of the doctoral stu dents and recipients received financial support from spouses during their baccalaureate programs, the percentage Increased to 57.4 percent
(31 of 54) at the master's degree level.
Only two (3.2% of 63) respondents reported receiving financial support from other persons during their master's degree programs.
The "other" persons who provided financial assistance to the two doc toral students were friends and a relative (uncle).
Table 42 reports resources used by respondents to finance th eir master's degree programs. The only financial resources used significantly different ( £ < .01) between students and recipients were "others".
Of the 65 respondents 1n this study, 25 (38.5%) reported using resources "other" than those listed 1n Table 42. Doctoral-degree TABLE 41
RANK OF BUCK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS PROVIDING SOME FINANCIAL SUPPORT DURING THEIR MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS
Respondents' Persons Providing Financial Support Rank Parents/Guardians Spouse Other NO YES NO YES NO YES
Doctoral f 21 1 6 12 20 2 Student % 95.5 4.5 33.3 66.7 90.9 9.1
Doctoral f 37 5 17 19 41 0 Recipient % 88.1 11.9 47.2 52.8 100.0 0.0
f 58 6 23 31 61 2 Total % 90.6 9.4 42.6 57.4 96.8 3.2
ooa * TABLE 42
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SOME FINANCIAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THEIR MASTER'S DEGREE PROGRAMS
Financial Resources Respondents' Rank Part-Time Scholarship(s) Federal Stu College ♦Other Job(s) and/or Grant(s) dent Loan(s) Loan(s)
Doctoral f 8 3 6 8 3 Student % 36.4 13.6 27.3 36.4 13.6
Doctoral f 14 8 11 11 22 Recipient % 32.6 18.6 25.6 25.6 51.2
f 22 11 17 19 25 Total % 33.8 16.9 26.2 29.2 38.5
* approximate chi square = 8.96, df = 1, £ < .01 170 recipients represented a disproportionate percentage (51.2% of 43) of fespondents reporting other resources used to finance their mas ter's degree programs.
The "other" resources reported by the 22 recipients Included the following: G .I. B ill (31.8%); loans (22.7%); state aid (13.6%);
T itle I I I (4.5%); savings (9.1%); full-tim e employment (9.1%); company
(4.5%); and college reimbursement (4.5%).
Only 13.6 percent of the 22 students reported other financial resources used to finance their master's degree programs. These re sources Included the following: grants (33,3%) and full-tim e employ ment (66.7%).
Almost 34 percent (22 of 65) of the respondents financed their master's degree programs by working part-time. This resource rank second among the resources used to finance respondents' master's degree programs.
Seventeen percent (11 of 65) of the doctoral students and recipients acquired scholarships and/or grants to finance their master's degree programs. Federal student loans and college loans were used slightly more than scholarships and/or grants. Table 42 Indicates that federal loans were used by 26.2 percent (17 of 65) of the respondents; 29.2 percent (19 of 65) financed their master's degree programs through college loans.
The financing of students' and recipients' doctoral-degree pro grams is presented 1n Tables 43 and 44. TABLE 43
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS PROVIDING SOME FINANCIAL SUPPORT DURING THEIR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Persons Providing Financial Support Respondents1 Rank Parents/Guardians Spouse Other NO YES NO YES NO YES
Doctoral f 19 3 8 10 20 2 Student % 86.4 13.6 44.4 55.6 90.9 9.1
Doctoral f 37 5 12 26 37 4 Recipient % 88.1 11.9 31.6 68.4 90.2 9.8
f 56 8 20 36 57 6 Total % 87.5 12.5 35.7 64.3 90.5 9.5 172
The approximate chi square s ta tis tic show no significant d if
ference ( £ > .0 5 ) 1n persons providing financial support for doctoral students and recipients.
Spouses contributed more financially toward respondents' doc toral programs than parents/guardians, or "other" persons. Table 43
Indicates that 64.3 percent (36 of 56) of the doctoral students and recipients reported receiving financial assistance from their spouses.
A review of Tables 39, 41, and 43 reveals a successive increase 1n the percentage of spouses providing financial support: 37.8 percent
(14 of 37) 1n baccalaureate programs; 57.4 percent (31 of 54) In master's degree programs; and 64.3 percent (36 of 56) at the doctoral degree level.
Few parents/guardians and other persons provided financial support to students and recipients at the doctoral degree level. Only
12.5 percent (8 of 64) of the respondents reported receiving financial support from parents/guardians; 9.5 percent (6 of 63) received financial support from "other" persons. Other persons assisting respondents financially Included relatives, friends, and a university administrator.
Table 44 reports resources used by respondents to finance their education at the doctoral degree level. Analyses of these data re veal that only "other" resources were used significantly different
( £ < .05) among students and recipients.
"Other" resources which financed the doctoral program were dis proportionately used between doctoral students and recipients. Only TABLE 44
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SOME FINANCIAL RESOURCES USED TO FINANCE THEIR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Financial Resources Respondents' Rank Part-Time Scholarship(s) Teaching and/or Research ♦Other Job(s) and/or Grant(s) Associateship/Assistantship
Doctoral f 4 6 12 4 Student % 18.2 27.3 54.5 18.2
Doctoral f 13 19 22 19 Recipient % 30.2 44.2 51.2 44.2
f 17 25 34 23 Total % 26.2 38.5 52.3 35.4
* approximate chi square ** 4.08, df = 1, £ < .05 174 18.2 percent (4 of 22) of the students reported other resources, com pared to 44.2 percent (19 of 43) of the recipients. The "other" re sources used by students Include full-tim e employment and faculty tuition reimbursement. The "other" resources reported by recipients were as follows: G .I. 8111; T itle I I I ; loan; educational leave/ sabbatical; state aid; and doctoral grant.
Most respondents were employed as teaching and/or research as sociates/assistants. Over half (34 of 65) of the respondents were employed as teaching and/or research associates/assistants during their doctoral studies.
Table 44 Indicates that 38.5 percent of the respondents re ceived scholarship(s) and/or fellowship(s) during the doctoral program.
Although not statistically significant (£ > .0 5 ), proportionately more recipients acquired scholarships and/or fellowships: 27.3 per cent (6 of 22) of the doctoral students compared to 44.2 percent (19 of 43) of the doctoral recipients.
Summary of Research Question 7. The variables analyzed and re ported for Research Question 7 were financial sources used by black doctoral students and recipients to finance their education during each degree program. These data are reported In Tables 39-44.
Financial sources used during respondents' baccalaureate programs are presented In Tables 39-40. Tables 41-42 and Tables 43-44 show financial sources used by respondents during their master's and doctoral-degree programs, respectively. 175 The extent of parents/guardians support during each degree level show an interesting trend (see Tables 39, 41, and 43). During the baccalaureate program, doctoral students received more financial sup port from their parents/guardians compared to recipients; 95.5 percent
(21 of 22) and 65 percent (26 of 40), respectively. However, the amount of parents/guardians support decreased for both doctoral stu dents and recipients during their master's and doctoral-degree pro grams.
Financial support provided by spouses Increased during each degree program. For the baccalaureate program, 37.8 percent (14 of
37) of the respondents reported some financial assistance from their spouses. During the master's and doctoral-degree programs, this per centage Increased to 57.4 percent (31 of 54) and 64.3 percent (36 of
56), respectively.
Tables 40, 42, and 44 present data regarding financial re sources (not persons) used to finance respondents' education at each degree level. A majority (55 of 65) of doctoral students and re cipients financed their undergraduate education through part-time jobs. Scholarships and/or grants were received by 36.9 percent (24 of 65) of the respondents during their baccalaureate programs. How ever, the percentage of respondents reporting scholarships and/or grants as a financial resource for their master's degree programs 1s
16.9 percent. At the doctoral degree level, scholarships and/or grants were more prevalent as Indicated by 38.5 percent (25 of 65) of the doctoral students and recipients. 176 Although not s ta tis tic a lly significant ( £ > .0 5 ) , scholarships and/or fellowships were used more by recipients (19 of 43} than by students (6 of 22) to finance their doctoral studies. The use of
"other" types of resources to finance undergraduate and doctoral studies were used proportionately more by recipients than by students
( £ < .05).
Research Questions 8 and 9 (Academic Achievement)
Data provided by faculty members having advised black doctoral students are reported for Research Questions 8 and 9 which follows:
How do faculty compare the academic achievement of their black doctoral advisees with their non-black advisees?
What 1s the a ttritio n rate of black doctoral students 1n Industrial education 1n comparison to non-blacks (due to academic deficiencies, or other reasons)?
Advisers having advised black doctoral students provided addi tional data regarding the academic achievement of blacks 1n Industrial education programs. These data were obtained from responses from the advisers' questionnaires. Both Research Questions 8 and 9 are concerned with comparing the academic performance of black and non black doctoral students. The analysis and reporting of data for both research questions are reported 1n Tables 45-52.
The relationships between several variables were presented in the respective tables. Analyses between "Race of doctoral students"
(Independent variable) and several dependent variables were reported:
(1) number of doctoral students advised; (2) advisers' professional 177 Involvement with former doctoral students; and (3) a ttritio n . Advisers'
comparison of the "academic achievement" (Independent variable) of
doctoral students by race (dependent variable) are presented 1n Table k 47. Analyses between the "number of black doctoral students advised"
(Independent variable) and advisers' comparison of black and white
doctoral students' achievement are also reported.
Thirty-three advisers provided data for answering Research
Questions 8 and 9. Thirty-one (93.956) of the advisers Indicated that
their race 1s white (not Hispanic). The other two (6.156) advisers
Identified themselves as Aslan or Pacific Islanders.
All advisers Indicated that they have served as major advisers
to both black and white doctoral students. Table 45 provides a break
down of the number and race of doctoral students served by faculty members 1n this study.
Table 45 indicates that of the five race categories* black and white doctoral students were advised most frequently by advisers 1n
this study. Twenty-two (66.756) of the 33 advisers had advised more
than ten white doctoral students; the maximum number of white doc
toral students advised by a faculty member was 67. None of the faculty members 1n this study reported advising more than 10 black doctoral
students. Table 45 indicates that the most frequent numbers of black
doctoral students advised by faculty members were one* two, and three.
Nine (27.3%) faculty members reported one black doctoral student, ten
(30.356) advisers reported two, and nine (27.356) advisers reported
three. These totals Indicate that 28 (84.456) of the 33 faculty TABLE 45
RACE AND NUMBER OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS ADVISED BY FACULTY MEMBERS
The Number of Reported Doctoral Race of Students Advised by Faculty Members Doctoral More Than Students None 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10
Black - 9 10 9 2 1 1 - - 1 -
White 1 1 - 1 1 3 2 - 2 22
Hispanic 27 1 4 - - - - 1 - - -
Asian or Pacific Islander 26 3 4 1 _
American Indian 19 9 1 2 1 1 179 members 1n this study had advised between one and three black doc
toral students.
Most of the faculty members had not served as major advisers to
other minority groups listed 1n Table 45. Twenty-seven (81.8%) of
the advisers had never advised Hispanic doctoral students. Twenty-six
(78.8%) faculty members reported no Aslan or Pacific Islander doc
toral students; nineteen (57.6%) reported no American Indian doctoral
students.
Faculty members 1n this study were asked to Indicate the degree
of d iffic u lty experienced in advising black doctoral students. Each
adviser’ s response was guided by the following question: Based on your experience as a doctoral adviser, do you feel that you might
have experienced some d iffic u lty relating to your black advisees when compared to your white advisees? Three choices were provided
to represent respondents’ degree of d iffic u lty 1n advising black
doctoral students: (1) no great difficulty; (2) a greater amount
of difficulty; and (3) much more difficulty.
Ninety-four percent of the thirty-three faculty members 1n this study reported having "no great d iffic u lty " relating to black doctoral
students. Two faculty members reported having some d iffic u lty in
their experience with th eir black advisees. Of these two, one
faculty member indicated "a greater amount of difficulty", and
the other reported "much more d iffic u lty ."
Advisers were also asked th eir preference of advising black
or white doctoral students. They were given three choices: (1) prefer 180 black; (2) prefer white; and (3) no preference. Analyses of the
responses Indicates that 32 (97%) faculty members had no preference
between black and white doctoral students. One faculty member did
not respond to this question.
This study also attempted to acquire data on the professional
relationship between doctoral-degree recipients and their advisers after completing their doctoral program. To obtain this datum,
faculty members were asked to respond "yes" or "no" to the following question: During the past five years, have you been involved in any professional activities with the doctoral-degree recipients for whom you served as major adviser? A summary of advisers' responses to this question is presented in Table 46.
The data in Table 46 are based upon the responses of 32 (97%) of the 33 faculty members that had advised black doctoral students.
The chi square statistic indicated that the race (black and white) of former doctoral students does not influence their professional activities with former advisers after students receive the doctorate
(£ > .0 5 ) .
Although not statistically significant (£ .05), proportionately more advisers reported being involved in professional activities with former white doctoral students (24 of 32) than with former black doctoral students (18 of 32). Conversely, fewer advisers reported having "no" involvement with former white doctoral students (8 of 32) than with former black doctoral students (14 of 32). 181 TABLE 46
DOCTORAL STUDENTS' RACE BY ADVISERS REPORTED INVOLVEMENT IN PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES WITH FORMER DOCTORAL STUDENTS
Race of PROFESSIONAL INVOLVEMENT WITH Doctoral FORMER DOCTORAL STUDENTS Students No Yes Total
f 14 18 32 Black % 43.8 56.3 50.0
f 8 24 32 White % 25.0 75.0 50.0
f 22 42 64 Total % 34.4 65.6 100.0
The preceding data provided some background Information on the faculty members who advised black doctoral students In this study.
As reported ea rlier, these target respondents provided the data for answering Research Questions 8 and 9 (academic achievement).
Research Question 8 1s concerned with the academic achievement of black doctoral students 1n comparison to non-black doctoral stu dents. Ten areas related to academic achievement were Identified for comparison. Advisers were asked to respond to these ten areas through the following question: Based on your experience 1n graduate education, which group tends to be more deficient In the following 182 areas? Only one of the following responses was required for each academic area: blacks; whites; or no difference. Faculty members' . responses are presented 1n Table 47.
Percentages 1n Table 47 are based upon the total response to each academic area. A review of the total percentages Indicated that at least 78.8 percent of the 33 advisers in this study compared the academic achievement of black and white doctoral students. Most of the responses Indicate "no difference" 1n the academic achievement of black and white doctoral students in any of the categories listed 1n
Table 47.
Table 47 Indicates that 48.3 percent (14 of 29) of the advisers reported that "blacks are more deficient" 1n written communication, while another 48.3 percent (14 of 29) reported "no difference" 1n written communication between black and white doctoral students. Only one (3.4% of 29) adviser reported that white doctoral students are more deficient 1n this area.
The approximate ch1 square s ta tis tic was used to analyze the responses of advisers 1n Table 47. The following major question was asked 1n this analysis: Does the number of black doctoral students advised by faculty members affect the comparison of academic achieve ments between black and white doctoral students?
Analyses Indicate that the number of black doctoral students advised and faculty members' ratings comparing black and white doc toral students were statistically different (£< .01) for overall academics and teaching s k ills . 183 TABLE 47
AREAS OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND RACE (GROUP) OF DOCTORAL STUDENTS RATED MOST DEFICIENT BY ADVISERS
Areas of Group Most Deficient Academic Total Blacks Achievement Whites Difference Response
Overal1 f 11 1 17 29 Academic % 38.0 3.4 58.6 100.0
Oral Com f 7 1 21 29 munications % 24.1 3.4 72.4 100.0
Written Com f 14 1 14 29 munications % 48.3 3.4 48.3 100.0
Analytical f 8 1 18 27 Skills % 29.6 3.7 66.7 100.0
Technical f 5 23 28 Competencies % 17.9 - 82.1 100.0
Teaching f 5 - 21 26 S kill % 19.2 80.8 100.0
Research f 9 1 18 28 Skill % 32.1 3.6 64.3 100.0
Social/Per ■f 4 24 28 sonal Adjust % 14.3 *• 85.7 100.0 ment
Study f 4 - 24 28 Skills % 14.3 85.7 100.0
Commitment f 1 3 24 28 % 3.6 10.7 85.7 100.0
Table 48 Indicates that black doctoral students were reported as more deficient 1n overall academics by faculty members who had advised three or more black doctoral students. Faculty members with 184 less than three black doctoral advisees frequently reported no d if ference between black and white doctoral students 1n overall academics.
TABLE 48
NUMBER OF BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS ADVISED BY GROUP RATED MOST DEFICIENT IN OVERALL ACADEMICS
Number of Group Most Deficient 1n Overall Academics Doctoral Stu dents Advised Blacks Whites No Difference Total
f 2 1 14 17 Less Than 3 % 11.8 5.9 82.3 58.6
f 9 0 3 12 3 or More % 75.0 * 25.0 41.4
f 11 1 17 29 Total % 38.0 3.4 58.6 100.0
Chi square B 12.2, df » 2, £ < .01
The number of black doctoral students advised was also s ig n ifi cant 1n rating teaching sk ills . None of the faculty members rated white doctoral students as being more deficient 1n this academic area.
Responses ranged between "blacks being more deficient" to "no d if ference" 1n teaching skills between black and white doctoral students.
These data are based upon responses from 26 (78.8%) of the 33 ad visers 1n this study. Table 49 Indicates that a ll of the advisers who had less than three black doctoral students reported "no d if ference" 1n teaching sk ills . Advisers with three or more black doctoral students were more evenly divided 1n their rating; 55.6 per cent (5 of 9) reported blacks as being more deficient 1n teaching while 44.4 percent (4 of 9) reported "no difference".
TABLE 49
NUMBER OF BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS ADVISED BY GROUP RATED MOST DEFICIENT IN TEACHING SKILLS
Number of Group Most Deficient 1n Black Doctoral Teaching Skills (Blacks are compared Students Advised to Whites) Blacks No Difference Total
f 0 17 17 Less than 3 % 100.0 65.4
f 5 4 9 3 or More % 55.6 44.4 34.6
f 5 21 26 Total % 19.2 80.8 100.0
Chi square - 8,38, df * 1, £ < .01
The a ttritio n rate of black doctoral students 1n Industrial education 1n comparison to whites was also analyzed. These data were acquired from faculty members who had advised black doctoral stu dents. Advisers were asked to Indicate the number of th eir doctoral advisees (black and white) that had comp!eted or never completed th eir doctoral program within the time period allowed by the graduate school. These data are presented 1n Table 50. 186 TABLE 50
BLACK AND WHITE DOCTORAL STUDENTS COMPLETING AND NEVER COMPLETING THEIR DOCTORAL PROGRAMS
Program Completion Students Program Program Never Total Completed Completed
Black f 54 15 69 Doctoral % 78.3 . 21.7 14.9 Student
White f 327 67 394 Doctoral % 83.0 17.0 85.1 Student
f 381 82 463 Total % 82.3 17.7 100.0
Table 50 reports a total of 463 black and white doctoral stu dents served by the advisers 1n this study. S1xty-n1ne (14.9%) of the 463 doctoral students are black compared to 394 (85.1%) white.
Of the 69 black doctoral students reported 1n Table 50, 54 (78.3%) completed their doctoral programs. The percentage of white doctoral students completing th eir programs was 83 (327 of 394).
The chi square s ta tis tic was computed to test the null hypothesis that the number of black doctoral students was equal to the number of white doctoral students completing and never completing th eir programs. The results of this analysis reveal that the difference between the two groups Is not significantly different (£ > .05).
The null hypothesis that the two groups are equal cannot be rejected. 187 The reasons for a ttritio n of black and white doctoral students were also obtained from advisers. Advisers provided these data by responding to Question #6 in the questionnaire designed for faculty members having advised black doctoral students. Question #6 asked:
Of those who never completed th eir doctorate within the specific period of time, please estimate the number of your advisees that never completed due to academic deficiencies or social/personal problems.
The percentages and frequencies of black and white doctoral students never completing th eir program due to the aforementioned reasons are presented 1n Table 51.
TABLE 51
ATTRITION OF BLACK AND WHITE DOCTORAL STUDENTS DUE TO ACADEMIC DEFICIENCIES AND SOCIAL/PERSONAL PROBLEMS
Reasons for Attrition Students Academic Social/Personal Total Deficiencies Problems
Black f 3 3 6 Doctoral % 50.0 50.0 9.7 Student
White f 32 24 56 Doctoral % 57.1 42.9 90.3 Student
f 35 27 62 Total % 56.5 43.5 100.0 Table 51 indicates that academic deficiencies and social/personal problems were attributed to the a ttritio n of 62 doctoral students reported by advisers in this study. Six (9.7%) of the sixty-two doc toral students were black while fifty -s ix (90.3%) were white. Academic deficiencies accounted for 50 percent (3 of 6) of the a ttritio n among black doctoral students reported in Table 48, compared to 57.1 percent
(32 of 56) of the white doctoral students. F ifty percent of the black doctoral students and 42.9 percent of the white failed to complete their doctoral programs because of social/personal problems. The chi square statistic show that the difference between the two groups is not significant at the .05 probability level.
Doctoral advisers also reported other reasons for a ttritio n among their former doctoral students (see Table 52). A ttrition due to employment prior to completing their dissertation was prevalent for both black and white doctoral students.
Summary of Research Questions 8 and 9 (Academic Achievement).
Data reported for Research Questions 8 and 9 are concerned with com paring the academic achievement and attritio n rate of black and white doctoral students. Faculty members who had advised black doctoral students provided the data for answering both research questions.
These data were analyzed and presented in Tables 45-52.
Ninety-four percent of the 33 faculty members who had advised black doctoral students are white; none are black. These advisers
Indicated that they had no preference or problems In relating to their black students. Table 45 Indicates that most of these faculty 189
TABLE 52
OTHER REASONS REPORTED BY ADVISERS FOR ATTRITION AMONG BLACK AND WHITE DOCTORAL STUDENTS
Black Doctoral Students White Doctoral Students
1. Obtained high salaried Job 1. Took positions—never returned 2. Funding 2. Already employed
3. Took position 1n Industry 3. Took employment and did not have time to complete
4. Majority took jobs and failed to realize time on dis sertation
5. Calculated decision not to complete
6. Didn't complete dissertation
7. Something for nothing at titude
8 . Unknown
9. Lack of motivation to get started members had advised between one to three blacks during their profes sional careers. When asked to compare the academic achievements of black and white doctoral students, most advisers reported that there was no difference. However, faculty members who had advised three or more blacks indicated that black doctoral students were more de ficient 1n overall academics (£ < .05). Further analyses of the data 190 suggest that race of the doctoral students did not affect an ad viser's professional Involvement with former students after graduation.
Research Question 9 1s specifically concerned with the a ttr i
tion rate among black and white doctoral students. I t was shown that
78.3 percent (54 of 69) and 83 percent (327 of 394) of the black and white doctoral students completed their programs successfully.
Analyses of these data Indicate that there 1s no significant difference
(£ > .0 5 ) 1n the a ttritio n rate of black and white doctoral students.
Research Question 10 (Academic Achievement)
Black doctoral students and recipients were asked to provide self-ratings of their performance on selected graduate school admis sion tests (e.g. the Graduate Record Examination). The results of these data are presented for Research Question 10 which follows:
How do black doctoral students and doctoral recipients rate their performance on gradu ate school admission tests?
Analyses for Research Question 10 addressed reported "self- rated performance" (dependent variable) of "doctoral students and recipients" (Independent variable) on the three Graduate Record
Examination (GRE) subtests, e.g. Verbal Test, Quantitative Test, and
Analytical Test. These data are presented In Tables 53, 54, and 55, respectively. Two additional tables present data that address
Research Question 10. Table 56 shows the relationship between "doc toral students and recipients" (Independent variable) and their “re sponses to whether or not standardized test scores were good Indicators of their academic capabilities" (dependent variable). Table 57 191 presents data regarding "doctoral students' and recipients'" (Inde pendent variable) "response to whether or not standardized tests should be used 1n selecting minority students Into doctoral-degree programs" (dependent variable).
Question 48, 1n the black doctoral students' and recipients' questionnaire, asked these respondents to do the following: Please
Indicate how you rate your test scores on the Graduate Record Examina tion or sim ilar graduate admission tests. The choices provided were as follows: very high; above average; average; and below average.
Table 53 shows how doctoral students and recipients rated th eir per formance on the Verbal Test.
