Final Report Project No.80051 OEC-0-8-080051-1885 An Investigation to Identify, Describe, And Evaluate an Optimal Program of Student Personnel Services for Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds Garry R. Walz Konstantinos J. Kravas Michael D. Wirt ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Information Center The School of Education The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan September 1971 The research reported herein was performed pursuant to a contract with the Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Contractors undertaking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment in the conduct of the project. Points of view or opinions stated do not, therefore, necessarily represent official Office of Education position or policy. Office of Education U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

FOREWORD In such a project as this, there are more people than you can probably acknowledge who have been helpful in the research. However, several are especially deserving of mention. Dr. Richard T. Knowles (University of Michigan) and Dr. James Lee (University of Wisconsin) had major responsibility for the design of the project and were actually involved in making the arrangements with the participants, institutions, and collecting the data. Edward Navoy (Research Assistant) played a major role in the early analysis of the data. Mr. Ralph Banfield (Associate Director of ERIC/CAPS) was never tiring in his efforts to obtain the needed resources for the project. Finally, Kathleen Hallisy contributed a great deal to the final report by her editing and typing of the report. To all of the above we owe a dept of gratitude. Garry Walz Gus Kravas Michael Wirt September 1971 ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction to the Research............................. Review of Relevant Literature................................3 Analysis of the Data.........................................58 Generalizations About the Disadvantaged..................... 126 Review and Implications of Disadvantaged Research...........140 Bibliography.............................................. 154 i ii

Chapter I Introduction to the Research

This project was undertaken at the instigation of the Bureau of Higher Education of the Office of Education. Dr. Robert Hall, then of the Bureau, was interested in our using the resources of the ERIC Counseling and Personnel Services Information Center to search the literature to determine what had been learned regarding student services for the disadvantaged. In particular, it was hoped that it would be possible to develop some generalizations as to the "what" and "how" of these student services. It was thought that this information would be useful to the Bureau in allocating funds to future projects and programs. In the early stages of the investigation much discussion was devoted to determining the design to be used in the project. Two approaches were considered. The first was to conduct a thorough literature search to see what could be learned from previous research and programs. In addition, a series of intensive field studies of student personnel work programs would be conducted to determine the outcomes of various student services with different student groups. Such a study was seen as exploratory and concerned primarily with generating hypotheses and leads that could be the focus of subsequent experimental research. A second basic approach was to design a study that would experimentally obtain data on how disadvantaged students used and responded to selected student services. It was thought that data obtained in this manner would more directly relate to the interests of the Office of Education and student personnel workers. This was the approach later adopted. In addition, a series of generalizations were developed which, it was hoped, would prove useful to individuals in a wide range of settings and positions. 2

Chapter I I Review of the Relevant Literature

The literature review was undertaken to gain a broader perspective of the various facets of commentary, research and programmatic efforts related to the culturally distinct. Indeed, there is an overwhelming amount of literature pertaining to culturally distinct populations; hence, arbitrary decisions were made relative to content inclusion. For the purpose of this presentation, the definition of culturally distinct was adapted from Kendrick and Thomas (1970): "...members of groups that have historically been underrepresented in higher education and which, as groups, are clearly below national averages on economic and educational indices." Following the introduction, selected research investigations reported in the literature on the culturally distinct will be presented. Three areas of research investigation are included for review: (1) motivation, aspiration and adjustment; (2) academic achievement; and (3) standardized tests and test prediction. The last section of the review provides brief summaries of selected programs which appear to be representative of the types of programs and program elements designed for students from culturally distinct backgrounds. It should be noted, however, that several of the programs described are a result of on-sight visitations. Preceeding this literature review is a summary of the characteristics of the 1 i terature. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LITERATURE Through the study of the literature pertaining to the culturally distinct student in higher education, certain trends and characteristics become manifest. Therefore, the purpose of the following discussion is to provide the reader with a brief summary of the emphases which seem to characterize the literature relative to the culturally distinct in higher education. 1. With respect to studies on disadvantaged populations, there is a tendency to utilize a comparative approach between advantaged and culturally distinct populations and explain the findings in terms of negative characteristics or deficits as compared to the assumed norm of the advantaged groups. For example, disadvantaged samples are often compared with advantaged samples in terms of internal-external control dimensions; achievement test data; educational-vocational motivations, aspirations and vallies; and various personality characteristics. It should be noted, however, that explanations of the dynamics of disadvantagedness relative to the deficits model is becoming the target of increasing criticism 4

by numerous writers and researchers. 2. Many studies on the characteristics of culturally distinct populations tend to be quantitative in nature. A major thrust of a number of these studies focuses on various demographic variables deemed to be associated with disadvantagedness. Another source of intensive investigation has been in the area of performance levels of culturally distinct populations. In addition, investigative emphasis has also been placed on various environmental conditions which have been perceived as relevant for the education of disadvantaged students. Although many would agree that quantitative studies have been useful in providing a better understanding of certain dimensions of disadvantagedness, there appears to be a trend developing which suggests a need for qualitative and process analyses of the multitude of dynamics inherent in the study of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is felt that before effective compensatory or supportive services for the disadvantaged can be implemented across the educational spectrum, more process research must be conducted. 3. Considerable attention has been devoted to determining the extraindividual factors related to the disadvantaged students' adjustment and academic functioning to the educational setting; however, conditions in the college environment which may serve to facilitate and/or deter learning and adjustment have seldom been systematically investigated. Certainly there has been "discussion" regarding the impact of college on the culturally distinct student, but intensive investigations relative to what environmental factors tend to contribute to the satisfactory adjustment and educational functioning of what groups of culturally distinct students are lacking. 4. Despite considerable discussion concerning the heterogeneity of culturally distinct populations, a large number of authors of discussion papers and research articles continue to describe disadvantaged students as a homogeneous group. Such a situation can only serve to have deleterious consequences for effective research, creative programming, and most important, a fundamental understanding of the individuals who have been categorized as culturally distinct. Thus there is a greater need for studies which focus on subgroups of the culturally distinct with respect to factors which support or deter adequate coping and learning behaviors. 5. Descriptions of many programs for the disadvantaged as reported in the literature, can be characterized as lacking adequate specification of program elements and evaluation procedures. For example, some reports 5

indicated that "counseling" was offered to the students and was considered as a highly beneficial aspect of the program. However, there is a tendency not to specify in behavioral terms the nature and scope of the counseling process. Furthermore, methods of evaluation of the treatment effects tend not to reflect carefully designed and controlled experimental methodology. In many cases, based upon descriptions of the programs offered, one would experience extreme difficulty duplicating the program, and assessing the effects of it based upon reported evaluation procedures. 6. The minority group that is receiving the most attention in the literature on the disadvantaged is the Blacks, with Spanish heritage groups and American Indians receiving less discussion and research emphasis. Therefore, many of the studies and reports dealing with learning, motivation, achievement and values employed as subjects Black students. It would appear, however, that a trend is emerging which suggests that investigators are broadening their research base to include the Spanish heritage groups and American Indians. Such a thrust seems imperative if a more comprehensive understanding of the magnitude and complexities of disadvantagedness is sought. 7. In higher education, considerable attention is focused on the admission and retention of minority group students, with primary emphasis placed on the Black student. Concomitant with the attention given to admissions, there is discussion which is addressed to issues of altering educational procedures and practices which more adequately accommodate a diverse student body. 8. A number of documents suggest that the role of the student personnel worker in higher education will continue to change more toward that of an advocate, change agent or mediator. This change is reflected in the current thrust of some counseling centers toward more aggressive, outreach oriented, and experimental approaches with respect to seeking new methods and strategies to relate with students. There appears to be, however, considerable confusion among student personnel workers with respect to clearly operationalizing such roles and functions regarding disadvantaged students specifically and, in general, the total student body. A BRIEF OVERVIEW Currently, the terms culturally deprived, educationally deprived, underprivileged, disadvantaged, culturally different, economically 6

disadvantaged and many other labels are ascribed to subgroups in our society who have been victims of educational, cultural, or economic disadvantages. Often the term disadvantaged seems to be related to an ethnic or national origin classification. Furthermore, the term conveys to many the impression that disadvantaged populations are homogeneous with respect to ability and deprivation, when in fact persons so labelled usually show a wide range of characteristics. In addition, although there are a number of cultural minorities in the United States, four major cultural groups have generally been identified with the label "disadvantaged:" the American Indians, Appalachian or "mountain" whites, Spanish heritage groups, and Afro-Americans. To some extent definitions of disadvantagedness vary. For example, Gordon (1967) offers the following description: The term socially disadvantaged refers to populations in our society which differ from each other in a number of ways but have in common such characteristics as low economic status; low social status; low educational achievement; tenuous, poorly paid, or no employment; minimal participation in community organizations; and limited ready potential for upward mobility...these are people who are handicapped by depressed social and economic status and who, in too many instances, are further handicapped by ethnic and cultural caste status. Price (1967) in attempting to define the term culturally deprived offers the following analysis: If the notion, "deprived" has been formulated correctly, those who are culturally deprived possess a right to some culture that they are prevented from exercising; and if the notion "culture," has been formulated correctly, there is a certain set of beliefs, techniques, and values that they are prevented from accepting or rejecting. Moreover, if the notion "right" has been correctly formulated, they must possess the ability to exercise the right to the culture of which they are deprived. To say, then, that the Negro and the Appalachian white, the Mexican and the Indian are culturally deprived is to say that there is a culture to membership in which they possess a right they cannot exercise although they do possess the ability to exercise it. Finally, Amos and Grambs (1968) suggest that the culturally disadvantaged are "those who are the products of a culture that has not provided them with motivations, opportunities, experiences and relationships that will enhance their chances of competing successfully with their fellow citizens in all phases of life." 7

It would appear, then, that within the term disadvantaged there are three major foci. The first has dealt primarily with race and human relations, the second emphasized classes in our society, and the third has focused on a concern for the poor. These three foci cannot in many practical aspects be separated because many of those who, as a minority group or race, have been discriminated against are also among toe nation's lowest socioeconomic classes. The primary emphasis in relation to the racial issue has centered around discrimination between Black and white segments of the population; and many times the term disadvantaged has become synonymous with Black. Gordon and Wilkerson's (1966) summary of compensatory practices at the higher education level expresses this recent emphasis: The recently predominating emphasis upon assisting disadvantaged Negro youth to get a college education undoubtly reflects the increasingly important role of the Negro people in the life of the nation. It is fully warranted. Nevertheless, there appears to be undue neglect in providing compensatory services on the college level for disadvantaged young people of other minority groups in different parts of the country, especially American Indians, Mexican-Americans, and Puerto Ricans. Moreover, except for the work of a few institutions, the vast population of socially disadvantaged white youths in rural areas, particularly in the south, seems hardly to have been touched by recent compensatory developments in higher education. The second emphasis in the literature revolves around the social classes within the nation. Social classes do exist in America even though most Americans would rather not discuss the subject or even admit to their existence. The important and often vast differences in attitudes held by members of different social classes must be taken into account in planning or implementing any new educational or pupil or student personnel programs. These differences in attitudes and values affect all aspects of the educational program. There are notable significant differences in attitudes concerning family, school, classroom, school discipline, and the guidance program; attitudes concerning the administration of the school, towards teachers, tests, reading, work recreation, extracurricular activities; and finally, in the levels of aspiration which are affected by the attitudes held by various class levels. The third area of concern has centered around the poverty ridden portions of the population. Data from the Bureau of Census findings of March, 1964, indicate that a family of four can achieve an adequate 8

diet on about 70 cents a day per person with an additional $1.40 for other items —a total earnings of $60.00 per week. If all families living at less than this level or close to it are included among the pool, there are 50 million such persons, 22 million of whom are young children. Where the poverty line is drawn depends upon the criteria used. Among those available are the Department of Agriculture estimates of family food needs, families chosen as representative types, the incometo-food-expenditure ration, and the farm non-farm adjustments, allowing for the lesser need of farm families for cash income. The present analysis draws the line at about $3,130 for a family of four and $1,540 for a single individual. This analysis sets the number of individuals living in poverty in the United States at 34 million. One-half of these persons in family units are less than 18 years of age. Families with a woman as the head are more likely to be living in poverty than those with a man. Similarly, farm families as opposed to non-farm, Black families as opposed to Caucasians, and large families as opposed to small more often could be characterized as poor. The type of work performed by the income producing members of the family and the amount of time employed play a part in determining poverty conditions. THE DISADVANTAGED STUDENT: CHARACTERISTICS The findings of several investigations indicate that, although a good achiever from an underprivileged environment is relatively controlled and cautious, often stereotyped and constricted, he still retains a degree of creativity. He is more willing to conform to adult demands, has a more positive view of authority figures, and possesses greater self confidence. Gordon (1964) has further delineated positive characteristics of the socially disadvantaged: 1. Selective motivation, creativity, and proficiency; 2. Complex symbolization reflected in in-group language forms and ritual behavior; 3. Functional computational skills; 4. Accuracy of perception and generalization around some social, psychological and physical phenomena; 5. Selective recall, association and generalization; 6. Capacity for meaningful and loyal personal relationships; 7. Capacity for meaningful and sustained selective task involvement; 8. Ingeniousness and resourcefulness in the pursuit of selfselected goals and in coping with the difficult conditions 9

of life peculiar to states of economic insufficiency and poverty, low social class status, and low racial-caste status. As Gordon (1964) and many other writers and researchers have noted, youth from disadvantaged backgrounds, "...show disproportionately high rates of social maladjustment, behavioral disturbance, physical disability, and mental subnormality." He also points out that academic deficiency among the disadvantaged groups is inordinately high. He presents a more detailed description of some of the characteristics of the disadvantaged learner: 1. Contradictory attitudes toward self and others, with low self concept and the resultant exaggerated positive and negative attitudes toward others prevalent; 2. Utilitarian and materialistic attitudes, not unlike those dominant in our society, but which, in the light of limited horizons and opportunities function as depressants on motivation, aspiration, and achievement; 3. Low-level aspiration and motivation relative to teachers and academic products, as well as in relation to some social norms; 4. Low-level academic task orientation and variable levels of general task involvement; 5. Styles and modes of perceptual habituation that do not complement the emphasis important to traditional academic efficiency; 6. Weakness in the utilization of traditional abstract symbols and dominant group language forms to interpret and communicate; 7. Weaknesses in the utilization of abstractions with marked tendency to favor concrete, stimulus-based cognitive processes; 8. Marked socio-cultural patterns in conditions of life which tend to be non-complimentary to traditional standards of academic achievement and social mobility. These include hypermobility, family instability, distorted model relationships, economic insufficiency, housing inadequacy, repeated subjection to discriminatory treatment, as well as forced separation from many of the main channels of our society. Indeed, in some respects the educational achievement of the disadvantaged is dependent upon their perception of the extent to which education will make a difference in terms of their goals and aspirations. Coleman (1966) observes: For children from advantaged white groups, achievement or lack of it appears closely related to their self concepts, what they believe about themselves. For children from disadvantaged non-white groups, achievement or lack of it appears closely related to what they believe about their environment: 10

whether they believe the environment will respond to reasonable efforts or whether they believe it is instead merely random or immovable. Finally, whatever the identified characteristics of the disadvantaged, whatever the myriad of dynamics which contribute to disadvantagedness, it should be obvious to even the casual reader of the literature that the broad dimensions of the variables identified with disadvantagedness are highly complex. It would appear then, that gross generalizations and stereotypes regarding these populations can only serve as a detriment to productive problem solving and responsible program development. This is not to say that nomethetic data are not useful in understanding disadvantaged populations; however, when such data lead to stereotypic perceptions, then their usefulness is lessened. COLLEGE STUDENTS AND ADJUSTMENT Of the numerous articles and research reports which discuss the adjustment of students to their college environment, many indicate that the adjustment of students is to a great extent, a function of their perception of their environment as well as their academic ability. McEvoy (1968) discusses the adjustment problems of American youth who have worked in other cultures (Peace Corps). This appears to be highly applicable to the culturally distinct who must live in and "work" in a culture which often seems alien to them. Dimensions related to adjustment problems: 1. Time factor or duration - the length of time that the participant will be in contact with the host culture. Culture shock, a condition arising out of prolonged exposure to unfamiliar stimuli and deprivation of familiar stimuli, is clearly'related to the time dimension. 2. Congruence of experience factor - this refers to the degree to which the primary cross-cultural activities are ones that are familiar to the participant. This also refers to expectations, i.e. the individual may be experiencing things for which he was not prepared or did not expect. 3. Congruence of milieu - this is a dimension that reflects the degree of cultural difference between the host milieu and the origin milieu. Since culture shock appears to be a malady that results from continued deprivation of familiar cultural cues and stimuli and continued exposure to unfamiliar cues and stimuli, it appears to follow that the degree of culture shock is related to the absolute amount of discrepancy between the origin culture and the host culture. 4. Congruence of expectations - the expectations the participants have toward the host milieu and especially those 11

preconceptions that have to do with the way in which the participant expects to be accepted and treated and the way he is actually treated. 5. Relationship of the participants to the program administration. Common generalized reactions to cross-cultural experiences: 1. Over-identification - this pattern is characterized by the participant's completely abandoning his own cultural values and standards and accepting indiscriminately the counterpart of these from the host culture. Over-dependence on such external habits or the excessive identification with host culture values may particularly result in rather severe readjustment problems on return to the origin culture. 2. Under-involvement - a reaction in which the participant rejects all of the values and institutions of the host culture and avoids interaction with it. Instead he remains dependent upon his own culture. 3. Immobilization - an uncommon response in which the individual neither accepts or rejects the values of the host culture and cannot interact with it, nor can he effectively rely on the values of his origin culture or draw support from them. He becomes immobilized. 4. Viable integration - consists of choosing judiciously among the values and practices of one's own cultural heritage and those of the host culture, In this case the individual can make those temporary or permanent alterations in his own value system that permit him to communicate readily with people of the host culture, to gain their respect, and to broaden his own repertoire of meaningful responses. (McEvoy, 1968) A successful cross-cultural encounter, which is the objective of many colleges in recruiting culturally distinct students, has the potential for stimulating growth and new knowledge, both on the part of the university staff, and the "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" students in attendance. Perhaps the most salutary generalized effect is the overcoming of a cultural parochialism and the incipient development of catholic perspectives. McEvoy (1968) further outlines three considerations in recruiting participants for cross-cultural experiences which may be applicable to the recruitment and acceptance of culturally distinct students at the college or university level. 1. In the recruitment and selection of participants we must increasingly strive to develop a valid understanding of the experimental nature of programs and of the current suitability of each prospective participant for the specific program needs. 2. In the implementation of programs we must be cognizant of the stressors that affect adjustment and be prepared to 12

deal with these conditions in such a way as to alleviate, or at least minimize, their warping and disruptive effects. Furthermore, we must provide the opportunities and the counsel to assist the participants to encounter effectively the cross-cultural experiences and to grow with it. 3. To achieve these objectives the college must work toward an increasingly effective dialogue with the participants. The college needs to be a partner to their adventure, and not remote policy and decision makers. These three considerations provide a "philosophical" basis for the implementation of student personnel programs designed to meet the needs of culturally distinct students as they attempt to overcome their cultural deprivation and achieve at the college or university level. HIGHER EDUCATION AND THE CULTURALLY DISTINCT Historically, institutions of higher education have served a cluster of students who have demonstrated relatively high achievement prior to their entry into college, possessed the skills necessary to perform adequately on traditional criteria used for college selection, and possessed or had access to the financial support required to achieve their educational goals. Somewhat recently students who have shown high academic promise and also required financial assistance have been recruited and have been provided financial assistance by many colleges throughout the country. However, considerably fewer efforts have been made in higher education to actively recruit and develop programs for youth from disadvantaged backgrounds who have been labeled as "high risk" in relation to traditional selection criteria. And, for some institutions that enroll the high risk student, the extent of their commitment is admission to the college and provision of some form of financial assistance. Archie (1968), however, suggests that the responsibility of higher education to the disadvantaged student goes far beyond recruitment and admission. She comments:...the issue of recruiting minority groups or disadvantaged students may come down to one basic question: does the college's present involvement represent only a passing interest in a popular concern, or is the institution, not simply the admissions office, willing to commit energies and money to long range investment in developing the latent talent in minority group and disadvantaged students -- an investment that truly represents a fundamental change in the pattern of access to higher education. Indeed, Archie raises an extremely critical issue in her reference to total institutional commitment as a necessary element in developing 13

ano implementing programs for students from culturally distinct backgrounds. The inclusion of relatively large numbers of culturally distinct students in the college or university environment would have a vast impact on all phases of university functioning. It follows, therefore, that the entire university community must be prepared to make the transition from educating a rather select body of students to assuming the responsibility for educating and programming for a highly diverse student population. It is becoming quite evident that there are many problems associated with developing and implementing programs for the culturally distinct student. Edgerton (1969) cites some of the typical reasons given in higher education circles for limited or no involvement in enrolling students from and establishing programs for high risk students from culturally distinct backgrounds. He comments:...lack of funds, enrollment pressures, political worries, conflict with institutional mission, fear of lowering institutional standards, lack of faculty support, inflexibility of the institution's system, and priority commitment to regular students. Furthermore, Kendrick and Thomas (1970) have made the following observation concerning compensatory programs for the culturally distinct in higher education: Research on the extensiveness and effectiveness of compensatory programs and practices has been limited in quantity and scope. Yet, even with the paucity of evaluative studies, it is safe to note that evidence points to the conclusion that existing compensatory programs and practices have made little impact in eradicating the problems of disadvantaged college students, nor have the majority of colleges accepted this area as their role. There are many dynamics within a college or university environment which serve as forces for and forces against the creation of a supportive climate for the culturally distinct student, as well as the development of effective programs that are consistent with their needs. In light of these forces, institutions of higher education will be required to examine and re-examine their traditional procedures and practices with respect to recruitment, admission, curriculum development, and student personnel services. In addition, colleges and universities must also be resourceful in coping with the dynamics of "institutional dissonance" which are typically inherent in the process of evaluation and change. 14

Indeed, the influx of students from culturally distinct backgrounds in larger numbers on the higher education scene is presenting administrators, teaching staff, and student personnel workers with a series of challenges for which there are no "magical" or easy solutions. Efforts must persist, however, to meet these challenges creatively and productively, for benefits will accrue not only for the culturally distinct students but for the whole of American society. MOTIVATION, ASPIRATION AND ADJUSTMENT Rosen (1966) has contended that middle class individuals possess a greater desire to achieve than do lower class individuals. The middle class child, it is hypothesized, tends to be more concerned with social mobility and status, and therefore, internalizes these middle class values. In his study, Rosen used 120 white males representing various social strata and administered the Thematic Apperception Test in order to measure the subjects' level of motivation. Achievement motivation was found to be highly correlated with socio-economic status; middle class boys demonstrated greater achievement motivation than lower class boys. Furthermore, higher motivation was related to higher grades in schoo1. Similarly, Drabich (1963) in a study designed to assess the aspirations of Black and white students of vocational agriculture in North Carolina found that Black, male, senior agriculture students did not desire or expect to enter occupations with as great prestige as did white students The same relationship was also found to be in existence regarding the educational plans between the two groups. In addition, Crawford, Peterson, and Wurr (1967) found that American Indian students in their sample reflected lower aspirations than other students sampled. In contrast, a study conducted by Bowerman and Campbell (1965), employed 16,000 high school students in four southern states, covering urban and rural areas. The researchers found that the overwhelming majority of both races indicated an intention to graduate from high school, but fewer than one-half of the Blacks were absolutely sure about carrying out these plans, as contrasted with two thirds of the whites. Furthermore, the Blacks manifested as much desire to attend college as the whites. Therefore, the races were found to have similar 15

educational goals. With reference to occupational aspirations and expectations, both groups sought white colar occupations, but Blacks were more likely to expect blue collar or military jobs. Black females reflected a low interest in being housewives and manifested higher educational desires than Black males. Gottlieb (1964) attempted to assess the perceptions, aspirations and values between deprived and affluent adolescents. Among the findings were the following: at each class level, over 80 percent of the students expressed a desire for college; Black females were more inclined than Black males to state a preference for a college education; a greater proportion of Black students from southern segregated schools indicated a desire to attend college than Black students in northern schools; Blacks expectations in regard to occupational placement were lower than for whites; and Blacks at southern segregated schools tended to match expectations with aspirations more than those in northern schools; Blacks from the south tended to select southern segregated colleges, but Blacks from the north tended to select institutions which were highly selective or whose cost was very high; and Black youth from southern segregated schools were twice as likely as white students and northern Black youth to note grades as the primary criterion for peer popularity in their schools. Littig (1968) explored the possibility that personality has differential effects upon the occupational aspirations of Black college students as a consequence of the social class milieu in which the students live. The subjects were 140 Black male college students from three colleges, two of which were designated as working class and one which was deemed middle class. College social class was based upon the predominance of students from middle or working class backgrounds. A white middle class control group of 20 students was also sampled. The author found that Black students in the middle class college tended to aspire to traditionally open occupations for Blacks; whereas, students from the working class colleges aspired to traditionally closed occupations. The following variables were shown to be associated with aspirations to traditionally closed occupations: (1) the social class milieu of a working class college; (2) strong achievement motivation and power motivation in a working class milieu; and (3) strong affiliation motivation in a middle class social milieu. 16

Henderson (1966) explored the occupational aspirations of two hundred lower class Black youth. Two types of aspirations were identified and defined: ideal and real. The first "expresses what a person would most like to achieve" while the second represents "what he believes that he will in fact achieve." Among the results reported in the study, Henderson found: (1) a noticeable discrepancy between what the lower class Black youth ideally aspired to be and what they actually thought they would be; (2) middle class Black youth projected significantly less difference between real and ideal aspirations; (3) both lower and middle class youth aspired to professional and managerial occupations; (4) eighty-eight percent of the lower class youth who ideally aspired to professional and managerial occupations did not realistically expect to attain them, rather they expected clerical, sales, or semi-skilled occupations; and (5) most middle class youth aspired to professional and managerial positions, and for the most part, expected to attain them. Furthermore, Riccio (1965) designed a study to determine whether migrant adolescents from the Appalachian south whose parents settled in a lower middle class suburb differed significantly from non-Appalachians in the same suburb with respect to level of occupational aspiration, role models, and cultural conformity. The author found no differences between the migrants and the non-migrants on the variables cited above. However, the author did note that the findings did not provide assurance that migrants would not have unique problems in areas other than those reported in the study. There is also evidence that Black parental aspirations regarding their children's educational and vocational achievement is quite high (Katz, 1968; Gordon, 1965). For example, Rosen (1959) studied 427 pairs of mothers and sons from four Northeastern states. Of the Black mothers, 83 percent said that they intended that their sons go to college; however, the data also indicated that these aspirations were not significantly different from those of the other ethnic groups studied. Of the seven ethnic groups investigated, the Black mothers' vocational aspirations for their sons were lower than all but one group. Although there appears to be conflicting evidence with reference to the dynamics of achievement motivation, Katz (1969) has made the following observations; 17

