ED 035 053
TT "'LE
SPONS AGENCYPUB DATENOTE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
CG 004 884
A Study of Educational and Occupational Aspirationsof Virginia's 1966-67 High School Seniors.College Entrance Examination Board, New York, N.Y.Jul 6982p.
EDRS Price MF-cr0.90 HC-4.20College Attendance, College Choice, *EducationalPlanning, *Higher Education, *High School Students,*Occupational Aspiration, Private Schools, PublicSchools, *Seniors, Sex Differences
The basic objective of this study was to determinethe educational and occupational aspirations of Virginia's highschool seniors. In May, 1967, all high school seniors in Virginiawere asked to complete a survey form. Replies were received fromabout 95°7 of the students. The preliminary data obtained wasconsidered Phase T. and the comprehensive analysis which followed asPhase TI. Phase III consisted of further study of three areas notcovered in the previous parts. The results, including tables of dataare given for each phase. The data in phase I is analyzed question byquestion. Results included in Phase TI show: (1) differences infuture plans between boys in private versus boys in public schools;(2) differences associated with sex; (3) differences associated withcollege-non college classifications Recommendations for further studyinclude: (1) additional study and analysis of the 1967 survey, and(2) replication of the study in May, 1970. (K13)
11se
A STUDYEDUCATIONALCCUPATIONALASPIRATIONS
OF VIRGINIA'SOOL SENIORS
ENT OF EDUCATION RICHMOND, VIRGINIA JULY 1969
A STUDY OF EDUCATIONAL AND
OCCUPATIONAL ASPIRATIONSc= OF VIRGINIA'S 1966-67c) HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE
OFFICE OF EDUCATION
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE
PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS
STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION
POSITION OR POLICY.
Division of Educational Research and StatisticsState Department of Education
Richmond, Virginia 23216
July, 1969
LIST OF TABLES
FOREWORD
I. INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
iv
V
II. PHASE I OF THE SENIOR SURVEY 2
A. Frequencies of Answers Given by Public High School Seniors 2B. Frequencies of Answers Given by Private High School Seniors 18
III. PHASE II OF THE SENIOR SURVEY 31
A. Comparisons Using a Public-Private School, Male-Female, College-Non-College Classification withRelated Variables 31
B. Comparisons of the Extent to Which the Seniors Were Helped by Various Individuals with TheirPlans After Graduation, and Some Related Comparisons 36
C. Comparison of Choice of College with Status of College Application and with Related Variables . . . 38
IV. SUMMARY OF ANALYSES 42
A. Summary of Phase I (Frequency Distributions) 42
B. Summary of Phase II (Results of the Regression Analyses) 44
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 45
APPENDIX AVirginia State Department of Education Senior Survey Form 49
APPENDIX BInstructions for Completing Survey 51
APPENDIX CProcedure Flow Chart
APPENDIX DCoded Senior Survey Form
APPENDIX EExplanation of Codes for Different Variables
APPENDIX F-- Explanation of the Senior Survey Analysis by the Applied Multiple Linear Regression Technique
55
59
60
63
APPENDIX GRegression Models for Comparison Using a Public-Private School, Male-Female, College-Non-college Categorization 66
APPENDIX HRegression Models for Comparison Using the Extent to Which Seniors Were Helped in Planningfor Their Futures 67
APPENDIX IRegression Models for Study of the Relation of Application Status to Choice Level of Collegesand of Choice Level to Other Variables 68
APPENDIX JSurvey of Selected Articles Related to Senior Survey Questions 69
APPENDIX KList of References Related to Senior Survey 74
APPENDIX LRevised Senior Survey Form (1970) 79
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1. Public High School Seniors' Plans After Grad-uation
2, Source of Assistance with Decision on PlansAfter High School-Public High School
Seniors 3
3. Frequencies of Reasons Given by Public HighSchool Seniors for Not Attending College . . . . 4
4. Time of Public High School Seniors' Decisionson What to Do After High School 5
5. Age Distribution of Virginia's 1967 PublicHigh School Seniors 6
6. Number of Public School Seniors LivingWithin Commuting Distance of Colleges andTechnical Schools 7
7. Educational Level of Parents as Reported byPublic High School Seniors
8. Types of High School Programs Taken byPublic School Seniors
9. Occupations of Parents and OccupationalPlans of Public High School Seniors
10. Number of Colleges to Which Public SchoolSeniors Applied
11. Types of Colleges Applied to by Public SchoolSeniors in Order of Preference
7
9
10
14
PAGE
21, Educational Level of Parents as Reported byPrivate High School Seniors 24
22. Types of High School Programs Taken byPrivate School Seniors 25
23. Occupations of Parents and OccupationalPlans of Private High School Seniors 26
24. Number of Colleges to Which Private SchoolSeniors Applied 27
25. Types of Colleges Applied to by PrivateSchool Seniors in Order of Preference 28
26. Status of College Applications of PrivateSchool Seniors Who Applied to College 29
27. Choice of College Private School Seniors Plan-ned to Attend 29
28. Reasons for Deciding on the College of FirstChoice-Private School Seniors 30
29. Numbers and Percentages in Eight CategoriesUsing Public-Private School, Male-Female,College-Non-College Classification
30. Table of Means for Each of the Eight Cate-gories on 17 Criterion Variables
31. Table of Means for Combined Categories-Private, Public, Male, Female, College-Bound
15 Seniors, and Non-College-Bound Seniors for15 Criterion Variables
32. Table of F-Ratios for Three Comparisons on17 Criterion Variables
17 33. Table of Correlation Coefficients for the 17Variables for Which Further Study Is Sug-
19 gested
34. Percent of Responses by Category for EachPerson Who Influenced the Seniors' Decisions. 38
35. Means on Choice of College Which SeniorsPlanned to Attend for Three Statuses of Appli-
21 cation to Institutions of First, Second, andThird Choices
36. Means on 11 Variables for 706 Seniors WhoApplied to College But Who Probably WillNot Go and Means for All the Public Sclool
22 College Applicants
37. Correlation Coefficients of Selected VariablesWhich Were Correlated for the Total PublicSchool Group of Seniors and Correlated toAbout the Same Extent for Only the PublicSchool College Applicants
12. Status of College Applications of PublicSchool Seniors Who Applied to college 17
13. Choice of College Public School SeniorsPlanned to Attend
14. Reasons for Deciding on the College of FirstChoice-Public School Seniors
15. Private High School Seniors' Plans AfterGraduation
16. Source of Assistance with Decisions on PlansAfter High School-Private High SchoolSeniors
17. Frequencies of Reasons Given by Private HighSchool Seniors for Not Attending College
18. Time of Private High School Seniors' Decisionon What to Do After High School
19. Age Distribution of Virginia's 1967 PrivateHigh School Seniors 23
20. Number of Private School Seniors LivingWithin Commuting Distance of Colleges andTechnical Schools 24
21
32
34
34
35
36
40
40
41
FOREWORD
As one of its major responsibilities, the Division ofEducational Research and Statistics of the State De-partment of Education cooperates in the developmentof studies to find solutions to educational problems.Studies are conducted by persons in local school sys-tems, at institutions of higher education, by membersof the Division of Educational Research and Statisticsand other divisions of the Department of Education.
The study reported here was conducted by theDivision of Educational Research and Statistics incooperation with the Guidance Service of the Divisionof Special Services and the public and private highschools in Virginia. Many persons in local schoolsystems, the State Department of Education, institu-tions of higher education, and other education agenciescontributed to the success of the project. Dr. CharlesL. Bertram, who at the time was supervisor of educa-tional research for the Department of Education, andDr. Jeffrey Pyatte, assistant professor of educationat the University of Virginia, with the assistance ofstaff members of the Division of Educational Researchand Statistics, formulated the procedures for analyzingthe mass of data collected in the survey and prepared
the multiple linear regression procedures for PhaseII of the study. Mr. Robert E. Stoltz, regional direc-tor, Mr. Daniel Beshara, assistant director, CollegeEntrance Examination Board, and Dr. Milton D.Jacobson, director of the Bureau of Educational Re-search of the University of Virginia, served as con-sultants.
The basic objective of the study was to determinethe educational and occupational aspirations of Vir-ginia's high school seniors. The primary purpose insetting this objective was to provide guidance andcurriculum specialists, school administrators, andhigher education faculties with information useful inplanning more effective educational programs. Thestudy also should be of value on a broader scale topersons interested in planning for Virginia's humanresources.
The report that follows is presented in the hopethat it will contribute to the continuing improvementof education in Virginia.
CHARLES E. CLEAR, DirectorDivision of Educational Research and Statistics
I. INTRODUCTION
At a conference on education called by the Governorof Virginia in the fall of 1966, and followed in the winterand spring of 1967 by ten regional conferences, concernwas expressed about the low percentage of Virginia'scollege-age population' enrolled in college. The figurescited in these conferences were taken from a SouthernRegional Education Board publication2 which indicatedthat 27.1 percent of Virginia's college-age populationwas enrolled in college in 1965, whereas the percentagefor the South as a whole was 35.1 percent and thenational average was 47.1 percent.
This concern, coupled with the desire by the StateDepartment of Education to know more about futureplans of seniors and the factors influencing these plans,resulted in the formulation of a survey, which is be-lieved to be the first of its kind undertaken in Virginia.At the request of the State Superintendent of PublicInstruction, the staff of the Division of Educational Re-search and Statistics developed the procedures andforms necessary to answer the question, "What werethe educational and occupational aspirations of Vir-ginia's 1967 high school seniors?" The steps taken toanswer this question are given in flow chart format inAppendix C.
In May 1967 all high school seniors in Virginia wererequested to complete the survey form prepared anddistributed by the Division of Educational Researchand Statistics. The form' was designed with the assis-tance of staff members of the Department of Educationand specialists from the Educational Testing Service.
Replies were received from 52,620 students repre-senting approximately 95 percent of the State's highschool senior population. An analysis was conductedusing the IBM 1440 at the Division of EducationalResearch and Statistics in order to provide preliminarydata as soon as practicable and to obtain guidelines forfurther study. Answer frequencies of public and
'College-age population: 18 to 21 year olds, E. F. Schietin-ger, Fact Book on Higher Education in the South, 1965, SouthernRegional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia, 1965.
3/bid.3Appendix A.4"Senior Survey," Public Education in Virginia (Fall, 1967),
State Department of Education, Richmond, Virginia 23216,pp. 1-7.
'See Robert A. Bottenberg, et al., Applied Multiple LinearRegression, Technical Documentary Report PRL-TDR-63-6.(Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. Available from Clearinghousefor Federal Scientific and Tech-'cal Information, 1963.)
6Magnetic Tape, 7 track, 556 b.p.i. See Appendix E for for-mat.
?Burroughs 5500 computer programs for Applied MultipleLinear Regression are available.
8Because a few records were deleted in the transfer, num-bers reported in Phase II are not in complete agreement withthose in Phase I. Differences are small, however.
private school seniors were the primary results of thisanalysis. The preliminary data obtained from 49,466public high school seniors were reported in the fall of1967 issue of Public Education in Virginia.' This partof the project was considered as Phase I and the com-prehensive analysis which followed as Phase II. Adetailed statistical analysis of the data was planned sothat information of a generalized nature might beobtained.
This analysis, however, required more staff time andfunds than were available to the Division of Educa-tional Research and Statistics. Beginning in Februaryof 1968, the College Entrance Examination Board(CEEB) provided funds for employment of resourcepersonnel to assist the Division of Educational Researchand Statistics in (1) determining the questions to beanalyzed, (2) organizing the dat4, for computer analy-sis, and (3) preparing a publication giving the resultsof the additional statistical analyses.
The number of areas which could have been inves-tigated was large and the selection of those to bepursued was quite important. Three areas were se-lected for further investigation in Phase IL The firstarea was determined by the question, "What were thedifferences in the backgrounds and aspirations of publicschool and private school seniors, of male and femaleseniors, and of those seniors who planned to attendcollege and those who did not?" The second area wasdetermined by the question, "Who did the seniorsreport as having the most influence on their post-highschool plans?" and the third area was determined bythe question, "How did the background and high schoolachievement of those seniors who applied to at leastone college but reported that they probably would notattend college compare with that of those seniors whodefinitely planned to attend college?"
Because of its versatility, the applied multiple linearregression technique' was used to analyze the data. Tomake use of this approach, data from the Senior Surveyforms were arranged in the tape format' required by theBurroughs 5500 computer program at the University ofVirginia, Charlottesville" 8. The different proceduresused for the survey are explained in this publication inorder that the study might be replicated in Virginia aswell as by other states or organizations as desired. Atechnical discussion of the multivariate regressionanalysis used with the Senior Survey data is given inAppendix F. In addition, the various models used inperforming particular analyses are described in Appen-dixes G, H, and I.
The results of Phase I of the survey are summarizedin the following section. Answers to questions such as,"How many (or what percent) of the seniors did not
( 1 )
plan to attend college because it was considered tooexpensive?" can be derived from these data summaries.
The results of Phase II follow in Section III andthey include statistics such as means and standarddeviations as well as the regression analyses. The
answers to questions such as, "What differences amongboys and girls were associated with whether or notthey planned to attend college?" may be found in thissection.
II. PHASE I OF THE SENIOR SURVEYAll public and private high schools in the State
were invited to participate in the survey. Threehundred forty-seven (98.9 percent) of the 351 publichigh schools with senior classes and 62 (95.4 percent)of the 65 private high schools contacted responded tothe survey.
Senior Survey forms were returned for 49,466 publicschool seniors and for 3,154 private school seniors.Approximately 57 percent (28,106) of the public highschool seniors and 85 percent (2,723) of the privateschool seniors said they planned to continue theirformal education immediately after graduation.
Part A of this section is a report of the responsesfrom public school seniors. Part B covers the corre-sponding data from private school seniors.
PART AFrequencies of Answers Given by Public High School
SeniorsThe frequencies of answers which the public school
seniors gave to various questions asked on the surveyform are presented in this section. For the readers'convenience, the questions from the Senior Survey formare given near the appropriate tables.
Plans After GraduationQuestion .1As the data in Table 1 show, 17,743 (35.88 percent)
public high school seniors planned to attend a four-year college. Another 3,615 (7.31 percent) plannedto enroll in academic programs at junior or commu-
nity collegesand 1,760
1. What Are Your Plans After Graduation? (3.56 percent)(Mark One) would enroll
Job and Go to School Part-Timei
Full -Time Jobin vocationalor technical
Business, Trade, or Technical SchoolFour Year College programs atAcademic Program at a Junior or these col-
Community College iegeS.1
Vocational or Tdichnic.1 Program at n ContinuingJunior or Community College their educa-
, Housewife tion in busi-Military Service ness, trade,
r Other or techni-No Definite Plans Right Now cal schools
would be"[The two-year community college movement is a recent de-
velopment in the educational history of Virginia. The firstcommunity college was organized in 1966 and there are now
4,988 (10.08 percent) seniors. Therefore, 56.82 per-cent of the public school seniors planned to continuetheir education on a full-time basis after high schoolgraduation. If those students who selected "work andpart-time school" and "military service" as their post-high school plans are included, 70.08 percent of theseniors planned to continue their education in someway.
As noted above, 56.82 percent of the seniors plannedfull-time pursuit of studies. These figures seem todiffer from those reported in the Southern RegionalEducation Board's publication.' One possible reasonfor the difference is that the Senior Survey includedseniors who planned to attend different kinds of col-leges and many of these may attend college for onlyone or two years. Another reason for the differencebetween the Senior Survey and SREB results is thatthe SREB report was based on the college-age popula-tion of 1965, whereas the Senior survey was based onseniors of the 1966-67 school year who would beincluded in the college-age population from June orSeptember of 1967 to June of 1972.
Of the 14,289 seniors (28.9 percent) who plannedto work after graduation, 10,646 (21.52 percent) saidthey would seek full-time employment. The seniorswho planned to combine work with part-time schoolingcomprised 7.36 percent (3,643) of the population.
Some important differences in the plans of boys andgirls are reported in Table 1. Almost twice as manygirls as boys planned to accept full-time jobs and moreboys than girls planned to enter a community college(13.82 percent to 8.18 percent). Of the boys, 11.54percent planned to enter military service and 3.40percent of the girls expected to become housewives.Only 5.20 percent of the boys and 4.12 percent of thegirls had no defin,W plans.
Source of Assistance With Decision on Plans After HighSchoolQuestion 2As might be expected, the public school seniors felt
that they received more help from parents or relatives
( 2 )
eight of them located in strategic locations around the State.In addition, a total of 22 community colleges are planned. Inspite of the recency of the community college movement, 10.87percent of the public school seniors planned to enroll in one ofthese institutions.
2E. F. Schietinger, Fact Book on Higher Education in theSouth, 1965, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta,Georgia.
WiMr61,41:!,,
TABLE 1
PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS' PLANS AFTER GRADUATION
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Work and Part-Time School 1,560 6.62 2,083 8.04 3,643 7.36
Full-Time Job 3,663 15.55 6,983 26.94 10,646 21.52
Business, Trade, or Technical School 2,001 8.49 2,987 11.53 4,988 10.08
Four-Year College 8,779 37.27 8,964 34.60 17,743 35.88
Academic Program at Junior or Community College 2,201 9.34 1,414 5.46 3,615 7.31
Vocational or Technical Program at Junior or Commu-nity College 1,055 4.48 705 2.72 1,760 3.56
Housewife 4 .02 882 3.40 886 1.79
Military Service 2,718 11.54 201 .78 2,919 5.90
Other 305 1.29 549 2.12 854 1.73
No Definite Plans 1,224 5.20 1,068 4.12 2,292 4.63
No Response 46 .20 74 .29 120 .24
TOTAL 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00 49,466 100.00
TABLE 2
SOURCE OF ASSISTANCE WITH DECISION ON PLANS AFTER HIGH SCHOOL-PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
VERY MUCH SOME VERY LITTLE OR NONE No RESPONSE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Parents or Relatives 10,328 43.84 12,427 47.96 9,462 40.17 10,418 40.21 3,378 14.34 2,773 10.70 388 1.65 292 1.13
High School Teachers 2,724 11 56 3,161 12.20 8,832 37.49 10,277 39.66 11,091 47.08 11,647 44.95 909 3.86 825 3.18
High School Counselor 4,444 18.87 4,345 16.77 8,867 37.64 9,724 37.53 9,402 39.91 11,044 42.62 843 3.58 797 3.08
High School Principal 684 2.90 535 2.06 2,747 11.66 2,527 9.75 19,045 80.85 21,859 84.37 1,080 4.58 989 3.82
College Students 1,859 7.89 2,136 8.24 5,430 23.05 6,204 23.94 15,078 64.01 16,431 63.42 1,189 5.05 1,139 4.40
Classmates or Friends 2,724 11.56 3,391 13.09 10,117 42.95 12,072 46.59 9,802 41.61 9,584 36.99 913 3.88 863 3.33
Other Adults 3,409 14.47 3,648 14.08 9,714 41.24 10,771 41.57 9,412 39.96 10,497 40.51 1,021 4.33 994 3.84
( 3 )
than from any of the other persons shown in Table 2in making their decisions concerning post-high school
plans.' Theywere followedin degree ofhelp by coun-selors, otheradults, class-mates orfriends, teach-ers, collegestudents, andprincipals inthis order.Other studies(discussed inSection III)indicate thatthe way inwhich thisquestion wasasked in-fluenced therelative num-ber of re-
Other Adults sponses ineach cate-
,2. To What Extent Did the Following
Persons Help You in Deciding onYour Plans After High School?
08 (Mark One Responso
:3For Each Item)
>Parent or Other
Relative
High School
Teachers
High School
Counselor
High School
Principal
Students on
College Campus
Classmates or
Friends
gory. For example, one of the functions of guidancecounselors is to provide information to help parentsand students make informed decisions about colleges;counselors would most likely be rated higher by the
students if the question had emphasized the source ofinformation rather than the somte of help.
Part B of Section III is a leliort of the analysisperformed on the data from Question 2. Of particularinterest were patterns of influence that began to appear.For example, students who were helped by parentstended also to have been helped by counselors,2 class-mates, and friends. Those who were helped "verymuch" by high school teachers tended also to have beenhelped by counselors and principals. The characteris-tics of these particular groups were not identified.
Reasons for Not Attending College-Question 8The students were given a choice of various reasons
for having no college plans (Table 3). These includedlack of interest, military service, marriage, employment,attitude of parents, low academic achievement, andexpense. Only 9.9 percent of the seniors not attendingcollege, however, said expense was the deterrent.
One cannot help but wonder why more girls (11.20percent) thanboys (8.43percent) gave"too expen-sive" as the I My Grades Are Not Good Enough
3. If 77kr. Not Definitely Planning To GoTo College, What is the One Most LikelyReason? (Mark One)
It is Too Expensive
reason for notattending col-lege. The dif-ference is fair-ly small, buta study of thedifferences in
My Parents Don't Believe I ShouldI'd Rather Get a Job
I'd Rather Get MarriedMilitary Service
Labk of Interest
I Do Not Know
TABLE 3FREQUENCIES OF REASONS GIVEN BY PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS FOR NOT ATTENDING COLLEG E
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Too Expensive 904 8.43 1,425 11.20 2,329 9.93
Grades Not Good Enough 3,332 31.04 2,517 19.78 5,849 24.93
Parents Don't Believe I Should 40 .37 146 1.14 186 .79
Rather Get a Job 1,473 13.71 4,247 33.38 5,720 24.38
Rather Get Married 174 1.62 1,191 9.36 1,365 5.82
Military Service 2,248 20.94 151 1.18 2,399 10.23
Lack of Interest 1,354 12.62 1,599 12.57 2,953 12.59
Do Not Know 1,209 11.27 1,449 11.39 2,658 11.33
TOTAL 10,734 100.00 12 725 100.00 23,459 100.00
'Similar findings were reported in Beyond High School, James W. Trent and Leland L. Medsker, Center fear Research and De-
velopment in Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley, California.2/bid. ( 4 )
parental attitudes toward boys attending college andgirls attending college might prove interesting. Thesame trend in favor of boys attending college waf.;observed in the relative number (0.37 percent) whor*ported "my parents don't believe I should" as thereason for not attending college.
Many more boys (31.04 percent) than girls (19.78percent) gave "grades not good enough" as the reasonfor not attending college. A later analysis (Table 30)indicated that the public school boys not planning toattend college had an average grade-rank of thethirty-seventh percentile and girls not planning toattend college had a higher average grade-rank of theforty-eighth percentile. In other words, boys did havelower grades than girls.
Over twice as many girls (33.38 percent) as boys(13.71 percent) said that they had rather get a jobthan go to college. It would be interesting to seewhat percentage of this group of boys and girls hadabove average scholastic aptitude and what percentagehad adequate preparation for an entry job.
More girls (9.36 percent) than boys (1.62 percent)indicated that they would rather get married than goto college. More girls reported that they had ratherget married (1,191) than those who said they wantedto be housewives (882). As expected, more boys(20.94 percent) than girls (1.18 percent) gave militaryservice as a reason for not entering college.
As the data in Tables 1 and 3 are studied, onecannot help but be impressed with the different expec-
tations which society seems to have for boys and girlspertaining to college and the world of work. It wouldbe interesting to study the differences in attitudesamong socio-educational groups and among parentsfrom different geographical areas of the State. Ofcourse, Table 3 refers only to those seniors who didnot plan to attend college.
Time of Decision on Post-High School Plans-Question 4
Table 4 reflects the frequency of answers to thequestion, "When did you decide on what you want todo after high school?" Almost 54 percent of the seniorsindicated that theyreached decisions 4. When Did You Decide on What Youabout their future Want to Do after High School?
plans during the (Mark One)I Have Not Decided Yetlast two years ofJust This Year
high school. It is In the 11th Gradealso noted, how- On the 9th or 10th Gradeever, that 53 per- in the 7th or 8th Gradecent of the pupils Before the 7th Grademade their deci- O Do Not Knowsions before thesenior year. This would tend to confirm the belief thata career decision is a developmental process. Thereare only slight differences between boys and girls withthe possible exception that more of the boys (8.50 per-cent) than girls (5.32 percent) had not decided in lateMay of their senior year what they would do thefollowing year.
TABLE 4
TIME OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS' DECISIONS ON WHAT TO Do AFTER HIGH SCHOOL
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
IF,,ve Not Decided Yet 2 , 003 8.50 1 , 378 5.32 3 , 381 6.83
Just This Year 8,302 35.25 8,409 32.46 16,711 33.79
In 11th Grade 4,618 19.60 5,292 20.42 9,910 20.03
In 9th or 10th Grade 3,121 13.25 4,136 15.96 7,257 14.67
In 7th or 8th Grade 1,475 6.26 2,019 7.79 3,494 7.06
Before 7th Grade 2,389 10.14 3,357 12.96 5,746 11.62
Do Not Know 1,559 6.62 1,219 4.70 2,778 5.62
No Reponse 89 .38 100 .39 189 .38
TOTAL 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00 49,466 100.00
( 5 )
The data reported in Table 4 have implications forhigh school and possibly junior high or intermediateschool counseling. One-third of the seniors haddecided on post-high school plans before entering theeleventh grade. Analyses reported in Part A of SectionIII indicated that students who completed post-highschool plans earlier in their careers tended to entercollege and be younger than those who completed planslater. This segment of students may have counselingneeds different from the 52.82 percent who decided onpost-high school plans during their last two years ofhigh school. Correlation coefficients reported in Sec-tion III indicated that the students deciding on post-high school plans earlier in their careers tended to ranktoward the top of their classes and to aspire towardhigher levels on the occupational scale.
For the 33.8 percent making their decision in theirsenior year, it would be interesting to see what theirplans were and how this group differed from the others.
Commuting Distance from Colleges and Technical Schools-Question 7In the public schools, 78.40 percent of the boys
and 80.47 percent of the girls reported that they livedwithin commutingdistance of a four-year college. Thesedata are presentedin Table 6.
Similarly, almost80 percent of thestudents lived with-in commuting dis-tance of a junior orcommunity collegeand about 86 per-cent of the seniorslived within commuting distance of a business, trade, ortechnical school. No attempt was made to determine
7. Are Any of the Following withinCommuting Distance from YourHome? Do (Mark One )
Not (Response forYes No Know, (Each Rem
Business, Trade, orTechnical School
r7 .:
Junior or CommunityCollege
Four Year College
I
TABLE 5
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF VIRGINIA'S 1967 PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
16 or Under 65 .28 134 .52 199 .40
17 6,870 29.16 9,759 37.66 16,629 33.62
18 11,720 49.76 13,189 50.90 24,909 50.35
19 3,489 14.81 2,003 7.73 5,492 11.10
20 or Over 1,127 4.78 504 1.95 1 , 631 3.30
No Response 285 1.21 321 1.24 606 1.23
TOTAL 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00 49,466 100.00
Age Distribution of Seniors-Question 6
As indicated in Table 5, the public school seniorswho responded to the survey included 23,556 boys arid25,910 girls. Slightly more than half of the seniors
reported that theywere 18 years ofa*ge. The percent-ages in the differentcategories as well as
later analysis indicated that senior boys were older thansenior girls. For example, approximately 38 percent ofthe girls and 29 percent of the boys were 17 years old,while eight percent of the girls and 15 percent of theboys were 19 years old as of May, 1967.
6. - Your Age -16 or
(7.-= r.7.7711 t7.7.71
20 orUnder 17 le 19 Over
( 6 )
if the same students lived near all three. It is possibletherefore that almost 20 percent of the students did notlive within commuting distance of any type of college.
Educational Level of Parents-Question 8
Table 7 indicates the level of education achieved byparents as reported by the seniors. The frequencydistributions show that 20,677 (41.82 percent) of thefathers and 18,138 (36.6 percent) of the mothers didnot graduate from high school. Fathers who completedgraduate school outnumbered the mothers 3,185 to 912,
and the number of fathers graduating from college or re-ceiving some college, technical, or special training wasnearly equal to the number of mothers. The sen-
TABLE 6
NUMBER OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS LIVING WITHIN COMMUTING DISTANCEOF COLLEGES AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS
YES No Do NOT KNOW No RESPONSE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-centof
Total
Business, Trade orTechnical School 20,021 84,99 22,609 87.26 1,763 7.48 1,870 7.22 1,134 4.81 833 3.21 638 2.71 598 2.31
Junior or CommunityCollege 18,611 79.01 20,421 78.82 2,726 11,57 3,007 11.61 1,278 5.43 1,380 5.33 941 3.99 1,102 4.25
Four-Year College 18,468 78.40 20,850 80.47 3,055 12.97 3,053 11.78 1,009 4.28 896 3.46 1,024 4.35 1,111 4.29
TABLE 7
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF PARENTS AS REPORTED BY PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
FATHER MOTHER
Boys Girls Boys Girls
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Grade School 4,408 18.71 5,426 20.94 2,642 11.22 3,440 13.28
Some High School 5,189 22.04 5,654 21.83 5,472 23.23 6,584 25.41
Finished High School 4,646 19.72 4,672 18.03 8,014 34.02 7,910 30.54
Some College, Technical, or SpecialTraining 3,419 14.51 3,777 14.58 3,556 15.10 4,395 16.96
Graduated From College 2,528 10.73 2,675 10.32 2,195 9.32 2,065 7.97
Graduate School 1,588 6.74 1,597 6.16 442 1.88 470 1.81
Do Not Know 1,480 6.28 1,726 6.66 1,089 4.62 882 3.40
No Response 298 1.27 383 1.48 146 .62 164 .63-
TOTAL 23,566 100.00 25,910 100.00 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00
( 7 )
9£
( s )
J,Naoliaa
OR
Gg
Og
9TO
Te
A
1,M
.
111111 1
VI:
a...2%
...WV
::: '.1e 1..._all_
Adis
11
s seaea a
alma&
...
SllaHIN
TA
emSI:M
EL
LO
W
/MO
MS N
I 09 simaava 11110A
. MU
IIK{ M
OH
I HcIV
H9
Etti3
aSNO
(ISall ON
AiO
101 LO
N O
CI
rI0OH
OS M
IVIK
EV
IID
UN
IX: M
ID aD
aTIO
D
rIVID
acIS 110 `rwom
mou,
`aparino awos
aIvasavao r100HO
S HD
IH
rI0OH
OS H
DIH
EJA
IOS
rI0OH
S aavuo
Nouvartaa ,sim
auva
=111/8. How Far Did Your Parents Go
In School?(Mark One In Each Column)
Father MotherGrade School
Some High SchoolFinished High School
Some College, Technicalor Special Training
Graduated from CollegeGraduate School
I Do Not Know
ned to attend college tended tocation than did their mothers.
iors indicated, how-ever, that of thosewho only finishedhigh school, themothers outnum-bered the fathers15,924 to 9,318(32.19 percent to18.84 percent).