TABLE 53
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SELF- RATED PERFORMANCES ON THE VERBAL TEST OF THE GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION
Self*Rated Performances On The ______Verbal Test ______
& rw auiKT riJICEXT Respondents N)N POT 'XV, ^ ^ V Rank OOL POT TOTAL 8 1 t I 9 1 B 1 8 1 18 Doctoral . 1 I.TS 1 o .tt i 14.44 1 B.TT 1 88.89 . 1 e.ae i M .aa i 41.11 I 84.88 1 Student . 1 ae.ee i aa.ei i 84. ra i 88.44 1 e i • i i t i IB t 8 1 89 Doctoral . i a . a* i ■i.ee i aa.ea i 14.84 1 44.47 R ecipient . t T.B8 1 ai.aa i e*.4T i 11.88 1 . i re.ee i ve.ee t ee.aa i 41.84 ' 1 wrai. • 4 IT aa IS 87 e r.ea av. ea 44.88 aa.ai 184.88 192 Fifty-seven (87.7%) of the 65 black doctoral students and recip ients In this study are represented 1n Table 53. A plurality (40.435) of the respondents indicated that their performance on the GRE was average; 42.1 percent of the students compared to 39.5 percent of the recipients reported average performance. Only seven percent (4 of 57) of the respondents reported very high performance. Analyses of the self-rated performance between doctoral students and recipients on the Verbal Test show that the groups had not rated themselves s ig n ifi cantly different (£ > .05).
Reported performance between doctoral students and recipients on the Quantitative Test was also not significantly different (p .05).
Table 54 shows how the two groups rated their performance on the
Quantitative Test.
Fifty-seven (87.735) doctoral students and recipients reported their performance on the Quantitative Test. Table 54 reveals that proportionately more (42.156 of 57) respondents reported average per formance. One (1.7556 of 57) respondent, a doctoral-degree recipient, reported very high performance on the Quant1at1ve Tests.
Forty-eight (73.856) of the sixty-five respondents reported self performances on the Analytical Test (see Table 55).
Analysis of Table 55 reveals that the self-rated performance between black doctoral students and recipients 1s not significantly different ( £ > ,0 5 ) . Over 50 percent (25 of 48) of the respondents
Indicated that their performance on the Analytical Test was average. 193 TABLE 54
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SELF- RATED PERFORMANCES ON THE QUANTITATIVE TEST OF THE GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION
Self*Rated Performances On The Quantitative Test
rneoPCTcr rmcnrr dP Respondents' now rcT f / Rank COL PCT * / TOTAL • • I B 1 te i 4 1 I f Doctoral • e.ee i B.T7 1 17.84 1 T.ea i 08.83 • t .M | 8 4 . aa i 83.40 1 oi.es i Student • e.ee i aa.ei i 41.47 1 04.34 1 a i i IB 1 14 1 7 1 80 Doctoral • 1.78 1 oo.er i 04.84 1 13.00 1 44.47 * a.ea i «a.it i 84.04 1 10.42 1 R ecipient • iee.ee i 7 * .I f 1 BB.88 1 48.44‘ 1 TOTAL • i at 04 11 87 e t.ro 8A.B4 4 0 . I I ie.ee iee.ee 194
TABLE 55
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY SELF- RATED PERFORMANCES ON THE ANALYTICAL TEST OF THE GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATION
Self-Rated Performances On The Analytical Test
Respondents' nov rc r Rank ool rc r ii 1 I 14 Doctoral ♦. IT I 88.48 a.aa i 84. ir 14.84 TB.S7 r . i 4 i Student 14.84 ia .a a i 14 T I Doctoral 8 .4 8 84. IT 14.BB I T4.63 8 .44 41.18 • 84 I R ecipient 144.44 8 4 .f f 87.84• I 88 48 8.48 84. IT 88.48 14.4T 144.44
Only one {2.1% of 48) respondent, a recipient, reported very high performance.
A review of Tables 53, 54, and 55 indicates that the two most
frequent responses were "average" and "above average" scores on the
GRE. Very few respondents fe ll Into the extreme categor1es--very high or very low.
Table 56 reports black doctoral students' and recipients' re sponses to the following question: Do you feel that your performance on standardized tests are good indicators of your academic cap abilities? The choices provided were "yes" or "no." 195
TABLE 56
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY RESPONSES TO WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS' PERFORMANCE ON STANDARDIZED TESTS ARE GOOD INDICATORS OF THEIR ACADEMIC CAPABILITIES
Performances On Standardized Tests Are Good Indicators Of Respondents Academic Capabilities: ______
Respondents' Rank n , I 19 I 9 1 22 Doctoral i 2 9 .2 3 1 4 .6 2 1 93.95 Student ! ! !2*2i !
* IIH 1 ®e*42 1 82.35 I TOTAL 49 17 65 73.95 26.15 lM.ee
Overwhelmingly, black doctoral students and recipients f e lt that th eir performance on standardized tests were not good Indicators of th eir academic capabilities. Of the 65 respondents, 48 (73.9% of 65)
Indicated that their performance on standardized tests was not a good
Indicator of th eir academic capabilities. Seventeen (26.2% of 65)
respondents fe lt that th eir performance on Standardized tests reflect
th eir academic capabilities. The approximate chi square s ta tis tic
reveal that there is no significant difference (fi. > .05) between the
responses of black doctoral students and recipients. 196
Table 57 reports black doctoral students' and recipients' re sponses to the following question; Do you feel that any standardized test score should be used as a criterion in selecting minority students
Into graduate programs at the doctoral level7 The choices provided were "yes" or "no."
TABLE 57
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY RESPONSES TO WHETHER OR NOT STANDARDIZED TESTS SHOULD BE USED IN SELECTING MINORITIES INTO DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAMS
Standardized Tests Should Be Used In Selecting Minorities Into Doctoral-Degree Programs: FREQUENCY! y y Respondents'------rov . — i ’ —pct .! ^ r Rank _col_pct i r r total _ . , • 13 I 9 1 22 Doctoral I 29.99 I 18.88 I 33.B8 Student j S;|S j S :»{ j _ ■ , 1 39 I 13 I 43 Doctoral I 46.18 I 29.99 I 66.18 RpriRecipient nlent , 1 69i7769.77 , I 39.23 I 1
TOTAL 43 22 68 66.16 33.88 199.99
Over s1xty-s1x percent of the doctoral students and recipients fn this study Indicated that standardized tests should not, be used 1n selecting minority students Into doctoral programs. Analysis of Table
57 shows no significant difference (£ > .05) between the two groups. 197 Summary of Research Question 10 (Academic Achievement). Data
reported for Research Question 10 address black doctoral students'
and recipients' self-rated performance on three subtests of the Gradu ate Record Examination, e.g. Verbal Test, Quantitative Test, and
Analytical Test. A crosstabulation between the responses of black
doctoral students and recipients and the following variables are also
reported: (1) whether or not standardized tests were good Indicators of black doctoral students and recipients academic capabilities and
(2) whether or not standardized tests should be used 1n selecting minority students Into doctoral-degree programs (see Tables 53-57).
The data reveal that most of the students and recipients In
dicated that their performances on the Graduate Record Examination
subtests were average. Above average was the second most frequent
performance reported by respondents. The majority of respondents
Indicated that standardized test scores were not good Indicators of
th eir academic capabilities. These data suggest that most black
doctoral students and recipients recommend that standardized test
scores should not be used to select minorities Into doctoral programs.
Further analyses of Tables 53-57 show no significant difference
(£ > .05) 1n the responses of black doctoral students and recipients.
Research Question 11 (Academic Achievement)
Black doctoral students and recipients in this study provided
data regarding selected demographic factors. These data are reported
1n answering Research Question 11 which follows: What are some demographic factors (parental educa tion* parental employment, domicile, etc.) which may have Influenced the academic achievement of black doctoral students and doctoral recipients 1n Industrial education?
Selected "demographic factors" (dependent variable) between "black doctoral students and recipients" (Independent variable) are analyzed and reported for Research Question 11. The demographic factors are as follows: (1) parents'/guardians' occupations; (2) persons who had reared respondents; (3) parents'/guardians' educational levels;
(4) siblings; (5) domicile prior to undergraduate program; and (6) per sons who had disciplined respondents prior to their undergraduate pro grams. These data are presented In Tables 58-68.
Responses to nine of the Items 1n the questionnaire designed for black doctoral students and recipients are used to answer Research
Question 11. These questionnaire Items are as follows: 30, 31, 35,
36, 39, 40, and 41. Frequencies and percentages*for each Item are re ported 1n Tables 58-68.
Tables 58 and 59 report the occupations of the parents/guardians of black doctoral students and recipients at the end of the latter's secondary schooling. In reporting this data, major concern is given to the most frequently reported occupations and professional/managerial occupations.
Tables 58 presents data pertaining to the occupations of target respondents' mothers/female guardians at the end of the former's secondary schooling. TABLE 58
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY MOTHERS'/FEMALE GUARDIANS' OCCUPATIONS AT THE END OF RESPONDENTS’ SECONDARY SCHOOLING
Occupations Of Mothers/Female Guerdlens
m Q D D W T I ftnCKHT I Respondents' ROM rCT I Rank COL r c r I i B I IB I 9 I Doctoral B.47 1 ie.es i 8.47 t e.« ss.ee i ie.ee i as.ee i e.< Student i ee.ee.i e.ee i 4B.4B I ea.se j e. * a i e i 19 I 9 I 34 Doctoral 8.47 I IB. IT I aa.es t 9.98 I ae.i 46.19. 1 8 .6 2 .I IS .08 I 83.93 I r.e* i se.i Recipient se.ee I lte.ee I 86.82 I 97.se i lee.i *♦ TOTAL te e 83 8 13 99 ie.es IB. 17 88.48 I9.ee 89. 94 iee.ee
Table 58 reports data for 59 (90.8%) of the 65 black doctoral
students and recipients. Twenty-three (39% of 59) respondents' mothers/
female guardians were service workers, Including private household workers. Only eight (13.6%) of the 59 black doctoral students and
recipients reported having mothers/female guardians employed profes sionally or as managers. Twelve recipients reported that their mothers/ female guardians were housewives at the end of the respondents' secondary schooling. None of the students reported having mothers/
female guardians who were housewives. F ifty-six (86.2%) of the sixty-five respondents reported their fathers'/male guardians' occupation at the end of respondents' secondary schooling (see Table 59).
TABLE 59
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY FATHERS'/MALE GUARDIANS' OCCUPATIONS AT THE END OF RESPONDENTS' SECONDARY SCHOOLING
Occupations Of Fathers/Hale Guardiaos
imanBKiT feucekt Respondents' now tot Rank col rcr II I a i i ae Doctoral it.ee i a .a r t v.ea r. le 88.71 as.ee t ie.ee i ie.ee Student ss.ea.i 18.16 I ee.ee ♦ ae i t I 6 86 Doctoral SB.71 I 16.67 I 6.86 I 6.66 66.84 OB. 64 t 88.ee I .88 I 8 .7 8 S. 88 Recipient 64.02 I BI.62 I 6e.ee iee.ee • ♦ TOTAL 201
A majority (55.43! of 56) of black doctoral students and recipients reported having fathers/male guardians who were craftworkers, opera tives, or laborers at the end of respondents' secondary schooling.
Fewer fathers/male guardians were professionally employed compared to mothers/female guardians. Table 58 reports that 13.6 percent (8 of
59) of the mothers/female guardians were employed 1n professional or managerial positions. Only 8.9 percent (5 of 56) of the fathers/ male guardians were employed 1n professional or managerial occupations.
Three recipients reported that their fathers/male guardians were employed as a chef, a minister, or deceased at the end of the re spondents' secondary schooling.
Doctoral students and recipients also provided data for the following question: During most of your early childhood and adolescent years, who were you reared by? Table 60 reports frequencies and percentages of responses to the choices provided.
All of the black doctoral students and recipients 1n this study are represented In Table 60. Over 89 percent (58 of 65) of the re spondents were reared by their natural mothers and fathers, or by their natural mothers only. Of the 89 percent, 73.9 percent (48 of 65) reported being reared by both natural mother and father. Only one respondent reported being reared by his/her natural father "only" during most of the early and adolescent years. Four (6.23! of 65) respondents reported being reared by grand parents and aunts: two respondents reported grandparents (one re spondent specified maternal), and two respondents reported aunts 202
TABLE 60
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS WHO REARED RESPONDENTS DURING EARLY CHILDHOOD AND ADOLESCENT YEARS
Persons Who Reared Doctoral Respondents
rm om cTi ra n c u rr i Respondents* now r c r i Rank___ c o l r c r I 14 I I I 22 Doctoral 14(43 I o . ob i 1.04 I 00.BO ra.ro i 4.00 0.04 4.0 0 I Student BO.OS I 20.04 100.00 00.00 100.04 I • 03 I 1 I I 40 Doctoral 40.23 I la .o i 1.04 I 44.10 74.43 I IB .40 4.40 2.0 3 I Recipient 44.47 I 0.00 00.00 100.00 1 10 40 TB.B3 10. SB 100.00
(one respondent specified maternal aunt and her husband). The re maining two respondents reported being reared by a female guardian only (maternal aunt) or other persons (grandparents). None of the black doctoral students and recipients reported being reared by a male guardian only. The educational levels of parents at the end of the respondents' secondary schooling 1s presented 1n Tables 61 and 62.
All 65 black doctoral students and recipients in this study are represented in Table 61. Although not s ta tis tic a lly significant 203
TABLE 61
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY MOTHERS'/ FEMALE GUARDIANS' HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL LEVELS AT THE END OF RESPONDENTS' SECONDARY SCHOOLING
Mothers'/Female Guardians' Highest Educational Levels
manatcY PERCENT Respondents' ROW PCT Rank COL PCT 4 I 10 I 6 I 2 I Doctoral 6 . IB t 10.30 I 9 .2 3 I 3*60 I IB. IB I 4B.48 I 2 7.27 I 9 .69 I Student 22.82 I 29.41 I 6 6 .6 6 I 66 .6 7 I 14 I 24 I 43 Doctoral 2 1 .B4 I 86.92 ) 6.18 I 1.84 I 66.18 8 2 .B6 1 50.01 I 9.86 I 2.33 I R ecip ient 7 7 .TB I 76.89 I 46.06 I 33.33 t TOTAL IB 84 16 3 68 27.69 82.31 18.36 4 .6 2 166.00
(j) > .05), 27.3 percent (6 of 22) of the doctoral students reported mothers/female guardians with college education. Only 9.3 percent
(4 of 43) of the recipients Indicated that their mothers had a college education at the end of respondents' secondary schooling.
Eighty percent of the respondents reported that the highest educational level attained by mothers/female guardians was between elementary and secondary school. Of these, the majority (34 of 65) reported secondary schooling as the highest level of education attained by their mothers/female guardians. 204
Table 62 reports fathers'/male guardians' highest educational levels. The highest educational level obtained by a majority of fathers/male guardians, as with the highest educational level of mothers/female guardians* was secondary schooling. Less than 17 per cent (10 of 61) of the black doctoral students and recipients reported fathers/male guardians with college education.
TABLE 62
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY FATHERS'/MALE GUARDIANS' HIGHEST EDUCATIONAL LEVELS AT THE END OF RESPONDENTS' SECONDARY SCHOOLING
Fathers'/Male Guardians' Highest Educational Levels ______
Respondents' Rank Doctoral Student a i is i it i s i a i 4i D octoral. . I 84.89 I SI.IB I 8.89 I 8.88 I 47.81 Recipient . I 84.89 I 44,84 I 18.29 I 4.88 I TOTAL 205
Black doctoral students and recipients were also asked to In dicate their birth order relative to siblings (see Table 63).
TABLE 63
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY BIRTH ORDER AMONG SIBLINGS
Birth Order Among Siblings
•Respondents’ now r c r A Rank oou r e t e i T I a i a i 14 I 88 Doctoral I t , *4 I 4.4V I •.to I 10.49 I 84.94 : I a i.o a i 19.44 t 4.44 I 40.40 I Student i 4 1 .IS I 8 1 .4 4 I 04.44 I 09.89 1 . -♦ I 14 I 14 I a i 84 I 48 Doctoral 11.49 I 10.49 I 0.19 I 01.89 I 49.49 84.01 I 89.01 I 4.T4 I 4T.48 I Recipient •4.43 I 74.48 I 04.44 I 44.47.1 -f- TOTAL IT 10 4 84 44 84.94 84.91 4.80 144.44
Sixty-four (98.52) of the sixty-five black doctoral students and
recipients are represented 1n Table 63. Almost half (46.92) of the
respondents Indicated that their birth order was "between the oldest
and youngest" sibling. Seventeen (26.62 of 64) respondents Indicated
that they were the "eldest" among their siblings. Thirteen respondents
reported th eir birth order as being the "youngest." Only four 206 (6.25%) of the 64 respondents Indicated that they were the "only
children."
Further analyses are provided on the number of siblings and
the birth order of black doctoral students and recipients. The mean
number of siblings computed from the data reported by doctoral stu dents was 5.1. There were 6.2 siblings computed as the average for doctoral-degree recipients. The mean birth order was 4.6 for students and 4.3 for recipients.
Table 64 reveals the number of brothers and sisters 1n the house hold during the respondents' elementary and secondary schooling.
Table 64 reports data for 62 (95.4%) of the 65 black doctoral students and recipients 1n this study. Nearly a third (20 of 62) of the respondents reported more than four brothers and sisters in the household during th eir elementary and secondary schooling. Forty-two
(67.7% of 62) respondents reported four or less brothers and sisters in the household. Only seven (11.3% of 62) respondents indicated that they had no brothers and sisters 1n the household during their elementary and secondary schooling.
Respondents' domiciles during most of th eir elementary and secondary school years are reported in Tables 65 and 66.
Table 65 reports black doctoral students' and recipients' domiciles during th eir elementary schooling. Of the 63 reporting respondents, 28 (44.4% of 63) resided in a rural setting. Twenty
(31.8% of 63) respondents reported living in an urban setting. A suburban domicile was reported by 15 (23,8%) of the 63 black doctoral students and recipients represented in Table 65. TABLE 64
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF SIBLINGS IN THE HOUSEHOLD DURING RESPONDENTS' ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLING
Nufcer Of Siblings In the Household During Respondents* Elewentary And Secondary Schooling Respondents' now r c r i Rank___ c o l rcr i Responsei • i i a i • I 4 i a i • I T I TOTAL a i a t 2 I 4 I 8 I a I 1 I 22 Doctoral s.as i a.as i 4.84 I 4.44 I 4 .0 4 t a .3 3 I 1.41 I 38.44 9.99 I 22.73 9.09 I 13.44 I 14.18 I 13.44 I 9.99 I 9.99 4 .8 8 1 Student 28. ST I S9.94 29.99 I 39.94 I 87.14 I 33.33 I 89.99 1 9.99 29.49 I 8 I 8 I 4 I 4 I 7 1 3 4 1 2 I 3 I 4 I 49 Doctoral i . I 8.94 I 8 .9 4 I 9 .4 8 I 11.29 I 4.04 9 .4 8 I 8.2 3 I 8 .2 3 I 4.48 I 44.82 Recipient j . I 13.89 I 12.89 I 18.99 I 17.89 I 7 .8 4 18.99 I 8.9 9 I 8 .9 9 I 19.99 I . I 71.43 I 89.99 I 78.99 I 79.99 I 42.84 44.47 I 84.99 I 199.99 t I TOTAL 7 19 8 19 7 9 4 2 8 92 11.29 14.13 12.99 14.13 11.29 14.82 4.48 9.2 3 8.94 199.99
ro o■vj 208 TABLE 65
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY DOMICILE DURING RESPONDENTS' ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YEARS
Respondents' Domicile During Elementary Schooling
FlUaOOEHCT PERCENT Respondents1 ROW PCT Rank COL PCT TOTAL l I I 7 1 7 I 7 I 21 D octoral . I 11.11 I 11.11 I 11.11 I 3 3 .33 Student . I 83.00 1 0 3 .0 3 I 03 .33 I . I 2 8 .M I 4 6 .6 7 I 88.00 I H ---- — — — — + 1 I 21 I a i 13 I 42 Doctoral . I 0 3 .0 3 I 12.70 I 20.63 I 66.67 R e cip ie n t 80 .0 0 I 19.08 I 30.98 I 7 8 .0 0 I 83.33 I 68 .00 I ------4~ -♦>* ■+ TOTAL 20 IB 20 63 23.01 01.78 100.00
Black doctoral students' and recipients' domiciles during their secondary schooling are reported in Table 66, Data for 60
(92.356) of the 65 respondents are provided.
Table 66 indicates that during th eir secondary schooling, 46.7 percent (28 of 60) of the respondents resided 1n urban settings.
Eighteen respondents (3056 of 60) lived 1n rural settings, and fourteen (23.356 of 60) lived 1n suburban settings.
Tables 67 and 68 provide data on persons who disciplined re spondents during th eir elementary and secondary schooling. 209.
TABLE 66
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY DOMICILE DURING RESPONDENTS' SECONDARY SCHOOL YEARS
Respondents' Domicile During Secondary Schooling
f u e q d e r c t i p e r c e n t i Respondents' ROW PCT I Rank COL PCT I «- 6 : Doctoral ! 10.00 10.00 13.33 33.33 Student j 8 0 .OO 30.00 33.33 42.06 I 28.07 — - + > 8 I 20 I 40 Doctoral I 30.00 13.33 I 33.33 1 66.67 Recipient ] 30.00 20.00 I 00.00 I 66.67 07.14 I 71.43 1 TOTAL 18 14 28 60 30.00 23.33 46.67 100.00
Most respondents Indicated that they were often disciplined by mothers/female guardians only (24 of 64) or equally by both parents
(33 of 64) during their elementary schooling. Table 67 suggests that few (7.8% of 64) fathers/male guardians of respondents were the sole disciplinarian 1n the household. 210
TABLE 67
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS WHO DISCIPLINED RESPONDENTS DURING THEIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL YEARS
Persons Who Disciplined Respondents During The Elewentery School Y ears ___
Respondents' m v r c r Rank c o l rcr TOTAL I I t I s i s i i i sa Doctoral i ts .e s t e . e t i ti.se i t.s e i s e .s a Student i e s .e e i is.ee i se.se i e.ss i i e i . e r I ee.ee i s e .s e i se.ee i
i i te i a i as i i i - 42 Doctoral . i si.as i S. IB I a e .e e i i. e t e s .e s Recipient . t ss.ss I e .r e t ■ e .s a i a t . i ss.ss I ee.ee i r s .T e i s e .t • -I TOTAL ae s sa a ar.ee r .a » s i.e e 8. IS iee.ee
Table 68 shows the same pattern of disciplining during re spondents’ secondary schooling as reported in Table 67. Fathers/male guardians were not often reported as the sole disciplinarian in the household. Discipline during respondents’ secondary schooling was mostly shared equally by both parents. In Heu of a father disci plinarian, 35.9 percent (23 of 64) of the respondents reported that their mothers/female guardians were responsible for disciplining. 211 TABLE 68
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY PERSONS WHO DISCIPLINED RESPONDENTS DURING THEIR SECONDARY SCHOOL YEARS
Persons Who Disciplined Respondents During The Secondary School Years ______
Respondents 1 now per Rank c o l p e r • t 4 I a I i I 21 Ooctoral 11,84 I e.M i it.se i 1.84 I sa.ai Student sa.ie i iv.es i sa.te t 4.74 I M .ra i se.ee i aa.si i ae.ee i -4- ♦ IB I 4 I ae i 4 I _ 43 Doctoral SS.44 I 4.29 I 81.2S I 4,28 I 47.19 Recipient 14.as i v.se I 44.81 I V.34.1 48,23 I se.ee i t i .43 i ae.ee i TOTAL 23 83.94
Summary of Research Question 11 (Academic Achievement). Re search Question 11 Is concerned with selected demographic factors related to black doctoral students and recipients in this study.
The data used for responding to this question were provided by re sponses to the following selected items in the questionnaire de signed for black doctoral students and recipients: 30, 31, 35, 36,
39, 40, and 41. These data are analyzed and presented in Tables
58-68. 212 Tables 58 and 59 present data regarding the occupational levels of black doctoral students' and recipients' parents/guardians at the end of respondents' secondary schooling. These data show that few parents/guardians were employed In professional occupations: 13.6 percent (8 of 59) of the mothers/female guardians and 8.9 percent
{5 of 56) of the father/male guardians. Most {55.4% of 56) of the fathers/male guardians were employed as craftworkers, operatives, and laborers (except for farm and mine). A plu rality (39% of 59) of the mothers/female guardians were employed as service workers, including private householders.
