I^VAL POSTa^^ATE SCHOOL (,L SÄ«-« A »Teport MR 74-5 MANPOWER … · · 2013-07-02££T"lCAL R«*ORT SECTION I^VAL POSTa^^ATE SCHOOL (,L SÄ«-« A »Teport MR 74-5 MANPOWER

££T"lCAL R«*ORT SECTION I^VAL POSTa^^ATE SCHOOL (,L

SÄ«-« A »Teport MR 74-5

MANPOWER ^r^r DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH PROGRAM

Career Potential Of Employees fn PLC, ROC, AND AVROC:

A Comparison of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973

'/

Manpower Development Division Air Force Human Resources Laboratory

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

Sponsored by

Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense

Manpower and Reserve Affairs

Directorate for Manpower Systems Evaluation

NOTICE

When US Government drawings, specifications, or other data are used for any purpose other than a definitely related Government procurement operation, the Government thereby incurs no responsibility nor any obligation whatsoever, and the fact that the Government may have formulated, furnished, or in any way supplied the said drawings, specifications, or other data is not to be regarded by implication or otherwise, as in any manner licensing the holder or any other person or corporation, or conveying any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may in any way be related thereto.

This report has been reviewed and cleared for open publication and/or public release by the appropriate Office of Information (01) in accordance with AFR 190-17 and DoD 5230.9. There is no objection to unlimited distribution of this report to the public at large, or by DDC to the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).

This report was submitted by the Manpower Development Branch, Air Force Human Resources Laboratory, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs).

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

1. REPORT NUMBER OASD/M&RA MR 74-5

AFHRL-TR-74-38

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

4. TITLE (and Subtitle)

CAREER POTENTIAL OF ENROLLEES IN PLC, ROC AND AVROC: A Comparison of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973

S. TYPE OF REPORT ft PERIOD COVERED

Interim 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHORf»;

Allan H. Fisher, Jr. Leslie S. Rigg

8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER!»

F41609-73-C-0030

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS

Human Resources Research Organization 300 North Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314

11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Directorate for Manpower Systems Evaluation, Washington, P.C. 2030J1

10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA ft WORK UNIT NUMBERS

PE 62703F Project 4499-07-50

12. REPORT DATE

November 1973 13. NUMBER OF PAGES

60 1*. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESSftf different trom Controlling Ottice)

Manpower Development Branch Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC) Alexandria, Virginia 22314

15. SECURITY CLASS, (ot thla report)

Unclassified 15«. DECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING

SCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ot thle Report)

Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (ot the abetract entered In Block 30, It different trom Reporf)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Survey conducted by Gilbert Youth Research, Inc., New York, N.Y.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reveree aide It necessary and Identity by block number)

Armed Services Motivation Recruitment Attitudes Officers ROC Program AVROC Program PLC Program Training Programs Career Prediction 0501, 0509, 0510, 1407, 1503

20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reveree aide If necessary and Identity by block number)

Research into the short-range and long-range career intentions of PLC, ROC, and AVROC enrollees in 1973 and 1972 showed that most enrollees intended to stay in their programs. From 30 percent to 40 percent indicated they intended to pursue a military career, while about 50 percent were undecided.

Knowledge of financial benefits did not influence career intentions; those planning to leave the service were as likely to overestimate pay and benefits

DD,™RM731473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (»Wien Dar« Entered;

Unclassified SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(TWl»n Dmtm Entered)

Item 20 (Continued)

as were the career-oriented personnel.

Reasons given for entering the program were similar in both years, with "military career opportunities," "travel, adventure, and new experiences," and "service to your country" the most popular reasons.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGEflWi»n Date Entered)

SUMMARY

Estimates of the Extent of Career Intentions

The willingness of PLC, ROC, and AVROC enrollees to stay in their

respective programs was either the same, or slightly higher in 1973

than it was in 1972 (see Table 1-1). Approximately 90% endorsement of

program continuation was found. In contrast, the intentions of enrollees

to make a career of military service were much lower, e.g., 30% to 40%

(Table 1-2). Career intentions were approximately the same for both 1972

and 1973, except that ROC participants expressed a significantly increased

interest in the military as a career in the 1973 survey. There is, however,

a substantial proportion of enrollees in each program who are undecided

with respect to long-range career intentions. Close to 50% of all respondents

chose this alternative in both years and this constitutes an important

segment of the total samples of enrollees.

The effect of the draft as a motivation for enrolling was somewhat

diminished in 1973, compared to 1972 (Tables 1-3 and 1-4). In 1973, ROC,

AVROC and lower classmen in the PLC all reported a significant increase

in the amount of "true volunteerism." "True volunteerism" is associated

with the likelihood of pursuing a military career. Thus, the increase in

"true volunteerism" should also bring about an increased interest in

staying in the service beyond the initial tour of duty. An example of

this phenomenon was noted for ROC enrollees.

Pay Information and Long-Term Career Intentions

There is little evidence that a career orientation is associated with

a knowledge of the financial benefits of a military career (Table II-2).

Those with extended service preferences are equally as likely to underestimate

1

officer pay as do participants who plan to leave the service or who are

undecided about their career intentions. In addition, those planning

to leave the service are equally as likely to overestimate pay and

benefits as are the career-oriented personnel.

Retrospective Assessment of Enrollment Motivations

Endorsement of various reasons for enrolling in these off-campus

programs changed little from 1972 to 1973. Reasons were categorized as

either general reasons or specific reasons.

The more important general reasons for enrollment in all three programs

were (1) military career opportunities, (2) travel, adventure, and new

experiences,and (3) service to your country (Table III-l).

The specific reason most frequently endorsed involved the choice of

branch of service (Table III-2). The opportunity to fly was the major

additional specific reason which attracted AVROC participants.

PREFACE

This Consulting Report indicates the extent of career motivation

among current enrollees in selected off-campus military officer training

programs in 1973. The programs studied are the Navy Reserve Officers

Candidate (ROC) program and Aviation Reserve Officers Candidate (AVROC)

program, and the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class (PLC) program.

Selected results from a similar survey conducted in 1972 are included

for comparison purposes. Additional 1972 and 1973 comparisons are reported

which indicate: (1) the levels of factual knowledge of, and attitudes

toward, ROTC programs and off-campus officer training programs; and (2)

factors related to expressed interest in applying for enrollment in these

programs. In total, these comparisons allow an assessment of changes in

career potential which may have resulted with the expiration of the draft,

or as a result of other events or activities which transpired between 1972

and 1973.

This report is the third in a series of three reports which present

the results of a comprehensive 1973 DoD survey of enrollment (applicant)

potential and career potential for college-based military officer train-

ing programs. The second report in this series is concerned with

military career potential of current enrollees in ROTC programs. The

first report in the series is concerned with the enrollment of civilian

youth who are college-bound in terms of their interest in applying for

ROTC or for ROC, AVROC, or PLC.

The 1972 and 1973 surveys were designed by Mr. George Mihaly and

Mr. Gideon D. Rathnum of Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. for the Department

of Defense. Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. was responsible for selecting

the 1972 and 1973 samples, conducting the personal interviews, and per-

forming the data tabulations for both the 1972 and 1973 surveys.

Analyses of the data tabulations and report preparation activities

were performed by HumRRO Division 7 (Social Science), Alexandria,

Virginia, Dr. Robert G. Smith, Jr., Director. The Principal Investigator

was Dr. Allan H. Fisher, Jr.; Ms. Leslie S. Rigg was the research

assistant. Dr. Richard J. Orend provided technical assistance and

wrote the Management Summary.

HumRRO also assisted in the initial questionnaire design and develop-

ment of the sample requirements for these surveys.

Helpful guidance in substantive aspects of the data analyses and

report preparation were provided by COL Gerald Perselay (USAF),

Director for Precommissioning Programs (OASD, M&RA), and Mr. Samuel Saben,

Manpower Resource Analyst (OASD, M&RA). The technical monitor was

Dr. Frank D. Harding of the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL/MD).

The preparation of camera-ready copy of each report in this series

was performed by HumRRO for the Directorate for Manpower Research of the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve

Affairs) under Contract No. F41609-73-C-0030, Task Order No. 3 (HumRRO

Project DAD-C).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

SUMMARY 1 Estimates of the Extent of Career Intentions 1 Pay Information and Long-Term Career Intentions 1 Retrospective Assessment of Enrollment Motivations 2

PREFACE 3

INTRODUCTION 7

METHOD 8 Sampling Requirement 8 Sampling Procedures 8 Sampling Comparability 9 Questionnaire 10 Administration 10 Data Analyses 10

RESULTS 12 I. CAREER POTENTIAL 12

Immediate Career Intentions 12 Long-Range Career Intentions 14 Draft-Motivation 16

II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS 21

Awareness of Officer Compensation 21 Awareness of Various Training Programs 26 Personal Sources of Information 29

III. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT 31 General Reasons for Applying for Officer Training 31 Specific Reasons for Applying for Officer Training 34

BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

APPENDICES A Detailed Sample Size Information for Off-Campus

Program Enrollees 41 B Comparability of 1972 and 1973 Samples 42 C 1973 Questionnaire 47 D Approximate Tests of Statistical Significance 58

INTRODUCTION

This survey was conceived as part of a systematic effort by the

Department of Defense to study enrollment potential and career potential

for selected college-based military officer training programs on an

annual basis. Previous empirical research concerning the attitudes of

college-aged youth toward affiliation with the various college-based

pre-coramissioning programs (ROTC) has been conducted (Johnston and

Bachman, 1972; N.W. Ayer, 1972). Studies on the career potential of ROTC

enrollees had also been made (Griffith, 1972; N.W. Ayer, 1972). However,

none of these studies had investigated enrollment or career potential for

the off-campus programs of ROC, AVROC, and PLC. The DoD surveys ("ROTC

Surveys") of May 1972 and May 1973 included attempts to study these off-

campus programs.

The initial DoD survey in this series (conducted in May 1972) was

designed to provide information on enrollment potential for these off-

campus programs of officer training among civilian youth (Fisher & Harford

1972). The survey was also designed to identify the extent of career

intentions among current program enrollees. The present May 1973 survey

constituted a replication of the May 1972 survey. This report presents the

findings on career potential from each survey.

Continued research on career potential over time provides an ongoing

measure of the acceptance of current programs among enrollees. Further,

it assures continued availability of current data necessary to appraise

the reactions of these potential officers to external events and program

modifications which may impact on their attitudes toward: (1) continued

enrollment in these programs, and (2) a future career as an officer in the

military service.

METHOD

Sampling Requirement

Sampling requirements for each survey were generated by HumRRO in

discussions with representatives of OASD (M&RA). Target populations

were identified to correspond with the major objectives of the present

study, e.g., to estimate career potential among current enrollees. These

particular populations consisted of enrollees in the ROC, AVROC, and PLC

programs. For enrollees in PLC, a distinction was made between enrollees

in their Freshman/Sophmore years ("Lower Classmen") and enrollees in

their Junior/Senior years ("Upper Classmen"). In each survey, the total

sampling requirements called for approximately 400 PLC enrollees, 200 ROC

enrollees, and 200 AVROC enrollees.

Sampling Procedures

By-name samples of enrollees in the PLC program were generated by

reference to a Marine Corps computer listing in which the distinction

between Lower Classmen and Upper Classmen could be made. By-name samples

of enrollees in the Navy ROC and AVROC programs were generated from a

master card index of enrollees maintained by the Navy in updated form at

Memphis, Tennessee.

The above procedures were used to draw the samples in both the 1972

and 1973 surveys. Two independent samplings were employed.

The sample size for each survey is summarized below, together with

the projected population for each program. (See Appendix A for detailed

sample size information).

SAMPLE SIZE

Populations 1972 Survey 1973 Survey Sample Projected Sample Projected Size Population Size Population

PLC 404 2,999 344 3,852

ROC 200 760 158 585

AVROC 202 848 181 688

Totals 806 4,607 683 5,125

Sampling Comparability

The 1972 and 1973 samples were compared on a variety of demographic

characteristics to determine the equivalence of samples in the two surveys.

These comparisons were made to determine if the 1972 and 1973 samples were

sufficiently similar to permit valid comparisons of career intentions and

other responses to be made.

