College and Research Libraries L ENGIN I. HOL~1STROM and ELAINE EL-KHAWAS An Overview of the First Four Years of the Title 11-B Fellowship Program Over 1,500 fellowships have been granted under the Title II-B pro- gram since its incep-tion in fiscal year 1966. The Title II-B program seems to have contributed to an improvement in the quality of stu- dents recruited into library programs. The mafority of the fellows suc- cessfully completed their programs and have become well-trained librarians. The Title II -B program also seems to have had the effect of str-engthening institutional programs of instruction and improving the quality of library education. SINCE FISCAL YEAR 1966 when the Title li-B program of the Higher Education Act of 1965 was first implemented, the U.S. Office of Education has provided over 1,500 fellowship grants to students in library and information sciences (LIS) and has assisted fifty-six schools in defraying the cost of courses of train- ing in librarianship. In a recent study, data were collected from fifty-six LIS institutions participat- ing in the Title II-B program in order to evaluate the first four years of the pro- gram. All of the participating institu- tions cooperated with the study by pro- viding information on students who had received Title li-B fellowships during the first four years of the program ( 1966/ 67- 1969/ 70), yielding informa- tion on a total of 1,627 students. In ad- dition, institutional questionnaires which contained information regarding enroll- ment trends and selection of Title li-B Dr. Holmstrom is a research associate at the Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc. At the time this paper was written Elaine El-Khawas was research analyst, Bureau of Social Science Research, Wash- ington, D.C. She is now employed by the University Research Corporation, Wash- ington, D.C. fellows and other awardees were ob- tained from all but one of the partici- pating institutions. Although differences among schools in record-keeping practices, admission policies, and academic schedules re- duced the comparability of the data to some extent, the results clearly indicat- ed that the deans of the participating LIS institutions viewed the program fav- orably and that the program was seen as contributing highly to the quality and the quantity of students graduating from the LIS institutions. TRENDS IN ENROLLMENT Table 1 presents the estimated totals for LIS enrollments of the institutions participating in the first four years of the Title II-B program, including data on Title li-B fellowship recipients. These figures should be treated with some caution insofar as the totals, in some cases, include part-time students. In ad- dition, the schools supplying the infor- mation varied greatly in their interpre- tation of what constituted a formal ap- plication. However, combining the four years of the program, it would appear that two-thirds of all students who sub- /205 206 I College & Research Libraries • May 1971 mitted "formal applications" were ad- mitted to LIS institutions. Approximate- ly one-fifth of these students, or one- third of admitted students, requested financial aid. Three-fourths of the stu- dents applying for financial aid were considered for Title li-B fellowships. Generally, one-third of the students con- sidered for the Title II-B program re- ceived the fellowship, comprising about five percent of the total number of stu- dents applying for admission, or eight percent of the students who were finally admitted. The financial resources that were available to students enrolling in the LIS institutions in our study were not limited to Title II-B fellowships. To some degree, the size of the school determined the number of grants that were availa- ble. The types of support also varied greatly among the schools, again to some degree dependent on the size or the lo- cality of the school: for instance, a large urban school would have a number of grants restricted for the use of certain ethnic groups in addition to a number of other grants or fellowships which were distributed according to the scholastic achievement or the financial need of the applicants. Small, nonurban schools, on the other hand, would have only one or two awards in addition to Title li-B fellowships. When all schools were con- sidered together, it appears that, with the exception of the first year of pro- gram, Title li-B fellowships constituted about half of the grants or awards of- fered in the participating LIS institu- tions. Since