Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM · · 2013-09-10A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*•...
-
Upload
truongnhan -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Report MR 74-4 MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH PROGRAM · · 2013-09-10A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*•...
A07W37V SÄEss~~» —*•
Report MR 74-4
MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Career Potential Among ROTC Enrollees:
A Comparison of 1972 and 1973 Suruey Results
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 dis- tribution 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 flWien Data Entered)
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM
i. REPORT NUMBEROASD/M&RA MR-74-4 AFHRL-TR-74-39
2. GOVT ACCESSION NO 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
4. TITLE (end Subtitle;
CAREER POTENTIAL AMONG ROTC ENROLLEES: A Comparison of 1972 and 1973 Survey Results
5. TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED
Interim 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER
7. AUTHORfaJ
Allan H. Fisher, Jr. Richard J. Orend Leslie S. Rigg
8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBERfa;
F41609-73-C-0030 9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Human Resources Research Organization 300 North Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK AREA a WORK UNIT NUMBERS
PE 62703F Project 4499-07-50
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Directorate for Manpower Systems Evaluation, Wash, DC 20301
12. REPORT DATE
November 1973 13. NUMBER OF PAGES
-124. U. MONITORING AGENCY NAME ft ADDRESSf' different from Controlling Office)
Manpower Development Branch Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFSC) Alexandria, Virginia 22314
IS. SECURITY CLASS, (of thle report)
Unclassified 15a. DECLASSIFI CATION/DOWNGRADING
SCHEDULE
16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thle Report)
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited
17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebetrect entered In Block 10, If different from Report)
18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Survey conducted by Gilbert Youth Research, Inc., New York, N.Y.
19. KEY WORDS (Continue on rereree elde It neceeemry end Identify by block number)
Armed Services Reserves Attitudes Career Motivation
Training Programs Officers Prediction Recruitment ROTC Program 0501, 0509, 0510, 1407, 1503
20. ABSTRACT (Continue on reveree tide II neceeemry end Identify by block number)
Research into the career intentions of Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC cadets showed that a majority were willing to stay and continue into the advanced program, even without financial aid. The proportion for Army enrollees was much lower than for Navy or Air Force enrollees. Almost half of all advanced cadets were undecided about staying on active duty for more than one tour of duty, with Army enrollees the least likely and Air Force enrollees the most likely to remain.
DD ,^NRM73 1473 EDITION OF 1 NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE Unclassified
SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Data Entered)
TTnrlassif-toH SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(TWl«n Data Entered)
Item 20 (Continued)
"Military career opportunities" and the chance for "travel, adventure, and new experiences" were the most commonly cited reasons for entering ROTC. Navy cadets also indorsed the "opportunity for further academic education."
A majority of Army and Air Force scholarship holders, and less than half the Navy scholarship enrollees, indicated they would have entered ROTC without a scholarship. Over 60 percent in all services indicated they would have entered ROTC without a subsistance allowance.
ITnf TaQgifiaH SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(T»7)»n Data Entered)
SUMMARY
CAREER POTENTIAL
Short-range Potential
Short-range options studied included: (1) Willingness to stay in
the ROTC program if given the opportunity to leave; (2) Desire to continue
from the Basic program into the Advanced program; and (3) Willingness to
remain in the ROTC program without financial assistance and course credit.
In all three programs (Army, Navy, and Air Force), more than half of
the enrollees indicated they would remain in the program even if given
the opportunity to leave. But in 1973, Army enrollees were significantly
less likely to stay (67%) than were Navy enrollees (84%), and Air Force
enrollees (85%). These differences are largely attributable to the large
number of Army Non-scholarship enrollees who indicated that they would
leave the program if they had the opportunity. In contrast, results for
Army cadets with Scholarships were more favorable and were comparable to
the results for cadets in the other Services.
Basic cadets were asked if they would go on to the Advanced program.
In 1973, the response was highly favorable among Navy and Air Force cadets
(85% and 84% respectively). The Army cadets were much less favorable (57%).
The difference between the Army and the other branches was again attributable
to the Army Non-scholarship cadets. In the 1973 survey, only 52% of Army
Basic Non-scholarship enrollees indicated that they plan to continue into
the Advanced program. Differences in intention were found between Scholar-
ship and Non-scholarship enrollees for the Navy and Air Force, but they
were not as pronounced as the differences noted for Basic Army enrollees.
The only differences in response over time occurred among Army Non-
scholarship cadets. More of these cadets reported that they expect to
leave the program in 1973 than did so in 1972.
Cadets were asked directly if they would remain in the ROTC program
without a scholarship (if they held one), or without a subsistence
allowance (if they were eligible to receive one). In both cases, there
was a general decrease from 1972 to 1973 in willingness to stay in ROTC
without assistance. There was a corresponding increase in willingness
to leave the program, if financial assistance was not available. However,
the proportion of Scholarship holders willing to stay in ROTC did not drop
below 64% except in the case of Navy Scholarship holders. In this instance,
only 50% in 1972 and 41% in 1973 indicated they would remain in the Navy
ROTC program without their scholarships. Over 60% of cadets eligible
for subsistence allowances said they would stay in ROTC, even if they did
not receive this allowance. Thus, retention levels remained generally
high, but there may be an increasingly important role played by financial
assistance in maintaining retention.
Over 55% of the ROTC enrollees indicated they would remain in ROTC
without receiving college credit for their ROTC coursework. Army cadets
were least likely to remain in ROTC without college credit, while Air
Force cadets were most likely to remain in ROTC without college credit.
The Army, then, appears to have the most difficulty retaining enrollees
and is generally the Service most dependent upon outside incentives (the
role of the scholarship among Navy cadets is one key exception). Changes
from 1972 to 1973 seem to be in the direction of greater reliance on
outside incentives for retention in each ROTC program.
Long-Range Potential
In 1973, 25% of Army cadets, 31% of Navy cadets, and 42% of Air Force
cadets indicated that they intended to stay in the military service beyond
their initial tour of duty. Almost half were undecided (43% to 51%).
Among Army cadets, Scholarship holders were more likely to be interested
in a military career than Non-scholarship cadets. Also, the proportion
of Non-scholarship cadets planning to leave the Service after their first
tour increased significantly from 1972 to 1973. Differences among Navy
and Air Force cadets were related to academic status (Basic/Advanced)
rather than financial assistance. In both the Navy and Air Force, Basic
cadets were more likety to want to pursue a military career than Advanced
cadets.
Draft Motivation and ROTC enrollment
In each Service, a higher percentage of Basic ROTC enrollees were
"true-volunteers" than Advanced enrollees. This result might be expected
with the lessening of the "draft environment" between the times when
Basic and Advanced cadets joined ROTC. Scholarship holders were more likely
to be "true volunteers" than Non-scholarship cadets. In general, the Army
rate of "true volunteerism" was lower than the Navy or Air Force rates.
Also, while the Navy and Air Force programs increased their rates of "true
volunteerism" from 1972 to 1973, the Army program did not. All services
also show somewhat higher rates of "true volunteerism" among cadets planning
a military career than among those planning to leave the Service after
their first tour of duty. People who were draft-motivated when they
enrolled in ROTC do not want military careers.
KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS
Awareness of Officer Compensation
About half of all ROTC enrollees are able to correctly estimate
beginning officer base pay, the date of the most recent pay increase,
or the approximate total officer entry earnings. There are no outstanding
differences in knowledge of officer compensation between 1972 and 1973,
or between the branches of ROTC. Cadets were also asked if they thought
the pay of beginning military officers and other college graduates in
their first civilian job was equivalent. About 40% thought the pay was
equivalent and an additional 20% (Navy) to 42% (Air Force) thought that
the pay of beginning military officers exceeded the earnings of college
graduates in civilian jobs. Thus, it appears that military pay and allow-
ances currently have a favorable image among ROTC enrollees.
Awareness of Various Training Programs
ROTC cadets were also asked about their awareness of ROTC and other
off-campus officer training programs (PLC, ROC, and AVROC).
In general, the PLC program received the highest rate of claimed
awareness among the off-campus programs (from 38% for Air Force cadets
to 69% for Navy cadets, in 1973). Among those respondents who claimed
awareness of the various off-campus programs, the PLC program also received
the highest proportion of correct sponsor identification (U.S. Marine
Corps). Generally, recognition of these programs was at a level of 50%
or lower among ROTC cadets.
As expected, most men in ROTC claimed to have heard of the ROTC
program! However, a substantial proportion of the Army cadets did not
know of the existence of the Navy ROTC program (46%) or the Air Force
ROTC program (41%). Thirty-five percent of the Air Force respondents did
not know of the Navy program. But awareness of the services which sponsor
ROTC programs was 75% or higher in other instances.
Personal Sources of Information
Fathers, military recruiters (at school), and close friends were the
three major sources of information about military service indicated by
ROTC enrollees in both 1972 and 1973.
FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT
General Reasons for Applying for ROTC
In general, "military career opportunities" and "travel, adventure,
and new experiences" were the two most highly supported reasons which
exert "strong influence" on the decision to enroll in ROTC programs, in
the opinion of respondents in 1973. The only exception occurred among
Navy cadets where slightly more respondents endorsed "the opportunity for
further academic education" than endorsed "military career opportunities".
"Service tö your country" (patriotism) is a reason which reportedly
decreased in influence from 1972 to 1973. In contrast, the "opportunity
for further academic education", "pay and allowances", and "benefits such
as medical care, BX/PX, etc.," are all reasons accorded increased importance
in 1973 by cadets in ROTC programs sponsored by the Army, Navy, and
Air Force.
• Specific Reasons for Applying for ROTC
Economic factors are generally the most highly endorsed considerations
for joining an ROTC program. Thus, the following specific reasons were
considered to exert strong influence in the decision to enroll in ROTC:
paid college tuition, payments to attend college (in spite of parental
income), the receipt of a monthly subsistence allowance, and obtaining
college expense money for two or four years. In general, economic
considerations were accorded significantly greater influence by respondents
in 1973 than 1972.
In addition, being able to attend the college of their choice was also
considered important by cadets in all three programs. Among Navy and
Air Force cadets, the choice of branch of service was also of considerable
importance. For the Air Force cadets, becoming an aviation officer was
the second most important factor. It was endorsed by 60% of the Air Force
respondents in 1973.
Conditions of ROTC Affiliation
In both surveys, the majority of the Army and Air Force Scholarship
holders indicated they would have joined the ROTC program even without
a scholarship. However, only 40% of the 1973 Navy Scholarship holders
indicated they would do the same.
In both surveys, over 60% of the respondents said they would have
joined without a subsistence allowance. These positive results are
tempered by the fact that, from 1972 to 1973, an increasing proportion
indicated they would not have joined the program without the allowance.
From 42% to 54% of cadets in 1973 said they would not have joined
ROTC if dropouts from the program during the first two years had to
repay the government for the funds they received.
Persons Influential in ROTC Affiliation
ROTC cadets chose the person most influential on their decision to
join ROTC from a list of alternative categories. The category of "parents,
friends, or relatives" was selected as the most influential category
by the majority of cadets in all three ROTC programs, in both years.
THE PERCEIVED QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION
Attitudes Toward ROTC Instructors and Coursework
The majority of ROTC enrollees thought their ROTC instructors were
'as good as" or "better than" their other college instructors, in both 1972
and 1973. About half felt they were as good, and an additional 30% to
40% thought they were better.
Respondents were somewhat less enthusiastic about the quality of ROTC
coursework. In 1973, 50% to 60% thought that ROTC coursework was about
as good as other courses, but only 15% to 20% thought it was better than
their other courses. However, Army and Air Force cadets gave more favor-
able assessments of ROTC coursework in 1973 than in 1972.
Comparison of Grades in ROTC with College Grades in General
Another way to evaluate the quality of ROTC programs is to compare
the grades men earn in ROTC to their general grades in college. Cadets
report receiving higher grades in ROTC classes than they do in college
clabses in general. This finding may be due to a variety of reasons.
The present data do not offer a definitive explanation but the results
suggest that difficulty in getting good grades in the program does not
seem to be a factor which might deter cadets from entering (or remaining
in) ROTC programs.
Suggested Improvements in ROTC
Cadets evaluated three general policy areas with respect to improve-
ment in ROTC. They overwhelmingly approved the idea of receiving college
credit for ROTC coursework. Only a minority favored the abolition of
drills and marching, and only a minority endorsed the concept of moving
ROTC off-campus. But among Army and Air Force cadets, there were signi-
ficant increases in the proportions who felt ROTC should be moved off-
campus from 1972 to 1973.
PREFACE
This Consulting Report indicates the extent of career motivation
among current enrollees in Reserve Officer Candidate Programs (ROTC) in
1973. Selected results from a similar survey conducted in 1972 are in-
cluded for comparison purposes. Additional 1972 and 1973 comparisons are
reported which indicate: (1) the levels of factual knowledge of, and
attitudes toward,military officer training programs; (2) factors related
to expressed interest in applying for enrollment in ROTC programs; and
(3) the perceived quality of ROTC instructional course work. In total,
These comparisons allow an assessment of ^changes in career potential which
may have resulted with the expiration of the draft, or occurred as a result of
other events or activities which transpired between 1972 and 1973.
This report is the second in a series of three reports which present
the results of a comprehensive 1973 ROTC survey of enrollment potential
and career potential for a variety of college-based military officer training
programs. The first report in this series is concerned with the potential
for enrollment in these programs among civilian youth who are college-bound.
The third report in the series is concerned with the career potential
of current enrollees in one of three "off-campus" military officer
training programs (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 performing
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. Dr. Richard J. Orend and Ms. Leslie S. Rigg
provided research assistance.
HumRRO also assisted in the initial questionnaire design and
development 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).
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
SUMMARY 1 Career Potential 1 Knowledge and Awareness of Military Officer Training
Programs 4 Factors Associated with Enrollment 5 The Perceived Quality of ROTC Instruction 7
PREFACE 9
INTRODUCTION 13
METHOD 15 Sampling Requirement 15 Sampling Procedures 15 Sample Comparability 17 Questionnaire 17 Administration 17 Data Analyses 18
RESULTS 19
I. CAREER POTENTIAL 19 A. Immediate Career Intentions 19
1. Intention to Remain in ROTC 19 2. Intention to Continue from Basic
into Advanced ROTC 26 3. Other Indices of Immediate Career Intentions . 32 Summary 40
B. Long-Range Career Intentions 44 C. Draft-Motivation 51
Army Draft-Motivation 53 Navy Draft-Motivation 55 USAF Draft-Motivation 55 Summary 58
II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS 61 Awareness of Officer Compensation 61 Attitudes Toward Officer Compensation 63 Awareness of Various Training Programs 66 Personal Sources of Information 71
III.FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT 74 General Reasons for Applying for Officer Training. . . 74 Specific Reasons for Applying for Officer Training . . 78 Conditions of ROTC Affiliation ., 82 Persons Influential in ROTC Affiliation 83
11
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
page
IV. THE QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION AND COURSEWORK 89 Attitudes Toward ROTC Instructors 89 Attitudes Toward the Quality of ROTC Coursework .... 91 Comparison of Grades in ROTC with College Grades in
General 94 Suggested Improvements in ROTC Coursework 96
BIBLIOGRAPHY 99
APPENDICES
A. Detailed Sample Size Information For ROTC Program Enrollees 101
B. Comparability of 1972 and 1973 Samples of ROTC Enrollees 102
C. 1973 ROTC Survey Questionnaire 108 D. Approximate Tests of Statistical Significance. . . 119 E. Relationship of Regular College Grades and ROTC
Grades: 1973 Program Enrollees 120
12
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 selected
ROTC enrollees toward program completion and/or a military career has been
conducted (Griffith, 1972 on USAF enrollees; N. W. Ayer, 1972 on Army
enrollees). However, these studies were not designed to provide a continuing
multi-service assessment of career potential but rather to indicate career
potential for selected ROTC programs at one point in time and/or to suggest
relationships which might be explored in future research, e.g., the relation-
ship of race to career intentions (Griffith, 1972). In contrast, the DoD
surveys ("ROTC Surveys") covered in this report are multi-Service, multi-
year assessments of career potential among enrollees in ROTC programs.
The initial DoD survey in this series (conducted in May 1972) was
designed to provide information on career potential, and on the level of
factual knowledge of, and attitudes toward, ROTC programs and off-campus
programs of officer training among current program enrollees (Fisher &
Harford, 1972). The survey also was designed to identify demographic,
attitudinal, and programmatic correlates of expressed interest in making a
career of military service. The present May 1973 survey constitutes a
replication of the May 1972 survey.
Continued research on career potential over time provides an on-going
measure of the acceptance of current ROTC programs among enrollees. Further,
13
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.
14
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 in ROTC. These
particular populations consisted of male enrollees in Army, Navy, and Air
Force ROTC programs.
In particular, the following distinctions were made: (a) branch of
Service (Army, Navy, or Air Force); (b) Basic course (freshmen/sophomore)
versus Advanced course (junior, senior); and (c) Scholarship status
(tuition, books, subsistence allowance) versus Non-Scholarship status
(subsistence allowance in Advanced course only). The sample requirement
consisted of 200 cases for each combination of the twelve Service programs
X the two course status conditions, for a total of approximately 2400 cases.
The same sampling requirement was used in the 1972 and 1973 surveys.
Sampling Procedures
For each survey, Gilbert Youth Research, Inc. drew the samples of
ROTC enrollees from population data provided by the respective Armed
Services. A basic list of institutions was compared to the Gilbert master
sample of colleges, with maximum overlap employed in the selection of
colleges. Next, Service population listings were employed to determine
the number of cases to interview per campus, to get the requisite number
15
of respondents by status (Basic/Advanced; Scholarship/Non-scholarship),
within Service. Given these numeric requirements by campus, ROTC
student listings were then sampled to obtain the names of enrollees to be
interviewed.
The above procedure was used to draw 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 of each ROTC program. (See Appendix A for detailed
sample size information).
SAMPLE SIZE
Population 1972 Survey 1973 Survey
Sample Size
Projected Population
Sample Size
Projected Population
Army ROTC 896 50,236 829 41,069
Navy ROTC 607 7,459 613 8,154
USAF ROTC 766 19,967 857 20,064
Totals 2,259 77,662 2,299 69,287
16
Sample Comparability
The 1972 and 1973 samples of ROTC enrollees were compared on a
series of demographic characteristics to determine the equivalence of the
two samples. The reason for these comparisons was as follows: If the
1972 and 1973 samples differed appreciably in demographic composition,
any differences in career intentions might be artifacts of these sampling
differences, as opposed to bonafide changes in attitude from 1972 to 1973.
There were no major, consistent differences in sample composition
from 1972 to 1973. The minor differences which were observed would not
be sufficient to jeopardize comparisons of rates of career intention from
1972 to 1973. Data on the comparability of the 1972 and 1973 samples is
given in Appendix B. Differences are discussed in the Appendix.
Questionnaire
An extended questionnaire was designed for the 1972 survey and
maintained in essentially the same form for the 1973 survey, for purposes
of comparability. See Appendix C for a copy of the 1973 questionnaire.
Adminis tration
All data reported in each survey were obtained from extended personal
interviews. In conducting these interviews, Gilbert Youth Research, 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.
17
Data Analyses
For each survey, results for each sample were weighted for extra-
polation to the respective populations. Data from concurrent ROTC
enrollees were weighted to represent the population distribution in Basic
and Advanced status, within Scholarship/Non-scholarship status, for each
of the three Armed Services.