There were some demographic differences between the 1972 and 1973

samples which achieved statistical significance, e.g., the racial composi-

tion and family income of PLC enrollees, the employment status of PLC and

ROC enrollees, and the type of residence (city size) of ROC and AVROC

enrollees. However, few differences were noted which were consistent across

all three programs? Only on age and the presence of Junior ROTC in high

school were differences noted for enrollees in ROC, AVROC, and PLC.

In general, the samples from 1972 and 1973 appeared sufficiently similar

to permit legitimate comparisons of career intentions to be made for the

two surveys. Appendix B contains data on sample comparability.

*The PLC sample in 1973 did appear to be of slightly lower socio-economic status than the 1972 PLC sample. This finding is supported in part by the presence of more non-whites in the 1973 PLC sample.

Questionnaire

An extended questionnaire was designed for the 1972 survey and main-

tained in essentially the same form for the 1973 survey, for purposes of

comparability. The 1973 survey questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix C.

Administration

All data reported in each survey were obtained from extended per-

sonal interviews. In conducting these interviews, Gilbert Youth Re-

search, Inc. employs peer-group interviews in conjunction with local

supervision to increase the likelihood of valid responses. A systematic

program of interview verification is used to insure data quality.

Data Analyses

For each survey, results for each sample were weighted for extrapola-

tion to the respective populations. Data from off-campus program enrollees

in ROC and AVROC were weighted to the respective populations of these

two programs, while data from PLC enrollees were weighted to the popu-

lation by their status as Upper Classmen or Lower Classmen.

Data analyses consisted of cross-tabulations of each

questionnaire item controlling on respondent status in these programs

(Upper Classmen or Lower Classmen for PLC, and ROC or AVROC status for

these programs).

Tests of statistical significance were performed manually on the

tabulated data to evaluate differences in rates of response to selected

questions in 1972 and 1973. All tests reported in Section I are "t-tests"

which compare the 1972 and 1973 rates of response in the projected

10

populations, using the sample size (n) from the appropriate survey

population as the base. Tests reported elsewhere in the report result

from approximations to the "t-test" procedure as discussed in Appendix D.

11

RESULTS

I. CAREER POTENTIAL

The major objective of this survey was to estimate the size of the

career population among enrollees in off-campus programs, i.e., the

USMC PLC program and the Navy ROC and AVROC programs.

The career intentions of program enrollees were evaluated in terms

of: (1) their immediate career intentions; and (2) their long-range career

intentions. The distinction involves the willingness to complete the under-

graduate program (immediate career intentions), as compared with making a

career as a military officer (long-range career intentions).

IMMEDIATE CAREER INTENTIONS

Immediate career intentions were assessed by asking each enrollee

a hypothetical question: "If you had no military obligation and were

permitted to leave your military officer training program, would you do

so?" The permissible response options read (a) Yes, I would leave the

program as soon as possible," (b) "No, I would stay in the program," and

(c) "I don't know." Results appear in Table 1-1.

In both 1972 and 1973, the vast majority of enrollees said they

would stay in the program even if given an opportunity to leave. Among

1973 respondents, the percent affirmative response was 96% (AVROC), 92%

(ROC) and 88% (total PLC). Lower classmen enrolled in the PLC program and

men enrolled in the ROC program each showed significant increases from

1972 to 1973 in their willingness to stay in the program. The increase in

immediate career intentions was particularly pronounced among ROC enrollees

(74% in 1972 and 92% in 1973). There were no significant changes from 1972

to 1973 in the rate of immediate career intentions among upper classmen

12

0)

o ■-I

.-1 o n c w

1 M

Oil

0 C/l w ^ PM

o 1—1 4-1

H ß S CD W H

H S-I £ 3 M U

erf IH

w o

| c •5 o o •H

4J

w en H N

< •H

H H

Q O

W BO *r* 0) ^ 4-J

M a) U

T>

Cl) -H

•H

en ±->

<1)

« ..

W

3 CQ

u s 5

ON

Csl

ON

cn

ON

CN

ON

^s

£-s

&-S

t^

c i-~ 0J ON b .-1 (/) U)

en -H

c_>

W 0) CM a. r^. u- ON

UJ iH

u ,-4 PM

c o-i 0) r~ H ON cn >H cn cn

.H

U

w CN a) p^

|* ON o r-A .-1

6-«

c (1) cfl >

en c QJ >-( OJ .-i

a) > 0) •H o u cj 4-1

R) Vw^

CJ> >- c/i 4-J

OJ C •H ■u o e Cfl ■H 3

•H 4-J 4-J

T3 c H OJ tu O

O

CM

u 6.11 ■ax: o

* 6-S

m ^D 00 ON ■ ft • •

uo .H CM ON ON ON

CM in m CN • • ■ ■

en ^D o o ON o

* * B-«

cn ON vO o • • • • Csl H in ON ON ON

B-S O —1 LO Cvl

■ • • * CO H u~> o r-» CN o

B>! CO CO <T O • • • ■

r- LO r*> o CXI o

ON 00

-K

oo

ON

r»

■x

^D

ON

n B-« O

■ • co O

o

r~ ■ •

m o o iH

co B-! CNJ * ■

ON O o

>N U cd oo 4J o CO u

& iH a) 3 JZ o *-> * a

CD > en CD

u 00 o w CL

a) J3

o T3

CO 4-J

r» C ON cn rH o

•H

O 14-1

4-J •H

c CM 01)

r~- ■H

ON to 7-i

>, P. ^H

o ^H

u rt IM CJ

•H

tl) 4-1

o cn c •H a; 4-1

V4 en 0) 4-1

IH cn

P-J

Q -H

13

enrolled in PLC, or among AVROC enrollees. However, each group had a

high rate of immediate career intentions in both surveys.

LONG-RANGE CAREER INTENTIONS

Cognizant of the fact that an assessment of long-range career inten-

tions is essential in manpower planning, each program enrollee was asked

the following question: "Do you plan to stay in the Service at the end

of your initial obligated period of service as a commissioned officer?"

The respondent was permitted one of four response options: (a) "Yes, I

plan to make the Service my career," (b) "Yes, I plan to stay in for a

while," (c) "I am undecided," and (d) "No, I plan to leave when I complete

my obligation." The first two responses may be taken as indications of

long-range career intentions. Results appear in Table 1-2.

In both 1972 and 1973, the modal response with respect to long-range

military career intentions was one of indecision. This finding is not

too surprising, considering the future-orientation and hypothetical nature

of the question.

In 1973, the rate of long-range military career intentions was 39%

for ROC enrollees, 36% for PLC enrollees (in total), and 31% for AVROC

enrollees. The most pronounced increase in career intentions from 1972

to 1973 occurred among ROC enrollees. ROC enrollees showed an increase

* from 1972 (19%) to 1973 (39%) in their career intentions. No other

significant changes were found between the two surveys. However, in 1973,

a higher percentage of lower classmen enrolled in PLC (41%) had career

intentions than did upper classmen enrolled in PLC (30%). There was no

difference in the military career intentions of upper and lower classmen

in PLC in 1972.

The increase in career intentions for ROC enrollees was accompanied by a concomitant decrease of over 13% in the rate of "undecided" responses, and a decrease of over 6% in the response "I plan to leave when I complete my obligation."

14

• S*8 co ' <r o «* O o OO r-. /—s • en ■ • • • ON »4 m LO 00 rH ON iH ^—^ rH rH m rH ON

CJ to o

g ,t^ y

8-« .H «! CN r oo rH ON ON -d- o rH r-. /■N • co • • • O ON B^ as rH ON oo o u rH s^ H H UO o c rH w

* ■X s~s

rJ co co oo CO r^ r~. o BO r- /"S > co • ■ • • o ON B-? m CO rH ON o u t-l Nw^ CM rH ST rH o

CO CM rH ?5 O 4-1

H c cj JO\ v H a) q • 8-S S3 M ecj CM ' ON CO o O rH O W r4 r~ /—V > H • • • H 3 ON 6^ 00 o LO vO O ^ CJ i-i ^ H m CM o M rH

14-1

pei •O w § o < •H cj 4->

CO

u N »CN > o •H a / • ^-— 6-« ?; M s«s r>» CSI o ON O i (U 0} ■-, "-' .H rH LO rH o

cj 4J cd rH >3 0) iH o u cj HJ J CM

Tj J-l > 8N? 0) tu CM co LO ON rH 00 rH

rH a r- r"\ ■ CO • • • • •H O- ON B^ LO ON LO ON O id S\ H N—' CM <r rH o *-> o rH CO ►J Q CM

e mv

6-! • » a) CO ''"rH o -* rH CO ON w B

CO

P-. r"s ■ -* • • • • g o\ S~« •S vO vO CO ON

<D r-t N-^ CN rH «* rH ON CQ cd

I-I

o t-t

8-« (-1 CM STfi— --in •—■ -^s* rH ON rH

a) r- r"> • CO • • • . 5 o

o> BNS 00 SO NO 00 O H ^~s .-1 rH <r rH o

►J rH

en C

0) cd 00 rH c PL,

2 u 1 H) fill a> c u 0 m (J CJ

U •H LH

^ 0

0) -H c c c CO 42 T3 o o o

>> u S 3J D. -H -rl u cu ö cd T3 S 4J 4-1 id cu •H •H CJ <d 4J u M O N O 0) > O-'H rH U cd Hi -a 1« EH •H ■u C CO O ,£5. s no 3 J U O

CO 4-J

r» ä ON id rH o

•H 0 14-,

4-1 •H C

CM ÖJ.)

r^ •iH ON CO rH

>, R rH o rH u cfl

LH u •H

C1J 4-1

CJ CO c •H OJ 4J r4 Cfl

(1) 4-)

LW CO LH •H CO Q ■H

CM

15

-^

The above findings on immediate and long-range career intentions

suggest .iat the majority of program enrollees will complete their college

program, but do not anticipate making a career of military service.

However, the high rate of "undecided" responses as shown in Table 1-2

suggests that the potential exists for improving the extent of long-range

officer careerist intentions e.g., as found for ROC enrollees. An additional

finding on the relationship of draft-motivation to career intentions tends

to confirm this possibility.

DRAFT-MOTIVATION

The extent of draft-motivation in enrollment was assessed by asking

each respondent this question: "If there had been no draft and you had no

military obligation, do you think you would have enrolled in a military

officer training program?" Responses were classified into three categories

of (a) "true volunteers," (b) "draft-motivated," and (c) "don't know."

Results for the total PLC, ROC, and AVROC samples appear in Table 1-3.

In 1972 and 1973, the majority of men in each program claimed that

they would have enrolled, even in the absence of a draft/military obliga-

tion. In 1973, a higher percentage of AVROC enrollees (95%) and PLC

enrollees (91%) were true-volunteers, than were ROC enrollees (82%).

However, enrollees in the ROC and AVROC programs showed a significant in-

crease in true-volunteerism from 1972 to 1973. Compared to enrollees in

the other programs, ROC enrollees had the largest increase in true-

volunteerism from 1972 to 1973. (This finding might be anticipated, given

the large increases in immediate and long-range career intentions among ROC

enrollees noted in the previous tables.*)

There was no statistically significant increase in true-volunteerism

for PLC enrollees, in total, from 1972 to 1973. However, there was a

significant increase in true-volunteerism among lower classmen enrolled

* Part of the increase may also be attributable to the relatively low rate of immediate and long-range career intentions among ROC enrollees in 1972.

