(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "They Went to College Early"

THEY WENT TO 



COLLEGE EARLY 



EVALUATION REPORT NUMBER 2 



THE FUND FOR THE 
i > > 

ADVANCEMENT OF EDUCATION 



655 MADISON AVENUE • NEW YORK 2 1, N. Y. 



LB 

3981 

F86 



THE FUND FOR THE ADVANCEMENT 
OF EDUCATION is a philanthropic organization 
established in 1951 by the Ford Foundation to work in 
the field of formal education. 

Its chief activity has been the support of experimental 
programs which hold promise of advancing education 
in American schools and colleges. To date the Fund has 
been granted approximately $57,000,000 by The Ford 
Foundation. 



First printing April 1957 

Additional copies of THEY WENT TO COLLEGE EARLY 

are available from the offices of The Fund for the Advancement of 

Education, 655 Madison Avenue, New York 21, Nexu York 

Library of Congress catalog card number: 57-9381 



Board of Directors 

ROY E. LARSEN, Chairman 
President, time Inc. 

RALPH J. BUNCHE 
Under-Secretary, United Nations 

CHARLES D. DICKEY 

Chairman of the Executive Committee 

J.P.Morgan ir Company, Inc. 

JAMES H. DOUGLAS, JR. 

■Secretary of the Air Force 

ALVIN C. EURICH 

Vice President, The Fund for the 

Advancement of Education 

CLARENCE H. FAUST 
President, The Fund for the 
Advancement of Education 

C. SCOTT FLETCHER 
President, The Fund for 
Adult Education 

WALTER GIFFORD 
Honorary Chairman 
American Telephone if Telegraph Co. 

MRS. DOUGLAS HORTON 

Former President, Wellesley College 
Former Director of the WA VES 

ARTHUR A. HOUGHTON, JR. 

President, Steuben Glass, Inc. 

WALTER LIPI'MANN 
Author and. Journalist 



RALPH E. McGILL 

Editor, The Atlanta Constitution 

PAUL MELLON 

President, Old Dominion Foundation 

WALTER P. PAEPCKE 
Chairman of the Board 
Container Corporation of America 



Offu 



cers 



CLARENCE H. FAUST 
Presiden i 

ALVIN C. EURICH 
Vice President 

PHILIP H. COOMBS 

Secretary and Director of Research 

JOHN K. WEISS 

Assistant Vice President and Treasurer 



Executive Staff 

JONATHAN KING 

Staff Associate 

ARNOLD J. KUESEL 
Assistant Treasurer 

ELIZABETH PASCHAL 
Assistant to the President. 

JOHN J. SCANLON 
Deputy Director of Research 



W3#'it? 



\j 



TALENT, EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY 



A Foreword 

There is currently a tremendous upsurge of concern throughout 
the country over our future supply of what is variously termed 
"high ability manpower," "specialized talent," or "leadership." 
Our rapid economic growth and technological advance, coupled 
with new opportunities and grave perils we face internationally, 
have sharpened our awareness of how heavily this Nation's fu- 
ture progress and security depends upon competent and creative 
individuals. 

The issue has been dramatized by the shortage of scientists and 
engineers, but investigations reveal that this deficiency is merely 
part of a general shortage of specialized talent which affects vir- 
tually every aspect of society. This over-all shortage results not 
from a decline in supply but from a tremendous growth of 
demand. A static or declining society would not have the problem, 
; but in our own dynamic society it must be assumed that the 
V demand for talent will continue to outstrip the supply. We will 
;.. need more of every kind, not merely more nuclear physicists and 
I engineers, but more first-rate biologists and doctors, teachers and 

politicians, economists and ministers, poets and philosophers. 
| Fortunately there is great opportunity to expand our future 
I, supply of well-developed talent, first, because our youth pop- 
ulation has grown tremendously and, second, because we are 
presently wasting a vast amount of potential talent. Despite the 
great strides made by American education over the last 50 years, 
we are still far short of the goal of enabling and encouraging every 
young person to develop to his full potential. The resulting waste 
of rich human resources is enormous and is deeply rooted in our 
educational system, right clown to the earliest grades. We must 

m 



therefore attack the long-run problems oj talent supply primarily 
through our schools and colleges. 

The aim, it is important to remember, is to attack the problem, 
not the schools and colleges. The central issue is not whether these 
institutions are doing as good a job as they used to do toward 
developing the abilities of our youth; there is good reason to 
believe that on the whole they are doing better. The real question 
is whether they are doing enough better, whether they are keeping 
pace with our mounting needs, and the blunt answer is that they 
are not. 

To do a better job our schools and colleges will need greater 
support, but they will need also to make many changes in their 
present methods of operation. The most critical requirement, of 
course, is to attract into teaching enough of the Nation's finest 
quality manpower, for it takes talent to produce talent. Of par- 
ticular concern to this report, however, are those changes in 
educational procedures which will enable and encourage each 
individual student to pursue his education with maximum effi- 
ciency and effectiveness. 

The importance of accommodating the individual differences 
of young people of similar age is widely recognized, yet many of 
our conventional academic arrangements inhibit the nurturing 
of these individual talents and capacities. The reasons are under- 
standable. Over the years we have developed the "grade system" 
as a convenient administrative device for handling the "traffic 
management problem" of our schools. Each child begins at age 
six and moves forward one grade each year until he emerges from 
high school 1 2 years later. Then he may march through four years 
of college, still in step with his chronological peers. This solution 
to the problem of educational logistics has many administrative 
advantages, but pressed toward its logical extreme it defeats our 
efforts to serve the individual capacities of children. At its worst 
it has become a chronological lock step which in practice, if not 
in theory, treats students of similar age as if they were all alike 
[vi] 



instead of all different. The most serious victims— the most handi- 
capped students under this lock step arrangement— turn out to 
be our ablest youngsters for whom the pace is too slow and the 
academic diet too thin. 

Having developed these arrangements as a matter of conven- 
ience, we have proceeded to justify and defend them on high 
grounds of theory and principle. There are those who argue that 
it is psychologically unsound and politically undemocratic for one 
child to proceed faster or to have a richer academic diet than 
another. Warnings are sounded against the "risks" involved in 
proposed changes designed to make educational procedures more 
flexible and more adaptable to the differing needs and abilities of 
students. To be sure, there are risks in any new ways, until they 
have been tested. But what is too often ignored is the greatest risk 
of all— the risk of adhering stubbornly to a clearly imperfect set of 
practices which are frustrating the development of young talent 
at a time in history when this nation urgently needs to develop its 
human resources to the full. A democracy, more than any other 
system, requires an abundant supply and wide diffusion of talent 
and leadership if it is to survive and prosper. 

Greater attention to the educational needs of the ablest students 
is an effective way to improve education for all young people. The 
typical experience of a school or college which sets out to provide 
better opportunities for its ablest students is to discover far more 
submerged ability than was suspected and to upgrade the tone 
and performance of the entire institution. 

The Program for Early Admission to College discussed in this 
report represents one possible approach to making our schools 
and colleges more flexible and more effective in developing the 
diversified abilities of young people. It should not, of course, be 
regarded as the only approach. There are other promising ones 
and they too must be pursued. 

After five years of supporting and observing the Early Admis- 
sion Program, the board members and officers of The Fund for 

[vii] 



the Advancement of Education are satisfied that it has produced 
lessons from which American education can profit. It matters little 
what the Fund's appraisal is, however; the verdict which counts 
must be rendered by the practicing educators, the parents, and all 
others concerned with improving education. It is to help them m 
reaching this verdict that the present report is offered. 

PHILIP H. COOMBS 

Secretary and Director of Research 

The Fund for the Advancement of Education 



[viii] 



CONTENTS 



PAG E 

FOREWORD: TALENT, EDUCATION AND DEMOCRACY v 

THE EXPERIMENT TO DATE 1 

THE COLLEGES, THE SCHOLARS AND THE 

COMPARISON STUDENTS 11 

THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF THE SCHOLARS 22 

THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT 

OF THE SCHOLARS 36 

A SUMMING UP 60 

APPENDIX 

I Number of Scholars and Comparison Students 

by College and Year of Entrance 92 

II Distribution of Scholars by Home State 93 

III What the Scholars Were Like 94,. 

IV Academic Preparation of Scholars and Comparison Students 96 
V Academic Performance of Scholars and Comparison Students 98 

VI Adjustment of the Scholars and Comparison Students 108 

VII Plans for Graduate Study 114 

VIII Intended Field of Specialization in Graduate 

or Professional School 116 

i 

i 

p 
e 



THE EXPERIMENT TO DATE 



In the fall of 1951, eleven American colleges and universities 
opened their doors to 420 freshmen who differed from the average 
college freshman in two striking respects: they were roughly two 
years younger and only a few of them had finished high school. 

These "Early Admission" students were the pioneers in an 
experiment financed by The Fund for the Advancement of 
Education to determine the wisdom and feasibility of allowing 
carefully selected students of high academic promise to break out 
of the educational "lock step" and complete their schooling at 
their own best pace. 

THE PROBLEM TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED 

The experiment was one of a combination of five projects 
supported by the Fund as part of a broad-scale attack on two 
closely related weaknesses in the American educational system 
which tend to impair quality and impose waste. The first is a 
lack of sufficient flexibility to accommodate the wide differences 
in ability, interests, and maturity that prevail among young 
people of similar age. The second is a lack of continuity in the 
various stages of the educational process, which too often leaves 
gaps in a student's education or forces him to repeat work he has 
already done well. 

Although these weaknesses occur throughout our educational 
structure, they are most prominent and perhaps most serious in 
the four-year period comprising the eleventh through the four- 
teenth grades, including the troublesome transition from school 
to college. They affect the education of all students to some ex- 

[•1 



tent, but they bear with particular force upon the able student. 
Too often the able student is prevented by the "lock step" from 
progressing as far or as fast as his abilities will permit. Too fre- 
quently the result is boredom, loss of momentum, and serious 
waste of time in moving toward intellectual and professional 
objectives. Many able students, marking time in an unchalleng- 
ing high school environment, lose interest in education and do 
not go on to college. Two kinds of waste often occur at the college 
level. On the one hand, the student from a poor high school fre- 
quently must spend most of freshman year closing the gaps in 
his prior preparation, while the well-prepared student often finds 
it necessary to repeat in college work that he has already done 
successfully in high school. 

The net effect of these two weaknesses in the American educa- 
tional system is a waste of what has rightly been called America's 
most precious resource-the potential talent of its ablest youth. 

FIVE ATTACKS ON THE PROBLEM 

With these considerations in mind, The Fund for the Advance- S 
ment of Education has supported a combination of five experH 
ments which have attacked this common problem from different? 

directions. 

One of these projects involved a joint effort by several school" 

and college people to seek out the present weaknesses in curricu- '. 

lar arrangements for the eleventh through the fourteenth grades J 

and to devise alternative arrangements that would ease the transi-J 

tion from school to college by treating the last two years of. 

secondary school and the first two years of college as a continuous ■ 

process, conceived as a whole. This study was a joint undertak-j 

ing by faculty members of three preparatory schools-Andover,} 

Exeter, and Lawrenceville-and three universities which receive 

many of their students from these schools-Harvard, Yale, andj 

Princeton. It culminated in a challenging report, entitled 

General Education in School and College (Harvard University. 

Press, 1952) which not only pinpointed the weaknesses in the 



current pattern of articulation between school and college, but 
went on to suggest new curricular arrangements under which an 
able student could complete the eight conventional years of high 
school and college in seven years. This report has become a useful 
source of ideas for curriculum reform at the high school and 
college level. 

A second project, which stemmed in part from the findings of 
the report mentioned above, has come to be known as the Atlanta 
Experiment in Articulation and Enrichment in School and Col- 
lege. This is a co-operative enterprise undertaken by four insti- 
tutions in the Atlanta area— Agnes Scott College, Emory Univer- 
sity, Oglethorpe University, and the Westminster Schools. Its 
purpose is to demonstrate that the able student is capable of 
absorbing a much more mature program of studies than he 
usually receives in his last two years of secondary school and his 
first two years of college. The emphasis is on enrichment, and 
courses of a more advanced nature than usual are being worked 
out for each grade level, with a view to planning the four-year 
sequence as one continuous whole, in which there is steady in- 
. tellectual growth and no time wasted on repetition. Begun in 
1953-54, the program is now in its third year and the first group 
of students to enter at tire eleventh-grade level are now in college. 
A recent supplemental grant by the Fund has made it possible to 
include an Atlanta public high school in the experiment and to 
extend the college phase to the academic year 1 960-6 1. 1 

A third project, begun in 1952, involves the collaboration of 
the public school system of Portland, Oregon, and faculty mem- 
bers of Reed College in a city-wide program designed to identify 
exceptionally endowed students early in their academic career 
and to enrich their educational opportunities. One feature of the 
Portland project is its broad definition of "giftedness" and its 
concern not only for exceptional intellectual ability but also for 
creative talent in art, music, mechanics, writing, dramatics, and 

1 Further information about the Atlanta experiment can be obtained by writing to 
The President, The Westminster Schools, 3210 Howell Mill Road, N.W., Atlanta, Ga. 

[3] 



leadership. It involves a co-operative arrangement with Reed 
College in the training of teachers tor work with students of 
exceptional ability, and in providing faculty members to work 
directly with such students in high school seminars. The main | 
emphasis has been on developing a sound, practical program for I 
gifted children which can be incorporated into the regular cur- t 
riculum of the school system and supported by the taxpayers of | 
the school district. The results to date indicate that the experi- I 
ment has amply confirmed the hopes of its founders. Nearly all 
of the high school students who participated in the program have g 
gone on to college, and report, for example, that their high I 
school seminars, by providing enriched educational fare and by I 
emphasizing independent study, have been of great value in pre- I 
paring them for the intellectual rigors of college. During the | 
present school year, more than 2,000 gifted students in 21 ele- I 
mentary and high schools are receiving an enriched educational 
experience under the program. The level of financial support 
from the Fund has tapered off to the point where the Portland 
school district is now paying most of the costs out of its regular 
budget, and will assume the full expense after the current school 

year. 1 

The fourth project, originally called the School and College 
Study of Admission with Advanced Standing, has sought to en- 
rich and accelerate general education in the eleventh through the 
fourteenth grades by providing able students the equivalent of 
college-grade work in high school, thus enabling them to "leap 
frog" some of the early work in college. Begun in 1951 as a co- 
operative venture involving 1 2 colleges and 1 2 secondary schools, 
the program has grown steadily. In 1955, the College Entrance 
- Examination Board assumed responsibility for the program (now j 
known as the Advanced Placement Program), and opened it up '. 
to participation by individual students in high schools through--; 

1 Further information about the Portland project can be obtained from The Direc- . 
tor, Gifted Child Project, Portland Public Schools, 631 Northeast Clackamas Street,'; 
Portland 8, Oregon. 

[4] I 



out the country. The examinations are now open to any able 
high school student, wherever he may be and whether he achieved 
his knowledge through his own efforts, through tutorial assist- 
ance, or by taking special courses. Advanced courses covered by 
the program are in 12 fields: English Composition, Literature, 
French, German, Latin, Spanish, American History, European 
History, Mathematics, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics. In 1956, 
a total of 1,229 students from no secondary schools throughout 
the country took 2,199 examinations and entered 138 colleges in 
September. (Nearly half of these students are enrolled at five 
Eastern colleges— 172 at Harvard, 143 at Yale, 8g at Princeton, 
60 at Cornell, and 50 at m.i.t.) A recent check of 4,000 high 
schools by the ceeb indicated that there will be a further in- 
crease in the number of candidates for the examinations in the 
spring of 1957. ! 

The Program for Early Admission to College, with which this 
report is concerned, represents a somewhat different approach 
to the problem of saving the able student's time and enriching 
the quality of his education. It has the same basic aim as the Ad- 
vanced Placement Program, but it recognizes that many Ameri- 
can high schools are not equipped to offer their ablest students 
college-level work, and that even in high schools that are so 
equipped, some students who have demonstrated a capacity for 
college work can profit more by entering college earlier than 
usual than by remaining in high school. 2 
I 

ORIGIN AND AIMS OF THE EARLY 

ADMISSION PROGRAM 

The Program for Early Admission to College originated in 
1951 as a pre-induction experiment by four universities— Chi- 



t 



ft 



it 



,5 

i ■;,■ 



1 Further information about the Advanced Placement Program can be obtained 
from The Director, Advanced Placement Program, College Entrance Examination 
Board, 425 West 117th Street, New York 27, New York. 

2 A preliminary report entitled Bridging the Gap Between School and College, 
covering four of the projects discussed above, was published in 1953. Copies can be 
obtained without charge from The Fund for the Advancement of Education. 

[5] 



cago, Columbia, Wisconsin, and Yale-who at that time weie 
concerned about the problems raised for education by the mili- 
tary manpower demands arising out of the conflict in Korea. It 
then appeared that for an indefinite period ahead the general 
education of many young men would be interrupted by the re- 
quirement of military service at or soon after the age of 18. In 
the spring of 1951, the four universities requested support for 
an experiment designed to allow able young men to complete 
two years of general education in college before being called up 
for military service. This was to be accomplished by admitting 
them to college before they had completed high school. 

The grant was made, and its announcement immediately 
evoked widespread interest among other colleges, not simply in 
trying this approach to the educational problems created by the 
military draft but in experimenting with the broader idea of 
accelerating the education of young people who, although they 
had not yet completed high school, seemed ready, both aca- 
demically and in terms of personal maturity, to enter college. 
Accordingly, the program was expanded to include seven other 
colleges and universities-Fisk, Goucher, Lafayette, Louisville, 
Oberlin, Shimer, and Utah. A twelfth participant, Morehouse, 
joined the program in 1952. This expansion, and the subsequent 
liberalization of the military draft regulations to permit college 
students with good academic grades to complete college before 
being drafted, soon broadened the cluster of projects into a- 
large-scale experiment in early admission to college. 

As originally conceived, the program was to provide scholar- 
ship aid for two groups of Early Admission Scholars during their 
freshman and sophomore years. In 1951, the participating in- 
stitutions received grants totaling 13,118,400 for this purpose. 
Early in 1953, however, additional grants totaling $1,310,645 
were made to the participating institutions to enable them to 
renew the scholarships of the first two groups of Scholars on the 
basis of need and academic performance and to admit two new 
but smaller groups of Scholars with partial scholarship assist- 



i 



! 



ance. 1 The following table shows the total number of Scholars 
admitted by the 12 institutions. 



NUMBER OF SCHOLARS 


BY COLLEGE 


AND YEAR OF ENTRANCE 


COLLEGE 


I 951 


1952 


1953 


1954 


TOTAL 


CHICAGO 


60 


54 


23 


21 


158 


COLUMBIA 


51 


46 


24 


22 


143 


FISK. 


28 


36 


31 


27 


122 


GOUCHER 


19 


22 


15 


17 


73 


LAFAYETTE 


30 


23 


14 





67 


LOUISVILLE 


29 


29 


19 


20 


97 


MOREHOUSE 





29 


28 


24 


81 


OBERLIN 


25 


29 


17 


16 


87 


SHIMER 


34 


32 


29 


30 


125 


UTAH 


40 


45 


38 


30 


153 


WISCONSIN 


52 


48 


13 


26 


139 


YALE 


52 


47 


3 


3 


105 


TOTAL 


420 


440 


254 


236 


1,350 



11 

r ' 

The first two groups of Scholars— those who entered jn 1951 
y-.. and in 1952— have completed their undergraduate work, so it is 

1 There were three exceptions to the general practice: 

Yale admitted only three Scholars in 1953 and in 1954 because it found that the 
number of qualified applicants for regular admission far exceeded the number 
that could be accommodated and hence felt it would not be wise to reserve a size- 
able number of places for Early Admission Scholars. 

The grant to Lafayette provided scholarship aid for the Scholars admitted in 
1951, 1952, and 1953. Lafayette admitted a fourth group in 1954, but since these 
students did not receive financial aid from the Fund they were not counted as 
Fund Scholars. 

Wisconsin, having been unable to fill its 1953 Scholar group, was authorized to 
give scholarship aid out of the Fund grant to 23 Early Admission students ad- 
mitted in 1955. 

[7] 



now possible to appraise their four-year college experience, both 
in terms of their academic performance and in terms of their 
social and emotional adjustment to college life. This report, ; j$ 
therefore, will focus principally on the experience of the first 
two Scholar groups, but it will also touch upon the experience 
to date of the two Scholar groups still in college. 

HOW THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN EVALUATED 

Through the co-operation of the participating colleges and the 
Educational Testing Service of Princeton, New Jersey, a plan 
for evaluating the Early Admission Program was worked out in 
the fall of 1952. Under this plan, the colleges have kept detailed 
recoids on the Scholars and have compared their performance 
with that of a carefully selected group of Comparison students 
matched with the Scholars on the basis of academic aptitude. 
In addition, the Scholars themselves have completed question- 
naires calling for 34 items of information about their family and 
school backgrounds, their experience in college, and their plans 
for the future. The considerable body of data emanating from 
these two sources has been compiled and analyzed by the Edu- 
cational Testing Service. 

Finally, in preparation for this report, each of the participating 
colleges reported to the Fund on its own experience under the 
program, and two independent evaluations were made by well- 
qualified professional people who had no connection with the 
Fund or with the experiment. The first was an appraisal of the 
social and emotional adjustment of the 1951 Scholars, made by 
a team of trained psychiatrists headed by Dr. Dana Farnsworth, 
Director of University Health Services at Flarvard University, 
and including as its other members Dr. Daniel H. Funkenstein 
of the Department of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, 
and Dr. Bryant Wedge of the Department of Student Health at 
Yale University. The second was an analysis by Richard Pearson, 
Associate Director of the College Entrance Examination Board] 
of essays written just before graduation by 1951 and 1952 Schol- 

[8] 



i f 



ars and Comparison students on their foui--year college experi- 
ences and their views about early admission. 1 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS TO DATE 

Final evaluation of the Early Admission Program will have to 
wait until the Scholars still in college have graduated, but the 
results to date clearly indicate that under the proper circum- 
stances early admission to college represents a promising ap- 
proach to the problem of freeing the able student from the 
"lock step" and helping him to realize his full potential. That 
there are risks involved was recognized at the outset of the experi- 
ment, but the evidence gathered thus far suggests that these risks 
are not as great as might be expected and that the rewards to 
those who succeed can be very great. The results to date can be 
summarized as follows: 

1. Although the program has operated more smoothly at some 
colleges than at others, all of the participating colleges consider 
it to have been successful. 

2. In a few cases, some of the colleges made mistakes in the 
selection of their first group of Scholars, and some were over- 
protective in their handling of the Scholars during the first year 
of the experiment, but by and large these difficulties were over- 
come in the selection and handling of subsequent Scholar groups. 

3. Academically, all four groups of Scholars have outper- 
formed their classes as a whole and their Comparison students. 

4. The rate of failure among the first two groups of Scholars 
was somewhat higher than that among their Comparison stu- 
dents, but at most of the colleges where comparable data were 
available it was lower than that among their classmates as a 
whole. When the reasons for failure were examined, they were 
found to be no different for the Scholars than for college students 
in general. 

5. The Scholars encountered more initial difficulties in adjust- 

1 Multilithed copies o£ the Farnsworth and Pearson reports can be obtained from 
The Fund for the Advancement of Education without cost. 

[9] 



ing to campus life than their older Comparison students, but 
most of these difficulties were minor and were soon overcome. 

6. There is some evidence that in many cases early admission 
to college freed Scholars from the boredom and frustration of an 
unchallenging high school environment, gave them new intel- 
lectual momentum, and enhanced their social and emotional 
maturation. 

7. Among the first two groups of Scholars who graduated, the 
proportion planning to go on to graduate school was substantially 
higher than that among their Comparison students. 
,. 8. Although the period of Fund support has ended, 1 1 of the 
12 participating colleges and universities have incorporated the 
early admission idea into their regular admissions policy. The 
twelfth, Wisconsin, which has three Scholar groups still to grad- 
uate, has not yet taken any action on the matter. 

g. In all but a few cases where such data are available, the 
parents of the Scholars and the principals of the high schools 
from which they came have expressed themselves as favorably 
disposed toward the results of the experiment. 

10. The evidence gathered thus far clearly suggests that high 
academic aptitude and the ability to handle the responsibilities 
of college life are the sine qua non of early admission, and that r 
colleges should not be overprotective in the handling of early ; 
admission students. 



[10] 



THE COLLEGES,THE SCHOLARS 
AND THE COMPARISON STUDENTS 



The "laboratory" in which the Early Admission experiment 
has been conducted consists of a diverse group of institutions of 
higher learning. They range in size from a large university such 
as Wisconsin (registration: 17,800), where the Scholars repre- 
I sented only a tiny fraction of each entering class, down to the 

small college of Shinier, where the student body numbers less 
than 150 and the Scholars were almost as numerous as their 
classmates. Three of the institutions-Chicago, Louisville, and 
Shinier-had done considerable previous experimenting with the 
admission of young students who had not finished high school. 
For the remaining nine institutions, a policy of early admission 

was new. 

One of the participating colleges-Goucher-is restricted to 
women, and four-Columbia, Lafayette, Morehouse, and Yale-r 
are restricted to men. The rest are co -educational. Two institu 
tions-Fisk and Morehouse-have traditionally been attended b 
Negro students. As for control, two of the largest universities- 
Wisconsin and Utah— are state-operated, and another— Louis 
ville— is municipal, while the remaining nine institutions ar 
privately supported. 

While this diversity among the participating institutions ha 
not simplified the task of over-all interpretation of results, it ha 
meant that the Early Admission experiment has been conducted 
under conditions fairly representative of American higher edu 
cation as a whole. 

[11] 



HOW THE SCHOLARS WERE CHOSEN 






The students who were awarded Fund scholarships under the 
program were not selected by the Fund itself, but by the indi- 
vidual colleges and universities. In general, each institution em- 
ployed its own usual procedures in admitting Scholars, but some 
used special recruiting efforts and screened candidates for Early 
Admission more carefully than candidates for regular admission. 

The Scholars were selected above all for their high academic 
promise. Admissions officers based their judgment of this on the f 
applicants' high school records and their scores on scholastic I 
aptitude tests, coupled in most cases with achievement tests. Ex- j 
cept in the case of Shimer, no applicant was accepted unless his \ 
aptitude score was higher than the customary minimum for en- | 
tering students. Shimer tried an experimental procedure of ad- "i 
mitting Scholars with a wide range of aptitudes, including some [ 
of average and below-average capacity. \ 

The choice of Scholars was not guided solely by the considera- i 
tion of high scholastic aptitude. Admissions officers generally at- f 
tempted a more careful appraisal of the applicants' social and 
emotional maturity than is customary with ordinary applicants, 
in recognition of the fact that not every young high school stu- 
dent of unusual intellectual endowment is ready to handle the 
greater freedom of college wisely. Many institutions insisted 
on personal interviews with the Scholar candidates. All relied 
heavily on the judgments of high school principals where such 
judgments were available. One college found the students' ap- 
plication letters revealing. Another requested and studied auto- 
biographical sketches. 