Later analysis(Table 30) indi-cated that the fa-thers of both boysand girls who plan-
have more formal edu-The mothers of both
boys and girls who did not plan to attend college tendedto have more formal education than did their fathers.In general, both parents of seniors who planned to entercollege tended to have considerably more formal educa-tion than the parents of seniors who did not plan toenter college.
Type of High School ProgramQuestion 9
Table 8 shows that 21,494 (43.45 percent) seniorshad been enrolled in a college preparatory program in
high school. Thisnumber was almost
9. Which One of the Following Highequally divided be- School Programs Have You Taken?tween boys andgirls. The group of14,215 (28.74 per-cent) seniors whowere enrolled in ageneral high schoolprogram was com-posed of 8,108 (34.-42 percent) boysand 6,107 (23.57 percent) girls. Of the seniors takingcommercial or business courses, the girls outnumberedthe boys 6,867 to 1,459. Vocational programs weretaken by 12.33 percent of the boys and 6.57 percent ofthe girls.
(Mark One Most Like Your)Program
Commercial or Business
College PreparatoryGeneral
VocationalOther
Occupation of Parents and Occupational Plans of SeniorsQuestion 10Students were limited to one response for each part
of the question concerning the occupations of theirparents and their own occupational plans.
The differences in the occupational aspirations ofthe seniors and the occupations of their parents maybe compared by using the data presented in Table 9.
TABLE 8
TYPES OF HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS TAKEN BY PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Commercial or Business 1, 459 6.19 6 , 867 26 . 50 8 , 326 16 . 83
College Preparatory 10,616 45.07 10,878 41.98 21,494 43.45
General 8,108 34.42 6,107 23.57 14,215 28.74
Vocational 2,905 12.33 1,702 6.57 4,607 9.31
Other 292 1.24 173 .67 465 .94
No Response 176 .75 183 .71 359 .78
TOTAL 23,566 100.00 25,910 100.00 49,466 100.00
( 9 )
TABLE 9
OCCUPATIONS OF PARENTS AND OCCUPATIONAL PLANS OF PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
FATHER MOTHER You WANT To BE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Workman 3,186 13.52 3,587 13,84 686 2.91 666 2.57 314 1.33 64 .25....._
Service Worker 1,299 5.51 1,464 5.65 1,855 7.87 2,443 9.43 497 2.11 1,442 5.57
Machine Operator 2,035 8.64 2,648 10.22 801 3.40 1,206 4.65 956 4.06 285 1.10
Skilled Craftsman or Foreman 4,543 19.28 5,347 20.63 232 .98 235 .91 3,107 13.19 100 .39
Salesman or Agent 1,446 6.14 1,481 5.72 862 3.66 1,147 4.43 357 1,52 318 1.23
Office Worker 1,006 4.27 1,000 3.86 2,906 12.34 3,232 12.47 881 3.74 8,571 33.07
Farm Owner or Manager 1,040 4.42 1,086 4.19 34 .14 36 .14 269 1.14 34 .13
Owner of Business 1,514 6.43 1,541 5.95 274 1.16 281 1.08 883 3.75 191 .74
Technician 529 2.25 441 1.70 407 1.73 598 2.31 1,751 7.43 1,752 6.76
Artist, Entertainer or Athlete 63 .27 57 .22 87 .37 95 .37 1,321 5.61 1,207 4.66
Elected or Appointed Official 152 .65 152 .59 26 .11 21 .08 145 .62 102 .39
Manager or Executive 3,051 12.94 3,106 11.99 201 .85 218 .84 1,710 7.26 247 .95
Profession -A- 1,721 7.31 1,815 7.01 1,160 4.92 1,242 4.79 4,216 17.90 6,062 23.39
Profession -B- 746 3.17 700 2.70 159 .67 119 .46 3,008 12.77 1,186 4.58
Housewife-No Other Employment 25 .11 16 .06 12,624 53.62 13,360 51.56 116 .49 859 3.32
Do Not Know 497 2.11 688 2.66 370 1.57 336 1.30 2,811 11.93 2,304 8.89
No Response 703 2.98 781 3.01 872 3.70 675 2.61 1,214 5.15 1,186 4.58
TOTAL 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00 23,556 100.00 25,910 100.00
( 10 )
For example, 13.5210. percent of the fa-
thers of the boyswere workmen andonly 1.33 percentof the boys wishedto pursue thatoccupation. Thesame trend wasevident in the cat-egories of serviceworker and ma-chine operator.However, 33.07percent of the sen-ior girls wanted tobe office workerswhen only 12.47percent of theirmothers were officeworkers. While1.14 percent of thesenior boys plannedto be farm ownersor managers, 4.42percent of theirfathers were in this
field. More than 20 times as many boys planned tobe artists, entertainers, or athletes as were their fa-thers.
Another striking difference was in the occupationalheading of manager or executive. In this categorywere 3,051 fathers, but only 1,710 seniors planned tofollow in this field. About seven percent of the fathersand five percent of the mothers were in Professions A(teacher, social worker, etc.) and 18 percent of thesenior boys and 23 percent of the senior girls plannedto enter this category of professions. About threepercent of the fathers were in Professions B (lawyer,doctor, etc.) while 13 percent of the senior boys andfive percent of the senior girls planned to enter thiscategory of professions. Slightly more than 50 percentof the mothers were housewives with no other employ-ment and only 3.32 percent of the senior girls hadsimilar plans.
Occupations(See Instructions)
YouWantTo Be
Workman
.7-) Service Worker
Machine Operator
I Skilled Craftsmanor Foreman
L---1 Salesman or Agent
Office Worker
17-1 Form Owner orManager
Father Motherr-1 1:73
r"..7.1 7-1 r-3 Owner of aBusiness
Technicianktist, Entertainer
or Athleter-.71 r= Elected or
Appointed Official
Manager/ ExecutiveProfession (A)
cr.7.1 f---1 Profession (B)t=1. c=z1 c...-1Housewife and No
Other Employmentr=te 3 I Do Not Know
The Number of Colleges to Which Applications WereMadeQuestion 11
The number of colleges to which the seniors appliedfor admission is shown in Table 10. Of the seniors whor*sponded to the question, "How many colleges haveyou applied to?" nearly half (45.96 percent) applied toonly one college, 11,633 (42.54 percent) applied to eithertwo or three colleges, and 513 (nearly two percent) ap-plied to six or more colleges for admission. Boys had a
,
slight tendency toapply to more col-leges than girls.
Analyses re-ported in SectionIII, Part A, indi-cated that studentswith higher aspirations, Professions B for example,tended to apply to fewer colleges and to have thehighest expectation of attending those colleges towhich they did apply. Students ranking toward thetop of their high school classes and taking collegepreparatory programs also tended to apply to fewercolleges.
Types of Colleges Applied to in Order of PreferenceQuestion 12
The types of colleges to which the seniors appliedare shown in Column 1 of Table 11. For the State ofVirginia, this breakdown is given by four-year and two-year colleges, bothState and privatelycontrolled, plus onecategory for allother types of col-leges. Other classi-fications are byfour-year and two-year colleges bygeographical re-gions. A categoryfor all foreign col-leges is included.
Almost 70 per-cent (69.2) of the public school seniors who planned toattend college applied to a college located in Virginiaand almost 38 percent preferred a four-year, State-controlled institution.
11. How Many Colleges Have YouApplied To?
.12.1 r ;3 :4" '5or
more
12. List These Colleges in Order ofPreference (Se* Instructions)
3rd Choice:0. .:0
Gi
.12a
f.3.1
1st Choice
I.
cl 37:
114 a
c5 "i
C6 :4
s:;'tu
r.91
2nd Choice '.:o.,
1- 1 1 "
:2" c V:
3 3.:
r: 43
1115'7 r.5.1
r:6
77.1 n
8:.1 a 11.1
L'.9. 9:71
I
2
043
:53
.47 J
c97
1141
:6.;
:9.
Status of College ApplicationsQuestion 13
Table 12 reflects the number of seniors accepted orrejected by the college of their first, second, and thirdchoices. The value of this question is indicated by thelarge number ofseniors who knewthe disposition oftheir college appli-cations at the timeof the survey (lateMay). Of the sen-iors who planned toenroll in college,18,945 (70.8 percent) said they had been accepted bythe college of their first choice; 8,520 (57.3 percent)had been accepted by the college of their second choice;
13. What is the Status of TheseApplications? (Mark the One in
Each that Applies)Choices
1st 2nd 3rdC77-1 = a Accepted
RejectedStandby or
Unknown
(it),IN
a011ad
017O
R9g
Og
91O
I
nuomm
inomm
um1111111
111111111111111111111sum
mm
umm
ulomN
omm
omm
umm
omnsonsm
ossimm
omm
linsE
ME
ME
NIM
ME
1111111111111111IM
INU
MIN
EM
MIH
NIM
INIM
INIM
INE
I1111111111111M
111111111111111111111111111111111111111.
IIMM
INE
ME
NE
ININ
IMIN
EE
iiii
C
Oe. 00000.6000. 000... ee
0......00.0000000. 0.04100000000
00...
.0.0. "ea. 00.
.0.000000.0.0000.000 e 000.0.
00.O
e 00.0ee
"4,"00
4.0.
..41.0
110
eeee
I."
..
.0. 000.00 ee
060. .00.
tbee
IDO
000000000.0000.000 00e
00000000.e
00.0. 00
000.0e. 0000 Sr .0. 000 000
walloavri
NV
IVSJA
VII0
oeOO
O000
ell
...
Oe 00.00.
eee ee ee
0.
"000
e"ea
11.
Se
00 Oe OO 00 0000.00,00 000 0. 00.0
00 e 0 Oe 00 O."
410 ..0.0000.6.000.0..00000000 AD
0 ee ..
!..000.0SO.O. "0410000"
IIIIIIIIIME
NIM
M111111111111111111M
EN
E11111011111111111
__
_
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111-
1111111111111111111111111111111111111.......... .... .............. ..... . ..........
..
..... .
EM
INIIIIIIIIIIIIIM
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111M
IN11111111111111111=
111111111111111M
11=1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
111111111111111
IIM1111111111111111111111111111111M
11111111111111111111111=1111111111111111111
11111111111111M
guallxv-d-A
b:
miN
zavd ator STH
IDsN
ouravairaaoV
II IldV119
Ctw
ori) wrnoo anllm
.
(waffia/v)
uvirmo a,L
IRA
A
CH
OIR
) urnoo anllm.
SNO
LIV
aLlISSV
13
Of
900£
9g
()
og9I
Oi
MR
116101111111MIIIIIIIM
1111111111111111W
IBII
1111111111111111Is
MIE
NE
NIM
MO
IMM
OM
11111111111111..-c
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mm
mosow
sreissm
assmim
monm
sassumm
amm
ussmasm
essuma
rnsimum
umssam
mum
omm
umw
ww
ww
w.
1111111111111111111111111111111111
3 ..,la "III" ,V,esIII
IIINB
RO
M M
N
I.
SAG
E*X
4SlIalL
IArd
saamto-w
suiaavd atsw SA
CK
ISNO
LIN
c111330
NO
TI)
NV
IAISL
IVID
(iv amaw
)11V
TIO
D
(119111) IIVT
IOD
aZIH
At
siiouvansgrom
iouvanaao
TABLE 10
NUMBER OF COLLEGES TO WHICH PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS APPLIED
NUMBER OFCOLLEGES
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
One 6,171 44.43 6,399 47.56 12,570 45.96
Two 3,484 25.08 3,498 26.00 6,982 25.53
Three 2,440 17.57 2,211 16.43 4,651 17.01
Four 1,045 7.52 828 6.15 1,873 6.85
Five 445 3.20 312 2.32 757 2.77
Six or More 306 2.20 207 1.54 513 1.88
TOTAL 13,891 100.00 13,455 100.00 27,346 100.00
( 14 )
TABLE 11
TYPES OF COLLEGES APPLIED TO BY PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE
Boys GIRLS TOTAL
FirstChoice
SecondChoice
ThirdChoice
FirstChoice
SecondChoice
ThirdChoice First Choice Second Choice Third Choice
Number Number Number Number Number Number Percent Percent Percentand and and and and and of of of
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Number Total Number Total Number Total
Four-Year, State-Controlled 4,864 2,732 1,493 5,213 2,943 1,585Institution in Virginia 35.97 33.25 30.31 39.53 39.49 36.88 10,077 37.87 5,675 36.59 3,078 33.36
Two-Year, State-Controlled 2,166 747 373 855 279 1.30Institution in Virginia 16.01 9.09 7.57 6.48 3.74 3.02 3,021 11.35 1,026 6.57 503 5.45
Four-Year Private Institution 1,200 993 615 1,098 684in Virginia 8.87 12.09 12.49 8.33 9.18 10.28 2,298 8.63 1,677 10.64 1,057 11.46
Two-Year Private Institution 486 441 240 660 415 237in Virginia 3.59 5.36 4.87 5.01 5.57 5.51 1,146 4.31 856 5.41 477 5.17
Other Institution in 436 119 49 1,430 363 164Virginia 3.22 1.45 .99 10.84 4.87 3.82 1,866 7.01 482 3.05 213 2.31
Other Four-Year Institution 2,184 1,667 1,052 1,965 1,464 854in South 16.14 20.29 21.35 14.89 19.64 19.87 4,049 15.21 3,131 19.85 1,906 20.66
Other Two-Year Institution 585 323 165 503 244 128in South 4.32 3.93 3,35 3.81 3,27 2.98 1,088 4.09 567 3.59 293 3.18
Four-Year Institution in 792 561 437 652 499 368North 5.86 6,83 8.87 4.95 6.69 8.56 1,444 5.43 1,060 6.72 805 8.72
Two-Year Institution in 59 41 17 112 71 37North .44 ,50 .35 .85 .95 .86 171 .64 112 .71 54 .59
Four-Year Institution in 381 ',AM 218 425 261 179Mid-west 2.82 3.72 4.42 3.22 3.50 4.16 806 3.03 567 3.59 397 4.30
Two-Year Institution in 34 16 13 20 14 8Mid-west .25 ,19 .26 .15 .19 .19 54 .20 30 .19 21 .23
Four-Year Institution in Far 256 199 140 188 121 75West 1.90 2.42 2.84 1.42 1.62 1.75 444 1.67 320 2.03 215 2.33
Two-Year Institution in Far 28 14 . 15 23 18 3West .21 .17 .30 .17 .24 .07 51 .19 32 .20 18 .20
All Foreign Schools 53 58 100 46 78 88.40 .71 2,03 .35 1,05 2.05 99 .37 136 .86 188 2.04
TOTAL PERCENT 13,524 8,217 4,927 13,190 7,454 4,298100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 400.00 26,614 100.00 15,671 100.00 9,225 100.00
( 15)
GRAPH HI
TYPE OF COLLEGE APPLIED TO IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE
COLLEGES APPLIED TO
FOUR-YEAR COLLEGE INVIRGINIA
TWO-YEAR COLLEGE INVIRGINIA
BUSINESS OR TECHNICALSCHOOL IN VIRGINIA
COLLEGE IN SOUTH
COLLEGE IN NORTH
COLLEGE IN MID-WEST
COLLEGE IN FAR WEST
L BOYS GIRLS
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
PERCENT
( 16 )
TABLE 12STATUS OF COLLEGE APPLICATIONS OF PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS WHO APPLIED TO COLLEGE
Accepted
Rejected
Unknown
TOTAL
FIRST CHOICE SECOND CHOICE THIRD CHOICE
Boys Girls
Total
Boys Girls
Total
Boys Girls
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotal
Num.ber
Per-cent ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotal
9,222 68.05 9,723 73.60 70.79 4,386 56.30 4,134 58.37 57.28 2,297 49.19 2,004 50,34 49.72
1,611 11.89 1,163 8.81 10.37 1,415 18.16 1,229 17.35 17.78 910 19.49 747 18.76 19.15
2,719 20.06 2,324 17.59 18.84 1,990 25.54 1,720 24.28 24.94 1,463 31.32 1,230 30.90 31.13
13,552 100.00 13,210 100.00 100.00 7,791 100.00 7,083 100.00 100.00 4,670 100.00 3,981 100.00 100.00
TABLE 13CHOICE OF COLLEGE PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS PLANNED TO ATTEND
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
First Choice 10,816 78.78 10,866 81.58 21,682 80.16
Second Choice 1,642 11.96 1,449 10.88 3,091 11.43
Third Choice 520 3.79 370 2.78 890 3.29
Other Than First, Second, Third Choice 304 2.21 248 1.86 552 2.04
Probably Will Not Attend 448 3.26 386 2.90 834 3.08
TOTAL 23,731 100.00 13,319 100.00 27,049 100.00
and 4,301 (49.7 percent) had been accepted by thecollege of their third choice.
College Which Students Will Most Likely Attend (Basedon Preference)-Question 14Of the seniors responding to the question in Table
13, 21,682 (80.2 percent) said they most likely willattend their first-choice college. Ofparticular impor-tance to this studyare the 834 seniorswho expressed aninterest in attend-ing college by com-pleting the surveyform through Ques-
14. Which 'One of these CollegesWill You Most Likely Attepd?
1st Choice
2nd Choice
3rd ChoiceA College Other than 1, 2, or 3Probably Won't Go
tion 14, and then reporting that they probably wouldnot attend any college. Section III, Part C, includesthe report of a special analysis of 706 of these students.However, further attention and study could be devotedto this problem area.
Importance of Different Reasons for Choosing a College-Question 15Of the seniors who responded to the question
regarding the help they received in deciding on thecollege of their first choice (Table 14), 10,933 (40percent) said they were influenced "very much" by thewishes of, their parents; 9,195 (33.7 percent) by thereputation of the faculty; and 7,474 (27.4 percent) bythe intellectual atmosphere of the college. Otherfactors which the seniors said influenced them "verymuch" in their first-choice selections were: Friendly
( 17 )
15. To What Extent Did The FollowingHelp You in Deciding on YourPlans after High School?(Mark One Response for Each Itern)
VeryVery Little orMuch Some None
Parents Want MeTo Go There
r-
Parent, Relative,or Close FriendWent There
Reputation ofFaculty forGood Teaching
Friendly SocialClimate
Emphasis onReligion
Low Cost
Good AthleticProgram
t___1 L- r a Coeducational
-- WS Close to Home
Want To Live AwayFrom Home
C7:2: :.:L-1 Friends) Is GoinT,or Will Go There
cm-1 r7 l.:`.1 Offers FinancialAssistance
Good IntellectualAtmosphere
r
Not Too MuchAcademicCompetition
Located in a LargeCosmopolitanArea
social climate of thecollege, 7,071 (25.9percent); locationof the college (closeto home), 6,936(25.4 percent); andthe desire to liveaway from home,5,882 (21.5 per-cent).
Boys were in-fluenced more thangirls by the col-leges' athletic pro-grams and perhapsbecause theirfriends went to aparticular college.Girls were in-fluenced more thanboys by facultyreputation, friend-ly social climate,religious emphasis,desire to live awayfrom home, and in-tellectual atmos-phere. One inter-esting problemwith the method ofcollecting the dataas reported is thatgirls were influ-enced more thanboys; that is, girlschecked "verymuch" more fre-quently, than didboys. No analysiswas done to indi-cate if other sub-groups, for exam-ple, rural and ur-ban, would havesimilar tendencies.
PART B
Frequencies of Answers Given by Private High SchoolSeniors
The frequencies of answers which the 1967 seniorsin privately supported schools gave on the SeniorSurvey are reported in the following tables. Thequestionnaire which was used to obtain these data is
identical to the one used for the public high schoolseniors and may be found in Appendix A.
Plans After GraduationQuestion 1
As indicated in Table 15, the majority (66.6 percent)of private school seniors planned to attend a four-yearcollege. A higher percentage of boys (71.4) than girls(59.4) aspired to attend these institutions. Seniors whoplanned to continue school on a full-time basis included88.5 percent of the boys and 80.4 percent of the girls.Planning to enter a full-time job were 8.28 percent ofthe girls and 2.44 percent of the boys. Of the boys,3.12 percent planned to enter military service aftergraduation.
Source of Assistance With Decision on Plans After HighSchoolQuestion 2
The private school seniors most often reported thattheir parents or relatives influenced their decisionsabout what to do after high school (Table 16). Theywere followed by counselors, classmates or friends,other adults, teachers, college students, and principalsin this order.
Reasons for Not Attending CollegeQuestion 3
The percentages in Table 17 are based on onlythose private school seniors who did not plan to attendcollege after graduating from high school. The reasonmost often given by the private school seniors for notattending college was that their grades were not goodenough. Giving "too expensive" as the reason for notattending college were 13.5 percent of the girls and 7.1percent of the boys. About the same number of boysand girls (almost 14 percent) gave "lack of interest" astheir reason for not attending college. Of the privateschool seniors, 21.4 percent indicated that they wouldrather get a job after graduation. This group wascomposed of 33.3 percent of the girls and 8.7 percentof the boys.
Time of Decision on Post-High School PlansQuestion 4
The private school seniors' time of decision aboutwhat to do after graduation was fairly evenly dis-tributed among the following categories: before theseventh grade (21.4 percent); in the ninth or tenthgrades (20.1 percent); and this year (20.2 percent).Approximately the same distribution applied to boysand girls (Table 18). In May of their senior year, 5.2percent of the boys and 4.4 percent of the girls had notdecided on their post-high school plans.
Age Distribution of Private School SeniorsQuestion 6
As shown in Table 19, the 3,194 private schoolseniors were composed of 1,926 (60.3 percent) boysand 1,268 (39.7 percent) girls. The modal group, or
TABLE 14
REASONS FOR DECIDING ON THE COLLEGE OF FIRST CHOICE-PUBLIC SCHOOL SENIORS
VERY MUCH SOME VERY LITTLE OR NONE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Per-cent
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent ofTotalBoys
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotalGirls
Per-cent
Total Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotalBoys
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotalGirls
Per-centTotal Num-
ber
Per.cent ofTotalBoys
Num-ber
Per-cent ofTotalGirls
Parent Wants Me toGo There 5,240 37.92 5,693 42.18 40.03 5,537 40.07 5,364 39.75 39.91 3,269 23.66 2,665 19.75 21.72
Parent, Relative,Friend Attended 1,928 13.95 2,155 15.97 14.95 3,262 23,61 3,088 22.88 23.25 8,753 63.34 8,363 61.97 62.66
Faculty Reputation 4,179 30.24 5,016 37.17 33.66 5,183 37.51 5,293 39.22 38.36' 4,488 32.48 3,215 23.82 28.20
Friendly SocialClimate 2,905 21.02 4,166 30.87 25.89 6,133 44.38 6,046 44.80 44.59 4,781 34.60 3,284 24.33 29.53
Religious Emphasis 654 4.73 1,068 7.91 6.30 2,087 15.10 2,677 19.84 17.44 11,027 79.80 9,738 72.15 76.02
Low Cost 2,796 20.23 2,635 19.52 19.88 4,950 35.82 4,583 33.96 34.90 6,103 44.16 6,309 46.75 45.44
Athletic Program 1,837 13.29 694 5.14 9.27 3,544 25.65 1,862 13.80 19.79 8,439 61.07 10,908 80.82 70.83
Co-Educational 2,517 18.21 2,838 21.03 19.60 5,239 37.91 4,362 32.32 35.15 5,996 43.39 6,212 46.03 44.69
Close to Home 3,472 25.12 3,464 25.67 25.39 3,723 26.94 4,080 30.23 28.57 6,660 48.26 6,010 44.53 46.42
Live Away FromHome 2,522 18.25 3,360 24.90 21.53 4,138 29.94 4,336 32.13 31.02 7,128 51.58 5,805 43.01 47.35
Friends Attend 1,970 14.26 1,724 12.77 13.52 4,818 34.87 3,847 28.50 31.72 7,028 50.86 7,938 58.82 54.79
Offers FinancialAssistance 1,818 13.16 2,028 15.03 14.08 2,800 20.26 3,059 22.67 21.45 9,161 66.29 8,398 62.23 64.28
Intellectual Atmos-phere 3,355 24.28 4,119 30.52 27.36 6,228 45.07 6,138 45.48 45.27 4,226 30.58 3,232 23.95 27.30
No AcademicCompetition 661 4.78 585 4.33 4.56 2,921 21.14 2,681 19.87 20.51 10,212 73.90 10,197 75.56 74.72
In Large Cosmo-politan Area 1,163 8.42 1,431 10.60 9.50 2,661 19.26 2,695 19.97 19.61 9,984 72.25 9,372 69.44 70.86
( 19 )
II'
I
0 0 1 O I I f 0 ,1 I : f 0 0 0 1 '
r I
I I`
I
I r I
o
.
I
' 1/ I
MUM 11 11M11111111__
\ .\\\N--N
11111E1111{_- -111111111
111.111111111111111111 1111111111 xl. MI 111111.111 r--7 I
1
MEM=i MIMI
IIIIIIIIIMINIMENE -111111111111111NINE 111111111MEN
L 1111111 ........ J
-----=-111111111.111111IIIII. 1111511.11111111.1111. 111111 MEM\ NNW. mom m
_ ____ __ MIN= IrIMI=11111111111
ENIMMINIONINIIIII MI E1111011111 1111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111MEN111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111EEINIMMINIEMENIMMINIMINENIIIII MIMI MIMEH ; MIME
-----1111111111111111111111111111111;111111111111111
111111111111111101111111111111111111EXs& 111111111111111111111111
i _ _ ____ . 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111MUM 11111111111111111111111111111111\ XXNNIIIMERIIMIN MIMI=
_ _ _ ___ _ _3E1MM=1111111111111MIMI
1111111.1111111111111111111111111111111111.\X\N. 4N 1111111111111111111111111111111I
EMI=11111111111111111111111111111111
e M. EMMINIM .1111.111111 IMI
IRENE. MEI1
1111111.11111;; ...)I I I I .I 1
-nn sore
:O
O
II I
TABLE 15
PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS' PLANS AFTER GRADUATION
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Work and Part-Time School 38 1.97 53 4.18 91 2.85Full-Time Job 47 2.44 105 8.28 152 4.76Business, Trade, or Technical School 73 3.79 89 7.02 162 5.07Four-Year College 19376 71.44 753 59.38 2,129 66.65
Academic Program at Junior or Community College 219 11.37 129 10.17 348 10.90
Vocational or Technical Program at Junior or Commu-nity College 36 1.87 ', 48 3.79 84 2.63
Housewife .00 13 1.03 13 .41
Military Service 60 3.12 3 .24 63 1.97Other 37 1.92 34 2.68 71 2.22No Definite Plans ..
37 1.92 36 2.84 73 2.29No Response 3 .16 5 .39 8 .25
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 3,194 100.00
TABLE 16SOURCE OF ASSISTANCE WITH DECISION ON PLANS AFTER HIGH SCHOOL-PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
VERY MUCH SOME VERY LITTLE No RESPONSE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-
ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber'
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-
ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Parent or Relative 1,034 53.69 634 50.00 683 35.46 507 39.98 200 10.38 122 9.62 9 .47 5 .39
High School Teachers 311 16.15 144 11.36 779 40.45 470 37.07 808 41.95 625 49.29 28 1.45 29 2.29
High School Counselor 386 20.04 215 16.96 669 34.74 447 35.25 840 43.61 575 45.35 31 1.61 31 2.44
High School Principal 224 11:63 95 7.49 395 20.51 222 17.51 1,267 65.78 917 72.32 40 2.08 34 2.68
College Students 208 10.80 149 11,75 581 30.17 377 29.73 1,092 56.70 709 55.91 45 2.34 33 2.60
Classmates or Friends 275 14.28 192 15.14 839 43.56 553 43.61 779 40.45 501 39.51 33 1.71 22 1.74
Other Adults 305 15.84 153 12.07 807 41.90 474 37.38 764 39.67 612 48.26 50 2,60 29 2.29
( 21 )
TABLE 17
FREQUENCIES OF REASONS GIVEN BY PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS FOR NOT ATTENDING COLLEGE
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Too Expensive 18 7.09 37 13.55 55 10.44
Grades Not Good Enough 79 31.10 48 17.58 127 24.10
Parents Don't Believe I Should 4 1.57 4 1.47 8 1.52
Rather Get a Job 22 8.66 91 33.33 113 21.44
Rather Get Married 4 1.57 19 6.96 23 4.36
Military Service 50 19.69 2 .73 52 9.87
Lack of Interest 35 13.78 38 13.92 73 13.85
Do Not Know 42 16.54 34 12.46 76 14.42
TOTAL 254 100.00 273 100.00 527 100.00
TABLE 18
TIME OF PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS' DECISION ON WHAT TO Do AFTER HIGH SCHOOL
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Have Not Decided Yet 101 5.24 56 4.42 157 4.92
Just This Year 372 19.31 272 21.45 644 20.16
In 11th Grade 341 17.71 203 16.01 544 17.03
In 9th or 10th Grade 418 21.70 225 17 : 74 643 20.13
In 7th or 8th Grade 152 7.89 108 8.52 260 8.14
Before 7th Grade 381 19.79 303 23.90 684 21.42
Do Not Know 150 7.79 87 6.86 237 7.42
No Response 11 .57 14 1.10 25 .78
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 3,194 100.00
( 22 )
age group with the largest number of individuals, wasthe 18-year-old group for boys and the 17-year-oldgroup for girls. In the 17-year-old category were 32.2percent of the boys and 47.8 percent of the girls. Inthe 18-year-old category were 48.6 percent of the boysand 46.6 percent of the girls, and in the 19-year-oldcategory were 14.3 percent of the boys and three per-cent of the girls. Three and a half percent of the boysin private high schools were 20 years old or older.
Commuting Distance from Colleges and TechnicalSchools-Question 7
A large proportion of the private school seniorslived near institutions which offered post-secondaryschool training. Most of the boys (85.7 percent) andgirls (87.9 percent) reported living within commutingdistance of a four-year college (Table 20). More ofthe private school seniors reported living within com-muting distance of a four-year college (2,766) thanthose who reported living within commuting distanceof a junior or community college (2,500).
Educational Level of Parents-Question 8
Having graduated from college were 24.7 percentof the fathers (788) and 22.1 percent of the mothers(706) of private school seniors (Table 21). Another20 percent (640) of the fathers and 29 percent (925) ofthe mothers were reported as having some college,technical, or special training. Almost four times asmany fathers as mothers had completed graduateschool (704 to 190). The seniors indicated, however,that of those who only finished high school, the mothers
outnumbered the fathers 947 to 509 (29.6 percent to15.9 percent).
Type of High School Program-Question 9
Of the private school seniors, 85.6 percent of theboys and 76.6 percent of the girls had taken a college"preparatory program (Table 22). Another 10.7 per-cent of the seniors had taken a general high schoolprogram, and this number was about equally dividedbetween the boys and girls. Girls outnumbered boys(148 to 33) for those taking a commercial or businessprogram.