16

c_>

s*

ON

ON ON

ON ON

s-s O i-

CM

ON

CM m en

o

m

d »4 O

o o

53 O tfl M 01 H 0J •< H > rH M o H VJ O c as w

B g 3 Ml Q O ^ h CM O

g .. w CU H X 3 W pq

e^

t>S ON

CO

o o o

o o o

00

s-s NO

d ^?

o o

ON

00

6-S ON

rH m

m CO

00

co

co

NO

o

fr^

o o

T> CD i-l T3 iH C o cd l-l co C 4-> c 0) W HH O !H

CO -H CU M 4J ►, > Q et) rH cd M 01

W O -H 4J 55 .-I ■H

•Ö ,o C H.CO •H 3 -U >*H O -H O OJ 3 S 55 O

cn 01 o

>H 55

>N ►i rH rH rO ,£>

CO co -J=> -O c> o ^4 M

FH PH

o S3

>N rH 01



t-H TH O 4J > o a (U 1 3 4J Vl <*H H CO = M

Q -a r

CU

U 0> * o • SB

-u >» S •H >»

J3 rH Ü CO (U

T-l Xt w »4-1 O -H •H >-i C a PU -H w = U-l •rH 01 cn M a

O Z >N

rH z u rH cn o (0 cu o rH =

•H o 4-1 >N53 cn i-H

•H 4-1 C CO cn •H J3

4H O cn CU rJ

•H Q PH

CO r* rl H ON CU CU rH s s

CO CO O c c

■u CO cfl

CM o o I-«. JC x: ON & > rH

cn cn

g 4J 4-1 Ö C

u cu cu <*-> T3 T3 C C

CU O O u & P- c cn cn 0) 01 cu M Pd Prf

l|H U-l •H w p H

O 55

CO I

5

17

in PLC. Table 1-4 indicates that the rate of true-volunteerism for

lower classmen in PLC increased from 83% in 1972 to 92% in 1973, while the

rate of draft-motivation declined from 14% in 1972 to 8% in 1973. The

increase in true-volunteerism among lower classmen in PLC is consistent

with the increase in immediate career intentions for these men, noted in

Table 1-1.

In general, the data in this chapter suggest that there is a positive

relationship between one's initial motivation to enroll in the program

(true-volunteerism) and the avowed intention to remain in the program.

Increases from 1972 to 1973 in the rate of true-volunteerism seem to be

associated with increases in immediate and/or long-range career intentions.

Table 1-5 supports this contention directly by showing that for both

ROC/AVROC and PLC "true-volunteers" there is a significantly higher

intention to make the military service a career than there is among

draft-motivated enrollees.

The high level of true-volunteerism reported by program enrollees

suggests that increased rates of long-term officer careerist potential

might be developed by managers of these programs. (As noted, current

enrollees are generally indecisive with respect to their plans for making

a career of the military service; but they do plan to remain in their

current programs to completion.) For information which might be useful in

the development of strategies to increase long-range career motivations,

the reader is referred to Section II (awareness of military pay) and

Section III (reasons for initial enrollment in these programs).

The decline in reported draft-motivation is synonymous with the termina- tion of draft calls. The draft was in operation until 28 Dec. 1972, although few men were inducted in the latter months of 1972. Former Secretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird announced the feasibility of suspending the draft for the active force on 27 January 1973.

18

<ß 4-1 !-l H O PL| H O a s o

H ■U b cO

3 N

n O

Fd 00 O 01

H CO 53 c_>

£ T3

d (1) r-1 •H n) •U 01 o

-• vO CN

C 

O CN

^

o o

CN r». ON

00

m vo CN <N m 8~S O

CN o m en

iH en CN o o

c CO u

c 00

CO

CO u

CO

CO

CO

en

3

T3 ill

iH C o <0 U C 4J W 4-1

CO 0) U U > o « CO 00

o Z >H

TJ ,£> iH ,C O 3 4J O i-t O 3 3 Z

tn 0) o

>H en 0) o

S3

>> >H Z >^ S H H O 0) >. >> cu C

■U H rH 4J txi •H -Q .£> •H c CO CO c ■u

•H Xi XI •1-1 - 4-1 o o 4-1 C

(1) n u CD o a Eu fit Q Q

CN

I U

CU u a -<

O 00 F« £ o O u

H PM

33 cn SB O M H

ro

CTN

41 en CD n

■«8 o c

T3 I 01

>4H Cd

(0 > U -H Q 4J

O ss

m 1-, 01

0) 0) 3

fig o fi

I 0) ■P 4-1 in ca to > O 4J

s en >-i 01

41 V 3

w 4) C Oil a C -H cd PL,

P2 t U Ml 4) Ö 41 O LJ

H-l CO C->

S-S o o LO

o

o o

S-?

•fc CN

LO

O o

o o

6-5

* * v£> CN • • rH u-1

o> en o

o o

o in

o LO

o

o o

s^ co

LO CO

* CN

CO CN

r^ -* CO

o

o o

K o o o

>-l

4) 4)

CO

O

CO

4) u > U 41 CD

C/i rH •H

ß <C

cd U 4J O CO U-J

41 •O •H O 4)

Ö P

d c o o 0.-H 3

41 >

e 4) CO

u a M

m e o 4) O U

cn • 0)

en a) 0) rH

41 CD rH O rH O

•H rH U

E O C u o>

4) a cn 0) u

o 4) re

•a pi 0) >

4-1 4J < CO -^

0 > u •H •H o

4-1 PÜ

>- o CO e -a 4J 1 0) cn 4-1 C

HH -H o cd X> 4-1 r4 ß

TJ O 00 O a 01

•H rC r4 c •U O c LH CO t-l

.H O T3 PL,MH Ü

CO u cn o -H «

CO u 4-1 01 4) •H Of 41 rH U C rH cd CO O o rC H

4J Ö

& 0)

CO "co cj 4-1 U rJ •H CU PH rH 01 •H 4-1 U B a o

3 14H cd rH

O rH oo > 01 c >

•H 01 0) R 3 rH a u CO 4-1 rH H = O a O

t-1 • cn o 4) <4H 01 4) rC

rH U 4-1 rH 01 O Xi 4-1 1-1 00 CO a iH 41 rC 4-1

c LM >-, cfl O rH O

4-1 T4. in C M-l 41 CO -H on o a cd •H 00 4-1 <4H -H a •H W 0) c CJ oo cn S-i •H -H 4) CO ex 0)

ca o T3 •H ß 41 01 c 0) SJ

•H rH 0) -O •H 14H e J2 L|H O S -H CJ CO 13

4) LJ 01

£ o _c >4H H

LO I

20

II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS

One major assumption underlying this research was that program

awareness functioned as a logical prerequisite to the formation of favor-

able attitudes toward the various programs. For current program enrollees,

one would assume that they could not recommend a program to their friends

effectively unless they knew something about it. Hence, questions on

program knowledge and awareness were posed to PLC, ROC, and AVROC enrollees.

Questions were developed to assess the level of knowledge and awareness

of ROTC and off-campus military officer training programs. Specifically,

the questions concerned awareness of the various programs by (1) name and

(2) sponsoring branch of service. Additional questions were used to analyze

respondent awareness of officer pay, since increases in military compensation

preceded each survey administration. Finally, a question about the source of

information about these programs was employed. This chapter reviews major

findings for these topics.

AWARENESS OF OFFICER COMPENSATION

Each respondent was asked to: (1) specify the date of the most recent

pay increase for beginning officers;(2) specify both the current total

entry earnings (pay and allowances) and the current entry base pay for an

officer; and (3) estimate whether total entry pay for officers was more,

less, or about the same as the earnings of a college graduate in his first

(civilian) job. Results appear in Table II-l.

Among PLC enrollees in 1973, 57% knew the date of the last pay increase,

and 45% correctly estimated the current total entry earnings of a military

officer ($601-800/month). But only 42% felt that initial officer pay and

civilian pay for college graduates were equivalent, and only 36% correctly

estimated the amount of officer base pay ($550/month). Except for an in-

crease in awareness of the date of the last pay increase, 1973 PLC enrollees

21

* * CO /"■s <t CO <r CO r^ fr^ • • • • CJ-> ^~^ CM m ^o r~- rH >£> m m •»

u o g <

CM ^^ <r o co O r^ r>S • • • • Os ^ <r rH r^ CO ■H vD VjO ^D CO

rH o M CO ^~s r^ p- 00 O C/) r^ r>? • • • • w is a, v-* in 00 CM CM 55 O rH m <r Is» -* g£ 0)

01 u < < 0) o S w H rt <! 55 rH

Cd 0

|fi! ri CM /■■N in o o rH e r^ SN; • • • • rH

< o w as ^^ OS o 00 r^ 1 u r-t in m vD <r • hH

w 6 4-1 • • M O Pi 0) c r. ■;

o w U cfl CM CO w u oo o r*. r^ W

££ o •H a\ as rJ IH 14-1 rH rH

^ O fc CM •H 55 O * * * * B

00 rTr? H

►j • ■ CO ^■s CM in O^ r» •H cfl cfl 55 05 QJ r^ 6-8 • • • • en 3 3 M <ti CO a-. ^*s r^ <r in rH C 3

H id H m «* CO <r >, cfl CO

>H M pa rH >-> •-) C_> rJ rH » ~ <; M o cfl

g s rJ CM

o ■H

ca en Cfl Cfl

u 4-1 S S u CM /•\ CM m CO r^ CO <c r^ fr« • • • • •H >» >,

o> -—' O CO m rH 4-1 0) 0) rH m m <r m CO It 4-1

01 3 3 *

0) w to

/-s •H CM CO J3 r~ r^ 4J CO as as c r-~ rH ^-t o as S rH 0) 0)

X! X! o va o 4-> 4-1

o !-i 4-1 r-l O0 a) u c c a 01 1 CJ rH •H X!

01 CM •H -H

a> •H O 14-4 4J •H « as S-l V4 CO 14-1 VO >4H C M-l Pn iH 0) 01 cd <4H tO- o o «4-1 £ S >> u 01 O >-' 6 O 0> e CO CO

rH CO >H fc£ 4-1 o 3 3 4J o a rH Cfl 14-1 CO u cfl cfl o x c CO (30 4-i in O 3 >4H 0> M 4-> C 3 m T3 4J 4J M 01 O -H W <o- 0) cfl 01 O cj VI X! >% H 3 ^^ CJ H o 0) 01 O •• 4-1 CD H 14-! C Ü c u u U 60 PH IH CO o >, 0) 0) u u

c 14H O W CO ■H a» r< o o •U -H o -u *J PL, cfl 00 0) u o 3 4-1 c 0) 5^ 3 > a) 14H 0) )-l 01 01 00 VJ s ai •H rH 4H 01 0) o o u o 3 4J o co 3 rH •H x: x; u p. CO 0) cfl 3 B co

-3 m cr o O H H

OJ a)1 Q Prf P5 W w o PH PH 1 1 i i * cfl

22

reported less favorable estimates of military pay than did 1972 PLC enrollees.

Among ROC enrollees in 1973, 56% knew the date of the last pay increase,

49% correctly estimated total officer pay, and 73% correctly estimated entry

base pay. (This latter figure is twice as high as the corresponding

figure for PLC). However, only 42% felt that initial officer pay and

civilian pay for college graduates were the same. Findings for the 1972

ROC samples were consistent with findings for the 1973 ROC sample.

Among AVROC enrollees in 1973, 62% knew the correct date of the last

pay increase, 56% correctly estimated total officer entry pay, and 56%

correctly estimated the amount of officer entry base pay. (The latter was

a significant decrease from 67% in 1972). In 1973, 48% felt that initial

officer pay and civilian pay for college graduates were the same. (This

was a significant increase in attitude from 38% in 1972).

The above findings need not be interpreted as indicative of a re-

quirement to increase the level of awareness of military pay among pro-

gram enrollees. Indeed, such an effort may not be required, either to

enhance the recruitment of new men or to increase the long-range career

intentions of current enrollees. Table II-2 shows, that for all program

enrollees, accurate knowledge of the beginning pay and allowances for

officers is not significantly related to the enrollees intention to

make the military service a career. (Tests of statistical significance

were conducted on the differences in the percentages of accurate know-

ledge of total entry earnings between (a) those who intended to make the

service a career, (b) those who planned to stay in the service for awhile,

and (c) those planning to leave the service after completion of their

initial tour of duty. Tests were made separately for PLC enrollees and

for combined ROC/AVROC enrollees using the 1973 data. None of these

differences were found to be statistically significant.)