Tables 61 and 62 present data regarding the highest educational levels attained by parents/guardians at the end of respondents' secondary schooling. I t was found that the highest educational level attained by both parents was secondary schooling.
Demographic data related to the home environment of black doc toral students and recipients during their early adolescent years are also analyzed and reported. These data indicate that a majority
(73.956) of the 65 respondents were reared by th eir natural mothers and fathers (see Table 60). In most cases the responsibility for disciplining the offspring was shared equally by both parents/ guardians or by mothers/female guardians only. Fathers/male guardians were rarely reported as the sole disciplinarian (see Tables 67 and 68).
The data reported by respondents indicate a sh ift from rural to urban domiciles during respondents' elementary and secondary schooling.
Forty-four percent (28 of 63) of the respondents resided in a rural 213 setting during their elementary schooling. Conversely, a plurality
(46.7% of 60) of the respondents resided 1n an urban setting during their secondary schooling (see Tables 65 and 66).
Most (67.7% of 62) of the respondents reported four or less brothers and sisters 1n the household during their elementary and secondary schooling. The mean birth order of black doctoral students and recipients studied was 4.6 and 4.3, respectively (see Tables 63 and 64).
Research Question 12 (Academic Achievement)
Research Question 12 1s concerned with social problems con* fronting blacks during the pursuance of the doctorate 1n Industrial education. Research Question 12 1s as follows:
What are some social problems confronting black doctoral students and doctoral recipients during their pursuance of the doctorate 1n Industrial education?
Data for this question were provided by asking "black doctoral students and recipients" (Independent variable) 1f they fe lt
"alienated" (dependent variable) by non-black faculty members and students during respondents' doctoral programs. Conversely, respon dents' were also asked 1f they fe lt that they had alienated non-black faculty members and students while pursuing the doctorate.
Reed (1976) suggests that alienation is a major factor affecting the academic achievement of black graduate and professional students.
Reed also noted that alienation leads to frustration and withdrawal by black students. Further, "the opportunity to sharpen one's skills* to test Ideas and to cultivate a sense of belonging 1s severely restricted" (p. 145).
Data for Research Question 12 are presented 1n Tables 69-70.
The approximate chi square statistic show no significant difference
(j) .05) between black doctoral students' and recipients' reported feelings of being alienated by non-black students and non-black faculty members. There was also no difference ( £ > .05) found between re spondents and their reported feelings of having alienated non-black students and non-black faculty members.
Black doctoral students and recipients were asked the following question: Did/Do you feel alienated by non-black professors and/or non-black students while pursuing your doctorate? Respondents were provided the following choices: "Yes" or "No". Table 69 presents a summary of responses to the above question.
Sixty-three (96.9%) of the s1xty-f1ve black doctoral students and recipients are represented in Table 69. Fifty-one (81% of 63) of the respondents reported that they had not fe lt alienated by non black students and non-black faculty members while pursuing the doctorate (see Table 69).
Black doctoral students and recipients were also asked the following question: Did/Do you feel that you alienated non-black professors and/or non-black students while pursuing your doctorate?
Respondents were provided the following choices: "Yes" or "No".
Only four (6.4%) respondents fe lt that they had alienated non-black students and non-black faculty members (see Table 70). TABLE 69
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY RESPONSES REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT RESPONDENTS FELT ALIENATED FROM NON-BLACKS WHILE PURSUING THE DOCTORATE
Black Respondents Felt Alienated From Non-Blacks While Pursuing The Doctorate:
rm aom cT FEHCE1TT Respondents' ROW PCT Rank COL PCT 6 Doctoral 22.22 9 .8 2 81.75 Student 7e.ee se.ee 27.48 se.ee 07 Doctoral 58.70 9 .5 2 68.28 86.85 10.95 Recipient 72.55 se.ee 216
TABLE 70
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY RESPONDENTS' FEELINGS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD ALIENATED NON-BLACK PROFESSORS AND NON-BLACK STUDENTS WHILE PURSUING THE DOCTORATE
Black Respondents Felt That They Had Alienated Non-Blacks While Pursuing The Doctorate:
FREQUENCY PERCENT Respondents' ROW PCT Rank COL PCT 19 Doctoral S t . 16 I 1.09 I 01.70 Student 95.99 I 0.99 02.29 20.99 I 49 I Doctoral 60.49 t 68.204.76 Recipient 90.92 I 6 .9 8 I 67.89 I 70.99 I t o t a l " 09 * 4 * 60 90.60 6.00 199.99
Summary of Research Question 12 (Academic Achievement). Re
search Question 12 1s concerned with social problems confronting
blacks 1n Industrial education during their doctoral studies.
Alienation of black doctoral students and recipients by non-black
faculty members and students at the doctoral level 1s analyzed. These
data are reported 1n Tables 69 and 70. I t was found that black doctoral students and recipients (81% of 63) overwhelmingly Indicated
that they had not fe lt alienated by non-black students and non-black 217
faculty members during their doctoral programs. Similarly, most
(93.7% of 63) respondents fe lt that they had not alienated non-black
students or faculty members.
Vocational Selection and Development
Data presented under the category, Vocational Selection and
Development, Identify and describe those factors which may have In
fluenced career choice and development of black doctoral students and
recipients In Industrial education. Answers to four Research Questions
are reported under this category.
Research Question 1 (Vocational Selection and Development)
Black doctoral students and recipients in this study indicated what
they perceived to be the major factor(s) which Influenced them to pursue
doctorates 1n Industrial education. These data are reported 1n answer
ing Research Question 1 which follows:
What are the major factors which motivate blacks to pursue a terminal degree 1n Industrial educa tion?
Most “factors" (dependent variable) which motivated "black doc
toral students and recipients" (Independent variable) to pursue doc
torates in Industrial education 1s the principal concern 1n answer
ing Research Question 1. The major factors analyzed and reported are as follows: (1) when the decision was made to pursue the doc torate; (2) reported influential factors and/or persons; and (3) re ported potential discouraging factors. The data reported for Research
Question 1 are presented 1n Tables 71 and 72. 218 Black doctoral students and recipients were asked to Indicate when the decision was made to pursue the doctorate. Multiple choice categories were provided for their responses. Table 71 presents a crosstabulation of responses from doctoral students and recipients.
TABLE 71
RANK OF BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS BY THE TIME PERIOD IN WHICH RESPONDENTS' DECISION WAS MADE TO PURSUE THE DOCTORATE
Time Period When The Decision Was Hade To Pursue A Doctoral Degree
£
re a c tin ' Respondents' now r c r Rank___ col r c r a i at 18 I 4 1 Doctoral 8.17 I 4.74 I 88.48 I 4.88 I 4.89 I 18.44 I 84.89 I 18.18 I Student 184.84 t TO.88 I 84.11 t 81.88 I a i a 8 1 I I 33 I IB I 41 Doctoral . i 8 . IT 8.88 I 1.89 I 84.81 I 88.81 I 48.88 . i 4, on 8.88 I 8 .4 4 I 84.18 I 84.89 I Recipient . i IH.M 8.88 I 88.88 I 48.89 I 78.98 I TOTAL a a 4 84 14 48 8 .17 8.17 4.88 87.14 88 .14 188.88 219
Sixty-three (972) of the 65 black doctoral students are repre sented 1n Table 71. Most respondents (57.12 of 63) Indicated that the decision to pursue a doctorate was made during their master's degree program. Fifty-nine percent (13 of 22) of the doctoral students selected this time frame as being representative of when their decision was made. The same time frame was indicated by 56.1 percent (23 of 41) of the recipients.
Nineteen (30.22 of 63) respondents Indicated that none of the above selections reflected the time 1n which their decision was made to pursue a doctorate. These 19 respondents reported that their decision was made after the master's degree program.
The approximate ch1 square sta tis tic show no significant d if ference (£ > .05} between students and recipients and the time their decision was made to pursue the doctorate. Further analysis also show no difference (£ > .05) between respondents having a baccalaureate
1n Industrial education and respondents having a baccalaureate 1n other disciplines.
Black doctoral students and recipients were also asked to
Identify the most important factor(s) which influenced them to pursue a doctorate In industrial education. Data reported for this question were free-responses. Of the 65 target members. 52 (802) provided responses to the question. Based upon the researcher's analysis of the responses 1t was determined that the responses could be divided
Into eight categories. Table 72 presents the eight responses, as well as frequency of responses by groups: (1) recipients; (2) students 220 having undergraduate majors in industrial education; and (3) students
not having a baccalaureate in industrial education.
Thirty-seven (86% of 43) doctoral recipients are represented in
Table 72. The categorization of responses indicates that 22 (59.5%)
of the 37 recipients were influenced by three major reasons to pur
sue the doctorate; (1) job retention/security; (2) promotion/advance
ment; and (3) personal achievement.
Eight (21.6% of 37) recipients reported that the doctorate was
required to retain their position or employment. Some recipients
also Indicated that they were pressured by their administrators to
obtain a doctoral degree. Respondents who stated that the nature of
college/university teaching required that they earn a doctorate were
also Included In this category. None of the 15 students represented
1n Table 72 indicated that the retention or security of their jobs were factors influencing their decision to pursue a doctorate.
Eight (21.6% of 37) recipients Indicated that promotion or
advancement in current or prospective positions was dependent upon
their earning a doctoral degree; this was a major factor which in
fluenced their decision. One (11.1% of 9) student, having a bac
calaureate in Industrial education, reported that the need to be
promoted or advanced 1n current or prospective position influenced
the decision to pursue a doctorate. This factor was reported to have
influenced three (50% of 6) of those students who did not have a
baccalaureate in industrial education. TABLE 72
REPORTED FACTORS INFLUENCING DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND RECIPIENTS TO PURSUE DOCTORATES IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION (I.E .)
Influential Factors Recipients Student Students (I.E . Majors) (Non-I.E. Majors)
Job Retention/Securi ty 8 0 0
Promotion/Advancement 8 1 3
Personal Achievement 6 1 1
Improvement of Skills 4 1 0
Increased Professional Opportunities and/or Need for Blacks 3 2 2
Desire to Teach at University Level 3 3 0
Influenced by Friend and Professors 2 0 0
Other Reasons 3 1 0
Total: 37 9 6 222 Six (16.2% of 37) recipients stated that the desire to pursue the doctorate was precipitated mainly by an Intrinsic drive towards personal achievement. One student from each category reported that the desire for personal achievement was the major factor in pursuing a doctorate.
Table 72 lists five additional categories which represent fac tors reported by black doctoral students and recipients: (1) Im provement of sk ills; (2) Increased professional opportunities and/or need for blacks; (3) desire to teach at the college/university level;
(4) influence of friends and/or former professors; and (5) other reasons.
Four (10.8% of 37) recipients indicated that the desire to im prove their skills was the major factor Influencing their decision to pursue the doctorate. These respondents reported that they desired to Improve their research competence and become better professionals.
One (11.1%) of the nine students, with a baccalaureate 1n Indus tria l education, reported that the improvement of skills was the major factor influencing the decision to pursue a doctoral degree. Of the six students (In Table 72) without baccalaureates In Industrial educa tion, none reported Improvement of skills as a major factor.
Some respondents indicated that the opportunities or need for minorities with doctorates in Industrial education was the major fac tor that Influenced their decision to pursue a doctoral degree. Three
(8.1%) of the 37 recipients reported this as a major factor. This factor was also Indicated by two students from each group. 223
The desire to teach at the college/university level was a sixth factor indicated by black doctoral students and recipients. Three
(8.195 of 37) recipients reported this as the major factor Influencing their decision to pursue a doctorate. This factor was also influential for three (33.3%) of the nine reporting students with baccalaureates
1n Industrial education. Students identified as non-industrial educa tion majors did not report this factor as a major Influence In their decision to pursue a doctorate.
Only two respondents Indicated that a friend or college profes sor was the major factor Influencing their decisions to pursue doc toral degrees; this was reported by two (5.435) of the thirty-seven recipients.
Four factors unrelated to any of the above categories are listed separately. These responses were reported by three (8.135) of the recipients and one student having a baccalaureate 1n Industrial education.
The eight categories reported 1n Table 72 provide data for
Research Question 1 (Vocational Selection and Development); however, this study 1s also concern with factors which could have discouraged black doctoral students and recipients from pursuing a college degree at any level. No distinctions are made between groups 1n reporting this data.
Fifty-nine (90.895) of the 65 respondents reported factors which could have discouraged them from pursuing a degree at any level. 224 The majority (50.8%) of target members indicated that "lack of financial resources" was the only factor which could have discouraged them.
Summary of Research Question 1 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment). Data reported for Research Question 1 {Vocational Selection and Development) provide some indication of major factors that In fluenced black doctoral students' and recipients' decision to pursue doctorates. Eighty-six percent (37 of 43) of the recipients reported factors, some of which are presented 1n Tables 71 and 72. A majority
(59.5% of 22) of the recipients indicated that their decision to pursue doctoral degrees were largely Influenced by factors related to (1) job retention/security, (2) promotion/advancement, and (3) per sonal achievement.
Ninety percent (9 of 10) of the students (with a baccalaureate in Industrial education) reported major factors which influenced their decision to pursue doctorates. Of these, 55.6 percent Indicated that the two major factors which Influenced their decision to pursue doctoral degrees were the increased professional opportunities and/or need for blacks with doctorates in Industrial education, and a desire to teach at the college level.
Only 50 percent (6 of 12) of the students without baccalaureates
1n industrial education reported major factors. Two factors seem to emerge most frequently among these students. These factors were re lated to promotional/advancement 1n their jobs and Increased profes sional opportunities and/or need for blacks in industrial education. 225 . Students and recipients were also asked to report those factors which could have discouraged them from pursuing a degree at any level.
The discouraging factor reported by 50.8 percent (59 of 65) of the respondents was "finance".
Research Question 2 (Vocational Selection and Development)
Data regarding the past, current, and prospective employment of black doctoral students and recipients were obtained from these target population members and from department chairpersons 1n Indus tr ia l education. These data are analyzed and reported in Tables 73-
79. Research Question 2 1s as follows:
In what specific types of Institutions and/or agencies are most black doctoral recipients employed before and after the doctorate is completed?
Data related to the past professional experiences of black doc toral students and recipients are presented in Tables 73 and 74.
Table 73 presents a crosstabulation between "black doctoral students and recipients" (independent variable) and th eir "professional ex periences prior to the doctoral program" (dependent variable). Table
74 presents a crosstabulation between persons who do and do not have baccalaureates 1n Industrial education (Independent variable) and post-high school technical Institu te experience (dependent vari able).
Data regarding prospective employment of blacks 1n Industrial education are presented 1n Tables 75 and 76. In these tables. In stitutional support and racial composition of the Institution 226 (independent variable) are crosstabulated with reported special e f
forts to hire black doctoral-degree recipients in industrial educa
tion.
The current employment status of black doctoral-degree recipients
are presented in Tables 77-79. In these tables, institutional support,
racial composition of the institution, and Institutional size (inde
pendent variable) are crosstabulated with the "number of black
doctoral-degree recipients employed in Industrial education" (dependent
variable). The following section presents a descriptive breakdown
of the data for Research Question 2.
Doctoral students and recipients were asked to respond to the
following question: At what professional level(s) had you worked
prior to beginning your doctoral program? Eight professional levels were among the possible selections. An "other" category was included
for professional levels not included among the eight. Table 73
presents a crosstabulation between doctoral students and recipients
and the professional levels they had worked 1n prior to their doctoral
programs. Frequencies and percentages reported In Table 73 are
based upon the response of 22 doctoral students and 43 recipients,
representing a total of 65 respondents among this target group.
Table 73 Indicates that recipients reported experiences at each professional level prior to commencing their doctoral programs. Stu dents reported experience at each professional level except elementary
school and government. The percentages reported for students and
recipients are similar for each professional level. TABLE 73
PROFESSIONAL LEVELS BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND RECIPIENTS HAD WORKED IN PRIOR TO BEGINNING THEIR DOCTORAL-DEGREE PROGRAM
Professional Students Recipients Levels f % f %
Elementary School (K-6) 0 - 4 9.3
Junior High School (7-9) 4 18.2 11 25.6
High School (10-12) 8 36.4 20 46.5
College 11 50.0 31 72.1
Government 0 - 5 11.6
Industry/Business 3 13.6 12 27.9
Post-High School Technical Institute 3 13.6 3 7.0
Community College 3 13.6 6 14.0
Other 3 13.6 1 2.3
N rs> 228
Host doctoral students and recipients reported experience at
the high school (10-12) and college levels. Eight (36.4% of 22)
students and 20 (46.5% of 43) recipients Indicated that they had worked at the high school level prior to their doctoral-degree pro
grams. Over 50 percent (42 of 65) of the respondents had worked at
the college level, with 11 (50% of 22) students and 31 (72.1% of 43)
recipients reporting experience at this level.
Table 73 also indicates that a large proportion of black doc
toral students and recipients had professional experience at the junior high school (7-9) level and In Industry/business. Four (18.2% of 22) doctoral students and eleven (25.6% of 43) recipients reported that they had worked at the junior high school level prior to their doctoral-degree programs. Fifteen (23.1% of 65) respondents reported having experience in industry/business, with three (13.6% of 22) students and 12 (27.9% of 43) recipients reporting experience at this
level.
Both black doctoral students and recipients reported having professional experience in the community college prior to their doc toral-degree programs. This experience was Indicated by three (13.6% of 22) doctoral students and six (14.0% of 43) recipients.
Analyses of the professional levels between students and re cipients show no significance (£ > .05). However, there is a significant difference {£ c .02) between respondents having bac calaureates in Industrial education and respondents majoring in 229 other disciplines. This difference occurred between responses at the post-high school technical In stitu te level (see Table 74).
TABLE 74
BLACK DOCTORAL RESPONDENTS WITH AND WITHOUT BACCALAUREATES IN INDUSTRIAL * EDUCATION BY POST-HIGH SCHOOL TECHNICAL WORK EXPERIENCE
Post-High School Technical Work Experience; ______
niHKJEHOY PERCENT Baccalaureate In ROW PCT Industrial Educatlon COL PCT
No Response
I 12 Without I 19.08 6 .SB 2 8 .40 I 7 6 .0 0 2 8 .00 I 21.08 6 6 .67 48 47 With 7 1 .4 3 3. 17 7 4 .60 98 .7 4 4 .2 6 78.98 3 3 .33 TOTAL 87 63 9 0 .4 8 9 .8 2 100.00
approximate ch1 square B 6.06, df ■ 1, £ < . .02
Sixteen respondents reported that they did not have bac calaureates in Industrial education. Twelve (75% of 16) of these respondents Indicated that they had no professional experience In a post-high school technical Institute. 230 Of the 47 respondents with baccalaureates in industrial educa
tion, 45 (95.7%) indicated that they did not have professional ex
perience in a post-high school technical institute; only two (4.3%)
respondents reported experience at this level.
Most significant in Table 74 is the comparison between the groups
reporting experience in a post-high school technical Institute. Pro
portionately more persons with baccalaureates in Industrial education
indicated that they did not have experience in a post-high school
technical institute.
Research Question 2 is also concerned with characteristics of
Institutions employing black doctoral-degree recipients. These data were obtained from black doctoral-degree recipients and department
chairpersons.
Department chairpersons 1n this study were asked to respond to
the following question: I f a vacancy existed in your department, would there be a special effort to employ a black doctoral-degree
recipient? Institutional characteristics were paired as follows:
private instltutions—public institutions and predominantly white
Institutions—predominantly black institutions. Tables 75 and 76
provide responses to the question by institutional characteristics.
Table 75 shows how the responses of private and public in
stitutions compare.
One-hundred sixty-five (91.2%) of the one-hundred eighty-one
institutions In this study provided data for Table 75. Eighteen of
the institutions are privately supported compared to 147 publicly 231 TABLE 75
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT BY SPECIAL EFFORTS TO EMPLOY BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
Efforts To Employ Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients
rnHHJBrcr PERCENT Institutional now p o t Support COL PCT I Privately 7.37 3 .6 4 I 16.91 Supported 66 .6 7 0 3 .3 3 I 10.46 6 .6 9 I IB I SO I 94 I 147 Publicly 32.12 I 06.97 I 09.69 Supported 36.63 I 63.93 I 01.84 I 94.66 I TOTAL 6S~ ” ” oe~ 16B 39.39 66.61 166.66
ch1 square ■ 6.29, df ■ 1, £ <. .01
supported. Twelve (66.7% of 18) private Institutions reported that there would not be a special effort to employ a black doctoral-degree recipient if a vacancy existed. Six (33.3% of 18) of the private in stitutions reported that there would be a special effort to hire a black doctoral-degree recipient. 232 Proportionately more public Institutions reported that a special e ffo rt would be made to hire blacks in th eir departments I f a vacancy existed. Fifty-three (36.1% of 147) public institutions
Indicated that there would not be a special effort compared to ninety- four (64% of 147) that would make special efforts to hire blacks with doctorates.
The ch1 square s ta tis tic shows a significant difference between public and private Institutions (£ < .01). A review of Table 75 suggests that public Institutions are more willing to make a special e ffo rt to hire blacks with doctorates 1f vacancies existed 1n their departments. Private institutions are less w illin g to make a special e ffo rt to hire black doctoral-degree recipients.
Predominantly white and black institutions responded sim ilarly regarding th eir efforts to hire blacks with doctorates. The ch1 square statistic Indicates that there 1s a significant dif ference ( £ < .05) between predominantly white and black institutions and the willingness to make special efforts to hire blacks with doctorates. These data are based on the responses from 19 (90.5% of
21) predominantly black Institutions and 146 (R8.5% of 165) pre dominantly white Institutions (see Table 76).
The number of black doctoral-degree recipients employed 1n In dustrial education programs was also reported by department chair persons. A comparison 1s made between the following Institutional characteristics: privately supported—publicly supported and pre dominantly wh1te—predom1nantly black Institutions. A crosstabulation 233 between Institutional size and the number of black doctoral-degree recipients In a program 1s also provided.
TABLE 76
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY SPECIAL EFFORTS TO EMPLOY BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
Efforts To Employ Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients
nusQUEKcri PERCENT t Institutional ROW PCT I Race COL PCT I TOTAL *4- SB BB Predomlnantly I 38. IB S3.33 39.73 69.27 White j I 89,23 I 80.00 2 I 7 I 12 19 Predominantly i 4 .2 4 I 7.2 7 11.82 Black ! 3 6 .B4 I 63. 16 ie .7 7 I 12.60 - - 4 - TOTAL 68 tee 168 39.39 66.61 166.66
The approximate ch1 square s ta tis tic shows no difference ( £ > .0 5 )
In the number of black doctoral-degree recipients 1n privately supported Institutions compared to publicly supported Institutions.
Table 77 reports that 84 percent (152 of 181) of the institutions reported zero black doctoral-degree recipients; 82.7 percent (134 of
162) of the public Institutions reported zero black recipients 234
compared to 94.7 percent (18 of 19) of the private Institutions. Al
though black doctoral-degree recipients were reported more frequently
in public Institutions, th1sd1spar1ty 1s not significantly dif
ferent (£ > .05).
TABLE 77 INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT THE REPORTED NUMBER OF BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS EMPLOYED IN THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
Hunter of Black Doctoral-Degree n ttactncTi Recipients Employed ______m c o r r i Institutional nov ter i Support co l m I i TOTAL ■ ■ ■ ■ — IB I I e t 14 Privately i e .4 4 i e .e e e.fs e .e e t e .e e 14.84 Supported i 44.74 1 e.ee I.M e.e e e .e e i e.e e e.ee ii. I.N ie.ee e .e e e .e e i e .e e e.ee IB4 is * a a i i 143 Publicly Te.ee T . IB 4.47 I.14 l . i e e.BB e .e a B4.B4 a a .r a a .e a B.S4 i.aa 1.33 e.ea e.ea Supported a s . 14 ie e .e e iee.ee tee.ee ie e .e e ie e .e e TOTAL isa IB IB a a i i ia i 89.40 IB e .e a l . i e i . le e .e a e .e a iee.ee Statistical significance {£ < .0001) 1s reported for the number of black doctoral-degree recipients employed 1n predominantly white
Institutions compared to predominantly black Institutions. Over 90 percent (150 of 160) of the predominantly white Institutions reported zero black doctoral-degree recipients employed 1n the Industrial education department. Conversely, 9.5 percent (2 of 21) of the pre dominantly black Institutions reported having zero blacks with doctorates employed 1n its Industrial education department. A further description of black doctoral-degree recipients employed 1n pre dominantly white and black Institutions Is reported 1n Table 78.