the program aided less than ten percent of the total number of en- rollments, there is definitely room for expansion of the program. SELECTION OF THE A w ARDEES An overwhelming majority of the deans agreed that their best candidates were awarded the Title li-B fellow- ships, although there was less agreement regarding the criteria used in the selec- tion process. The most important cri- terion appeared to be undergraduate grades. However, the importance at- TABLE 1 EsTIMATEs OF LIS AND TITLE II-B ENROLLMENT 1966- 67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 Total Library Science Enrollment Number of formal applications received 5,432 7,257 9,469 9,656 (24)a (33) (44) (46) Number of students accepted 3,524 4,738 6,366 6,084 (25) (32) (45) (49) Number of newly entering students enrolled 2,706 3,353 3,926 4,270 (27) (34) (43) (49) Newly entering students requesting financial 980 1,414 2,010 2,342 aid (20) (26) (36) ( 42) Total enrollment, i.e., newly entering and con- 6,915 8,435 9,684 9,364 tinuing students (40) (46) (55) (55) HEA Title II-B Fellowship Enrollment Number of newly entering students considered 430 1,094 1,475 2,092 for HEA Title II-B fellowships each year (16) (25) (43) (50) Number of HEA Title II-B fellowships of- 120 426 595 514 fered to newly entering students each year (23) (34) (49) (54) Number of students who rejected HEA Title 3 21 46 57 II-B Fellowships (21) (31) (44) (53) Number of HEA Title II-B 'fellows who later 2 18 31 7 resigned from the program (23) (34) (49) (49) a Number of LIS institutions supplying information. I I I j tached to undergraduate grades de- pended largely on the reputation of the undergraduate institution. The second most often mentioned criterion in the selection of the awardees was references. Again, the weight attached to each ref- erence depended on whether or not the dean or the persons on the selection committee knew the individual used as a reference. Table 2 presents the factors consid- ered important in the selection of stu- dents for Title II-B and other grants. Generally, academic considerations ap- peared to be slightly more important in the selection of students for Title II-B awards than for other awards. Less than half of the deans also reported consider- ing the financial need of the applicant as an important variable in awarding the Title II-B fellowship. However, the importance attached to financial need of the student considered for the Title II-B award appears to depend largely on the dean's perception of the objec- tives of the program. Most deans, who felt that the major purpose of the pro- gram was to recruit and prepare out- standing young men and women for Title II -B Fellowship Program I 201 faculty positions in LIS institutions, de- emphasized financial need, while others, who felt that the program existed pri- marily to make it possible for applicants needing financial assistance to obtain a library education, emphasized it. Generally, most deans felt that the program has allowed them to compete with other departments and with other states for better and higher-quality stu- dents and that, as a result, the comple- tion rates of the programs offered in their institutions have improved considerably. CHARACTERISTICS OF FELLOWSHIP RECIPIENTS The Title 11-B fellowships, mainly one-year awards, had been granted pri- marily for study in master's programs ( 76.4 percent), and less often in post- master's ( 7.0 percent) and in doctoral programs ( 16.6 percent). As shown in Table 3, the students recruited into the master's programs were younger and had had less experience with library work than those entering the other pro- grams. The students in the master's pro- grams were typically women in their TABLE 2 FACTORS CONSIDERED IMPORTANT IN SELECTING STUDENTS FOR TITLE II-BAND OTHER AwARDs (IN PERCENTAGES) Factors Title II-B Other Undergraduate grades 98.2 89.1 References 78.2 72.7 Graduate record exams 74.5 69.1 Financial need 45.4 49.1 Curriculum type 38.2 32.7 Professional promise 30.9 21.8 Previous academic preparation 29.1 23.6 Interview 25.4 18.2 Career objectives 18.2 16.4 Student's character 14.5 Work experience 10.9 9.1 Library experience 9.1 7.3 Miller Analogies Test 7.3 7.3 Minority group representation 7.3 3.6 Age 5.4 1.8 Geographical area representation 5.4 3.6 Leadership potential 5.4 (Base N) (55) (55) 208 I College & Research Libraries • May 1971 twenties, of whom fewer than half were married. Only a third had worked as li- brarians before entering the program, and