23

0) x! a) 4J O

•H (1) > > ^ cO t; q pi > Ö <", •H 0)

i-l TJ >>-H a to x: cfl 4J 5

C/3 * CM O

CN

ON

*J3

ON

ON o\

in o <* CM o

CN CO in

00 rH

CN o o rH

CN 00 liO VO iH

CN o-i

ON \0 rH

rH O O

CO

w

o rJ

3

PM

r-4 < H O H

en CU

1)

O t-l C w

u oo o M

P-4

CO

ON

0) D) CO

pq

CD O

•H > u CO CD a> to rJ

Ö ■H <D

rH >, •H CO rC 4-1 s CO <d

0 rJ •H <D

B QJ

U

0) CO co u

»<

S*

ON

CN CO O co

O CM

CO co CO

6«« O

o o

r^ CN CM ON r»-S

o ON UO o <r o

o tH

00 oo CO rH o rH rH

CM LO

co CO

CN o o

CN I

W rJ

9

rH

o o

M C •H tH +-> CD CO o B -H

•H <4H 4J <W Ifl T3 (/) O 00 CD 4-J -a

LU C 4-1 c CU

Br?-g cfl 0 4-1 e o Cfl

•H 4-> H •H 1 £ s C cO 4-1 ■H Ü

XUJ PJ CO 4-1 a o cu 4-) CO u CO -H i u a) fH CO u cu i 4-1

3 4-> cu u S-J » o o T3 u a) (3 O H C o > 0 < O CJ c PJ

24

It is noteworthy that, in 1973, the highest level of awareness

of the date of the last pay increase and the most favorable attitude

toward initial officer pay (vs. civilian college graduate pay) was

given by AVROC enrollees. AVROC enrollees also provided the highest

percent (56%) accuracy in estimating total officer entry pay and earnings.

However, the previous section noted that AVROC enrollees have the lowest

rate of long-range military career intentions (albeit the highest rate

of indecision with respect to long-range plans). The AVROC enrollees

also had the highest rate of true-volunteerism (95%). As a possible

explanation for this anomaly, the reader is referred to Section III,

where the motivation of AVROC enrollees to fly is documented (Table III-3),

Another perspective may be obtained by studying ROC enrollees. In

1973, ROC enrollees had by far the highest rate of correct estimation of

the amount of officer entry base pay (73% correct). Nonetheless, ROC

enrollees were not as favorable in their attitudes with respect to the

equivalence of officer and civilian pay. ROC enrollees were also only

slightly more likely to anticipate a military career than were men enrolled

in PLC (see Table 1-2). ROC enrollees appear to be motivated by considera-

tions other than pay, e.g., the opportunity for travel, adventure and

excitement (see Table III-l).

25

AWARENESS OF VARIOUS TRAINING PROGRAMS

To assess the level of awareness of college-based military officer train-

ing programs, each respondent was asked to: (1) indicate if he had heard of

each of the following programs: ROC, AVROC, PLC and ROTC; and (2) identify

the service(s) which sponsored these particular programs. The findings

on claimed awareness of the programs by name are presented first.

In both surveys, the vast majority of respondents claimed to have heard

of ROTC programs (97% or more). As expected, over 98% claimed to have heard

of their own programs. But awareness of the other off-campus programs was

much lower. For example, awareness of ROC (25%) and AVROC (40%) was re-

latively low among 1973 PLC enrollees. Among 1973 ROC enrollees, awareness

of the AVROC program was high (96%) but awareness of PLC was much lower (57%).

Among 1973 AVROC enrollees, 72% claimed to have heard of ROC, while 61%

claimed to have heard of PLC. Results appear in Table II-3.

Next, these levels of awareness were validated by asking respondents who

claimed awareness of a program (only) to identify the sponsoring service(s)

for the particular program. This analysis revealed the existence of con-

siderable confusion with respect to program sponsorship. It also demonstrated

the need for caution in interpreting the previous data on claimed awareness

of the various programs by name. Results appear in Table II-4.

In each survey, the majority of the respondents who claimed to have heard

of ROTC correctly attributed the ROTC program to the Army (over 75% in each

survey). However, attribution of ROTC sponsorship to the Navy or to the Air

Force was much lower in both surveys.

Among PLC enrollees who claimed awareness of the ROC or AVROC program, only

about 50% in each survey correctly attributed these programs to the Navy.

(As Table II-3 shows, claimed awareness of these programs was also low among

PLC enrollees.) Among ROC enrollees who claimed awareness of AVROC, about 90%

correctly identified the Navy as sponsor in each survey. There was a

26

* -K

r"N <r CO <r o M ■ • ■ • ■•~--- CM o ON o

r>. vO ON o

CM /■N -* r» LTl rH h» ^S • • • • ON ^ CM CO ON ON rH NO co ON ON

§ H to

a) Co 01 W rH CJ rH M O fa VJ

fa Ö D w

1 1 r4

H 00 M o fa rJ

H fa £ p .. w » rH o> CO ON CO

en I

fa fa

CO r*S CO r^ rH ■tf r> &^ • - • • ON v-^ <t ON ON o rH CM ON ON <r

U fa fa CM r"N r>» CM o co r^ s-s • - • • ON **s ON ON o u-l rH rH ON o »»

e ■H n3

rH CJ ••

m 0 o

>g w w

4-1 (i) e c 4H

ON C rH 00

•H S w O r4 >N

0) to O CJ C -H 0) 4-1 r4 CO

•H Q

cj

27

cn •-N CO in o CN rH <n r-~ H

CO ON •—' n in in rH rH 00 2 rH SO o» r-^ m SO as <c m PM o <_> CJJ o O CO 3 PC CO > PM a) <

d CN /"> CO cn sO r^ h» o o « a 5-1 as ^—' CN r^ CO O CN o H cd rH SO as r^ m m o g i rH M nl i s H •H

CO Pi iH W a * -X u M o ro r™S rH as m <r as r-

£ .c r^ B^; s •~N as *w> vO r» 00 -* as O

o >> rH as as r^ m «* as CO I-i

>M a) c % a) o u

rH •*~s o H H en M O g hJ SM cd CN •-S <r in SO LO -cr CN H C H r^ ^ a w oo as *w> r^ in cn <r Q as

o rH Oi as 00 sO sO 00 Q g n W cd p. H U U tox: w o Ü H u cd w PM a> en * * o .. in /—V r^ rH SO r^ SO <r z; OJ r^ X H CO Os v_-' r» as m m as cn PC CO rH *» as 00 •* •* m O eq CO z u o HJ PM PM CO

CN ."> SO 00 SO as r^ rH w r^ 6-5 u ON ^-y m as CM sO «tf as H rH sr as as m m sT > Pd w CO

Pn o

CO CO w s £ 3 s <:

a; UM o o •H

■u > o c b CU o OJ u •H CO M ■U 0 cd bt O ü PS

■H •H ■u 4M U c •iH o ci) u CO u c C u d) 0 cu XI p.

PM H CO

Cd

B^S

U

3

U CO

o PM

u H

< B-3

I

5 PM

< CO Ei

B-8 I

cd

CJ

5

cn r-» CT> • rH ■U

Ö o cd 4J CJ

•H CN MM r^ •H as C rH 00

•H 0 co 0 M >,

MM rH rH

a) cd u CJ B •H aj 4J u CO Q) •H

CM 4-J UM cd

I

w

PQ

3

Q co

28

slightly higher rate of correct identification of the Marine Corps as

the sponsor of PLC, i.e., 94% in 1972 and 98% in 1973.

Among AVROC enrollees who claimed to have heard of ROC, 63% in

each survey knew that the Navy sponsored this program. A much higher

rate of correct sponsor identification was found for PLC.

PERSONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In each survey, respondents were asked to note individuals from

whom they had sought advice when they wanted information about military

service. A list was presented for their consideration.

Among PLC enrollees, the individuals most highly endorsed in 1972

and 1973 were: (1) the military recruiter (at school or away from school);

(2) father; and (3) close friends. Endorsement of the recruiter (at school)

increased from 34% in 1972 to 44% in 1973.

Among ROC enrollees, the military recruiter (away from school) re-

ceived by far the highest endorsement (58% in 1972 and 54% in 1973).

There was a statistically significant decrease from 1972 to 1973 in the

endorsement of five categories of individuals (brothers, other relatives,

close friends, school acquaintances, and teachers). The reason for these

changes is not known.

Among AVROC enrollees, the individuals most highly endorsed were:

(1) the military recruiter (at school or away from school); (2) father;

and (3) close friends. There were no statistically significant changes

in endorsement of individuals from 1972 to 1973.

Results appear in Table II-5.

29

w u H

w CO

Ö 3

en OJ 0)

o

c w

co ^^ o 00 co l~^ co o CT\ r-- co VO CM

r~- ix° • ov s-^ NO CM 00 r^ <r .H CO vD m CO CM i-l CM CM rH <r -*

c_> n

£ 5 CM fN r^ o -* <r 00 ON o LO in VO o\ 1^ (N; • ON N—' -H CM m CO «» CM u-i <r o^ m CM iH en CN ^H <r CO

vD vO

co

-X * * * * -N r^ CM to ~* oo CM o> CM o> <r

-^ CM CNl

r-t v£> <r CO

■-I

00 •H co o CM

VD CM

CM iH

o m -3" in in \o \£> o m O o -3 -3

00 CM

<r CM •-t CM

00 .-1

oo 00 CM CM

00 m

CM CM r-H

in I

u 00 o

p-,

en a)

03

2 o co Pi w p-l

o CO

o>

CM

1^

o CO

CM

CM

00 -3"

-X

CM

in

■K

CO -3

-3 CO

CO ON CM

N N H

■N co r^ -H ON -3 o 00 CO <t .H

-> o CO

CM CM .-1

r~ in CM

o> -3 CM CO

O

00 vO o\

U O en en 0) OJ

w ' s tn 14-1 a OJ 1-1 4-) 0 a o J-i u o a) J-4 cu C a) -l in •H

cu C 3 3 to o B o > > OT •H t-1 ^N M ,a ol 4-1 >, -o •H -a 01 O i-l O B ■a PM o u < 4-1 c 3 a> o cu o c 3 to 03 cu rr in Pd O « u 03 0) y> 4-1 M

.H •H o M x: iw w (-1 4-1 •H OJ en -i < en ü >> o

&>. 3 en ^H OJ

u Bi tu ^ .-( S-l CO cu Ä C ä co M u OJ i-H cu <u to CO <0 Ml o M a) OJ jr. W CU O Ä CO 4-1 4-1 4-1 3 CU o u 4-1

Ä -C ■u OJ CO o o ö •H tfl •H CO ^( (-1 U CH OJ — ■u 4-1 0 .ti o a 03 3 !-H ^ ^H ^ ^H PQ H o -C c 03 o J-< 4-1 .H cj OJ O •H •H o O 4J o \n £ 03 O (_> CO H c_) g S u K o CJ

w 1-J

CO 4-1 r^- c av 0) vH CJ

•H o CH 4-1 •H

C CM 60 r~- •H CT> en ^H

>, R .H O ^H V4 CO

>4J o •H

CU 4-1

o en c •H a) 4-1

M 03 OJ 4-1

a -H

30

III. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT

The endorsement of a series of general and specific reasons for

application to college-based military officer training programs was

studied in 1973 and 1972. Comparisons were made of the extent of endorse-

ment of each reason between the two surveys, separately for men in the PLC,

ROC, and AVROC programs.

GENERAL REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

Each respondent was asked to review the following general reasons for

applying for military officer training, and to Indicate whether each

reason influenced his decision to apply.

GENERAL REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

1. Military career opportunities

2. Travel, adventure, and new experiences

3. Serve my country

4. Opportunity for further academic education

5. Qualify for GI Bill benefits

6. Pay and allowances

7. Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

8. Avoid being drafted

9. Become more mature

10. Status and prestige of being an officer

11. Difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job

12. Fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice

13. Opportunity for special professional/technical training

31

Table III-l presents the results of analyses for PLC, ROC, and AVROC

enrollees in 1972 and 1973.

Among PLC enrollees, the reasons attributed strong influence by the

majority in both 1972 and 1973 were:

(1) Travel, adventure, and new experiences;

(2) Military career opportunities; and

(3) Serve my country.

From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant increase in the influence

accorded the reason the'status and prestige of being an officer"(28% in

1972 and 34% in 1973). There was also a significant increase in endorsing

the reason "difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job." However,

the latter was endorsed by only 4% in 1972 and 8% in 1973. A significant

decrease was found from 1972 to 1973 in the percent who cited the reason:

"fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice".

Among ROC enrollees, the majority attributed strong influence to

enlisting for "travel, adventure, and new experiences". The rates of

endorsement were 64% in 1973 and 53% in 1972. The increase was statisti-

cally significant. There were also significant increases in the influence

accorded the following reasons: (1) military career opportunities,

(2) serve my country, (3) the opportunity for further academic education,

and (4) the opportunity for special professional/technical training.

Significant decreases from 1972 to 1973 were found on: (1) avoid being

drafted, and (2) fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice.