Occupations of Parents and Occupational Plans of Seniors-Question 10
About half of the private school boys and one-thirdof the girls planned to enter Professions A or B. Pro-fessions A included occupations such as social worker,school teacher, etc., and Professions B was composedof lawyers, architects, etc. The girls showed somepreference (14.7 percent) for the office worker category,and 10.6 percent of the boys planned to be managersor executives (Table 23). In the office worker categorywere 14.5 percent of the mothers of the girls and in themanager or executive category were 23.4 percent of thefathers of the boys. The senior boys reported that14.6 percent of their fathers were owners of businessesand only 5.7 percent of the boys planned to enter thisfield. Over half of the mothers were housewives withno other employment and only 3.1 percent of the seniorgirls had made similar plans.
TABLE 19
AGE DISTRIBUTION OF VIRGINIA'S 1967 PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
16 or Under 8 .42 10 .79 18 .56
17 620 32.19 606 47.79 1,226 38.38
18 936 48.59 591 46.61 1,527 47.81
19 276 14 . 33 38 3.00 314 9.83
20 or Over 67 3.48 6 .47 73 2.29
No Response 19 .99 17 1.34 36 1.13
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 3,194 100.00
Ok,
( 23 )
TABLE 20
NUMBER OF PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS LIVING WITHIN COMMUTINGDISTANCE OF COLLEGES AND TECHNICAL SCHOOLS
YES No Do NOT KNow No RESPONSE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-centof
TotalNum-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Business, Trade orTechnical School 1,559 80.94 1,114 87.85 131 6.80 46 3.63 184 9.55 83 6.55 52 2.70 25 1.97
Junior '. CommunityCollege 1,508 78.30 992 78.23 197 10.23 125 9.86 165 8.57 117 9.23 56 2.91 34 2.68
Four-Year College 1,651 85.72 1,115 87.93 181 9,40 78 6.15 65 3.37 51 4.02 29 1.51 24 1.89
TABLE 21
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF PARENTS AS REPORTED BY PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
FATHER MOTHER
Boys Girls Boys Girls
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Grade School 95 4.93 75 5.91 50 2.60 51 4.02
Some High School 160 8.31 114 8.99 130 6.75 104 8.20
Finished High School 324 16.82 185 14.59 582 30.21 365 28.79
Some College, Technical, or SpecialTraining 385 19.99 255 20.11 534 27.73 391 30.83
Graduated From College 499 25.91 289 22.80 459 23.83 247 19.48
Graduate School 406 21.08 298 23.50 116 6.02 74 5.84
Do Not Know 48 2.49 43 3.39 40 2.08 27 2.13
No Response 9 .47 9 .71 15 .78 9 .71
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00
( 24 )
TABLE 22
TYPES OF HIGH SCHOOL PROGRAMS TAKEN BY PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
Commercial or Business 33 1.71 148 11.67 181 5.67
College Preparatory 1,648 85.57 971 76.58 2,619 81.99
General 211 10.96 132 10.41 343 10.74
Vocational 12 .62 6 .47 18 .56
Other 11 .57 2 .16 13 .41
No Response 11 .57 9 .71 20 .63
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 3,194 100.00
( 25 )
TABLE 23
OCCUPATIONS OF PARENTS AND OCCUPATIONAL PLANS OF PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL SENIORS
FATHER MOTHER You WANT To BE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Num-ber
Per-cent
ofTotal
Workman 42 2.18 48 3.79 12 .62 5 .39 6 .31 1 .08
Service Worker 50 2.60 36 2.84 50 2.60 37 2.92 12 .62 25 1.97
Machine Operator 40 2.08 34 2.68 15 .78 26 2.05 9 .47 2 .16
Skilled Craftsman or Foreman 161 8.36 123 9.70 8 .42 3 .24 76 3.95 2
11
.16
Salesman or Agent 153 7.94 80 6.31 67 3.48 38 3.00 21 1.09 .87
Office Worker 91 4.72 45 3.55 266 13.81 184 14.51 35 1.82 186 14,67
Farm Owner or Manager 59 3.06 54 4,26 2 .10 3 .24 25 1,30 3 ,24
Owner of Business 281 14.59 122 9.62 41 2.13 25 1.97 110 5.71 5 .39
Technician 33 1.71 27 2.13 42 2.18 32 2.52 49 2.54 124 9.78
Artist, Entertainer or Athlete 4 .21 11 .87 9 .47 17 1.34 81 4.21 111 8,75
Elected or Appointed Office 29 1.51 26 2.05 4 .21 3 .24 21 1.09 26 2.05
Manager or Executive 456 23.68 313 24.68 20 1.04 11 .87 205 10.64 29 2.29
Professions A 224 11.63 144 11.36 168 8.72 104 8.20 435 22.59 323 25.46
Professions B 251 13.03 163 12.85 37 1.92 11 .87 543 28.19 150 11.83
Housewife-No Other Employment 2 .10 1 .08 1,140 59,18 740 58.35 4 .21 39 3.08
Do Not Know 25 1.30 18 1.42 8 .42 10 .79 220 11.42 186 14,67
No Response 25 1,30 23 1.81 37 1.92 19 1.50 74 3.84 45 3.55
TOTAL 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00 1,926 100.00 1,268 100.00
The Number of Colleges to Which Applications WereMade-Question 11
Table 24 shows the number of colleges to whichprivate school seniors applied for admission. The dis-tribution is divided about equally between those seniorswho applied to one, two, three, or more than threecolleges. A larger percentage of the girls than boys(33.75 to 23.34) applied to only one college. Almostthree times as many boys as girls applied to six ormore colleges.
( 26 )
Types of Colleges Applied to in Order of Preference-.Question 12
Table 25 presents the number and percentage ofstudents who applied to college by category and choice-first, second, or third. Of the 2,760 private schoolseniors who reported a first-choice college, 1,085 (39.3percent) reported a college in Virginia as their firstchoice, and of these 626 (22.7 percent) preferred afour-year, State-controlled institution. Of the college-bound seniors, 2,303 (72.1 percent) indicated that they
TABLE 24
NUMBER OF COLLEGES TO WHICH PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS APPLIED
NUMBER OFCOLLEGES
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
One 404 23.34 349 33.75 753 27.23
Two 353 20.39 188 18.18 541 19.57
Three 428 24.73 239 23.12 667 24.12
Four 266 15 . 37 140 13.54 406 14.68
Five 155 8.95 75 7.25 230 8.32
Six or More 125 7.22 43 4.16 168 6.08
TOTAL 1,731 100.00 1,034 100.00 2,765 100.00
planned to attend a four-year institution, 26.2 percentpreferring an institution in the South, and 17.3 percentpreferring an institution in the North.
Status of College Applications-Question 13
Table 26 indicates that 67.4 percent of the boysand 71.2 percent of the girls who were seniors in privateschools were accepted by the college of their first choice.Accepted at their second-choice institution were 55.1percent of the boys and 59.6 percent of the girls, andaccepted at their third choice of college were 53.8percent of the boys and 56.4 percent of the girls. Thesepercentages are based on only the number who wereplanning to attend college, and who reported a first,second and/or third choice.
College Which Students Will Most Likely Attend (Basedon Preference)-Question 14
A majority of the private school seniors (72.7 per-cent) said they most likely will attend their first-choicecollege (Table 27). Planning to attend their second-choice college were 16.2 percent of the seniors, and
planning to attend their third-choice college were 6.9percent of the seniors.
Importance of Different Reasons for Choosing a College-Question 15
The private school seniors appeared to considerfaculty reputation as a most important reason forchoosing the college which they most wanted to attend(35.8 percent for boys and 38.6 percent for girls). Otherimportant considerations were intellectual atmosphere(28.8 percent for boys and 32.9 percent for girls),parents' desires (28.2 percent for boys and 28.6 percentfor girls), and friendly social climate (26.2 percent forboys and 29.3 percent for girls). More boys thangirls seemed to desire co-educational institutions, andthe athletic program influenced more of the boys thangirls. More girls than boys were influenced by thecollege's location in a large metropolitan area (196 to171), and a greater percentage of girls than boys(21.1 percent to 17.3 percent) were influenced by thedesire to live away from home (Table 28).
( 27 )
TABLE 25
TYPES OF COLLEGES APPLIED TO BY PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
FirstChoice
SecondChoice
ThirdChoice
FirstChoice
SecondChoice
ThirdChoice First Choice Second Choice Third Choice
Numberand
Percent
Numberand
Percent
Numberand
Percent
Numberand
Percent
Numberand
Percent
Numberand
Percent Number
Percentof
Total Number
Percentof
Total Number
Percentof
Total
Four-Year, State-Controlled 379 260 193 247 160 115Institution in Virginia 22.07 18.90 18.38 23.68 9.80 20.91 626 22.68 420 19.91 308 19.25
Two-Year, State-Controlled 53 28 20 23 11 4Institution in Virginia 3.09 2.03 1.90 2.21 .67 .73 76 2.75 39 1.85 24 1.50
Four-Year, Private Institution 152 152 112 99 69 58in Virginia 8,85 1.05 10.67 9,49 4.23 10.55 251 9.09 221 10.48 170 10.63
Two-Year, Private Institution 34 26 24 27 35 19in Virginia 1.98 1,89 2.29 2.59 2.14 3,45 61 2.21 61 2.89 43 2.69
Other Institution in 14 3 6 57 12 5Virginia .82 .22 .57 5.47 .73 .91 71 2.57 15 .71 11 .69
Other Four-Year Institution 519 457 332 205 145 112in South 30,23 33.21 31.62 19.65 8.88 20.36 724 26.23 602 28.54 444 27.75
Other Two-Year Institution 86 56 51 36 24 17in South 5.01 4.07 4.86 3.45 1.47 3.09 122 4.42 80 3.79 68 4,25
Four-Year Institution in 276 247 184 201 161 119North 16.07 17.95 17.52 19.33 9.86 21.64 477 17,28 408 19,35 303 18.94
Two-Year Institution in 33 14 13 45 39 44North 1.92 1.02 1.24 4.31 2.39 8.00 78 2.83 53 2.51 57 3.56
Four-Year Institution in 104 75 62 53 40 30Mid-west 6.06 5.45 5.90 5,08 2.45 5.45 157 5.69 115 5,45 92 5.75
Two-Year Institution in 9 5 6 1 2 2Mid-west .52 .36 .57 .10 .12 .36 10 .36 7 .33 8 .50
Four-Year Institution in Far 41 45 33 27 21 14West 2.39 3.27 3.14 2.59 1.29 2.55 68 2.46 66 3.13 47 2.94
Two-Year Institution in Far 5 2 2 3 3 1West .29 .15 .19 .29 .18 .18 8 .29 5 .24 3 .19
All Foreign Schools 12 6 12 19 11 10.70 .44 1.14 1,82 .67 1.82 31 1.12 17 .81 22 1.38
TOTAL 1,717 1,376 1,050 1,043 1,633 550PERCENT 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 2,760 100.00 2,109 100.00 1,600 100.00
( 28 )
TABLE 26
STATUS OF COLLEGE APPLICATIONS OF PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS WHO APPLIED TO COLLEGE
FIRST CHOICE SECOND CHOICE THIRD CHOICE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal
Accepted 1,162 67.36 733 71.23 748 55.12 419 59.60 558 53,81 292 56,37
Rejected 333 19.30 175 17.01 328 24.17 159 22.62 233 22,47 108 20.85
Unknown 230 13.33 121 11,76 281 20.71 125 17.78 246 23,72 118 22.78
TOTAL 1,725 100.00 1,029 100.00 1,357 100.00 703 100.00 1,037 100,00 518 100.00
TABLE 27
CHOICE OF COLLEGE PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS PLANNED TO ATTEND
BOYS GIRLS TOTAL
NumberPercentof Total Number
Percentof Total Number
Percentof Total
First Choice 1,251 72.10 762 73.69 2,013 72.70
Second Choice 278 16.02 170 16.44 448 16.18
Third Choice 136 7.84 55 5.32 191 6.90
Other Than First, Second, Third Choice 48 2.77 24 2.32 72 2.60
Probably Will Not Attend 22 1.27 23 2.22 45 1.63
TOTAL 1,735 1 100.00 1,034 100.00 2,769 100.00
( 29 )
TABLE 28
REASONS FOR DECIDING ON THE COLLEGE OF FIRST CHOICE-PRIVATE SCHOOL SENIORS
VERY MUCH SOME VERY LITTLE OR NONE
Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls
Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal Number
Per-cent ofTotal
Parent Wants Me to Go There 544 28,25 362 28,55 707 36,71 436 34,38 485 25.18 255 20,11
Parent, Relative, FriendAttended 247 12,82 141 11,12 429 22,27 236 18,61 1,056 54,83 670 52,84
Faculty Reputation 689 35.77 490 38,64 671 34,84 348 27,44 373 19,37 205 16,17
Friendly Social Climate 505 26.22 371 29,26 802 41,64 467 36,83
14,91
425 22,07
71,65
203
772
16.01
Religious Emphasis 112 5.82 82 6,47 241 12.51 189 1,380 60.88
Low Cost 209 10.85 144 11.36 510
545
589
458
26,48
28,30
30.58
231 18,22 1,011 52,49 670 52,84
Athletic Program 237 12.31 52 4,10 152
226
11,99 945 49,07 843 66,48
Co-Educational 418 21.70 216 17,03 17,82 722 37,49 602 47,48
Close to Home 327 16.98 209 16,48 23,78 272 21,45 949 49,27 563 44,40
Liv3 Away From Hone 333 17,29 268 21 14 548 28,45 312 24,61 850 44,13 467 36,83
Friends Attend 223 11.58 103 8,12 558 28,97 259 20,43 951 49.38 683 53 S6
Offers Financial Assistance 136 7.06 102 8,04 263 13.66 159 12,54 1,331 69.11 780 61,51
Intellectual Atmosphere 554 28.76 417 32,89 815 42.32 423 33,36 368 19,11 203 16.01
No Academic Competition 71 3.69 48 3,79 329
4*
17.08 195 15.38 1,331 69,11 800 63,09
In Large Cosmopolitan Area 171 8.88 196 15.46 22.07 210 16,56 1,131 58,72 643 50.71
(30)
III. PHASE II OF THE SENIOR SURVEY
As mentioned in Section I, an Applied MultipleLinear Regression Approach was selected as the techni-que for a more comprehensive analysis of data from theSenior Survey. Besides providing for multiple linearregression, the technique' yields means, standard de-viations, and zero-order correlation coefficients forvariables entered into the different analyses.2
This section includes a summary of the analysesused in determining the answers to the three generalquestions selected. Data from the 52,620 public andprivate high school seniors is used. The question,"How did seniors differ according to whether they wereenrolled in public or private high schools, whetherthey were males or females, and whether they were
planning to enroll in college following high schoolgraduation?" is covered in Part A. The question,"How did the extent to which seniors were helped bydifferent persons vary with their plans after highschool graduation?" is covered in Part B. The ques-tion, "How is the choice of college and status of collegeapplication related to selected variables?" is coveredin Part C. In addition, analysis of the data fromseniors who applied to one or more colleges but indi-cated that they would not attend any college is reportedin Part C. Appendixes F, G, H, and I present anexplanation of the regression approach and a derivationof the models used for the different analyses reportedin this section.
A. COMPARISONS USING A PUBLIC-PRIVATE SCHOOL, MALE-FEMALE, COLLEGE-NON-COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION WITH RELATED VARIABLES
All seniors who were surveyed responded withanswers that would place them in one of eight catego-ries using type of school, sex, and whether or not theyplanned to attend college as factors for categorizing.Each classification was assigned two levels : publicand private, male and female, and college and non-college, respectively. The eight categories were :
1. Boys in public schools who planned to attendcollege
2. Boys in public schools who did not plan toattend college
3. Boys in private schools who planned to attendcollege
4. Boys in private schools who did not plan toattend college
5. Girls in public schools who planned to attendcollege
6. Girls in public schools who did not plan toattend college
'This technique has been programmed for a Burroughs 5500computer under the code name "ITEREG."
2It is vitally important to remember that correlationcoefficients produced in the AMLR approach must be treatedwith extreme caution. Whenever the variables entered intothe correlation routine of the "ITEREG" program are con-tinuous variables, correlation coefficients have the meaningusually associated with them. Whenever the variables arenot continuous, they are useful in that thcy indicate possiblerelationships and clustering of variables which are coded andnot continuous variables. For this reason, only correlation
7. Girls in private schools who planned to attendcollege
8. Girls in private schools who did not toattend college
The following three general questions were posed :
1. Are there differences among boys and girls inthe college and non-college groups that areassociated with whether they attended publicor private high schools?
2. Are there differences among public and privateschool seniors that are attributable to whetherthey are boys or girls?
3. Are there differences among boys and girls inpublic schools and in private schools that areassociated with whether or not they planned toattend college?
The questions were asked for themeasures :
1. What the seniors wantedVariable 2)4
coefficients which were deemed to be meaningful are reportedin this part of the Survey report.
3See Appendix F for a discussion of the regression analysis;see Appendix G for the regression models used for this analysis.
4The question numbers refer to the Senior Survey form(Appendix A), and the variable numbers to the variables ascoded on the tape and explained in Appendix E. However,the variable numbers may not be the same as those in thederivation of regression models because they were assigned by"GENVEC" as is explained in Appendix F.
following 17 criterion
to be (Question 10,
( 31 )
,,,
2. The total number of seniors in the graduatingclass (Variable 6)
3. The total number of seniors per class going tocollege (Questions 1 and 14, Variable 9)
4. The percent of seniors per class going to college(Variable 12)
5. The type of program pursued (Question 9,Variable 13)
6. The age of the seniors surveyed (Question 6,Variable 14)
7. The occupational level of the father (Question10, Variable 16)
8. The occupational level of the mother (Question10, Variable 17)
9. The educational level of the father (Question 8,Variable 18)
10. The educational level of the mother (Question 8,Variable 19)
11. The verbal score on the School and CollegeAbility Test (Question A, Variable 20)
12. The quantitative score on the School and Col-lege Ability Test (Question B, Variable 21)
13. The total score on the School and College AbilityTest (Question C, Variable 22)
14. The percentile rank of the senior in his highschool class (Question F, Variable 23)
15. The time when the decision was made aboutwhat the senior wanted to do (Question 4,Variable 24)
16. The number of colleges the senior applied to(Question 11, Variable 36)
17. The choice of the college that the senior proba-bly will attend (Question 13, Variable 43)
The number and percent of seniors in each of theeight categories, as well as the number and percent ofseniors in each of the 14 other possible classifications,are given in Table 29. Small deviations from thefrequencies reported in Section II may occur because(1) the numbers reported in this section were derivedfrom percentages; (2) a few records which were notcomplete enough for analysis were excluded; and(3) the numbers of students in a particular category,e.g., college or non-college, may be taken from differentquestions in the survey. The design of the survey formwas such that it was not always clear which of theeight possible categories the student belonged in. Forexample, it was not clear whether business, trade, ortechnical school was a "college."
TABLE 29
NUMBERS AND PERCENTAGES IN EIGHT CATEGORIESUSING PUBLIC-PRIVATE SCHOOL, MALE-FEMALE,
COLLEGE-NON-COLLEGE CLASSIFICATION
CATEGORY Number Percent
Boys in Public School Planning toAttend College 13,859 26.38
Boys in Public School Not Planning toAttend College 9,646 18.36
Boys in Private School Planning toAttend College 1,728 3.29
Boys in Private School Not Planning toAttend College 194 .37
Girls in Public School Planning toAttend College 13,398 25.50
Girls in Public School Not Planning toAttend College 12,441 23.68
Girls in Private School Planning toAttend College 1,035 1.97
Girls in Private School Not Planning toAttend College 236 .45
TOTAL 52,537 100,00
Boys in Public School 23,505 44.74Boys in Private School 1,922 3.66Girls in Public School 25,839 49.18Girls in Private School 1,271 2,42
TOTAL 52,537 100.00
Public School 49,344 93.92Private School 3,193 6.08
TOTAL 52,537 100.00
Boys 25,427 48.40Girls 27,110 51.60
TOTAL 52,537 100.00
Total Planning to Attend College 30,020 57.14Total Not Planning to Attend College 22,517 42.86
TOTAL 52,537 100.00
Public School Seniors Planning toAttend College 27,257 55.24
Public School Seniors Not Planning toAttend College 22,087 44.76
TOTAL 49,344 100.00
Private School Seniors Planning toAttend College 2,763 86.53
Private School Seniors Not Planning toAttend College 430 13.47
TOTAL 3,193 100.00
( 32 )
Differences associated with the type of school attended.The following is a discussion of the differences asso-ciated with whether or not the students attended apublic or private high school using several criterionmeasures. It can be seen from Tables 30, 31, and 32that when the criterion variable was what the seniorswanted to be (Survey Question 10), the private schoolseniors indicated a higher aspirational level. Further-more, while the aspirational level of boys and girlsdiffered, the boys differed by a greater amount. Al-though no regression model was constructed to showthis fact, it is likely that all or most of the differencewas among the boys. It also can be observed fromTable 31 that when the criterion variable was percentof seniors in each class going to college, the privateschools showed a greater percentage of seniors planningto attend college.
When the criterion variable was the type of programpursued in high school (Survey Question 9), the privateschool seniors tended more toward a college preparatoryprogram, but again the greater differences were amongthe boys. The private school senior boys in the collegegroups were older than their public school counter-parts while public school boys in the non-college groupswere older. The occupational level of parents ofseniors in the private schools appeared to be higherthan that of parents of seniors in the public schools.The mothers' occupational 'levels appeared to be lowerthan the fathers', but this possibly is due to the factthat most mothers were classified as housewives. Simi-lar differences were observed when the criterion con-sidered was the educational level of the parent, but inthis case the differences were not as great betweenfather and mother.
With the exception of girls in private schools inthe non-college category, private school seniors decidedtheir future plans earlier than public school seniors.This could have been related to the occupational andeducational level of their parents, since the same trendwas evident in the college-non-college comparison.
Differences associated with sex. When the criterionvariable was what the seniors wanted to be (SurveyQuestion 10), girls in the college groups aspired to alower occupational level than boys in the same groups.Girls tended more toward a college preparatory pro-gram than did boys except for the boys in privateschools who planned to attend college. This contradic-tion is very probably explained by the fact that somegirls aspired to become housewives, a lower code on thescale. Girls in all categories were younger than boys.Boys outscored girls on the quantitative section of theSchool and College Ability Test. When the criterionvariable wak.1 rank in high school class, however, girlswere consistently higher than boys. This seems to
confirm the conjecture offered by some people thatgirls are graded on a "different" scale.
Differences associated with college-non-college classi-fication. When the criterion variable was the numberof seniors in the graduating class, the seniors who didnot plan to attend college appeared to come fromsmaller classes. This factor probably is associated withgeographical location of the schools because the sametrend was evident in the percent of seniors going tocollege. The non-college-bound seniors were older thanthe college-bound seniors and decided on what to doafter high school (Survey Question 4) later in theirschool life.
Other differences. While no regression models werewritten to test interaction, some cases in which inter-action may have been present were indicated by thedifferences in the group means on some of the criterionmeasures. The level of aspiration (Survey Question 10)was in favor of the boys in the college groups butchanged in favor of the girls in the non-college groups.This possibly was because the girls in both groups pre-ferred to become office workers or housewives whilethe boys had no such common aspiration and, there-fore, were more widely scattered on the scale.
The means of each of the eight categories on eachof the 17 criterion variables appear in Table 30. Thenumerical values given to each of the possible answerson the Senior Survey form are given in AppendixesD and E. The means should be interpreted withcaution. In cases where the variables are coded,general trends can be determined, but little more thanthis can be safely inferred. In cases where the variablesare accepted measuresfor example, the SCAT scoresthe means can be interpreted in the usual way.
Table 31 contains the means on 15 criterion varia-bles for the categories public, private, boys, girls,college and non-college. The significance of the differ-ences in these means is indicated by the F-ratios inTable 32. Those F-ratios which were considered signifi-cant are marked with an asterisk. As an illustration,the F-ratio of 18.94* in Column 1, Row 1 of Table 32indicates that the difference in "What the seniorwanted to be" for public school seniors and for privateschool seniors was significant at the 0.01 level. Thepublic school seniors (Table 31) had a mean of 3.95and the private school seniors had a mean of 3.19 forcriterion variable number one, "What the senior wantedto be." Appendix E (Variable A. 1, Survey Question10) indicates that the higher levels of aspiration werecoded with lower numerals. Therefore, the differenceindicates that private school seniors aspired moretoward the professional end of the scale. Each of thevariables may be similarly interpreted.
( 33 )
TABLE 30
TABLE OF MEANS FOR EACH OF THE EIGHT CATEGORIES ON 17 CRITERION VARIABLES
VARIABLE
1
BoysPublicSchoolCollege
2Boys
PublicSchool
Non-College
3
BoysPrivateSchoolCollege
4Boys
PrivateSchoolNon-
College
5
GirlsPublicSchoolCollege
6Girls
PublicSchoolNon-
College
7
GirlsPrivateSchoolCollege
8Girls
PrivateSchoolNon-
CollegeTotalGroup
1. What the Senior Wanted to Be (1-Highest) 3.16 5.08 2,73 4.55 3.32 4.65 3.42 4.38 3.912. Total Numl-,-,' of Seniors in Graduating Class 290 235 83 75 285 237 75 69 2533. Total Num:.1 of Seniors Per School Going to
College 195 137 71 57 191 140 67 54 1634. Percent of Seniors Per School Going to College 62 52 86 72 62 53 88 73 605. Type of Program Pursued (1-College Prepara-
tory) 1.66 2.97 1.19 2.22 1.50 2,50 1.21 2.07 2.046. Age of Senior Surveyed (1-Youngest) 2.76 3.31 2.89 3.06 2.57 2.93 2.51 2.72 2.867. Occupational Level of Father (1-Highest) 3.64 5.13 2.56 3.85 3.67 5.19 2.48 4.15 4.238. Occupational Level of Mother (1-Highest) 4.19 4.68 3.82 4.19 4.15 4.66 3.82 4.36 4.369. Educational Level of Father (1-Highest) 3.72 5.03 2.78 4.15 3.69 5.05 2.66 4.36 4.2210. Educational Level of Mother (1-Highest) 3.82 4.79 3.18 4.03 3.74 4.81 3.16 4.31 4.1811. School and College Ability Test-Verbal 284.46 272.32 279.45 279.02 285.09 273.65 277.27 279.40 279.4912. School and College Ability Test-Quantitative 299.96 287.75 293.66 294.03 296.89 286.61 291.95 291.01 293.3513. School and College Ability Test-Total 291.53 280.11 286.72 286.64 290.39 279.96 286.79 286.39 286.7114. Percentile Rank of Senior in High School 57 37 63 57 69 48 74 67 55L5. Time When Decision Was Made (1-Earliest) 3.57 4.79 3.48 4.48 3.34 4.47 3.23 4.59 3.99
TABLE 31
TABLE OF MEANS FOR COMBINED CATEGORIESPRIVATE PUBLIC, MALE, FEMALE, COLLEGEBOUND SENIORS, AND NON- COLLEGE -BOUND SENIORS FOR 15 CRITERION VARIABLES
VARIABLE
MEANS
Public Private Male Female CollegeNon-
College
1. What the Senior Wanted to Be (1-Highest) 3.95* 3.19 3.87* 3.94 3.22* 4.832, Total Number of Seniors in Graduating Class 265* 79 253 253 268* 2333. Total Number of Seniors Per School Going to College 169* 68 164 162 182* 1374. Percent of Seniors Per School Going to College 58* 85 60* 59 64* 535. Type of Program Pursued (1-College Preparatory) 2.08* 1.32 2.13* 1,96 1.55* 2.696. Age of Senior Surveyed (1-Youngest) 2.86* 2.76 2.98* 2.73 2.67* 3.097. Occupational Level of Father (1-Highest) 4.33* 2.73 4.13 4.33 3.55* 5.148. Occupational Level of Mother (1-Highest) 4.39* 3,88 4.35 4.37 4.14* 4.669. Educational Level of Father (1-Highest) 4.30* 2.94 4.16 4.28 3.62* 5.03
10. Educational Level of Mother (1-Highest) 4.24* 3.31 4.15* 4.21 3.72* 4.7911. SCAT-Verbal 279.53* 278.71 279.47* 279.49 284.20* 273.1912. SCAT-Quantitative 293.37* 292.93 294.85* 291.93 297.95* 287.2113. SCAT-Total 286.07* 286.71 286.83* 285.43 290.58* 280.1514. Percentile Rank of Senior in High School .54* .66 .50* .60 .63* .4415. Time When Decision Was Made (1-Earliest) 4.02* 3.54 4.13* 3.87 3.53* 4.61
*Difference is significant at .01 level.
( 34 )
TABLE 32TABLE OF F-RATIOS FOR THREE COMPARISONS ON 17 CRITERION VARIABLES
Public vs.Private
Boy vs.Girl
College vs.Non-
College
1. What the Senior Wanted to Be18.94* 79.36* 1738.88*2. Total Number of Seniors in Graduating Class 1030.09* 1.79 277.13*3. Total Number of Seniors Per School Going to College 597.42* 2.25 518.22*4. Percent of Seniors Per School Going to College 1353.73* 7.45* 964.68*5. Type of Program Pursued
161.89* 387.32* 4771.52*6. Age of Senior Surveyed20.11* 432.65* 980.20*7. Occupational Level of Father
207.82* 2.13 1583.39*8. Occupational Level of Mother46.75* 2.12 377.58*9. Educational Level of Father
282.80* 2.59 2465.82*10. Educational Level of Mother184.77* 8.12* 2167.17*11. School and College Ability Test-Verbal 38.72* 5.27* 573.96*12. School and College Ability Test-Quantitative 29.75* 22.82* 472.40'13. School and College Ability Test-Total 25.01* 3.41* 549.28*14, Percentile Rank of Senior in High School 63.23* 474.84* 1314.70'15. Time When Decision Was Made 14.87* 181.54* 1574.79*16. Number of Colleges Applied To 391.95* 49.59*17. Choice of College Senior Will Probably Attend 7.20* 8.21*
*Difference is significant at .01 level.
The F-ratios should be interpreted with the usualcaution observed when interpreting repeated tests.The F-ratios in Table 32 come from one-way analysisof variance tests using the comparisons recorded in thecolumn headings. Furthermore, because of the largenumber of students used in the analysis, what is statis-tically significant should be considered in light ofwhat is "practically" a significant difference. Incomparing public and private seniors on "What thesenior wanted to be," for example, four is probablyreally lower on the aspirational scale than is three(3.95 approximately equals four; 3.19 approximatelyequals three).
