Journal o f Youth and Adolescence, 1Iol. 15, No. 4, 1986
"Underachievement" Among Markedly Accelerated College Students Paul M. Janos, 1 Susan Marie Sanfilippo, 2 and Nancy M. R o b i n s o n 3 Received September 12, 1985; accepted April 30, 1986
This study investigated those f e w lackluster achievers as could be identified, using loose criteria, in a college-level program of academic acceleration. They evidenced, on college transcripts, significant differences from high-achieving students o f comparable ability. Underachieving males appeared less psychologically mature and appeared to suffer more internal conflict than achieving males, but underachieving females evidenced greater maturity than their counterparts. INTRODUCTION Because m a n y " u n c o m m o n l y b r i g h t " ( R o b i n s o n , 1981) youngsters m a s t e r precollege c u r r i c u l a q u i c k l y a n d are clearly r e a d y for m o r e a d v a n c e d w o r k , at least 16% o f U . S . p u b l i c colleges a n d universities have l o w e r e d o r a b o l i s h e d m i n i m a l age criteria for m a t r i c u l a t i o n (Fluitt a n d Strickland, 1984). H o p i n g to e m b o l d e n m o r e a d m i s s i o n s officers to practice similar flexibility, groups o f investigators have, over the past decade, published detailed reports o n the status o f y o u n g college entrants. T h e y have p r e s e n t e d , by a n d large, a picture o f success including e n h a n c e d p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , social adjustPartial support for the preparation of this paper was provided by the William H. Donner Foundation. which is ~ratefullv acknowledged. sChild Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received Ph.D. in child clinical psychology from Ohio State University in 1983. Research interests include psychological aspects of talent development. 2Child Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received B.A. in psychology from the University of Washington in 1985. 3Child Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University. Research interests include relations in the family of gifted children. 3O3 0047-2891/86/0800-0303505.00/0 9 1986 Plenum Publishing Corporation
304
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
ment, academic achievement, and career attainment (Daurio, 1979; Janos, 1986; Janos and Robinson, 1985; Pollins, 1983; Stanley, 1985; Stanley and Benbow, 1983a, b; Stanley and McGill, in press). Methods for indentifying and supporting such students have also been described (George, Cohn, and Stanley, 1979; Keating, 1976; Robinson, 1983; Stanley, 1976; Stanley et al., 1974). The overwhelming majority of early college entrants do well during and after their college years. The fraction who do not have been virtually ignored, for both practical and historical reasons. First, such students are few and, as seen below, it is difficult to aggregate sufficient numbers to conduct meaningful statistical analyses; for example, only 5 of 25 young, mathematically precocious followed by Julian Stanley had earned undergraduate grade-point averages (GPAs) below 3.0 on a 4.0 scale (Stanley, 1985). Most who find college unsatisfying return to high school, with brief college exposure representing an enrichment experience. Second, the topic of potential social maladjustment has, for decades, dominated research and discussion about departures from the American educational "lock step" (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 270). It is now generally acknowledged that such concerns have scant empirical basis (Daurio, 1979). Nonetheless, it has taken decades to counter the impact of a few notorious cases of maladjustment. The suffering of William James Sidis, for example, whose dazzling achievements as a child at Harvard represented the pinnacle of his success, was certainly more attributable to inappropriate parenting than to his having entered college at age 11 (Montour, 1977). Because of their concerns, colleges and universities have usually excluded young college students, especially those who are not high-school graduates. Only a few programs designed for a younger age group exist at the college level. At the University of Washington (UW), for example, which has been previously described (Robinson, 1983; Robinson and Robinson, 1982), about fifteen 14-year-old (or younger) students matriculate yearly through the Early Entrance Program (EEP). The program includes a formal Transition School-which attempts to redress academic gaps resulting from skipping high school-counseling, and a home base on the campus. Since 1977, most of the approximately 100 young college students admitted to the UW have done well (Janos and Robinson, 1985; Janos et al., 1986), but about a dozen have "failed to thrive" academically. The concept of Iackluster academic performance is easily comprehended in the general sense, but it is not necessarily accurately diagnosed among young college students. In the study below, a cumulative grade point average of 2.9 or below (on a 4.0 scale) was ultimately determined to be the least objectionable criterion, although, for students typically four years ahead of age-mates, such college grades hardly warrant the designation "underachievement," as the
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
305
term is commonly understood. We have, however, risked using the label to dramatize one contrast between the target group and the typical early entrant. Because the underachieving students were, with one exception, enrolled full time in good standing at UW, they were probably learning significantly more than equally bright agemates still in high school. Yet in several important ways they seemed to possess characteristics attributed to underachievers. First, they were earning significantly lower grades than EEP students whose college readiness scores were no higher, and they were self-critical about it. In general, they lacked enthusiasm for their studies. The males, in particular, often lounged lethargically, and sincerely confessed to being bored and depressed. The underachieving females were, on the other hand, typically vitalized by nonacademic activities. In the study reported below, achieving and underachieving students were compared on variables previously found to be associated with academic achievement, including intellectual ability and academic values, personality characteristics related to self-management, study skills, and perceived family environments (Krouse and Krouse, 1981). We anticipated that underachieving EEP students would be comparable intellectually to those earning higher grades, but that they would exhibit conflicted patterns of values, personality characteristics, study skills, and perceptions of their families. We also expected underachievers of both sexes to be similar. METHOD Subjects
