R 'EPORTRESU*ES ED 012 581 JC 660 089 REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN JUNIORCOLLEGES. BY- RICHARDS, JAMES M.,JR. AND OTHERS AMERICAN COLLEGE TESTINGPROGRAM, IOWA CITY, IOWA REPORT NUMBER ACT-RR-9 PUB DATE DEC 65 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.25 HC -$i.60 40P. DESCRIPTORS- *JUNIORCOLLEGES,*GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS, SCHOOL SUPPORT, STATISTICALANALYSIS,SPECIALIZATION, INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT, COLLEGEPLANNING,COUNSELING PROGRAMS, IOWACITY SIX FACTORS OR CATEGORIESOF COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS WERE COMPUTED FOR 581ACCREDITED JUNIOR COLLEGES.WHEN THESE INSTITUTIONS WERE CLASSIFIEDAND ANALYZED BY GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCESWERE FOUND AMONG REGIONSON ALL SIX FACTORS. ON THECULTURAL AFFLUENCE OR PRIVATECONTROL FACTOR, THE MAIN TRENDSEEMS TO BE FOR COLLEGES INTHE GREAT LAMES STATES. AND IN THEFAR WEST TO BE LOWER THANCOLLEGES IN OTHER REGIONS. THE MAJORTREND ON THE .S.I7E rAcTrIRlc FOR COLLEGES IN THE FAR WESTTO BE LARGER. ON THE AGEOR CONVENTIONALISM FACTOR, COLLEGESIN THE SOUTHEAST, SOUTHWEST AND ROCKIES, AND THE PLAINSSTATES ARE HIGH WHILECOLLEGES IN THE FAR WEST ARE LOW, ONTRANSFER EMPHASIS, COLLEGESIN NEW ENGLANDAND IN THE MIDEAST AREEXTREMELY LOW, WITH FEW SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCESAMONG OTHER REGIONS. THEMAJOR TREND ON THE BUSINESS ORIENTATION,OR HIGH COST FACTOR IS FOR COLLEGES IN NEW ENGLAND, THEMIDEAST, AND THE GREAT LAKESTO BE MUCH HIGHER THAN COLLEGESIN OTHER REGIONS. ESTIMATED FACTOR SCORES FOR EACH OFTHE 581 JUNIOR COLLEGES AREGIVEN. THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDYHAVE IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH, COUNSELING, AND JUNIOR COLLEGEPLANNING. (HS) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEA'..ffl, EDUCATION & WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT.POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. CiL,r V1965 k.a - _ ACT .JUN'Gr; on.- IN FORLIA-1/Gil RESEARCH REPORTS REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN JUNIOR COLLEGES December, 1965 No. 9 James M. Richards, Jr. Leonard P. Rand Lorraine M. Rand Published by Research and Development Division American College Testing Program P. 0. Box 168, Iowa City, Iowa 5224C Summary This study examines the geographical distribution of various junior college characteristics. Scores for six factors or categories of college characteristics, identified in earlier ACT research,were computed for each of 581 accredited junior colleges. When these junior colleges were classified and analyzed by geographical region, significant differeaces were found among regions on all six factors-- Cultural Affluence (or Private Control), Technological Specialization, Size, Age (or Conventionalism), Transfer Emphasis, and Business Orientation (or High Cost).The regional differences are discussed and implications are suggested for research and counselingas well as for junior college planning. Regional Differences in JuniorColleges James M. Richards, Jr. Leonard P. Rand Lorraine M. Rand The junior college is alarge and important segmentof higher edu- cation in the United States,and it shows signs ofbecoming the largest and, in some respects, the mostimportant. The increasingimportance of junior colleges emphasizesthe need for comprehensiveinformation about these insiitulions.The interests of stucleilts,of colleges and of society demand that plansfor the future growth ofjunior colleges be as rational as possible, andbased on accurate knowledgeabout such colleges. The purpose of the presentstudy is to examine thegeographical distribution of various junior collegecharacteristics. Such information may provideclues to the influences thatmold and shape the structures of junior colleges, and to themajor adaptive responsesof the college as an organization.More important, it mayprovide illuminating infor- mation about the alternativesfor the orderly developmentof junior colleges. The basis for this researchis the study by Richards,Rand, and Rand (1965) of junior collegeenvironments, in which 36different char- acteristics of junior colleges wereidentified.Through use of factor analysis, the complexrelationships among these 36 collegecharacteristics -2- were reduced to a limited number of categories that can be interpreted in terms of their underlying nature. Six such categories, or factors, were obtained and given names which seemed to reflect their general meaning. These factors were Cultural Affluence, Technological Specialization, Size, Age, Transfer Emphasis, and Business Orientation.These 'actors organize the infor mation currently available about junior colleges into a brief profile. This brief profile can be used to characterize individual junior colleges or groups of junior colleges.In the present study, the