Only 6.3 percent (10 of 160) of the predominantly white In stitutions reported having one or more blacks with doctorates. Con versely, 90.5 percent (19 of 21) of the predominantly black In s titu tions reported one or more black doctoral-degree recipients employed
1n the Industrial education department.
The approximate chi square s ta tis tic shows a significant d if ference { £ < .05) between Institutional size and the number of black doctoral-degree recipients employed 1n Industrial education depart ments. These data are reported in Table 79.
Analyses of Table 79 show that 29 (165!) of the 181 Institutions reported having one or more black doctoral-degree recipients employed
1n the Industrial education department. Twenty-one (72.4%) of the twenty-nine Institutions had student body enrollments less than TABLE 78
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY THE REPORTED NUMBER OF BLACK D0CT0RAL-DE6REE RECIPIENTS EMPLOYED IN INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
Number of Black Doctoral-Degree r r o aoH icTi Recipients Employed ______PER C EN T I Institutional ROW P C T I Race C O L P C T I i 3 I TOTAL 13 I 31 31 31 31 3 1 163 nPredominantly j ‘ t * 82.87 l5# i 1 8.82 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 88.43 6.28 t 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I White 1 937598 .6 8 I1 76.92 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I 3.33 I +- .. . .- + . ■» -» -» I 21 31 13 I 21 21 II II 21 Predominantly i 1.13 I 1.66 I 8.82 I 1.13 I 1.13 I 3.88 I 3.88 I 11.63 Black 1 9.82 I 14.29 I 47.62 I 9.82 I 9.82 I 4.76 I 4.76 I I 1.32 I 23.38 I 133.33 I 133.33 I 133.33 I 133.33 I 133.33 I ♦ ...... — t- » t —I------► TOTAL 182 13 13 1 1 181 83 .9 8 7 .1 8 8 .82 1.16 1.13 .88 .88 133.33 approximate chi square = 138.49, df = 6, £ < .0001
ro CT>u TABLE 79
INSTITUTIONAL SIZE BY THE REPORTED NUMBER OF BLACK DOCTORAL-DEGREE RECIPIENTS EMPLOYED IN THE INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENTS
Nunber of Black Doctoral-Degree Recipients Employed ______Institutional Sottpct col p e r 3 TOTAL Size i 44 I 8 I 8 I 2 1 1 I 4 1 4 1 88 Less Than 34.31 I 1.46 I 4 .4 2 1 1.14 I 4 .8 0 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 32.44 4,999 70.86 I 0 .1 7 I 13.79 I 3 .4 0 I 1.72 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 28.99 I 2 3 .4 8 1 84.44 I 144.44 I 94.44 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I +- ■------— »■ 38 I 2 I 2 I 4 I I I 1 I 1 I 48 24.99 I 1.14 I 1.14 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .8 8 I 4.9 0 I 4.8 0 I 24.86 5,000 - 9,999 84.44 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 2.22 1 2.22 I 2.22 I 28 .4 4 I 10.38 I 24 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 84.44 I 1 4 4 .4 4 'I 144.44 I «■ -+ 24 3 I 4 1 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 27 13.26 1.66 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4.4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 14.92 10,000 - 14,999 88.89 11.11 1 4 .4 4 ! 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 1 19.79 2 3 .4 8 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 16 1 1 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 17 8 .8 4 t 4 .0 8 I 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 9.3 9 15,000 - 19,999 9 4 .1 2 I 8.88 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 14.93 I 7 .6 9 t 4 .4 4 I. 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4.4 4 I ------— 1------—— —+• 14 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 1 4 I 4 I 18 7 .7 3 I 2.21 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 9.9 4 20,000 - 29,999 7 7 .7 8 I 22.22 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 9.21 I 34.77 I 4 .4 4 t 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 16 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 1 4 I 16 More Than 8 .8 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 8 .8 4 144.44 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 1 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 30,000 14.83 1 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I 4 .4 4 I «♦* ■+* ------1- - f TOTAL 182 13 14 2 2 1 1 181 83 .9 8 7 . IB 8 .8 2 1.14 1.14 4.8 8 4.88 144.44
approximate chi square = 14.38, df = 6, £ <• .05 238
10,000. The remaining eight (27.6% of 29) Institutions reporting one
or more black doctoral-degree recipients were 1n Institutions with
student body enrollments between 10,000 and 29,999. All 16 Institutions with a student body enrollment of 30,000 or more reported zero black
doctoral-degree recipients in the Industrial education department.
Black doctoral-degree recipients 1n this study also provided
data on the racial composition of the Institution and degree offerings where they are employed. Eleven (25.6%) of the 43 black doctoral- degree recipients Indicated that they are employed 1n predominantly white Institutions. Thirty-two (74.4% of 43) black doctoral-degree recipients reported being employed 1n a predominantly black Institu tion. These data are congruent with the data reported In Table 78.
Thirty-seven (86%) of the 43 blacks with doctorates reported data on the highest degree offered by the Institution 1n which they are employed. Of these respondents, 21 reported that the master's degree was the highest degree offered while the doctorate was re ported by 14 (37.8%). Two (5.4%) doctoral-degree recipients reported the Ed.S. as the highest degree offered by the Institution where they are employed.
Summary of Research Question 2 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment). Research Question 2 1s concern with the employment patterns of black doctoral students and recipients. Data reported for this question examined the professional experiences of these target re spondents before and after the doctorate was conferred. Other vari ables analyzed and reported regarding the professional employment of black doctoral-degree recipients 1n Industrial education are as follows:
(1) Institutional support (private and public) and efforts to employ
blacks with doctorates; (2) institutional support and the number of
blacks with doctorates 1n industrial education departments; (3) racial
composition (predominantly white and black) of the Institution and
special efforts to employ blacks with doctorates; (4) racial composition
of the Institution and the number of blacks with doctorates employed
1n Industrial education departments; and (5) Institutional size and
the number of blacks with doctorates employed 1n Industrial education departments (see Tables 73-79),
I t was reported that black doctoral students and doctoral-degree
recipients had similar professional experiences prior to their doc
toral studies. Most of the respondents reported having worked at the
college level. However, doctoral students 1n this study did not re
port having experience 1n elementary schools or in government.
It was found that some Institutional characteristics affected the employment efforts and the number of blacks with doctorates em ployed in Industrial education departments. Public Institutions tend to be more willing to make special efforts to hire blacks with doc torates than private Institutions. There Is no significant difference
(j> > .05) found between predominantly black and white institutions and special efforts to employ blacks. However, predominantly black Institutions have significantly more (£ < .0 0 0 1 ) blacks with doctorates
1n Industrial education departments than there are 1n predominantly white Institutions. Data also reveal that there are more blacks 1n 240 institutions with student body enrollments of less than 10,000. I t was shown that 72.4 percent of the blacks with doctorates, reported by Institutional officials, are employed 1n Institutions of the afore mentioned size.
Research Question 3 (Vocational Selection and Development)
Black doctoral students and recipients 1n this study provided data regarding factors that Influenced (or w ill Influence) their se lection of employment. These data are used 1n answering Research
Question 3 which follows:
What are some factors which Influenced (or will Influence) black doctoral students and doctoral recipients' selection of their current or pro spective place of employment?
In answering Research Question 3, the researcher identified the most frequent "factors Influencing employment selection" (dependent variable) reported by black doctoral students and recipients (Inde pendent variable). These data were obtained from the black target population members' responses to Item #22 in the questionnaire designed for black doctoral students and recipients. The question asked of the black target population 1s: Please Identify the most Important fac- tor(s), 1n your opinion, which Influenced or/will Influence your selection of place of employment after completing the doctorate.
Doctoral students and recipients responded to this Item by providing answers that were free-responses.
Fifty-seven of the 65 respondents reported factors Influencing their selection of employment. After categorizing the responses, the factors which emerged most frequently are related to the following: 241 1. Salary and/or financial rewards;
2. Commitment to current or former place of employment;
3. Desire to work with black students; and
4. Climate and/or location of employment.
Doctoral-degree recipients frequently Indicated a commitment to return to current or former place of employment. Only one student Indicated a commitment to return to a former position. Most of the doctoral students and recipients indicated that they were on educational leave, or were pleased with their current jobs. Actual responses of doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients are 1n Appendix I.
Summary of Research Question 3 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment). The data reported for Research Question 3 Identify the most frequently reported factors used by doctoral students and recipients in the selection of employment. The most frequent factors identified by the Investigator are as follows; (1) salary and/or financial rewards; (2) commitment to current or former place of employment;
(3) desire to work with black students; and (4) climate and/or loca tion of employment.
Research Question 4 (Vocational Selection and Development)
Department chairpersons (or other institutional o ffic ia ls ) from predominantly white and black Institutions provided data comparing black and white industrial teacher educators in four professional areas. These data are reported in answering Research Question 4 which follows: 242 How do department chairpersons (or other admin istrators) rate the professional preparation, potential scholarship, and leadership of black doctoral recipients when compared to non-blacks?
Data regarding Research Question 4 are concern with "department
chairpersons" (Independent variable) "ratings" (dependent variable)
of blacks in industrial education in comparison to whites. Cross
tabulations between the ratings of department chairpersons In pre
dominantly white and black Institutions for the following four pro
fessional areas are reported: Overall professional preparation; po
tential as scholar; potential as leader/manager; and potential as
teacher. These data are presented 1n Tables 80-83. The Jt-test statis
tic was used to determine differences between the ratings of chair
persons in predominantly white and black Institutions.
Responses to Item #11 in the questionnaire, Industrial Teacher
Education Department Data, provide data to answer Research Question 4.
Item #11 asked chairpersons (or other administrators) to respond to
the following question:
Compared with whites, what observable differences have you noticed 1n blacks' professional prepara tion, potential as scholars, and leadership as industrial teacher educators?
A continuum from one to five was used for the comparison. Lower numbers
Indicate that blacks are weaker 1n comparison to whites. A rating of three means no difference. Numbers higher than three means that blacks are stronger in comparison to whites on a professional level.
Tables 80-83 present department chairpersons' ratings. 243 Table 80 reports chairpersons' comparisons of blacks to whites on overall professional preparation. Data for 60 percent (96 of 160) of the chairpersons in predominantly white Institutions are provided
In Table 80. All 21 of the chairpersons 1n predominantly black in stitutions made comparisons. The mean ratings for chairpersons in predominantly black and white Institutions are 3.29 and 2.74, respec tively. The t^test statistic Indicates that these means are signifi cantly different at the .01 probability level, suggesting that depart ment chairpersons 1n predominantly white Institutions perceive blacks as being weaker 1n overall professional preparation compared to whites.
Chairpersons 1n predominantly black Institutions perceive blacks as being comparatively stronger than whites in overall professional prep aration.
Table 81 presents chairpersons' ratings of blacks 1n comparison to whites 1n potential as scholars/researchers. Sixty percent (96 of
160) of the chairperson 1n predominantly white institutions and 95 percent (20 of 21) of the chairpersons 1n predominantly black In stitutions are represented 1n Table 81. Chairpersons 1n predominantly white institutions have a mean rating of 2.82 for blacks' potential as scholars/researchers 1n comparison to whites. The mean rating for chairpersons in predominantly black Institutions 1s 2.95. The £-test s ta tis tic indicates that the mean ratings between chairpersons Is not significantly different (£ > .0 5 ). These mean ratings suggest that chairpersons In both predominantly black and white Institutions per ceive blacks as being weaker 1n potential as scholars/researchers in comparison to whites. TABLE 80
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY CHAIRPERSONS' COMPARISONS OF BLACKS’ OVERALL PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION TO THAT OF WHITES'
Blacks Compared To Whites Are:
r a c n r r iu0 Weaker Same Stronger. Institutional now rcr i"° c o l p c t t Response TOTAL Race . — » — 64 7 17 79 1 I 1 94 Predominantly, i 8 .9 8 14.83 89.83 9 .8 8 I 9 .8 8 82.98 White 7 .2 9 17.71 7 2 .92 1.94 I 1.94 i 199.99 89.47 83.33 3 3 .3 3 I 28.99 2 14 2 3 21 Predominantly 9 .9 9 1.71 11.97 1.71 2.86 17.95 Black 9 .9 9 9 .8 2 66.67 9 .5 2 14.29 9 .9 9 19.53 16.67 66.67 78 .9 9 TOTAL 7 19 84 3 4 117 8.98. 16.24 71.79 2.56 3.42 199.99 t = -2.94, df = 25.7, £ < .01
ro x» -c* TABLE 81
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY CHAIRPERSONS' COMPARISONS OF BLACKS' POTENTIAL AS SCHOLARS/RESEARCHERS TO THAT Of- WHITES'
Blacks Compared To' Whites Are: FRE0OCRCT f e m x h t Weaker Same Stronger Institutional now p c t No Race c o l r c r Responsei ■+> I TOTAL 04 I 3 Predominantly 13 I 79 0 1 I 96 . I 3 . 09 11.31 I 6 3.10 0.00 0.86 I 82.76 White . I 3 .1 3 13.04 I 83.29 0.00 1.04 1 . I 70.00 7 6 .47 I 86.81 0.00 33 .3 3 I 1 ■ ------+ 1 1 4 I Predominantly 12 I I 2 I . 20 0 .3 6 . 3 .40 I 10.34 I 0.86 1.72 I 17*.24 Black 0.00 20.00 I 6 0 .0 0 I 0.00 10.00 _ 20.00 23.03 I 13.19 I 100.00 >+ 60.67 I TOTAL 4. 17 91 1 3 116 3 .4 0 14.66 78.40 0.86 2 .0 9 100.00 Table 82 presents chairpersons' ratings of blacks 1n comparison to whites on potential as leaders/managers. Data for 60 percent of
the chairpersons 1n predominantly white Institutions and 95 percent of the chairpersons 1n predominantly black Institutions are provided.
Analyses of Table 82 show that chairpersons 1n predominantly white
Institutions have a mean rating of 2.86 1n comparing blacks' potential as leaders/managers to whites. The mean rating computed for chair persons In predominantly black Institutions Is 3.40. The difference
1n mean ratings between chairpersons 1s significantly different
( £ < .02) as Indicated by the jt-te st, implying that chairpersons 1n predominantly black Institutions perceive blacks as stronger than whites 1n potential as leaders/managers. Chairpersons in predominantly white Institutions perceive blacks as being weaker.
Chairpersons' ratings of blacks' potential as teachers 1n comparison to whites' are presented 1n Table 83. Data for 59 percent
(95 of 160) of the chairpersons 1n predominantly white Institutions and a ll 21 chairpersons in predominantly black Institutions are provided. The mean ratings for chairpersons 1n predominantly white and black Institutions are 2.87 and 3.57, respectively. Moreover, these mean ratings are significantly different at the .002 probability level. These data suggest that chairpersons in predominantly black
Institutions perceive blacks as having greater potential as teachers when compared to whites. Conversely, chairpersons In predominantly white Institutions perceive blacks as being weaker than whites 1n potential as teachers. TABLE 82
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY CHAIRPERSONS' COMPARISONS OF BLACKS' POTENTIAL AS LEADERS/MANAGERS TO THATOF W' h'IY eS1
Blacks Compared To Whites Are:
FEncnrr i„_ Weaker Same Stronger Institutional now p c t i«o Race col p c t i Response TOTAL 64 a 5 Predominantly 83 1 I 96 4 .S I 5 .1 7 71.55 5 .8 6 5 .8 6 82.76 White 5.21. 6.25 86.46 1.54 1.54 154.95 7 5 .55 87.37 33.33 25.55 5 Predominantly 2 12 2 4 I 25 5 .5 5 1.72 15.34 1.72 3 .4 0 I 17.24 Black 5 .5 5 15.55 65.55 15.55 2 5 .5 5 I 5 .5 5 25.55 12.63 66.67 85.55 I TOTAL 5- 8 90 3 5 116 .31. 6 .9 5 81.95 2 .0 9 4.31 155.55< t = 4.45, df = 21.8, £ < .02
ro TABLE 83
INSTITUTIONAL RACE BY CHAIRPERSONS' COMPARISONS OF BLACKS' POTENTIAL AS TEACHERS TO THAT OF“ Wh I tE$‘
Blacks Compared To Whites Are: FNDQOEHCTI percent i Nn Weaker Same Stronger Institutional ROW PCT |JJ° col p c t i Race Response 3 I TOTAL 68 4 I B 83 2 1 98 Predominantly 3 .4 8 . I 6 .9 3 68.97 1.72 3 .8 6 8 1.93 White 4 .2 1 . I 8 .4 2 84.21 2.11 1.38 133.33 | 144. 44 88.II 83.33 16.67 — 1 »■ I • 4 14 2 8 21 Predominantly I 3 .4 4 3 .3 4 12.37 1.72 4.31 18.13 Black I 3.33 3 .3 4 66.67 9 .8 2 23.81 I 3 .3 3 3.33 14.89 83.33 8Q.33 TOTAL 4 8 94 4 6 116 3 .4 8 . 6 .9 3 81.33 3.48 8 .1 7 133.33 t = -3.52, d f = 23.7, £ C .002
-Ckro 00 249
Summary of Research Question 4 (Vocational Selection and Develop ment). In answering Research Question 4t crosstabulatlons between chairpersons and their ratings of blacks' potential 1n the following four professional areas are reported: Overall professional prepara tion; potential as scholars/researchers; potential as leaders/managers; and potential as teachers (see Tables 80-83). Chairpersons' ratings of blacks* potential were made 1n comparison to the potential of whites'.
Chairpersons 1n predominantly white and black Institutions compared blacks to whites significantly different (£ < .05) 1n three professional areas: Overall professional preparation; potential as leaders/managers; and potential as teachers. In these three pro fessional areas, chairpersons 1n predominantly black Institutions reported blacks' potential as being stronger than whites'. Conversely, chairpersons in predominantly white Institutions Indicated that blacks' potential is weaker than whites'. Chairpersons' ratings are not significantly different (j> > .05) 1n comparing blacks' potential as scholars/researchers. Chairpersons 1n both, predominantly white and black Institutions Indicated that blacks' potential as scholars/ researchers 1s weaker than that of whites*.
Summary of Chapter IV
This chapter reported the findings regarding the 21 research questions posed for this investigation. Both research ques tions and the respective findings were reported under three major 250 categories: Selection; Academic Achievement; and Vocational Selection and Development. The category "Selection" contained five research questions. Data used to answer these five research questions were mainly concerned with the following: (1) identifying the nature of the academic Institutions in this study {e.g. degree offerings, racial composition of student body, and institutional support), and (2) iden tifying and describing admission practices of graduate-degree programs offering the doctorate in Industrial teacher education. For the la tte r concern, specific consideration was given to the degree to which these practices affected minority admissions.
Twelve research questions were presented under the category
"Academic Achievement". Both questions and findings were mainly con cerned with the following: (1) selected factors which may have influenced the academic success of black doctoral students and re cipients, and (2) the academic performance of black doctoral students and recipients during their doctoral studies.
The category "Vocational Selection and Development" contained four research questions. Those factors which may have Influenced the career choice and development of black doctoral students and recipients 1n industrial education was the paramount concern 1n this category of questions and reported data. CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This study was concerned with the education and employment opportunities of black doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipi ents 1n Industrial education. These opportunities were examined by
Investigating selected factors under three broad categories: selection; academic achievement; and vocational selection and development.
Statement of the Problem
In Industrial teacher education, the doctorate is usually re quired for university teaching, and black doctoral-degree recipients are few. Unless sincere efforts to Increase blacks’ representation among doctoral-degree recipients, blacks will remain disproportionately underrepresented.
Three broad areas emerged as problem areas for Investigating blacks 1n Industrial education: (1) admission policies of graduate- degree programs awarding doctoral degrees 1n Industrial education;
(2) academic achievement of black doctoral students and doctoral- degree recipients; and (3) factors Influencing career choice and development of black doctoral students and recipients. There 1s a need for graduate admissions s ta ff, chairpersons, and other profes sional members to better understand the nature of this problem. Such
251 252 an understanding w ill enable these o ffic ia ls 1n making rational decisions toward providing equal educational and employment opportu nities to all groups.
Statement of the Objectives
Few empirical data exist regarding the selection, academic achievement, and career development of black doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients 1n Industrial education. These broad categories were the focus for the three major objectives of this study. The three major objectives were as follows:
1. To Identify and describe admission practices of graduate-
degree programs offering the doctorate 1n Industrial
teacher education. Specific consideration was given to
the degree to which these practices affect minority admis
sions (e.g. standardized tests, grade point averages,
letters of recommendation, e tc .).
2. To generate empirical data related to the academic perfor
mance of black doctoral students and recipients during
th eir doctoral studies 1n industrial education. The In
vestigator sought this Information from the students,
graduates, and th eir advisers.
3. To Identify and describe those factors which Influence
career choice and development of black doctoral students
and black recipients of the doctoral degree in industrial
education. 253 Data which addressed the three objectives were reported by answering 21 research questions under the following broad categories:
(1) selection; (2) academic achievement; and (3) vocational selection and development.
Development of the Instruments
Three Instruments were developed to obtain sufficient data for answering the 21 research questions in this study. These Instruments were designed to collect data from the four target populations which
Included: (1) chairpersons (or other o ffic ia ls ) in industrial education; (2) black doctoral students 1n Industrial education;
(3) black doctoral-degree recipients in Industrial education; and
(4) faculty members having advised black doctoral students. The title s of Instruments and population for which Instruments were de signed a re :
1. Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data Question
n a ire -designed to be completed by department chairpersons;
2. Education and Employment Data for Black Doctoral Students
and Doctoral-Degree Recipients Questionnaire—designed to
be completed by black doctoral students and doctoral-degree
recipients; and 3. Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Questionnaire—designed
to be completed by faculty members having advised black
doctoral students.
Most of the questionnaire Items required multiple-choice responses.
Only a few items permitted the target populations to provide open- ended comments. 254 All three questionnaires were validated through the following procedures: comprehensive review of related lite ra tu re and the 21 research questions; evaluation by research experts; and p ilo t test.
A comprehensive review of related literatu re and the 21 research questions were the bases used for validating the contents of the three questionnaires.
Three research experts served as a jury to validate the ques tionnaires. Each expert was given a copy of the three questionnaires.
Copies of the objectives and the 21 research questions 1n this study were also provided. Based on oral* written comments, and recommenda tions from the research experts, a ll three questionnaires were re vised.
The final validation stage Included a p ilo t test of a ll three questionnaires. One member from each of the four target populations from The Ohio State University was selected to pilot test the question naires. Target members completed the questionnaires and provided re commendations for Improvement; final revision of the questionnaires was based upon th eir comments and recommendations.
Procedures
Four target populations provided data that were used to answer the 21 research questions. These populations were (1) chairpersons
(or other officials) 1n Industrial education, (2) black doctoral stu dents 1n Industrial education, (3) black doctoral-degree recipients
1n industrial education, and (4) faculty members having advised black doctoral students. Although black doctoral students and 255 doctoral-degree recipients were the major focus of this study, addi
tional data were needed from other population members.
The 1979-80 Industrial Teacher Education Directory was used to
Identify department chairpersons. Data collected from chairpersons
enabled the researcher to Identify and locate the other target popula
tion members 1n this study.
On February 18, 1980, 237 questionnaires were mailed to depart ment chairpersons. After two weeks 136 (57.5%) usable questionnaires were returned. An extensive follow-up was made on March 14, 1980, which Included another cover le tte r and questionnaire. Questionnaires were also mailed to the other target population members that had been Identified by chairpersons 1n the f ir s t mailing. This mailing
Included 25 black doctoral-degree recipients, 20 doctoral students, and 36 faculty members who had advised black doctoral students. A
follow-up of this group was made on April 14, 1980. Other target population members Identified prior to April 14, 1980, were also for warded questionnaires. A third follow-up was mailed to non-respond
ing doctoral degree granting Institutions on April 14, 1980. Sixteen chairpersons (or other o ffic ia ls ) were Identified for this mailing
through the Industrial Teacher Education Directory (1979-80).
Data collection for this study was completed May 30, 1980.
At that time the following adjusted return rates had been achieved
among the target populations: chairpersons—79.7 percent; advisers—
78.5 percent; black doctoral-degree recipients—72 percent; and
black doctoral students—62.8 percent. Data were transferred from respondents' questionnaires to IBM keypunch cards. The data were then analyzed u tilizin g the S tatistical
Analysis System (SAS) computer program and processing equipment.