Among AVROC enrollees, there were two reasons which were accorded

strong influence in both 1972 and 1973:

(1) The opportunity for special professional/technical training; and

(2) Travel, adventure, and new experiences.

32

ON

* * /•"N CO CM t^- n 00 in H m ej» m O^ CJ> <r B* ^—' rH rH o-i <r oo iH cn in o sO 0> o> CM

vD r^ CO co .H en co eg CM r^

CM s^s

o co rH CM <t CM r^ o> r-«. 00 <r 00 00

0> sO cn

ON r». CM

O cn

o> m CM CM

O T-H

co CM

l-l H

B-«

* rH

* * * CO co CM <r

* o> CO O m CM CM

cn CO co CO

m co

m rH

m CM

c CM rH

CM CM

rH

CM

o> ^

m

in CO iH O O 00 r-^ O cn CM CM in CO CO CO CM CM ~* CM CM cn

vD CM

cn u w

a

CO r- o>

B-?

U

PM

B<;

ON vO co r-l C^ 00 CM <r 00 * CM

•K CO

■K O O

in ON m m CM rH

m CM

rH co

00 CO CM

-* CO

OO CC rH

oo co

rH

M rH rH

W rJ

O m ON 00 CO CM vD rH a\ o CM «0 r~ < in

m m

CM m CM

CO .-H CM

m CM

00 CM

00 CM

-* CO CM

ST CO

H

c 00 QJ O C

rH •H •H cn rs -Q 4-1 c

cn 4-> QJ CO CO •H • CU •H rH 00 4-1 00 cfl m 4J

■H 14-1 CO C •H •H H r- C 4-i S QJ CJ •H 3 rH 4-1 ON cO •H QJ C CD cn rO rH U c C QJ rH XI O (D rH •H 3 V-i X> CO co Ü rH CO O MH 4J T3 OJ CJ <H 5-^-H CO CJ 4J -H M c 4= rH •H o M U O •H -H 13 O CO 4-1 c rH 13 C CO X! ü c CN 00 ex rH o •H QJ 13 CD •H 4-1 CJ a> x; P^ -H P. " 3 ■H P3 cn 6 QJ QJ Oß TJ •H CX CJ a« co O QJ MH U QJ ■U rH •H c rH >, co cu H

U >, cfl - O cn 4H 3 4-1 •H •d ß 4J >. u 3 V-i M CJ rH c co CO 4J cn 14-1 e u -~~ 0 iH 01 4-1 4-) 0 3 • CO rH CO QJ Xi MH O rH O rH

0) a O >, rJ rH 3 J-i BO QJ CD CD r>> O •H cn o -a C a 4M a o rH CO Q) C U '0 CJ r^ c oo e 4J -H CD 4J CO CO 0) •H •H 14H CO •H O C •H JJ CO C -H •H CO O CO QJ c? •H >. C E cn « QJ E cO IH rH •H •H 4J C cn C -H Pi r. H E 3 QJ r». T3 v X J2 4H 3 rH rH 3 CD CD 4-1

CO rH QJ ■u TJ IH C •H PM QJ cn O a -H rH Cfl 4J 14-4 >H CO rH 4-1 0) ex 0) (H CO •H CO <4H ~^ T3 E 3 •H > •H rH O CD 4-1

CO •H > X > o CJ rH CD X •H o ■U C I4H •H 14-4 4-) O W C4H CO u rH CO QJ M D. CO CO >N C M O CJ CO CO 14-1 CJ rH CO cx a. <4H cu 1-1 rJ QJ ex 3 CO CD > CD ■H •H 3 ex •H co

0) o S3 H CO o O" ex. eq < CQ C/3 a P* O Q -H

-K

33

Each reason was endorsed as a strong influence by about 70% of the sample

in 1972 and 1973. From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant decrease in

the attribution of strong influence to: (1) serve my country, and

(2) fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice. The latter

reason was the only reason which showed a decline in endorsement from 1972

to 1973 for enrollees in the PLC, ROC, and AVROC programs, i.e., all three

off-campus programs.

For each program, two general reasons for enrollment appear particu-

larly important: (1) military career opportunities; and (2) travel,

adventure and new experiences. In development of career motivation strate-

gies, an attempt to reward these predisposing motivations would appear

effective. There are also some reasons which are more important to en-

rollees in one program than they are to enrollees in the other programs.

For example, patriotism ("serve my country") is important to PLC en-

rollees; "the opportunity for special professional/technical training"

is important to AVROC enrollees. In the following analysis, this finding

for AVROC enrollees appears to translate into their interest in flying.

SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

Each respondent was asked to review the following specific reasons

for applying for college military officer training, and to indicate

how strongly each reason influenced his decision to apply for a college

military officer training program.

34

SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING

1. Which particular Service I am trained for (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps)

2. Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not

3. Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not

4. How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance)

5. If I get expense money for all 4 years of college

6. If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college

7. If I have to go to summer camp

8. If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship program)

9. If I get to go to the college of my choice

10. If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income

11. If I have to go into the military service

12. If I have to take courses in military subjects in college

13. If I have to drill (march) on campus

14. How many years I have to serve in the military after I graduate from college

15. How many years I have to serve in the Reserves after I complete active duty

Results for the total PLC, ROC, and AVROC samples of 1972 and 1973

appear in Table III-2.

35

K

co

H MO

ON in

MO

CO 00

en

cj>

ON

en

00 co

CM CM

r-» oo

in CM

o co CM

I-»

en co

o o o

ON o

CT\

M0 CO

CO CO

m r-» M0

oo

oo

en

00

o

* * * * * * * * * * * r^ M0 o o CM rH CM oo rH in M0 o co m CO

in in

CM rH

CM rH

r^ oo in m rH

CT- CM rH

CM rH

1«» CO rH

H CM

CO rH

in m

o

CO

m

m

o

m CM CM

o m m r-» CO

co CO oo

CM CM 00

CO M0 CM

U 1-1

Eh H u tq a. co

P co CO

►H OS

o> H

CD tu g U 06 z ex rJ

3 e> -J z tu l-l z z ON

l-H l-H

u a § E- O as as H tu CO C_)

I-H a a, tu tu

Sü CO >-

as < E- H H »-• < -J

l-H cn S z O Q CO tu < co tu < 2 OQ

6-5

•H O a)

•K

r~ rH M0 CO 00 co CO in CM o CO m M0 CM VO

O m CO

M0 CM

•vT «» m MO T-l

o rH

CM CO

ON rH CM

o 1-1

oo rH

ON H rH

MO M0

O

•a ^ U

a) c

•H u cd 2

co Pu

cd iH

CJ •>

"£ n eg

P.

43 5^

•H a

ON CM

CO

r- 00 M0

M0

CO

0) BO

d o

•H J-) 0)

•H > cd

s QJ I o o a)

JO S-i o

iH ^ co t-,

42 -H 44 IH ot

<§2

o TJ

1H

0) o

-a d 3 O VI 4-1

00 o t a

cfl »H

O at e —« o >N O iH CD HH

x> o

IH 4-1 0) 0)

43 00

c •H

e

X! /~N ■U QJ a o o c e to

O i-l CO rH ai co

4-1 01 ai o 00 c

0) M 4-1

CO >,-H 01 CO C 40 O 3 ß co

O 01 3 00 ß 0)

iH 5 rH O O

EC o

in

CO 0)

u o

91 c o S

0) en d Ctf

X ai ai

00 4-1 01 01 rH 00 rH

o M CJ

M O

U

u o

in

en 3

ß 01 00

01 0) CO rH C <-i 01 o a o

01 HH o

4J 01 CO 00 tH

cd l-H QJ

MH M CM

QJ

CO

rC

St CO u

o

■3

TJ •H CO CX

d o

•H 3

QJ 00 QJ

O ^

ß 00 o

MH Vi M PH

rH CO

QJ a •H o

o

a) 00 a)

O u

QJ

o 00

o

01 00

o o rH CM

o

w en QJ

rH ■a u CO 60 QJ U

0) 00 QJ

O O

4J 0)

o§ 00 o

a O -H 4-1

CO TJ - TH U

CO 01 0--Ü

0) 00

CO

c?

QJ O

•H > u QJ tn

>. rJ

QJ

rC

o 00

o 4-1

Qj

tO

ß

d

tn QJ in u 3 O CJ 0)

00 0) 0)

4

MHO

O CJ

o 4J C

•H QJ > CD CO 4-1

rC O 01

M -i-i

rQ <4H 3 M CO

CD

3 a.

■s CO S

TJ

QJ

> CO

01 01 00

4= 01

c o TH O

QJ g > o u u QJ UH CO

CD O 4J 4J CO

3 0) T) > CO cd U

43 00

CO U U 01 CO 4J 01 MH >> CO

[?& CO CO ß 4J

•H & rH O -H

SC B

CM I

tu

QJ >s rC 4-> 4-1 3

Q d

•H QJ >

QJ •H > 4-1 >H CJ QJ <: en

OJ O 44 4-1 01

rH 01 P. > i CO 0

43 0

M M

in M SH 01 co 44 0) IH >. CO

>. CO d 0) CO > B u

0) ^ CO O 0)

DB PS

CO 4-1 r~~ a CT> co rH u

•H O 14-1 4-1 •H

c CM 60 r"» •H ON m rH >, n rH 0 rH rJ cd

IH CJ •H

0) 4J 0 10 rs •H 01 44 u CO (1) 4J

u-i I«

•H «0 Q -H

36

Among PLC enrollees, the specific reason accorded influence by the

majority of respondents in both 1972 and 1973 was: "Which particular

service I am trained for." This response may indicate service prefer-

ence, i.e., preference for the Marine Corps. From 1972 to 1973, there

was a significant increase in only one (minor) reason: "If I have to

drill on campus."

Among ROC enrollees, the majority (55%) in 1972 and 1973 endorsed

the reason: "Which particular service I am trained for." One unusual

finding for ROC enrollees was a significant decrease from 1972 to 1973

in the endorsement of a large number of the specific reasons. (This

finding was not found for the PLC or AVROC samples). The reason for

this decline is not known.

Among AVROC enrollees, the majority endorsed two specific consider-

ations in both 1972 and 1973:

(1) Which particular service I am trained for; and

(2) Whether I become an aviation officer or not.

The latter reason was attributed strong influence by 82% in 1972 and 88%

in 1973. The consideration of flying appears to be more important than

the particular service for which one is trained, in that only about 60%

endorsed the branch-of-service consideration in each survey. From 1972

to 1973, there was a significant increase in only one reason:

"Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not." This

endorsement may simply reflect concern over flying opportunities among

AVROC enrollees.

In the development of career motivation strategies, reliance on

predisposing motives such as branch-of-service consideration would

appear effective, e.g., for PLC enrollees. The appeal of flying to AVROC

37

enrollees is impressive. This particular consideration may deserve

emphasis in attempts to counter indecision with respect to the long-range

career motivations as initially noted for these men (see Table 1-2).

38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ayer, N.W. and Yankelovich, D. An Investigation of ROTC Among College and High School Students. Washington D.C.: N.W. Ayer & Son, Inc., 1972.

Fisher, A.H., Jr. and Harford, Margi A. Enrollment and Career Potential for College-Based Military Officer Training Programs: Results of a Survey Conducted in May 1972. HumRRO CR-D7-73-34, November 1972 (also designated as OASD (M&RA) Manpower Research Report No. MA 72-3).

Griffin, G.R. A Comparison of Attitudes of Black and White Cadets in AFROTC. AF/DPXY-MR-71-011. Personnel Research and Analysis Division, U.S. Air Force, 1972.

Hunter, Robert W. "Social Sciences, The Armed Forces, and Society (Interview with Dr. Morris Janowitz)," Air Force Magazine. (July 1973), p. 5F-9F.

Johnston, J. and Bachman, J. Youth in Transition. Volume V: Young Men and Military Service. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1972.