Data analyses for the samples of ROTC enrollees consisted of tabula-
tions of each questionnaire item controlling on respondent status in these
programs (Scholarship/Non-scholarship by Service, and Basic/Advanced by
Service).
Tests of the 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 popula-
tions, using the sample size (N) from each survey population as appropriate.
Tests reported in the other Sections are approximations to the "t-test"
procedure which employ the table look-up process given in Appendix D.
18
RESULTS
I. CAREER POTENTIAL
The major objective of this survey was to estimate the size of the
career population among enrollees in ROTC programs.
The career intentions of ROTC enrollees (cadets) were evaluated in
terms of their immediate career intentions and their long-range career
intentions. The distinction involves the willingness to complete the
undergraduate ROTC program (immediate goal) as opposed to making a career
as a military officer (long-range career intentions).
A. IMMEDIATE CAREER INTENTIONS
1. ^Intention to Remain in ROTC
Immediate career intentions were assessed by asking each cadet the
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.
A substantial majority of cadets in each ROTC program (Army, Navy,
and Air Force) claimed they would stay in the program even if given the
opportunity to leave the program. In 1973, 67% of Army cadets, 84% of
Navy cadets, and 85% of Air Force cadets indicated they would remain in
ROTC, even if they had the opportunity to leave the program.
The 1973 results merit consideration in comparison with the 1972
results. The only significant change in immediate retention goals from
19
o H
en B-?
m
oo 00
l6^
o^ ON
< 00
B-8
00 CO in
,B-s
o o
co
a;
o u a w
3 H ■3 Q
CU to «
cd
c_> H
I
en
ON B-?
B-S
en
00
m
in
in
en ■
m
ON
3
ON
ON ON
^ s
B^
B~S
■u C cd cu
•H -M
Q) M
I U M CD
<D S-l cd u
h /-v 4-> £ *H a VJ
3 M 4-> O VJ !-< O a ex. P. <D 0 s:
■u c cd Q)
> C cd <D a) >
.—4
-H *r1
o ^ 4-1
00 in co B-?
• • • • en CN
ON O o
o
CN
00
en 6-S r--
ON ON
>> U cd co u o CO u
•a * .H CU 3 J3 O 4J
* a M >H
I
CU
1)
o u
M 4J
O c J2
en c r- cd ON o r-t «H
14-4
o •H ■u d
00 CM •H r^ CO ON T-H >^
H e t-H o cd K CJ
H4 •H 4-1
a) to o •H c 4-1 0) cd u 4J <u CO
M-l 4-1 CO •H td O s
20
1972 to 1973 was found for Navy enrollees. The immediate career intentions
of Navy cadets increased from 78% in 1972 to 84% in 1973. But for each
Service there was a significant change from 1972 to 1973 in willingness
to leave the program the negative response. For the Army, the rate of
negative response increased from 1972 (18%) to 1973 (24%). But for the
Navy and Air Force, there was a significant decrease, from 1972 to 1973,
in the percent who expressed the desire to quit the program. It is in the
Army program that the greatest dissatisfaction with ROTC is expressed.
In 1973, Army ROTC cadets were significantly more likely to express a
desire to leave the ROTC program (24%) , than were either Navy cadets (10%)
or Air Force cadets (9%). In 1972, differences between the Services in
this negative response were not as pronounced.
Detailed analyses were performed comparing 1972 and 1973 immediate
career intentions controlling on cadet status: Basic/Advanced and Scholar-
ship/Non-scholarship. Results are discussed below, by Service.
For the Army, Table 1-2 indicates that enrollees in the Non-scholarship
program account for the larger proportion of men who want to leave the
program. In 1973, the percentage of Non-scholarship enrollees willing
to leave the program was 24% (Basic) and 30% (Advanced). Comparable rates
for 1973 Scholarship enrollees were 6% (Basic) and 19% (Advanced); signi-
ficantly lower values in each case. Conversely, cadets with
Scholarships were more likely to express a willingness to stay
in ROTC than were Non-scholarship enrollees. (The "Don't Know"
rate was noticeably higher for enrollees in the Basic Non-Scholarship
21
en *^N T^ S-« C7N >-•
Q i-l W u
§ 5 u > M o 3 CNI^N u T--I&-S cu ON N-/
a ■H
JC 01 n (0 en ^N
.H r^ M O 0\ N_^
J3 r-H a
CO
i M c CO o < z M
CM -—s r^ &^ ON ^-X
iH
CN
LTl
en
CO
m NO
in
CN
ON
00
m en CN
as co
en
m
NO
o en
o
o o
ON
as ON
o
o o
ON
ON as
u M O u
01
td
O
o CO
9
^?
m
NO ■
ON -3-
6-?
6~«
CJ u co
■H -d a)
u o a) a u o CD -i cu -u H 4J « OJ > «DC« u <u <u CO > rH
cj o
<?•«
o o
CN I
00 v£> NO 6*8 O • * ■ •
as cn NO o o
rH <r m O • • • • ON 00
N£> <r o o
CN
00
O
ON
00
u-i
o o o
4->
01 u oo o
a.
„■s
i
3 O 5 O
^
d o -a
cn c r^ cd ON o -H •H
U-l O •H
■u C M
CN •H r^ 01 ON
.H P^ <-i
| <-t O CO VJ u
M-t •r-l ■U
01 01 o •H c 4-1 a) CO ^ 4-1 cu 01
U-l 14-1 0) -r4 (0 o s
22
program than for other cadets. This may connote indecision with respect
to program continuation which could result in the loss of even more of
these men.) For the Army, the only significant change from 1972 to 1973
occurred for Advanced Non-scholarship cadets; a higher proportion reported
that they would leave the program if given the opportunity in 1973 (30%)
than in 1972 (19%).
Similar analyses were performed for Navy cadets. Results appear in
Table 1-3. In 1973, there were no significant differences in immediate
career intentions between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets or between
Basic and Advanced cadets. Regardless of the status of the cadet, about 81%
to 85% reported that they would stay in the program. Only two significant
changes were found from 1972 to 1973, and both favored immediate career
intentions. In 1973, a higher percentage of enrollees in the Advanced
Scholarship program (85%) said they would stay in ROTC, compared to 1972
(77%). There was also a significant change among Basic Non-scholarship
cadets between 1972 and 1973. In 1973, fewer cadets in this category
expressed a desire to leave the program if given the opportunity, and a
greater proportion indicated that they would stay.
The responses of Air Force cadets were also analyzed in detail. Results
appear in Table 1-4. In 1973, the vast majority of Air Force cadets
(over 80%) said they would stay in ROTC, even if they had an opportunity
to leave the program. There was only one significant difference from 19 72
* For consistency in reporting, enrollees in the Navy Regular program are called Scholarship enrollees, while enrollees in the Navy Contract (or College) program are called Non-scholarship enrollees.
23
CO Z o M H
W H
W
a
O U C
W
s-i GO O
u H
CO
co r-. ON
Q .H w u
§ ^ 1-1 > M O 5 CM )-i f-~
(X, ON
cx •H J3 w s-i to 00
.-1 r^ O a. x: <-i a
CO I M c CO o <i
53 CO CM
ON
B-S
S-S
6-S
e^s
CO p^ o>
a H w u 3
1 > CM
00 r-. o c> S-l i-H
eu
a •H Ä to co S-i r-. tO ON
t-t rH o
X. CJ u M
CO S3 CM r^ ON H
s-s
iK°
6^
N
f>>^ w S
CO •H cd a c u o 3 M
•H •U O <u 4-> U U
■u C o & to 1) a
•H 4-J (X OJ T3 Ö O ,C 01 H 4J
£ S-< tO 0) H 0) >
QJ C CO S-l (U QJ tO > >-!
CJ> O O
r-l 00
CM
o
CM 00
CO CM
ON
MD
00
MO
CM
00
00
BNS
ON
ON ON
B-; ON
ON ON
o o o
&-S
o o
o
00
CO
oo
oo
O
CO
ON
00
00
NO
CM
o MD
vO
00
o o
*t
o o
ON
ON ON
o o o
^ u tO 00
en o u
V > tfl OJ
S-l
00 o S-l
(X
V
8 c
J2
C o
CO
I M
w 1-1
1
I
co c r» tO ON o H •H
»4-1
O •H u a
00 CM •H r-- en ON H t>.
|H E H O to U o
4-1 ■H 4-1
OJ en o •H a 4-1 0) tO S-i 4-1 OJ CD
14-1
IW U) •H to a s
24
m r~ ON
Q iH W O
1 §5 1-1 > ÖC o 3 CM H r^
o-.
a •H1
x co H co <r>
■H I-» o ON
•s tH
CO 1 M C to O <J 3 «
CN
ON
S-?
s-s
fr«
fr«
in
oo
co
NO
oo
oo
CM
o
ON
CO
00
NO
fr« ON
ON
ON
fr« o
o o
fr« ON
ON ON
6-8 o o o
& u PM
x: cn
cO .-I O X o
CO
3
fr«
fr«
fr«
fr«
>N~
co C o
•H ai 4-1 4-1 C a) a)
•H 4J TJ C cu M
•H <0 c u 3 ö£ 4-1 O U U o a a. a) O J3
c M (0 CD ai cu W
c_>
> C co (U ai
o o 4-1
ON 00
r». 00
ON ■
ON
00
m oo 4J o co u
r-H Q) 3 X! O 4J
ON
ON
> 0) cd
rH l-l 60
T3 O
3 a 0) X! 4J
CN
ON
o o
fr« O
O O
fr«
o o
äs? o o o
53 H
5 o c j2
a o
XI
(T) Ö r-^ co ON o iH •W
CM o •H 4-1 c
ÜC CN •H r~- cn ON r-t ^
,-H e -H o ca p o
cw •H 4J
01 CO o •H c 4-1 0) cfl w 4-1 4) CO
CH »4-1 CO •H CO n S
25
to 1973. Reported willingness to leave the program declined from 17%
(1972) to 10% (1973) among enrollees in the Basic Non-scholarship program.
However, additional analyses revealed that, in 1973, a significantly
higher percentage of Basic Non-scholarship cadets (10%) than Basic Scholar-
ship cadets (3%) would leave the program, given the opportunity. This
finding reflects a possible difference between Scholarship and Non-
scholarship enrollees with respect to career intentions a difference
also noted for the Army (Table 1-2) but not for the Navy (Table 1-3).
This finding is discussed below.
The following inter-Service differences are noted. Compared to
the other Services, the Army exhibits the greatest inter-program variability
in the percentage of cadets willing to remain in the ROTC program. This
variability appears to be centered around the question of Scholarship
or Non-scholarship status, rather than Basic/Advanced status or the date
of the survey administration. The Navy shows no corresponding inter-
program differences. The Air Force shows only rather minor differences
as a function of program status. The greater proportion and number of
Army cadets who wish to leave ROTC consist of enrollees in the Non-scholarship
program. In contrast, differences in immediate career intentions between
Army, Navy, and Air Force cadets who have Scholarships are minimal.
2. Intention to Continue from Basic into Advanced ROTC
The question of immediate career intentions was asked of Basic cadets
in a very explicit form. Each Basic cadet was asked if he intended to
26
continue into the Advanced program. Results appear in Table 1-5.
The majority of cadets said that they intend to continue from Basic ROTC
into Advanced ROTC. However, in 1973, Army cadets were significantly less
likely to expect to continue into Advanced ROTC (57%) than were cadets in
the Navy (85%), and the Air Force (84%). This finding was true only in
the 1973 survey. In 1972, there were no differences between the three
Services. Some events occurring between the administration of the two
surveys appear to have exerted a marked effect on program continuation
expectations of Army cadets in Basic ROTC.
Detailed analyses were performed to evaluate these findings.
The responses of enrollees were studied, contro'lling on Scholarship
or Non-scholarship status. Dividing respondents into Scholarship and
Non-scholarship categories showed that the decline in program continuation
intentions for Basic Army enrollees occurred among the Non-scholarship
cadets (Table 1-6). There was no change from 1972 to 1973 among Army
Scholarship enrollees. Indeed, the percent of Basic Army cadets in the
Scholarship program who express a desire to continue into the Advanced
program compares favorably with the rates of Navy and Air Force men en-
rolled in the Scholarship program (Compare Tables 1-6, 1-7, and 1-8).
These data further support the contention that Scholarship enrollees
have more favorable attitudes toward remaining in ROTC than do men who
do not hold Scholarships. In each Service, there is a significant differ-
ence between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets. Scholarship enrollees
are more likely to plan to continue into the Advanced program than are
27
H a
S-?
s^
6-8 vO 00 vO o • • e • ro 00 p». o 00 o
00 ov vO
ON
u H O « Q t-l W Ö U o
| co > 0)
5 0) rH H
o O H ^ !S a M w
g u H 5 O
M ctf H Z o o •H u to
cd o « H
5= .. o <u M en H (fl 2 PQ
B
CO /*—\ O o O o r^ 6-S • • u ON N^X m vO o> o H rH 00 o o rH pd
| 6-« < CM r«N r~ u-1 00 O z r~- 6-5 ■ ON \^* <r r- 1-^ O .H 00 o
* * * 6-8 ^s lO CTV vO O 6-? • - • • t^s vO CM o O m CM CM o
6^ O 00
ON oo 6-8
O O
u-l
U H
Q) O 3 Pi C
•H -a ■u aj C o o
c_> § >
o T3 ■u <: 13 o C ■u <u c
■u M c M
CO CD o
CO c r-. cd ON o rH •H
4-1 O •H 4-1 C
00 CM •H r^ co ON r-t >N
rH e rH o CO u O
VH •H 4J
<D CO O •H c ■U 0) a) r4 *J 1) CO
4-1 U-l CO •H cd Q S
28
2 O
w
to CO
oa
CO 0) 0)
o u c H
g u O
M pa
00
a CM •H rH 42 en >-l co
.H o
£1 O to
e CM o r^ Z cri
e-s
-K * * 6-5 O <r vO o • • • • CN m CN O u-1 (N CN O
r-l
S-! oo
vO
CM
O
o o
42 en u co
.H O
■s en
K vO ON
CNI
O
O o
vO I
w .-I
CN s^?
vO
00
o
o o
M 0) s
1 o
CD O z 3 H **"•». c 9 § 4J C T3 d O <D O CJ ■u
0 — O cfl co a *-> > 0) o o
^ fH SB Q TJ «U a 1 I 1
CD o 4J 4-> ß Ö
•u co C r^ CO ON o -H •H
m O •H ■u C
M CNI •H r-~ en a\ rH >>
.H 6 .H o <0 u CJ
U-t •H 4->
cu CO o •H c ■U
<u CO n U CU CO
U-4 y-i en •H cfl o S
29
u o u
PU
u H
1 CO (0
pa
w CD cu
o u a w
CU u u
c_>
0> S-«
S.i VO
S-«
O O
CN 6-5
CN
CN 00
O
O O
Oj r-l
e-; o
6^
CTi
K
00
00
o CN O
o o
cu 2=
1 o
0) U z 9 H 0 9 1 •u C T3 3 o cu o o 4J
o 3 03 "e 4J > CD O o
T3 >■ z Q T) •< c 1 1 1 CO o 4-» 4-1 a a
a 5
CO Ö r-^ CO ON o .H •H
IM O •H 4-1 c
00 CN •H r~- en a> <-\ ►,
TH
B M o CO u o
M-i •H 4J
a) en o ■H c 4J <D ct) H 4-1 cu CO
IM 4-1 CO •H CO Q S
30
on r>»
a ON •H .H 2 en u A
.-i o
43 o
CO
a CM o r-»
55 o\
fr$ <N vO CSI o • • • • o o OS o 00 .-1 o
^8
ON
£ CN OS
6^ O « o o
55
8
3 00
w
x: CO u cfl
iH O
■8 CO
VO
B-S OS OS
6-S O
O O
3
H
00
OS
6^ O • O o
<D O 3 H C Q
•H PS ■U
C T3 O 0)
c_> U
O g ■u >
T> 13 < C <U o 4-> ■U
G c M N
en cu o z
CU
CO
o Z
1
O Q
31
Non-scholarship enrollees. This finding held in both the 1972 and 1973
surveys. However, the percentage of affirmative response is above 75%
in each case with the exception of the Army Non-scholarship enrollees
in 1973.
3. Other Indices of Immediate Career Intentions
Three additional questions were employed to evaluate the willingness
of cadets to stay in ROTC:
(1) Their willingness to stay in ROTC without a Scholarship (this question applied to Scholarship enrollees only);
(2) Their willingness to stay in ROTC without a Subsistence Allowance (this question applied to cadets eligible to receive an allowance only); and
(3) Their willingness to stay in ROTC if college credit was not given for ROTC course work.
Previous results have suggested that Scholarship holders are highly
career-oriented, at least with respect to their intentions to remain in
ROTC their immediate goals. It is useful to determine the extent to which
this attitude is contingent upon the continued provision of these scholar-
ships. For this reason, cadets holding scholarships were asked if they
would remain in the ROTC program if the scholarship was not available.
In 1973, the majority of Army cadets (65%) and Air Force cadets (74%)
indicated that they would remain, even under this condition. Table 1-9
presents the results. But only 41% of the Navy cadets gave this response
in 1973 (and 50% in 1972). Continued participation in the Navy program
seems more dependent on scholarships than does continuation in either the
32
H
s
ro
ON B-J?
* ON CN o
6-?
O o
CO &
&-?
K ON r^ m CT> • ■ • • rH <r en ON 00 ■H ON
H
u H
s
3 H CO
5 PQ
a o to
0)
o u a w
re en M CO
rH O
■a CO
u H
s
ON
CO
6^?
B-?
ON B^?
CN
C3N B-e
en ö o
a o a) en fl o & en tu Pi
o u-i
o
NO
CM
r--
* oo
u-i
m
rH
-K
oo CN
ON
ON
00
NO
O
o o
B^S
o o
r>8 o o o
B-? o
o o
en a) o
a o Q
m c r^ cfl ON o rH •H
U-I o •H ■u c
U CN <H r-~ en ON rH >»
rH g rH o Ct) u U
U-l •H 4J
OJ en a •H c •Ul <u a VJ ■u a) en
U-J 14-1 w •H cfl P s
ON I
H
33
Army or the Air Force programs. However, if the scholarship programs of the
Army and Air Force were terminated, the risk in term of loss of cadets
to the programs could be substantial, involving as much as 28% (Army) and
21% (Air Force), based on the May 1973 data. In the case of the Navy,
termination of scholarships could result in the loss of over half the
cadet population.
Additional analyses of this question revealed a significant decline
from 1972 to 1973 in the willingness of cadets to stay in ROTC without
a scholarship. This finding held for each Service. Thus, no matter which
Service sponsors an ROTC program, there may be an increasing reliance on
scholarships as the vehicle needed to keep current scholarship holders
from leaving the program. A continuing trend in th2 same direction in
the future could be extremely damaging in officer recruitment and retention
for those Services which rely heavily on ROTC Scholarship enrollees (e.g.,
the Navy) for input, were the possibility of terminating the Scholarship
programs accorded serious consideration and publicity.