profile was used to describe junior colleges grouped according to their location. Method 1;stimation of Factor Scores. Using the data in American Junior Colleges (Gleazer, 1963), the first step in the present research was to estimate six factor scores for each of 581 accredited junior colleges. For each factor, three or four variables with high loadings on that factor and low loadings on all other factors were selected. Each variable was used in estimating only a single factor. Using the Doolittle procedure:, multiple correlations were computed between variables and factors. The factor loadings served as validity coefficients; i.e. , as the corre- lations between variables and factors.The variables chosen to repre- sent each factor, the beta weight for each variable, and the multiple correlation between each group of variables and the corresponding factor are shown in Table 1. -3- Table 1 Institutional Variables, Beta Weights, and MultipleCorrelations for Estimating Factor Scores for Junior Colleges Factor Factor Beta Loading Cultural Affluence (multiple correlation with factor =.85) 1. Relative Library Size .69 .3775 2. % of Foreign Students .64 .4022 3. Faculty/Student Ratio .50 .2241 4. Private vs. Public Control .47 .1851 Technological Specialization (R= .83) 1. Realistic Orientation .73 .4044 2. Technological Emphasis .67 .3351 3. % of Males in t-he Student Body .64 .7741 g;ct PR -7!QG\ 1 .s. &a". .83 .5149 2. Variety of Curriculum .66 .2931 3. Library Size .67 .2614 Age (R = .87) 1. Age .67 .4700 2. % of Facutly which is Full-Time .60 .3715 3. % of Part-Time Students -.64 -. 3380 Transfer Emphasis (R= .89) 1. Teacher Training Emphasis .68 .5924 2. % of Graduates going to Four-Year Colleges 60 .4084 3. Liberal Arts Emphasis .49 .2938 Business Orientation (R= .82) 1. Enterprising Orientation .57 .4582 2. % of Facutly with Doctoral Degree .53 .4156 3. Tuition .49 .3806 The multiple regression formula for each factorwas determined from these beta weights, andwas used to estimate a scaled factor score -4- In com- (with mean = 50and standard deviation =10) for each college. substituted for a missing puting the estimatedfactor scores, the mean was score on anyvariable. Inspection ofthe score distributionssuggested, however, that anormalizing transformationwould be desirable, and small range that the precisionof the factor scoreswould justify only a of transformed scores.Accordingly, the estimatedfactor scores were converted to stanines(Guilford, 1952, p. 503),1 whichare normalized standard scores with a meanof 5 and a standarddeviation of 1.96. Reinterpretation ofFactors, Inspection ofthe high-scoring and low-scoring colleges oneach factor suggestedthat the interpretationof three of the sixfactors should bemodified. The fact thatthe factor scores suggestedreinterpretation of somefactors confirms theconclu- sion that this factorsolution should beconsidered only a firstapproxi- mation to the orderingof complex phenomena,and that the titles given the factors should notbe taken too literally_ First, on the CulturalAffluence factor, collegeswhich traditionally ) do, have been consideredhighly affluent (PineManor, Gulf Park, etc. for the most part, havehigh scores on thisfactor. There are also many colleges which have high scoreswhich could not beconsidered affluent small by any reasonablecriterion. Thesecolleges are typically very 3A Xerox copy of the table showing thestanine score for eachcol- available for $1 from theResearch andDevelopment lege on each factor is Iowa :Division, AmericanCollege Testing Program,Box 168, Iowa City, 52?40. Please remit paymentwith order. Makechecks payable to: American College TestingProgram. -5- colleges under privateor religious control. Becausemany of the varia- bles with high loadingson this factor were expressed in "per-student" terms, it is possible for a college with an extremely small libraryand . an extremely small faculty to obtaina high score on this factor if it also has an extremely smallstudent body. Moreover, publiccolleges with generally larger student bodiestended to obtain lowscores on this factor, even those (such as Foothill) whichappear quite affluent in the usual sense of the word. A better title for thisfactor, therefore, might be Private Control. Second, the Age factor T- appears to require reinterpretation. .1.).1.a recent article, Stanley (1965)attempts to identify the oldestju.pior college in the country. Severalcandidates for this distinctionare mentioned. Unfortunately, the leading candidateshave an averagescore on this factor which is only moderatelyhigh.This suggests that Conventionalism might be a better title for thisfactor sinceage alone without more tra- ditional characteristics ofcolleges suchas a high proportion of full-time. faculty and full-time students,does not producea high score. Finally, the Business Orientationfactor should be reinterpreted. Specifically