Selected variables in this study were crosstabulated utilizing
SAS frequency tables. This system produced tables containing fre quencies and percentages. The statements NPAR1WAY MEDIAN. CHISQ, and
TTEST generated the analysis for the data provided in the frequency tables. Tests Included the median 1-way analysis (approximate chi square), chi square, and the Jt-test. The approximate ch1 square was used where expected cell sizes were too small to perform a valid ch1 square test. The ch1 square s ta tis tic was used when expected cell sizes were appropriate for this test. The latest was used to analyze data for Research Question 3 (academic achievement) and Research
Question 4 (vocational selection and development). For the purpose of this study, the .05 probability level was used for testing the difference between groups.
Findings
This study provided empirical data for answering the 21 research questions. The findings will be reported under the following three broad categories: selection; academic achievement; and vocational selection and development.
Selection.
1. Thirty-four institutions in this study have doctoral-
degree programs 1n industrial education. Two of the 34
Institutions are privately supported; the remaining 32 are publicly supported. The racical composition of stu
dent body and faculty in all 34 doctoral granting institu
tions 1s preomdlnantly white.
The following represents the rank order in which admission
criteria are used in the selection of applicants into
doctoral programs: (1) grade point averages; (2) letters of
recommendations; (3.5) standardized test scores and in ter
views (tied ranks); (5) other criteria; and (6) standardized evaluation forms.
Fifteen (60% of 25) of the responding doctoral granting
institutions used standardized test scores equally 1n the selection of black and non-black doctoral applicants. Nine
(362) institutions either waived standardized test scores
for black applicants, or less weight was given to their
test scores. One institution used standardized test scores only when the applicant's overall GPA was below 2.7.
Eighteen (66.72 of 27) of the responding public Institutions
reported special efforts to recruit blacks into th eir doctoral programs. Both private institutions 1n this study
indicated no special efforts to recruit black applicants.
Institutional size showed a negative correlation (-.39) with the number of black doctoral students enrolled in In dustrial education programs. This finding suggests that institutions having smaller student body enrollments have more black doctoral students enrolled in industrial education compared to Institutions with larger student
body enrollments.
Academic Achievement.
1. Seventy-eight percent of the black doctoral students and
doctoral-degree recipients majored 1n Industrial education
during their undergraduate programs.
2. Eighty percent of the 64 responding black doctoral students
and recipients attended predominantly black Institutions
for th eir baccalaureate degrees. However, more than 82
percent of the 62 respondents received their master's
degrees from predominantly white Institutions.
3. Doctoral-degree recipients reported a more positive rating
when compared to doctoral students for the extent to
which th eir undergraduate programs prepared them for
graduate work at the doctoral level. On a scale of 1 (low)
to 5 (high), doctoral-degree recipients had a mean score
of 4.14 compared to 3.55 for doctoral students. The t-test
indicated that this mean difference was significant at
the .02 probability level.
4. Data revealed that 4.1 was the mean number of years re
quired for black doctoral-degree recipients 1n this study
to earn the doctorate.
5. Over 70 percent of the 34 black doctoral-degree recipients
responding to the question regarding enrollment status
completed th eir doctoral programs as fu ll-tim e students. Ten (38.5%) of 26 respondents responding to the question regarding employment status reported being employed f u ll time o ff campus when their doctorates were completed.
The approximate chi square revealed a significant d if ference (£ < .05) between doctoral GPAs earned by black doctoral-degree recipients during the period 1956 to 1980.
Further analysis showed a gradual increase over a period of time.
A significant difference existed between the enrollment status of doctoral-degree recipients when the doctorate was conferred (£ < .01). Over 83 percent of the respon dents enrolled full-tim e completed their doctoral programs between two and three years. Only 22.2 percent of the respondents enrolled part-time completed their programs during the same time interval.
Regarding the support of black doctoral students' and recipients' baccalaureate-degree program, a majority (75.8% of 62) of the respondents Indicated that their parents/ guardians provided some financial assistance. Only 37.8 percent (14 of 37) and 22.9 percent (14 of 61) of the respondents reported that they received some financial support from spouses and other persons, respectively, during their baccalaureate-degree programs.
A majority (84.6%) of the 65 black doctoral students and recipients indicated that part-time jobs provided a 260 source of funds used to finance their undergraduate educa
tion. The following resources along with computed percent
ages were also used by the respondents to finance their
undergraduate education: scholarships and/or grants—
36.9 percent; federal student loans—24.6 percent; college
loans—15.4 percent; and others—24.6 percent.
10. Regarding the support of black doctoral students and re
cipients master's degree program, a majority (57.4% of
54) of the respondents Indicated that their spouses provided
some financial assistance. Only 9.4 percent (6 of 64) and
3.2 percent (2 of 63) of the respondents reported that
they received some financial support from parents/
guardians and other persons, respectively, during their
master's degree program.
11. A p lurality (38.5%) of the 65 black doctoral students and
recipients Indicated that "other" resources, e.g. G .I.
B ill, loans, state aid, T itle I I I , savings, full-tim e
employment, company assistance, and college reimbursement
provided a source of funds used to finance their master's
degree program. The following resources along with com
puted percentages were also used by respondents to
finance their master's degree program: part-time jobs—
33.8 percent; scholarships and/or grants—16.9 percent;
federal student loans—26.2 percent; and college loans—
29.2 percent. 12. Regarding the support of black doctoral students and re
cipients' doctoral program, a majority (64.3% of 56) of
the respondents indicated that their spouses provided some
financial assistance. Only 12.5 percent (8 of 64) and 9.5
percent (6 of 63) of the respondents reported that they
received some financial support from their parents/guardians
and other persons, respectively, during th eir doctoral
programs.
13. A majority (52.3%) of the 65 black doctoral students and
recipients Indicated that their employment as teaching
and/or research associates/assistants provided a source
of funds used to finance their doctoral programs. The
following resources and the computed percentages were also
used by respondents to finance th eir doctoral programs:
part-time jobs—26.2 percent; scholarships and/or grants—
38,5 percent; and other resources—35.4 percent.
14. The number of black doctoral students advised by professors
and the ratings of blacks' "overall academics" and
"teaching skills" were significantly different. Advisers with less than three black doctoral students reported no
difference between black and white doctoral students in
overall academics. However, faculty members having more
than three black doctoral students reported blacks as
being more academically deficient. In teaching s k ills ,
no difference was reported by advisers with less than three black doctoral students; advisers with three or more
black doctoral students were more evenly divided between
"no difference" and "blacks as being more deficient."
15. There was no statistical difference in the attrition rate
of black and non-black doctoral students.
16. Out of 57 responding black doctoral-degree recipients, the
following percentages represent self-ratings on the GRE
Verbal Test: very high—7 percent; above average—29.8
percent; average—40.4 percent; and below average—22.8
percent.
17. Out of 57 responding black doctoral-degree recipients, the
following percentages represent self-ratings on the GRE
Quantitative Test: very high—1.8 percent; above average-
36.8 percent; average—44.8 percent; and below average-
19.3 percent.
18. Out of 48 responding black doctoral-degree recipients, the
following percentages represent self-ratings on the GRE
Analytical Test: very high—2.1 percent; above average-
29.2 percent; average—52.1 percent; and below average-
16.7 percent.
19. Forty percent of the black doctoral students and recipients
reported that th eir mothers' occupations were classified
as "service workers, Including private householders."
Fifty-five percent indicated that their fathers' occupa
tions could be classified as "craftworkers, operatives,
and laborers, except for farm and mine." 20. Thirteen percent of the black doctoral students and recipi
ents reported having mothers employed 1n professional oc
cupations. Almost nine percent reported having fathers
employed professionally.
21. Fifty-two percent of the black doctoral students and re
cipients reported that th eir mothers had some secondary
schooling; fifteen percent reported mothers with some
college education.
22. Forty-seven percent (29 of 61) of the black doctoral students
and recipients reported fathers with some secondary school
ing. Sixteen percent indicated that their fathers had
some college education.
23. The mean number of siblings computed for doctoral students
In this study was 5.2. There were 6.2 siblings computed
as the average for black doctoral-degree recipients. The
mean birth order of respondents was as follows: doctoral
students 4.6 and recipients 4.3.
24. Forty-four percent (28 of 63) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients reported that during elementary school
their domicile was In a rural setting. An urban setting
was reported as the domicile by 46.7 percent (28 of 60}
of the respondents during th eir secondary schooling.
25. Fifty-one percent (33 of 64) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients reported that they were dlslpHned
equally by both parents during elementary school. Thirty- seven percent (24 of 64) reported being disciplined by
their mothers only. Only 7.8 percent (5 of 64) of the re
spondents reported that discipline was often the sole
responsibility of their fathers.
26. Forty-three percent (28 of 64) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients reported that they were disciplined
equally by both parents during secondary school. Thirty-
six percent (23 of 64) reported being disciplined by their
mothers only. Only 12.5 percent (8 of 64) of the re
spondents reported that discipline was often the sole re sponsibility of their fathers.
27. Seventy-three percent (48 of 65) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients were reared by their natural mothers
and fathers during most of their early childhood and
adolescent years.
28. Eighty-one percent (51 of 63) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients reported that they did not feel
alienated from black and non-black students during their
doctoral- degree programs.
Vocational Selection and Development.
1. Sixty-four percent (42 of 65) of the black doctoral stu
dents and recipients were employed by colleges as teacher
educators prior to beginning their doctoral studies.
2. Sixty-one black doctoral-degree recipients were reported
by department chairpersons in predominantly white and black Institutions. Sixteen percent (10 of 61) of the
blacks with doctorates were employed by predominantly white
Institutions. E1ghty-four percent (51 of 64) of the black
doctoral-degree recipients were employed 1n predominantly
black Institutions.
3. Eighty-seven percent of the doctoral-degree recipients,
reported by department chairpersons, were employed 1n In
stitutions with student enrollments of less than 10,000.
Institutional size and the number of black doctoral-degree
recipients employed in the Industrial education departments
were significantly different at the .05 probability level.
4. Chairpersons 1n predominantly white Institutions indicated
that blacks were weaker than whites 1n overall profes
sional preparation, potential as scholar/researcher, and
potential as a teacher. Chairpersons 1n predominantly
black Institutions Indicated that blacks were stronger
1n each professional area except potential as scholar/
researcher; no difference (£ > .0 5 ) was found between
chairpersons' ratings of blacks' potential as scholars/
researchers.
Conclusions
Data generated 1n this Investigation addressed questions under three broad problem areas pertaining to blacks 1n Industrial educa tion: (1) admission policies of graduate-degree programs awarding 266 doctoral degrees 1n Industrial education; (2) academic achievement of black doctoral students and doctoral-degree recipients; and (3) fac tors Influencing vocational selection and development of black doctoral students and recipients. Conclusions derived from this
Investigation are delineated under the aforementioned problem areas.
The Investigator suggests that caution be taken 1n reviewing these conclusions due to the nature of this study. Some respondents may have been sensitive to selected questions. Some indicated that they were less than honest 1n completing the questionnaire Items be cause of their concern with being Identified. Several prospective participants refused to participate 1n this study whereas other participants neglected to respond to selected questions. Consequently! such anxiety and lack of response could contaminate some of the conclusions drawn from the findings. I t was assumed that the majority of the participants provided honest and complete responses to the questionnaires and the results may be perceived as valid Indicators of. their perception.
Selection I. Grade point averages (GPAs), letters of recommendation,
standardized test scores, and interviews are useful
1n selecting doctoral students 1n Industrial educa
tion programs.
Admission o ffic ia ls 1n Industrial education programs fe lt that
GPAs were very useful predictors of applicants' potential to succeed in a doctoral program. This was not supported by other researchers (Singleton & White, 1978; Donaldson, 1975; Goldman & Slaughter, 1976)
who suggested that admission o ffic ia ls were beginning to view tran
scripts as meaningless because grade Inflation was decreasing the
validity and reliability of GPAs. Also, grades earned at different
Institutions may not reflect the same a b ility level of students.
These researchers purport that admission o ffic ia ls were using letters
of recommendation and standardized test scores 1n lieu of GPAs as
selection criteria. Industrial teacher educators in this study re
ported using letters of recommendation, standardized test scores,
and Interviews to evaluate applicants; however, these criteria were
ranked lower than overall GPAs.
2. Admission policies of Industrial educational doctoral
programs are consistent with public consensus that
admissions should be based upon the Individual's
abilities and merit.
This conclusion 1s congruent with George H. Gallop's (1977)
findings which showed that 83 percent of the persons 1n a public poll
agreed that employment and college admissions should be based upon ability alone. A majority of administrators (60%) 1n this study in dicated that standardized test scores were used equally 1n the selec tion of black and non-black applicants. I t 1s possible that legal cases (e.g. Bakke vs. The University of California at Davis) against minority preference through testing have affected the admission c rite ria 1n Industrial education. 268 The possibility that some administrators were suspicious of how the data 1n this study would be used may also explain their responses regarding the use of test scores as admission criteria for minorities.
Throughout this Investigation, several administrators expressed con cern about anonymity and the use of these data. Thus, the fear of exposing s e lf or Institution may have been a concern of some adminis trators when completing the questionnaire.
3. Admission o ffic ia ls 1n Industrial education are
attempting to address the problems of minority
admissions by recruiting minorities 1n graduate
and professional schools.
This conclusion is supported by the data 1n this Investigation which showed that a majority of the doctoral programs In this study had representatives who Indicated that there was a special effort 1n their department to recruit minority students. These Institutional representatives indicated that special programs (e.g. fellowships, recruitment, etc .) were being Implemented to Increase the admissions of black applicants 1n Industrial education. These data were consistent with other findings (Sedlacek, 1976; Bailey, 1978) which indicated that several strategies were used by graduate and profes sional school o ffic ia ls to attract blacks and other minority students.
4. Doctoral programs in industrial education are suc
cessful 1n retaining and graduating the Increased
number of black doctoral students. 269 This conclusion 1s supported by the data reported under "aca demic achievement" and "vocational selection and development" which revealed the following: (a) faculty members having black doctoral students Indicated that 79 percent of black doctoral students success fu lly completed their programs; and (b) fifty-seven percent of the black doctoral-degree recipients responding 1n this study received their doctorates between 1975 and 1980.
5. Doctoral programs 1n Industrial education are not
successful 1n recruiting blacks for doctoral studies.
This conclusion Is based upon the findings In this Investigation.
I t was shown that there 1s no difference 1n the number of black doc toral students enrolled 1n programs utilizing special recruitment efforts and programs without special recruitment efforts to attract black doctoral students 1n Industrial education.
The lack of success confronted by recruiting personnel 1n In dustrial education may be explained through a concern expressed by the graduate education community and reported by Blackwell (1975).
I t was reported that a lack of financial and personal resources for special recruitment of black students are problems related to minority admissions. These concerns may account for the Ineffectiveness of recruiting o ffic ia ls in doctoral programs 1n Industrial education.
6. Larger institutions have no advantage over smaller
Institutions 1n Increasing the enrollment of f u ll
time black doctoral students 1n Industrial educa
tion programs. 270 This conclusion is based upon the finding which showed that the smaller the institution's student body enrollment, the more black doctoral students were enrolled full-tim e in its Industrial education program. These data were not consistent with Sedlacek's (1976) find ings that larger institutions have the advantage of responding to the pressures for Increased minority enrollment because of the in stitution's a b ility to finance such students.
Academic Achievement
1. Career changes are more prevalent among black fe
male doctoral students and recipients than their
male counterparts.
Most (96%) of the male doctoral students and recipients in dicated that their undergraduate major was industrial education. How ever, only 14 percent of the female doctoral students and recipients reported having an undergraduate major in industrial education.
2. Most blacks attend graduate programs 1n predominantly
white Institutions because there are few predominantly
black institutions with master's degree programs and
none with doctoral-degree programs 1n Industrial
education.
This conclusion is based upon the data which showed that 80 percent of the black doctoral students and recipients received their baccalaureates from predominantly black institutions. In comparison,
82 percent of the respondents received master's degrees from pre dominantly white institutions. These data are consistent with those reported by Brown and Stent (1977). 271 The data 1n this study also Indicate that 47.6 percent (10 of
21) of the predominantly black institutions 1n this study have master's degree programs 1n industrial education. A cursory review of the
1969-70 edition of the Industrial Teacher Education Directory showed that only 23.8 percent (5 of 21) of the predominantly black In s titu tions studied had master's degree programs during that time period.
3. The baccalaureate and master's degree programs of
black doctoral students were more lacking 1n ex
perience which could have better prepared them for
doctoral studies than the programs of black doctoral
recipients 1n Industrial education.
This conclusion 1s based upon the data which showed that black doctoral students, compared to recipients 1n Industrial education, rated their baccalaureate and master's degree programs less satis factory 1n preparing them for doctoral studies. Since the students
1n this study had more recent experiences 1n th eir degree programs, their ratings may be more reflective of the extent to which under graduate and master's degree programs have provided viable experiences to students who were capable of doctoral studies.
4. Blacks 1n Industrial education doctoral programs have
high levels of commitment and perseverence to endure
the rigor of doctoral studies.
Several findings in the lite ra tu re seem to suggest that blacks require more time than whites to complete their doctoral studies.
Blackwell (1975) noted that the graduate education conmunlty 272
(predominantly white) had expressed pessimism regarding blacks' a b ility
to compete 1n the rigorous graduate and professional education pro
grams In view of poor and disadvantaged backgrounds, presumed to be
universal among black students. Studies by Bryant (1973) and the
National Board on Graduate Education (1976) suggested that greater
financial responsibilities of blacks cause them to require more time
than whites to earn the doctorate. These findings do not appear to
be major constraints upon blacks 1n Industrial education.
Compared to blacks and non-blacks in other disciplines, blacks
1n industrial education earn th eir degrees 1n the same length of
time or less. Bryant (1973) reported that 7.5 years was the average
length of time required to earn a doctorate 1n the humanities and
social sciences; however, blacks 1n the humanities take considerably
longeir (approximately 13 years). In the natural sciences, according
to Bryant, five years was the median length of time required to earn a doctorate. Blacks 1n Industrial education (1n this study) earned
their doctorate 1n approximately four years beyond the master's degree.
Although most of the black doctoral students and recipients 1n
this study Indicated that the lack of finance could have discouraged them from puruslng a doctoral degree, this factor did not seem to
Impede their expediency in completing th eir doctoral programs. I t 1s possible that blacks 1n Industrial education were able to secure the required financial assistance to continue their doctoral studies without major Interruptions. This factor may have also accounted 273 for the finding which showed that most blacks in Industrial education were enrolled fu ll-tim e when th eir doctoral programs were completed.
5. Blacks 1n Industrial education are as lik e ly to
complete th eir doctoral programs as whites.
This conclusion 1s based upon data which showed that upon enter ing the doctoral program 1n Industrial education* 78.3 percent and 83 percent of the black and white doctoral students, respectively, com pleted th eir doctoral programs. An analysis of these data showed no significant difference 1n the a ttritio n of black and white doctoral students. These data were consistent with the reported success rate
(completion of program) of black graduate and professional students from The Ohio State University (OSU). Dr. Frank W. Hale, J r ., Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs at OSU, stated that from 1971 through 1978,
77.8 percent of the blacks graduated with the master's or doctoral degree.
6. Doctoral students and recipients are less dependent
upon parents for financial support for each degree
level (e.g. baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral de
gree ) and more dependent upon spouses and other
resources.
This conclusion does not suggest that parents/guardians were not willing to provide financial support toward their children's graduate education. Data which showed that 76 percent of the parents/ guardians did financially support th eir children's undergraduate programs, may suggests that parents/guardians were financially unable 274 to support two additional degree programs. This Inference 1s supported by the finding which showed that most of the parents/guardians of blacks 1n industrial education were employed 1n unskilled jobs, which probably placed them 1n low Income levels.
The data 1n this investigation suggest that blacks 1n Industrial education were financially dependent upon their spouses for support of th eir master's and doctoral programs. Selected resources from which th eir graduate studies were financed Included part-time jobs, loans, scholarships and/or grants, and teaching and/or research assoc1atesh1ps/ass1stantsh1ps.
7. Graduate advisers with greater experience advising
black doctoral students tend to perceive these
students as weaker 1n overall academic and teach
ing a b ilitie s .
This conclusion 1s based upon the data which showed that faculty members having advised three or more black doctoral students Indicated that these students were weaker in overall academic and teaching a b ilitie s than whites. Faculty members having advised less than three black doctoral students reported "no difference" between white and black doctoral students In overall academic and teaching a b ilitie s .
The number of black doctoral students advised by faculty members 1n
Industrial education and th eir ratings of black and white doctoral students on the aforementioned a b ilitie s were s ta tis tic a lly d if ferent ( jj < .01). 275 8. Standardized test scores alone are not good pre
dictors of the academic capabilities of blacks
1n Industrial education.
This conclusion 1s supported by the findings 1n this Investiga
tion and related lite ra tu re. While most of the blacks studied perceived
their performance on standardized tests as not representing their academic capabilities, a majority had a history of GPAs that were
3.00 and above 1n high school and 1n higher education. More Important,
4.1 years was the average length of time required of blacks 1n Indus
tria l education to obtain the doctorate, and their a ttritio n rate was no different than whites 1n the same discipline. If standardized
tests were the sole criterion used for selecting these blacks 1n doctoral programs, the academic talents of most of these doctoral
recipients would not be realized.
Other researchers (Samuda, 1975; Fisherman, et a l., 1964) purport that test scores should never be used alone 1n selecting blacks. Samuda asserted that the student's biographical record, demonstrated interest, and long term perserverance as reflected 1n good grades, are Indispensable bases for understanding the meaning of scores resulting from test. Fisherman et a l. (1964) cautioned standardized test users to be concerned about the lack of predict a b ility when scores are compared with standardization samples of a different social background.
9. Most of the black doctoral-degree recipients em
ployed in predominantly white colleges and universities
have not earned the credentials for advising doctoral
students. 276 This conclusion is based upon the findings in this investiga
tion. These data showed that none of the 33 faculty members who
had advised black doctoral students were black.
10. The social and professional relationships between
black doctoral students and non-black faculty members
and students in industrial education have not been
Influenced by racial differences.
This conclusion does not seem to be consistent with a major concern espoused by the graduate education community and reported by
Blackwell (1975). Blackwell reported that the possible social and psychological Impact of the racial Isolation of blacks 1n pre dominantly white Institutions were major concerns of the graduate education community. The data collected from blacks and advisers 1n this study suggested that these concerns were not a major Issue 1n
Industrial education. These data showed that 94 percent of the ad visers reported no difficulty relating to black doctoral students.
I t was also shown that most of the black doctoral students and re cipients indicated that they had not f e lt alienated from non-black faculty members and students.
11. Because of the high aspirations and academic success
of blacks 1n this study, i t was concluded that the
blacks majoring 1n Industrial education were able to
overcome the constraints of th eir cultural environment.
Gurin's (1965) findings were not consistent with those of this investigation. According to Gurin such factors as high parental 277 education, high status jobs, and high income serve to heighten the
level of children's occupational and educational aspirations. Most
parents of the blacks studied were employed 1n unskilled jobs and
had only elementary and secondary education.
I t 1s possible that the aspiration and academic achievement of
blacks in this study may have been Influenced by role models outside
the home. School teachers, counselors, and school administrators were
potential persons who could have Influenced these blacks' success.
Vocational Selection and Development
1. Blacks in industrial teacher education are beginning
to perceive the doctorate as the route to job re
tention/security and promotion/advancement.
This conclusion is based on the data which showed that 57 per cent of the black doctoral recipients studied received their doctorates between 1975 and 1980. Most of these respondents were employed 1n colleges and universities prior to their doctoral programs. The most frequent reasons reported for pursuing the doctorate was for job retention/security and promotion/advancement.
2. Black doctoral recipients might experience a more
difficult time earning promotion or tenure in
predominantly white institutions than in pre
dominantly black Institutions.
This conclusion 1s supported by the difference between the ratings of black Industrial educators by department chairpersons 1n predominantly black and white Institutions. Chairpersons in 278 predominantly white institutions have lower perceptions of blacks' than whites' professional preparation, potential scholarship, potential as teacher, and potential as leader/manager. Chairpersons 1n pre dominantly black Institutions tend to have a higher perception of blacks' professional potential 1n the aforementioned areas when com pared to non-blacks.