most ( 87.5 percent) held no prior graduate degree. In contrast, the recipients of post- master's awards, again mostly women ( 72.8 percent), were older, with more than half over forty; about half were married. Almost all held an M.A. de- gree-and in some cases more than one -and two-thirds had held library posi- tions before receiving the award. The stu- dents in the doctoral programs, on the other hand, were predominantly men ( 61.9 percent) and usually married ( 63.8 percent), of whom about half were in their thirties and only a third over forty. They usually held an M.A. degree and three-quarters had been working in library positions prior to re- ceiving the award. Students in the three programs had somewhat similar undergraduate back- grounds (see Table 3). Undergraduate majors were most often in the humani- ties, and to a lesser d egree, in social sciences. Very few had taken their bac- calaureate in natural sciences or in business, and only a small proportion had majored in education. There were al- so very few who had majored in LIS, at best, only 10.0 percent of those in the postmaster's programs. Blacks were also underrepresented, constituting only 6.0 percent of the total group and only TABLE 3 BACKGROUND CHARACTERISTICS OF TITLE II-B FELLOWS (IN PERCENTAGES) Students Characteristic Master's Postmaster's Doctoral Total Sex Men 22.3 27.2 61.9 29.2 Women 77.7 72.8 38.1 70.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) ( 1,243) ( 114) (270) (1 ,627 ) Race White 85.3 85.1 87.4 85.6 Black 6.6 6.1 3.3 6.0 Other 1.0 1.8 0.4 1.0 No answer 7.1 7.0 8.9 7.4 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) ( 1,243) ( 114) (270) (1 ,627) Age 21- 25 41.4 2.6 31.8 26-30 27.9 13.3 16.8 25.0 31-35 10.6 16.8 25.0 13.4 36-40 8.8 15.9 24.3 11.9 41-45 6.1 20.4 18.6 9.2 46-50 3.6 12.4 11.9 5.6 51- 55 1.2 11.5 3.4 2.3 56 years or older 0.4 7.1 0.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) (1 ,227) ( 113) (268) ( 1,608 ) Median age 27.0 40.8 37.2 29.1 Marital Status Married 43.1 54.0 63.8 47.2 Not married 56.9 46.0 36.2 52.8 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) ( 1,192) ( 113) (246) ( 1,551) Title li-B Fellowship Program I 209 TABLE 3-(CONTINUED) Students Characteristic Master's Postmaster's Doctoral Total Preprogram Employment In school or not working 17.3 Library positions 34.2 Other positions 48.5 Total % 100.0 (N) (1,077) Previous Graduate Degrees None 87.5 M.A. 11.3 More than one M.A. 0.2 M.A. and library certificate Other advanced degrees 1.0 Total % 100.0 (N) ( 1,242) Und ergraduate Major Library science 3.0 Humanities 45.8 Social science 31.5 Natural science 2.2 Education 10.1 Business 0.3 Other 7.1 Total % 100.0 (N) ( 1,238) Undergraduate Average A orA+ 17.7 A- 21.6 B+ 24.8 B 25.8 B- or C 10.1 Total % 100.0 (N) ( 1,132) about 3.0 percent of the doctoral group. 2 Finally, our data on the undergradu- ate grade-point averages of students supported by the Title II-B program in- dicated that the quality of students now b eing recruited into library programs had somewhat improved due to the Ti- tle II-B program. Almost two-thirds of the master's students, for instance, re- ported averages of B+ or better. A sim- ilar proportion of the doctoral students reported averages of B+ or better, al- though only about half of the older post- master's students could boast such aver- ages. 10.4 2.6 14.3 67.9 76.2 43.8 21.7 21.2 41.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 (106) (240) (1,423) 7.9 3.3 68.0 81.6 70.0 26.0 10.5 25.9 5.2 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 (114) (270) ( 1,626 ) 11.6 1.6 3.3 38.4 46.7 45.4 30.3 32.9 31.7 2.9 2.1 15.2 7.8 10.1 0.7 0.4 4.5 7.4 7.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (112) (270) (1 ,620 ) 6.9 9.8 15.9 15.8 22.4 21.3 22.8 31.7 25.8 33.7 20.5 25.4 20.8 15.6 11.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 (101) (224) ( 1,457 ) STUDY COMPLETION Our findings indicate that a very large proportion of the students in both the master's and postmaster's programs had successfully completed their studies by the time of the survey (see Table 4) .3 Notably, very few fellows-be- tween 2.0 and 4.0 percent-had with- drawn from the program either for aca- demic or other reasons. This is perhaps indicative of the strong vocational in- terests characteristic of students in LIS programs. In most cases, the master's students 210 I College & Research Libraries • May 1971 who had already graduated ( 82.4 per- cent) had been able to attain their de- grees within