39

Appendix A

DETAILED SAMPLE SIZE INFORMATION FOR OFF-CAMPUS PROGRAM ENROLLEES

Totals, By Program

PLC ROC AVROC 1972 1973 1972 1973 1972 1973

404 344 200 158 202 181

Detailed Sample Size Data, By Program

Lower Classmen 1972 1973

PLC 313 195

ROC 1

AVROC 1 ___

Upper Classmen 1972 1973

91 149

199 158

201 181

41

Appendix B

COMPARABILITY OF 1972 AND 1973 SAMPLES

* * * * * * H H VD 04 ^> CN CN m 00 m 00 O rH ■~D CO <* vO CN cc

in LO in m vr> e»> m 0 0 00 CD 00 co H •* >.o r^ 00 rH CJN rH CN CM CN rH <r ■a CN >* CN CN <f CN <f m

o

co r~» r~ <N o

o m m r-- CN CN CN CN

CO rN n CO CN CO

OOlHH

rH \o r^ m rH -a- co

* * •* * -K * * 1—s 00 rH r*» OO CTN CO in <r ON r^ 0 <t NO .-1 CO CN rH CO r-> 1 H • 1 ^ vO CO rH O O CN <f O O CO N43 CN rH in r- -a- CO r-s CM |

0\ CN CN CN m CO CN <r CN ^r CO rH CO <f CO NO 1

c_>

00

co vD IO in -cc

Ps iH NO ON -3- rH CN CN CN

r- O CM iH co m

<y\ o\ CM CO CO CM

loiniovo O o o 00

1-1 sr <t CO 00 CN

00

1 CO

sSd B^!

* * CN ON

CN r^

* * * CO 00 i-l CO NO N N H 00 ON ^ 00 in m

00 f-t co NO

u CM

S-?

ON

•»■»«liOH

O O ON CO NO CM CO rH CM

ON CO lO nn-j

in co tH CO CO CO

CO ^H CO CM

NO r^ ON f* rH CM CM CM

NO CO I rH 00 I

01 u cd (2

i —r c c co CO

01 a •n 4-) -u c: p o\ >J ui 0 •H -H CO 0 C^ Ol CJ n HH U 0 ON CJN > -U en x; O O -H c O ON • 0 - 0 TJ ti O. O-rH w O * a\ C 4-1 cu 0 OOO

O CO rH U O CO Ss J3 u u 0. 0) ► - rH -C/> O £2 4-1 01 01 0 e 4J 4-J O u rH CO» | -^ CO n E rH M Cd 91 h ■H •H «- 1 O O TJ •H •H O. •H S S w X S O O O OJ 4-1 4_) 4J e 01 cu

(1) a CO >J O O O 0) c H a cu ^ e u 1 u< 0) O » - 3 cil rH 4J OOrH 1 1-( c TJ •• <t o dH I rH U 4-1 U-l U co c

£ 0 rH C 00 rH CM 01 3 CO O n co B O a a] SD </> </> </> &, 0 cv P-, S5 ►J W Z

3 rH 0) e P. 0. c I Si < w H I

rH g T1 O c •H CO

•H CN C r^ Ml CTN ■rl

r-l rH CO CU rH M u O c r>N

c 01 I ) O 01 rH 3 -a H -C 0) rH O rH O CJ n CO ►> O ai CO 4-1

(11 CJ •rl

U >-i • -C J3 4-1 O O u 01 3 </>

-1 •H O CU •H CO to CO CO X C CJ 4-1 1-4 M l-i VI UJ ^ C CO n) co CO co 0 c 0) u 01 01 01 01 -H 4-1 1-1 m >. >» >N >> 01 — 01

<J s CO a 14-1 CO o\ 0 rH CM c 0) 0 0 14-1 ■H rH CN CN CM cu

CO

0) u

1-1 cm O 1-1

PH

>4 SB O ■H O

*

42

s-^ CO r** CN S^ ■ • ^^ CNI vO ON

CO

ON

CM

CN

O

in CM

CO

o

U

•a a)

§

c o o

o o r^ ON

u-l

O CN1

■0 oj 3 C

•H •U C o o

i

s

o -1-

tfi

t_> ►J OM

-it CM

r-> «a- CN

c CX)

o>

c o

lJ ■H 0) J-t X rH CO *J O M CJ a O O 3

t-l PL, XI TJ CO rH o 01 u •H >, o CO 00 3 X> (> tl) ~0 00 X. XI rH 0) tl) -a H u r^, 00 CD *■> iH CJ 0& cu o to tn •H or CO o c

4J o u ■ o) u O CO u-j cu ■a X 01 H to > O -H U M m T3 rH tl> ■O T3

Of « •H as a) o (►. 0) < a> B X j= u x:

73 O 0) en en ro 01 hi co cj T3 tl I •H (11 1 •H 01 M CO g rH C £ rH Ö XI O rH V 0 N ' •H o •H 4J

o O en LL. to [«. O 4J O 0) J2 a u ►J cn

rH a CO e •O CJ

o C T-l U •H CO , 3 XI1 0 01 •a CU rH 00 XI X. rH CU CU rH XI w O rH U of tu ~o rH CU •n ■a CO

a CO •H ►. CD (> >■ CD < CU -H at 8 SB X! I) x: CJ 4J •o o 0) en 0) ro tn u C CO

CO CJ •o 0" i •H 0) 1 •H cu CU -u u CO i rH C a rH C XI l-i CO O r-4 ^ 5 *—' ■H 0 *—' •H 4J cu

o U to M- to tc o CU CO « o CM -H CO X •H CO Ü O rJ CO *

43

o « OS

^N oo

"-' CM ON

oo PI N

CM L-N

CM CM CO VD

CM oo vo m co -»

O m -J- CJ\ CM <f

M 4 in DO * CO

1 1 CM 03 1 1 1 1 CM to

1 1 rH rH

1 1 m 00 | 1 1 1 1 1 M3 m | 1 1 ■H 1

O -» o> m I i I i

I I I I

£ OS Cd CJ M

En O

g <

•K

LO h* OJ

m en ^H

00 CO

CM \o o m r^

CO in P^ r-4 CT\ m rH I o ON I ST ft

l ON 1 i i -ii 1 ft 1 1 1 1 1

\o o o o

CO CO CO CO

m i tH ON m -^ o m I I I I I t I I I I

CM I

CO

Ed

I %

00 in

u CM ,—* o vn ^> 00 1 a r^ iN" • • • 1 .j r* ^^ CO H CO fl 1 o H CO lO 1 « s w

O ON CM I MO ON co -a- in

ij

rsj i co m vo

CM o> u"l O 00 ON CM I

\0 <* \£> O CM i-H

<f co m er» oo ■<*■

o m so iH vfl vO

CO i-H VO

N n co

pi O

5

cu »H l-> or. 0) c r cu !-■ XI 0)

U) ^H 3 C O 0) — H u B -H Of 4 o Er CJ M-l a) s c_> 01 cu CM -H

r-\ *-i 01 u r^ c ^H ft C CO o ■H 01 01 ON 00 O .-1 ■rl 111 c X Ol 0) 0) iH TI

CJ ■a! - t z 3 u CD u 0) CJ CJ 01 01 m in 00 o CO o •H u CJ Ö c 01 01 a

c ^»— — - — ^ 0) u. 01 O < c 01 01 o o OJ >. •H ~ pq CJ Q 0) n ^ Ü c/i ~--^ CD •H ■H c Ol ■H a> i-t

00 ~ ; s so. < 01 ■H 00 •H O CJ 01 DO 4-1 B u CO 01 - u 0) fl c CJ CJ1 CO -H o u o -d

cu < T3 x) -o •o 4-1 3 0) CO -H cyi CJ Ö ■H < O) c Ol kl 01 CJ •o c c C c o 4J a! o Ol u ^ ^ CO >. 0 ■u CJ o u ai J3 -H « nj CT3 nj to 0) iH .-I ■H 01 0) .-i l-i CO oo •H CO i-H •H u CO 3 4-1 u 5N f 3 O 00 a) 0) CO CO o rH o -u 1 CO S Cd r-H to OJ 01 o ft ; ; ; r -E U ^*. o c a CJ *J 1-1 ra ^H CO 01 IJ 0 u CJ c O -H

4J oi 00 en 01 3 •H 01 H •H ■H ■H •H Ol •H o CJ X 0) c 01 01 0) <: C 4J 01 00 — - - — c/3 h 4J O 01 60 3 TJ ^H ^ o 0) 3 *J -o o e -C TJ OJ CO 00 o < CQ o O 3 >-c •H 3 C CO 01 T-l J3 c -C •0 CO •H CJ o u c o U 4-1 CO S z ~ - l-< <c DQ an U HJ S X CL, CJ1 H Ed s J w ■x. o s z 0) 01 M 0 IW OJ M-l 01 > CO •H -H < X O

44

ryr~~ 1

NO

Csl

NO CN in CN N0

NO r-~ CM o CM rH

rH •3 ON 00 LO ON ON ON O ON in ON

00 en

rH NO

en rH

ON NO rH

CM rH

ON rH ON

o OS PH

U Z H a t-i

h, ä Ü H to Drf a UJ O u CO 1—1 M. 0) H k 11 < [* H H o H <j 0 H (H M

B 3 H

c w

M e Q ►J CO ß HH SJ

*" £ 0!) 0

c/l H 1-4

si MJ p-

Q < a to ••

►J W

CO uq UJ

s

00 rH rH CO

in

CM CM

00 CN* MO ft 00 f-H

en r~ CM oo en o

■-1 | r~ I

O

m -* o o »H en

O m

CM in

ON NO CM

CM m -a-

en I

r-l CQ < H

m

oo

■s ON o en NO NO ON ^4 ON eg rH in i£>

4-1

rH O0 m ON CM o <r <f C rH O en NO rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

en o o • >, r- : co

-u -O ■-t ON • CD CD O 01 rH U CD to

•H c ■n > c •a c CJ CO CD •a to 3 o

C o CJ >, r-i ^-i c o rH O. O CO ^ •a CO -H U CO

•H w >N M CO 4-1 rH MH X CD 4J rH u o CD CD CD CO CO 4J CM -H CD U 10 CO CD s C CO rH 4-1 .C •H c

ON 00 CJ o 4J O CO O. CO 3 .o CJ CO CD <0 - 3 o 4J 00 e o O O 3 i rH -H CD r<

-o CD c -d CD - O •*-> en -u CD 0) 3 01 LJ CD .O ■H CM o a. CD •o CO U a rH J

CD CD H-t 00 O 3 M a) C iJ ■H CD Js <0 0) IM 0) 00 ■H CO c e u 3 O c?

c^ O CD rH > C o V4 CD J CD -u CD CJ u c —. M 3 rH CO 00 rH Ij rH 0 CO J= CD ■H C M U CO •a

rH CD rH -u 0 rH rH CO 4-t CO CD >. O ^ CD o CD o tu Q 0 c MH CO O rH O E •rl CD ja -H *J a > cj cO -C CO 00 CO J3 « i-i U u r( = cu a) 4J 00 CJ C 00 CO 00 •rl 3 CD 01 O rJ oo TJ W c 00 •H d 50 u c C u U -H a-o

. E u •H Ji CO rH > •H 3 tH CJ > IH 4-1 4-1 o CD M o o CO CD CD CO CD CO CD •o CD CO o u pq 3 a T. J SB ■x. CO Pi Pi < HH • ■

ID 4J <M 0) U D( en ■H -H H X o Q O w r. * Z

45

ON CM rH 0D NO O NO NO CM NO

CM 00 CM C-J CM

ON 00

NO H

CM St

NO o ON

00

NO st

o CTN

M U M > Da en w r~- CO ON

rH

b 3 u

KÖ o M J co

§51 a) CM

H r^ OS Id rH ON o a O rH PL. H u PL| c o z u

M

£3 g 1-1 <: 60

o S 0 >H

NO NO

^-N sr

*

-CJ- 00 r-l CO

o ON

m m ON

~3- en oo NO

St I

Co

S3

CO

CO

*~N CO NO

CM p^

NO

rH CO x

00

o NO

NO en

CTN ON CM

CM r~ CM CO oo

>. 4J 4-1 -O C rH 0J 0 CO 1)

■H c •rn r* > .-1 CJ CO 1) a O cj >. H rH 0 CO M •n a u >, M CO in rH

M 0 flj HI II CO CO 4-1 a) 41 » C (0 rH u £ -H c

14-1 4-1 O cfl a. cn 5 CJ en 0) ■H 4-1 60 a a o CJ B r-l 01 Ö -C 01 - 0 CO 4_) a)

J3 •H IM CJ a 0) -co CO 4-1 *-» 60 n 9 u c 4J •H c m c B u -1 CJ -O 5 cn CJ « 01 -u CU o J-J 0 C) ^~ X 4-1 u H o rn JS (11 •r-l C UJ u o rH r-l CO u CO (1) >. 0 '—. 0 XX CO a rH CO B ■H CJ o. J3 co 60 CO -o 4-1 u p 60 U c M CO C 60 -H 3 M c 60 -H c no •H c C ■U

•H 60 d C •H a 60 •H 61! C 4J Ji c ■H U. cx •H c Ü CO 0 01 CO M ■H r« CO t-l > ■H 4-1 ■H u > o O () m U 0) cn 0) CO tl TJ

a 3 Q X -1 re re CU Be- 02 <

Tl CO C CJ CO •H

CM CM ■H r^ e ON 61! rH ■H

CO C 11 >N

CD rH 3 rH

4-1 CO (11 CJ

-Q •H 4-1

CJ CO CJ ■H c 4J CU CO

46

Appendix C

1973 QUESTIONNAIRE

GILBERT YOUTH RESEARCH

515 MADISON AVENUE NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022

JOB #700524-0 MARCH, 1973

Office of Management and Budget Approval No: 022R-0304 Expirea: June, 1974

COLLEGE ROTC SURVEY

Hello, I'm (INTERVIEWER'S NAME) of Gilbert Youth Reaearch in New York. We are intereated in finding out how young people feel about college and the Military Service, The information you give me will be used on an anonymous basis only.

