Technical Report Documentation Page 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

FA.A-AM.-76- 6 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote 

June 1976 

EDUCATION AS A FACTOR IN THE SElECTION OF 6. Performing Orgcni zation Code 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TRAINEES 

r-s.-· Performing Orgoni zotion Report No. 

7. Author1 s) Bart B. Cobb, M.S., Carol L. Young, B.S., 

and Barbc:.ra L. Ri~zuti, B.A. 

---- ---~ --·~---

9. Performing Orgoni zation Nome and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

FAA Civil Aeromedical Institut:e 

P.O. Bcx 25082 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73125 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

Office of Aviation Medicine OAM Report Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, s.w. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

Washlngton, D.C. 20591 

15. Supp Iemen tory Notes 

Th1.s research was conducted und.er Tasks AM-C-75-PSY-42, AM-C-·76-PSY-42, and 

AM-C-76-PSY-56. 

16. Abstract 

This longitudinal study of 2,352 air traffic control specialist recruits (1,858 En 

Route and 494 Terminal) whc entered the FAA Aeademy basic training phc:.se in 1969 

E:xamined the validity of educationc.l level, recency cf education, and major areas of 

college study for thE: prediction of success in air traffic control (ATC) training 

(defined by Aeademy graduation status anc/or retention in FAA ATC work 3 to 4 years 

after Academy training). All educational variables, both before an c. after consider ation of age effects and pre-FAA experience, were found tc be negl igi.bly anc/or 

inversely related to ATC success. The 181 college graduate.s had the highest Academy 

attrition rate (30.9 percent), followed by the 208 nongraduates of higt school (24.5 

percent) whereas the· lowest attrJ ti.on rate (18.0 percent) pertainec to the 876 subjects having high school diplomas only. Pes t-Ace.demy rates followed 8. similar 

pe.ttern. College majors listed by 925 of the 1,265 recruits who c·ttended eollege 

revealed little potential for prediction of ATC success; even those 53 recruits whose 

majors were judged to be aviation related had a retention rate of only 56.6 percent 

compared to the 56.7 percent retention rate of all recruits indicc.ting college \Wrk. 

None of the education variables had a significant interaction effect on the validities 

of other selection factors. Moreover, all type8 of aviation-related experienee 

except ATC vrere found to be unreliable for prediction of training outcomes. Other 

findings clearly illustrated that cancide.cy for ATCS training should be restricted 

to aptitude-sereened applicants no older thc:.n 30 and that a ease can be made for 

discontinuing the a"mrding of crec.it points toward eligibility for all types of 

preen try experience except air traffic control. 

17. Key Wards 18. Distribution Statement 

Air Traffic Controllers Document is available to the public Education through the National Technical Information Training Attrition Service, Springfield, Virginia 22151. Career Success 

19. Security Classil. (oi-this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified $3.00 PC 

.95 MF 

Form DOT F 1700.7 <B-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 

Acknow ledgrnent 

We gratefully acknowledge the assistance in data analysis by Dan 

McClure and Mary Payne. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Introduction ------------------------------------------------ 1 

A. ATCS Selection and Recruiting History ------------------- 1 

1. Age --------------------------------------------------- 2 

2. Aviation-related experience ----------------------------- 2 

3. Development of aptitude-test screening procedures ________ 3 

4. Revised aptitude-screening procedures ------------------- 5 

5. Level of education as a selection factor ------------------ 6 

B. Issues Concerning Education as a Selection Factor ---------- 6 

C. Purposes of the Present Study ---------------------------- 7 

II. Methodology ------------------------------------------------ 7 

A. Subjects ------------------------------------------------- 7 

B. Reasons for Limited Scope of the Study ------------------- 7 

C. Background Variables ------------------------------------ 8 

D. Criterion Variables --------------------------------------- 9 

III. Results and Discussion --------------------------------------- 10 

A. Relationship of Level of Education to Training Outcome ___ 10 

B. Recency of Education ------------------------------------- 12 

C. Effects of Age Versus Educational Level and Recency_______ 14 

D. Aviation Experience and Age Versus Education as Selection 

Factors -------------------------------------------------- 16 

E. Educational Level Versus Aptitudes, Age, and Experience ___ 23 

F. Major Areas of College Study ---------------------------- 25 

IV. Summary and Conclusions ----------------------------------- 28 

EDUCATION AS A FACTOR IN THE SELECTION OF 

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER TRAINEES 

I. Introduction. 

Aviation safety is the prime m1sswn of the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This 

mission entails responsibility for the safe and 

efficient utilization of the Nation's airspace. To 

facilitate accomplishment of this mission, the 

FAA maintains a complex system of air navigation and air traffic control (ATC) officially 

referred to as the National Airspace System 

(NAS). The overall effectiveness of the system 

is contingent on the proficiency of personnel and 

the equipment they use in performance of their 

tasks. While the services of personnel in every 

occupational specialty are important, none are 

more critical to the FAA's mission than those 

rendered by air traffic control specialists 

( ATCS). Controllers not only outnumber all 

other FAA employees but also bear direct responsibility for the safe, orderly, and expeditious 

flow of air traffic. For these reasons, there has 

never been a period of laxity in the search for 

progressively improved methods of ATCS selection and training. 

The present report pertains to a study undertaken in connection with the FAA's continuing 

efforts to develop increasingly more effective 

procedures of screening and selecting personnel 

for controller training. More specifically, this 

investigation was conducted to determine the extent to which the probabilities of ATC success 

(as defined by training performance measures 

and also retention status in control work several 

years subsequent to recruitment) might vary in 

accordance with the educational backgrounds of 

trainees having various types of preentry experience and differential aptitude-test-screening 

scores. 

1 

Several previous studies1 3 9 10 12 15 17 focusing 

on the validation of other selection factors but 

including "level of education" as a variable for 

peripheral study have yielded findings (discussed in the next section of this report) that 

suggest, yet fail to demonstrate conclusively, 

that the existing educational standards a're in 

need o£ revision. Despite the unavailability o£ 

detailed information concerning the educational 

backgrounds o£ ATCS trainees, the present study 

was undertaken on the assumption that analyses 

more comprehensive than those accomplished in 

the earlier studies would produce results indicating whether the existing educational standards 

are validly serving their purpose and, if not, the 

nature and extent o£ revisions having the 

greatest potential for enhancement of the selection process. 

Throughout the history of the FAA, applicants for ATCS training have been provided a 

variety of optional, or alternate, methods (i.e., 

various sets of qualification standards) from 

which to choose when seeking to establish their 

candidacy. This being so, it would be difficult 

to fully understand the rationale underlying the 

planning o£ the current study or achieve a meaningful interpretation o£ the findings obtained 

without first considering the extent to which 

other £actors, separately and in combination with 

education, have served as determinants in the 

selection o£ A TCS-trainee personnel. 

A. ATOS Seleation and Rearuiting History. 

Numerous revisions have been made during the 

past 15 years in the methods and standards employed in the sceening and selection of personnel 

£or ATCS training. However, some o£ the selection procedures, and particularly those relating 

to education, are remarkably similar to those o£ 

the past. 
Current eligibility standards for ATCS training prescribe that an applicant ( 1) be no older 

than 30, (2) hold a high school diploma or be 

able to show evidence (e.g., General Education 

Development, or G.E.D., certificate) of education, abilities, and/or skills deemed comparable 

with those of most high school graduates, (3) 

satisfactorily pass a rigid medical examination, 

which includes screening for personality abnormalities, and (4) achieve a composite raw score 

no lower than 210 on a Civil Service Commission (CSC) battery of six aptitude tests. The 

test battery is designed to assess a candidate's 

aptitudes for learning the types of tasks involved 

in control work. The composite measure of aptitudes is converted to a percentile score, with 210 

corresponding to a minimally qualifying percentile score of 70, which is then supplemented 

by credit points reflecting evaluations of preemployment experience and education to derive 

the applicant's overall eligibility rating. 

During the last 15 years, the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) has accomplished a 

great deal of research bearing on the validation 

of age, preentry work experience, education, and 

aptitude-test measures as A TCS selection 

factors. 2

- 16 Certain standards among those currently employed in the selection of trainees, and 

also some of the selection standards of the past, 

were formulated on the basis of findings obtained 

in various CAMI studies (some of which went 

unpublished due to the few researchers involved 

and the need to pursue other high priority research). 

1. Age. Perhaps the most important of the 

CAMI studies were those that demonstrated the 

effects of age on training and job performance. 

A series of investigations, dating back to 1961, 

indicated that the training attrition rates of 

groups of subjects of age 31 and older were generally two to three times higher than those of 

the younger trainees/ 9 10 14 15 16 Other studies in 

which experimental ratings of job performance 

were collected on journey-level ATCS's from 

both their supervisors and their peers revealed 

that the mean performance ratings of controllers 

within every age category beyond 40 were significantly lower than those of the younger subgroups.4 1114 Such findings played a decisive 

role in obtaining congressional legislation per2 

mitting the establishment of an optional early 

retirement program for controllers and also the 

imposition of an upper age limit of 30 in the 

recruitment of controller trainees. The latter 

standard, as well as the early retirement program, have been in effect since April 1973. 

Implementation of the standard precluding 

the training eligibility of any applicant older 

than 30 has been viewed by many within the 

FAA as representing the most significant step 

ever taken to improve the selection process. This 

belief stems from consideration of findings obtained in a number of CAMI studies. Due to 

the standards prescribed for evaluating and 

weighting various types of aviation-related experience as a selection factor, relatively high 

proportions of the selectees who established their 

candidacy ratings during periods preceding imposition of the age limitation were more than 

30 years old, including appreciable percentages 

in their forties and some who were more than 

50. However, the followup studies of groups 

recruited during 1960 to 1971 always revealed 

significant inverse relationships between training-entry age and training performance measures.4 11 The effects of age pervaded all 

experience subgroups, indicating the need for 

establishment of a standard to preclude qualification and selection of older applicants, regardless 

of their experience backgrounds.10 Moreover, 

research4 11 has also demonstrated that the job 

proficiency of full-performance-level (FPL) 

ATCS's, or journeyman-level controllers, generally tends to decline progressively after age 40. 

Such findings retrospectively attest to the validity 

of the FAA's current policy of recruiting only 

relatively young personnel for ATCS training. 

2. Aviation-related experience. Throughout 

the history of the FAA and that of its predecessor organization, the Civil Aeronautics Administration ( CAA) , A TCS selection programs 

have included standards predicated on the philosophy that almost any type of aviation-related 

experience should be of value for predication of 

success in ATC training and work. Inasmuch 

as previous experience 1n air . traffic control 

(usually acquired in military service) has 

always been considered of paramount importance, 

standards have invariably prescribed that it be 

heavily weighted, directly or indirectly, as a 
selection factor. Other types of aviation experience traditionally regarded as important, but 

generally weighted more moderately than prior 

ATC work, include experience (military or 

civilian) as an aircraft pilot, a navigator, a communications expert, a radar surveillance specialist, and a flight dispatcher. Prior to implementation of mandatory aptitude-test screening 

procedures in 1964 (and exclusive of brief trial 

periods for procedures resulting in the selection 

of relatively few trainees), the eligibility ratings 

of medically qualified ATCS applicants were determined primarily on the basis of assessments 

of aviation-related experience and education. 

Briefly stated, selection programs have always 

been formulated to result in the recruitment of 

as many controller trainees as possible from applicants who, in addition to other qualifications, 

possessed previous ATC experience. The appropriateness of this policy has been repeatedly confirmed by the results of CAMI followup study 

of personnel who entered ATCS training during 

the decade ending in 1970. Unfortunately, 

however, the manpower pool of former military 

controllers has progressively diminished during 

the past 15 years and the FAA has therefore 

recruited increasingly greater proportions of its 

ATCS trainees from candidates having other 

aviation backgrounds and also from those having no aviation experience of any type-but who 

qualified on the basis of aptitude-test measures 

and assessments of education. 

Although CAMI followup studies have provided ample evidence attesting to the validity of 

ATC experience as a selection variable, the same 

studies have indicated all other types of aviation 

experience (e.g., pilot, navigator, air defense 

surveillance, etc.) to be virtually worthless for 

prediction of training outcomes or retention in 

FAA ATCS work several years subsequent to 

recruitment.4 9 10 15 16 ]\fore important, variables 

reflecting experience in aviation-related areas 

other than ATC (and also in fields unrelated to 

aviation) were frequently found to correlate inversely (sometimes at statistically significant 

levels) with the criterion variables. This was 

particularly true with respect to aircraft-pilot 

experience. Moreover, when statistical procedures were employed to theoretically nullify the 

effect of age, the validity coefficients of variables 

3 

representing "years of pilot experience," "logged 

hours," and "pilot ratings" were nonetheless 

found to be in either the low negative range or 

very low positive range. Such findings have 

prompted a committee, which the FAA Administrator established in late 1974 to ascertain 

methods of improving the ATCS selection and 

training programs, to recommend that selection 

procedures be revised to preclude consideration 

of any type of preemployment experience except 

that directly involving air traffic control. Such 

a recommendation, however, runs counter to the 

CSC's traditional policy of evaluating virtually 

all types of preemployment experience in the 

selection of personnel for ,almost any occupational specialty within the Federal service. If 

the esc expresses unwillingness to approve the 

proposed change, the FAA should nonetheless 

press vigorously for changes whereby aviation 

experience other than ATC would be very conservatively weighted in the selection process. 

3. Development of aptitude-test screening procedures. ATCS selection procedures prior to 

1964 generally involved no formal assessment of 

the aptitudes or mental abilities of applicants. 

The battery of tests used in the screening of 

most applicants since that time was implemented 

on the basis of findings obtained in CAMI experimental-testing-and-followup research on personnel recruited during 1962 and 1963. In that 

research, the six tests that now compose the esc 

ATC Aptitude Test Battery were identified from 

among 27 experimentally administered instruments as yielding the best composite measure 

of aptitudes for prediction of performance in the 

Academy's basic training courses in En Route 

and Terminal ATC procedures. 

The six tests were administered to 893 subjects as they enrolled in the Academy training 

courses. It was later found that 271 of the 893 

were attrited during the basic training phase. 

"'When the test performance data of the Academy 

graduates and attritions were compared, results 

clearly indicated that the best point on the score 

distribution for differentiation purposes was between 189 and 190. Scores of 190 or higher were 

achieved by 489 subjects, representing 54.8 percent of the entire validation sample. The 489 

included 400 ( 64.3 percent) of the 622 graduates 
and only 89 (32.8 percent) of the 271 who failed 

to successfully complete the initial training phase. 

Although 404 ( 45.2 percent of the 893) scored 

189 or lower, the 404 included 182 ( 67.2 percent) 

of the 271 attritions and 222 (35.7 percent) of 

the 622 Academy graduates. 

Operational use of the battery, however, was 

initiated long before validation results became 

available for the entire group of 893 subjects. 

An earlier analysis, in which the aptitude test 

scores of the first 302 examinees were validated 

against the Academy training criteria, yielded 

findings (highly similar to those later obtained 

for the complete sample) that prompted esc 

and FAA officials to authorize use of the battery, 

beginning in July 1962, in the screening of only 

those applicants unable to establish training 

eligibility in terms of the normally prescribed 

qualification standards (i.e., qualifications with 

respect to aviation-related experience and/or education). Several thousand such applicants were 

operationally examined with the battery during 

the following 18 months and, although about 

half of them established training eligibility by 

achieving raw composite scores of 190 or higher 

(i.e., percentile scores of 70 or better), very few 

were selected. Candidates qualifying on the 

basis of previous ATC work and other aviation 

experience generally attained higher overall esc 

eligibility ratings than those screened with the 

battery. Moreover, training quotas continued 

to decline and were usually met by selecting 

candidates having esc ratings no lower than 90. 