a year; for example, only 7.5 percent of those who graduated re- ceived their degrees more than a year after entering the program. Presumably, even more of the master's students might be expected to graduate since many of those who have completed the program without yet graduating are likely to have completed the coursework require- ments of their programs and may now be engaged in writing their master's pa- pers on a part-time basis. Judgments on study completion for the 270 doctoral students who received Title 11-B fellowships cannot be as pre- cise, since the minimum time necessary to complete a doctoral program is sub- ject to variation according to institu- tional requirements, previous graduate work of the students, and other factors. Three-quarters of the Title 11-B doctoral students, for example, are still in school, although it can be noted that among those receiving fellowships in academic year 1966- 67 (three years before the survey), 19.2 percent had already com- pleted their work and received the doc- toral degree. 4 EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Preprogram employment. Before ac- cepting the Title 11-B grant, the great majority of students in each program had been working: 83 percent of the students in the master's program, 90 percent of the students in the post- master's program, and 98 percent of the students in the doctoral program. How- ever, the extent of preprogram experi- ence in library work varies. Approxi- mately 40 percent of the students in the master's program had reported work- ing as librarians prior to the receipt of TABLE 4 PRESENT AcADEMIC STATUS OF TITLE li-B FELLows IN MAsTER's, PosTMASTER's AND DocTORAL PROGRAMS BY YEAR OF AwARD (IN PERCENTAGES) Students Academic Status 1966 1967 1968 Master's Program In school 3.2 0.6 9.2 Completed award tenure 1.7 9.5 8.0 Graduated 91.9 87.1 78.1 Withdrew from the program 3.2 2.8 4.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) (62) (317) (488) Postmaster's Program In school 2.2 3.3 Completed program [13]a 95.6 93.5 Withdrew from the program 2.2 3.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 (N) (13) (46) (31) Doctoral Program In school 21.2 72.1 85.5 Completed award tenure 51.9 12.7 11.6 Graduated 19.2 7.6 Withdrew from the program 7.7 7.6 2.9 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) (52) (79) (69) • Too few cases to compute percentages. Total 5.6 8.1 82.3 4.0 100.0 (867) 2.2 95.6 2.2 100.0 (90) 73.0 16.7 5.9 4.4 100.0 (200) I I L r l l, the fellowship, whereas over three- fourths of b oth postmaster's and doctoral students had worked in libraries before (see Table 5). Of the students who had worked in libraries before, over half had been employed in university libraries and approximately one-fifth had worked in public libraries. About a quarter of the master's stu- dents had been in academic employ- ment, primarily teaching in high school, and just over 30 percent had worked in other fields, mostly in industry. About a tenth of the postmaster's students had been teaching, mostly at the college lev- el, while another 10.0 percent held oth- er types of positions, primarily in gov- ernment or industry. Most of the stu- dents in the doctoral program who were not involved in library work had held academic positions in colleges or uni- versities; very few had positions which were not academic- or library-related work. Postprogram employment. At the time of the study, nearly half of all Title 11-B fellows were still in school and thus Title li-B Fellowship Program/ 211 had not yet returned to the labor market. Examining only the data on those who had returned to work after their stud- ies, considerable change can be seen between preprogram and postprogram employment statistics (see Table 6). Most notably, the proportion of persons in li- brary employment has jumped, rising to 86.6 percent of those now working. The greatest change has occurred with the master's students, among whom the proportion in library work has more than doubled. Library work now ac- counts for almost all of their employ- ment. Accompanying this shift were ma- jor declines in the proportions employed in industry or in high school teaching. Among the postmaster's students, about the same proportion of students had gone into library work as before, although there was some overall shift in the types of libraries involved; i.e., fewer persons were working in high school or public libraries, and more per- sons were employed in university li- braries. Also, more of the postmaster's students were employed by colleges or TABLE 5 PREPROGRAM EMPLOYMENT OF TITLE II-B FELLOWS BY TYPE OF AwARDa (IN PERCENTAGES ) Type of Employment Master's Academic Positions ( Teaching or Administrative) 27.1 Universities 5.0 High schools 22.0 Librarian Positions 41.3 University libraries 20.5 High school libraries 7.9 Public libraries 10.5 Other libraries 2.4 Other Positions 31.6 Universities 7.1 Government 6.5 Industry 14.8 Miscellaneous 3.2 Total% 100.0 (N) (891) a Excludes persons in school or not working. Students Postmaster's . 