Each cadet receiving a subsistence allowance was asked if he would stay
in ROTC without the allowance. (In 1973, an estimated 41% of the Army cadets,
75% of the Navy cadets, and 51% of the Air Force cadets were eligible to
receive this allowance. The answers of only these respondents are presented
and discussed below). In both 1972 and 1973, a substantial majority of these
respondents said they would stay in the program without a subsistence allow-
ance. Results appear in Table 1-10. Significant changes from 1972 to 1973
were found in all three programs. Army and Air Force cadets were significantly
34
en
ON s^
oo • OO m
O
o o
8
CO w u
: w § 1 o gr a o s a 3 5 sä w
a w w o H z CO w H H CO CO m M :=> CO CO
< w a
H 3 O
E-t 8 s w
!-) O PQ H M o ÜJ Pi M
J S3 W M
CO ►j w < w H HJ CO »J
O O tf Ö s w o »
w
CO p
H l£>
00 00
H
SB
*t 00
143
e-s CO
o ON
B^S 00
CO NO
6-8
CM
in
ON
ON
O
o o
o
o o
6-S o o o
ON
ON ON
in
O
o o
en a o
a o OJ en 9 o p. en
en a) o
2
S
1
CO c r^- CO ON o r-l •H
14-1 O T-t 4-> a
00 CM •H r^ en ON .H >N
.-i 8 «-< O cfl VJ o
•4-4 •H 4-1
0) CO o •H c 4-1 CU ed u 4-1 CD en IH H-l CO •r-l rt a 5
s I
H W a H
35
less likely to say they would remain in the ROTC program in 1973 than
they were in 1972. Cadets in all three programs were significantly more
likely to say they would leave the program in 1973 than they were in 1972.
Thus, there seems to be an increasingly important role played by the sub-
sistence allowance in keeping enrollees in all three ROTC program.
A second noteworthy difference in Table 1-10 occurs between Army
cadets on the one hand, and Navy and Air Force cadets on the other. The
Army cadets show a significantly smaller likelihood of remaining in the
program without a subsistence allowance than do the Navy and Air Force
cadets. The Army, then, would seem to have a larger stake in maintaining
the subsistence allowance than do the other Services..
An examination of responses of 1973 Army, Navy and Air Force cadets
in detail provides only limited additional significant information (see
Tables 1-11 through 1-13). In each Service, whether the cadet is in the
Basic or Advanced program, or the Scholarship or Non-scholarship program,
a substantial majority claim they would stay in the ROTC program even
without a subsistence allowance. There are no significant differences be-
tween these categories. The pattern of more Army cadets than Navy or Air
Force cadets indicating an intention to leave if the allowance is eliminated,
stands up, regardless of program status.
Finally, each cadet was asked if he would stay in ROTC, were he not
to receive college credit for ROTC coursework. The overall response was
positive. In both 1972 and 1973, the majority of ROTC enrollees said they
would stay in the program even if credit were not given for coursework.
36
co w u
w < u 3 8 § § H4 H a CO
l-l CO
w PQ o :=> z CO w H w CO > M M CO w « C_> P CO s <: o
H H
o a B PQ
M
5 O M i-J
o w H O CO Prf w Z a H ►j
>j g <J 53 H W CO
Q « i § o ts m
r-- OS rH
,, w CO <2 M
a •H
A tO 13 )-l a) cd o O §
■8 > 13
CO «i
h o
SB
s-s *J3
00
<N o>
6^ O • o o -I
to
O
'S CO
e-s ao CN
en
6^ IN
en
o
§
.*«
o o
a 9
3
o cu to
§ o. CO
to CU o
5
a
37
co
3
s 0 3 5 0 s SS o W ►J H
3 CO
H CO
s PQ 5 2 CO W H u CO > M M CO w PQ u S3 CO § <J o
H H b W o ►J
R CQ M
H Ü S M
(J CJ> W H O CO Pi W
w SB hJ H KJ
o ►J & < 2 H M CO
q g a < !=> ss o 13 en
r>» ON H
W CO
< CQ
pj ■H JS to ■a M 0) td a
rH ö O «
J3 > O T3
CO 1
<q c o z
B^S
a o
a o a) CO c o p. co CD
Cd
en CO
00
CO o
o o
T3 CU a
•—\ CN • o • oo o
a > 13
B-? lO o o
•H <3 1—1
43 en n m
.H O
o CO
o /■> • «S vO 0\
CO CO
PQ
EN; o CM
** <3\ OS
CN1
s
CD CU O
Z
I a o o
38
CO
e 5 £ HJ
u g c_> 5 o DE S3
3 s ,-J CO < M
CO w g z CO w H CO E h-l l-l CO w g CO
u
<: o H
B H o hJ
e H o S M
J o W H b CO pg w
W z -1 M a
q >i B a § CO to 3 5j
CO £> D o 3 CO
r^ ON ^H
• • W
59 M
CH •r7 .C CO X) u fl) 01 o
.H Ö o CO
J3 > o T3 CO <! a o z
6-«
a> ^D
O O
o o
T3 cu o
> p. T3
6^ in
cr> «* -*
O
o o
^? r--
oo
9* O
o o
CO
e o
a o
§ d
o a CO s Pi
en cu o
a
39
Results appear in Table 1-14. In 1973, more favorable rates of response
were given by Navy cadets (79%) and Air Force cadets (62%), than by
Army cadets (56%). Among Army enrollees, 31% indicated they would not
remain in ROTC without this incentive. In the Navy program, only 12%
said they would not remain. Army and USAF enrollees showed significant
decreases from 1972 to 1973 in their willingness to stay in ROTC if no
credit was given for coursework. Caution must be exercised in inter-r
preting these changes as trends, but it is difficult to overlook these
changes and the large resulting differences between the Army and Air
Force programs on the one hand, and the Navy program on the other. The
increase from 1972 to 1973 in the proportions who said they would leave
the program unless college credit was provided is substantial. The
total percentage who indicated this course of action in 1973 is now over
one-quarter of the total enrollees in these programs.
Summary
The reported intentions of cadets to remain in ROTC must be accorded
studied consideration. On the surface, their announced willingness to stay
in the program is high and favorable, although the Army program does not
engender a favorable attitude toward retention to the extent common to
the other services. The intention to stay in the ROTC program is lower
for Army enrollees than for Navy or Air Force enrollees, on almost all
questions. In 1973, about 67% of the Army enrollees indicated they would
stay in the ROTC program even if given the opportunity to leave. Comparable
40
* ■K co en
co ^s • • r^- <K CM m o\ \s vO CM
u iH H O Pi
5! co 00 en 5 CM s-^ • ■
r-~ 6-? co vO CTi ^^ r~- rH .H
vO
o o o
B-S o o o
§
o u o
§ § W M
c_> H g O Pi Pi
o S3 fa M
g >i w < > H M CO o
§
H O
to I
CO
w W
£
Ü
PM
PQ
U H
B-?
00
00 CM
&-S
H
B^J
vO
r«s
CO
CM v£5
ON
o CO
CM
CM /—V . . r». N en o o> •«— o CM
CO
CO
vO
u-1
CM
!*!
O O
Cn
cn cn
B-S
o o
B-S o o o
K o •H 1 cu 4-> a 00 4J £ £ •H o
w O CU cu — c u a co C c_>
cu o s o o >-• 55 Q a CO cu pi
4J CO Ö r~ cfl cn o H •H
4-1 O •H J-J c
bo CM ■H r~ CO as .H ►,
rH
S H o CO V4 o
iw •H ■U
CU CO o •H C 4-1 a) ca ^ 4J <u CO
«4-1
IW CO •H nj Q 5
.-H
I M
w
H
41
figures for the Navy and Air Force were 84% and 85% (Table 1-1).
A detailed analysis of each branch revealed that Army Non-scholarship
enrollees account for the large number who would leave the program
(Table 1-2).
Basic cadets were asked if they would go on to the Advanced program.
In 1973, the response was again overwhelmingly favorable among Navy and
Air Force'cadets. The Army cadets again were much less favorable
(Table 1-5). The relationship of intentions of continuing into the
Advanced program and holding a scholarship was noted (Tables 1-6 through
1-8). This relationship held in three branches; it was most pronounced
among Army cadets (Table 1-6). In each Service, the proportion planning
to enter the Advanced program was 90% or higher for Scholarship holders,
while the rate was lower among Non-scholarship cadets. In the case of
the Army, the rate was only 52% in 1973.
Cadets were asked directly if they would remain in the ROTC program
without a scholarship (if they held one) or without a subsistence allow-
ance (if they were eligible to receive one). In both cases, there was
a general decrease from 1972 to 1973 in willingness to stay in the pro-
gram and a corresponding increase in willingness to leave the program,
if the financial assistance was not available (Tables 1-9 and 1-10).
However, the proportion expressing a willingness to stay in ROTC did
not drop below 64% except in the case of Navy Scholarship holders
(Table 1-9). In this instance, only 50% in 1972 and 41% in 1973 expressed
the desire to stay in the Navy ROTC program without their scholarships.
42
It should be reiterated, however, that despite the fact that potential
retention levels remain high in 1973, there is a movement in the direction
of greater importance of financial incentives in maintaining retention in
ROTC programs. There is an apparent, corresponding decrease in the import-
ance of other factors over time, such as avoiding the draft (see Chapter I,
Section C), and service to country (see Chapter III).
A final topic discussed in this Chapter was the importance of
receiving college course credit for ROTC classwork. This question elicited
rather diverse results. The receipt of classwork credit was most important
to Army cadets and Air Force cadets, and least important to Navy cadets.
However, in the 1973 survey, over 55% of ROTC enrollees indicated they
would stay in the program without college credit.
The overall pattern observed in this Section allows for two possible
general conclusions. First, with the emphasis on 1973 results, the Army
is having (or will have) a more difficult time retaining enrollees than
the other Services; and this retention is most heavily dependent on out-
side incentives, such as money and college credit, for the Army compared
to the other Services. Second, with the emphasis on possible trends
from 1972 to 1973, there is a tendency toward greater dependency on out-
side incentives for the retention of enrollees in all three ROTC programs,
with a greater reliance on financial aid and/or college course credit
as incentives to keep current enrollees in each program.
43
B. LONG-RANGE CAREER INTENTIONS
Another important consideration in assessment of ROTC programs is the
extent to which enrollees intend to pursue a career of military service.
Each cadet 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 1-15.
In 1973, 25% of Army cadets, 31% of Navy cadets, and 42% of Air Force
cadets indicated that they intended to stay in the military service beyond
their initial tour of duty. In contrast, 12% of Air Force cadets, 17%
of Navy cadets, and 32% of Army cadets said they planned to leave the service
after completing their first tour. The remaining respondents (43% to 51%)
were undecided.
The only important differences between 1972 and 1973 occurred among
Army respondents. In 1973, a significantly higher proportion of Army cadets
planned on leaving the service, and a significantly smaller proportion
planned military careers, compared to 1972.
As noted in the previous section on immediate goals, there were major
differences between the Armed Services in the short-range career objectives
of their cadets. The Army trailed the Navy and the Air Force in its ability
to induce short-range career intentions among its enrollees. Conversely,
44
CN
CN «*
*_T" co •~\ "*> \o oo r^ B-? • • •
u <7\ v-' r^ <* m H rH CN iH <r § • PM n < CO CN •-N a\f *Sm o :=> r~- »^ • •
o\ >—• CN <f ON rH CN iH <a-
co
\4t>
CO
,N 00
ON o>
o o o
H
g
6-S
M
<r • <-< en
W ^o\ * • 00 CSI ■-I
m •
00 CN
1-i
vo' ^<* • • lO CN
St
m
m
o
CN
CN
6-8 ON
B-« O
O o
6-S
6-S
00
CN
* r^
cn oo
CO cn
I "N o 00 00 • • • 00 m o -H .-i <r
m CN
o^
B-S o o o
m
M <u a) o ai -H
CO h S ^ a to OJ CO CJ <U -H 00 TH CO 43 T3 C (X, >. S 0J cO u CJ <• T3 Pi u «0 •H •H
1 (U 4J M O 00 d) •H >^ O cu c u rH CO M-l T3 O CO ä 4J
CO 5
■4-1 o c c o o
O -U 4-1 Cu v nj DH DO
P.-H <D S iH > O ,J0 KUO ai iJ
co C r-* cfl ON O tH •H
CM o •H 4-1 c
oo CN ■H r-- CO OS .H ^
<-t e ■H o <0 n Ü
M-l ■H 4-1
aj CO o ■H c 4-1 0) CO (-1 4-> <u CO
U-l cu CO •H CO Q s
45
the Army led the other services in the percentage of cadets who would quit
the program or who plan to leave the service after their first tour of
duty. The data in Table 1-15 show similar findings with respect to long-
range career intentions.
Thus, the data suggest that the Navy and Air Force should be capable
of retaining a higher proportion of their ROTC enrollees than does the
Army. More detailed analyses were done, by Service, to evaluate this
hypothesis.
Among Army cadets, Scholarship holders are significantly more likely
to be interested in a long-range military career than are Non-scholarship
cadets (Table 1-16). This relationship is true for both Basic and Advanced
cadets. Conversely, Non-scholarship enrollees are significantly more likely
to want to leave the service after their first tour of duty than are
Scholarship holders. These relationships are significant in both surveys.
In addition, the proportion of Army Non-scholarship enrollees planning
to leave the service increased from 1972 to 1973. Thus, a greater propor-
tion of Non-scholarship cadets said they do not plan military careers in
1973, than in 1972. In 1973, among Advanced Non-scholarship cadets, this
proportion (40%) exceeds the proportion who are undecided about a military
career (36%). This is the only instance where this finding occurs, i.e.,
where the modal response is a plan to leave the Service.
For the Navy respondents, a somewhat different pattern exists
(Table 1-17). Differences in career intentions between Scholarship and
Non-scholarship enrollees do not exist for the Navy cadets, as they did for
46
en
tn CU cu
u M o n
j3 0) M n)
rH O £ o 00
o SB
Q W U
B-«
CN
vO
1
CO
3 PQ
CN
e-s
e-?
B-«
<T)
m
a\
in
vO
CN
oo
CN
* 6-S rH O • • o o -d- o
rH
8* CN O • • rH o CO o
•H
* 6< 00 O • • CN o en o
rH
S-« r^ O • • <r o CN o
CN
3
I J2
CO
CO rH O
■s CO
W o
>: 5
CO
o M
en\ ov
B-S
B^8
B-8
CN
OO CN
CN
en
CN
vD
"OS
O
CN
B-S
en
rH
CN
o in
u-i
CN
B-? O
O O
B-S CN rH • • en rH
O s SO o • • rH
o o r-i
vD O • • r-l
o o
rH
M
9 5
C CD CO <D 4-1 rJ •H cfl rH O
CU CJ
•rl CU
rH <u •H oo .£
c 3 •H
H f^ O CO U-l
■U 00
13 CU -a
•H o
§§ 0 4J W O, QJ cO Prl 00
CXTH II SH > Ofl «0 o o -I
fl c t^- CO o> CJ rH •H
4-1 o •H u
& CN •H r- co as rH >,
rH g rH o CO u O
IM •H 4J
CU CO Ü •H c w cu CO r-l JJ (U CO
o » I*
47
n r- ON
Q H en
g u
Ö 5
00 > O U 3 CM
o, c^ rH
o. •H Ä
CO 1-1 « en
.-I r^ o ON
JA rH CJ U
CO 1
M CO
C 53 O « z CM
r«« ON
6-S
s^
6-s
o
■ 00
en co
IN CM
NCO
ON
IN
■
m
*co
CM
vD
in
ON
CM m
CO
CO
CM
vo
CM
ON
ON CM
* y3
UD
O CO
00
ON ON
6-8 CM
O O
6-S
o o
o
o o
CO
i 3 CO
r^ ON
O H w
en o 9 5 u > M o 5 CM
V-l ON CL, rH
a ■H X! en CO Kl r^. crj ON
rH u rH O M
S3 co PQ CM
^
N
X
CO CM
r^"~ ^vo • • CM O rH
CM
IN
Si-
rH
• • ^f CO rH
m
vo cp
rH
■ • CO CO CM rH
rJ 0) cd a)
4-1 M •H cfl
• CM
ON
IN m
oo
in
^s ON rH • • 00 rH
O O rH
r^ O
m rH
o o i-H
rH O • • m rH
o o rH
xD ON • ■
rH ON ON
CD a
•H
IX Co .C
al U
fc» ° Ctj IM 4J CO
T3 a)
T3 •H U 0)
-a
IM 0
e c - ° o a in TH
O 4-1 4J a. CD cri ÖH SO «I SH tScSfS CD h3
CO 2 IN cfl ON O rH •H
IM O ■H 4-1 C
60 CM •H IN U) ON rH ►.
rH
B rH 0 Cfl u O
IM •H 4-1
CD en U •H a 4J
CD Cfl U 4-1 CD en
IM l« en •H cfl S 5
48
the Army cadets (Table 1-16). In the 1973 survey, career intentions for
Navy cadets are a function of the academic status (Basic/Advanced) of the
cadet. Table 1-17 shows that, in 1973, a significantly higher proportion
of Basic cadets plan to pursue military careers than do Advanced cadets.
This finding holds for both Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets. The
reason for a lower rate of career intentions among the Advanced enrollees
is not known.
Among Navy cadets, there was only one significant difference in
career intentions from 1972 to 1973. Among enrollees in the Basic Non-
scholarship program, intentions to leave the Service after the initial
tour decreased from 30% in 1972 to 17% in 1973.
Results for Air Force cadets are similar to the results for the Navy.
In the 1973 Air Force survey, Advanced cadets were less likely to plan a
military career than Basic cadets (Table 1-18). This result agrees with
findings for the Navy (Table 1-17). From 1972 to 1973, there was a
significant decrease in the proportion of Air Force cadets in each of the
Advanced programs who planned to "stay in the Service for a while". But
this finding was offset by an increase in the intention to make the
military service a career.
The Air Force data in 1973 also resembled the Navy data in that there are no significant differences in career intentions between Scholarship and Non-scholarship cadets in either Service.
49
CO
CD
U
u
X! co
rH o
■a en
I a o Z
s-s
s-?
CO CN
00
CN
CN
CO
o CN
o
o
\o
rH o • ■
t-l o o rH
o o • • i-l
o o rH
en 8*
■ ■
■-I CTi
CTN o • • rH
o o
CO
co r-^ CTN
Q rH W u
§ % M > M o 3 CN
U o\ tu r-l
o, •H X
CO CO M 1^. * o-.
rH c_> rH O H
'S 3 c/o «
CN
rH
M
r>?
8^
M
o> CN
vO
CO
CO
a § 00 rH
§ a, as u
i «I GO 4) a r-l
33
CN
PI
oo CN
v\0
-3-
^D
u-l
H
rH
m
rJ a) cd a) 4-> u •H cd
CD u
•H > CD
C/5
^ ° cd u-i 4J
T3 CD
XI •H O OJ -a
u-l
o
ON
r>S
o o
o> ON
o o o
00
IH O
a a _ o o
O 4J 4-1 a HI 4 DH M
t" M ^ > O Xi cd o o CD rJ
CO a r^ CO c^ o rH •H
CH o •H •u c
So CN •H P^ CO CTv rH >*
rH s rH o CO r-l u
4-1 ■H 4-1 «| CO
o •H c 4-1 4) CO U 4-1 CD CO
o >
50
C. DRAFT-MOTIVATION
The effect of draft-motivation on enrollment was assessed retro-
spectively 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 classi-
fied into three categories of (a) "true volunteers", (b) "Draft-motivated",
and (c) "don't know".
Since draft motivation is now reported by only a minority of respondents,
results will be discussed in terms of the percent of true-volunteers in
the study. For perspective, results for the total enrollees in Army,
Navy and Air Force ROTC appear in Table 1-19.