The characteristics of students matriculating at UW via EEP have been described elsewhere (Janos and Robinson, 1985; Robinson and Janos, 1986, in press). Basically, these students had, before age 15, qualified by earning outstanding scores on an SAT-like test [the Washington Pre-College Test (WPCT; Noeth, 1978)] and high grades in previous schools, and by having presented evidence of high achievement motivation and parental support. Invited to participate in the present investigation were the 25 females and 31 males who, by Summer Quarter I984, were (or had been) full-fledged EEP students. Forty-four of these (23 males and 21 females) were either UW graduates or undergraduates with cumulative GPAs (as of September 1984) above 3.0. Students who had participated in the EEP and then transferred to and graduated from other universities were not included in this study. Twelve of the 56 students (4 females and 8 males) had earned GPAs under 3.0 (range = 2.28 to 2.96), a cutoff level more than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean GPA of 3.36 (SD = .23) for the total EEP sample. Most of the "low" GPAs were, in fact, only slightly lower than the mean GPA
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
306
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Age and Transcript Data GPA under 3.0 N=
Age at college entry Age at data collection GPA (Spring 1984) Grades (natural sciences) Grades (engineering) Grades (humanities) Grades (social sciences) Credits (honors courses) Grades (honors courses) Withdrawals Incompletes
12
GPA over 3.0 N=
44
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
14.48 (0.90) 16.58 (1.60) 2.74 (0.30) 2.58 (0.71) 2.32 (0.86) 2.78 (0.55) 2.73 (0.40) 1.63 (4.60) 2.66 (0.05) 3.08 (2.50) 1.0 (1.00)
13.61 16.26 3.53 3.42 3.67 3.55 3.53 4.82 3.44 1.56 0.08
(1.20) (1.40) (0.22)b (0.43)a (0.18)a (0.32)~ (0.25)a (8.40)b (0.45)" (1.60) (0.28)"
~ < .001. bp < .01. ~p < .05.
o f 3.01 (SD = .58) r e p o r t e d for U W u n d e r g r a d u a t e s at the end o f S p r i n g Q u a r t e r 1984. O n l y one o f the u n d e r a c h i e v i n g s t u d e n t s h a d ever been p l a c e d on academic p r o b a t i o n by U W , an action wholly d e p e n d e n t u p o n grade p o i n t average. T a b l e I c o n t a i n s age d a t a descriptive o f the subjects in b o t h g r o u p s . A g e at college m a t r i c u l a t i o n was a b o u t 14 years for b o t h g r o u p s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t t e n d e n c y for u n d e r a c h i e v e r s to be slightly older. M e a n ages at the time o f c o m p l e t i n g the s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t s are also c o n t a i n ed in T a b l e I. T h e average s t u d e n t h a d been at U W for a p p r o x i m a t e l y two years. It was o u r i m p r e s s i o n t h a t p a r e n t s o f u n d e r a c h i e v i n g a n d t y p i c a l accelerants d i f f e r e d in their a p p r e c i a t i o n a n d s u p p o r t o f intellectual activity. H o w e v e r , the g r o u p s did n o t d i f f e r in p r o p o r t i o n s o f p a r e n t s w h o h a d g r a d u a t e d f r o m college o r e a r n e d a d v a n c e d degrees. T h e o n l y significant d e m o g r a p h i c d i f f e r e n c e was race. H a v i n g A s i a n p a r e n t s , a p p a r e n t l y , m a d e a difference. N o n e o f the m a n y students with at least one A s i a n p a r e n t were r e p r e s e n t e d a m o n g the u n d e r a c h i e v i n g accelerants (x = 54.30; d f = 1; p < .001).
Instruments
Intellectual a b i l i t y was assessed with the W P C T a n d the C o n c e p t M a s t e r y Test ( C M T ; T e r m a n , 1956). T h e W P C T , which is similar in f o r m
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
307
and function to the SAT, was administered as part of the selection procedures. It yields, among other scores, verbal and quantitative composites. Since data were collected 24 to 30 months after the students had taken the WPCT, the CMT, which was designed by Terman to assess advanced verbal ability rather than college instructional content, was administered to obtain a concurrent estimate of ability. It has distinguished between groups in other studies of gifted youths (Ogburn and Colangelo, 1978; Stanley et al., 1974). The academic achievement data gleaned from UW transcripts included cumulative GPA; number of course withdrawals; credits and grades in humanities, engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, and "honors" courses; and number of incompletes. Personality variables relevant to achievement were operationalized by the responsibility, self-control, achievement via conformance, achievement via independence, and intellectual efficiency scales of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1969), a 480-item set of true-false self-descriptive sentences. The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos and Moos, 1981) was used to assess students' perceptions of their families' interpersonal relationships (relationships dimension), directions for personal growth (personal growth dimension), and organization and structure (system maintenance dimension), for which scoring procedures are reported in the FES manual. Knowledge and attitudes about studying were assessed with the Survey of Study Habit and Attitudes (SSHA; Brown and Holtzman, 1965). Although the SSHA provided several scores tapping students' feelings about academic issues, and about how effectively they managed their time and utilized academic resources, the overall score was used in order to minimize the number of statistical tests. Students were asked to rate on a 1-5 scale how important they regarded the intellectual level of university courses, the pace and quality of instruction, faculty attitudes, and time for interaction with faculty. Similarly, they rated their satisfaction with UW's fulfillment of these intellectual values. Ratings were summed separately for importance and satisfaction. Students also rated the importance of and satisfaction with nonacademic activities, recreational interaction with peers, time for interaction with peers, and quality of interaction with peers using the same procedures. These ratings, too, were summed separately.