SECTION "A"

First of all . . .

la. What year of college are you in?

Freshman 7-1

Sophomore 2

| EDUCATIONAL ASPIRATIONS | hz±\

Junior

Senior

Other (SPECIFY)

lb. Are you in ROTC, ROC, AVROC, PLC or any other college military officer training program?

No 2 | END INTERVIEW, RE-USE QUESTIONNAIRE] Yes 8-1

lc. (INTERVIEWER: ASK ONLY IF "SENIOR" IS CHECKED IN Q. 1A ABOVE; OTHERWISE, GO DIRECTLY TO 0. ID)

Do you plan to graduate this Spring? Yes 9-1 No 2

Id. Do you plan to continue your schooling next Fall? Yes 10-1 Undecided

2a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #1) Would you look at this card and tell me what is the highest level of education you expect to achieve?

a. College Graduate (Bachelor's Degree) 11-1

b. Beyond College (Graduate or Professional Degree)

c. Neither of these (Plan to Quit/ Leave School)

2b. What are your main reasons for wanting to achieve this level of education?

12-

13-

3. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #2) what is your major college subject area?

a. Agriculture - Forestry 14-1

b. Arts - Classics 2

c. Biological Sciences 3

d. Business .... 4

e. Engineering - Architecture 5

f. 6

9- Medical Sciences . 7

h. Military Sciences

i. Physical Sciences

j. Social Sciences

k. Theology

1. Education .

m. Other (SPECIFY)

15-

What are your average grades in college?

a. Mostly A's/All A's 16-1

b. A's and B's . . 2

c. B's and C's . . 3

47

d. C's and D's

e. D's and below

(17-30)

SECTION "B"

- 2 -

I LIFE GOALS t CAREER GOALS~

5a. What do you think will be important in your life. . .1 will read some statement« describing a person's aim in life and you tell me how important each statement is for you personally. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 13) Here is a rating scale from 1 to S. Something which is extremely important to you, you would rate 5; something which is not at all important you would rate 1. You can rate any statement between 1 and 5 depending upon how important you feel this statement is to you personally.

INTERVIEWER: READ THE STATEMENT THAT HAS A RED X" FIRST. WORK DOWN THE LIST OF STATEMENTS AND 60 BACK TO THE BEGINNING WHEN NECESSARY. FOR EXAMPLE: IF STATE- MENT C HAS A RED X , READ THIS STATEMENT FIRST, CIRCLE THE RATING GIVEN- THEN CONTINUE IN THE SAME MANNER FOR STATEMENTS D , E", F , G , H , "\ . J A AND B IN THAT ORDER.

(CIRCLE ONE NUMBER ONLY FOR EACH STATEMENT)

a. Working for a better society

b. Doing challenging work

c. Making a lot of money

d. Learning as much as I can

e. Helping other people

f. Having a secure, steady job

g. Being able to do what I want to in a job . .

h. Raising my own social level

i. Recognition/Status

j. Adventure/Excitement

5b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #4) Please look at this c important statements which describe your aim in life, the first most important, the second most important, and the third most important. Just give me the letter designation that appears at the side of the statement. (RECORD LETTERS BELOW)

1 2 3 < 5 (31- )

1 2 3 4 5 (32- )

1 2 3 1 5 (33- )

1 2 3 < 5 (34- )

1 2 3 t 5 (35- )

1 2 3 ' 1 5 (36- )

1 2 3 ' 1 5 (37- )

1 2 3 i 5 (38- )

1 2 3 ' 5 (39- )

1 2 3 1 5 (40- )

of statements and :ell me the three m

The first most important statement is letter:

The second most important statement is letter:

The third most important statement is letter:

41-

42-

43-

5c- (REFER TO CARD 14 AGAIN) Where do you think you would be better off for achieving these life or career goals. . .in the military service or in civilian life?

Let's start with "Working for a better society". . .(RECORD BELOW UNDER APPROPRIATE COLUMN)

G INTERVIEWER: REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR EACH OF THE STATEMENTS LISTED, RECORDING EACH ANSWER AS YOU ASK THE QUESTION, ON THE CORRECT LINE JN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN.

Military Service Civilian Life

a. Working for a better society ......

b. Doing challenging work

c. Making a lot of money

d. Learning as much as I can

e. Helping other people

f. Having a secure, steady job

g. Being able to do what I want to in a job

h. Raising my own social level

i. Recognition/Status

j. Adventure/Excitement

44-1 2 # 45-1 2

46-1 2

47-1 2

48-1 2

49-1 2

50-1 2

51-1 2

52-1 2

53-1 2

48

- 3

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD IS) Please look at this card and tell me for each of the reasons listed, how strongly it would influence or has influenced your decision to apply for military officer training., strong influence, some influence, or no influence at all (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH REASON)

REASONS:

Military career opportunities . . . .

Travel, adventure, and new experiences

Serve my country

Opportunity for further academic education

Qualify for G.I. Bill benefits. .

Pay and allowances

Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.

Avoid being drafted

Become more mature

Status and prestige of being an officer

Difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job . . . .

Fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice.

Opportunity for special professional/ technical training

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

j.

k.

1.

Strong Influence

Some Influence

NO Influence

54-1 2

2

3

55-1 3

56-1 2 3

57-1 2

2

2

3

58-1 3

59-1 3

60-1 2

2

3

61-1 3

62-1 2 3

63-1 2 3

64-1 2 3

65-1 2 3

66-1 2 3

SECTION "C" MILITARY INFORMATION E (67-80)

(7-)

7a. We are interested in finding out how much you know about military life, particulary about military officers. First, let's talk about the pay that officers receive.

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD #6) When was the last time that the starting pay for officers changed? (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER)

a. October 194 5

b. June 1957

c. April 1963

8-1 d. February 1968 4

e. November 1971 r.

f. January 1972 6

g. January, 1973

Don't Know

7b. About how much money in total does a beginning officer earn in a month? That's basic pay plus (CHECK ONE ANSWER ONLY) allowances for an unmarried commissioned officer.

a. Less than $100 a month 9-1'

b. $100 - $200 a month .

c. $201

d. $401

$400 a month

$600 a month

_i (ASK

• Q. 7c)

e. $ 601 - $ 800 a month

f. $ 801 - $1 000 a month

9- $1,001 - $1

Don't Know

250 a month

i

-5^

, (ASK 0. 7c)

_y. (GO TO Q.7d)

7c. Is this money MORE. LESS, or ABOUT THE SAME as a college graduate would earn in his first job?

a. More 10-1 c. About the same 3

b. Less 2 Don't Know . v

49

- 4 -

7d. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #7) About how auch tolc pay do«« a beginning officer earn in a month? Ju«t basic pay, not allowances for an unmarrl«d, rnmm]ssioned officar.

a. $100 a month

b. $250 a nonth

c. $400 a month

d. $550 a month

11=1 a. $700 a month

f. $850 a month

g. $1,000 a month

Don't Know

7e. (RAND RESPONDENT CARD #8) Which of these military officer training programs have you heard of? (CHECK •" EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OF" UNDER Q. 7e BELOW)

7f. (FOR EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OF", ASK:) What branches of the military service is (PROGRAM) sponsored by? (CHECK " •" SERVICE UNDER Q. 7f BELOW, ON THE CORRECT LINE AND IN THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN)

Program

a. ROC

b. PLC

c. ROTC

d. AVROC

e. TLC

0- 7e 0- 7f SERVICE:

Heard of Army Navy

Air Force

Marine Corps

Coast Guards

All of (CHECK "•") These

12-1 13-1 2 3 4 5 6

2 14-1

15-1

2

2

3

3

4

4

5

5

6

3 6

4 16-1 2 3 4 5 6

5 17-1 2 3 4 5 &

Now, let's talk about ROTC ....

8a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #9) Which of these college costs can ROTC pay for?

a. College Tuition and Books, but no expense money .

b. Civilian Clothing . . . .

c. Other College Expenses

18-1

2

3

d. Both College Tuition (incl. Books) and other College Expenses

All of the Above

Don't Know

8b. ROTC offers both scholarship and non-scholarship programs

Scholarship . 19-1 Both .

Non-Scholarship 2

Which of these have you ever heard of?

3

Heard of neither 4

8c. Would you say that scholarships and subsistence allowances are one and the same thing, or are they different?

20-1 (GO TO Q. 9a) Different _2 (ASK Q. 8d)

8d. In what way do they differ? 21-

9a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD tlO) After he graduates from college, how long does a man with an ROTC scholarship have to serve as an officer in each service? In answering the question, do not include the additional time he will have to spend if he takes aviation training after commissioning.

Let's start with "Army ROTC" (REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR NAVY ROTC AND FOR AIR FORCE ROTC.)

a. Army ROTC ....

b. Navy ROTC ....

c. Air Force ROTC . .

d. There is no difference between Services

2 Years

24-1

25-1

25-y

3 Years 4 Years Don't Know

50

5 -

9b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 111) Men in some ROTC program» receive money for room and board and expenses. It's called subsistence allowance. Please look at the card and tell me about how much subsistence allowance do they get a month7

a. $ 25 a month

b. $ 50 a month

c. $100 a month

d. $150 a month

e. $200 a month

f. $250 a month

g. $300 a month

Don't Know . (27-)

(HAND RESPONDENT CARD 16 AGAIN) When was the last time ROTC subsistence allowance changed?

a . October 1945 28-1

b. June 1957 2

c. April 1963 3

d. February IMS

e. November 1971

f. January 1972

January 1973

Don't Know

9d. How did you find out about ROTC? Was it from your

a. Father 29-1

b. Mother 2

c. Brothers 3

d. Other relatives . . 4

e. Close friends .... 5

f. School acquaintances . 6

(READ LIST) (RECORD BELOW)

g. Teachers

Counselors

Military recruiter at school_

Military recruiter away from school

Other (SPECIFY)

9e. Have you seen or heard any advertising for college ROTC? If so, for which college ROTC program have you seen or heard it?

Army .

Navy .

Air Force

30-1

2

3

All of them

Have not seen or heard any advertising .

SECTION "C" ROTC INFORMATION

10. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD # 12) Which of these programs are you in?

a. ROTC . . 31-1 I CONTINUE WITH Q. 11, ON THE NEXT PAGE

2" b. ROC

c. AVROC

d. PLC

GO DIRECTLY TO Q. 23, PAGE 7

(32-47)

51

- 6 -

I INTERVIEWER: ASK RCITC STUDENTS ONLY I

11. Are you in the Basic ROTC Program or the Advanced ROTC Program?

Basic ROTC 48-1 .Advanced ROTC 2 Don't Know (ASK Q. 12a) A

t 1 GO TO Q. 13 |

12a. (IF "BASIC ROTC", ASK:) Do you intend to continue into Advanced ROTC?

Yes 49-1 i No 2 Don't Know 3 (GO TO Q. 13) * | ASK Q. 12b |

12b. (IF "NO" or "DON'T KNOW" IN Q. 12a ABOVE, ASK:) Why do you say that?