The majority of ROTC enrollees were true-volunteers, in both 1972 and
1973. Thus, the majority of men in each ROTC program claimed that they
would have enrolled, even in the absence of a draft or military obligation.
There were differences between the Services in the reported rate of
true-volunteerism. In 1973, a higher percentage of Navy enrolleees (84%)
and USAF enrollees (84%) were true-volunteers, than were Army enrollees
(66%). Similar findings were noted in 1972 with the Air Force (77%) and
Navy (70%) having higher true-volunteer rates than the Army (61%).
For each Service, there was a significant increase in the report of
true-volunteerism from 1972 to 1973. Navy ROTC enrollees showed a
particularly substantial increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 (70%)
to 1973 (84%). However, it is important to also review the results at a
51
en r- ON
oo
* o o o
3 B^S
■H CM
.e~«
o o T-l
s-s 00
00 ON
O
o o O
3 I 6-S
00
O oo CM
.S^
o o
ON •-t
I M
s 9
CO r- ON
6^
* CM
CM m
ON
ON ON
CM
ON B*£
O CO
co
it! o o o
u CO
vw d O 4J iH
C O >
o c 0) 60 O 2 cj a
4-1 CO H m <D <_> ei 1
-a a)
■u
>
o X
<4-l cd u a
ä
c o Q
co c r~- id ON o rH •H
U-) O •H 4J c
60 CM •H r-^- W ON .H >>
iH | .H 0 cd >-l o m •H
4J QJ en a •H C 4-1 CJ cd u 4-1 OJ CO
IH cn •H cd a 5
52
more detailed level of analysis, i.e., with the distinction made between
Scholarship or Non-scholarship status, and between Basic and Advanced
programs.
Army Draft-Motivation
The majority of Army enrollees were true-volunteers in 1972 and 1973,
regardless of their status (Basic/Advanced; Scholarship/Non-scholarship).
However, the highest rates of true-volunteerism were reported by enrollees
in the Basic Scholarship program (over 83%), while the lowest rates were
reported by enrollees in the Advanced Non-scholarship program (about 55%).
Results appear in Table 1-20.
There were no significant increases in true-volunteerism from 1972 to
1973. Indeed, the only change of any size was noted for enrollees in the
Basic Non-scholarship program. This increase approached, but did not
achieve, statistical significance. (Since so many Army men are in this
category, the increase may be important as a practical matter in spite of
the lack of statistical significance).
Although an increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 to 1973 was
previously shown for Army enrollees in total (Table 1-19), the statistical
significance of the increase is in part attributable to the larger aggregate
sample size upon which the data in Table 1-19 were tested.
53
Q ci W r^
g ^1
u e*
5 iH
H > O U 3 <M
PM ON
a M •H x: en u (0 ro
.H r>» O o\
x: u rH u M
C/D
1 sa c PQ CM o r^ 2
6-8
B-?
M
6*
8< CM r^ H O • • • * m en -H o in <r o
<r 00 00 o • • 4 ■ ^r co rH o m «* o
i-H
6-S 00 CM o O • • « • r- O CM o o en o
iH <T U") o • • * • O m <r o \£> en o
2 o H H
M H O S H b
fa 3 o u H ss •• w w H Vi x <d W cq
CO Q r^ W ON u .H
5 > g 5 CM M r~- oo o\ o rH M
Px
0. •H X! tn en t-i r^ ca CT\
.-1 U iH o M
ja o S3 C/3 pq CM
6-8
CO
o
6-?
M
CO 00
00
oo
CO
CM
.-I CM
• in H
CM
ro
CT\
6-8
o o
6-8 O
o o
iN!
O o
6-8
as
O CM
M-l o ■u
c &
1) T3
o c 60 o n> a 4-J to CO 1
VJ XI 0)
V •Ul CJ CO 4-1 > § •H
4-J § 5 f d
4-> ■u a> <4-l
2 CO
a I 54
*" F
Navy Draft-Motivation
The majority of Navy ROTC enrollees were true-volunteers in both 1972
and 1973, regardless of program status. The highest rate of true-
volunteerism in both 1972 and 1973 was found for enrollees in the Basic
Scholarship program. The lowest rate in each year was found for enrollees
in the Advanced Non-scholarship program. Results appear in Table 1-21.
There was a significant increase in true-volunteerism from 1972 to
1973 for Navy ROTC enrollees in each program status . There was a corres-
ponding decrease in draft-motivation for Navy enrollees in each program
status. (These results contrast sharply with the findings of no change
from 1972 to 1973 for the Army, as shown in Table 1-20.)
It seems reasonable to infer that draft-motivation is rapidly de-
creasing in importance as a factor in the enrollment of young men in
Navy ROTC.
USAF Draft-Motivation
There was a high rate of true-volunteerism for Air Force ROTC enrollees,
in both 1972 and 1973. In 1973, over 79% of USAF enrollees characterized
themselves as true-volunteers, regardless of program status. Results
appear in Table 1-22.
From 1972 to 1973, there were increases in the rate of true-volunteerism
for each category of respondent. However, the increases achieved
statistical significance for only those men in the Basic Scholarship program
55
CO 0) 0)
rH r-l O 1-1 Ö w
§ VI GO o V4
23 CM o M u H H < q > Pi M H O g SB «< a E 4-1 1 e
cu Q »M
(M fn 3 O c_>
£ w w H CO
<3 w eq
M
PM
x: w u n)
i-i o
CO I 0 o
23
PM
en n cfl
.H o
J= o CO
&•«
S-?
s~?
H
* * &* <r c* m 00 • • • ■ CO ^r iH a\ r>» CM ON
c* l-s -* o • • • • CM m n o m o- o
1-i
* * 6* 00 co o .H • • • • IN vO iH o 00 -H o
iH
o\ o rM. o • • ■ • vO o CO o m <r o
3
u
M
6-S
e~s
6-S
* 00
CM
Ox
00 • CO 00
o CM
CO en
oo
CM «
m
vo
CM
o o
o o o
CM
3
■* O • • o o
o
o 8* o • ■
■H o o
O 4J a
u TJ o a GO o 0) oj u CO
03 <3
a» 0) 4-1
9 H
CU
T3 «J 4J M >
I 4-1 u-, cfl
8
c
4-1 en c r^ CO OS o rM •H
UM o •H •u Ö
GO CM •H r-~ CO o> rH |Vi
^M e r-M o a) u u
MM •H 4J
« CO O •H c 4J 1) cd Vl 4-1 a) CO
UM <4M CO •H cfl P 3
56
53 O M
>
CO 0) <u iH iH O U c w
ao o M
u H
3 e c3 a) Q M
M O CJ
W CO <
W PQ B
CO Q r^
§ W a> u rH
M on 5 o >
CM 5 CM
a r-i •H ja to M CO en
.-1 r^ o c* Ä CJ rH o H
00 oo
c PQ CM o f».
53 eyv
if-?
Sv?
6*
6-8
a»
in
en
in
en oo
s
o o CM
CM
PI en
oo
8«« oo <*
• • o ejN
C7\
9< >» rH • • en O
O i-l
6< o\ O * • o o
o rH
a* r^ o • • i-l o
o
en r^
Q CT\ w rH o
6 % efl > U OO 5 CM
o ON !-i i-l
PM
D. ■H .ß
CO u en cfl
o CJ l-H
fH
o CO 3
PQ CM I-« a\ iH
6-8
IN
6-8
iH!
CM
CO oo
00
CM ON
in oo
O
in
O CM
in
00 O
o o
6-8 o o o
ON
e-s o
o o
-o M 0) 0) 4J a) CO 4-1 >
4-1 O 4J § ■H
4J 8 a rH O ä >» <u
ti T3 £ S O C 4-> 4-1 00 O Q) U-l m <D p. 4-> W s CO a
0 CO (U H Q Q u pd 1 1
4-1 en c 1-^ CO O-N a H •H
M-l O •H
4-1 c oo
CM •rl r- CO CJN rH ►,
rH e rH o CO u CJ
M-l •rH 4J
a) CO o •H c 4-1 0) CO (-1 4J
4—i CO
IH CO •H CO Q 5
CM CM
I
9
57
and in the Advanced Non-scholarship program. Nonetheless, these increases
are noteworthy, since the rate of true-volunteerism in these categories
was reasonably high in 1972, minimizing the likelihood of a substantial
increase.
Summary
In each service, a higher percentage of Basic ROTC enrollees were
true-volunteers than Advanced enrollees. Also, a higher percentage of
Scholarship Program enrollees were true-volunteers than were enrollees in
the Non-scholarship program. There was also an interaction between program
type and Basic/Advanced status. For each service, enrollees in Basic
Scholarship programs had the highest rates of true-volunteers, while
enrollees in the Advanced Non-scholarship programs had the lowest rates
of true-volunteers. These findings held for 1972 and 1973.
With the termination of the draft, one would expect more enrollees to
be true-volunteers (and fewer enrollees to be draft-motivated). The
effect would be expected to appear first among Basic enrollees, i.e.,
men whose enrollment decision was made in the last year or so during a
period when draft calls were being reduced. (Presumably, all current
Advanced enrollees joined ROTC in the draft-environment.) In fact, there
was a significant decrease in draft-motivation for enrollees in the
Basic Scholarship programs of the Navy and Air Force, but not in the Army.
Although increases in true-volunteerism were noted for enrollees in each
of the Basic Non-scholarship programs, the increase achieved statistical
significance only for Navy men.
58
However, previous data on the immediate career(objectives of enrollees
suggests some caution with respect to the retention of future cadets.
Their decisions to stay in ROTC may be contingent upon the continuation of
their scholarships, their subsistence allowance, and/or their receipt of
college credit for attending ROTC courses. Thus, the finding of increasing
"true-volunteerism" is not synonymous with an expectation of increased
military career intentions..
It is useful to study the relationship between draft-motivation and
career intentions directly. Table 1-23 presents data for enrollees in the
Basic Scholarship programs sponsored by the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
The data are from the 1973 survey. In each Service, men who state that
they plan to make a career of military service have the highest percentage
of true-volunteers. The lowest percentage of true-volunteers is found among
either those men who plan to leave the Service upon completion of their
initial obligation, or those men who are undecided with respect to their
long-range career intentions.
In summary, the relationship of draft-motivation and career
motivation appears to be as follows:
As higher percentages of true-volunteers enter ROTC as basic enrollees, there should be a corresponding increase in the percentage of cadets who report long-range military career intentions.
For other information which might be useful in the development of
strategies to increase long-range career motivation, the reader is referred
to Section II (awareness of military pay), Section III (reasons for initial
enrollment in these programs), and Section IV (quality of ROTC instruction).
59
01 01 0 > -H (0 0) B ►J 01
-rl 01
01 .C
01 o u
0) « 0*J U
M O
*o <» ■
■ 1 o c* o o 00 iH H
00 00
CXI o>
o o
o o o
9*
SS o o O
o M C H
w o 3 to
! 3 i
c/i O Z H O
i-i e. S5 H -H O Z .£ M W W
§ i ü 5 H "3
It] o W c/J
(0 tu
PQ
01 0) Ü > -rl
-J 0)
00 i-~
ei fM
o ^ •H 01
B 0)
01 01 on u
0) o
0) ■H
g B 01 01 ►J 00
•a 01
•o ■H o 01
•o c 3
>.-H to X u
00 3 01 ü 1-
-H 01
t 0)
01 01 oi CJ
00 00
o>
00
O 00
ON
CM r» oo •-!
r-i
o o o
o o o
M o o o
o o o
o c c
o o
o o o
o o o
(-1 CM
1 s
>M (0 o u
U T3 0 0 00 o oi a
SI
01 01 4J
5
0)
o)
S 8
0)
*
60
II. KNOWLEDGE AND AWARENESS OF MILITARY OFFICER TRAINING PROGRAMS
In the design of this research, it was assumed that program aware-
ness functioned as a logical prerequisite to the formation of, favorable
attitudes toward the various programs. For current ROTC enrollees, it was
assumed that they could not recommend a program to their friends effective-
ly unless they knew something about it. Hence, questions on program know-
ledge and awareness were posed to all ROTC enrollees. The questions
were designed to assess their knowledge and awareness of ROTC and off-
campus military officer training programs. Particular emphasis was placed
on the topic of officer pay, due to the increases in military compensation
which preceded each survey administration. Other questions concerned
awareness of the various programs by (1) name and (2) sponsoring branch
of service. Finally, a question about the source of information about
these programs was employed.
AWARENESS OF OFFICER COMPENSATION
Each respondent was asked to: (1) specify the date of the most recent
pay increase for beginning officers, and (2) specify both the current
total entry earnings (pay and allowances) and the current entry base pay
for an officer. Results appear in Table II-l.
Among Army ROTC enrollees in 1973, 40% knew the date of the last pay
increase, and 55% correctly estimated the current total entry earnings of
a military officer ($601-$800/month). About 56% correctly estimated the
61
o M
% C/3 a w
I u Pi w u M Pn Pn o
H M ►J
w CO
CO
* 00 co as
co /■N • • • r-- 6-S O r*» cO
O ON v u-i •» <t H i-l
CO CM ^^ • • • r~ B~S CTi CM vO (Ti N-X <r m m
CO **N • r~ ^; r--
c_> (Tv ^-^ en H .-1
§
&Z
CM U-l
in
§
en
00 CM /—\ • • . r^ s-? -tf o CM ON v~x <r m ^D
* o o vO
» • • o m m <■ m m
CM *■> • • • r- 6-S CT> r^ o- o\ v^ CO -tf m
o u § 1-1
OJ OJ i Ü /~s
CO Ü I-I •^ J3 0) ■H o U-l 4-1 W IM \o u-i a 53 IM </> O Q
>> 4J 0) o —' s i-H a M fc£ 4J £ O H co O d n) 00 4J m 9) M 4J a a m M cu o •H W </> M J3 fe. H e >«• O •• 4-> (0 U-l u « PV) U-l cfl o >,
c U-l O W cd 4J -H o u 4-> PM
0) u a) a OJ
0) 00 ET 3 cu
o o 4J o 1 J-> O CD i-i a cd OJ c S cd
-3 « <D 0) Q £ (2 w cu aJ 1 1 1
CN CO r-» r- o\ a\ i-i I-I •
4J
frfr c cd cd o 3 3 •H C C U-l cd cd •H
>-> •-> a £ £ bo
•H CO CO CO cd cd > 5 >t
.H >^ ►* H OJ cu CO
££ CJ •H
3 3 4J cn OT CO
•H CN CO 4-1 r^ r~ CO o\ <J\ 4J iH rH CD
0) <u s 4-1 4J s c a CO •H iH r^-
a> W U H a) a) * » O CO 05 4J
§g CS t^
4J 4J O cj O r-l (1) OJ W U P. U U O o o VJ o o U-l
cu CU OJ
So o 0 OJ l-i
• • aj M U-l H U-l O •H 2 o
I H H
3
62
amount of officer base pay ($550/month). Except for an increase in
awareness of the correct amount of total entry earnings, 1973 and
1972 Army ROTC respondents reported essentially the same levels of
awareness of officer compensation.
Among Navy ROTC enrollees in 1973, 37% knew the date of the last pay
increase, 52% correctly estimated total officer earnings, and 63%
correctly estimated entry base pay. Findings for the 1972 Navy ROTC
sample were consistent with findings for the 1973 sample, with the ex-
ception of a decrease in knowledge of the date of the last pay increase.
Among Air Force ROTC enrollees in 1973, 51% knew the correct date of
the last pay increase, 47% correctly estimated total officer entry earnings,
and 44% correctly estimated the amount of officer entry base pay. (The
latter was a significant decrease from 56% in 1972.)
ATTITUDES TOWARD OFFICER COMPENSATION
Cadets were also asked to estimate whether the total entry pay for
military officers was more, less, or about the same as the earnings of a
college graduate in his first (civilian) job. This evaluation provides an
important test of the hypothesis that accurate knowledge/awareness of
pay and compensation is prerequisite to a favorable attitude towards pay.
The data suggest that this hypothesis is not valid. Results appear in
Table II-2.
63
ESTIMATES OF THE EQUIVALENCE OF STARTING PAY FOR MILITARY OFFICERS AND COLLEGE GRADUATES IN CIVILIAN JOBS
Base: Program Enrollees
Compared to Civilian Earnings , Military Entry Pay is:
ARMY ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)
NAVY ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)
AIR FORCE ROTC 1972 1973 (%) (%)
More 22.6 28.8 17.3 19.9 23.4 42.1
About the same
Less
45.0 45.3
30.3 22.3
44.0 42.0
36.1 35.5
44.8 37.9
29.9 18.5
Don't know/ No Answer 2.1 3.6 2.6 2.7 1.9 1.5
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.1% 100.0% 100.0%
Difference from 1972 to 1973 was statistically significant.
TABLE II-2
64
Estimates of the equivalence of beginning military and civilian pay
provide very favorable evidence about how ROTC cadets view their prospect-
ive financial compensation as military officers. Table II-2 shows that
approximately 38% to 45% of the ROTC cadets in each service view military
starting pay as equivalent to civilian starting pay for a college graduate.
More importantly, an additional 20% to 42% in the 1973 sample (and 17%
to 29% in the 1972 sample) view military pay as being more than starting
civilian pay. This means that in each service, 60% or more of the cadets
feel their starting pay will be as good as, or better than, the starting
pay for college graduates in civilian occupations. Whether this estimate is
correct or incorrect is not as important as what may be interpreted as a
general level of satisfaction about the relative worth of entry pay
for military officers.
Significant changes from 1972 to 1973 support this conclusion. Changes
are in the direction of an increased estimate of the relative favorableness
of military pay. More favorable results are noted for both Army and Air
Force cadets. However, there are still substantial differences between the
services. For example, Navy cadets view military pay in a less favorable
way than do Army or Air Force cadets. There is no apparent reason for
this difference.
In summary, this research suggests that ROTC enrollees in both 1972 and
1973 possessed less than complete knowledge with respect to the economic
benefits of military service as an officer. In each survey, only about half of
the respondents could accurately specify the total earnings of an entry officer,
although in 1973 from 44% to 63% knew the correct amount of entry base pay.
65
The importance of this lack of knowledge is mitigated by a generally
favorable view of the equivalence of military pay and civilian pay. Given
this attitude, the Service would not expect to lose enrollees due to
competition with civilian employers over pay and compensation.
AWARENESS OF VARIOUS TRAINING PROGRAMS
In evaluating awareness of the various college-based military officer
training 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, essentially 100% of "the respondents claimed to have
heard of ROTC programs. Results appear in Table II-3. But awareness of
the other (off-campus) programs was much lower than awareness of ROTC. For
example, claimed awareness of ROC (15%) and AVROC (26%) was relatively low
among 1973 Army ROTC enrollees. Among 1973 Navy ROTC enrollees, awareness
of the Navy-sponsored ROC and AVROC programs was higher than it was for
Army or Air Force respondents, but only half of the Navy cadets claimed
to have heard of these programs. Among 1973 USÄF ROTC enrollees, only
18% claimed to have heard of ROC and AVROC.
