LATTER OF TRANSMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF EDUCATION, Washington, D. C., January, 1932.

SIR: About a year ago Major Bishop informed me that his association, the Research ganization on Military Education, had received some money which could be used for the purpose of studying the status of military training in the colleges. In view of the fact that it was a much discusse question in the schools at the time, I decided to assist him by sendig out a questionnaire to R. O. T. C. graduates. About 16,000 question ires were mailed; more than 10,000 returns were received. All t people who received these blanks were graduates in the period ending from 1920 to 1930. Coming from those who have had, qience with the course the returns speak for

themselves.

Respectfully subnut d.

WM. JOHN COOPER,

Commissioner.

The SECRETAR OF THE INTERIOR.

III

A STUDY OF THE EDUCATIONAL VALUE OF MILITARY INSTRUCTION IN COLLEGES

AND UNIVERSITIES

INTRODUCTION

The educational value of military training has been a matter of debate since the earliest appearance of such training in the college curriculum over a century ago.

Since the World War, the debate has become somewhat more pointed. Criticism has expressed itself in organized opposition to certain aspects of such training, especially to military education as a required part of a college education. Thus far there have been relatively little reliable data bearing upon the question, and therefore the discussion has been characterized by bias on both sides.

It is possible that at some later time objective tests of the value of various types of military training may be available, and can be satisfactorily applied as a better basis for determining the value of this subject as a component in the training of a well-educated man.

In the absence of such objective tests, the most helpful data on which to premise reasonably sound conclusions would appear to be a wide sampling of the opinions of those who have actually undergone such training and have had the opportunity to evaluate it in terms of what they regard as its effect upon their own lives. That such evaluations may be faulty in individual cases is recognized. However, considerable preponderance of opinion pro or con as to the effect of a common experience may reasonably be given weight in an inquiry to determine the character of the reaction resulting from such an experience, whether it be military training or of any other sort.

It seems also that the opinions of those who have actually undergone a given experience may be assumed to be of more positive value as a basis for conclusions than opinions expressed by those who have not themselves undergone the experience, reactions to which are being studied. On the foregoing premises this study has been undertaken. The curriculum of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps of the senior division consists of a 4-year course, divided into basic and advanced courses, each of two years' duration. The work of the basic course consumes 96 hours per academic year, or 3 hours per week, of which 60 hours are devoted to practical exercises out of doors when the weather

permits, while 36 hours are used for theoretical instruction in the classroom. The primary purpose is to teach the fundamentals of military tactics, and, through disciplinary training, to develop organization and teamwork. The basis upon which the course is offered is entirely a matter for institutional decision. At present the course is required of freshmen and sophomores at 80 of the 126 institutions maintaining senior units of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.

The advanced course is entirely optional and operates on a schedule of five hours per week for both junior and senior years. In addition, the trainees must pledge themselves to attend one 6-week training camp during the summer following completion of their junior year. The aim of the advanced course is to give specialized instruction in that branch of service chosen by the candidate for commission, and to afford practical training in leadership and command. The course is more technical in nature than the basic work, which consists largely of tactical training.

1

The following study reports the results of a questionnaire sent only to graduates who completed the basic and the advanced R. O. T. C. courses. In view of their experience with the entire R. O. T. C. curriculum they should be well qualified to evaluate educationally the course as a whole. However, it is realized that those graduates who took only the basic course, either voluntarily or as a requirement, may have an entirely different estimate of the value of military training, and of the wisdom of including it as a curriculum requirement. It is not expected that conclusions can be drawn covering so controversial a question as optional versus required training without a special study of the views of this group. It is hoped that this study may be followed by an inquiry to college graduates who took the basic course, voluntarily or as a requirement, but who did not elect the advanced training.

METHODS AND PROCEDURE OF THIS STUDY

A questionnaire containing 8 principal questions was sent out to 16,416 graduates of the 1920 to 1930 classes, inclusive, of the 54 institutions selected, accompanied by a letter from the Commissioner of Education, urging compliance. The names and addresses were gathered from college catalogues, alumni association offices, and the Adjutant General's files. The extent of the inquiry among graduates of a specific institution was largely based on the size of the institution and the number of R. O. T. C. units maintained. The exception to this was the smaller college, whose entire graduate list was usually covered. Where graduate lists appeared exceptionally large certain classes were arbitrarily left out of consideration. For instance, the

1 The returns from the University of Washington are an exception.

1923, 1925, and 1930 classes of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are not represented in the replies, and neither are the 1929 and 1930 classes of Drexel Institute, nor the 1923 or 1924 classes of the Virginia Military Institute. Considerable variation in the number of inquiries made was also caused by the difficulty of obtaining either names or accurate addresses. In every case, care was exercised to assure that the lists used were a random sampling of the whole number.

Every care was taken in formulating the questionnaire to avoid suggesting or influencing the answers. Sufficient space was allowed on the questionnaire for the amplification of remarks on any phase of military education, and such space was used by the large majority of graduates. It was realized that possibly there would be those unable to give direct "yes" or "no" answers to one or more questions, and the tabulations did show that such modifications occurred; but that question which elicited the greatest tendency to make such modifications was, "In your opinion does the R. O. T. C. course of instruction tend to produce a militaristic attitude inimical to world peace?" Where answers were qualified they were not counted in the tabulation. Where replies under the last question were not marked in the space provided, but expounded directly below in the space designated "Remarks" the manifest intent was the guide as to their classification.

A wide geographical sampling of institutions was made, 39 States and the District of Columbia were represented. The selections were made with the assistance of the Office of Education for the purpose of covering at least one institution in each State and obtaining a representative sampling of each type of R. O. T. C. institution. All types of senior Reserve Officer Training Corps units were included except the institution organized essentially as a military school.' The R. O. T. C. men reached are those who have received their training under varying educational conditions and who have entered various callings. While extension of the investigation back to a period earlier than 1920 would have been desirable, such a plan would have called for separate treatment. An investigation that went back that far would not have been applicable to the R. O. T. C. as it now exists. The questionnaire follows.

2 Culver Military Academy, New Mexico Military Academy, and Oklahoma Military Academy are the three institutions of this type.