In cases where the academic promise and emotional maturity 
of candidates were considered roughly equal, the choice was in- 
fluenced by other factors, some quite unrelated to the intent of 
the program itself but important to the institution. Most of the 
colleges, for example, sought greater geographical and socio- 
economic diversity than usually exists among their entering fresh- 

[12] 



men. Most institutions also favored the candidate of greater 
financial need. Most favored the public high school student over 
the private preparatory school student. A few colleges, seeking to 
avoid selecting scholars who would be "conspicuous oddities" 
on their campuses, favored candidates who looked older than 

their age. 

The selection of the pioneer group of 1951 Scholars was made 
under a dual handicap which was not present in subsequent years. 
To begin with, the original grants were made in the late spring 
and ea°rly summer of 1951, which allowed the participating in- 
stitutions much less time for selecting the Scholars than they 
I were accustomed to have for selecting entering freshmen. At 
Yale, for example, the personal interview is a significant aspect 
of admission policy, and more than 80 per cent of all candidates 
j- for admission are interviewed by alumni or members of the ad- 
missions office. But in the case of the 1951 Scholars, it was pos- 
sible to interview only a handful of the applicants. One result of 
this was a relatively heavy loss of Scholars during the first year 
because of adjustment difficulties. Several other colleges noted 
in their reports to the Fund that they too had less time than they 
would have liked in selecting their first group of Scholars. 

A second factor which made selection of the 1951 Scholars 

more difficult than the selection of subsequent groups was the 

inexperience of most of the colleges in recruiting such students 

and in gauging their social and emotional readiness for college 

This is far more difficult to measure than academic readiness 

and techniques of appraisal had to be learned. 

In general, subsequent groups of Scholars were much mor 
skillfully chosen than the 1951 group. The colleges and univer 
sities, benefiting from experience, refined their techniques cor 
siderably as the program continued. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SCHOLARS 
Not long after the program was launched, the campus humot 
magazine at one college poked fun at the early admission exper 

[13] 



ti 



r. 
I 
v 

: 

: 



ment by running an interview with a mythical Scholar named 
"Percival Suckthumb, aged 9, senior major in atomic physics." 
The college observed in its report to the Fund that the author- 
ship was shrouded in mystery but that the article may well have 
been written by one of the Scholars. The case seems worth citing, 
not as an indication of the general collegiate attitude, but be- 
cause the caricature is perhaps not far removed from the concept 
of the Scholars held by some people who have had no first-hand 
experience with them. 

What were the Fund Scholars really like? From what kind of 
families, high schools, and community backgrounds did they Si 
come? While it is as impossible to produce a truly typical Scholar | 
as it is to produce a truly typical college student, Chart I (pages *' 
16 and 17) affords as clear a composite portrait of the Fund | 
Scholar as it is possible to present. It is based on statistics for the I; 
four combined Scholar groups. | 

As the chart indicates, the Scholars were not "infant prodigies" h 
or "baby geniuses," but merely students who happened to be [• 
relatively younger and relatively more promising intellectually 
than ordinary students. Most of them were 16 years old or 
younger, and only a small minority had completed 12 years of 
schooling before entering college. The majority came from large | 
cities or suburbs, but roughly 10 per cent came from small towns : 
and another 10 per cent from rural areas. By and large, they 
were the products of public schools, and most of them were from 
middle-income families whose breadwinner was either in busi- 
ness or one of the professions. 

THE COMPARISON STUDENTS 

Because the Scholars as a whole were considerably above l 
average in scholastic aptitude, it was important to compare their 
progress in college not only with that of their classmates in gen- 
eral but also with that of a group of carefully selected "matching" 
students of comparable aptitude. This was done at all of the 
colleges except Shimer, where, as has already been pointed out, 

[>4] 



I 



I 



the Scholars had a wide range of aptitude scores and were almost 
as numerous as their classmates. 

These Comparison students differed from the Scholars in two 
important respects-they were about two years older, and they 
had completed high school. They were matched with the Scholars 
on the basis of aptitude scores. Some of the colleges used the 
College Board Scholastic Aptitude test for this purpose, others 
used the American Council on Education Psychological Exami- 
nation, and still others used these "yardsticks" in combination. 
In general, the Scholars and Comparisons were about equal on 
these various measures of aptitude; where there were small differ- 
ences in mean scores, they tended to be in favor of the Scholars. 
Some of the colleges made an effort to apply other factors- 
such as family background, type and location of home com- 
munity, and amount of scholarship aid, in doing the matching. 
Most of the Comparison students were aware of their role in the 
experiment, and some displayed a lively interest in it. 

HOW THE COLLEGES HANDLED THE SCHOLARS 

Most of the colleges and universities participating in the pro- 
gram have made it a point to give Scholars the same academic 
treatment as other entering freshmen. The heavy emphasis in 
the freshman and sophomore years has been on a liberal or gen^ 
eral education. In most institutions-with Goucher and Oberlir 
as notable exceptions-the Scholars, along with other entering 
students, have been allowed relatively little choice as to curricu 
lum in the first two years. Typically, they have entered prescribed 
courses in the social sciences, natural sciences, mathematics, anc 
humanities, often with a foreign language as well. 

In six institutions-Columbia, Chicago, Goucher, Louisville 
Oberlin, and Shimer-academic arrangements for the Scholar 
have not differed in any respect from those for other students 
The same has been generally true at Lafayette, although engi 
neering Scholars at this college have been given a special in 

[i5] 



CHART I 

WHAT THE SCHOLARS WERE LIKE* 



SEX 

MALE »«M»»M»My»M«MMMMMMM«> 75.9% 
FEMALE IMMIMM MlMi 24.1% 



AGE AT ENTRANCE 



UNDER 16 m I— ill Ill mill— 29.3% 

17 AMD OVF.lt m» ■■■ i 14.3% 



YEARS OF SCHOOLING COMPLETED 

10 ■■-- III1IMI.II.III i ■ i " "% 

11 .1 ■■!■ .1 l.l.l|ll„lll|,||,.| „■ n.i. .. 51.0% 

12 mnu 7.1% 



SCHOLASTIC APTITUDE 

Total Score on ACE Psychological Examination: 
(865 Scholars at 9 Colleges) 

170-199 « 2.6% 

140-169 «— — — m 30.4% 

110-139 i ii 43.67 

g0-109 .■■■■■i — n«w 21.6% 

50- 79 - 1.8% 



LARGE CITY 

(over 100,000) 

SUBURB OF 
LARGE CITY 

MEDIUM SIZE CITY 

(10,000-100,000) 

SMALL TOWN 

(2,500-10,000) 

RURAL AREA 

(under 2,500) 



SIZE OF HOME COMMUNITY 
— — 18.2% 



' 10.4% 
10.0% 



I 



f 



CHART I 

WHAT THE SCHOLARS WERE LIKE* 



TYPE OF SECONDARY SCHOOL ATTENDED 



CITV PUBLIC ■iihiiiiwiiii limn 

SUBURBAN PUBLIC B— o«— 1 1 . 1 % 

RURAL PUBLIC M— 6.5% 

PRIVATE ira— 9.2% 



SIZE OF SENIOR CLASS AT SECONDARY SCHOOL 
I 

500 or over ■ i m i " ■' ■ 26.3% 



200-499 — .ami-ii-s a™— 31.1% 



100-199 ———1(5.8% 
50-99 i«-i«i«m13.I% 
under 50 -.—■"Ml 12.7% 



FAMILY INCOME 



UNDER $2,000 — 3.5% 

$2,000-4,999 — ■■»■■■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■ 30.5% 

$5,000-8,999 ■—— '■"■ 41.6% 

|9,000 or over ■ ■■— "" 24.4% 



OCCUPATION OF BRE ADW I N NING PARENT 

PROFESSIONAL — li m n iiiimw — ■w i im i 38-1% 

BUSINESS — I —M l - ■ '"'■ 32.5% 

GOVERNMENT rntmi 5.1% 

LABORER 1WIIM — 22.0% 

FARMER M 2.3% 



' Percentages exclude Scholars for whom no dala were available. 



Tl7l 



tegrated course in Mathematics and Physics designed in part to 
compensate for what they had missed in high school. 

At some institutions special academic arrangements were or- 
ganized for the Scholars in order to provide them with a richer I 
educational experience than the regular curriculum allowed. I 
At Yale, for example, the Scholars were required to enter a pro- i 
gram of Directed Studies— which had begun as an experiment in I 
1945— along with roughly two-thirds as many regular students. 

A similar policy was set at Wisconsin as the program was 
launched. Three-fifths of the Scholars were required to enter an 
integrated Liberal Studies program, and the others were assigned i 
more work in humanities and social studies than regular students, 
Special handling also occurred at Utah. New courses in history, 
philosophy, and mathematics were organized for the Scholars ! 
at this university and special advanced sections of other courses 
were reserved exclusively for them. 

Only Yale continued these special arrangements unchanged. : 
At Wisconsin and Utah, experience led to their abandonment j.' 
or modification. This change occurred partly as a result of strong \ 
Scholar protests against being set apart from other students. 

Fisk was the only institution to segregate its Scholars com- 
pletely in terms of academic arrangements, but this policy too 
has been revised. When the program began, all Scholars (and only 
Scholars) were enrolled in a newly established "Basic College" 
with an entirely separate faculty. This new "College" had been 
planned for some time, and was put into operation a year ahead 
of schedule, with a richer curriculum and higher standards than 
the regular college. After the first year several of its courses were 
opened to all freshmen. 

While most of the participating institutions offer at least a 
limited opportunity for the academic acceleration of their stu- 
dents, few have genuine "acceleration" systems. Chicago and [■ 
Shimer, the notable exceptions, have a highly flexible policy. : 
They have for many years not only admitted students early, but 
also permitted wide differences in their rate of progress through 

[18] 



i 



college. The other colleges and universities maintain curricula 
organized on the conventional premise that virtually every stu- 
dent should spend four years acquiring a minimum quota of 
course credits to earn a bachelor's degree. 

In the non-academic aspects of college life, the majority of the 
colleges have treated the Scholars exactly like other students. 
They have permitted and encouraged the Scholars to participate 
in extra-curricular activities. On most campuses, the Scholars 
have been subject to the same regulations as other freshmen, 
though because of their age they have been generally discouraged 
or prohibited from joining fraternities during the freshman or 
sophomore year. 

There were some colleges, however, where special social ar- 
rangements were made for the Scholars during the first year of 
the experiment. At Fisk, for example, it was decided to assign the 
first group of Scholars to separate dormitories in which they were 
required to take their evening meal apart from other students, 
and their social activities were strictly supervised. At Yale, the 
1951 Scholars were assigned to dormitories as a group, and other 
special provisions were made to set them apart from the student 
body as a whole. At Columbia, Oberlin, and Goucher, the 1951 
Scholars were required to room together. At Columbia, they 
l were required to live on the campus, without the usual student 
right to commute from other living quarters. 

This solicitude, the faculties soon recognized, was not unlike 
that of parents with their first infant, resulting in the same 
anxious overprotection. The situation was well illustrated at 
one college where an all-Scholar dormitory was nicknamed "The 
Nursery." It was soon recognized that these special arrangements, 
like those in the academic sphere, had been unwise, and they 
too were in almost all cases withdrawn. The colleges, like parents 
with their later children, have been a great deal more relaxed in 
their handling of subsequent Scholar groups. 
' While academic counseling has been available at all institu- 

tions, provision for trained guidance on personal and social prob- 

[19] 



lems has been less common. At a majority of the institutions 
Scholars have shared counseling services available to all students. 
A few colleges assigned special counselors to the Scholars. At 
least one of these, however, withdrew this service after the first 
year on the grounds that the program should "stand on its own 
feet." 

THE ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF THE 
SCHOLARS AND COMPARISONS 

During their first year of college, all four groups of Scholars 
and Comparison students were asked to list fields of study in 
which they felt handicapped by faulty or insufficient preparation 
in secondary school. A substantial proportion of all four groups 
of Scholars (ranging from 42 per cent to 54 per cent) reported 
no handicaps at all, despite the fact that most of them had not 
finished high school. On the other hand, a surprising proportion 
of the Comparison students (ranging from 4.0 per cent to 60 per 
cent) reported handicaps in one or more fields, despite the fact t 
that they had entered college with four years of high school 
preparation. This is striking evidence of the unevenness of sec- 
ondary school preparation in the United States and of the wide 
range in ability among high school students. 

The 1951 and 1953 Scholars tended to report slightly more 
academic handicaps than their Comparison students, but in the 
case of the 1953 and 1954 groups, the proportion reporting 
handicaps was about the same for the Scholars as for the Com- j 
paiison students. Mathematics and English Composition were I 
the fields most frequently listed by Scholars and Comparison | 
students alike in reporting handicaps due to faulty or insufficient | 
preparation. (See Appendix Table IV, A.) 

According to the judgment of the colleges, most of the Scholars 
and Comparison students had overcome their handicaps by the 
end of sophomore year. The proportion judged to have no gaps 
or omissions in their preparation still remaining at the end of 
sophomore year ranged from 88 per cent to 93 per cent among 



the Scholars, and from 85 to 97 per cent among the Comparison 
students. (See Appendix Table IV, B.) These figures would 
indicate that in the judgment of the colleges, the Comparison 
students were slightly more successful than the Scholars in over- 
coming the deficiencies in their academic preparation, and that 
the overwhelming majority of both had succeeded in doing so. 

A more subjective report on the matter of overcoming de- 
ficiencies in previous preparation was contained in the essays 
written by the 1951 and 1952 senior Scholars and Comparison 
students just before graduation. Both groups were asked, in look- 
ing back over their four-year college experience, if they had been 
handicapped by any deficiencies in their academic preparation 
for college. The answers tended to confirm what these same stu- 
dents had reported during their first year of college. Sixty-five 
percent of the 1951 Scholars and 56 per cent of the 1952 Scholars 
reported handicaps in one or more fields, as against 52 per cent 
of the 1951 Comparison students and 60 per cent of the 1952 
Comparison students. Then they were asked if they had been 
able to overcome their handicaps. Their replies tended to con- 
firm what the colleges had reported. Ninety-two per cent of the 
1951 Scholars and 93 per cent of the 1952 Scholars said they had 
overcome their handicaps in whole or in part, as against 90 per 
cent of the 1951 Comparison students and 95 per cent of the 1952 
Comparison students. 

Richard Pearson of the College Entrance Examination Board 
who analyzed the essays of the 1951 and 1952 Scholars and Com 
parison students who graduated, suggested in his report that the 
initial deficiencies may well have turned out to be an added 
stimulus rather than a handicap to the Scholars/This underscored 
a point made by many of the senior Scholars in their essays, 
namely that they found in college an intellectual challenge and 
satisfaction that they had not been able to obtain in high schoo 



[21] 



i ■ 

I, 
y 

THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE 

r 

OF THE SCHOLARS L 

I 



One of the basic questions raised by the Program for Early 
Admission to College was: How would the Scholars do academi- 
cally, in view of their comparative youth and their less than 
normal high school preparation? 

A preliminary answer to this question was given in Bridging t 
the Gap Between School and College, published in the summer f 
of 1953, which reported on the freshman year performance off 
the first group of Scholars. Briefly summarized, the preliminary j* 
results showed that the 1 95 1 Scholars had outperformed not only f 
their classmates, but also their Comparison students. I 

Now that four Scholar groups have entered the program and f c 
two have graduated, the evidence confirms and strengthens the : 
preliminary findings. 1 {. 

i 

GRADE-POINT AVERAGES | 

i 

It should probably come as no surprise that academically the i 

Scholars as a group outperformed their classes as a whole by a f ; 

wide margin. But offhand, one might expect the Comparison \ 

students to do better than the Scholars, in view of their advan- ! 

tage in age and high school preparation. This has not been the f 

1 Some complications need to be reckoned with in interpreting the data in this fs 
chapter. Shimer, for example, did not establish Comparison groups and it de- ] 
liberately selected Scholars with a wide range of academic aptitudes. At Fisk, the f 
freshman and sophomore grades of the 1951 and 1952 groups of Scholars were not f 
compared to the grades of the Comparison students because the Scholars took (. 
different kinds of courses. Finally, there was no formally designated "freshman ! 
class" at Chicago in 1951, so it was not possible to compare Scholar grades with I 
Comparison student grades in that year. 

[22] J 



CHART II 



PER CENT OF SCHOLARS AND COMPARISONS 
IN TOP HALF OF CLASS 



SCHOLARS. FFV" "<*™ COMPARISONS 



1351 CROUP 



50% 



. FJIESHMAN 



73.5% 
3 67.1% 




78.1% 



78.3% 
» 78.5% 



814% 
I 76.0% 



case. Year after year, a higher proportion of Scholars than Com- 
parison students ranked in the top tenth, fifth, and third of their 
classes. In all but six instances, a lower proportion of Scholars 
than Comparison students ranked in the bottom tenth of their 
classes. (See Appendix Table V, A.) 

Chart II shows the proportion of Scholars and Comparison 
students with grade-point averages in the top half of their classes. 
(The comparative figure for the class as a whole in each case is 
50 per cent.) As the chart indicates, the initial superiority of the 
1951 Scholars over their class as a whole and over their Com- 
parison students continued throughout their four years of col- 
lege. The size of this "edge" fluctuated slightly from year to 
year, but it remained clear-cut and consistent. In freshman year, ... 
for example, nearly 74 per cent of the 195 i Scholars ranked in L 
the top half of their class, as against 67 per cent of the Compari- I 
son students. In senior year, 72 per cent of the 1951 Scholars £ 
were in the top half of their class, as against 68 per cent of the 
Comparison students. 

The Scholars who entered college in 1952 also outperformed 
their Comparison students and the class as a whole in each of 
their four years. Their "edge" over the Comparisons in fresh- |_ 
man year was not as large as the one the ig51 Scholars had 
achieved over their Comparisons, and it dwindled further in 
the sophomore and junior years, but it expanded again in senior 
year to a point where it was larger than the senior year margin 
enjoyed by the 195! Scholars. " " r 

The 1953 and 1954 Scholars did proportionately better in their f 
freshman year than the i 951 and 1952 Scholars, and the margin P 
of their superiority over their Comparison students was larger, 
but in sophomore year there was no significant difference be- 
tween the performance of the 1953 Scholars and their Compari- 
son students. (When this report was prepared, data were not yet E 
available on the junior year grades of the 1953 Scholars and £ 
Comparisons, or the sophomore year grades of the 1954 Scholars 
and Comparisons.) 

[*4] 



CHART III 

HOW THE 1952 SCHOLARS AND COMPARISONS 
RANKED IN THEIR CLASSES 



SCHOLARS 



ub ^ uuuuww 



COMPARISONS 



FRESHMAN YEAR 



I 33.6% 



I 43.6% 



im class 20.0% 




22.6% 
m 27.3% 



15.2% 
SI 17.6% 



SOTAL CLASS 20.0% 



110.9% 
1 12.4% 



JOTAL CLASS 20.0% 



3 9.1% 



WAL CLASS 20.0% 



& 



feTAL CLASS 20.0% 





SOPHOMORE YEAR 






TOP 




FIFTH 


■ ■■■<.- ... i SfiR-V 






TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 




H^HBWM 18.6% 








/O 




TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 


MIDDLE 
FIFTH 


m^^mmm 15.7% 






TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 




^^Mll.9% 




Si^hy-"'""-**®* 1 H 2% 








TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 


BOTTOM 


nan 9.3% 


FIFTH 


:--«»«-M 7 fi% 






TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 



JUNIOR YEAR 



37.9% 



223 33.5% 



I 25.5% 
i 24.3% 



'OTAL CLASS 20.0% 



114.7% 
EH 18.6% 



OTAL CLASS 20.0% 



11.5% 

ma n.3% 



'OTAL CLASS 20.0% 



m 12.4% 



OTAL CLASS 20.0% 





SENIOR YEAR 






43.8% 


TOP 






:<!*; ""::'::.: ;; WJ« 








TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 






















TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 


MIDDLE 


ww» 0.6% 














TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 




^^■■11.5% 






ilii.- 1 ■""■"■■■' " :1 14 n % 








TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 


BOTTOM 


HBSJWS 10.5% 






; .:*:;: '''I 9.3% 








TOTAL CLASS 20.0% 




[25] 





Chart III (page 25) shows the actual distribution of grade- \ 
point averages for the 1953 Scholars and Comparisons. Thirt 
group was chosen for illustrative purposes because it is the larg- 
est for which comparable data are available (414 Scholars and; 
431 Comparison students at 1 1 colleges in the freshman year, and 
277 Scholars and 309 Comparison students at 11 colleges in the 
senior year). 

As the chart indicates, a substantially larger proportion of 
Scholars than Comparisons ranked in the top fifth of their class 
in all four years of college, while the situation at the bottom end 
of the scale was mixed. In the freshman and junior years, a 
slightly lower proportion of Scholars than Comparisons ranked 
in the bottom fifth of the class, but in the sophomore and senior 
years the situation was reversed. 

Scholars with 1 1 years of previous schooling tended to do 
slightly better than those with only ten, but the latter tended to 
do slightly better than those with 12. Among all four groups of : ! 
Scholars, those with only ten years of previous schooling tended 
to rank in the top fifth of their class with greater frequency than 
the Comparison students. (See Appendix Table V, B.) 

AREA TESTS OF THE 

GRADUATE RECORD EXAMINATIONS 

Grade-point averages are a reasonably reliable yardstick for 
comparing the academic performance of individual students or 
groups of students within a college or university, but they are 
not very reliable in measuring the comparative performance of 
students in several institutions, because each institution may be 
using a different yardstick. 

In the spring of 1954, however, the Educational Testing Serv- 
ice of Princeton, New Jersey, made available a new battery of 
tests that provided a much broader basis for measuring the com- 
parative performance of the Scholars and Comparison students 
at the 12 participating colleges and universities. These new tests 
were the Area Tests of the Graduate Record Examinations, 
[26] 



which had been in the process of development for several years 
and which ets described as "entirely new measures of unusual 
scope designed to assess the broad outcomes of education in the 
liberal arts." These tests, covering the Humanities, Natural Sci- 
ence, and Social Science, were aimed far beyond the details of 
specific courses and were intended to measure the student's grasp 
of basic concepts in the liberal arts and his ability to apply them. 

From the standpoint of the Early Admission experiment, these 
new tests offered two distinct advantages: (1) they represented 
a much stiffer challenge than existing standardized tests (the 
Scholars and Comparisons had been bumping their heads on the 
ceilings of these tests), and (2) they made it possible not only to 
measure the performance of Scholars and Comparison students 
at all of the participating institutions with a uniform yardstick, 
but also to compare the performance of both groups with that of 
students in other American colleges, as the tests were available to 
colleges and universities throughout the country. 

Through the co-operation of ets, arrangements were made to 
have the gre Area Tests administered to the Scholars and Com- 
parison students in the 12 colleges and universities participating 
in the Early Admission experiment. First to take the new tests 
were the 1952 Scholars and Comparisons, who were then in their 
sophomore year. Each Scholar and Comparison group has taken 
these tests at least once, and the 1952 Scholars and Comparisons 
took them twice— first at the end of sophomore year, and again 
at the end of senior year. The 1951 Scholars and Comparisons 
took the tests as seniors, and the 1953 and 1954 Scholars and 
Comparisons took them as sophomores. It is planned to have 
these two latter groups take the tests again as seniors. 

Chart IV (page 28) summarizes the results of the testings to 
date. As it indicates, each group of Scholars outperformed its 
Comparison group, both in terms of mean scaled scores and 
also in terms of the proportion scoring above 500, which was 
the estimated mean (average score) on each test for a "standardi- 
zation" group of college seniors. 

[*7] 



CHART IV 
SOPHOMORE AND SENIOR SCORES ON GRE AREA TESTS' 



Bar shows relative mean scaled scores; figures at lejt give exact mean scaled scores. 

* Figures in right column are percentage scoringalm 



SOPHOMORE SCORES: 

1952 SCHOLARS 5= 
Social Science 



Humanities 



Natural Science 



Social Science 



Humanities 



Natural Science 



Social Science 



Humanities 



Natural Science 



1952 COMPAR. 



376 



1953 SCHOLARS 512 



1954 COMPAR. 488 



1954 COMPAR. 537 



74% 



1952 COMPAR. 


527 


64% 


1952 SCHOLARS 


575 


77% 


1952 COMPAR. 


540 


63% 


1952 SCHOLARS 


598 


82% 



"% 



57% 



1953 COMPAR. 


504 


54% 


1953 SCHOLARS 


550 


63% 


1953 COMPAR. 


529 


59% 


1953 SCHOLARS 


539 


60% 


1953 COMPAR. 


529 


57% 


1954 SCHOLARS 


523 


59% 



47% 



1954 SCHOLARS 


564 


72% 


1954 COMPAR. 


525 


54% 


1954 SCHOLARS 


569 


75% 



58% 



SENIOR scores: 



Social Science 



Humanities 



Natural Science 



Social Science 



Humanities 



1951 SCHOLARS 


620 


88% 


1951 COMPAR. 


557 


65% 


1951 SCHOLARS 


632 


89% 


1951 COMPAR. 


578 


72% 


1951 SCHOLARS 


606 


87% 


1951 COAfPAR. 


558 


72% 


1952 SCHOLARS 


608 


88% 


1952 COMPAR. 


579 


77% 


1C)52 SCHOLARS 


630 


87% 


1952 COMPAR. 


600 


' 78% 



1952 SCHOLARS 632 



85% 



The Scholars' margin of superiority over the Comparisons 
was clear and consistent, just as it was in the case of their grade- 
point averages. In each of the three areas covered by the tests, 
all four groups of Scholars had higher mean scores than their 
Comparison students, and a larger proportion of the Scholars 
than of the Comparisons scored above 500. There were, of course, 
wide variations between scores at the individual colleges. (See 
Appendix Table V, C.) There also were variations among the 
four groups of Scholars as a whole. The 1952 Scholars, for ex- 
ample, outperformed their 1953 and 1954 counterparts in each 
of the three test areas as sophomores, but as seniors were out- 
performed by the 1951 Scholars in two of the three test areas. 

As might be expected, the Scholars and Comparisons scored 
higher on the Area Tests than other American college students. 
For example, all three groups of Scholars and Comparisons who 
took the tests as sophomores outscored other sophomores who 
took the tests, and the two groups of Scholars and Comparisons 
who took the tests as seniors outscored other college seniors 
who took the tests. This, of course, was not surprising, because 
the Scholars and Comparisons were well above average in scho- 
lastic aptitude. What did come as a surprise, however, was that 
all three of the Scholar and Comparison groups who took the 
tests as sophomores surpassed the test norms set by college seniors 
who took the tests-and by a wide margin. For example, when 
the 1952 Scholars and Comparisons took the tests as sophomores 
in the spring of 1954, the tests also were given to 3,035 liberal 
arts seniors at 2 1 colleges and universities not participating in 
the Early Admission experiment. The comparative results are 
shown on the following page. 