RESULTS Thirty-nine of the 44 students with grades above 3.0 (89%) contributed all or part of the data requested with minimal prompting. Eleven of the 12 students with grades below 3.0 (92%) eventually cooperated as well--due almost entirely to the heroic recruitment efforts of the second author. None
308
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
o f the latter group refused to complete the questionnaires, but their procrastination was remarkable. Transcript data confirmed that underachieving students differed from the typical EEP students (see Table I). There were no significant sex differences on these variables. Although students did not differ in the number of credits earned in any of the subject areas listed, they did differ in the number of credits earned in honors courses and on all indices of grades. Nine of the 12 had dropped out of UW for at least one quarter, two of the nine having returned to high school. They had withdrawn from nearly twice as many courses and taken incompletes more than twice as often. A m o n g the 44 with GPAs above 3.0, 20 (45~ had graduated from UW by Spring Quarter 1984, 19 having enrolled in challenging graduate school programs. None of the 12 students with GPAs under 3.0 had graduated, although 42070 had been enrolled at UW for more than four years. Transcripts were scrutinized for patterns. Most striking about the quarterly grades earned by students with GPAs under 3.0 was their erratic character. These students tended, as a group, to alternate between successful and dismal quarters. Only three students (all male) had more than two dismal quarters in a row. The consistency of performance observed among the students with GPAs above 3.0 was entirely absent from the transcripts of students with lower GPAs. The data contained in Table II confirmed the expectation of equivalent W P C T and CMT scores for the two groups. Because no differences between males and females appeared on the CMT total score, these data were tabulated for the sexes combined. Data for the W P C T verbal composite, on which females scored higher than males (F = 6.28; df = 1; p = .02), and for the quantitative composite, on which males tended to score higher than females (F -- 3.84; df = 2; p = .06) were tabulated separately for each sex.
Table !I. Concept Mastery and Washington Pre-College Test Scores G P A under 3.0
G P A over 3.0
Concept Mastery Test
Total score Washington Pre-College Test Males Verbal composite Quantitative composite Females Verbal composite Quantitative composite
N = 12 Mean (SD) 82.10 (26.92)
N = 44 Mean (SD) 89.94 (22.66)
N = 8 Mean (SD) 57.67 (8.51 ) 67.14 (6.66) N = 4 Mean (SD) 64.50 (2.83) 60.00 (2.82)
N = 23 Mean (SD) 59.87 (8.16) 64.70 (8.14) N = 21 Mean (SD) 63.95 (4.80) 61.08 (5.98)
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
309
•
6 =
6
310
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
The means and standard deviations on the C P I scales, together with Fs for the G r o u p • Sex interaction effects, are tabulated in Table III. Since main effects for group and sex were not significant on the C P I , statistics for these were not included. On four of the six C P I scales, significant G r o u p • Sex interaction effects emerged, although they were not in even a single instance replicated in a similar analysis with group defined by a median split on G P A , instead o f by G P A above or below 3.0. t tests confirmed differences between achievers and underachievers within each sex, and may be summarized simply: Males with G P A s below 3.0 scored significantly lower on the CPI scales than males with GPAs above 3.0; females with G P A s below 3.0 scored significantly higher than females with GPAs above 3.0. Among students with G P A s under 3.0, females scored higher than males on five of the six CPI scales related to academic achievement. (No correlative age differences were obtained.) No significant group differences were obtained on the FES dimensions scales or on the SSHA total score in a G r o u p • Sex ANOVA. No group or sex differences appeared on ratings of importance and satisfaction with the intellectual and nonacademic aspects at UW. The typical member o f each group rated both intellectual and nonintellectual aspects between extremely important and moderately important; he/she rated satisfaction with each between very well and adequate. It was reassuring that both groups of students placed a high value on learning, and on developing peer relations and extracurricular competencies as well.
