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]
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11