In 1955, the Area Tests also were administered to 672 first- 
year graduate students at eight universities not participating in 
the Early Admission Program, and in 1956 to 1,201 first-year 
graduate students at 1 1 such universities. When the scores of the 
Scholars and Comparison students who took the tests as sopho- 
mores were compared to the scores of these first-year graduate 

[29] 



SOPHOMORE SCORES OF 1952 SCHOLARS AND COMPARISONS 
AS COMPARED TO SCORES OF OTHER COLLEGE SENIORS 



SOCIAL SCIENCE 
Per Cent 



HUMANITIES 



Mean 
Scaled 
Scores 



NATURAL SCIEK(j 



Scoring 
Above 500 



1952 SCHOLARS 
(SOPHOMORES) 

ig52 COMPARISONS 
(SOPHOMORES) 

SENIORS AT OTHER 
COLLEGES 



558 



527 



489 




students, it was found that Scholars and Comparisons once again 
came out on top, the Scholars by a wider margin than the Com- 
parisons. The results were as follows: 

SOPHOMORE SCORES OF SCHOLARS AND 

COMPARISONS AS COMPARED TO SCORES OF 

FIRST-YEAR GRADUATE STUDENTS 



a 



SOCIAL SCIENCE 



HUMANITIES 



Mean 
Scaled 
Scores 



Per Cent 
Scoring 
Above 500 



NATURAL SCIENft 



195a SCHOLARS 

1952 COMPARISONS 

1953 SCHOLARS 
1953 COMPARISONS 



1954 SCHOLARS 
1954 COMPARISONS . 

672 FIRST-YEAR GRADUATE 
STUDENTS, 1955 

1,201 FIRST- YEAR GRADUATE 
STUDENTS, igj6 



558 

527 

512 
504 

523 
488 

486 

479 



74 
64 

57 
54 

59 
47 

48 



Mean 
Scaled 
Scares 



Per Cent 
Scoring 
Above 500 



575 

540 

550 
529 

564 
525 

482 

484 



77 
63 

63 
59 

72 
54 

44 

45 



Mean 
Scaled 
Scores 



Per Cai 
Scorms 
Above $ 



598 
576 

539 
529 

569 
537 

489 

502 



82 
73 

60 
57 

75 
58 



49 



These results offer striking evidence of the wide diversity in 
performance among American college students. They also raise 
[30] 



some basic and provocative questions. For example, even after 
making due a llowan ce for iheJaa^Lhat the Scholars were ex- 
cepTIc"naflyliDle students, and for the fact that the Early Admis- 
sion"colTeges"as Tgroup" are pTobab 1 y'oThigher quality than trie ~ 
xross-sectrori of American colleges represented* by theliFhr6FsTha~ 
first-year gradu_ate students whose" Test~scbres were reported- 

llDO^mTfaarema^ 

'"mgE^ioolj3reparation_and only two years of college— demon- 

l.stxated.jhat jh.ey...nacLa_..hetter_.grasp of the basic concepts of a 
Liberal-education than a large body of American college seniors 
and first-year graduate students, What are the implications of 
thk fnr ^ ronvenLioaal-'-^ocL-StefL:_s.y.stem, which requires as a 

^ general rule thaui_sjudjmtjpend_i6 years in school and college 
in order^qear,n_a bachelor's degree? Should such students receive 
their degree as soon as they demonstrate sufficient competence 
to earn it, and then be allowed to get on with their graduate or 
professional work? (This actually did happen in some instances, 
notably at Chicago and Wisconsin. Two of the 1951 Scholars at 
Wisconsin, for example, compressed high school and college into 
five years and graduated with Phi Beta Kappa honors.) 

There are no simple answers to the questions posed by the 
Scholars' impressive performance on the gre Area Tests, but the 
comparative results suggest that such questions need serious ex- 
amination—at the college level, and at the secondary school level 
as well. 

When the 1952 Scholars and Comparisons took the Area Tests 
again as seniors, their performance indicated that their last two 
years of college were far from wasted, ets made a special analysis 
of the results, focussing only on the 315 Scholars and 133 Com- 
parisons who actually had taken the tests twice (a different form 
of each test was used each time). This analysis showed that both 
the Scholars and Comparisons "grew" substantially between the 
sophomore and senior year, and that the growth among the 
Scholars was comparatively greater than that among the Com- 
parisons. The following table shows the increase in test scores: 

[3i] 



GAIN IN TEST SCORES OF 
1952 SCHOLARS AND COMPARISONS 



i 



SOPHOMORE 
TESTING 



SENIOR 
TESTING 



SOCIAL SCIENCE: 








SCHOLARS 


564 


609 


45 


COMPARISONS 


528 


575 


47 


humanities: 








SCHOLARS 


580 


632 


52 


COMPARISONS 


559 


600 


41 


NATURAL SCIENCE: 








SCHOLARS 


598 


635 


37 


COMPARISONS 


579 


590 


11 



The amount of "growth" varied from student to student, from 
college to college, and from test area to test area, but the over-all 
gain was particularly significant in view of the high plateau from 
which it was achieved. (The sophomore mean scores of the 
Scholars and Comparisons, it will be recalled, were substantially 
higher than the scores of a representative body of college seniors.) 
•The fact that the Scholars showed substantially more growth 
than the Comparison students in the natural science field may 
be due in large measure to the fact that a larger proportion of 
Scholars than Comparisons majored in this field. 

Several plausible explanations for the Scholars' consistent 
academic superiority over their Comparison students have been 
suggested, and there may be others. The first is that the Scholars 
have perhaps been more strongly motivated than the Comparison 
students and in many cases have had the additional incentive of 
wishing to keep their Fund scholarships. (Although some in- 
stitutions were able to match their Scholars to Comparison stu- 
dents who were also on scholarship, this was not possible in all 
cases.) 

Another is that aptitude scores, according to such limited re- 
search as has been accomplished to date, have a tendency to in- 
crease somewhat with age among students at this level. In other 

[3*] 



words, a 1 6-year-old Scholar with the same aptitude score as an 
18-year-old Comparison student may in fact have a higher "real 
aptitude," and when he reaches 18 will have a higher aptitude 
score. Most of the colleges did not attempt to compensate for 
this, as the rate of increase is not sufficiently uniform to permit a 
reliable adjustment factor. Where an adjustment was made, how- 
ever, the Scholars, for some unexplained reason, still did better 
than the Comparison students. For example, Chicago made a 
! special effort to match each 1951 Scholar to a Comparison stu- 
[ dent whose aptitude score was from three to five points higher. 
I Despite this compensatory arrangement, the grade-point averages 
» attained by the 1951 Scholars were notably higher than those of 
I the 1951 Comparison students in every year, and the Scholars 
outperformed the Comparisons on the gre Area Tests. 

A third explanation is that the Scholars, having left high school 
and entered college early, did not lose the intellectual momen- 
tum that is often lost by able students held fast by the "lock step- 
in an unchallenging academic environment. 

Finally, it has been suggested that the "halo effect" of the ex- 
periment itself-the Scholars' awareness that their academic per- 
formance was being compared to that of the Comparison stu- 
dents-spurred them on to greater efforts. 

In any event, the superior academic performance of all four 
groups of Scholars demonstrates that the ability to do well in 
college is not solely a function of chronological age or twelve 
years of previous preparation. 

ACADEMIC HONORS AND DISTINCTIONS 
The 1951 and 1952 Scholars who graduated from college won 
a disproportionate share of academic honors, prizes, fellowships, 
and other major awards. At practically all of the colleges where 
such data were available, the proportion of Scholars graduating 
with honors was higher than that for the Comparison students, 
and much higher than that for their classmates as a whole. The 
same was true of election to Phi Beta Kappa. 

[33] 



At Wisconsin, where the Scholars made an especially impres- 
sive academic record, nearly two thirds of the graduating Scholars 
in each group received honors, as against about one-third of the 
Comparisons and a fifth of the class as a whole. Twenty-six per 
cent of the 1951 Scholars and 30 per cent of the 1952 Scholars 
who graduated were elected to Phi Beta Kappa, as against 10 
per cent of the 1951 Comparisons and 18 per cent of the 1952 
Comparisons. 

At Utah, the picture was substantially the same. Here, too, 
nearly two thirds of the graduating Scholars in each group re- 
ceived honors, as against 50 per cent of the 1951 Comparisons 
and 41 per cent of the 1952 Comparisons. Nine per cent of the 
195 1 Scholars and 22 per cent of the 1952 Scholars who graduated 
were elected to Phi Beta Kappa, as against 1.3 per cent and. 5 
per cent of their classmates. 

At Chicago, nearly one third of each group of graduating 
Scholars received honors, a proportion substantially greater tharr 
that of the Comparison students. Of 12 student aides selected by 
the dean in 1955 to assist with official functions of the University 
(appointments made on the combined basis of scholarship and 
citizenship) fully half were 1951 Scholars. Two of the 1952 
Scholars won National Science Foundation Fellowships, two won 
Woodrow Wilson Fellowships, and one won a Rhodes Scholarship. 

One of the 1951 Scholars at Oberlin also won a Rhodes Scholar- 
ship. 

Of the 11 students who in 1955 received the highest honors 
Columbia College bestows, three were members of the 1951 
Scholar group. Sixteen of the 1952 Scholars graduated with 
honors and ten were elected to Phi Beta Kappa. By contrast, eight 
of the Comparisons received honors and seven were elected to 
Phi Beta Kappa. 

Among the 1951 Scholars at Goucher, 14 out of the 19 appeared 
on the Dean's list for at least one year, and 13 were so cited in two 
or more years. Four received special honors at graduation and 
five were elected to Phi Beta Kappa. The 1 95 1 Comparison group 
had only three Dean's scholars and only one of these was cited in 
[34] 



more than one year. Two of the Comparisons received special 
honors at graduation, and two were elected to Phi Beta Kappa. 
Of the class entering in 1952, 12 Scholars were named on the 
Dean's list, nine of them for more than one year. Nine of the 
Comparison students were so honored, seven in more than one 
year. 

One member of the 195 1 Scholar group at Yale was made Class 
Orator, was awarded the highest academic prize which the Uni- 
versity can bestow on an undergraduate, and was also awarded 
a fellowship for study in England upon graduation. Yale re- 
ported that in the opinion of the student body, as well as of the 
faculty of the college, he was considered the outstanding student 
in his class. One other member of the 1951 group received two 
academic prizes in his junior year and a third in his senior year, 
and still another was elected president of the Yale chapter of 
Phi Beta Kappa. 

At Lafayette, four of the 21 Scholars who graduated in 1955 
were elected to Phi Beta Kappa. This was especially significant 
because only 1 2 seniors in a class of more than 250 were accorded 
this honor. One of the Scholars received a Woodrow Wilson Fel- 
lowship, another received the National Science Association 
Fellowship, and a third was awarded a Fulbright Scholarship. 
Two of the Scholars who graduated in 1956 were elected to Phi 
Beta Kappa, and one was awarded a National Science Foundation 
Fellowship for graduate study. 

A high proportion of the 1951 and 1952 Scholars who gradu 
ated indicated that they planned to go on to graduate work. The 
proportion varied from college to college, but overall it was 6; 
per cent for the 1951 Scholars who graduated, and 76 per cen; 
for the 1952 Scholars who graduated. The corresponding figure 
for the Comparison students were 49 per cent and 58 per cent 
(See Appendix Table VII.) At Wisconsin and Chicago, sev 
eral members of both Scholar groups finished their undergrad 
uate work in less than four years and were already engaged in 
graduate study when their classmates received the bachelor' 
degree. 

[35] 



THE SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL 
ADJUSTMENT OF THE SCHOLARS 



All college-bound students face a problem of adjustment to' 
life on the campus. Entering college usually involves the first 
prolonged separation from parents, and the first taste of responsi- 
bility for meeting life's problems without benefit of parental 
authority or guidance. Every freshman must learn to budget his 
time as between studies and social activities. Further, having 
parted company with boyhood associations of long standing, he 
is confronted with the need to establish another set of personal 
relationships. He must "find" himself in an entirely new com- 
munity. For the majority of students, these problems of adjust- 
ment to college are readily solved, but they are nonetheless very 
real problems for virtually every student. 

An appraisal of the social and emotional adjustment of the 
Early Admission students must start from this point of departure. 
The central question is not whether or not these younger students 
encountered adjustment problems, for all students do. Rather, 
it is whether the problems they encountered were significantly 
different or more severe than those they might have encountered 
had they entered college at the conventional age, and, if so, 
whether they were successful in meeting them. 

The task of appraising social and emotional adjustment is a 
great deal more difficult than that of judging academic per- 
formance. No single type of evidence by itself provides an ade- 
quate basis for conclusions, nor are there available any satis- 
factory devices for achieving a neat statistical measurement. In 
the large majority of cases judgment must rest upon a careful 

[36] 



weighing of several types of evidence. With this in mind, the 
Fund and the participating colleges arranged to have several types 
of evidence gathered and analyzed for this report. 

One type concerns the extent to which the Scholar partici- 
pates voluntarily in "extra-class" activities, such as organized 
sports, dramatics, student publications, social clubs and other 
activities involving group participation and opportunities for 
leadership. Another consists of the seasoned opinion of experi- 
enced members of the college staff who have had an opportunity 
to observe the Scholars in various situations over a period of 
time. These faculty members were asked to appraise the over- 
all adjustment of the Scholars at the end of freshman year and 
again at the end of senior year. 

Still another type of evidence was obtained from essays written 
by the 1951 and 1952 Scholars and Comparison students just be- 
fore graduation and analyzed by Richard Pearson. Finally, there 
are the findings and conclusions of the team of trained psychia- 
trists, headed by Dr. Dana Farnsworth, who made an independ- 
ent appraisal of the 1951 Scholars' social and emotional adjust- 
ment and a special analysis of the cases of Scholars who for one 
reason or another dropped out of their original college before 
graduation. 

PARTICIPATION IN EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES 
Adjustment to college is not a quantitative thing to be meas 
ured in terms of the number of offices a student holds or the 
number of student organizations he belongs to, but reports from 
the colleges indicate that the Scholars did not achieve their out- 
standing academic record at the expense of having to foregc 
extra-class activities. 

The Fund, at the end of the 1951 Scholars' freshman year, re 
ported that they had participated in extra-class activities at leasi 
as extensively as their classmates. Recent reports from the col 
leges and universities covering the complete four-year experience 
of these Scholars and their 1952 counterparts indicate a stil 

[37] 



r 



higher degree of sharing in the extra-curricular life of the 
campus. 

Goucher reported that the Scholars took a more active part in 
extra-curricular activities and held more campus offices than their 
classmates. "The College considers them a most desirable leaven 
in the student body," the dean observed in her report. The Uni- 
versity of Wisconsin also reported that its Scholars were on the 
average more active than their classmates, citing their participa- 
tion in the band, orchestra, theater group, campus paper (of 
which two Scholars were associate editors), humor magazine, and 
yearbook. 

Yale was the only institution to report that its Scholars may 
have been less active than their classmates, but it noted that the 
difference was slight. Fisk reported that the 1951 Scholar group 
was less active in extra-curricular organizations than succeeding 
groups, but that the leadership of these latter groups "has stimu- 
lated these organizations very distinctly." 

Utah, Oberlin, and Shimer reported that the Scholars' extra- 
curricular activity was about equal to that of their classmates. 
At Oberlin, one 1951 Scholar was elected president of the Stu- 
dent Association in his senior year. At Columbia, one 1951 
Scholar was editor of the humor magazine Jester, another was 
managing editor of the Spectator, and a third was co-manager of 
the football team. Lafayette also reported a high degree of extra- 
curricular activity. Scholars there were members of eight varsity 
athletic squads. One was a Deacon and Elder of the College 
Church, another was business manager of the choir, and many 
participated in radio, debating, and dramatics. Chicago reported 
that the leadership of the Scholars was felt in every major area 
of extra-curricular activities. 

FACULTY RATINGS OF OVER-ALL ADJUSTMENT 
Each of the participating colleges and universities was asked 
to have faculty members who were most familiar with the 
Scholars and Comparison students appraise their over-all adjust- 
[38] 



ment to college life, first at the end of freshman year and again 
at the end of senior year. Each college was asked to obtain in- 
dependent ratings on each student from two or more faculty 
members or college officials familiar with the student. It was sug- 
gested that where differences of opinion occurred they should 
L resolved by an appropriate person at the college who would 
make a composite rating. The check-list of factors to be taken 
into consideration in rating the students included such items as 
poise and self-confidence in social situations, leadership ability, 
study habits, participation in group activity, gregariousness, per- 
sonal appearance, degree of dependence on family, worry and 
emotional control, adjustment to the opposite sex, ease in con- 
versation, academic program planning, and educational inteiests. 

At the End of Freshman Year 

The faculty ratings of the four Scholar and Comparison 
groups at the end of freshman year were as follows: 

RATING OF ADJUSTMENT AT END OF FRESHMAN YEAR 



RATING 



1951 CllOUl' 
Scholars I Compel . 



EXCELLENT 23.4% 

cood 38.9 
moderately 

GOOD 26.0 

POOR 10.2 
VERY TOOK 1.5 



21.7% 
. 45.4 

25.4 

7.1 

.4 



1952 CROUP 
Scholars 1 Com par. 



15.33 
45.8 

29.8 
7.6 
1.5 



16.6% 
47.5 

28.7 

7.0 

.3 



1953 CROUP 
Scholars 1 Compar. 



15.7% 
52.8 

23.6 
5.7 
2.2 



12.5% 
60.0 

25.0 
2.5 



1954 GROUP 
Scholars I Compar. 



17.9% 
55.8 

18.8 

6.7 

.9 



11.1% 
58.3 



27.1 

2.8 

.7 



As the table indicates, the over-all adjustment of the over- 
whelming majority of Scholars and Comparisons in each group 
was rated either "moderately good," "good," or "excellent," and 
with a slight exception in the case of the 1951 Scholars, less ftan 
10 per cent of each group received ratings of "poor" or "very 
poor." There was a wider "scatter" in the Scholar ratings, and 
the Comparison students as a whole were found by the faculties 

[39] 



to have adjusted better— although not a great deal better— than 
the Scholars. 

At the End of Senior Year 

At the end of their senior year, the 1951 and 1952 Scholars and 
Comparison students were rated once again by their faculties. 
The results were as follows: 

RATING OF ADJUSTMENT AT END OF SENIOR YEAR 





^i 


GROUP 


J 952 


GROUP 


RATINGS 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


EXCELLENT 


23.6% 


26.4% 


20.6% 


20.5% 


GOOD 


46.5 


43.7 


46.8 


59.3 


MODERATELY GOOD 


22.8 


23.4 


25.8 


16.7 


POOR 


5.1 


4.6 


6.0 


2.7 


VERY POOR 


2.0 


2.0 


.7 


.8 



As the table indicates, the proportion of Scholars and Compari- 
sons rated at the top of the scale in this final appraisal was higher 
than had been the case at the end of freshman year. Most of the 
difference is undoubtedly accounted for by the fact that many 
of the Scholars and Comparison students who had made a poor 
initial adjustment had withdrawn from college before the end 
of senior year. Once again the results showed that in the judg- 
ment of the faculties, the Comparison students as a group had 
made a slightly better adjustment than the Scholars, but that 
well over 90 per cent of both groups had adjusted moderately 
well or better. 

It should be noted that there were variations among Scholars 
on different campuses, and among individual Scholars on the 
same campus. Scholars on some campuses, often for special 
reasons, had more difficult adjustment problems than other stu- 
dents. Yale, for example, reported that its 1951 Scholars had more 
difficulties than their classmates in adjustment to college in gen- 
eral and to Yale in particular. Yale noted that this was partly 
[40] 



due to the Tact that, as a matter of policy, it selected a number of 
Scholars from rural backgrounds. Columbia made a similar com- 
ment about extra difficulties encountered by rural students on its 
large urban campus. 

Louisville reported that social and emotional adjustment on 
its campus was made more difficult by the fact that out-of-town 
Scholars were housed in dormitories, where there was little social 
activity because most Louisville students live at home. Adjust- 
ment at Wisconsin appears to have been made more difficult by 
the fact that most of the 1951 and 1952 Scholars were not resi- 
dents of the state and had to be lodged in rooming houses in 
compliance with a state law which restricts occupancy of dormi- 
tories to residents of the state. Fisk reported that the adjustment 
of its 1 95 1 Scholars was not so good as that of later groups because 
they were chosen with relative haste and were separated from 
other students during the first year. 

While some colleges and universities commented that the 
Scholars' youth and early admission may have accentuated their 
initial adjustment difficulties, they reported that in most cases 
the difficulties were subsequently overcome. In the few cases of 
social or emotional maladjustment that did develop, early ad- 
mission was not considered the determining factor. Chicago ex- 
pressed itself most strongly on this point. Commenting on the 
similarity of the Scholars' difficulties to those of regular students, 
the dean of the college said in his report to the Fund: "I have 
not seen a single Scholar who had serious psychological problems 
of whom I felt that they would not have occurred if he had re- 
mained at home another year or two." 

THE STUDENTS' OWN TESTIMONY 

The 1951 and 1952 Scholars and Comparisons who successfully 
completed their undergraduate work were asked in their senior 
year to take a retrospective look at their four-year college experi- 
ence and to answer candidly and thoughtfully a series of essay 
questions. They were assured that their replies would be kept 

[4i] 



confidential, and were urged to be free and frank in their com- 
ments. 

One of the questions they were asked was: "Apart from any 
deficiencies in your preparation, did you encounter any difficul- 
ties in adjusting to the academic or social aspects of college life?" 

The responses were as follows: 





'95 1 


GROUP 


!952 


GROUP 




SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


YES 


81% 


52% 


63% 


51% 


NO 


19 


47 


37 


49 


NO RESPONSE 


— 


1 


_ 


_ 



These responses tend to support the belief of the colleges that 
the restrictive measures applied to the "pioneer" group of 1951 
Scholars added to their adjustment problems, and that removal 
of these restrictions made things easier for succeeding Scholar 
groups. 

The difficulty most frequently cited by the Scholars was that 
they had felt "bashful," "shy," "immature," or had "taken time 
to make friends." Nearly a third of them volunteered that this 
had been the case. Roughly a quarter of them mentioned specific 
trouble with "dating." Another 25 per cent cited a difficulty that 
was unique to the Scholars: they felt that they were considered 
by regular students as members of an "out group." 

The Comparison students reported that they too had suffered 
from "shyness," "immaturity," "slowness to make friends," and 
difficulty with dating. However, the proportion citing these 
difficulties was markedly lower than for the Scholars. In general, 
the Comparison students reported somewhat less trouble of a 
strictly social and emotional nature and somewhat more trouble 
with study habits and with budgeting their time as between social 
and academic activities. 

A more detailed examination of the Scholars' social and 
emotional problems may logically begin with the only important 

[42] 



difficulty which was unique to the 1951 and 1952 Scholars-a 
feeling of exclusion from normal college activities which arose 
from the fact that they were members of a special, experimental 
group. This feeling, felt most acutely by the 1951 Scholars in 
their freshman year, was described by one of them in these words: 
"The rest of the freshman class seemed to adopt the attitude that 
we were a novel type of insect which should be studied with great 
concentration during the time that you were not actually poking 
it with a stick." Although this is probably an exaggeration, it 
illustrates the initial difficulty many of the 1951 Scholars en- 
countered on some campuses before they finally won acceptance. 
As Pearson observed in his report: "The picture one obtains of 
this adjustment problem is that the Scholars entering college in 
1951 had to live down an exaggerated and somewhat distorted 
idea of what the 'Fordie' was really like. Older classmates, fac- 
ulty, and college administration expected the Scholars to be 
much more different from the regular than they really were. 
Their intellectual prowess was held in high and sometimes en- 
vious regard; their social inadequacies and physical immaturity 
were looked upon with considerable disdain." 

The problem was greatly eased as soon as the institutions with- 
drew their segregating arrangements, and later classes of Scholars 
had far less of an obstacle to surmount in this respect. To quote 
the Pearson report: "By their intellectual and social accomplish- 
ments during the early years of college, the Scholars were gen- 
erally able to convince their classmates that age was but one of 
the ways in which individuals differ." Pearson reported that the 
feeling of being members of an "out group" also was cited by 
a number of the 1952 Scholars. "The continuance of this as a 
significant complaint represents a shift among the participating 
colleges," he noted. "Yale, where this was a problem the first year 
and where sixteen such reports occurred a year ago, now pro- 
duced only one such report. This improvement, however, was off- 
set by the appearance of seven reports at Morehouse (which was 
not active during the first year of the experiment), and eight re- 

[43] 



ports at Fisk (where not many essays were received from Scholars 
among the 1951 group)." Pearson concluded that "these prob- 
lems have not materially lessened in the experiment as a whole, 
although progress is certainly noticeable at colleges where the. 
experiment has been in operation since 1951." 

Other difficulties encountered by the Scholars early in college 
differed from those of regular students in degree but not in kind. 
Pearson noted that the Scholars' youthfulness may have accen- 
tuated their shyness— a problem of which regular students also 
complained, and it is certain that youthfulness accentuated the 
male Scholars' dating problem— a problem from which female 
Scholars were entirely free. One male Scholar told in his essay of 
a particularly harrowing experience with the "dating" problem: 

I will never forget the occasion of the first freshman "mixer" expedi- 
tion to a girl's college in which I participated— it was also the last for 
quite some time. I was getting along fairly well in my conversation 
with a young lady (of dubious charm, but a girl nevertheless, and on 
that occasion it was the only consideration which prevailed) for whose 
attentions I was competing with a "regular" freshman, when it came 
out that I was a Ford student of the tender age of 15— and by the way, 
I had just had my first introduction to the ritual of shaving. I received, 
in effect, a chilly "my, how . . . interesting," and the cause was lost. 
I was crushed for months. 

Another gave the following account of the difficulties he en- 
countered and how he coped with them: 

I felt a social disadvantage with my classmates in the first year or 
two. Perhaps the stigma of "Ford Scholars" had something to do with 
this. Many mistakes were made in the early administration of the pro- 
gram (living together, etc.). Somewhat of an inability to completely 
integrate into the older group was experienced. In part, I would 
attribute this difficulty to the administration of the program in the 
freshman year. In some respects it is a deficiency of the program itself. 

In social contacts with the opposite sex, I was obviously unable to 
date college freshmen when I entered at sixteen. Yet I did make con- 
tacts with local high school girls which helped to offset this problem. 
By sophomore year the problem all but vanished. Whatever difficulty 
there was might also be attributed to the program of early entrance. 

None of the above-mentioned problems were of large proportions. 

[44] 



Little frustration developed, and, in retrospect, I indicate only some 
impressions rather than enormous difficulties. 

Time and rapid development and maturing were the main factors 
in overcoming the difficulties. Within a year I was sufficiently adjusted 
and confident of myself to make new acquaintances and relationships 
among my classmates. Once on my own and away from the "group of 
Ford Scholars" I was as integrated as any of my classmates. The place- 
ment of Ford students together was the major factor in the difficulty. 
Once this ceased, the problem quickly disappeared. 

Reports from the colleges also mentioned the male Scholars' 
dating problem. One college observed: "The boys work hard 
at strange shifts to conceal their age, since no girl who values her 
reputation wants a date with a boy two years her junior." While 
many Comparison students also complained that they had been 
"cold-shouldered" by freshman girls during their nrst year, the 
Scholars' difficulty in this respect was more acute. 