To attain a percentile rating of 90, an applicant 

having insufficient ATC-related experience to 

qualify for any credit points was required to 

achieve an exceptionally high aptitude test score 

of 257. Aptitude-screened subjects were, therefore, seldom able to effectively compete for the 

available training positions. In fact, most of the 

relatively few aptitude-screened candidates selected for training prior to January 1964 possessed at least some ATC-related experience 

that, although insufficient for exemption of the 

test screening requirement, warranted credit 

points to supplement ratings reflecting excellent 

levels of performance on the test battery. 

Academy training performance records for the 

last of the 893 subjects examined with the esc 

test battery for research purposes only were not 

4 

available until October 1963. By that time, 

CAMI had collected post-Academy training progress information,. experimental ratings of job 

performance, and other data for several hundred 

of the examinees who had successfully completed 

their basic training course some 12 to 18 months 

earlier. 

A series of validation analyses completed 

shortly thereafter yielded findings of timely interest to officials seeking to improve ATCS selection. Perhaps the most important of the analyses 

was that which, as mentioned earlier, revealed 

that about two-thirds of the 271 Academy attritions among the 893 experimentally examined 

subjects scored no higher than 189 on the esc 

battery, whereas a similar proportion of the 622 

graduates scored 190 or higher. In another 

analysis based on the entire sample, statistically 

significant (p < .05) correlations were obtained 

between the aptitude test variable and most of 

the Academy training-performance measures 

(i.e., grades). However, when dealing with data 

of the Academy graduates only, the aptitudetest scores (particularly those above 210) proved 

very unreliable for prediction of Academy training performance or promotions, ratings of job 

performance, and/or attrition-retention status 

during the first 12 to 18 months of facility training. Yet, the latter findings were o£ the general 

type expected because the deletion o£ data £or 

the Academy attritions, the majority o£ whom 

were low-aptitude subjects, resulted in an attenuated distribution of test scores. 

Entry age proved to be inversely related to 

both the aptitude-test variable and "the criterion 

measures.6 Some 668 (74.8 percent) o£ the 893 

examinees were no older than 30 and the remaining 225 were almost equally distributed among 

the age brackets "31-35," "36-40," and "41 and 

older." Although only 148 o£ the 668 youngest 

subjects were Academy attritions, 63.5 percent 

(N=94) of the 148 scored 189 or lower on the 

esc test battery, compared to 35.8 percent 

(N = 186) of the 520 youngest graduates. Subjects of the successively older age brackets had 

progressively higher Academy attrition rates and 

lower mean scores on the test battery. Almost 

78 percent (N =59) o£ the 76 trainees aged 41 

and older (many of whom were military retirees 

with lengthy ATC experience) failed to success-
fully complete Academy training and only 22 

(37.3 percent) of the 59 attained test scores of 

190 or higher, including 9 with scores of 210 and 

higher. 

After viewing the results of the validation 

analyses, selection officials decided that the esc 

battery should be used in the screening of all 

applicants, beginning in January 1964. They 

considered the battery to have great potential for 

the screenout of· applicants who, should they be 

recruited, would most likely fail the basic training phase solely because of low-level aptitudes. 

They did not advocate use of the test scores for 

prediction of differential levels of training performance; to have done so would have implied 

limited interest in developing the best possible 

test-performance screening standards. 

4. Revised aptitude-screening procedures. Although the screening program instituted in January 1964 required that all applicants for ATCS 

training be examined with the esc battery, they 

were screened in terms of three different aptitude-test-performance qualification standards. In 

accordance with procedures prescribed for each 

specific training option and entry pay grade being applied for, an individual's preemployment 

experience and/or level of education determined 

which of three tables was to be used in converting his/her composite raw score on the test 

battery to a percentile score. A percentile score 

of 70, considered a mandatory eligibility requirement, corresponded to a raw score of 210 on one 

conversion table, to 225 on another, and to 240 

on the third. For example, candidacy for Tower 

or Center training at the GS-6 (General Service 

rating; i.e., pay grade) entry level required that 

ATC-rated applicants (usually former military 

controllers) score at least 210 on the battery, 

whereas 225 was considered minimally qualifying for instrument-rated aircraft-pilot personnel 

and also applicants having navigator or airdispatcher certificates, and 240 served as the 

screening standard for those having low-to-moderate amounts of aviation-related experience 

and/or 4-year college degrees and also others 

having diverse experiential and educational backgrounds. Moreover, the procedures stipulated 

that each applicant's percentile score, if 70 or 

higher, be supplemented with credit points 

awarded for those types of experience that had 

5 

warranted use of either of the two lower testscore screening standards to derive his/her overall eligibility rating. Inasmuch as the majority 

of the applicants possessed aviation experience 

of some sort, the dual consideration of that experience in the qualification process enabled them 

to establish training candidacy in far greater 

numbers, and generally with higher eligibility 

ratings, than those with nonaviation backgrounds. 

The relatively high aptitude-test-score screening standards of 210, 225, and 240 (for each of 

the training options) remained in effect from 

January 1964 until August 1968, resulting in 

the screenout of more than half the applicants. 

However, no shortage of qualified candidates 

developed. Due to continuing budgetary limitations, training quotas remained unusually low 

throughout the entire 56-month period and consequently nearly all ATCS trainees were selected 

from among candidates having commendably 

high eligibility ratings-reflecting exceptional 

qualifications with respect to aptitudes and also 

experience and/or education. 

In August of 1968, a program for rapid expansion of NAS was initiated and a revised set 

of trainee-selection standards was adopted. In 

many respects, the new selection program was 

highly similar to that of the preceding 56 months. 

However, two new screening standards were implemented as a means of insuring an adequate 

supply of candidates. First, according to one 

of the new standards, applicants having highly 

specialized ATC experience (particularly in 

radar control) could be. granted waivers of the 

aptitude-screening phase and could also be appointed to training at pay grades of GS-9 or 

higher rather than the normally prescribed entry 

grades of GS-7 or lower. It was reasoned that 

such personnel would be able to complete developmental training more rapidly than others 

and thereby more quickly alleviate the shortage 

of FPL controllers. Second, a score of 210 on 

the esc test battery was adopted as a common 

screening standard for most other applicants. 

The screening standard of 210 applied to (1) 

former military controllers unable to qualify 

und~r the "specialized experience" standard, (2) 

pilots, navigators, air dispatchers, and others 

who would have confronted a test-score screen-
ing hurdle of 225 if they had applied in earlier 

years, (3) 4-year college graduates with records 

of superior academic achievement, and ( 4) applicants ha.ving master's degrees. A test score 

of 240 was prescribed for use in the screening 

of few applica.nts except those devoid of aviation-related experience, most of whom were 

college graduates with no evidence of superior 

academic achievement. 

The ATCS selection procedures remained 

essentially unchanged from August 1968 until 

April 1973. Throughout that time, however, 

slightly less than one-fourth of the selectees entered at gra.de GS-9 or higher on the basis of 

"specialized experience." The majority, entering at grade GS-7 or lower, were recruited from 

aptitude-screened candidates having ATC or 

other aviation-related experience. The "specialized experience" standard was abolished on April 

2, 1973. Simultaneous with the reinstatement 

of mandatory aptitude-screening procedures, a 

new standard was implemented that automatically precluded the eligibility of any applicant 

more than 30 years old. With the exception of 

the two standards just mentioned, the 1973 selection program was highly similar to that of 

1968. Also, none of the current (1975) screening standards differ significantly from those of 

1973. Nonethleless, recruiting demands have so 

drastically declined since 1968 that a currentday candidate has virtually no chance of being 

appointed to training unless his overall eligibility rating far exceeds that which would have 

warranted selection during the 1968-1972 period. 

5. Level of education as a selection factor. 

The ATCS selection programs of all time periods have included the mandatory requirement 

that an applicant either hold a high school 

diploma or provide evidence (e.g., G.E.D. certificate) of an educational background deemed 

equivalent to that of a typical graduate of a 

high school. Education beyond the high school 

level (although not mandatory) has traditionally 

received significant weighting, directly or indirectly, as a factor in the derivation of each 

applicant's overall eligibility rating. Selection 

progra.ms have invariably included provisions 

whereby the "general experience" requirements, 

specified for applicants not having backgrounds 

in aviation, could be met wholly or in part by 

6 

the substitution of college-level education. Regardless of experience, however, applicants with 

4-year college degrees have usually been provided a variety of standards helpful in establishing training candidacy. As mentioned 

earlier, there was a period during which college 

graduates with records of superior academic 

achievement were screened in terms of an aptitude-test-score standard that was considerably 

below· that designated for screening of their 

comparably experienced and otherwise equally 

qualified colleagues. Also, a similar policy prevailed at one time that pertained to all college 

graduates, irrespective of academic records. 

However, the greatest emphasis of education as 

a selection factor was during 1971 and 1972 when 

applicants with 4-yea.r college degrees having 

at least 1 year of graduate work and 12 months 

of specialized A TO experience could be granted 

waivers of the aptitude-test-screening phase and 

also be appointed to training at grade GS-9 

rather than GS-7. 

B. Issues Concerning Education as a Selection 

Factor. Throughout the history of the FAA 

and the CAA, education has received notable consideration as a factor in the selection of A TCS 

trainees. However, virtually all the selection 

procedures relating to education except those concerning records of superior academic achievement have pertained to levels of education, or 

years of education completed. The types of 

studies (e.g., college courses, areas of major and 

minor study, etc.) pursued by the applicants have 

generally received little or no consideration. 

Level of education and assessments of experience 

and/or performance on the battery of aptitude 

screening tests have, for many years, served as 

the prime determinants of each medically qualified applicant's training eligibility (and sometimes the pay grade to which appointed on entry 

into controller training). While relevant experience has usually been deemed more important 

than education as a selection factor, applicants 

lacking qualifying preentry experience, but meeting other prerequisites, have generally been 

allowed to substitute college education (as measured by years) for experience, in accordance 

with differential rates prescribed for the various 

types of experience. 
Although the selection procedures pertaining 

to education have varied from time to time, they 

have consistently reflected an implied assumption 

that success probabilities in ATC training and 

work tend to vary in accordance with levels of 

education attained by personnel considered 

equally qualified in other respects. However, the 

belief that educational level is indeed appropriate 

and valid for selection purposes has apparently 

never been confirmed through research. To the 

contrary, various phases of previous CAMI rerearch on ATCS selection in which level of education was included as a variable for "peripheral 

study" in analyses relating to the validation of 

age, preemployment experience, and aptitudetest performance indicated that the training attrition rates of ATCS personnel tended to increase 

(rather than decrease) in accordance with the 

preentry levels of education. 3 9 10 15 Several unpublished CAMI studies involving trainees recruited during various time periods have shown 

that college graduates generally have significantly 

higher attrition rates than selectees having either 

high school diplomas only or 1 year or less of 

college. 

Such findings, however, do not necessarily 

imply the need for reformulation of selection 

procedures relating to education. In fact, the 

findings cannot be reliably interpreted because 

they are undoubtedly confounded by (unassessed) 

interaction effects of age, experience, aptitudes, 

and other factors considered in the selection 

process. Virtually all the validation data pertaining to education were derived in conjunction 

with research undertaken primarily for other 

purposes. Some of the CAMI studies in which 

level of education was included as a variable for 

ancillary study involved determination of the 

coefficients of correlation for the educational 

variable versus Academy training-performance 

measures and other criteria. 3 9 10 15 Certain phases 

of research also included determination and comparison of attrition rates of subjects categorized 

in terms of educational level.' 0 In none of the 

studies, however, were analyses conducted to 

assess the effects of other selection factors on the 

validity of the educational variables or the influence of the latter on the validities of the 

former. Moreover, selection procedures bearing 

on education have traditionally included con7 

sideration of level only and, due in part to that 

fact and the ready availability of data not requiring tranposition, investigators have invariably refrained from dealing with other aspects 

of education when conducting research under 

taken primarily for other purposes. 

Research findings to date concerning education 

admittedly suggest, but fail to demonstrate conclusively, that level of education has little or no 

validity for prediction of success in ATCS training. It is important not only to resolve this 

basic issue, but also to ascertain the validities of , 

other variables that can be derived from other 

data and information pertaining to the preentry 

educational backgrounds of ATCS-trainee per- , 

sonnel. ' 

C. Purposes of the Present Study. The current study was undertaken for three basic purposes: (1) to assess the validity of level of education as a selection factor, separately and in combination with other factors officially considered 

in the selection of ATCS-trainee personnel; (2) 

to determine whether data and information relating to other aspects of education (e.g., recency, 

major courses of study, etc.) are sufficiently rel~ted to training attrition-retention status to 

warrant consideration in the establishment of 

eligibility ratings; and, if so, (3) to derive a set 

of factor weights, reflecting their relative importance, for recommended use in future revisions 

of the A TCS selection standards. 

II. Methodology. 

A. Subjects. This report pertains to a longitudinal study of 2,352 former students of the 

Academy's basic training courses in En Route and 

Terminal ATC procedures. The group, representing the combined enrollments for the two 

training courses during calendar year 1969, includes 1,858 En Route and 494 Terminal recruits. 

The study concerns the validation of education 

for prediction of training outcomes and attritionretention status in control work 3 to 4 years 

following recruitment. 

B. Reasons for Limited Scope of the Study. 

Data and information reflecting each subject's 

qualifications for ATC training and his/her 

Academy attrition-graduation status and postAcademy attrition-retention status (as of Jan-
uary 1, 1973) were collected in conjunction with 

previous studies that focused on the validation of 

preemployment experience, aptitude-test measures, and other selection factors. The present 

study was facilitated by the availability of such 

data and also the results of certain analyses conducted in connection with the earlier research. 

On the other hand, the current study is admittedly somewhat restricted in scope. Various 

types of information and data desirable for inclusion in the validation analyses were not avail-

' able nor even feasible to collect by the time the 

study was conceived. The need for a comprehensive study of educational factors was foreseen when the previous research was undertaken 

and, consequently, the subjects were requested to 

provide relatively little educational background 

information. Although required to deal with the 

data at hand, we felt that certain types of analyses (described in later sections of this report) 

would yield results of timely and informative 

value to the FAA in its current quest for methods 

of improving the ATCS selection program. 

C. Background Variables. In conjunction with 

the earlier research, CAMI administered a 

lengthy biographical questionnaire to each incoming class of Academy trainees to obtain 

first-hand information regarding each subject's 

educational background, preemployment experience, training-entry age, and other background 

data. 

Questionnaire items pertaining to education 

were few in number. The subject was asked to 

give the name and location of the high school ( s) 

attended, highest grade completed, if she/he received a diploma, and, if so, the year of graduation. Each subject claiming a G.E.D. certificate 

in lieu of a high school diploma was requested 

to indicate the year in which the document was 

awarded. Trainees with college backgrounds 

were asked to give the name and location of each 

institution attended, dates attended, credits 

earned, degrees conferred and to indicate briefly 

his/her major courses of study. Information of 

a similar nature was solicited with respect to 

"non-college education" (e.g., vocational schools 

and military special training schools). 