12.6 75.8 11.6 100.0 (95) 9.5 3.1 36.9 20.0 12.6 6.3 2.1 3.2 5.3 1.0 Doctoral Total 16.2 23.8 14.5 7.2 1.7 16.6 78.2 51.1 50.9 27.6 8.1 8.9 14.5 ll.5 4.7 3.1 5.6 25.1 1.3 5.6 1.3 5.2 1.3 ll.5 1.7 2.8 100.0 100.0 (234) (1,220) 212 j College & Research Libraries • May 1971 universities after the program than be- fore the program. The doctoral students who had re- turned to work also reflected an em- ployment change, mainly from library positions to academic positions with col- leges or universities. Table 7 presents the data on employ- ment changes in a more detailed man- ner, organized so that turnover patterns, rather than simply the aggregate results of those changes, can be seen. Employment changes for master's students. The data on individual employ- ment shifts reinforce our earlier com- ments on the extensive changes made by students in the master's program. As many as 334 master's students without previous library experience entered li- brary work after completing their stud- ies. Most of these new librarians had been in "other" fields before, primarily in industry or government; a good num- ber had been teaching, mainly in high schools; while the rest had not worked before or had been in school. Table 8 shows the type of library chosen by these "new" librarians. 5 Almost half of those for whom we have this informa- tion chose university libraries, while about a third took positions with public libraries. In contrast, there was only a slight degree of attrition among those who had been in library positions be- fore their graduate studies. Almost all for whom we have data on postprogram employment were again working in li- braries; the only exceptions were 2.0 percent who took academic positions instead, and 5.1 percent who took jobs in other fields (see Table 7). Of the master's students formerly in library work who stayed in that field, just over half also returned to the same type of library .as their previous em- ployment (see Table 8). Stability of employment occurred most often among those with experience in university li- braries or public libraries; a bit less of- ten among those in high school or other libraries. Of those who did change to a different type of library, just over a third TABLE 6 PosTPROGRAM EMPLOYMENT OF TITLE li-B FELLOWS BY TYPE OF AwARDa (IN PERCENTAGES ) Students Type of Employment Master's Postmaster's Doctoral Total Academic Positions (Teaching or Administrative) 2.7 23.9 49.0 7.9 Universities 1.6 23.9 49.0 7.0 High schools 1.1 0.9 Librarian Positions 91.7 70.5 47.0 86.6 University libraries 41.2 45.1 35.2 41.2 High school libraries 17.0 11.3 7.8 15.8 Public libraries 25.7 11.3 2.0 22.7 Other libraries 7.8 2.8 2.0 6.9 Other Positions 5.6 5.6 4.0 5.5 Universities 1.4 4.2 2.0 1.7 Government 1.8 1.4 1.6 Industry 1.9 2.0 1.7 Miscellaneous 0.5 0.5 Total% 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (N) (626) (71) (51) (748) a Excludes persons in school or not working. Title li-B Fellowship PTogram / 213 TABLE 7 PRE- TO POSTPROGRAM EMPLOYMENT CHANGES AMONG TITLE li-B FELLOWS, GROUPED AccoRDING TO FoRMER PosiTIONsa Students Type of Position Master's Postmaster's Doctoral Total N % N % N % N % Those formerly in library positions are now in: 92.9 36 70.6 23 59.0 243 84.4 Library positions 184 Academic positions 4 2.0 13 25.5 14 35.9 31 10.8 Other positions 10 5.1 2 3.9 2 5.1 14 4.8 Total 198 100.0 51 100.0 39 100.0 288 100.0 Those formerly in academ·ic positions are now in: 108 86.4 0 113 79.0 Library positions 5 Academic positions 9 7.2 2 11 22 15.4 Other positions 8 6.4 8 5.6 Total 125 100.0 7 11 143 100.0 Those formerly in other positions are ·now in: Library positions 131 92.3 4 0 135 91.2 Academic positions 2 1.4 2 4 2.7 Other positions 9 6.3 9 6.1 Total 142 100.0 6 0 148 100.0 Those formerly in school or not working are now in: Library positions 95 94.1 2 0 97 93.3 Academic positions 1 1.0 1 1.0 Other positions 5 4.9 1 6 5.7 Total 101 100.0 3 0 104 100 .0 a Excludes those still in school or not yet working after the program. 