Perhaps the most eloquent testimony that dating was not much 
of a problem for the girls in the Early Admission Program came 
from the 1951 Scholar who wrote in the summer of 1955: 

I have participated in social activities fully, having no .inclination 
to be "bookish" as some of my Ford colleagues definitely are. Perhaps 
my social adjustment can be best characterized by the fact that I dated 
frequently (and variously!) during my first two years, settling down 
to a fiance in my junior year, marrying him in the early part of last 
June, and becoming a mother this past March 38 1 

In their essay questionnaires at the end of senior year, the 
Scholars and Comparisons also were asked whether they had been 
able to overcome their social and emotional difficulties. The re- 
sponses, based on the total number who had reported difficulties, 
were as follows: 





195 1 


GROUP 


1952 


GROUP 




SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


YES 


73% 


57% 


80% 


87% 


PARTLY 


17 


22 


14 


9 


NO 


7 


15 


5 


2 


NO RESPONSE 


3 


6 


I 


2 



[45] 



These responses would indicate that in the judgment of the 
students themselves, the 1951 Scholars were more successful in 
overcoming their adjustment difficulties than their Comparison 
students, and that the 1952 Scholars were somewhat less success- 
ful than their Comparison students, but considerably nrore suc- 
cessful than the 1951 Scholars. 

THE FINDINGS OF THE PSYCHIATRISTS 

The team of psychiatrists headed by Dr. Farnsworth, in seek- 
ing to judge the social and emotional adjustment of the 1951 
Scholars, began by examining their performance from the 
negative point of view. They made a careful study of the inci- 
dence of neurotic or psychotic symptoms among the Scholars with 
a view to comparing this with the incidence found among regular 
college students. This determination was, of course, highly im- 
portant, for a possible hazard of early admission could be that 
it would submit the young Scholars to excessive psychological 
strain. 

The finding of the psychiatrists, based on all available student 
records as well as on personal interviews with some of the Schol- 
ars, was most definite on this score. The Scholar group, they re- 
ported, showed no more psychiatric difficulties than the older 
Comparison students. The few psychotic cases which developed 
among the Scholars were, according to the psychiatrists, no more 
than is normally found in this age group. As for the proportion 
of cases of "simple adolescent maladjustment," this also was small 
and at no college exceeded that of the Comparison studeirts. Nor 
did the 1951 Scholars, in general, exhibit more difficulty than the 
Comparison students because of "emotional immaturity." 

The Farnsworth team found that the proportion of Scholars 
visiting college and university counseling services for help with 
emotional difficulties was the same as or lower than that for col- 
lege students in general. The number of Scholar visits to college 
medical services was also examined for possible indication of 
psychosomatic ailments because, as the report observed: "It is 

[46] 



well known that frequent visits by a student to the college health 
service for minor physical complaints are apt to mean that the 
student is actually having emotional problems." The rate of 
Scholar visits was found to be no higher than that of their class- 
mates at any of the 1 1 institutions. 

Proceeding to an evaluation of the Scholars' adjustment in the 
positive sense, Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues emphasized 
the complexity of weighing over-all results in view of the diverse 
social and academic climates found on the eleven campuses. They 
noted that values and hence standards of adjustment were hardly 
uniform among the participating institutions. At some colleges 
and universities, the psychiatrists found "both the faculty and 
students place too great an emphasis on interpersonal relations, 
on being a 'good fellow' and on being 'well-rounded' at the ex- 
pense of educational values." As an extreme example of this, they 
cited the attitude of students at one institution who expressed 
doubt in interviews as to whether the Scholars could adequately 
participate in social activities "as among other things they were 
too young on moral grounds to take a drink." 

On such a campus, the psychiatrists observed, "failure to con- 
form to social mores is apt to be severely penalized by the other 
students." Such a climate, however, did not prevail at most of 
the institutions participating in the Early Admission Program. 
Generally speaking, social activities at these colleges were not 
considered as ends in themselves, but as one of several means of 
facilitating mature development. 

At the outset, the members of the Farnsworth team defined 
satisfactory adjustment to college in these terms: 

What is desirable is not adjustment to the group at all costs, not 
good interpersonal relations in all situations, but real autonomy, i.e. 
men sufficiently free from both social and cultural pressures and from 
their own inner biases, needs and drives that they are able to assess 
the realities of situations and act on this basis. Although such men 
prize warm interpersonal relations and getting along with the group 
as a satisfactory part of living, they are not ends in themselves. 

[47] 



In reviewing the Scholars' problems, the Farnsworth team 
noted that the special academic and social arrangements made 
for the Scholars at some institutions the first year of the experi- 
ment frequently aroused "resentment, bitterness and hostility" 
in the Scholars. These feelings, they continued, resulted from the 
desire on the part of the students to be accepted by their peers, 
and their desire not to be stereotyped as the "scholarly type" or 
as "babies." 

"The excessive concern of the faculties for the Scholars," the 
psychiatrists said, "was similar to that in 1945 when the veterans 
returned to the campuses. In both cases, the expectations were 

not realized; the students did well As a result of the excellent 

adjustment of the Scholars during the first year, the subsequent 
groups of Scholars were handled in a much more relaxed man- 
ner by the faculties." 

The Farnsworth team found only two areas in which the Schol- 
ars experienced some difficulties in excess of their Comparison 
students and classmates. One was in the matter of dating during 
their freshman and sophomore years, and the other in securing 
employment during summer vacations. The men experienced 
the dating difficulties and the girls the vocational difficulties. 

On the vocational difficulty, Farnsworth and his colleagues 
noted that most college students work during their summer 
vacations. The male Scholars had no difficulty finding jobs on a 
par with their older classmates, but such was not the case with 
the girls, many of whom could not get jobs because of their age. 
This, they found, was a source of unhappiness to some, but it was 
only a limited problem and did not unduly affect their college 
adjustment. 

As for the dating problem, the psychiatrists found that it was a 
source of unhappiness to some male Scholars early in college. 
"Many boys spoke of the difficulties of obtaining dates with col- 
lege girls during their freshman and sophomore years," they 
noted. "Difficulty in getting women college freshmen to date 
them was not confined to the freshman Scholars. In general, such 
[48] 



girls are more interested in upper classmen or graduate students. 
In the case of the Early Admission men, this difficulty in finding 
dates because of age extended beyond their first year, whereas 
in their older classmates the problem was usually solved by the 
time they were sophomores." 

By junior year, Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues found, the 
dating difficulty was surmounted and male Scholars had no 
further difficulties in getting dates. "Most Scholars during their 
junior and senior years, in the matter of dating, functioned on 
the level of their older classmates," they reported, "rather than 
that of the average freshmen who were their chronological age." 
Summing up, the Farnsworth team said it found "no evidence 
that these difficulties in dating in any way retarded their emo- 
tional development." x 

The psychiatrists found no other area in which the difficulties 
of the Scholar group were different from those of regular students 
either in kind or degree. They did note that the Scholars of 
unusually youthful appearance had a harder time making the 
needed social adjustment than those who appeared on casual 
observation to be of the usual college entrance age, and sug- 
gested that students who "look like youngsters" should be warned 
before being allowed to enter college early that they may en- 
counter more difficulty than others. 

FAILURES, WITHDRAWALS, AND TRANSFERS 

Of the 860 Scholars who entered the twelve participating col- 
leges in 1951 and 1952, about 6 per cent failed academically and 
another 6 per cent failed because of adjustment difficulties. 

The failure rate varied considerably from college to college. 
(See Appendix Table VI, C.) Over-all it was higher among the 
Scholars in each group than among their Comparison students, 
but the over-all picture did not hold true at all of the colleges. 
1 An interesting sidelight on the dating problem was reported by Wisconsin. Six 
or eight of its male Scholars have already married, and another dozen or so are 
engaged. Almost all have chosen girls older than themselves, since these were the 
girls they dated in college. 

[49] 



At three of the ten colleges where comparable data were avail- 
able for 1951 Scholars and Comparison students (Morehouse did 
not enter the program until 1952, and Shimer did not establish 
Comparison groups) there were proportionately fewer failures 
among the Scholars than among the Comparisons, and at two 
others the proportion was about the same. The picture among 
the 1952 Scholars and Comparisons was substantially similar. 

Six of the colleges compared the failure rate among the Schol- 
ars and Comparison students with that among their classmates 
as a whole. As the following table indicates, the proportion of 
Scholar failures was lower than that of their classmates at four of 
the six colleges. 



PER CENT OF FAILURES AMONG SCHOLARS, 
COMPARISONS AND CLASSMATES AT 6 COLLEGES 





1951 


GROUP 






COLLEGE 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


CLASSMATES 


GOUCHER 


5.3% 




10.6% 


7.0% 


LAFAYETTE 


13.4 




10.0 


26.0 


LOUISVILLE 


6.9 




0.0 


6.0 


OBERLIN 


8.0 




6.7 


15.0 


SHIMER 


8.8 


No 


Comparisons 


10.6 


YALE 


19.2 
195* 


GROUP 


7.8 


9.2 


GOUCHER 


0.0 




0.0 


3.7 


LAFAYETTE 


17.3 




10.3 


29.0 


LOUISVILLE 


34.5 




15.4 


6.0 


OBERLIN 


13.7 




5.4 


15.0 


SHIMER 


6.2 


No 


Comparisons 


21.6 


YALE 


12.7 




6.8 


9.7 



Proportionately fewer Scholars than Comparison students 
withdrew from college for reasons other than failure— to enter 
military service, to get married, because of illness or financial 
difficulty, or because of miscellaneous or unknown reasons. 

[50] 



£■*;■■:■ 



ong the 1951 group the proportion was 11.4 per cent for 
Scholars and 14.9 per cent for the Comparisons, and among 
1952 group it was 8.6 per cent for the Scholars and 13.6 
cent among the Comparisons. The data on this point do 
offer any definite clues as to why the proportion was sub- 
itially less among the 1952 Scholars than among their 1951 

Uterparts. 

["he proportion of Scholars who transferred to other institu- 
is was considerably higher than that of the Comparisons- 
2 per cent among the 1951 Scholars and 1 1.8 per cent among 
1952 Scholars, as against 5.8 per cent and 6.1 per cent 
ong the two groups of Comparison students. Once again the 
ture varied considerably from college to college (see Appendix 
ble VI, C), and once again there were several colleges where 
: over-all generalization did not hold true. Special factors at 
tral of the colleges tended to raise the over-all transfer rate 
• Scholars. At Shimer, for example, about one fifth of the 1951 
d 1952 Scholars transferred to the University of Chicago after 
jhomore year to take specialized courses, which is customary 
long Shimer students. At Fisk, more than 35 per cent of the 
51 Scholars transferred to other institutions largely because 
dissatisfaction with the rigorous first-year arrangements under 
lich Scholars were separated from their classmates socially and 
idemically. These restrictions were relaxed after the first year, 
d the transfer rate among the 1952 Scholars at Fisk dropped to 
ily 3 per cent, which was less than the rate for the Comparison 
idents. Wisconsin had an unusually high transfer rate among 
i 1951 and 1952 Scholars because more than half of them came 
om New York and New Jersey, and many of these Easterners 
ter transferred to colleges closer to home. Beginning in 1953, 
Wisconsin no longer made a special effort to attract Early Ad- 
ission candidates from schools outside the state. 
A summary picture of the total attrition rate among the 1951 
id 1952 Scholars and Comparison students is presented in the 
dlowing table. 

[5i] 



ATTRITION RATE AMONG 
1951 AND 1952 SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 



1951 GROUP 1952 GROUP 

SCHOLARS COMPARISONS SCHOLARS COMPARISONS 

% NO. % NO. % NO. % 



NO. 



(NUMBER IN 


















ENTERING CLASS) 


(420) 




(415) 




(440) 




(472) 




FAILED 


47 


11.2 


34 


8.2 


55 


12.5 


46 


9.8 


WITHDREW FOR REASONS 


















OTHER THAN FAILURE 


48 


11.4 


62 


14.9 


38 


8.6 


64 


13.6 


TRANSFERRED 


64 


15.2 


24 


5.8 


52 


11.8 


29 


6.1 


TOTAL ATTRITION 


159 


37.8 


120 


28.9 


145 


32.9 


139 


29.5 



Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues were asked by the Fund to 
make a detailed study of the failures, withdrawals, and transfers 
among the 1951 Scholars with special emphasis on a search for 
the underlying reasons. Members of the Farnsworth team visited 
the participating colleges, examined the records on each student, 
and interviewed faculty members who had taught the Scholars, 
student advisers, administration officials, classmates, and in some 
instances the Scholars themselves. 

Unfortunately, it was not possible to make a similar study of 
the underlying reasons for failures, withdrawals, and transfers 
among the 1951 Comparison students. Because of the great in- 
terest of the faculty in the Early Admission students, much more 
information was available on them than on the Comparison stu- 
dents. Not only did the deans' offices accumulate voluminous 
records on the Scholars, but many members of the faculty were 
able to supply pertinent observations of their own. No such com- 
plete records were available on the Comparison students in most 
instances, and because the faculty had not known previously who 
the Comparison students were, they were unable to comment on 
them except in a cursory manner. 

Members of the Farnsworth team compiled detailed informa- 
tion on 147 of the 159 Scholars who entered the eleven colleges 

[52] 



in 1951 and subsequently failed, withdrew, or transferred to 
other institutions. In each case they went beyond the apparent 
reason to try to determine the basic underlying reason. The ac- 
companying table shows the results of their findings. 

PSYCHIATRISTS' CLASSIFICATION OF 

REASONS FOR FAILURES, WITHDRAWALS, AND TRANSFERS 

AMONG 1951 SCHOLARS 



FAILURES AND WITHDRAWALS 



IMMATURITY 
INADE- WITH 

QUATE INADEQUATE 

INTELLEC- GOAL- PSYCHI- 

TUAL DIRECTED ATRIC 



TRANSFERS 



INAPPRO- REAL- 
PRIATE ISTIC 



COLLEGE POTENTIAL BEHAVIOR DISORDER VALUES REASONS LANEOUS 



CHICAGO 

TOMMBIA 

PISK 

OOUCHER 

^FAYETTE 

Louisville 

:0BERLIN 
SHIMER 
■UTAH 

iWSCONSIN 
■VALE 

TOTAL . 






1 



3 

4 






6 
2 
5 
1 

3 
2 
4 

6 
5 

34 



4 
3 
2 
1 
1 
1 
I 
2 
1 
1 
2 

19 




2 
1 

3 


1 
4 



11 



I 

1 


1 



1 


2 
6 
1 





1 
2 

1 



8 



12 



REAL- 
ISTIC 



VOCA- 
TIONAL 





5 
4 
1 

4 
3 
5 
1 
6 
1 

30 



1 





2 
2 

g 
3 
3 

5 


20 



12 

9 

18 

7 

8 

14 

8 

21 

23 

19 

8 

.147 



As the table indicates, the greatest loss of Scholars was through 
transfer to other institutions. Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues 
found that two-fifths of these transfers were made for strictly 
vocational reasons. In some of these cases early admission was a 
contributing cause in the sense that the students had entered 
the program for the sole purpose of speeding their entry into 
professions or jobs. Having entered colleges requiring liberal 
arts courses, they often chafed at these courses and switched to 
more specialized professional or vocational schools. There were 
also other vocational transfers caused by an interest in some par- 

[53] 



ticular field which could not be met by any but a very specialized 
institution. 

Three-fifths of the Scholar transfers were found to have been 
for "realistic" reasons, the same in nature as American student 
transfers generally, and in no way related to early admission. 
Some Scholars, for example, switched to colleges nearer home, 
An unusual number of these occurred at Wisconsin, for reasons 
mentioned earlier in this chapter. Other Scholars transferred 
because they had married and wanted to attend school where 
their husbands or wives were already studying. Still others with 
financial difficulties left to enter schools enabling them to save 
money by living at home. Commenting on the Scholar transfers 
as a whole, the Farnsworth team noted that "they do not repre- 
sent an actual loss ... as in almost all instances they will subse- 
quently obtain degrees in other institutions." 

The psychiatrists found that immaturity, characterized by 
what they termed "inadequate goal-directed behavior," was the 
major factor in the cases involving failure or withdrawal from 
college for reasons other than failure. Such cases were found at 
all but two of the participating institutions. Many of these Schol- 
ars had been classified by the deans' offices as academic failures, 
but the psychiatrists found that the root of their trouble was 
deeper. 

In general such Scholars, despite their high academic promise, 
were found to have been unable to accept even a reasonable de- 
gree of self-management in the college setting. The Farnsworth 
team observed that many of them came from difficult family 
situations: "In some cases a parent was missing due to death or 
divorce; in others the parents were extremely protective or per- 
fectionistic. In some cases, the fathers and mothers were ex- 
tremely authoritarian and had allowed the student almost no 
freedom of individual expression prior to coming to college. In 
still other cases, the students did not want to come to college and 
were merely fulfilling their parents' expectations." 

Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues concluded that early admis- 

[54] 



f 



sion to college was not the underlying reason for failure among 
such students. "Coming to college a year earlier merely pre- 
cipitated their difficulties into the open," they observed. "It is 
difficult to believe that these students would have succeeded in 
college had they not entered the Early Admission Program, as 
this would have necessitated their remaining another year in 
their difficult home situation." 

Did the Early Admission Program produce an unusually high 
proportion of "immature" students? The psychiatrists consider 
that it did not. Noting that most of the Scholars were 16 years old 
or younger and had not previously been away from home for an 
extended time, the Farnsworth team declared: "It is surprising 
that this figure was less than 10 per cent. Certainly it is the ex- 
perience of colleges in admitting students two years older, that 
this large a percentage of them (8 per cent) are immature." 

The second most important category of Scholar withdrawals, 
responsible for the loss of 6 per cent of the 195 1 group, was found 
to consist of a variety of "realistic" and/or "miscellaneous" causes 
unrelated to early admission. For example, eight of the Utah 
Scholars left at the end of junior year to serve as missionaries of 
the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. This is a 
customary expectation for young men of their faith, and past 
experience at Utah has been that such students return to college 
when their missionary work is completed. Other reasons for with- 
drawal in this category were death of an important family mem- 
ber, entrance into the military service, marriage, or family finan- 
cial problems. 

Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues found that 5 per cent of 
the 1951 Scholars dropped out of college because of psychiatric 
. disorders not related to early admission. Three of these cases 
were diagnosed as schizophrenia in which the difficulties far ante- 
dated the Scholars entrance into college. In five other cases, de- 
fined as "characteriological," the Scholars had exhibited aberrant 
behavior in secondary schools and their disorders had developed 
before they entered the campuses. Such Scholars, the Farnsworth 

[55] 



team noted, represented errors in selection; had their records 
been known, they would not have been admitted. 

As for the psychiatric withdrawals diagnosed as "simple ado- 
lescent maladjustment" cases, almost all came from difficult 
family situations, most often a broken home. Such cases the 
psychiatrists reported, respond well to psychotherapy, and many 
students with such histories, who have been helped by treatment 
or who have recovered spontaneously have made outstanding 
contributions to the academic world. More adequate psychiatric 
counseling facilities on some campuses might have prevented 
some of these withdrawals, the report said. 

Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues found that the incidence of 
psychiatric difficulties-major or minor-was not greater among 
the Scholars than among regular students. They also reported 
that excluding the five Scholars diagnosed as having character 
neuroses, at least half of the remaining Scholars who left collet 
because of psychiatric disorders later returned, usually to colleges 
less demanding than those at which their emotional difficulties 
had occurred. 

About 3 per cent of the 1951 Scholars were found to have 
dropped out of college because of a lack of values appropriate 
for education. This phenomenon took a higher toll of the oroup 
than did lack of intellectual ability per se. Such Scholars showed 
almost no interest in acquiring a college education, did not study 
hard, were never concerned about their academic performance 
and were surprised when told they were doing poorly. They were 
usually at college at the behest of parents and high school teach- 
ers and typically came of fathers of limited educational back- 
grounds and menial occupations. Many came of rural back- ' 
grounds. Psychological tests available on some of these Scholars 
showed that their interests differed sharply from those of the 
average college student, tending toward vocational rather than 
intellectual pursuits. The Farnsworth team suggested that this 
tendency may be more prevalent among college students in gen- 
eral than is usually supposed. "Probably," they said, "many of 
[56] 



the students of superior intelligence who do not go to college 
and who are of so much concern to various commissions studying 
manpower problems would show similar values to these men." 

None of the major causes of Scholar withdrawals reviewed 
above involved lack of intellectual capacity. As the Farnsworth 
team reported: "Only rarely did we find in our study that a Schol- 
ar left college because of lack of ability. Almost invariably the 
main reason for leaving centered around a family situation, a 
cultural consideration, a social difference too wide to be bridged 
quickly, or a personal attitude that impeded normal develop- 
ment. To alter slightly a phrase coined by one of the advisers, 
'they have the intelligence, but it is not at their disposal.' " 

Avery small minority of the 195 1 Scholars (less than 2 per cent) 
did, however, leave college for the basic reason of lack of intel- 
lectual potential. Half of these withdrawals occurred at Shinier, 
which was the only institution deliberately and on an experi- 
mental basis to admit Scholars of average or below-average 
academic promise. While some of these Scholars succeeded in 
graduating, none made a distinguished academic record. Several 
dropped out of the program with varying degrees of discourage- 
ment and presumed feelings of inadequacy. 

Failures of this nature, the psychiatrists noted, represent the 
serious fatalities of the program. "Whereas these students might 
have succeeded in college had they completed secondary school, 
coming to college shy one year or two of such schooling placed 
them in a position which doomed them to failure. This group 
who really wanted a college education were severely traumatized 
psychologically by their failure. Experience with these students 
strongly suggests that early admission is applicable only to stu 
dents with superior intellectual potential." 

Summing up, the Farnsworth team found that this 2 per cenl 
of Scholar withdrawals due to lack of intellectual potential con 
stituted the only genuine failures in which early admission hac 
been a major cause— with one other minor exception. At twc 
colleges, a number of failures occurred among Scholars who hac 

[57] 



entered the program after only two years of high school. "These 
failures," the Farnsworth team said, "might have been avoided 
if the students had continued at least one more year in high 
school." They went on to note, however, that the majority of 
"tenth-graders" did succeed in the program. 

At four of the 1 1 colleges, the psychiatrists were able to com- 
pare their own classification of reasons for individual failures, 
withdrawals, and transfers with the reasons assigned by the col- 
lege administration. The accompanying table shows the results 
of this comparison. 



colleges' 




PSYCHIATRISTS' 




CLASSIFICATION 




CLASSIFICATION 




ACADEMIC FAILURE 


9 


IMMATURITY 
REALISTIC 


9 
1 






PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS 


2 






INAPPROPRIATE VALUES 


'1 


FAILURE TO ADJUST 


4 


IMMATURITY 


1 






PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS 


2 






MISCELLANEOUS 


I 


ENTERED MILITARY SERVICE 


1 


INAPPROPRIATE VALUES . 


1 


TRANSFERRED 


11 


REALISTIC REASONS 


6 






VOCATIONAL REASONS 


5 


FINANCIAL 


1 


REALISTIC 


1 


HEALTH 


2 


PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS 


2 


MARRIAGE 


5 


REALISTIC 


4 




... 


INAPPROPRIATE VALUES L ' 


1 




- — 


.. 


OTHER REASONS 


14 


UNKNOWN 


1 






FOR MISSIONARY WORK 


8 






FAMILY MOVED 


2 






INAPPROPRIATE VALUES -•' 


3 



"These comparisons," the Farnsworth team observed, "illus- 
trate the various factors underlying failure to successfully com- 
plete college. They suggest the exciting possibility that given 
[58] 



e ' better techniques for facilitating emotional growth in the college 
d as a social system, coupled with adequate psychiatric help, the 

result would be the salvaging for successful college careers of 
many of the students now failing for various reasons. Especially 
important would be the development of techniques to impart 
values for education to those lacking them in sufficient quantity 
to effect their motivation. Research in this area is badly needed." 
I- 



[59] 



A SUMMING UP 



On the basis of the evidence gathered to date on the experience 
of 1,350 Early Admission Scholars in the 1 2 participating colleges 
and universities over a period of five years during which two 
groups of Scholars have graduated, it is now possible to make 
much firmer judgments about the results of the experiment— and 
about the wisdom of early admission in general— than was the 
case in the summer of 1953, when the Fund published its first 
preliminary report on the program. 

What does the evidence add up to? What were the conclusions 
of the independent evaluators? How do the Scholars, their Com- 
parison students, their parents, the schools from which they 
came, and the colleges to which they went, feel about the Early 
Admission Program in particular and the idea of early admission 
in general? What are the implications of the results to date for 
secondary and higher education as a whole? 

This final chapter will attempt to answer these questions on 
the basis of the evidence accumulated thus far. 

THE JUDGMENT OF THE SCHOLARS AND 
COMPARISON STUDENTS 

In their senior essays, the 1951 and 1952 Scholars and Com- 
parison students who successfully completed their undergraduate 
work were asked to express their judgment about the wisdom of 
early admission on the basis of their own experience and obser- 
vations. 

The Scholars were asked these questions: 

In retrospect, how do you feel now about the advantages and dis- 
[60] 



advantages of having entered college early? On balance, do you think 
it was profitable in your case? 

What advice would you give to a friend of yours who was consider- 
ing the advisability of entering college at an earlier age than usual? 

Do you think the early admission idea should become a regular 
part of the admission policy of American colleges? 

The Comparison students were asked this question: 

In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of 

acceleration? On balance, do you think the idea is wise or unwise? 

Under what circumstances? 

The responses of the Scholars and Comparisons are shown in 
the table on the following page. 

As the table indicates, nearly nine out of ten of the Scholars 
who were about to graduate said that on balance it had been 
profitable for them to enter college early, and about eight out of 
ten Comparisons who were about to graduate expressed them- 
selves as generally favorable toward the early admission idea. 

Rather marked changes in attitude are observed when the 
answers to the four questions by the 1952 Scholars and Com- 
parisons are compared to the responses of the 1951 group. The 
1952 Scholars expressed far fewer reservations than their 1951 
counterparts about early admission, whether they were asked 
about it as a personal experience, or in terms of advice to a friend, 
or in terms of a general policy for American colleges and univer- 
sities. (One Scholar, in an emphatically affirmative answer to the 
latter question, wrote: "What I cannot understand is how early 
admission was once a regular part of American education and 
then abandoned. As you can imagine, I never miss the name of a 
great American who went to college early. Cotton Mather en- 
tered at twelve. Jonathan Edwards graduated at seventeen. This 
list could go on and on.") 

The 1952 Comparison students also expressed far fewer reser- 
vations than their 1951 counterparts about the early admission 
idea. This increase in the "wholly favorable" category was not 
accompanied by any comparable shift in the proportion of stu- 

[61] 



THE OVER -ALL JUDGMENT OF SCHOLARS AND 
COMPARISONS ABOUT EARLY ADMISSION 



RESPONSES BY THE SCHOLARS: 



LyijI GROUP 1958 GROUP 



Was Early Admission profitable in your case? 

YES, VERY MUCH SO 

YES, WITH RESERVATIONS 

NEITHER PROFITABLE NOR UNPROFITABLE 

NO, DEFINITELY NOT 

NO RESPONSE 

Would you advise a friend to enter college early? 