Studies of Negro and white children and their parents generally show only small differences when social class is controlled. Comparing classes, aspirations of high and low income adults and children are consistently reported as high -- most individuals at both income levels desire college attendance and professional or white collar occupations....However, when realistic expectations of achieving the goals are measured stable class differences appear: these more functionally relevant goal levels are lower among low-income students and parents....Thus it seems that the main difference between achievement orientations of the poor and the affluent lies not in the choice of goals but in the expectations of attaining them. In addition to various achievement motives, in the literature on the culturally distint recently, much emphasis has been placed on the dynamics of an individuals subjective evalution of his chances for success and control over a situation in relation to his aspirational and achievement levels. For example, Rotter's (1966) internalexternal control dimensions have been viewed as particularly relevant in this respect. Rotter (1966) describes internal control as the belief by an individual that rewards are controlled or contingent upon one's own behavior. On the other hand, external control represents the belief that rewards are controlled by forces outside of one's self and occur irrespective of one's own actions. In relation to the internal-external dimensions, Rotter (1966) has reported that a person's belief in external control contributes to low levels of expected success; whereas, internal control contributes to higher levels of expected success. Similarly, Strodbeck (1958) found that people who lacked a sense of being able to master a situation had relatively low generalized expectations of success. And Coleman's (1966) data tended to indicate that youth from disadvantaged backgrounds manifested feelings of less control over their own life than their advantaged counterparts. Coleman also indicated that Black students who agreed with a set of items comprising a simple control of their environment had better test scores than whites who disagreed with these items. Using a distinctly different sample, Lefcourt and Ladwig (1965) studied the differences between Black and white prison inmates in their expectancies relative to internal-external control of events. The results indicated that the Black sample revealed a greater expectancy of external control than the white sample. The authors felt that 18

the results had implications for interpreting differences which may appear between Blacks and whites on intelligence test performance and achievement striving. Finally, Battle and Rotter (1963) examined differences between socioeconomic and racial factors of a group of children in relation to their expectancies for internal and external control of reinforcement. The authors found the interaction of social class and ethnic group to be significantly related to internal and external control beliefs. Hence, lower class Blacks were more external than middle class Blacks or whites and middle class children were more internal than lower class chi dren. Thus it would appear from the studies cited above that in relation to the motivation and achievement of the Black student, he will tend to be more externally oriented than his white counterpart. Also, there seems to be evidence that social class and race interact so that lower class Blacks manifest themselves as being highly externally oriented. And finally, the data suggest that internal control as reflected by the student shows a positive relationship with successful achievement. However, as Gurin, et al. (1969) have emphasized the factors of internal and external control have tended to be oversimplified as they relate to the motivation and achievement of disadvantaged populations. The authors offer the following critical analysis:...the meaning of internal control is not as simple as these results imply. Although most writers have presented it as a unitary concept, some have pointed out certain distinctions that might add to its usefulness. For instance, in developing a measure of responsibility for intellectual achievement, the Crandells note that the importance of distinguishing different types of external environment forces (Crandell, et al., 1965). In their view, control by other people should be separated from control by impersonal forces since academic successes and failures may leave little to do with'chance' or'luck' and still be subject to external control through teachers' whims and decisions. The Crandells also urge that responsibility for causing positive events be distinguished from responsibility for negative events since the dynamics operating in assuming credit for causing good things to happen may be very different from those operating in accepting blame for unpleasant consequences. The authors also challenge the assumption that internal control is necessarily always "good." They point out that "when associated with success, an internal orientation can lead to feelings of competence and efficacy. When associated with failure, however, it can lead to self 19

degradation and self-blame." hence, the writers support this contention by indicating that some research has shown a curvilinear relationship between internal and external control and personal adjustment. Therefore, for persons who reflect very high or very low internal or external scores there is also a tendency to manifest less healthy psychological adjustment. Finally, the authors suggest, that for the disadvantaged, an internal orientation based on responsibility for their failures may be more reflective of extrapunitiveness than of efficacy. Most certainly information regarding the dynamics of adjustment of the culturally distinct student to the college environment is an important dimension of building a pupil personnel program for disadvantaged students. The following studies seem characteristic of the nature of research in culturally distinct student adjustment to the college environment and also provide insight into the problems disadvantaged students encounter on college campuses. Hedegard and Brown (1969) studied the characteristics of a group of Black and white freshmen at a major university in the North regarding their expectations of, and their experiences during, their first year in college. The white students comprised a random sample of students drawn from the university's liberal arts college. The sample of Black students was randomly selected from a population of disadvantaged minority students enrolled at the university. A variety of instruments were administered at the onset of the students' freshman year: the College Student Questionnaire (CSQ) Part I, the College and University Environment Scales (CUES), the Omnibus Personality Inventory (OPI), and the Class of 1970 Questionnaire. At the termination of the year the CUES and the Class of 1970 Questionnaire were readministered to random samples of the original groups. Of the number of findings reported in the study, several seem to have particular relevance to this discussion. First, the sample of Black students seemed to manifest more concrete, tangible, and simplistic conceptions of the world than the white sample; however, as the authors noted, the Black students, more often than the whites were encouraged to perceive the world in this manner. Also, the Black students tended to reflect a greater sense of wariness, ambivalence, and distrust toward others than their white counterparts. As indicated by the OPI, the Black students, more than the whites, tended to manifest 20

a desire to keep themselves under tight emotional control. This seemed especially true in relation to control of aggression, sex, and excitement. The authors go on to point out: Although our Negro men were less likely than their white counter parts, and than women generally, to report impulse derivations in this fashion, they did, however, report with greater frequency such experiences as leveling of affect and greater difficulty in lifting depressions. The great degree of self-professed emotional control among our Negro males might indicate the use of rather desperate, broad band defenses against the emotions, defenses which might fail under the multiple stresses inherent in adapting to the university environment, forcing the student to experience a great deal of anxiety, or to rely on even more primitive defenses. Negro women, more often then white women, expressed an easy superficial sociability, a wariness about intense personal contacts, and efforts at strong emotional control; coupled with these characteristics were fear of sexual exploitation and several discrete hints at distrust of, and hostility toward, males. Interestingly, contrary to several studies, the authors found that Black students were less likely than the whites to consider luck as a factor which accounted for the positive and negative events occurring in their lives. Hence, with this sample Hedegard and Brown observed: These latter data, when stretched, suggest that better educated, more achievement oriented Negroes feel that positive and negative events in their own lives are due more to their perseverance, skills, and knowledge than to luck, change, or the intervention of other people. As a result of their experience on campus, both Black and white students placed high priority on academic goals, as opposed to identity, vocational, and social goals. The authors reported that in general the Black students tended to be less satisfied with their year at the university than the white students. Hedegard and Brown indicated that with respect to academic adjustment, the modal Black Students seemed to require more reorientation than the whites. They also emphasize: In addition to making these academic adjustments, students are asked to fit into a complex social environment shaped in large part by various groups of upper-middle-class white students, and by faculty members and administrators. Descriptions which our Negro and white students gave of their lives prior to college, of their experiences, and of the economic conditions under which they were raised, suggest that vast amount of extra-academic readjustment, of coping with unfamiliar and stressful situations, is demanded of the Negro student (and, we must not forget the non-modal white student). 21

Finally, it should be pointed out that the Hedegard and Brown study examined a myriad of characteristics of the Black and white samples, and although several differences were noted above, there was also reflected in the samples many similarities in relation to expectations, goals, and problems of adjustment. Brazziel (1964) conducted research on comparisons between upperSouth Blacks, lower-South Blacks, and a white norm group. The Edwards Personal Preference Schedule was employed to gather data regarding the need structures of the samples. Differences were found between the sexes and between middle and lower-middle income classes, and between ruralurban among the lower-South group of Blacks. As a result of the findings the author concludes: Perhaps the most revealing lesson of these data is that there is more than one South and more than one Negro college student. The findings of the study suggest that Negro students from the upper-South urban areas where caste sanctions are less severe when compared to lower-South students, seem to be motivated by need structures which are more similar to their white liberal arts counterparts...the lower-South Negro college student (is seen) as a deferent, orderly, submissive, intraceptive, persistent person with low needs for heterosexuality and exhibition....While (these) attributes...might, with the exception of submissiveness, seem worthy goals for personal development, their adequacy of fit must be questioned when the need for aggression for this group was comparable to white students while the need to defer was high and to dominate and have autonomy low.... Regardless of social class, one of the more difficult lessons that the Negro adolescent must learn is to suppress his aggressions and to erect a facade of contentment with the status quo of the caste system. Poussiant and Atkinson (1968) seem to allude to this situation when they suggest that racism in American society rewards the Black who is docile, non-assertive, incompetent, and irresponsible. They further contend that the Black who has been "systematically suppressed" is the Black who is aggressive, competent, achieving and adequate. It would seem that such an argument could also be applied to other minority group populations within the United States. Styles (1969) investigated comparisons of initial college adjustment problems and changes in adjustment experienced after two quarters of college matriculation among Black students on a predominantly Black campus and a predominantly white campus. Regular admission and highrisk students were matched on the basis of placement tests, socioeconomic levels, high school GPA, and financial aids in both universities 22

sampled. The pre-test and post-test dependent variables included self concept, personality characteristics, and vocational aspirations, and academic performance. The independent variables included sex, university and academic admission status. The author found that Black students who attended the predominantly Black university were generally higher in their adjustment to the college environment than Blacks who attended the predominantly white university. However, students at the white university were more internally controlled than their counterparts at the Black university. In areas of personal, social and school adjustment the Black students at the predominantly white university were lower on pre-test measures. All groups dropped in these areas of adjustment after two quarters of college, but the losses were significantly greater for students at the predominantly white university. Finally, females on both campuses were lower in their adjustment. However, females at the white university manifested the lowest adjustment. In summary, the motivations, aspirations and adjustment patterns of the culturally distinct students have received considerable attention in the literature. The descriptions of the culturally distinct student are often discussed in terms of characteristics such as awkwardness, defensiveness, hostility, aggressiveness, lack of self discipline, unrealistically high educational-vocational aspirations, and low self esteem. It has also been observed that for persons who have grown up in a culture of poverty there is a tendency to blame outside forces for negative events which occur in their lives. There is considered to be a positive relationship between this dynamic and lower achievement. There also is some evidence which suggests that when culturally distinct students enter "culturally different" colleges or universities, problems of adjustment intensi fy. The observations cited above tend to exemplify a prevailing focus relative to research on the characteristics of culturally distinct populations. Primarily, the thrust of these research investigations emphasizes differences between so-called "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" populations, and they usually discuss differences in relation to a deficits model. This is not to imply that differences do not exist between the culturally distinct and more "advantaged" groups or that these differences have no educational implications; however, to continue to reinforce the negative aspects of these dissimilarities can only 23

serve to retard effective and creative problem solving behavior by researchers and educators. ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Factors which contribute to academic success or failure are highly complex. Although simplified, it seems possible to conceptualize the dynamics of achievement in terms of the characteristics of the individual and his environmental habitat, the characteristics of the learning environment, and the interaction effects between these dimensions. It appears that certain assumptions have been generated regarding these factors and that they have influenced educational procedures and practices. However, as a result of the influx of culturally distinct students on college campuses across the nation, educators have been forced to reexamine their previously held notions concerning the characteristics of individuals who can achieve at the college level and the nature of the environment which best facilitates the learning process. Clearly, reconceptualization has not been easy owing to the paucity of experimental data available concerning the achievement of the culturally distinct in higher education —this seems especially true in terms of longitudinal research; however, the studies which follow provide examples of the kinds of research investigations which have been undertaken in this area. Green and Farquar (1965) studied the relationship of personality and cognitive factors with academic achievement for Black and white students. The sample for the study consisted of 233 Black and 515 white students. The subjects were tested on measures of verbal aptitude, academic motivation, and academic achievement. The authors indicated that one of the most important findings was the lack of correlation between aptitude and achievement for Black males (-.01); however, in the case of white males a correlation of.64 was indicated between their aptitude scores and achievement. The authors noted that self concept and motivation were more important predictors of Black male academic success than verbal aptitude instruments. Brazziel (1964) explored the needs and value structures of low socioeconomic college students and the relationship of these structures to academic achievement. A total of 100 Black upperclassmen randomly selected from the student body of an urban Black college were administered the Allport Lindsey Scale of Values and the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule. In general, the results showed that needs and 24

values of this sample differed in many ways from middle income groups, but the patterns of relationships of needs and values to academic achievement were not significantly high. More specifically, the sample scored lower than the norm on economic and aesthetic values, but higher on religious and social values. Needs for dominance, autonomy, achievement, and heterosexuality were significantly lower than the norm, while the need for deference was higher. The City College of San Francisco (1968), conducted a study of the Black students on campus which was designed to ascertain their academic characteristics, ways in which they differed from the general student population of the college, and types of programs that might be developed to meet their special needs. Records of 285 Black students were selected at random for purposes of analysis. Although there was some overlap, the mean performance of the Black students on entrance tests was lower than that of the general student population. It was also noted that greater proportions of Black students were subject to enrollment in required courses in English and arithmetic than was true of the college population as a whole. Of the Black students, 60 percent were not achieving the expected C average, although their overall grade point average was C minus. The investigators concluded that for the group of students represented by the sample, special programs for the improvement of basic academic skills were more pressing than for the general student population. Similarly, the College Readiness Program at the College of San Mateo, California, was designed to integrate minority youth into the college and the community. In relation to the program, the investigator (Pearce, 1968) reports the following observations: (1) 95 percent of the participants were Blacks; (2) although 40 percent had not chosen a major, academic or transfer goals accounted for 90 percent of the majors named by the students; (3) scores on entrance examinations were not valid predictors of grades for these students; (4) there was little difference between the students' high school and college grades, which were usually in the range of C or D; (5) 40 percent of the participants would have qualified for academic probation if the college had such a status; (6) students' grades in the summer prior to their first regular session were higher than in the subsequent regular terms; and (7) achievement in English classes was lower than that of the student body as a whole. 25

In studying Black college freshmen in a predominantly non-Black university, Harris and Reitzel (1967) found that the Black freshmen presented lower SAT/M scores than the average for the university and obtained lower than average freshman GPA's, although they presented higher than average high school ranks. The data were interpreted to indicate either that the pre-college education of these students was less than adequate than that of the total freshman class or that grading standards in the high schools from which the students came were more lenient. It was further noted that the prediction of grade point averages among the Black students was facilitated through a regression equation that included both high school rank and the SAT scores of the Black students as a group, rather than as undifferentiated members of the freshman class. Grier (1963) conducted a study in which he followed 46 Black graduates from an urban high school to see how many graduated from college after five years. The subjects were males, 32 having entered college immediately upon graduation from high school. After five years, the author found that only seven of the subjects had graduated from college. The author noted that one of the primary reasons for the high drop-out rate was "floundering," urging the students to enter college although they had little or no information regarding their educational-vocational objectives. Kiernan and Daniels (1967) conducted a study on 23 Black students of lower socioeconomic level who were between the ages of 18 and 24 and had used the services of the counseling office in a community college. Admission test scores and psychiatric diagnoses for the group were the same as similar measures for the general student body; however, the percentage of failures and dropouts for the Black students was extremely high. Seven of the 23 graduated, 12 dropped out for failure to maintain academic standards, and four withdrew voluntarily. The authors observed that in contrast to other groups, the grip of lower-class cultural attitudes seemed a determinant of failure to complete college. It was also reported that among the group there was much bitterness, anxiety, self-hatred, and rejection of both the former (lower-class) group and the group to which they aspired (middle-class). The authors suggested that these reactions were due to value conflict as a result of the attempted transition between lower-classness and middle-classness. 26

In contrast to a number of the studies cited above, Bradfield (1967) examined the effects of an impoverished background on the college adjustment and performance of low-income freshmen males. Thirty-six entering freshmen males from lower income groups were matched on ACT scores and college attendance with 36 controls. A battery of tests relative to personal characteristics deemed important to college adjustment, success, and level of aspiration were administered to both groups at the beginning and the termination of their first semester of college. The author found that the low-income group manifested personal characteristics similar to those which have appeared in studies of college drop-outs. Nevertheless, the low-income group demonstrated as good or better academic achievement and possessed levels of aspiration equal to the control group at the completion of the first semester in college. In addition, Lunneborg (1970) reported an investigation in which a group of 46 males and 32 females who entered the University of Washington in the fall of 1968 as part of a special minority group program were compared to a matched group of 49 males and 34 females. Although the minority group students were admitted to the university through regular admission procedures, their performance on the Washington PreCollege (WPC) test battery indicated they were high risk students. After three semesters the scholastic performance of the treatment and control groups was compared. Those in the special minority program did far better than their WPC scores had predicted, while the matched group did as expected. The author indicated, however, that the achievement of the minority group students covered a wide range and suggested that the effects of the program may have been highly variable with regard to individual students. Stordahl (1969) reported a study which was designed to assess the effects of a special program for poor college risk students relative to their academic performance and persistence in college. The eight week program consisted of classes of limited enrollment, in which individual and special group assistance with academic work was stressed. In addition, students were encouraged to participate in both individual and small group counseling. The treatment sample (n=91) consisted of students who had enrolled in the special programs over a period of two summers and were ranked in the lower third of their graduating class in reference 27

to achievement. A comparable sample (n=91) of student who also graduated from the lower third of their graduating class and were admitted to the university on probation during the regular term, served as the control group. The results indicated that the treatment sample was able to attain a relatively high mean record of achievement during the summer session; however, at the termination of their first term of college, no significant differences were noted between the achievement levels of the treatment and control groups. The author noted, then, that there appeared to be no persistent effects of the program on the students beyond what occurred during the summer sessions. Also, the author found no significant differences in the extent to which the treatment and control groups persisted, although a significant number of students from both groups were making satisfactory progress toward their degrees. Regarding the results of the study, Stordahl suggests it is not surprising that only eight weeks of a special academic program which is "only moderately different from that provided during the regular college semester" could not produce the desired treatment effects. He points out that there was no supportive follow-up for the treatment group; therefore, it is suggested that such a procedure could possibly enhance the success of students. The author also urges that:...a program in which there was an attempt to adapt teaching strategies, time to learn, and counseling services to more specifically meet individual needs over a longer period of time, perhaps a year or even throughout the student's college experience, would prove more viable. At the present time it is difficult to make any sound judgments concerning the achievement of students from culturally distinct backgrounds in higher education; this seems especially true with reference to the "high risk" student. There are data, however, which indicate that the level of achievement attained by many culturally distinct students exceeds the predicted level of achievement based on performance in high school and scores on standardized test batteries. Furthermore, even though the achievement level of the culturally distinct student tends to be skewed toward the lower end of the grade range, there is evidence which suggests that the academic mortality rate of the students is no higher than for the general student population. However, it remains unclear as to what combination of factors in their individual and in the educational environment contribute to the academic success or failure of the culturally distinct student. 28

STANDARDIZED TESTS AND PREDICTION The research literature tends to reflect a rather high degree of inconsistency regarding the use of standardized tests and test prediction among students from disadvantaged populations. For example, Klienberg (1963) writes: The history of the mental testing of ethnic or'rural' groups may almost be described as a progressive disillusionment with tests as measures of native ability, and a gradually increasing realization of the many complex environmental factors which enter into the results. It is not surprising to learn that intelligence test scores or scholastic aptitude test scores of individuals whose educational, social and cultural backgrounds have been depressed are, on the average lower than individuals from middle class backgrounds. Furthermore, these differences tend to become greater as students progress through the educational spectrum (Coleman, 1966). Indeed, one of the assumptions underlying certain areas of testing is that all students have had equal exposure to opportunities for basic learning. Such an assumption would not seem to hold for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Kvaraceus (1965) has set forth three conditions that must exist before standardized measures can be properly used: 1. Each child must have equal motivation; 2. Each child must have had the same opportunity to learn as the normative group; and, 3. Each child must be equally experienced in taking tests. According to a number of writers such conditions are not fully met by students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is concluded by many of these writers that test performance is not a valid criterion from which to assess various abilities and aptitudes. Asbury (1968) as a result of an investigation of the literature relating to the performance of culturally distinct groups on standardized tests, cited a number of significant trends. The author sought to determine the influence of three groups of factors on the performance of the culturally distinct on standardized tests of achievement and intelligence. The three groups of factors were: cultural, motivational and limitations or differences in cognitive development. It was concluded that: (1) no single factor could be isolated as a cause of low test performance; (2) verbal facility and perceptual ability are two of the most important factors of the cognitive domain reflected 29

in test performance; (3) intellectual development varies with the richness, variety and complexity of the environment over relatively extended periods of time; (4) low test scores are often a reflection of a negative self concept and low motivation; (5) the work of the school and the practical intellect of the disadvantaged often operate as contradictory forces; and (6) assessment instruments used with the disadvantaged often only possess minimal validity and reliability. Other factors have been suggested regarding the low test performance of culturally distinct pupils. These include anxiety induced by the testing situation, unfairness of the test content, and improper interpretation of the test scores. It has been posed that persons from disadvantaged backgrounds may score poorly on tests partly because of the anxiety brought about by their lack of familiarity with the testing situation. Furthermore, anxiety may be most readily induced when tests are administered by persons representing more advantaged backgrounds (Baratz, 1967; Katz, Heneby and Allen, 1968). Some critics of testing suggest that existing intelligence and aptitude batteries are "middle-class" oriented which makes them unfair to disadvantaged students. Hence, it has been argued by some that "culture free" tests be employed as a means of assessment of the capabilities of disadvantaged students. Quite naturally, there is much discussion regarding the "culture free" aptitude testing. As indicated by Green, et al. (1967):...intelligence tests, influenced to an extent by the presence or absence of verbal training, are also influenced by training and acculturation in general. Neither the intelligence tests nor the children who take them are ever'culture free.' Whiteley (1967) has identified three principle difficulties regarding the use of standardized tests with culturally distinct minority groups: (1) they may not provide reliable differentiation in the range of the minority group scores; (2) their predictive validity for minority groups may be quite different from that of the standardization and validation groups; and (3) the validity of their interpretation is strongly dependent upon the social and cultural background of the group in question. The issue of testing and prediction from standardized tests becomes particularly complex in the realm of the admission of culturally distinct 30

students to college. This represents a source of heated debate when colleges have their decisions for accepting or rejecting disadvantaged applicants on the basis of standardized aptitude tests —or place the results of such scores among the major criteria for admission. Some research has reported that many individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds will achieve higher grades than predicted if given an opportunity. For example, Clark and Plotkin (1963) followed a group of Black students from southern segregated high schools through their studies at northern interracial colleges. Although the College Board Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores of the Black students were significantly lower than those of the white sample, the performance of the Blacks was equal to and for some superior to the whites. Clark and Plotkin found that the SAT scores either failed to predict the Black students academic performance at integrated colleges or underestimated their performance as compared to the white students. Similarly, Bradley (1967) gathered data on 929 Black undergraduates who entered seven institutions of higher education in Tennessee between 1963 and 1965. Among the conclusions reached by the authors was that standardized measures were not particularly successful in predicting college achievement for the sample studied. Also, in a study conducted at a large midwestern university, it was found that a positive relationship existed between SAT scores and achievement for culturally distinct females; however, for the disadvantaged males, no meaningful relationship existed (Miller and O'Connor, 1969). Sampel (1969) conducted a study to determine whether the Cooperative School and College Ability Test (SCAT) could predict future college success of Black college students with the same degree of accuracy as for white college students. He also examined whether the dimension of sex had any influence on the accuracy of prediction. The sample consisted of 180 Blacks matched with whites on the basis of sex, college major, and year in school. A correlating coefficient was computed between SCAT total score and cumulative grade point average (GPA) and between the high school rank and GPA. The Black means were significantly lower than white means for each variable except high school rank. For the Black female group, coefficients were generated that are normally expected with college GPA. No correlations were in evidence in the Black male group. Therefore, it was concluded by the author that sex is an 31

important variable when making predictions regarding academic success for Black college students. Furthermore, it was concluded that the SCAT total does exhibit "cultural bias" and that it is inappropriate to make academic decisions concerning the Black male on the basis of SCAT total score. Finally, Spuck and Stout (1969) examined the prediction of college success in a group of primarily low socioeconomic status MexicanAmerican youth. A total of 32 college freshmen participated in the study, most of whom were poor and had below average academic averages as reflected by their high school grade point averages. Selected sets of cognitive and personality measures were used as predictor variables: the cognitive or ability set consisted of high school grade point average, School and College Ability Test, Cattell Culture Fair I.Q. Test, and the California Test of Mental Maturity; the personality set consisted of four variables from the Omnibus Personality Inventory: estheticism, complexity, autonomy, and religious orientation. The concept of "college success" was defined as college grade point average (first term), student ratings by professors, and student self ratings. With regard to the results of the study the authors arrived at the following conclusions: This study indicated that cognitive measures, such as those used in the ability cluster reported here, are highly questionable predictors of future college success in minority populations. On the other hand, non-intellective measures, such as the personality measures used here, may be useful as predictors in minority populations and further emphasize the need for futher research in this area. It is interesting to note that in reference to research on nonintellective predictors of academic achievement, Kendrick and Thomas (1970) report that "correlates of college success for college aspirants in general and the disadvantaged student in particular have been discouraging." The authors cite a number of studies which have been conducted in this area and indicate that the predictability of the nonintellective factors tend to vary with the nature of the students sampled, which in turn reduces the generalizability of these indices. Although there are a number of studies which tend to cast doubt upon the efficacy of certain typically used standardized test batteries for predicting academic achievement of culturally distinct students, other studies have shown that standardized tests are accurate predictors 32

of student performance. Stanley and Porter (1967) studied the SAT scores of Black students at predominantly Black colleges and concluded that accuracy of prediction held for these students to the same degree as for white students attending predominantly white colleges. Boney (1966) studied the efficiency of customary aptitude and mental ability measures as predictors of high school grade point average for Black students in the secondary school. The sample consisted of 118 Black males and 104 Black females. The Differential Aptitude Test, Cooperative School Ability Test, McGuires Index of Social Status, Sequential Tests of Educational Progress, and the California Test of Mental Maturity were administered to the sample. Among the findings the author noted that for the males, junior high school GPA, STEP social studies, DAT abstract reasoning, and DAT verbal reasoning and numerical ability combined to produce a multiple correlation coefficient of.80 with high school GPA. Whereas, with the females, junior high school GPA, STEP science, CTMM non-language and language I.Q. combined to produce a multiple correlation coefficient of.82 with high school GPA. The author noted that a significant finding of the study was the degree to which the instruments consistently yielded substantial correlations with grade point average. Cleary (1968), in an exceptionally well designed study, explored the relationship between college grades and Scholastic Aptitudes Scores for Black and white students in integrated colleges. High school rankin-class and college curriculum were also selected for analysis. The sample consisted of Black students and white students from three state supported institutions. Correlations were computed between the pairs of variables available for each group within a school. To determine whether the regressions of grades of SAT scores and high school rank were different for the groups of students within each of the three schools, regression tests of the analysis of covariance were used. The author concluded that in the three colleges studied there was little evidence that the SAT was biased as a predictor of college grades between Black and white students. Similar findings have also been reported by Cleary and Hilton, 1966; and Stanley, Braggio, and Porter, 1966. In summary, it remains unclear whether standardized tests carry the same behavioral predictions for the culturally distinct as they do for more advantaged groups. The notion that test scores have different 33

meanings for different subgroups requires more research evidence in order to make valid and reliable generalizations. Furthermore, existing evidence is inadequate regarding whether aptitude tests actually discriminate unfairly because of their different validities from one subgroup to another. Lacking such research data, it is impossible to assess the behavioral implications regarding how and whether predictions from standardized test scores should be used and interpreted differently for advantaged and culturally distinct groups. This seems especially true in relation to admission procedures, for at the present time many colleges and universities continue to place great emphasis on standardized test results as a criterion of admission for the culturally distinct. PROGRAMS FOR THE CULTURALLY DISTINCT The personnel staff, administrators, counselors, deans, admissions officers, placement and financial aid advisors, foreign student advisors, and the rest exist because so many students in the college need assistance. The basic goal of all personnel specialities at the higher education level is similar. The aim is to help individuals function more effectively as judged by themselves and the society in which they live. Thus, the student personnel program is not an end in itself but a means to an end. The justification for centering the responsibility for culturally distinct youth on the student personnel worker is based on the assumption that personnel areas such as housing, counseling, job placement, activities, and financial aids all have a direct bearing on the performance of students. What kinds of compensatory programs have been developed and are in practice in higher education? Gordon (1966) surveyed the nation's colleges and universities in an attempt to discover the extent and content of programs for disadvantaged youths. While the response to his questionnaire was disappointingly low, the 29% response was representative of all colleges and universities on several bases of comparison, national regions, types of institution (private, public, state, and city) and highest level of offerings categories. Gordon (1966) states: Of the 610 institutions, 224 (37 percent) reported that they were conducting a variety of compensatory practices - special recruiting and admissions procedures, financial aid, precollege preparatory courses, remedial courses in college, special curriculums, counseling, tutoring, and other practices; and 34