For each Service, the levels of claimed awareness for the Marine
Corps PLC program exceeded the levels of claimed awareness of the ROC and
AVROC programs. In general, there was no change in claimed program awareness
66
* CM co NO 00
co ^^ • • • • r-~- *« 00 00 a\ r^
ü ON N^ .H CO ON .H H r-l O &
5! 00 CM CO 00 <l- ^> CM ^N • • •
r~. B^S iO CN ON ^> ON —* rH en ON .-l r-l
PO
PL.
o M
M
H O M E h o
3
Q W H O W -1 W CO
O
c/3.
w 2
5
H
s-s o
K
N
CM LO
ON
ON
ON
oo ON ON
o o
B-S NO
CSl u-i
ON
00
o o
ON ON
CO
o LO
CO
ON
vO
LO CM
ON
r-l CM
e •r-t a)
O .. U-4
o O
5 to to
4J 01 c a 0) <u o S-l u cd a) s
PL. ■3
ij Pu
O
s
co I
a 2
CO c r^ n) ON O .H •H
14-1 O •H 4J fl
SO CM •H r»> CO ON f-H ^
H S rH o cd !-. o
LW •H •U
<U to o •H C 4-1 0) cd n ■u
H | to
LM in •H a) O 5
67
from 1972 to 1973. (Claimed awareness of the PLC program increased from
1972 to 1973 for each Service, but this finding was statistically signi-
ficant only for USAF enrollees.)
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 exist-
ence of considerable 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 who claimed to have heard of ROTC
correctly attributed sponsorship of the ROTC program to each of the services,
However, it is interesting to note that Army respondents were more likely
to attribute ROTC sponsorship to their own service (Army) than they were
to attribute sponsorship to the Navy or Air Force. This finding is noted
in each survey.
In each survey, awareness that the Marine Corps sponsors the PLC
program was high (over 82%). But it should be recalled that not all re-
spondents claimed to have heard of the PLC program (see Table II-3).
There was substantial confusion regarding the sponsorship of the
ROC and AVROC programs. For example, only 42% of the Army ROTC enrollees
in 1973 knew that the Navy sponsored ROC, and only 32% knew that the Navy
sponsored AVROC. (Equivalent or higher levels of sponsor awareness were
found among Army ROTC enrollees in 1972.) Among Air Force ROTC enrollees
in 1973, only 36% knew that the Navy sponsored the ROC program, but 69%
68
o q & PH
o Z § M h Z 00 M o i PM H
x: P4 o W n) O w M Pn u-i ta o O
CO
>j CO
3 CU
c H cu M u -J n) H 1 o e w •H H CO U .H w U ►J w Ü en 1 o 2 CO M cu s cu o rH CO rH z o o u Pu c CO w W u o H M O > Pi Pi W c/i • *
w o 3
pq CO CO u s
a <:
* * * * ON -vT r^. 00 vO UTl
IT) •—\ ■ • • ■ • • r^ s-« U1 CN co sr CN 00
O ON ^-^ oo 00 r-~ vO 00 NO H r-4 O Pi
9 C/> CO .H ro N0 n 1-^ O CM •~N • • • • • •
r^ &-e CTN m N£> rH o <r ON ^^ c-i 00 00 00 ON in
* * -d- ON ON m CN oo /—\ • • • • • •
S-? T-i o r--. r^ r~. ro Nw* m ON r-~ r^ r^ NO
6-«
00 CN
ON O- ON M ON ON u-i ON r~- 00 I-- NO
* -K * * u-i ON ON r-- NO t^
S~\ • • • • • • 6~? -H m ,-i en oo .H N^ >* ON ON in LT| m
i
3
m CN NO CN ^v . • • • • . 1^ B-« ON vo 00 -* ON -* ON ^-> -3" ON 00 NO NO CO
cu 4-1 o o •H
4J t Q) O <u ^N
CO ^ ^^ 1 P 3 ^ O CO DC £ o C CO CO CO U CJ C S «U z Cl z
•H •t-t cd CO <N: 4-> VM u z p M 6-S B^S s-^ C -H o fc-S 6^; cu -u CO N^ N—^ «• i 1 1 u o a C o o u cu O u o H i 0) T3 a Q J § PM M en CÜ PH <
69
knew that the Navy sponsored AVROC. Among Navy ROTC enrollees in 1973,
only 51% knew that their service sponsored ROC program and only 64% knew
that their service sponsored the AVROC program. (It should be recalled
that only about 50% of the Navy ROTC enrollees claim to have heard of the
ROC or AVROC programs, as shown in Table II-3).
There were some changes from 1972 to 1973 in the extent of correct
sponsor identification of the various programs. From 1972 to 1973, Army
ROTC enrollees were less likely to identify the Navy as sponsoring the
ROC program, and less likely to cite the Navy and Air Force as sponsoring
ROTC programs. (However, there was an increase in citing the Army as
sponsoring ROTC.) The rates of correct sponsor identification for ROC
and PLC declined for Navy ROC enrollees from 1972 to 1973. The rates of
correct sponsor identification for each of the ROTC programs decreased for
USAF ROTC enrollees from 1972 to 1973. (It is not apparent why Air Force
ROTC enrollees were less likely to claim the Air Force sponsored ROTC in
1972 than they were in 1973.) USAF enrollees were more accurate in identi-
fying the Navy as the sponsor of the AVROC program in 1973 than they were
in 1972.
It seems reasonable to conclude that awareness of the PLC, ROC, and
AVROC programs is quite low among ROTC enrollees. If current ROTC enrollees
are to offer any assistance in the recruitment of young men for these off-
campus programs, there must be an attempt made to communicate the exist-
ence of these programs to them.
70
PERSONAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION
ROTC enrollees in each survey 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 Army ROTC enrollees, individuals most highly endorsed in 1972
and 1973 were: (1) father; (2) the military recruiter (at school); and
(3) close friends. Endorsement of these key categories of individuals
remained essentially unchanged from 1972 to 1973, although there was a
decline in endorsement of the father from 34% in 1972 to 28% in 1973.
Other decreases in mention occurred for less frequently cited categories,
i.e., school acquaintances, teachers, counselors, and ROTC instructors.
Among Navy ROTC enrollees, the respondent's father received by far
the highest endorsement (48% in 1972 and 54% in 1973). The increase was
significant. About 20% of the 1973 respondents endorsed the military
recruiter (at school or away from school), close friends, or counselors.
From 1972 to 1973, the increase in endorsement of the recruiter (away from
school) was statistically significant.
Among Air Force ROTC enrollees, individuals most highly endorsed
were: (1) military recruiter (at school); (2) father; and (3) close
friends. Endorsement of close friends and the military recruiter (at school)
increased significantly from 1972 to 1973 for USAF enrollees.
Results appear in Table II-5.
For each Service, the respondent's friends and father are seen as
key sources of information. The reader is also referred to Table III-6
71
< in
ON CO
* o o>
ro Csl ON o
Csl ON Cv| CO
CO
SO
CM
00
O
O CO CO
CM
Cvl 00 CO CM VO ON
M CslCOOOOOvOONONUO CO rH r-J
CO CM
o MD
d o ON
CO
w M
E w CO
H
-K * O CM ON CM 00 rH O CO 00 CO rH UO m r^
CO /-s. r^ B-« •<!- CO o CM CM 00 rH 00 o ON <-i <* CM rH
<_> ON N-^ u-i tH <-\ CN <-i <-i CM rH H rH n P4
£ <1 rH r^ rH LT) -3- CM r-- <r CM rH ON CM 00 «* 3 CM ^s
r^ BMJ CO CO O ON ON ON 00 ON 00 o- o m CM CM ON N^/ o- rH -H rH rH •-i r-i
I/} 1
M M
* * * * * w ON rH CM o ON M0 SO ON r~- rO CO CO ^ m KJ
CO ^N Si r^ e« r^ ro o o ON ON 00 rH ON ^-{ o 00 (SI CM c_> ON \—* CM <-t rH <-* rH CM r-i H H rH
&M!
MO ON MD <r MD CM NO o- fH MD rH M0 rH CO
CO CO
CM o rH
ON ON CM rH
m rH
ON CM
O rH
o CO rH
rH CM
0) u J-l o 3 CO .3 en o 0) 0)
UN /-^ o UH a CD iH rl 0 C o n M O ■ « M 0)
§ CD 0) O PM •H (1) u •M X! ^ O o
en •u •H •H CJ Ü u in •H a) 3 3 3 CO o o > > en •H H ^ U ,Q ■u r? •3
•tH 13 cd CJ rH o e T3 o < •u 3 3 0) O 0) o 3 en 3 (0 CO 0) cr en tti O Cd, u cfl 4J u 4J ^i
en rH
CD •H o
en O h"S <4H CD (1) rH
4-1 en
•H
u P2 Lfc ^ rH S-i CO CD X C ^
01 u VJ CU rH 0) QJ (0 cO CO oo CL M 9) CD a ^ 0) O 43 en ■U 4-1 4J & CU § M 4-1 jr. 43 u 0) U) O o c •H CO •rl CO rH ce) U U-I 0) — ■u u o 43 O 43 cO 3 rH w rH -~> rH Pu H o 43 c ed o u ■U ^ u fl) n Ü 2 0 O 4-1 O
Pn S PQ O c_> co H o o P< o Q
72
which presents data on the categories of individuals judged most influential
in the decision to join ROTC. In Table III-6 it is interesting to note
that the respondents' parents, friends, and relatives are also cited as
important influences in the decision to join ROTC.
73
III. FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ENROLLMENT
Endorsement of a series of general and specific reasons for appli-
cation to college-based military officer training programs was studied
in 1973 and 1972. Comparisons were made of the extent of endorsement of
each reason between the two surveys, separately for men in Army, Navy,
and Air Force ROTC. The questions required respondents to state, in re-
trospect, the extent to which each reason influenced their decision to
apply for ROTC.
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
A. 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
74
i«T"-r
Table III-l presents the results for Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC
enrollees in 1972 and 1973.
Among Army cadets, the reason most frequently accorded strong
influence in both 1972 and 1973 was "travel, adventure, and new ex-
periences". This reason was endorsed as a strong influence by about 50%
of the sample in both 1972 and 1973. From 1972 to 1973, there was a
significant decrease in the attribution of strong influence to enrollment
to (1) service my country, and (2) fulfill my military obligation at a
time of my choice. There was a significant increase from 1972 to 1973 in
the endorsement of the following reasons: (1) the opportunity for further
academic education; (2) pay and allowances; and (3) benefits such as
medical care, BX/PX, etc.
Among Navy cadets, the reasons most frequently attributed strong
influence in 1973 were:
(1) Travel, adventure, and new experiences (62%);
(2) Opportunity for further academic education (49%);
(3) Military career opportunities (45%); and
(4) Opportunity for special professional or technical training (42%).
From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant decline in the endorsement of
enrollment to: (1) serve my country; (2) fulfill my military obligation
at the time of my choice; and (3) avoid being drafted. There was a signi-
ficant increase from 1972 to 1973 in the attribution of strong influence
to the following reasons: (1) military career opportunities; (2) the
opportunity for special professional or technical training; (3) the oppor-
tunity for further academic education; (4) pay and allowances; and (5)
benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.
75
tn
ON
r- •»
NO CM n
m
* CM
CM
* NO CJN
* NO oo
* en
NO
Ja oo 3 <N?
ON LO -* en 00 NO r^ CM o <r ON NO CM
o NO
u-1 CM NO en
CM rH
in
CM ON
CM NO NO
rH 00 i-M H
r-» CM
O in
■K * * ■K ■K ■K * * • O a* CM oo H ON CM 00 <r 00 en o CM •-N SN? in rH NO oo rH <r m 00 ON ON ON oo CM
<r NO en ^f rH CM CM rH H rH <f
< B-* ON ON
m ON en
«tf CM
00 00
CM NO
ON r-» o CM
CM NO
CM in en
•K ■X * * CTN rH m CM r^ CM ON NO en NO
s--* M cn 00 m rH 00 Q en CO O r-t
<f <■ en cn rH en en og CM CM
* CM
CM CM en
I M
3
6-5 CN O m
ON CM NO ON ON
r-. CM
r». en rH CM CM
ON CM
o CM
o CM
ON en en
3 00 0J O 3
rH •H •H CO •> X 4J c •
CO 4-> 0) cd cd ■a 4J <u •H r- M 4-1 Ü0 cn c
•rH 14H ed 3 •H •H r4 r-~ cd 4-1 s OJ CJ •H 3 rH 4-1 ON CJ •H OJ c 0) CO X rH -H c 3 <D rH XI O CD rH MH 3 r4 Xl ed cd CJ rH cd O -H 4J ■o 0) O 14H
rTc! cd o *J C
tJ Ci X rH •H o OO •H -H bo 0 CO 4-1 3 rH T3 3 ea x; CJ B CM -H o. u o •H <1) -3 0) •iH 4-1 CJ <U X r^ co CX * 3 •r( 05 CO B 0) 0) 00 •3 •H Du CJ ON 0 OJ MH 4-4 Cl) 4J )-i •rH 3 rH i^ CO 0) r-^ (^
r< r?
ed • Ü to UH 3 4J •H •H a 4J r-t M 3 r< O M
Cd ed cd 4-1 CO 14H s M -^ e <-"
CD ■u ■u o 3 - IH cd OJ X «H O rH o cd CO 01 C CD a MH XI Ü 5 x • ■3 e u 3 o |"° MH Cd u o s U <D 0) 3 0) 0 o CJ ex u •H •r-l a MH -H o <fl > o o >» u rH 3 4J 641 QJ 0) 0) >N O 4J to o T3 ci o 4-1 o o r-\ CO 01 n r< TD CJ >N C oo e 4J iH 01 CO ed ed 0) •r-l •H 14H cd •H O C iH 4-1 ed C -H •H CO CJ -H 0) tT •H >> 3 E CO - OJ a cd «H rH ■H •H 4J Ö CO C 4J
Pd •» >J i 3 0) >N id *-> X X) 14H 3 r^ rH 3 <U o) cd cd r-t OJ 4-1 T3 MH s •H CS-, 0) CO O CJ •H rH CO 4J MH r4 *J
rH 4J OJ ex Cl) rl 0) •rH 4H -^ -o B 3 •H > •H M O 0) CO ed •H > tt > o CJ rH <U X •rl 0 4-1 c 14H •H MH 4-1 O M MH t-i rH CO CD >J ex ed cd >N c « O CJ ed cd 14H CJ rH Cd ex ex MH CO 0) 3 M 0) ex 3 cd (1) > 01 4-1 ■H 3 ex •H cd 3 0) o
H 00 O o- 0-, 03 <c m 00 Q Pn O O 5
HC
76
Among Air Force cadets in 1973, the majority attributed strong
influence to enlisting for: (1) travel, adventure and new experiences;
(2) military career opportunities; and (3) the opportunity for special
professional or technical training. From 1972 to 1973, there was a
significant decrease in the endorsement of enrollment: (1) to avoid being
drafted; (2) to fulfill the military obligation at a time of one's choice;
and (3) because of the difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job.
There was a significant increase in the influence accorded the following
reasons: (1) the opportunity for further academic education; (2) the
opportunity for special professional or technical training; (3) pay and
allowances; and (4) benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.
It is noteworthy that, from 1972 to 1973, the following reasons
increased in endorsement for enrollees in all three ROTC programs:
(1) The opportunity for further academic education;
(2) Pay and allowances; and
(3) Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.
In contrast, only one reason decreased in influence significantly from
1972 to 1973 for enrollees in each program. Enrollment to "fulfill my
military obligation at a time of my choice" was the only reason which showed
a decline in endorsement from 1972 to 1973 for enrollees in the Army, Navy,
and Air Force ROTC programs, i.e., all three ROTC programs.
For each program, two general reasons for enrollment appear particularly
important: (1) travel, adventure and new experiences and (2) military career
opportunities. In development of career motivation strategies, an attempt
to reward these predisposing motivations would appear effective. There are
also some reasons which are more important to enrollees in one program than
they are to enrollees in the other programs. For example, the opportunity
77
for further academic education is important to Navy ROTC enrollees, while
the opportunity for special professional or technical training is particularly
important to Air Force ROTC enrollees. (In the following analysis, this
finding for Air Force enrollees appears to translate into their interest
in flying.)
SPECIFIC REASONS FOR APPLYING FOR OFFICER TRAINING
Each ROTC enrollee 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.
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
78
Results for Army, Navy and Air Force ROTC enrollees in 1972 and 1973
appear in Table III-2.
Among Army cadets, the specific reasons most frequently accorded
influence in 1973 were: (1) If I get to go to the college of my choice
(36%); (2) If my college tuition is paid (33%); and (3) If I have to go
into the military service (30%). From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant
decrease in endorsement of the latter reason, and in concern over "which
particular service I am trained for". From 1972 to 1973, there were
significant increases in the influence accorded the following reasons:
(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college; (2) If I get expense
money for all 4 years of college; (3) If I get expense money just for the
last 2 years of college; (4) If I get paid to attend college, regardless
of my father's income; and (5) If I have to attend summer camp. The increase
in "economic" concerns from 1972 to 1973 is noteworthy.
Among Navy cadets, the majority in 1972 and 1973 endorsed three reasons:
(1) Which particular service I am trained for; (2) If my college tuition
is paid; and (3) If I get to attend the college of my choice. (The latter
increased in endorsement from 52% in 1972 to 58% in 1973). There were also
statistically significant increases from 1972 to 1973 in endorsement of
the following reasons:
(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance);
(2) If I get expense money for all 4 years of college;
(3) If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college;
(4) If I get'paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income;
79
»s CN
*
o V40
CM
in CM r—
oö
* co
co O
■K
CM
*
in CM
O
00
o '-O
CO
o
en so
LO CJN o
CNl
LO co
CM X> co
as
so
CM
00 o nO
H
s s^s
sO
* rH r~.