YES, DEFINITELY 

YES, WITH RESERVATIONS 

ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES 

NO, DEFINITELY NOT 

NO RESPONSE 

Do you think the Early Admission idea should 
become a regular part of the admission policy 
of American colleges? 

YES, DEFINITELY 

YES, WITH MINOR MODIFICATIONS 

YES, WITH SEVERE LIMITATIONS 

NO, DEFINITELY NOT 

NO RESPONSE 



'12% 


W% 


46 


15 


7 


5 


1 


3 


1 


2 


12% 


27% 


75 


61 


8 


5 


3 


3 


9 


4 



41% 


66% 


31 


15 


12 


16 


15 


2 


1 


1 



RESPONSES BY' THE COMPARISONS: 



1951 GROUP 1953 GROUP 



Do you think acceleration of qualified students 
is wise? 



YES, DEFINITELY 

YES, WITH RESERVATIONS 

ONLY IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES 

NO, DEFINITELY NOT 

NO RESPONSE 



12% 


32% 


67 


44 


11 


10 


9 


13 


1 


1 



dents expressing wholly unfavorable judgments, except that a 
much smaller proportion of the 195a Scholars rejected the idea 
that early admission become a regular part of the admission 
policy of American colleges, and a somewhat larger proportion of 
the 1952 Comparisons were definitely opposed to the acceleration 
of qualified students. Thus, the responses indicate an even 

[62] 



stronger endorsement of the early admission idea by the 1952 
Scholars and Comparisons than by their 1951 counterparts. 

In their appraisal of the advantages and disadvantages o£ early 
admission, the Scholars and Comparison students were virtually 
in complete agreement. The advantage both cited most fre- 
quently was a much greater academic challenge in college than 
in high school. Fifty-eight per cent of the 1951 Scholars and 82 
percent of the 1952 Scholars cited this as an advantage. The cor- 
responding figures for the Comparison students were 61 per cent 
and 72 per cent. The views expressed by the Scholars and Com- 
parison students on this point were interesting and revealing. 
Many of the Scholars said that early admission to college had 
"rescued" them from an unchallenging high school experience. 
This view was expressed in several different ways. One Scholar 
said flatly: "The one year which I missed in high school was, as 
I was informed by my friends who remained there, a complete 
waste of time." Another said: "I loved high school because of the 
extra-curricular activities and my friends, but I was wasting my 
time academically. College classes were much more of a chal- 
lenge." A third put it this way: "The [Early Admission Program] 
picked me up when I still had great interest and ambition, which 

I feel I would have lost in the next two years [It] put me into 

a challenging intellectual atmosphere at precisely the time when 
I was best equipped to accept it." 

The tenor of some of the Scholars' comments on this point 
suggested that their criticism was aimed not at their high schools 
but at the "lock step," which frequently keeps able students from 
entering college when they are ready to, regardless of chronologi- 
cal age or the number of years of prior schooling. This distinction 
was clearly made by a Scholar from a reputable high school in a 
large Eastern city who wrote: "I found at college an intellectual 
challenge and satisfaction which I wanted out of high school 
work at that time, but which I could not seem to obtain, even 
though I feel that the high school I attended offered the best 

high school education that one could receive in ." It 

[63] 



also was made by the Scholar who wrote: "High schools are of 
necessity (and rightly so) geared to the average student, since he 
forms the majority of our population. Yet if we are to maintain 
our position of world leadership with any degree of dignity and 
self-respect at all, we must not neglect the education of those who 
are our future leaders and who are at present marking time in 
an educational atmosphere which is not challenging." 

Several of the Comparison students made the same point. One 
wrote: "I have known many accelerated students who would 
have been seriously frustrated and perhaps permanently damaged 
by having to spend two additional years in conventional high 
school." And another, on the basis of personal experience, wrote: 
"I see no reason, academically, why qualified students should 
not be able to accelerate their education. From my own experi- 
ence, I believe that much of the time in the last year of high 
school is wasted in that the material could either have been 
taught earlier, or is repeated in college courses. 

The next most frequently mentioned advantage on the part 
of both Scholars and Comparisons was the opportunity for ac- 
celeration, which they described in various ways— an earlier start 
on professional study, an earlier start on a career, an earlier mar- 
riage, or an opportunity to finish college before being called up 
for military service. Several of the students who cited this as an 
advantage mentioned that the time saved looked less significant 
from the vantage point of senior year than of freshman year. 
Pearson concluded that most of these students were more con- 
cerned with avoiding wasting time than with saving time. 

The Scholars and Comparisons also agreed with respect to 
the major disadvantages of early admission. The most frequently 
cited disadvantage was that early admission makes personal and 
social adjustment to college more difficult. This was cited by 58 
per cent of the 1 95 1 Scholars and 65 per cent of the 1 952 Scholars. 
The corresponding figures for the Comparisons were 95 per cent 
and 83 per cent. Here again the comments of the Scholars were 
interesting and revealing. Said one: 

[64] 



On looting back over my past four years here, I am quite glad that 
I entered college early. However, I honestly believe I am expressing 
the feeling of one who has .'made the grade' and not the feeling of 
one who has to do it over again. I sincerely believe, however, that in 
four years time I have gotten much more out of school than the 
average student, but it was a tough climb. 

Another summed up the matter in these words: "That there 
are difficulties involved cannot be denied, and many individuals 
may find the adjustment problems very difficult to overcome, but 
for the majority I feel these will not be insuperable, or even 

trying." 

Several of the Scholars reported that early admission had 
actually enhanced their social and emotional development. As 
one Scholar put it: "From my first moments on campus, college 
represented a new and exciting experience. I had no difficulty 
adjusting to this new life, partly because of the sincere interest 
which the faculty and upperclassmen took in us. ... The newly 
acquired self-responsibility was a challenge which stimulated my 
social and emotional maturation." 

The fact that the 1952 Scholars endorsed early admission with 
far fewer qualifications than the 1951 group, yet cited the per- 
sonal and emotional adjustment problem as a disadvantage with 
much greater frequency than the 1951 group appears to be some- 
what contradictory. Pearson concluded that the 1952 Scholars, 
in making an over-all appraisal of their college experience, as- 
signed less weight to this disadvantage than their 1951 counter- 
parts. 

The reservations expressed by the Scholars and Comparisons 
in qualifying their endorsement of the early admission idea 
were of such a nature as to indicate that they had given the 
questions thoughtful consideration before answering them. For 
example, in their answers to the questions about the wisdom of 
early admission, the reservations dealt not only with the ad- 
vantages inherent in the program, but also with the kinds of 
students and the kinds of colleges where the policy was most 

[65] 



likely to be successful. In general, both the Scholars and the 
Comparisons who expressed these reservations felt that the eariy 
admission policy should be adopted only by colleges capable of 
wise selection and proper handling of such students, and should 
apply only to students who demonstrated exceptional ability 
and a high degree of social and emotional maturity. One Scholar 
wrote: "What is really needed ... is a more effective high school 
system, but until the answer to this comes, colleges should pro- 
vide some sort of an escape hatch for the students who are ready 
to handle advanced work." 

After analyzing the Scholars' reservations, Pearson concluded: 

The impression one forms in considering these comments is that 
the important thing is enrichment of the educational program and 
recognition of individual ability, rather than any particular partiality 
for the idea of early admission per se. These students recognize that 
the offering of advanced college level courses at secondary schools 
would probably be limited to a relatively few schools among the total 
number in the country. To the extent that this is possible, the need 
for a regular policy of early admission is limited. To the extent that 
this is not possible, a regular program of early admission is essential. 
We believe it is clear from these comments that the Scholars look 
upon early admission as a rather specific exception within the general 
framework of American education, although from their point of view 
the exception would be a most important one. 

The qualities mentioned by both Scholars and Comparison 
students as desirable in applicants for early admission included 
mature appearance, sense of responsibility, emotional stability, 
self-reliance, adaptability, high motivation for college, and social 
maturity. Many of the students who pressed for appraisal of these 
qualities admitted their elusiveness and confessed their inability 
to describe just how an admission officer could determine their 
presence or absence in a specific applicant. "Their point," Pear- 
son observed, "is that intellectual readiness for college does not 
presuppose emotional readiness for college and somehow the 
latter must be weighed in the balance." 

Both Scholars and Comparison students were sharply split on 
[66] 



the relative importance or intellectual readiness and emotional 
readiness. Some described the ideal student as one who is in the 
top 5 or 10 per cent of his class scholastically, scores extremely 
high on college entrance examinations, and is active in extra- 
curricular activities and sports. There was general agreement 
that if such an individual were a sophomore or a junior in high 
school and was frustrated by an unchallenging academic diet, he 
would be clearly admissible by these high standards. However, 
it was far less clear from the essays whether favorable early ad- 
mission action should be taken in the case of a student who was 
strong intellectually but had a poorer chance of successful col- 
lege adjustment. One Scholar wrote: "My own prejudice is that 
only intellectual adequacy to do the work is really relevant; I 
resent the present attempts of my own university to impose social 
and intellectual orthodoxy by its admission policy." Another 
Scholar wrote that at his college "social maturity is much less im- 
portant than academic preparation." Two other students sug- 
gested that the intellectually strong youngster who was not well- 
adjusted at secondary school was a likely prospect for early ad- 
mission because he probably would be no worse off in college. 

"Quotations such as these," Pearson observed in his report, 
"contrast quite sharply with the qualities of personal and social 
maturity which were mentioned quantitatively more often 
among the essays. A conceivable reconciliation of these somewhat 
divergent points of view is that intellectual competence is the 
sine qua non for early admission; given this, the final decision 
should rest on a relative assessment of the applicant's challenge 
and adjustment at high school and his likely challenge and ad- 
justment at college." 

The Scholars and the Comparison students were unanimous 
in urging a minimum of special treatment for early admission 
students. Many also urged that college counseling services should 
be improved. Reports on this aspect were very favorable on some 
campuses and sharply critical on others. There was a general feel- 
ing on the part of most Scholars that a strong counseling system 

[67] 



was essential at any college admitting youthful students— not a 
system uniquely for them, but one which they could share with 
the rest of the student body. 

Finally, the Scholars and the Comparison students stressed the 
need for a "good fit" between the individual students and the 
individual college. "This requirement," Pearson noted in his re- 
port, "came out in an amusing way in a number of essays where 
special and fervent pleas were made for confining early admis- 
sion to small liberal arts colleges, or to large universities, or to 
highly selective colleges, or to engineering and technical schools. 
If one were to be guided by the sum total of these suggestions, 
one would conclude that early admission is a necessary feature 
at all American colleges and universities." 



"o^ 



THE VERDICT OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATORS 
The Pearson Evaluation 

The principal conclusions reached by Pearson after his analy- 
sis of the senior essays can be summarized as follows: 

1. The evidence is that adjustment difficulties were by no 
means limited to early admission students, although more Schol- 
ars than Comparisons reported such difficulties. The conclu- 
sion is that early admission was a contributing factor— but not 
the sole factor— in the existence of adjustment difficulties among 
the Scholars. However, although the Scholars were faced initially 
with a greater adjustment problem than the Comparison stu- 
dents, they were able to effect as successful an over-all adjustment 
as the Comparison students. 

"Borrowing from Toynbee, the response to challenge, rather 
than the challenge itself, becomes a measure of success of the 
experiment and in these terms we would record our conclusion 
that the experiment was a success for the students whose essays 
we have considered in this report." 

2. The Scholars' definition of early admission as an excep- 
tion to general educational practice underscores a concern that 

[68] 



the able student will be hurt unless special arrangements are 
made to recognize and develop his ability. From this point of 
view, early admission or indeed any program of enrichment is 
viewed as giving the able student the same opportunity as that 
routinely offered to other students. Similarly, the problem of 
trying to describe the student for whom early admission would 
be wise is by no means dissimilar from the problem faced by 
the admissions officer in attempting to select candidates for 
regular admission. Finally, the obligation of the college to insure 
a successful educational experience for the early admission stu- 
dent differs only in detail from the college's obligation toward 
normal-age students. 

"This suggests that the important lesson from the early ad- 
mission experiment is that the American educational system can- 
not afford to overlook the individuality of the students with 
whom it deals. Whether these students are normal age or under- 
age, or whether they have completed a formal program in second- 
ary school is probably of less importance than their capabilities 
and aspirations as individuals. The contribution of the schools 
and the colleges to society is likely to be gauged in terms of how 
well these are recognized and developed, rather than in terms of 
formal structures and prescribed programs." 

The Farnsworth Evaluation 

Dr. Farnsworth and his colleagues, after studying the social 
and emotional adjustment of the 1951 Scholars, concluded that 
the Scholars adjusted to campus life as well as their Comparison 
students and classmates and that the reasons for failures among 
the Scholars were the same as for college students in general. 

They suggested that the following guideposts might be helpful 
to admissions officers in selecting candidates for early admission, 
noting that most of them apply equally to the selection of regular 
freshmen: 

a. Such students must be carefully selected on an individual 

[69] 



basis for the individual college. They should be of the type most 
apt to benefit from the type of education which the collet has 
to offer. 

b. Such students should have above average academic achieve- 
ment and superior intelligence. 

c. Such students, except in unusual cases, should have com- 
pleted the nth grade. 

d. Personality wise, they should show evidence of emotional 
maturity at least consistent with their chronological age, good 
ability in inter-personal relations, and freedom from excessive 
parental pressure toward early admission. Students who have 
had frequent changes of schools without similar moves by the 
family, who come from families with severe discord or who are 
using college entrance as an escape from serious personal prob- 
lems are poor risks. 

e. Students who have had psychiatric illnesses should have had 
adequate treatment. 

f. Students with characteriological disorders should not be 
admitted. However, a distinction must be made between mis- 
behavior as representative of a long-standing characteriological 
disorder and misbehavior as a manifestation of adolescent re- 
bellion. These latter cases, if the difficulties have been overcome 
either as a result of the natural maturing process or of psychiatric 
treatment, should not be excluded. 

g. In the selection of students for liberal arts courses, such 
students should have appropriate educational values, or the 
capacity to acquire such values. 

h. Close scrutiny should be given by large urban universities 
to students from rural areas. 

i. In selection, it is all too easy to err in not admitting the 
unusually intellectually gifted student or the chronic dissenter 
who is not "well-rounded." While "well-rounded" students are 
highly desirable, if this is used as the main criteria for admission 
these unusual students may be passed over. Such students may 
[7o] 



make great contributions in the future. As one dean said: "There 
should be room in our stable for all kinds of horses." 



COMMENTS OF SCHOLARS' PARENTS 



The colleges and universities participating in the Early Ad- 
mission Program have not made a systematic effort to determine 
how the Scholars' parents feel about the program, but two col- 
leges (Goucher and Louisville) conducted special canvasses of 
the parents of their 1951 Scholars shortly after their graduation. 
These results, although based on a very small and incomplete 
statistical sample, tended to confirm the general impression re- 
ported by the colleges that the parents on the whole have been 
favorable toward the program. 

In the Goucher survey, 26 of the 27 parents responding said 
that if they had the choice to make again they would send their 
daughters to college early. Many of the parental opinions re- 
flected the same balancing of advantages and disadvantages as 
the Scholar essays. One mother, who said she would again choose 
early admission for her daughter, remarked nonetheless that the 
girl had lost contact with her high school classmates and added 
on the drawback side: "It was, too, a lonely pinnacle of fame in 
the adolescent community." Another expressed the opinion that 
entering college early "helped to build up her self-confidence 
and initiative." Another wrote: "She was made more resourceful 
and self-reliant; had to think and act independently." And 
another: "I believe she matured in many ways sooner than if she 
had completed high school." 

In the Louisville survey, 11 of the 12 responses expressed 
parental approval of the Early Admission Program. The one ex- 
ception, written by the mother of a Scholar, said in part: "I would 
never influence a boy or girl again into giving up the last year in 
high school. . . . [My son] entered engineering school at the age of 
16. He needed the chemistry, physics, and math he would have 
had his last year in High School. He was lost as far as the work was 

[7i] 



concerned and very unhappy. He had always made good grades. 
... As far as [my son] is concerned the early entry was not right 
and I've regretted it." 

Another Louisville mother, who had two children in the pro- 
gram, wrote: "Since I wasn't sold on the Program when I first 
heard about it, I'm happy to have the opportunity now to say 
I'm wholeheartedly in favor of it since our two children have 
tried it. . . . They both seem happier and better adjusted at the 
University than they did in High School. They are certainly not 
either one geniuses but I really believe now that they would have 
been wasting their time if they had stayed in High School another 
year. They have even had more social life at the University." 

Apart from the Goucher and Louisville surveys, a number of 
participating institutions have reported their general impres- 
sions on the matter of parental attitudes. Utah said it believed 
that most parents consider going to college early to have been a 
successful and valuable experience for their children. Fisk re- 
ported the reaction of parents to have been "quite favorable." 
Lafayette said a few of the parents felt that it would have been 
better for their children to have finished high school, but that 
most were well-satisfied with the results. 

Oberlin reported that the reactions of parents have been ' 
difficult to evaluate. It noted that where a Scholar was successful 
the parents were highly co-operative and pleased but that where 
it did not work out "the reactions ranged from a mature ac- 
ceptance to a projection of all the blame on the College." (In a 
number of these cases, it reported, the Scholars had been strongly 
encouraged to apply for the Fund scholarships by their parent's.) 
Wisconsin, on the other hand, reported that the attitude of 
its Scholars' parents has been "one of the most interesting and 
heartening aspects of early admission." The parents were pleased 
and grateful when their sons and daughters did well, Wisconsin 
added, but "what is more important, when the- boys did badly 
the parents were extremely helpful and co-operative, and to this 
[72] 



we probably owe many of the successful recoveries from trouble 
the Scholars have made. ... It is interesting that three families 
have sent two Scholars each." 

THE ATTITUDES OF HIGH SCHOOL PRINCIPALS 

As with parental attitudes, the participating colleges have not 
made a systematic effort to gather data about the attitudes of the 
high schools from which the Scholars were chosen. However, 
Goucher and Louisville polled the secondary schools from which 
their 1951 Scholars came, and several of the other colleges have 
obtained, through correspondence and discussion, a general 
picture of the reactions of principals and guidance officers. 
- The available evidence suggests that the character of high 
school reaction is mixed, ranging from strong approval to strong 
disapproval, and that to some extent it is in the process of change. 

Ten of the 1 2 participating colleges have reported to the Fund 
on their experience with high school principals and guidance 
officers, often in relation to the difficult task of Scholar selection. 
According to these reports, many of the college officials have en- 
countered considerable resistance to the Early Admission Pro- 
gram. Sometimes this has been vocal. Sometimes, as one college 
commented, it has not: "The general reaction has been to ignore 
the plan entirely." 

Many teachers and principals in secondary schools have been 
strongly opposed to the early departure to college of some of their 
best potential juniors and seniors. As one principal frankly told 
a college official: "We don't like the idea of the colleges taking 
our leaders out of high school at the end of the tenth or eleventh 
grade." 

The clean of one of the participating colleges, reporting con- 
siderable high school resistance to the Early Admission Program, 
voiced the opinion that it "is based partially on a genuine concern, 
for the emotional and social development of the individual and 
a belief that he will be harmed by taking him out of his chrono- 

[73] 



logical peers and placing him with his intellectual peers. It may 
also result partially from the reflection upon the job of the sec- 
ondary school which is seen in the program." 

This dean noted that there appeared to be a marked difference 
among high schools, depending on the quality of their own in- 
struction. "Those schools which were well-established and doing 
very good jobs saw this as another indication of the fine work 
they were doing in having their students qualify for admission 
after only two or three years with them," he said. "On the other 
hand, the weaker schools tended to see this as a criticism of the 
programs which they were performing and a reflection that they 
were doing so poor a job that an additional year or two with 
them made little difference in the college success of the student." 
Some of the colleges and universities have reported cases of 
active high school interest in and co-operation with the experi- 
ment. For example, one large university reported that the ma- 
jority of high schools from which its Scholars came were quite 
enthusiastic and continued to be so, except in the case of a few 
Scholars who failed to stay. Another university, noting that a few 
high schools have sent it a large proportion of its Scholars, re- 
marked: "Their views on the program are, of course, colored by 
the experience of their boys; since they have sent us applicants 
year after year they presumably approve the plan." 

One university said that some principals in its state "have real- 
ized early admission could take some burdens from their shoul- 
ders, by removing some of the pressure for college preparation 
of a few students. If, for example, a boy shows potentiality as a 
scientist, but goes to a school which does not teach mathematics 
beyond algebra, early admission offers him a way to get his 
trigonometry, without straining the resources of the school." 

A number of the participating institutions reported that high 
school attitudes, first largely negative, have changed, presumably 
as a result of experience with early admission, and that there 
has been a growing acceptance of its possibilities durino- the last 
few years. ° 

[74] 



Aside from these general observations by the colleges the only 
, direct evidence as to the attitudes of high school principals and 
guidance officers is afforded by the results of the Goucher and 
Louisville surveys. The responses to these surveys ranged all the 
way from strong approval to strong disapproval of early admis- 
sion, with most of the principals emphasizing that they felt it 
was wise only for students of exceptional academic ability and 
social maturity. For example, of the six principals responding to 
the Louisville survey, two said they approved of the idea, one 
said the wisdom of early admission depends entirely on the stu- 
dent concerned, another said the idea had both good and bad 
points, and two disapproved of the idea on the ground that the 
early admission student misses much by not completing high 
school. Following are samples of the range of comments: 

Students who enter college too young seem to lack social maturity 
and often are not accepted by the more mature college students. I 
often wonder how much these students lose by not remaining with 
their classes and probably taking over positions of leadership during 
their senior year. 

Whether or not it is wise for a high school student to enter college 
at the end of his junior year depends entirely upon the student con- 
cerned. ... In brief, both the academic progress and the social de- 
velopment of the student must receive equal consideration in making 
the decision. In our opinion only a relatively small percentage would j 
qualify socially. j 

I think the [Early Admission] Program has been a distinct service 
to the students from this school, and I believe I would like to see the 
program renewed and the selections be made on an individual basis 

The pattern of responses to the Goucher survey was quite 
similar to that of the Louisville survey. The principals and guid 
ance officers of high schools that had sent the largest number of 
students into the Early Admission Program tended to be the most 
favorably disposed toward it. The tenor of the replies suggested 
that there were two major reasons for this tendency: (1) Since 

[75] 



the senior classes in such high schools were generally large, the 
Scholars were not "missed" as much as they were in small high 
schools, and (2) since the academic standards or these schools 
were generally high, the principals tended to be much less 
sensitive to the implication that the Scholars were offered a much 
greater academic challenge in college. 

The reply of the scholarship counselor in a large Eastern high 
school that has sent nine students into the Early Admission Pro- 
gram aptly illustrates this tendency. Asked to cite the major ad- 
vantage of early admission from the student's point of view, she 
replied: "The student stops 'marking time' and gets on with the 
real work that he wants to do. If he's mature enough, he gets real 
satisfaction out of the greater challenge of college work." Asked 
to cite the major disadvantage of the program from the school's 
point of view, she wrote: "The school is deprived in the sense 
that these Early Admission students leave gaps in their class. The 
school no longer benefits from the stimulation of their superior 
work and attitudes, and generally from their participation in 
the extracurricular life of the school." She added, however, that 
"since our early admission people are so few in number, we feel 
no significant deprivation; and since we feel that the boys and 
girls themselves are benefited, we are very happy to see them 
succeed in college." 

Principals of other large Eastern high schools which have sent 
relatively large numbers of students into the Early Admission 
Program made similar observations. "Most high schools like to 
have bright students in their enrollment," wrote the principal 
of a Massachusetts high school which has furnished eight Schol- 
ars. "Occasionally key posts are left vacant (by the departure of 
early admission students), but they are usually filled by another 
capable student. Occasionally we find a brilliant student who 
is bored by his contemporaries; he finds their activities childish. 
A change in environment could be helpful." 



[76] 



THE VIEWS OF THE PARTICIPATING COLLEGES 

In preparation for this report, the Fund asked each of the 
participating colleges and universities to study the records of 
the first two groups of Scholars to graduate and to judge whether 
early admission had been wise in each individual case. The re- 
sults of this appraisal were as follows: 



OPINION 


iggi GROUP 


!95 


% GROUP 


WISE 


79.6% 




76.4% 


OPINION DIVIDED 


14.6 




17.1 


UNWISE 


5.8 




6.5 



As the table indicates, the faculty judgment at the participating 
institutions was that early admission was wise in the case of eight 
out of ten Scholars in the 1951 group, and in the case of three 
out of four in the 1952 group. (It must be remembered that the 
judgments covered only those Scholars who had survived through 
senior year.) 

The Fund also asked the participating institutions to appraise 
their experience under the Early Admission Program, and in- 
vited them to comment on the broad implications of the results 
to date for American secondary and higher education as a whole. 

Excerpts from their reports follow: 

The University of Chicago 

The Chicago campus made adjustment easier in that there were 
so many students of the same age as the Scholars. For approximately 
ten years prior to the start of the Early Admission Program, the Uni- 
versity of Chicago had admitted students to the College who had 
completed no more than two years of high school. The Early Admis- 
sion Scholars who entered in 1951 and in each succeeding year were 
only a fraction of the total number of entering students who had not 
graduated from high school. I think, too, the curriculum made ad- 
justment easier. The curriculum at the University of Chicago is ar- 
ranged so as to allow each student to proceed at his own best pace. 
But Chicago is a large metropolitan University, and for many reasons 
a large university is not the ideal home for everyone, and I suppose 

[77] 



the youth of some Scholars makes adjustment to a metropolitan 
campus difficult. The student body at Chicago is divided between 
commuting students and resident students. There is not the homo- 
geneity m campus life that many colleges can achieve. This may have 
been one factor affecting the younger students, although the large 
number of early entrants at Chicago has made possible the develop- 
ment of athletics and extra-curricular activities which fit their needs 
Despite all of these factors, however, I am confident that the over- 
whelming majority of the Scholars (and other early entrants) at 
Chicago have adjusted well, that they have been glad that they en- 
tered college early, and have found an intellectual stimulation from 
college that they would not have found during the corresponding 
years of high school. I see no reason to believe that the intellectual 
stimulation for this majority was achieved at the expense of social 
maladjustment. They have more than held their own in the social 
life of the campus. 

Columbia College 

When in the spring of i 955 , the Columbia College faculty in- 
structed the committee responsible for admissions that up to »s early 
admission candidates might be admitted within any one year the 
action clearly had a double significance. It represents, in the' first 
place, a formal acceptance of the desirability and practicability of 
early admission for qualified candidates. But the limitation of the 
number to be admitted reflects the special situation of Columbia" 
College. New York City and the Metropolitan Area offer a rich source 
of student talent. We attract boys from this region as a national col- 
lege which can be reached by subway. However, most of our applicants 
for early admission live in New York City. Our status as a national 
college is maintained by our capacity to draw students from beyond 
he confines of the metropolis. Simply adding to our representation 
from New lork and its immediate environs will undercut the very 
basis on which we appeal to the highly talented youths within that 
area. Moreover, an increase in our New York City contingent would 
distort our pre-professional balance, because a high proportion of 
New York City applicants for early admission are pre-meclical stu- 
dents of whom we already have as high a proportion as we can handle 
without damage to our liberal arts program. 