0 Too few cases to compute percentages. found their new positions in university libraries, and just under a third went into public libraries. High school or other libraries were sources of new em- ployment less often than university and public libraries. Overall, university libraries appear to be a popular choice among these grad- uates of Title II-B master's programs. Among those with prior library experi- ence, for instance, stability was greatest for university libraries .and the most fre- quent type of change was into univer- sity libraries. A college or university employer was also the most frequent choice of the new librarians for whom we have such detailed information. Us- ing these same criteria, it seems that pu bHc libraries rank second in popular- ity as .an employer, while students chose to take positions with high school or other libraries much less often. Frmn the point of view of later em- ployers (Table 8), positions in university libraries were held mainly by people with previous university library experi- ence ( 29.7 percent) and next by former high school teachers ( 19.3 percent). The record for public libraries is quite simi- lar, since a quarter of new employees had worked in public libraries before, and 17.5 percent had previously been in high school teaching. Among those mas- ter's students now working in high school libraries, only 21.8 percent had worked there before; the large majority of the recruits were people with previ- ous experience in high school teaching, 214 I College & Research Libraries • May 1971 c;; c;z E-< 0 I I I I C\1 C\1 I I C0C0C00)0 ~~00000 ~~C\1~0 ~ I I I I I ~t-t-t-0 mooooooo C0 0 ~ lnCOt-t-0 ~c-:ic-ic-:ic::> ~C\1~0 ~ lnC0COOOO c-:im~ooc::> ~~~ 0 ~ who already had acquired some experi- ence with people of that age group in a learning context. Noteworthy too, is a certain amount of interchange within universities between library positions .and other positions, ei- ther in administration or teaching. About half of the master's-level students with previous university employment outside of libraries are now working in univer- sity libraries. At the same time, 17.4 per- cent of the master's-level students enter- ing general university employment af- ter completing their studies had been in university libraries previously. Employment changes among post- master's and doctoral students. The em- ployment record for postmaster's and doctoral students also shows a great deal of stability, both in terms of type of po- sition and place of employment (see Table 7). Most of the postmaster's stu- dents who were librarians before the program were again in library work ( 70.6 percent). Although based on small numbers, the results further indicate that the majority of the former librarians had returned not only to the same type of position, but also to the same type of libra1y. However, a quarter of the former librarians in the postmaster's program did take academic positions after com- pleting their studies. Stability of position is also common among the small number of doctoral students who had returned to work by the time of the study. All of those pre- viously in academic positions returned to such positions and most of those who had been in library work before were again working .as librarians (see Table 7). More than a third of former librar- ians did take academic positions, al- though these positions were probably related to their library experience. Some evidence of the professional commitment of doctoral students previously in library work is found in the fact that .almost all of those presently in library work were employed in the same type of library as they had been prior to the program. CoNcLusroN The results of the present study would strongly suggest that the Title li-B pro- gram is successful in its objective of training individuals in the principles and practices of library and information sci- ences. This conclusion is based on both an objective evaluation of the program in terms of degree completion rates and postprogram employment of Title li-B fellows and on a subjective evaluation of the program by the fifty-five deans of participating LIS institutions. A majority of Title li-B fellows suc- cessfully completed their programs and were immediately employed either as LIS faculty in colleges or universities or in positions with libraries and informa- tion centers. The greatest beneficiaries of the new and better-trained cohorts of librarians were the