DISCUSSION This study's findings suggest that, even among youths who have elected to enter college early, superior grades are not randomly distributed. An ethnic difference, the high average performance o f Asians, was striking. Sex differences among underachievers were also marked. Lower grades seemed to attend students, particularly males, who were more adolescent than academic, and females with absorbing extracurricular commitments. Our impression was that underachieving males tended to be either lost in juvenile fantasy and computer games, or tangled in identity confusion and familial struggles for personal autonomy, whereas underachieving females tended to be committed to varsity sports, precociously self-supporting, or physically unwell. Only one exhibited overinvestment in socializing and sexual relationships, which may be considered immature. That underachieving females scored higher than high-achieving females on the C P I came as a surprise, although the finding was consistent with the high degree of organization reflected in their nonacademic commitments. The same pattern was not in
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
311
evidence among females split at the median for GPA, and certainly cannot be generalized to academically accelerated, but underachieving, females at large. It is common knowledge that lackluster students of high ability practice poor study behaviors. In this study, however, they were found to be comparable to high-achieving students on a paper-and-pencil test of knowledge of effective strategies. Lack of motivation cannot, however, be easily inferred from grades alone. In the first place, even excellent students sometimes start off slowly when accelerated into college. Secondly, low-achieving students intersperse high with low grades, providing regular reminders of superior potential. Thirdly, most students who had sampled college, even the average academic performers, steadfastly want to stay enrolled. Nevertheless, because mediocre college records preclude options that underachieving accelerants might later wish to have preserved, admissions procedures for accelerants should probably emphasize readiness for intense and sustained concentration. We entered this study with the suspicion that parents played an important role in achievement, but the FES did not provide support for any interesting generalizations. Though not exclusive to the families of underachievers, we observed that a few had deeply rooted nonacademic traditions, and that the youngsters were unable to overcome the negative elements. One family was so poorly organized that biological survival itself, not to mention optimal intellectual development, was at risk. In a few other cases, it appeared that parents had attempted to exert unreasonable control over academic achievement. These family dynamics need to be delicately investigated in the future, not necessarily to change values or behavior, but to help the youngster understand the many determinants affecting their achievement. Everyone who helps youngsters enter college early hopes for their emotional well-being during and after school, their engagement with a broad and stimulating education, and a boost in their careers. Yet our experience suggests that a small number will not earn the high grades they might. It is important to note that students seek a program such as the EEP specifically because they feel unfulfilled by other educational alternatives. We have found it necessary to suffer with them as they cope with a world that rarely offers matches between person and environment suited to optimal growth, academic, or otherwise. They seem to find it helpful when we listen sensitively, and validate their perceptions and intentions warmly and frequently. This demands conveying encouragement not only of academic fulfillment, but also of enhanced self-esteem and increasing ability to cope with issues important to them such as self-support, individuation from the family, and sexual relations.
312
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson REFERENCES
Brown, W. F., and Holtzman, W. H. (1965). Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (manual), The Psychological Corporation, New York. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In George, W. C., Cohn, S. J., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Educating the Gifted, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Md., pp. 13-63. Fluitt, J. L., and Strickland, S. M. (1984). A survey of early admissions policies and procedures. College and University 59: 129-135. George, W. C., Cohen, S. J., and Stanley, J. C. (1979). Educating the Gifted, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Gough, H. G. (1969). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet, World Book, Yonkers, N.Y. Janos, P. M. (1986). A 50-year follow-up of Terman's youngest college students and IQmatched agemates. J. Counseling Develop. 65. Janos, P. M., and Robinson, N. M. (1985). The performance of students in a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child Q. 29: 175-180. Keating, D. P. (ed.). (1976). Intellectual Talent: Research and Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Krouse, J., and Krouse, H. (1981). Toward a multimodal theory of academic underachievement. Educat. Psychol. 16: 151-164. Montour, K. M. (1977). William James Sidis~ the broken twig. Am. Psychol. 32(4): 265-279. Moos, R. H., and Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale (manual), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto. Noeth, R. J. (1978). Washington Pre-College Counselor's Guide, Washington Pre-College Testing Program, Seattle, Wash. Ogburn, M., and Colangelo, N. (1978). Test performance of superior students on the Concept Mastery Test: 1965-1976. Gifted Child Q. 23: 79-84. Pollins, L. D. (1983). The effect of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted students. In Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Academic Precocity: Aspects t?f Its Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Robinson, H. B. (1981). The uncommonly bright child. In Lewis, M., and Rosenblum, L. (eds.), The Uncommon Child, Plenum, New York. Robinson, H. B. (1983). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington. In Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Academic Precocity: Aspects of lts Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Robinson, N. M., and Janos, P. M. (in press). Assessment of intelligence. In Borkowiski, J., and Day, J. (eds.), Intelligence in Mentally Retarded, Learning Disabled, and Gifted, Ablex, Norwood, N.J. Robinson, N. M., and Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a college-level program of marked academic acceleration. J. Youth Adolesc. 15: 51-60. Robinson, N. M., and Robinson, H. B. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted students. In Feldman, D. (ed.), New Directions for Child Development: Developmental Approaches to Giftedness and Creativity (No. 17), JosseyBass, San Francisco. Stanley, J. C. (1976). Test better finder of great math talent than teachers are. Am. Psychol. 31(4): 313-314. Stanley, J. C. (1985). Young college entrants: How did they fare? College and University 60: 219-228. Stanley, J. C., and Benbow, C. P. (1983a). Extremely young college graduates: evidence of their success. College and University 58: 361-371. Stanley, J. C., and Benbow, C. P. (1983b). SMPY's first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. J. Special Educ. 17: 11-25.
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
313
Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P., and Fox, L. H. (1974). Mathematical Talent, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Stanley, J. C., and McGill, A. (in press). More about "Youngest entrants to college: How did they fare?" Gifted Child Q. Terman, L. M. (1956). The Concept Mastery Test Manual, Form T. The Psychological Corporation, New York.