* 00
-K * sO
* <t
* CO
-K 00 r- as rH r«
m 00 CM
O •-I rH
CO CM
CM rH
CM O 00 Ln
o CM
r-~ m as rH
u-i O CM
LO
ON
sO
r-l CM
CO in LO
co co
SO so CM
u-l
m O CM
sO
CO
CO Z
s-s
co
CM
so sD
* CM
•K
OS
-K
OS CO
* as O CM
* o -* r^
co CM
CO rH
CM CM
LO CM CO CO
MT CM
o CO
o rH
sO as CM CM
CM I
CQ
W
rH 00 UO in 00 CM r^ r^ Os LO m (*» O-N o l*> r>v° CO o o\ co CM CO o> rH LO as •» rH CO g *w- CO r-l -H rH rH CM CO rH co rH CO
CO CM
W rJ
I a. CD CO
H 4-) •H CJ CO 0) 0 <u 4-1 -C •H CD CJ
LW 00 o 9 CO O ^ •H TJ a CO u 42 T3 t <D
TJ r—N ^—' •H M •-< cd CJ l-i C? 1) 00 <D >, 0) CO u cd rH CO CD co 42 <D 42 4-1 C fr <D u B a) a) O >, 00 CO cd 3 4J rH U& •rl a CD ^ x: 42 E CD 4-1 a. rH ca o •H cj M 4-1 CJ U
r? •H i C2 O d
M u LM •H ^r CO LH rH •H o tH CD 4J LH LW J3 ^ r4 >w^ o " cd •H CJ >
<D o UH 4-1 1) rH O a CD 4-1 E (D E a) -H • a c O a O rH LH i T3 CD 00 •H C > o > *J 4-1 a •H c 0 c CO cd •H 00 CD rH C o U H M CJ CO C
>-i o " E rt 4-1 a CO CD rH ■H •H <u LH a) <j r^ CO
M | •H TJ 5 u CO a. rH rH E •-^ CO CO CJN CJ
4-1 c J2 o o 3 u i-t O co 42 CD a) rH •H
a) CO 3 o rH LM •r-l CD CO o CJ CD CD CJ 0 4J O 4J LH
u «V •H o cfl rH g •H CJ 42 co U 4J CO 4J 111 O •H
•H a) > M 4-1 0) CO >s >> £ O " 4J rl cd 3 1-1 4-1 c 7) > o CO 00 O <U CD 3 c CD 4J CD 3 E CD -a ai a. 00 s M H r c 4J 0) c C CO o 42 s O o ^^ > CO > S CM •H
o <U o C OJ O o O •H 4J 0 O 4J CJ CD CO H cd O r^ CO
•H (0 fc co t« M co C 6 £ CD o 4J 00 O C 00 r-l 42 00 43 U a> 4J o 0) 00 4-1 •H o Ü •H CD CD rH 7-i >, CTJ In 1-1 <D (U M 4-1 CD CD a) 3 4-1 o •H -* <-! •H M r-l M M rH
M co 3 e 3 /-^\ CO CO CO <-! o 4-1 4-1 O cd ^ H E rH
CD rH o 4-1 o p^ >^ •H 3 c: r-l 00 O CO 00 4-1 O T3 CO u CO U o CO
-d 3 CJ 0' o rH a) co CD CD 0 CD 00 -a - O U CD U CD u CJ
•H Ü •> tu a a) LH CJ JD p- a. O o 00 ■H u O o O CO 4-1 Cd 4-1 LH •rl
CO •H r 43 43 o 3 X, X 4J CD o CO a) 4J 4-1 c 4-1 CD LH CD LH 4J
3 u M o B CO CD 0) CD LH rH 4-1 0.42 •H r^ CO >. <0 CD CO
o M m rH o M 4-1 ^^ 00 o CD rH 4J CD (D CD CJ •H
u CO z jn 4-1 CD 4-1 > o /^N 4-1 4J cd ?> > CO > >s >. >i CO C 4-1
0. H ^~s l-i 4-1 o a) CD rH CD CO cd CJ E CD CD LH cd CO 4J cd a H a a) CD CO
o * CD >s 01 a) 3 00 00 rH &0 rl J3 cd 00 00 42 42 CJ 42 cd CO CO > U 4-1
■H 42 >, 42 rH J3 00 0 <1J O cd ►, u >s CD E 4-1 S u CD co LH o E 4-1 LH 4-1 .H l-l O M CD rH e 00 y-i M B l-H M •r-l \-t •H at LH
■H •H a) 0) 4J 3 rH r^ o 43 3 rH 3 co LH CO
o g < r; 0 S 0 O 0 LM LH LH LH LH M LH LH LH HH LH 3 LH O •H o <y •H CO
0) ^ ^5 4J c K CJ M o M CM M HJ OH rH M O rH rH co rH M E K Pi Q 3
c/3 ■K
80
(5) Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not; and
(6) If I have to go to summer camp.
The increased concern about money and school expenses from 1972 to 1973
is noticeable in the first four reasons.
Among Air Force cadets, the majority endorsed two specific considera-
tions in 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 49% in 1972 and
60% in 1973. The consideration of flying appears to be highly important
to Air Force ROTC enrollees. There was also a significant increase from
1972 to 1973 in the endorsement of a large number of additional specific
reasons. Increases in endorsement were found for the following reasons:
(1) How much money I get each month I'm in college (subsistence allowance);
(2) If I get expense money for all 4 years of college;
(3) If I get expense money just for the last 2 years of college;
(4) If my college tuition is paid (Scholarship Program);
(5) If I get paid to go to college, regardless of my father's income;
(6) Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not;
(7) Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not get to fly) or not; and
(8) If I have to take courses in military subjects in college.
From 1972 to 1973, there was a significant increase in both the economic
reasons and in concern over flying, i.e., "Whether I become an aviation
officer (get to fly)" and "Whether I become a "ground" officer (do not
get to fly)". Endorsement of these reasons demonstrates the concern over
flying opportunities indigenous to Air Force ROTC enrollees.
81
In summary, there are certain specific reasons which reportedly
exerted increasingly strong influence in the decision to enroll in ROTC
from 1972 to 1973. Included were reasons such as the duration of financial
support (whether the respondent received expense money for 4 years, or
just for the last 2 years), the amount of the subsistence allowance, and
whether the subsidy was contingent upon his father's income. Although
these reasons do not receive majority endorsement, they reportedly exert
strong influence in the decisions of approximately 15% to 25% of the
respondents. And, as noted, they appear to be increasing in importance
over time.
In the development of career motivation strategies, it might be useful
to emphasize the value of economic incentives provided by the subsidies
offered in ROTC. Reliance on predisposing motives such as branch-of-service
consideration would also appear pffective in selected cases, e.g., for
Navy and Air Force enrollees. The appeal of flying to Air Force enrollees
is particularly impressive. This latter consideration may deserve emphasis
in attempts to counter indecision with respect to long-range career
motivations as initially noted for these men (see Table 1-15).
CONDITIONS OF ROTC AFFILIATION
Each ROTC enrollee was also asked three questions with respect to
conditions of ROTC affiliation:
(1) Would you have joined ROTC without getting a scholarship? (This question was posed to scholarship enrollees only);
(2) Would you have joined ROTC without getting subsistence allowance?
(3) 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?
Results are presented separately for each question.
82
The majority of Army and Air Force ROTC enrollees in the Scholarship
programs claim that they would have joined ROTC without getting a scholar-
ship. This finding was noted in both 1972 and 1973. But for Navy
scholarship enrollees, only 40% said they would have joined ROTC without
receiving a scholarship. (This was a significant decrease from a 50%
affirmative response in 1972). Results appear in Table III-3.
In each survey, the majority of ROTC enrollees reported that they would
have joined ROTC, even if they did not receive a subsistence allowance.
However, there was a significant decrease in the rate of affirmative
response for Army and Air Force respondents from 1972 to 1973. Results
appear in Table III-4.
Finally, about 50% of Navy and Air Force enrollees claimed that they
would have joined ROTC even if repayment of funds were required of drop-
outs. However, only 36% of Army enrollees answered the question affirma-
tively. This represented a significant decrease from a 51% affirmative
response in 1972 for the Army ROTC enrollees. Results appear in Table III-5.
In general, the results from this section may connote an increased
concern with the immediate financial benefits of ROTC affiliation. This
conclusion is particularly reflected in the attitudes of Army ROTC
enrollees in Tables III-4 and III-5. The Navy scholarship enrollee may
represent an extreme case of this argument (see Table III-3).
PERSONS INFLUENTIAL IN ROTC AFFILIATION
Each ROTC enrollee was also asked: Which one of the following persons
MOST influenced your decision to enter ROTC? Response options listed for
the respondent included: a Service recruiter, parents/friend/relative, a
school counselor, someone else (undifferentiated), and no one. Results
appear in Table III-6.
83
ro r»
u ON H H o 3
fe < CO :=> CN
r^ ON <-4
N 00
CN
00
B-?
H ^D • • CN cn 00 .H
cn
6^8
o> ON
O
o o
PL,
£ ij !* o tH
g c o CO
CO <: d)
a) H rH b .H o O
B U 0
M W S
a O •H H J3 O cn g H
at Q H w o S3 H ■s O co <-> w .. > W
SO 9 « Q ►J 5 o s
B-S
&•?
6-S
S^
o
m
0>
* ON
00
00
* CN
vO
CM
r*.
m
m
in
6-5 o o o
o
o o
B-? O
O o
6-5 O
o o
m
cn a o
•H 4-1
ft I o ä a) cn 4-1
a - o CO a a, CU o o cn a)
OS
>-" •7-, a
4-1 CO C r-~ CO C7> a H •H
U-l O •H 4J c
M CN •H r^ cn a\ H >,
.-H e --H o CD H CJ
cw •H 4-1
CU CO u ■r-4
C 4J 11 « w 4-1 CU cn
U-l CM cn •H CO P S
84
\l J-1Ai!"
S-?
in 00
ON
■ 5* O o o
w u
5! e-s
oo
CM
O
<N o o o
^s m
* CN ON
ON ON
SB CN ON
00
oo
o ON
ON
ON ON I
N—' OS
H 8
CN
ON ^s
vO
ON
ON CM
u-1
00
it! o o o
CN
ON S-« o
00
o itf o o o
§ o •H u §
§ o a
in O
£
c o Q
CO C r~~ cfl ON O .-4, •H
14-4
o •H 4-1 C
M CN •H r^ to ON .-I >i
i-H £ r-4 o « s-i U
y-i •H 4-1
a) W o •H c 4-> o; « V-i 4-1 <U W
U-l U-l 01 •H « Q S
85
*t 00 O CM O
en /—\ • • • • r-^ 6-? o CM r^ o
o o> ^-^ m <r o H rH <-t o oi
Si 8-S CO <r o vO O Ö CM /*"S • • • •
t^ s-s o CO vO o ON ^^ u-i <r o .H <-\
S3
^S
.-1 CM co iH * • • • CO ^D m O -d- <r o
6-;
en oo O
O O
u~i
He * .>« O m m o
/—N • • • • S-« vO <r CT> o v-^ CO m o
6-8
o
<u in c h co a) Pi
9
00
o O
o o
CO cu o
2 s
ro e r» CO ON o t-H •H
IU O ■H 4-> Ö
00 CM •H r^ CO ON i-H >,
.H e i-t 5 CO u CJ
LM •H ■U
CU CO o •H a 4-1 a) a) VJ v> 0) co
IW cw CO •H cj o 5
86
M
00
ON
CM CO
co m
LO <r ON • • rH
00
B-S ON CO <r rH O • • • • • -* vO CN CO o -4f CM o
rH
o H co M CJ w Q
W
i-l S3
s-s 00
* * ft* o 00 <r ON 00
• • • • • CO m 00 0^ cn m rH cn
s-s
m o
r* LTl in r- 1-1 • • • ■ •
^ 00 CM O- o in rH o
ft-5 I
M
w
H S3 o
>o
o H
H co o a o
w O-i
S*
»*
00
00
C0*
.. H en 0) c 4J o •H
•H 4-> 2 P. Ü o *J Bi 01 en (U C o o •H °1 rn 5 (1) 0) « t/)
■K * ft-S -* CM <r 00 m <Ti • • • • • • CO <r <r OV cn CT> rH <r r-t cn
ON
CO
c c3
X, «J
u u 0) 0) 0) £ J3 «
3 S-i o
O Ö
•H (U O CD
0) -H Pa C > O M <U g> <u x S CO 4-) O
CO
o in
o *
en X) C 0)
•H ti rn rH <u
> 4* •H
cn 4-1 4-1 ca e rH C1J a) U ei cd
PM
m oo i?-S
o o
u o
rH 11 cn a 3 o
c_>
o o u
CO
QJ cn
rH w 0) c o 0)
CO
QJ a o o
2S
4-1 CO a r*. CO cn CJ rH •H
14H O «H 4-1 C
00 CNI •H r^ CO ON rH F^
rH p. rH o CO U a
14-1 •H 4-1
0) cn CJ •H a 4-1 OJ CO rJ 4-1 0) cn
U-I 14-1 cn •H cfl Q S
87
In each survey, the modal category attributed influence was "parents,
friend, or relatives". In 1973, the category was endorsed by 53% of
Navy enrollees, 43% of Air Force enrollees, and 44% of Army enrollees
(The latter is a significant decrease for Army enrollees from 51%
endorsement in 1972).
In 1973, the service recruiter was endorsed as most influential by
9% of Army enrollees, 10% of Air Force enrollees, and 4% of Navy enrollees.
(The latter was a significant decrease from 7% endorsement among Navy
enrollees in 1972).
The only additional type of person for whom endorsement as influential
changed significantly from 1972 to 1973 was the category "someone else".
Endorsement of this category of individuals increased from 1972 to 1973
among enrollees in each of the ROTC programs. -Unfortunately, the meaning
of this category is not known. But the consistency of this finding across
programs may merit the performance of additional research to enhance
recruiting for ROTC.
The results from Table III-6 (and Table II-5) argue for emphasis
on "influences" such as parents, in the recruitment of young men for
ROTC. Parents appear particularly influential, both in the initial
provision of information about military service and in the decision-
making process in which young men choose to affiliate with an ROTC
program.
* The reader is also referred to Table II-5 where the father (and close friends to a lesser degree) were cited as sources of information about military service.
88
IV. THE QUALITY OF ROTC INSTRUCTION AND COURSEWORK
Respondents in each survey were asked a series of questions to
assess the overall quality of ROTC programs in comparison to their
regular college work. These questions concerned respondent perceptions
of instructor quality and coursework quality, and reports of the typical
grades received by the respondent in ROTC and in college courses in
general.
ATTITUDES TOWARD ROTC INSTRUCTORS
The majority of ROTC enrollees viewed ROTC instructors either "about
as good" or "better" than their regular college instructors. This finding
was true for Army, Navy and Air Force enrollees, in both 1972 and 1973.
Results appear in Table IV-1. In each survey, slightly more than half
viewed the quality of their ROTC instructors as about the same as the
quality of other faculty members. And in each survey, about 30% - 40%
thought that their ROTC instructors were "better" than other faculty members.
The only significant differences between 1972 and 1973 occurred
among Army enrollees where the opinion of the ROTC instructor declined
slightly, and among Air Force enrollees where the 1973 respondent was
more likely to claim that his ROTC instructor was "better" than other
faculty members and less likely to claim that he was equivalent to them.
For each program, less than 10% of the enrollees thought that ROTC
instructors were "worse" than other faculty members. As noted above,
there was a significant increase from 1972 to 1973 in this negative
89
co «»■> 00 o> <f o
u H o
rH en
CM LO
vO CM o o H
c*!
fe < co
CN| <"-\ • O LO 00 6* OS
CT. rH
6~« rH co
r^. rH OS ON
w
fcn o
PL, o
o H U
H CO 2;
u H
§ fa O
W
o
rH Q
o CJ
w to
pq
VO co 1^^ . r- 6v? O 00
CJ OM'*-' co LO H IH| O m
g < -tf r~- s IN ^
r^ 6-? r-> rH OS ^^ CM ^D rH
9>
ON
CM
OS
6^5
S^S
O O
co n ^ . f» 8^8 ^D o> p-' en LO
* 9\ o>
00 LO CM ^N a . r-~ s^s o> rH o\ ^ co LO
^D
6^8
O O
^
~£
§ u
■H u-i •H B oo
■H CO
a) u
en •H •u CD 4J U)
en
o •u
CM
£
CO VJ o •u T) CJ O 3 O
Inst
r A
re:
u
o
c3 §
•H c
■H CD ■u <D CL, CJ ■U 3 en o H 4J o VJ
g <y A O o PQ <3 •z E3
g o Lj
o G V rJ
90
opinion among Army ROTC enrollees, but the percentage changed from only
6.1% in 1972 to 9.9% in 1973, still a low level. Also, the magnitude
of this change is small enough that it need not be of great concern
unless the trend were to continue over time. Even with the increase,
the proportion of Army ROTC enrollees in 1973 who felt that their ROTC
instructors were "worse" than other faculty members was about the same as
the proportions of Navy and Air Force enrollees who provided this negative
assessment of the quality of their ROTC instructors in each survey.
ATTITUDES TOWARD THE QUALITY OF ROTC COURSEWORK
ROTC enrollees were more equivocal about the quality of their
coursework than they were about their instructors.
Over half of the respondents believed the quality of ROTC coursework
to be "about as good" or "better" than the quality of their regular college
coursework. Results appear in Table IV-2. However, the proportion who
stated that the quality of ROTC coursework was superior to other college
courses was not as high as the proportion who felt the quality of ROTC
instructors was superior to the quality of other college faculty (see
Table IV-1).
The difference in assessment of ROTC instructors and ROTC coursework
is primarily accounted for by a response alternative available for the
evaluation of coursework: "Depends on the course". This category accounted
for from 12% to 16% of the total responses in the evaluation of ROTC
coursework (see Table IV-2). By selecting this alternative, enrollees
indicated that the quality of their regular college coursework varied
91
u H
Si to 3J
M
,>?
*
ON
* O
o o
ft^ o o <r vO O • • • • • >* 00. vO iH o .H m .H iH o
en w en
£ 5 en o o w S u w w ,-J
w 1 Ü -1 o i 3>
o Pi
o J w Pn o o C_J 5 Z q Pi pi CJ «: w 5 M Z Vu 1 o
Pi M o o p< P-. O £ o
H • • M w
53 Q w
to <
or 1 8
PJ
S-«
s-«
6^
6-5
-* r^
00 vO * o 00 • • • •
rH CM ON
ON
en 00
to o r>S
O O
CO
u-l
ON o P^ 6-? ON
■ • • ■
o u-i
ON rH
CJN ON
ON
ON 00
o 00
ON ON
■a .a CO o CU <u o CO co e> e M u •• O 3 3 Q) 9 O O U CO CJ u <; M •o
a) j-j cu 3 0) o JJ 3 en cu x: H 4J o M a. -u 8 pa S o
3 s
-c u
s •H
T) • fl> 4-1 -a 3 D cfl
rH o CJ •H c 4-1
•H ■H 3
CO OJJ a) •H tn tn c o ►, ex r-l CO .-H cu cfl H a
•H z • ■M
« UP CO •H
V4 o 4-1 ofi ÖÜ a o CU 4-1 u ■u CO
PM n) O to
c nj •H
"cu S
4-1 CO m O u r- z 3 ON
O o
rH
TJ o c CU 4-1 CO JS
•u CM ~ r». rs 3 ON o CJ rH c
M CO S3 T3 Ü
•u 3 U m CU CM B a n CU QJ a (U CJ
*■ 3 cu
• • 0) w U-I H 4-1 o •H Z O
CNI
M
92
and hence, that a simple comparison of course quality was precluded.
Another part of the difference in the proportion of ROTC enrollees
who evaluated instructors resulted from their negative assessment of
ROTC coursework compared with regular work. In 1973, from 12% to 19%
of all enrollees responded that ROTC courses were "worse" than other
college courses (Table IV-2). But 10% or less considered the ROTC
instructor to be inferior to other faculty members (Table IV-1). The
fact that enrollees are more critical of ROTC coursework than they are
of ROTC instructors seems to indicate a greater dissatisfaction with
the content of the ROTC coursework than with the quality of instruction.
There were a number of changes in evaluation of the quality of ROTC
coursework from 1972 to 1973. Although most of the changes were small, some
of the changes were statistically significant. Army enrollees were
significantly more likely to feel that ROTC coursework was "worse" than
other college courses in 1973 (19%) than they were in 1972 (15%), and
less likely to claim it was "better". Air Force enrollees were more
likely to feel that ROTC coursework was "better" in 1973 (20%) than in
1972 (14%), and less likely to feel that it was "worse". This pattern
of changes for Army and Air Force is the same as previously noted for
ROTC instructors in Table IV-1. These consistent results in two pre-
sumably different subject areas could be an indication of increasing
satisfaction among USAF enrollees but a growing dissatisfaction among
Army enrollees. However, until a more definite trend has been established,
this interpretation should be regarded with caution.
93
COMPARISON OF GRADES IN ROTC WITH COLLEGE GRADES IN GENERAL
One method of evaluating the quality of ROTC programs is to compare
the grades earned in ROTC with the grades earned in regular college
courses by the same ROTC enrollees. It may be argued that the demonstration
of a significantly higher distribution of grades in ROTC than grades
in general college courses indicates that ROTC courses are easier than
regular college courses.