Recommendations
The recommendations reported are based upon the findings and conclusions drawn from this investigation.
Recommendations for Educational Practices
1. Standardized test scores should not be the sole criterion
used for selecting minority students Into graduate and
professional programs. Admission o ffic ia ls should use a
multifactor approach. This approach would entail using
traditional admission criteria 1n conjunction with other
factors {e.g. student's biographical record, demonstrated
Interests, long term perserverance, probationary observa
tions, etc.) that may show more Indication of an applicant's
a b ility to succeed 1n a doctoral program and provide lead
ership 1n Industrial education.
2. Recruiting officials in doctoral-degree programs 1n Indus
tr ia l education should strengthen professional relation
ships with o ffic ia ls in predominantly black Institutions
1n a joint effort to Identify and recruit academically talented blacks to pursue doctoral studies. Opportunities for blacks to v is it Institutions having doctoral programs and meet leaders 1n this fie ld should be encouraged and financed by both predominantly black and white Institutional o ffic ia ls .
Baccalaureate and master's degree programs should provide experiences which would better prepare academically talented blacks for doctoral studies 1n Industrial education.
These experiences should Include technical writing and re search exercises. Students should also be provided feed back regarding these experiences for self-improvement.
More financial assistance (e.g. fellowships, teaching/ research asslstantshlps, etc .) should be made available to blacks pursuing doctoral studies. This e ffo rt would enable spouses to provide supportive roles (psychological and social) other than financial support. Increased financial assistance may also assist other blacks 1n pur suing their doctoral degrees full-time.
Administrators 1n predominantly black Institutions should provide opportunities for black students to develop pro fessional awareness. Professional awareness could be fostered by providing financial assistance to black stu dents to attend professional meetings at the national, state, and local levels. 6. There 1s a need for black educators 1n Industrial education
to be more Involved 1n professional activities. Black
educators should volunteer to present scholarly papers,
assist 1n the organization of national, state, and local
conference proceedings, and other professional related tasks.
7. Blacks 1n Industrial teacher education should serve as role
models to th eir students by doing scholarly research and
disseminating their findings 1n professional journals and
through presentations at national and state professional
conferences.
8. Personnel o ffic ia ls 1n predominantly white Institutions
should Increase their efforts to attract and employ quali
fied blacks 1n th eir industrial education departments.
There should be a special concern among o ffic ia ls 1n
doctoral-degree programs to employ qualified blacks who
can serve as graduate advisers, and provide an exemplary
role model for prospective and current black doctoral stu
dents.
Recommendations for Future Research 1. Further Investigation 1s needed to determine the effects
of demographic factors, especially the home environment,
on the educational and occupational aspirations of blacks
1n Industrial education.
2. Future studies are needed to compare the professional
development, working relationships, and job satisfaction of blacks 1n predominantly white Institutions with blacks 1n predominantly black Institutions.
Several respondents Indicated that they questioned the valid ity of the Instruments used to collect data for this study. The Investigator recommends that additional va lid ity procedures be Implemented to improve the validity and re lia b ility of the three instruments.
Future Investigations are needed to determine 1f white doc toral students and recipients d iffe r significantly from blacks on the variables analyzed 1n this study.
While blacks in Industrial education were able to overcome economic and social disadvantages, further studies are needed to determine which factors (e.g. role models) out side the home, and how these factors, Influenced their aspirations and academic achievement.
Future investigations are needed to determine how coding of questionnaires used 1n mall surveys affect the responses of target respondents. APPENDIX A
Draft of Chairpersons' Questionnaire Used During P ilo t Test
282 283
For Department Chalrperoon
H x i Z
1* Check a ll of iho following which or* true of your Institution and atudant enrollment,
_ _ a. privately aupportad
b. publicly aupportad _ _ e. predominantly whit*
d. predominantly black
2. Ohack e ll of the degrees offered, with a major In lnduatrlal education, la your lnatltutlon,
a. Bachelor
_ _ b. Heater o. Specialist
d* Doctorate
3. Please Indicate departmental head count enrollment for each of the following levels.
Part-tim e
Undergraduate• ______Graduate i ______
4. The alee of your lnatltutlon In teas of atudant enrollment let a, leas than 4,999
b. 5.000 - 9.999
e. 10,000 - 14,999
d. 15.000 - 19.999
e. 20,000 - 29,999 f, more than 30,000
1 284
5. Fleas* ln d lu it th* number of your doetonl advleeee that hav* coaoletsd ud M ttr coapletod their degree within tho epeelfled period of tloa al lowed ty your graduate school.
Oowoletod » w r Ooaplctod blacksi ______
whitest .
otharai ______
6. Please estimate tho number of your advisees that never completed thalr doctoral dacraa dua to acad»lc daflelaoelaa or jBSldl/feHISMi problems. dcsdoalc Deficiencies Soolal/Personal Problem*
blacksi — ______w h ite*! ______
otharai ______
7. Baa ad on your experience as a doctoral adviser, do you foal that you might haveexperienced ooma d ifficu lty relating to your black advlaaaa tihan ooaparad to your white advisees? a. no great difficulty
b. a greater amount of difficulty
c . much more d iffic u lty
6 . Based on your fa s t axparlanoa, would you p refer to advlaa white o r black doctoral atudenta?
a. prefer black
b. prefer white
o. no preference 285
9. Is there s special. In your department, to employ black recipients of tho doetaxat* aa laduetrial teacher educators? _ _ _ a. yo«
b, no
10, Compered with ahltes, shat observable dlfforonoo have you noticed In hlaokm' professional preparation, potential scholarship, and lead ership aa Industrial teacher educators? Circle tho number that boat doplota your observations.
Hacks a ro i Weaker Sans Stronger * Professional preparation 1 2 3 4 5
ktentlal aa scholar 1 2 3 4 5
Itatontlal aa loader 1 2 3 4 5 Ibtmntlal as toaohor 1 2 3 4 5
A dditional ooaaonta?
11. Aro any of your fu ll-tln e or part" tin a faculty noabtra currently en- xoUad In a doctoral progxaa? (Floaao uao chock (✓ ) nazfcs to Indi cate "yea" or "no*.)
Hacks Whites Others
Yoa ______
Mo ______
OOKPLCTE PART IX ORLY XP YOUR INSTITUTION OFFERS A DOCTORAL DECREE WITH A MAJOR XM IKDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION.
P a rt n
12. Hesse Indicate tho nuaber of black doctoral stud onto currently enrolled In your department.
Ifc rt-tlm e Xn Residence
O ff Oaajua 286
*
13. (fen many fa c u lty aaabarm la your department have aarvad aa a a jo r advisers to black doctoral atudant*?
_ a . 1
b . 2 o. 3 d . I* a. aora than U (plea** specifyi )
f , BOD*
14. Vhat la (or would bo) th* primary aourca of funding racalvad ty black atudant* to finane a thalr doctoral atudlaa la your program?
a. Teaching Aaaoclataahlp/Aaalatantahip
b. Research Aaaoclataahlp/Aaalatantahip
e. Fellowship/Scholarship d. Other (plaaaa apaclfyi )
___ a. Do not know
15. la than a apacial effort to recruit black* In your doctoral program?
a . ye*
b. no
16. If your anawar to #15 la > **". briefly Hat thoaa special efforts being aad* to Identify and recruit black applicants for your doctoral degree program.
1?. Plaaaa Identify the following adaleslon criteria used for aalaetlng potential doctoral students Into your prograa.
_ a, latter of xeeoiBendatloa (Plaaaa specify "feoa whoaBi _ _
_ _ b. lntarvlaw (Plaaaa specify "with whoa11 and "how Interview is acooapllshadi __ 287
5
c. Standardised adalesion t« it (Liat those that art us ad and specify ainlaua acceptable scorei ______
, d. Grad* point average (plaaas specify slninun GFA for under graduate or graduate work aocsptad ty your dapartasnti Undergraduate CPAt ______Graduate CPA i ______
a. Othsr (plaaaa spaolfyt ^ __
IB. Plaaaa rnrik ordar of significance of standardised taat aooraa as an fidii erlor er'.iurlon In sjlicvlng applicants Into youi dooto.'al de- eras progrsa, (Circle nusber)
■ - Mot Iaportant Vary Important ■ 1 2 3 4 5
19* If atandardlaad taat aooraa ara uaad in tha aalaotlon of doctoral students, which of tha following la aost trua of thalr utlllaatlon in tha aalaotlon procaaa?
■ a. waived in tha selection of black applicants
___ b. uaad In tha selection of black applicanta. but given leas weight
— °» uaad equally In tha selection of blade and non-black appli cants
___ d. other (nlaaae specify 1
.) >0. Plaaaa lis t and describe departaental criteria (not Inclusive In your university guidelines) and strategies uaed^Vdalttlng blacks Into your doctoral prograai In conjunction or in 11 mx o f standardised ta a t aooraa and/or grade point average. APPENDIX B
Draft of Black Doctoral Students' and Recipients' Questionnaire Used During Pilot Test
288 289
Hacfc_l>octoral_gluflenta and RcclPlenta
P art I
1. Are you c u m n tly a holder o f the doctoral degree?
« . yea
b. no
2 . I f you responded "no" to #1, what la your current atatua? (check a l l that are applicable)
a. doctoral "atudent" (pre-general, qualifying, or ooapnhenalve examination)
b, doctoral "candidate" (aucceaafully conpleted general, quail- fyin g , o r comprehensive exa&luatloii)
c, doctoral atudent enrolled full tine
d. doctoral atudent enrolled part tlae
e. doctoral candidate (poet examination) enrolled fu ll tlae
f. doctoral candidate (poet examination) enrolled part tine
3. At what profeaalonal level(a) had you worked prior to beginning your doctoral program? (check a ll that are applicable)
a , elementary achool (K - 6)
b, Junior high achool (? - 9) ___ c. high achool (10 - 12)
d. college
e. govemaent
f , lnduetry/bualneaa
_ _ g. poet-high school technical institute
h. community or Junior college
_ _ i, ether (please speclfyi ______
)
1 290
2
k. Tour decielon to purauo a doctoral degree v u a id ti a, prior to entering pour undergraduate prograa.
_ _ _ b. during pour undergraduate prograa,
o. durli^ your Hastar*a dagraa prograa _ _ _ d. between your baccalaureate and Haater*e dagraa prograa.
___ a. nona of tha abova (plaaaa apaclfyi _ ^
’ ) 5. Did your paront(a)/guardiaa(a) influanea pour daclalon to go to college? (Plaaaa uaa check ( r ) nark to indlcata "j**" or "no".)
Ftthrr/frala Cmrtlan Motherelaalf Cuardlai;
la a i ______lo t ______
6. Plaaaa indlcata any or a ll of tho people who provldad financial aupport toward pour undargraduata aducation. (Plaaaa uaa chaek ( vO nark to in d lcata "poo" o r "no".) Parant(a)/Ouarilan(a)
Yaai ______
Not______
7. Aaaaa indlcata other financial raaourcea uaad to finance rour under* graduata education. (Plaaaa check a ll th a t era ap p lic a b le.)
a . P e r l- time Job(a)
_____ b. acholerahlp(a) and/or grant(a)
o. other (plaaaa apacifpi ) 6. Plaaaa indicate any or a ll of tha following people who provldad financial ■upport toward pour graduata prograa at the Neater'a dagraa level. Porenttal/Cuardlanfa) gpouae
Yaai ______
Not 291
3
9* Reaae indicate othar financial reeourcea uaad to finance your atudlaa at tha Haatar*a degree level.
_ _ a. part-time job(a)
b. acholaxahlp(a)/fellowahlp(e) _ e. Teaching and/or leaearch Aaaoclataahlp/Aaalatantahip
d. othar (plaaaa apaclfyi 1 10. Plaaaa Indlcata any or a ll of tha following paopla aho provldad financial oupport toward your graduata prograa at tha Doctoral degree laval.
PerwntfaVOuardlanfa) PPBWIt la a i _ _
Xoi ______
11. Plaaaa indlcata othar financial reeounea uaad to flnanea your atudlaa at tha Doctoral donee level. a . P a rt-tla a jo b (a ) (o f f oanpua)
___ b. acholarahlp(a) and/or fallovahlp(a)
o. Taaehlng and/or Faaaarch Aaaoclataahlp/Aaalatantahip
d* othar (plaaaa apaclfyi )
12. Did you major In lnduatrlal education during your undergraduate prograr?
a . yea b. no
13. Do you fe *l that your undergraduate prograa prepared you adequately for graduate work at the doctoral degree level?
a. yea, without a doubt
_ _ b. yea, in part
e. no (plaaaa ooMenti __.^ — 292
k
It*. Do you feel that your Baiter*a denes nroma prepared you adequately fo r graduate work at tha doctoral degree laval?
_ _ a» yea, without a doubt
_ _ b, yoa, in part
e . b o (plaaaa aeM oti ) 15. Vhat was tha nature of tha undentraduate institution froa which you graduated? (Please check a ll that are appllcablo.}
a, pradoaiBantly whits student eeroUaent
b. pradoaiBantly black student enrollaant
o. publicly supported
d. privately supported
16. Vhat was tha nature of the institution froa which you received your Maat«r*a doaree? (Haase cheek a ll that are applicable.)
a. predeminently white student enrollsent
b. predoalnantly black student enrollaent
_ _ c, publicly supported
___ d, privately supported
17. Wd/bo you feel alienated by non-black professors and non-black atudents while pursuing your doctorate?
a . b o
b. yes 16. Haase identify the Boat la portent factor which influenced you to pursue a doctorate in Industrial education.
19. Haase identify the aost im portant, in your opinion, which influenced/ o r w ill influence your selection o f place o f eeployasnt e.g. predoalnantly white in stitu tio n , predoalnantly black in stitu tio n , industry, etc. 5
PLEASE AKVER #20 IHMUCH #2*4 ONLY XT YOU HAVE RBCEXVB THE DOCTORAL DEQUE. 00 D*ttX> LATELY TO PART XXX (BBCXRNXNQ WITH #2j ) XT YOU ARE A DOCTORAL STUDWT.
P h rt XX
20* Plus* w rit* tha year in which you received your doctoral degree la the apace provldad balow.
21* Plaaaa Indlcata your atatua whan tha work for your doctoral dacraa waa ooaplatad. (Plaaaa ohack a l l th a t ara ap p lic a b le.)
a* full-time atudant
b. part-tlaa atudant
o* aapleyad f u l l tla a on caapua
d . aaployad p art tla a on caajua
____ a* « ployed fu ll tlaa off caapua
f . aaployad p art tla a o ff caapua
22. Proa tha tlaa you began your doctoral dagraa prograa, aftar earning tha Waatar*a degree. how aany yaara did It taka you to ocnplata tha work for your doctorataT (Plaaaa wrlta tha miaber of yaara In tha apaca provldad balow.)
23. Plaaaa chack a ll of tha following that ara trua of tha lnatltutlon and atudant an ro llaan t whara you ara aaployad,
a. predominantly whlta atudant anrollaant
b. predominantly black atudant anrollaant
. e. lnatltutlon with graduata prograa (Naatar'a dagraa highest dagraa offered)
_ __ d. Institution with graduata prograa (Doctoral dagraa hlgheat dagraa offered)
a . none o f tha above (plaaaa apaclfyi 294
6
2*». Vhat n * your i ( i when doctorate was received? (PIeast writs your ege la tha apaoa provldad balow.)
THE fOLLOVISC SBCTIOIG ARE TO BE OOHPIETH) BY BOTH DOCTORAL HVDDfTS AXE DOCTORAL DEGREE RECIPIENTS. p art xxx 25. Tour euzrsat sea isi (Plaaaa writs age la tha space provldad balow.)
26. Vhat was your nothvr/fessle guardian's sad fathsr/aale guardian's eoeupatlon at tha and of your aacoadary schooling?
HotherA. Ouardlan rathsr/k.
a. Profaaslonal aad Managerial workers ______(e.g. Professional, technical, sad kladrsd workars, managers, o ffic ia ls , aad proprie to rs , except fa r * )
b . Parsers, faxa managers, aad super- ™ _____ visors (e .g . Pars aad farm managers, f a n laborers and supervisors)
e. Clerical and sales workers (e.g. ______Clerical and kindred workers, sales workers)
d. Craftworksrs, operatives, sad laborer, ______except fa n and sine (e.g. craft and kindred workers, opentlves aad kin dred workers, laborers, except f a n aad sin e)
a. Service workers, Including private ______household (e .g . P rivate household workers, other service workers) 295
7
27. During most o f your early chi l dhood and adolescent j r u n , you were rated by i a. your natural Bother and father*
b . your natural Bother.
c. your natural father* d. a nale and female guardian (pleaae apeelfyi ______.)* a female cuardlan (Please sneclfvi
) a am7c rurrdlan (ole-eu scecifvi
) 28, Of what sex are you? _ a. female
b, sale
29* Your ethnic origin lei a. white (not Hlapanlc).
b, black (not Hlapanlc).
_ _ e. Aaian or Pacific Inlander* d . Aaerlcan Indian o r Alaskan N ative.
e. other (pleaae apeelfyi ).
30. The higheat level of education obtained by your Bother at the and of your secondary schooling want
a. alenentary achool (please specify number of yearsi ).
b, secondary school (pleaae specify number of yearn ______).
e. college (pleaae specify nusber of yearsi ).
d. other post high school training, e.g. technical, trade school, ete. 296
e
31. The highest level of education obtained tgr your father at the end of your second try schooling vasi
a. eleaantary school (please specify umber of yearsi ).
b, secondary school (please specify nunber of years i ______).
e. oollege (pleaae specify lumber of yearsi
d. other post high school training, e.g. technical, trade school, etc.
32. The order of your birth relative to siblings 1st
_ _ , a. oldest.
___ b. youngest.
_ _ o. between oldest and youngest.
d. only child.
33. When you had a personal pro bleu in high school, you discussed I t with yourt
a. father/sale guardian. b. aother/feaale guardian.
o. both sother/fesale guardian and father/sale guardian.
d, other (please specifyi ______). y*. The nuaber of brothers and sisters In household during your eleaentary and secondary schooling wasi a . one.
b . tw o.
o . th ree.
d . fo u r.
e. other (please specifyi ). 297
35. Tour doalclla during yost of the following achool lavole «u located in i (Pleaae chock ( / ) tho approplate roaponae.)
D a tenU rv School Junior tad Senior Hlgh Sohool t, a rural totting. ___
b. a auburban totting. ______
c. an urban totting. ______
>6. Tho dlaclpllng of you tad olblingt during your alaaentaxy achoollng « ta i
a* of ton dona ty your ao thor/fatal a guardian.
_ _ b. o f ton dona by your fa th o r/a a la guardian.
o. aharod equally by both paranta/guarJlane.
d. othar (plaaaa apaclfyi )■
37* Tha d ia c lp lln ln g o f you and a lb lln g t during your aaoondaxy achoollng watt
a. of ton dona bx your aother/faaala guardian.
b. of tan dona lqr your father/atla guardian.
o. aharad equally br both f«renta/guazdlana.
___ d. othar (plaaaa apaclfyi )• I P a rt XV
36. Toar approximate grada point avaraga In high achool (baaad on a four point ayatoa) veai
. a. 3.5 or abova.
b . between 3 .0 and 3.4*9.
e . 2 ,5 and 2.99,
d . 2 .0 and 2.4*9, a . balow 2 .0 .
f . achool did not hava p oint average ayatoa,
g , don*t know. 298
10
39. Tour approyiaetc grade point average (based upon a four point syatea) after coapleting undergraduate rrorram west
— a . below 2 .0 . ____ b. between 2 .0 and 2.b9*
-■ 0 . between 2 .5 and 2 .9 9 .
____d . between 3 .0 and 3>**9.
___ e. 3 .5 o r above.
____f . school did not have point average syatea
____8* d o n 't know. 40. Tour approxiaate grade point average (based upon a four point syatea) at the end of ycur Hmter'e degree progra vast
a . below 2 .0 .
b. between 2 .0 and 2,<*9.
o. between 2 .5 and 2.99*
d. between 3.0 and 3.1*9.
_ e. 3*5 o r above. f. achool did not have point average ayatoa.
g. don't know
I f vou currently hold the doctorate, what was your approxiaate grade point average leased upon a four point syatea) at the end of your doctoral degree prograa?
____a. between 2 .0 and 2.1*9
____b. between 2 .5 and 2.99
__ 0 . between 3 .0 and 3,1*9
____d . 3 ,5 o r above
___ e. achool did not have point average syatea
____f . d o n 't know 299
H
42. If currently enrolled in a doctoral Proioraa. what la your present Ctwde point avenge (baaad upon a four point syatea) at thin level?
a . between 2 .0 and 2,49
_ _ _ b. batwaan 2 .5 and 2.99 _ _ _ e . batwaan 3 .0 and 3,49
d . 3 .5 or abova
a, achool did not have point average ayataa f, don't know
43. How do you rata your performance on tha Scholastic Aptitude Taat, or tha Aaarlcan Collage Teat?
a. vary high
b, above average
0. average
_ _ _ d . balow average
a. did not eoapleta theaa teats
f. don't know
44. Pleaae indlcata how you rate your teat scores on the Graduate Record Examination, or sim ilar graduate adnlssion testa, under each of the following categories (verbal, quantitative, and composition).
V e z M Q uantitative Composition a. vary high ______,______
b . above average ______c . average ______
d . balow average ______
. a. check (✓ ) here If you did not eoapleta these testa
___ f. check (✓ ) here If you do not know your approximate test scores 300
12
45. Do you feel that your performances on standardised t i i t i are good indicators of your academlo capabilities?
a . y o a
b , no (Vhy7 Pleaae comments _ _ _ _ _
46, Do you fo o l th a t any standardised to st aeon ahould bo used as a c r l- torlon in selecting minority students into graduate programs at tho doctoral level?
a . yoa
b. so
Part V 4?. During elementary achool my parent(a)/guaxdlan(s) would vis it the achool approximately times each year,
a . 1
b. 2
e. 3 d . 4
o. other (pleaae specify numberi ______)
48, IXirlng my aecondaxy achoollng ay parent(m)/guaidlan(a) would v is it the achool approximately tlaea each year,
— a . 1 b . 2
e. 3
d . 4
e. other (pleaae specify numberi ______) 301
13
J»9« Mr peramt{s)/gueidlan{s) reverted and praised at for Mining A's and B's In Junior and aanlor high achool i
a . o f tan.
b. sonatinas.
_ _ c. aaldoa.
d . navar.
50. My parent(s)/guertian(e) would warn and/or punish n o fo r taking "ainlaua peas" and " fa llin g gradss" during Junior and aanlor high aohoolt
_ a. oftan. b. aonatlaaa.
o. aaldoa.
— d. navar.
51. I raoalvad praise and anoouragaaant fro a wj eleaentary achool taachen for ay aeadoale talantsi
a. oftan.
b. aaldoa.
e . navar.
52. 1 raoalvad pralaad and anoouragaaant fro a ay Junior and senior high school teachers fo r aqr aeadaaio talantsi
a, oftan.
b. aaldoa.
_ _ o. navar.
53. laming A*a and B'a In Junior high school want
___ a. always la portent to aa.
b. sonatinas laportent to aa.
o. navar laportant to as. 302
ik
5*f. Earning A'n and B'a in aanlor high achool want _ _ a. alwaya iaportanl to aa.
_ _ b, soaatlaaa iaportant to aa. _ _ e, navar iaportant to aa.
55. fctnlng A'a and B'a in nor undaigrtdoata.Program want - a. alwaya iaportant to an.
b. aoaatlaaa iaportant to aa.
o. navar iaportant to aa. I
APPENDIX C
Draft of Advisers' Questionnaire Used During P ilo t Test
303 304
Advisers of Black Doctoral 8tudents«
It Please lis t th« nuabsr of doctoral students for whos 70a hsvs served ss aajor adviser in yoer lifs tlss.
greaent_In»tltutlon Priorlnstltutlonfs) blacks 1 ______whites ■ _____
otherei (Please lis t ______rsesi ______
> 2, How aany of ths blacks identified in #1 graduated with ths beccalau- rsats degree fros predoalnantly black institutions?
Present Institution Prior Inatltutlon(e)
3. Plaass lis t ths nuabsr of doctoral studsnts for whoa you ars currently serving as aajor sdvlstr. blacks 1 _ _ _ _ _
whites 1 _____
othsrst _____
Flsass Indicate ths nuabsr of your doctoral advisees that ars currently enrolled full-tlee or nart-tlas..
