The most striking result here is the rather low correlation of the academic records with the other measures of intelligence. The psychological tests agree closely with the results of the estimates by a.s.sociates. The correlation of the tests with the records is considerably lower, while the correlation of records with estimates is exceedingly low. The full significance of these results will of course depend on the att.i.tude one takes toward the various measures. One who has faith in the value of academic records must of course reject the estimates of a.s.sociates and be very sceptical of the value of the mental tests. But vocationally the estimates of a.s.sociates must always have value, since these determine or indicate the reactions of others toward a given individual, and vocational success will depend to a considerable degree on these reactions. The ultimate value of the mental tests is still to be determined; in fact, it was partly in order to aid in their evaluation that these experiments were performed. Inasmuch as the tests and the estimates agree closely, the tests and the records less closely, while the records do not correlate to any marked degree with either of the two other measures, the significance of the academic marks, or their reliability in this instance, must be seriously called into question.

TABLE 8

SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN JUDICIAL CAPACITY AND (A) ABILITY IN MENTAL TESTS; (B) ACADEMIC RECORDS

-------------------------------------------------------------

Correlation of Judicial

Correlation of Judicial Trait

Capacity and Ability

Capacity and Academic

in Mental Tests

Records -------------+-----------------------+----------------------- Neatness

.05

.09 Intelligence

.55

.26 Humor

.48

-.02 Conceit

.20

.09 Beauty

.15

.14 Vulgarity

.18

.14 Sn.o.bbishness

.20

-.02 Refinement

.15

.25 Sociability

.26

.03 -------------------------------------------------------------

_VI. Does the ability to judge the traits of others (judicial capacity) stand in any relation to proficiency in mental tests or to success in college work?_ The following table shows the correlation of judicial capacity in the case of each trait with standing in the tests and with academic records.

In the case of academic records there is seen to be absolutely no correlation with judicial capacity, in any of the traits estimated. In the case of the mental tests, only two of the traits yield high coefficients.

In intelligence and in humor there is fairly high correlation (.55 and .48). The suggestion here is that those who do well in the mental tests are good judges of the intelligence and the humor of their friends, but that in the case of the other traits there is no necessary or probable relation.

_Question VII. Is the individual who is a good judge of others also one whose self-estimates have high reliability?_ If the individuals are placed in an order of merit with respect to their judicial capacity in estimating the characteristics of their friends, and placed also in another order of merit on the basis of the accuracy of their self-estimates, what relation will be found between the two arrangements? The following table gives the coefficients of correlation when such arrangements are compared in the case of each of the traits.

TABLE 9

SHOWING THE RELATION BETWEEN ABILITY TO JUDGE OTHERS AND ABILITY TO JUDGE ONESELF

------------------------------------------

Correlation between Judicial Trait

Capacity and Accuracy of the

Individual's Self-Estimates -------------+---------------------------- Refinement

.54 Humor

.53 Beauty

.47 Sociability

.46 Intelligence

.44 Conceit

.26 Neatness

.22 Vulgarity

.22 Sn.o.bbishness

.15 ------------------------------------------

All the coefficients are positive, their median value being .44. In the long run it is true that she who knows herself best is the best judge of others. The degree to which this is true, however, varies with the trait in question. With the "undesirable" traits of sn.o.bbishness, conceit and vulgarity, the coefficients are so low as to be quite unreliable and perhaps represent only chance. The same is true of neatness. But in the cases of refinement, humor, beauty, sociability and intelligence the coefficients are fairly high.

_VIII. What correlations are found among various traits of character, as these are estimated by a.s.sociates?_ For example, is an individual who is judged intelligent also likely to be judged to be humorous, or refined, or sn.o.bbish, etc.? If there are such correlations between estimated traits, what is their direction and amount? The following table shows the average correlations (from the two groups) in the case of all the traits:

TABLE 10

SHOWING THE INTERCORRELATION OR ESTIMATED TRAITS(1)

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Neat.

Intel.

Hum.

Con.

Beau.

Vulg.

Sn.o.b.

Refin.

Socia.

------------+-----+------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+------+------ Neatness

--

.39

.29

.51

.50

.09

.57

.32

.10 Intelligence

.39

--

.59

.44

.34

.06

.43

.49

.25 Humor

.29

.59

--

.32

.50

.40

.50

.23

.55 Conceit

.51

.44

.32

--

.51

.24

.75

.33

.07 Beauty

.50

.34

.50

.51

--

-.09

.41

.56

.32 Vulgarity

.09

.06

.40

.24

-.09

--

.40

-.37

.18 Sn.o.bbishness

.57

.43

.50

.75

.41

.40

--

.20

-.12 Refinement

.32

.49

.23

.33

.56

-.37

.20

--

.34 Sociability

.10

.25

.55

.07

.32

.18

-.12

.34

-- -------------------------------------------------------------------

[Note 1: The upper parts of this table and the one following repeat the figures given in the lower parts, for greater convenience in making comparisons and in presenting averages.]