Variables for Which Further Study Is Suggested,The "ITEREG" program yields product-moment cor-relation coefficients for all of the variables put into theregression model. The information which was put ontape for analysis using the Applied Multiple LinearRegression approach was coded in such a way thatcorrelation coefficients would be useful in gaining infor-mation about which variables might be most importantin this analysis and which might be carefully measuredand included in the planned, follow-up study or othersimilar studies. The following discussion is concernedwith those variables which appeared to be correlatedand which appeared to be measures important enoughto receive careful attention in future studies.
For the regression models under considerationhere, there were 17 criterion measures which were
generated for the regression program.' The correlationcoefficients in Table 33 indicate that the aspirations ofthe seniors, as measured by what they indicated theywanted to be, showed the expected relationship withsuch social factors as the educational level of themother (r = 0.20), educational level of the father(r = .21), etc. The correlation coefficient for what theseniors wanted to be with the time they made theirdecision (r = 0.26) suggested the possibility that thosewho had the highest aspirations reached a decisionearlier. The means for criterion variable number 15,time the decision was made, supported this contention.
The correlation coefficients for what the seniorswanted to be with the number of colleges applied to(r = 0.30) and the choice of college the senior willlikely attend (r = 0.34) suggests the possibility thatthe higher the aspirational level the fewer the numberof colleges applied to. The correlation coefficients forthe number of colleges applied to with the choice ofcollege the senior would likely attend (r = 0.86) alsoindicate the possibility that those who apply to fewercolleges have the highest expectation of continuingtheir education. This possibility is supported by thecorrelation coefficients for the number of collegesapplied to with high school rank (r = -0.27) and withthe type of program pursued (r = 0.43).
The measures on the occupational level of the fatherand the mother and their respective measures of educa-tional level exhibited the expected relationships. These
'Listed previously on pages 31-32.
TABLE 33
TABLE OF CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR THE 17 VARIABLES FOR WHICH FURTHER STUDY IS SUGGESTED
(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17)
(1) What the Senior Wanted to Be .32 .19 .21 .20 .26 .30 .34
(2) Total Number of Seniors in Grad-uating Class .95 .34 - .21 - .27 - .20
(3) Total Number of Seniors PerSchool Going to College .54 - .29 - .35 - .26
(4) Percent of Seniors Per SchoolGoing to College - .25 - .38 - .43 - .36 - .20 - .27
(5) Type of Program Pursued .27 .31 .37 .34 -.22 -.21 - .22 -.34 .30 .43 .49
(6) Age of Senior Surveyed .21 .21 - .23 .21 .24
(7) Occupational Level of Father .32 .58 .44 .20 .25 .33
(8) Occupational Level of Mother .28 .32
(9) Educational Level of Father .63 .25 .30 .39
(10) Educational Level of Mother .24 .30 .37
(11) SCAT Verbal Score .68 .72 - .20
(12) SCAT Quantitative Score .73
(13) SCAT Total Score - .
(14) Percentile Rank of Senior in HighSchool - .23 - . - .31
(15) Time When Decision \ias Made .26 .34
(16) Number of Colleges Applied To .86
(17) Choice of College Senior WillProbably Attend
measures appeared frequently in correlations with theother variables. Those for the father appeared morefrequently and generally showed higher correlationcoefficients.
The correlation coefficients for type of programpursued with the scholastic factors--SCAT scores,
percentile rank in class, etc., were in line with expecta-tions as were the means for the criterion measuresreported in Table 31. For private schools, however,the anticipated difference between the college and non-college groups was not found.
B. COMPARISONS OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE SENIORS WERE HELPED BYVARIOUS INDIVIDUALS WITH THEIR PLANS AFTER GRADUATION
AND SOME RELATED COMPARISONS
This section deals with the answers to the question,"Who exerted the greatest influence on students inmaking their decision?" It was also considered useful
( 36 )
to know which other factors, such as school-related,socio-economic, and scholastic, influenced the seniorsin making their decisions.
Bentley and Salter' reported a study dealing withthe role of the counselor in helping seniors to get intocollege and the role which seniors expected the counselorto fulfill. Two hundred twenty-nine (229) freshmenwere used who were admitted to a small liberal artscollege from 233 different high schools. The informa-tion was obtained by questionnaire (90 percent return).
In answering the question, "Who would you sayinfluenced you most in selecting your college?" theresponses of the freshmen indicated that the parentwas most influential in the college decision and that thecounselor was next most influential. When only parentsand counselors were considered, Bentley's data showedthat the percentage in each of the three levelsmostimportant, next in importance, third most importantwas about equally divided between parents and coun-selors, each with about 20 percent in each of thethree categories. In. a study reported by Kerr2 thesepercentages were 66 for parents and eight for counselors.These results were not directly comparable since Kerrasked the question in a different form"Whose assist-ance was most valuable to you in making your decisionto attend college?"3 Both studies, however, revealedthat parents were most influential in the student'sdecision to attend college. The fact that, other peoplebesides parents and counselors also helped to influencethese decisions suggests that caution should be exer-cised in making comparisons between them.
In a study reported by Roemmich and Schmidt,4the percentages were almost the same as those reportedby Kerr. In answer to the question, "Who assistedyou in selecting a college?" 41 percent indicatedparents and five percent indicated counselors. How-ever, the answers were 48 percent for counselorsand nine percent for parents in answer to the ques-tion, "Who assisted you in making college plans?"5The geographic origin of the students in the studies byBentley, Kerr, and Roemmich were different, and thiscould account for some of the differences in theirfindings. A more likely explanation, however, lies inthe makeup of the groups studied, although, Bentleyand Salter attributed their findings to the increasedrole played by the counselor in more recent years.Bentley and Salter surveyed students actually enrolledin college, whereas the other study surveyed all studentswhose plans included college. Consideration of onlycollege-bound students could have accounted for theimportance of parents in the decision.
A study of Georgia's 1966 high school graduates6pointed to the fact that the answer to the questionabout relative influence depends upon the way in whichthe question is asked. A sample of 1,850 studentswho graduated from high school in 1966 were requestedto complete a questionnaire in April of 1967. Thegraduates were asked to indicate what they "considered
to be their primary source of guidance and informationconcerning post-high school educational opportuni-ties."? Counselors were reported as the primarysource of information by 31 percent of the seniors,parents by 25 percent, friends by 18 percent, teachersby seven percent, advertisem*nts by six percent, andother by 13 percent.
It seems reasonable to assume, on the basis of thereports of these four studies, that counselors do in-fluence seniors' decisions, although they may do so inan indirect way by providing information for decisionsrather than by directly influencing the decisions. Con-sequently, when studying the influence of counselorsand others on seniors' decisions, care should be takento consider the different roles of those who are influenc-ing these decisions and the wording used to ask thequestion on the survey form.
The Senior Survey form contained response catego-ries which permitted examination of the question con-cerning who influenced a senior's decision and theextent to which that decision was influenced. Theseniors were asked to what extent the following personshelped in their decisions about plans after high school:
1. Parent or other relative2. High school teacher3. High school counselor4. High school principal5. Students on college campus6. Classmates or friends7. Other adults
The categories indicating the extent of the influencewere: (1) very much, (2) some, (3) very little or none,and (4) no-response. This breakdown permitted thegeneration of responses on criterion variables into fourmutually exclusive categories for each of the sevensources of influence. The following general questionwas posed :
'J. C. Bentley and S. Salter, "College Freshman ViewCounselor Help in College Selection," Personnel and GuidanceJournal, XLII (October, 1967), pp, 178-183.
2W. D. Kerr, "Student Perceptions of Counselor Role inthe College Decision," Personnel and Guidance Journal, XLI(December, 1962), pp. 337-342.
3/bid., p. 338.
4H. Roemmich and J. L. Schmidt, "Student Perceptions ofAssistance Provided by Counselors in College Planning,"Personnel and Guidance Journal XLI (October, 1962), pp.157-158.
5Ibid., p. 158.
Thomas F. McDonald, "Georgia's 1966 High SchoolGraduates, A Self-Portrait," Georgia Educational Improve-ment Council, 705 Hartford Building, 100 Edgewood Avenue,N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
7Ibid., p. 28.
( 37 )
1. Are there differences associated with who in-fluenced the seniors' decisions and the extent towhich that decision was influenced when thecriterion is, in a general sense, what the seniorsplan to do after graduation?
Extent to which seniors were helped. A random sam-ple of 1,000 students was selected from the tape ofthe seniors' responses. The regression models were runon this sample to determine how the seniors' plansafter graduation were influenced by those personslisted on the survey form.'
The percent of responses in each of the categoriesfor each of those persons who influenced the decisionappear in Table 34. The percent of "no-response" isalso shown for each category. From Table 34 it isclear that "parent or other relative" exerted the greatestinfluence on the seniors' decision.
The distribution of the percent in the "no-response"category suggests that the answers were a function ofthe social distance of the person from the student. Thefurther the person was from the respondent, the moredifficult it was for him to respond. If a response wasmade, it seemed more likely to appear in the "verylittle-or-none" category.
TABLE 34
PERCENT OF RESPONSES BY CATEGORY FOR EACHPERSON WHO INFLUENCED THE
SENIORS' DECISIONS
VeryMuch Some
VeryLittle
or NoneNo
Response
Parent or Other Relative 47.01 38.91 13.33 0.75High School Teacher 12.58 38.06 46.70 2.66High School Counselor 17.81 39.55 40.19 2.45High School Principal 2.35 11.62 82.41 3.62Students on College Cam-
pus 6.93 24.73 63.65 4.69Classmates or Friends 13.11 48.61 35.61 2.67Other Adults 14.82 40.72 40.09 4.37
Variables related to extent of influence. When theregression models were run, correlations' were com-puted to determine whether or not students wereinfluenced to the same extent by different people; forinstance, did some students mark "very much" inseveral categories. One might use such informationto begin to identify groups of students who seek aspecial kind of help in making their decisions. Theresults of this analysis revealed several interestingpossibilities.
A significant number of seniors who were helped"very much" by parents were also helped "very much"by counselors, classmates, and friends, as well as beinghelped "some" by high school teachers, students oncollege campuses, and other adults. A significantnumber of those who indicated that they were helped"very much" by a teacher were also helped "verymuch" by counselors and principals. This is anespecially interesting finding in view of the fact thatprincipals made such a poor showing in the compositepercentages. The same finding was true of the category"some," i.e., "some" help was received from teachers,counselors, and principals.
A significant number of those seniors who indicatedthat they were helped "very much" by students oncollege campuses were also helped "very much" byclassmates, friends, and other adults. This indicatesthat there was a sizeable group of students makingdecisions "outside" the accustomed channels.
The categories relating to what the seniors aspiredto become and the persons exerting' influence werecompared. A significant number of those influenced"very much" by parents planned to attend a four-yearcollege. Those influenced "very little" by parents didnot plan any post-high school training. Also, a signifi-cant number of those influenced "very little" by coun-selors did not plan any post-high school training. Signi-ficant numbers of those influenced "very much" and"some" by students on college campuses planned toattend a four-year college.
The regression models used for determining whetherthe "no-reponse" items influenced the results showedno significant effect of the "no-response" items.
C. COMPARISON OF CHOICE OF COLLEGE WITH STATUS OF COLLEGEAPPLICATION AND WITH RELATED VARIABLES
Respondents to the survey indicated which of theirchoices of college they would most likely attend(Question 14)10. They also indicated whether their
8For a discussion of the regression models used for thisanalysis, see Appendix H of this report.
°The correlation coefficients are not produced here sincetheir purpose was to identify patterns of responses. Their
( 38 )
applications at each choice of institution had beenaccepted, or rejected, or if the status was standby orunknown (Question 13). The public school seniors'
meaning is not the same as that usually associated with product-moment correlations.
'question numbers refer to the question on the SeniorSurvey form.
responses were analy zed to determine if the choice levelof the college, i.e., first, second, third, was related tothe status of the applications in the three choice cate-gories. For example, were the students accepted bythe college of their first choice, and to what othervariables could their degree of acceptance be attrib-uted? The regression models included criterion meas-ures sufficient to examine the relationship of choice ofcollege to the following variables:"
1. What the seniors wanted to be (Question 10,Variable 2)12
2. Classification of school division (Variable 3).3. Percent of seniors per class going to college
(Variable 12)4. The type of program pursued (Question 9,
Variable 13)5. The occupational level of the father (Question
10, Variable 16)6. The occupational level of the mother (Question
10, Variable 17)7. The educational level of the father (Question 8,
Variable 18)8. The educational level of the mother (Question 8,
Variable 19)9. The verbal score on the School and College
Ability Test (Question A, Variable 20)10. The quantitative score on the School and Col-
lege Ability Test (Question B, Variable 22)11. The total score on the School and College Ability
Test (Question C, Variable 22)12. The percentile rank of the senior in his high
school class (Question E, Variable 23)13. The time the decision was made (Question 4,
Variable 24)14. The reasons for not going to college (Question 3,
Variable 35)15. The number of colleges the senior applied to
(Question 11, Variable 36)16. The status of the application to the first-choice
institution (Question 13, Variable 40)17. The status of the application to the second-
choice institution (Question 13, Variable 41)18. The status of the application to the third-choice
institution (Question 13, Variable 42)19. The choice of college the senior will most likely
attend (Question 14, Variable 43)20. The verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude
Test" (Question D, Variable 59)21. The math score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test
(Question E, Variable 60)
The regression analysis was run with the response datacoded for the "ITEREG" program for the 27,257college applicants in public schools. Of these, 706indicated that they probably would not attend college.
A separate regression analysis was run on thisgroup of 706 students in an attempt to determinewhat some of their characteristics were.
The following variables were used in this analysis :1°1. The educational level of the father (Question 8,
Variable 18)2. The educational level of the mother (Question 8,
Variable 19)3. The verbal score on the School and College
Ability Test (Question A, Variable 20)4. The quantitative score on the School and Col-
lege Ability Test (Question B, Variable 21)5. The total score on the School and College
Ability Test (Question C, Variable 22)6, The percentile rank of the senior in his high
school class (Question F, Variable 23)7. The proximity of a business, trade, or technical
school (Question 7, Variable 32)8. The proximity of a junior college (Question 7,
Variable 33)9. The proximity of a four-year college (Question 7,
Variable 34)10. The Verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test score
(Question E, Variable 59)11. The Math Scholastic Aptitude Test score (Ques-
tion F, Variable 60)
In examining the relation of choice of college to theapplication status, three categories of response for theapplication status were generated for each of the threechoices. The criterion variable used was whether thesenior planned to attend his first, second, or thirdchoice of college (Question 14, Variable 43). The gen-eral question considered was:
Are there differences in the choice levels (first,second, or third choice) of colleges that are asso-ciated with the status of the application?
The question was asked for each of the three choicelevels, i.e., application to the institution of first choice,application to the institution of the second choice,and application to the institution of the third choice.
( 39 )
Choice Level and Application Status. When thecriterion variable was the choice of college the seniorplanned to attend and the generated categories werestatus of applicationaccepted, rejected, and standbyor unknownmodels for each of the three choices gavesignificant F-ratios. For first-choice application theF-ratio was 35,072, for second-choice application theF-ratio was 80, and for third-choice application the
11See Appendix I for a discussion of the regression modelsfor this analysis.
12See Appendix E for coding of variables.13See Appendix E for explanation of codes.
F-ratio was 52. The meanings of these significantdifferences, however, were not as clear as was hoped.One interpretation may be that students rated a college
as their first choice because their application had beenaccepted there. Also, almost half of this group hadapplied to only one college.
The means on choice of college which the studentplanned to attend for each of the three statuses ofapplication are given in Table 35. As indicated inAppendix E, the choice level of the colleges was coded :first choice-1, second choice-2, third choice-3,another choice-4, and probably will not go or noresponse-5. Table 35 may therefore be interpretedas follows:
The majority of those seniors whose first-choicecollege applications were accepted planned to attend.With a mean of one for first-choice college accepted,all students accepted at their first choice of collegewould have planned to attend. However, with amean of 1.14, a few planned not to attend their firstcollege even though their application had been accepted.Aside from the few in the standby category who areoptimistic about entering their first-choice college, itcan be seen in Table 35 that seniors whose first-choicecollege applications were "rejected" or "standby or un-known" planned to attend the college of their secondor third choice.
What was happening in the cases of second- andthird-choice applications was not clear. The lowmeans could be explained if it is assumed that studentswhose first-choice applications were accepted also hadsecond and third choices accepted. The low means inthe standby category for second and third choicesprobably indicated optimism on the part of the seniors
who had no word on the action taken by those collegesconsidering their applications. The models used inthe analysis did not provide answers to the questionswhich arose in connection with these assumptions, andfurther analysis is recommended to provide more infor-mation about what the relationships really are.
TABLE 35
MEANS ON CHOICE OF COLLEGE WHICH SENIORSPLANNED TO ATTEND FOR THREE STATUSES OF
APPLICATION TO INSTITUTIONS OF FIRST,SECOND, AND THIRD CHOICES
First- Second- Third-Choice Choice ChoiceCollege College College
Accepted 1.14 1.39 1.59Rejected 2.60 1.69 1.53Standby or Unknown 1.88 1.44 1.41
Choice Level and Other Variables. The regressionmodel included several vectors which were generatedfor the purpose of identifying variables that might havebeen related to whether the student planned to attendthe college of his first, second, or third choice. Theresults of this analysis were not clear. However, itappeared that the status of the application to theinstitution of the senior's first choice was the onlyvariable likely to be related to the choice of collegethe senior attended.
Seniors Who Applied to College but Who ProbablyWill Not Attend. Table 36 gives the means on several
TABLE 36
MEANS ON 11 VARIABLES FOR 706 SENIORS WHO APPLIED TO COLLEGE BUT WHO PROBABLY
WILL NOT Go AND MEANS FOR ALL THE PUBLIC SCHOOL COLLEGE APPLICANTS
VARIABLES
Means for Those WhoApplied to CollegeBut Probably Will
Not Go
Means forAll
Applicants
The Educational Level of the Father 4.26 3.71The Educational Level of the Mother 4.29 3.78The Verbal Score on the School and College Ability Test 277.45 284.78The Quantitative Score on the School and College Ability Test 293.04 298.46The Total Score on the School and College Ability Test 285.44 290.97The Percentile Rank of the Senior in His High School Class 50.00 63.00The Proximity of a Business, Trade, or Technical School 1.25 *
The Proximity of a Junior College 1.32 *
The Proximity of a Four-Year College 1.34 *
The Verbal Scholastic Aptitude Test Score 445.57 465.93The Math Scholastic Aptitude Test Score 458.15 486.54
*Models to produce means for the "all applicants" group were not written.
( 40 )
criteria for the seniors who indicated that they hadapplied to college but probably would not attend. Thecriterion measures used were for those characteristicswhich were listed previously. In addition, for purposesof comparison, the means on the available criterionmeasures for all public school college applicants areincluded in the table.
The differences between the groups on these meas-ures are obviously quite large. The dichotomousnature of these codes, however, made inferences un-
wise. The reasons for not going on to college almostsurely were associated with the socio-economic statusof the parents and, perhaps to a somewhat lesserdegree, with scores on the standardized tests. It isrecommended that further analysis and subsequentstudies be made of this group in much more detail.For example, a selection could be made on one or moreof the variables which were shown by the correlationsto be importanteducational level of parents, etc.
VARIABLES FOR WHICH FURTHER STUDY Is SUGGESTED: AN ADDITIONAL NOTE
In Table 37 is a summary of selected correlationcoefficients based on the total population (as in Table33) and the corresponding correlation coefficients whenonly the public school college applicants were consid-ered. To be included, a correlation coefficient musthave been about equal to or greater than 0.20 in
absolute value in both cases. These correlation coeffi-cients indicate which variables are related, and theygive some indication as to how future studies may bedesigned. For example, the table shows a correlationcoefficient of 0.32 for the total seniors for "What theseniors wanted to be" with "Type of program pursued"
TABLE 37
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF SELECTED VARIABLES WHICH WERE CORRELATEDFOR THE TOTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL GROUP OF SENIORS AND CORRELATED TO
ABOUT THE SAME EXTENT FOR ONLY THE PUBLICSCHOOL COLLEGE APPLICANTS
TotalPublic School
CollegeVARIABLE Applicants
TotalPublicSchoolSeniors
SENIORS' ASPIRATIONS
What the Seniors Wanted to Be--WithType of Program Pursued 0.17 0.32Time Decision Was Made 0.18 0.26
Percent of Graduating Class Attending CollegeWithOccupational Level of Father 0.35* 0.38*Educational Level of Father 0.40* 0.43*Educational Level of Mother 0.29* 0.36*Number of Colleges Applied To 0.23 0.20
Type of Program PursuedWithOccupational Level of Father 0.20 0.31Educational Level of Father 0.24 0.37Educational Level of Mother 0.21 0.34SCAT Verbal Score 0.18* 0.22*SCAT Quantitative Score 0.18* 0.21*SCAT Total Score 0.18* 0.22*Percentile Rank of Seniors in High School Class
(Low Number Rank = High Number Percentile) . 29* 0.34*Time Decision Was Made 0.23 0.30Number of Colleges Applied To . 20* 0 . 43t
Occupational Level of FatherWithOccupational Level of Mother 0.31 0.32Educational Level of Father 0.57 0.58Educational Level of Mother 0.40 0.44Number of Colleges Applied To . 25* 0 . 25t
*Denotes a "false" negative correlation which is due to the manner in which the weightswere assigned; e.g., high occupational level assigned a low numerical code.
tlndicates a "false" positive correlation.
( 41 )
TABLE 37CONTINUED
TotalPublic School
CollegeVARIABLE Applicants
TotalPublicSchoolSeniors
Occupational Level of MotherWithEducational Level of FatherEducational Level of Mother
Educational Level of FatherWithEducational Level of MotherTime Decision Was Made
0.280.34
0.580.18
0 . 280 . 32
0 . 250 . 30
Number of Colleges Applied To 0 . 29* 0 . 39tEducational Level of MotherWith
Time Decision Was Made 0.17 0 . 24Number of Colleges Applied To 0 . 30* 0 . 30t
SCAT Verbal ScoreWithSCAT Quantitative Score 0.20 0 . 68SCAT Total Score 0.73 0 . 72
SCAT Quantitative ScoreWithSCAT Total Score 0.75 0 . 73
Percentile Rank of Seniors in High School ClassWithTime Decision Was Made (Early = 1) 0 . 22* 0.23
Time Decision Was MadeWithNumber of Colleges Applied To 0 . 16* 0 . 26t
*Denotes a "false" negative correlation which is due to the manner in which the weightswere assigned; e.g., high occupational level assigned a low numerical code.
Indicates a "false" positive correlation.
and a coefficient of 0.17 for the public school collegeapplicants. This indicates a higher degree of correla-tion between the total seniors group aspirations andtype of program pursued than for the public schoolcollege applicants. This is probably due to the factthat college-bound seniors took a college preparatorycourse which is restrictive in the sense that it coversonly preparation for college, not the course of studythe student planned to take. This, of course, wouldhave followed more closely the seniors' aspirations.However, for the total group, additional types of coursesenabled them to follow more closely a program designedfor their aspirations. By referring to Appendix D andthe weights assigned to the answers for each question,
similar indications may be derived for the othercorrelations.
In examining Table 37, an asterisk denotes a "false"negative correlation which is due to the manner inwhich the weights were assigned; e.g., high occupationallevel assigned a low numerical code; one dagger indi-cates the opposite, a "false" positive correlation.
Most of the variables mentioned as candidates forfurther study remained important. The reversal of thesign of the correlation coefficients of "number of collegesapplied to" with the other variables strongly suggestedthat the "no-response" items were having considerableinfluence. Because of the possibility Gf large numbersin the "no-response" categories, a more dr ailed analy-sis is needed to decide the importance of this variable.
IV. SUMMARY OF ANALYSESA. SUMMARY OF PHASE I (FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTIONS)
Section II of this report contains the frequencydistributions and percentages of students answeringthe questions on the Senior Survey form. The follow-ing is a brief summary of the frequency and percentagedistributions based upon approximately 95 percent ofthe State's 1967 public and private high school seniors.
1. Public School Seniors' Responses to the SeniorSurvey
( 42 )
The 1967 public school senior population includedin the survey was composed of 23,556 (44.7 percent)boys and 25,910 (49.2 percent) girls. This is 93.9 per-cent of the 52,684 twelfth-grade membership at theend of the academic year 1966-67. The modal age forboys and girls was 18 years, the boys tending to beolder than the girls. Almost five percent of the seniorboys were 20 years old or older.
-71441".
When asked, "When did you decide on what youwant to do after high school," more seniors answered"Just this year" (33.8 percent) than any other option(Table 4); however, more than one-tenth of the studentshad made their decisions before the seventh grade.Later analyses indicated that those who decided earlywere also those who were more likely to have plannedto attend college. More public school seniors were en-rolled in a college preparatory program (43.4 percent)than in any other program (Table 8). More girls thanboys were enrolled in commercial or business programs,and more boys than girls were in other vocational pro-grams. About 70 percent of the students planned tocontinue their education in some way. About one-third(35.9 percent) of the public school seniors expected toenter a four-year college and about one-fifth (21.0 per-cent) of them planned to enter full-time, two-yearcollege programs.
The two reasons given most frequently for notattending college (Table 3) were "grades not goodenough" (24.9 percent) and "rather get a job" (24.4percent). Ten percent of those not attending collegereported that college was too expensive. Parents wereconsidered the most important source of help indeciding on post-high school plans (Table 2).
The educational and socio-economic backgroundsof parents were considered in Questions 8 and 10 ofthe Senior Survey. About 60 percent of the mothersand 50 percent of the fathers had at least a high schooleducation (Table 7) ; however, more than three timesas many fathers as mothers had completed graduateschool. There were no appreciable differences in theeducational backgrounds of the parents of boys and theparents of girls. More of the fathers were skilledcraftsmen or foremen (20 percent) than any otheroccupational classification (Table 9). The secondlargest category for the fathers was manager or execu-tive (11.5 percent). More than half of the motherswere reported as housewives with no outside employ-ment; 12.4 percent of the mothers were office workers.There was little difference (Table 9) in the occupationsof the parents of boys and the parents of girls.
When asked what they wanted to be (Table 9),the boys chose Professions A, social worker, teacher,etc. (17.9 percent), skilled craftsmen or foremen (13.2percent), and Professions B, lawyer, doctor, etc. (12.8percent). Replies from senior girls indicated that 33.1percent planned to be office workers and 23.4 percentwould seek employment in Professions B positions.
Almost half (46 percent) of the seniors applied toonly one college (Table 10). Analysis showed that thesestudents tended to be ones with high ability who wereaccepted by their first-choice college. There was littledifference between the numbers of colleges applied toby boys and by girls. Of the seniors applying to college,
11.5 percent had applied to more than three colleges.Almost 70 percent (69.2 percent) of the seniors whoexpected to attend college planned to enter a collegelocated in Virginia. Approximately 38 percent of allseniors who planned to attend college preferred a four-year, State-controlled institution (Table 11).
Most of the students (70.8 percent) were acceptedby their first-choice college (Table 12), and a slightlyhigher percentage of girls than boys were accepted.Most of the seniors (80.2 percent) also said they wouldattend their first-choice college (Table 13). This wouldindicate that as of May of their senior year an addi-tional 9.4 percent expected to be accepted at theirfirst-choice college.
About 86 percent of the seniors reported that abusiness, trade, or technical school was within com-muting distance of home (Table 6). Seventy-nine per-cent lived near a junior or community college, and thesame percent lived near a four-year college.
The seniors who planned to attend college were in-fluenced in their choice of a college by the wishes oftheir parents, the reputation of the faculty, good intel-lectual atmosphere, and friendly social climate, in thisorder (Table 14).
2. Private School Seniors' Responses to the SeniorSurvey
The private school seniors included in the surveywere composed of 1,926 (60.3 percent) boys and 1,268(39.7 percent) girls. The boys were older than the girls(Table 19) and the age most often reported was 18years (47.8 percent).
A majority (66.7 percent) of the private schoolseniors planned to attend four-year colleges (Table 15),and the percentage included more boys than girls-71.4 percent vs. 59.4 percent. Almost all (90.1 percent)of the private school seniors planned to continue theireducation in some manner. Eighty-two percent of theseniors were enrolled in college preparatory programs.The most frequently indicated reason, especially amongboys, for not attending college was that grades were notgood enough (Table 17). The persons exerting thegreatest influence on post-high school plans wereparents or other relatives (Table 16).
About half of the fathers and one-fourth of themothers of the private school seniors had completedcollege (Table 21), and more than one-fifth of thefathers had attended graduate school. The most oftenreported occupational level for the fathers of privateschool seniors (Table 23) was manager or executive(24 percent), and another one-fourth of the fatherswere reported employed in Professions A and Pro-fessions B. The mothers were most often reported ashaving no other employment except that of housewife(59 percent).
( 43 )
Most of the private school senior boys preferredProfessions B, lawyer, doctor, etc. (28.2 percent) andProfessions A, social worker, teacher, etc. (22.6 per-cent). The girls preferred Professions A (25.5 percent).
Twenty-one percent of the boys and 27.5 percentof the girls applied to only one college, and 16.4 percentof the boys and 20.3 percent of the girls applied to morethan three colleges (Table 24). Less than 40 percentof the college-bound private school seniors planned toattend out-of-state colleges, and 83.4 percent plannedto attend a four-year institution rather than another
type of college (Table 25). Almost three-fourths of theprivate school seniors who applied to college were ac-cepted by the college of their first choice (Table 26),and 72.7 percent of them said they planned to attendthe college of their first choice (Table 27).
Most of the boys and girls (85.7 percent and 87.9percent respectively) lived near a four-year college(Table 20). The reason most frequently given forchoosing a particular college was the reputation of thefaculty (Table 28).
B. SUMMARY OF PHASE II (RESULTS OF THE REGRESSION ANALYSES)
The results of the different regression analyses aresummarized under the following questions:
1. What differences among boys and girls in thecollege and non-college groups were associatedwith whether they attended public or privatehigh schools?
The private school seniors, especially the boys,indicated a higher level of occupational aspiration(Question 10) and a larger percentage of them plannedto attend college (Table 31) than did the public schoolseniors. The private school seniors tended more towarda college preparatory high school program. Theirparents had more formal education than public schoolseniors and tended toward the professional end of theoccupational scale. The senior boys who attendedprivate high schools and planned to enroll in collegewere older than the public school boys who planned toattend college, but the private school boys who did notplan to attend college were younger than the boys inthe .public school non-college group. Private schoolgirls were slightly younger than public school girls,and private school seniors appeared to decide onfuture plans earlier than public school seniors.