386 of the institutions (63) reported that they were not conducting any compensatory practices. One must keep in mind that the regular programs of most junior and community colleges are inherently compensatory; but they are not special programs addressed specifically to what is normally termed as socially disadvantaged youth. Sixteen of the colleges and universities reporting in this sample had compensatory programs exclusively or predominantly for Black youths. Finally, several of the colleges and universities reporting programs of compensatory education identified their programs as general practices providing assistance for small numbers of disadvantaged youths as individuals. These practices may be properly termed as compensatory, but they are not special. Gordon (1966) further distinguishes between compensatory programs and practices. The practices reported by the institutions in this sample were predominantly aimed at helping students after entering college. Sixty-two percent of the practices were accounted for by counseling, credit and noncredit remedial courses, instruction in study skills, tutoring, special curriculums, and lengthened time for completing degree requirements. Practices addressed to helping disadvantaged students enter college - financial aids, modified admissions criteria, preparatory courses, and recruiting procedures - were represented by a little over one-third (38%) of the frequencies noted. The general purposes of these compensatory educational programs are apparent from the above mentioned practices. Practically all of the institutions reporting compensatory practices included statements about their specific objectives, most of which were really statements of general aims. They tended to cluster around several themes. The most prevalent being the humanitarian aim of helping young people from culturally distinct social environments - especially those with talent - to develop their potential through higher education. Stated almost as frequently was the related aim of assisting these students to overcome academic deficiencies presumably resulting from poverty, discrimination and inferior schooling. A number of institutions stated research objectives and for the most part they reflect surveys or experimental investigations of the effectiveness of compensatory educational programs. Rare but notable were those institutions which stated their objectives as those of achieving a diversified student 35

body to benefit the institution by having students representing diverse cultural and subcultural experiences, values, and so forth. Among the compensatory programs reported were notable efforts in upward bound types of programs offering remedial courses and study skill courses during the summers in the attempt to better equip students from culturally deprived areas for college admission. The major emphasis in these compensatory programs has been to help those students from deprived areas who are qualified for higher education gain admission and remain in college. This is one of the reasons why there has been an emphasis upon financial aids and remedial types of work. There has been very little done among colleges in accepting and working with the so called "risk'' student (those who for some reason or other do not have the requirements normally expected by the colleges and universities but who by the recommendations of their schools and teachers appear to have the motivation to proceed in some sort of higher education). The major generalizations warranted by the data collected by Gordon (1966) are: That a substantial number of institutions of higher education are attempting through a variety of approaches to help socially disadvantaged young people who could not otherwise do so to enter and succeed in college. Further, such efforts have grown markedly in extent and intensity during the past two or three years. It is important to note, however, that proportionately very few of the nation's colleges and universities have thus far begun to develop compensatory programs and practices; and most of those that have are serving very small numbers of disadvantaged students. Godard (1969) points out that historically a number of colledges and universities have accepted a number of students who did not meet the standard criteria for admission. Furthermore, many of these institutions have also provided remedial or compensatory practices designed to enhance the student's academic proficiency. Godard adds, however, "But the special needs of culturally distinct groups, and particularly Black students being admitted to predominantly white institutions, involve such dimensions as alienation and search for identity...." Godard suggests that if colleges and universities open their doors to disadvantaged students, then they must assume responsibility for the following areas: 36

1. Recruiting: New student recruiting procedures —at least one new staff member who will know how to communicate with potential candidates, with high school counselors and Upward Bound staff, and with community people who may provide information on motivation and aspiration factors. 2. Counseling: The services provided for culturally distinct students must cover a broader spectrum than those normally provided, as these students often have not had the advantage of family or neighborhood counseling suited to the type of planning they must now do or to the kind of problems they must now face of personal identification in a new social milieu. 3. Instruction: The traditional patterns of courses in reading and basic tool subjects alone will not meet the requirements for compensatory learning. To some extent these learning experiences must be provided through instructional methods included in regular courses, which will necessitate special training for some faculty members. Much experimentation and research are still needed in this field. 4. Courses of study: The inclusion of material in the field of black culture becomes very important, particularly in relation to the identity growth of black students. In addition, the planning of majors appropriate to the aspirations of these students must be reviewed. In other words, the curriculum must be examined in terms of its relevance to the changes in the student body. 5. Campus ethos: When a college takes steps to diversify the composition of its student body in terms of socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, there should be a clear awareness that changes will occur in the campus ethos and in community life. Many tragic events and destructive polarizations may be prevented, or at least alleviated, by thoughtful advance planning. To lay a base for such planning, student and faculty leaders should participate both in the decision making to alter the admissions practices and in the formulation of new educational and social resources on campus to meet the needs of the modified student body. One might hope that assistance might be secured from the faculty in the behavioral sciences and from the professional staff in the student personnel services, but the final responsibility involves the total resources of the campus. 6. Fiscal responsibility: The previous discussion should make it obvious that the new policies concerning recruitment and admission must be undergirded by budgetary appropriations to support the new dimensions of educational programs and of other campus resources which will be required. Fortunately, there have been enough institutional ventures into this field to provide fiscal data appropriate to program requirements. Most certainly, in the educational setting the characteristics of the disadvantaged student most readily understood pertain to scholastic deficits. The nature of the remedial and compensatory programs which exist in a vast number of colleges and universities reflect this factor. 37

Personnel in higher education will be incredibly short-sighted, however, if they continue to perceive remediation and support for the culturally distinct only in terms of academic achievement. Therefore, one of the fundamental challenges facing the college and university community, and student personnel workers in particular, is the design and implementation of programs and practices for the disadvantaged student which create an environment which is psycho-socially conducive to maximizing the human potential of the total person. SERVICES FOR CULTURALLY DISTINCT STUDENTS University of California at San Diego On November 23, 1970, Willie Smith, Dean of Student Affairs; Anthony Valencia, Director, Economic Opportunity Program; George Burchill, Director, Career Education Planning Center (CEPC); Richard P. Whitehall, CEPC; and Lance Beizer, Selective Service Counselor, all located at University of California, San Diego, were interviewed regarding its programs and services for culturally distinct students. Based on the meetings and materials provided, the following is intended to describe some of the unique aspects of the UCSD program. The San Diego campus of the University of California is six years old and presently hs a student body of approximately 5,400. Three hundred eighty-one students are currently enrolled on the Economic Opportunity Program (EOP) and it is projected that 380 additional students will be admitted for the fall term 1971. One of the unique features of the UCSD program is the multiple ethnic and racial makeup of the student body. UCSD is in a position to serve a significant number of Chicano and American Indian students as well as Blacks and poor whites. Their program designs take into account the many distinct domestic cultural groups that it can potentially assist. According to its promotional literature: The purpose of the educational opportunity program is to enroll in UCSD, able people from minority and low income backgrounds, finance their education when need exists, and make available academic support (in the form of tutoring and special faculty advising) to help insure their success as college students. With this purpose in mind, the EOP can be divided conveniently into two phases. The first is concerned with attracting, selecting, and admitting students who qualify for the program. It is now possible under the University of California system for a given campus to admit four percent 38

of its student body which ordinarily would not meet conventional admissions criteria. At most of the campuses, two percent is used for athletes and others of particular interest to the school, the other two percent being reserved for high risk students from minority and low-income backgrounds. At UCSD, because of its newness and lack of involvement in athletics and similar programs, it is able to use almost all of its available places within the four percent category for EOP students. The second phase of the UCSD system of service for EOP students may be classified as "supportive services." These services may be further broken into two parts. The first related to the specific tutoring and counseling available through the EOP office, and the second dealing with the services which may be obtained from established university offices and agencies. Valencia indicated that the Economic Opportunity Program places a great deal of emphasis on communication, both within the university community, the community supporting the college, and the different racial and ethnic groups represented in the program itself. Through the new EOP tutorial program, initiated in the fall of 1970, a great deal of emphasis is placed on peer counseling. Each new student is assigned to a tutorial aide who also is an undergraduate in the program. The tutorial aides follow-up on their clients through personal contact beginning with orientation. They help EOP students find jobs or tutorial assistance and serve as advocates for their students with the faculty, tutors, and administration. In addition, a tutorial aide may conduct small group sessions. Also, he can provide tutorial service he may need, when to accept a tutor, and how to use a tutor effectively. He also provides information about the university and student life, and aids in the development of workable study habits. The student has certain responsibilities in the program also. In order to receive the maximum benifits from tutorial assistance they are expected to meet the following criteria: 1. A student should feel a commitment to do the work, to seek and accept help. 2. The student should have sufficient background in the subject (as determined by the tutor) so that the student will not be playing a fruitless catch-up game. 39

3. The student should have the minimum learning abilities. Should the student not be functioning well with the help of the tutorial program, the aide may work with outside services such as a professor, a counseling agency, or make appropriate referrals. The following chart, taken from page 19 of the unpublished EOP tutorial program proposal, August, 1970, indicates the channels through which a student may go to receive tutorial or other supportive services. Student T.C. make personal visit Assign and meet Other supportive tutors services Meet T.C. Meet EOP Directors or Recruiters The goal of the tutorial program is to help make it possible for the students to survive academically at UCSD. Emphasis is placed on learning skills and the process of learning itself. The following, again taken from the August, 1970, description of the EOP tutorial program, pages 5 and 6, describes the approach taken to assist students from culturally different backgrounds to learn in the predominantly white insti tution. Due to the distinction between "white" and "minority" learning, minority students find it extremely difficult when they cone to an institution which demands the expertise of white logic and learning. Each of the minority students has his native intelligence which is sufficient for him to survive in his own community, but when placed into a different culture, his learning process is at best insufficient. For example, white society demands that persons be able to place things into categories and then logically deduce a generalization. An average minority student is unable to do this. Instead, he tends to see the relationships between objects rather than categorizing them. The tutorial concept cannot pass judgment as to which learning process, "white" or "minority," is better, but will attempt to give 40

minority students the skills necessary to become bilingual in the following ways: 1. Have a student understand the material in his own terms, that is, keep his originality of thought. 2. Translate his knowledge into executive English. 3. Expand executive English into sophisticated University language. Valencia stated that one of the purposes of his office is to help develop good inter-ethnic relationships. "The'Only my own can help me idea' is out." Valencia hopes to achieve a feeling of cross-cultural universiality on the campus. The only feedback on the current program is informal, based on interviews with students, but indications are that the program is working quite well, due in no small part to the use of peers as recruiters and as tutorial aides. No ongoing systematic evaluation has begun. Developing the peer counseling approach further, existing campus agencies such as CEPC and selective service are working with student aides from the EOP program to encourage students to make timely and appropriate use of the services of the career center and the selective service counselor. In addition, Whitehall is working with the schools and colleges within the University to develop learning skills programs open to all students and based on an information organization model. Smith described a special problem in funding the UCSD program because of a seeming change of emphasis among funding agencies which will provide for particular minority groups rather than all disadvantaged students. The UCSD program is a comprehensive one providing an education for students from many backgrounds. It is most difficult, therefore, to separate dollars for Blacks from dollars for Chicanos. For a school in an area serving one predominate group, this may not present a problem, but for schools attempting to serve a variety of ethnic and racial groups in a coordinated fashion, funding directed at specific racial or ethnic groups without equal regard for others can pose serious difficulties for the campuses involved. College of San Mateo The College of San Mateo, California (Lopate,1969) instituted the College Readiness Program (CRP) in 1966. At the onset of the program, students were recruited from the street corners, pool halls, high 41

schools or any other habitat in which prospects might be located. Out of 150 interviews, 39 persons agreed to attend the college. The qualifications for entry into the College Recovery Program were indeed unique: the candidate had to (1) be a person of color; (2) be poor; (3) have a high school academic average of below C; (4) low test scores; and (5) indicate in his initial interview that he did not desire to attend college. The purpose of applying these qualifications was to provide an opportunity to students for higher education who are considered extremely high risks in relation to traditional college admission criteria, and even to admission criteria for most compensatory programs. One of the fundamental premises on which the program was based focused on the belief that the success of the students was dependent upon intensive personal relationships and fostering an environment which was accepting of their life styles. Hence, it was perceived that one means by which these goals could be established was through the development of a special meeting place for the Program participants. There were several purposes for the Center: (1) afford an opportunity for students to have a rest and relaxation area on the campus which could be identified as their own; (2) provide an environment in which students were encouraged to work through areas of dissatisfaction regarding teachers, administrators, or other officials; (3) provide a forum for political discussion; and (4) "in general work out their hostilities against the white world." Participants in the College Readiness Program had control over most phases of the program. This included recruitment, student and faculty selection, retention, tutoring, counseling and program policy-making. The area in which the students did not have control centered around the system of class and tutoring which the students had to follow for one semester or until they had maintained a C average in their coursework. Other elements of the program are described as follows: Each student was given a tutor; there were two students per tutor. This ratio changed only once, during the second summer of the program when the ratio was one-to-one. Beginning the second year, tutors were divided into groups under the direction of tutor supervisors, who in turn were responsible to counselors. Counselors assisted students in program planning, budgeting, and any of the many other problems which they might encounter. During the first summer a large proportion of the tutors and counselors were white activist students from 42

the College of San Mateo, but this changed in successive semesters as CRP black and brown students moved up Into these positions. The program schedule for each day was: one and one-half hours of academic coursework in the social sciences and English, one hour of counseling, one hour lunch break, three hours of work study during the afternoon, one hour dinner break, and in the evening, three hours of tutoring. In order to assist students in transportation to and from the College, the organizers of the program chartered a bus to pick up the CRP students who lived in the East Palo Alto and surrounding neighborhoods. For the first week of the summer 1966, program's existence, whenever a student had been negligent about meeting the bus in the morning, tutors went out in cars and picked them up. Once enrolled students realized they would end up at the college in any case, they made the buses and attendance was excellent throughout the summer. Prior to the initial summer session, tutors and counselors were provided four days of in-service training which focused on skill development in tutoring and assisted in developing a sensitivity regarding the cultures of the students whom they would encounter. Also, the tutors met for four hours a day during the week and for a full day on the weekend during the course of the entire summer program. The training was extensive and a great deal of effort was also expended in insuring that the tutors knew and trusted each other and solidified as a group. Thus, cohesiveness was reinforced at all levels in the College Readiness Program. With reference to the initial summer program, of the 39 students who began their studies, 36 completed the summer project. In the following fall semester 34 students from the original group returned to campus as regular students, although they remained as participants of the College Readiness Program. The program reflected significant growth. By the fall semester of 1968, 400 students were directly associated with the program, whereas 298 were indirectly associated. These figures include 395 students, 277 tutors, and 26 tutor supervisors. Merced College Merced College, (Berg and Axtell, 1968) Merced, California, is a small institution with an enrollment of approximately 3,000 students. It is estimated that roughly 11 to 20 percent of the students are dis 43

advantaged. From monies received through NDEA funds, the college has established a position for a counselor who spends "up to 2/3 of his time in feeder high schools and in the community encouraging disadvantaged students to enroll in the junior college." These monies are also used to provide opportunities for high school counselors to come to campus for orientation and informational meetings. An outreach project has been instituted whereby a community worker is involved in an area of the community which is inhabited primarily by Mexican-Americans of poverty or near-poverty levels. The community worker's function is to make extensive home visits for the purpose of fostering positive adult attitudes toward education. Southern Illinois University Egerton (1968), in his well publicized report on programs for disadvantaged students in higher education, has described the Experiment in Higher Education Program at Southern Illinois University. This program was initiated in 1966, for the purpose of developing the academic potential and skills of 100 low-income, underachieving students in order to enhance their chances of successfully completing four years of college. The Experiment in Higher Education Program is designed to fund four quarters a year for two calendar years, with the end product being students who are capable of competing at the junior level, on the main campus of SIU or other institutions of higher education. The program designers implemented a restructured curricular format, instituted a work-study program, used the resources of teacher-counselors who were viewed as "successful products" of the ghetto, and employed the services of faculty members from SIU on a part-time basis. At the onset of the program, students were recruited by way of an outreach approach —newspaper and radio advertising; circulating in bars, pool halls, and the "street-corners;" and reaching the high school records of graduating seniors in the East St. Louis area. There were three admission requirements: (1) the student was a high school graduate; (2) would take the ACT; and (3) fill out an application form. Based on the statistics, a typical student in the EHE program was an unemployed 19-year old Negro male with a high school diploma and a 10th grade reading level, one of five children in a broken home where the head of the household was either out of work or occasionally employed at unskilled labor, and 44

where family income, including welfare payments, amounted to $3,500 a year (Egerton, 1968). The curriculum focused on two major areas of study: social-sciencehumanities and the natural sciences. The students met in class for approximately six to seven hours a day three days a week. Two days are devoted to work-study projects. Instruction includes lectures, seminars and small discussion groups, workshops and skill development groups and student planned and conducted colloquia. Programmed instruction, video tape equipment, and tutoring were employed to assist the student in his academic development. At the termination of the first four quarters of the program, students in the program performed better than predicted by scores on the ACT. In fact, of the 74 students who remained with the program, 65 made grade point averages higher than predicted for them. Also 30 students were at or above the C level (predictions indicated that only one student from the group would attain a C average). Laney College Laney College (Berg and Axtell, 1968) has an enrollment of over 4,000 students of which approximately 25 percent are Black. The college has established a Community Services Office for the purpose of assisting disadvantaged and minority group students on campus. The office serves as an ombudsman on the campus and functions as a central system to which students are encouraged to bring their problems. Such a service negates the requirement that students run from office to office in order to seek assistance regarding problems they may be encountering. Important also, the office serves as a liaison between the community and the college. Hence, various community groups are encouraged to offer specialized courses through the college and all provide assistance in developing and implementing the particular courses. In addition, the Community Services Office has established an emergency loan program for culturally distinct students. Also, Laney College, "rather than establish a special program for disadvantaged students...has sought to change the existing curriculum and educational practices to better meet the needs of disadvantaged students." Changes that have accrued throughout the college relative to disadvantaged students have been derived by a student-faculty-administrator Inter-Racial Affairs Committee. The 45

Committee has examined such issues as course requirements, racial balance in classes, use of test scores, recruiting of instructors and administrators, curriculum design, and educational practices. The College has also conducted weekend retreats for Black and white students and staff for the purpose of stimulating understanding and reconciliation between ethnic groups. Brooklyn Coll ege In May of 1964, Brooklyn College (Missall, 1966) initiated its two year academic Talent Search project. The primary focus of the project was to bring highly motivated culturally distinct high school graduates to full matriculation at Brooklyn College. Basic features of the program included: 1. This has not been a program in which students spent a term or more in preparatory transition between high school graduation and college admission. The students experienced a more complex intermixing of remedial, rehabilitating, and ongoing education. 2. The counseling in this program has reached many stages beyond what is ordinarily encompassed in that term. For the purpose of this preliminary statement it could be described as striving to over look no element of the totality of the relation of the student to his family, neighborhood, college, gainful employment, vocational objective, financial or health needs. In addition, the counseling has been marked by an intimacy, frequency and sensitivity of a high order. 3. The calendar, as defined in class hours and semesters for some educational purposes, has not been permitted to supersede the pace of the student as a measure of time. 4. Formal appraisal as'failing' again for some educational purposes, was not substituted for forward educational movement. Both time and grading, where remedial and rehabilitation needs were being served, were subordinated to the motivation of the student, his personal academic improvement, and his pace of accomplishment. 5. The class size in the critical courses in English and mathematics, primarily during the first year, was limited to seven to ten students. Schedules made possible even smaller conference groups and personal attention when it was necessary. 6. Throughout the two years of the Project, but particularly during the first year, efforts were made to secure instructors who were sympathetic to the purposes of the Project and who had also earned a reputation as effective teachers. 7. In recognition of' the fact that immediate'drop outs' would very directly frustrate the purpose of the Project, ten colleagues were enlisted during the first term to par 46

ticipate from the first arrival ot these students in the role of'mentors.' In this capacity they were requested to maintain whatever kind of counseling and guidance relationship appeared useful in the reduction of student anxieties and to provide orientation for students' new responsibilities. 8. The economic situation of the students, immediately in some cases, and soon in others, determined some fundamental aspects of the Project. Behind the phrase,'deprived student,' lies a well understood adverse cultural experience, with inherent adverse psychological aspects. In the absence of psychologically fitting employment opportunities and broad gauge vocational planning, student anxieties and despair became significantly entangled in curricular planning, the demonstration of the relevance of a liberal arts curriculum, and the length of time required to reach a degree. 9. The economic situation and the weak academic preparation restricted the size of the students' programs, thus making the remedial work a larger psychological burden than it should have been. 10. Specific and continuous attention was paid to focusing upon expressed vocational objectives, widening the student horizon regarding vocational objectives, and assisting in the delineation of realistic goals. 11. Vigorous initiation of job placement opportunities was recognized as essential to student motivation, forward educational strides, and individual maturation. Objective test data revealed that after two years the students were approximately at the level of beginning college freshmen. Of the fortytwo students who initially enrolled in the program, 31 remained through June, 1966, with average grade point averages of C and D. In terms of staff function it was felt that one of the primary strengths of the program was the centralization of primary responsibility for the program among a small group of staff members who remained with the project throughout its duration. The fact that practically all daily concerns about their well-being and their academic problems were centered in one group of the college staff simplified and quickly personalized their relation to the College. The weekly trips to the office for their stipends provided a regular source of contact that very frequently turned into an opportunity to talk about other matters. University of Minnesota The University of Minnesota (Moen and Glese, 1970) implemented a Martin Luther King Tutorial Program in 1968. The fundamental purpose of the program was to provide direct financial assistance to students 47

of extreme financial need, yet admissable to the university relative to traditional university admission standards; however, the program was also designed to provide counseling tutoring, and advising through tutorial-study groups. The tutorial groups were designed to provide supplementary academic services, as well as soci-psychological support. Eleven tutorial-study groups were formed throughout the various colleges within the university. Each tutorial group consisted of approximately fifteen students, a professional counselor, several faculty members, and four upper-division student peer aides. The group procedures were not explicitly defined because it was felt that group functions should be generated in light of group number needs rather than preconceived notions. Each of the eleven groups was headed by a counselor-advisor and a graduate student with experience or training in student personnel work. The role of the counselor fell in the realms of counseling, advising, and administrative responsibilities. The student aides involved in the program carried out very diverse functions. One of their primary functions was to provide a communication linkage between staff and students. However, time was also spent attempting to help the MLK students cope with the complexities of the university environment, tutoring, and counseling. As indicated one of the primary vehicles of communication with the MLK students were the tutorial-study groups; however, the groups tended to decline in importance to the students. It was observed: The reason students gave for being unable to attend tutorialstudy group meetings included lack of time, schedule conflicts, lack of interest in announced topics, and resentment at being singled out for special attention. The planners of the King program anticipated that such gatherings could become a practical means of identifying common concerns, sharing helpful approaches to frequently encountered difficulties, and developing feelings of identity, unity, and reinforcement. These hopes were not realized. Generally, the provision of tutoring was left entirely to the desires of the MLK students. Attempts were made by the various schools to inform students of tutoring opportunities, arrange for tutors, and develop unique tutoring projects. Problems with the program as perceived by staff members included: vague structure; lack of leadership, poor attitude toward the program as manifested by some staff members, students, and faculty; and lack of communication between staff members. Staff members noted that the original goals of the groups were not realized. There was some evidence 48

of improved attitudes, stronger motivation, better study habits, and more regular sessions with the aides. Staff members were also quick to note that it was difficult to determine the influence of the MLK program on the positive gains made by the students. Western Michigan University Although it may not be considered as primarily a program for culturally distinct students, the Counseling Center at Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, has established a program for the recruitment and training of Black counselors. A unique dimension of the program is that students are recruited for the program in their sophomore year of undergraduate school. The student's three year participation in the training program begins in his junior year, and follows-through to the completion of a Bachelor's degree and a Master of Arts degree in Guidance and Counseling. The program is designed to train 30 counselors over a five-year period. The training program has several major foci: 1. Each trainee is assigned to a tutor (a member of the Counseling Center Professional Staff) who assists the student in developing his own individualized program of studies; aids him in integrating various aspects of his learning throughout the program experience (i.e. learnings about self, others, and counseling practice), and generally provides the trainee with a resource person with whom he can share personal concerns, experiences and insights. 2. The trainee also participates in personal counseling for himself. This is conducted by a member of the Counseling Center Staff. Supervision of counseling behavior is considered a vital aspect of the training program. Therefore, the tutor or another experienced staff member observes the trainee in counseling and offers feedback relative to the client's behavior, the trainee's behavior as he interacts with clients, and other dynamics of the counseling process. 3. Other experiences include participation in group counseling, co-leadership with experienced staff members in group counseling, serving as an intake counselor, observation of professional staff members counseling, full participation in staff meetings, training and supervised experience in academic advising, and other in-service training activities, seminars, and programs. In addition, office space is provided for each trainee and they have full access to all equipment and facilities available to professional staff members. 49

Contra Costra Co1 1ege Contra Costra College (Berg and Axteli, 1968) has an enrollment of over 5,000 students of which 20 to 30 percent are considered disadvantaged. The college provides a rather extensive work-study program for its students. Tutoring is also considered an essential component of the services provided to students. It is interesting to note that the tutors have a building which is provided specifically for their use. They are paid $1.75 per hour and are employed 15 hours per week. Twelve of the fifteen hours are spent with students, two hours are devoted or organizational matters, and one hour of staff time per week is for the purpose of sensitivity training among the tutors. Contra Costra College also utilizes a mobile counseling unit for recruiting and counseling contacts. One of the primary goals in using the mobile counseling unit is to make contacts with students in communities where little emphasis is placed on higher education. The unit contains information materials, testing facilities, film strips, and other counseling aids. The mobile unit is staffed by one counselor and one or more persons from disadvantaged neighborhoods who are known by the people who reside in these neighborhoods. Contra Costra College also organized a Developmental Study Group, whose members are representatives for the various on and off campus projects and programs for the culturally distinct. The purpose of this group is to coordinate the activities of the college in its efforts to provide services for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Los Angeles City College Hernardez (1968) has offered a description of the Student Counseling Assistant Program at Los Angeles City College. Nineteen students were trained to counsel socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Most of the counseling assistants were also products of the ghetto, but had succeeded in the college environment for at least two semesters. It was observed:...the very process of offering counseling assistance by student peers tended to generate the peer dynamics of interpersonal relationships which inevitably invited exchange of information at the affective level. A unique peer relationship was created because it was invested with the sanction and authority cf the institution with official status; yet, it preserved a normal peer relationship which increased the emotional impact of the counselor-counselee situation. 50