Full-tiae Part-tlwo blacks 1______whites 1 ______
others 1______
1 •F o r purposes o f th is study, * hiask" refers to those persons born in the United States and of the kegro raos. 305
5* 1b tha doctorate rsquirad as * criterion for eaploysent la four dapartaant?
For Part-TlM Jtoloraant For Full-Tlna Dsploraent Yam ______■oi ______
6 . F In m indicate tha w ater of fu ll-tlaa professors (Assistant, Asaoolate, and F u ll Professor) la your dspartasnt.
<( * Hacks Whites Othara Vllh Doctoratei ______
Vlthout Doctorate* ______
7. Please ladles la tha nuater of pert-tl*.* prof assets' Assistant, Assoc) at a, sad Full Professor) la your depsrtaent.
Blacks Whites Othars With Doctoratei ______
Without Deo to rat a i _____
6. Flssaa lndlcats tha w ater of tenure accruing ranks which faculty Ban ters hold within your dapsrtaant.
Blacks Whites With Doe. Without Doc. With Doe. Vlthout Doc. •**. Professor
Assoc. Prof.
Assist. Prof.
In s tru c to r
Othara , ■ i . With Doc. Without Doc. Professor Assoc. Prof.
Assist. Prof.
In s tru c to r 306
3
9. Baaed on your experience in graduate education, which of the following nfclllo in w ot deficient aaong year doctoral advisees?
Utcki whites no difference
a . a* overall acadealc achievement ______
b. orml eeaaonleatlon ___ . . e. written ooeaualcatlon ______
d, analytical skills ______.
a. technical ooapetenclea ___ _ . _ .
f . teaching skill ______
g. research skill
h. eoelal/pereonal ad,)ueteent _____ ... _____
10. What Lo your athnlo origin?
a, black (not Hispanic)
b. Asian or Faclflo Islander
___ e. whits (not Hispanic)
d. Aaerlcan Indian or *~i— " natlvs
___ •. other (please apsclfyi )
11. Other coaaenta? APPENDIX D
Initial Cover Letters to Department Chairpersons
307 308
Tha Ohio ita ta UntvaraRy Aeatfamte Faculty »• loduitrtal Taehnotogy o s u 200 Watding Enginaarlng February 18, 1980 LaboraloriM 100 W ail 19th Avenue Columbus. Ohio 43210 Dear Colleagues Phona 614 422*7471 Recently, federal legislation and racial consciousness have caused faculty In In stitutions of higher education to critically analyze the educational and employment patterns of minorities. I am a doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University and my dissertation 1s concerned with factors Influencing the selection, academic achievement, and career development of black doctoral students and recipients In In dustrial teacher education . Hopefully, the study will assist Industrial teacher educators when planning and conducting graduate level programs to attract qualified personnel from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Your cooperation 1s requested to complete the enclosed questionnaire and provide names of the following target respondents 1n your department: (a) faculty members who have advised black doctoral students, (b) black doctoral students enrolled In your department, and (c) black faculty members who arie recipients of the doctorate. These names should be provided on the yellow sheet enclosed. This Information will enable the Investigator to forward additional questionnaires to these members 1n order to complete the collection for this Investigation. I f you cannot provide the above names because of privacy or other reasons, you are asked to coordinate the distribution of questionnaires (and possibly a follow-up) to the above members 1n your department; or, please Indicate the name of someone 1n your department who would be willing to coordinate forthcoming questionnaires. The questionnaires w ill be forwarded based upon your response to Items 6, 7, 18, and 13 1n the enclosed questionnaire. The Investigator will ask each target respondent to complete their questlonnalre(s) and return I t directly to me In an enclosed stamped self-addressed envelope. I f one of the target groups exists In your department, no additional questionnaires will be mailed to you. Please note that your questionnaire Is numbered at the top. The purpose for this number Is to identify your Institution for future correspondence, i f needed. All responses are confidential and will be used only 1n combination with those of res pondents at other colleges and universities. In reporting the data, composites will be used to ensure anonymity. In order to meet deadlines, please complete and mall the questionnaire by February 29, 1980. Your concern and cooperation 1n this professional endeavor 1s greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. . . Sincerely yours.
Ray J. Davis
Dr; James J. Buffer, Jr Advisor Enclosures Collage ol Education APPENDIX E
Information Sheet Completed by Department Chairpersons
309 310
Institution:______Name of Coordinator:
If someone other than you will be coordinating the distribution of questionnaires 1n your department, please write their name In the space provided above. However, 1f questionnaires should be mailed directly to target respondents In your department, please provide the names and addresses ( If different from department) In the appro* plate spaces below. Additional names and addresses may be written on the back of this sheet: however, please Indicate whether the person Is a recipient, student, or adviser.
SLACK FACULTY MD1BERS WHO ARE RECIPIENTS OF THE DOCTORATE Name: Name: Address: Address: ______
Name: ______Name: Address: ______Address:
BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS ENROLLED IN YOUR DEPARTMENT Name: ^ _ Name: Address: ______Address: ______
FACULTY MEMBERS WHO HAVE ADVISED SLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS Name: Name: Address: ______Address: ______APPENDIX F
Special Follow-Up Letters Addressed to Chairpersons in Predominantly White and Black Institutions
311 Th# OMo I M Unhrenlty Academic Faculty of Industrial Technology 200 Welding Engineering Laboratories 190 W ail I9ih Avenue Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phona 614 422-7471
March lk, 1980
Dear Colleaguei Thank you for taking the tine to review the questionnaire and enclo sures nailed to you three weeks ago. Since your institution does not offer a doctoral degree In Industrial education, I would be nost appre ciative If you would respond to the first eleven questions In Fart I of the questionnaire. Therefore, another copy of the questionnaire and a ataaped self-addressed envelope are enclosed. Please complete the questionnaire and return It to ne at your earliest convenience. As previously stated, your responses will be kept strictly confidential. No names w ill be used in this Btudy. Your cooperation in this research endeavor la greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours,
UrrXfamesdT Buffer, Jr. Adviser
Enclosures
Col leg* of Education The Ohio State IMvenWr Academic Faculty of Intfuatrtal Tachnotogr 300 Welding Engineering Laboraloriei 100 W n l 10th Avanua Columbut, Ohio 43210 Hatch 14, 1980 Phona 614 422-7471
Dear Colleaguei Approximately three Meeks ago 1 mailed you a questionnaire entitled, "Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data". You Mere asked toi (l) complete the enclosed questionnaire, and ( 2 ) provide the names of black faculty members Mho are recipients of the doctoral degree on the enclosed yellow sheet. The other Information requested In my letter (dated February 18, 1980) did not apply to you since your department does not offer a doctoral degree in Industrial teacher education. Presently 1 have not received any of the above Items. I f you have not done so, please complete the f ir s t eleven questions (Part I) of the questionnaire and the yellow information sheet as soon as possible. Another questionnaire and yellow information sheet have been enclosed for th at purpose. A stamped self-addressed envelope is also enclosed for mailing purposes. Separate questionnaires will be mailed to each blaok faculty member In your department Mho holds the doctorate. Certainly, you are aware that black doctoral degree recipients in our profession are scarce. As a black doctoral candidate, I ’m hopeful that this study will provide industrial teacher educators with empirical data needed when critically analysing the educational and employment patterns of minorities. I realise that some of the information requested may be perceived as sensitive. However, please be assured that your responses will be kept strictly confidential. Ho names will be used In this study. In report ing the data, composites w ill be used to ensure anonymity. Your cooperation In this Investigation is greatly appreciated. Sincerely yours
Approved byi
Adviser
Enclosures
College of Education APPENDIX G
In itia l Cover Letters Addressed to Black Doctoral Students and Recipients and to Faculty Members Having Advised Black Doctoral Students
314 The OMo State Onfverolly Aeetfemte Faculty of tnSuttrtel Technology 300 Weldmg Engineering Labotalorlet tOO W n i 10th Avenue March lfc, i 960 Cotumbui. Ohio 43210 Phono 614 422*7471 Dear Colleaguet You have been identified aa a black dM toral degree recipient by an ad ministrator In your department. As a black doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University, I an concerned about the scarcity of black doc toral recipients at the university level in industrial teacher education. I an also concerned about the nodicun nunber of blacks currently pursu ing the doctorate in industrial education as suggested in a study ty V illlaa A. Bakamls (1978). There are nunerous factors which affect the aasesslbillty and success of blacks in higher education. Hy dissertation, "Selected Factors Influ encing the Selection, Academic Achievement, and Career Development of Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral Degree Recipients in Industrial Education", is designed to determine: (l) success and Problems encount ered by black graduate students pursuing the doctorate, ( 2 ) success and problems encountered by black industrial teacher educators Mho have earned the doctorate, and ( 3 ) factors influencing career development and choice of black doctoral students and recipients in industrial teach er education. Your cooperation in completing the enclosed questionnaire would be greatly appreciated. This will require approximately 20 minutes of your time. While some information requested may bo perceived as sensitive, your re sponses will be treated with strict confidentiality. In reporting the data, composites w ill be used thus ensuring your anonymity. Upon comple ting the questionnaire, please seal and mail it in the stamped self-ad dressed envelope enclosed. In order to help meet deadlines, please complete and mail the questionnaire by March 28, I960, Your concern and cooperation in this professional en deavor are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much... SLneerelv vours.
Ray J . Davis
Adviser 'Enclosures
College ol Education 7b* Ohio tu t* lMhr*r»*y Ac*d*mle F*cuttr of InduttrM Todinotogy QSU 200 Wilding Bngtnnnng LaboratortM IPO W **t IPlh Awnu* March 14, 1980 Columbia, Ohio 4)210 Phono 614 422-7471
Dear Colleague: You have been Identified as a black doctoral student by an administrator in your department. As a black doctoral candidate at The Ohio State University, I am concerned about the scarcity of black doctoral recipients at the university level In Industrial teacher education. I am also con cerned about the modicum number of blacks currently pursuing the doctorate 1n Industrial education as suggested In a study by William A. Bakamls (1976). There are numerous factors which affect the assesslblllty and success of blacks In higher education, ty dissertation, "Selected Factors Influencing the Selection, Academic Achievement, and Career Development of Black Doc toral Students and Doctoral Degree Recipients 1n Industrial Education", 1s designed to determine: (1) success and problems encountered by black graduate students pursuing the doctorate, (2) success and problems encounter ed by black Industrial teacher educators who have earned the doctorate, and (3) factors Influencing career development and choice of black doctoral stu dents and recipients 1n Industrial teacher education. Your cooperation In conpletlnq the enclosed questionnaire would be greatly appreciated. This will require approximately 20 minutes of your time. While some Information requested may be perceived as sensitive, your re sponses will be treated with strict confidentiality. In reporting the data, composites will be used thus ensuring your anonymity. Upon completing the questionnaire, please seal 1t 1n the stamped self-addressed envelope en closed. In order to help meet deadlines, please complete and mall the questionnaire by March 28, 1980. Your concern and cooperation 1n this professional en deavor are greatly appreciated. Thank you very much...
Ray J, Davis
Jamer'J. Buffer, Jr Adviser
Enclosures
ColWg* of Education The OMo Mate University Academic Faculty et (ndueMal Technology 800 Welding Engineering laboratories IPO W ett IPlh Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210 March 14, 1980 Phone 614 422-7471
Dear Colleaguet
X an Investigating factors vhich affect the success of blacks sb doc toral students and Industrial teacher educators in higher education. My dissertation, "Selected Factors Influencing the Selection, Academic Achieve ment, and Career Development of Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral De gree Recipients In Industrial Education", la designed to determine) (l) suc cess and problems encountered by black graduate students pursuing the doc torate, (2) success and problems encountered by black industrial teacher educators, and (3) factors Influencing career development and choice of black doctoral studenta and recipients in industrial teacher education. Your participation in this study will help to identify factors related to objective #1. You have been identified as having advised black dootoral students either at your present place of employment or at another Institution, Your co operation in completing the enclosed questionnaire would be greatly appre ciated. While some information requested may be perceived as sensitive, your responses will be treated with strict confidentiality. Upon comple ting the questionnaire, please seal and mail it in this stamped self-address ed envelope enclosed. Flease note that your questionnaire is numbered at the top, The purpose for this number is to Identify you for future correspondence, if needed. In re porting the data, composites w ill be used to ensure your anonymity. In order to help meet deadlines, please complete and mail the questionnaire by March 28, 1980, Your concern and cooperation in this professional en deavor is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much,,. Sincerely yours
Adviser
Enclosures
College of Education APPENDIX H
Standard Evaluation Form Used to Evaluate Applicants for Doctoral Program (Submitted by a Responding Chairperson)
318 319
RECOMMENDATION
Student Name
Degree Seeking: ME.D. Q ] M.A. 1 I A.G.S. Ed.D. Ph.D. I 1
Recommendations:
Full Admission d ]
Provisional Admission □
No Admission r I
Reasons:
Achievement Record: Acceptable Unacceptable ; Unavailable
M iller's Analogies: Acceptable ( ^ ] ; Unacceptable ; Unavailable □
Cooperative English: Acceptable j 1 ; Unacceptable I I ; Unavailable
Graduate Record Exam: Acceptable □ ; Unacceptable I I ; Unavailable f 1
Reasons for non-admission or provisional admission recommendations.
Evaluator's Signature APPENDIX I
Black Doctoral Students and Recipients' Actual Responses Regarding Factors Which Affected or Will Affect Their Selection of Employment
320 321
RESPONSES TO ITEM 22 IN BLACK DOCTORAL STUDENTS' AND RECIPIENTS’ QUESTIONNAIRE
Doctoral Degree Recipients
1. I was already employed In a university.
2. I had an academic leave to study from my employer, therefore I had a job to return to.
3. Opportunities for personal and professional growth.
4. Type of work assignments, salary, and advancement potential.
5. Black students.
6. Position assigned and nature of responsibility.
7. Had already been employed at the university where I returned for work.
8. Commitment to reaching minority students and salary.
9. The level of students that I would be teaching.
10. Shortage of Black doctorates 1n industrial education at Black institutions.
11. Location; amount of pay.
12. An institution that would allow me to help n\y people.
13. Climate.
14. Working condition, geographical location and salary.
15. A challenge professionally and provides an opportunity for growth.
16. Working conditions.
17. The fact that I was previously employed, granted leave, and given a university system doctoral study grant (1 year with pay).
18. Black students.
19. I believed at the time of my employment and s t ill do, that the university I selected provided opportunities for educational advancement and challenges. 322
20. Salary, job satisfaction, working condition, employer.
21. Geographic area of the U.S.
22. Potential for professional profession and achievement.
23. A challenge an Income. . . The job must provide both.
24. Salary; type of job offered; quality of life and educational level 1n the community.
25. Southern predominantly Black state supported college or university.
26. Working conditions - salary advancement and being able to do research.
27. Working conditions and salary.
28. Segregation (received degree in 1956).
29. Opportunity to render the most service; opportunity to advance professionally.
30. Opportunities to advance and work with black students.
31. I did not change place of employment.
32. Environment for professional growth.
33. Geography, salary, composition of student body, level of degree offerings.
34. An obligation to return to iny native state (Mississippi)..
35. Personal orientation and commitment.
36. Responsibility and authority to develop and implement new pro grams.
37. Money/people I would work w1th/rank.
38. Tenure.
Students (Baccalaureate 1n Industrial Education)
1. My previous Instructors Influenced me to select the current position. 323
2. The type of work Involved; salary.
3. Job responsibility commensurate with training.
4. Opportunity for equal employment.
5. I am seeking a location that is in close proximity to my home. Levels (post-secondary college or business 1s not that Im portant).
6. The need for my expertises.
7. My ability to make a contribution to the Institution.
8. Interest in duties of the position; financial rewards; challenge and opportunities for growth.
9. Service to other Blacks and money. (Professional growth)
Students (Baccalaureate in Disciplines Other Than Industrial Education
1. Administrative advancement opportunities and salary.
2. Location, financial reward, position.
3. Opportunity for advancement to high management/executive level.
4. Nature of job/opportunity for advancement.
5. Working conditions.
6. Personal desire to contribute to the development of Black youth and the fie ld of research relating to this population in America.
7. Geographic climate, approximation to my family; my perceived adaptability to the overall regional environment.
8. Innovative curriculum and personnel.
9. Locale/salary offered.
10. The area. APPENDIX J
Industrial Teacher Education Departmental Data Questionnaire
324 QUESTIONNAIRE MustrM Tttchtr Uuetthn Ptptrtmmtt! 9*t*
Fibruiry 14,1980
Ray J. Davis* Principal Investigator
Advisory Committee:
Dr. James J. Buffer, Dr. George P. Ecker Dr. W ills E. Ray 326
Directions: Plus* check (✓) all responses that are applicable In each of the following Items. Mhen your response to a specific Item 1s zero, leave that space blank. For purposes of this study, "black" refers to those persons born In the United States and of the Negro race. P lease fe el fre e to provide comments a t any tim e.
P a rt t
1. Check all of the following which are true of your Institution and studenTSirollment.
_ _ a. privately supported
___ b. publicly supported
____ c. predominantly white
_ _ _ d. predominantly black
2. Check all of the degrees offered, with a major 1n Industrial education, 1n youFTnstltutlon.
a. Bachelor
b. Master
c. Specialist
___ d. Doctorate
3. Please Indicate departmental head count enrollment for each of the following levels.
Full time Part time
Undergraduate: ______
Graduate: ______4. The size of your Institution 1n terms of student enrollment Is:
___ a. Less than 4,999,
b. 5,000 - 9,999.
C. 10,000 - 14,999.
d. 15,000 - 19,999.
a. 20,000 - 29,999.
f. more than 30,000.
1 327
2
5. Is the doctorate • requlrmeent for employment In your department?
For Part-Time Employment For Full-Time Employment
Yet:______
Ho: ______
6. P lease In d icate th e number o f re g u la r fa c u lty members (only fu ll-tim e staff with the rank of Assistant, Associate, and Full Professor) In your department. Blacks Whites Others
With Doctorate: ______
Without Doctorate: ______7. Please Indicate the number of part-time faculty (excluding graduate assistants) in your department. Blacks Whites Others
With Doctorate: ______
Without Doctorate: ______. . 8 . P lease In d ica te th e number o f ten u re accruing fa c u lty members by their rank held. BLACKS WHITES With Doc! W ithout Doc. With Doc!! w ithout Doc.
P ro fesso r ______, ______
Assoc. Prof. ______— ______Asst. Prof. ______Instructor ______'______
OTHERS With Doc. W ithout Doc.
P ro fe sso r ______.
Assoc. Prof. _____ .
Asst. Prof. ______
Instructor ______328
S
9, H em Indicate the w b or of your full or part-time faculty members currently enrolled In e doctoral program.
Hacks MM tee Others
10. If e vacancy existed in your department, would there be a special effort to employ a black doctoral degree recipient?
a . yes
b . no
11. Compared with whites, what observable differences have you noticed 1n blacks' professional preparation, potential scholarship, and leadership as Industrial teacher educators? Circle the nianber that best depicts your observations.
Blacks are: Meeker sane Stronger
Overall professional preparation 1 2 3 4 5
Potential os scholar/researcher 1 2 3 4 5
Potential as leader/manager 1 2 3 4 5
Potential as teacher 1 2 3 4 5
Additional am ents? ______
COMPLETE PART II ONLY IF YOUR INSTITUTION OFFERS A DOCTORAL DEGREE HITH A MAJOR IN INDUSTRIAL TEACHER EDUCATION. IF YOUR DEPARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE A DOCTORAL DEGREE PROGRAM, YOU HAVE COMPLETED THIS QUESTIONNAIRE (THANK YOU).
P e rt II
12. Please Indicate the number of block doctoral students currently enrolled in your department.
Full time Part time 329
4
How Hiny of your current faculty awnbtrs have served as Major advisers to black doctoral atudanta In your department? e. 1 b. Z
c* 3
d . 4 1 e. more than 4 (please specify: ) f . nona 14. Hhat Is (or would be) the primary sourca(s) of university funding re ceived by black students to finance their doctoral studies In your program?
a. Teaching Assoc1atesh1p/Ass1stantsh1p
b. Research Assoc1atesh1p/Ass1stantsh1p
c. Fellowship/Scholarship
__ d. Other (please specify: )
e . Do n o t know
IS. Is there a special effort to recruit blacks Into your doctoral program?
a . yes
b . no
16. If your answer to 115 Is "yes", briefly describe those special efforts f being made to Identify and recruit black applicants for your doctoral degree program.
I 330
S
17. Please provide answers regarding the following aibntsslon criteria used by your department to admit applicants Into your doctoral de gree program. Then rank order their significance In the selection process.
a. letter(s) of recoawendatlon (Please specify "from whom":
) _ b. Interview (Please specify "with whom" and "how" Interview Is accomplished:
) c. Standardized admission test(s). Cheek those that are used and sp ecify mlnlanxn accep tab le score:
Test name: Hlnliw acceptable score:
Graduate Record Examination
V erbal......
Quantitative ...... ______
Advance Education Test ...... _____
A n a ly tica l......
M iller Analogies Test ......
Others (Please specify):
d. Grade point average (Please specify mlnlaun GPA accepted by your department for undergraduate* graduate* or overall stu d ie s .)
Undergraduate GPA:
Graduate 6PA: ______
Ova ra il GPA: ______
e. Standardized evaluation forms
f. Other (Please sperity: ______i )
i 331
18. If standardized test scores are used 1n the selection of doctoral students, which of the following Is nost true of their utilization In the selection process?
_____ a. waived In the selection of black applicants
b. used In the selection of black applicants, but given less weloht
. c. used equally In the selection of black and non-black appli cants
_____ d. Other (please specify:
) 19. Please Identify and describe departmental criteria (that nay not be part of your formal university guidelines) and strategies used for adriittlnq blacks Into your doctoral pronran; In conjunction or In lieu of standardized test scores and/or grade oolnt average.
20. Optional—Other eoments rcgardlno adrlsslon criteria and doctoral program requirements for black doctoral candidate and/or potential tla c k fa c u lty members? *
THANK YOU The Ohio Slate University Academic Faculty of Industrial Technology 200 Welding Engineering Laboratories 100 West 19lh Avenue Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-7471 APPENDIX K
Education and Employment Data for Black Doctoral Students and Doctoral- Degree Recipients Questionnaire
333 Huctth* t»4 tmphymnt 9«t« h r 9hek 9oet»rt! SMtats Mtt 9 th rtt 9tgm ktdpknts
March 14.1980
Ray J. Davis, Principal Investigator
Advisory Cownlttee; Dr. Janas J. Buffer, Dr. George P. Ecker Dr. W ills E. Ray 335
Directions: Please check (✓) ell responses that are applicable In each of the following Itens. men your response to a specific Item Is zero, leave that space blank. For purposes of this study* "black* refers to those persons born In the United States and of Mm Negro race. Please feel free to provide coments at any time.