Interesting as these coefficients are to one who has the pa.s.sion for correlation, it is peculiarly difficult to state precisely what they mean.

Neatness correlates, in varying degrees, with all the traits except vulgarity and sociability; intelligence with all except vulgarity and perhaps sociability; humor with all except neatness, conceit and refinement, where the coefficients are low; conceit correlates especially closely with neatness, beauty and sn.o.bbishness; beauty with neatness, humor, conceit and refinement; vulgarity correlates positively with only humor and sn.o.bbishness, and negatively with refinement; refinement, with everything except humor, sn.o.bbishness and vulgarity; sn.o.bbishness with all but refinement and sociability; while sociability correlates with nothing except humor. How far these figures measure definite relations between different and specific traits, how far they measure the degree to which one's impressions of various traits conspire to make up one's notion of other characteristics, or how far they measure only the degree of confusion that exists as to the precise meaning of the various words, it is exceedingly difficult to say.

_IX. What degree of correlation exists among the academic records in the various college subjects?_ Is the individual who stands high in certain subjects likely to stand either high or low in other subjects or in all subjects? The following table shows the intercorrelations between eight subjects as calculated by the rather rough mode of grading and averaging previously described. Since the correlations are by the method of relative position, the fallacy of treating the various grades as susceptible of quant.i.tative treatment is of very slight importance.

TABLE 11

SHOWING THE INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG GRADES IN EIGHT COLLEGE SUBJECTS, ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORDS OF THE 50 STUDENTS

----------------------------------------------------------------

Psych.

Log.

Hist.

Econ.

Eng.

Germ.

Chem.

Math.

Avge.

-----------+------+----+-----+-----+----+-----+-----+-----+----- Psychology

--

.60

.36

.52

.48

.49

.33

.54

.47 Logic

.60

--

.48

.57

.47

.41

.25

.57

.48 History

.36

.54

--

.44

.62

.46

.52

.61

.51 Economics

.52

.57

.44

--

.51

.43

.45

.71

.52 English

.48

.47

.62

.51

--

.25

.26

.46

.44 German

.49

.41

.46

.43

.25

--

.39

.38

.40 Chemistry

.33

.25

.52

.45

.26

.39

--

.57

.40 Mathematics

.54

.57

.61

.71

.46

.38

.57

--

.55 ---------------------------------------------------------------

The correlations between the various college subjects are all positive, and argue against the commonly expressed belief in rather close specialization of abilities; the student who does well in one of these subjects tends to do well in all of them.

As has been frequently stated in this discussion, the data and conclusions here presented are by no means to be taken as final answers even to the specific questions asked. One cannot argue from what these groups of students do under the special conditions of this investigation to what they or others will do in other circ.u.mstances or in general. The results are presented mainly by way of suggesting the type of investigation which must be carried much further before we are in position to evaluate properly the self-a.n.a.lysis of an individual or the judgments of a.s.sociates as presented in testimonials, interviews, or other indications based on general acquaintance. In the case of the psychological tests, a long program of selection, standardization, and acc.u.mulation of norms is laid out for those interested in the further advance of vocational psychology. So also from the point of view of introspective a.n.a.lysis, consultation, advice of friends, the methods of interview, testimonial, etc., there is an equally inviting though arduous program which must be carried through before even the most general principles of evaluation and selection are known.

It should also be insisted that the personal experience of this or that interviewer, adviser, teacher or expert is by no means a sufficient basis for general practice. Magic, clairvoyance, phrenology, physiognomics, were all founded on the treacherous basis of "personal observation" and occasional striking coincidence. Vocational psychology will be safe from prophets and charlatans only when it is made to rest on a stable structure of consistent and verifiable experimental data.

FOOTNOTES:

[9] See footnote on p. 42 for an explanation of the computation and meaning of such measures of deviation or error.

[10] Experimental Studies in Judgment, Archives of Psychology, No. 29, 1913, 119 pp.

[11] "American Men of Science." Second edition, p. 542.

[12] See p. 45 for explanation of the meaning and technique of correlation.

CHAPTER VIII

THE SCHOOL CURRICULUM AS A VOCATIONAL TEST

With certain qualifications the work of the school curriculum may be said to const.i.tute an elaborate mental test. One important function of the curriculum is that of selecting and identifying individuals who possess a certain type of mental alertness or patience. Another function is that of supplying the individual with certain implements, facts and ideas, certain subject matter, which may or may not be of direct value in his later life but which is at least in this way perpetuated and preserved. A third function is that of affording opportunity for the exercise of such specific or general abilities as the curriculum may call into play.