Fold (1969) researched various aspects of the Student-CounselorAssistance Program at Los Angeles City College. As a result of his investigation, the following observations were made regarding perceptions of the program by students, student counselors, and professional counselors. 1. A vast majority (90%) of the students counseled rated the program as good or excellent, with two-thirds of the ratings in the excellent categories. The students felt that primary assistance was gained in the areas of class scheduling, getting information about four year colleges, and information about two-year programs. It was noted that the Black counselees felt that they received much help and support from the service. 2. Student Counselors responded very favorably to the program. Emphasis was placed on service to others and personal growth as a result of the experience. Some problems were noted relative to poor communications with professional counselor support in working through difficult problems with clients. A need for a strong training program was expressed. 3. Interestingly enough, half of the professional counselors rated the program as poor. Criticisms included poor communication between the professional staff and the student counselors, few referrals by student counselors to the professional staff, questions by the professional staff regarding the selection procedures and qualifications of the student counselors, and some comments relative to the political activities of some of the student counselors. However, most of the professional staff felt that the program had merit and should be continued if certain changes took place in relation to design and implementation. Manhattanville College Manhattanville College (Winkelman, 1968) New York has embarked on a rather innovative program for culturally distinct students. The program, Project SHARE, is predicated on the notion that it is the responsibility of institutions of higher education to explore the feasibility of educating students who clearly do not meet traditional criteria for admission to institutions of higher education. The program is five years in duration and addresses itself to girls from the urban ghetto who are strongly motivated to seek higher education. The SHARE program has several objectives. The first is to provide compensatory education for students who are inadequately prepared for the academic rigor of the college environment. Hence, in the spring 51

and summer terms, students are assisted in developing basic skills and study habits, in addition to orientation to the college experience and its demands. Also, in addition to remedial course work, students are allowed to take courses for college credit. Indeed one of the innovative characteristics of the SHARE program is that the institution has taken the position that students from middle class backgrounds are "culturally disadvantaged" if they have not been afforded the opportunity of experiencing persons from minority groups who have resided in the ghetto. As a result of the program's descriptions of "disadvantagedness" students participating in the spring and summer compensatory programs are paired in the fall with the same number of girls in the freshman class who have met the regular requirements for admission. For two years these teams follow an academic program of classes, seminars, and field experiences. The purpose of such a design is to provide an opportunity for maximal social and intellectual interchange between students from differing socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. The thrust of the academic program differed from the regular curriculum in four ways. First, seminars were designed which stressed the interdisciplinary approach to the course content offered in the regular curriculum. The primary emphasis of the seminars focused on the humanities, social sciences, natural sciences, and the contemporary world. Second, the seminars were supplemented by field experiences which were developed to enable the student to learn from first hand observation and application of knowledge to practical situations. Such experiences included attendance at concerts and plays, visits to museums, and participation in religious functions of differing faiths. Third, an opportunity for self expression was provided through course work in the creative arts. Included in these experiences were studies in painting, sculpture, modern dance, film making, and music. Finally, for students who required further remedial work, opportunities were available for additional skill development in basic courses. At the termination of two full years of the team experience, each student selected a major field of study. From this point, Project SHARE focused upon the individualistic academic needs of the students. 52

Marymount Manhattan College Since 1967, Marymount Manhattan College (Bertsch, 1970) a small private college in New York, has conducted its Community Leadership Program (CLP). Basically, the program operates from a community centered model which is directed toward servicing students from disadvantaged backgrounds in one identifiable neighborhood. Outreach activities through a local community center provide an important link between the college and the community. The long range goals which guided the development and implementation of the program included: 1. The first set of goals focused on the college and its internal dynamics. In actively supporting the program, the college consciously committed itself to broad institutional change in the composition of the student body, the faculty and the curriculum. 2. The second set of goals focused on the relationship of the college to the surrounding urban community, specifically those residents living in conditions of poverty, who for academic as well as economic reasons had little or no hope of attending college. Certainly an interesting facet of the program is that CLP students are not dismissed from the college for academic reasons prior to the end of their sophomore year. Otherwise students are provided an opportunity to acclimate themselves both academically and psycho-socially to the college environment. Also, CLP students are placed in particular courses based upon their interests, abilities, and opportunities for success. Individualized academic programs are developed for the students by a team of faculty advisors and an upperclassman. The CLP staff consists of faculty members, tutors, a reading director, a language arts specialist, and two mental health consultants. The CLP staff members meet regularly each week in order to share information, develop procedures, and generally insure staff and student progress toward individual and program goals. The mental health consultants have been seen as vital elements of the program in terms of developing effective coping strategies in relation to student, staff and organizational dynamics and needs. Several important findings were reported as a result of four years of the program's operation: 1. For one thing, we know that students who were once defined as UNABLE to attend college are ABLE provided 53

that the college makes it possible by: a. waiving usual admission requirements b. revising dismissal procedures c. providing the supportive teaching necessary d. allowing for flexible programming e. adding required staff when needed. 2. We know that academic standards and professional integrity do not fall apart with a different student population. 3. We know that in a small college such a program cannot function on the periphery as a'special program' but requires active cooperation of every department and each administrative office. 4. We know the neighborhood model works with a vital community center being the key variable. 5. We know that a program of this kind is expensive. Money is needed from federal, state and private industrial sources - or the program will be an excercise in frus t ration. In summary, one of the purposes of the study was to examine a variety of programs for the culturally distinct in order to better understand the general characteristics and trends relative to program design and implementation. As a result of the examination of numerous program descriptions, the following observations seem warranted. 1. In order to assist the culturally distinct student in his academic adjustment numerous colleges place these students in compensatory programs as a result of scores on orientation tests for the purpose of strengthening their capacity to compete in regular academic courses. Many advantages and disadvantages have been cited regarding compensatory programming for the culturally distinct; however, it would appear that evidence is emerging which indicates that compensatory programs may not be a viable approach for maximizing the potential of the culturally distinct students. 2. Other programmatic efforts have been described which allow disadvantaged students to enroll in the regular college curriculum but provide a variety of supportive services. These services often include such elements as tutoring, intensive individual and/or group counseling, special courses dealing with the heritage and problems of a specific minority group, opportunities for students to become involved in various outreach projects and peer assistance programs for financial remuneration, free transportation, the development of "centers" for culturally distinct students, part-time employment and legal assistance. It has been observed that one of the primary advantages 54

of this type of approach is that it allows the student to become actively and totally involved in the campus community. 3. Since there tends to be a high correlation between cultural distinctiveness and economic deprivation, practically all programs for the culturally distinct include provisions for financial assistance. Financial support comes from a wide variety of resources: the Ford Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; the federal government through a myriad of acts, grants and programs; state funds; service and civic organizations; churches; and special college and university funds. However, there appears to be a need to develop systematic procedures, which are devoid of bureaucratic entanglements, to aid culturally distinct students and their parents in gaining information about these funds and to provide direct assistance relative to the acquisition of needed financial resources. 4. It is clearly evident that a college's involvement in developing programs for the culturally distinct requires a substantial college-wide commitment of financial and human resources. Hence, if programs for the culturally distinct are to succeed, they must have the support of the students (the culturally distinct as well as the general student body), the faculty, and the college administration. With respect to the culturally distinct students, reports suggest that it is vitally important to provide them with opportunities for systematic input regarding the development and implementation of programs in which they are involved. Recommendations indicate that administrators must seek means by which modifications can occur in university practices, procedures and climate in order to maximize the total growth of the culturally distinct student. Faculty people have also been challenged with respect to traditional patterns of instruction which may be irrelevant to the student who comes from a disadvantaged background. Strong recommendations also exist which suggest the need for a high level of coordination between various programs and services within the college community which are designed for the culturally distinct student. And finally, as there must be coordination within the university, many reports urge liaison functions between the college and various community agencies and resources. 5. Even though numerous junior colleges, colleges, and universities purport to offer programs for "disadvantaged" students, little or no 55

systematic evaluation has taken place regarding the effectiveness of such programs. In addition, program evaluation is further clouded by a plethora of definitions for "disadvantagedness," variation in goals and objectives from program to program, variability in definitions of program successes and/or failures, and a vast diversity in objective and subjective criteria used for measuring program outcomes. SUMMARY The purpose of the literature review was to gain a broader perspective of the research commentary and programmatic efforts pertaining to culturally distinct students in higher education. Four areas of the literature were explored: (1) motivation, aspiration and adjustment; (2) academic achievement; (3) standardized tests and test prediction; and (4) programs for the culturally distinct. In relation to studies which dealt with the motivations, aspirations and adjustment patterns of the culturally distinct, it appeared that the primary emphasis of these studies was an examination of the differences between "advantaged" and "disadvantaged" populations. Typically when differences were noted between the two groups, the data were interpreted in relation to a deficits model. A number of writers, however, have stressed the need to study more intensely intra-group differences and their relationship to factors such as motivation and educational achievement. Research pertaining to the educational achievement of the culturally distinct in higher education reflected diverse outcomes, especially with the student identified as a high risk. In addition, programs designed to facilitate the psycho-educational development of the culturally distinct manifested great variability in terms of reported success-failure ratios. However, even though numerous reports indicated that the academic achievement of the culturally distinct student tended to be skewed toward the lower end of the grade range, there was evidence suggesting that the academic mortality rate of these students was no higher than for the general student population. There appeared to be much conflicting evidence relative to the question of whether traditional standardized tests carried the same behavioral predictions for the culturally distinct as they are purported to have for the general student population. This factor seemed to have particular relevance in relation to the admission of high risk 56

students into institutions of higher education. Although a number of colleges and universities have reported new and creative methods of selecting students, the primary criteria for the selection of culturally distinct students appeared to be based upon scores attained on standardized tests and high school achievement. The final phase of the literature review dealt with programs and various program elements for the culturally distinct. It was noted that evidence was mounting which indicated that compensatory program efforts were having little effect on the educational development of the culturally distinct. However, there was some evidence which suggested that a strong cadre of support services, in which opportunities are provided for student input and participation, have had positive influences on student motivation and achievement. Furthermore, whatever the program design or structure, it was very evident that a massive commitment of financial and human resources was required to enhance the chances of the development of facilitative and effective programs for the culturally distinct. Finally, it was also noted that more systematic and comprehensive research was needed to analyze the effects of programmatic efforts on the culturally distinct student in the higher education setting. 57

Chapter I I Analysis of the Data

College administrators and student personnel workers have had difficulty in recent years in dealing with the issues related to the culturally distinct student. A source of this difficulty has been the elusive nature of the population. Many questions have been asked: Who are they? What to they want from the university? What can the university do? Whereas the questions appear to be simple ones, the process in arriving at valid answers is not easy. It necessitates, first of all, knowing the population, and even more important, knowing what makes them unique from the rest of the college enrollment. One of the purposes of the present investigation was to examine rather exhaustively data on advantaged and disadvantaged college student populations. Each university was asked to select students from their enrollments whom they considered to be advantaged and disadvantaged. It became contingent upon the investigators, in effect, to further elaborate upon their characteristics and identify similarities and dissimilarities between and within the samples. The criterion of disadvantagedness shared by the three universities was economic deprivation. Regardless of whether the populations were more specifically described as lingually disadvantaged, culturally different, educationally disadvantaged or students from a disadvantaged background this characteristic was common to all and therefore, was employed in order to identify the specific samples. At each institution students who participated in work study programs or who qualified for special funds as a result of their economic status were included in the disadvantaged sample. Those in no apparent financial difficulty were excluded or included in the advantaged population. This means of identification was obviously limited; yet, it clearly illustrates that most institutions identify these students in this manner. Contact persons at the three universities selected a sample of advantaged and disadvantaged students for participation in the study. Once these students were identified, questionnaires were administered by university officials or, in special cases, questionnaires were mailed to those who were selected. In all cases a remuneration was provided for persons who successfully completed and returned the instruments. Three questionnaires, the Personal Questionnaire, the College and University Environment Scale, and the Student Personnel Questionnaire 59

were administered to students from three universities of widely differing backgrounds and orientations, Wayne State University, Purdue University, and Eastern Michigan University. The data gathered from each instrument will be discussed in detail. The first section will describe the results of the Personal Questionnaire. It will display specific characteristics of the sampled disadvantaged population and in the process describe how this group is similar or different from a sample of the majority or advantaged college student body. The results of the College and University Environment Scale will be discussed in the second section. There the question asked will be, "Do advantaged and culturally distinct perceive their college environments differently?" The final section will focus upon student personnel services; what students use them, which services are used and whether there seems to be any difference between the advantaged and the culturally distinct. The first university, Eastern Michigan University, is located in Ypsilanti, a community of about 50,000 people, 30 miles west of Detroit and seven miles east of Ann Arbor. It is a multi-purpose state university whose primary specialty, historically, has been teacher education. However, E.M.U. has expanded in recent years to include increased errphasis in the areas of liberal arts. Like many state universities, Eastern Michigan University has experienced tremendous growth in recent years. Approximately 20,000 students are currently enrolled. As late as 1960, the student population was only 3,400. About 85% of those enrolled in the fall of 1970 came from nine counties in southeastern Michigan. Over 50% were from the greater Detroit area. The second, Purdue University, founded as a land-grant college with emphasis in agriculture, home economics and technical instruction has recently developed strong programs in liberal arts, professional and scientific training, and teacher education. Twenty-five thousand students are currently enrolled in this "Big Ten" university. The main campus is located in Lafayette, a community of 56,000 people, situated 60 miles northwest of Indianapolis. Approximately 75% of the student body are from the state of Indiana. In 1968, 217 foreign students were enrolled. Less than 1% of the total student body Is Black. 60

The third, Wayne State University, is a state supported institution located in metropolitan Detroit. It is a multi-purpose urban university serving primarily residents of the city. Like many other urban universities in the country, Wayne State has expanded greatly in recent years. It now includes approximately 30,000 students. The vast majority of the student body comes from the city of Detroit (95%). Less than 2% of the students are from out-of-state. As a result, the university has not attempted to construct housing facilities and hence only about 2% reside in university facilities. In order for the investigators to gain a comprehensive description of the data for the several samples, a computer program from the Michigan Terminal System was utilized (PSCF BLITZ). This program was designed to mass produce bi-variate frequency tables which compared and contrasted the advantaged and culturally distinct on the many variables included in the Personal and the Student Personnel Services Questionnai res. The statistical analyses computed by the BLITZ program included frequencies, percentages, Pearson Chi-square test of association, means and unbiased estimates of the standard deviations for the spread variable columns, and difference between mean tests on spread variable columns. Another means of data analysis included a methodology identified as cluster analysis. The purpose of the cluster analysis was to rearrange a group of individuals or cases into subgroups or "clusters" which tend to be more homogeneous than the group as a whole. The primary objective was simply to attempt to identify some of the individual differences which one would expect to find within particular groups. The procedure used for forming the clusters was clerical in nature. Five pre-selected measurements for each individual or case were rank ordered. Then, the computer searches the sample for individuals whose five measurements have identical rank orders. In several instances the investigators utilized the Pearson Product Correlation to assess the relationship between variables on the Personal Questionnaire. A second computer program, selected from the Michigan Terminal System (PSCI), provided means, standard deviations and correlation matrices. 61

THE PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE The purpose for administering the Personal Questionnaire was to collect demographic and limited attitudinal data regarding students from advantaged and culturally distinct backgrounds. It was felt that such information would be essential in describing and better understanding these student populations in order to make generalizations appropriate for future student personnel programming. The demographic data collected included information such as the subject's educational history and aspirations, the parents' educational-vocational background, and characteristics regarding race, age, and sex of the students. Also, included were questions designed to assess the the degree of internal or external control subjects perceived themselves as having over events occurring in their lives. Rotter (1966) has defined internal control as a person's belief that rewards follow from, or are contingent upon, his own behavior. External control, then, is a person's belief that rewards are controlled by a focus outside himself and, therefore, may occur independently of his own actions. Students were asked to respond (agree, not sure, or disagree) to statements which purport to measure these dimensions. Another section attempted to ascertain the affiliation patterns of the two groups. Students were asked to choose from twelve words or phrases that best described the group(s) that they enjoyed being with and which had an influence upon many of the things they thought, believed, or valued. Questions taken from a sub-scale of the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule were utilized in order to assess attitudes towards autonomy. This concept dealing with the quality or state of being self-governing was felt to be important in understanding the attitudes of students toward the many facets of university life. More specifically, several components of autonomy such as attitudes toward independence, responsibility and authority were presented to each student for the purpose of eliciting whether the component was true or false from his frame of reference. Selected variables from the Personal Questionnaire are discussed below. The chi-square statistic was utilized in order to facilitate 62

the assessment of differences between advantaged and culturally distinct. The discussion briefly focuses upon significant features related to each variable. Racial Composition A predominate number of the culturally distinct students were Black, fifty-two percent as opposed to 45 percent white. Of the white culturally distinct sampled, more than two thirds came from one school, Purdue University. Less than 2% were either American Indian or of some other racial extraction. The composition of the advantaged sample was quite different. This was evidenced in the chi-square ratio that was significant at the.001 level of confidence. In the latter case, the vast majority of the sample indicated that they were white (94%) and only a few (6%) were found to be Black. No other racial groups were found to be represented in the advantaged sample. TABLE 1 ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Race Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Black 8 6 77 52 White 118 94 66 45 Am. Indian 0 0 2 1 Oriental 00 0 0 Other 0 0 2 1 D.F. =4 = 73.53 Sig. <.001 Family Income As expected, significant differences were evidenced in the area of family income. Seventy percent of the disadvantaged students, for example, indicated that their families had incomes of less than $7,500; the remaining 30% were distributed within the $7,500 to $15,000+ categories with the greater percentage of this number enclosed within the $7,500 to $9,999 limits. This distribution becomes quite significant ((.001) when it is compared to that of advantaged students. In the latter case 82% of the sample came from families having incomes greater than $7,500. Also, 29% of the advantaged sample had families having incomes of $15,000 or more. This far exceeds the frequency percentage of the same income group for the disadvantaged (2%). 63

TABLE 2 Family Income Less than 3,000 3,000-4,999 5,000-7,499 7,500-9,999 10, 000- 14,999 Greater than 15,000 ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED F requency Percent Frequency Percent 3 2 19 13 8 7 43 30 10 8 38 27 25 20 29 20 41 33 11 8 36 29 3 2 D.F. = 5 X2 = 96.56 Sig. (.001 Children born in the family Culturally distinct students generally indicated that they came from large families; sixty-five percent from families of at least four children, thirty-six percent from families of at least six children. These figures are statistically significant when contrasted to those of the advantaged sample. Whereas 45% of this latter group indicated that more than four children were born to the family, only 13% indicated more than six. These are particularly significant in light of the information produced from the comparisons on family income. Not only do the disadvantaged come from larger families but their family incomes are much lower. TABLE 3 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Children born in family Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 9 7 11 8 2-3 60 47 11 28 4-5 41 32 42 29 6-7 12 9 22 15 8+ 5 4 30 21...........,,_..................................~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D.F. = 4 x2 23-38 Sig..001 Change of residence The majority of the sampled disadvantaged (47%) had never changed their residence. Thirty percent lived with families that moved once while the remaining students changed their 64

residence more than twice. This distribution is not unlike that manifested by the advantaged. Even though the chi-square ratio indicates a slight directional difference suggesting that disadvantaged change their residence more than advantaged students, it is so slight that generalization would appear to be hazardous. TABLE 4 ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Change of Residence Frequency Percent F requency Percent Never 68 54 69 47 Once 37 29 44 30 2-3 16 13 20 14 4-5 6 5 11 7 6+ 0 0 3 2 D.F. = 4 2 = 4.09 N.S. High school grades A majority of the disadvantaged students indicated that their high school grades were B or higher (72%). None reported grades of D or lower. This trend in high school marks suggested that the disadvantaged student academically performed rather well. Although there was no statistically significant difference between the performance of advantaged and disadvantaged students in high school, a chi-square ratio of 5.65 indicated that there could be a slight tendency for the latter group to perform somewhat higher than the former. The similarities on this variable, however, appear to outweigh the differences. TABLE 5 High School A B C D ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 13 10 30 20 79 63 77 52 39 27 40 27 0 0 0 0 D.F. = 3 X2 = 5.65 N.S. Mother employed There was little consensus indicated by the responses of culturally distinct students on the subject of mother 65

employment. Some students indicated that their mothers were employed very often while they were growing up whereas others suggested that their mothers never worked. The category receiving the largest number of responses was the latter, 36%. The distribution for the culturally distinct differed significantly from that calculated for the advantaged. Mothers of these students were less likely to have worked. It is interesting to note, however, that of those advantaged mothers who decided to work to some degree, a greater percentage chose to work "very often." This was also true in the case of disadvantaged mothers, but because of the evenness of the distribution the trend appeared less pronounced. TABLE 6 ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Mother Employed Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Very Often 20 16 32 22 Often 8 6 9 6 Seldom 16 13 30 21 Rarely 7 6 23 16 Never 76 60 52 36 2. D.F. = 4 2= 18.89 Sig. (.001 Weekday study time in high school The vast majority of culturally distinct students spent at least part of each weekday studying in high school. Thirty-two percent, for example, utilized more than three hours to complete class related assignments whereas 66% spent from 1/2 to 3 hours. There appeared to be some difference between advantaged and disadvantaged on this variable as evidenced by the statistically significant chi-square. It can be generally concluded that on the average the culturally distinct studied more than their advantaged counterparts. This generalization must be interpreted with caution, however, because the difference between the two groups seems to be a result of the tendency of a large sub-group within the disadvantaged to spend a substantial amount of time each day studying. This sub-group seemed to be less evident within the advantaged group. 66

TABLE 7 ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Studytime: High School Weekday Frequency Percent Frequency Percent None 7 6 5 3 1/2-1 hr 46 37 49 34 1-3 hr 51 41 46 32 3+ hrs 21 17 46 32............... -.... D.F. = 3 2 = 8.44 Sig. (.05 Difficulty paying for education The majority of culturally distinct students seemed to have at least some difficulty paying for their education. Sixty-five percent found this a "fairly difficult" problem with only 10% indicating it was "no problem." The advantaged students, on the other hand, were more fortunate. Fifty-seven percent of these students felt that they had only a small problem or no problem in this respect. These findings would seem to be congruent with those elucidated under the category "family income" above. Differences between the two groups were evidenced at the (.001 level of confidence. TABLE 8 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Difficulty Paying for Education Frequency Percent Frequency Percent No Problem 30 24 14 10 Some Problem 41 33 37 25 Fairly Difficult 40 32 55 38 Very Difficult 15 12 40 27 D.F. = 3 x2= 18.38 Sig. (.001 Full or part-time student Nearly all of the sampled culturally distinct students indicated that they were full-time. This trend was also pronounced for the advantaged but to a lesser degree. In light of the financial difficulties of the culturally distinct it's surprising there were not more part-time students. 67

TABLE 9 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Full or Part-Time Students Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Full 119 95 142 99 3/4 2 2 1 1 1/2 2 2 1 1 1/4 2 2 0 0....,,,, J.....,.......... D.F. = 3 X2 = 3.37 N.S. Housing for term Fifty-six percent of the culturally distinct students sampled were living in university dormitories. The majority of the others were distributed between living at home and in "other off-campus housing." As these characteristics were not unlike those found for the advantaged students no statistical differences were evidenced. TABLE 10 Housing for Term Dormi tory Fraternity and Sorority Home Relatives Other Off Campus ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 78 61 5 4 21 17 1 1 22 17 DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 82 56 5 3 28 19 2 1 29 20 D.F. = 4 X = 1.08 N.S. Employed - number of hours The majority of culturally distinct students worked at least part-time while going to school. Whereas few are employed more than 30 hours a week, 52% work at least 10 hours a week. This was significant in that, it will be recalled, the vast majority of the same group were full-time students. Even though no statistically significant evidence was found there appears to be a slight tendency for disadvantaged students to be employed more than advantaged. 68

TABLE 11 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Emp oyed - No. of Hours Frequency Percent Frequency Percent None 67 53 69 48 Less than 10 21 17 13 9 11-20 28 22 48 39 21-30 5 4 9 6 More than 30 6 5 4 3,, ~,............. ~..... ~.......................-.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ D.F. =4 X2 = 7.80 Sig. <. 10 Time spent studying in college Sixty-two percent of the culturally distinct students sampled spent more than three hours of each college weekday studying. The comparable percentage for the advantaged students was 50%. Although no statistical difference was found between these two groups it would appear that there is some evidence to support the earlier "high school" finding that this segment of the disadvantaged population seems to spend longer periods of time studying. TABLE 12 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Time Spent Studying Weekday - College None 1/2-1 hour 1-1/2 - 2 hours 3 hours or more Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 3 2 3 2 23 18 19 10 37 29 35 27 64 50 91 62 D.F. = 3 x2 = 5.51 N.S. How good a student would you like to be? The vast majority of the culturally distinct students sampled wanted to be better than average students. Forty-three percent indicated that they wanted to be best student. Few were observed to choose "average," "get by" or "don't care." This distribution was generally similar to that manifested by the advantaged student; however, there was a significant difference caused by the tendency of the former group to select the highest category. 69

For example, only 26% of the advantaged students wanted to be the best. At the other end of the continuum, 21% of the advantaged were content to be average or less as opposed to 11% of the disadvantaged. TABLE 13 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED How Good a Student? Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Best 32 26 63 43 Above Average 67 54 66 45 Average 16 13 10 7 Get By 2 2 2 1 Don't Care 7 6 5 3 D.F. = 4 2 = 10.12 Sig. (.05 College grade point average About 90% of the culturally distinct students sampled indicated that they had attined grades of C or higher during their college stay. This distribution differed in several ways from the one that these same students created in high school. It will be recalled that in the latter case no disadvantaged students enrolled in college with less than a C average. As can be seen in table 14, however, 11% were found to have made averages below C once they had enrolled. The majority of these students were no longer to be found in the A and B categories; 58% scored averages of C. Whereas the disadvantaged came to college with slightly higher high school grade point averages, a comparison at the college level indicated that this relationship changed ((.01). More than 50% of the advantaged students, for example, achieved a grade point average of B or higher compared to only 32% of the disadvantaged who were in the same category. It would appear that the advantaged students in the sample were more disposed to maintain their academic status once enrolled in college while the disadvantaged appeared to be less fortunate. 70

TABLE 14 ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED College Group A Frequency Percent Frequency Percent A 4 3 5 4 B 61 48 40 28 C 56 44 82 58 D 5 4 15 11 D.F. = 3 X2 = 13.47 Sig. (.01 Parental expression of feelings that college training is essential Both culturally distinct and advantaged were asked to indicate whether their parents had expressed feelings that a college education was essential. Sixty-three percent of the disadvantaged sample said that both parents had expressed such thoughts. However, mothers of disadvantaged students were more apt to suggest such sentiments than were fathers. Although no statistically significant difference was found between the advantaged and disadvantaged some directional difference seemed evident (X2 = 7.74). A greater number of the parents of advantaged students expressed feelings that college was essential. Also, fewer were found to have expressed nothing. TABLE 15 ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Parental Expression of Feeling that College Is Essential Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Both Parents Have 94 75 90 63 Mother Has, Father Has Not 6 5 19 13 Father Has, Mother Has Not 2 2 1 1 Neither Has 24 19 34 24 D.F. = 3 X = 7.74 ((.10) Sig. (.10 Amount of education desired The majority of culturally distinct students indicated they would like a graduate degree (62%). Only 22% 71

were satisfied with a four-year college degree or less. When compared to the advantaged students on this variable significant differences were found. More of the culturally distinct students desired graduate or professional degrees than did their counterparts. More advantaged students indicated that they would be content with a four year college degree. TABLE 16 ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Amount of Education Desi red Don't Care Less than 4 Years College Grad. Grad. Degree Professional Degree Undecided Frequency Percent 1 1 1 1 46 36 60 47 6 5 13 10 Frequency Percent O 0 1 1 30 21 90 62 19 13 6 4 D.F. = 4 X2= 7.80 ((.10) N.S. Education - father The majority of fathers of culturally distinct students sampled did not graduate from high school, only 2% had graduated from college. These were some of the categories that created a statistically significant ratio between advantaged and disadvantaged fathers (<.001). Generally, advantaged fathers have had more formal education than fathers of disadvantaged students. The most salient comparison shows that 51% of disadvantaged fathers have not graduated from high school whereas only 24% of advantaged fathers were in the same grouping. TABLE 17 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Education - Father Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 8th Grade or Less 13 10 44 30 Some High School 18 14 31 21 High School Grad. 33 26 42 29 Business, Trade or Tech, 12 10 7 5 Some College 25 20 7 5 72

ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent College Grad, 11 9 3 2 More than College 3 2 4 3 Advanced Degree 11 9 3 2 Don't Know 0 0 4 3 D.F. = 8 X = 45.00 Sig. (.001 Education - mother The mothers of disadvantaged students seemed to have had more formal educational experience than the father. More have graduated from high school and more have had business or trade school training. Nevertheless, 44% had not graduated from high school. As was the case with father's educational background, significant differences were found between advantaged and disadvantaged ((.001). Only a few advantaged mothers had less than a high school education. It may be noteworthy to observe that on this variable and the one immediately above (Education - father) several students indicated that they did not know the educational background of their parents. All of these students were found in the disadvantaged sample. TABLE 18 Education - Mother 8th Grade or Less Some High School High School Grad. Business, Trade or Tech. Some College College Grad. More than College Advanced Degree Don't Know ADVANTAGE D F requency Pe rcernt 9 7 11 9 60 48 DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 30 21 33 23 49 34 12 15 6 4 9 0 10 12 5 3 7 0 20 5 3 3 0 3 1 4 3 2 2 0 2 D.F. = 8 X' = 42.32 Sig. <.001 73

With whom do you affiliate? On this section of the Personal Questionnaire students were asked to circle the variables that best described their affiliation habits. There was much similarity between the advantaged and culturally distinct. Differences were discovered only on one variable ('Do you affiliate with older friends?"). It was found that the disadvantaged were more inclined to associate with older friends than were the advantaged. This was significant at the ('05 level of confidence. One variable ("Do you affiliate with members of your own race?") indicated directional difference ((.10). Disadvantaged students were more pre-disposed to associate with members of their own race. TABLE 19 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED With Whom Do You Affiliate? Own Race Yes No Mixed Race Yes No Militant Yes Students No Average Yes Students N No Students Yes on Campus No No Friends Yes Off Campus No No Friends Yes Both On &..^ a__ _ No Frequency 49 78 36 91 3 124 35 92 28 99 15 112 97 40 Per cent 3C) 61 28 72 2 98 22 78 22 78 12 88 69 31 Frequency 72 74 48 98 7 139 33 113 27 119 14 132 110 36 Percent 49 51 33 67 5 95 23 77 18 82 10 90 75 25 ut LCampus __ Fraternity Yes Friends __No Sorority Yes Friends N No Older Yes Friends N No 16 111 9 118 24 103 13 87 7 9.3 19 81 18 128 10 136 43 103 12 88 7 93 29 71 74

ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED _____Frequency Perc Frequency Percent Younger Yes 14 11 20 14 Friends Friends No 113 89 126 86 Special In- Yes 13 10 26 18 terest Group No 114 90 119 82 Fri ends Locus of control was assessed by twelve questions, each attempting to collect information about student attitudes and perceptions regarding the influence of environment upon individual choice. The results were not totally conclusive. However, much evidence was collected to support the belief that culturally distinct students generally perceive environmental influences differently from advantaged students. Disadvantaged students, for example, were inclined to see their environment as less conducive for the fulfillment of economic and social aspirations. Four questions shcxed statistical significance: Question No. 1: "People like me do not have a very good chance to be successful in life." TABLE 20 ADVANTAGED D ISADVANTAGED F requency Percent Frequency Percent Agree 1 1 9 6 Not Sure 5 4 23 16 Disagree 1 95 113 78 D.F. = 2 X2 = 16.74 Sig. <.001 Even though it was apparent that both advantaged and culturally distinct students generally disagreed with the statement above, the trend was much stronger on the part of the advantaged. More culturally distinct students were distributed in the direction of agreeing with the statement, hence suggesting the possible existence of a subgroup within the greater disadvantaged population that felt that their life chances were limited. Question No. 2: "Even with a good education I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job." 75

TABLE 21 Agree Not Sure Disagree ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 15 12 26 21 85 67 D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 34 23 46 32 65 45 D.F. - 2 2 14 x 14.33 Sig. (.001 Once again the largest percentage of each group disagreed with the statement. However, fewer of the culturaliy distinct were found in this category: 45% as compared to 67% for the advantaged. A concern that a good education may not be enough to assure a sound vocational future was more prevalent among the disadvantaged. Question No. 3: "Everytime I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me.5 TABLE 22 Agree Not Sure Di sagree ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 11 8 112 90 DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 18 12 14 10 113 78 D.F. = 2 X2 = 11.75 Sig. (.001 Culturally distinct students were more apt than the advantaged to agree that efforts to get ahead often met with frustration. Twenty-two percent of the former group could not disagree with the statement. This sizeable subgroup either agreed with the statement or were "not sure." Question No. 4: "If a person is not successful in life it is his own fault." TABLE 23 ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 40 32 31 21 45 36 47 32 Agree Not Sure 76

ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Disagree 41 33 67 46 D.F. =2 X = 6.14 Sig. (.05 Advantaged students apparently show a greater tendency to believe that an individual can control his own destiny. A significantly larger number of these students agreed with the statement while 40% of the culturally distinct students disagreed. Cluster analysis was utilized to observe and identify clusters of students responding similarly to selected groups of questions measuring locus of control. Four groups of students were analyzed separately: disadvantaged males, disadvantaged females, advantaged males, and advantaged females. Two groups of questions were used. Variable set one included the following questions: "People like me don't have a very good chance to be successful in life; Everytime I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me; If a person is not successful in life, it is his own fault; Even with a good education, I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job; and The tougher the job, the harder I work." Variable set two included the following: "Even with a good education, I will have difficulty getting the right kind of job; I would make any sacrifices to get ahead in the world; If I could change, I would be someone different from myself; I sometimes feel I can't learn; and I would do better in school work if the teacher didn't go so fast." On the first variable set for the disadvantaged, several significant clusters formed (10 or more students responding to the items in a similar way). Whereas the chi-square analysis for the same variables suggested that there were differences between advantaged and culturally distinct students this analysis indicated that there was also a great deal of similarity. Indeed, the groups appeared to have much more in common than previously supposed. For example, the major clusters that formed within the disadvantaged population were identical to those formed in the advantaged. The largest cluster of culturally distinct and advantaged students disagreed with "don't have a very good chance to be successful in life;" disagreed that "something or somebody" was trying to stop them 77

from succeeding; agreed that if a person did not succeed it was his own fault; disagreed that even with a good education, the "right job" would be difficult to find; and agreed that the tougher the job the the harder they worked. It appeared that culturally distinct students who were inclined to respond in the other direction did not do so consistently and, hence did not form a cluster. In other words a disadvantaged student who agreed that if he could he would be someone different, would not necessarily agree that if teachers went slower he would do better in school. Whereas this trend was dominant, a few clusters for the culturally distinct included some deviation. Disadvantaged females in the major cluster of variable set one responded as consistently as the major cluster of the advantaged females with the exception that the former group disagreed that if a person was not successful, it was his own fau1 t. It can, therefore, be concluded that: (1) a great many individual differences existed within the culturally distinct group; (2) if clusters can be identified they would be similar to those manifested by the advantaged; and (3) the disadvantaged students who created the difference between the two groups found on the individual questions did not seem to be the same students everytime. The male populations of both groups were compared in an effort to locate more specifically the source of the differences between advantaged and culturally distinct on the locus of control variable. Only one of the statements produced a significant chi-square ratio indicating that the two groups responded differently. However, the majority of the twelve statements showed directional differences at the (.20 level of confidence. The consistency of the direction suggested that culturally distinct males have a greater tendency to perceive the environment as debilitating, hence, a source of dominance and frustration. This hypothesis was supported statistically by the male responses to the question that pertained to perceived frustration; "Everytime I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me." Culturally distinct males displayed a greater propensity to agree with this statement than did advantaged males. This was evidenced by the fact that no advantaged males indicated agreement with the item, and only six marked 78

"not sure."' Also in support oi: the hypothesis, differences (although not statistical) were observed on the question; "People like me don't have a very good chance to be successful in life." Once again no advantaged males were in agreement. Even though disadvantaged males were inclined to disagree, enough of them indicated agreement or "not sure" to suggest directional difference. Disadvantaged males were less apt to feel that if a person was not successful it was his own fault. This inclination to perceive the environment as somewhat restraining was also reflected in the responses to the question dealing with vocational future. ("Even with a good education, I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job.") Disadvantaged males showed a greater tendency to agree with this statement than did the advantaged. Differences in the responses to the same questions by advantaged and culturally distinct females seemed to parallel those found when the male populations were compared. One question showed statistical significance ((.01 level of confidence) and several others were discovered to be different directionally. Disadvantaged females were particularly concerned over the question; "Even with a good education, I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job." These girls were considerably more inclined than the advantaged to look ahead to the world of work with some concern about whether their education would be marketable. Responses to other questions manifested a similar concern. Whereas sampled advantaged females almost unanimously rejected the statement, "People like me don't have a very good chance to be successful in life," the culturally distinct were much more reticent to disagree. On the question, "If a person is not successful in life, it is his own fault," the opposite was true. Here, the latter group was more inclined to suggest that personal failure was beyond the control of the individual. Disadvantaged females and disadvantaged males were also compared on the statements. Interestingly, much consistent directional difference occurred between these two groups. Lack of confidence and a sense of frustration seemed to be more prevalent among males than females. This was evidenced on the following questions: Everytime I try to get ahead something or somebody stops me; Even with a good education I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job; If I could change, I 79

would be someone different than I am; and I would do better in school work if teachers didn't go so fast, with more males than females agree i ng. These data suggest that the disadvantaged population as a whole seems to differ from the advantaged populations in that they are more inclined to possess an external locus of control. And, that this difference is more pronounced in culturally distinct males than females. It was assumed that if the disadvantaged manifested a propensity to answer the questions in the hypothesized direction, then this would be evidenced by negative or extremely low positive correlations between the responses to those questions where one had a hypothesized direction of "agree" and the other "disagree." On the other hand, if the directions expected were both'agree" or both "disagree," then the correlation expected would be positive. The results general iy supported these assumptions. Ten out of eleven statistically significant correlations, for example, occurred where high positive correlations were expected. Likewise, a large majority of the correlations expected to be negative were either negative or extremely low positive. This data would appear to support the generalization that some difference between advantaged and culturally distinct on locus of control exists, but that the difference is not necessarily pronounced. Table 24 includes the 12 statements and the directions supporting the hypothesis. The shaded area on the matrix represents where the negative correlations were expected. Specific questions were administered in an effort to assess attitudes towards autonomy. Few differences between the advantaged and disadvantaged were discovered. Only two questions showed significant differences. On the first, "I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in a conventional way," the culturally distinct students indicated, more so than the advantaged, that they like to be "unconventional." On the second, "I like to say what I think about things," the opposite was true. This data appears to be conflicting. Because of this, and because no other statistical differences were discovered, the conclusion was advanced that with reference to our sample little or Ao real difference exists between these groups on this scale. 80

TABLE 24 Hypothesized Direction Indicating Locus of Statement: Control 1. People who accept their condition in life are happier than those who try to change things.............................................. Agree 2. Good luck is more important than hard work for success................................. Agree 3. People like me don't have a very good chance to be successful in life.................. Agree 4. Every time I try to get ahead, something or somebody stops me................................. Agree 5. If a person is not successful in life, it is his own fault.................................... Disagree 6. Even with a good education, I will have a hard time getting the right kind of job.............. Agree 7. I would make any sacrifice to get ahead in the world......................................... Disagree 8. If I could change., I would be someone different from myself................................ Agree 9. I sometimes feel that i just can't learn............. Agree 10. I would do better in school work if teachers didn't go so fast........................... Agree 11. The tougher the job, the harder i work.............. Disagree 12. 1 am able to many things well........................ Disagree 81

TABLE 24 I TOTAL D ISADVANTAGED T E ITEM i M 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 1.O000 2 -.076 1.000 3.059.106 1.000 4.009.235.435 1.000 5.075.058 -.01 -.071 1.000 6.006.152.299.272 -.052 1.000 _ 7.044.153.031.078.065.043 1. 000 8 -.081.011.068.038.106.012.123 1.000 9 -025.044 -.024.141.037.129.000.205 1.000 10.073 -.038.08.134.095.280.132.137.245 1.000 11 -.031 -.061.0791-.136 180.6 11.050.087.066 1.000 12 -.003 -.045.149.030.202.033.032 185.068.114.178 1.000 LOCUS OF CONTROL D.F. = 146 m Lull Signi fi cance (.05 Negative Correlations Expected if Disadvantaged Respond in the Hypothesized Direction 82

TABLE 25 Question No.!: I like to be abie to come and go as I want to. ~I ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent True 125 99 141 97 False 1 1 5 3 2 D.F. = 1 X 2.17 N.S. Question No. 2: 1 like to be independent of others in deciding what to do. ADVANTAGED D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 109 87 126 87 False 17 13 19 13 D.F. = 1 X = 0.01 N.S. Question No. 3: 1 i ke to feel free to do what I want to. ADVANTIAGED D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 125 99 140 97 False I 1 5 3 D.F. = 1 X = 2.19 N.S. Question No. 4: 1 like to criticize people who are in a position of authority. ADVANTAGED D i SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 35 28 40 27 False 90 72 106 73 D.F. = 1 x2 00 N.S. Question No. 5: I like to avoid situations where I am expected to do things in a conventional way. 83

ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 31 25 94 75 DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 59 41 86 59 True False D.F. = 1 X = 7.63 Sig. (.01 Question No. 6: I like to say what I think about things. ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 111 89 139 95 False 14 11 7 5 D.F. = 1 X2 3.87 Sig. (.05 Question No. 7: i like to do things that other people regard as unconventional. ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 56 44 72 51 False 70 56 70 49 D.F. = 1 2 = 1.05 N.S. Question No. 8: I like to do things in my own way and without regard to what others may think. ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 52 42 73 50 False 73 58 73 50 D.F. = 1 X = 1.91 N.S. Question No. 9: I like to avoid responsibility and obligations. ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 9 7 8 5 False 116 93 138 95 D.F. = 1 x = 0.37 N.S. 84

Few differences were discovered between advantaged and culturally distinct males. Only one of the questions showed that the responses from the two groups were significantly different. ("I avoid situations where convention is expected.") Here, the disadvantaged were more inclined than the advantaged to agree. The responses to the remaining questions indicated that little if any difference actually exists between these groups. This same tendency was evidenced in the comparison of the females. Indeed none of the questions showed any significant differences. Interestingly, however, directional difference (<.20) was discovered on the item dealing with unconventional behavior ("I do things that others regard as unconventional"). This item was similar to the one alluded to above where disadvantaged males indicated a preference for situations where convention was not expected. This could suggest that the culturally distinct population as a whole is more inclined or predisposed to behave in unconventional ways. The strength of the generalization is markedly reduced, however, in the light of the similarities found on the other questions. Significant and directional differences were more evident between disadvantaged males and females than between advantaged and disadvantaged males and between advantaged and disadvantaged females. Disadvantaged males, for example, were more inclined to agree than were the females that they enjoy criticizing people in authority ((.01) ("I criticize people in authority"). On another variable ("I do things my own way without regard to what others think"), disadvantaged females were more apt to agree (<.02). Directional differences ((.20) were observed on two questions ("I like to be independent and decide for myself and I avoid situations where convention is expected"). The first, indicated that the females were more predisposed to agree whereas the second indicated a male preference to agree. From this information no generalization about disadvantaged male or female preference for autonomy seems possible. The responses to the questions that were significant were not consistent in one direction or the other. On two of the questions the males were inclined to be autonomous whereas on the third it was the females. 85

TABLE 26 Question No. 1: MALES True False D.F. = 1 FEMALES I come and go as I want. ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 47 100 0 0 X2 = 0.22 ADVANTAGED Frequency Percent D I SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent 65 97 2 3 N.S. DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent True 76 99 76 96 False 1 1 3 4 D.F. =1 X 0.23 N.S. DISADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 65 97 76 96 False 2 3 3 4 2 D.F. = 1 2 = 0.04 N.S. Question No. 2: I like to be independent and decide for myself. MALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 41 87 54 82 False 6 13 12 18 2 D.F. = X =.26 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 66 86 72 93 False 11 14 7 7 D.F. = 1 X = 0.66 N.S. D I SADVANTAGE D MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 54 82 72 91 86

DISADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 12 18 7 9 False D.F. =1 X = 1.98 Sig.<.20 Question No. 3: I feel free to do what I want to do. MALES ADVANTAGED D I SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 46 98 63 95 False 1 2 3 5 D.F. = 1 X = 0.03 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 77 100 77 97 False 0 0 2 3 D.F. =1 X2 = 0.48 N.S. DISADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 63 95 77 97 False 3 5 2 3 D.F. =1 X = 0.04 N.S. Question No. 4: I criticize people in authority. MALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 20 43 25 37 False 27 57 42 63 D.F. = 1 X2 = 0.34 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 15 19 12 16 False 62 81 67 84,,~........ _...,...., D.F. = 1 2 = 0.25 N.S. 87

DISADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 25 37 12 16 42 63 67 84 True False D.F. = 1 X2 = 8.25 Sig. (.01 Question No. 5: I avoid situations where convention is expected. MALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 12 26 32 48 False 35 74 34 52 D.F. = 1 X = 5.16 Sig..05 FEMALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 19 25 27 35 False 57 75 52 65 D.F. = 1 X = 1.06 N.S. DISADVANTAGE D MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 32 48 27 34 False 34 52 52 66 D.F. = 1 X2 2.48 Sig. <.20 Question No. 6: I say what I like about things. MALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 42 89 65 97 False 5 11 2 3 D.F. = 1 X2 = 1.64 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 68 88 74 94 False 9 12 5 6 D.F. = 1 2 79 X = 0.79 N.S. 88

DISADVANTAGED MALES Frequency Percent 65 97 2 3 FEMALES Frequency Percent 74 94 5 6 True False D.F. = 1 X = 0.31 N.S. Question No. 7: I do things that others regard as unconventional. MALES ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED FrequencyPercent Frequenc Percent True 27 57 33 49 False 20 43 34 41 D.F. = 1 X = 0.45 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 29 38 39 52 False 48 62 36 48 D.F. = 1 X = 2.60 Sig. (.20 DI SADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 33 49 39 52 False 34 51 36 48 D.F. = 1 2 = 0.02 N.S. Question No. 8: I do things my own way without regard to what others think. MALES ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 17 36 26 39 False 30 64 41 61 D.F. = 1 X = 0.01 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 42 55 47 59 89

FEMALES ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 34 45 32 41 False D.F. - 1 x2= 0.14 N.S. DI SADVANTAGE D MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 26 39 47 59 False 41 61 32 41 D.F. = 1 X2 5.41 Sig. <.02 Question No. 9: I avoid responsibility and obligations. MALES ADVANTAGED DISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 2 4 6 9 False 45 96 61 91 D.F. = 1 X = 0.35 N.S. FEMALES ADVANTAGED D ISADVANTAGED Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 7 9 2 3 False 71 91 77 97 D.F. = 1 X2 1.94 N.S. DISADVANTAGED MALES FEMALES Frequency Percent Frequency Percent True 6 9 2 3 False 61 91 77 97 _ ~ _. _.., ~ -...,..:_ ~,....... D.F. = 1 2 x = 1.78 N.S. Summary - The Personal Questionnaire Data collected by the Personal Questionnaire indicated that advantaged and culturally distinct students responded similarly to many variables. It may be noted, for example, that when "amount of education desired" was considered, the majority of each group indicated that they wanted at least a graduate degree. However, more disadvantaged than advantaged preferred a graduate degree. This phenomenon was manifested on other variables as well, providing data suggesting at least some 90

difference between the groups. The following, therefore, seem to be significant findings from the data gathered from the Personal Questionnai re. 1. The racial composition of advantaged and disadvantaged students was different; there were significantly more Blacks in the disadvantaged sample. 2. Disadvantaged students came from families that had lower incomes than advantaged families. 3. Disadvantaged students came from families that were generally larger. 4. Disadvantaged students seemed to have attained somewhat higher grades in high school than advantaged students. 5. Mothers of disadvantaged students were employed more while the children were growing up. 6. Disadvantaged students were more inclined to spend longer periods of time studying in high school and in college. 7. Disadvantaged students indicated having more difficulty in paying for college education. 8. Disadvantaged students were employed for longer periods of time while they were attending college. 9. Disadvantaged students manifested higher aspirations when asked "How good a student would you like to be?" 10. Disadvantaged students had significantly lower college grade point averages than advantaged students. 11. Fewer parents of disadvantaged students expressed feelings that college training was essential. 12. Disadvantaged students indicated a desire for greater amounts of education than advantaged students. 13. Fathers and mothers of disadvantaged students had significantly less formal education than parents of advantaged students. 14. Disadvantaged students were more inclined to affiliate with members of their own race and friends who were older than were advantaged students. 15. Disadvantaged students seem to have a greater external locus of control. 91

COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES The College and University Environment Scales (CUES) was developed for the purpose of aiding in the definition and description of the college intellectual-social-cultural climate as the students see it. The instrument consisted of 150 statements about various aspects of university life. Students were asked to indicate whether each statement is generally TRUE or FALSE with reference to their particular college. If, for example, the statement is generally characteristic of the college, is a condition which exists or is an event that occurs or could occur, then the statement would be marked TRUE. If, on the other hand, the statement is not characteristic of the campus, then it would be marked FALSE. C. Robert Pace, the author, believes that the campus atmosphere as it is perceived by students is a product of what they are aware of and what they agree with some unanimity of impression to be generally true. Because the CUES attempts to assess the perception of students, the investigators utilized the instrument in order to determine whether differences existed between the perceptions of advantaged and culturally distinct. Because much of behavior is dependent upon perception it was believed that this would be a valuable addition to determining the Student Personnel Services recommendations for the advantaged and culturally distinct. The authors, Pace and Stern, have observed that a college is many things - courses, professors, books, examinations, lectures, attitudes, parties, dances, rules and regulations, but more importantly, are the perceptions of those that live within its boundaries. Because this perceived reality influences behaviors and responses, it is imperative that student personnel workers assess it accurately. The CUES serves that function. This instrument gathers data in answer to the question - What are the characteristics of the university environment as perceived by students? The perceptions of the sample group were contrasted with a normative group of 100 universities of various size and orientations and from different sections of the country. The results provided a means of comparison. The percentile ranks on the seven scales manifested by the advantaged and culturally distinct provided a means for discovering answers to questions such as "How does our campus morale compare with other universities in the country?" 92

In addition to the norm group, Pace and Stern provided a more specific comparison for five of the seven scales (scholarship, awareness, community, propriety, and practicality). In these cases each group from the three universities was compared with colleges of similar size and orientation. It should be noted, however, that these latter percentile ranks are based upon the larger norm group. For example, whereas the 50th percentile was an "average" response on the scholarship scale for the larger norm group, it could have been well below average or well above average when the more specific group of colleges was selected for comparison. After these initial comparisons, perceptions of culturally distinct students and also the relationships between the perceptions of the advantaged and disadvantaged at the three universities were examined for similarities and differences. The following describe the seven CUES scales: Scale 1 - Practicality This scale describes an environment characterized by enterprise, organization, material benefits and social activities. In evidence is a type of orderly supervision throughout the school. Students and faculty derive personal benefit and prestige from operating within the system. Good fun and school spirit are descriptive of the environment which generally responds to entrepreneurial activities. Scale 2 - Community This scale describes a cohesive, group-oriented campus. Faculty and staff show an interest in students and exude an aura of congeniality. The salient characteristic is togetherness as opposed to fragmentation or cool detachment. Scale 3 - Awareness This scale describes an environment characterized by a concern for personal creativity, personal meaning, and a concern for events around the world, i.e. welfare of mankind. Students and faculty are apt to encourage questioning, dissent, and the tolerance of nonconformity. Scale 4 - Propriety This scale describes an environment that is polite and considerate. Students generally avoid risk taking and assertive behavior. The atmosphere is characterized by a reliance on convention. Scale 5 - Scholarship The items in this scale describe an environment that is characterized by intellectual scholarship. Interest 93

in knowledge for its own sake is emphasized. A keen competitive, academic atmosphere pervades the campus. Scale 6 - Campus Morale The items in this scale suggest an environment that is characterized by the acceptance of social and university norms. The atmosphere is spirited, supportive, and congruent with the goals of the university. Scale 7 - Quality of Teaching and Faculty-Student Relationships The items on this scale describe an environment where professors are perceived by students to be competent and flexible. Also, the faculty are successful in infusing their contact with students with warmth, interest, and concern. The disadvantaged students at Wayne State University perceived their campus to be relatively awareness and scholarship oriented. Both were well above the national mean in these respects. On the other hand, practicality, campus morale, and community orientations were low. From these data several generalizations would appear to be feasible: (1) disadvantaged students perceive the university environment as fostering personal and social creativity (awareness orientation) with a major focus upon scholastic concerns; (2) the perception of campus morale, being quite low, suggests that many of the needs of students at this university are not being met; and (3) the result would appear to be a conspicuous absence of perceived cohesiveness and congeniality on the campus. While disadvantaged students at Wayne State University perceived their environment to be scholarship and awareness oriented, this was not the case with the advantaged students. Indeed, when compared to the national norm scholarship was found to be in the 25th percentile. This was the case also with the awareness orientation where the disadvantaged felt the university was higher than was expressed by the advantaged. On the other variables there was similarity between the two groups. Community, campus morale, and practicality orientations were perceived to be quite low with quality of teaching and faculty-student relations and propriety found to be around mid-range. Once again, because the campus morale was perceived to be low, a generalization could be advanced that advantaged students may not fully accept the university norms and/or orientations. The atmosphere is not spirited, not supportive and incongruent with the perceived goals of the uni versi ty. 94

TABLE 27 COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY ENVIRONMENT SCALES: SUMMARY OF RAW SCORES AND PERCENTILES Wayne State University Eastern Michigan University Purdue University Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged RS Per* RS Per* RS Per* RS Per* RS Per* RS Per* 1. Practicality 9 13% 12 20% 22 69% 22 69% 28 91% 28 91% 2. Scholarship 17 25% 21 66% 10 5% 19 31% 26 59% 23 46% 3. Community 8 1% 9 2% 19 23% 22 38% 23 45% 22 38% 4. Awareness 20 55% 24 70% 15 31% 17 45% 17 45% 13 20% 5. Propriety 16 54% 17 57% 10 20% 13 37% 14 46% 14 46% 6. Campus Morale 15 8% 16 11% 14 8% 22 40% 27 72% 20 22% 7. Quality of Teaching & Facul tyStudent Relations 12 45% 13 55% 10 17% 10 17% 12 45% 11 29% --:. I I I,,I............,..., un ivers it ies *Based upon a reference group of 100 colleges and

TABLE 28 CUES - WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY *Percenti es 100 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Advantaged Disadvantaged a^ a C L d onarfrne ruffCDo U 0 CD - v o) *Based on a reference group of 100 colleges and N N \ \ II 4-J C E E 0 L.) Ln a) c (1) L. CD 3: <z; 4-J (1 CL 0 a) 1-:3 E C0. I - 4-J 4-J >- c >O- - -C -. -- 0U 4-J a C3 CO U c.r - o G rcYi — - -0 un i vers i t i es

Wayne State University was grouped with 19 other universities for more specific comparisons under the category "general universities - public and private." Once again five scales were considered: scholarship, awareness, community, propriety and practicality. The mean performances for this university grouping can be found in Table 29. It can be observed that there is more similarity on these five variables between Wayne advantaged and disadvantaged students than between these groups and the specific norm performances. Substantial differences between Wayne students and the specific norms occurred on the following scales: community, propriety, and practicality. It is interesting to note that even though differences were evident between Wayne students and the specific national norms, advantaged and disadvantaged students were in total agreement on their perceptions of the university on these three variables. Wayne advantaged and disadvantaged perceived the university to be much lower in community orientation than was the case for the specific norm group. This was even more evident on the practicality scale. Other universities in the special category were generally perceived to be quite high in practicality (75%). The 20% and the 13% for disadvantaged and advantaged were recorded for the Wayne sample. Both Wayne groups, on the other hand, perceived a greater propriety orientation at their university than was the case with the specific sampled universities. Disadvantaged students at Eastern Michigan University perceived their campus to be rather practicality oriented (69th percentile). Even though this group indicated that the campus appeared more scholarship oriented, community oriented, awareness oriented, propriety oriented and possessed more campus morale than that indicated by the advantaged students at the same school, the tendencies were nevertheless below the averages reflected by the national norms. As was the case with the perception of the advantaged students, the disadvantaged at Eastern viewed the quality of teaching and faculty-student relations as below average. Teachers were perceived to be in need of more warmth, interest in students, and general over-all helpfulness. Advantaged students perceived Eastern Michigan as being quite practicality oriented. This emphasis was somewhat pronounced, particularly in light of the low percentile scores on the remaining six scales. Scholarship and campus morale were exceptionally low, with orientations 97