8 

When formulating plans for the present study, 

we realized that much of the available educational background information was neither amenable to coding nor sufficiently important to 

warrant inclusion in the validation analyses. 

However, little difficulty was encountered in coding the data for derivation of the two variables 

deemed most critical for study. These were 

"Level of Education Attained Prior to Recruitment" and "Recency in Attainment of Highest 

Level." The prime variable, "Level of Education," was coded on a nine-point scale, with code 

"1" indicating "no high school diploma," code "2" 

denoting a G.E.D. certificate (indicating an educational background comparable to that of a 

typical graduate of a high school), "3" representing a formal high school diploma, "4" reflecting 

less than 1 full year (30 credit hours) of college 

work, codes "5" through "7" denoting progressively greater amounts of college education not 

resulting in a bachelor's degree, "8" representing 

a bachelor's degree, and "9" indicating a master's 

degree. "Recency of Education" represented the 

time lapse, expressed in years, since attainment 

of highest level of education. Plans also stipulated that the subjects indicating college credits 

be categorized on the basis of cited majors (principal areas of study) for comparison of their 

attrition-retention rates relative to both level and 

recency of education. 

Among the most important of the scheduled 

analyses were those designed to assess the interaction effects of preemployment experience, age, 

and aptitude-screening-test performance on the 

validities of the three educational variables. 

However, it should be emphasized that this aspect of the study was somewhat restricted in 

scope due to the limited types and amounts of 

data collected in conjunction with CAMI's previous research. 

Detailed information concerning preemployment experience was not available for study. 

Fortunately, however, the biographical questionnaire that CAMI administered to all incoming 

Academy classes included a section in which each 

trainee was requested to indicate whether she/he 

has ever held a license, certificate, or rating in 

"air traffic control work" (e.g., military or civilian control) and/ or as an aircraft pilot or in 
the field of communications (e.g., radio, air surveillance, etc.) . These are the types of experience 

the FAA has traditionally weighted most heavily 

in the ATCS selection process. Every incoming 

Academy group included at least a few students 

who replied "No" to each of the three areas, 

whereas the majority checked "Yes" for one or 

more. Generally, a sizable proportion of each 

Academy class indicated ratings in all three areas 

(i.e., ATC, pilot, and communications). For 

purposes of the present study, each case was assigned to one of eight mutually exclusive categories, ranging from "no rating in any of the 

three areas" (i.e., no certificated experience officially deemed relevant to FAA ATC work) to 

ratings in all three fields or areas. 

Age at time of entry into Academy training, 

rounded to the nearest birthday, was based on 

questionnaire response data and subsequently 

verified against data appearing in each trainee's 

"Evaluation of Performance Record" for the 

Academy basic training phase. 

Scores on the operational CSC ATC Aptitude 

Test Battery were provided by the FAA regions 

for only 63.2 percent of the 2,352 subjects involved in the current study. Among the 2,352 

were many who qualified for entry into training 

at grade GS-8 or higher on the basis of the specialized experience standard and whose scores 

were therefore known to have been disregarded 

during the selection process. Moreover, the aptitude test scores forwarded to CAMI for research 

purposes pertained to a far smaller proportion of 

the Academy attritions than graduates (i.e., 34.7 

percent and 67.6 percent respectively). The regions, for various reasons, seldom attempted to 

assemble and forward the test records of trainees 

until several months after the trainee entered the 

9-week Academy basic training phase; almost 

one-third of the students failed to successfully 

complete the basic training phase and were released from FAA service shortly after return to 

their facilities of assignment; the records of 

those eliminated were usually discarded within 

30 days following termination o:f employment 

and consequently most of the test data sent to 

CAMI pertained to the Academy graduates. 

Researchers recognized that bias in the collection 

of such data would preclude an accurate assess9 

ment of the battery's validity for prediction of 

training-course attrition-retention status and also 

the interaction effects of aptitude level on the 

validities of variables reflecting level, recency, 

and type of preen try education. Nonetheless 

analyses relating to that objective were undertaken with the hope that the outcomes would not 

be entirely meaningless. 

D. Criterion Variables. Academy training officials provided CAMI with an "Evaluation of 

Performance Record" for each trainee. Each 

record not only indicated whether the student ' 

failed or successfully passed the Academy basic 

training phase but also included a listing of 

grades reflecting performance on a variety of 

examinations pertaining to academic materials 

and "over the shoulder" evaluations (by instructors) of the student's performance as a controller 

on laboratory-simulated ATC problems. For 

several reasons, however, the grades were deemed 

inappropriate for use as criteria in the current 

study: subjects were frequently permitted "retakes" of examinations that they initially failed; 

earlier studies had shown that subjects having 

unusually high grade averages were sometimes 

eliminated from training due to repeated failure 

to pass tests relating to only one or two specific 

aspects of training; materials and procedures on 

which En Route students were examined differed 

from those of the Terminal trainees; and previous research had illustrated that the grades, 

separately and in various combinations, were unreliable for purposes of individual differentiation. All such grades were, therefore, completely 

disregarded in the present study. Instead, only 

one basic-training criterion variable, "Academy 

Attrition-Retention Status," was employed. Subjects whose records indicated they successfully 

completed their assigned training course (i.e., 

graduates) were designated as "Academy Retentions" and all others, as "Academy Attritions." 

Most of the validation analyses were accomplished with no distinction being made between 

the data of the En Route and Terminal subjects. 

The second criterion variable was "PostAcademy Attrition-Retention Status" on January 

1, 1973. The latter had been determined in 

earlier CAMI research by collating the names 

and Social Security numbers of the subjects with 
those set forth in magnetic tape records for all 

personnel within the FAA who, at the beginning 

of 1973, possessed an occupational code of 2152 

(denoting the A TCS specialty) . Initial plans 

for the study stipulated that level, type, and 

recency of education also be validated against 

indices of career progress (e.g., promotions), 

lengths of service for attrited subjects as well as 

those still in ATC work, facility transfers, 

changes in training option, and other criteria. 

Soon after the study was underway, however, it 

, became apparent that such data and information 

, would be difficult, and probably impossible, to 

obtain for many of the subjects, particularly 

I those who were eliminated from training within 

the first few months after Academy graduation. 

Considering the difficulties and likelihood of bias 

in the collection of data, we decided that no attempts should be made to validate education 

against any post-Academy criteria other than 

attrition-retention status on January 1, 1973. 

III. Results and Discussion. 

All but three of the 2,352 trainees returned a 

completed, or partially completed, copy of the 

biographical questionnaire to CAMI for research 

purposes. The three who failed to do so were 

En Route trainees. The response data submitted 

by each of the remaining 2,349 (1,855 En Route 

and 494 Terminal students) was sufficient to permit determination of "Highest Level of Education" attained prior to entry into FAA ATCS 

training. Consequently, 2,349 represented the 

maximum number of cases involved in any of the 

, validation analyses accomplished in this study. 

Moreover, only eight of the 1,855 En Route respondents and just three of the Terminal trainees 

failed to provide chronological information necessary for ascertaining "Recency of Highest 

Level of Education Attained." In other words, 

data reflecting both recency and level of education were available for 2,338 subjects. The group 

was deemed more than adequate in size for reliable assessment of the validities of the two 

variables-independently, combined, and also in 

conjunction with other selection variables-for 

prediction of training outcomes. 

A. Relationship of Level of Education to 

Training Outcome. Figure 1 shows the number 

and proportion of ATCS trainees in each level10 

of-education category who failed to successfully 

complete the Academy basic training phase, those 

who passed Academy training but left the air 

traffic control system before January 1, 1973, and 

those still working in the ATCS specialty at the 

beginning of 1973. Before comparing the attrition-retention data of the various. sub-groups, 

however, we should first examine the distribution 

of educational level. 

Some 208 ( 8.9 percent) of the 2,349 A TCS 

recruits of 1969 indicated they had failed to meet 

the requirements for graduation from high 

school; however, 195 of the 208 stated they held 

G.E.D. certificates that, according to ATCS selection standards, indicated their educational 

development to be comparable with that of most 

high school graduates. Inasmuch as training 

eligibility has generally required that a candidate 

be able to provide evidence of at least a high 

school education or its equivalent, we decided 

that all analyses should be conducted with no 

distinction being made between the 195 subjects 

indicating certificates and the remaining 13 subjects who also failed to receive a high school 

diploma. 

Trainees who terminated their formal education with graduation from high school numbered 

876 and represented 37.3 percent of the total 

group (percentages are not shown in the figure). 

However, more than half ( 53.9 percent) of the 

2,349 had attended college. Of these, 459 declared credits equating to less than 1 full year of 

college work; 307 had completed at least 1 full 

year but less than 2 years of college; 203 possessed at least 2 but less than 3 ye!Lrs; 115 indicated 3 to 4 years but no degree; and 181 were 

college graduates. Inasmuch as only five of the 

181 held master's degrees, they were not dealt 

with as a separate subgroup. Although not depicted in Figure 1, the mean of the coded educational levels of the 2,349 trainees was 3.4 

(median: 3.2), representing slightly less than 

one-half year of college. 

In comparing the Academy attrition rates of 

the subjects by level-of-education category 

(shown in Figure 1) , none exceeded the 30.9-

percent rate of the 181 college graduates; the 

next highest, 24.5 percent, pertained to the 208 

who failed to complete high school. Differing 
553 

Level of Education Code: 1 & 2 3 4 

Training Entry Education H.S. Non- H.S. College 

Level: Graduate Graduate Credits 

5 

D Retentions (in ATC work 01/0l/73} 

~ Post-Academy Attritions 

IIIII Academy Basic-Training Attritions 

6 8 & 9 

College College College Bachelor's 

Credits Credits Credits and/or Total All 

or Cert. (Regular < 1 Full ? 1 But " 2 But 3-4 Years Master's Education 

via G,E,D, Diploma) Year < 2 Yrs. < 3 Yrs. No Degree Degree(s) Levels 

N Cases Per Education Group: 208 876 459 307 203 ll5 181 2,349 

%Retentions Jan. 73: 51.4 63.1 60.1 60.3 57.1 54.8 42.5 58.6 

%Post-Academy Attritions: 24.0 18.8 21.6 16.3 22.2 21.7 26.5 20.5 

% Academy Attritions: 24.5 18.0 18.3 23.4 20.7 23.5 30.9 20.9 

Attrition-Retention Rates 

N Cases Per Education Group: 157 

of Academy Graduates After Return to Facilities of Assignment 

718 375 235 161 88 125 1,859 

74.1 

25.9 

% In ATC Work Jan. 73: 68.2 77.0 73.6 78.7 72.1 71.6 61.6 

%Post-Academy Attritions: 31.8 23.0 26.4 21.3 27.9 28.4 38.4 

F'IGURE l. Distribution of ATCS attritions and retentions relative to highest level of education attained prior to 1969 

entry into Academy basic training in En Route or Terminal ATC procedures. (Three cases were not included 

in the analysis due to lack of data reflecting educational level.) 

significantly (p<.05) from either of the former 

was the rate of 18.0 percent obtained from the 

8'76 high school graduates. In fact, the 8'76 included proportionately fewer Academy attritions 

than any other subgroup. Moreover, only 18.3 

percent of the 459 stating they had less than 1 

full year of college were attrited during the basic 

training phase and the corresponding rates of 

subjects in the three remaining categories (with 

progressively more college credits) ranged from 

20.7 to 23.5 percent. The post-Academy attrition 

rates (based on entrants into training) followed 

a somewhat similar rank-order pattern and the 

retention rates, being complementary to the overall attrition rates, tended to follow an inverse 

11 

rank-order pattern. Only 42.5 percent of the. 

college graduates were still in ATC work at the 

beginning of 19'73, and the same was true with 

respect to 51.4 percent of the 208 devoid of high 

school diplomas. Differing significantly (p<.05) 

from either of the latter were the retention rates 

of 63.1 percent for the high school graduates, 

60.1 percent for those having less than 1 full 

year of college, and 60.3 percent for those having 

at least 1 year but less than 2 full years of college. Slightly more than 5'7 percent of the subjects m the next highest educational-level 

category were "retentions," compared to 54.8 percent of the 115 having 3 to 4 years of college but 

no degree. 
Figure 1 also presents the results of an ancillary analysis in which the post-Academy attrition and retention rates were determined by level 

of education :for Academy graduates only. 

Slightly more than 38 percent of the 125 college 

graduates who successfully completed the Academy basic training phase terminated their ATC u 

careers before January 1, 1973. Second in rank 

order was the post-Academy attrition rate of 31.8 

percent obtained :for the nongraduates of high 

school. Differing significantly (p < .05) from 

' either of the latter was the :facility-training attrition rate of 21.3 percent that pertained to the 

trainees having more than 1 year but less than 2 

i :full years of college and also the rate of 23.0 

percent obtained :for those having high school 

diplomas only. The post-Academy attrition 

rates of the remaining subgroups ranged :from 

26.4 percent (:for subjects declaring less than 1 

full year of college) to 28.4 percent (:for those 

having 3 to 4 years of college but no degree). 

Most of the findings shown in Figure 1 appear 

to contradict, rather than support, the hypothesis 

that education :facilitates the learning of ATC 

work. The relatively high attrition rates of subjects not having high school diplomas admittedly suggest that the recruitment of ATCS 

personnel should be restricted to those qualifying 

applicants having at least a high school educa~ 

tion. Moreover, data of the remaining subgroups 

: seemingly appear to dictate the need :for implementation of revised standards under which edu-

! cation beyond the high school level would either 

! be negatively weighted as an eligibility factor or 

' entirely disregarded. Yet, the results of analyses 

· discussed thus far fail to constitute a sound basis 

:for any conclusion whatsoever regarding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of current 

standards relating to education. None of the 

results summarized in Figure 1 can be reliably 

interpreted because they are undoubtedly confounded by interaction effects of age,.recency of 

education, experience, aptitude level, and possibly other background :factors. If the issue concerning education is to be definitively resolved, 

we must also consider the results of analyses 

undertaken to assess the influence of various selection factors on the validity of education as a 

predictor of training outcomes. 

12 

B. Recency of Education. As indicated earlier, 

13 of the respondents to the questionnaire failed 

to state when they last attended school or college. 

However, 16 respondents indicated they had been 

in school until 1 month or less prior to Academy 

enrollment and :four indicated that 31 years had 

elapsed since termination of their formal education. The mean time lapse :for the 2,338 subjects 

was 85 months, slightly more than 7 years. For 

purposes of analysis, we coarsely grouped the 

recency data as :follows : 0-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-9 

years, 10-12 years, 13-15 years, and 16 years or 

more. 

Figure 2 presents data relating to recency of 

education. The first two recency categories included more than half ( 56.9 percent) of the 

cases. Some 668 (28.6 percent) had attended 

school or college within 3 years of their Academy 

entry date and 663 ( 28.4 percent) , within 4 to 6 

years. Recency categories 7-9, 10-12, and 13-15 

years included 405, 251, and 155 cases respectively. The remaining 196 terminated their education 16 years or more prior to initiation of 

ATC training. 