2. What differences among public and privateschool seniors were attributable to whether theyare boys or girls?
Girls were younger and ranked higher than boys intheir high school graduating classes. Girls in thepublic schools tended more toward a college preparatoryprogram than boys. However, boys had higher SCATQuantitative scores. Private and public high schoolgirls who planned to attend college aspired to loweroccupational levels than did the boys who expected toenter college.
3. What differences among boys and girls wereassociated with whether or not they planned toattend college?
The seniors who planned to attend college tended tocome from high schools with larger graduating classes.
They also tended to be younger and decided aboutfuture plans earlier than seniors who did not plan toattend college.
4. Were any other relationships between the differ-ent variables observed?
Correlation coefficients indicated possible relation-ships among certain variables (Table 33). The aspi-rations of the seniors were correlated positively withthe educational levels of the fathers (r = 0.21). Thosewith the highest aspirations appeared to have decidedon future plans earlier and to have applied to fewercolleges.
5. Which persons influenced the seniors in selectingtheir college?
The parents exerted the greatest influence on theseniors' decision as to which college to attend. Highschool counselors were rated second and teachers wererated third.
A substantial number of those helped "very much"by parents planned to attend four-year colleges, andthose influenced "very little" by parents and by coun-selors did not plan any post-high school training.
6. Did the seniors tend to be accepted by the collegeof their first choice, and to what other variablescould their acceptance be attributed?
Most seniors reported that they planned to attendthe college of their first choice. Unfortunately, theresearch model and the organization and degree ofcompleteness of the raw data were insufficient to answerthe second part of the question. Further analysis isrecommended.
7. What were the characteristics of those seniorswho applied to one or more colleges but whor*ported that they would not attend any college,and how did they compare with all collegeapplicants?
The seniors who applied for admission to college,but reported that they would not attend, had mean
( 44 )
scores on SCAT and SAT significantly lower than thoseof the total college applicants (Table 36). The meanrank in high school class, as well as the mean educa-
tional level of both the fathers and mothers of thisgroup, was also significantly lower than those of thetotal college applicants.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDYThe 1967 Senior Survey was a first attempt to
determine the backgrounds, abilities, and goals of Vir-ginia's high school seniors. Recommendations forfurther investigation include (1) additional study andanalysis of the 1967 Senior Survey data and (2)replication of the survey in May of 1970.
Additional studies have been and are being con-ducted with the 1967 Senior Survey data. The Divi-sion of Educational Research and Statistics, in coopera-tion with the College Entrance Examination Board, isconducting a follow-up study of those seniors who com-pleted one or more CEEB Advanced Placement exami-nations to determine to what extent these students havebeen able to benefit from Advanced Placement coursesin high school. Among other results, a questionnairereturned from colleges in which 705 Advanced Place-ment students were enrolled indicated that advancedplacement or degree credit was given on 52.7 percent ofthe examinations submitted. A second purpose of theAdvanced Placement study is to determine how many(if any) other seniors in Virginia might profit fromAdvanced Placement courses.
At least one university has been able to make useof the data from the survey,' and other colleges or
'Alton L. Taylor, "A Survey of Spring 1967 Graduates fromVirginia Public Schools Who Entered the University of Virginiain the Fall of 1967, in Relation to Parental Backgrounds and
universities are invited to conduct similar studies usingthe Senior Survey as a data base.
It is recommended that follow-up studies be con-ducted of random samples of seniors who completedthe 1967 Senior Survey. Examples of questions whichmight be answered in such studies are : Did most of thestudents who took college preparatory high schoolprograms actually enter college, and do their collegegrades indicate that they were better prepared in someacademic areas than in others? Did students in voca-tional programs in high school tend to enter vocationsfor which they were trained, and how does their successcompare with students who did not pursue vocationalprograms in high school? These questions are a fewof the many which could and should be asked throughfollow-up studies.
The Senior Survey form has been revised and is tobe administered in May of 1970 (Appendix L). Changesin the form were made so that certain answers would bemore meaningful. The replication of the survey willprovide up-to-date information on the background, abil-ity, and plans of the 1970 seniors, and when comparedwith the 1967 survey results, will indicate trends in thevarious factors measured by the survey.
Selected Factors Influencing the Decision to Attend the Uni-versity of Virginia," Office of Institutional Analysis, Universityof Virginia, Charlottesville, 1968.
( 45 )
APPENDIXES
FO
RM
ER
1.67
VIR
GIN
IA S
TA
TE
DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
OF
ED
UC
AT
ION
SE
NIO
R S
UR
VE
YS
TU
DE
NT
SC
HO
OL
NA
ME
NA
ME
15. T
o W
hat E
xten
t Did
The
Fol
low
ing
Hel
p Y
ou in
Dec
idin
g on
The
Col
lege
of Y
our
Firs
t Cho
ice;
(Mar
k O
neR
espo
nVer
y
se fo
r E
ach
Item
)
Ver
yLi
ttle
or1.
Wha
t Are
You
r P
lans
Afte
r G
radu
atio
n?(M
ark
One
)
Job
and
Go
to S
choo
l Par
t-T
ime
Ful
l-Tim
e Jo
b
Bus
ines
s, T
rade
, or
Tec
hnic
al S
choo
l7.
27 F
our
Yea
r C
olle
ge
Aca
dem
ic P
rogr
am a
t a J
unio
r or
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge
Voc
atio
nal o
r T
echn
ical
Pro
gram
at a
Juni
or o
r C
omm
unity
Col
lege
C2.
3 H
ouse
wife
=73
Mili
tary
Ser
vice
Oth
erN
o D
efin
ite P
lans
Rig
ht N
ow
4. W
hen
Did
You
Dec
ide
on W
hat Y
ouW
ant t
o D
o af
ter
Hig
h S
choo
l?(M
ark
One
)r-
_,I H
ave
Not
Dec
ided
Yet
Just
Thi
s Y
ear
In th
e 11
th G
rade
In th
e 9t
h or
10t
h G
rade
In th
e 7t
h or
8th
Gra
dec-
-B
efor
e th
e 7t
h G
rade
I Do
Not
Kno
w
CO
UN
TY
/CIT
YN
AM
E
9. W
hich
One
of t
he F
ollo
win
g H
igh
Sch
ool P
rogr
ams
Hav
e Y
ou T
aken
?
(Mar
k O
ne M
ost L
ike
You
r)P
rogr
am
Com
mer
cial
or
Bus
ines
s
Col
lege
Pre
para
tory
Gen
eral
Voc
atio
nal
Oth
er
Ans
wer
Onl
y If
Que
stio
ns 1
1-15
You
Hav
e A
pplie
d
Muc
h S
ome
NE
MO
D o
rient
s W
ait M
eT
o G
o T
here
To
Col
lege
,11
. How
Mal
y C
olle
ges
Hav
e Y
ouA
pplie
d T
o?
C13
C23
c33
t41
75-1
om
ar
C-7
7.P
aren
t, R
elat
ive,
or C
lose
Frie
ndW
ent T
here
Rep
utat
ion
ofF
acul
ty fo
rG
ood
Tea
chin
g
Frie
ndly
Soc
ial
Clim
ate
Em
phas
is o
nR
elig
ion
Low
Cos
t
Goo
d A
thle
ticP
rogr
am
t IC
oedu
catio
nal
It's
Clo
se to
Hom
e
77--
--; W
ant T
o Li
ve A
way
Fro
m H
ome
Frie
nd(s
) Is
Goi
ngor
Will
Go
The
re
Offe
rs F
inan
cial
Ass
ista
nce
-71
Goo
d In
telle
ctua
l
Atm
osph
ere
-
Not
Too
Muc
hA
cade
mic
Com
petit
ion
Loca
ted
in a
Lar
geC
osm
opol
itan
Are
a
5. Mal
eS
exF
emal
eC
771
12. L
ist
Pre
fere
nce
The
se
Cho
ice
L.0.
.)
7:2:
:
73:
c4r
c53
c63
c73
cep
c93
Col
lege
s in
(See
Inst
ruct
ions
)2n
d C
hoic
e:0
_110
7
-217
1?1=
":27
c
c3=
c3:
c4i
c
C93
:51
c6:3
c671
r7:3
n73
abee
a
CLI
93
Ord
er o
f
3rd
Cho
ice
t0-:
a0
41-
c223
c3 :43
141
c53
,5:
r6:6
.:7
,17:
zei.
=el
c9:
c9:
6.Y
our
Age
16 o
rU
nder
1718
1920
or
Ove
r_2
10.
Occ
upat
ions
(See
Inst
ruct
ions
)Y
ouW
ant
Fat
her
Mot
her
To
Be
r-1
r_W
orkm
an
_'
Ser
vice
Wor
ker
f...
(--:
Mac
hine
Ope
rato
r=
-1S
kille
d C
rafts
man
or F
orem
an
Sal
esm
an o
r A
gent
L-3
Offi
co W
orke
r
771
Far
m O
wne
r or
Man
ager
t -71
Ow
ner
of a
Bus
ines
s--
- T
echn
icia
n=
Art
ist,
Ent
erta
iner
or A
thle
ter-
-- E
lect
ed o
rA
ppoi
nted
Offi
cial
Man
ager
/Exe
cutiv
eP
rofe
ssio
n (A
)=
1r"
-- P
rofe
ssio
n (B
)=
c__
1H
ouse
wife
and
Oth
er E
mpl
oym
ent
1-2_
73 I
Do
Not
Kno
w
1st
:03
c2::
c3:
c43
c53
c63
C73 Eel
c93
2. T
o W
hat E
xten
t Did
the
Fol
low
ing
Per
sons
Hel
p Y
ou in
Dec
idin
g on
You
r P
lans
Afte
r H
igh
Sch
ool?
5(M
ark
One
Res
pons
epz
For
Eac
h Ite
m)
==
Par
ent o
r O
ther
Rel
ativ
e
Hig
h S
choo
l
Tea
cher
s
=r
Hig
h S
choo
lC
ouns
elor
Hig
h S
choo
l
Prin
cipa
l
Stu
dent
s on
Col
lege
Cam
pus
Cla
ssm
ates
or
Frie
nds
Oth
er A
dults
7. A
re M
y of
the
Fol
low
ing
with
inC
omm
utin
g D
ista
nce
from
You
rH
ome?
Do
(Mar
k O
ne)
Not
(Res
pons
e fo
r)Y
esN
oK
now
, (E
ach
Item
)B
usin
ess,
Tra
de, o
rT
echn
ical
Sch
ool
= J
unio
r or
Com
mun
ityC
olle
ge
= F
our
Yea
r C
olle
ge
13. W
hat i
s th
e S
tatu
s of
The
seA
pplic
atio
ns?
(Mor
k th
e O
ne in
Eac
h th
at A
pplie
s)C
hoic
es1s
t2n
d3r
dA
ccep
ted
cR
ejec
ted
l==
1 S
tand
by o
rU
nkno
wn
8. H
ow F
ar D
id Y
our
Par
ents
Go
In S
choo
l?(M
ark
One
In E
ach
Col
umn)
Fat
her
Mot
her
17-=
=3
Gra
de S
choo
l12
2.3
Som
e H
igh
Sch
ool
L-:J
C3
Fin
ishe
d H
igh
Sch
ool
Som
e C
olle
ge, T
echn
ical
or S
peci
al T
rain
ing
121
Gra
duat
ed fr
om C
olle
ger
Gra
duat
e S
choo
lc-
1I D
o N
ot K
now
No
14. M
ich
One
of t
hese
Col
lege
sW
ill Y
ou M
ost L
ikel
y A
ttend
?
=_.
) 1s
t Cho
ice
2nd
Cho
ice
3rd
Cho
ice
----
A C
olle
ge O
ther
than
1, 2
, or
3P
roba
bly
Won
't G
o
3. If
You
Are
Not
Def
inite
ly P
lann
ing
To
Go
To
Col
lege
, Wha
t is
the
One
Mos
t Lik
ely
Rea
son?
(Mar
k O
ne)
It is
Too
Exp
ensi
veM
y G
rade
s A
re N
ot G
ood
Eno
ugh
My
Par
ents
Don
't B
elie
ve I
Sho
uld
I'd R
athe
r G
et a
Job
I'd R
athe
r G
et M
arrie
dM
ilita
ry S
ervi
ce.
Lack
of i
nter
est
I Do
Not
Kno
w
2 15: 3'
c7a
z133
.
-03
c3
t:2.3
C33
t 43-
ts3
t6 3
c7a
t83
Obo
1A6
c2 t33.
c4 C93
c73
E 8
3
coS
E13
, :,
:r24
:t3
3;c4
3"--
c53
t63
C73
c93
413,
-
Eja
t43
c53
r63
c73
c93
E93
to 0,3
133
r4a
c53
C63
173
cep
c93
03 23 c 33
c 43 53 c63
E 7
3
E 6
3
r 93
X03
to.0
3 -
C1
c23
a3c3
3C
,13
C43
C43
,I
C53
c63
c63
c73
:73
car
cal
013
c 93
la t2 3
C C
53
c63
c raa
c93
cl I
C2
3
E33
c43
,c53
t6"3
C73
c83
ran
j03.
V13
E2
-C43
ram
t53
C73
Sea
C93
tri
231E
33
'C,4
2
C.3
3.
te3
C73
c8.3 97.r
C "
03t 0
3c
13
x131
a 3
C23
133
t 3 c 43
csa
C53
to3
C63
1773
C73
83C
S
t-93
c9
033
t 03
C13
C13
rs2
3r.
.21
Z33
c3a
C43
c43
C53
c53
C63
:453
1173
:73
c83
c
133
=93
cOa
c13
c..2
3
C33
;
143
r53 73
C93 -93
ST
UD
EN
TS
: DO
NO
Tc1
3W
RIT
E IN
AB
CD
EF
APPENDIX AContinued
STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONRICHMOND, VIRGINIA
Senior Survey
You are requested to participate in an important study concerned with the educational and occupationalaspirations, plans, and decisions of students at the time of high school graduation.
The information you furnish will be used to prepare grouped data and analyses which should be helpful inthe improvement of many kinds of opportunities for students.
This is not a test and cannot affect your grades. Please answer the questions as requested in the instructions.Answer truthfully as best you can.
Instructions
Mark your answers carefully in the correct spaces with a soft lead pencil (No. 2 lead preferred). Erasecompletely if you want to change your answer.
Instructions for Blocks 10 and 12
Block 10: Column for Fatherwhich job among the list of jobs below is most like the kind of work your fatheror the male head of your home does? If he works on more than one job, choose the one in which he spends themost time. If your father is not living, is retired, or is not working, what was his occupation? Look over the entirelist of jobs below, then choose and mark one answer.
Column for Motherwhich job among the list of jobs below is most like the kind of work your motheror female guardian does? If she does housework in addition to outside work, choose only the outside work. Lookover the entire list of jobs below, then choose and mark one answer.
Column for youwhat occupation do you want to go into? Look over the entire list of jobs below, thenchoose and mark one answer.
Block 12: A special sheet on which several colleges and types of colleges have been listed and assigned numberswill be furnished to you. For each of the colleges to which you have applied (first, second, and third choices), pleasefind the appropriate number and code it in the appropriate choice space. Examples are given on the special sheet,
LIST OF JOBS
WORKMANsuch as carpenter's helper, fisherman,longshoreman, miner, tenant farmer, farm laborer,helper in eating place, gardener, packing houseworker.
SERVICE WORKERsuch as maid, practical nurse,janitor, housekeeper, barber, beautician, mail car-rier, sheriff, policeman, fireitan, detective, guard.
MACHINE OPERATORsuch as for bulldozers, fac-tory machines, bus or cab driver, brakeman,conductor, merchant marine, metal worker.
SKILLED CRAFTSMAN OR FOREMANsuch ascarpenter, electrician, machinist, enlisted man inthe armed forces, factory inspector, plumber, TV-radio repairman, house painter, auto mechanic.
SALESMAN OR AGENTincluding manufacturer'srepresentative, store clerk, real estate agent, insur-ance agent, demonstrator.
11101111M
OFFICE WORKERsuch as bank teller, bookkeeper,secretary, court clerk, typist, dispatcher, shippingclerk, telephone operator.
FARM OWNER OR FARM MANAGERincludingranch, orchard, vineyard or poultry farm.
OWNER OF A BUSINESSsuch as jewelry store,laundry, fishing boat, service station, theatre,trucking company, department store, factory.
TECHNICIANsuch as draftsman, surveyor, dentalhygienist, registered nurse, laboratory technician,dental assistant, assistant to engineer, mortician.
ARTISTS, ENTERTAINERS AND ATHLETESsuch as actor, professional golfer or baseball player,writer, musician or composer, private musicteacher.
ELECTED OR APPOINTED OFFICIALS--such asjustice of the peace, judge, mayor, postmaster,congressman, diplomat, ambassador.
(50)
LIST OF JOBS Continued
MANAGER OR EXECUTIVEsuch as buyer, nautical engineer, mechanical engineer, electricalbroker, contractor, officer in armed forces, manager engineer.of industry or bank, school administrator.
PROFESSIONS (B)such as lawyer, architect, den-PROFESSIONS (A)such as social worker, school tist, doctor, professor, scientist,
teacher, editor, librarian, minister, pharmacist,HOUSEWIFEno other employment.airplane pilot, tax consultant, civil engineer, aero-
APPENDIX BCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIASTATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONRICHMOND, VIRGINIA 23216
May 1, 1967
TO: High School Principals
FROM: Charles E. Clear, Director of Educational Research andStatistics
SUBJECT: Survey of Educational or Occupational Plans of High SchoolSeniors
In his memorandum to Division Superintendents, numbered5045 and dated April 4, 1967, Dr. Woodrow W. Wilkerson, Superintendentof Public Instruction, informed all division superintendents of asurvey designed to secure information about the educational oroccupational plans of seniors following graduation.
The Division of Educational Research, as directed in thememorandum, is mailing to you under separate cover, optical scannersurvey forms to be completed in accord with the enclosed instructions.These survey forms should be returned to me at the State Departmentof Education, Richmond, Virginia 23216, on or before June 1, 1967for processing and analysis.
Your cooperation, which is so essential to the success ofthis important study, would be greatly appreciated.
OEC/sj s
Enclosures
Return mailing instructions
Instructions for completing Senior Survey Form ER1-67
List of Colleges and Code Numbers
Senior Survey Form ER1-67
( 51 )
APPENDIX BContinuedCOMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
STATE DEPARTMENT OW EDUCATION
Special Instructions
QUESTION 15 SENIOR SURVEY FORM ER1-67
Please call to the attention of your students that following help you in deciding on the college of yourQuestion 15 should read, "To what extent did the first choice?" (Mark one response for each item.)
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIASTATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SENIOR SURVEY FORM ER1-67
Instructions
Preface
The purpose of these instructions is to acquaint theprincipal or counselors and teachers appointed by him,as to the proper method for completing the SeniorSurvey Form ER1-67. The magnitude of this survey(55,000 to 60,000 public and private high school seniorswill participate in this study) requires the utmost insupervision by those administering the survey to insureminimum data collection error, in order that a validstudy analysis can be made.A. General
1. Forms should be marked with a soft lead pencil,a No. 2 is best. Do not use ink, ballpointpens or colored pencils.
2. If wrong response is marked, erase thoroughlyand fill in correct response block.
3. Do not fold or staple the forms.
B. Instructions for individual items to be coded1. Item 12 requires the complete code for each
institution. Be certain that zero entries areentered accordingly. Examples:First ChoiceUniversity of Virginia, code
number 01.Second ChoiceUniversity of Kentucky, code
number 75.Third ChoiceBlue Ridge Community Col-
lege, code number 14,A list of the colleges and the code numbs tobe used in completing item 12 are furnished ona separate sheet.
2. Items A-B-C-D-E-F, the shaded area, are to be
( 52 )
12. List These Colleges in Order ofPreference (Sett Instructions)
1st Choice 2nd Choice 3rd ChoiceSOb I 10-
;1. 4. :1' Ar :1,
:21 12'1 021 1;2 ) 121
:3 J t:31
1141 4;4'.j f.:41 44,1 C4'1
C53 .5 t:51 (151 .5Jc:6 1461 r.6-1 v.51
tr7 3 n 73 c:74
nal cal 48:i 11 8.1 '481
r.91 n97 r.gn
completed by persons designated by the prin-cipal.
a. Shaded blocks A, B, and C are for recordingthe Cooperative School and College AbilityTest (SCAT) converted scores.
Block A = Verbal converted scoreBlock B = Quantitative converted scoreBlock C = Total converted score
When available the 11th grade SCAT scoresare preferred. In the event 11.th grade scoresare not available then the ninth-grade scoresmay be reported. If ninth-grade scores arereported, the space numbered one (1) in thesection "Students Do Not Write in A-B-C-D-E-F" must be marked (blackened).
b. Shaded blocks D and E are for recordingstudents' College Entrance ExaminationBoard's Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT)converted scores.
Block D = Verbal converted scoreBlock E = Mathematics converted score
If scores are not available leave D and Eblank.
c. Shaded block F is for recording students'rank in class. If his rank is greater than 999please. mark (blacken) response block No.2 in the section "Students Do Not Writein A-B-C-D-E-F" for 1000 indication posi-tion and mark (blacken) response blocks
APPENDIX BContinuedin for the hundreds, tens and unitpositions.
d. In the sections labeled A, 13, C, D, E, Fwrite the numbers to be marked (blackened)in the corresponding response positionsbelow the numbers.
Example of A-B-C-D-E-F marking:
A student with a SCAT verbal convertedscore of 299, a quantitative converted scoreof 315, and a total converted score of 306is coded in sections A, B, and C below. Thisstudent's SAT scores are : verbal con-verted score 575, and mathematics con-verted score 610. He ranks fourteenth(014) in his class.
A 299 13., 315 1C-N0 D575 1 E 610 F01414n C0:3 40n C On c03 cOn CO3 Mt t Oa co (7.03 t03 r:03 1:03 a. up!)a. , g 0 aOr Gin cl cin ISO c 1 a cl a c1,4 c13 c.13 c13 c1- cln sap 1:1a I: 1 Ise ::1aOOP
C33
c2 a
c 3a
eV,; 3n
c2 a
OM
c22c 33
c23C 3:1
c2 i
wpot
:23
Cr..:23
c 31
c2 3 c:2 3
c 3!: t:33
c23
ca".:1
c23
,: 33
1:23
t;33
4 2 3
c 33
g23 23r: 33 r-:33
c.2n
r:31)C43
053
C63
:7::el:.
(93
C42
C On
t On
c73
COP
elle
C4'.:i
c5nC6n
d7:,
cell
40.10:
C4P
c 51
con
c7:1
cOa
COO
C 45
c ea
con
C7:1
cela
COP
C41
AOCO3
r:7;)
r a 3
Z 93
c4'C 53
c 6J
c 73
r ea
c9.)
r.4
c:5a
C6:,
c;73
re-c,a
c 4a
L 5.,
01:77tear. 9a_
443 AV.)
WO r.:5D
C6a :6 :1
e71 46111
C41
41111
1:6:1
C7:.1
c;ea
r.9-
r4,':5n
libc7.-elr9
c4-.
:on
re :)
L:7-1
'alc:9:3
C CI
I:51
L:6.)
c:7n
i:83
r93
c.:4M ;4.3
..:5. C: 5 : .
;::6 :3 .161
nra 37n
re:; ck,can ':9a
MOr 53
163
n77
CIL
'91
-,
STUDENTS: DO NOT1-2;
cep. cer..i
(! 9a 41clm WRITE INABCDEF
LIST OF COLLEGES AND CODE NUMBERS(To be used in completing Item 12 of Senior Survey Form ER1-67)
State-Controlled Institutions of Higher EducationFOUR-YEAR CODE No. Two -YEAR CODE No.
University of Virginia 01 Blue Ridge Community College 14Medical College of Virginia 02 Valley Vocational Technical School 15Virginia Polytechnic Institute 03 Peninsula Voc. Tech. Educ, Center 16William and Mary 04 Virginia Western Community College 17Virginia Military Institute 05 Danville Technical Institute 18Virginia State College 06 John Tyler Community College 19Mary Washington College 07 New River Vocational Technical School 20Radford College 08 Northern Virginia Community College 21Madison College 09 Washington County Voc.-Tech. School 22Longwood College 10 Clinch Valley College 23Old Dominion College 11 Eastern Shore Branch 24Richmond Professional Institute 12 Central Virginia Community College 25George Mason College 13 Patrick Henry College 26
Clifton Forge-Covington Community College(Dabney S. Lancaster) 27
Danville Division (VPI) 28Wytheville Community College 29Christopher Newport College 30Richard Bland College 31The Technical Inst. of Old Dominion College . 32
Privately Controlled Institutions of Higher EducationFOUR-YEAR CODE NO. FOUR-YEAR CODE No.
Bridgewater College 33 Hampden-Sydney College 37Eastern Mennonite College 34 Hampton Institute 38Emory and Henry College 35 Hollins College 39Frederick College 36 Lynchburg College 40
( 53 )
AP,
APPENDIX B-- ContinuedFOUR-YEAR CODE No, Two -YEAR CODE No.
Mary Baldwin College 41 Averett College 57Presbyterian School of Christian Education.. 42 Bluefield College 58Protestant Episcopal Theol. Sem. in Virginia . 43 Ferrum Junior College 59Randolph-Macon CollegeAshland 44 Marion College 60Randolph-Macon CollegeLynchburg 45 Marymount College of Virginia 61Roanoke College 46 Shenandoah College and Con. of Music 62Saint Paul's College 47 Southern Seminary Junior College 63Shenandoah Conservatory of Music 48 Sullins College 64Stratford College 49 Virginia Intermont College 65Sweet Briar College 50 Virginia Seminary and College 66Union Theological Seminary in Virginia 51 University of Richmond 67University of Richmond 52 (University College Junior College)
(Richmond College and University College)Virginia Union University 53 OtherVirginia Wesleyan College 54 Business, Nursing, Trade or Technical SchoolWashington and Lee University 55 in Virginia 68Institute of Textile Technology 56
Codes for Regional Institutions of Higher EducationOutside VirginiaSOUTH
District of ColumbiaGeorge Washington University
FloridaFlorida StateMiami UniversityUniversity of Florida
GeorgiaGeorgia TechUniversity of Georgia
KentuckyUniversity of Kentucky
MarylandUniversity of MarylandUnited States Naval Academy
MississippiMississippi State
North CarolinaDuke UniversityNorth Carolina StateUniversity of North CarolinaWake Forest CollegeNorth Carolina College at Durham
South CarolinaClemson UniversityUniversity of South Carolina
CODE No.
69
707172
7374
75
7677
78
7980818283
8485
SOUTH CODE No.Tennessee
University of Tennessee 86Vanderbilt University 87East Tennessee State University 88
West VirginiaUniversity of West Virginia 89
Other four (4) year colleges or universities inthe South 90
Two (2) year colleges in the South 91
NORTH
United States Military Academy 92Other four (4) year colleges or universitieq 11
the North 93Two (2) year colleges in the North .94
MID-WEST
Four (4) year colleges or universities in theMid-West 95
Two (2) year colleges in the Mid-West 96
FAR WEST
United States Air Force Academy 97Other four (4) year colleges or universities in
the Far West 98Two (2) year colleges in the Far West 99
FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Code all schools outside the United States . 00
( 54 )
APPENDIX C
FLOW CHART: VIRGINIA SENIOR SURVEY
Problem: What Are the Educationaland Occupational Aspirations of
Virginia's High School Seniors?
StaffDevelop
Instructions
StaffDevelop
Scanner Forms
March 30. 1967'April 4, 1967'
Survey ofAll SeniorsAnnounced
4111---11110Meetings toDetermineQuestions
April 7, 4'1967' May 1, 1967'
AssistanceVirginia
Guidance andTesting
RELCV-ETSResearch Division
4TechnicalAssistanceTo Printer
4111 Contract LetFor Scanner
Formsimm111110.
ScannerForms
Received
PreparationMail Labelsand Forms
'Dates indicate time of completion of the different stepsof the survey.
CompletedMailing To
Schools
( 55 )
APPENDIX C-- Continued
FLOW CHART: VIRGINIA SENIOR SURVEY CONTINUED
JulyY,1967'
All FormsReceived
From Schools
September 1, 19671
Digitek 100Scanning
CompletedScrambled
Tape
KSOUnscrambleIBM 1440
SurveyMasterTape
11111111
FrequencyDistributions
School and SchoolDivision
Mail toSuperintendents
PrincipalsCounselors
Program
KTO
November 1 1967'
StateFrequency
Distributions
StaffPreparationof Report
1Dates indicate time of completion of the different steps of the survey.
( 56 )
December 1, 1967'
PublishFrequency
Distributions
APPENDIX CContinued
FLOW CHART: VIRGINIA SENIOR SURVEY CONTINUED
DevelopDetermine
Budget StaffProcedures
19681 February 1968'
DiscussionConcerningStatisticalAnalysis
February 1968'
DiscussionCEEB
AgreementFinancial Aid
February 1968'
DataAdvancedPlacementStudents
TechnicalSupport
AdvancedPlacement
Study
'Dates indicate time of completion of the different steps of the survey.
( 57 )
March 1968'
ModelAnalysisj
March 1968'
ProgramWriting
Burroughs5500
APPENDIX CContinued
FLOW CHART: VIRGINIA SENIOR SURVEYCONTINUED
ReorganizeData for
Burroughs5500
TapeITEREGProgram
ProcessingFull and
RestrictedModels
Analysisof
Questions
IMay 28, 19681
Preparationof
Report
Collect DataPrepareAnalysis
ProcessFull and
RestrictedModels
X, S.D,, F. RawScore WeightsBeta Weights
October 1968
DevelopModel forAnalysis
Report OnFollow-Up
Study
11)ates indicate time of completion of the different steps of the survey.
( 58 )
ProgramsDocumentedand Reusable
FO
RM
E14
137
VIR
GIN
IA S
TA
TE
DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
OF
ED
UC
AT
ION
SE
NIO
R S
UR
VE
Y
1. *
at A
re Y
our
Pla
ns A
fter
Gra
duat
ion?
(Mak
One
)
4 Jb
end
Go
to S
choo
l Pw
t.Tin
te4
Ful
Tim
e Jo
b3
Bus
ines
s, T
rade
r,or
Tec
hnic
ol S
choo
lci
m F
our
Yea
r C
OI:g
oca
Aca
dem
ic P
rogr
am a
ta
Juni
or. o
rC
omm
unity
Col
lege
,
123
Voc
atio
nal
or T
ecin
ical
Pro
gres
o at
qJu
nior
or
Com
mun
ity C
0119
0e4
Hou
sew
ifec4
Mili
tary
Ser
vice
Oth
eres
, No
Def
inits
Plo
ps; R
ight
Now
2 T
o W
hat E
xten
t Did
the
Fol
low
ing
Per
sons
Hel
p Y
ou in
Dec
idin
g on
You
r P
lans
Afte
r H
igh
Sch
ool?