_Sfl=

ASK ALL ROTC STUDENTS

13. Which branch of Service are you in?

Air Marine Coast Army 52-1 Navy 2 Force 3 Corps 4 Guard 5

14. What is the length of your program in terms of the number of years of receiving money to be an officer? Does it pay for 2 years, 3 years, 4 years or none of these?

2 years _ 53-1 3 years 2 4 years 3 None 4

| ASK Q. 15a |

i years _ _5>i j years i « years j A ^^_____^ " i (GO TO Q. 15d)

L I ASK 0. 15a I *

15a. Do you have an ROTC scholarship? Yes 54-1 No 2 (GO TO Q. 15d)

15b. Would you have joined ROTC without getting a scholarship?

Yes 55-1 No 2 Don't Know 3

15c. Would you stay in ROTC without a scholarship? .Yes 56-1 No 2 Don't Know

I GO TO Q. 16a I

15d. Do you hope to get a scholarship? Yes 57-1 No

16a. Do you receive ROTC subsistence allowance? Yes 58-1 ^No 2 Not Applicable

(GO TO Q. 17)

3P-1 II 3

1 16b. Would you have joined ROTC without getting subsistence allowance?

Yes 59-1 No 2 Don't Know

17. Would you have joined ROTC, under this condition ... if you dropped out during the first two years, you would have to repay all Government funds spent toward your education?


(61- ) 18. Would you stay in ROTC if there were no subsistence allowances?


19. Would you stay in ROTC if you didn't get credit for the military courses?

Yes 63-1 No 2 Don't Know 3 Don't get credit now 4

52

20. What are your average grade« in ROTC?

a. Mostly A's/All A's 64-1 c. B'a and Cm

b. A'a and B's . 2 d. C» and D'a 4 e. D'a and below

21. Now tell me in your own worda, how you happened to join ROTC. 65-

66-

67-

22. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #15) Which one of the following persona MOST Influenced your decision to enter ROTC?

a. Service recruiter . . . 6B-1 d. School counselor 4

b. Someone in the Service other e. Someone else . 5 than a recruiter . . . 2

c. Parents, friend or relative 3 No one * . . 6

INTERVIEWER: ASK E"F.RY0NE

23. .(HAND RESPONDENT CARD #16) If there had been no draft and you had no military obligation, do you think you would have enrolled in a military officer training program?

a. Definitely yes 69-1 c. Probably no 3

b. Probably yes 2 d. Definitely no 4 e. I don't know

24. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #17) Do you plan to stay in the Service at the end of your initial obligated period of service as a commissioned officer? Pleaae look at this card and tell me what your plans are.

a. No, 1 plan to leave when I complete my obligation 70-1

b. I am undecided 2

c. Yes, I plan to atay in for a while .... 3

d. Yes, I plan to make the Service my career . . 4

25a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #18) If you had no military obligation, and were permitted to leave your military officer training program, would you do so?

a. Yes, I would leave the Program as soon aa possible 71-1

b. No, I would stay in the Program .... 2

c. I don't know 3

25b. Why do you say that? 72-

73-

urn 26. Is ROTC compulsory at your school? Yes 7-1 No 2 Don't Know 3

27. Do you get course credit toward graduation for taking ROTC in college?


28a. How do ROTC instructors compare with other faculty members at your school? Would you say your ROTC instructors are BETTER, WORSE, or ABOUT AS GOOD as the other members of the faculty?

Better 9^1 Worse 2 About as good 3 No opinion

28b. How could ROTC improve the instruction? 10-

11-

12-

53

- 8

29. Should ROTC abolish drills and marching? Yes

30. Should ROTC activities be held off-campus? Yes

13-1 No

14-1 No

Don't Know

Don't Know

31a. How does ROTC course work compare with other courses at your school? Would you say the content of your ROTC courses is BETTER, WORSE, or ABOUT AS GOOD as the other courses?

a. ROTC courses are better

b. ROTC courses are worse

15-1 c. About as good

d. Depends on the course

31b. How could ROTC improve the content of the course work?

31c. Should you get credit for ROTC courses? Yes 19-1 Don't Know {No Opinion)

32. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #19) Please look at this card and tell me for each of the items listed, how strongly it would influence or has influenced your decision to apply for a college military officer training program . . a strong influence, some influence, or no influence at all. (RECORD ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ITEM)

a. Which particular Service I am trained for (Army, Navy Air Force, Marine Corps) .....

b. Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not

c. Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not ........

d. How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance) .....

e. If I get expense money for all 4 years of college

f. If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college ........

g. If I have to go to summer camp ....

h. If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship Program)

i. If I get to go to the college of my choice .

j. If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income .......

k. If I have to go into the military service

1. If I have to take courses in military subjects in college ........

m. If I have to drill (march) on campus

n. How many years I have to serve in the military after I graduate from college .....

o. How many years I have to serve in the Reserves after I complete Active Duty .....

Strong Influence

Some Influence

No Influence

'. 20-1 2 3

not 21-1 2 3

y) 22-1 2 3

23-1 2 3

24-1 2 3

25-1 2 3

26-1 2 3

27-1 2 3

28-1 2 )

29-1 2 3

30-1 2 3

31-1 2 3

32-1 2 3

33-1 2 3

34-1 2 3

33. What is the best feature in the ROTC Program? 35-

36-

37-

34. What is the biggest problem with the ROTC Program? 38-

40-

54

J5a. Whom did you generally seek advice from when you wanted information about Military Service? Was it your . . . (READ LIST BELOW) (RECORD BELOW UNDER Q. 35a)

35b. Whom did you generally seek advice from when you wanted information about college? Was it your (READ LIST BELOW) (RECORD BELOW UNDER Q. 35b)

35a Military

a. Father ..... 41-1

b. Mother ..... 2

c. Brothers .... 3

d. Other relatives 4

e. Close friends 5

f. School acquaintances 6

9- Teachers .... 7

h. Counselors .... 8

i. Military recruiter at school 9

j- Military recruiter away from school 0

k. Other (SPECIFY) 42-

Q. 35b College

43-1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

44-

36. 45-1 No

t 2 Don't Know 3

-| GO TO Q. Al | J

36a. What did you think of the Junior ROTC Program in your high school?

46-

36b. Were you ever enrolled in a Junior ROTC Program? Yes 48-1 No 2

36c. Which branch of the Armed Service would you say is best overall?

Army 49-1 Air Force 3 Coast Guard ....

Navy 2 Marine Corps 4 All the same, no difference

(50-80)

MISCELLANEOUS - CLASSIFICATION

Now, some final questions about yourself and your family . 6-1

(1-49)

Al. AGE: How old are you as of your last birthday? (INTERVIEWER: IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION)

16 years

17 years

50-1

2

18 years

19 years

20 years

21 years 22 years & older

A2. What is your date of birth? (INTERVIEWER: IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OBTAIN THIS INFORMATION)

Month 51- Day (52-53) Year (54-55)

INTERVIEWER

IF RESPOXEENT IS NOT OLD ENOUGH (UNDER 18) TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT (SELECTIVE SERVICE). GO DIRECTLY TO Q. Bl. OTHERWISE. CONTINUE WITH 0. A3

A3. Have you registered with the Selective Service? (ASK Q. A4) (GO TO Q. Bl)

55

- 10 -

A4. (IF "YES" IN Q. A3, ASK:) What is your draft classification now? (If your draft board has classified you, then you have received the card, "SELECTIVE SERVICE NOTICE OF CLASSIFICATION". On that card, your classification appears as a Roman numeral and a letter, for example, I-A, II-S, I-H, etc.)

I-A 57-1

I-A-0 2

I-c 3

I-D 4

1-0 5

DRAFT CLASSIFICATION

I-W 6 II-S 0 IV-F 3

II-A 7

8

III-A

IV-A

X IV-G 4

II-C IV-H r.

II-D 9 IV-B 58 -1 V-A 6

IV-D 2 I-H 7

Bl. MARITAL STATUS: Are you currently married or single?

Married 59-1 (GO TO Q. C) Single

B2. (IF "SINGLE", ASK:) How likely is it that you will get married in the next 12 months? Would you say that it is very unlikely, there is a small chance, a good chance, or that you definitely will get married?

Very unlikely

Small chance

60-1 Good chance .

Definitely will

C. RESPONDENT'S OCCUPATION: Do you have a job at the present time? If so, is it a part-time or a full-time job?

Not employed 61-1 Part-time Full-time

Dl. DISPOSABLE INCOME: Approximately how much income would you say you yourself received in the past 12 months - that is, counting all sources such as a job, allowance, gitts, etc? Please try to giv 12 months your best estimate

Under S300 .

S300 - $399 .

$400 - $499 .

$500 - $799 .

$800 - $999 .

62-1

2

3

4

5

$1,000 - $1,499

$1,500 - $1,999

$2,000 - $2,999

$3,000 - $3,999

$4,000 or more

Don't Know

D2. About what percentage of this income was pretty much yours to spend as you wanted? In other words, what percentage was left for you to save or spend as you pleased after you paid for all absolute necessities? Please try to give your best estimate.

Under 10% 63-1

10 - 19% 2

20 - 29% 3

30 - 39% 4

40-49% 5 80 - 89% 9

50-59% 6 90 - 100% 0

60-69% 7

70-79% 8 Don't Know v

TOTAL FAMILY INCOME: (H«ND RESPONDENT CARD #20) Would you please look at this card and tell me in which group your total family annual income falls . . . Please add up the income (including social security, interest, dividends, or any other significant income) of all the workers in your household. Please give me the letter designation only of the income group. (RECORD BELOW)

a. $2,999 or under

b. $3,000 - $4,999

e. $5,000 - $7,999

d. $8,000 - $10,999

e. $11,000 - $13,999

64-1 f. $14,000 - $16,999

g. $17,000 - $19,999

h. $20,000 or over

Refused

Don't Know

56

- 11 -

I. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #21) What was the last grade of regular school your parents attended and completed? Please answer for each parent separately.

Father Mother

a. Grade School 65-1 66-1

b. Some High School (1-3 years) . . . 2 2

c. Finished High School 3 3

d. Some College (1-3 years) 4 4

e. Finished College or other advanced education (technical or business school) . . . 5 5

G. Do you live at home with your parents? Yes 67-1 No 2

I TO BE FILLED IN BY INTERVIEWER FROM OBSERVATION ONLY I

H. RACE OF RESPONDENT: White 68-1 Black 2 Other 3

TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD:

Large Metropolitan Central City 70-1

Outside Central City - Urban 2

Outside Central City - Rural 3

Small Metropolitan Central City 4

Outside Central City - Urban 5

Outside Central City - Rural 6

Non-Metropolitan Urban 7

Rural - Farm 8

Rural - Non-Farm .... 9

[ BE SURE TO FILL IN CITY. COUNTY. AND STATE I

Respondent's Name:

Present Address:

City: 71-72 County: 7^-74 State:

Interviewer's Name:

Date: Day of Week:

Time Interview Started: . Time Interview Ended:

7W6

SUPERVISOR TO FILL IN THIS SECTION

Interviewer verified on (DATE):

Question #'s: checked.

57

Appendix D

APPROXIMATE TESTS OF STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Approximate Sampling Tolerances for Differences Between Two Survey Percentages at or Near These Levels

10% 20% 30% 40% or or or or 90% 80% 70% 60% 50%

4% 6% 7% 7% 11

6% 8% 9% 10% 10%

5% 8% 10% 10% 11%

Applicable Size of Samples Group Being Compared

PLC-Total 400 and 350

AVROC 200 and 200

ROC 200 and 150

(95 in 100 Confidence Level)

This table provides an approximate test of the statistical signi-

ficance of the difference between any two percentages at the .05 level

of significance. An illustration of the use of the table is as follows:

For two sample sizes of approximately 200 and

percentages ranging around 10%, the difference in rates

between two samples would have to exceed 6% in order to

achieve statistical significance at the .05 level of

significance.

Note that two independent samples are assumed.

58

U1635

Documents

I^VAL POSTa^^ATE SCHOOL (,L SÄ«-« A »Teport MR 74-5 MANPOWER … · · 2013-07-02££T"lCAL R«*ORT SECTION I^VAL POSTa^^ATE SCHOOL (,L SÄ«-« A »Teport MR 74-5 MANPOWER