College and Research Libraries


MARY PARR and MARILYN FILDERMAN 

Some Characteristics of 

Successful Alumni 

Study was made of selected characteristics of fifty-two successful and 
fifty unsuccessful alumni of the Drexel library school. The average 
successful alumnus had been younger and healthier while in library 
school, had been both graded and evaluated higher by his instructors, 
had come from a more prestigious undergraduate institution, had 
probably done more graduate work and held more library positions 
before attending library school, than the average unsuccessful alum-
nus. His undergraduate mafor field appears to have had no particular 
relevance to his success. 

THE STUDY reported here was under-
taken in an effort to determine the rela-
tionship between the career success of 
certain outstanding graduates of the 
graduate school of library science, Drex-
el Institute of Technology, and certain 
variables related to their attendance at 
Drexel. It was hoped that such a study 
might help in formulating improvements 
in admission policies. 

METHOD 

Two lists were used: the first com-
prised the names of fifty-two graduat~s 
whose employment records sugg_¢sted 
that they had been unusually successful 
in their positions; the other named fifty 
graduates and former students whose 
records showed them to have b en un-
successful either as Drexel students or 
in their library positions. Both lists were 
constructed on the basis of faculty eval-
uations, employment records, and pro-

Miss Parr is Assistant J!rofessor of Li-
brary Science in Pratt Institute, and Miss 
Filderman is Administrative Assistant in 
the Graduate School of Library Science at 
Drexel Institute of Technology. 

fessional recognition, and the names in-
cluded were drawn from a thirty-year 
period. In choosing the successful and 
unsuccessful groups, each of several fac-
ulty members and the placement direc-
tor were asked to submit the names of 
alumni who were nationally respected 
in specific fields, and others who ap-
peared to be equally unsuccessful, were 
problem cases, or "lemons." The suc-
cessful group included heads of leading 
libraries and library systems and alum-
ni who had served as officers in national 
library associations. The unsuccessful 
group included former students and 
alumni who were very difficult to place, 
or who had flunked out of library school 
yet held on to an inferior job, or who 
had never advanced beyond a $4,000 
job. 

The following were analyzed in con-
nection with each of the successful and 
unsuccessful graduates and former stu-
dents: ( 1) age while in library school, 
( 2) health, ( 3) faculty evaluations at 
Drexel, ( 4) scholastic standing at Drex-
el, ( 5) undergraduate colleges, ( 6) 
graduate degrees, ( 7) undergraduate 
majors, ( 8) pre-Drexel and pre-job li-

/ 225 



2261 College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 

brary experience, and ( 9) college lan-
guage training. 

Information relative to all of these 
points was compiled from the folders of 
the 102 students. In the paragraphs that 
follow under Findings these data are 
presented for two groups: Group S, 
graduates judged successful, and Group 
U those considered unsuccessful. 

' 
FINDINGS-GROUP s 

Age while in library school. At the 
time of their period of study at Drexel 
the average age was twenty-seven. A 
large portion of this group had enrolled 
in library school shortly after college 
graduation. 

Health. Only three members of this 
group ( 6 per cent) had records of poor 
health. 

Drexel faculty ratings. As is probably 
to be expected, the faculty ratings re-
ceived by the individuals were favorable 
almost without exception. Phrases such 
as "superior ability," "seriousness of pur-
pose," "personable," and "professional 
ability" were commonly used. 

Scholastic standing at Drexel. An 
analysis of the forty .scholastic averages 
which were available revealed that 
twenty-six ( 65 per cent) ranked in the 
top third of their Drexel graduating 
classes, and that eleven ( 27 per cent) 
were among the first five persons of their 
classes. 

Undergraduate education. If institu-
tions attended for baccalaureate degree 
can be categorized as being "prestige" 
(the better known colleges and univer-
sities of large or selective enrollment) 
and "non-prestige" (teachers', nonac-
credited, small, unselective, or vocation-
al colleges), 64 per cent of the persons 
in Group S received their undergraduate 
education at "prestige" colleges and uni-
versities. Also, six of this group ( 15 per 
cent) had been graduated magna cum 
laude by their undergraduate colleges. 

Graduate degrees. Seven ( 14 per cent) 

held graduate degrees at the time of 
admission to the library school. All were 
master's degrees; none held doctorates. 
Of these, three had earned the master's 
degree in education, one each in French, 
literature, classical languages, and food 
technology. 

Undergraduate majors. The majority 
of the group indicated that their field of 
concentration had been the liberal arts, 
many of them having been English 
majors. 