TABLE 29 Scale >. - VI > >.-A3)u 4 —' (a L a) Q) u XO C C - _ ),3 t 4 O L E CL U r- X E 0 u U 0 O L. Percentile __ 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 21~ ~~0 [~ 2O 10 Wayne Disadvantaged Wayne Advantaged 20 Similar Colleges.-:z O 0- 0. ur —W* a'....O 98

towards community, awareness, propriety, and quality of teaching well below the mean. It would appear that the advantaged population at this university perceived the institution in the role of providing a means of fulfilling "practical" needs (i.e. getting a good job). Little scholastic emphasis was perceived. This difference and the inordinately low campus morale would suggest that advantaged students were not altogether content with the university and their perceptions of it. Whereas the disadvantaged student manifested perceptions of campus morale that were below the national average (40th percentile) they were nevertheless much higher than those found in the case of the advantaged. When Eastern advantaged and disadvantaged students were compared with a national sample of 10 "similar colleges" it was found that Eastern Michigan student responses had much in common. Table 31 indicates relatively little variance between the advantaged-disadvantaged sample at Eastern and the specific national sample. Often, however, the disadvantaged students at this university felt the campus environment was more scholarship oriented, more awareness oriented, more community oriented and more propriety oriented than did the sampled advantaged students at the same college. Both advantaged and disadvantaged, on the other hand, agreed that the campus environment was rather practicality oriented, this being congruent with the trend established by the "similar colleges." The salient characteristic of the environment perceived by Purdue disadvantaged students was that the university was seen to be very practicality oriented. Awareness, campus morale and quality of teaching and faculty-student relations orientations were perceived to be well below those tabulated for the national sample. The environment was seen by the disadvantaged as characterized by enterprise, organization, material benefits, social activities and low concern for personal meaning and personal creativity. Faculty flexibility and contact with the students seemed to be lacking. The perception of the campus morale suggested that disadvantaged students were not altogether satisfied with their perceptions of the university environment. The advantaged students at Purdue viewed the atmosphere at the university to be very practicality oriented; this was quite congruent with the perceptions of the disadvantaged. Generally, the advantaged 99

TABLE 30 CUES - EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY *Percenti les 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 0 k a Advantaged > 4-J a ZZ71 oDisadvantaged Z >u.L. - _ c' — D C U 0 E a ro- E *- U 0 *Based on a reference group of 100 colleges and universities (n a) L. ru 4 +-J. L. 0 L O_ V) 10 CL fD 0 I O 0 V) D 4- o — 4 * - -- 0 4-J D a) 0 a) rC -H- ULL -C

TABLE 31 Scale a W 1:. 4-> u en 4-> > (U C C. _ —- 0a) 43 - o L E aL - r(U E 0 o u 0 o L Percentile < 100' 90 80 70 60 /. 50 40 30 20' 10 Eastern Michigan Disadvantaged IEastern Michigan Advantaged * * 10 Similar Colleges 101

TABLE 32 CUES - PURDUE UNIVERSITY *Percenti 1 es 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 r..., 12 Advantaged 4-J?.A ~Disadvantaged Xm n U L4-J - U O E (a r- E - U 0 Based on a reference group of 100 colleges and universities un in a) C (D L(a 4-J 0 *_ LCL Q_ r~ (U 1L 0 XO E Q. (D (i - i C-. c 4- 4 O 0f cn i +-.-' cr U- 3 4-J Q (D U c.n 0) r 0 rcY -- Li-7 -0 n

perceived the environment to be more scholarship oriented, more community oriented, and more awareness oriented and the quality of teaching and faculty-student relations were looked upon more favorably than was the case with the disadvantaged. Contrary to the disadvantaged, campus morale was perceived to be quite high. Advantaged students were discovered to be in the 72nd percentile, whereas the disadvantaged were only in the 22nd. This would indicate that, apparently, the university is more effective in meeting the needs of advantaged students than disadvantaged and that this is manifested in the perception of campus morale. The advantaged-disadvantaged from Purdue University showed some differences and similarities when they were compared to the specific norm group on the five scales considered. The greatest difference appeared on the practicality scale where both the advantaged and the disadvantaged perceived the university environment to be very high. Students from similar schools, colleges emphasizing engineering and the sciences, indicated a much lower perception of practicality orientation. Difference was also evident on the scholarship and community scales. On the first, students from the specifically sampled universities and colleges felt their school environments possessed rather high orientations (75%), whereas this was less the case with the Purdue sample. The Purdue disadvantaged, for example, were found to be below the 50th percentile. On the community scale both advantaged and disadvantaged felt the Purdue environment contained a higher degree of congeniality and cohesiveness than was the case at the other schools. The similarity between the perceptions of the Purdue sample and the other specific colleges was particularly evidenced on the propriety scale where each (Purdue advantaged, disadvantaged and the specific norm group) was placed at the 45th percentile. The investigators also attempted to determine whether advantaged and disadvantaged student perceptions of the three universities manifested any similar or dissimilar relationships. If the disadvantaged students, for example, consistently perceived their campus environments differently from advantaged students, and if a directional difference in perception could be established, then this would provide much valuable data for the generation of program recommendations. 103

TABLE 33 Scale >U -4j > Un un 4- (X oQ. - 04) 0 ro c c-._ 0- a D o LCL U -C X E 0 ( U 3 0 L L Percent i le 100 70 60 0\ / 50 10 Purdue Disadvantaged Purdue Advantaged 0 *. ~.o* 10 Similar Colleges -~~~~ 104

A totally consistent response was not evidenced, however. At Purdue University it was discovered that advantaged students were inclined to perceive greater emphases upon each of the campus characteristics indicative of the seven environmental scales. For example, the advantaged students perceived higher campus morale, more campus awareness, and a higher degree of scholarship orientation than did the culturally distinct students on campus. Eastern Michigan and Wayne State University disadvantaged students equaled or surpassed the advantaged in the perception of these characteristics. The uniqueness of Purdue University when contrasted with Eastern Michigan and Wayne State would seem to provide partial explanation for this inconsistency. It would appear that the climate at Purdue and the other universities or colleges that comprise the specific category with which it was affiliated ("colleges and universities emphasizing engineering or the sciences") is considerably different from the latter schools whose specific categories share more commonality ("state colleges and the other universities" and "general universities - public and private"). Also, the location of the university and the students attracted for admission contribute to this difference. The latter was clearly reflected in the Personal Questionnaire analysis when it was discovered that the culturally distinct student sample at Purdue consisted predominately of white students (75%) whereas the sample at the other universities was strikingly different, 37% for Wayne State and 15% for Eastern Michigan. The responses of advantaged and disadvantaged students to the specific scales warrants closer examination. On the scholarship scale, it appears that each group perceived the campus climate quite differently. The culturally distinct at Wayne State observed that the university possessed a much higher predisposition to high academic achievement and general interest in scholarship than was perceived by the advantaged at the same school. This between-group relationship was supported by the Eastern Michigan observation. In this case, however, the degree of scholarship within the campus climate for both groups was considerably lower. Even here obvious differences between the perception of advantaged and culturally distinct seemed to be evident, however. When compared with the national sample, the amount of scholastic orientation perceived 105

by the advantaged at Eastern Michigan was placed in the 5th percentile whereas the culturally distinct were in the 35th percentile. With both universities the relationship appears to be similar. Both culturally distinct groups perceived higher degrees of scholarship at their schools. Although this trend was not reflected by the Purdue sample, it might suggest that because disadvantaged students generally have more scholastic problems (this was supported by information gathered earlier) their perceptions of the degree of scholastic orientation at the university will be proportionally different. The rationale is that if a student has difficulty with an aspect of the campus climate, he will perceive it to be greater than another who does not have difficulty. The performance of the advantaged and disadvantaged on the awareness scale produced a similar relationship as that manifested on the scholarship scale. At Wayne State and Eastern Michigan the disadvantaged perceived greater emphasis upon self-understanding, reflectiveness and identity in the climate than was observed by the advantaged. At Purdue, once again the opposite was true. Here, the raw scores for the advantaged on the awareness scale were converted to the 45th percentile, whereas the culturally distinct were placed at the 20th percentile. This data would appear to support the generalization that the culturally distinct students tend to perceive the university as possessing greater amounts of academic or related characteristics. Summary - College and University Environment Scales In summary, the discussion above has shown that certain facets of the university environment may be perceived differently by advantaged and culturally distinct students. This was particularly evident by the responses of students on several scales: the scholarship scale, the awareness scale and the campus morale scale. Even though differences existed between the two groups at each school, the differences were not consistent from university to university. The culturally distinct, for example, perceived greater amounts of scholarship in the school environments at Eastern Michigan and Wayne universities. At Purdue the opposite was true; the advantaged appeared to perceive larger amounts of the scholarship orientation. The same relationship between the advantaged and disadvantaged at the three universities was also evidenced on the other scales mentioned above. This perhaps was a manifestation of the within disadvantaged group population differences. 106

STUDENT PERSONNEL SERVICES QUESTIONNAIRE The final instrument administered was the Student Personnel Services Questionnaire consisting of 25 questions representing many student problem areas. Each student was asked to respond to the individual questions three times: 1. Is this or has this been a problem for you? 2. If this were a problem what resource person would you most likely pick to discuss and/or remedy the situation? 3. If this has been or is a problem for you, who have you gone to for help and/or remedy the situation? The resources that students were asked to consider were provided in five general categories: persons who teach at the university; persons employed by the university who do not teach; fellow students at the university or college; persons not connected with the university; and self (handling the problem in one's own way with one's own resources). The purpose of this section is to present the findings as they relate to the questions stated above. The data was analyzed twice; first, in order to observe the differences between advantaged and disadvantaged and second, in order to assess differences within the disadvantaged group, more specifically, disadvantaged Blacks and whites. Each student was asked to examine each problem concern and respond to the question: "Is this or has this been a problem for you?" The purpose of this was to assess areas of greater or lesser concern for advantaged and culturally distinct students. If 67% or more students indicated that it had been or currently was a problem for then, then the investigator identified it as a "high" concern. On the other hand, if fewer than 33% had been or were concerned, it was identified as a "low" concern. The chi-square ratio was utilized to assess the differences between advantaged and culturally distinct student response. The artificial categorizations alluded to above (e.g. "high," "medium," and "low") were included for the purpose of informing student personnel workers about which questions seemed to generate the greatest concern on the part of advantaged and culturally distinct students. Generally this was not sensitive enough to distinguish between the concerns of these groups. However, the chi-square statistic, also included on Table 36 may be used for this purpose. 107

TABLE 36 STUDENT PROBLEM AREAS \00% - 67% High Percent of students perceiving 66 - 34- Medium statement as a problem. 33 4 - O Low PROBLEM X2 GROUP CONE CON CE RN 1. Not doing well in a course. 10.16 (<.01) Advantaged Disadvantaged High High 2. Needing help in course selection. 00.18 Advantaged Disadvantaged High High 3. Being placed on probati on. 12.51 (<.001) Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Medi um 4. Questioning your reading ability. 5. Having difficulty studying or using the library. 00.11 00.00 Advantaged Di sadvantaged Advantaged Di sadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Low Med i um Medi um Medium Medi um 6. Having questions con- 00.24 cerning career or vocational goals. 7. Not able to pay tuition for next semes ter. 30.94 (<.001) Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Medi um 8. Thinking of dropping out of school to get a job. 9. Needing help to find a part-time job. 10. Wanting information about co-operative education or practical training during college. 11. Feeling that a policy or practice of the university was unfair. 00.41 02.75 Advantaged Di s advantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged 00.96 00.64 Advantaged Di sadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Low Medi um High Low Low Medi um Medi um -- -- 108

PROBLEM X2 GROUP COERN CONCERN 12. Suspecting that the university was engaged in unethical practices. 13. Feeling concerned about bringing political change in the society. 14. Feeling the university should be more involved in plays, concerts, lectures, etc. 01.16 00.34 02.16 Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Low Low Low Low Low 15. Thinking the university should be involved in problems with urban crisis. 13.57 (<.001) Advantaged Di s advantaged Low Low 16. Having no friends. 01.56 Advantaged Disadvantaged Low Low 17. Expressing opinions and good feelings. 18. Talking about something you are proud of. A yes or no answer does not apply. A yes or no answer does not apply. 19. Feeling there should be community spirit on campus. 20. Feeling there should be more intramural or recreational opportunities on campus. 21. Feeling restrained about dormitory rules. 22. Finding dress code rules too strict. 00.06 Advantaged Disadvantaged 03.18 00.81 00.41 Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged Advantaged Disadvantaged..... Low Low Low Low Medi um Medi um Low Low 109

PRIM2 FRN PROBLEM PROBLEM X GROUP CONCERN CONCERN 23. Not feeling relaxed 00.05 Advantaged Low about the conduct Disadvantaged Low rules. 24. Feeling the rules 00.11 Advantaged Low governing alcohol, Disadvantaged Low cars etc. are too stri ct. 25. Thinking the univer- 00.55 Advantaged Low sity is making too Disadvantaged Low many demands concerning student conduct. 110

On the three statements which produced differences, the disadvantaged manifested greater concerns. Being placed on probation, for example, was a "medium" concern for the culturally distinct whereas it was a "low" concern for the advantaged. The same was true for the problem of not being able to pay tuition for the following semester. In the latter case, the disadvantaged students were more concerned than the advantaged. The differences of opinion with respect to paying for tuition seemed to be congruent with the differences evidenced on the earlier questions dealing with family income that appeared in the Personal Questionnaire. In both cases, finances seemed to be a problem for the culturally distinct student. The final statement that generated difference related to needing help in finding a part-time job. Once again this was a greater concern for the disadvantaged student. Although the data showed that only three areas manifested differences large enough to be termed "significant," most differences that occurred directionally supported the hypothesis that culturally distinct students were more apt to perceive the statements as problem areas. The total number of students who answered "yes" and "no" to the twenty-five problem areas that were presented were tabulated for consideration. The results appear in Table 34. A difference seems to have been manifested between advantaged and culturally distinct students. Although the large numbers of responses limited the generalizability of the chi-square ratio, it appears large enough (X2 = 24.13) to suggest at least a directional difference. The culturally distinct, it was found, were more inclined to respond affirmatively to the questions. This could also be observed in the different percentage totals for each group where 27% of the advantaged answered "yes" and 33% of the disadvantaged did the same. Disadvantaged Blacks and whites were observed in a similar way. A significant chi-square ratio was also evidenced. It too, however, suffered from the same aforementioned limitation. Nevertheless, because the difference seemed supported by accompanying data (34% of Blacks answered "yes" whereas 30% of whites did the same) the conclusion that culturally distinct Blacks were more inclined to answer "yes" than were the whites was accepted for a least careful consideration. The data Il1

would, therefore, suggest that the culturally distinct seem to have a greater concern in reference to these problems than the advantaged and more specifically, that Black disadvantaged seem to have a greater concern than white disadvantaged. TABLE 34 ARE THESE CONCERNS OR HAVE THESE CONCERNS BEEN A PROBLEM FOR YOU? Advantaged Disadvantaged Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Yes 775 27% 1032 33% No 2120 73% 2139 67% X2 = 24.13 ((.001) TABLE 35 Di sadvantaged Blacks Wh ites Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Yes 569 34% 420 30% No 1106 66% 974 70% X2 - 5.14 (<.05) Black and white disadvantaged did not appear to differ appreciably in their responses to the question "Is this or has this been a problem for you?" The results are summarized on Table 37. The several statements that showed statistical significance, however, indicated that Blacks were more concerned than whites. The first of these statements dealt with the problem of being placed on probation, the second with finding a part-time job, and the third with feeling that there should be more intramural or recreational opportunities on campus. It will be recalled that disadvantaged students were significantly more concerned about being placed on probation than advantaged students (P(.001). A comparison within the culturally distinct group on this variable, however, produced even greater differences between Blacks and whites (P.001); with the Black disadvantaged feeling a greater concern about being placed on probation. Surprisingly, these differences existed even though no apparent distinctions between Black and white culturally distinct were 112

reflected on the variables, "not doing well in a course," and "needing help in a course selection." On the latter questions ("needing help to find a part-time job" and "feeling there should be more intramural or recreational opportunities on campus"), a similar trend was evident. In both cases (see chart for total group), these variables were responded to differently by advantaged and culturally distinct. Although these differences were not significant, they did indicate directionality ((.10). The disadvantaged not only felt that getting a part-time job was more of a concern but also they felt that more intramural and recreational opportunities were needed. A closer look at the disadvantaged disclosed that Blacks were primarily responsible for these initial differences between advantaged and disadvantaged. This was evidenced in the statistically significant difference between Black and white disadvantaged (<.05). Total frequencies and percentages were calculated in an effort to ascertain whether advantaged and culturally distinct students differed in their predisposition to utilize various helping resources on the 25 questions posed. Few significant differences were observed. This was particularly the case in the area of potential utilization ("would go") of universty teaching personneland university non-teaching personnel. Other areas showed similarity also. Responses were similar, for example, when the self was considered as a helping resource ("I would or have utilized myself as a resource"). And, advantaged and culturally distinct seemed to react similarly to the use of fellow students ("have gone"). Differences that were observed appeared to be rather small. For example, advantaged and disadvantaged responded similarly to non-teaching university personnel ("Would go"). However, the disadvantaged seemed to have utilized this resource ("Have gone") more than their advantaged counterparts. Thirteen percent stated that they "had gone" to a nonteaching university individual with one of these problems whereas only eight percent of the advantaged, adjusted total sample, did the same. In other words, a small difference existed between advantaged and culturally distinct in the area of utilizing non-teaching university personnel. By and large, however, the similarity between groups far exceeded the manifested differences. 113

TABLE 37 STUDENT PROBLEM AREAS Percent of Black and White 100-67 High Disadvantaged Students Perceiving 66-34 Medium Statement as a Problem 33-00 Low 2 PROBLEM PROBLEM X GROUP C E CONCERN 1. Not doing well in a 00.94 Black High course. White High 2. Needing help in 00.03 Black High course selection. White High 3. Being placed on 24.36 ((.001) Black Medium probation. White Low 4. Questioning your 01.34 Black Low reading ability. White Low 5. Having difficulty 00.64 Black Medium studying or using the White Medium 1ibrary. 6. Having questions con- 00.98 Black Medium cerning career or vo- White Medium cational goals. 7. Not able to pay tui- 00.06 Black Medium tion for next semes- White Medium ter. 8. Thinking of dropping 00.03 Black Low out of school to get White Low a job. 9. Needing help to find 05.26 ((.05) Black High a part-time job. White Medium 10. Wanting information 00.00 Black Low about cooperative White Low education or practical training during college. 11. Feeling that a policy 01.01 Black Medium or practice of the White Low university was unfair. 12. Suspecting that the 01.81 Black Low university was engag- White Low ed in unethical practi ces. 114

2 PROBLEM PROBLEM X GROUP ONE CON CE RN 13. Feeling concerned about bringing political change in the society. 14. Feeling the university should be more involved in plays, concerts, lectures, etc. 01.02 Black Wh i te Low Low 00.13 Black White Low Low 15. Thinking the university should be involved in problems with urban crisis. 16. Having no friends. 17. Expressing opinions and good feelings. 02.55 (<.20) Black Wh i te Med i um Low 00.07 Black White Low Low A yes or no answer does not apply. A yes or no answer does not apply. 18. Talking about something you are proud of. 19. Feeling there should be community spirit on campus. 20. Feeling there should be more intramural or recreational opportunities on campus. 21. Feeling restrained about dormitory rules. 22. Finding dress code rules too strict. 23. Not feeling relaxed about the conduct rules. 24. Feeling the rules governing alcohol, cars, etc. are too strict. 25. Thinking the university is making too many demands concerning student conduct. 00.00 Black Whi te 04.54 Black Whi te 00.09 Black White Low Low Low Low Medi um Med i um Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low 01.55 Black White 00.04 Black White 00.50 Black White 00.38 Black White 115

TABLE 38 FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF ADVANTAGED AND DISADVANTAGED USING SELECTED RESOURCES RESOURCE ADVANTAGED DI SADVANTAGED percent of percent of f total number f total number Teaching person- Would Go 635 20% 743 20% nel at the Uninel at the Uni- Have Gone 227 7% 301 8% vers! ty Would Go and Have Gone 188 6% 241 7% Non-Teaching Would Go 1175 37% 1386 38% University Have Gone 240 8% 460 13% Personnel Would Go and Have Gone 206 6% 362 10% Fellow Would Go 919 29% 1234 34% Students Students Have Gone 349 11% 411 11% Would Go and Have Gone 277 9% 297 8% Persons Not Would Go 539 17% 475 13% Connected Connected Have Gone 208 7% 182 5% With the University Would Go and Have Gone 156 5% 128 3% Self Would Go 375 12% 463 13% Have Gone 175 6% 253 7% Would Go and Have Gone 114 4% 171 5% 116

Differences between advantaged and culturally distinct students were more evident when specific questions were considered. For example, a question of relative concern to both was:'If you were not doing well in a particular course, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy Lhe situation?" Whereas both groups overwhelmingly preferred teaching personnel at the university, more advantaged than disadvantaged indicated that they "would go" to this resource. A point of interest was that even though more advantaged suggested they "would go" more disadvantaged indicated they "have gone." The same relationship was evidenced on other questions. On Question #3, for example, ("If you learned that you had been placed on probation, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?") the principle resource for each was non-teaching university personnel. Again advantaged students suggested more so than the culturally distinct that they "would go." On the other hand, when the actual numbers of students that "have gone" were observed, more culturally distinct were found. This phenomenon was pronounced also on Questions #5 ("If you had difficulties studying or using the library effectively, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?"); #9 ("If you needed help in finding a part-time job for the summer or during the school year, to whom would you go to obtain information?"); #10 ("If you wanted more information about co-operative programs or practical training during your college career, to whom would you go to discuss the situation?"); #12 ("if you suspected or had evidence that the university was engaged in unethical practice, to whom would you go to discuss the situation?"); #14 ("If you thought the university should be more involved in providing dramatic plays, music concerts, substantive lecture series on current issues, etc., to whom would you go to discuss the situation?"); #15 ("If you thought the college or university should be more involved in problems dealing with the urban crisis and making a social impact upon society in general or in its immediate locale, to whom would you go to discuss the situation?"); #20 ("If you felt that there should be more intramural or recreational opportunities on campus, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?"); #22 ("If you found the rules governing dress at the university to be too strict or ridiculous, to whom would you go to discuss this?"); #23 ("If you did not feel relaxed under the rules of the university governing 117

conduct on the campus to whom would you go to discuss this?"): and #25 ("If you thought that the university was making too many demands about your conduct while you were away from the campus, to whom would you go to discuss this?"). With each of these questions more advantaged than culturally distinct indicated that they would use either teaching or non-teaching university personnel for assistance in dealing with the specific question. On the other hand, when actual use was considered, culturally distinct outnumbered advantaged. This would suggest that the disadvantaged are more reticent to commit themselves to the potential utilization of available university helping resources. Yet, because their needs for assistance apparently exceed those of the advantaged, it is not surprising to find that they actually use the facil i ties more. In order to observe differences between these groups on different campuses, frequencies and percentages of advantaged and disadvantaged students using the selected resources at each of the sampled universities were compiled and presented in Table 39. Generally, there was much similarity between the disadvantaged of the three schools when individual resources were considered. An exception to this generalization was the disadvantaged student response to teaching personnel at the university. The sampled Purdue students seemed to be less inclined to indicate that they "would go" to this group for assistance than were the disadvantaged from Wayne State and Eastern Michigan. This was also reflected in the number of students who actually used this resource. Once again, the Purdue culturally distinct had a lower percentage. Purdue culturally distinct students on the other hand indicated that they "have gone" to non-teaching university personnel for assistance on the various questions posed. Whereas the difference is not large it does present a trend contrary to the one alluded to immediately above. As was the case with the disadvantaged, the advantaged students at the three universities responded in like fashion to the selected resources. The sole exception in this case was that the Purdue advantaged seemed to manifest a greater tendency to use fellow students as resources than the advantaged in the other schools. This, however, was overshadowed by the similarities. 118

TABLE 39 FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF ADVANTAGED AND DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS USING SELECTED RESOURCES PURDUE WAYNE ADV EMU ADV ADV DIS DIS DIS f % f % f % f % f % f % Teaching Per- Would Go 152 17% 163 11% 119 18% 177 20% 354 21% 331 25% sonnel at the Have Gone 82 9% 43 3% 45 7% 88 10% 99 6% 101 8% Univers i ty Would Go and Have Gone 63 7% 35 2% 38 6% 68 8% 88 5% 69 5% Non-Teaching Would Go 348 40% 590 39% 249 38% 337 39% 578 35% 491 38% Personnel at Personnel at Have Gone 93 11% 222 15% 59 9% 109 12% 80 5% 129 9% the University Would Go and Have Gone 75 9% 187 12% 56 9% 85 10% 65 4% 92 7% Fellow Would Go 309 35% 397 26% 165 26% 209 24% 446 27% 345 27% S tuden ts Students Have Gone 148 17% 187 12% 65 10% 92 11% 140 8% 122 9% Would Go and Have Gone 118 13% 150 10% 51 8% 71 8% 109 7% 71 5% Persons Not Would Go 138 16% 175 12% 94 14% 110 13% 296 18% 188 14% Connected With he Universty Have Gone 72 8% 69 5% 43 7% 46 5% 93 6% 65 5% Would Go and Have Gone 53 6% 58 4% 37 6% 36 4% 66 4% 32 2% Self Would Go 104 12% 163 11% 85 13% 131 15% 161 10% 162 12% Have Gone 57 7% 81 5% 42 7% 70 8% 78 5% 97 7% Would Go and Have Gone 41 5% 63 4% 25 4% 54 6% 55 3% 50 4% 119

TABLE 40 FREQUENCIES AND PERCENTAGES OF DISADVANTAGED BLACK AND WHITE STUDENTS USING SELECTED RESOURCES RESOURCE BLACK WHITE percent of percent of total number total number using the using the f service f service Teaching Person- Would Go 425 23% 326 21% nel at the Unine at the Un Have Gone 210 11% 156 10o vers i ty Would Go and Have Gone 121 6% 109 7% Non-Teaching Would Go 691 37% 611 39% University Have Gone 242 13% 177 11% Personnel Would Go and Have Gone 179 9% 143 9% Fellow Would Go 508 27% 455 29% Students Students Have Gone 209 11% 199 13% Would Go and Have Gone 145 8% 161 10% Persons Not Would Go 285 15% 214 14% Connected With Connected With Have Gone 113 6% 95 6% the University Would Go and Have Gone 69 4% 65 4% Self Would Go 260 14% 161 10% Have Gone 157 8% 68 4% Would Go and Have Gone 101 5% 51 3%.................. 120

