DETAILED ANALYSIS OF OPINIONS

In addition to the replies summarized in the foregoing table, it has been found desirable to include a more complete discussion of each question based upon a large number of expressions of opinion that could not be tabulated in the simple form of "yes" or "no." These opinions have been carefully analyzed with the purpose of giving a more complete interpretation of the attitudes of the graduates.

1. In your opinion, has the R. O. T. C. military course of study a definite educational value of its own?-According to the data received, 97.1 per cent of those who replied to this question are agreed that military training has a definite educational value, apart from its purely military aspects. The intensity of this conviction varies according to the individual, the institution such individual attended, and the major course of instruction he pursued. The graduates view the training as rounding out the college program, whether it be academic or technical, by emphasizing things which make for personal efficiency. They point out that the success of college men in large industrial organizations is accelerated by the practical type of training in principles of organization, cooperation, and leadership, which is given by the course.

Military training is depicted as providing the student with a coordinated and balanced course in human relations, which combines a practical period of apprenticeship with several years of theory, demonstration, and application. The outdoors is pictured as the laboratory for the disciplinary and applicatory training; the classroom for the study and solution of military problems. A considerable number point out that the tactical decisions involved in these problems call for analytical treatment, skill in judgment, and accuracy in decision. It is contended that such training makes for a disciplined mind, has a practical application to the daily tasks of life, and is in line with advanced educational practice.

The course in military history giving the broader aspects of American military policy appears highly regarded from an educational standpoint. According to the replies, the events of history are accurately treated and critically examined as a means of demonstrating the effect of preparation and leadership upon success.

A number advanced the thought that education should concern itself with the physical, as well as with the intellectual, and stressed the fact that military training affords physical development to the mass rather than intensive exercise to the few. The summer camp period was stated as being especially efficacious in accomplishing this physical improvement. Proper posture, outdoor recreation, systematic exercise, a knowledge of sanitation and hygiene are attributes of military training believed to be of educational value.

2. Did the R. O. T. C. contribute anything important or unique to your education?-Among the opinions of the 94.9 per cent who gave an affirmative answer to this question are noted the following: Military training developed confidence, coordination of mind and muscle, and contributed practical training in leadership. The disciplinary exercises taught courtesy, respect for authority, and the value of individual effort to mass accomplishment. The training contributed to an interest in national affairs and to a conviction that there are duties and obligations of citizens in time of peace. It gave an appreciation of the importance of health, neat appearance, and erect carriage to individual progress. It contributed an ability to speak clearly and coherently before a group of men.

Among the opinions of the 5.1 per cent who gave a negative reply to the question we find the following observations: The R. O. T. C. course contributes nothing to those not interested in the training. Its value is to the Nation and not to the individual. The training is unique but not important, and takes valuable time that might be better devoted to one's educational objective.

3

3. How did the quality of the R. O. T. C. course with respect to content and organization, compare with other courses given at your institution? The replies representing 36 institutions, rate the quality of the military course "Average," with respect to content and organization, compared with courses given by the other departments. Of the 18 remaining institutions, the course at 2 is rated "Above average;" the course at 12 is rated "Average" to "Above average," and the course at the remaining 4 is rated "Average" to "Below average."

Comparison of R. O. T. C. curriculum with courses of other departments

The graduates of 18 institutions registered more "Below average” ratings than "Above average," while the contrary was true of the remaining 36. In two instances no "Below average" ratings were cast while the returns from one institution showed but one "Above average" rating.

3 As a check on the evaluations made respecting this question, the replies of two groups of graduates— those belonging to the 1923 to 1926 classes, inclusive, and those belonging to the 1927 to 1930 classes, inclusive, are contrasted for 18 institutions as shown in the appendix. Attention is called to the relatively small differ. ence of opinion upon this question between these two groups.

to

The advanced R. O. T. C. course by itself is rated "Average "Above average"; the basic course between "Average" and "Below average"-more generally the latter. The Army instructors are rated "Above average" in personality and beneficial influence upon the students, but only "Average" in pedagogical ability.

The preponderance of replies from graduates of the technical schools tends to rate the comparative quality of the R. O. T. C. course lower than do graduates of the academic institutions. The tendency toward a lower rating is also noticeable in the returns from graduates of the medical units. These two groups of graduates attribute the lower rating to the more elementary character of the basic course.

The 2-year elementary or basic course receives general criticism that its disciplinary standards are not sufficiently strict, and that its quality suffers as a consequence. The point illustrates a limitation of military training courses in civilian institutions as compared to those in institutions which are essentially military colleges where students live in company barracks and operate under a 24-hour military schedule. In the nonmilitary colleges, students are under the control of the military department three hours per week in the first and second years and five hours per week in the third and fourth

years.

Graduates of some institutions stated that the comparative standing of the R. O. T. C. course was injured by the ease with which passing grades were obtained, and that it was rare for a student to run into scholastic or disciplinary difficulties solely on account of military science. Although reports from several other institutions presented an opposite situation, the preponderance of replies indicates that the scholastic ease with which students pass through the R. O. T. C. is a retarding influence upon its academic rating. It is not conducive to the prestige to which graduates believe the R. O. T. C. is entitled for it to be known as a "snap course."