>1
>i
4=j
Et c
3 Po
sen!
or O
ther
Rel
ativ
e
4. W
hen
Did
You
Dec
ide
on M
at Y
ouW
ant t
o D
o af
ter
Hig
h S
choo
l?(M
ark
One
)4
I Hav
e N
ot D
ecid
ed Y
et4
Just
Thi
s Y
ear
at In
rte
s 11
th G
rade
c3 In
that
9th
or
10th
Gra
dec2
In th
e 7t
h or
8th
Gra
de*
Bef
ore
the
7th
Gra
dec
I Do
Not
Kno
w.4
111M
MR
.T.-
5.S
exM
ale
rim
Fem
ale
'a=
16.
You
r A
ge16
or
20 o
r
4 4
(Mar
k O
no R
ospo
nse
FO
r E
ach
Item
)
3 H
igh
Sch
ool
Tea
cher
s
3 H
igh
Sch
ool
Cou
nsel
or
at H
igh
Sch
ool
Piin
cipa
l
rilp
Stu
dent
s on
Col
lege
Cam
pus
Cla
s.en
tate
ts o
r
Frie
nds
Oth
er A
dults
3. I
You
Are
Not
Def
inite
, Pan
ning
To
Go
To
Col
lege
, MO
is th
e O
ne M
ostl.
ikol
yR
easo
n?(M
ark
One
)*
it is
Too
Exp
ensi
ve,
ca M
y G
rade
s A
re N
ot G
ood
Eno
ugh
3 M
y P
aren
ts D
on't
Ber
ney.
I S
houl
d4
I'd R
atho
r G
et o
Job
C51
I'd
Rat
her
Get
Mar
ried
4 M
ilita
ry S
ervi
cec
Lack
of I
nter
est
teg
l Do
Not
Kno
w
7. A
re M
y of
the
Fol
low
ing
with
inC
omm
utin
g D
ista
nce
from
You
rH
ama?
De
(Mar
k O
ne)
Not
(Res
pons
e fo
r)V
ets
No
Kno
w, (
Eac
h Ite
m)
rt 4
3 3
Bus
ines
s, T
rade
, or
Tec
hnic
al S
choo
l
123
3 Ju
nior
or
Con
vnun
ityC
olle
ge
chc2
3 F
our
Yoa
r C
olle
ge8.
How
Far
Did
You
r P
aren
ts G
oIn
Sch
ool?
(Mar
k O
n. In
Eac
h C
olum
n)
othe
r M
othe
rc=
t6 =
3rL
= 5
.==
4 (=
I3c
=2=
c=, =
E=
7
Gra
de S
choo
l
Som
e H
igh
Sch
ool
Fin
ishe
d H
igh
Sch
ool
Sem
Col
lege
, Tec
hnic
alor
Spe
cial
Tra
inin
gG
radu
ated
from
Col
lege
Gra
duat
e S
choo
l
I Do
Not
Kno
w
W00
0siu
moo
mm
onie
=in
wi..
...
ST
UD
EN
T N
AM
ES
CH
OO
L N
AM
EC
OU
NT
Y/C
ITY
NA
ME
9. M
ich
One
of t
he F
ollo
win
g H
igh
Sch
ool P
rogr
ams
HaV
s Y
ou T
aken
?
(Mar
k O
ne M
ost L
ike,
You
r)(
)
Com
mer
cial
or
Bus
ines
s
Col
lin. P
repa
rato
ryG
ener
al
Voc
atio
nal
Oth
er
10.
Occ
upat
ions
(See
Inst
ruct
ions
)Y
ouW
ant
Fat
her
Mot
hT
o B
e=
c:=
7 W
orkm
en1=
=1
1=3
Ans
wer
Que
stio
ns 1
1 -1
5O
julI
fY
ou H
ave
App
lied
To
CO
I leg
e.
11. H
ow M
ary
Col
lege
s H
ays
You
App
lied
To?
p
r23
3 di
4 4
= ,
7 c=
, Ser
vic.
Wor
ker
=3
6M
achi
ne O
pera
tor
O 5
= S
kille
d C
rafts
man
or F
orem
en
t=3
cS
ales
men
or
Age
nt=
- 4
c.=
Offi
ce W
orko
rc:
=3
2 =
Far
m O
wne
r or
..M
anag
er
r' 3
= O
wne
r of
aB
usin
ess
= 3
cT
echn
icia
nc=
13
Art
ist,
Ent
erta
iner
or A
thle
teC
=3
I C=
3 an
ted
ofA
ppoi
nted
Offi
cial
1=1
I C^
Man
ager
/Exe
cutiv
e2=
Pro
fess
ion
fA)
= I
=P
rofe
ssio
n (B
)41
:=3
Hou
sew
ilo a
nd N
oO
ther
Em
ploy
men
t=
8=
I D
o N
ot K
now
12. L
ist T
hese
Col
lege
s in
Ord
ere
1P
refe
renc
e (S
ee In
stru
ctio
ns)
1st C
hoic
e2n
d C
hoic
e3r
d C
hoic
eC
O3
LO3
C 1
3C
12
c23
c2133
c3
1.43
C43
CS
3C
53
CS
3C
6 3
C 7
s.c
73
183
cg
1.93
cum
c33
X33
C43
CS
3
C63
C.
cam
c3n
CO
3
C13
C 2
3
C 3
3
C 4
3
c e63
13 7
3
c 83
C93
e03
A13
3
A23
C33
c43
c53
CS
-3
C73
C8
3
CO
x03
c13
n21
433
1143
c53
c63
r. 7
3
C83
c93
13. W
hat i
s th
e S
tatu
s of
The
seA
pplic
atio
ns?
(Mor
k th
e O
ne in
Eac
h th
at A
pplie
s)C
hoi c
os1s
tU
.13r
d42
343
43 av23
E31
a33
Acc
epte
dR
ejec
ted
Sta
ndby
or
Unk
now
n
14. W
hich
One
of t
hem
, Col
lege
sW
ill Y
ou M
ost L
ikel
y A
ttend
?
4 10
Mic
ec2
1 2H
1 C
hoic
e
r=3
3rd
Cho
ice
4 A
Col
lege
Oth
er th
at 1
, Z o
rr5
3 P
roba
bly
Won
't G
o
15. T
o W
hat E
xten
t Did
The
Fol
low
ing
Hel
p Y
ou in
Dec
idin
g on
The
Col
lege
of Y
our
Firs
t Cho
ice,
(Mar
k O
ne R
espo
nse
for
Eac
h Ite
m)
Ver
y
Muc
hLi
ttle
orV
ery
riir
Par
ents
Wan
t Me
To
Go
The
re
43 4
33
Par
ent,
Rel
ativ
e,or
Clo
_le
Frie
ndW
ent T
here
3 R
eput
atio
n of
Fac
ulty
far
Goo
d T
each
ing
3 F
riend
ly S
ocia
lC
limat
e
CI6
C23
Em
phas
is o
nR
elig
ion
4==
2-3
3 Lo
w C
ost
4 G
ood
Ath
letic
Pro
gram
4 E
a 4
Coe
duca
tiona
l
1 =
23 4
It's
Clo
se to
Hom
e ,
et,
Ea
3 W
ont T
o Li
ve A
way
Fro
m H
ome
43'2
'4S
-- F
riend
(s)
is G
oing
or W
ill G
o T
hor.
Li.
23 a
Offe
rs F
inan
cial
Ass
ista
nce
3' 3
Goo
d in
telle
ctua
lA
tmos
pher
e
2 a
Not
Too
Muc
hA
cade
mic
Com
petit
ion
4-2
2 3
Loca
ted
ina
Larg
er!
Cos
mop
olita
nA
rea
lank
DO
iNO
0r4
k r
VARIABLENUMBER
APPENDIX E
EXPLANATION OF CODES FOR DIFFERENT VARIABLES
VARIABLE
A. SENIOR ASPIRATIONS
1 Code Aspirations According to the follow-ing: (Question 1)'
1. Attend f our-year college (publicschool seniors)
2. Attend two-year college3. Attend some kind of trade or tech-
nical school4. Attend no kind of school5. No definite plans and no response6. Attend four-year college (private
school seniors)7. Attend two-year college8. Attend some kind of trade or tech-
nical school9. Attend no kind of school
10. No definite plans and no response
2 Code "Wanted To Be" by A. B. Hollings-head's (1965) Code as Follows:
(Question 10)1. Profession (B)
Manager or ExecutiveElected or Appointed Official
2. Farm owner or managerProfession (A)
3. Artists, entertainers and athletesOwner of a businessSalesman or agentTechnician
4. Office workerHousewife
5. Skilled craftsman or foreman6. Machine operator7. Service worker
Workman8. Do not know and no response
B. SCHOOL RELATED FACTORS
3 Code School Division by the following:1. Large urban2. Large rural3. Medium urban4. Medium rural5. Small urban6. Small rural
A.Nuestion numbers refer to Senior Survey form, Appendix
( 60 )
VARIABLE
NUMBER VARIABLE
4 Number of Seniors-Boys-June, 1967
5 Number of Seniors-Girls--June, 1967
6 Number of Seniors-Total-June, 1967
7 Number of Seniors Going to College-Boys
8 Number of Seniors Going to College-Girls
9 Number of Seniors Going to College-Total
10 Percent of Senior Class Going to College-Boys
11 Percent of Senior Class Going to College-Girls
12 Percent of Senior Class Going to College-Total
13 Code Type of Program According to thefollowing: (Question 9)
1. College preparatory program2. Commercial or business program3. General program4. Vocational program5. Other program and no response
C. PERSONAL AND SOCIAL FACTORS
14 Age (Question 6)1. 16 or under2. 173. 184. 195. 20 or over
15 Sex (Question 5)
1. Boy2. Girl
16 Code Occupational Level of Father by A. 2(See Variable Number 2) (Question 10)
17 Code Occupational Level of Mother by A. 2(See Variable Number 2) (Question 10)
18 Code Educational Level of Father by A. B.Hollingshead's Code as Follows:(Question 8)
1. Graduate school2. Graduated from college3. Some college, technical or special
training
VARIABLE
NUMBER
APPENDIX E-Continued
VARIABLE
4, Finished high school5. Some high school6, Grade school7. Do not know and no response
19 Code Educational Level of Mother by C. 18(Variable 18) (Question 8)
D. SCHOLASTIC FACTORS
20 SCAT Score A-Verbal
21 SCAT Score B-- Quantitative
22 SCAT Score C-Total
2 Student Rank-Percentile
24 Code Time Factors by the Following Code:(Question 4)
1. Decided before seventh grade2. Decided in the seventh or eighth
grade3. Decided in the ninth or tenth grade4. Decided in the eleventh grade5. Decided just this year6. Have not decided yet7. Do not know and no response
E. WHO INFLUENCED DECISION?(Question 2)
25 Parent1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
26 High School Teachers1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
27 High School Counselor1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
28 High School Principal1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
29 Students on College Campus1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
VARIABLE
NUMBER VARIABLE
30 Classmates or Friends1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
31 Other Adults1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
( 61 )
F. INFORMATION ON PROXIMITY OF SCHOOLS(Question 7)
32 Business, Trade, or Technical School1. Near2. Not near3. Do nbt know
33 Junior or Community College1. Near2. Not near3. Do not know
34 Four-Year College1. Near2. Not near3. Do not know
G. REASONS FOR NOT GOING TO COLLEGE
35 Reasons for Not Going to College (Question3)
1. Too expensive2. Grades are not good enough3. Parents do not believe I should4. Rather get a job5. Rather get married6. Military service7. Lack of interest8. Do not know and no response
H. COLLEGE FACTORS
36 Number of Colleges Applied to: (Question11)
1. One2. Two3. Three4. Four5. Five6. Six or more
37 Code of First-Choice College
38 Code of Second-Choice College
VARIA BLE
NVIVIBER VARIABLE
APPENDIX E-ContinuedVARIABLENUMBER
39 Code of Third-Choice College
I. STATUS OF COLLEGE APPLICATIONS (Question 13)
40 First Choice1. Accepted2. Rejected3. Unknown and no response
41 Second Choice1. Accepted2. Rejected3. Unknown and no response
42 Third Choice1, Accepted2. Rejected3. Unknown and no response
43 Which College Will You Attend? (Question14)
1. First choice2. Second choice3. Third choice4. Another choice5. Probably will not go and no response
J. WHAT HELPED IN MAKING PLANS FORCOLLEGE? (Question 15)
44 Parents Want Me to Go There1. Very much2. Some3, Very little
45 Parent, Relative, or Friends Went There1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
46 Reputation of Faculty for Good Teaching1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
47 Friendly Social. Climate1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
48 Emphasis on Religion1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
( 62 )
VARIABLE
49 Low Cost1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
50 Good Athletic Program1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
51 Co-educational1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
52 Close to Home1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
53 Want to Live Away From Home1, Very much2. Some3. Very little
54 Friend Is Going or Is There1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
55 Offers Financial Assistance1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
56 Good Intellectual Atmosphere1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
57 Not Too Much Academic Competition1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
58 Located in Large, Cosmopolitan Area1. Very much2. Some3. Very little
59 SAT Score-Verbal
60 SAT Score-Math
APPENDIX F
EXPLANATION OF THE SENIOR SURVEY ANALYSIS BY THE APPLIEDMULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION TECHNIQUE
Information on the tape used in analyzing data forthe Senior Survey came from the Master Tape whichwas built from data collected on the Virginia StateDepartment of Education Senior Survey Form(Appendix A).
In order to facilitate the analysis by regression, theinformation was organized on the tape in the followingcategories:
A. Senior AspirationsB, School Related FactorsC, Personal and Social FactorsD. Scholastic FactorsE. Decision FactorsF. Factors Relating to the Proximity of SchoolsG. Factors Relating to the Reasons for Not
Going to CollegeH. College Factors
The information on the tape was of two types,coded and continuous. Most of the information wasof the coded type and was used to generate categoricalvectors for analysis using the Applied Multiple LinearRegression Approach.' The generating and subsequentdata analysis was done using a vector-generated pro-gram "GENVEC" and an iterative multiple regressionprogram "ITEREG" with the Burroughs 5500 com-puter at the University Computer Science Center,Charlottesville, Virginia.
The proper use of the Applied Linear Regressionapproach to data analysis depends upon the carefulformulation of models which are based upon the ques-tions to which answers are sought, These models arereferred to as full models and restricted models.2 Thefull model is constructed to fit the given question, andsuch restrictions are placed on this model as are requiredto answer that question. Predictions based on thetwo models are then compared for the size of the errorof prediction, and on the basis of an F-test of thiscomparison, the significance of any differences is deter-mined.3
In- the case of the Senior Survey, these modelsrequired combinations of data that could not have beeneasily anticipated in constructing the survey form, andconsequently, a generating program was required whichdid away with the necessity of writing a new programfor each problem situation that arose. The program
'Robert A. Bottenberg, et al., Applied Multiple LinearRegression Technical Documentary Report PRL-TDR-63-6(Lackland AFB, Texas: Available from Defense Documents.-Lion Center, Defense Supply Agency, 1963).
said., pp. 43-48.
"GENVEC" was written to generate vectors for usewith "ITEREG" in answering questions using full andrestricted models, although its use was not restrictedto this. "GENVEC" was also used to generate vectorsfrom which means and standard deviations, as well aspercentages, of categories were derived.
For the reader who is interested, the models usedin the data analysis are included in subsequent appen-dixes to this report, and further information about theformulation of such models can be found in the technicalpublication already cited in this appendix. A com-puter program is essential to the use of these models;however, they will be of little practical value to onewho does not have access to such a program.
Appendix E contains the codes for the tape used inthe analyses reported here. A brief discussion of thiskey and one illustration of the way "GENVEC" canbe used are included for the reader who is interested inpursuing the technical details of the method of dataanalysis.
Variables 1 and 2 (Appendix E) deal with what theseniors who were surveyed aspired to become. Item 1gives information regarding the educational aspirationsand information relating to the type of school attendedpublic or private. Item 2 gives information aboutwhat the seniors hoped to be. The code for item 1 wasdesigned primarily for category generation, although itis possible to get some information by treating it as acoded criterion vector. The code for item 2 was takenfrom A. B. Hollingshead,4 and the vector can be treatedas a coded criterion vector or it can be used to generatecategories.
Items 3 through 13 deal with school-related factors.Since items 4 through 12 are numeric measures, theywere treated as continuous vectors. Items 3 and 13were coded to generate categories, but if care is takenin interpretation, they can be treated as coded criterionvectors. Items 14 through 19 deal with personal andsocial factors. Items 14 and 15 were coded to generatecategories, but there is same meaning in using item 14as a coded criterion vector. Items 16 and 17 give theoccupational level of the father and mother, respec-tively. The code used here is the same as that used foritem 2.5 Items 18 and 19 give the educational level ofthe .9,ther and the mother, respectively. The codeused here is also from Hollingshead.6 Items 16 through
( 63 )
s/bid.4August B. Hollingshead, Two Factor Index of Social Posi-
tion, 1965 Yale Station, New Haven, Connecticut (Price $1.00).5/bid.s/bid.
APPENDIX FContinued
19 were designed to generate categories, but they canbe treated as coded criterion vectors.
Iteme 20 through 22 it with scholastic factors.The verbal score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test isitem 20. Item 21 is the SCAT quantitative score.Item 22 is the total SCAT score. Item 23 gives thestudent's high school rank. These vectors were treatedas continuous variables in the analyses, Items 24through 31 deal with decision factors. The "time adecision was made as to what the senior aspired to" isrecorded by code in item 24. While coded to generatecategories, this item can be treated as a coded criterionvector. Items 25 through 31 deal with "who influencedthe decision," coded by the extent to which they in-fluenced the decision. These codes were designed togenerate categories, but when used separately, thevectors can be treated as coded criterion vectors.
Items 32 through 34 deal with factors related to"type of school" coded to give information relating tothe proximity of the schools. These vectors weredesigned to generate categories. Item 35 deals with the"reasons for not going to college." This item wascoded to generate categories but may be used as acoded criterion if care in such use is exercised.
Items 36 through 58 deal with factors related to theaspiration to a college education. Item 36 simply givesthe number of colleges applied to This informationcar be used to generate categories, or it can be treatedas a continuous criterion vector. Items 37 through 39give the code for the first, second, and third choice ofcollege. The code here corresponds to the code-sheetgiven the respondent when he filled out the surveyform. This information was used to generate catego-ries of colleges. Items 40 through 42 deal with thestatus of the first-, second-, and third-choice applica-tions. This information was designed to generatecategories. Item 43 gives the choice of college thesenior planned to attend. This item was designed togenerate categories but can be meaningfully used as acoded criterion vector. Items 44 through 58 deal withwhat influenced the decision to attend college, codedby the extent to which the decision was influenced.This information was designed to generate categories,but the items may be used separately as coded criterionvectors. Items 59 and 60 give the scholastic aptitudetest verbal and math scores respectively.
To 'get some idea of how "GENVEC" and"ITEREG" work, suppose that it is desired to knowwhether there are differences by urban-rural classifica-tion and by size of school when the criterion is "whatthe seniors wanted to be." The input data for"GENVEC" is item 3, which is used to generate cate-gories, and item 2, which is to serve as the criterion.
The full regression model for "ITEREG" consists of theseven categories of information with the coded vectorrepresenting "what the seniors wanted to be" servingas the criterion. Mathematically, this full modelwould be expressed as
Y = a2x2 a3x3 a4x4 afixiiaexe a7x7 El
where al a7 are regression weights and
x1 = 1 if the criterion measure is from student ina large urban school; 0 otherwise
2 = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina large rural school; 0 otherwise
x3 = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina medium-sized urban school; 0 otherwise
x4 = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina medium-sized rural school; 0 otherwise
x6 = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina small urban school; 0 otherwise
x6 = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina small rural school; 0 otherwise
x7 = 1 if there was no response; 0 otherwise.
The first test might be one to see if the no-responseitems have a significant influence. The regressionmodel for this test would simply leave out this bit ofinformation. The restriction would be that
a7 = 0
and the restricted model would be
Y = aixi a2x2 a3x3 a4x4
ardcs a6x6 E2
A comparison of E1 and E2 by an F-test would answerour question as to whether the no responses are im-portant enough to be considered. Assume they are ofnegligible importance. The full model for "ITEREG"can now become
Y = b2x2 b3x3 1)44 +b6x6 b6x6 -I- Es
where the meanings of the x's are the same but theweights are changed slightly by the omission of x7.
Let us now consider whether there are differencesbetween the different sized schools on our chosencriterion. What we are assuming is that there will beno significant loss in the ability to predict if we neglectthis information. If when we neglect this informationwe find a significant loss, we are left to conclude thatthere are differences, whatever their source. Ourrestrictions will be
b1 = b3 = 1)6 = ci1)2 = b4 = b. = e2
( 64 )
APPENDIX FContinued
which result in the restricted modelY = ci (xi + x3 + x5) +C2 (X2 + X4 + x6) E4
Y = ci zi + C2 Z2 + E4where ci and c2 are regression weights and
zi = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student inan urban school; 0 otherwise
z = 1 if the criterion measure is from a student ina rural school; 0 otherwise.
The comparison of E4 and E3 using an F-test willdecide our question regarding differences between sizesof school.
To make our tests, we need to put a total of ninedifferent categorical vectors into our regression program"ITEREG" for use in our three different models. Theprogram "GENVEC" would be used to take the twoitems from the input tape, record item 2 as it is, anduse item 3 to generate the seven mutually exclusivecategories. The two additional categories would beformed by combining categories 1, 3, and 5 into asingle category and categories 2, 4, and 6 into a singlecategory. These operations can be accomplished byadding simple statements to the program "GENVEC."
The result might look something like this
VARIABLES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Y
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3
o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7
o 1 0 0 0 o 0 0 1 8
o 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2
:144o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4
o 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1
The first question is decided by using one throughseven to predict nine and then using one through sixto predict nine. No significant loss occurred, weassumed. The second question was decided by usingone through six to predict nine and eight through nineto predict nine. Nothing was said about the outcome
of our test, but this is unnecessary for we are onlyillustrating the technique. Such comparisons of re-gression models were the foundation for the analysesdone in this study. These models appear in subsequentappendixes.
( 65 )
APPENDIX GREGRESSION MODELS FOR COMPARISONS USING A PUBLIC-PRIVATE SCHOOL,
MALE-FEMALE, COLLEGE-NON-COLLEGE CATEGORIZATION
The full model for the general questions posed wasY i = azxz a3x3 a4x4
asxs a7x7 asxs E1where
Xi =
X2 =
X4 =
=
asxs
1 if criterion measure was from a boy in aPublic school going to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a boy in apublic school not going to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a boy in aprivate school going to a college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a boy in aprivate school not going to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a girl in apublic school going to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a girl in apublic school not going to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion measure was from a girl in aprivate school going to college; 0 otherwise
xs = 1 if criterion measure was from a girl in aprivate school not going to college; 0 otherwise
Y i was the criterion variable where i goes from onethrough
1.
2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.
10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.
17 according to the following list.:What the seniors wanted to be.Total number of seniors in graduating class.Total number of seniors going to college.Percent of seniors going to college.Type of program pursued.Age of senior surveyed.Occupational level of father.Occupational level of mother.Educational level of father.Educational level of mother.Scholastic Aptitude Testverbal.Scholastic Aptitude Testquantitative.Scholastic Aptitude Testtotal.Percentile rank of senior in high school.Time when decision was made.Number of colleges applied to.Choice of college senior will probably attend.
The first, question considered was whether therewere differences associated with the type of school.The 'full model was
Y i = a2x2 a3x3 a4x4 asxsa6x6 a7x7 asxs E1
The restrictions imposed wereal = a3 = ciaz =a4 =c2as = a7 = Caas = as = C4
The first restricted model then becameY = ci (xi + xa) -I- cz (xz + x4) +
C3 (X6 + X7) + C4 (X6 + X8)
orwi = czwz = caws csws E21. Yi = c1
wherewl = 1 if criterion was from a boy going
to college; 0 otherwise1 if criterion was from a boy notgoing to college; 0 otherwise
w3 = 1 if criterion was from a girl going tocollege; 0 otherwise1 if criterion was from a girl notgoing to college; 0 otherwise
Y i was the criterion where i goes from one through17 with a separate run on the computer for eachcriterion measure.
The second question posed was whether there weredifferences associated with sex. The full model re-mained unchanged, and the following restrictions wereimposed on it:
W2 =
W4 =
al = as = diaz = as = d2a3 = a7 = d3as = as = d4
The second restricted model becameYi = di (xi + xs) dz (xz xs)
d3 (xa + x7) + d4 (x4 + Xs) E3
or2. Y;= dzvz d3v3 dsys E3
wherevi = 1 if criterion was from a senior in a public
school going to college; 0 otherwisev2 = 1 if criterion was from a senior in a public
school not going to college; 0 otherwiseV3 = 1 if criterion was from a senior in a private
school going to college; 0 otherwise= 1 if criterion was from a senior in a private
school not going to college; 0 otherwise.
The third question posed was whether there weredifferences associated with college or non-college status.The full model again remained unchanged, and thefollowing restrictions were imposed:
a1 =az= cia3 = as = czas = as = c3a7 = as = c4
( 66 )
APPENDIX G-- Continued
models nine through 12, 13 through 16, and 17 through20 to predict 21 through 37 where
The third restricted model became
Y = eizi e2z2 eaza ea4 E4
where
zi = 1 if criterion was from a boy in a publicschool; 0 otherwise
z2 = 1 if criterion was from a boy in a privateschool; 0 otherwise
z3 = 1 if criterion was from a girl in a public school;0 otherwise
z4 = 1 if criterion was from a girl in a privateschool; 0 otherwise
Twenty model vectors were needed, eight for theeight categories and four each for the three restrictedmodels, and 17 criterion vectors were needed from"GENVEC." The full model used one through eightto predict 21 through 37 and the successive restricted
The
9 = 1 + 310 = 2 + 411 = 5 + 712 = 6 + 813 = 1 + 514 = 2 + 615 = 3 + 716 = 4 + 817 = 1 + 218 = 3 + 419 = 5 + 620 = 7 + 8
degrees of freedom were 8 4 = 4 for thenumerator and n 8 for the denominator.
APPENDIX II
REGRESSION MODELS FOR COMPARISON USING THE EXTENT TO WHICHSENIORS WERE HELPED IN PLANNING FOR THEIR FUTURES
The full model for the general question posed wasY i = a2x2 a2ax28 E1
where
xi = 1 if parent or other relative influenced verymuch; 0 otherwise
X2 = 1 if parent or other relative influenced some;0 otherwise
X3 = 1 if parent or other relative influenced verylittle or none; 0 otherwise
X4 = 1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwiseX5 = 1 if high school teacher influenced very
much; 0 otherwiseX6 = 1 if high school teacher influenced some; 0
otherwiseX7 = 1 if high school teacher influenced very little
or none; 0 otherwiseX8 = 1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwiseX2 = 1 if high school counselor influenced very
much; 0 otherwisex10 = 1 if high school counselor influenced some;
0 otherwisex11 = 1 if high school counselor influenced very
little or none; 0 otherwiseX12 = 1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwiseX13 = 1 if high school principal influenced very
much; 0 otherwiseX14 = 1 if high school principal influenced some; 0
otherwise
X15 =
X16
X17 =
X1$
X12 =
X20 =
X21 =
X22 =
X23 =
X24 =
X25 =
X28 =
X27 =
X28 =
1 if high school principal influenced very littleor none; 0 otherwise1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwise1 if students on college campus influencedvery much; 0 otherwise1 if students on college campus influencedsome; 0 otherwise1 if students on college campus influencedvery little or none; 0 otherwise1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwise1 if classmates or friends influenced verymuch; 0 otherwise
if classmates or friends influenced some;0 otherwise1 if classmates or friends influenced verylittle or none; 0 otherwise1 if student did not respond; 0 otherwise1 if other adults influenced vefy much; 0otherwise1 if other adults influenced some; 0 otherwise1 if other adults influenced very little or none;0 otherwise1 if student did not respor .1; 0 otherwise.
Y i was the criterion variable where i goes from oneto 10 according to the following list:
1. Aspirations (four-year college, etc.).2. What the seniors wanted to be.
( 67 )
1.1.11,
APPENDIX H-- Continued3. Type of school division (rural or urban, small,
medium, or large).4. Sex of senior.5. Occupational level of father.6. Occupational level of mother.7. Educational level of father.8. Educational level of mother,9. School and College Ability testtotal.
10. Reasons for not going to college.
The question considered was whether there weredifferences that were associated with who influenced thesenior's decision and the extent to which it was in-fluenced on the criterion measures relating to thesenior's future plansitems 1 and 2. Additionalcriterion measures were included in order to attemptto find clues as to whether or not there were othermeasures clustered in the 28 categories,.
Before the major question was considered, the effectof the no-response categories was examined. The fol-lowing restrictions were imper-,,A on the full model:
= a8 = a12 = al, = a20 = a24 = a28 = 0
The resulting restricted model was:
1. Y i = a2x2 a3x3 a4x4 a5x5 avoia7x7 a9x2 aioxio t auxn a13x13ai,xi, a15x15 a17x17 aitals anxitoa21x21 a22X22 a23X23 a35X25 a26X26a27X27 E2
The restrictions placed upon the full model toanswer the question of who influenced and the extentof this influence on the senior's decision were
al = a2 = = =
The resulting restricted model, it is obvious, involvesonly the unit vector since all the categories are collapsedinto one. The model was2. Y i = clu + Es
In both restricted models i goes from one to ten accord-ing to the list given with the full model.
The 39 vectors involved here were built with"GENVEC," and a condition was incorporated to runrecords of public school seniors and private schoolseniors separately. The degrees of freedom were7 3 = 4 and n 7 for the first set of restrictions and7 1 = 6 and n 7 for the second set of restrictions.
APPENDIX I
REGRESSION MODELS FOR STUDY OF THE RELATION OF APPLICATION STATUSTO CHOICE LEVEL OF COLLEGES AND OF CHOICE LEVEL
TO OTHER VARIABLES
The full model for the two questions posed wasY = a2x2 . a9x9 E1
where
x1 = 1 if application to first-choice institution wasaccepted; 0 otherwise
x2 = 1 if application to first-choice institution wasrejected; 0 otherwise
x3 = 1 if application status to first-choice institu-tion was standby or unknown; 0 otherwise1 if application to second-choice institutionwas accepted; 0 otherwise
= 1 if application to second-choice institutionwas' rejected; 0 otherwise
xe = 1 if application status to second-choice institu-tion was standby or unknown; 0 otherwise
= 1 if application to third-choice institution wasaccepted; 0 otherwise
= 1 if application to third-choice institution wasrejected; 0 otherwise
= 1 if application status to third-choice institu-tion was standby or unknown; 0 otherwise.