P a rt I
1. Are you currently a holder of the doctoral degree?
«. a . y es
b . no
* 2. If your answer to fl was "yes", go to Iten 3. If you responded "no" to 11. what 1s your current status?
a. doctoral "student" (pre-general, qualifying, or c b. doctoral "candidate" (successfully completed courses and gen* oral, qualifying, or comprehensive examination) c. doctoral student enrolled full tine d. doctoral student enrolled part tine e. doctoral candidate (post examination) enrolled full tine f. doctoral candidate (post examination) enrolled part time 3. At what professional level(s) had you worked prior to beginning your doctoral program? a. elementary school (It - 6) b. Junior high school (7 - 9) c. high school (10 - 12) d. college e. government f. Industry/business ___ g. post-high school technical Institute h. comunity or Junior college 1. other (please specify: _ ^ ) 1 336 8 4. Twr Patiala* t# puma a iK tm l 4 fn w i aoPa: a. prlir U afarlii jwr aliffn lH ti pupa, ^Pirlo^j jpmp pvtfPUt c. Pataow iw r kN cilN nite anP Mutar*a Paprw proprw. » 4. Purliif yaar h itir'i iip n praprw. a . mm of t l a aPaaa (plaaw ipaclfyt . _ __ . _ _ . _ « ). 8. Plaaw IPaatlfy aM rank orPar tPaw parwaa tloclaPlop "otPor(a)") la taiw af tPtlr Paprw af laflawca wan year Pocfalaa ta paraw aa wlarpraPnata Paprw. ^ _ a . fatWr/Pala paarPlaa — P. wtPar/fawla paartffaa _ c. PratPar(a) a*P/*r alator(a) • _ P. atPar ralatlwa (plaaw ipKtfyi I a. fHonP(a) ____ f. taacPar(a) ^ , p. caaawlar(a) — P. atPar(a) (plaaw opacify: 1 8* Plaaw ladlcata any ar all af tha paapla «Pe orovtPaP financial avp* port tawrP your aaParpraPaata oPwcatlm. (Plaaw aw cPock (✓ ) wrfc to taPlcata *yaa” or V .) * OiPart (plaaw apaclfy: Paraat(»l/CaarPlaa(al taoaw 1 fa t: ______•___ No: ______337 7 . PI H i t Indicate otter financial resources mad to finance your under- eraduate education. >. part-tlwe Jot(a) b. scholarship^) and/or grsnt(s) ___ e. federal student 1oan(s) d. college loan(s) e. otter (please specify: _) 8. Please Indicate any or all of the following people td» provided finan cial support toward your graduate proprau at the testers decree level. Otters (please specify: Parentfs)/6uard1ants) Spouse 1 f a s : ______ No: ______ 9. Please Indicate otter financial resources used to finance your studies at the tester's degree level. a. part-tlwe Jot(s) b. scho1arsMp(s)/fe11ewsh1p(s) c. Teaching and/or Research AssoclatesMp/Asslstantshlp ___ d. public school teaching e. otter (please speelfy: ) 10, Please Indicate-any or all of the following people who provided finan cial support toward your graduate prograw a t the Ooctorel degree level. Otter (please specify: Parentfsl/Buardlanfs) Spouse ) Yes:______ No: ______338 11. Please Indicate other financial resources used to finance your studies at the Doctoral degree level. a. part-time job(s) (off campus) b. scholarsMp(s) and/or fellowsMp(s) c. Teaching and/or Research AssoclatesMp/Asslstantshlp d. other (please specify; ) 12. Did you najor In Industrial education during your undergraduate program? a . yes b . no 13. If your answer to 112 was "yes", go to Item 14. If you responded "no" to Item 12. please specify your undergraduate major In the space provided below. Undergraduate major: 14. Please circle the degree to which you feel that your undergraduate program was satisfactory In preparing you for graduate work at the doctoral degree le v e l. Please c ir c le and comment only 1f you fe e l that your undergraduate program was not satisfactory. Least Host satisfactory satisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 Comment?: 15. Please circle the degree to which you feel that your Master's degree program was satisfactory 1n preparing you for graduate work at the doctoral degree level. Please circle and eminent only 1f you feel that your Master's degree program was not satisfactory. Least Most satisfactory satisfactory 1 2 3 4 5 CoMaent?: ______339 i I f . M iat m i tin nature of th e 1nst!tutlon(i) fro* w hich you graduated? Undergraduate Waster*! j».' predoarfnantly white student on r o ll non t • —_ b. predwlnantly black student M rollnnt ;t c. publicly supported __ d. privately supported _____ + 17. Old you teko any course work or counsal with black faculty during tbo following dagroo program: Undororaduato Waiter*» Ooctorate Y ai:______ No: ______ 111. Old/Do you fool alienated by non-black professors and/or non-black stu dents untie pursuing your doctorateT a . no _ _ b. Yes (If "yes", would you share your experlenca(s) that are representative of this?) 19. Old/Do you feel that you alienated non-black professors and/or non black students while pursuing your doctorate? a . no b. yes (If ayesB( would you share your experlence(s) that are representative of this?) 20. Please Identify the wost Important factor(s) which Influenced you to pursue a doctorate 1n Industrial education. 340 21. Please Identify the n it Important factor(i) that could have dls- couraotd you from pursuing a college degree at any level (under? graduate* Master's, or Doctorate). 22. Please Identify the n it Important factor(i). In your opinion, which Influenced or/will Influence your selection of place of wploynnt after completing the doctorate. PLEASE ANSWER 123 THROUGH f28 ONLY IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THE DOCTORAL DEGREE. GO IMMEDIATELY TO PART I I I (BEGINNING WITH 129) IF YOU ARE A DOCTORAL STUDENT. P a rt II 23. Please provide the Information requested regarding your doctorate and doctoral degree program. a. Year In which you graduated: ______Institution: b. Degree earned: PhD ____ EdD_____ Other(piease specify: c. Major: • d. Ml nor(s): ______ e. Your area of specialization: 24. Please Indicate your status when the work for your doctoral degree was com pleted. a. full-time student (9 semester or 12 quarter hours or more) b. part-time student c. employed full tin on ca^ius (nre than 20 hours per week) d. employed part tin e. employed full tin off campus _ _ f. employed part tin off campus 341 7 25. Fran the time you begin your doctoral degree program, efter earning the Miiter*s degree, how ainy cilendir y tirt did It take you to com plete the work for your docterateT yeira 26. Mease check all of the following that are true of the Institution and student enrolleant where you are anployed: a. predominantly white student enrollment. b. predominantly black student enrollment. _ _ _ c. Institution with graduate program (Master's degree highest degree offered). d. Institution with graduate program (Doctoral degree highest degree offered). e. none of the above (please specify: ______ _). 27. What was your age when d o cto ra te was received? a . 20 - 24 b. 25 - 29 c . 3 0 - 3 4 d . 3 5 - 3 9 e . 4 0 - 4 4 f, 45 and over 28. Have you encountered any problems or concerns that have or could have affected your professional performance In your past or current place of employment? a . no b. yes (If "yes", please share your experlence(s) that are representative of this.) 342 B THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS ARE TO BE COMPLETED BY BOTH DOCTORAL STUDENTS AND DOCTORAL DEGREE RECIPIENTS. P a rt I I I { 29. Your currant age Is: ^ a . 20 - 24. b. 25 - 29. c . 30 - 34. d . 35 - 39. e . 40 - 44. f . 45 and over. 30. What was your mother/female guardian's and father/male guardian's occupation at the and of your secondary schooling? Hother/F. Guard. Father/H. Guard. a. CraftMorkers, operatives, and labor, except farm and mine (e.g. craft and kindred workers, operatives and kin dred workers* laborers, except farm - and mine) b. Farmers, farm managers, and super- ^ visors (e.g. Farm and farm managers, farm laborers and supervisors) } c. Service workers. Including private household (e.g. Private household workers, other service worke.*s) ______ d. Professional and Managerial workers (e.g. Professional, technical, and kindred workers, managers, officials, and proprietors, except farm) ______ e. Clerical and sales workers (e.g. Clerical and kindred workers, sales w orkers) ______ f. Other (please specify): 343 31. During most of your early childhood and adolaicent years, you were reared by: a. your natural aiother and father. b. your natural anther only. _ c. your natural father only. d. a male and female quardlan (please specify relationship, If any: ). e. a female guardian only (please specify relationship, if any: ). f. a male guardian only (please specify relationship, 1f any: ). q. other (please clarify: 1. 32. Of what sex are you? a. female b. male j 33. Your ethnic origin Is: a. white (not Hispanic). ____ b. black (not Hispanic). c. Aslan or Pacific Islander. d. American Indian or Alaskan Native. e. Hispanic. f. other (please specify; ). 34. The highest level of education obtained by your mother/female guardian at the end of your secondary schooling was: ___ a. elementary school (please specify nurfcer of years: ). b. secondary school (please specify nuater of years: c. college (please specify niaaber of years: ). d. other post-high school training, e.g. technical, trade school, etc. 344 10 35, The highest level of education obtained by your father/atale guardian at the end of your secondary schooling m s : a. elementary school (please specify m ater of years: b. secondary school (please specify mater of years: c. college (please specify mater of years: 1. d. other post-high school training, e.g. technical, trade school, etc. 36. The order of your birth relative to stbHngs Is: a. firstborn. b. youngest (please specify ntaiber of siblings:______). c. only child. _ _ _ d. between oldest and youngest (please specify exact order of birth and mater of siblings): order of birth: ______mater of siblings: 37. When you had a personal problem In high school, you discussed 1t with your: a. father/male guardian. _ — b. aether/female guardian. c. both mother/female guardian and father/male guardian. d. other relatives (please specify relationship: __ — e. friend}. f. teachers/counselors. g, other (please specify: ). 38, The m ater of brothers and sisters In household during your elementary and secondary schooling m s : a . none. ___ b. one. c . two. d. three. e . fo u r. I f. aore than four (please specify: ). J 345 11 39. Your do«1c11e during wost of th» foil owing school levels m i lo c ito d In : E li. School Jr. ond San. HI oh School a. a rural sitting. ______ b. a suburban sitting. _ — c. an urban sitting. ______'______ 40. The disciplining of you and siblings during your elementary schooling was: _ — a. often done by your mother/female guardian. b. often done by your father/mile guardian. c. shared equally by both parents/guardians. __ d. other (please specify: 1. 41. The disciplining of you and siblings during your secondary schooling was: a. often done by your mother/female guardian. b. often done by your father/male guardian. c. shared equally by both parents/guardians. d. other (please specify: 1. P a rt IV 42. Your approximate grade point average 1n high school (based on a four point system) was: a. below 2.0. b. between 2.0 and 2.49. —_ c. between 2.5 and 2.99. d. between 3.0 and 3.49. e. 3.5 or above. _ _ f. school did not have point average system. g . d o n 't know. 346 12 43. Your approximate grade point average (bated upon a four point system) after completing underoraduate program was; a. below 2.0. b. between 2.0 and 2.49. _ _ c. between 2.5 and 2.99. d. between 3.0 and 3.49. e. 3.5 or above. _ f. school did not have point average system, o. d o n 't know. 44* Your approximate grade point average (based upon a four point system) for your Waster's degree program was: ____ a. below 2.0. b. between 2.0 and 2.49. c. between 2.5 and 2,99. d. between 3.0 and 3.49. e. 3.5 or above. f. school did not have point average system, o . d o n 't know. 45. If you currently hold the doctorate, what was your approximate grade • point average (based upon a four point system) for your doctoral de gree program? ___ a. between 2.0 and 2.49 b. between 2.5 and 2.99 _____ c. between 3.0 and 3.49 d. 3.5 or above e. school did not have point average system f, don't know 347 13 46. I f currently enrolled In a doctoral program, what I* your present grade pointaverage (based upon a /our po(nt system) a t this level? a. between 2.0 and 2.49 b. between 2.S and 2.99 c. between 3.0 and 3.49 d. 3.5 or above e. school did not have point averaqe system f. don't know 47. How do you rate your previous performance on such tests as the Scholas tic Aptitude Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT)? a. very high b. above average c. average d. below average e. did not complete these tests f . don't know 4R. Please Indicate how you rate your test scores on the Graduate Record Examination {GRE}, or similar graduate admission tests, under each of the following categories (verbal, quantitative, and analytical): Verbal Quantitative Analytical a. very high. • _ _ _ b. above average. c. average. _ _ _ _ — _ d. below average. . e. check (✓ ) here i f you did not complete these tests. _ _ _ f . check (✓ ) here I f you do not know your approximate test scores. 14 49. Do you feel that your performances on standardized tests are good Indicators of your academic cabllltles? a. yes b. no (Why? Please comnent: _____» ) 50. Do you feel that any standardized test score should be used as a c ri terion In selecting minority students Into graduate programs at the doctoral level? a. yes _ _ b. no C o m n t : ______ P a rt V 51. During elementary school my parent (s)/guardIan(s) wuld visit the school approximately times each year. a . 0 b. 1 c . 2 d. 3 e . 4 f. more than 4 (please specify: ) 52. During my secondary schooling my parent(s)/ouardlan(s) would v is it the school approximately times each year. a . o b . 1 c . 2 d . 3 e . 4 f. more than 4 (please specify: ) I 349 15 53. parent(s)/guard1an(s) rewarded end praised m fa r earning A's and B's tn Junior and u n lo r high school: ___ a. of tan. b. sometime*. c. seldom. _ _ d. never. 54. Hy parent(i)/guardtan(s) would warn and/or punish we for waking "nlnl- nm pass" and "fallin g qrades" during Junior and senior high school: a. often. b. sometIres. _ _ _ c. seldom. d. never. 55. I received praise and encouragement from my elementary school and Junior and senior high school teachers: (Use check (✓ ) narks to indicate tne appropiale response; Elem. School Teacherfsl' J r. and Sr. High School Teacher(s? a. often. b. seldom. c. never. — 56. Earning A's and B's In JuntorJjIg^ and senior hlnh school was: Junior Htoh School Senior Hloh School a. always Important to me. . _ _ b. sometimes Important to me. _ _ _ _ c. never 1ag>ortant to me. — ______ 57. Earning A's and B's 1n my undergraduate program was: a. always Important to me. b. sometimes Important to me. _ _ c. never Important to me. TKANK YOU TIM Ohio fta * Untoaraty I jS u U jJ u S j u ^ ^ 200 W tfding Engln—ring Laboratoriaa 190 Waat 19lh Avanua Coiumbua, Ohio 43210 Phona 914 422-7471 APPENDIX L Advisers of Black Doctoral Students Questionnaire 352 353 Advisers of Hick Doctoral Student Directions: Please check (✓) all responses that are applicable 1n each of the following Items. When your response to a specific Item is aero, leave that space blank. For purposes of this study, "black" refers to those persons born 1n the United States and of the Negro race. Please feel free to provide cooments at any time. 1. Please 11st the ntxnber of doctoral students for whom you have served as major adviser during your professional career. Present Institution Prior Instltutlon(s) b lac k s: ______ w h ites: o th e rs : H ispanic A frican Aslan or Pacific . is la n d e r American Indian or Alaskan native 2. How many of the blacks Identified In fl graduated with the baccalau reate deqree from predominantly black Institutions? Present Institution Prior Instltutlon(s) 3. Please list the number of doctoral students for whom you are currently servlnq as major adviser. blacks: whites: others: 4. Please Indicate the number of your doctoral advisees that are currently enrolled full (at least 9 semester or 12 quarter hours or more) or part tim e. Full time Part time b la ck s: ______ w h ites: o th e rs : 1 Please Indicate the number of your doctoral advisees that either completed or never completed tnelr degree within the specified period of time allowed by your graduate school. Completed Never Completed M acks: ______ w h ites: ______ o th e rs : ’______ Of those who never completed their doctorate within the specified period of time, please estimate the number of your advisees that never completed due to academic deficiencies or social/personal pro blems. Academic Deficiencies Social/Personal Proble M acks:______ w h ites: ______ others: ___ Other Reasons (Please specify) Macks: —______ whites: ‘ o th e rs: Based on your experience as a doctoral adviser, do you feel that you might have experienced some difficulty relating to your black advisees When compared to your white advisees? a. .no great difficulty b. a greater amount of difficulty c . much more d if f ic u lty Cem ents? Based on your past experience, would you prefer to advise white or Mack doctoral students? _ _ a. prefer Mack ' b. prefer white c. no preference 355 3 9. Based on your experience 1n graduate education, which group tends to be more deficient 1n the following areas? blacks whites no difference a. overall academic b. oral comnunlcatlon ___^ — . c. written comnunlcatlon ______— _ d. analytical skills ______ e. technical competencies ______ f. teaching skill ______ g. research skill ______ h. social/personal adjustment _ _ _ 1. study skills ______ J, commitment ______ k. other (please specify): 10. Please 11st the number of doctoral degree recipients for whom you served as major adviser that are currently employed 1n: blacks whites a. public school system. ______ b. senior college. _ _ c. comnunity/junior college. ______ d. government. _____ ' e. Industry/business. ______ f. other (please specify): ______ g . d o n 't know, _ _ _ _ _ — 356 4 II. During the past 5 years, have you been involved In any professional activities with the doctoral degree, recipients for whom you served as major adviser? blacks whites y e s: • ______no: ______ If yes, briefly Identify the kind of activities that are repre sentative of your cooperative efforts: With Blacks With Whites 12. What 1s your ethnic origin? a . black (not Hispanic) _____b. Aslan o r P a c ific Isla n d e r c. white (not Hispanic) ____ d. American Indian or Alaskan native ____ e . H ispanic ____ f . . other (please specify: 13. Other comments? Thank You BIBLIOGRAPHY Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. New York: MacMillan, 1976. Anderson, E. F ., & Hrabowski, F. A. Graduate school success of black students from white colleges and black colleges. Journal of Higher Education, May/June 1977, 48, 294-303. Bailey, R. L. Minority admission. Lexington, Mass: Lexington, 1978. Baird, L. L. Comparative prediction of fir s t year graduate and professional school grades in six fields. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 941-94F! Bakamis, W. A. Minorities in industrial teacher education. The Journal of Epsilon Pi Tau. Fall 1978, 4^(2). Blackwell, J. E. Access of black students to graduate and profes- sional schooTsi Atlanta, Georqla: Southern Education hounda- don, 1975. Ted 119 555) Brown, F ., & Stent, M. D. Minorities in U.S. institutions of higher education. New York: Praeger, 1977. Brown, R. As reported in Newsweek, September 26, 1977, 58. Bryant, J. W. A survey of black American doctorates. New York: Ford Foundation, 1973. Brazziel, W. R. Quality in education for a ll Americans. University Press, 1974. Buffer, J. J. Graduate education in industrial arts. Industrial Arts Education: Retrospect, Prospect. American Council on Indus- tr ia l Arts Teacher Education, iitJth Yearbook, 1979. Canady, H. G. The psychology of the negro. In the Encyclopedia of Ed. P. L. Harriman. Philosophical Library, 1946, Casciani, J. W. Influence of model's race and sex on interviewers' s e lf disclosure. Journal of Counsel Psychology, September 1978, 25, 435-440. 357 358 Clark, K. B., & Plotklns, L. The negro student at Integrated col lege. New York: National Scholarship Service and t-und tor Negro Students, 1964. Cleary, T. A., & Hilton, T. I. Test bias: prediction of grades and white students in integrated colleges. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1968, ,5, 115-124. Covert, R. W., & Chansky, N. M. The moderate effect of undergraduate grade point average on the prediction of success 1n graduate education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Winter 1975, 35, 941P950I Davidson, J. F. Academic Interest rates and grade in flatio n . Educa tional Record. 1975, 56, 122-125. Dennis, E. A. (Compiler) Industrial teacher education directory. American Council on Industrial Arts leacher Education and National Association of Industrial and Technical Teacher Educators, 1979-80. Dictionary of education. Carter V. Good, Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, I951T Ebel, R. L. The uses of standardized testing. Bloomington, Indiana: Phi Delta Kappan Educational Foundation, 1977. Ellison, R. L. et al. Biographical data as predictors of college grades of negroes ana whites, 1973. (ED 081 358) Etzloni. A. Grade In flatio n. Social Education, November 1975, 59, 501. Fisherman, J. A. et al. Guidelines for testing minority group children. Journal of Social Issue Supplement, 1964, 20, 129-145. Frank, L. L., & Hackman, J. R. Effects of Interviewer—interviewer similarity on Interviewer objectivity 1n college admissions Interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60(3), 356-360. French, J. W., & Michael, W. B. The nature and meaning of valid ity and re lia b ility . In readings 1n Measurement and Evaluation, Ed. N. E. Grovelund. New York: Macmillan, 1968, 165-172. Gallop, G. H. The gall up poll: public opinion, 1976-1977, 2. Goldman, R. 0 ., & Slaughter, R. E. Why college grade point average is d iffic u lt to predict. Journal of Educational Psychology, February, 1976, 68. 359 Good, W. R. Misconceptions about intelligence testing. Readings 1n Educational and Psychological Measurement, Ed. C. I. and H. G. Ludlow. Boston: Houghton M ifflin ,’ 1966, 177-179. Greenberg, J. W., & Davidson, H. H. Home background and school achieve ment of black urban ghetto children. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1972, 42, 803-810. Gronlund, N. E. Readings In Measurement and Evaluation. New York: Macmillan, 1968, 165-17?: Gurln, P. Constraints on the occupational aspirations of students attending some predominantly negro colleges. Journal of Neqro Education, 1966, 35, 336-350. Hale, F. W. Speech during the graduate school visitations day's pro gram. Columbus: The Ohio State University, 1979. Hendrickson. H. R. Grade In flatio n. College and University, 1976, 52, 111-116. Humphreys, L. G. Fairness for individuals and fairness for selection: some basic considerations. Paper presented at meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, February 1973. (ED 061 859) Kinneary. J. L. Can we get rid of dialectal discrimination in admis- slon test? '(ED 091 692J------ Legal Implications of the use of standardized ability tests in employ ment and education. Columbia Law Review. 1968, 691-744. Lewis, L. S. On the genesis of gray-flanneled puritans. American Association of University Professors, March 1972, 58(1), 21-29. Minority group participation In graduate education. A report with recoirniendations of the National Board of Graduate Education. Washington, D. C.: National Board on Graduate Education, June 1976, 5. McDonald, J. F ., & McPherson, M. S. High school type, sex, and socio economic factors as predictors of the academic achievement of university students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975, 35, 929-933. Mommsen, K. G. Professionalism and the racial context of career patterns among black American doctorates: a note on the 'brain drain' hypothesis. Journal of Negro Education, Spring 1973, 42, 191-204. 360 Moore, W., J r., & Wagstaff, L. H. Black educators in white colleges. Washington: Jossey-Bass, 197TI Morris, E. W. The contemporary negro college and the brain drain. Journal of Negro Education, 1972, 41, 309-319. Nieves, L. The minority student: a perspective. Educational Test ing Service, September 1976. (ED 135 827) Nuttal, E. V. et al. The effects of family size, birth order, sibling separation and crowding on the academic achievement of boys and girls. American Educational Research Journal. 1976, 13, 217-223. O'Neil, R. M. Discriminating against discrimination: preferential admissions and the Defunis case. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1975. Oakland, T ., & Matuszer, P. Readings in non-biased assessment of minority group children with bias toward none. Universityof Kentucky, Lexington: Coordinating office for Resource Centers, 1978, 27-34. Peterson, A. C., & Kell am, S. G. Longitudinal predictors of achieve ment: achievement history, family environment, and mentaT health. Social Psychiatry Study Center, University of Chicago, 1977. Pfeifer, M. C., Jr. Relationship between scholastic aptitude, per ception of university climate and college success for black and white students. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1976, 61. Ploski, H. A. Editor and Compiler. Reference library of black America. New York: Bellwether, 1971, 2, 137. Reed, R. J. Increasing the opportunities for black students 1n higher education. Journal of Negro Education, 1978, 47, 143-150. Samuda, R. J. Psychological testing of American minorities: issues and conseguences. New York: Dodd, Fiead, 1975. Sarason, I. G. et al. Test anxiety and the effects of being Inter viewed: TAS. Journal of Personality, June 1972, 40, 242-249. Scully, M. G. Inflated grades worrying more and more colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, May 19, 1975, 10(13), 7. Sedlacek, W. E., & Carrington, C. Attitudes and characteristics of black graduate students. College ParlT: University of Maryland Cultural Study C en ter,1976. 362 S h errill, W. H. Graduate admissions. Colleqe and University, Summer 1976, 51, 501-503. Siegel, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavior sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Sieski, L. M. Understanding body language. Personnel and Guidance, January 1979, 51, 238-242. Singleton, R., & Smith, E. Does grade Inflation decrease grade r e li ability? Journal of Educational Measurement, 1978. (In press) Sowell, T. Black education: myth and tragedies. New York: David McKay, 1972. Stanley, J. C.» & Porter, A. C. Correlations of scholastic aptitude test scores with college grades of negro versus whites. Journal of Educational Measurement. 1967, 4, 199-218. Statistical abstract of the United States. U. S. Department of Com- merce: Bureau of the Census, lOtith edition, 1979. Statistical analysis system user's quide. Raleigh, North Carolina: 5AS In stitu te ,1979'.------Turner, B., & Robb, G. Research in education: an introduction. Hinsdale, Illinois"! The Dryden Fress, 1971. Thorndike, R. L ., & Hagen, E. P. Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education, 4th edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1^77. White, E. H. et a l. The admission Interview. College and University, Summer 1974, 49, 337-342. Williams, R. L. Ebonics: the true language of black folks. St. Louis, Missouri: The Institute of Black Studies, 1975. Wolf, R. The measurement of environments. Proceedings of the 1964 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems, New Jersey: Educational Testing Service, 1964. Wright, L. S. Doctoral degrees awarded 1n industrial teacher educa tion. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, Fall 1977, 15(1). Yates, F. J. et al. Some approaches to black academic achievement in white universities. August 19/3. (ED 085 440) Zuckerman, H. Memorandum on preparing a recommendation for admission to college. Journal of the National Association of College Ad missions Counselors, 1968, 13(2), 11-T5T