Slightly more than 37 percent of the subjects 

having no formal education within the preceding 

16 years :failed to successfully complete the Academy basic training phase. Next in order of 

magnitude, but not significantly different :from 

the :former, was the Academy attrition rate of 

29.7 percent pertaining to those in the recencyof-education category of 13-15 years. The subjects in all remaining categories had significantly 

lower Academy attrition rates. The rates of 

those having educational recency of 10-12 and 

7-9 years were 20.7 and 19.5 percent respectively. 

Only 16.7 percent of the 663 who terminated 

their education 4 to 6 years before recruitment 

were attrited during the basic training phase 

and the same was true with respect to 19.0 percent of the 668 having educational recency of 3 

years or less. 

The post-Academy (i.e., facility training) attrition rates for subjects of the various recencyof-education categories ranged from 16.5 percent 

to 29.1 percent. The highest of such rates (each 

of which was based on number of entrants into 

training per category) pertained to the subjects 

who last attended school or college at least 16 
D Retentions (in ATC work 01/0l/73) 

~ Post-Academy Attritions 

395 

• Academy Basic-Training Attritions 

430 

Recency of Educational 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13-15 16 years 

Level at Time of Entry: years years years years years or more Total 

N Cases Per Recency Group 668 663 405 251 155 196 2,338 

% Retentions Jan. 73 59.1 64.9 64.0 58.6 47.7 33.7 58.6 

% Post-Academy Attritions 21.9 18.4 16.5 20.7 22.6 29.1 20.5 

% Academy Attritions 19.0 16.7 19.5 20.7 29.7 37.2 20.9 

Attrition-Retention Rates of Academy Graduates At Facilities of Assignment 

N Grads Per Recency Group 541 552 326 199 109 123 1,850 

% Retentions Jan. 73 73.0 77,9 79.4 73.9 67,9 53.7 74.1 

% Post-Academy Attritions 27 .o 22.1 20.6 26.1 32.1 46.3 25.9 

FIGURE 2. Distribution of ATCS attritions and retentions relative to recency of education (i.e., lapsed years, at time 

of entry into training, since attainment of educational level). (Fourteen cases were not included in the analysis 

due to lack of information pertaining to level andjor recency of education.) 

years before recruitment. Progressively lower 

rates of 22.6, 20.7, and 16.5 percent respectively 

pertained to those of recency categories 13-15, 

10-12, and 7-9 years. Slightly more than 18 

percent of the 663 who terminated their education 4 to 6 years before recruitment were attrited 

after returning to their facilities of assignment, 

compared to 21.9 percent of the 668 with education recency of 3 years or less. 

Inasmuch as both the facility-training and 

Academy-training attrition rates tended to increase in accordance with the time lapse since 

termination of education, the retention rates, as 

expected, tended to be inversely related to recency. Slightly more than 59 percent of the 

subjects who had attended school within 3 years 

or less of recruitment were still in FAA ATC 

work at the beginning of 1973, compared to 64.9 

percent of those having educational recency of 

13 

4 to 6 years (the difference between the rates of 

the two groups was statistically significant 

(p < .05) ) . The rates of subjects in each of the 

remaining and successive categories were 64.0, 

58.6, 47.7, and 33.7 percent respectively. The 

rate of 33.7 percent for subjects who had terminated their education at .least 16 years earlier 

was found to differ significantly (p < .05) from 

the rates of subjects in each of the preceding 

categories, and the same was true with respect 

to the 47.7 -percent rate established by those subjects having educational recency of 13 to 15 years. 

The post-Academy attrition and retention rates 

determined by recency-of-education category for 

the Academy graduates only are shown in Figure 

2. Inasmuch as the two percentages per category 

are complementary, and total 100 percent, the 

findings based on comparison of the retention 

rates would parallel findings based on attrition 
data. Consequently, we have chosen to discuss 

the retention rates only. Exactly 73 percent 

(N=395) of the 541 Academy graduates having 

educational recency of 3 years or less were still 

in FAA ATC work at the beginning of 1973, 

compared to 77.9 percent of those who attained 

their highest level of education 4 to 6 years before recruitment. However, the subjects with 

educational recency of 7 to 9 years had an even 

higher retention rate of 79.4 percent (higher 

than that for subjects of any other category) 

that proved to differ at statistically significant 

levels from the rates of subjects having educational recency of 0-3 years (p<.05) and also 

those with recency of 16 years or more (p<.01). 

The retention rates of Academy graduates within 

recency categories 10-12 and 13-15 years were 

73.9 and 67.9 percent respectively. Differing 

significantly from the rates of subjects in each 

of the preceding recency categories, however, was 

the 53.7-percent rate (lowest of all rates) that 

pertained to those subjects who terminated their 

education 16 years or more before entry into 

training. 

The results of the analysis summarized in 

Figure 2 seemingly imply that recency of education is a major determinant of training success 

and that its importance in this respect is appreciably greater for initial training than for 

post-Academy training. Such an interpretation, 

however, is difficult to accept. The results concerning recency of education must be considered 

in conjunction with those of the earlier analysis 

(shown in Figure 1) that pertained to level of 

education. The results of the two analyses appear to be irreconcilable. If level of education 

is indeed inversely related (or even negligibly 

related) to each of the criterion variables, how, 

then, can we explain the apparent relevancy of 

these variables to recency of education? Logic 

would suggest the likelihood that the results 

would be confounded by the effects of some other 

time-related factor(s), most probably chronological age, which previous CAMI studies7 9 14 15 16 

had consistently shown to be inversely related to 

training success. 

C. Effects of Age Versus Educational Level 

and Recency. The ages (at time of Academy 

entry) for the 2,349 respondents to the CAMI 

questionnaire ranged from 20 to 52 and averaged 

14 

28.5 years. However, the age distribution (not 

shown) was highly skewed, in a positive direction; almost 72 percent of the subjects were 30 

or younger and an additional 22 percent were 31 

to 39 years old. 

The application of Pearson product-moment 

correlational procedures resulted in an "r" (i.e., 

correlation) of -0.38 for age versus level of 

education and an r of 0.69 between age and recency of education. The coefficient of -0.38 implied that about 14 percent of the variance in 

age was associated with that of the level-ofeducation variable and the r of 0.69 indicated 

that almost 48 percent of the age variance was 

common to that of the recency variable. The 

two educational variables were virtually unrelated; the r was - 0.03. 

The two educational variables and age were 

also compared with respect to validity for prediction of training outcomes. With Academy 

attrition-graduation status serving as the criterion, age yielded a validity coefficient (i.e., 

point-biserial coefficient) of -0.25, whereas the 

coefficients for level and recency of education 

were -0.06 and -0.12 respectively. The postAcademy criterion variable (attrition-retention 

status as of January 1, 1973) correlated -0.24 

with age, -0.07 with level of education, and 

-0.13 with the recency factor. All the validity 

coefficients, although of low or very moderate 

magnitude, proved to be statistically significant 

(p<.05) because of the large numbers of cases 

involved. 

The validity coefficients obtained for each respective variable were virtually impossible to 

compare meaningfully because of lack of normality in the distribution of the basic data. Although level and recency of education were also 

not normally distributed, attenuation effects were 

most visible in the age distribution. The vast 

majority of the trainees were relatively young; 

in fact, less than 13 percent were 36 or older. 

Consequently, the correlation of -0.24 between 

age and the Academy criterion variable must be 

regarded as a gross underestimate of the relationship that would have existed had the range 

of age for the trainees been less restricted. Moreover, less than half the subjects composing the 

total sample had attended college, only 181 had 

attained college degrees, and all but 43.3 percent 
had terminated their education 6 years or less 

before entering ATCS training. Considering the 

impact of such attenuation effects, plans were 

revised to exclude those analyses of a correlational nature. 

The next analysis, the results of which are 

shown in Figure 3, involved a comparison of the 

attrition and retention rates by level and recency 

o£ education for those subjects aged 30 and 

younger versus those 31 and older. The decision 

to dichotomize age was made following a preliminary analysis that indicated i£ the 296 cases 

aged 36 and older were categorized with respect 

to level and recency of education, the resulting 

frequencies for many of the cells (i.e., cater~ limination 

ltate 

307. 

Elimination 

Rate 

gories) would be so small as to preclude reliability o£ the attrition-retention rates. For the 

same reason, we also chose to group the subjects 

more coarsely in terms of educational level, and 

also recency of education, than they had been 

in the previously discussed analyses. 

In examining Figure 3, one should first note 

that there is no level-of-education category nor 

any recency-of-education category within which 

the subjects aged 30 and younger £ailed to have 

a lower Academy attrition rate than the older 

subjects. All differences between the Academy 

attrition rates o£ the younger versus older subjects o£ the various level-of-education categories 

except that pertaining to the college graduates 

Entry Age 30 or Younger 

27.3 

Level of Education Attained Prior to Entry Recency of Attainment of Educational Level 

H,S, Non- H,S, College College Bachelor's t 0-3 4-6 7-9 10-12 13 Years 

Graduate Graduate Credits Credits .,nd/or Years Years Years Years or More 

or Cert. Regular Below 1-4 Years Master's 

via G.E.D, Diploma 1 Year No Degree Degree(s) 

N Cases Age 31 and > 103 229 ll5 167 49 104 52 66 94 343 

N Retentions in 1973 41 95 47 69 12 42 20 24 43 133 

Retention Rate 39.8% 41.5% 40.9% 41.3% 24.5% 40.47. 38.5% 36.41. 45.77. 38.8% 

N Cases Age 30 and < 105 647 344 458 132 564 611 339 157 8 

N Retentions in 1973 66 458 229 295 65 353 410 235 104 7 

Retention Rate 62.9% 70.8% 66,67. 64.47. 49.2% 62,6% 67.1% 69.3% 66.2% 87.5% 

N Total 208 876 459 625 181 668 663 405 251 351 

N -Retentions 107 553 276 364 77 395 430 259 147 140 

Retention Rate 51.4% 63.1% 60 .17. 58.2% 42.5% 59.1% 64.9% 64.07. 58.67. 39.9% 

FIGURE 3. Attrition rates by level and recency of education and dichotomized age grouping for En Route and Terminal ATCS personnel recruited during 1969. (Three of the 2,352 subjects failed to indicate either level or 

recency of education and an additional 11 failed to provide recency information only.) 

15 
(27.3 versus 40.8 percent) proved to be statistically significant. Similarly, all but one of the 

differences between the Academy attrition rates 

of the younger versus older subjects of the various recency-of-education categories were statistically significant. The exception pertained to 

subjects who terminated their education at least 

13 years before entry into training; only one of 

the eight younger subjects was attrited, yielding 

a rate of 12.5 percent; the latter percent, being 

based on such a small number of cases, failed 

to differ significantly from the 34.4-percent rate 

of the 343 older subjects. 

When comparing the Academy attrition rates 

of the older subjects only with respect to level 

of education, none was found to exceed the rate 

of 40.8 percent established by the college graduates. Moreover, 37.1 percent of the trainees 

aged 31 and older who indicated 1 to 4 years of 

college credits (but no degree) failed to successfully complete the basic training phase, compared to 37.4 percent of those who attended 

college less than 1 year. Corresponding rates of 

32.3 and 35.0 percent respectively were obtained 

for the older subjects having high school diplomas only and those who failed to graduate 

from high school. None of the attrition-rate 

differences was statistically significant. 

The Academy attrition rates of the younger 

subjects (aged 30 and less) within the various 

level-of-education categories were substantially 

lower than those of the older subjects and, to 

a greater extent than the latter, tended to reflect a positive relationship with educational 

level. Some 27.3 percent of the 132 youngest 

college graduates failed to successfully complete 

the basic training phase; their attrition rate differed significantly from those of the younger subjects within each of the lower level-of-education 

categories. Next in rank order, and also differing significantly from all others except that for 

the high school nongraduates ( 14.3 percent), was 

the rate of 17.2 percent for subjects having 1 to 

4 years of college (but no degree). Corresponding rates of 13.0 and 11.9 percent respectively 

were obtained for the high school graduates and 

those having less than 1 year of college. 

There was no level-of-education category in 

which the older subjects failed to have a higher 

post-Academy (facility training) attrition rate 

16 

than that of the younger subjects. Most of the 

age-related differences were statistically significant. For neither age group, however, did there 

appear to be a clear relationship between such 

rates and educational level. Nonetheless, the college graduates aged 31 and older had a postAcademy attrition rate of 34.7 percent, whereas 

the corresponding rates for the older subjects of 

other educational levels ranged from 21.6 percent 

(for those having 1 to 4 years of college) to 26.2 

percent (for the high school graduates). For the 

younger subjects, highly comparable post-Academy attrition rates of 23.5 and 22.9 percent 

respectively were obtained for the college graduates and those not having high school diplomas, 

whereas the rates of the remaining subgroups 

ranged from 16.2 (for the high school graduates) 

to 21.5 percent (for those having less than 1 year 

of college) . 

There appeared to be no relationship between 

the Academy attrition rates and recency of education for either the older or younger subjects. 

As mentioned, however, there was no recency 

category in which the younger subjects failed 

to have an appreciably lower Academy attrition 

rate than that of the older subjects. Much the 

same was true with respect to the post-Academy 

(i.e., facility training) attrition rates of the 

younger versus older subjects of each recency 

category. In other words, both types of training attrition rates seem to be unrelated to educational recency but highly associated with age. 

The findings presented in Figure 3, when supplemented by those obtained in the two previous 

analyses (shown in Figures 1 and · 2) , appear 

to contradict, rather than support, the hypothesis that education is beneficial and helpful to 

ATCS personnel during training. Such a conclusion, however, should be held in abeyance 

pending review and consideration of results of 

other analyses relating to the interaction effects 

of aviation-related experience and aptitudes 

(mental abilities) on the validities of education 

as a predictor of training outcomes. 

D. Aviation Experience and Age Versus Education as Selection Factors. As discussed earlier 

in this report, FAA A TCS selection programs 

have always included standards reflecting a 

philosophy that almost any type of aviation-
related experience should be helpful to personnel during ATC training. CAMI studies of 

trainees recruited during various time periods 

prior to 1970 have generally shown that 65 to 

85 percent of the selectees possessed rated experience in air traffic control (usually military 

ATC), as a pilot, or in communications work. 

Although research has repeatedly shown ATC 

experience, particularly radar control, to be appreciably valid for prediction of training outcomes, all other types of aviation experience 

(e.g., pilot, navigator, communications, air 

defense surveillance, air dispatcher service, etc.) 

have proved virtually worthless for prediction 

of training success. At the time the current 

study was being conducted, we considered the 

likelihood that new selection procedures would 

soon be implemented under which most types 

of aviation-related experience other than ATC 

would be either disregarded or very negligibly 

weighted as components of the applicants' overall 

eligibility ratings. 'Ve therefore proceeded with 

the next analysis, bearing on experience effects, 

by first assigning each of the 2,349 cases to one 

of three (mutually exclusive) categories: "No 

Type of Rated Pre-FAA Experience," "NonATC With Rated Pilot and/or Communications 

Experience," and "Rated ATC Experience 'Vith 

or Without Pilot and/or Communications 

Experience." 