If h were possible to secure a large number of equally able early" 

henTr T d f t£S , fr ° m the C ° Untry at lar §' 6 ' Coklmbia would 
benefit greatly. But the widespread announcement of the early ad- 

[78] 



mission opportunity in earlier years produced very few candidates 
from good schools in other urban centers, and it has been our ex- 
perience that the boy from a small school, remote from an urban 
center, needs, when he comes to Columbia, whatever assurance and 
maturity his final year in high school or a year's additional growth 
can bestow. Our National Scholarship Program provides a direct 
answer to our problem here. 

This is an immediate and practical response, dictated by our faith 
in the value of the kind of work we can do with the able students, 
diversified as to geographical origin and background, who come to us 
now. Much of the value of institutions of higher learning lies in their 
distinctive capacities to contribute to the national life. 

But early admission, considered independently, poses no discerni- 
ble threat to such distinctive contributions as a variety of institutions 
afford, and it promises to fulfill the hope of those who have tried it: 
to achieve a closer and more efficacious relation between the school 
and the college. This, at least, is our experience, and we are happy 
to report that Columbia and the youngsters who came early to the 
feast have both profited. 

Fisk University 

It has been made clear that the distinctly superior student coming 
out of the tenth or eleventh grade can succeed well with college fresh- 
man work provided the student also has good motivation and reason- 
able emotional maturity. The distinctly superior academic capacity 
of the Ford Scholars has emphasized the fact that the College needs 
freshman courses at different levels to meet the ability and prepara- 
tion of a wide variety of students. (This variety is bound to persist : 
in any college which does not require entrance examinations either in [ 
aptitude or achievement.) 

The best of the Scholars have done so well academically that they 
have challenged others to keep pace with them and have challenged 
instructors to raise their expectation in certain courses. The leader- 
ship of the Scholars in various extra-curricular activities has stimu- 
lated these organizations very distinctly . . . 

... In connection with considering an appropriate curriculum for 
Ford Scholars, we have reviewed and rebuilt our whole general edu- 
cation program for freshmen and sophomores. 

Goucher College 

It is not easy to draw conclusions from an educational project that 

[79] 



has been as wide flung in its implications as the Early Admission Pro- 
gram, but with five years of experience in it we would like to make 
two points: the first touching on the merits of early admission vis-a- 
vis admission with advanced standing, with a side look at the much 
discussed question of the social adjustment of those entering as early 
admission students; the second on qualitative differences that have 
been revealed in the four early admission groups we admitted with 
the financial aid of The Fund for the Advancement of Education 

In our opinion it is very doubtful that the so-called enrichment 
programs in high school can meet as well as a college or university 
the total intellectual and social needs of patently superior students 
We say this not out of a partisan feeling for early admission but out 
of a realization that the superior student should feel a gravitational 
pull not m one or two courses alone but in all the student's educa- 
tional and social pursuits. This absolute need we believe can be met 
by very few, if any, high schools in the country. 

If we are asked by what signs we may know the superior student 
we would point to an outstanding educational record in high school 
supported by College Board aptitude and achievement scores in the 
600 s preferably, though some scores in the high 500's would be ac- 
ceptable. These objective data we would want fortified by the recom- 
mendations of the high school principals. 

Queried about social adjustment and maturity (two very different 
concepts, not necessarily reconcilable) we would reply that an early 
admission student should give evidence at entrance to college of the 
capacity to catch up in the space of two years with those who will 
be her college classmates. If the student is intellectually ready for 
college we think she should be admitted even if there will be some 
periods of social and personal strain ahead of her (and we would be- 
lieve that in almost every case they would be inevitable). We are con- 
vinced that as these stem from superior ability and differentness, the 
early admission student has a better chance of meeting them more 
happily m a setting where the intellectual is not considered a "freak" 
or a young Einstein. We believe that the ampler ether of college or 
university will serve to help the student with superior endowment to • 
wait on the maturing processes of time without vulgarizing herself 
by seeking mere conformity or by denigrating her intellectual re- 
ources by calling them "compensations." In other words we believe 
Out social maturity can be sooner and better achieved by the superior 
student with less waste of spirit in college than in high school. 
[80] 



As to the best time of entrance to college for the patently superior 
student we are at this point almost inclined to say the end of the 
tenth year, though there is a possible danger of shortchanging the stu- 
dent in her preparation for college work in the sciences and mathe- 
matics. Our inclination toward the tenth year has been influenced 
by the facts (1) that some of our tenth year students have been among 
our best; (2) that a lack of intellectual challenge may result in a 
dulling of intellectual interests and/or in a failure of habits of in- 
dustry, which failure spread over two years in high school blights 
performance and attitude in college; and (3) that the longer a student 
is entrenched in the extra-curricular life of her high school the harder 
it is to extricate herself without cries of woe from those who are more 
interested in the extra dividends paid by high office in the senior year 
than by the intellectual and, we believe, total achievement of the 
student in question. 

The second observation we wish to make is one which bears on the 
question of qualitative differences within early admission groups. We 
believe that after five years of experience in selecting early admission 
students for admission we are better informed about what constitutes 
what we call, reverting to an earlier terminology, a "true Ford," or 
an early admission student whom we would define as one who by 
the end of the first or second year of college has (1) made a good be- 
ginning in self-knowledge (and discipline); (2) revealed purposeful- 
ness in planning and execution; and, above everything else, (3) shown 
a sensitivity to form and plan and order, this last in the high sense of 
Schiller's "heilige Ordnung." 

But even developing expertness in selection has not increased our 
yield of "true Fords" in each class. Always they number about one- 
third of the group. What makes the difference between those equally 
endowed in mental acuity is a question we cannot yet answer, if we 
ever can. But henceforth we shall be studying subjective classifica- 
tions, seeing how far they correlate with objective data. 

Using the three criteria mentioned above in the qualitative descrip- 
tion of a "true Ford" we think we can divide by the end of the third 
year each early admission class into three groups: the first in patent 
possession of those qualities; the second group definitely above aver- 
age in their grasp of their value but not ("yet" might be added 
parenthetically since self-education will be carried on beyond gradua- 
tion) in possession of them; the third group, average in their ability 
to see order or to give form and order to their plans and ideas. It 

[81] 



should be recognized that these three classifications are not based 
on such objective data as grade point averages or College Board 
scores, but depend ultimately on our judgment of the student in the 
light of value criteria. But the classifications can yield interesting 
objective data. We intend to study and report on our findings next 
year. 

Lafayette College 

Lafayette College feels that the Early Admission Program has been 
a success. The record of the achievement of the Ford scholars in 
academic work and extra activities is an excellent one. For this reason, 
the College plans to continue to admit qualified students even though 
they have not been graduated from secondary school. 

Even though the groups to be admitted to college under this pro- 
gram will probably never be large, the Early Admission Program 
does offer an excellent opportunity to the young man who is more 
mature intellectually, socially, and emotionally than his age group. 
If he is desirous of accelerating his educational program, it is evident 
that he can do so without losing any of the advantages of college life. 

University of Louisville 

It is the opinion of all persons concerned with the Early Admission 
Program that it has been most successful. The University of Louis- 
ville has admitted students to its College of Arts and Sciences after 
three years of high school since 1934, and that program will continue. 
Theie is no definite arrangement for financial assistance to such stu- 
dents except that which the Student Aid Committee is able to give 
them if they need help. 

From our experience with the Early Admission Program during 
the past four years, we have learned that a good student, after three 
years of high school, can do a good job in college if he is well adjusted 
emotionally and socially before he comes. 



The program has caused us to examine the aspects of our program 
that affect all students. We are now trying to locate within our own 
students the superior student and to do more for him. ... It is our 
hope that much more can be done to give more public recognition to 
these superior students and also to enrich our academic offerings to 



them 

[8 2 ] 



One of the main implications of the Program for secondary and 
higher education generally is that more should be done to identify 
the superior student and to enrich his educational program. 

Oberlin College 

There still seem to be some real difficulties in attracting and select- 
ing appropriate students for early admission. There is still consider- 
able resistance on the part of many secondary school educators to the 
early admission principle. This is based partially on a genuine con- 
cern for the emotional and social development of the individual and 
a Belief that he will be harmed by taking him out of his chronological 
peers and placing him with his intellectual peers. It may also result 
partially from the reflection upon the job of the secondary school 
which is seen in the Program. Still a third difficulty in the way of 
attracting the proper students for the Program lies in the fact that the 
schools which have given most publicity to the Early Admission Pro- 
gram have been the better high schools and preparatory schools which 
are doing a relatively effective job in their own right. The student of 
superior ability who is stuck in a second-rate high school may not 
even hear about the Early Admission Program, yet he is the person 
who could benefit most from being selected for such advancement. 

The results of the Early Admission Program at Oberlin were care- 
fully reviewed during this past year and the faculty took action this 
spring to continue to admit students who had a minimum of two 
years of high school work and who, in the opinion of the Director of 
Admissions, were ready for admission to college. There are, of course, 
broad differences of opinion about the advisability of such a program 
among our faculty, but enough of them felt it had been sufficiently 
successful to continue on the above mentioned basis. No special schol- 
arship program will be offered for these early admission students 
who may be admitted in succeeding classes, but they will be per- 
mitted to compete for any of the regular Admissions Office scholar- 
ships open to four-year students. 

The general success of the Early Admission Program certainly sug- 
gests the lack of adequate provision in the vast majority of our 
secondary schools and colleges for the truly superior student. It 
would appear that there is a considerable number of students who 
are marking time in many high schools during their last one or two 

[83] 



years there. If they are gaining much educationally, it may very pos- 
sibly be because they are educating themselves as a result of their 
intellectual curiosity rather than because of anything the school 
itself is doing to educate them. At the same time it would appear that 
many students coming out of four years of experience in good sec- 
ondary schools may very well be marking time educationally in the 
first year or two spent in college. The basic implication I see in there- 
suits of the Early Admission Program is the tremendous need for bet- 
ter integration of secondary and college education and more provision 
for the education of the superior student at both of these levels. 

Shimer College 

Shinier feels that the Early Admission Program has very real value 
for the pre-professional student. Faced with a long program of spe- 
cialization, the early entrant finds that his program is accelerated to 
such an extent that he may begin his professional training at least 
a year earlier than the student who finishes high school before enter- 
ing college. 

In some measure, the admission program at Shimer will undergo 
a slight change as a result of this recent experience. Probably the 
percentage of students under the Early Admission Program will be 
somewhat decreased, with an even greater emphasis on the student 
who is particularly qualified, both in terms of academic preparation 
and social adjustment. The administration and faculty of the College 
believe strongly in the Early Admission Program, and every effort 
is being made by the College to secure financial underwriting for 
early entrant scholarships. 



While it is doubtful that this program with its limitation in num- 
bers will specifically affect the structure of the American education 
system, it would seem that there is adequate evidence that the quali- 
fied student can perform successfully in college without the usually 
prescribed sixteen Carnegie units. This evidence should lead to some 
revision of admission policy on the part of many colleges and uni- 
versities since it is evident that neither the sixteen units are absolutely 
required, nor are specifically required high school course groupings 
absolutely necessary. 

[84] 



University of Utah 

In summary, those of us who have been close to the Early Admis- 
sion Program at the University of Utah view the program after four 
years as a successful and valuable experience. We believe, moreover, 
that this attitude is shared by a great majority of the Scholars and 
their parents and by a growing number of high school administra- 
tors and teachers. 

We believe the problem of the abler student to be especially serious 
and difficult of solution in situations like ours, where State law re- 
quires all young people to remain in school until they are eighteen 
or have been graduated from high school and where a high school 
diploma, with rare exceptions, is a guarantee of university or college 
admission. It will become increasingly acute in the next decade with 
the great increase in students entering our gates. However, it seems 
to us that the University of Utah with its geographically homogeneous 
population and its potentially close relationships with the schools 
from which its students come has a very special opportunity and chal- 
lenge to do something about it. 

Our special situation is but one illustration of the many striking 
differences among our higher institutions, even among the small 
number of institutions engaged in the early admission experiment, 
and points out again that there are no simple answers, let alone a 
single one, to the problem. However, we believe that there are some 
general implications from our experience for secondary and higher 
education and for the Fund in planning its future program. We be- 
lieve that, theoretically at least, admission with advanced standing 
would be sounder psychologically for the students than early admis- 
sion and better in its effect upon the high schools. However, only a 
handful of schools in our State could possibly carry out such a pro- 
gram, and even in them the problems of staff and finance would be 
very great. The same lack of resources would confront any major 
effort in behalf of the individual student such as is carried on in the 
Portland experiment. 

Under our circumstances the early admission program was the 
best immediate answer. It caused the least disruption; except for the 
scholarships it cost relatively little; and, as we have seen, it has been 
quite successful. However, it has serious disadvantages. It inevitably 

[85] 



serves too few of the students we are trying to help; attractive scholar- 
ships play too great a part; the high schools are too little involved; 
and the ultimate effect upon secondary education is negative rather 
than positive. 

This last is probably the most important point. To the student, 
the parents, the schools themselves, and the public the inference is 
inescapable that the senior year in high school is a waste of time. For 
the student, high school education is a truncated rather than an 
integrated and completed educational and social experience. The 
tendency for the school, if it is not simply hostile to the whole busi- 
ness, is to feel that it can do nothing special for the abler student and 
to pass the responsibility on to the college or the university. 

Yet both acceleration and enrichment are desirable and even neces- 
saiy for our better students. . . . One way to achieve the desired re- 
sults for all might be for the schools to reconsider a plan once in 
effect, if not now, in certain systems. This plan provided a faster 
track for the better students, which began in the seventh grade, 
eliminated the eighth grade, and permitted them to complete a full 
senior high school program a year early and in sufficient numbers 
to retain the values of their peer group. If such acceleration were com- 
bined with a rich program of basic academic subjects and if the higher 
institutions were alert and flexible in the handling of the students 
when they entered, great good might result. The success of any such 
program would depend ultimately upon adequate counseling based 
upon a conviction that individual differences make it as democratic 
and vital to identify and serve the needs of the student of high ability 
as the student of low. 

University of Wisconsin 

The question is often asked, "Should the colleges make a general 
practice of accepting students who have not finished high school?" 
or its converse, "Should high schools make a general practice of rec- 
ommending such students to college?" As they stand, these questions 
receive a qualified negative answer; our experience shows that early 
admission demands what appears to be an unusual combination of 
intellectual and social precocity. It is probably not as rare as it seems 
on the surface; there may be as many as a fifth of most high school 
classes who could make the grade. But the vast majority of these 
would probably gain nothing by early admission, and the principals 
have undoubtedly been wise when they have hesitated in recommend- 
[86] 



ing many applicants. On the other hand, there are a few boys who 
have almost certainly gained more from college than they would have 
from their last years of high school; a wise principal will be able to 
pick them, and the ideal situation would be that in which the original 
suggestion came from the school rather than the individual student 
or his parents. Unfortunately, not every teacher's judgment is in- 
fallible, and the method of selection remains a problem. 

As they make their decision, they must take into account the mat- 
ter of finances. The Scholars have had much less pressure on them 
to earn part of their way than the majority of their fellow students, 
and this has undoubtedly been an important factor in their success: 
at least two who have been dropped failed partly because they were 
trying too hard to earn money on the side. This is not easy for boys 
of sixteen, for even in the summer they cannot get jobs at respectable 
pay. For the past two years the stipends for freshman and sophomore 
Scholars have averaged $540, of which $500 must be used for tuition 
and fees by out-of-state students; Wisconsin students pay $180. About 
a fifth of the students accepted have decided that they could not afford 
to take advantage of the offer. We feel that any early admission stu- 
dent must be assured of sufficient financial support, either from his 
family or from scholarship aid, before he accepts the award; he can- 
not rely on being able to pay his own way until his junior year. After 
that, of course, he is in the same position as any other student. 

With all these restrictions, intellectual, moral, and financial, it is 
clear that early admission is only advisable for a tiny proportion of 
high school students, and that it accents more problems than it 
answers. It has long been patent that most high schools cannot really 
push their ablest students, and that the students consequently are apt 
to lose their enthusiasm in the boredom of waiting for their fellows 
to catch up with them. Two of the Scholars, one in each of the first 
two classes, compressed high school and college into five years and 
graduated as members of Phi Beta Kappa; the very fact that this is 
possible points to the waste of time which must often take place. 
Some of this waste can, perhaps, be avoided; some schools have honor 
classes, a few are able to have a general standard high enough to 
keep all but the very ablest stimulated. Some duplication of courses 
might be avoided, especially in the sciences and American history; 
many colleges allow a student to take work at an advanced level in 
certain fields if he can show he is qualified, and good high school 
teaching should certainly be encouraged in this way. Even if the num.- 

[87] 



% ■ 



ber of years of school and college is not reduced, there is certainly 
a need to keep able students working at full capacity. Early admis- 
sion can do this for a few, but the solution on a large scale must be 
sought elsewhere. 

In sum, early admission has offered a partial solution to the prob- 
lems of getting the best from able students and of shortening the 
cruelly long period necessary for technical training. The solution is 
only partial because probably only a very few students have the 
balanced development of intelligence, personality, and savoir faire 
it demands. At Wisconsin it seems to have been generally quite suc- 
cessful, and it could be more so if we had better techniques of selec- 
tion and enough Scholars so that each one would not feel himself 
to be something quite apart from the ordinary university student. 
It will probably always be expensive, and there will always be some 
failures among the Scholars who embark on this course, but the bene- 
fit to the successful is very great. 

Yale University 

It seems to be true that the Yale environment presented a more 
difficult adjustment problem to the Scholars than did many of the 
other colleges in which the early admissions Scholars matriculated. 
The fact that almost all of the boys were from high schools and many 
from relatively small schools no doubt made more difficult their ad- 
justment to a fairly sizeable campus in an urban center. 



• • • th e 1953 group seems to have made a more successful adjust- 
ment to the Yale environment. This can be attributed both to the 
fact that the adjustment factor was more in our minds when we ad- 
mitted the second group, and perhaps too, to the fact that they were 
m no way isolated during their first year on our campus as were the 
1951 Scholars. 



Yale University felt that it had received maximum benefit from 
the Early Admission Program as sponsored by the Fund for the 
Advancement of Education after its first two years of participation. 
From that experience the University decided to adopt as part of its 
Admissions program measures which would give qualified students 
desiring to enter college from their Junior year in school a chance to 
do so. To quote from the catalogue of Yale for 1955-56: 'Although 



an applicant is normally expected to have completed four years of 
secondary school work for entrance, an exception will occasionally 
be made for a candidate of unusual promise and maturity who has 
completed three years." No particular scholarship arrangements are 
made for this group other than those made for all applicants for fi- 
nancial aid. The University does not make a special effort to find and 
encourage Early Admission applications. 



Yale feels that early admissions should be part of the policy of 
every college and university. It does not, however, feel that a specific 
number of places should be reserved for early admission candidates 
in each class, nor that a university such as our own should make 
special effort to attract such Scholars other than having as its policy 
the admission of those duly qualified. 

THE FUTURE OF EARLY ADMISSION 

In Bridging the Gap Between School and College, the Fund 
said that the preliminary results of the Early Admission Program 
were "decidedly encouraging." On the basis of the evidence 
presented in this report, it now feels that the results to date have 
been impressive. 

Although the period of Fund support has ended, 11 of the 12 
colleges participating in the experiment have incorporated the 
early admission idea into their regular admissions policy. (Wis- 
consin has not yet taken any action on the matter.) At least one 
of the colleges— Goucher— has set up a special scholarship pro- 
gram for early admission students. At the other colleges, early 
admission students are permitted to compete for scholarship aid 
on equal terms with other entering freshmen. 

There are some indications that the early admission idea is 
gaining wider acceptance. The College Entrance Examination 
Board reports that 29 of its 169 member colleges had early ad- 
mission programs in the academic year 1955-56. Only six of 
these were participants in the Fund-supported experiment. It is 
interesting to note that 27 of the 29 also had programs of ad- 
vanced placement, thus providing able high school students two 

[89] 



different kinds of opportunity for college-level work before 
graduation. 

It is much too early yet to predict the future of the early admis- 
sion idea, but the evidence in this report clearly indicates that 
under the proper circumstances it represents a promising ap- 
proach to the problem of enabling the very best students to 
realize their full potential. The risks of entering college early 
have been the subject of much popular concern, and properly 
so. But too little thought has been given to the risks run by an 
able student in an unchallenging environment in not entering 
college early. As one of the Scholars wrote in his senior essay: 
"There is some danger that a young student's talents will be 
harmed by being thrust among older students who do not accept 
him. But the greater danger is that he will be allowed to stagnate 
in secondary school and will arrive in college lacking imagina- 
tion and ambition, these having been 'educated' out of him. The 
harm to him and society is great." 

Richard Pearson observed in his report that "the important 
lesson from the Early Admission experiment is that the American 
educational system cannot afford to overlook the individuality 
of the students with whom it deals. Whether these students are 
normal age or underage, or whether they have completed a 
formal program in secondary school is probably of less im- 
portance than their capabilities and aspirations as individuals. 
The contribution of the schools and colleges to society is likely 
to be gauged in terms of how well these are recognized and de- 
veloped, rather than in terms of formal structures and prescribed 
programs." 

Yet there is some danger that in the decades ahead, when 
American colleges and universities become engrossed in the 
problems attendant upon steeply rising enrollments, the cap- 
abilities and aspirations of the "unusual" student are likely to 
be neglected. College admissions officers, confronted with the 
happy prospect of having many more applications for admission 
than there are places to be filled, may well tend to "play it safe" ; 
[9°] 






and to avoid the risks involved in admitting unconventional stu- 
' dents, particularly those who are younger than most and who 
have had a less-than-normal high school preparation. It will be 
• all too easy to say, "We'll get them next year anyhow, and another 
year in high school won't hurt them." But the evidence clearly 
indicates that the superior student can be hurt by being detained 
in an intellectual environment he has outgrown. As one Scholar 
wrote in his senior essay: "I don't advocate anything so radical 
as a society composed exclusively of eggheads, but it seems down- 
right cruel to force a gifted child to suffer needless years of bore- 
dom (and boredom can be suffering, I know) when he can have 
an opportunity (whether or not he utilizes it is obviously up to 
him) to meet some fine minds on a college faculty which might 
be able to salvage at least part of his intellectual potential before 
the habit of mental laziness has completely encrusted him." 

The notion that the superior student does not need special 
attention because he is bright enough to look out for himself is 
still widely prevalent, but an increasing number of thoughtful 
educators and laymen have begun to challenge it and the as- 
sumption that regardless of ability and energy each student must 
move with his chronological age group through eight years of 
elementary school, four years of high school, and four years of 
college. Coupled with this has been a critical re-examination of 
the meaning of educational equality in a democratic society— a 
questioning as to whether it means equal amounts of education 
for all or equal opportunity for each individual to develop his 
talents as fully and freely as possible. 

There is also a growing awareness that the health and vigor of 
our society— and indeed even its very life— depend on making the 
most of all the capacities of all of our people. And it has become 
increasingly clear that if we are to make the most of these capa- 
cities, we must not fail to provide for the fullest possible develop- 
ment of our ablest young people. The Fund for the Advance- 
ment of Education believes that the Early Admission experiment 
has clearly demonstrated its promise as a means to that end. 

[9i] 



coll ]■:(;]■. 



COLUMBIA 



FISK 



LAFAYETTE 



LOUISVILLE 



MOREHOUSE 



APPENDIX 



TABLE 1 

NUMBER OF SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 
BY COLLEGE AND YEAR OF ENTRANCE 



1951 GROUP 1950 GROW 1953 GROUP 1954 GROUP 



60 57 

51 46 

28 28 
19 19 
30 40 

29 24 

25 30 

34 - 

40 52 

52 G8 

52 51 

420 415 



54 54 
46 44 
36 30 



99 



27 



23 29 

29 26 

29 35 

29 37 

32 - 

45 80 

48 52 

47 58 

440 472 



23 23 

24 24 
31 30 
15 15 
14 19 
19 17 
28 38 
17 23 
29 

38 38 

13 21 

3 15 



21 21 

22 22 
27 27 
17 17 



20 20 

24 31 

16 21 

30 - 

30 30 

26 34 

3 



4 



STAT 

JRAB 
ARIZC 

MA 

m» 

COLO 
JpNN 
•DELA 
[LOR 
■HEORi 
.IRAN 
ILLIN 
INDIA 
|0WA 
SANS 
KENT 
LOUI! 
MAIN 
MAR} 
MASS. 
MICH 
MINN 
MISSI. 

; ; nbsc 

SfONl 
NEBR, 
NEVA' 
SEW 
NEW 

97 -Wrov 

NEW 



TOTAL j 
S ffi 



158 13| 

143 13Q 

122 11| 

73 if 

67 4 



254 263 236 223 



81 10( 

87 lit 
125 

153 200 

139 175f 

105 I'-H 

1,350 1,373 



nort: 
sort: 
onio 

OKLA 
0REC( 
PENN: 
HHOD 
S0UTI 
SOUl'i 
HNN 
TEXA: 
UTAH 
VERM 
V1RGII 
WASH 
WEST 
WISCC 
WYOI 
UISTR 
FORB 



TABLE II 
DISTRIBUTION OF SCHOLARS BY HOME STATE 



■STATE 



1951 CROUP 195 a GROUP 1953 GROUP 1954 GROUP 



rAL 



135; 
156 

111 



m 



in 

2oog 
i 

]9.|' 

1,373 



Alabama 4 

arizona i 

arkansas 

'california 1 3 

colorado 2 

connecticut 10 

.delaware 

JLORIDA 2 

■GEORGIA 4 

IDAHO 

ILLINOIS 43 

INDIANA 3 

IOWA 2 

KANSAS 2 

(KENTUCKY 28 

LOUISIANA 

MAINE 1 

•1RYLANI) 7 

IMSSACHUSETTS 12 

MICHIGAN 10 

MINNESOTA 1 

MISSISSIPPI 

tasOURI 

MONTANA 1 

NEBRASKA 3 

NEVADA 

, NEW HAMPSHIRE 1 

NEW JERSEY 35 

NEW MEXICO 

jg NEW YOHK 1 1 1 

NORTH CAROLINA 

NORTH DAKOTA 1 

OHIO 20 

OKLAHOMA 2 

OREGON 2 

PENNSYLVANIA 30 

RHODE ISLAND 2 

SOUTH CAROLINA 3 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

TENNESSEE 4 

TEXAS 1 

UTAH 4 1 

VERMONT 2 

VIRGINIA 8 

WASHINGTON 1 

WEST VIRGINIA 

WISCONSIN 4 

WYOMING 
DISTRICT OE COLUMBIA 3 

FOREIGN 

TOTAL 420 



7 

2 

4 

9 

3 

7 

1 

7 
16 

1 
27 

8 

9 
I 

16 
3 
1 

11 
8 
6 
4 
2 
6 
1 
1 

1 

22 
1 
141 
3 

9 

3 

18 
1 
1 

9 
8 

41 
1 

11 
2 
3 
3 

8 


440 



6 
1 

2 
4 
1 
2 

6 
9 
1 

22 
3 
2 


22 


5 
2 
4 






2 
8 


54 
6 

9 
1 
2 
6 

1 

6 
6 

39 
2 
6 
1 

9 

4 


254 



6 
1 

2 
1 
1 

3 
7 

13 
3 
1 

21 
5 
2 
5 
2 
3 
4 
2 





7 

62 
10 
1 
5 
1 

8 
1 
2 

11 
4 
29 

1 
2 

9 

1 


236 



23 
5 
6 

28 
7 

20 
1 

18 

36 

2 

105 

17 
7 
3 

87 
8 
4 

28 

24 

23 
9 
4 
6 
2 
4 

4 

72 

1 

368 

19 

12 

43 
4 
7 

>2 
4 
7 


JO 

19 

150 

5 

26 
6 
3 

25 


16 


1,350 



TABLE III 
WHAT THE SCHOLARS WERE LIKE* 









ANNUAL 


GROUPS 




TOTAL 








"95* 


!952 


>953 


'954 


NO. 