Total frequencies and percentages were calculated for culturally distinct whites and Blacks in order to assess differences in their predispositions to utilize various helping resources. Unlike the findings observed when advantaged and disadvantaged were contrasted and analyzed, very little difference was evident. Indeed, a significant finding is the similarity of the response. The only difference between the two groups seemed to be in the area of self-utilization. In the latter case, Blacks seemed to be more apt to utilize their own personal resources for problem solving. In other words, they were more inclined to deal with the problem concerns on their own without the use of outs i de resources. Even though few differences were evident between Black and white culturally distinct when the problem concerns were considered as a whole, differences between the groups in resource selection were more evident when individual problem concerns were examined. For the purpose of this analysis, difference between groups was defined as at least 10% discrepancy between the frequency selection of specific resources. On the first question, "If you were not doing well in a particular course, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?", both Blacks and whites overwhelmingly preferred teaching personnel at the university. This tendency, however, was more pronounced among whites than Blacks (65% of disadvantaged whites "would go and have gone" to teaching personnel at the university whereas only 52% of Black disadvantaged were so inclined). On the other hand, Blacks were more apt to utilize non-teaching university personnel for the same problem than were whites, this being particularly the case when the category "have gone" was examined. In this case, 19% of the Blacks had utilized this resource whereas only 8% of the whites had done so. Interestingly, more Blacks indicated that they "had gone" to non-teaching personnel at the university than had indicated they "would go" (19% and 11% respectively). This perhaps, could be an indication of how well this resource responded to the needs of Black culturally distinct students on this particular concern. On question number three, "If you learned that you had been placed on probation, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?", 121

the most popular choice of both was non-teaching university personnel. However, Blacks and whites differed significantly in the categories "would go" and "have gone." On the first, white culturally distinct outnumbered Black disadvantaged by a relatively wide margin (58% and 39% respectively), while on the second, the opposite was true. Blacks were more apt to have utilized the resource than whites (21% to 8%). This might suggest that (1) Blacks feel more comfortable about going to non-teaching university personnel for help on the problem concern and/or (2) they have a greater concern about being placed on probation. The latter hypothesis would appear to be a tenable one in light of other data. For example, Black disadvantaged students actually utilized all available university and non-university resources, including self, more than the white disadvantaged students on this question. Also many more Blacks than whites indicated that it was or had been a problem for them when they were specifically asked. Question #6 was, "If you had questions concerning your career or vocational goals, to whom would you go to discuss these questions?" Even though both Black culturally distinct and white culturally distinct preferred non-teaching university personnel to discuss career and vocational problems, the preference was more pronounced with the white disadvantaged. This was clearly reflected in the differences between the groups on the categories "would go" and "have gone" where the percentages were 52% and 32% of the whites and 39% and 20% of the Blacks respectively. This was also the case on question #7 ("If you could not manage to pay tuition for the coming semester, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?"). Once again Blacks and whites both preferred non-teaching university personnel with the preference on the part of whites being considerably stronger. It will be recalled that Black disadvantaged expressed a greater concern about needing help in finding part-time employment (P = <.05) (#9 "If you needed help in finding a part-time job for the summer or during the school year, to whom would you go to obtain information?"). This was evidenced in their greater utilization of the various resources to resolve informational need. Interestingly, however, this concern was not significantly evident between the two groups on preferences for assistance. In fact the one resource that manifested difference (a difference of 10%) was in the opposite direction. In this case more 122

whites than Blacks indicated that they "would go" and "have gone" to persons not connected with the university (39% and 21% as compared to 23% and 15%) to answer their questions. (Note: This may raise a question as to whether Black and white disadvantaged students have different "off-campus" resources at their disposal.) On the question "If you were interested in bringing about political change in the society-at-large, to whom would you go to discuss the situation?" Blacks and whites responded similarly with the sole exception being the case of utilizing fellow students as resources. Disadvantaged whites, it seems, were more inclined to go to their peers when a problem such as this became a concern. The difference was quite substantial. Fifty-three percent of the white culturally distinct insisted that they "would go" to fellow students whereas only 33% of the Black disadvantaged said the same. Also, more whites than Blacks actually utilized ("have gone") their own peers. The two differences were jointly evidenced in the final category "would go and have gone;" where 17% of the white culturally distinct were to be found as compared to only 1% for the Blacks. Where Black disadvantaged students were not inclined to use fellow students for questions concerning political change this was not the case with those concerning student cultural life. (#14 "If you thought the university should be more involved in providing dramatic plays, music concerts, substantive lecture series on current issues, etc., to whom would you go to discuss the situation?") In this case more Black culturally distinct suggested that if this was a problem, they would probably go to peers for assistance rather than to any of the other resources. White disadvantaged were more inclined to suggest that they would go to non-teaching university personnel. In either case, however, the gulf between "would go" and "have gone" was extremely large. This was supported by the low number of affirmative responses for both on the question "Is this or has this been a problem for you?" Black culturally distinct and white disadvantaged were inclined to select similar groups on the question, "If you did not have many friends on campus, with which group would you be most likely to associate?" Nevertheless, some differences were manifested. For example, white disadvantaged overwhelmingly preferred to associate ("would go") with their own peers (69%). The percentage of Blacks indicating they 123

would associate with peers was somewhat lower (50%). No major differences were evidenced, however, in the area of actual association ("have gone"). This was also the case in the category "persons not connected with the university" where no difference was evident in actual association but 27% of the Black disadvantaged population suggested they would associate with off campus persons whereas only 8% of white culturally distinct indicated this. When asked to respond to question #19, "If you felt there should be more community spirit on the campus, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?", differences were manifested with respect to several of the helping resources, specifically in the category "would go." For both Blacks and whites, fellow students were the first choice. More whites than Blacks, however, indicated they "would go" to peers (77% to 59% respectively). A difference of at least 10% was observed in the "would go" category in both teaching personnel at the university and persons not connected with the university. In each case Black disadvantaged students were more inclined to suggest they "would go" than were whites. However, no differences were evidenced when actual utilization was considered ("have gone"). Finally, on question #20, "If you felt that there should be more intramural or recreation opportunities on campus, to whom would you go to discuss and/or remedy the situation?", one interesting difference was manifested. Forty percent of the Black culturally distinct indicated they would go to teaching personnel at the university with such a problem. Yet, only 1% of the same group actually went to this resource and this individual did not indicate that he "would go" again. Whereas this trend was evident for white disadvantaged, it was not nearly so pronounced. Both groups on the whole preferred non-teaching university personnel as helping resources. Twenty-five problem concerns were presented to advantaged and disadvantaged in the Student Personnel Questionnaire. Both groups were asked to respond to the questions, "Is this or has this been a problem for you?" The results showed that disadvantaged students were generally more inclined than advantaged to have viewed the problem areas as personal concerns. Also, when the culturally distinct were examined more closely, culturally distinct Black students appeared to have manifested more concern in these areas than culturally distinct whites. 124

Summary - Student Personnel Questionnaire In summary, few differences were evidenced between the advantaged and culturally distinct when helping resources were examined. Generally, however, it appeared that culturally distinct students were slightly more inclined to have utilized the various university helping resources such as teachers and counselors. When the question, "Would you go to this resource?" was posed for each of a number of university services, advantaged students were more inclined to respond affirmatively. When the question, "Have you used these services?" was considered, however, the opposite was discovered. Disadvantaged students actually used the various resources more even though they were less inclined to suggest that they "would go" if they needed help. 125

Chapter IV Generalizations About the Disadvantaged

This section provides the reader with a series of generalizations about the culturally distinct and about programs designed to assist them. Final project reports are typically voluminous and detailed documents. A common source of difficulty for the consumer, therefore, is gleaning From this detail information that is appropriate and relevant to his situational needs. As a result we have attempted to make our findings more accessible and applicable for the reader. In most cases the literal parentage of any given generalization is likely to be both mixed and uncertain. However, the validities of these generalizations are a reflection of numerous findings in the literature regarding the culturally distinct. The statements would appear to have utility for both research and practice. However, their best utilization is probably as a stimulus for further thought or action rather than as definite statements of what is. It is hoped that these generalizations will serve these ends and not become contributors to stereotypic responses or rigid thinking. When used in the context of experimentation, the generalizations may hopefully lead to improved programs and practice. I. Culturally different students must acquaint themselves with two distinct value systems. Many culturally different students may show resentment at this imposition and some may manifest anxiety. The resultant anger or insecurity may hamper performance in the larger society, and more specifically in school related activities. This problem is obvious not only when different cultural groups are considered (e.g. economically deprived Puerto Ricans, Mexican-Americans, and American Indians), but also when subcultures are observed (economically deprived Blacks and whites). From each group, to a lesser or greater degree, unique behaviors, patterns of communication, interests, and values emanate which differ from the dominant cultural group. Hence, each cultural and subcultural group, knowingly or unknowingly, attempts to transmit these norms to their youngsters. However, problems are evidenced when these youths begin to interact in the dominant culture. Dissonance may arise as a result of attempting to maintain or change previously learned life style patterns in light of new data gathered from ex 127

periences in the contraculture. One possible consequence is the manifestation of dissatisfaction or even contempt for both cultural milieus. II. Culturally distinct students seem to utilize unique coping behaviors that are rooted in their specific cultural experience. Since it has been shown that the cultural experiences of advantaged and disadvantaged students differ, it would appear that inclinations toward specific coping behaviors are, in part, related to past environmental experiences. Specific life styles, behavioral patterns, and problem solving techniques may be the roots from which these coping behaviors are developed. As the roots vary, so also the resulting behaviors. Thus, the culturally distinct student may bring to the college setting a style which may be antithetical to the accepted norms of the environment. Criticism, scorn and rejection may result. Several minority group authors have suggested that the cause for this reaction may be a product of the majority group's general intolerance of difference. It has also been suggested that the greater the differences the greater the reaction of society. Advantaged students manifesting coping behaviors similar to the disadvantaged, for example, might be perceived to be less different. Rather than rejection, scorn or criticism, these students may only be viewed as "characters." III. Because parents and relatives of culturally distinct students have had less experience with college attendance, disadvantaged students may attend with less information about university norms. This may result in greater amounts of anxiety associated with the experience. It has been shown that students who come to the university for the first time must undergo a period of adjustment. This change of environment may be more drastic for the disadvantaged than for the advantaged student. More likely for the latter, this gap is partially bridged by the experiences of parents, relatives or acquaintances, who, albeit in another era, attended college and experienced the initial pressures associated with college attendance. Because during the formative years disadvantaged students may have lacked, at least more so than the advantaged, physical and verbal contact with college life, 128

it is more likely that feelings of trepidation associated with the unknown will arise. It appears conceivable, therefore, that in addition to the external presses with which each college student is confronted, the disadvantaged student may be more hampered by unresolved internal anxieties associated with the new life. IV. Research shows that the unique cultural experiences of the disadvantaged student may reflect a tendency towards an action orientation. There is evidence to support the assumption that disadvantaged students, because of unique social-cultural experience, bring to the university cognitive life styles that differ accordingly from the advantaged population. Such a difference may be a tendency toward an action orientation. It is important for student personnel workers to remember that these differences may be more instrumental in determining interests, and ways and rates of learning for the disadvantaged than in showing inadequacies or handicaps. (Indeed, they may be perceived to be advantageous.) This finding appears to have implications for designing learning experiences for culturally distinct students. If student personnel workers can know the cognitive life style of the learner and if they can provide teaching or counseling methodologies what are congruent with these specifications then the probability of success will be considerably enhanced and an important pitfall will have been avoided. V. In light of current social and economic conditions culturally distinct students have discovered higher education to be one of the few means for personal advancement. Whereas both advantaged and disadvantaged students may consider higher education as an important means of economic and social advancement it is particularly important to the disadvantaged because it may be perceived as a sole means. Even though culturally distinct students and, more specifically, minority group members, have experienced some difficulty in achieving success in an educational system conceived to service, primarily, the needs of the dominant culture, it nevertheless appears that this system is more amenable to adapting to the needs of the disadvantaged than are other institutions in our 129

society. Many writers have therefore, predicted that the enrollment of disadvantaged students in college will continue to increase. This will further necessitate the development of effective programs for this group and will require that new energies and ideas be channeled into this facet of the university. VI. Research data indicates conflicting evidence regarding the level of vocational-educational aspirations of disadvantaged students; however, trends in current research suggest that aspirations of culturally distinct students are equal to or higher than those of advantaged students but that their actual expectations are considerably lower. When considering the educational motivation of disadvantaged students it is important to consider both aspiration and expectation. The relationship between the two concepts is a close one but as results from studies show, responses by advantaged and disadvantaged students tend to differ. It is usually discovered that disadvantaged youth have high vocational-educational aspirations. In many cases they aspire to become the best students or recipients of professional or doctoral degrees. However, wanting to acquire a graduate degree and expecting to receive a graduate degree are different concepts. The latter, it would appear, is more grounded in reality and past experiences whereas the former is based upon desire. For many minority group members there are no constraints upon aspirations. However, when an attempt is made to realize these ambitions many inhibiting factors may be uncovered. These factors (e.g. poor academic performance, social prejudice) may be used knowingly or unknowingly to discourage culturally distinct students from pursuing desired courses of action through the dissemination of educational or vocational predictions. For most disadvantaged students these prediction techniques work to steer them away from aspiration realization. Instead, student personnel workers may be wise to seek out more relevant criteria for vocational and educational counseling, criteria that focus upon positive attributes vis-a-vis negative differences. VII. Standard means of assessment of culturally different populations, with regard to achievement, aptitude and vocational development, have been shown to have severe limitations when applied to the culturally distinct. 130

Although there is considerable controversy, it is becoming increasingly obvious that assessment instruments designed and developed primarily for advantaged populations are not altogether appropriate for disadvantaged students. This is evidenced when traditional objective test data are ranked high on the list of criteria examined relative to the admission of disadvantaged students to higher education. These admission procedures, however, for the selection of disadvantaged students are being vigorously challenged. Fortunately, a number of colleges are experimenting with a wide variety of selection procedures which transcend these traditional selection processes. VIII. Culturally distinct students often experience or have experienced economic deprivation. For this reason they may attend college without the same expectation of graduation. It appears that many disadvantaged students come to the university with no apparent long-range financial backing. Even though this phenomenon is not unlike the situation discovered by many advantaged students, it appears that those who are culturally distinct face more difficulty in acquiring jobs, scholarships and fellowships. This has several implications for their length of stay at the university: (1) disadvantaged students may be economically squeezed out of the university because of unavailable funds. This may occur even after they have exhausted all available and "realistic" resources; (2) disadvantaged students may attend college knowing thay they will only have funds for a limited time and when the funds expire they may withdraw without pursuing alternatives. Each of these implications decrease the possibility of graduation. Strategies that provide for information about long-term financial aid and educational planning and measures that follow through with the actual acquisition of jobs, scholarships and fellowships are essential if this source of difficulty for the culturally distinct is to be resolved. IX. Research indicates that disadvantaged students who later attend college may possess a higher level of educational motivation than advantaged students. Even though the level of motivation seems to be maintained during the college years there appears to be more variability in relation to their academic achievement. 131

It has been shown that many disadvantaged students attained higher grade point averages and invested greater amounts of energy in succeeding in high school than advantaged students. Yet, it can be also shown that once they attended college the "academic advantage" decreased in many cases, often to the point where the opposite was true. Several reasons have been advanced for this: (1) that disadvantaged students who attend college are generally from high schools that possess lower academic standings; (2) that disadvantaged students who succeed in high school settings are more highly motivated than advantaged students but that in college settings advantaged students also begin to increase their motivation and, as a result close the gap that existed before; and (3) that the sudden change from the domestic to the college environment is greater for disadvantaged students than advantaged students. These factors and others have created, in part, much variability among the culturally distinct in the area of academic achievement. Whereas advantaged students generally perform higher than disadvantaged students, many of the latter demonstrate an equal facility. Because of the many factors of disadvantageness, however, many more of the culturally distinct fall at the opposite extreme thus increasing variability and hence making the application of special programming more difficult. X. A majority of individuals labeled as disadvantaged are Black, however, poor white, Puerto Ricans, American Indians, and Mexican-Americans are also included in sizeable numbers. It is well known that a high relationship exists between minority group membership and disadvantageness. And, because various minorities are found in different parts of the country, the disadvantaged in one area may have a different ethnic composition than another. These groups may have similarities (e.g. economic deprivation) but it is important to remember that enormous cultural differences are probably more common. Whereas each minority may have a difficult time becoming assimilated and acculturated to the larger society or more specifically, in the case of the college bound, to the university environment, each may experience unique difficulties. It would seem imperative that student personnel workers should know, understand, accept and show a concern for the particular disadvantaged group with which they will be most closely associated. Lip service alone will not suffice. 132

XI. In providing helping services for the disadvantaged, territorial limits for the different specialities have little signi fi cance. There appears to be little justification today for establishing protected territories for each of the personnel specialities. In practice, SPW must by necessity, find themselves serving a multiplicity of roles and functions, sometimes in collaboration with different personnel specialists, but frequently as sole worker for a given group of disadvantaged. At the present time many of these student personnel facilities are located in contiguous locales. The diversity of specialities, however, often poses problems of overlap and on occasion the pursuit of opposite goals. XlI. In developing and implementing programs for the disadvantaged student, personnel workers should be aware that such programmatic efforts may be perceived by disadvantaged students as a threat to their autonomy, self control, and integrity. It seems quite evident that the responses of disadvantaged students toward programmatic efforts will vary greatly. One issue seems particularly important. There is evidence which indicates that, in some cases, students from disadvantaged backgrounds respond very negatively to being "thrown" into programs with little consideration for their attitudes or feelings regarding the matter. Furthermore, some students point out that they dislike being singled out as "disadvantaged" through participation in certain programs and practices. Conversely, there is reflected a point of view by other students which suggests that a sense of camaraderie and peer identity is an important element of special programmatic efforts. Such evidence, it would seem, serves to reinforce the notion that in developing programs for students and more specifically, disadvantaged students, top priority must be given to the exceptionally wide variety of attitudes, values, and needs of these students. And of equal importance, no matter how well intentioned programmatic efforts may be, assistance may be seen or at least perceived by culturally distinct students in such a way that the liabilities of acceptance or involvement may exceed the potential for rewards. XIII. It would appear that successful programs for the disadvantaged attempt to adapt both the university environment to the indi 133

vidual and the individual to the environment, but not exclusively one or the other. In the past most universities attempted to exclusively adapt disadvantaged individuals to the university environment. In the process a number of these students discovered that this expectation was inconsistent with their need structure and hence, willingly or unwillingly, terminated before they achieved graduation. However, with increasing numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds making their appearance on college campuses, universities are becoming cognizant of the fact that they must attempt to modify certain college programs and practices in order to accomodate a highly diverse student body; more diverse than at any time in the history of American education, and evidence indicates that this trend will continue. In one sense, the ability of higher education to cope effectively with the challenges presented by the disadvantaged student will, in essence, be a reflection of its readiness to respond to a wide variety of problems. XIV. Helping strategies and procedures should be developed on a hierarchical basis meeting more basic needs first. It is interesting to note that the helping procedure which seems to have had the greatest impact on changing the behavior of students from disadvantaged backgrounds was, simply, providing them with a meal. Some very elaborate helping procedures have been ineffectual because the pressing needs of the persons were for food or medical care. It is easy to infer that because we have studied the environment in which persons are living, that the environment is somehow now improved or even adequate. In fact, it would appear that the basic necessities of many are not being met and that we have, in many instances, catalogued the needs of people rather than changed conditions of living. It would appear that any effective helping strategy must, following the law of parsimony, deal with basic physical needs prior to, or concurrently with, psychological assistance. XV. If culturally distinct students and paraprofessionals are afforded the opportunity to become involved in program development and implementation, such programs may be more 134

successful in attracting and meeting the needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It seems quite evident, through numerous program descriptions and evaluations, that students from disadvantaged backgrounds can make significant contributions to program effectiveness. For example, numerous tutorial projects have employed the talents of culturally distinct students with considerable success. In these situations the student is provided an opportunity to become involved in decision making responsibilities and in helping roles which have educational ramifications for his peers, as well as himself. Also, inherent in these kinds of activities is the opportunity for the student to have an influence on events which have a direct bearing on his educational life. If students from disadvantaged backgrounds perceive that vehicles are available within the educational setting which encourage participation and input regarding proposed and ongoing programs, then it would appear that greater support and utilization of programmatic efforts by disadvantaged students would ensue. XVI. Student personnel workers coordinate their programmatic efforts with those of other university and community agencies in order to best facilitate the educationalpsychological-vocational growth of culturally distinct students. The essence of effective programming for disadvantaged students is reflected in a college-wide commitment to program development, implementation, and coordination. This suggests a considerable investment of institutional financial and human resources. Inherent in such a commitment is the provision that faculty, administration, and student representatives become involved in the initial planning of programs. Such procedures would aid in program acceptance by the various segments of the university community, as well as facilitate implementation. Most certainly, once programs are in operation, systematic communication links must be maintained between project directors and the total university. Also, an often neglected area of linkage is between the college and the community; therefore, it would seem reasonable to involve interested community members in all phases of programmatic efforts. 135

XVII. The demands for funds to expand services for the culturally distinct is accelerating and exceeding available resources. This generalization has significant implications for the selection of strategies for program development. Because the addition of new professional staff and facilities requires new sources of income and because these sources of income may become increasingly limited, student personel workers may be required to innovate within limitations prescribed by economic parameters. If effective, relevant programs are to be developed in the light of these financial limitations, student personnel workers must become flexible and accepting of experimentation with existing resources. If the present student personnel services staffs and facilities can be utilized to their full potential, then the need for financial assistance will be reduced considerably. Therefore, it is imperative that those services become an integrated part of the existing institutional program reducing dependence on federal funding. XVIII. When dealing with disadvantaged populations, student personnel workers may be required to develop and experiment with intervention strategies that differ from prior training and experience. Most student personnel programs have been designed for persons from advantaged backgrounds. However, as has been elucidated elsewhere, culturally distinct students may exhibit motivations, interests, and values that differ significantly from "advantaged" students. It would appear that certain elements of programs for students from disadvantaged backgrounds should attempt to accommodate these differences. The adoption of intervention strategies that are congruent with the expressed needs of culturally distinct students seems imperative. As a result student personnel workers may be faced with new challenging situations that demand new and challenging responses. XIX. It would appear that an integral part of the success of programs for the culturally distinct is contingent upon the dissemination of information about the opportunities and services offered. Before culturally distinct students arrive on campus, they and their parents should be informed of the resources available through the 136

college or university. Some colleges initiate information dissemintion processes to students from disadvantaged backgrounds as early as junior high school and continue the procedure throughout the students' secondary school years. If culturally distinct students are aware of the opportunities and special services available before they arrive at the university, the probability of increased motivation for higher education, as well as increased use of programs and services, is enhanced. Once disadvantaged students arrive on the campus, there must be a concerted effort made to maintain continuous personalized contacts, opportunities and services. XX. Student personnel services programs that have been identified as being progressive and innovative, reflect an activist, experimental orientation undergirded by a strong commitment by the staff members to actualize the potential and ultimate educational success of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. One of the characteristics of "successful" programs for the culturally distinct is the presence of exceptionally strong and dynamic leadership by program directors and their staff members. Typically, these persons manifest an exceptionally strong commitment to students participating in their programs and are willing to take "high risks" in order to insure student success. On occasion such strong "risk leadership" runs counter to standard university procedures and practices; but, this has significant impact upon student willingness to identify with and participate in such programs. If students perceive that staff members are willing to fully commit themselves to their problems and concerns, without reservations or conditions, then student commitment to the program follows. XXI. Student personnel staffs with members from racial or cultural backgrounds that are represented in the disadvantaged population at the college or university may be more successful in attracting disadvantaged students to their services. It appears that minority group members perceive the inclusion of staff members of like cultural background in a positive way. Black students, for example, may feel more comfortable about coming to a counseling center if there are several Black counselors on the staff. The addition of "cultural specialists" is an important means of con 137

veying the notion that the university considers the needs of these students important. It should not be assumed, however, that the inclusion of staff members from one specific minority group will necessarily be satisfactory with respect to the needs of other disadvantaged minority group students on campus. Members of differing minority groups are intensely involved in questions of identity and issues regarding their human rights, and have become particularly sensitive about representation in matters which have a bearing on their i ves. XXII. The investment of official university energies in the development of programs for the culturally distinct is necessary but not sufficient in itself. Above all it would appear that student personnel workers must invest energy in developing appropriate programs for the culturally distinct. The characteristics of the investment are exemplified by student personnel workers who are aware, responsive and committed to the needs of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. This pertains to design, implementation and follow through. Even though these ingredients are necessary, they do not appear to be sufficient. Programs attuned to the disadvantaged must also utilize research, feedback and new ideas. Evidence demonstrates that student personnel programs for the disadvantaged that have experienced difficulty seem to have, knowingly or unknowingly, disregarded one of these important facts. XXIII. Whereas there is no adequate definition for the term "disadvantaged," economic deprivation seems to be a characteristic that includes the vast majority. In recent years those who have studied children from disadvantaged backgrounds have assembled and disseminated numerous lists of descriptive personal, social and economic characteristics. Ostensibly, these qualities described differences between this specific population and the greater majority. Among the characteristics that were found to distinguish between advantaged and disadvantaged students were differences in coping behaviors, attitudes, interests, motivations, and expectations. Student personnel workers should remember, however, that in most cases the cause for each of these may be traced to a 138

single factor: economic deprivation. This, however, does not preclude the existence of discrimination, institutional racism, etc. and their cumulative effects on the culturally distinct. This realization may have important implications for the philosophical assumptions that underlie a specific programmatic endeavor. XXIV. Student perceptions of university environments vary in proportion to differences in past cultural and social experiences. To cite one example, there is evidence to indicate that culturally distinct students perceive the college environment to be more academically oriented than advantaged students. Because many of these students come from high schools of marginal quality, it is not surprising that "academic shock" occurs as a result of the transition from the secondary school to college. Indeed, there are many responses manifested by students from disadvantaged backgrounds as a result of this experience. Quite naturally, as a function of highly complex interactions between individual and environmental factors, student responses reflect on one hand, increased motivation and high levels of achievement, and reflect on the other hand discouragement, disillusionment, and ultimately, withdrawal. It would seem imperative, therefore, that program developers "tune in" to the perceptual reality of disadvantaged students in order to design and implement programs which facilitate their educational progress. SUMMARY This section has provided the reader with twenty-four generalizations gleaned from a review of the current literature and from the findings of the present investigation. They have focused primarily upon characteristics of the disadvantaged and programs that seek to facilitate their personal, educational and social development in the college environment. Their purpose is to stimulate thinking regarding related issues of research and practice. It is cautioned, however, that these statements should serve this end rather than be viewed as stereotypic and definitive statements of what is. 139

