Sample G57 from Robin M. Williams, Jr., "Values and Modern Education in the United States," in Donald N. Barrett, editor, Values in America. Notre Dame, Indiana: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1961. Pp. 74-80. 0010-1980 A part of the XML version of the Brown Corpus2,051 words 42 (2.0%) quotesG57

Used by permission.

Robin M. Williams, Jr., "Values and Modern Education in the United States," in Donald N. Barrett, editor, Values in America. Notre Dame, Indiana: The University of Notre Dame Press, 1961. Pp. 74-80. 0010-1980

Typographical Error: profoundity [1800]

Header auto-generated for TEI version

But it would not be very satisfactory to leave our conclusions at the point just reached . Fortunately , it is possible to be somewhat more concrete and factual in diagnosing the involvement of values in education . For this purpose we now draw upon data from sociological and psychological studies of students in American colleges and universities , and particularly from the Cornell Values Studies . In the latter research program , information is available for 2,758 Cornell students surveyed in 1950 and for 1,571 students surveyed in 1952 . Of the latter sample , 944 persons had been studied two years earlier ; ; hence changes in attitudes and values can be analyzed for identical individuals at two points in time . In addition , the 1952 study collected comparable data from 4,585 students at ten other colleges and universities scattered across the country : Dartmouth , Harvard , Yale , Wesleyan , North Carolina , Fisk , Texas , University of California at Los Angeles , Wayne , and Michigan .

We find , in the first place , that the students overwhelmingly approve of higher education , positively evaluate the job their own institution is doing , do not accept most of the criticisms levelled against higher education in the public prints , and , on the whole , approve of the way their university deals with value-problems and value inculcation . It is not our impression that these evaluations are naively uncritical resultants of blissful ignorance ; ; rather , the generality of these students find their university experience congenial to their own sense of values .

Students are approximately equally divided between those who regard vocational preparation as the primary goal of an ideal education and those who chose a general liberal education . Other conceivable goals , such as character-education and social adjustment , are of secondary importance to them . The ideal of a liberal education impresses itself upon the students more and more as they move through college . Even in such technical curricula as engineering , the senior is much more likely than the freshman to choose , as an ideal , liberal education over specific vocational preparation . In the university milieu of scholarship and research , of social diversity , of new ideas and varied and wide-ranging interests , `` socialization '' into a campus culture apparently means heightened appreciation of the idea of a liberal education in the arts and sciences .

Students' choices of ideal educational goals are not arbitrary or whimsical . There is a clear relationship between their educational evaluations and their basic pattern of general values . The selective and directional qualities of basic value-orientations are clearly evident in these data : the `` success-oriented '' students choose vocational preparation , the `` other-directed '' choose goals of social adjustment ( `` getting along with people '' ) , the `` intellectuals '' choose a liberal arts emphasis .

The same patterned consistency shows itself in occupational choices . There is impressive consistency between specific occupational preferences and the student's basic conception of what is for him a good way of life . And , contrary to many popular assertions , the goal-values chosen do not seem to us to be primarily oriented to materialistic success nor to mere conformity . Our students want occupations that permit them to use their talents and training , to be creative and original , to work with and to help other people . They also want money , prestige , and security . But they are optimistic about their prospects in these regards ; ; they set limits to their aspirations -- few aspire to millions of dollars or to `` imperial '' power and glory . Within the fixed frame of these aspirations , they can afford to place a high value on the expressive and people-oriented aspects of occupation and to minimize the instrumental-reward values of power , prestige , and wealth .

Occupational choices are also useful -- and interesting -- in bringing out clearly that values do not constitute the only component in goals and aspirations . For there is also the `` face of reality '' in the form of the individual's perceptions of his own abilities and interests , of the objective possibilities open to him , of the familial and other social pressures to which he is exposed . We find `` reluctant recruits '' whose values are not in line with their expected occupation's characteristics . Students develop occupational images -- not always accurate or detailed -- and they try to fit their values to the presumed characteristics of the imagined occupation . The purely cognitive or informational problems are often acute . Furthermore , many reluctant recruits are yielding to social demands , or compromising in the face of their own limitations of opportunity , or of ability and performance . Thus , many a creativity-oriented aspirant for a career in architecture , drama , or journalism , resigns himself to a real estate business ; ; many a people-oriented student who dreams of the M.D. decides to enter his father's advertising agency ; ; and many a hopeful incipient business executive decides it were better to teach the theory of business administration than to practice it . The old ideal of the independent entrepreneur is extant -- but so is the recognition that the main chance may be in a corporate bureaucracy .

In their views on dating , courtship , sex , and family life , our students prefer what they are expected to prefer . For them , in the grim words of a once-popular song , love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage . Their expressed standards concerning sex roles , desirable age for marriage , characteristics of an ideal mate , number of children desired are congruent with the values and stereotypes of the preceding generation -- minus compulsive rebellion . They even accept the `` double standard '' of sex morality in a double sense , i.e. , both sexes agree that standards for men differ from standards for women , and women apply to both sexes a standard different from that held by men .