% 


, 


SEX 


Male 


348 


363 


165 


148 


1,024 


75,9 


ecu 




Female 


72 


77 


89 


88 


326 


24,1 

i 


!EAI 

m 


AGE AT 


Under-16 


no 


156 


72 


58 


396 


29,3 




ENTRANCE 


16 


263 


230 


137 


131 


761 


50.4 






17 and over 


47 


54 


45 


47 


193 


14,3 




YEARS OF SCHOOLING 


Ten 


174 


202 


100 


90 


566 


41.9? 


1CHI 


COMPLETED 


Eleven 


209 


193 


144 


142 


688 


51.0; 


rsc 




Twelve 


37 


45 


10 


4 


96 


7.1 


OSIP 

:iioi 


SIZE OF HOME 


Large city 
















COMMUNITY 


(over 100,000) 
Suburb of 


122 


170 


111 


108 


511 


48,? 






large city 


43 


39 


20 


32 


134 


m 






Medium size city 


















(10,000-100,000) 


47 


67 


48 


29 


191 


18.2 i 




Small town 












J 




(2,500-10,000) 


28 


35 


26 


20 


109 


lM&ir 




Rural area 


















(under 2,500) 


27 


25 


20 


33 


105 


10.1 ■ 




No data 


153 


104 


29 


14 


300 






TYPE OF 


City public 


191 


247 


175 


155 


768 


73.2 ' 




SECONDARY SCHOOL 


Suburban public 


31 


31 


20 


34 


116 


1 I.I : 




ATTENDED 


Rural public 


18 


23 


14 


14 


69 


6.5' 






Private 


27 


36 


13 


20 


96 


9.2 1 






No data 


153 


103 


32 


13 


301 






SIZE OF 


Under 50 


35 


39 


23 


30 


127 


12.7' 


RST 


SENIOR CLASS. 


50-99 


23 


40 


30 


38 


131 


13.1 


fro 


AT SECONDARY 


100-199 


36 


52 


42 


38 


168 


16.8 ! 


(CUP 


SCHOOL 


200-499 


94 


101 


67 


49 


311 


31.1; 


ELD 




500 or over 


66 


86 


51 


60 


263 


26.3: 






No data 


166 


122 


41 


21 


350 






FAMILY 


Under $2,000 


5 


5 


8 


7 


25 
221 


3.5 
30.5 , 




INCOME 


$2,000-4,999 


56 


71 


44 


50 






$5,000-8,999 


87 


87 


60 


67 


301 


41.6 






$9,000 or over 


63 


53 


31 


30 


177 


24.4 






No data 


209 


224 


111 


82 


626 







* Percentages are based on number of Scholars for whom data were available 



[94] 



table in continued 

WHAT THE SCHOLARS WERE LIKE 



75,9 
24,1 

29,3 
5(3.4 

14.3 

41.9- 

51.0, 
7.1$ 



48.7 
127 
18.21 



[CUPATION OF 
IEADWINNING 

KENT 



WEST LEVEL 
F SCHOOLING 
B1PLETED BY 
[MOLARS' FATHERS 



0.4* 



10.WBT CHOICE OF 
fcjOR FIELD 
! STUDY 



10 



73,2 

1I.I 

6.5 
9.2 



12.7 
13.1 
16.8 

31.1 
2(5.3 



RST CHOICE 
tFUTURE 
(CUPATIONAL 
ELD 






3.5 

30,5 
41.6 
24.4 

ilable, 



195' 



ANNUAL GROUPS 
'952 1953 



1954 



Professional 113 139 75 82 

Business 118 128 69 59 

Laborer 57 80 60 56 

Government 14 24 11 9 

Farmer 3 11 3 9 

No data 85 58 36 21 

Less than 12 years '16 59 39 42 
Graduated high 

school 39 46 23 33 

Attended college 32 49 47 34 

Graduated college 35 48 36 29 
Attended 

graduate school 18 8 16 9 

Master's degree 31 33 14 21 

Higher degree 56 73 37 51 

No data 163 124 42 17 

Humanities 4(5 39 25 18 

Social Science 78 56 31 31 
Science or 

engineering 175 220 121 104 

Education 6 8 2 16 

Business 11 8 3 5 

Agriculture 115 

Other 1 1 4 35 

Undecided 35 80 39 14 

No data 67 27 24 13 

Teaching 33 20 22 31 

Law 20 23 6 8 

Medicine 51 82 48 54 
Science or 

engineering 77 88 38 46 

Business 14 7 3 5 

Agriculture 13 

Other 46 34 18 48 

Undecided 96 121 57 32 

No data 82 62 62 12 



TOTAL 
NO. % 



439 


38.1 


374 


32.5 


253 


22.0 


58 


5.1 


26 


2.3 


200 





186 



is.; 



141 


14.0 


162 


16.1 


148 


14.7 


51 


5.1 


99 


9.9 


217 


21.6 


346 




128 


10.5 


196 


15.1 


620 


50.8 


32 


2.6 


27 


2.2 


7 


.6 


41 


3.4 


168 


13.8 


131 




106 


9.4 


57 


5.0 


235 


20.8 


249 


21.9 


29 


2.6 


4 


.4 


146 


12.9 


306 


27.0 


218 





95] 






TABLE IV 

ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Fields in Which Scholars and Comparison Students Felt Handicapped Initially 

by Faulty or Insufficient Preparation in Secondary School 



FIELDS OF 
REPORTED 
HANDICAP 



ENGLISH 
COMPOSITION 

ENGLISH 
LITERATURE 

SOCIAL SCIENCE 

NATURAL SCIENCE 

MATHEMATICS 

FOREIGN LANGUAGE 

OTHER FIELDS 

TOTAL 



1951 CSOUf 

SCHOLARS COMPAR. 

N % N % 



195 2 GROUP 
SCHOLARS COMPAR. 

N % N % 



1953 GROUP 

SCHOLARS COMPAR. 

N % N % 



189 



53.8 195 59.4 
12.3 32 9.8 



200 48.5 218 50.6 
61 14.8 64 14.8 



93 41.7 



15 
26 
49 
8 
13 

351 



2.3 
4.3 
7.4 
14.0 
2.3 
3.7 



2 
11 
23 
38 
16 
11 

328 



.6 
3.4 
7.0 
11.6 
4.9 
3.4 



9 
37 
35 
43 
14 
13 

412 



2.2 
9.0 
8.5 
10.4 
3.4 
3.2 



26 
43 
35 
18 
19 

431 



1.9 
6.0 
10.0 
8.1 
4.2 
4.4 



2 
13 
18 
22 
11 
16 

223 



.9 

5.8 
8.1 
9.9 
4.9 
7.2 



3 

8 
17 
21 

9 
21 

208 



note: Reports were not available for the following groups: 
'953— Yal e ; Comparison students; Louisville: no data received. 
1954-Yale: Comparison students; Lafayette: no new cases in study in 1954. 
No Comparison students at Shimer during entire program. 



41. 



48 21.5 43 20.7 



1.4 
3.8 
8.2 

10.1 
4.3 

10.1 



1954 CROUP 
SCHOLARS COMPAR. 

N % N % 



92 41.6 73 39.2 
23 10.4 18 9.7 



9 
II 
11 
46 
19 
10 

221 



4,1 
5.0 
5.0 
20.8 
8.6 
4.5 



4 
14 

9 
27 
27 
14 

186 



2.2 
7.5 
4.8 
14.5 
14.5 
7.5 



»,„— , -^M. 



-J 



ENGLISH 
COMPOSITION 

ENGLISH 
LITERATURE 

SOCIAL SCIENCE 

NATURAL SCIENCE 

MATHEMATICS 

FOREIGN LANGUACE 

TOTAL 



-■., ---^ --,■:,.-,- ■,.,»^^j.-.^r^ij^. 



table iv continued 
ACADEMIC PREPARATION OF SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

B. Gaps or Omissions in Secondary School Preparation 
Reported by College as Remaining at End of Second Year 



1951 GROUP 



SCHOLARS 

N % 



COMPAR. 

N % 



SCHOLARS 

N % 



1952 GROUP 1953 GROUP 1954 GROUP 

COMPAR. SCHOLARS COMPAR. SCHOLARS COMPAR. 



N 



% 



% 



% 



% 



231 92.8 
3 1.2 



10 

4 
1 

249 



4.0 



1.6 

.4 



1 
3 

195 



.5 
1.5 



11 
5 
9 
2 
3 



4.2 
1.9 



1.2 



1.0 
.5 
.5 



.6 

.6 

.6 

1.2 

4.8 



3.1 



259 



191 



166 



130 



169 



note: Reports were not available for the following groups: 

1951— Morehouse: not in study in 1951. 

1952 — Louisville: no data received. 

No Comparison students at Shimer during entire program. 



N 



189 96.9 227 87.6 186 97.4 150 90.4 121 93.1 147 87.0 131 85.1 
1-5 2 .8 1 .5 3 1.8 4 3.1 3 1.8 



154 



1.9 



2 


1.2 






2 


1.2 


1 


.6 


1 


.6 


3 


1.9 


14 


8.3 


16 


10.4 



TABLE V 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Percentile Rank in Class 



1951 GROUP • FRESHMAN YEAR 



PERCENTILE 


CHICAGO 


COLUMBIA 


HANK IN CLASS 


s 


c 


S 


C 


80-99 


* 




18 


12 


60-79 






11 


12 


40-59 






12 


8 


20-39 






3 


9 


0-19 






3 


5 


Number of 
Students Ranked 






47 
1951 


46 
GROUP 


80-99 


34 


8 


17 


9 


00-79 


7 


13 


13 


12 


40-59 


3 


7 


8 


II 


20-39 


3 


5 


5 


9 


0-19 


1 


2 


3 


5 


Number of 
Students Ranked 


48 


35 


46 


46 



GOUCHER LAFAYETTE LOUISVILLE MOREH0U! 
S C S C S C SO 



8 3 

4 

2 2 

2 1 

1 2 

19 12 



12 13 

3 12 

8 5 

3 5 
1 



13 
3 
3 



27 35 



25 \i 



• SOPHOMORE YEAR 



19 12 



27 35 



21 18 



1951 GROUP • SENIOR YEAR 



80-99 
60-79 
40-59 
20-39 
0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



17 6 14 

6 9 7 

6 3 16 

2 4 2 

4 4 3 



7 2 7 14 

2 3 6 8 

2 2 7 3 

1 1 3 

1 5 



35 26 



2 22 12 8 21 33 



* No formal class structure and no ranking system for graduating students. 
** Ranking not comparable because of special academic programs for Scholars. 

[98] 



8 Not in- 6 
5 program 7 

9 in 
. 1951 






4 


15 


18 


13 


7 


Not in 


1 


2 


10 


3 


4 


4 


prograt 


4 
2 


3 
9 


1 
1 


7 
5 


2 

4 


4 
3 


111 
1951 


;; 


I 




2 


1 















'95 


1 GROUP 


• J 


U N I O R 


YEAR 










80-99 
60-79 
40-59 
20-39 




20 

12 

7 

1 


6 
5 
6 

8 


15 
12 
7 
6 


9 
6 

7 
5 


5 
4 
2 
1 


4 
5 
3 
6 


7 
2 
<2 

1 


2 

4 
1 


9 
5 
5 
2 


16 
8 
1 
5 


No data 
reported 


Not in 
progvai 
in 

1951 


0-19 




4 


3 


3 


6 


2 


5 






9 


3 






Number of 
Students Ranked 


44 


28 


43 


33 


14 


23 


12 


7 


23 


33 







3 5 Not in 

6 5 prograt 

1 2 in 

A 1951 



10 12 



TABLE V 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Percentile Rank in Class 



1951 GROUP 



EHOD! 



OBKKI.IN 
S C 



I 

Not in] 6 10 
jrograitl 7 
in 
1951 



s C 



FRESHMAN YEAR 
IITAU WISCONSIN 



Not in; 
irograij 
in 
If 



21 29 



Not in 

irograt 

in 

1951 



4 

e 
'i 

24 

951 GROUP 

3 
4 
6 
9 
2 



10 

9 

11 

4 



11 
15 

9 
14 

9 



28 
7 
3 



12 
fi 
5 
4 
1 



s 

17 
10 
7 
9 
6 



S4 51 



38 28 



SOl'IIOMOKli YEAR 



15 
7 

s 



I] 

8 
8 
8 



2(5 
10 



21 29 



33 37 



12 

11 

1 

2 

2 



38 28 



11 
6 

13 
6 

7 



IS 22 



28 18 



t Shinier had no Comparison students. 



c 

16 
1G 
7 
6 
C 



49 51 



12 
1! 
10 

7 
7 



43 47 









J95 1 


G R O U P 




JUNIOR YEAR 






Not ill 


6 


10 


9 




14 


3 


16 


10 


12 


9 


rograi] 


3 


3 


I 




11 


4 


4 


1 


10 


10 


111 

1951 


4 
5 
1 


5 
1 
3 


1 

4 
4 




5 
2 


2 
7 
4 


1 


2 
1 
1 


3 

10 

5 


11 
6 
9 



17 22 12 32 20 21 15 40 38 

1951 GROUP ■ SENIOR YEAR 



No 


17 


9 


16 


11 


data 


4 


4 


12 


1? 


reported 


2 


1 


5 


11 




3 


9 


8 


9 




2 


2 


2 


9 



43 45 



284 



71 
43 
25 
20 
13 

172 



% 



117 


41.2 


85 


31.5 


61 


21.5 


75 


27.8 


56 


19.7 


44 


16.3 


35 


12.3 


49 


18.1 


15 


5.3 


17 


6.3 



323 



106 41.1 

64 24.8 

37 14.3 

30 11.6 

21 8.1 

258 



41.3 
25.0 
14,5 
11.6 

7.5 



270 



151 


46.7 


89 


31.0 


66 


20.4 


71 


24.7 


49 


15.2 


55 


19.2 


37 


11.5 


48 


16.7 


20 


6.2 


24 


8.4 



287 



69 31.5 

46 21.0 

37 16.9 

40 )8.3 

27 :2.3 



219 



60 
50 
32 
26 



[99] 



■2.3 
!6.9 
7.2 
3.9 
9.7 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Percentile Rank in Class (continued) 



1953 GROUP . FRESHMAN YEAR 



POtC ENTILE 
KANK IN CLASS 

80-99 

GO-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



80-99 
60-79 
40-59 
20-39 
0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



CHICAGO 

s c 

25 17 

10 12 

9 7 

5 6 

2 3 

51 45 



23 16 

8 7 

9 6 
7 2 
2 1 

49 32 



COLUMBIA 

s c 

17 12 

10 12 

8 8 

6 10 

5 9 

46 51 



10 
6 
8 
1 
1 



LAFAYETTE LOUISVILLE MOREHOUSi 
S C S 

9 12 14 

4 

1 

4 



21 26 



21 29 

1952 GROUP • SOPHOMORE YEAR 
21 10 



4 6 

5 12 

7 7 

45 43 



10 12 

5 3 

6 1 
2 6 
4 4 

27 26 



10 12 

8 4 

2 3 

2 

1 

20 22 



11 
2 
3 
1 



23 21 



No 

data 

reported 



17 26 



80-99 


11 


5 


14 


9 


60-79 


7 


1 


10 


8 


40-59 


9 


2 


6 


7 


20-39 


1 


4 


6 


5 


0-19 


4 


1 


5 


9 


Number of 










Students Ranked 


32 


13 


41 


38 



1953 GROUP . JUNIOR YEAR 

2 10 
5 3 

2 3 

4 5 

5 2 



9 6 
3 5 
5 5 

Q 
1 



23 



17 19 



15 25 



1 

13 15 



ig52 GROUP • SENIOR YEAR 



80-99 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



38 30 



10 17 



17 20 



15 22 



8 4 



' Ranking not comparable because or special academic programs lor Scholars. 
' No ranking system for graduating students. 

[lOO] 



15 
5 
2 
4 
1 



27 29 



16 6 

2 4 

3 I 

I 
21 15 



7 

8 !; 

2 



17 12! 



11 


9 


5 


7 


10 


7 


10 


8 


5 


1 


8 4 


13 


2 


2 


3 


4 


7 


3 


3 


1 




5 4 


2 


7 


1 


2 


3 


5 




6 




1 


2 1 


4 


3 


1 


3 




1 


1 


3 


2 


] 


1 1 


8 


9 


1 


2 






1 


2 




1 


1 1 



17 11 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Percentile Rank in Class (continued) 



ig,52 GROUP ■ FRESHMAN YEAR 



78 13 



9! 1 



15 
7 
3 
1 

39 



SHIMJilt 
S C 

8 t 

9 

4 

4 

7 

32 



UTAH 
S C 



WISCONSIN 



21 
14 

7 



19 
17 
12 
10 
5 



44 63 



25 
6 
1 
4 
1 

37 



15 



s c 

13 19 

10 16 

8 11 

10 6 

5 6 

46 58 



1952 GROUP • SOPHOMORE YEAR 



7 


12 


7 


6 


8 


3 


4 


5 


5 


1 


5 


5 


3 


1 


4 



19 


2 


24 


9 


5 


15 


12 


4 


3 


7 


7 


14 


6 




3 


4 


9 


9 


4 


2 


1 


2 


15 


8 


2 




1 


1 


9 


5 






21 31 



24 



43 8 



32 23 



45 51 







iDSS 


GROUl 




JUNIOR YEAR 






3 


8 


1 




20 


15 


20 


4 


8 


21 


7 


9 


3 




11 


5 


6 


3 


5 


11 


3 


6 


1 




6 


5 




2 


4 


10 


7 


2 


1 






2 


3 


4 


10 


4 


4 


3 


1 




1 


5 


2 


2 


7 


9 



24 28 



3 12 

7 5 

3 6 
1 4 

4 1 

18 28 



38 32 



31 15 



1952 GROUP 



SENIOR YEAR 
9 21 



1 2 

3 4 

2 

22 25 



30 21 



34 55 



5 15 

6 10 

7 4 

8 6 
4 2 

30 37 



t Shimer had no Comparison students. 



NO. 



376 



287 



208 



% 



344 



109 38.0 

73 25.4 

42 14.6 

33 11.5 

30 10.5 



NO. 



396 



215 



[10.1 



% 



164 43.6 133 33.6 

85 22.6 108 27.3 

57 15.2 70 17.7 

41 10.9 49 12.4 

29 7.7 36 9.0 



53 


44.5 


102 


36.8 


64 


18.6 


66 


23.8 


54 


15.7 


46 


16.6 


41 


11.9 


42 


15.2 


32 


9.3 


21 


7.6 



277 



92 33.5 

67 24.4 

51 : 18.5 

31 j 11.3 

34 12.3 



275 



91 


43.8 


79 


36.7 


51 


24.5 


49 


22.8 


20 


9.6 


37 


17.2 


24 


11.5 


30 


14.0 


22 


10.5 


20 


9.3 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 
AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 



PERCENTILE 
RANK IN CLASS 

80-93 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

Number of 
Students Hanked 



80-99 
60-79 
40-59 
20-39 
0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



80-99 
60-79 
40-59 
20-39 
0-19 

Number of 
Students Ranked 



23 22 



21 22 



29 28 



15 



13 18 





J 953 


GROUI 




SOPHOMORE 


YEAR 






8 


8 


6 


J.'i 


If) 


9 


8 


8 


7 


9 


3 


-1 


4 





4 


3 


4 


9 


9 


11 


4 
1 


4 
4 


4 
6 


5 
1 


■i 


1 

9 


1 


9 
1 


9 

4 


() 


3 


3 


1 




2 




2 


I 


9 





18 19 



10 



21 



21 



15 15 



I I 17 



19 17 





'954 


CROUP 


(3 


11 


4 13 


" 


5 


5 111 


5 


3 


7 1 


9 


1 


4 1 


3 


9 


9 " 



FRESHMAN YEAR 

6 9 ] 

7 4 
7 2 



No new 


1 


groups in 


9 


program 


8 


in 


I 



195 



18 19 



27 23 



17 



19 19 



















) 








'953 


GROUP . 


FRESHMAN 


Y E A R 








CHICAGO 
S C 

13 10 

4 (i 


COLUMBIA 
S C 

11 8 
3 5 


F1SK 
S C 

12 6 
8 6 


COUCIIER 
S C 

10 9 
3 4 


LAFAYETli: 
S C 

8 8 
1 2 


LOUISVILLE 
S C 

No 


MOREHOUSE 

s c 

18 11 

5 9 


9 2 

1 2 


5 
3 


:> 

2 
2 


5 

9 
9 


6 
6 
4 


9 


2 


3 
1 


r t 

9 

I 


data 
reported 


1 8 

1 4 

2 2 



27 3-1 



10 8 

10 7 

2 4 

1 



22 20 



11 3 

7 15 

5 6 

! 



24 24 



[103] 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Percentile Rank in Class (continued) 



UUIOUSE 
i C 

8 11 
5 9 
1 8 
1 i 
1 2 i 

7 3-1 



1953 GROUP 

SIUMER 

5 C 

6 t 

5 

10 
5 
1 



FRESHMAN YEAR 
UTAH 



17 23 



27 



17 13 

7 9 

5 3 

6 6 

2 7 

37 38 



WISCONSIN 
3 C 

7 13 

1 3 

5 

1 

13 17 






■a 
o 



1953 GROUP • SOPHOMORE YEAR 
18 12 



7 8 8 

6 7 9 

4 6 

3 3 -I 

1 3 



17 22 



30 



8 4 



3 1 20 



12 16 



1954 GROUP • FRESHMAN YEAR 



3 


5 


6 


10 


15 


4 


4 


4 


6 


2 


3 


5 




2 


4 


7 




3 


4 


3 



16 21 



29 



25 


15 


10 


15 


1 


a 


3 


9 


3 


3 




3 




2 


9 


9 


1 


in 


9 




3 


4 
1 


1 


1 

E 


30 


26 


18 


25 


3 


u 




f Shimcr had no Comparison stiideius. 



% 



% 



114 


49.8 


87 


40.1 


42 


18.3 


50 


23.0 


35 


15.3 


32 


14.7 


26 


11.4 


29 


13.4 


12 


5.2 


19 


8.8 



229 



217 



6 


12 


9 


7 


102 


43.4 


91 


43.5 


1 


9 


5 


3 


65 


27.7 


52 


24.9 








3 


37 


15.7 


32 


15.3 


1 


9 


I 


3 


18 


7.7 


24 


1 1 .5 


4 




1 




13 


5.5 


10 


4.8 



235 



209 



06 


47.5 


68 


; 34.7 


52 


23.3 


59 


' 30.1 


32 


14.3 


41 


20.9 


21 


9.4 


17 


8.7 


12 


5.4 


11 


5.6 



223 



196 



[k>3: 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 
AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

B. Academic Standing of Scholars Related to Number 
of Years of Schooling Completed 



YEARS OF 

schooling 
completed: 



FRESHMAN YEAR 

10- 11- lg 

10'/2 11 VS 



SOPHOMOKE YEAR 
18 



10- 
ioV£ 



11- 
ll 1 ^ 



JUNIOR YEAR 

10- 11- 1 

loVS 11 l A 



1951 GROUP 



PERCENTILE 
RANK IN CLASS 

80-99 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

Number of 
Scholars Rated 



80-99 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 ■ 

Number of 
Scholars Rated 



36.6 
21.1 
19.2 
12.5 
10.6 



46.4 
19.0 
20.3 
13.1 
1.3 



104 153 



42.8 
21.1 
13.8 
12.6 
9.6 

166 



47.6 

22.3 

15.0 

9.6 

5.4 

166 



29.6 

37.0 

18.5 

7.4 

7.4 

27 



33.3 

26.2 

21.4 

9.6 

9.5 

42 



43.6 
20.6 
15.9 
11.9 
8.0 



50.0 
20.0 
13.0 
11.8 
5.3 



126 170 



40.7 

22.2 

25.9 

7.4 

3.7 

27 



36.6 
18.8 
14.8 
15.8 
13.9 



1952 CROUP 



41.6 
18.0 
18.7 
11.0 
7.8 



42.9 
19.1 
14.8 
13.3 
9.8 



155 112 



53.7 
12.2 
7.3 
12.2 
14.6 

41 



39.6 
20.7 
11.9 
11.6 
13.3 



1 Number of cases judged too small for computing percentages. 



47.0 

26.5 

13.6 

7.6 

5.3 



101 132 



30.6 

27.5 

16.S 

9.9 

9.1 



121 131 



28.0 
40.0 
16.0 
16.0 
0.0 



38.2 
32.4 

5.9 
17.7 

5.9 

31 



SENIOR YEAR 



IO- 11- n m 
10'/2 11 V2 



33.9 
26.2 
13.8 
13.9 
12.3 

65 



51.5 
19.1 
10.3 
8.8 
10.3 



68 



45.5 
22.7 
16.0 
10.2 
5.7 



38.5 
20.9 
12.8 
10.3 
11.5 

78 



294 
38.! 
2.8 

m 
ii.a 



[104] 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 

AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

B. Academic Standing of Scholars Related to Number 
of Years of Schooling Completed (continued) 



EARS OF 
tHOOLING 

ompleted: 



FRESHMAN YEAR 
12 



10- 
10>/2 



II- 

11 '/2 



SOPHOMORE YEAR 

10- 11- is 

io!^ ll!/2 



10- 
10 Vs 



JUNIOR YEAR 
IS 



11- 
ll'/2 



SENIOR YEAR 
12 



10- 11- 
10^2 11 M> 



> 



jtRCENTILE 
ANK IN CLASS 

80-99 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

hmber of 
kholars Rated 



48.2 
15.6 
20.5 
10.8 
4.8 



m 



2.8 
l7.(j 

n.a 



80-99 

60-79 

40-59 

20-39 

0-19 

\mnber of 
tholars Rated 



40.8 
23.5 
14.8 
13.G 
7.4 



51.7 
20.1 
12.7 
11.0 
4.2 

118 



51.9 

24.1 

13.1 

7.4 

3.6 



45.4 

26.7 

13.3 

9.3 

5.3 



1953 group 

52.9 * 
19.2 
17.4 
5.8 



22 



75 104 



19 



1954 GROUP 



81 137 



Number of cases judged .too small for commiting percentages. 