Chapter V Review and Implications of Disadvantaged Research

TRADITIONAL RESEARCH APPROACHES Perhaps a major outcome of a research endeavor, is not only the actual research, but the insights gained by the experimenters in the research process. It is as if having conducted a body of research, an individual is then in a position to analyze and perceive the appropriateness as to what he does and to reflect upon what he would do if he were to do it again. Frequently, it is the insights into goals and methodologies which are the greater outcomes from the research project, than the actual research results. However true this may be, the experimenters in this research process feel that they have gained a great deal, in reflecting upon the research methodologies which were used, the societal implications for further research of the kind that we have undertaken, and the problems associated with traditional research methodologies for studying the disadvantaged. It may be fair to say the the research we have conducted is a rather typical example of traditional research approaches. It is an attempt to quantify some of the typical variables which are used to describe the characteristics and the behavior of the disadvantaged. In viewing disadvantaged research, it would appear that there are a number of factors both in our research and in the large body of other research projects which generally characterize this type of research. First, there would seem to be a distinct focus on differences. The disadvantaged are seen as a group different from the advantaged. And there is a distinct inclination to try to describe both in terms of characteristics and behaviors, to specify how the disadvantaged are different. Second, the disadvantaged are seen as a large general group rather than a body of individuals who constitute a number of sub-groupings. Descriptions usually imply a generic body of individuals with little intra-group variance,between the disadvantaged and the advantaged. Third, there is a distinct tendency to focus exclusively upon objective data rather than subjective. Hence, that which is most readily objectifiable and obtainable appears to be that which is most frequently studied and reported. Fourth, there is a tendency to design studies which are oriented towards the analysis of disadvantagedness, thus developing a data bank which focuses on fairly narrow aspects of behavior. There appears to be little effort to integrate findings and 141

develop action formulae based upon the findings. Little consideration is given to the broadest societal implications of this research, or to whether one can appropriately make generalizations about a body of individuals, by accumulating small, fairly discrete research studies. Clearly in this approach there are some implied values represented as to the general worth and value of the so-called disadvantaged. The fifth characteristic of fairly traditional research is its focus on the study rather than the use of research findings. That is to say, research experimenters have typically thought that their own obligations and their own concern for research ends at the time at which they develop a body of information rather than having a concern for the interpretation and the use of this information. Particularly, they have not seen research on the disadvantaged as a part of a larger societal problem, and how we can use their situation to better understand the impact of our institutions and practices upon individuals and groups. Traditional research has in general emphasized a deficit approach to discussions and descriptions of the disadvantaged. Typically, this traditional research discusses the culturally different in relation to an assumed norm of behavior, typical of middle class whites. Deviations from the norm have been regarded not as cultural differences, but instead as behavioral deficits. That is to say, deviations in behavior by the disadvantaged are seen as "a kind of behavior pathology" which requires specific treatment or amelioration using education and psychological therapeutic approaches. The basic distinction here is that the culturally distinct are not perceived as a unique component within the large body of all citizens, but rather as a distinctly different and inferior group which requires special assistance and remediation before they are able to come up to the norm of the majority group. Differences are not seen as positive strengths or as desired cultural diversities, but rather as a lack of appropriate socialization and development which can only be cured by identification in special treatment programs. This undoubtedly is partly accountable for the hostility and skepticism with which the disadvantaged view the system's efforts. By the very nature of these programs, a person seeking assistance or entering such a program is confronted with the false assumption of cultural or personal 142

inadequacy even though these very programs are instituded to overcome such misconceptions. Both by the choice of variables used to describe the disadvantaged and by the way that these variables are used, invidious comparisons between advantaged and disadvantaged result. Such examples as measures of learning capacity which measure knowledge and ability to cope with situations in the majority culture; measures of achievement which imply middle class educational experiences; instruments which assess one's knowledge of the cultural background of the larger white majority; measures of attitudes, expectations, and aspirations which relate to performance, progress and mobility in the white culture, all by their very definition are likely to provide lower and less favorable scores for members of the culturally distinct group. Consider, for example, the following two descriptions presenting general characteristics of populations sub-groups. The first group would be described as having a high degree of loyalty to friends with extensive experience in coping with adversity. This group is characterized by a present orientation rather than one focused on the future. Its members are spontaneous, and they assume early responsibility for their own upbringing. They possess sensitivity to human hurt and debilitating experiences gained through interaction in cross-cultural situations. There is a high degree of practical orientation to problem solving in this group, and motivation is provided by high parental aspirations and expectations of the young. In addition there are high vocational-educational aspirations, and a shared feeling that to be successful is to be strong. The second group can be described as a group which is focused upon the similarities of the group with an intolerance of any deviation or difference from that group. There is relatively little experience of the culturally different behaviors or characteristics, and those which are known are disparaged. Strong materialistic orientation is present with status and upward mobility being highly evaluated. Behavior is frequently monitored by its social desirability, lending to reduced spontaneity of behavior. There is a focus on the future rather than dealing with the here and now, and tradition plays a distinct role in day to day behavior. Parent behavior is oriented towards the possession and acquisition of material possessions. Parents are frequently prepared 143

to delegate their responsibilities for upbringing and the socialization process to institutions within the society rather than taking them upon themselves. There is generally a feeling for the desirability of providing shelter for the young in highly controlled environments as a way of emphasizing the desirability of certain social values over those of other social groups. In these two descriptions we have attempted to communicate a reversal of the usual order of the communications of the disadvantaged and advantaged groups. The first group is an attempt to indicate positive qualities of the culturally distinct in a way that is seldom present in research literature. That is to say, if one set out to describe what were the strengths and advantages of the culturally disadvantaged as a result of their experiences and culture, one might come up with a list somewhat similar to the one which was provided in example one. Likewise, the second example attempted to describe the characteristics which might be thought of as the negative aspects of growing up and living in the culturally dominant society. This may help to illustrate our point that the perspective or focus that an individual takes within a research project may necessarily determine the nature of the results. It is our point that we have typically focused on the negative aspects of the culturally distinct, and have ignored their positive attributes and their potential for growth and contribution within our larger society. It is interesting to speculate in viewing the descriptions provided in the examples what would be a traditional approach for providing the appropriate education and therapy. Would it suggest, for example, experience in the different environments and the development of some of the behaviors and attitudes which are described in example one as the positive qualities of the culturally distinct? And would it also call for specific therapy in remediation to bring about the characteristics described as desirable for the culturally distinct? SUMMARY OF TRADITIONAL RESEARCH APPROACHES In the foregoing description we have sought to identify why we feel that traditional research methodologies for work with the disadvantaged are of low social utility. By the means adopted and the use of the findings obtained, the disadvantaged as a group are seen as qualitatively different from the larger cultural groupings. And in that qualitative 144

difference there has been both an overt and a covert negative evaluation of that group. This indication of their being qualitatively different has also led to the postulation of the need for separate educational experiences and special treatment programs. The view has also declined that the problem rests with the individual disadvantaged person rather than the institutions which have been so important in the development of his behaviors. Through research methodologies we have typically failed to acknowledge the high degree of resourcefulness and adaptability of the disadvantaged in coping with his dominant cultural and environmental situation, while at the same time describing the inability and decrying the appropriateness of his behavior for performance in the larger dominant culture. The outcome of this approach, to a large extent, is that programs are proposed and suggested which would provide for individual treatment and for removal of the behavioral deficit of the members of the culturally distinct groups but which do little or nothing to respond to the cultural conditions which are responsible for the behaviors adopted by the culturally distinct. RECONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE FOCUS OF DISADVANTAGED RESEARCH A major tenet in the reconceptualization of disadvantaged research is that educators need to assess the interaction between the individual and the social institutions which affect fulfillment of individual needs. Research should focus on those aspects of our present social environments which weaken the behaviors shown by sub-groups of our population. Perhaps it is correct to say that it is an inappropriate task to seek to subject or adapt students to institutions and to provide for greater homogeneity of students with regard to learning style and coping behavior. Rather it should be our goal to see how we can build cultural diversity into our institutions of education and provide a means whereby people with different life and learning styles can readily learn. It is likely that if we were to continue to use traditional research methodologies we would need to obtain common learning styles in and common life styles among our students rather than to try to respond to individual differences which cut across age as well as culture. In particular it would seem that programs must be developed for students which are relevant to specific learning styles and that 145

these groupings are likely to cut across existing cultural or ethnic groups. The attempt to characterize a given cultural or ethnic group in terms of certain life or learning styles is essentially disfunctional. If we are able to provide in more meaningful terms a variety of learning and life styles, we may be able to build greater flexibility in responsiveness into our educational systems, which will enable an individual to adopt that learning mode which is particularly relevant to his own needs. Typically in higher education students have been expected to adjust to the prevailing norms, mores, and standards of the institution at which they matriculate. Otherwise, despite much rhetoric regarding individual differences on college campuses a pattern exists which suggests that in order to successfully compete, students must possess certain kinds of qualities which are considered to be highly correlated with successful academic achievement. Therefore, the educational procedures, practices, and services employed tend to be rather narrowly and rigidly defined and predicted on the belief that student populations are a homogeneous body. For example, higher education has been imbued with the notion of a "make or break" philosophy. That is, if the attrition rate for a particular group or class is forty percent, the view is often taken that standards have been preserved and the students who failed had no business in the college setting. Hence, an oft stated conclusion is that the student did not possess the characteristics or that they were insufficient in quantity or quality to meet the academic rigors of college life. However, seldom is the question asked, "How have we as an institution failed the students who have not succeeded?" or "what as an educational institution must we do in order to increase the success rates of our students?" Indeed one solution posited is that selection procedures must be made more rigorous, thereby reducing the failure rate. However, such an attitude still places the burden of responsibility for student failure with the student. Clearly, this is not to say that students have no responsibility in their own success or failure. Obviously they do. But higher education has generally been reluctant to examine its responsibility for the students who "fail". In essence, those in higher education have not been held accountable to students, who for a myriad of reasons, do not perform adequately at the college level., 146

Although a number of programs have been initiated throughout the country in junior colleges, four year colleges, and universities for the so-called disadvantaged, it would appear that many are predicated on the second chance or "make or break" philosophy. Hence, services and programs are provided, but the primary criterion of success is that the student "adjust" to the institution and its standards. If one fails to adjust, then he is considered to be inadequate to the task of competing in higher education. For some this is a reality. For others lack of institutional flexibility and an inability to cope with differences in student learning styles, cultural mores, and idiosyncratic needs may indeed have deleterious effects on student functioning. Certainly, the question of individual vs. institutional responsibili ty and accountability can easily be reduced to individual vs. institutional blame. Clearly, blame as a means of clarifying responsibility serves no useful purpose. Generally, defenses become rigid and creative problem solving is nonexistent. Yet if more diversity among student populations on college campuses intensifies, then more flexible standards, procedures and practices must be employed in order to insure the cultivation of a truly pluralistic educational environment. An environment which creatively encourages and fosters the manifest needs and aspirations of individuals. Hence, if such goals can be achieved, the needs of the individual, whether "advantaged" or "disadvantaged" can, hopefully, be more adequately identified and appropriate learning experiences provided. STRATEGIES FOR THE ELIMINATION OF "DISADVANTAGEDNESS" The analysis of our research approach has not only identified the shortcomings in traditional research but has helped us to conceptualize the means by which we could move towards an educational scheme emphasizing "advantagedness" and eliminating the emphasis on "disadvantagedness". We have, therefore, developed six principles which we feel could serve that end. I. Building cultural diversity into our educational system. It would seem reasonable to say that historically, and to a large measure presently, our educational institutions are designed to focus 147

on the needs of the dominant culture. For example, curriculum design and content, teaching-learning strategies, the nature and scope of campus activities and cultural events all tend to emphasize dominant cultural mores and attitudes. It is not difficult to understand, therefore, that students who come to campuses from different cultures, whether foreign or domestic, might experience alientation, loneliness and isolation. The dynamics which serve to reinforce or counteract the dimensions of alienation on the college campus are not altogether clear; however, it would appear that if institutions of higher education assume the responsibility of educating a student population which reflects great cultural diversity then they must address themselves to the task of creating psychosocially healthy climates which are conducive to the existence of cultural and racial minorities within the context of the educational environment. Certainly, this is not an easy task, especially in light of current tensions between the dominant cultural group and various minority groups, in addition to the tension between minority groups. It is evident that the inclusion of members of various minority groups on the traditionally white campus in large numbers may precipitate a certain amount of tension in both the dominant group and the minority groups' members. However, in order to maintain a healthy system a wide variety of facilitator strategies must be employed which should be the responsibility of the total university - administrators, faculty, students, student personnel workers - in order to enhance the growth and development of students within the educational system, as well as the system itself. II. Viewing the student in light of positive attributes. No student, Black or white, advantaged or disadvantaged, arrives on the college campus void of positive attributes. Thrown into a structured educational environment that emphasizes differing or even opposing qualities, these positive attributes that have served him well in the past now may have become detriments. The literature has often suggested, for example, that the Black disadvantaged student possesses an "action orientation" towards life. He learns a great deal by doing or experiencing. Many systems have ignored positive characteristics such as this and have insisted that the student develop other behaviors that he does not possess. Often he is unable to do so. 148

Perhaps a more appropriate strategy for educating all students is to focus upon positive attributes rather than negative or non-existent ones. Programs that are designed to perceive these characteristics as being positive, and secondly, programs that are designed to utilize them in moving towards educational objectives would seem to have overcome an important obstacle in dealing with the "problem" of disadvantagedness. III. Sharing responsibility for student learning. The act of going to college is a major event in a high school student's life. For some, much of the anxiety associated with the experience is the result of the often verbalized thought that in the future he, the student, would be responsible for his own learning. That is to say, if he did not succeed, then he alone would be at fault. This assumption would appear to be based upon a dual premise that: (1) the educational institution is responsible for the design and assessment of programs for learning; and (2) that these institutions are not responsible if students fail to learn. Even though this position has been espoused explicitly or implicitly by many institutions it has nevertheless resulted in a system that has overlooked the "learning difficulties" of a sizeable minority. The "problem" of disadvantagedness may be perceived as a part of this greater concern. A strategy for its alleviation would appear to be the initiation of joint responsibility in the area of learning. Institutions must share in the responsibility for student failure. Failure must be interpreted as "feedback" that something is awry — not always in the student, but sometimes in the institution. The assumption that a high rate of failure is an indication that university standards are being maintained is not a sound one. Indeed, the opposite may be true! IV. Differing processes to similar educational outcomes. Traditionally, students have been asked to learn in specific ways. Lecture classes and long reading lists epitomized this methodology. More recently, however, it has been suggested that this rigid pattern of matriculation is not conducive to a variety of learning styles. A culturally distinct student, for example, may possess characteristics that make it difficult for him to learn in this setting and in this 149

style. The incidence of failure is apt to decrease if a congruent methodology could be employed. A strategy, therefore, may be to offer a variety of learning environments. Differing processes to similar educational outcomes would appear to be necessary if the educational needs of a heterogeneous population are to be fulfilled. In such a setting it is conceivable that two students who had attained a base line competency may have done so quite differently. One may have attended traditional classes, participated in class discussions as an individual, completed his university education in four years whereas another may have participated in experiential learning discussed in small groups, and gained proficiency after six years. In either case the end product is similar: competency in an area of interest. V. The utilization of feedback systems which are systematic and on-going. A number of students in higher education have argued that the "system" has been insensitive and negligent with respect to the acquisition and utilization of feedback emanating from the educational environs. Charges have been made that institutions of higher education seek information from faculty and students which only supports the administrative line. Some students have suggested that requests for their input is a perfunctory and placating gesture designed to "keep the lid on." Furthermore, and often most frustrating, students report that their input usually has little influence relative to changes in educational procedures or practices. Another vigorous complaint is that the "decision makers" are relatively inaccessible to the students. The intensity with which such charges are made, of course, varies from institution to institution. Yet the cries for participation and involvement by students in university affairs are pervasive. And it would appear that as the social milieu of the college campus becomes more complex as a result of increased cultural and racial heterogeneity, institutions of higher education will be forced to become more aggressive and action oriented with respect to developing mechanisms which facilitate institutional change. This means that strategies must be developed which encourage input from all students on campus. Such feedback mechanisms must be on-going and systematic, and not, as so often occurs, 150

employed only in times of crisis and unrest. If education is indeed a process and evolvement, then the changes that are expected to occur in students can, in turn, be expected of educational institutions. In addition, if higher education chooses to actively assume a "process" orientation, then it must become more sensitively aware of the flux in moods and needs of the populations for which it is attempting to provide meaningful learning experiences. VI. Becoming sensitive to the phenomenological world of al students. If the university is to respond to the educational needs of all students, its personnel must become aware of their phenomenological world. The true intent of assistance offered to the disadvantaged, for example, may be misperceived regardless of the sincerity of the effort. If this is the case it becomes contingent upon the university to communicate with students in an effort to understand their perceptions. Often these "subjective" data are not consistent with objective information, e.g., grade point average or number of students using the services. Listening to students and understanding what they are saying has a multitude of implications for how the university responds. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE STUDENT PERSONNEL WORKER Becoming Knowledgeable on Sub-Cultures If colleges and universities are to meet the challenges presented by today's swelling enrollments of culturally distinct students, relevant information about the uniqueness of the population is of utmost importance. Who are these students? What unique experiences do they have? What is the nature of their learning styles? These questions and many others must be answered if educational institutions are to adequately respond. The investigators believe that it is contingent upon the student personnel worker to gather these data, process them and in turn disseminate them to the campus. If, for example, it is discovered that Black disadvantaged students and white advantaged students possess many characteristics in common, and that each sub-culture manifests more within group difference than is evidenced between cultural groups, then the student personnel worker must seek to make these findings consistent with theories that underlie programmatic efforts. Through 151

casual examination student personnel workers may discover that disadvantaged students and advantaged students alike possess many positive characteristics. They can help developers of student programs build on these characteristics rather than exclusively attempting to repair deficits. Laying the Groundwork for Cultural Diversity The student personnel worker may be in an integral position to "lay the groundwork" for the arrival of the culturally distinct student to the campus and thus facilitate mutual acclimation of campus to student and student to campus. This necessitates not only a deep understanding of these students, but also a keen knowledge of the educational organization and the greater community. Knowing and understanding the underlying forces for and against the ultimate success or failure of the student may be information that the student personnel worker can utilize to develop well-timed strategies that will increasingly assure disadvantaged student success. Serving as a Model of Cultural Diversity A third implication for the student personnel worker is that he and the student personnel program in general should model the cultural diversity prescribed for the university. Both in terms of cross-ethnic staffing and visible appreciation of cultural differences the student personnel workers' program should communicate its interaction with and appreciation for cultural diversity. Seeking to Eliminate Student Failure The student personnel worker, involved in the world of students, faculty and administration may be in an excellent position to view the numerous components of the university gestalt. From this vantage point he may come to understand for himself how and why students in general, and culturally distinct students in particular, fail. The investigators in this study, for example, have conceptualized student failure as a cyclical process: Student Failure Confirmations and Expectations That Generalizations Particular Students Fail Biased Gathering of Supporting Data 152

This cycle may have severe implications for the culturally distinct student. As data is collected to confirm the notion that certain types of students fail, the effect may be to create selffulfilling prophecies where the confidence in students deteriorates to the point where they may expect failure rather than success. The student personnel worker can work to break the cycle by seeking to make the educational system more responsible for student failure. To facilitate a change from helping students "not fai 1" to helping students succeed can be within the scope of the student personnel worker. Much can be gained by the culturally distinct and education in general if universities can be made to realize that when their students fail, they fail. Helping Students Find the "Right" University Environment Student personnel workers while recruiting, counseling and advising can attempt to match student learning styles with conducive university climates. This information must be communicated to students in an effort to prevent unsatisfactory experiences. A dual effort of communicating knowledge of the university to the student and working to make the university more suitable to a multiplicity of learning styles appears to be an effective strategy for dealing with potential problems associated with the culturally distinct. Listening to Students The student personnel worker can spearhead the collection, dissemination and utilization of feedback from students on university curricula and climate. As a campus advocate for students he may work towards the realization of programs that meet student needs. An outreach program characterized by the "counselor on the hoof" who meets with and listens to students seems to be an effective method for achieving this end. If change is to occur, an effective agent working closely with students would appear to be imperative. The student personnel worker is in an excellent position to fill this important function. 153

BIBL I OGRAPHY

Amos, W. & Grambs, J. Counseling the Disadvantaged Youth. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968. Asbury, C. "Some Selected Problems in Assessing the Intelligence and Achievement of Disadvantaged Groups: With Special Emphasis on the Negro." Quarterly Review of Higher Education Among Negroes, 1968, 36, 294-307. Baratz, S. "Effect of Race of Experimenter, Instructions, and Comparison Population upon Level of Reported Anxiety in Negro Subjects." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 194-196. Battle, E. & Rotter, J. "Children's Feelings of Personal Control as Related to Social Class and Ethnic Group." Journal of Personality, 1963, 31, 482-490. Berg, E. & Axtell, D. Programs for Disadvantaged Students in the California Community Col leges. Oakland, Ca.: Peralta Junior College District, 1968. Bertsch, E. "The Small College Opens Its Doors: Who Runs the High Risk Programs." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Meeting, September 4, 1970. Boney, J. "Predicting the Academic Achievement of Secondary School Negro Students." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1966, 44, 700-703. Bowerman, C. & Campbell, E. "Aspiration of Southern Youth: A Look at Racial Comparisons." Transaction, 1965, 2, 24. Bradfield, L. "College Adjustment and Performance of Low-Income Freshman Males." Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 46, 123-129. Bradley, N. "The Negro Undergraduate Student: Factors Relative to Performance in Predominantly White State Colleges and Universities in Tennessee." Journal of Negro Education, 1967, 36, 15-23. Brazziel, W. "Correlates of Southern Negro Personality." Journal of Social Issues, 1964, 20, 346-353. Brazziel, W. "Needs, Values, and Academic Achievement." Improving College and University Teaching, 1964, 159-163. City College of San Francisco. Academic Characteristics of Negro Student Enrolled at City College of San Francisco. San Francisco, Ca.: City College of San Francisco, 1968. Clark, K. & Plotkin, L. The Negro Student at Integrated Colleges. New York: National Scholarship Services and Fund for Negro Students, 1963. Cleary, T. & Hilton, T. An Investigation of Item Bias. (Research Bulletin 66-17) Princeton, N. J.: Educational Testing Service, 1966. 155

Cleary, T. "Test Bias: Prediction of Grades of Negro and White Students in Integrated Colleges." Journal of Educational Measurement, 1968, 5, 115-124. Coleman, J. et al. Equality of Educational Opportunity. United States Office of Education. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1966. Crawford, D., Peterson, D. & Wurr, V. Minnesota Chippewa Indians, A Handbook for Teachers. St Paul, Mn.: Upper Midwest Regional Education Laboratory, 1967. Drabick, L. Occupational and Educational Plans of Vocational Agriculture Students in North Carol ina - A Comparison with Other Students. Educational Research Series No. 1. Raleigh, N. C.: Departments of Agricultural Education and Rural Sociology, North Carolina State University, 1963. Goddard, J. "Opportunity for the'Culturally Distinct' Student." In Agony and Promise by G. Smith (Ed.). San Francisco: Josey-Bass, Inc., 1969, 74-77. Gold, B. The Fall, 1968 Student Counselor Assistant Program: An Evaluation.Los Angeles: Los Angeles City College, 1969. Gordon, E. "Characteristics of Socially Disadvantaged Children." Review of Educational Research, 1965, 35, 377-388. Gordon, E. & Wilkerson, D. Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged. New York: College Entrance Examination Board, 1966. Gordon, E. "Counseling Socially Disadvantaged Children." In Mental Health for the Poor by F. Riessman, J. Cohen, and A. Pearl (Eds.). New York: The Free Press, 1964, 275-282. Gordon, E. "Disadvantaged Populations: Preface to a Bibliography." IRCD Bulletin, 1967, 3(4), 1-8. Gottlieb, D. "Goal Aspirations and Goal Fulfillments: Differences Between Deprived and Affluent American Adolescents." Paper Delivered at the Annual Meetings of the American Orthopsychiatric Association, March, 1964. Green, R. & Farquhar, W. "Negro Academic Motivation and Scholastic Achievement." Journal of Educational Psychology, 1965, 56, 241-243. Green, R., Hoffman, L. & Morgan R. "Some Effects of Deprivation on Intelligence, Achievement and Cognitive Growth." Journal of Negro Education, 1967, 36, 5-12. Grier, E. In Search of a Future. Washington, D. C.: Washington Center for Metropolitan Studies, 1963. Gurin, P., Gurin, G., Lao, R., & Beattie, M. "Internal-External Control in the Motivational Dynamics of Negro Youth." Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 29-53. 156

Harris, J. & Reitzel, J. "Negro Freshman Performance in a Predominantly Non-Negro University." Journal of Collee Student Personnel, 1967, 8, 366-368. Hedegard, J. & Brown, D. "Encounters of Some Negro and White Freshmen with a Public Multiversity." Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 131-144. Henderson, G. "Occupational Aspirations of Poverty Stricken Negro Students." Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1966, 15, 41-45. Hernardez, P. Student to Student: Students Help Their Fellow Di Seminar Paper. Los Angeles: How California Junior College sadvantaged College Students. University of California, 1968. Katz, I. "Academic Motivation and Equal Educational Opportunity." Harvard Educational Review, 1968, 38, 57-65. Katz, I. "A Critique of Personality Approaches to Negro Performance with Research Suggestions." Journal of Social Issues, 1969, 25, 13-27. Katz, I., Henchy, T. & Alien, H. "Effects of Race of Tester, ApprovalDisapproval, and Need on Negro Children's Learning." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 38-42. Kendrick, S. & Thomas, C. "Transition from School to College." Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 151-179. Kiernan, I. & Daniels, R. Exploratory Study of The Journal of Negro "Signs of Social Change through an 23 Negro Students in a Community College." Education, 1967, 36, 129-135. Klineberg, 0. mance: A 1963, 18, "Negro-White Differences in Intelligence Test PerforNew Look at an Old Problem." American Psychologist, 198-203. Kvaraceus, W. et al. and Citizenship. Negro Self-Concept: Implications for School New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965. Lefcourt, H. & Ladwig, G. "The American Negro: A Problem in Expectations." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 377-380. Littig, L. A Study of Certain Personality Correlates of Occupational Aspirations of Negro and White Students. Lopate, C. "The College Readiness Program: A Program for Third World Students at the College of San Mateo, California." The Study of Compensatory Programs for Minority Group Youth. New York: ERIC Information Retrieval Center on the Disadvantaged, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1969. 157

Lunneborg, C. A Preliminary Investigation of a Special Educational Program for Minority Group University Students: Prediction of Post-High School Educational Experiences frm an Aptitude/ Achievement Test Battery. Seattle: Bureau of Testing, Washinton University, 1970. McEvoy, T. "Adjustment of American Youth in Cross-Cultural Programs." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1968, 9(1), 2-8. Missall, E. To Help Them Achieve, The Academic Talent Search Project. New York: City College of New York, Brooklyn College, 1968. Moen, N. & Giese, G. Martin Luther King Tutorial Program University of Minnesota. Volume 6, No. 4. Minneapol is: Minnesota University, 1970. Pearce, F. A Study of Academic Success of College Readiness Students of the College of San Mateo. San Mateo, Ca.: San Mateo College, 1968. Poussiant, A. & Atkinson, C. "Negro Youth and Psychological Motivation.' Journal of Negro Education, 1968, 37, 241-251. Price, K. "The Problem of the Culturally Deprived." The Record, 1967, 69(2), 123-131. Riccio, A. "Occupational Aspirations of Migrant Adolescents from the Appalachian South." Vocational Guidance Quarterly, 1965, 14, 26-30. Rosen, B. "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural Dimension of Social Stratification." American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 203-211. Rosen, B. "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement Syndrome." American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 47-60. Rotter, J. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement." Psychological Monographs, 1966, 21, 1-28. Sampel, D. A Comparison of Negro and White Students Using the SCAT in Predicting College Grades. Columbia: University of Missouri, 1969. Schlossberg, N. "Disadvantaged Youth: A Current Challenge to Student Personnel Workers." Journal of College Student Personnel, 1965, 6(6), 331-334. Spuck, D. & Stout, R. "Predicting College Success Among Minority Youth: An Analysis in Highly Selective Colleges." Paper presented at the Western Psychological Association Convention, Vancouver, British Columbia, June, 1969. 158

Stanley, J., Braggio, A. & Porter, A. "Relative Predictability of Freshman Grade-Point Averages from SAT Scores in Negro and White Southern Colleges." Paper presented at the AERA Conference, Chicago, February, 1966. Stanley, J. & Porter, A. "Correlation of Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores with College Grades for Negroes versus Whites." Journal of Educational Measurement, 1967, 4, 199-218. Stordahl, K. "Evaluation of a Program for the Poor College Risk." College and University, 1969, 45, 88-94. Strodbeck, F. "Family Interaction, Values, and Achievement." In Talent and Society by D. McClelland and Associates (Eds.). Princeton, N. J.: D. VanNostrand Co., 1958, 135-194. Styles, M. "Personality Characteristics, Self Concept, Vocational Aspirations, and Academic Performance of Negro Freshmen at a Predominantly White University as Compared with Negro Freshmen at a Predominantly Negro University." Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University, 1969. Whiteley, J. "Intellectual Assessment of the Culturally Deprived" Implications for the School Counselor." The School Counselor. 1967, 15, 97-102. Winkelman, D. (Ed.) "Project SHARE." Collegiate Newsletter on the Disadvantaged, 1967, 1(1), 2-5. 159

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN illlH IElllEll 3 9015 03627 7765