All three of these functions have more or less direct vocational relevance.

In the hands of industrial and technical interests, subject matter becomes more and more prominent as the important item. As this happens the older idea of discipline and exercise becomes subordinate or implicit. But, whatever be the underlying educational philosophy, the selective value of the curriculum is an inescapable fact. The public school system, by its processes of grading, promotion and certification, tends always to mark off as a distinct group those individuals who can and will meet its demands. It also attempts to differentiate the members of this group from one another on the basis of their ability or their inclination. The high schools, colleges, professional and technical courses continue this process of elimination, identification and selection. According to the student's ability and inclination to satisfy the requirements of the curriculum, he or she is dropped, graded, r.e.t.a.r.ded, promoted or pa.s.sed with honors.

Extending, as it commonly does, over many years of the individual's life, conducted by a considerable number and variety of examiners, and presented in a diversity of forms and methods, school work const.i.tutes a type of mental test which is unequaled in its completeness. It is highly important for vocational psychology to ascertain the degree of correlation between the individual's record in the curriculum test and his success or fitness in later life. To what degree is the individual's academic record prognostic of his industrial, domestic and professional future?

As definite as this question is and as easy of solution as it may seem, it is only very recently that reliable data, as distinguished from unsupported opinions, have begun to be acc.u.mulated. The problem is complicated by the difficulty of securing satisfactory measures of success in later life, and by the difficulties encountered in following up the careers of those individuals whose early records are known. Shall success be measured by the obstacles overcome, the income earned, the sacrifices made, the social usefulness accomplished, the amount of local and contemporary publicity received, the public recognition accorded, the scope of activities attempted, or the historical eminence merited? And if more than one of these elements are to be considered, how are they to be treated commensurately? Certainly success may be achieved in any or several or all of these and other forms. For the present our information is limited to a few studies in which one or other of these aspects has been treated separately. As work in this field progresses we may be better able to sum up all the partial results into a statement of the general tendencies.

For our present purpose it may be best to bring together from various sources the data bearing on certain specific questions which have been propounded. At least three of these questions are distinctly relevant to the work of vocational psychology.

_I. With respect to school work itself, what relation exists between the early success in elementary subjects and the later success in handling more advanced subject matter?_ This question is important to all those who may be concerned in advising individuals concerning the desirability and probable profit of continuing their school experience, and of entering occupations in which scholastic abilities may be requisite.

Kelley has recently reported a careful study of the relation between the marks in the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh grades and the marks received in the first year of high school work. The results, in the case of fifty-nine pupils followed through the six years, were as follows:

CORRELATION BETWEEN MARKS IN THE GRADES AND MARKS IN FIRST HIGH SCHOOL YEAR

7th grade .72 6th grade .73 5th grade .53 4th grade .62

His study further seeks to show the relative weight to be attributed to the work of each grade, by applying a formula known in statistics as a "regression equation." He says, "The net conclusion which may be drawn from these coefficients of correlation is that it is possible to estimate a person's general ability in the first year [H. S.] cla.s.s from the marks he has received in the last four years of elementary school with accuracy represented by a coefficient of correlation of .789, and that individual idiosyncrasies may be estimated, in the case of mathematics and English, with an accuracy represented by a coefficient of correlation of .515....

Indeed, it seems that an estimate of a pupil's ability to carry high school work when the pupil is in the fourth grade may be nearly as accurate as a judgment given when the pupil is in the seventh grade."

Miles finds that the correlation between the average elementary school grade and the high school grade is .71. Dearborn also finds that high school efficiency is closely correlated with success in university work. He studied various groups of high school students, the groups containing from ninety-two to four hundred and seventy-two students each. These were grouped into quartiles on the basis of high school standing, and compared with similar cla.s.sifications on the basis of university work. Dearborn summarizes his results in the following words:

"We may say then, on the basis of the results secured in this group (472 pupils) which is sufficiently large to be representative, that if a pupil has stood in the first quarter of a large cla.s.s through high school the chances are four out of five that he will not fall below the first half of his cla.s.s in the university.... The chances are but about one in five that the student who has done poorly in high school--who has been in the lowest quarter of his cla.s.s--will rise above the median or average of the freshman cla.s.s at the university, and the chances that he will prove a superior student at the university are very slim indeed.... The Pearson coefficient of correlation of the standings in the high schools and in the freshman year, for this group of 472 pupils, is .80.... A little over 80 per cent of those who were found in the lowest or the highest quarter of the group in high school are found in their respective halves of the group throughout the university.... Three-fourths of the students who enter the university from these high schools will maintain throughout the university approximately the same rank which they held in high school."