[■°5] 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 
AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

C. Mean Scaled Scores of Scholars and Comparison Students 
on Area Tests of the Graduate Record Examinations 



C&0VP 


CHICAGO 




s 


c 


/J>;2 Group as 






Sophomores 






Social Science 


606 


613 


Humanities 


635 


643 


Natural Science 


616 


687 


/P55 Group as 






Sophomores 






Social Science 


593 


632 


Humanities 


676 


654 


Natural Science 


605 


635 


1954 Group as 






Sophomores 






Social Science 


602 


56'.' 


Humanities 


685 


614 


Natural Science 


655 


570 


"Ji 1 Group ns 






Seniors 







Social Science 664 658 

Humanities 723 676 

Natural Science 676 669 

/P52 Group as 

Seniors 

Social Science 656 641 

Humanities 711 6S8 

Natural Science 691 699 



Number of students tested: 



COLUMBIA FISK 

s c s c 



590 580 436 404 
614 599 457 467 
639 637 438 444 



582 603 355 345 
639 612 438 403 
607 586 416 402 



609 574 382 356 
635 591 440 414 
638 617 426 438 



GOUCHER 
S C 



593 570 
671 625 
595 576 



571 534 
622 599 
559 535 



LAFAYETTE 



LOUISVILLE MOREHOUSE 41 
S C S C. S C 



498 490 506 477 462 376 1 
482 464 497 427 488 431 Sg 
590 578 540 485 518 462 ■ jg 



536 535 494 494 411 388] 
541 546 510 452 451 421 J 
574 578 509 485 456 445 



No Scholars 

604 579 n or . 423 414 420 166 

Comparison A 00u 

652 646 students 470 439 



595 557 in 1954 



455 405 
522 535 480 451 



611 651 441 422 603 602 550 521 505 510 Not in 
673 672 429 439 654 658 529 519 522 519 program 
611 625 466 452 579 507 561 574 525 500 in 1951 



649 641 495 441 633 577 
671 636 492 455 715 648 
665 624 455 419 612 589 



573 538 
525 509 
617 608 



592 490 514 419 i 



605 545 
630 610 



495 410.; 
564 446 





SCHOLARS 


COMPARISONS 


1952 Sophomores 


358 


292 


1953 Sophomores 


187 


158 


1954 Sophomores 


186 


127 


1951 Seniors 


192 


144 


1952 Seniors 


226 


157 



1,149 



878 



[,06] 



f 



'■;! I 



I c 



m 571 

p 610 
593 



table v continued 

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE OF SCHOLARS 
AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

C. Mean Scaled Scores of Scholars and Comparison Students 
on Area Tests of the Graduate Record Examinations 



SHIM Kit 
S C 



552 
(i07 
581 



UTAH 

s c: 



529 506 
522 494 



585 



WISCONSIN 
S C 



599 
568 



572 
518 



658 609 



YALE 
S C 



601 

623 



574 
571 



MEAN SCORES 

Or TOTAL CROUP 

S C 



613 615 



558 527 
575 540 
598 576 



TKST NORMS 

For other 

Sophomores, 195./: 

430 

458 

455 



578 



584 



539 
626 
562' 



535 


475 


543 


593 


t 


522 


494 


579 


591 


t 


559 


545 


558 


591 


t 



573 


517 


472 


565 


569 


578 


572 


544 


554 


542 


582 


599 


546 


603 


611 



■18 579 


506 


568 


493 


it 656 


664 


609 


560 


S 569 


526 


603 


499 



?( 623 


540 


580 


617 


18 687 


660 


559 


569 


H 628 


590 


632 


601 



666 589 657 635 
639 600 636 637 

667 605 585 577 



640 617 635 611 
636 607 671 624 
685 612 651 618 



Nil comparison students. 

Number of students insufficient lo provide distribution. 

Not tested. 



512 504 
550 529 
539 529 



523 488 
564 525 
569 537 



620 557 
632 578 
606 558 



608 579 
630 600 
632 591 



For other 

Sophomores, rojy 

405 

450 

445 

For other 

Sophomores, 1956: 

389 

431 

452 

. For other 

Seniors, 1955; 

444 

460 

452 



For t 
Seniors 



I 



43,8 
4C4 
4 J 9 



ther 
1956: 



[10 ? ] 



TABLE VI 

ADJUSTMENT OF THE SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Faculty Ratings on Over-all Adjustment 



CHICAGO 

s c 



1951 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 



S C 



COUCHER LAFAYETTE LOUISVILLE MOREHOUSE 



Excellent 
Good 

Moderately Good 
Poor 
Very Poor 

Number of 
Students Rated 



6 11 

20 15 

17 5 

4 4 

1 



48 



15 4 

16 24 
12 15 

4 3 



47 46 



8 5 

14 16 

3 4 
2 



27 25 



4 3 

4 6 

9 1 

2 2 



19 12 



3 G 

11 16 

10 13 

3 



27 35 



2 2 Not in 
% 3 program 
2 in 

1951 



1953 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 



Excellent 


8 


9 


4 


5 


11 


3 




3 


1 


1 


1 


1 




2 
11 


Good 


23 


18 


26 


23 


12 


16 


10 


16 


H 


1.1 


I 


1 


17 


Moderately Good 


12 


16 


14 


19 


11 


8 


11 


5 


9 


13 


2 


<\ 


7 


(i 


Poor 


8 


3 


1 


4 


1 


2 




2 


.3 


2 


X 




3 


9 


Very Poor 




1 


1 




1 





















Number of 

Students Rated 51 47 



Excellent 3 3 

Good 12 14 

Moderately Good 5 4 

Poor 1 

Very Poor 2 



Number of 
Students Rated 



Excellent 
Good 

Moderately Good 
Pooi- 
Very Poor 

Number of 
Students Rated 



23 21 



7 2 
6 10 
5 7 
1 
1 

19 20 



46 51 



36 29 



21 26 



21 29 



1953 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 



1 


1 


4 


3 






5 


4 




3 


2 


6 


12 


17 


17 


7 


6 


6 


12 




15 


?S 


4 
1 


7 
3 


5 
3 


5 
1 


6 
] 


9 


2 


2 


No data 


9 


9 


9 








1 








reported 







24 23 



29 26 



15 1; 



13 IE 



1954 CROUP AS FRESHMEN 



7 3 8 3 

10 11 14 9 

3 7 2 6 

2 2 2 

1 1 



22 22 



27 20 



1 

7 6 

7 10 

2 1 



17 17 



No new 

groups 

in 

program 



18 18 
1 
1 



19 19 



27 34 



21 22 
3 3 



24 25 



27 29 



[108] 



TABLE VI 

ADJUSTMENT OF THE SCHOLARS AND COMPARISON STUDENTS 

A. Faculty Ratings on Over-all Adjustment 



1951 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 



OllfcttLIN 

s c 


SIfJMEk 

s c 


UTAH 
S C 


WISCONSIN 
S C 


YALE 
S C 


3 7 
5 10 
10 10 
3 2 


10 
7 
4 
3 


# 


7 

18 
5 
3 


#* 


14 
15 

7 
2 


## 


8 14 
21 18 
10 13 

9 6 
4 1 



21 29 



24 



33 



38 



27 39 



32 



42 



36 



1C)53 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 



2 


7 


13 


4 


12 


10 


9 


4 


4 



17 23 



27 



1 

27 
6 
3 



37 



:'! ■ « 

2 
2 



13 



1954 GROUP AS FRESHMEN 

3 8 8 2 *■ 4 ** 

5 8 9 26 8 

6 5 8 1 ,; 
2 4 I 



16 21 



29 



30 



18 



* Shimer had no Comparison students. 
** No data available. 



52 52 









'952 


GROUP AS FRESHMEN 






2 


4 


8 


7 


8 ** 7 ** 


9 


20 


y 


y 


19 


12 


22 20 


20 


24 


b 


y 


8 


10 


9 9 


14 


12 


l 


2 
3 


4 


3 


2 
1 


4 


3 



47 59 



1 ** 

1 

2 



% 



so 


23.4 


52 


21.7 


133 


38.9 


108 


45.4 


89 


26.0 


61 


25.4 


35 


10.2 


17 


7.1 


5 


1.5 


1 


.4 



342 



239 



60 


15.3 


52 


16.6 


180 


45.8 


149 


47.5 


117 


29.8 


90 


28.7 


30 


7.6 


22 


7.0 


6 


1.5 


1 


.3 



393 



314 



36 


15.7 


20 


12.5 


121 


52.8 


96 


60.0 


54 


23.6 


40 


j 25.0 


13 


5.7 


4 


2.5 


5 


2.2 









229 



40 

125 

42 

15 

2 

224 



17.9 

55.8 

18.8 

6.7 

.9 



160 



16 

84 

39 

4 

1 

144 



II. 1 

58.3 

27.1 

2.8 

.7 



[ xo 9] 



table vi continued 
A. Faculty Ratings on Over-all Adjustments (continued) 



1951 CROUP AS SENIORS 



Excellent 
Good 

Moderately Good 
Poor 
Very Poor 

Number of 
Students Rated 



10 

14 

5 

1 



30 20 



COLUMBIA 
S C 

13 8 

15 15 

12 S 

2 4 

3 

42 38 



GOUCHER LAFAYETTE LOUISVILLE MOREHOUSE 



10 


3 


2 


2 


9 


9 


3 


Not 


8 


4 


5 


15 


20 


10 


9 


in 


2 


5 


1 


3 
1 


4 






program 

in 

1951 



5 20 



12 



195a CUOll P A S SF.NI O R S 



Excellent 


3 




9 


10 


7 


Good 


11 


14 


20 


18 


6 


Moderately Gootl 


6 


3 


9 


9 


4 


Poor 


4 


1 


1 


1 


1 


Very Poor 


1 






2 




Number of 
Students Rated 


25 


18 


39 


40 


18 



5 2 
9 14 
3 4 



J7 20 



21 33 



4 9 
11 14 



15 23 



12 12 



1 


3 


3 


5 


8 


6 


6 


6 


9 


1 


1 


1 



13 If 



19 11 



I 



B. Faculty and Administrative Opinion as to Wisdom of Early Admission 
as Expressed at End of Senior Year 



1951 SCHOLARS 



CHICAGO 

no. % 



Wise 

Opinion Divided 

Unwise 

Number of 
Scholars Rated 



Wise 

Opinion Divided 

Unwise 

Number of 
Scholars Rated 



S9.7 
G.9 
3.4 



26 
2 
1 

29 



24 80.0 

4 13.3 

2 G.7 

30 



COLUMBIA 
NO. % 

34 77.3 
6 13.G 
4 9.1 

44 



FISIv 
NO. % 

10 100.0 



GOUCHER 
NO. % 

10 83.3 
2 16.7 



12 



LAFAYETTE 
NO. % 



LOUISVILLE 
NO. % 



85.7 
9.5 

4.8 



1953 SCHOLARS 



29 74.4 
8 20.5 
2 5.1 



39 



17 81.0 
3 14.3 
1 4.7 



21 



16 94.1 



1 



17 



5.9 



18 

9 

1 
21 



13 81.3 
2 12.5 
1 6.3 



16 



75.0 
25.0 



MOKEIIOUSI 
NO. % 

Not in 
program 
in 1951 



12 



61.5 
38.5 



18 94.7 
1 5.3; 



13 



19 



[110] 



Slum 
Nod 



3 1 

6 9 

9 1 
1 



9 11 



table vi continued 

A. Faculty Ratings on Over-all Adjustments (continued) 









'95 1 


GROUP AS 


SENIORS 




usitoES 


IBERLIN 


SIIIMIiR 


UTAH 


WISCONSIN 


YALK 


5 C 


S 


c 


S C 


S C 


S C 


S C 


Not 


1 


9 


3 * 


4 ** 


JO ## 


8 16 


HI 


5 


5 


I 


24 


10 


18 15 


ogram, 


9 


14 


7 


10 


5 


7 11 


in 
1951 


2 
1 


1 






1 


6 2 

4 



NO. 


% 


NO. 


% 


60 


23.6 


52 


26.4 


118 


46.5 


86 


43.7 


58 


22.8 


46 


23.4 


13 


5.1 


9 


4.6 


5 


2.0 


4 


2.0 



J8 22 



3 
15 
6 9 
1 1 



28 



43 44 



254 



197 



28 



8 

14 
4 
1 
1 

28 



1952 GROUP AS SENIORS 

9 9 2 10 

20 21 13 32 

4 2 17 9 
2 3 1 



55 


20.6 


53 


20.5 


125 


46.8 


153 


59.3 


69 


25.8 


43 


16.7 


16 


6.0 


7 


2.7 


2 


.7 


2 


.8 



35 32 



35 52 



267 



258 



B. Faculty and Administrative Opinion as to Wisdom of Early Admission 
as Expressed at End of Senior Year 



it in 
igrain 
1351 



94.7 
5.3 



so. % 

10 55.6 

6 33.3 

2 11.1 



SllIMLR 
NO. % 

5 100.0 



19 90.5 
1 4.8 
1 4.8 



2 66.7 
1 33.3 



UTAH 
NO. % 

37 97.4 
1 2.6 



38 



30 83.3 
I 2.8 
5 13.9 



1951 SCHOLARS 

YALE 
NO. % 

24 57.1 
12 28.6 
6 14.3 



WISCONSIN 
NO. % 

24 82.8 
4 13.8 
I 3.4 

29 



42 



36 



30 
5 
2 

37 



1952 SCHOLARS 

81.1 17 42.5 

13.5 18 45.0 

5.4 5 12.5 



TOTAL 
NO. % 

207 79.6 
38 14.6 
15 5.8 

260 



223 76.4. 
50 17.1 
19 6.5 



40 



292 



Shinier had no Comparison students. 
No data reported. 



>"] 



table vi continued 
C. Failures, Withdrawals, and Transfers 
1951 GROUP 

















WITHDRAWALS FOR 


REASONS 








FAILURES 








OTHER THAN FAILURE 




SCHOLARS 


COMl'ARS. CLASSMATES* 


SCHOLARS 


COMPARS. 


CLASSMATES* 


COLLEGE 


NO. 


% 


NO. 


% 


NO. 


/o 


NO. 


% 


NO. 


% 


NO. 


% 


CHICAGO 


7 


11.6 


8 


14.0 






3 


5.0 


8 


14.0 






COLUMBIA 


8 


15.7 


2 


4.4 


— 


- 


1 


2.0 


8 


17.4 


— 


- 


FISK 


4 


14.3 


1 


3.6 






4 


14.3 


1 


3.6 






COUCHER 


1 


5.3 


2 


10.G 


8 


7.0 


3 


15.8 


3 


15.8 


29 


25.2 


LAFAYETTE 


4 


13.4 


4 


10.0 


90 


26 


1 


3.3 





0.0 


21 


6 


LOUISVILLE 


2 


6.9 





0.0 


- 


6 


6 


20.7 


8 


33.3 


- 


17 


MOREHOUSE 




Not in Program in 


1951 
















OBERLIN 


2 


8.0 


2 


6.7 


59 


15 


2 


8.0 


3 


10.0 


18 


6 


SHIMER 


3 


8.8 


No 


Comps. 


5 


10.6 


7 


20.6 


No 


Comps. 


5 


10.6 


UTAH 





0.0 


3 


5.7 


- 


- 


19 


47.5 


16 


30.8 


- 


- 


WISCONSIN 


6 


11.5 


8 


11.8 






9 


3.S ' 


13 


19.1 






YALE 


10 


19.2 


4 


7.8 


99 


9.2 





0.0 


2 


3.9 


91 


8.5 


1951 Total 


47 


11.2 


34 


8.2 






18 


11.4 


62 


1-1.9 







195S GROUP 



CHICAGO 

COLUMBIA 

FISK 

COUCHER 

LAFAYETTE 

LOUISVILLE 

MOREHOUSE 

OBERLIN 

SHIMER 

UTAH 

WISCONSIN 

YALE 

1952 Total 

Combined 
Total 




5 

4 
10 
6 
4 
2 
5 
5 
6 



14.8 

0.0 

13.9 

0.0 

17.3 

34.5 

20.7 

13.7 

6.2 

11.1 

10.5 

12.7 



13.0 

2.3 

0.0 

0.0 

10.3 

15.4 

17.2 

5.4 

No Comps. 

10 12.5 

9 17.3 

4 6.8 



55 12.5 46 9.8 



102 11.9 80 9.0 



4 
124 



50 

8 



3.7 
29 
6 

15 
21.6 



89 9.7 



1.9 

2.2 

16.7 

9.1 

8.7 

13.8 

6.9 

13.8 

1 5.6 

15.6 

6.3 

2.1 



9.3 

6.8 

16.7 

11.1 

6.9 

23.1 

20.0 

8.1 

No Comps. 

26 32.5 

2 3.8 

2 3.4 

04 13.6 



86 10.0 126 14.2 



A dash ( — ) indicates an incomplete breakdown of the total figure. 
[112] 



21 
37 



18 
4 



19.3 

8 

17 

6 
10.8 



66 7.2 



table VI continued 

C. Failures, Withdrawals, and Transfers 

1951 GROUP 



COLLEGE 

CHICAGO 

COLUMBIA 

FISK 

C0UCIIER 

LAFAYETTE 

LOUISVILLE 

MOREHOUSE 

OliERLIN 

SIIIMER 

UTAH 

WISCONSIN 

YALE 

1951 Total 



CHICAGO 

COLUMMA 

FISK 

COUCHER 

LAFAYETTE 

LOUISVILLE 

MOREHOUSE 

OliERLIN 

SIIIMER 

UTAH 

WISCONSIN 

YALE 

195s Total 

Combined 
Total 



TRANSFERS 



SCHOLARS 
NO. % 



COM PARS. 
NO. % 



CLASSMATES 



3 



10 

3 

3 
(i 

6 
12 

5 
15 

1 



5.0 
0.0 
35.7 
15.8 
10.0 
20.7 



8.7 
2.2 
3.6 
15.8 
5.0 
0.0 



15 
16 



Not in Program in 1951 



24.0 
35.3 
12.5 
28.8 
1.9 



3 10.0 
No Comps. 
9 17.3 
0.0 
0.0 



93 
15 



13.0 
5 
11 

24 
31.9 



20 1 .9 



64 15.2 24 5.8 



1952 GROUP 



4 7.4 



.4 
1.2 
1.8 
1.6 

;.3 

1.3 
6 20.7 
3 10.3 



2.i 
13.1 

4.; 
10.! 



18 56. 
4 8 
6 12 



5.6 
0.0 
6.7 
11.1 
0.0 
0.0 
28.6 
5 13.5 
No Comps. 
4 5.0 
1 1.9 
1 1.7 



3 

2 
3 


10 



21 
13 



43 
14 



14 



19.3 
3 
11 

13 
37.8 



1.5 



52 11.8 29 6.1 



116 13.5 53 6.0 



* Estimated by college. 



scholars 
no. % 

21.7 
17.6 
64.3 
36.8 
26.7 
48.3 



13 

9 

18 

7 

8 

14 



13 

2 

12 

5 

7 

17 

14 

11 

25 

16 

14 

9 



TOTAL 
ATTRITION 

COM PARS. 
NO. % 



21 

11 

3 



36.8 
23.9 
10.7 
42.1 
15.0 
33.3 



CLASSMATES 



- 16* 



52 

127 



24.1 
4.3 
33.3 
22.7 
30.4 
58.6 
48.3 
37.9 
78.1 
35.6 
29.2 
19.1 



27.8 

9.1 

23.3 

22.2 

17.2 

38.5 

65.7 

27.0 

No Comps. 

40 50.0 

12 23.1 

7 12.1 



15 
4 
7 
6 
5 

10 
23 
10 



46 
174 



111 
26 



169 



145 32.9 139 29.5 



304 35.3 259 29.2 



[113] 



45.2 

37 

34* 



10 40.0 8 26.7 170 45 

22 64.7 No Comps. 25 53.2 
24 60.0 28 53.8 - 75* 

23 44,2 21 30.9 

11 21.2 6 11.8 210 19.7 

159 37.8 120 28.9 



16* 

42.3 

"10 

34* 

34 
70.3 

75* 

18.4 























■ 






































TABLE VII 




















PLANS FOR GRADUATE STUDY 






















1951 GROUP 














PLANS FOR 
GRADUATE 


CHICAGO 


COLUMBIA 


FISK COUCHER 


LAFAYETTE 


LOUISVILLE 


MOREHOUSE 


f>IU 


STUDY 


s 


c 


S 


c 


S c S C 


S 


c 


s 


c 


S C 


S 


Already In 


23 


17 


4 


4 








2 


3 


Not in 


2 


Yes 


6 


3 


29 


19 


5 7 3 2 


13 


10 


1 


4 


program 


3 


After Military 




















in ' 




Service 






1 














1951 




After Earning 
























Money 






1 




3 10 














No 




1 


3 


5 


1 3 4 





23 


8 


1 




5 


No data 


18 


15 


4 


7 


2 7 5 


3 


1 


4 


8 






Total 


47 


30 


42 


35 


10 25 12 11 
1952 CROUP 


22 


34 


15 


10 




16 


Already In 


14 


21 


1 


3 








3 


3 






Yes 


17 


12 


35 


20 


15 10 13 7 


9 


7 


5 


4 


13 10 


14 


After Military 
























Service 








1 






2 




1 




1 


After Earning 
























Money 




1 






5 2 3 










1 




No 


3 


2 


2 


3 


12 2 10 


6 


11 


5 


9 


3 2 


3 


No data 


7 


3 





5 


3 5 1 


1 


1 










Total 


41 


39 


44 


38 


21 23 17 21 


16 


24 


13 


17 


17 12 


18 


This table includes data 


only 


for those 


students who were continuing 


in school, 


were 


graduating. 


Shii 


or were in grad 


late scho 


ol as 


of the 


end of senior year. 














[> 


M] 























1 

i 
! 


























TABLE VII 














PLANS FOR GRADUATE STUDY 
















1951 


GROUP 




IUT.1L 




oust 


OliUUJN 
S C 


SUIMEU 

s c 


UTAH 

s C 


WISCONSIN 
S C 


YALE 
S C 


s 




c 




NO. 


% NO 


% 


in 


2 


* 


8 5 


3 4 


1 2 


43 


16.5 35 


11.9 


ram 
i 


9 13 


3 


5 2 


18 


5 10 


97 


37.1 70 


23.7 


>] 


y 




2 


1 




2 


.8 4 


1.4 






2 




1 




13 


5.0 10 


3.4 




5 7 




■1 8 


1 




30 


11.5 50 


16.9 






7 


7 


5 43 


35 33 


76 


29.1 126 


42.7 




16 22 


12 


1 7 21 


29 17 

195S 


■1 1 45 

GROUP 


261 


295 








* 


2 3 


5 5 


1 


25 


8.4 36 


10.8 


10 


14 15 


2 


12 5 


27 1 


20 27 


182 


61.1 127 


38.2 




1 3 




2 5 


2 1 


1 6 


6 


2.0 19 


5.7 




2 




4 I 






12 


4.0 13 


3.9 


2 


3 8 


1 


7 11 


16 


15 16 


48 


16.1 96 


28.8 






4 


2 12 


14 


2 1 


25 


8.1 42 


12.6 


12 


18 28 


7 


29 10 


3-1 40 


38 51 


298 


333 




iting, 


Shimer had 


no Comparison students. 
























["5] 





TABLE VIII 

INTENDED FIELD OF SPECIALIZATION 
IN GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL 



1951 GROUP 



HELD CHICAGO 

s c 

Law 2 3 

Medicine 8 2 
Engineering 

Business ] £ 
Natural Sciences 

and Mathematics 11 7 

Social Sciences 2 3 

Humanities 2 1 
Education 

Other 3 2 

No data 18 16 

Total 47 36 



COLUMBIA 
S C 



GOUCIIL'R 

s c 



3 
16 



1 1 

5 1 

5 2 

1 3 

1 1 
2 

7 13 

;2 35 



1 
3 
1 
1 
1 
11 



10 25 



3 
12 



9 
11 



1952 GROUP 



La iv 


2 


2 


8 


4 


9 


1 


1 


1 


Medicine 


5 


9 


15 


10 


3 




9 




Engineering 




1 


4 


5 










Business 


1 




I 


3 




1 






Natural Sciences 


















and Mathematics 


8 


15 


5 


3 


6 


2 


4 


3 


Social Sciences 


9 


■1 


1 




7 


•4 


3 


9 


Humanities 


3 


5 




5 


1 


2 


3 


4 


Education 




2 


1 






2 


1 




Other 






1 




1 








No data 


13 


8 


8 


8 


•1 


8 


3 


11 


Total 


11 


39 


U 


38 


24 


23 


17 


21 



LAFAYETTE 
S C 



3 

2 
1 



9 2-1 
22 34 



16 



17 
21 



LOUISVILLE MOREIIOUH 
S C S C 

1 

2 3 

Not in 

program 

in 

1951 



3 
1 
9 

16 



12 

15 



3* 

i 



12 



8 
16 



1 

15 



3 [ 



ltf « 



This table includes those already in graduate school as of June, 1956, or who were then coinplelil 
undergraduate work and had plans for graduate or professional school. 

[i.6] 



6 4 



■I 
15 22 



23 8 
8 27 



TABLE VIII 

INTENDED HELD OF SPECIALIZATION 
IN GRADUATE OR PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL 



'9 


5 1 


GROUP 








SUIMIlR 




UTAH 


WISCONSIN 


YALE 


s c 




S 


c 


S 


c 


S C 


* 




I 


I 


2 


I 


2 7 






3 


1 


6 


2 


1 I 


1 




1 


I 

2 






1 
1 



1 
1 

9 
12 







5 






2 


3 

f 


1 


1 


1 


1 


I 


2 


1 


2 




1 




3 


16 


6 


43 


35 


33 


6 


24 


29 


47 


41 


45 



1958 GROUP 










* 1 


2 


1 


2 


5 


7 


1 


2 


19 


5 


7 


5 


3 

1 


2 
2 






3 
I 


4 
1 


7 


1 


7 


I 


2 


3 


1 


3 


4 


1 




1 


4 


9 


3 


I 


2 


7 


1 








1 


1 


10 


26 




30 


17 


22 


29 


40 


34 


40 


38 


51 



iiner had no Comjjarison sLudents. 



NO. 


% 


NO. 


O/ 


15 


5.7 


14 


4.7 


47 


18.0 


30 


10.2 


7 


2.7 


1 


.3 


4 


1.5 


10 


3.4 


33 


12.6 


12 


4.1 


20 


7.7 


13 


4.4 


14 


5.4 


16 


5.4 


4 


1.5 


8 


2.7 


9 


3.4 


9 


3.1 


08 


41.4 


182 


61.7 



261 



295 



28 


9.5 


26 


7.9 


74 


25.1 


37 


11.2 


12 


4.1 


13 


13.9 


4 


1.4 


9 


2.7 


47 


15.9 


37 


1.2 


28 


9.5 


20 


6.0 


20 


6.7 


33 I 


0.0 


4 


1.4 


7 


2.1 


2 


.7 


1 


.3 


76 


25.7 


148 A 


4.7 



295 



331 



["7]