"Underachievement" Among Markedly Accelerated College Students Paul M. Janos, 1 Susan Marie Sanfilippo, 2 and Nancy M. R o b i n s o n 3 Received September 12, 1985; accepted April 30, 1986
This study investigated those f e w lackluster achievers as could be identified, using loose criteria, in a college-level program of academic acceleration. They evidenced, on college transcripts, significant differences from high-achieving students o f comparable ability. Underachieving males appeared less psychologically mature and appeared to suffer more internal conflict than achieving males, but underachieving females evidenced greater maturity than their counterparts. INTRODUCTION Because m a n y " u n c o m m o n l y b r i g h t " ( R o b i n s o n , 1981) youngsters m a s t e r precollege c u r r i c u l a q u i c k l y a n d are clearly r e a d y for m o r e a d v a n c e d w o r k , at least 16% o f U . S . p u b l i c colleges a n d universities have l o w e r e d o r a b o l i s h e d m i n i m a l age criteria for m a t r i c u l a t i o n (Fluitt a n d Strickland, 1984). H o p i n g to e m b o l d e n m o r e a d m i s s i o n s officers to practice similar flexibility, groups o f investigators have, over the past decade, published detailed reports o n the status o f y o u n g college entrants. T h e y have p r e s e n t e d , by a n d large, a picture o f success including e n h a n c e d p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t , social adjustPartial support for the preparation of this paper was provided by the William H. Donner Foundation. which is ~ratefullv acknowledged. sChild Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received Ph.D. in child clinical psychology from Ohio State University in 1983. Research interests include psychological aspects of talent development. 2Child Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received B.A. in psychology from the University of Washington in 1985. 3Child Development Research Group, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Received Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University. Research interests include relations in the family of gifted children. 3O3 0047-2891/86/0800-0303505.00/0 9 1986 Plenum Publishing Corporation
304
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
ment, academic achievement, and career attainment (Daurio, 1979; Janos, 1986; Janos and Robinson, 1985; Pollins, 1983; Stanley, 1985; Stanley and Benbow, 1983a, b; Stanley and McGill, in press). Methods for indentifying and supporting such students have also been described (George, Cohn, and Stanley, 1979; Keating, 1976; Robinson, 1983; Stanley, 1976; Stanley et al., 1974). The overwhelming majority of early college entrants do well during and after their college years. The fraction who do not have been virtually ignored, for both practical and historical reasons. First, such students are few and, as seen below, it is difficult to aggregate sufficient numbers to conduct meaningful statistical analyses; for example, only 5 of 25 young, mathematically precocious followed by Julian Stanley had earned undergraduate grade-point averages (GPAs) below 3.0 on a 4.0 scale (Stanley, 1985). Most who find college unsatisfying return to high school, with brief college exposure representing an enrichment experience. Second, the topic of potential social maladjustment has, for decades, dominated research and discussion about departures from the American educational "lock step" (Hollingworth, 1942, p. 270). It is now generally acknowledged that such concerns have scant empirical basis (Daurio, 1979). Nonetheless, it has taken decades to counter the impact of a few notorious cases of maladjustment. The suffering of William James Sidis, for example, whose dazzling achievements as a child at Harvard represented the pinnacle of his success, was certainly more attributable to inappropriate parenting than to his having entered college at age 11 (Montour, 1977). Because of their concerns, colleges and universities have usually excluded young college students, especially those who are not high-school graduates. Only a few programs designed for a younger age group exist at the college level. At the University of Washington (UW), for example, which has been previously described (Robinson, 1983; Robinson and Robinson, 1982), about fifteen 14-year-old (or younger) students matriculate yearly through the Early Entrance Program (EEP). The program includes a formal Transition School-which attempts to redress academic gaps resulting from skipping high school-counseling, and a home base on the campus. Since 1977, most of the approximately 100 young college students admitted to the UW have done well (Janos and Robinson, 1985; Janos et al., 1986), but about a dozen have "failed to thrive" academically. The concept of Iackluster academic performance is easily comprehended in the general sense, but it is not necessarily accurately diagnosed among young college students. In the study below, a cumulative grade point average of 2.9 or below (on a 4.0 scale) was ultimately determined to be the least objectionable criterion, although, for students typically four years ahead of age-mates, such college grades hardly warrant the designation "underachievement," as the
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
305
term is commonly understood. We have, however, risked using the label to dramatize one contrast between the target group and the typical early entrant. Because the underachieving students were, with one exception, enrolled full time in good standing at UW, they were probably learning significantly more than equally bright agemates still in high school. Yet in several important ways they seemed to possess characteristics attributed to underachievers. First, they were earning significantly lower grades than EEP students whose college readiness scores were no higher, and they were self-critical about it. In general, they lacked enthusiasm for their studies. The males, in particular, often lounged lethargically, and sincerely confessed to being bored and depressed. The underachieving females were, on the other hand, typically vitalized by nonacademic activities. In the study reported below, achieving and underachieving students were compared on variables previously found to be associated with academic achievement, including intellectual ability and academic values, personality characteristics related to self-management, study skills, and perceived family environments (Krouse and Krouse, 1981). We anticipated that underachieving EEP students would be comparable intellectually to those earning higher grades, but that they would exhibit conflicted patterns of values, personality characteristics, study skills, and perceptions of their families. We also expected underachievers of both sexes to be similar. METHOD Subjects