The consensus of opinion of those who dealt with the relationship of the staff of the military department to that of the academic faculty was that the frequent rotation of professors of military science and tactics, who have shown exceptional talent for this type of detail, is a policy not advantageous to the R. O. T. C. from the standpoint of institutional recognition.

4. From your own experience was the time you spent on the training justified by the results obtained?-From the affirmative responses which represent a large majority, we find the following viewpoints: Military training taught both in theory and practice the principles of cooperation, organization, and the art of command. It developed selfcontrol, dependability, and orderly habits. The democracy of the training made for solidarity in the college body and resulted in

friendships not otherwise possible. The financial aid was a material help in meeting college expenses. The course provided a much needed variety to the academic subjects. It provided more practical knowledge than any other course.

From the 5.1 per cent negative responses received, we note the following: Military training intruded itself into student schedules already burdened with requirements. The basic R. O. T. C. course was not applicable for credit toward a degree, nor was it made difficult enough to justify serious attention. The work of the basic course was repetitious, sketchy, and dull, and of little value to the majority upon whom it was forced. It was a waste of time.

5. In your opinion, did military training aid or make easier the development in your own life of one or more of the following qualities or characteristics: Leadership, Initiative, Orderliness, Disciplinary value? The replies show that four-fifths of the respondents credited their military training with favorably affecting their ability to supervise and to cooperate with others. Approximately three-fifths credited its disciplinary influence as a factor in their development by enabling them more readily to adjust themselves as employees, while a slightly smaller number indicated that the training aided in initiative and orderliness. Additional qualities checked were confidence, health, decision, and patriotism.

In accompanying statements, the general opinion expressed was that training in the art of command breeds confidence and initiative and gives to a young man in the first trying years following graduation an advantage over the nonmilitary man.

6. In what way, if any, has the military education you have received been of economic value to you since graduation?—According to the evidence, such economic benefits as may result from military training are largely of an intangible kind. The majority of the replies stated that the training is an effective force making for character, physical fitness, and the ability to get things accomplished, and that the possession of such qualities is an aid to individual progress. A goodly number rated the R. O. T. C. as the course that had proven the most valuable to them in every-day life. A handful stated that their military education had proven an economic detriment.

Forty-nine and three-tenths per cent indicated that the training had improved them physically; many asserted that a proper posture was an economic asset.

Only 12.4 per cent of those answering found their R. O. T. C. work a recognizable factor in the obtaining of first employment. This

Only advanced course students receive subsistence and allowances totaling $299.30, over a 2-year period. The amount includes subsistence at summer camp ($29.40); pay at summer camp, 42 days at 70 cents ($29.40); travel to and from summer camp ($27); uniform renovation at camp ($4); uniform for 2 years ($40); subsistence, at 30 cents a day, 1834 months ($169.50).

group, particularly teachers, engineers, and those coming in supervisory contact with labor or students, found military training of definite and tangible assistance in holding their positions and in qualifying for promotion, attributing this help to experiences gained in handling men in exercises requiring coordination and direction while acting as cadet and noncommissioned officers.

It was pointed out that in many communities, and with a number of large employers, a commission in the Reserve Corps is recognized as indicative of ability, and considered as having predictive value of leadership qualities. It was felt that probably the most tangible, economic value of the training to a R. O. T. C. graduate is that wherever he goes, he finds open to him the opportunity of extending his acquaintance among the influential men of the community who are interested in military problems. That this opportunity is an asset and of economic value was stressed.

7. In your opinion does the R. O. T. C. course of instruction tend to produce a militaristic attitude inimical to world peace?-Ninety-three and six-tenths per cent of graduates replied to this question negatively and stated very definitely that actual education in the destructiveness of war is conducive to a sane patriotism and an enlightened attitude toward peace. They asserted that a working familiarity with modern military weapons acted as a sobering offset to any romantic conception of warfare. They pointed out that the R. O. T. C. is a training and not a state of mind. It was their view that the military instructors on the whole had shown the repulsive side of warfare and had presented their material from the standpoint of its emergency application rather than from the standpoint of assuming the inevitability of war. This group asserted that the extent of its militaristic thought, as influenced by military training, was a belief in military preparedness as a security measure.

The 6.4% who replied affirmatively to the question, indicated that students assume that they are being trained for the next war and that the very expectation creates a positive belief in the inevitability of war. This group believed also that such training keeps alive a militaristic spirit at the moment when the United States is advancing the Kellogg and other pacts for judicial settlement of all international disputes. It would be far better, some thought, to teach youth to think in terms of world-wide economic and political development rather than in patriotic terms which view our neighbors with alarm.

8 (a) and (b). Judging by your own experience, do you favor the R. O. T. C. as a required subject for the first two years of college or would you make the entire course optional?-Eighty-one and two-tenths per cent of 9,554 replies favored two years of required training. This majority argued that disciplinary training is now neglected in the