Table IV-3 shows higher grades are reported earned in ROTC courses
than in college courses in general. In each ROTC program, a substantially
larger proportion of enrollees reported receipt of all A's, or A's and
B's in their ROTC courses, than they earned in their regular college
courses. This would seem to indicate that ROTC courses are easier than
other college courses. This conclusion was further supported by an
examination of the relationship of ROTC grades and regular college grades.
This analysis showed that, for 1973, most enrollees got better grades in
their ROTC coursework than they did in their regular coursework. (See
Appendix E for details.)
Alternative hypotheses could also be entertained. For example, data in the previous sections which indicate that approximately one-third of all ROTC enrollees feel that their ROTC instructors are "better" than regular college instructors, hence, there may be more opportunity to achieve. There is also the possibility that ROTC enrollees like their ROTC coursework more than their regular coursework and, therefore, study harder for ROTC courses than for the average of their other courses.
** As noted, the grades are self-reported by ROTC enrollees, with the responses limited to the general categories shown in Table IV-3. The use of regular Grade Point Average (GPA) taken from official transcripts would be an im- proved approach. This approach was not used for practical reasons in this survey, but is eminently feasible to perform this more definitive analysis using school grade data from transcripts.
94
H ON
en ON LT1
O co
d
ON O <t CN| u-1 ^^ r>? u-i CM NO LTl O ^^ co m
* rH CM rH r^ • • ■ 1 uO O <t O 1 CO u-i <-\ 1
00 co
CO
O ON iH
r^ o O
NO NO <r CM CM co s-°* r^ S-S NO .-1 NO in o o ON ^^ CO lO
g rH
Pi on H
g g 5 < ON VO o u-l o •z CM ^~N • • • • 1 u r^ *>? <r ON rH -* 1
c/> ON *w> CM v£> 1 w w rH O en
►J Ö ►J O o o c_>
CJ -K * 55 H r-~ rH o o CM MS CO *»s • • • • •
r^ 9-S m NO CM NO o en u ON ^y CM NO w a H rH
9 M §
2 Q °% fc w 3B o 2 CM 00 U~l CM CM
a <j CM s-\ r-~ hi vO LO CM LO O
w ON N-^ CO LO > .-1 <
co m in CM CM
00 NO CM
CM
o CM
00 CO CM
8 o CO •H 1 U-I > •H
6, M
r^. O CM |-~. CM W • • • • ■H ►J
r^ CM ON o o CO 5 CO <r .-1 >i H
rH iH
CO CJ
•H U
CM I/O rH 00 rH
CO NO ON o o i->
CO <r rH to ■u cc
03
CO
ON
0) CO hT « 0) <:
rH £ rH O iH o 3 - r » c CO CO CO o •H ^*^ — — — rH * pa c_> Q 0)
CO CO z r z na 0) »
T3 <« •0 -o T3 •o CO
M a a a a O ►,
H ~ 5 j r 0) 4J en en en en M 0) - — - m
ca I < CQ CJ o M Z ~ ; ti) > <
CO U
^! C3 CM
H r~ r> rH ON (kj 3 - - - »
iH
fl CO CO CO o Id •H ■**„ - •> l-t o
x pa c; Q V >-l CO CO ~ E oa (1) «.
X) <! T) T3 T3 T> <U trj S g § c
CO
u a
O r>l 0) »H J r r: ; r-l
(1) ■M CO to CO CO 01 rtf CO •. ». _ UH
« O < pa u Q U-I
(1) 2 r
Q
>
95
There are few differences in reported grade distributions between
1972 and 1973. Among Army ROTC enrollees, there is a significant decline
in the reported percentage receiving "A's" and "B's" and a corresponding
increase in the percentage receiving "B's" and "C's" in their regular
college coursework. In contrast, there was a significant increase from
1972 to 1973 in the percentage of Army ROTC enrollees reporting the
receipt of "Mostly A's or All A's" in their ROTC coursework.
The only other significant change from 1972 to 1973 occurred among
Air Force ROTC enrollees. A significantly higher percentage reported
the receipt of "A's" and "B's" in ROTC in 1973 (50%) than reported these
grades in 1972 (43%). This change seems to have occurred because fewer
1973 enrollees received either "Mostly A's, All A's" or "B's" and "C's",
thus offsetting the increase reported in "A's" and "B's".
SUGGESTED IMPROVEMENTS IN ROTC COURSEWORK
ROTC enrollees were also asked to evaluate some suggested improve-
ments in ROTC programs. Three major areas were evaluated:
(1) The receipt of college credit for ROTC coursework;
(2) Abolition of drills and marching; and
(3) Moving ROTC activities off-campus.
Results for each subject are summarized in Table IV-4.
In each survey, receipt of regular college credit for ROTC courses
was a uniformly highly valued suggestion. Over 90% of the enrollees in
both 1972 and 1973 favored this policy. For most of them, however, this
96
* * .-1 CM ON
co •-s • • • r- ^s NO rO vO
o ON •*-* ON H .H H rH O Pi
3 vs vO 00 ON P CM y^s • • •
r^ 6^ <r t*» ON ON ^~* ON H i-H
d) to 0 O P. CO OJ
OJ >
en o
>
CO
g
c OJ O Si QJ
PH
u H
B-?
6^?
W C/3
pa s-s
ON
CM
ON
ON
ON
o CM
NO
o
ON
CM O CM
CO m <r CM ^s • • • r-~ S-S en CM CM ON ON rH H
c to o
C 00
•H 0)
CO u
4-1 CO
cn cO
ON
o 4J
CM
ON
I >
w hJ
3
•H
a) M u
> •H Ü
O
I cn M 3 O u u H o Pi
CO 60 rH C i-l i-l •H J3 I-l O a si
to •H T3
O CO
3
14-1 14-1 o
cn cu
•H U 4-1 H -H 9 > Prf «H
cn D P-
14-1
9) U C OJ (-1
(DO« > <: u
97
is not a new suggestion. The majority of ROTC enrollees already receive
course credit. The rates of reported receipt of course credit in the
1973 survey were Army (87%), Navy (90%), and Air Force (89%).
The abolition of drills and marching was endorsed by less than 20%
of enrollees. Eliminating drills and marching was more frequently
endorsed by Navy ROTC enrollees than it was by Army or Air Force enrollees.
In 1972, 21% of the Navy enrollees favored the abolition of these
activities. The rate was 17% in 1973. The only significant change from
1972 to 1973 occurred among Air Force enrollees. In this case, fewer
enrollees favored the abolition of drills and marching in 1973 (13%)
than did so in 1972 (18%).
The suggestion that ROTC activities be moved off-campus was endorsed
by 20% (or less) of enrollees. However, the level of endorsement of this
idea increased significantly for both Army and Air Force enrollees between
1972 and 1973. It is possible that residual post-Vietnam pressures for
getting the uniform off-campus remain important considerations for Army
or Air Force ROTC cadets. (However, the level of endorsement of the idea
of moving ROTC units off-campus remained low (10%) among Navy enrollees).
Nonetheless, neither the suggestion to abolish drills nor to move ROTC
units off-campus received much endorsement by current program enrollees.
Preliminary analyses suggest that neither approach is particularly
important in the retention of current ROTC enrollees.
98
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).
Fisher, A.H. , Jr., Harford, Margi R.", and DiSario, Martha R. Enrollment Potential for College-Based Military Officer Training Programs: A Comparison of Results of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973. HumRRO CR-D7-73-92, October 1973 (in preparation).
Fisher, A.H., Jr., and Rigg, Leslie S. Career Potential of Enrollees in PLC, ROC, and AVROC: A Comparison of Surveys Conducted in May 1972 and May 1973. HumRRO CR-D7-73-108, November 1973 (in preparation).
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.
99
TT
Appendix A
DETAILED SAMPLE SIZE INFORMATION
FOR ROTC PROGRAM ENROLLEES
Scholarship Program
BASIC ADVANCED
1972 1973 1972 1973
Non-Scholarship Program
BASIC ADVANCED
1972 1973 1972 1973
ARMY ROTC 155 155 213 161 243 255 285 258
NAVY ROTC 204 243 184 202 132 102 87 66
USAF ROTC 190 179 197 230 198 229 181 219
101
Appendix B
COMPARABILITY OF 1972 AND 1973 SAMPLES
OF ROTC ENROLLEES
There were no differences between the 1972 and 1973 samples in
racial composition or employment status (Table B-l). There were
occasional differences based on family income, age, and the presence of
Junior ROTC at the respondent's high school (Table B-l); and on parental
educational attainment (Table B-2). But these differences were scattered,
i.e., they occurred for enrollees in one Service, but not in the others.
For example, 1973 Army ROTC enrollees had higher income families (Table
B-l), but less highly educated fathers (Table B-2). The 1973 USAF ROTC
enrollee was younger, and more likely to have been exposed to Junior
ROTC in high school (Table B-l). Navy ROTC enrollees showed no differ-
ences on any of these characteristics. The only consistent difference
across programs from 1972 to 1973 was the finding that the 1973 samples
were more likely to have come from non-metropolitan areas (small towns
or rural areas). However, even these differences were of minor magni-
tude, e.g., 6% - 10% (Table B-l).
Comparisons of the 1972 and 1973 samples were also made on:
(1) college major subject, (2) ultimate educational expectations, (3) life
goals, and (4) expectation of achieving life goals in the military service.
The 1973 samples showed a lower percentage of engineering/architecture
majors (Table B-3). But educational expectations did not change from 1972
to 1973 (Table B-4). Life goals were generally constant (Table B-4),
although 1973 USAF ROTC enrollees had more favorable attitudes toward the
attainment of life goals in military service (as opposed to civilian life)
than did the USAF ROTC enrollees in 1972 (Table B-5).
102
« « * * n 00 0\01!OON 03 o> o 00 r> vo Ifl Ov OvN .-1 -* U">
r~% ■ • • • ■ B • • • • • • • • • M CM r- sj m n i-s oo «* 00 NO vO ro o\ HN-»m <f U"l O ^^ ON r) N N CM co in CM -* CM 1/1 iH rH rH rH 00
ON
m-*Nst-» »BNinflON H N N N
00 -tf ON
ve MA co in
vO Cl H
U1 CM CM co »* CM
004000 • • • • m o 00 m -* CM rH rH
o ON 00
r^ o 00
* * ON rH CM NO O O CM 00 r^ in rH ON ON ON CM 00 rH rH r^
c/j fin ■ • • * • • • • • • • • • ■ • • « • • 1 PJ r» fr« NO CO r~. NO 00 0 00 0 m CO ON CO NO m rH m r^ CM f^ 1 w -5 ON K^ ON rH CM -tf CM r- CM -* CM m CM rH rH 00 1 ►J ^H ■-M rJ O g Pi DÄ as W £ U CO <£ 00 CSJ NO f~ O CM NO 00 rH rH ON O CM -tf CM «* O -* m CM H o> q OJ
p-*; CM /■> • • • • • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • r- 6^; NO co ON 0 m r-. t^ rH ON ON O CM r-s CO rH r- 00 CM r^ 0
OS rH ON ^^ ON CM CM CO CM NO CO m rH in CM rH rH 00 rH rH ss rH
d 1 CO
u H § * * * W CO fH ON rH NO -* CM ON ON 00 -3- ON 00 00 m r^ CM >* r^ r» rH CM hJ rH 00 <n r*N ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • CQ a 0 r^ 6-? en NO CO CO <■ |-~ O CM 00 00 »3- 00 NO ON CM <f CO NO CO O < S£ 0 ON s^* ON rH CM CM CM rH CO in CM CO CO <tNHH rH 00 H
H rH
u § § <u X <o S-(
U cd s BQ OH CM Is« 00 *» 0 O r-» ^r l"s r^ rH CO rH ON ON ON CO <t CM ON
U <^ CM r^ • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • n r^ 6-8 <f m CM VT 00 CM CM m •» ON csi r^ 0 ON ON NO CO <r -* O
£ ON 'w' ON rH CM CM CM rH CO m CO CO CO -* rH rH rH rH CO
8 CO
Q OJ N
md
19
icant.
•H oo - >4H
4^
■H L972
ig
ni
O U to
8 N-^
§ § OJ 00 u
rH O
0J ^j
B « a) d Tj 4J u d
•H -H 5} d ai CJ O
§ o\ U H 0 3 T3 § XI 0 ON ON 0) 0 HH U O rH O 0 ON ON > -U 3 rfl O O iH >N O s 00
rO ti a O ON « O - Tj r4 P. ftrH M O "ON d 4-> OJ O OOO u u > X
O CO rH VJ 0 »HW OQ
CO >N x> u (H a. 0 0 r4 3 0
to « OJ ►1 4J OJ OJ O J2 4J 4J O •n •H OJ . 4-1 rH 00 </> 1 . "*«. to B E rH 00 9J Ü r4 CO 0) CO 0) Ä d 0 ti •H •H O 1 O O *o •H •H a. •H SSu M C M M in us
OJ w .d § 0 0 0 OJ 4-1 u 4-1 1 OJ OJ cd cd cd cO 0 d OJ 5 a u 0 0 0 00 a w ■z 0) i-i S OJ OJ OJ OJ •H 4-1 £ » •u 1 tu OJ O •> *> 3 OJ rH 4J ÖOrH 1 5>N >N >> >N <u »
>2 2 •H d •a ~<r 0 MH IN
rH h 4-1 IH h <t C 0 E U) d
£ 0 rH d 00 rH CM a) 3 CO 0 O «BO ON O »H CM a cd OJ 0 0 as co p </></>- -o> Pd O fa Pi S3 rltnZ rH CM CM CM 0) M >- A a
co 3 rH 0) to 00 0 0 i P. ft «J CU O cd s 1 I £ 3 u
fa PM *
103
u H 19
73
(%) OO u-i • uo
vO CM
O
CM CM
• CM CO
o Ctf
5i CO
E3 CM ^N ^H r^ O ON 00
ON w r-l
u-> oo 00 CM
CM
CM CO
* r» ON 00 CM r-^ • • • a # CO 00 CM CO O
<t C-J CM
UO CM CO ON r^ • • • • CM ON CM d O-
<f CM CM
OO w w ►J
§ w u H
§ fa o CO u (-1
H co
a w H O
2>
0) CU
o c H
00 o r<
p-,
0) U)
PQ
CO 1^^ 00 • r^ CM LO
ONI^-' co -<f rH
CN 00*
u-1
q «:
I eg /—N r^ u-| uo N£> CM
o> v— CO vd rH
CM OO ON
-cr
CM
uo NO ON
CO CO
00 CM
O CO
B-S • •
I"- rH
U0
00 ON CM rH
*
CO CO
t so CN -* 00 • • • • si m vO <f o
CO CM CO
CM
CO
co
ON •* ON -* rH
u-i
CM CM
CM ^-\ o uo -0- CO ON
C7N 6-« r~ 00 oö
CM 00 rH CO
O uo O r^ r-~ -* 00
CM CM
U CU X 4-> cd
U ft. cd
•H >N 3 X 00 CU Xt tH Oi CU o
■u o <I-I V .e O r-l u
a CO 01 E
Xf O cu CO CJ •a u cd O rH u
O o 4J O CO -G cd ej -1 00
c 0
iH *J CO o
rH 3 O VJ X) o O W
J3 rH CJ a) x) O CO 00 01 O cu u
rC ^ X -*-N i-H C o en 00 0) co rH cd
CO u tH 00 J-i o > co X CU a) O X) X <u rH a) <J oo >> XI rH >, X) •H ai O CU t-i
rn co j2 U CO J3 CU i 4) rH
en ■H CU
1 rH
W 43 •H 4->
S w C e ^^ a o O •H o •H co ft< CO fe
kl CU -a rH 4J 0
a* o jr, cd rH o
d ^ o co 3 rQ o 00 0) X)
aci cu f-H
J2 r-V CJ CO 60 a)
r"\ CO
O CO r4 •H 00 VJ ■U o cd rs cu CO
<4H CU O rH ■s J2 CU
00 >N XI rH CU
a CO •H CU o CU B xi 5 CU
33 co Xi CO
o CO 1 « o XI CU rH •H 01 rH u
O rH cd u s ^ o C
•iH N-^
o *J o
o co fc. CO
c3-g rJ CO
a o
•rl U tO u 3
u X) o w CU XI 00 CU a) CJ
<-{ d r-> CO 0 > u X)
< X) cu (-1 X (U
c o
CO 1^ • ON -u rH s XI o
s •H UH •H
CM c r^ M ON •H rH CO
c >> CU r-i CU r-A s CO
■u O CU TH
XI 4-1 CO
CD •H <U ■t-l O CO a ■u CU CO u CU CU
4H u MH CO
104
en
ON CM MO \o MO
CM
co
oo
CM ON CM I U"> ON
3 co D
r-- ON
ON
CM CO CM
CM CM
co in
o CM
en
in eg
CM
o d CO
d
to W w hJ
§
H s ft, o H u w
g
o
w o
a o o
to cu cu
o
w
V4 oo o
0) CO s
CQ
* * * --I r^ r^ o 00 ON O vO <f NO I <n —t 00 .-1 CM r»
CM m 00 00 .-1
00 CM
.H <N rH rH
en rH
I en CM o o 1 o rH
00 -d- <t ON CM o CNI <f m -3- <r o 00 rH U0 -~T 00 rH 1 CM -—\ ~~ ft-? ■H ■-I un ON O CM I-I o 00 ON o CM CM CM O O o rH 1 ON s—/ rH CO rH ^H
CO
PQ
* * * Ed rJ
v£> O m r~. «• CM r-~ <r r^ co «* I/O i-H 1 | 1 CO O 1 9 CO ^s 1 1 • • r- ft-? CO \o M0 LO 00 MD r-~ o ND 00 o r- CM 1 1 1 O rH 1 H ON ^ CM ^H
CO ON <t ON ON co ON 00 m r^ CM r-- NO CO <r i rH rH 1 1
M -* CM r- r-{ CO in CO ^ m O o NO CM CM o i o r-^ 1
1 ^—^ CM rH CM
CO r-- ON t-H •
4-> • • XI a cu C CO oo cd U a) CU •H
.-H u CM «W rH 3 r^ -H o 4-1 ON C o
u CO o CU
rH 60 •H
c 4J CU 4-1 C CO •H CO
0) Ü c
•H CO
CO CU
CO cu
01 0) >s
CD n CU CJ CU CJ o CO 5 rH 0) 0 •H u CJ c Ö cu CO ß rH H tu CO CJ < c: cu cu CJ Ü o) cd <: **^. O CO CU •H T4 c co •H XI u
01 iH 00 •H CJ o CU CO 4-> 3 ^H 4-1 M CO -H C O CO CO •H CJ H o •a 0) 4J CJ 3 58 CO •H CO U C •H <: co c cu rt CU CO
cu 4-1 Ü CO U Er ^A CO p^ o 4J CJ o M 01 U -H •ri rH rH T4 CO <U rH (0 ÖD •rl CO rH T4 o CO £ C 4-1 43 3 CJ 60 CU CU n] CO CJ rH O 4J e CO 6 w ^ CO 01 CO 3 O
1— o c c CJ 4-1 •H CO •-{ CO <u U O u a 1 U 4-) CO iH CO rH •H iH •H •H co •H o O J3 CU a CU CU 01 0) CO
M 4-1 O co 00 3 T3 rH >> O cu 3 4J Xl o e x T) IM VJ 4f u •H 3 c cfl CU 32 X- o X T) 5 •H CJ o 4J C o CM 01 O < pq m Cd J s PH co H W J w m o 3 as •H M
Q cd
105
Q w
IN /-N
CTN *—*
O CO
ON
CO 00
* 00 \D ON in CM r^ CM co ON ON ON to
t-H -a co u-l
—i
CM rH o r»
o CM
CM CM • • iH CO o
CO si- CO
CM
w H m • • • O iH r->
H
w w
S3
9
ft
en a) CU
w o M
PM c o w 00 E z cd o i-l
00 O U
0) Cn
(d ca
ON
CM
/—\ U")
CO
00 NO
NO
O
CO /-s ON m I*» ^S ON v^ CO m t-H CO ^o
CO M0
* CM
rH rH
o>
O
"0
CM
CO
CO rH
ON
CO •H
co
o rH
CO CM
rH
CM
rH
00
ON
CO co
CM CM CM
NO O • • U0 ON o
CO ON • •
*
ON
rH
NO
O CM
d rH
m M3 rH
• O CM
CM rH
NO
■H
ON
rH
ON in <T ON o m NO <t O CO -H NO
rH m rH
rH rH m rH o rH oo
l PQ
W
9
w
O
w U-l
o
0) > 0) rJ
■o OJ
■u
o cu
w
<D a) r-J 00 CU Q
01 00 0)
o
OJ 00 0)
o o T3 C o >N 0J
PQ
§
o o cn
h CL)
4-1
■u
ja
o
00 c
•H
O 3
!-J >> O cu 3 C
o 00 s a •H IH 00 o a CU 4J
CO
u 00 c
•H o a
CO a)
CJ
3 E
CO d
oo a
60
5 5
a o cu p.