The characteristics of students matriculating at UW via EEP have been described elsewhere (Janos and Robinson, 1985; Robinson and Janos, 1986, in press). Basically, these students had, before age 15, qualified by earning outstanding scores on an SAT-like test [the Washington Pre-College Test (WPCT; Noeth, 1978)] and high grades in previous schools, and by having presented evidence of high achievement motivation and parental support. Invited to participate in the present investigation were the 25 females and 31 males who, by Summer Quarter I984, were (or had been) full-fledged EEP students. Forty-four of these (23 males and 21 females) were either UW graduates or undergraduates with cumulative GPAs (as of September 1984) above 3.0. Students who had participated in the EEP and then transferred to and graduated from other universities were not included in this study. Twelve of the 56 students (4 females and 8 males) had earned GPAs under 3.0 (range = 2.28 to 2.96), a cutoff level more than 1.5 standard deviations below the mean GPA of 3.36 (SD = .23) for the total EEP sample. Most of the "low" GPAs were, in fact, only slightly lower than the mean GPA
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
306
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations for Age and Transcript Data GPA under 3.0 N=
Age at college entry Age at data collection GPA (Spring 1984) Grades (natural sciences) Grades (engineering) Grades (humanities) Grades (social sciences) Credits (honors courses) Grades (honors courses) Withdrawals Incompletes
12
GPA over 3.0 N=
44
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
14.48 (0.90) 16.58 (1.60) 2.74 (0.30) 2.58 (0.71) 2.32 (0.86) 2.78 (0.55) 2.73 (0.40) 1.63 (4.60) 2.66 (0.05) 3.08 (2.50) 1.0 (1.00)
13.61 16.26 3.53 3.42 3.67 3.55 3.53 4.82 3.44 1.56 0.08
(1.20) (1.40) (0.22)b (0.43)a (0.18)a (0.32)~ (0.25)a (8.40)b (0.45)" (1.60) (0.28)"
~ < .001. bp < .01. ~p < .05.
o f 3.01 (SD = .58) r e p o r t e d for U W u n d e r g r a d u a t e s at the end o f S p r i n g Q u a r t e r 1984. O n l y one o f the u n d e r a c h i e v i n g s t u d e n t s h a d ever been p l a c e d on academic p r o b a t i o n by U W , an action wholly d e p e n d e n t u p o n grade p o i n t average. T a b l e I c o n t a i n s age d a t a descriptive o f the subjects in b o t h g r o u p s . A g e at college m a t r i c u l a t i o n was a b o u t 14 years for b o t h g r o u p s , a l t h o u g h t h e r e was a n o n s i g n i f i c a n t t e n d e n c y for u n d e r a c h i e v e r s to be slightly older. M e a n ages at the time o f c o m p l e t i n g the s t u d y i n s t r u m e n t s are also c o n t a i n ed in T a b l e I. T h e average s t u d e n t h a d been at U W for a p p r o x i m a t e l y two years. It was o u r i m p r e s s i o n t h a t p a r e n t s o f u n d e r a c h i e v i n g a n d t y p i c a l accelerants d i f f e r e d in their a p p r e c i a t i o n a n d s u p p o r t o f intellectual activity. H o w e v e r , the g r o u p s did n o t d i f f e r in p r o p o r t i o n s o f p a r e n t s w h o h a d g r a d u a t e d f r o m college o r e a r n e d a d v a n c e d degrees. T h e o n l y significant d e m o g r a p h i c d i f f e r e n c e was race. H a v i n g A s i a n p a r e n t s , a p p a r e n t l y , m a d e a difference. N o n e o f the m a n y students with at least one A s i a n p a r e n t were r e p r e s e n t e d a m o n g the u n d e r a c h i e v i n g accelerants (x = 54.30; d f = 1; p < .001).
Instruments
Intellectual a b i l i t y was assessed with the W P C T a n d the C o n c e p t M a s t e r y Test ( C M T ; T e r m a n , 1956). T h e W P C T , which is similar in f o r m
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
307
and function to the SAT, was administered as part of the selection procedures. It yields, among other scores, verbal and quantitative composites. Since data were collected 24 to 30 months after the students had taken the WPCT, the CMT, which was designed by Terman to assess advanced verbal ability rather than college instructional content, was administered to obtain a concurrent estimate of ability. It has distinguished between groups in other studies of gifted youths (Ogburn and Colangelo, 1978; Stanley et al., 1974). The academic achievement data gleaned from UW transcripts included cumulative GPA; number of course withdrawals; credits and grades in humanities, engineering, natural sciences, social sciences, and "honors" courses; and number of incompletes. Personality variables relevant to achievement were operationalized by the responsibility, self-control, achievement via conformance, achievement via independence, and intellectual efficiency scales of the California Psychological Inventory (CPI; Gough, 1969), a 480-item set of true-false self-descriptive sentences. The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos and Moos, 1981) was used to assess students' perceptions of their families' interpersonal relationships (relationships dimension), directions for personal growth (personal growth dimension), and organization and structure (system maintenance dimension), for which scoring procedures are reported in the FES manual. Knowledge and attitudes about studying were assessed with the Survey of Study Habit and Attitudes (SSHA; Brown and Holtzman, 1965). Although the SSHA provided several scores tapping students' feelings about academic issues, and about how effectively they managed their time and utilized academic resources, the overall score was used in order to minimize the number of statistical tests. Students were asked to rate on a 1-5 scale how important they regarded the intellectual level of university courses, the pace and quality of instruction, faculty attitudes, and time for interaction with faculty. Similarly, they rated their satisfaction with UW's fulfillment of these intellectual values. Ratings were summed separately for importance and satisfaction. Students also rated the importance of and satisfaction with nonacademic activities, recreational interaction with peers, time for interaction with peers, and quality of interaction with peers using the same procedures. These ratings, too, were summed separately.
