IV. THE RELATION BETWEEN MAJOR STUDIES AND VOCATIONS.

The material used in working out the relation between the major studies of students and their vocations later is of two kinds:

(1) The data obtained from the application cards which a graduate fills upon joining the Intercollegiate Bureau of Occupations of New York City. From the cards of all registered alumnæ of Vassar, Wellesley, Radcliffe, Barnard, and Mount Holyoke, regardless of the year of graduation, were copied the name of the graduate, her majors in college, and her vocation or vocations since graduation. Thus a mixed group, consisting of 261 graduates of five colleges, was obtained, which was a unit in but one respect, dissatisfaction with the present job and desire for different work.

(2) To check up this group it seemed only fair to select an entire class throughout the five colleges which would give the same data of majors and vocations without the bias toward desire for change. The class of 1912 was chosen as a class near enough in time to the present curriculum to make the connection with it fair, and far enough away in time to permit the members who intended to work at all to get some kind of a position. The data concerning the vocations of the second group were obtained from the cards sent out to the graduates of women's colleges by the Association of Collegiate Alumnæ. The data concerning the majors of the same students were supplied by the officers of the separate colleges. Since Radcliffe College had no convenient records, the questionnaire method was used in that one instance.

While Vassar and Radcliffe have no formal system of majors, the subjects to which the student gave most hours in her course served the purpose of majors. Note was made of all the vocations into which the graduate had entered.

The major studies were considered completely correlated with the vocation if (1) the vocation made use of all the major studies; or (2) the vocation made use of one major but called for no other college subjects. Graduates making such combinations are termed for convenience complete correlates.

Partial correlation consists of cases: (1) If the vocation does not make use of all majors and at the same time does use other college subjects; (2) If the individual has at some time in some vocation

used at least one major. Graduates making such combinations are termed partial correlates.

Noncorrelates are a group made up of graduates whose vocations make no use of their major studies.

It must be clearly understood, on the one hand, that complete correlation does not mean that because of correlated majors the individual is doing the best possible work; it means only that as far as the college is concerned if the choice of majors has been intelligent, the preparation has been made as adequate as possible. The only criterion of the work would of course be the results produced by the individual.

No correlation, on the other hand, does not mean that the individual has taken no college work bearing on her subject. She may have taken a course or two, but she has not chosen to major in the particular field which later she has apparently found most important to her.

It is obvious, too, that college work, though not correlated at all with the vocation, may help an individual to an incalculable degree in affording broadness of outlook, wisdom of judgment, and insight into new possibilities of her vocation. As a matter of fact, it is impossible to get through college without taking other subjects than those correlated with the vocation. Since, also, most colleges require a student to choose major subjects on some basis, it is possibly no more narrowing to make the choice on an intelligent basis than on no basis whatever.

For several reasons it is possible that complete correlation between majors and vocation may bring about entirely unsuccessful results, as is illustrated by the Intercollegiate Bureau cases where, though the work shows correlation with the majors, it has nevertheless proved unsatisfactory enough to force an attempt toward change of occupation. An accidental choice of majors in college may be one reason for failure. The student continues with Latin, for instance, because by adding a little more to the prescribed amount she can teach the subject. That is, the vocation is chosen to fit accidental majors. Obliged by the demands of employers to present preparation of some kind, she must choose prospective employers by her marketable preparation on hand at graduation. The fact that the greatest amount of complete correlation is found at the colleges offering greatest freedom of election, suggests that students may continue blindly in prescribed work in the other colleges.

Again, complete correlation may be unsuccessful in cases where there is little native ability. To illustrate, a student who has majored in English and zoology may write a book on zoology which is wholly worthless. If, however, some native ability were present, the book would probably stand a better chance of success if the writer

had a scholarly grasp of zoology and a knowledge of her mother tongue.

It is also possible that the combination of no correlation between majors and vocation may be entirely successful. In the first place, the technical training for the alien vocation may have been acquired wholly after graduation. In many cases at least a partial preparation could have been made in the college, as will be pointed out later in the discussion of occupations.

In the second place, excellent native equipment may make success in a new field possible without the running start gained by correlated college work. It seems, however, a waste of power to use it on details of preparation which should by that time be reduced to the state of reflex action.