X4 =
x
Y = choice level of college
The first question considered was whether therewere differences that were associated with the statusof the applications. The full model is
Y = a2x2 a3x3 a4x4 -F afixs -{-
a=xe asx5 a9x9 E1
The restrictions to be imposed werea1 = a2 = a3 = ci
= as = a. =a, = as = a9 = c3
The first restricted model then became1. Y = cizi -F 02Z2 C3Z3 E2
wherezi = (x1 + x2 + x3) ,= 1 if application was to first-
choice institution; 0 otherWise-1-.. x5 -I- x5) = 1 if application was to
second-choice institution; 0 otherwiseZ3 = (x7 ± X3 ± x9) = 1 if application was to
third-choice institution; 0 otherwise
( 68 )
Z2 =
APPENDIX IContinuedThe second question considered was whether there
were differences that were associated with the choiceof institution to which application was made. Therestrictions to be placed upon the full model in thiscase were
al = a4 = a2 = dia2 = a6 = as d2a3 = a6 = a2 = d3
The second :restricted model then became
2. Y d2w2 d3w3 E3
where
wi = (xi + 4 + x7) = 1 if the application wasaccepted; 0 otherwise
wz = (x2 ± x6 + x8) = 1 if the application wasrejected; 0 otherwise
W3 = (x3 + X6 + x9) = 1 if the application statuswas standby or unknown; 0 otherwise
There were 16 vectors produced by "GENVEC,"and the full model used one through nine to predict 16,the first restricted model used ten through 12 to predict16, the second restricted model used 13 through 15 to
predict 16, The degrees of freedom were nine minusthree equals six and n minus nine for both models.
Choice Level and Other Variables. Having an ideahow choice level of college and application status wererelated, it would be instructive to ask how choice levelof college was related to other variables which mightinfluence it. The following regression model waswritten to examine some of those variables.
Y = a2x2 . . . + E,where
x1
X3
X3
X6
X6
X7
Xg
X9
x10
XII
= Educational level of father= Educational level of mother= School and College Ability test scoreverbal= School and College Ability test scorequan-
titative= Rank of senior in high school class= Number of colleges applied to= Status of first-choice application= Status of second-choice application= Status of third-choice application= Scholastic Aptitude test scoreverbal= Scholastic Aptitude test scoremath
Y = choice level of college (coded one through five)
APPENDIX J
SURVEY OF SELECTED ARTICLES RELATED TO SENIOR SURVEY QUESTIONSA survey of literature was conducted prior to
beginning the second phase of the analysis of theSenior Survey data. The intent of this and the follow-ing section is to give a sample of readings found in thissurvey, and not to give a comprehensive review ofliterature related to each of the questions on the surveyform.
The 1966 Bulletin of the National Association ofSecondary School Principals' contains four articlesrelating to rank in class. The authors discuss collegeattitudes and practices, attitudes of secondary schools,recommendations for determining rank-in-class, real-istic ranking, and an investigation of a grade-weightingsystem. Most existing studies use rank-in-class as itrelates to college attendance. These four articles fur-nished some direction in the use of rank-in-class as aariable, but there were no examples of its use in astatistical manner.
A 1966 issue of the Virginia Journal of Education'contains a report on the 1964-65 Virginia high school
1ltank in Class: A Review of the Issues and a New State-ment, Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, 50: 76-98, November, 1966.
graduates who entered college in the fall of 1965Data were presented largely in percentages in terms of :
(1) percentage of high school graduates attending col-lege by county, city, and State, under headings ofWhite, Negro, and Combined; (2) percentage of totalhigh school graduates furthering their educationthistable picked up those students who attended tradeschool, business school, or entered nurses training; (3)percentage of college attendance by counties represent-ing highest and lowest attendance; and (4) percentageof college attendance in terms of size of high school.Data were presented for both counties and cities.
Astin3 reported a study designed to assess thecareer expectations of 650 male high school seniorsbased on their personal characteristics when they werein the ninth grade and of selected environmentalcharacteristics of the school attended. She found thatthe student's measured interests and expressed career
21964-.65 High School Graduates in Continuation Programs,Virginia Journal of Education, 59: 32, April, 1966.
3Astin, Helen S., "Career Development During the HighSchool Years," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14: 94-8,March, 1967.
( 69 )
APPENDIX J-- Continuedchoice at the ninth-grade level were the best predictorsof career outcomes at the twelfth-grade level.
The specific goals of the study wire:
I. To identify the personal characteristics of thestudent at the ninth-grade level that predict hisexpressed vocational choice four years later atthe twelfth-grade level.
2. To identify the characteristics of the student'ssecondary school that affect his expressed careerchoice at the time of graduation.
3. To identify some of the unique qualities asso-ciated with the choice of particular kinds ofoccupations.
The group classification of occupations were : (1)Sciences, (2) Engineering, (3) EducationTeaching,(4) ProfessionsArts and Humanities, (5) OtherNo college degrees required, (6) Business and Manage-ment, and (7) Unclassified.
Twenty-six (26) predictor variables were derivedfrom measures of students' personal characteristicstaken in the ninth grade. Additionally, three measuresof high school environmental characteristics were usedin the analysis. These were : (1) School size, (2) Highschool mean on R-250 (Reading Comprehension), and(3) Percentage of graduating seniors who go to college.Two separate analyses were made, one using only the26 measures plus the additional three measures con-cerning the high school environment..
The statistical method employed was multiple dis-criminant analysis. The major findings includeddiffering rank orders of the grouped occupation classi-cations iti terms of five discriminant functions. Ingeneral, it was found that each twelfth-grade choice wasbest predicted from similar choices and interestexpressed three years earlier.
Elton4 investigated the influence of personality andaptitude predictors on the career role choices and voca-tional choices of entering male college freshmen. Twoseparate multiple-discriminant analyses revealed : (a)personality factors accounted for the major part ofdiscrimination in vocational choice and (b) a conjointdimension of ability and personality accounted for themajor part of discrimination in career role choices.
The general purpose of the study was to investigatethe influence of personality and ability predictors in theselection of career roles and vocational choices. Spe-cifically, it was hypothesized that personality factorsplayed a more important part in vocational choices,
lElton, Charles F., "Male Career Role and VocationalChoice; Their Prediction with Personality and AptitudeVariables," Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14: 99-105,March, 1967.
5Madaus, 0. F., and R. P. O'Hara, "Vocational Interest
whereas career role choices were influenced more byability. However, it was found with few exceptions,that there is very little differentiation between voca-tional choice and career role among freshmen. Twoassumptions relative to the findings were made.
1, Freshmen are at the stage of development inwhich the choice of vocation is a realistic con-cern in their struggle for adult status; thechoice of career role within a vocation is stilltoo far in the future to be very meaningful.
2. Freshmen are naive regarding the variety ofcareer roles within a vocation.
A study by Madaus and O'Hara4 demonstrated thatcareer choice had crystallized during high school. Dif-erences existed in the multivariate vocational interestpatterns, as measured by the Kuder Preference RecordVocational, Form CH, among high school boysclassified according to nine broad categories of occupa-tional choice selected while in high school. Specifically,then, the study attempted to determine the nature andextent of discrimination possible between groups ofboys indicating a preference for nine different occupa-tional groups.
Some of the findings of the study were:
1. It appeared that for college preparatory boys,crystallization of vocational preference is morespecific than one of merely sciencenonscience.
2. It appeared that interests, as measured by theKuder, deserve a more prominent place in anyhierarchy of systems of data than do the per-sonality, value, or aptitude dimensions.
3. These data also indicated that once boys areclassified by occupational field they have thesame vocational interest patterns regardless oftheir year in high school.
Watley' attempted to determine the extent towhich counselors known to differ in their ability topredict educational criteria (grades and student per-sistence in their educational programs) would disagreein their judgments of occupational suitability for thesame cases. The suitability of seven occupations wasjudged by each counselor for a total of 50 cases andsystematic differences were found among the occupa-tional suitability judgments of counselors who pre-viously predicted at high, moderate, and low levels ofaccuracy.
Patterns of High School Boys: A Multivariate Approach,"Journal of Counseling Psychology, 14: 106-12, March, 1967.
6Watley, Donwan J., "Counselor Predictive Skill andDifferential Judgments of Occupational Suitability," Journalof Counseling Psychology, 14: 309-13, July, 1967.
( 70 )
APPENDIX J-- Continued
The sample consisted of 36 counselors, all of whomhad taken part in a similar investigation earlier. Thepredictions were made for 50 first-quarter freshmen atthe University of Minnesota in terms of suitability ofthe following occupations for each student: (1) medicaldoctor, (2) electrical engineer, (3) social case worker,(4) forester, (5) accountant, (6) sales manager, and(7) lawyer. The basic statistic employed was the Chi-Square for comparison between expected and observedfrequencies.
Basically, the findings of the study indicated thatcounselors did not always agree about what they con-sidered occupationally suitable for the same person.Therefore, the same student could easily have receivedquite a different set of interpretive data depending onwhich counselor he hap_ pened to see,
Sanborn' reported a study dealing with a popula-tion of students whose average mental test scoresplaced them in the highest five percent of students inthe age range. For the study, a group of 60 studentswho had completed the first semester of college wererandomly selected, 30 with college grade-point averageslower than 2,00, and 30 with college grade-pointaverages about 2.00. May of the comparisons weredone in retrospect by obtaining information from highschool records.
The major results of the study are listed as being:1. Differences between overall scholastic perform-
ances of the two groups appeared to becomemore marked as they progressed through highschool into college.
2, There were significant relationships between thefactors students considered when choosing col-leges and their first semester grade-pointaverage.
3. There was a significant relationship betweencollege success and the selection of a major fieldof study during the freshman year or before.
4. There was a relationship between scholasticsuccess and degree of specificity of vocationalgoals.
5. Degree of specificity of ten-year goals was re-lated to success in college.
6. There was a trend indicating that students whohad vocational goals tended to take academicfactors into account more often when choosing
7Sanborn, Marshall P., "Vocational Choice, CollegeChoice, and Scholastic Success of Superior Students," Voca-tional Guidance Quarterly, 13: 161-8, Spring, 1965.
allanson, Jerrald T., "Ninth-Grade Girls' VocationalChoices and Their Parents' Occupational Level," The Voca-tional Guidance Quarterly, 13: 261-64, Summer, 1965.
a college than did students who were undecidedabout career goals.
Hanson° completed an unsophisticated study inwhich 142 ninth-grade girls completed a vocationalquestionnaire which asked them to list their father'soccupation, their mother's occupation, their preferredoccupation, their father's suggested vocation for them,and their mother's suggested vocation for them. Theoccupations were rated according to the Roe Occu-pational Classification Scale.' The numeric quantitiesrepresenting the means of the five selected occupationswere statistically compared using a t-test with thefollowing results:
1. Pupil's preferences were significantly higher thantheir father's occupation.
2. Pupil's preferences were significantly higher thantheir mother's vocation.
3. The fathers' suggested vocations for their daugh-ters were significantly higher than their ownvocal ions.
4. The mothers' suggested vocations for theirdaughters were significantly higher than theirown vocations.
5. There was no significant differences betweenfathers' and mothers' vocations when both wereemployed.
6. Fathers' and mothers' suggestions were notsignificantly different from daughters' pref-erences.
Banducci" reported on 3,104 high school seniors byexamining school achievement, educational aspirations,and expectations of seniors of working and nonworkingmothers. The sample was stratified by socio-economiclevel and by the sex of the student. The fact thatmothers were employed full time appeared to havelittle, if any, detrimental effect on children in regardto educational aspirations, expectations, and achieve-ment. There was even a trend for these children tohave higher educational aspirations and expectationsthan children of nonworking mothers, with the excep-tion of boys from the professional, socio-economic level.Aspirations and expectations were less divergent athigher socio-economic levels than at lower levels.
The basic statistic employed in the study was Chi-Square and the socio-economic levels were (1) Laborer,
Moe, Ann, The Psychology of Occupations, New York:Wiley, 1959, 149-247.
loBanducci, Ramon, "The Effect of Mother's Employmenton the Achievement, Aspirations, and Expectations of theChild," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 46: 263-67, Nevem -ber, 1967.
( 71 )
APPENDIX IContinued(2) Skilled Worker, and (3) Professional. As indicatedabove, separate comparisons were made for boys andgirls.
Mullane and Bannon" studied the influence of per-ceived dominance of one parent over the other in termsof work-value orientations of college women.
Basically the results were as follows:
1. Perceived parental influence was highly relatedto the socio-economic status of the family (asindicated by the occupational level of thefather), and only in this relationship was itsignificant.
2. Fathers who engaged in professional work andwhose level of education and training was super-ior to that of the mother exerted a greaterInfluence on the female child, but she does notappear to introject the father's work -valueorientation; rather, it was the father's idealizedgoals for the daughter which were internalized.
3. The girl who identified with the mother moreoften came from a home where the fatherworked at the skilled or unskilled level, andwhere work was a more realistic possibility forthe women, and orientations were thereforestronger on all work-value.
A study by Hammond" illustrates an approachrelative to. decision-making concerning college choices.Factors were listed that affected the' decision (similarto Question 15 on the Senior Survey form) and weightswere assigned to each according to their relative im-portance as seen by the students. A number of sub-decisions were then made by rating each of the possiblecolleges with respect to each of the factors. The resultsof these sub-decisions were combined to arrive at amajor decision, the choice of the best college for eachindividual student. For example, if location wasrated as the number ten factor and assigned a weightof seven, then this one sub-decision would have a totalscore of 70. In the comparison of which college (5) toattend, the sub-decisions concerning each would betotaled to indicate the best choice for each student.
The research described in a paper by Stevie andUhlig" was intended to provide insight into theself-concept of Appalachian students concerning theirProbable life work. Students in a high school locatedin southeastern Kentucky were compared with studentsfrom Ohio who were representative of persons who had
liKinnane, John F. and Sr. M. Margaret Bannon, "Per-ceived Parental Influence and Work-Value Orientation," ThePersonnel and Guidance Journal, 43: 273-79, November, 1964.
1211ammond, John S., "Bringing Order Into the Selectionof A College," The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 43: 654-660.
13Stevic, Richard and George "Occupational Aspira-
7
spent their lives in the Appalachian community andwho had migrated into the area from App_ alachiaduring the previous three years.
The Occupational Aspiration Scale (OAS) wasadministered to three groups (Kentucky Appalachia,Ohio Migrants, and Ohio Natives) to detect differencesin aspirational levels. Other data were collected toreflect occupational choices, preferred role models,and perceptions of characteristics required for success.
The findings of the study indicate:
1. Appalachian youth who stayed in the geographicarea had a significantly lower aspirational levelthan did students who were native to an urban(midway between rural and urban) area.
2, The Appalachian youth had different personalrole models and characteristics for success thanthose students who had migrated from theAppalachian area.
3. One of the major problems in raising the occu-pational aspirations of Appalachian studentsappeared to be lack of information and oppor-tunity rather than lack of ability,
Patios, Astin, and Creager" surveyed a total of280,650 entering freshmen students at 359 colleges anduniversities in 1967. The purpose of the report was topresent both national normative data on the charac-teristics of students who entered college as first-time,full-time freshmen in 1967 and comparative data on thecharacteristics of students who entered different typesof institutions.
Stratification in the sample design was as follows:
TwO-YEAR COLLEGES
Public Private
EnrollmentLess Than 500
500- 9991000-24992500 or more
EnrollmentLess Than 1000
1000 or more
FOUR-YEAR COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES
Levels of "Affluence"perstudent expenditures foreducational and generalpurposes
Unknown
Less than $750$ 750- 999$1000-1249$1250-1499
$15$17r0-11799949
$2000-2249$2250-2499$2500 or more
tions of Selected Appalachian Youth," The Personnel andGuidance Journal, 45: 435-439, June, 1967.
14Panos, Robert J., Alexander W. Astin, and John A.Creager, National Norms For Entering College FreshmenFall,1967, American Council on Education, Washington: Vol. 2,No. 7, 1967.
( 72 )
APPENDIX J-- ContinuedPerrone° completed a study of factors influencing
high school seniors' occupational preference. A sampleof 192 senior boys and 236 senior girls was arbitrarilyselected from schools in both rural and urban areas.Approximately half of the boys and girls continued tostudy after graduation while the other half enteredsome occupation. Evaluation instruments includedthe Large-Thorndike Verbal and Nonverbal Intel li-gence Tests, The California F-scale, a PersonalityScale for Dominance, a paper and pencil test of crea-tivity, and an occupational preference questionnaire.The occupations selected by the students as being mostlike the one they would like to enter were grouped intofamilies for statistical comparison (F-test and t-test)and the scores were obtained from the various tests.'FAO areas covered by test scores were identified as anF-scale, Goal Orientation, Creativity, Verbal 1.Q., andand Nonverbal I.Q. None of the occupational prefer-ence groups (Service, Business Contact, Organization,Technology, Outdoor Science, General Cultural, andArts and Entertainment) could be distinguished amongthe five dinaensions that were studied, Boys withsimilar scores on cognitive measures (Verbal and Non-verbal I.Q.) tended to indicate a preference for similaroccupational groups. On one cognitive measure,Verbal 1.Q., girls with the highest scores indicated apreference for General Cultural Occupations (manyspecified teaching), while girls who scored low preferredorganization occupations (majority specified secre-tarial).
A study by Little16 was initiated as one of a series ofstudies in the State of Wisconsin to discover facts andinformation needed for the planning of state-wideprograms of higher education in Wisconsin. A studyof both high school level and college level students wasincluded. Some of the questions to which answerswere sought were as follows:
1. Who goes to collegewho does not?
2. What circ*mstances or conditions influence thedecisions of youth to continue or not to continuetheir schooling beyond high school?
3. Do the plans of high school graduates aboutcollege materialize?
4. To what extent are youth of high potentialachievement identified by such measures as rankin class and intelligence test scores?
5. Do high ability youth who do not plan to go toI5Perrone, P. A., "Factors Influencing High School Seniors'
Occupational Preference," Personnel and Guidance 'Journal, 42:976-80, June, 1964.
I6Little, J. Kenneth, Explorations Into the College Plans
school change their plans later? If not, whattypes of work do they enter?
6. To what extent do the most able college fresh-men fail to complete their studies?
7. To what extent do the most able college grad-uates continue to advanced studies?
8. What are the important differences, 12 any,between highly able university students whocomplete degrees and those who do not?
The report was primarily to give percentages ofdifferent aspects of the study, with some minor explora-tions into inter-relationships of some of the data. Therewere plans for continuing and follow-up studies which,if conducted, would be contained in later reports.
The survey of high school seniors was very similarto the one conducted in Virginia. A total of 34,151(nearly 95 percent) seniors completed the surveyinstruments. From the total number of respondingseniors, a working sample of 5,675 questionnaires wererandomly selected.
Parents of the "working sample" were surveyed thefollowing fall to (1) learn whether the plans announcedby the graduates in the Spring had been followed orchanged; and (2) discover the desires and attitudes ofparents about the education of their sons or daughtersbeyond high school, and about the value of collegeeducation in general. There was a 48,9 percent responsefrom the parents.
Later, follow-up questionnaires were sent to thescholastically-talented youths who in the initial surveyindicated that they were not planning to go to college.This later questionnaire asked for a report of theircurrent activity, their satisfaction with their status,their plans, if any, for further training or education,and a new expression of their attitude toward the valueof further education.
The presentation concerning the plans of the highschool graduates were reported as two basic groups:those planning to attend college and those not planningto attend college. The method of presentation em-ployed was frequency distributions and percentages interms of the various information obtained from thequestionnaire, i.e., kinds of schools the graduatesplanned to attend, mental ability of the graduates,scholastic achievements, occupations of fathers, etc.
The remaining presentations of survey data followedthe same procedure of frequency distribution and per-centage reporting. This included the survey of theand Experiences of High School Graduates: A. Statewide Inquiry.Washington, Cooperative Research Project No. 0485, Office ofEducation, U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,September, 1959.
( 73 )
APPENDIX JContinuedparents, the plans of graduates with high scholasticpromise, the survey of promising youths who did notattend college, and the persistence of high abilitystudents in a state university.
Finally, a section entitled "Summaryansl_Conell1111371rsummarized the plans of the graduates, the
characteristics of continuing and non-continuing grad-uates, the survey of parents, the plans of graduateswith high scholastic promise, promising youths whodid not attend college, the plans of the college grad-
" persaence of high ability students in auniversity.
APPENDIX K
PRELIMINARY 1970 SENIOR SURVEY FORM
The experience with the 1967 Senior Survey wasfor the most part a very fruitful one. Several problemswere encountered, however, and some of these could betraced directly to the form used for collecting the surveydata. Consequently, several revisions in the form havebeen made. The proposed 1970 Senior Survey formwill be field tested with a sample group of 1969 seniorsto determine if the revisions which were made willadequately answer the questions raised with the 1967form.
The revisions fall into one of three broad classeswhich, while they are not entirely exclusive, are used inorder to conveniently classify the revisions. Theseclassifications will also indicate to others who constructsurvey forms some pitfalls that might be avoided. Thethree classes into which the revisions fall are: (1) addi-tions, (2) deletions, and (3) clarification of instructions.
Additions
Preooded form numbers and school numbers havebeen added to facilitate handling and processing. Stu-dent 'lading of his name has been included to improveidentification and spelling accuracy. Questions fourand five were added to obtain information on studentstaking College Entrance Examination Board AdvancedPlacement examinations. Advanced Placement identi-fication numbers have been requested in order thatfollow-up studies may be conducted.
In order that more meaningful and complete datamight be obtained and to facilitate categorical classifica-tion for analysis, Question six was added and Questionseven and eight modified to secure data only on "headof household" rather than "mothers" and "fathers."Question 11 and 14 were also added in order to obtainfurther information about sources of help in decidingon post-high-school plans.
Deletions
The deletions from the 1967 survey form fall intotwo classes. The first of these classes is undesirable orunnecessary responses to questions. The second isunnecessary items or questions. Unnecessary or unde-
sirable responses include those responses which offera convenient response for the senior and those responseswhich contribute no important or useful informationfor analysis. Unnecessary items are those items whichdid not provide any useful information for the analysis.
Undesirable or Unwanted Responses
Since "other" and "I do not know" often offered aconvenient response while providing little useful infor-mation, it is felt that these responses should be deletedfrom the survey form except in cases where the responsemight elicit useful information. It might be useful toknow that a senior does not know what he wants to be,but it is of very little value to know that his most likelyreason for not going to college is tha he does notknow his most likely reason.
Unnecessary Items
Almost all students responding to the 1967 surveyindicated that there was a college within commutingdistance. Therefore, additional information would benecessary to make this fact meaningful, e.g. did thecollege offer the course which the student wanted topursue, and could the student gain admission to thiscollege? Since space on the survey form is limited,rather than add these questions it was decided to omitthe question regarding commuting distance to collegesin its entirety.
Clarification of Instructions
One of the most troublesome problems, and onewhich recurred in almost every attempt to analyzethe data, was the problem of clearly placing thesenior's record into one of Cie categories desired inanalysis procedures. The selection of records was doneby computer and was based on coded responses asselection criteria. It was necessary, then, that thesecodes be accurate indicators of the category in whichthe record was to be placed.
Because of the difficulty experienced with the cate-gorization of records from the 1967 survey, it wasdecided that special attention should be given to con-
( 74 )
APPENDIX KContinuedstructing the form for th,e_19.7_0_ survey-se -that -thedesired categories are distinct and not overlapping andso that the instructions are clear as to which seniorshould answer what questions. (See Questions 15through 24.) This method of giving instructionsdirects the respondent through the questions and, ifproperly administered, elicits from him all the desiredinformation. At the same time it prevents him fromanswering questions which are on the form and whichare not applicable to him.
There were essentially three kinds of data obtainedfrom the seniors in the 1967 survey: (1) personal infor-mation, (2) academic information, and (3) generalinformation about the senior's plans and his actions inexecuting these plans. Personal information includedsuch items as age and sex; academic information in-cluded such data as SAT scores and SCAT scores; andgeneral information included such items as what thesenior wanted to do and when he decided what hewanted to do,
The questions asking for information which fellinto these three categories were nonsystematicallyplaced on the 1967 survey form. For convenience instudying the responses to questions of one type, and inorder to easily guide the respondent through the appro-priate questions, the 1970 survey form is designed sothat items concerned with the same kind of informationappear together on the form. The separation of itemsis not pointed out, but separation on the form isphysical and clear to the person recording the responses.The order on the form is: first, personal data andacademic data (Questions A-F, and questions 1-5);then, general information (Questions 6-8); and, finally,occupational and educational plans (Questions 8-24).
Coded Variables Using Codes Which Correspond to Rank
In the analysis of the data from the 1967 survey,coded variables were used for the purpose of generatingcategories of seniors for data analysis, using the com-puter in the generation of categories. The codes forthese variables were selected so that they would, in asmany cases as possible, have some meaning when inter-preted as ranks. Thus, correlation coefficients calcu-lated in multiple regression programs used in theanalysis for phase two of the study could be used asguides to possible important relationships among thevariables, coded as well as continuous. This kind ofcoding is planned for use with the 1970 survey form.Relationships have been antieipatd in the codes se-lected so that positive correlation coefficients willresult.
In order to minimize the number of missing andincomplete forms, explicit directions for administra-tion will accompany the survey form. The directionswill include instructions about the layout of the form,importance of accuracy and completeness in fillingout the form, and instructions about checking allcompleted forms for accuracy and completeness. It isplanned that a teacher or a counselor check each formbefore any are returned to the Department of Educa-tion.
In addition to the instructions for administering thesurvey form which will accompany the forms, and inconjunction with these instructions, instructions to therespondent will appear on the survey form itself. (Seepages one and four of the form.) These instructions aredesigned to lead the respondent through the form, andthey will contain all necessary and relevant information.At present it is planned that the respondent will nothave to use any source but the survey form itself for hisinstructions.
( 75 )
STA
TE
DE
PAR
TM
EN
T O
F E
DU
CA
TIO
NR
ICH
MO
ND
, VIR
GIN
IA
Surv
ey o
f Se
nior
s' P
ost-
Hig
h Sc
hool
Pla
nsY
ou a
re r
eque
sted
to p
artic
ipat
e in
an
impo
rtan
t stu
dy c
once
rned
with
the
educ
a-tio
nal a
nd o
ccup
atio
nal a
spir
atio
rrs,
pla
ns, a
nd d
ecis
ions
of
stud
ents
at t
he ti
me
of h
igh
scho
ol g
radu
atio
n,
The
info
rmat
ion
you
furn
ish
will
be
used
topr
epar
e gr
oupe
d da
ta a
nd a
naly
ses
whi
ch w
ould
be
help
ful i
n th
e im
prov
emen
t of m
any
find
s of
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r st
uden
ts.
Thi
s is
not
a te
st a
nd c
anno
t aff
ect y
our
grad
es.
INST
RU
CT
ION
S
Plea
se a
nsw
er th
e qu
estio
ns a
s re
ques
ted
in th
e in
stru
ctio
ns.
Ans
wer
all
ques
tions
trut
hful
ly a
nd a
ccur
atel
y.
Mar
k yo
ur a
nsw
ers
care
fully
in th
e co
rrec
t spa
ces
with
a s
oft l
ead
penc
il (N
o. 2
lead
pre
ferr
ed).
Era
se c
ompl
etel
y if
you
wan
t to
chan
geyo
ur a
nsw
er.
Que
stio
n 8.
Col
umn
for
"Hea
d of
Hou
seho
ld."
Whi
ch jo
bam
ong
the
list o
f jo
bs'b
elow
is m
ost l
ike
the
kind
of
wor
k th
e he
ad o
f you
r ho
useh
old
does
? If
he
or s
hew
orks
on
mor
e th
an o
ne jo
b, c
hoos
e th
e on
e in
whi
ch h
e or
she
spe
nds
the
mos
ttim
e. I
f th
e he
ad o
f yo
ur h
ouse
hold
is r
etir
ed o
r is
not
wor
king
, wha
tw
as h
is o
rhe
r oc
cupa
tion?
Loo
k ov
er th
e en
tire
Lis
t of
Jobs
(be
low
), th
en c
hoos
e an
d m
ark
one
answ
er.
Que
stio
n 8.
Col
umn
for
"I W
ant T
o B
e."
Wha
t occ
upat
ion
doyo
u w
ant t
o go
into
?L
ook
over
the
entir
e L
ist o
f Jo
bs (
belo
w),
then
cho
ose
and
mar
k on
ean
swer
.
LIS
T O
F JO
BS
Prof
essi
ons
A, e
tc.s
uch
as e
xecu
tive
in a
larg
e bu
sine
ss, g
over
nmen
t off
icia
l, ac
-co
unta
nt (
C.P
.A.)
, arc
hite
ct, c
hem
ist,
engi
neer
(co
llege
gra
duat
e), l
awye
r,ph
ysic
ian,
col
lege
teac
her
Prof
essi
ons
B, e
tc.s
uch
as d
istr
ict m
anag
er, o
ffic
e m
anag
er, p
erso
nnel
man
ager
,pr
oduc
tion
man
ager
, pro
prie
tor
of m
ediu
m b
usin
ess,
acc
ount
ants
(no
t C.P
.A.)
,en
gine
er (
not c
olle
ge g
radu
ate)
, nur
se, p
harm
acis
t, so
cial
wor
ker,
ele
men
tary
or h
igh
scho
ol te
ache
rPr
ofes
sion
s C
., et
c.su
ch a
s in
sura
nce
agen
t, m
anag
er o
f de
part
men
t sto
re, p
riva
tese
cret
ary,
ser
vice
man
ager
, sho
p m
anag
er, s
tore
man
ager
, sm
all b
usin
ess
owne
r, I
.B.M
. pro
gram
mer
, lab
orat
ory
assi
stan
t, ph
otog
raph
er, s
urve
yor,
farm
ow
ner
($25
,000
- $
35,0
00)
Cle
rica
l, sa
les,
tech
nici
an, e
tc.s
uch
as b
ank
cler
k an
d te
ller,
boo
kkee
per,
post
offi
ce c
lerk
, sal
es c
lerk
, shi
ppin
g cl
erk,
dra
ftsm
an, l
abor
ator
yte
nhni
c,ia
r,P.