RESULTS Thirty-nine of the 44 students with grades above 3.0 (89%) contributed all or part of the data requested with minimal prompting. Eleven of the 12 students with grades below 3.0 (92%) eventually cooperated as well--due almost entirely to the heroic recruitment efforts of the second author. None
308
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
o f the latter group refused to complete the questionnaires, but their procrastination was remarkable. Transcript data confirmed that underachieving students differed from the typical EEP students (see Table I). There were no significant sex differences on these variables. Although students did not differ in the number of credits earned in any of the subject areas listed, they did differ in the number of credits earned in honors courses and on all indices of grades. Nine of the 12 had dropped out of UW for at least one quarter, two of the nine having returned to high school. They had withdrawn from nearly twice as many courses and taken incompletes more than twice as often. A m o n g the 44 with GPAs above 3.0, 20 (45~ had graduated from UW by Spring Quarter 1984, 19 having enrolled in challenging graduate school programs. None of the 12 students with GPAs under 3.0 had graduated, although 42070 had been enrolled at UW for more than four years. Transcripts were scrutinized for patterns. Most striking about the quarterly grades earned by students with GPAs under 3.0 was their erratic character. These students tended, as a group, to alternate between successful and dismal quarters. Only three students (all male) had more than two dismal quarters in a row. The consistency of performance observed among the students with GPAs above 3.0 was entirely absent from the transcripts of students with lower GPAs. The data contained in Table II confirmed the expectation of equivalent W P C T and CMT scores for the two groups. Because no differences between males and females appeared on the CMT total score, these data were tabulated for the sexes combined. Data for the W P C T verbal composite, on which females scored higher than males (F = 6.28; df = 1; p = .02), and for the quantitative composite, on which males tended to score higher than females (F -- 3.84; df = 2; p = .06) were tabulated separately for each sex.
Table !I. Concept Mastery and Washington Pre-College Test Scores G P A under 3.0
G P A over 3.0
Concept Mastery Test
Total score Washington Pre-College Test Males Verbal composite Quantitative composite Females Verbal composite Quantitative composite
N = 12 Mean (SD) 82.10 (26.92)
N = 44 Mean (SD) 89.94 (22.66)
N = 8 Mean (SD) 57.67 (8.51 ) 67.14 (6.66) N = 4 Mean (SD) 64.50 (2.83) 60.00 (2.82)
N = 23 Mean (SD) 59.87 (8.16) 64.70 (8.14) N = 21 Mean (SD) 63.95 (4.80) 61.08 (5.98)
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
309
•
6 =
6
310
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson
The means and standard deviations on the C P I scales, together with Fs for the G r o u p • Sex interaction effects, are tabulated in Table III. Since main effects for group and sex were not significant on the C P I , statistics for these were not included. On four of the six C P I scales, significant G r o u p • Sex interaction effects emerged, although they were not in even a single instance replicated in a similar analysis with group defined by a median split on G P A , instead o f by G P A above or below 3.0. t tests confirmed differences between achievers and underachievers within each sex, and may be summarized simply: Males with G P A s below 3.0 scored significantly lower on the CPI scales than males with GPAs above 3.0; females with G P A s below 3.0 scored significantly higher than females with GPAs above 3.0. Among students with G P A s under 3.0, females scored higher than males on five of the six CPI scales related to academic achievement. (No correlative age differences were obtained.) No significant group differences were obtained on the FES dimensions scales or on the SSHA total score in a G r o u p • Sex ANOVA. No group or sex differences appeared on ratings of importance and satisfaction with the intellectual and nonacademic aspects at UW. The typical member o f each group rated both intellectual and nonintellectual aspects between extremely important and moderately important; he/she rated satisfaction with each between very well and adequate. It was reassuring that both groups of students placed a high value on learning, and on developing peer relations and extracurricular competencies as well.
