Women who won National Merit Scholarships during the years 1956–1960 were followed up in 1965 to determine their marriage and/or career plans. Each of the 883 women was classified into one of five groups: marriage only, marriage with deferred career, marriage with immediate career, career only, or uncertain. Altogether, 85% of them said that they definitely planned on having a career. The educational and career field aspirations of these groups differed considerably, however, and those seeking an immediate career scored higher on scholastic ability tests than those who either planned no career or who planned to delay entering them. The groups also differed in their expression of problems encountered in making and implementing their plans as well as problems experienced because of being a woman.

A commonly used procedure in studying college effects involves an input-output model in which student input is controlled by using regression analysis to compute an expected output (e.g., Astin, 1963, 1964; Thistlethwaite & Wheeler, 1966). The correlation of a school environment variable with the residual output (i.e. actual minus expected output) is interpreted as a measure of the school's influence on the output. Although sometimes labeled a partial correlation, it is more accurately described as the part correlation (McNemar, 1962, p. 167) of the school with the output variable when the influence of the input variable has been removed from the output. A potentially serious interpretational problem is that part correlations may severely underestimate the magnitude of the true college effect. This possibility was noted previously by Richards (1966):

One of the most common procedures in school effects studies is multivariate regression analysis employed in conjunction with an input-output model. In the usual, two-step regression method, student input is controlled by first computing from the input variables an expected output for each school. The difference between the observed and the expected output is then used as the dependent variable, and the school environment variables as the independent variabls, to determine the influence of the school environment. A heuristically superior alternative to the two-step method is the procedure recommended by McNemar (1962, p. 176) in which both student input and college environment variables enter into a single regression equation. The various components of the predictable variance then can be calculated from equation (i) n n-I n

The college years, typically occupying ages 18 through 21, come at the end of adolescence, a time reputedly characterized by rebellion, violent emotion, crises of identity and personality change. Having successfully made the break with childhood the college student has still to develop an adult self-concept, find a suitable occupational role, and consolidate his hard-won independence. Many people feel that the college provides an ideal environment for accomplishing these developmental tasks; at one and the same time it offers independence from parental control and protective shelter, a strong peer culture and the example of a mature faculty, stimulation for the intellect and an outlet for the emotions. It is clear from the goals stated in their catalogs that many liberal arts colleges take their responsibility for providing a healthy environment for personal development every bit as seriously as their responsibility for encouraging intellectual growth. Several studies have provided information about personality change in college students. Sanford (1956) and his co-workers at Vassar found that students attending that college became less conservative, more tolerant of individual differences, and freer in their expression of impulses. Plant (1958) found that seniors were less ethnocentric than they had been as freshmen. Webster, Freedman and Heist (1962) reviewed earlier studies and reported some original data supporting previous findings that students tend to become less religious and more liberal during the college years.

Studies reported periodically over the past fifty years have been concerned with the relationship between high school characteristics and college achievement. The findings of much of this research have been markedly inconsistent. Although Pittinger (1917) reported that graduates of large high schools obtained the best grades in college, other studies (Seyler, 1939; and Saupe, 1941) have obtained results favoring the graduates of small schools. More recently, Hoyt (1959) found a trend for students from smaller high schools to earn lower college grades when grades were adjusted for high school rank. Watley (1964) assessed the effects of type (public or private), location, and size of high school in relation to academic achievement in an engineering college and found that predictive efficiency was improved using predictions computed specifically for graduates of large public high schools located in urban areas and for graduates of private high schools. Major efforts have been made recently to improve predictive efficiency from scaling methods designed to adjust high school grades on the basis of grades earned in college and then in turn correcting college grades on the basis of high school grades. Bloom and Peters (1961) reported that by adjusting both high school and college grades for institutional variation they were able to increase the over-all correlation between school and college grades from about .50 to .77. For a sample of 23 high schools they found a median within-school correlation of .54 for unscaled high school and college grades, and with scaled grades this was raised to .77. For 13 colleges the median within-college correlation of .57 for unscaled school and college grades was raised to .68 for adjusted grades. Although these findings are important and deserve close attention, several aspects of the design of the study make the

DESCRIPTORS*PREDICTIVE ABILITY (TESTING), COLLEGE STUDENTS, *ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT, *COCURRICULAR ACTIVITIES, COMPETITIVE SELECTION, HIGH SCHOOLS, BIBLIOGRAPHIES, ACHIEVEMENT RATING, *COLLEGE ENTRANCE, EXAMINATIONS, OEL BEHAVIOR INVENTORY, NATIONAL MERIT SCHOLARSHIP QUALIFICATIONS TEST, VOCATIONAL PREFERENCE INVENTORY, ADJECTIVE CHECK LIST, CALIFORNIA PSYCHOLOGICAL INVENTORY, NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, CARNEGIE CORPORATION, FORD FOUNDATION, EVANSTON