universities. Public and high school libraries benefitted too, but to a more modest extent. All three programs (master's, postmas- ter's, and doctoral) contributed equally well to the fulfillment of the objectives of the program, although there was evi- dence to suggest that while postmaster's Title 11-B Fellowship Program I 215 and doctoral programs helped advance the training of personnel already in LIS fields, it was the master's program through which new personnel were re- cruited, particularly into positions of li- brary work in .areas outside the univer- sity. In addition to the training of well- qualified librarians or LIS faculty, one other point emerged from the study. A great many of the deans participating in the study strongly felt that the Title li-B institutional support had strength- ened their programs of instruction and had definitely improved the quality of library education. There can be little doubt that the programs served the uni- versities and the profession extremely well. As aptly expressed by one dean: The existence of these fine fellowships , finer in some respects than those existing in almost eve1y other field, has given li- brary schools visibility on their own cam- puses which they had not enjoyed previ- ously, and has given the students holding these fellowships a new status among other graduate students. The fact that library education was given this kind of recog- nition by the Congress in the Higher Edu- cation Act has done more for librarianship in the eyes of nonlibrarians than nearly any other event in recent library history. 6 REFERENCES 1. This study was conducted for the U.S. Of- fice of Education and is based on the final report submitted under Contract OEC-3- 9-180268-0047 ( 095). The study director was Laure M. Sharp. The authors wish to thank Mrs. Sharp and Russell E. Bidlack, dean of the School of Library Science at the University of Michigan, for their critical reading of the manuscript. 2. See Wasserman (Paul Wasserman, "Ele- ments in a Manpower Blueprint-Library Personnel for the 1970s," ALA Bulletin 63:581-602 (May 1969).) for a discussion of the need of achieving a balance in the backgrounds of those who function as li- brarians. 3. Because less than a year elapsed by the time of the study for those enrolled in the 1969- 70 academic year, these students are not included in the discussions here. 4. One measure of the academic achievement of doctoral students supported by Title II-B award would be a record of their progress in completing each of the specific requirements for the doctoral degree. These data are available for the doctoral students who were still in school at the time of the survey. From an overall perspective, it seems that this cohort of doctoral students has made substantial progress in their stud- ies. With respect to general qualifying exams, for instance, fully two-thirds of fel- 216 I College & Research Libraries • May 1971 lows in their third and fourth year of study and half of those in their second year of study have passed this important milestone in doctoral work. In addition, over 80 per- cent of those in their third and fourth year of study and over two-thirds of those in their second year of study have already completed all language requirements. All of the eight doctoral candidates from the first year of the program, and 40 percent of those from the second year of the program (in their fourth and third year of study, re- spectively) had their dissertation topics ap- proved. Even among the fellows who were only in their second year of study, one- fifth had their dissertation topics approved. It would appear that the completion rates of these fellows are quite comparable (if not quicker) to the completion rates of other fellowship recipients whose progress has been followed in other studies. See, for ex- ample, Laure M. Sharp, Barton Sensenig, III, and Lenore Reid, Study of NDEA Title IV Fellowship Program-Phase I (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science 1968) p.23ff; and Engin I. Holmstrom and Laure M. Sharp, Study of NDEA Title IV Fellowship Program-Phase II (Washing- ton, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research, 1970), p.38, 63. 5. Such data were given for 235 of the 334 master's students entering library work for the first time. Data obtained did not yield sufficient cases for similar analysis for post- master's and doctoral students. 6. Written communication, Russell E. Bidlack, dean, School of Library Science, University of Michigan. j '