`` Conservatism '' and `` traditionalism '' seem implied by what has just been said . But these terms are treacherous . In the field of political values , it is certainly true that students are not radical , not rebels against their parents or their peers . And as they go through college , the students tend to bring their political position in line with that prevalent in the social groups to which they belong . Yet they have accepted most of the extant `` welfare state '' provisions for health , security , and the regulation of economic affairs , and they overwhelmingly approve of the traditional `` liberalism '' of the Bill of Rights . When their faith in civil liberties is tested against strong pressures of social expediency in specific issues , e.g. , suppression of `` dangerous ideas '' , many waver and give in . The students who are most willing to acquiesce in the suppression of civil liberties are also those who are most likely to be prejudiced against minority groups , to be conformist and traditionalistic in general social attitudes , and to lack a basic faith in people .

As one looks at the existing evidence , one finds a correlation , although only a slight one , between high grades and `` libertarian '' values . But the correlation is substantial only among upperclassmen . In other words , as students go through college , those who are most successful academically tend to become more committed to a `` Bill of Rights '' orientation . College in gross -- just the general experience -- may have varying effects , but the students who are successful emerge with strengthened and clarified democratic values . This finding is consistent also with the fact that student leaders are more likely to be supporters of the values implicit in civil liberties than the other students .

There is now substantial evidence from several major studies of college students that the experience of the college years results in a certain , selective homogenization of attitudes and values . Detached from their prior statuses and social groups and exposed to the pervasive stimuli of the university milieu , the students tend to assimilate a new common culture , to converge toward norms characteristic of their own particular campus . Furthermore , in certain respects , there are norms common to colleges and universities across the country . For instance , college-educated people consistently show up in study after study as more often than others supporters of the Bill of Rights and other democratic rights and liberties . The interesting thing in this connection is that the norms upon which students tend to converge include toleration of diversity .

To the extent that our sampling of the orientations of American college students in the years 1950 and 1952 may be representative of our culture -- and still valid in 1959 -- we are disposed to question the summary characterization of the current generation as silent , beat , apathetic , or as a mass of other-directed conformists who are guided solely by social radar without benefit of inner gyroscopes . Our data indicate that these students of today do basically accept the existing institutions of the society , and , in the face of the realities of complex and large-scale economic and political problems , make a wary and ambivalent delegation of trust to those who occupy positions of legitimized responsibility for coping with such collective concerns . In a real sense they are admittedly conservative , but their conservatism incorporates a traditionalized embodiment of the original `` radicalism '' of 1776 . Although we have no measures of its strength or intensity , the heritage of the doctrine of inalienable rights is retained . As they move through the college years our young men and women are `` socialized '' into a broadly similar culture , at the level of personal behavior . In this sense also , they are surely conformists . It is even true that some among them use the sheer fact of conformity -- `` everyone does it '' -- as a criterion for conduct . But the extent of ethical robotism is easily overestimated . Few students are really so faceless in the not-so-lonely crowd of the swelling population in our institutions of higher learning . And it may be well to recall that to say `` conformity '' is , in part , another way of saying `` orderly human society '' .

In the field of religious beliefs and values , the college students seem to faithfully reflect the surrounding culture . Their commitments are , for the most part , couched in a familiar idiom . Students testify to a felt need for a religious faith or ultimate personal philosophy . Avowed atheists or freethinkers are so rare as to be a curiosity . The religious quest is often intense and deep , and there are students on every campus who are seriously wrestling with the most profound questions of meaning and value . At the same time , a major proportion of these young men and women see religion as a means of personal adjustment , an anchor for family life , a source of emotional security . These personal and social goals often overshadow the goals of intellectual clarity , and spiritual transcendence . The `` cult of adjustment '' does exist . It exists alongside the acceptance of traditional forms of organized religion ( church , ordained personnel , ritual , dogma ) . Still another segment of the student population consists of those who seek , in what they regard as religion , intellectual clarity , rational belief , and ethical guidance and reinforcement .

Our first impression of the data was that the students were surprisingly orthodox and religiously involved . Upon second thought we were forced to realize that we have very few reliable historical benchmarks against which we might compare the present situation , and that conclusions that present-day students are `` more '' or `` less '' religious could not be defended on the basis of our data . As we looked more intently at the content of our belief and the extent of religious participation , we received the impression that many of the religious convictions expressed represented a conventional acceptance , of low intensity . But , here again , comparative benchmarks are lacking , and we do not know , in any case , what measure of profoundity and intensity to expect from healthy , young , secure and relatively inexperienced persons ; ; after all , feelings of immortality and invulnerability are standard illusions of youth . Nor are optimistic and socially-oriented themes at all rare in the distinctive religious history of this country .

Kluckhohn recently has summarized evidence regarding changes in values during a period of years , primarily 1935-1955 , but extending much farther back in some instances . A variety of data are assembled to bear upon such alleged changes as diminished puritan morality , work-success ethic , individualism , achievement , lessened emphasis on future-time orientation in favor of sociability , moral relativism , consideration and tolerance , conformity , hedonistic present-time orientation . Although he questions the extent and nature of the alleged revival of religion and the alleged increase in conformity , and thinks that `` hedonistic '' present-time orientation does not have the meaning usually attributed to it , he does conclude that Americans increasingly enjoy leisure without guilt , do not stress achievement so much as formerly , are more accepting of group harmony as a goal , more tolerant of diversity and aware of other cultures .