DISCUSSION This study's findings suggest that, even among youths who have elected to enter college early, superior grades are not randomly distributed. An ethnic difference, the high average performance o f Asians, was striking. Sex differences among underachievers were also marked. Lower grades seemed to attend students, particularly males, who were more adolescent than academic, and females with absorbing extracurricular commitments. Our impression was that underachieving males tended to be either lost in juvenile fantasy and computer games, or tangled in identity confusion and familial struggles for personal autonomy, whereas underachieving females tended to be committed to varsity sports, precociously self-supporting, or physically unwell. Only one exhibited overinvestment in socializing and sexual relationships, which may be considered immature. That underachieving females scored higher than high-achieving females on the C P I came as a surprise, although the finding was consistent with the high degree of organization reflected in their nonacademic commitments. The same pattern was not in
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
311
evidence among females split at the median for GPA, and certainly cannot be generalized to academically accelerated, but underachieving, females at large. It is common knowledge that lackluster students of high ability practice poor study behaviors. In this study, however, they were found to be comparable to high-achieving students on a paper-and-pencil test of knowledge of effective strategies. Lack of motivation cannot, however, be easily inferred from grades alone. In the first place, even excellent students sometimes start off slowly when accelerated into college. Secondly, low-achieving students intersperse high with low grades, providing regular reminders of superior potential. Thirdly, most students who had sampled college, even the average academic performers, steadfastly want to stay enrolled. Nevertheless, because mediocre college records preclude options that underachieving accelerants might later wish to have preserved, admissions procedures for accelerants should probably emphasize readiness for intense and sustained concentration. We entered this study with the suspicion that parents played an important role in achievement, but the FES did not provide support for any interesting generalizations. Though not exclusive to the families of underachievers, we observed that a few had deeply rooted nonacademic traditions, and that the youngsters were unable to overcome the negative elements. One family was so poorly organized that biological survival itself, not to mention optimal intellectual development, was at risk. In a few other cases, it appeared that parents had attempted to exert unreasonable control over academic achievement. These family dynamics need to be delicately investigated in the future, not necessarily to change values or behavior, but to help the youngster understand the many determinants affecting their achievement. Everyone who helps youngsters enter college early hopes for their emotional well-being during and after school, their engagement with a broad and stimulating education, and a boost in their careers. Yet our experience suggests that a small number will not earn the high grades they might. It is important to note that students seek a program such as the EEP specifically because they feel unfulfilled by other educational alternatives. We have found it necessary to suffer with them as they cope with a world that rarely offers matches between person and environment suited to optimal growth, academic, or otherwise. They seem to find it helpful when we listen sensitively, and validate their perceptions and intentions warmly and frequently. This demands conveying encouragement not only of academic fulfillment, but also of enhanced self-esteem and increasing ability to cope with issues important to them such as self-support, individuation from the family, and sexual relations.
312
Janos, Sanfilippo, and Robinson REFERENCES
Brown, W. F., and Holtzman, W. H. (1965). Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes (manual), The Psychological Corporation, New York. Daurio, S. P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In George, W. C., Cohn, S. J., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Educating the Gifted, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Md., pp. 13-63. Fluitt, J. L., and Strickland, S. M. (1984). A survey of early admissions policies and procedures. College and University 59: 129-135. George, W. C., Cohen, S. J., and Stanley, J. C. (1979). Educating the Gifted, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Gough, H. G. (1969). Manual for the California Psychological Inventory, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, Calif. Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet, World Book, Yonkers, N.Y. Janos, P. M. (1986). A 50-year follow-up of Terman's youngest college students and IQmatched agemates. J. Counseling Develop. 65. Janos, P. M., and Robinson, N. M. (1985). The performance of students in a program of radical acceleration at the university level. Gifted Child Q. 29: 175-180. Keating, D. P. (ed.). (1976). Intellectual Talent: Research and Development. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Krouse, J., and Krouse, H. (1981). Toward a multimodal theory of academic underachievement. Educat. Psychol. 16: 151-164. Montour, K. M. (1977). William James Sidis~ the broken twig. Am. Psychol. 32(4): 265-279. Moos, R. H., and Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale (manual), Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto. Noeth, R. J. (1978). Washington Pre-College Counselor's Guide, Washington Pre-College Testing Program, Seattle, Wash. Ogburn, M., and Colangelo, N. (1978). Test performance of superior students on the Concept Mastery Test: 1965-1976. Gifted Child Q. 23: 79-84. Pollins, L. D. (1983). The effect of acceleration on the social and emotional development of gifted students. In Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Academic Precocity: Aspects t?f Its Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Robinson, H. B. (1981). The uncommonly bright child. In Lewis, M., and Rosenblum, L. (eds.), The Uncommon Child, Plenum, New York. Robinson, H. B. (1983). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington. In Benbow, C. P., and Stanley, J. C. (eds.), Academic Precocity: Aspects of lts Development, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Robinson, N. M., and Janos, P. M. (in press). Assessment of intelligence. In Borkowiski, J., and Day, J. (eds.), Intelligence in Mentally Retarded, Learning Disabled, and Gifted, Ablex, Norwood, N.J. Robinson, N. M., and Janos, P. M. (1986). Psychological adjustment in a college-level program of marked academic acceleration. J. Youth Adolesc. 15: 51-60. Robinson, N. M., and Robinson, H. B. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromise for the highly gifted students. In Feldman, D. (ed.), New Directions for Child Development: Developmental Approaches to Giftedness and Creativity (No. 17), JosseyBass, San Francisco. Stanley, J. C. (1976). Test better finder of great math talent than teachers are. Am. Psychol. 31(4): 313-314. Stanley, J. C. (1985). Young college entrants: How did they fare? College and University 60: 219-228. Stanley, J. C., and Benbow, C. P. (1983a). Extremely young college graduates: evidence of their success. College and University 58: 361-371. Stanley, J. C., and Benbow, C. P. (1983b). SMPY's first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. J. Special Educ. 17: 11-25.
Underachievement of Accelerated Students
313
Stanley, J. C., Keating, D. P., and Fox, L. H. (1974). Mathematical Talent, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Md. Stanley, J. C., and McGill, A. (in press). More about "Youngest entrants to college: How did they fare?" Gifted Child Q. Terman, L. M. (1956). The Concept Mastery Test Manual, Form T. The Psychological Corporation, New York.