Figure 4 shows the retention rates by levelof-education category for the subjects within 

each of the three experience categories. The retention rates, as in the earlier analyses, represent 

the proportions of the various subgroups still 

in FAA ATC work at the beginning of 1973. As 

may be noted, there was no level-of-education 

category within which those subjects having 

rated pre-FAA A TC experience failed to have 

a higher retention rate than those having pilot 

and/or communications (but no ATC) experience 

and also those devoid of rated aviation-related 

experience of any type. Although differences between the retention rates of the differentially experienced subjects of each educational level were 

tested for statistical significance (via the twotailed "t-test"), all but two sets of differences 

were nonsignificant. The rate of 71.4 percent 

for the high school graduates who held ATC 

ratings differed significantly (p < .01) not only 

17 

from the rate of 51.7 percent for the high school 

graduates whose aviation backgrounds included 

no rated ATC experience, but also from the rate 

of 53.7 percent established by the remaining subjects within that educational level who had no 

type of rated aviation experience. Similarly, the 

retention rate of 71.0 percent for the ATC-rated 

trainees having less than 1 full year of college 

was found to differ significantly (p<.01) from 

the rate of 47.7 percent established by those having pilot and/ or communications ratings and the 

55.8-percent rate that pertained to subjects of 

the same educational level who had no aviation 

ratings. 

In comparing the retention rates of the ATCrated subjects by level of education (i.e., between 

educational categories), the two lowest, 47.1 percent for the college graduates and 54.0 percent 

for those not having high school diplomas, were 

found to differ significantly from both the 71.4 

percent of the high school graduates and the 71.0 

percent obtained for those having less than 1 

year of college. The relatively high retention 

rate of 61.7 percent for those having 1 to 4 years 

of college differed significantly from that of only 

one subgroup, the high school graduates (71.4 

percent). '\Vith level of education disregarded, 

the ATC-rated subjects numbered 1,020 and 66.9 

percent (not shown) were still in the air traffic 

control system at the beginning of 1973. 

The retention rates of subjects having pilot 

and/or communications but no ATC ratings 

ranged from 40.5 percent for the college graduates to 59.9 percent for those having 1 to 4 years 

of college. The difference between the rates of 

the two subgroups proved .statistically significant 

and the same was true regarding the difference 

between the highest of the two just mentioned 

versus the 47.7-percent rate established by those 

having less than 1 full year of college. Only 44.8 

percent of the ATC-rated subjects lacking high 

school diplomas were still in FAA ATC work 

at the beginning of 1973, compared to 51.7 percent of the high school graduates. Although not 

shown in the-figure, the mean retention rate for 

the 624 subjects o£ all education levels within 

this e~perience category was 52.4 percent, signifi~ 

cantly (p<.01) different £rom the 66.9-percent 

rate o£ the ATC-rated trainees. 
FIGURE 4. Retention rates by level of education and type of rated pre-FAA aviation-related experience for 2,349 

subjects who entered Academy basic training in En Route or Terminal ATC procedures during 1969. (Rates 

reflect proportions in each subgroup still in FAA ATC work as of January 1973.) 

The 705 nonrated subjects fared as badly in 

training as did the pilots and communications 

experts who held no ATC ratings. As of January 1, 1973, only 52.2 percent (not shown) of 

the 705 were continuing their ATC careers. The 

difference between their retention rate and that 

of the ATC-rated subjects (66.9 percent) was 

statistically significant (p < .01). In comparing 

the retention rates of these nonrated subjects by 

level-of-education category, it should be noted 

that the lowest, 43.3 percent, pertains to the college graduates and that the next. lowest, 47.6 

percent, pertains to those who failed to obtain 

high school diplomas. The retention rates of 

trainees in the three other level-of-education categories ranged from 53.0 to 55.8 percent. All 

differences between rates of the various subgroups of this experience category were nonsignificant. 

18 

'Vhen considered as a body, the analysis results depicted in Figure 4 seemingly imply a 

need for abolishment of those selection procedures currently prescribing that an applicant be 

awarded credit points toward his/her trainingeligibility rating for either pilot or communications ratings. Moreover, the findings relating to 

education provide no support for the current 

policies whereby applicants are permitted to substitute college education for aviation experience. 

The college graduates within each of the three 

experience categories had lower, not higher, retention rates than their colleagues of every lower 

level-of-education category. It is also of interest 

to note that within each experience category, the 

subjects who held G.E.D. certificates rather than 

high school diplomas had lower retention rates 

than any other subgroup except the college 

graduates. 
Nonetheless, the results of analyses thus far 

discussed fail to constitute conclusive proof that 

education, as defined by level, is indeed invalid 

for selection purposes. The interaction effects 

of both age and experience have yet to be be examined simultaneously. The results of such an 

analysis are presented in Figures 5a and 5b. In 

conducting this analysis, we assigned each of the 

2,349 cases to one of four mutually exclusive 

experience categories. Two of the four are identical to those established in the earlier analysis 

but, for reasons that will be obvious later, were 

relabeled as "No Rated Pre-FAA Experience in 

ATC Work or as a Pilot or in Communications" 

and "No Previous ATC-Rated \Vork but Rated 

Pilot and/or Communications Experience." As 

may be recalled, the first of the two categories 

contains 705 cases, while the latter includes 624. 

However, each of the remaining 1,020 cases, all 

of which were assigned to a single category in 

the preceding analysis, were assigned to either 

of two new categories: "Pre-FAA ATC Rating 

Only" or "Pre-FAA ATC Rating With Pilot 

and/or Communications Rating(s)." Some 169 

of the 1,020 ATC-rated subjects also held pilot 

and/or communications ratings and 851 held 

ATC ratings only. 

In reviewing the results of this analysis, we 

should tentatively defer consideration of those 

relating to age and education. First, we should 

compare the retention rate of the 169 subjects 

having two or more ratings, one of which was 

an ATC rating, with the rates of subjects having only a single rating. If we consider each 

type of experience as being valid for selection 

purposes, then the 169 subjects should have a 

higher retention rate than those of any other 

category (see Figures 5a and 5b). As may be 

noted, they did not. Their retention rate was 

62.7 percent, whereas that of the 851 having ATC 

ratings only was 67.7 percent. Corresponding 

rates of 52.4 and 52.2 percent respectively pertained to the 624 non-ATC-rated subjects having 

pilot and/or communications ratings and the 705 

having no rated experience of any of the three 

major types. Differences that proved statistically 

significant were those involving each of the latter 

versus those in each of the ATC-rated categories. 

19 

The subjects aged 31 and older within each 

of the four experience categories had significantly 

(p<.05) lower retention rates than their younger 

colleagues. Of the 169 ATC-rated subjects who 

also claimed pilot and/or communications ratings, 56 were 31 or older and 50 percent of the 

56 were still in FAA ATC work at the beginning 

of 1973, compared to 69 percent of the 113 aged 

30 and younger. The respective retention rates 

of the younger versus older subjects were 46.8 

and 73.5 percent for the subgroup having ATC 

ratings only, 33.2 and 62.4 percent for those having pilot and/or communications ratings but no 

ATC ratings, and 37.7 and 58.2 percent for those 

not having ratings in any of the three aviationrelated areas. 

Such results (Figures 5a and 5b) clearly demonstrate that attrition-retention status is far 

more contingent on training-entry age than experience. Although the 2,349 subjects involved 

in the current study were recruited in 1969, long 

before adoption of the standard restricting training candidacy to personnel no older than 30, only 

663 of the 2,349 were 31 or older. The remaining 1,686 (71.8 percent) were 30 or younger and 

the majority of the 1,686 also possessed rated 

aviation-related experience. vVith experience 

disregarded, the retention rate of the older subjects was 39.8 percent, whereas that of the 1,686 

younger subjects was 66.0 percent. Some 665 of 

the 1,686 held ATC ratings only and their retention rate was 73.5 percent; this was slightly (but 

not significantly) higher than the 69.0-percent 

rate established by the 113 having ATC ratings 

in conjunction with pilot and/or communications 

ratings. Some 62.4 percent of the 410 subjects of 

the same age grouping who held pilot and/or communications ratings but no ATC ratings were 

still in FAA ATC work at the beginning of 1973, 

compared to 58.2 percent of the 498 subjects aged 

30 and younger who had no ratings in any of the 

three areas. The rate of 58.2 for the 498 differed 

significantly from those of both ATC-rated subgroups. 

Preparatory to a comparison of the attritionretention data of the subjects within each ratedexperience category by age and educational level, 

we noted that only 17 of the 181 college graduates possessed ..:\ TC ratings-12 held ATC ratings only and five were ATC-rated subjects with 
kve:i. of 

Education 

on Entering FAA 

ATC Training 

College 

Degree (s) •• 

Bachelor's 

and/or 

Master's 

College 

Credits--

1-4 Years 

No Degree 

College 

Credits--

Less Than 

1 Full Year 

High School 

Graduate--

Regular 

Diploma 

High School 

Non-Graduate 

or Certificate 

Via G.E.D. 

Total 

All 

Education 

Levels 

• Academy Attritions ~Post-Academy Attritions 0 Retentions Jan, 73 

Rated Aviation-Related Experience at Time of Entry Into FAA ATC TrainLng ____ 

Pre··FAA ATC Rating With Pilot Pre-FAA ATC Rating Only (No Rating 

and/or Communications Rating(s) as Pilot or in Communications) 

100% oO% 60% 40% 20% 

00.0 

50.0 

50,0 

60,0 

40.0 

50.0 

50.0 

31.3 

68.7 

35.7 

64.3 

25.0 

75.0 

34.6 

65.4 

32.4 

67.6 

47.6 

52.4 

17.5 

82.5 

27.9 

72.1 

62.5 

37.5 

63.6 

36.4 

63.0 

37.0 

50.0 

50.0 

31.0 

69.0 

Entry 

N Age N 

1 31 

0 and> 

2 30 

2 and< 

3 Total 

2 Group 

5 31 

5 and > 

10 30 

22 and < 

15 Total 

27 Group 

2 31 

6 and > 

9 30 

17 and < 

ll Total 

23 Group 

10 31 

11 and > 

7 30 

33 and< 

17 Total 

44 Group 

10 31 

6 and > 

7 30 

4 and< 

17 Total 

10 Group 

1 

0 

5 

6 

6 

6 

19 

16 

36 

70 

55 

86 

11 

13 

36 

106 

47 

119 

37 

35 

84 

266 

121 

301 

31 

23 

15 

41 

46 

64 

28 31 99 

28 and > 87 

35 30 176 

78 and< 489 

20% 4u% ~o% so% too% 

54.3 

45.7 

34.0 

66.0 

39.0 

61.0 

45.8 

54.2 

25.4 

74.6 

28.3 

71.7 

51.<. 

48.6 

24.0 

76.0 

28.7 

71.3 

57.4 

42.6 

26.8 

73.2 

41.8 

58.2 

53.2 

46,.8 

26.5 

73.5 

All Attritions 37.3 63 Total 275 

All 

32.3 

All Retentions 62.7 106 Age~ 576 67.7 

FIGURE 5a. Attrition and retention rates by age and educational level for 1,020 subjects who held pre-FAA ATC 

ratings, with or without rated pilot and/or communications experience, at time of entry into Academy basic 

training in En Route or Terminal control procedures. 

20 
• Academy Attritions ~ Post-Academy Attritions 0 Retentions Jan. 73 

_____ Aviatio~_-:-_~lated Experience At Time of Entry Into FAA ATC Training 

Level of 

Education 

No Previous ATC-Rated Work but Rated No Rated Experience in ATC Work or 

Pilot and/or Communications Experience as a Pilot or in Communications Work 

on Entering FAJ 

ATC Training 

College 

Degree(s)--

Bachelor's and/ 

or Master's 

College 

Credits--

1-4 Years 

No Degree 

60.3 

39.7 

32.2 

67.8 

40.1 

59.9 

73.3 

College 26.7 

Credits-- 41.2 

Less Than 58.8 

1 Full Year 52.3 

47.7 

64.4 

High School 35.6 

Graduate-- 37.8 

Regular 62.2 

Diploma 48.3 

51.7 

69.2 

High School 30.8 

Non-Graduate 43.8 

or Certificate 56.2 

Via G.E.D. 55.2 

44.8 

Total 66.8 

All 33.2 

Education 37.6 

Levels 62.4 

All Attritions 47.6 

All Retentions 52.4 

22 

7 

22 

23 

44 

30 

33 

12 

35 

50 

68 

62 

38 

21 

34 

56 

72 

77 

9 

4 

7 

9 

16 

13 

143 

71 

154 

256 

297 

327 

Entry 

31 72.2 

and > 27.8 

30 52.8 

and -< 47.2 

Total 56.7 

Group 43.3 

31 61.1 

and > 38.9 

30 41.8 

and < 58.2 

Total 47.0 

Group 53.0 

31 57.9 

and > 42.1 

30 38.5 

and < 61.5 

Total 44.2 

!}roup 55.8 

31 63.6 

and > 36.4 

30 38.3 

and < 61.7 

Total 46.3 

r;roup 53.7 

31 60.0 

and • 40.0 

30 45.5 

and < 54.5 

Total 52.4 

Group 47.6 

31 62.3 

and > 37.7 

30 41.8 

and 58.2 

Total 47.8 

All 

Ages 52.2 

FIGURE 5b. Attrition and retention rates by age and level of education for 1,329 subjects having no rated ATC 

experience on entry into FAA ATC training in 1969. The group of 624 having pilot and/or communications ratings, but no ATC ratings, included 73 rated as pilots only, 94 rated in communications only, and 457 having both 

pilot and communications ratings. Although not depicted the retention rates of the respective subgroups were 

49.3, 54.3 and 52.5 percent. 

21 
pilot and/ or communications ratings. Of the 

181, 74 were non-ATC-rated subjects with pilot 

and/or rated communications experience and the 

remaining 90 failed to possess a rating in any 

of the three areas. The retention rates of the 

college graduates aged 31 and older within each 

of the rated-experience categories were generally 

substantially lower than those of the younger 

graduates. 

Due to the pervasiveness of age effects, we 

focused on a comparison of the retention rates of 

the younger subjects only to determine the extent 

to which the validity of education, as defined by 

level, might vary in accordance with types of 

rated aviation-related experience. The retention 

rates of the college graduates of every experience 

category were relatively low; they ranged from 

47.2 percent for the 72 having no ATC, pilot, 

or communications ratings to 54.5 percent for 

the 11 holding ATC ratings only. In fact, there 

was only one experience category in which the 

retention rate of the college graduates failed to 

be lower than those of comparably aged subjects of every other level-of-education category. 

The exception pertained to the 36.4-percent rate 

established by the 11 non-graduates of a high 

school (less than 31 years old) who held ATC 

ratings and also pilot and/or communications 

ratings. Within each of two experience categories, the younger subjects without high school 

diplomas had an attrition rate exceeded only by 

that of the college graduates. However, the 56 

youngest subjects of the lowest level-of-education 

category who held ATC ratings only had a very 

respectable retention rate of 73.2 percent. 

There was only one experience category within 

which the high school graduates aged 30 and 

younger did not have a higher retention rate 

than did subjects of all other educational levels. 

The exception pertained to 90 high school graduates having pilot and/or communications ratings 

but no A TC ratings; their retention rate of 62.2 

percent was exceeded by the rate (67.8 percent) 

established by 174 having 1 to 4 years of college. 

Slightly more than 82 percent of the 40 high 

school graduates of age 30 and younger having 

ATC and pilot and/or communications ratings 

were still in FAA ATC work at the beginning 

22 

of 1973, compared to 76.0 percent of the 350 

(youngest) high school graduates who entered 

with ATC ratings only and 61.7 percent of the 

167 of the same age and educational categories 

not having an ATC, pilot, or communications 

rating. 