1-1 ai
J3
oo 9
0J
pa
o
cd <D
00 a
•H > m
•S -° S O ■n
O -o cd
o ö
0) o >H 4J
•2 CO 4-1
a oo c«
Ü * (1)
cq
OJ
5 §
a g
co 4-i cu <d 4J
C 4-1 Ti
o o
oo c
a)
c 00 o o 1)
cd
o
w
01 (-1 3 4-1 a >
-a
t ■ a co M <u
CO 4-> C - O c a o en a cu = u V r
106
rH & CJ cn
8 c cc)
co 0 4-1 2: rH 3 cn •a CU c prf CO
W H O 2
CO t^ . o\ u HS T3 CJ C «H Cd «4-1
•H CN C r^ oo ON -H •H CO
e >» CU iH CU iH U cd 4J O CU TH
XI 4-1 CO
cn -H cu 4-) o cd C 4J cu co u 0) cu
<4-l Cd
* * * * * * ON NO NO in UO rH NO o m *o
r*s 6-? r~- 00 r-H h> CM CM NO rH m m ^^ en r- CM vO <r ON CM -9 r^ 00
6^
-* NO CM 00 m O CM <r r-^ ON
CO CM vD
rH ON m CO
-I ON
en CM
en en
o in oo
w u g Pi w 00
B >l M 3 en
0) t> H 0) fn 1—1 rH pi yA rH o l-l o pH s )-l PM a o W w
s i r<
M 00 1» o o CO u
£ i PM
£ CJ 0)
co CO e en
cd w H PQ CO rJ CO < Pi
o
S3 w H
1 O H
6-S
s-s
6^
■X
«* -<r CM vO 00 o rH CM ON rH ■ • • • • ■ • • • •
en NO CM r>» <r en ON CM CM <r CM NO rH O- en ON .-1 en r^ oo
CM r» st r- rH CM r~- ON CM NO
CM NO
r^ NO NO en
rH ON
m rH
CM en
en CM 00
*
o CM
00 CM
>» 4-1 9)
•H O O cn
r4 0) •u 4-1
a)
M O
4H
00 c •H
U O 3
oo m
oo m
«1
■a 00 e
•H o Q
m NO
m eo * -tf
r~ sj-
CM
00 s •H
ON cn
00 c
cd 0) rJ
oo en
M u >> H o 01 01 K a B rH
o n3 a 60 B o a A 0)
■H UH CJ p. oo o 3 a e M <u 4-1 a)
rH o cn x. rH rH cd ■u
00 a
•H o,
rH 01
Bä
107
00 en
m oo
■8
TJ CO 0) •u CO
CD r4
o a) en
oo a
iH
ad
o
■u a)
■§ o
TJ
o ■U
0) 43 rH O J3 •!-) cd
cd 60 c c
•H -H 0>
PQ
00
«I > a)
o o
00 c
■rH cn
-r4 cd pi
NO
NO
en NO
cn 3 4J <d 4-1 CO
c o
a 00 o o
CM
O oo
0 a) 1 0) 4J ■H O X w a) 9
■u C CD > <
en i-» • ON -M rH C
cd 73 O C "H (d MH
•H <N e r^ öo 0\ iH rH 0)
C rS 0) t-H 0) rH > cd
cu -H
0) (0 -H 0) -u cj cd C J-> <0 CO h 0) a)
<4H VJ UH cd
in i
w rJ
9
Appendix C
1973 ROTC SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
GILBERT YOUTH RESEARCH
5 15 MADISON AVENUE
NEW YORK, N. Y. 10022
JOB #700524-C
MARCH, 1973
Office of Management and Budget Approval No: 022R-0304 Expires: June, 1974
COLLEGE ROTC SURVEY
Hello, I'm (INTERVIEWER'S NAME) of Gilbert Youth Research in New York. We are interested 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 | QT]
Junior
Senior
Other (SPECIFY)
lb. Are you in ROTC, ROC, AVROC, PLC or any other college military officer training program?
2 | END INTERVIEW, RE-USE QUESTIONNAIRE! Yes 8-1 No
lc. (INTERVIEWER; ASK ONLY IF "SENIOR" IS CHECKED IN Q. 1A ABOVE; OTHERWISE, 60 DIRECTLY TO Q. 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
b. Arts - Classics
c. Biological Sciences
d. Business .
e. Engineering - Architecture
f. Law ....
g. Medical Sciences .
14-1
2
3
h. Military Sciences
i. Physical Sciences
j. Social Sciences
k. Theology
1. Education .
m. Other (SPECIFY)
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
C's and D's
D's and below
108
15-
(17-30)
SECTION "B" I LIFE GOALS I CAREER GOALS~
5a. What do you think will be important in your lit«. . .1 will read some statements describing a person's aim in life and you tell me how important each statement is for you personally. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #3) Here is a rating scale from 1 to 5. 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 importart 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 GO 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 , I , 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
5 (31- )
5 (32- )
5 (33- 1
5 (34- )
5 (35- )
5 (36- )
5 (37- )
5 (3B- )
5 (39- )
5 (40- )
ell me the three most 5b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 14) Please look at this card of statements and 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)
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)
INTERVIEWER: REPEAT THE QUESTION FOR EACH OF THE STATEMENTS LISTED, RECORDING —EACH ANSWER AS YOU ASK THE QUESTION, ON THE CORRECT LINE IN 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
109
(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;
a. Military career opportunities • . . .
b. Travel, adventure, and new experiences
c. Serve my country
d. Opportunity for further academic education
e. Qualify for G.I. Bill benefits. .
f. Pay and allowances
g. Benefits such as medical care, BX/PX, etc.
h. Avoid being drafted
i. Become more mature
j. Status and prestige of being an officer
k. Difficulty in finding a suitable civilian job .
1. Fulfilling my military obligation at a time of my choice.
m. Opportunity for special professional/ technical training
Strong Influence
Some Influence
No Influence
54-1 2 3
55-1 2
2
3
56-1 3
57-1 2 3
58-1 2 3
59-1 2 3
60-1 2 3
61-1 2
2
3
62-1 3
63-1 2 3
64-1 2 3
65-1 2 3
66-1 2 3
SECTION "C MILITARY INFORMATION
(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 16) When was the last time that the starting pay for officers changed? (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER)
a. October 1945
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-l'
b. $100 - $200 a month . 2.
c. $201
d
$400 a month
$401 - $600 a month
e. $ 601 - $ 800 a month
(ASK f. $ 801 - $1,000 a month
> Q. 7c) g- $1,001 - $1,250 a month
Don't Know ...
S\ , (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 . y
110
7d. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #7) About how auch fc—lc pay does a beginning officer aarn in a month? Juat basic pay, not allowances for an unmarried, ccssaissioned officar.
a. $100 a month
b. $250 a month
c. $400 a month
d. $550 a month
-Uz* a. $700 a month
f. $850 a month
g. $1,000 a month
Don't Know
7e. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #8) Which of these military officar training programs hava you heard of? (CHECK "• " EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OP* UNDER Q. 7* BELOW)
7f. (FOR EACH PROGRAM "HEARD OP", 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)
Prog»"
a. ROC
b. PLC
c. ROTC
d. AVROC
a. TLC
S+JM. a- 7f SERVICE:
Heard of Army
15-1
lv-1
17-1
Navy
2
Air Porce
3
3
,3
3
3
Marine Corps
4
4
4
4
4
Coast Guarda
5
i s
5
s
All of (CHECK "•")
12-1
These
6
2
3
2
2
2
2
6
ft
4 6
5 6
Now, let's talk about ROTC ....
8a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 19) Which of these college coats can ROTC pay for?
a College Tuition and Books, but no expense money .
b. Civilian Clothing .
c. Other College Expenses
.18^1
2
d. Both College Tuition (incl. Books) and other College Expenses 4_
All of the Above
Don't Know .
8b. ROTC offers both scholarship and non-scholarship programs. Which of these have you ever heard of?
Scholarship . 19-1 Both . . . 3
Non-Scholarship 2 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-
22-
9a. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 110) 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 -JOTC AND FOR AIR PORCE ROTC.)
2 Years
a. Army ROTC 23-1
b. Navy ROTC 24-1
c. Air Force ROTC 25-1
d. There is no difference between Services 25-y
3 Years 4 Year« Don't Know
2 3 4
2 3 4
2 3 4
111
9b. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 111) Men in some ROTC programs receive money for room and board and expenses. It'» 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
26-1 e. $200 a month
f. $250 a month
g. $300 a month
Don't Know . (27-)
9c. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD 16 AGAIN) When waa the last time ROTC subsistence allowance changed?
a. October 1945 28-1 d. February 1968 4) g. January 1973
b. June 1957 2 e. November 1971 5
c. April 1963 3 f. January 1972 6 Don't Know
9d. How did you find out about ROTC? Was it from your . . . (READ LIST) (RECORD BELOW)
a. Father 29-1 g. Teachers
b. Mother 2 h. Counselors
c. Brothers 3 i. Military recruiter at school_
d. Other relatives . . . 4 j. Military recruiter away from school
e. Close friends .... 5 k. Other (SPECIFY)
f. School acquaintances . 6
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 All of them
Have not seen or heard any advertising .
SECTION T" ROTC INFORMATION
10. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD # 12) Which of these programs are you in?
G a. ROTC
b. ROC
c. AVROC
d. PLC
31-1 I CONTINUE WITH Q. 11, ON THE NEXT PAGE
GO DIRECTLY TO Q. 23, PAGE 7
(32-47)
112
INTERVIEWER: ASK ROTC STUDENTS ONLY
11. Are you in the Basic ROTC Program or the Advanced ROTC Program?
basic ROTC _48=1 (ASK Q. 12a)
. Advanced ROTC Don't Know
-| GO TO Q. 13 | ■
12a. (IF "BASIC ROTC", ASK:) Do you intend to continue into Advanced ROTC?
Yes 49-1 (GO TO Q. 13)
No Don't Know •I ASK 0. 15S~
12b. (IF "HO" or "DON'T KNOW" IN Q. 12a ABOVE, ASK:) Why do you say that?
_Sfl=
51-
[TSK ALL ROTC STUDENTS |
13. Which branch of Service are you in?
Army 52-1 Navy Air
2 Force Marine Coast
3 Corps 4 Guard
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 4 years
| ASK Q. 15a |
15a. Do you have an ROTC scholarship? Yes 54-1 No
None 4 (GO TO Q. 15d)
2(GO TO Q. 15d)
15b. Would you have joined ROTC without getting a scholarship?
Yes 55-1 No 2 Don't Know
15c. Would you stay in ROTC without a scholarship? .Yes 56-1 No
£ Don't Know
15d. Do you hope to get a scholarship? Yes 57-1
I GO TO Q. 16a j
o 2
16a. Do you receive ROTC subsistence allowance? Yes 58-1 .No 2 Not Applicable 3
(GO TO Q. 17)
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?
Yes 60-1 No Don' t Know
18. Would you stay in ROTC if there were no subsistence allowances?
Yes 62-1 No 2 Don't Know
(61- )
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
113
20. What are your average grades in ROTC?
a. Mostly A's/All A's 64-1 e. B's and C's
b. A's and B's . . 2 d. C« and D's 4 e. D's and below
21. Now tell me in your own words, how you happened to join ROTC. 65-
66-
67-
22. (HAND RESPONDENT CARD #15) Which one of the following persons MOST influenced your decision to enter ROTC?
a. Service recruiter ... 68-1 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"FRY0NE
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. 1 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? Please look at this card and tell me what your plans are.
a. No, I plan to leave when I complete my obligation 70-1
b. I am undecided 2
c. Yes, I plan to stay in for a while .... 3
d. Yes, I plan to make the Service my career . . fi
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 as 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-
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?
Yes 8^.1 No 2 Don' t Know 3
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
2 8b. How could ROTC improve the instruction? 10-
114
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 3
Don't Know 3
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
2
c. About as good .
d. Depends on the course
31b. How could KOTC improve the content of the course work? 16-
17-
18-
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)
Strong Some No Influence Influence Influence
Which particular Service I am trained for (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps) ......
Whether I become an aviation officer (get to fly) or not
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 ....
20-1
21-1
22-1
23-1
25-1
26-1
27-1
28-1
29-1
30-1
31-1
32-1
33-1
34-1
33. What is the best feature in the ROTC Program? 35-
37-
34. What is the biggest problem with the ROTC Program? 38-
39-
40-
115
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. 3 5b)
36.
Q: 35a Military
a. Father ..... 41 -1
b. Mother ..... 2
c. Brothers .... 3
d. Other relatives 4
e. Close friends 5
f. School acquaintances 6
g. Teachers .... 7
h. Counselors .... 8
i. Military recruiter at school 9
:■ Military recruiter away from school 0
k. Other (SPECIFY) 42
45-1 OT : Program at your high school? Yes No
Q. 35b College
43-1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
44-
Don't Know
[ GO TO 0. Al I-
36 a What did you think of the Junior ROTC Program in your high school?
36b. Were you ever enrolled in a Junior ROTC Program? Yes 48-1 No
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
46-
(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 RESPOaJTENT IS NOT OLD ES0UGH (UNDER 18) TO REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT (SELECTIVE SERVICE), 60 DIRECTLY TO 0. Bl. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE WITH 0. A3
A3. Have you registered with the Selective Service? Ye» 56-1 (ASK 0. A4)
»o 2 (GO TO Q. Bl)
116
A4. (IF "YES" IN Q. A3, ASK:) What is your draft classification now? (If your draft board has classi- fied 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
I-A-O
I-C
I-D
1-0
57-1
DRAFT CLASSIFICATION
I- II
-A
-C
-D
6
7
8
9
II-S
III-A
IV-A
0
X
Y
-1
IV-F 3
II IV-G 4
II IV-W
V-A
5
II IV-B 58 6
IV-D 2 I-H 7
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, gifts, etc? Please try to give your best estimate.
Under $300 . 62-1
$300 - $399 . . 2
$400 - $499 . . 3
$500 - $799 . 4
$800 - $999 . . 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 y
E. 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
117
'■ (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: 71-74 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.
118
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%
Applicable Size of Samples or or or or
Group Being Compared 90% 80% 70% 60%
ARMY ROTC 900 - 800 3% 4% 4% 5%
USAF ROTC 850 - 750 3% 4% 5% 5%
NAVY ROTC 600 - 600 3% 5% 5% 6%
50%
5%
5%
6%
(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 600 and
percentages ranging around 10%, the difference in rates
between two samples would have to exceed 3% in order to
achieve statistical significance at the .05 level of
significance.
Note that two independent samples are assumed.
119
Appendix E
RELATIONSHIP OF REGULAR
COLLEGE GRADES AND ROTC GRADES:
1973 Program Enrollees
X) C a (C 6
.-H n 0) - aa Q
s-s c o
o
o o
ß a] a)
CO Q S^
-3- . CN r- • • • VO <-i rH iH m in
o
o o
CO 0) a)
o u c w u H §
W CO < pq
W
o w O w
d o o
c a) co
co u
pq
s-e
en '<; o
s^
CO
00 CN
O 00
CO
m
oo
H •o fa a /~^ 00 o CN M cfl CO s-s • • O •■ ^^ <r m o PM CO PQ m en r-l
w <
CO o
o o
if-; O
^-1 1 • w
o o w H hJ
5 EH
6-5 O
O o
o
CO »- <: rH
^ § Q ^* in en CO tH rf 00 — — — V Pu ■- PQ c_> a PQ o <:
T3 TD "O -T) C_J ^ C a d d H iH CO ca cd cfl c ) •M o2 CO CO en CO CO
O - — — — X < PQ u O
120
•o c 9 cd o
.H en CD — PQ O
B-« O O
6-8 O
O O
T3 Ö 6^ cd co ^N v£> o> LTi -* 00 o
•■ 6-? 03 Q -w' a^
CM 1»» a\ VO o
o CJ iH
CO CU 0)
o u C
W u H
1 w I H
M o PM
CO W IS Q
co
PQ
CD
O
i-3 O
c cd co
co cj
PQ
T3 c cd co
CO PQ
B^
N
en
<
+J i-i co <! o X
6-8
00 CM 00 CM ■ • • •
o <^ v£> m rH -* co
CM 00
CO MD
CM
O
o o
00 LO ^o in m B~? o
CO CO
CO o o
CM I
w
a 59
o
o o
to
< -H rH <3 --■^
CO CO w < g O en en en H a iH » - — fl)
r-l PQ u Q PQ O <:
TJ XI T3 >d u ^ C c C a H iH ed 3 er) et) O 4J Pi CO en en en en
o » w m •. X < PQ c_) Q
o H
121
T3
9 § CO <D
- PQ Q
►* ON CM
o
o o
T3 a o r«. m CO CO /—\ • • • » 6-S r^ m r*s CO Q ^-^ rH LT) CN
U
CN
o O
•a C C^ c^ rH
en CO 0) /—N • • ■ u •• S^ u-> <J" 00 CD co u v—' CM LO rH
rH «. rH w n O o U C i W
> u <! •a H c ^D 00 o § g CO CO
*5 0> -d- vO M co m ^W o- <t- <u o —
-j P-! < VJ
o w fn Q
M c2 •H o -^ <
w to - co
ro o < ' r^ w < 00 CN c^ rJ >> /—N • rH rJ rH rH N u-l -3-
o ■U rH ^-^ r>. CNI o CO <, • • o
W 2 C/3 <ti to
6-5 O
O o
o>
O
O O
tn
< rH
00 rH g w <: o ""-•» to tn CO rH -<j CD — — <1J pd ^ PQ u Q CQ o <
TJ TJ -a TJ u rN C C c C r-l H rfl CO cfl CO O 4-1 Cd CO tn tn to tn
o k * s < M u O
o H
122