G. N. QUAM Villanova College, Villanova, Pennsylvania
FOR many years the importance of scholarship grades loomed so large as to give the undergraduate student a false sense of values. Perhaps a great share of the blame must rest: first, with medical schools who strove t o skim off that upper level of superior students (based on the scholarship records); second, with the graduate schools who wanted their share of this superior group; and lastly, with the industries. The many misfits that appeared among these "A students" apparently led each group to reexamine and revise their systems of appraising candidates with the result that many evaluation forms have been devised. Many teachers have been called upon to rate a student's personal characteristics, such as integrity, native ability, industry, initiative, cooperation, personal appearance; his educational characteristics beyond scholarship such as comprehension, scientific curiosity, laboratory technique, report writing, etc., etc. There are times when such inquiries involve an alumnus unknown to any members of the current staff. I n such cases the usual transcript of course grades is the only Source of information, which incidentally may be already in the hands of the inquirer. The great variety of evaluation forms indicates that we are still groping for an over-all useful, simple, workable procedure. The many qualities considered may be summarized from the forms appearing in Tahle 1. From their frequent appearance we may conclude that cooperation, ingenuity, initiative, integrity, judgment, personality, and scholarship should receive the most careful consideration.
Tahle 1 tabulates the evaluation qualities used by eight colleges which are indicated by Roman numerals. The eight colleges arranged alphabetically are : Gettysburg College, Iowa State College, M. I. T., Michigan State College, Ohio State University, University of California, University of Florida, and Washington State University. The order of importance shows great variation. In each of the complete forms the common practice is to rate each quality as superior, above average, average, below average, or unsatisfactory. Few medical schools presented formal evaluation forms but all were highly in favor of the procedures summarized here. The striking resemblance of some of the forms used by the industries, Table 2, shows the influence of the people that hire our students. Here again considerable groping is evident; e. g., leadership is last in I and first in 11, scholarship holds first place in I and I11 while VI and VII give first place to appearance. Initiative appears in seven forms and cooperation in six. The industries represented are: American Cyanamid, Commercial Solvents, Corning, DuPont, General Electric, Johns Manville, and Merck. Two divisions of one appear in Table 2. From these summaries we can conclude that the undergraduate college is faced with the problem of gathering necessary evaluation data through teachers who are actively observing the students. Some large colleges contend that they have too many undergraduate students to attempt such a program while others much larger have set up very elaborate systems. The need is obvious to any teacher who has been called upon I A r6sum6 of papers presented s t the Philadelphia Fifth to fill out an evaluation form. Unless the form is very Meeting-in-Miniature, January 29, 1953, and the Pennsylvania Association of College Chemistry Teachers Conference, Bucknell brief, simple in construction, and easily filled out we cannot hope to get best results from busy teachers. Universit)i, April 18, 1953.
TABLE 1 Evaluation Forms S u m m a r y (Colleges) T
Appearance Poise Leadership Initiative Resowoefulness Cooperation Judgment Intellectual keenness Scholarship Remarks of
TT. .
Initiative Pemerveranoe Intellecti~al power Experimental skill Resourcefulness Remarks of instructor
111 ---
Scholarship Cooperation Industry Capacity for future development Initiative Attitude
IV Personality Appearance Judgment Cooperation Integrity Application Soholarship O~iginality
v
VI
Scholarship Integrity Industry Personality Cooperation English Laboratory technique Health Judgment Ingenuity Initiative
Judgment Mental alertness Attitude General quality of intelligence Maturity Dependability Cooperation Manners Presentability Personality English Physical vigor
VII Scholarship Integrity Industry Laboratory technique English
VIII Scholarship Industry Initiative Cooperation Responsibility Emotional stability Extracurricular activities Remarks of instructor
575
NOVEMBER, 1953
At Villanova we have made many revisions of our evaluation form. The figure shows our latest effort. This letter-size form is passed out to the students in recitation or laboratory section. Each student writes his name, his year in college, his major field of interest, and the date. The purpose of the form is explained in detail, chiefly to convince him that even though scholarship grades are very important they do not necessarily measure the whole student to the satisfaction of graduate schools, professional schools, and industries. The instructor calls in the papers and in his free t i n e enters his name, course, and date following the key number which designates his record. The familiar letter grades of the college are used, with some broader interpretations. Some factors, such as integrity, cannot be rated with such fine distinction as to call for letters B, C, or D. The student is either outstanding or questionable. The latter in particular should be supported by statements in the remarks column. To gain uniformity a set of detailed instructions and explanations must be in the hands of each instructor. In the remarks space other qualities to be watched are suggested. Special statements by the instructors are very helpful in presenting the students' qualifications to the schools and industries and other agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As the instructor becomes familiar with his students he records his impressions; if he is not sure he enters an X. In order to avoid the influence of rating by other instructors new sheets are issued each time. The secretary transcribes all records to the master sheet which is filed. The fewer students who take two or more courses are better known and as a result more effectively appraised. The records of those majoring in chemistry are filed in the students' folders; all others are kept alphabetically arranged. A uniform procedure for securing identifying photographs has not been devised to date; in the meantime a set of yearbooks makes possible the entry of year and page in the space for "photo." Our evaluation data has given us a feeling of sureness
I Trend in scholarship Integrity Personality Initiative Poise Speech Cooperation Emotional stability Leadership
I1 Leadership Industry Ingenuity Judgment Cooperation
and fairness in making up reports for graduate and professional schools and the industries and in assisting representatives of the F. B. I. Our immediate uses on
1 the campus are: (1) preparing reports t o the Deans on the students who are delinquent, (2) giving our impression of a student to other departments we service, such as the engineering groups. We are always hoping t o simplify our procedure still further in order to make this added job as effective as possible.
Evaluation Forms Summary (Industry) 111 IV V VI Soholmship Judgment Initiative Cooperation Outside , aetivltles
Common sense Integrity Industry Initiative Leadership Originahty Personality Technical ability
Effective intelligence Imagination Adaptability Initiative Cooperation Industry Integrity Enthusiasm Emotional stability
Personal appearance Personality Oral English Initiative Intelligence Alertness Chaperstion Technical ability
VII Appearance Judgment Emotions1 maturity Leadership Initiative
VIII Scientific aptitude Experimental skill Scholarship Comprehension Breadth of interest Originality Initmtive Report writing Adaptabi!ity Cooperat~on Maturity Leadership Integrity Intellipce Arnbitmn Hralih