A fact warranting emphasis is that many of 

the 705 nonrated subjects were not necessarily 

devoid of aviation-related experience. According to response data to various questions on the 

CAMI questionnaire, some of these subjects had 

limited ATC experience but possessed no ATC 

rating; some were student pilots who had relatively few hours of flying time (and were not 

categorized as pilots in the current study), and 

many stated they had communications experience 

of various types but failed to indicate they held 

a rating in that area. Moreover, a significant 

proportion declared other types of aviationrelated experience, most frequently as air dispatchers or navigators or in radar surveillance 

work associated with air defense systems. Yet, 

the vast majority indicated they had no aviationrelated experience whatsoever. For purposes of 

the present study, no distinction was made between the various subgroups because none of the 

705 claimed to have rated aviation experience of 

the types for which ATCS selection standards 

have long prescribed the award of credit points 

toward derivation of an applicant's overall eligibility rating. In terms of selection standards, 

these subjects were generally "less qualified" with 

respect to "job-related experience" than those 

who entered with ATC, pilot, and/or.communications ratings. Education (as defined by level) 

might therefore be expected to validate rather 

impressively as a predictor of their training outcomes. However, the validation results were not 

of the nature that formulators of the selection 

standards would probably have forecast. 

The retention rates of the 207 nonrated subjects aged 31 and older ranged from 27.8 percent 

for the 18 college graduates to 42.1 percent for 

the 38 who had less than 1 full year of college. 

"'When placed in rank order, however, the retention rates of the older subjects failed to reflect 

either a positive or an inverse relationship with 

level of education. 
The retention rates of the 498 nonrated subjects aged 30 and younger were generally higher 

than those of their older colleagues but, in contrast with the latter, followed a pattern reflecting a moderate inverse relationship with educational level. At the beginning of 1973, only 47.2 

percent of the younger nonrated subjects having 

college degrees were still in the air traffic control 

system. The nonrated subjects aged 30 and 

younger of all other educational levels had substantially higher retention rates. Even those 

(N =22) lacking high school diplomas fared 

better than the college graduates ( 54.5 percent 

versus 47.2 percent). 

Rates of the remaining subgroups (of the same 

age category) were 58.2 percent for 146 having 1 

to 4 years of college, 61.5 for 91 having less than 

1 year of college, and 61.7 percent for 167 who 

terminated their education after receiving their 

high school diplomas. Although only that difference between the latter versus the 47.2-percent 

retention rate of the college graduates was statistically significant (p < .05) the nature and trend 

of the findings contradict, rather than support, 

the philosophy that training-success probabilities 

tend to increase in accordance with educational 

levels. 

E. Educational Level Versus Aptitudes, Age, 

and Emperience. 'V"e encountered several encumbrances when attempting to assess possible interaction effects of aptitudes (as measured by the 

CSC Aptitude Test Screening Battery) on the 

validity of education level for prediction of training success. The FAA regional offices forwarded 

CSC ATC test performance data to CAMI for 

only 1,484 of the 2,349 subjects for whom educational information was elicited through use of 

the background questionnaire. Moreover, the test 

data were presumably biased; scores were provided CAMI for disproportionately fewer Academy attritions than graduates (34.7 percent 

versus 67.6 percent respectively). Test records 

were seldom forwarded until several weeks, sometimes months, after the trainees had enrolled at 

the Academy; training-course failure usually 

led to termination of FAA employment; records 

were rarely retained on personnel beyond 30 days 

following their release and were no longer available when efforts were belatedly and sporadically 

23 

undertaken to extract, roster, and forward the 

information needed for research purposes. Thus, 

the test scores received by CAMI for 1,484 subjects yielded an attenuated distribution. Even 

if scores of all selectees had been available, however, the resulting score distribution would have 

been rather drastically attenuated relative to 

that expected for a typical applicant group. On 

the basis of findings obtained in several unpublished CAMI studies, we estimate that slightly 

less than half the applicants examined with the 

battery during the past 10 years have scored at 

least 210 (usually considered minimally qualifying) and that less than 20 percent of the ex- 1 

aminees achieved scores in the range of 230 and 

higher, from which the FAA has selected about 

70 percent of its trainees. 

The failure of the FAA regions to provide 

CAMI with complete records on all, or at least 

most, of the 2,352 subjects involved in the study 

also resulted in other problems and research difficulties. The lack of sufficient data precluded 

determination of the number of subjects who 

established their candidacy under the "specialized 

experience standard." By resorting to a review 

of CAMI questionnaire response data and also 

information obtained from the Academy training 

records, we finally determined that at least 582 

of the 2,352 entered under the specialized experience standard, presumably with their aptitude test scores being disregarded in the selection 

process. The 582 were appointed to training 

with General Service ratings (i.e., pay grades) 

of GS-8 or higher. Although entry into training at the GS-8 level or higher implied (beyond 

doubt) that a subject qualified under the specialized experience standard (e.g., ATC work, 

Ground Control Intercept Director experience, 

etc.), we had no way of ascertaining precisely 

how many of the GS-7 rated subjects might also 

have qualified for waiver of the aptitude screening requirement. 

When the CSC test scores that the regions 

forwarded for 1,484 subjects were arrayed, the 

majority ( 67 percent) were found to be within 

the relatively narrow range of 210 to 259 and 

only 15J: (10.2 percent) were below the normally 

prescribed screening cut of 210. Only 27 of the 

151 nonqualifying scores pertained to those in 
grade GS-7. As mentioned, however, it is reasonable to suspect that some additional GS-7 

rated subjects with nonqualifying scores were 

among those for whom the regions failed to forward test data and/or complete background 

information. 

Considering the incompleteness and irregularities of the background information on subjects 

for whom records were received and in view of 

the extent to which bias had presumably occurred 

in the collection of aptitude test data, it seemed 

rather illogical to proceed with plans for a 

detailed analysis that would have involved computation of the intercorrelations of the aptitudetest variable, age, educational level, and other 

variables. 

Instead, we decided to undertake an analysis 

to determine and compare the retention rates of 

the subjects by age category and by rated experience grouping and level-of-education category within each of three major groupings: those 

hired at grade GS-7 and lower for whom qualifying esc test scores of 210 or higher were received, those (with or without test scores) hired 

at the GS-8 level or higher with waivers of the 

aptitude screening requirement, and those of 

GS-7 level and lower for whom no CSC test 

scores were received. The results of this analysis, 

from which the 27 GS-7 rated subjects having 

nonqualifying scores were excluded, appear in 

Table 1. 

TABU: 1. Subjects 1 Retention Rates by Educational Level, Age, and Preen try Experience Background* 

Entry 

Age 

31 

Or 

Older 

30 

Or Younger 

All 

Ages 

Level of Educa· 

tion Attained 

Prior to Entry 

Into Academy 

Basic Training 

B.S. G.E,O, 

H.s, Diploma 

< 1 Yr College 

1-4 Yr College 

College Degree 

Total 

H.S, G,E,D, 

H, S, Diploma 

< 1 Yr College 

1-4 Yr College 

College Degree 

Total 

H,S, G.E,D, 

H, S, Diploma 

< 1 Yr College 

1-4 Yr College 

College Degree 

Total 

-· -- --· -· - Subjects Hired at the GS-7 Level or Lower I Subjects Hired at the GS-8 Level or Higher ·I Subjects Hired at the GS-7 Level or Lower 

Having Qualifying Scores of 210 or Higher Whose Specialized Job-Related Experience War- for Whom the Regions Provided No Record 

on esc ATC Aptitude Test Screenina Battery ranted Waiver of Antitude Test Qualificatim of Scores on the Aptitude Test Battery">'~ 

Type of Aviation Rating(s) Held Prior to Entry Into FAA ATCS training 

ATC Rating w/ 

wo Pilot and/ 

or Corrmunications Rating 

Ret ention 

N Rate 

4- 75.0% 

3 33.37. 

4 75.0% 

5 80.0% 

No ATC ltating; No Rating as 

Rated as Pilot ATC or Pilot 

and/or in Com- or in Com• 

mnnicatims munications 

Retention 

N Rate 

7 28.67. 

39 46.2% 

24 29.27. 

44 52.3% 

13 15. 47. 

Retention 

N Rate 

11 54.5% 

48 41.6l 

22 59.1% 

34 47.17. 

11 27.34 

16 68.77. 127 40.9l 126 46.oX 

19 

134 

56 

43 

5 

73.7% 

81.3'7. 

71.47. 

76.7% 

60.0% 

11 

66 

63 

127 

25 

63.67. 

74.21. 

65.17. 

72.4% 

64.0% 

17 

109 

57 

105 

46 

58.8l 

76.1l 

70.2t 

68.6% 

56.5'7. 

2s1 77.4'7. 292 1o.2% 334 69.n, 

23 

137 

60 

48 

5 

73.9% 

80.3% 

71.77. 

77.17. 

60.07. 

18 

105 

87 

171 

38 

50.07. 

63.8% 

55.n 

67.2% 

47 .41. 

28 

157 

79 

139 

57 

57.1% 

65.6% 

67 .17. 

63.3% 

50.97. 

273 76. 97. 419 61.37. 460 62 .87, 

I 

ATC Rating w/ wo Pilot and/ 

or Communicatima Rating 

Retention 

N Rate 

54 38.9% 

77 51.9% 

27 59.3% 

31 41.9% 

1 oo.ox 

190 47 .4X 

36 

161 

71 

61 

9 

66.7% 

76.4l 

73.27. 

70.5% 

55.6'7. 

338 73.17. 

90 

238 

98 

92 

10 

50.0% 

68.5% 

69.4% 

60.9% 

50.0% 

528 63.8% 

No ATC Rating; No Rating as 

Rated as Pilot- AXC or Pilot 

and/or in Com- or in Commwtications 

Retention 

N Rate 

3 33.3% 

3 66.7% 

6 50.0'%. 

1 100.0% 

4 75.0% 

1 00.0% 

2 100.0% 

2 50.0% 

10 70.07. 

1 100.0'7. 

4 75.0% 

4 25.0% 

2 100.07. 

5 60.07. 

16 62.5% 

munications 

Retention 

N Rate 

3 00 .07. 

10 40.07. 

3 00.0% 

2 50.0% 

2 00.0% 

20 25.07. 

10 40.0'7. 

3 100.0% 

1 100.0% 

4 75.0% 

18 61.1% 

3 

20 

6 

3 

6 

00.0% 

40.0% 

50.0% 

66.7% 

50.0% 

38 42.1% 

ATC Rating w/ wo Pilot and/ 

or Conum.mications Rating 

Retention 

N Rate 

10 30 .07. 

11 36.4% 

1 00.0% 

9 44.47. 

1 00.07. 

32 34.4% 

10 

85 

35 

31 

1 

60,0% 

70.6'7. 

74.37. 

48.4% 

oo.o7. 

No ATC Rating; 

Rated as Pi lot 

and/or in Communications 

Retention 

N Rate 

6 33.37. 

19 15.87. 

18 22.27. 

24 16.n. 

13 23.1% 

80 20.0% 

4 

20 

21 

45 

18 

25.07. 

20.0% 

42.9% 

53-3% 

33.37. 

No Rating a 

ATC or Pilo 

or in Communications_ 

Retentioo 

N Rate 

6 33.37. 

19 21.1% 

13 23.17. 

18 22.27. 

5 40.0% 

61 24.67. 

5 

47 

31 

40 

22 

40.0'7. 

31.9% 

41.9% 

30.0% 

22.7'7. 

162 66.0% 108 40.7% 145 32. 47. 

20 

96 

36 

40 

2 

45.0% 

66.7% 

72.27. 

47.5% 

00.0% 

10 

39 

39 

69 

31 

30.07. 

18.0% 

33.37. 

40.6'7. 

29.0% 

11 

66 

44 

58 

27 

36.4% 

28.87. 

36.4% 

27.6% 

25.9% 

194 60,8% 188 31.9% 206 30.1% 

*The analysis pertains to 2,322 of the 2,352 entrants of the Academy•·s En Route and Terminal basic training courses during 1969; excluded are three subjects 

who failed to indicate educational level and 27 at the GS•7 level for whom the Regims forwarded nonqualifying aptitude test scores of 209 or lower. 

**Inasmuch as the Regions seldom forwarded the records of subjects as they entered Academy training and since it was not the practice to retain records beyond 

30 days following termination of employment, aptitude scores were unavailable for a large proportion of the su~jects who were attrited during basic training. 

Inasmuch as previous analyses of this study 

have rather clearly demonstrated that the probabilities of success in ATC training are more 

associated with entry age and types of aviation 

ratings than level of education, there is little 

need to discuss retention-rate differences that 

would merely further illustrate the influence o:f 

those variables. However, it is important to note 

that with age disregarded, the subjects of GS-7 

level and lower having esc test scores of 210 

and higher within two o:f the experience-rating 

24 

categories had retention rates exceeding those of 

their somewhat comparably experienced colleagues of GS-8 level and higher who entered 

training with waivers of the aptitude screening 

requirement. Perhaps the most striking finding 

concems the 38 subjects among those hired at 

grade GS-8 or higher who were nonrated in ATC 

work, as pilots, or as communications specialists; 

the retention rate of the 38 (many of whom were 

former ground control intercept directors) was 

only 42.1 percent-significantly (p<.05) differ-
ent from the 62.8-percent rate of the 460 subjects 

of lower GS grades who had no aviation ratings. 

Retention rates of the subjects of GS-7 level and 

lower for whom no test scores were received were 

30.1 percent for the nonrated subgroup (N =206), 

31.9 for the 188 who were pilots and/or communications specialists with no rated ATC experience, and 60.8 percent for the 194 holding 

A TO ratings as well as pilot and communications ratings. Such findings, supplemented by 

those of a similar nature for subjects of dichotomized age groups, appear to justify the FAA's 

reinstitution, in April1973, of the policy whereby 

qualification on the CSC ATC Aptitude Test 

Battery is a mandatory training-eligibility requirement. 

Knowing that the FAA will be recruiting its 

future A TCS trainees from among aptitudescreened candidates no older than 30, we should 

therefore be particularly interested in comparing 

the retention rates by level-of-education category 

for those younger subjects (involved in the current study) within each rated experience category, having entry grades no higher than GS-7, 

who attained qualifying esc test scores of 210 

or higher. As may be noted, the retention rates 

for the younger ATC-rated subjects having 

scores of 210 and higher ranged from 60.0 percent for the five college graduates to 81.3 percent 

for the 134 who terminated their education after 

graduation from high school; however, the lowest 

of the intervening rates was 71.4 percent for the 

56 having less than 1 full year of college, whereas 

that of the 19 lacking high school diplomas was 

73.7, which compared favorably with the 76.7-

percent rate established by 43 having 1 to 4 years 

of college credits. The group of 292 of the same 

age and aptitude grouping having pilot and/or 

communications ratings but no rated ATC experience included 66 with high school diplomas 

only and their retention rate was 7 4.2 percent, 

compared to 72.4 percent for the 127 having 1 

to 4 years of college, 65.1 percent for those having less than 1 full year of college, and 64.0 and 

63.6 percent respectively for the college graduates 

and those with G.E.D. certificates. Concerning 

the nonrated subjects of the same age and aptitude categories, it should be noted that the two 

lowest ranked retention rates of 56.5 percent and 

25 

58.8 percent respectively pertained to the college 

graduates and those who failed to graduate from 

high school, whereas some 76.1 percent of the 

high school graduates were still in ATC work at 

the beginning of 1973, compared to 70.2 percent 

of those having less than 1 full year ,of college 

and 68.6 percent of those having 1 to 4 years of 

college. In other words, there was no ratedexperience category within which the high school 

graduates did not have a higher retention rate 

than the subjects of any other educational level 

and there was only one rated-experience category 

(i.e., pilots and communications specialists not 

having ATC ratings) in which the college graduates failed to have the lowest retention rate. 