Pre- Drexel and pre-job library experi-
ence. There seems to have been a defi-
nite relationship between library experi-
ence before graduation and success fol-
lowing graduation. More than twice as 
many persons in Group S as in Group 
U were employed in libraries before 
graduation. Many of the positions these 
individuals held were listed as .. pro-
fessional" and involved considerable re-
sponsibility; many were in such positions 
before entering library school. 

College language training. More than 
half had studied two foreign languages, 
and all of them at least one; 12 per cent 
had studied four languages. 

FINDINGS-GROUP u 
Age while in library school. The aver-

age age of this group was thirty-four 
which suggests that more individuals 
had spent time in other occupations than 
had those in GroupS. 

Health. Eleven of the fifty persons in 
Group U ( 22 per cent) were victims of 
serious illness or had physical defects, 
often causing frequent class absence. 

Drexel faculty evaluations. Many were 
characterized by their instructors as 
"egocentric," ( 10 per cent); "immature," 
( 22 per cent); "not alert" or "slow to 
learn," ( 30 per cent); and "untidy," 
"poor appearance," or "unpoised" ( 12 
per cent). 

Scholastic standing at Drexel. Grade 
point averages were found for all fifty 
members of Group U. Of these, thirty-

(Continued on page 298) 



238 I College & Research Libraries • May, 1966 

on conventional scientific publishing. John 
Markus of McGraw-Hill offered in some 
detail a photocopying royalty plan that 
might prove an equitable solution to the 
problems of copyright and photocopying. 

One cannot judge the substance and 
worth of a conference by its printed pro-
ceedings, and the participants in the con-
clave may have gained considerable insight 
into the implications of the Warren proposal 
for library planning. If so, such insights 
have eluded the editor. Competent univer-
sity librarians evidently found their assign-
ment of relating the Warren proposal to 
library planning a bit sticky for they fre-
quently retreated to discussing tangential 
matters such as the quality of microfilm 
readers and local applications of computers 
to library operations. The Osborne paper 
on automation and library design was too 
general to generate dialogue among the 
panelists. 

To stir librarians, Dr. Warren circulated 
his memorandum in a "white paper" to 

ALUMNI ... 
(Continued from page 226) 

one ( 62 per cent) were in the lower 
third of their Drexel graduating classes, 
and seven ( 14 per cent) were among 
the bottom five individuals graduating 
that year. 

Undergraduate education. Only 36 per 
cent (half as many as of Group S) at-
tended institutions in the "prestige" 
group. 

Graduate degrees. There was one in-
dividual in Group U with an advanced 
degree ( 2 per cent). 

Undergraduate mafors. Group U as 
Group S showed their major fields of 
concentration to be in the liberal arts 
area, many of them English majors. 

Pre-Drexel and pre-fob library experi-
ence. Of the persons making up Group 
U, 30 per cent had never worked in a 
library, and 33 per cent had been em-
ployed in such capacities as student as-
sistants, typists, or menders of books. 

College language training. In Group 
U 10 per cent had no foreign language 
training whatsoever; however, 12 per 

members of the Association of Research 
Libraries. The official comment of the Asso-
ciation (Appendix G, Minutes of the Sixty-
Fifth Meeting, January 24, 1965, Washing-
ton, D.C.) stated that the Association con-
curred in the objectives but that there were 
proposals and assumptions in the report 
that seemed impractical, unnecessarily cost-
ly, and inefficient. The statement in these 
minutes should be measured against the 
general and somewhat superficial reactions 
of the conference which failed to produce 
a sophisticated and critical analysis of the 
proposal and its relationships to compara-
ble plans for information control. The bits 
and pieces offered on various facets of 
automation and library planning contribute 
little or nothing to that subject. Entitling 
these proceedings Library Planning for 
Automation seriously misleads librarians 
who seek aid in planning for the new tech-
nology.-Robert T. Grazier, Wayne State 
University. 

•• 
cent had studied four or more languages. 

CONCLUSIONS . 

This limited sampling seems to indi-
cate that there were several evident 
characteristics of the successful graduate 
of the Drexel library school: ( 1) these 
graduates were somewhat younger than 
their less successful fellows, many having 
enrolled shortly after completion of an 
undergraduate degree; ( 2) they enjoyed 
better general health; ( 3) the Drexel 
faculty evaluations of them during their 
days as graduate students quite consist-
ently forecast professional success; ( 4) 
their scholastic success was a good in-
dicator of their future professional suc-
cess; ( 5) the quality of their under-
graduate college often indicated the 
quality of the individual; ( 6) they were 
somewhat better prepared by having 
undertaken graduate work in other areas 
as well; ( 7) a high per cent of this group 
had previous library job experience, 
many bearing considerable responsibili-
ty; ( 8) this group showed somewhat 
st_ronger language background. Perhaps 
it should be pointed out that only one