The data regarding the alumnæ registered at the Intercollegiate Bureau of Occupations will be dealt with first. This group, as well as the group of the class of 1912, is divided into teachers and nonteachers; the proportion of 45.6 per cent of teachers registering at the Intercollegiate Bureau, and 54.27 per cent of teachers in the working section of the class of 1912 seemed to justify such a differentiation. The teachers of the Intercollegiate Bureau group are divided into teachers at date: i. e., those for whom the bureau has as yet found no other occupation; and former teachers: i. e., those who through their own efforts or those of the bureau have succeeded in leaving the profession. Many applicants do not register for any specific kind of work and do not know what kind they want. Sometimes the application is based on the desire to get out of the teaching profession, sometimes on the wish for higher salary, sometimes on personal or family reasons. The large number in the group of teachers desiring a change of occupation would suggest that the profession had been a matter of economic determinism or of accidental opportunity rather than the result of prolonged deliberation leading to conviction of fitness for the work; also, that the field may be one into which an untrained graduate could enter most easily and would, therefore, serve the convenience of the woman who hopes to make it only a stop-gap between graduation and marriage. The size of the teaching group desiring change, however, points toward a fallacy in the belief expressed lately by two college presidents that teaching is the only really desirable occupation for women.

The total number of 261 graduates registered at the Intercollegiate Bureau is divided among the five colleges as follows: Vassar, 85; Wellesley, 53; Radcliffe, 13; Barnard, 65; Mount Holyoke, 45. The small number of Radcliffe graduates may be due to the fact that many of the students are drawn from Boston and the suburbs, thus making the Boston office of the bureau a more desirable place of

registration for them. The number of representatives of each college is used as the base on which the percentages of that college are reckoned. The appended table of percentages is also expressed by the accompanying graph.

It can be readily seen that noncorrelates furnish much the largest group in each of the five colleges represented at the bureau. This condition might suggest the desirability of correlation in order to increase satisfaction in the occupation, if besides the noncorrelates we did not have a considerable percentage of correlates who also wish other work. An analysis, however, of the correlates shows that they are largely from the teaching profession. Logically, then, it is possible to conceive that had the choice of majors been determined by real aptitudes the profession into which such preparation led would not be so largely rejected. If the noncorrelates and the people who have attained correlation only through the teaching profession were withdrawn, the bureau would have little reason for further existence as far as the five colleges are concerned.

Much the largest single group in all of the colleges is the section of nonteachers showing no correlation: At Vassar, 37.64 per cent; at Wellesley, 43.39 per cent; at Radcliffe, 30.76 per cent; at Barnard, 52.30 per cent; at Mount Holyoke, 26.66 per cent. Such a group suggests that the permanent interests of its members are outside both. of teaching and of their major work at college; that therefore it might have been economy to have presented to these individuals before graduation a variety of occupations for consideration; and that had such opportunity been supplied, the individuals might have chosen college work more in harmony with their vocations.

To obviate some of the waste connected with the efforts of such a group as the Intercollegiate Bureau registers to find a congenial

occupation, the college needs to hold itself somewhat responsible. This responsibility could express itself first in giving to students help in finding interests affiliated closely enough with their aptitudes to give prophecy of some permanence. If vocational guidance is necessary for mature women who have been at work, it might help the undergraduate who knows nothing of the opportunities open to her nor the prerequisites of such occupations. Second, as will be demonstrated later, the college might give the student who is doubtful as to her calling the benefits of trying out a few possibilities in regard to work. Third, it could emphasize the need of intelligent choice of major subjects, allying them with interest and aptitudes.

FIG. 6. Correlation between majors and vocations (intercollegiate bureau).

The reduction of the large body of college trained women who are drifters is a question of deep significance to Americans, whose girls are crowding increasingly to the colleges, and are increasingly demanding work upon graduation.

The most significant group of women in occupations other than teaching is the group of secretaries. Of the 261 alumnæ registered at the Intercollegiate Bureau, 37.5 per cent enter into secretarial work. Probably the placement of some of the women still teaching will tend to raise the percentage. At all events, 50 per cent of the registered alumnæ of the five colleges in occupations other than teaching are secretaries. Of these secretaries only 13.75 per cent show any correlation with their major work at college. Usually the special preparation necessary for the work has been obtained through typewriting and stenography courses at business schools. Such preparation, compared with that required by many vocations, is easy to acquire.