Such findings-particularly those pertaining 

to the subjects under 31 years old not having 

ATC, pilot, or communications ratings (but who 

scored 210 or higher)-clearly imply, in our 

opinion, that the A TCS selection process should 

include little or no consideration of education 

beyond the high school level. For candidates 

who are equally qualified in all respects except 

education, selection standards should be revised 

in such a manner as to result in relatively lower 

eligibility for those who failed to receive their 

high school diplomas. Nonetheless, age, aptitude, 

and A TO experience are far more valid as selection factors than education. To suggest that 

restraint be exercised in the selection of college 

graduates would be absurd; under no circumstances should a college degree place an applicant 

at a disadvantage. However, in view of the findings obtained in this study, it would seem logical 

to recommend abolishment of all standards that 

currently prove helpful to college graduates in 

establishing their training eligibility. 

F. Major Areas of College Study. Although 

the previous analyses had shown educational level 

(e.g., beyond the high school level) to be invalid for selection purposes, there remained a 

need to determine the extent to which the retention rates might vary in accordance with the 

major areas (or types of courses) of college 

study. The results of an analysis bearing upon 

this issue are presented in Table 2. 
TABLE 2. Retention Rates by Specific Area of College Study for 1,265 Subjects Claiming 

College Credi.ts on Entry Into Academr ATCS Basic Training in 1969 

Specific Area 

of Major Studies 

While in College 

RetenTotal tions 

Group 

Business 

General •••••••••••••••••• 

Accounting ••••••••••••••• Finance, Banking, etc •••• 

Administration or Mgmt ••• 

Public Administration •••• 

Marketing •••••••••••••••. 

Advertising •••••••••••••• 

Other •••••••••••••••••••• 

Total 

Education 

General 

Educational Admin •••••••• 

Elementary Education •.••• 

Secondary Education •••••• 

Physical Education ••••••• 

Other •••••••••••••••••••• 

Total 

Social Sciences 

General •••••••••••••••••. 

Sociology ••••••.••••••••• 

Psychology ••••••••••••••• 

Anthropology ••••••.•••••. 

History •••••••••••••••••• 

Ec ooomics .....•. u •••••••• 

Political Sci. & Govt •••• 

Law Enforcement & Corr ••• 

Law and Prelaw •.•••.•.•.• 

Other ••••••••••••••• , •••• 

Total 

Biological Sciences 

Biology .•••••••••••.•.••• 

Zoology •••.•••••••••••••• 

Biochemistry •.••.•••••.•• 

Pharmacology ••.•••••••••• 

Premed. or Predental .•.•. 

Veterinary Medicine •••••• 

Other •.•.••••••••••••••.• 

Tot 1 

Agriculture & Related Flde. 

General ••••••••••..•••••• 

Animal Husbandry •.••••..• 

Foreetry & Wild Life ••••• 

Other ......... "o" ••• " ••••• 

Total 

N N % 

70 40 57.1 

37 26 70.3 

6 2 33.3 

98 54 55.1 

2 0 o.o 

9 4 44.4 

1 1 100.0 

9 5 55.6 

232 132 56.9 

14 9 64.3 

1 0 OoO 

2 2 100.0 

11 6 54.5 

13 9 69.2 

12 5 41.7 

53 31 58.5 

8 1 12.5* 

15 3 20.0** 

37 16 43.2 

1 0 o.o 

34 16 47.1 

12 6 SOoO 

18 9 so.o 

6 5 83.3 

7 2 28.6 

3 1 33.3 

141 59 41.8 

18 12 66.7 

5 2 40.0 

3 2 66.7 

3 2 66.7 

12 2 16.7** 

2 2 100.0 

1 0 o.o 

44 22 50.0 

6 5 83.3 

2 1 so.o 

6 2 33.3 

2 1 50 .o 

16 9 56.3 

Specific Area 

of Major Studies 

While in College 

RetenTotal tions 

Group 

N N % 

Mathematics 

General ••••••••••••••••"• 53 

Computer Technology 12 

Total 65 

36 67.9 

8 66.7 

44 67.7 

Physical Sciences 

General •.•....•....•.•..• 8 

Earth Sciences ••••••.•••• 15 

Physics •••••••••••••••••• 13 

Chemistry •••••••••.•••••• 13 

3 37.5 

7 46.7 

8 61.5 

Other .. " ..... " .. " •.•. " . • • 2 

Total 51 

10 76.9 

0 o.o 

28 54.9 

Engineering (except Aeroengr.) 

General ·····••••o········ 52 

Civil, Construction •••••• 8 

Mechanical • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • 12 

Electrical ••••••••••••••• 25 

Industrial ••••••••••••••• 9 

Chemical ••••••••••••••••• 4 

33 63.5 

6 75.0 

5 41.7 

Architecture .••.••••••••• 9 

Other •••• o ••••••••• o... • • 5 

14 56.0 

6 66.7 

3 75.0 

7 77.8 

2 40o0 

Total 124 76 61.3 

Aviation-Related Fields 

Aviation or Aerospace 

Aeronautical Engineering • 

Aircraft Maintenance ••••• 

Aviation Admin. or Mgmt •• 

Pilot or ATC Training .••• 

Flight Operations •••••••• 

Total 

Other 

23 13 

14 10 

3 2 

4 2 

5 3 

4 0 

53 30 

Arts & Sciences, General • 41 26 

Fine & Performing Arts ••• 22 8 

Humanities, Philos., etc. 9 4 

Languages • • • . • . • • • • • • . • • • 12 9 

English &/or Literature •• 37 18 

Journalism............... 7 3 

Home Economics .•••••••••. 2 0 

Industrial Crafts •••••••• 11 6 

Drafting ••.•••.•••••••••• 5 3 

_ __.T"->o<.!ot:.lila~l'----------- 146 77 

Unknown (Major Study 

__.A~r"-"ex.la...,s.__.N,_,o::.ot:.-.:'In=d..=.i,..ca,.,t"'"e""d,.,).____ 3 40 209 

Total With Claims of 

College Credits 1265 717 

56.5 

71.4 

66.7 

50.0 

60o0 

o.o * 

56.6 

63.4 

36.4 

44.4 

75.0 

48.6 

42.9 

o.o 

54.5 

60.0 

52.7 

61.5 

56.7 

Difference from the retention rate (56.7%) of the 1,265 claiming college credits is: 

*significant at less than the .OS level; **significant at less than the .01 level 

26 
Some 925 of the 1,265 subjects declaring college 

credits listed their major areas of study. Most 

of the 340 who failed to do so indicated college 

credits totaling 6 semester hours or less. For 

research purposes, we classified each of the 925 

under 1 of 10 mutually exclusive categories. The 

10 categories, each of which contained numerous 

subcategories reflecting specific areas of study, 

were: business, education, social sciences, biological sciences, agriculture and related fields, mathematics, physical sciences, engineering (exclusive 

of aeroengineering), aviation-related fields (including aeroengineering studies), and other 

(which included a variety of seemingly unrelated 

studies). 

Of the 1,265 subjects who attended college, 56.7 

percent (N=717) were still in FAA ATC work 

at the beginning of 1973. The retention rate of 

the 340 who failed to indicate their college 

majors was 61.5 percent, whereas those of the 

10 major-area-of-study categories ranged from 

41.8 percent for 141 majoring in the social 

sciences to 67.7 percent for 65 subjects majoring 

in mathematics. \Vith one exception, however, 

all differences between the mean retention rate 

of 56.7 percent for the entire group of 1,265 

former college students versus the rates of those 

in the various major categories fail to prove 

statistically significant (when subjected to a twotailed "t-test") ; the exception pertained to the 

41.8-percent rate relating to those who majored 

in the social sciences. 

Moreover, all but 6 of the 55 retention-rate 

differences between categories were of insufficient 

magnitude, based on the numbers of cases involved, to be statistically significant. Five of 

the six differences that were significant pertained 

to the rate of 41.8 percent for the social sciences 

majors versus the rates of those in the following 

categories: business ( 56.9 percent) ; education 

(58.5 percent); mathematics (67.7 percent); engineering (61.3 percent); and the 340 with unknown majors ( 61.5 percent). Also statistically 

significant was the difference between the rate of 

52.7 percent for the cases categorized as "other" 

versus the top-ranked retention rate of 67.7 percent established by those majoring in mathematics. 

As mentioned, the groups of cases represented 

in the 10 primary categories (Table 2) were 

subdivided on the basis of specific types of courses 

27 

declared as principal studies while in college. 

This secondary classification procedure resulted 

in many subgroups of various sizes and with 

widely disparate retention rates. In several instances, however, the subgroups comprised so 

few cases as to preclude reliability of the retention data. Nonetheless, only four of the subgroups were found to have retention rates 

differing significantly from the 56.7-percent rate 

of the entire group of 1,265 former college students, and only one of the four included as many 

as 15 cases. The four statistically significant 

differences (relative to the overall rate of 56.7 

percent) pertained to 8 subjects with majors in 

"general" social sciences (12.5 percent) ; 15 who 

specialized in sociology (20.0 percent) ; 12 who 

were "premed" or "predental" majors (16.7 percent) ; and 4 who indicated "flight operations" 

as major courses of study ( 0 retention rate). 

In view of the relatively few significant retention-rate differences, we were tempted to conclude that the probabilities of success in ATC 

training were generally unrelated to the types 

of courses declared by candidates as their college 

majors. Such a conclusion, however, was held 

in abeyance pending completion of a more detailed analysis in which the ATCS retention 

rates of the 1,265 subjects indicating college 

credits were examined with respect not only to 

major courses of college study but also to the 

type of college attended (i.e., the highest degree 

offered by the institution attended) and the level 

of college education completed (i.e., less than 1 

full year of college credits, 1 to 4 years of college work, and 4 or more years of college work 

resulting in the award of at least a bachelor's 

degree) . The results of such an analysis, in 

which distinction was maintained between the 

subjects aged 31 and older versus those 30 and 

younger, are presented in Appendixes A and B. 

There may be some among the readers of this 

report who will find this last analysis to be of 

sufficient interest to warrant intensive study and 

comparison of the retention rates of the numerous 

subgroups (Appendixes A and B). We, the 

authors, have already done so but will refrain 

from presenting a lengthy discussion of the 

numerous retention-rate differences, most of which 

were relatively minor. When considered as a 

body, the results of this comprehensive and 
detailed analysis indicate the major areas of college study of most college graduates, and also of 

most others who attended college for 4 years or 

less, to be negligibly related to the probabilities 

of training success-regardless of the type of 

institution (as defined by degrees offered) they 

attended. Perhaps the most startling finding 

concerns the disparity between the retention rates 

of the older versus younger subjects. Some 331 

of the 1,265 former college students were 31 or 

older at time of entry into training and only 

38.7 percent (N=128) were still in FAA ATC 

work at the beginning of 1973, whereas the retention rate of :the 934 aged 30 and lower was 63.1 

percent. However, this retention-rate difference 

can be attributed primarily to age effects rather 

than recency-of-education effects. This fact was 

clearly illustrated by the results of earlier analyses. As may be recalled from our previous discussion of the analysis presented in Figure 3, 

the total group of 2,349 recruits of 1969 included 

663 aged 31 and older; the retention rate of the 

663, with educational level disregarded, was only 

39.8 percent, whereas that of the 1,686 younger 

trainees of all educational levels was 66.0 percent. Moreover, it is important to note that the 

latter is slightly higher than the 63.1-percent retention rate established by the 934 younger 

trainees (among the 1,686) who attended college. 

Returning to the issue concerning major areas 

of college study, we must acknowledge that the 

retention rate of 48.5 percent for the 101 subjects aged 30 and younger who majored in the 

social sciences is appreciably, and significantly 

(p<.01), below the 63.1-percent rate of all subjects of age 30 and younger who attended college. 

Similarly, the fact should not be overlooked that 

those among the 934 who majored in mathematics and engineering had very commendable 

retention rates of 72.3 and 72.0 percent respectively. Should subjects with such educational 

backgrounds receive special treatment in the selection process? While this is a question that 

officials in charge of selection matters must resolve, we suspect that pragmatic considerations 

will prompt a decision that major areas of college 

study be entirely disregarded. And we would 

also hope that they decide to abolish all selection 

standards relating to education beyond the high 

school level. 

28 

IV. Summary and Conclusions. 

The ATCS selection procedures relating to 

education have always tended to reflect an underlying hypothesis that success probabilities in 

A TC training should tend to vary in accordance 

with the levels of education attained by personnel considered equally qualified for training in 

other respects. The current study was undertaken in order to test that hypothesis and also • 

to determine whether selection procedures should 

or should not be revised to include consideration 

of recency in the attainment of education, particularly at the college level, and/or the major 

courses of study of college graduates. 

A series of analyses were conducted on data 

pertaining to 2,352 ATCS recruits who entered 

the Academy basic training phase in 1969 (1,858 

En Route and 494 Terminal trainees). The 

study revealed all educational variables, both before and after consideration of effects associated 

with age and other selection factors, to be negligibly and/ or inversely related to success in ATCS 

training (as defined by Academy graduation 

status and/or retention in the ATC system 3 to 

~ years following recruitment). 

The 181 college graduates among the 2,352 subjects had a higher Academy attrition rate (30.9 

percent) than any other subgroup and 208 whose 

highest level of education was reflected by a 

G.E.D. (General Education Development) certificate for high school had the next highest 

Academy attrition rate (24.5 percent), whereas 

the lowest rate (18.0 percent) pertained to 876 

having high school diplomas only, followed 

closely by the rate of those having less than 1 

full year of college (18.3 percent). Post-Academy (i.e., facility training) attrition rates 

ranged from 16.3 to 26.5 percent and followed a 

somewhat similar rank-order pattern. 

Major courses of study listed by some 925 of 

1,265 subjects who attended college were found 

to have little potential for prediction of training outcomes. The overall retention rate as of 

January 1, 1973, for the 1,265 former college 

students was 56.7 percent. When categorized on 

the basis of major studies, only those (N=141) 

majoring in the social sciences were found to 

have a retention rate differing significantly from 

that of the combined categories. Only 41.8 per-
cent of the 141 social science majors were still 

in FAA A TC work at the beginning of 1973. 

Moreover, 53 subjects for whom major courses 

of college study were judged as being more directly related to aviation than were the majors 

of all others were found to have a retention rate 

of 56.6 percent, only one-tenth of a point lower 

than that of the entire group of former college 

students. 

None of the educational variables had a significant interaction effect on the validities of other 

selection factors. As determined in previous research,10 however, all types of aviation-related 

experience except ATC were found to be grossly 

unreliable for prediction of training outcomes. 