B.X
. ope
rato
r, s
uper
viso
r of
mai
nten
ance
, tim
ekee
per,
owne
r of
littl
ebu
sine
ss (
$3,0
00-
$6,0
00),
far
m o
wne
r (S
10,0
0042
0,00
0)
Skill
ed m
anua
l em
ploy
eesu
ch a
s au
to b
ody
repa
irer
, bar
ber,
bul
ldoz
erop
erat
or,
butc
her,
cab
inet
mak
er, c
arpe
nter
, ele
ctri
cian
, mac
hini
st (
trai
ned)
,m
ason
,m
echa
nic
(tra
ined
), p
aint
er, p
lum
ber,
city
pol
icem
an, s
mal
l far
mow
ner
(und
er $
10,0
00),
far
m te
nant
who
ow
ns f
arm
equ
ipm
ent
Mac
hine
ope
rato
r, s
emi-
skill
ed e
mpl
oyee
such
as
asse
mbl
y lin
ew
orke
r, b
us d
rive
r,sh
ort o
rder
coo
k, g
arag
e an
d ga
s st
atio
n as
sist
ant,
guar
d,do
orke
eper
, wat
ch-
man
, mea
t cut
ter
and
pack
er, p
ract
ical
nur
se, g
ener
al tr
uck
driv
er
Tha
i-M
ed e
n pl
oyee
--sa
ch a
s ca
fete
ria
wor
ker,
dai
ry w
orke
r, d
eck
hand
, far
mhe
lper
, fre
ight
han
dler
, uns
peci
fied
labo
rer,
str
eet c
lean
er, s
hare
cro
pper
Que
stio
ns 1
2 an
d 13
.C
hoos
e on
e so
urce
fro
m a
mon
g th
e fo
ur li
sted
that
pro
vide
d th
em
ost i
nfor
mat
ion
that
hel
ped
you
in d
ecid
ing
on y
our
plan
s af
ter
high
sch
ool,
and
mar
k th
e ap
prop
riat
e bo
x in
col
,on
e, u
nder
"m
ost."
Nex
t, ch
oose
one
sou
rce
BO
from
the
r00
II g
thre
e th
at w
as th
e se
cond
mos
t im
port
ant s
ourc
e of
info
rmat
ion
.
and
mar
k th
e ap
prop
riat
e bo
x in
col
umn
2. T
hen
deci
de w
hich
sou
rce
prov
ided
the
leas
t inf
orm
atio
n an
d m
ark
the
appr
opri
ate
box
it co
lum
n 4.
Mar
k th
e re
mai
n-in
g so
urce
in c
olum
n 3.
Be
sure
that
ther
e is
onl
y on
e m
ark
in e
ach
colu
mn
and
inea
ch r
ow. P
roce
ed in
a -
00
:m
anne
r fo
r Q
uest
ion
13.
Que
stio
n 1.
If
your
ans
wer
to Q
uest
ion
15 w
as C
, ans
wer
Que
stio
n 16
by
mar
king
the
bloc
k ha
ving
the
sam
e nu
mbe
r as
that
list
ed b
elow
nex
t to
the
curr
icul
umyo
upl
an to
take
.D
isre
gard
the
head
ings
list
ed o
n Q
uest
ion
16.
Aft
er a
nsw
erin
gQ
uest
ion
16, y
ou h
ave
com
plet
ed th
e qu
estio
nnai
re.
Cur
ricu
lum
Mar
k N
umbe
rA
ccou
ntin
g4
Dat
a Pr
oces
sing
12N
ursi
ng11
Agr
icul
tura
l Bus
ines
sD
iese
l Mec
hani
cs9
Polic
e Sc
ienc
e14
Tec
hnol
ogy
1D
raft
ing
2Pr
actic
al N
ursi
ng15
Air
Con
ditio
ning
and
Ele
ctri
cal
9Pr
intin
g7
Ref
rige
ratio
n9
Ele
ctro
nics
13R
adio
Com
mun
icat
ions
17
Arc
hite
ctur
al2
Env
iron
men
tal T
ech-
Rad
iolo
gic
Tec
hnol
ogy
3A
utom
otiv
e18
nolo
gy16
Rea
l Est
ate
4B
usin
ess
Man
agem
ent..
4Fo
od S
ervi
ce M
anag
e-Se
cret
aria
l Sci
ence
7C
hem
ical
Tec
hnol
ogy.
. 13
men
tSh
eet M
etal
18C
hild
Car
e T
echn
icia
nIn
dust
rial
Tec
hnol
ogy.
6St
enog
raph
er-C
lerk
7an
d Su
perv
isio
n5
Inst
rum
enta
tion
9T
each
er A
ide
5C
ivil
(Eng
r.)
Tec
hnol
-M
achi
nist
18T
extil
e T
echn
olog
y....
9og
y6
Mas
onry
18T
ool M
akin
g T
echn
ol-
Com
mer
cial
Art
8M
echa
nica
l (E
ngr.
)og
y9
Com
mun
icat
ion
Tec
h-T
echn
olog
y6
Wel
ding
18no
logy
(T
.V.)
17M
erch
andi
sing
and
Dis
-C
smet
ol o
gy18
trib
utio
n4
Que
stio
n 18
Lis
ted
bew
w a
re th
e na
mes
and
type
s of
sev
eral
col
lege
s al
ong
with
thei
rco
de n
umbe
rs. F
or e
ach
of th
e co
llege
s to
whi
ch y
ou h
ave
appl
ied
(fir
st, s
econ
d,an
d th
ird
choi
ces)
, ple
ase
find
the
appr
opri
ate
num
ber
code
and
mar
k it
in th
eap
prop
riat
e ch
oice
spa
ce.
With
in V
irgi
niaS
tate
Con
trol
led
Inst
itutio
nsC
OD
EN
O-
FOU
R-Y
E&
EFo
ur -
YE
AR
CO
DE
No.
Geo
rge
Mas
on C
olle
ge01
Mar
y W
ashi
ngto
n C
olle
ge04
Lon
gwoo
d C
olle
ge02
Old
Dom
inio
n C
olle
ge05
Mad
ison
Col
lege
03R
adfo
rd C
olle
ge06
1. P
rint
you
r na
me
in th
e bo
xes-
pro
vide
d. T
hen
mar
k th
e le
tter
box
belo
w w
hich
mat
ches
eac
h le
tter
ofyo
ur n
ame.
00 a
Firs
t Nam
e, 4
1111
1111
.111
1111
1111
111
1111
1.11
1111
1111
1111
111
cA
=11
3.3
S3A
3-A
_A
AO
A3
La
Aic
-A3
ME
AA
icA
3rA
3r.K
3A
x
ISB
J23
M9
B13
eB
BD
S323
13*B
3Ii
.13
7c13
B10
3=93
033
9
CC
aLC
iCC
3sC
«C
as_
C3
c3'
etc-
Cx
cic
cmC
3_c
5LC
3c3
E
ED
DIE
DI
DE
rl.
23.-
-D
Di
23°
DE
DD
ot-D
r94
Da.
:1)3
ED
3D
ec
cEE
3.E
3E
E3:
EE
3cE
EE
E3
E3
ExE
E3t
EE
3rE
EX
E3
:Ex
E3
Ex
cFFi
cF3
FFt
FFa
rF
FaF3
F3
FMFl
aF*
FIL
F3E
F:tF
3Fa
c
cG.
GitG
3G
GG
3G
G*G
G-
G G
GZ
GG
aLG
Gic
GG
=G
3tG
xGO
r'
EH
k/I3
il3:
11±
14H
IS3t
Hxk
lacH
=It
cH3t
H/1
3E
I11
E13
II
13: 1
I13
±I
I_I,
1.1
'AE
I13
11IM
I=IM
I:E
IMI
I
JJa
cJ3
JJ
13:J
JJx
JJ_
J1
JU
ril'x
JJo
tiacI
:.-._
IntI
TJ
J
KK
W10
IC3
14K
KK
KxK
KIM
±M
t-K
_-_-
KxK
3rK
oc
cLL
arL
3L
LL
3:
LL
±L
L_
LL
L..m
LL
ILL
LZ
L=
L-.
- L.I
.3cL
Lac
/43
:...
.elad
ais
i=bu
stje
t
NM
CI
NN
3:N
NT
.N
NN
NW
EN
NIE
NN
.:=N
3Fit-
--N
icN
irN
Nac
00*
(30
OD
IC0
0;0
00
030
Oat
O04
c0T
0=03
e33t
0O
i:
PP#
PP
3t .
.P
P x
PPPP
P3cP
PIO
P=P3
FP=
PmPi
cPP3
c
iirQ
0Q
i-Q
-s0
m-Q
z(;)
acQ
3cQ
::-.0
3,Q
3cQ
QM
cit
Kra
_It
R3
It23
;It
ItR
RIt
R R
_R
ift.
II3E
2R
ar_R
XR
-RIt
R
SSa
cSS
SS3
tSS
STS
SESS
SitS
SIS
SatS
S-S
S S
93E
TT
arT
-T
Ta.
:TT
TxT
TT
TT
ar?
TIE
TxT
xT=
TitT
=T
IxU
UitU
UU
U30
UU
±U
UU
U U
UxU
1.11
tUU
itUitU
-UIL
UitU
Mc
VV
ZV
VV
Vac
VV
aat
VV
V V
viL
Vvx
vvx
V.a
tv=
ifitv
kvva
c
wr
cF
fXX
XxX
XX
Xic
XX
LX
XM
.-...
Mc
YIc
Yyy
-YY
YY
YY
YY
ILY
YY
YY
Y=
YY
YY
ac
ZZ
ZZ
ZZ
ZE
ZZ
ZZ
Z. Z
EZ
Z-Z
Zw
ZZ
I-i .
..
Vir
gini
a St
ate
Dep
artm
ent o
f E
duca
tion
Surv
ey o
f Se
nior
s' P
ost-
Hig
h Pl
ans
o.M
A E2.
SEX c:
=r F
Ffr
MA
LI
3. A
GE
UN
DE
RV
C17
2108
3c1
93O
RO
ER
OR
STU
DE
NT
S: D
o no
t mar
k in
blo
cks
A, B
, C, D
, E, F
I 3c 0
3c
3c03
c3c
03C
3E 1
3C
3E1
3C3C
I3c
3c2n
cnr
.23c
nanc
oc33
CC
3E33
c
]C4]
C3c
4=
ncS
3Cv
C 5
3E
3E6
A3E
6363
E
3C 7
3C3C
73C
3C
73E
3C83
Enc
Eim
3C82
E
3E93
C3E
93C
3C
93C
3CO
M3C
O3C
3CO
M
3C 1
3C
3C I
nc3c
lx
3c2x
=2J
cD
C 2
3E
3[33
43C
33C
3E43
°. 4
3C
3E43
C...
,
3E52
.E
SnE
3C5
3C
3C63
.1-
MS
3C
]C 7
3C3C
7 M
3E7
M
3C g
xxe
ntoc
ant
3C 9
X3C
92C
3E93
E
3CO
M3C
O3C
3CO
M
3C 1
3C
3E1
3C3C
I3c
mc2
nt3E
2moc
2pc
3c33
c-
1,7
_,..a
3C 3
3C
3C 4
3E, I
NIr
i T. 4
3C
3C 5
3Cii
c53c
3C63
.1J
3C6
3E
3E7
3C3C
7 3C
3C 7
3C
3C8
3C31
8 3C
3C83
C
3E91
E3E
9 3C
3C93
C
3E03
CM
OM
3CO
3C
3C1
2C.
3E1
3C3C
13C
3E23
E3E
2 3C
3E2
3C
3c33
Si.7
-1c.
3 3C
3c4
3C3E
4 3C
3CS
CS3
C3C
S3C
3E6
CC
M3C
6 3C
3E7
M3E
7 3C
3E7
3C
3E83
E3E
83C
max
3E9
3C3C
92C
3C93
C
4.H
ave
You
Tak
enan
y C
olle
geE
ntra
nce
Exa
m-
inat
ion
zom
r,41
Adv
ance
d Pl
acem
ent
Cou
rses
?
1=:3
Yes
C=
IN
o
6. W
ho is
the
Hea
dof
You
r H
ouse
hold
?
c= F
athe
rS
tep-
Fat
her
a=
,r=
y M
othe
rS
tep-
Mot
her=
Gua
rdia
n or
Oth
er P
erso
n
3E 0
3E3C
03E
3E 0
3C
3C 1
3E3E
1 3C
3C 1
3E
X. 2
7.1
C3c
23r
3c.2
3c
]c3
]c4"
.1C
air
3E43
4rC
43E
3C43
E
3E5
4. '
c S3
c53
C
3E6
3C3C
63C
3C7
3C3E
7 3C
3E7
3C
3C 8
3C3E
8 3E
3E8
3C
3E9
3Ct3C
93C
3C93
C
Sow
mel
Ip...
......
......
.O
CO
MM
O 3
C 3
CO
M3C
OM
3C 1
. 3C
3E1
3C 3
C 1
3E3E
1 3C
3E23
C,3
E2
3E ,
3C2
3C3C
2x,
RE
33c
3.
3C3E
3x
3C 4
3C
3Ci
3C 4
3C
3CS3
C3C
3E93
C
3C6
3C3C
53E
3C 6
3C
3C7
3C3c
7 3C
DC
73C
3E73
C
3C8
3C3C
83E
3C
83C
.3E
83E
3C 9
3C3C
93E
3c6x
3c61
ED
]M
ac0
3ic
031E
03,
E03
r031
C.-
3C
"]:
C3;
13Q
3'E
t03
Qua
EL
V3
003
Cts
33C
r',73
EG
nE
s)3,
,C6)
3C
fra
C G
.)3
C6)
3;
Cd3
.C
C3
C.1
63C
.11,
3C
al
API
C01
3:E
:113
1M
Ac(
11]
LI3
2M
I 3
EO
MC
CU
'C
O33
1C
OO
'cm
30O
33E
1713
c.43
:C
.43
E..1
3C
..13
CC
.43:
CO
EC
M]
CO
Em
asa
ccoa
CO
DS
no)3
,
cam
..a
e12
0 3
UP
C.3
ICC
13E
03
5. If
you
ans
wer
ed Y
es to
Item
4,
writ
e an
d m
ark
your
CE
EB
AP
Reg
istr
atio
n N
umbe
r in
spa
cebe
low
.
3c0
3CM
OM
3CO
M2C
O3C
3C 1
3C
3E1
3C3C
13c
M I
]C
3C 4
7.3C
3E23
E3C
23C
3E 2
3C
3C33
E3C
q3C
3E3
3E3E
33C
3E4
3CX
43C
:1E
4 3C
3C 4
3E
3CS
3C3E
S x
3C S
3C3C
S 3
E
xe 3
cx6
3cM
S 3C
3C63
C
3C/ 3
Cx7
3C3a
3C
3C 7
3E
3C 8
3CJC
S3C
3ES3
C3C
83C
3C 9
3E,
3C 9
3C3E
93E
3C
3E33
C
3E4
3C
3C S
3C
3C6x
3C 7
3E
3C 8
3C
44.1
1111
1rlir
de
Side
1
co]
CO
302
127)
2m
3
Z..
3
Qua
EN
3E
N3
th)
.CN
3
CC
43L
TA
12cc
cca3
cu.)
]
Iow
ac
Ca3
LI,
3
1C(:
'EC
T33
an 3
..,E
Uri
run
[033
tan
ce3
tea
re 3
IC.4
3C
*43
7.42
C
ICO
2313
:0 a
cm]
can
E0)
3
Efi
r:L
m3
CC
D3
-C40
3E
S03
STU
DE
NT
S: A
n A
nsw
er o
f A
or
B to
Ite
m 1
5 R
equi
res
Ans
wer
ing
Item
s 16
, 17,
18,
19,
20.
An
Ans
wer
of
C to
Ite
m 1
5 --
See
Inst
ruct
ions
Pag
e 4.
How
far
did
the
head
of
your
hou
seho
ld g
o in
sch
ool?
.
1Hea
dof ou
se-
I Wan
tH
old
To
Be
0 r=
=0
Pro
fess
ions
A, e
tc.
Rec
eive
d gr
adua
te s
choo
lde
gree
Gra
duat
ed fr
om c
olle
ge
Com
plet
ed h
igh
scho
ol
Atte
nded
col
lege
or
othe
rte
chni
cal o
r sp
ecia
l sch
ool
Atte
nded
hig
h sc
hool
Com
plet
ed e
lem
enta
rysc
hool
(7th
gra
de)
Com
plet
ed le
ss th
an 7
grad
es
8. -
Occ
upat
ion-
(See
inst
ruct
ions
)M
AR
K O
NLY
ON
E B
LOC
KIN
EA
CH
CO
LUM
N
=1
Pro
fess
ions
B, e
tc.
oP
rofe
ssio
ns C
, etc
.C
leric
al, s
ales
,te
chni
cian
, etc
.S
kille
d m
anua
lem
ploy
eeM
achi
ne o
pera
tor;
sen-
n-sk
illed
em
ploy
ee
c=su
nski
lled
empl
oyee
9. W
hich
One
of t
he F
ollo
win
gH
igh
Sch
ool P
rogr
ams
Hav
eyo
u T
aken
?
Col
lege
Pre
para
tory
Com
mer
cial
or
Bus
ines
s
Gen
eral
Voc
atio
nal
.10.
Whe
n D
id Y
ou D
ecid
eon
Wha
t You
Wan
t to
Do
afte
r H
igh
Sch
ool?
(Mar
k O
ne)
l= I
Hav
e N
ot D
ecid
ed Y
et4=
Jus
t Thi
s Y
ear
g=3
In th
e 11
th G
rade
c=2
In th
e 9t
h or
10t
h G
rade
In th
e 7t
h or
8th
Gra
de
o B
efor
e th
e 7t
h G
rade
11. T
o w
hat e
xten
t wer
e so
urce
s of
hel
p av
aila
ble
to y
ou in
dec
idin
g on
you
r pl
ans
afte
r hi
ghsc
hool
? (M
ark
Onl
y O
ne B
lock
)
1= V
ery
muc
h=
=, E
iloug
h
c= S
ome
C3
Ver
y Li
ttle
42..\
1211
11A
IN
12. R
ank
from
mos
t to
leas
t the
follo
win
gso
urce
s th
at p
rovi
ded
info
rmat
ion
tohe
lp y
ou d
ecid
e yo
ur p
lans
afte
r hi
ghsc
hool
. (M
ark
Onl
y O
ne B
lock
in E
ach
Col
umn;
Mar
k O
nly
One
Blo
ck in
Eac
h R
ow)
Mos
t
(SE
E IN
ST
RU
CT
ION
S -
Pag
e 1)
Leas
t1=
=i
Par
ent o
r O
ther
Rel
ativ
e
Hig
h S
choo
l Tea
cher
s
Hig
h S
choo
l Cou
nsel
or
Cla
ssm
ates
or
Frie
nds
13. R
ank
from
mos
t to
leas
t the
follo
win
gfa
ctor
s th
at in
fluen
ced
your
voc
atio
nal
choi
ce. (
Mar
k O
nly
One
Blo
ck in
Eac
hC
olum
n; M
ark
Onl
y O
ne B
lock
inea
ch R
ow)
(SE
EIN
ST
RU
CT
ION
S -
Pag
e 1)
IMIM
Mos
t=
:3C
I 0 CI
Leas
t Opp
ortu
nity
for
e:=
1 pe
rson
alsa
tisfa
ctio
n=
Opp
ortu
nity
for
mat
eria
l gai
n
Opp
ortu
nity
for
C3
serv
ice
to o
ther
s
1==
i Int
eres
t or
prev
ious
exp
erie
nce
CI
CI C
I 0 =
Fam
ily in
fluen
ce.1
1111
11M
EN
ION
NIN
O,
14. T
o w
hat e
xten
t did
you
see
k he
lp in
deci
ding
on
your
pla
ns a
fter
high
scho
ol?
(Mar
k O
nly
One
Blo
ck)
= V
ery
muc
h
= E
noug
h
= S
ome
= V
ery
Littl
e
An
Ans
wer
of D
to It
em 1
5, R
equi
res
Ans
wer
ing
Item
21.
An
Ans
wer
of
E to
Ite
m 1
5 R
equi
res
Ans
wer
ing,
22,
23,
24.
15. W
hich
sta
tem
ent m
ost
accu
rate
ly d
escr
ibes
your
imm
edia
te p
lans
afte
r gr
adua
tion?
I pla
n to
enr
oll i
n a
Ag=
ifour
-yea
rco
llege
.I c
=a
I pla
n to
enr
oll i
n a
two-
year
col
lege
and
tran
sfer
to a
four
-yea
rco
llege
I pla
n to
enr
oll i
n 'a
c==
, tw
o-ye
ar c
olle
ge in
ate
rmin
al p
rogr
am.
I pla
n to
enr
oll i
n so
me
1=1
othe
r ty
pe o
f edu
catio
nal
prog
ram
.
I do
not p
lan
to e
nrol
l in
c=1
any
full-
time
educ
atio
nal
prog
ram
.
16. W
hich
of t
he fo
llow
ing
will
mos
t lik
ely
be y
our
mai
n fie
ld o
f stu
dy in
colle
ge?
c13
Agr
icul
ture
c2=
Arc
hite
ctur
e
c3:3
Bio
logi
cal S
cien
ce
c4o
Bus
ines
s an
d/or
Com
mer
ce
053
Edu
catio
n
=63
Eng
inee
ring
C73
Eng
lish
and/
or J
ourn
alis
m
=83
Fin
e or
App
lied
Art
s
c9rs
For
eign
Lan
guag
e
001
Hom
e ec
onom
ics
cup
Nur
sing
0 22
Pha
rmac
y
c132
Phy
sica
l sci
ence
q43
Pre
-law
c15'
Pre
- m
edic
al
`le' P
sych
olog
y
073
Soc
ial s
cien
ce
c183
Tra
de
17. H
ow M
any
Col
lege
s H
ave
You
App
lied
to?
r23
t33
c4a
or m
ore
18.
List
The
se C
olle
ges
in O
rder
of
Pre
fere
nce
(See
Inst
ruct
ions
)
r=93
it=9:
3
2nd
Cho
ice
cam
Ca=
Cho
ice
CO
31:
43=
s
1=1=
i1=
r)2
=1=
1
1=2:
1I=
1:1
c3;=
1
s*.a
r--3
2c3
g.
oga
oft'
=4=
1
=1=
414
3-3
r.53 t
Ora
1=gt
21=
7:1
Ig
g=87
r1=
8:i
r=8
rzem
4=10
31:
43U
1=93
19. W
hat i
s th
e S
tatu
s of
The
seA
pplic
atio
ns?
(Mar
k th
e on
e in
eac
h th
at a
pplie
s)
-Cho
ices
-1s
t2n
d3r
d
O0 CIA
ccep
ted
Rej
ecte
d
= S
tand
by o
r U
nkno
wn
20. W
hich
One
of t
hese
Col
lege
s W
illY
ou M
ost L
ikel
y A
ttend
?
r==
4 1s
t cho
ice
11=
6 2n
d ch
oice
= 3
rd c
hoic
e
= A
Col
lege
Oth
er th
an 1
, 2, o
r 3
21. W
hat t
ype
of e
duca
tiona
l pro
gram
do y
ou p
lan
to u
nder
take
?
Bus
ines
s
Nur
sing
Tec
hnic
al
=, T
rade
App
rent
ice
'Sid
e2
U c
cca
m-
1311
=1
Or=
m 0
r=1
CM
:3
22. W
hat i
s th
e on
e m
ost l
ikel
yre
ason
for
not c
ontin
uing
your
edu
catio
n?
= I
cann
ot a
fford
it
oM
y gr
ades
are
not
goo
den
ough
The
wor
k I w
ant t
o do
doe
sno
t req
uire
mor
e ed
ucat
ion.
= I
need
to e
arn
mon
ey n
ow.
= I
an n
ot in
tere
sted
.4
23. W
hat w
ill y
ou m
ost l
ikel
y do
afte
r gr
adua
tion?
(M
ark
One
)
Wor
k at
a fu
ll-tim
e jo
b an
d=
1 at
tend
sch
ool p
art-
time
= W
ork
at a
full-
time
job
with
a tr
aini
ng p
rogr
am.
Wor
k at
a fu
ll-tim
e jo
b w
ithno
trai
ning
pro
gram
.
Go
into
mili
tary
ser
vice
Bec
ome
a ho
usew
ife w
ith n
oot
her
empl
oym
ent.
24. W
hat k
ind
of w
ork
do y
oupl
an to
do?
(M
ark
One
)
Con
stru
ctio
n w
ork
t=1
Fac
tory
wor
k
:=1
Offi
ce w
ork
=1
Sal
es W
ork
Far
m W
ork
Ser
vice
Wor
k
CO
DE
FOU
RY
EA
RN
o.U
nive
rsity
of
Vir
gini
a..
07V
irgi
nia
Com
mon
wea
lth U
nive
rsity
08V
. M I
09V
. P. I
10V
irgi
nia
Stat
e C
olle
geN
orfo
lk11
Vir
gini
a St
ate
Col
lege
Pete
rsbu
rg12
Will
iam
and
Mar
y13
TW
OY
EA
RB
lue
Rid
ge C
omm
unity
Col
lege
14C
hris
toph
er N
ewpo
rt C
olle
ge (
W&
M)
15C
linch
Val
ley
Col
lege
(U
VA
)16
Dab
ney
S. L
anca
ster
Com
mun
ity C
ol-
lege
, Clif
ton
Forg
e17
CO
DE
Tw
o-Y
EA
RN
o.D
anvi
lle C
omm
unity
Col
lege
18E
aste
rn S
hore
Bra
nch
(UV
A)
19Fr
eder
ick
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge20
John
Tyl
er C
omm
unity
Col
lege
21N
ew R
iver
Voc
atio
nal T
ech.
Sch
ool
22N
orth
ern
Va.
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge23
Patr
ick
Hen
ry C
olle
ge (
UV
A)
24R
icha
rd B
land
Col
lege
(W
&M
)25
Sout
hwes
t Va.
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge26
Tec
h In
stitu
teO
ld D
omin
ion
Col
lege
27
Tho
mas
Nel
son
Com
mun
ity C
olle
ge28
Vir
gini
a W
este
rn C
omm
unity
Col
lege
29
Was
h C
ount
y V
oc.T
ech
Scho
ol30
Wyt
hevi
lle C
omm
unity
Col
lege
31
With
in V
irgi
niaP
riva
tely
Con
trol
led
Inst
itutio
nsC
OD
EFO
UR
YE
AR
No.
Bri
dgew
ater
Col
lege
32E
aste
rn M
enno
nite
Col
lege
33E
mor
y an
d H
enry
Col
lege
34H
ampd
en-S
ydne
y C
olle
ge35
Ham
pton
. Ins
titut
e36
Hol
lins
Col
lege
37In
stitu
te o
f T
extil
e T
echn
olog
y38
Lyn
chbu
rg. C
olle
ge39
Mar
y B
aldw
in C
olle
ge40
Pres
. Sch
ool o
f C
hris
tian
Ed
41Pr
otes
tant
Epi
scop
al T
heol
ogic
alSe
min
ary
in V
irgi
nia
42R
ando
lph
-Mac
on C
olle
ge, A
shla
nd43
Ran
dolp
h-M
acon
Wom
an's
Col
lege
,L
ynch
burg
44R
oano
ke C
olle
ge45
Sain
t Pau
l's C
olle
ge46
Shen
ando
ah C
onse
rvat
ory
of M
usic
47St
ratf
ord
Col
lege
48Sw
eet B
riar
Col
lege
49
CO
DE
FOU
RY
EA
RN
o.U
nion
The
ol. S
emin
ary
in V
irgi
nia
50U
nive
rsity
of
Ric
hmon
d(R
ichm
ond
Col
lege
and
Uni
vers
ity C
olle
ge)
51V
irgi
nia
Uni
on U
nive
rsity
52V
irgi
nia
Wes
leya
n C
olle
ge53
Was
hing
ton
and
Lee
Uni
vers
ity54
Tw
o-Y
EA
RA
vere
tt C
olle
ge55
Blu
efie
ld C
olle
ge56
Ferr
um J
unio
r C
olle
ge57
Mar
ymou
nt C
olle
ge o
f V
irgi
nia
58So
uthe
rn S
emin
ary
Juni
or C
olle
ge59
Sulli
ns C
olle
ge60
Vir
gini
a In
term
ont C
olle
ge61
Vir
gini
a Se
min
ary
and
Col
lege
62
Oth
erB
usin
ess,
nur
sing
, tra
de o
r te
ch s
choo
lin
Va.
63
Reg
iona
l Ins
titut
ions
Out
side
Vir
gini
aSo
uth
Cod
e N
o.D
istr
ict o
f C
olum
bia
Geo
rge
Was
hing
ton
Uni
vers
ity64
How
ard
Uni
vers
ity65
Flor
ida
Flor
ida
Stat
e66
Mia
mi U
nive
rsity
67U
nive
rsity
of
Flor
ida
68G
eorg
ia Geo
rgia
Tec
h69
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
eorg
ia70
Ken
tuck
yU
nive
rsity
of
Ken
tuck
y...
71
Mar
ylan
dU
nive
rsity
of
Mar
ylan
d72
U. S
. Nav
al A
cade
my
73
Mis
siss
ippi
Mis
siss
ippi
Sta
te74
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Duk
e U
nive
rsity
75N
orth
Car
olin
a St
ate
76U
nive
rsity
of
Nor
th C
arol
ina
77W
ake
Fore
st C
olle
ge78
Nor
th C
arol
ina
Col
lege
at
Dur
ham
79So
uth
Car
olin
aC
lem
son
Uni
vers
ity80
Uni
vers
ity o
f So
uth
Car
olin
a81
Ten
ness
eeU
nive
rsity
of
Ten
ness
ee82
Van
derb
ilt U
nive
rsity
83E
ast T
enne
ssee
Sta
te U
nive
rsity
84
n001
.01-
,=11
1M06
."-1
1ari
Sout
hC
ode
No.
Wes
t Vir
gini
aU
nive
rsity
of
Wes
t Vir
gini
a85
Oth
er Four
- (4
) ye
ar c
olle
ge o
r un
iver
-si
ty in
the
Sout
h86
Tw
o- (
2) y
ear
colle
ge in
Sou
th87
Nor
th Cor
nell
88H
arva
rd89
Prin
ceto
n90
U. S
. Mili
tary
Aca
dem
y91
Yal
e92
Oth
er Four
- (4
) ye
ar c
olle
ge o
r un
iver
-si
ty in
the
Nor
th93
Tw
o- (
2) y
ear
colle
ge in
Nor
th94
Mid
-Wes
tFo
ur-
(4)
year
col
lege
or
univ
er-
sity
in th
e M
id-W
est
95T
wo-
(2)
yea
r co
llege
in M
id -
Wes
t 96
Far
Wes
tU
. S. A
ir F
orce
Aca
dem
y97
Oth
er Four
- (4
) ye
ar c
olle
ge o
r un
iver
-si
ty in
the
Far
Wes
t98
Tw
o- (
2) y
ear
colle
ge in
Far
Wes
t 99
Fore
ign
Cou
ntri
esC
ode
all s
choo
ls o
utsi
de th
eU
nite
d St
ates
as
00