Other findings clearly illustrated that candidacy 

for ATCS training should be restricted to aptitude-screened applicants no older than 30 and 

that it would also be advisable to discontinue 

the award of credit points toward eligibility for 

all types of preentry experience except air traffic 

control. 

REFERENCES 

1. Brokaw, L. D.: School and Job Validation of Selection Measures for Air Traffic Control Training. 

Lackland Air Force Base, Personnel Laboratory, 

Wright Air Development Center Report No. WADCTN-59--39 (ASTIA Document No. AD 214 884), 1959. 

2. Cobb, B. B.: Problems in Air Traffic Management: 

II. Prediction of Success in Air Traffic Controller 

School. FAA Civil Aeromedical Research Institute 

Report No. 62-2, 1962. 

3. Cobb, B. B.: Problems in Air Traffic Management: 

V. Identification and Potential of Aptitude Test 

Measures for Selection of Tower Air Traffic Controller Trainees. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Report No. AM-65-19, 1965. 

4. Cobb, B. B. : The Relationships Between Chronological Age, Length of Experience, and Job Performance Ratings of Air Route Traffic Control 

Specialists. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-67-1, 1967. 

5. Cobb, B. B.: A Comparative Study of Air Traffic 

Trainee Aptitude-Test Measures Involving Navy, 

Marine Corps, and FAA Controllers. FAA Office of 

Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-68-14, 1968. 

6. Cobb, B. B.: Air Traffic Aptitude Test Measures of 

Military and FAA Controller Trainees. FAA Office 

of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-71-40, 1971. 

7. Cobb, B. B., C. D. Lay, and N. M. Bourdet : The 

Relationship Between Chronological Age and Aptitude Test Measures of Advanced-Level Air Traffic 

Control Trainees. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Report No. AM-71-36, 1971. 

8. Cobb, B. B., and J. J. Mathews: A Proposed New 

Test for Aptitude Screening of Air Traffic Controller 

Applicants. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report 

No. AM-72-18, 1972. 

9. Cobb, B. B., J. J. Mathews, and C. D. Lay: A Comparative Study of Female and Male Air Traffic Controller Trainees. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Report No. AM-72-22, 1972. 

29 

10. Cobb, B. B., and P. L. Nelson: Aircraft-Pilot and 

Other Pre-Employment Experience as Factors in the 

Selection of Air Traffic Controller Trainees. FAA 

Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-74-8, 

1974. 

11. Cobb, B. B., P. L. Nelson, and J. J. Mathews: The 

Relationships of Age and ATC Experience to Job Performance Ratings of Terminal Area Traffic Controllers. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine Report No. 

AM-73-7, 1973. 

12. Trites, D. K.: Problems in Air Traffic Management: 

I. Longitudinal Prediction of Effectiveness in Air 

Traffic Controllers. FAA Civil Aeromedical Research 

Institute Report No. 61-1, 1961. 

13. Trites, D. K.: Problems in Air Traffic Management: 

VI. Interaction of Training-Entry Age With Intellectual and Personality Characteristics of Air Traffic 

Control Specialists. FAA Office of Aviation Medicine 

Report No. AM-65-21, 1965. 

14. Trites, D. K., and B. B. Cobb: Problems in Air 

Traffic Management: III. Implications of Age for 

Training and Job Performance of Air Traffic Controllers. FAA Civil Aeromedical Research Institute 

Report No. 62-3, 1962. 

15. Trites, D. K., and B. B. Cobb: Problems in Air 

Traffic Management: IV. Comparison of Pre-Employment, .Job-Related Experience With Aptitude-Tests 

as Predictors of Training and Job Performance of 

Air Traffic Control Specialists. FAA Civil Aeromedical Research Institute Report No. 63-31, 1963. 

16. Trites, D. K., and B. B. Cobb: CARl Research on 

Air Traffic Control Specialists: Age, Aptitude, and 

Experience as Predictors of Performance. FAA Civil 

Aeromedical Res.earch Institute Unnumbered Report, 

1964. 

17. Trites, D. K., M. C. Miller, and B. B. Cobb: Problems 

in Air Traffic Managemt>nt: VII. Job and Training 

Performance of Air Traffic Control SpecialistsMeasurement, Structure, and Prediction. FAA Office 

of Aviation Medicine Report No. AM-65-22, 1965. 
APPENDIX 

30 
Appendix A. Attrition and retention rates by area of major study and type of colle~e attended for 331 subjects of age 31 or older who claimed college 

credits when entering Academy ATCS hasic training in 1969. 

t-1ajor Area of 

Stttdy in College 

or University 

Type of Colle~e 

(hasl•d on highl'St de~rce off£'n~d 

hv institution) 

Level of College l:ducation Attained Prior to Academy ATCS Basic Trainin~ 

Less Than 1 Full Yt:ar l-4 Y(•ars nut Xo Dt.·~rce Bachelor's De~rec •H Hig.hcr 

Post- Pllst- PllstAcad. :\-:-ad. .\cad. ,\cad, :\cad. ,\cad. 

At tr. 1\t tr. i{ct. 

Rate Rat!.! Rate 

N I. 

At tr. ,\t tr. R(·t. 

Rate Ratt• Ratt· 

X 

,\ttr, .\ttr, 

Rate Rate 

Ret. 

Hate 

All Levels 

PostAcad. Acad. 

Attr, 1\ttr. Ret. 

Kate Rate Rate 

!. ), 

Business Ph.D. 40.0 40.0 20.0 17 29.4 17.7 52.9 

.:.4. 4 

25.0 

~] .3 

]] 'J ]],] JJ.J 28 32 1 25.0 42.9 

Hastcr's bO.O 40.0 9 33.3 22.2 14 ~2.9 14.3 42.9 

Bachelor's SO 0 25.0 \0.0 25.0 25.0 

Assoc. or otlwr 37 ~ 37.5 25.0 b lb. 7 14 28 b 21 4 50.0 

Total All T\'pcs S2.8 u 33.3 33.3 33,3 60 31.0 21.7 4],3 18 44.4 27.1:$ 27.1:5 36 30.5 16.7 Ed~c&t1on------ -Ph.D.----------------------- b- So_o_ -16.7 )3_3_ - -I -loo~o- - - - - - - - - - - - 57. I - 14~3- -2iL6 

:-laster's S 20.0 20.0 

Bache lor's 

uo o 33.3 33.3 33.3 

100.0 

25 0 25.0 50.0 

100.0 

Assoc. or other 100.0 100 0 50.0 50.0 

s..<f&C------- -!f-5~-A.!l_T_;:p;•_--- ~- so_o_ -5o.o _lQo.:.o_- -~~- ~~--} -~~.z- ';!~~ - -~~ ;,g~g- -::u- jg--g--- i~- -~n- ~;~~- -~H 

Sciences !-laster's S 20.0 40.0 40.0 S 00.0 .:.0.0 2S 0 75 0 1~ 7 1 42.9 SO.O 

Bachelor's 1 100.0 33} b6.7 25.0 75.0 

Assoc. or lither 100.0 3 33.3 33.3 33 3 50.0 25.0 25.0 

'iiOiOiic'il- _____ .-!~~€~-"\_!l_T~p~s- ___ ~ _ ~7~5- _Ji·2 _ ~s~o ___ 1~ _ ~~-=-~- _3~.~ _ §~~~- __ 1I _ 35.3 .:.!-~ _ ~3:_5 ___ ~o_ -~t·~ _ ~7 _:5_ -;j:~ 

Scie-~es ~laster's 1 100 0 1 100.0 100 0 66.7 33.3 

Bachelor's 1 100.0 100.0 50.0 50.0 ..\ssoc •• .lr other 2 ~.0 50.0 

___________ .!o.!a.!~l.!.!~:re.!___ )Qo_.o_-- ---- _11-10~02-•• og __ 2~.~-

A~rinalture and Ph.D. 

Re-lated Fields ~~st1·r 's 

(ani-1 hushandq·. Bachelor's 

fore-stn·. Pte.) Assoc. or ~lthcr 100.0 1 100.0 

· Total All T\·pes 1 __ 100.0_ _ _ _ _ _ 2 100.0 t:"~a£tl';macicS------Ph.D.--- ... -----1 100.0 ----3.-----33 3 bb 

~laster's 1 

Bachelor's lOO.O 2 

Assoc. or lltlwr SO 0 50.0 2 

100.0 

100 0 

100.0 

_ ! _ tpo_.o 

50 0 

\0 0 - 100 0 ·)o .o 

Total All Tvpl'S 6 50,0 SO.O 12. s ::S7. 5 - ~ -)J.J- )3~)--

\0,0 

Ph'Ys1c8C------ -rh.n.--- .------ - - - -- -- -- - - - - · 33 i3-.] 

Sciences :-!aster's 

nacla· L1r 's 100.0 

500 

50 0 

){) 0 

100 0 

50.0 

]J 3- 33.3 

100.0 

_9_ - 5~.~- ~2,2_ 22.2 

3 bb.7 -33.3 

2 100.0 

5 80.0 20.0 -s- -~o o- 2o-.o- -~.o 

J 33 3 33.3 33.3 

~s.o 1 ~.o 

33.3 bb 7 

18 27.8 1&.7 \\ \ -.- -33.3- 33~3- -33.3 

1 100.0 

1 100.0 

Assoc. or ollwr 

F.n;int:eritig----- -~~~~~-A_!l_T~p;:s_- ~- 8- 25-:-o- -25.0- So-:-o-- -1~- ~~~~- -~~:g- ~~~~--- ~- -- 2~- -~~:~- ~~~} -!~:~ (Pxcludin~ >iastcr's 3 33.3 bb.7 JO.O 2:>.0 25.0 7 42 9 14.3 42 9 

21 0 - so 0 - 25.0 -

J3~3 66- 7 

Aeroendnecring) Baclwlor's 3 33.3 bb.7 100.0 100.0 7 28.b 71 • .:. 

Assoc. or (ltlwr 50.0 50.0 b 50.0 1b 7 33.3 37.5 25.0 37 5 

Total All T\"pt.·s 16 25.0 18 8 Sb.2 29 41.~ 20~7 37.9 !t 50.0 _!0_0_ _ 49 3b.7 18.4 !.4.9 A\:'iati~n~ At:;:o:--- -Ph.D.--- .... ----~ T------- -10o-:-o--- 1------ - -10o~o--- 1 -10o_o_- - -- -33.3---- -bb.7 

nautics, and :-taster's 1 100.0 100.0 

RPlated Fields Bachelor's 50.0 50.0 '>0.0 50.0 

As soc, or otlH.·r 2 50.0 50.0 2 50 0 50.0 )() .0 25.0 25.0 

All Other------ -~*~~~-A_!l_T~p~s--- ~ ~- ~~~~- --- - %~~~-- -j - 20 -;j·¥ - ~~~~--- i -1~~~6- _J~} - - - - - - {~- -~~~~ - ~~~~- -;t¥ Naster's · 75.0 25.0 2 )0.0 50 0 bb.7 33.3 

Bachelor's 100.0 50.0 50.0 25 0 25.0 50 0 

Aso;.:~c. or other 4 25 0 50 0 25.0 ~ 75.0 25.0 50.0 25.0 25.0 

Total All T\"pes 9 33.3 22.2 44.4 17 23.5 .:.7.1 29,!t 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 29 27~6 37.9 34.5 UnknOw-;:; T1a\or---- -rh.D .--- .... ----·-n - 29~.:.- -23.5- :;r-:-1-- -15 - 53_3_ -f3.j - 33-:-3- -- - - - .- -- - - 32- -~o .6 - 1tl-:-s- -40,6 

(S's failed to l'lastf'r's 15 ~0 0 26.7 33 3 :3 50.0 12.5 37.5 23 43 5 21.7 34.8 

indicate major nachdor's 10 50.0 10.0 ~0.0 50.0 50.0 14 50.0 7.1 42.9 

an·as) Assoc. or other 10 30.0 30.0 40.0 6 16.7 16.7 66.6 16 25.0 25.0 50.0 

Total ,\11 T\· 52 36.5 23.1 !t0.4 33 45.5 12.1 42.4 85 40.0 18.8 41.2 

Total Ph ,D. 37 35.1 24.3 40' 5 78 ~1.0 20,5 38. s 28 50.0 25.0 25 0 143 41 2 22.4 36.4 

For All Areas }taster's 29 41.4 20.7 37 9 38 28.9 31 b 39.5 13 23.1 38 . 5 38.5 80 32.5 28.8 38' 7 

of Study Rachelor 's lb 37.5 6 3 56.2 18 33 J lb. 7 50.0 8 37.5 62. 5 42 35.7 21.4 42.9 

As soc, or at her 33 36.4 27.3 3b !t 33 39 ' 15.2 :.s ~ bb 37.9 21.2 40.9 

Total All Types 115 37.4 2L7 40.9 167 37.1 2l.IJ 41 3 49 ~0.8 34.7 2~. 5 331 37 7 23 b 38 7 

31 
Appendix B. Attrition and retention rates hy area of major study and type of college attended for 934 subjects of age 30 or younger who claimed college 

credits when entering Academy ATCS basic trainin~ in 1969. 

Level of College Education Attained Prior to Academy ATCS Basic Training 

Less Than 1 Full Year 1-4 Years But Ntl Dc~ree Bachelor's Desree or Hi§:her All Levels 

Post- Post- Post- PostType of Colle~e Acad. Acad. Acad. Acad. Acad. Acad. Acad. Acad. 

Major Area of (based On high- Attr. Attr. Ret. Attr. Attr. Ret. Attr. Attr. Ret. Attr. Attr. Ret. 

Study in Collep,e est degree offered Rate Rate Rate Rate Rate Rale Rate ~ate Rate Rate Rate Rate 

or Universitv b · institution) N 7 7 7 N 7 7 7 N 7. 7. 7 N 7. 7. 7. 

Business Ph.D. 33.3 16.7 50.0 46 10.9 21 7 67.4 16 2S 0 31.3 43.7 68 16.2 23.S 60.3 

~laster's 12.5 87.5 18 22.2 22.2 55.6 11 36 4 9.1 54.5 37 24.3 13.5 62.2 

Bachelor's 2S.O 50.0 2S.O 14 3S.7 64.3 10 30 0 10.0 60.0 28 32.1 10.7 S7.1 

Assoc. or other 17 5.9 29 .:. 64.7 22 9 1 22 7 68 2 39 7.7 25.6 66.7 

____________ T2t_!l_A.!l_T.l:p~s- __ _3_2 _ !4.:.3 __ 2~.~ _ ~2.:.8 __ !OQ _ !6.:.0 __ l?_.Q _ ~S_,_O ___ .3!. _ ~9_7 __ 1~ ?_ _ 21.:.4 ___ 1!.2_ 18.6 19.8 61.6 

Education Ph.D. 3 100.0 I 100.0 4 2S.O 2S 0 50.0 8 -12.5- 25-:-o- -62.5 

!laster's I 100.0 5 100 0 8 12 5 2S.O 62.5 14 7.1 14.3 78.6 

Bachelor's 20.0 20.0 60 0 3 33.3 66 7 8 12.S 2S.O 62.S 

Assoc. or other 1 100~0 4 25 0 25.0 SO.O 5 20.0 20.0 60.0 

Total All Tvpes 10 10 0 10.0 80.0 13 7.7 23.1 69 2 12 16 7 25.0 58.3 35 11.4 20.0 68.6 sociaC------- -Pii.o.--------- 4- 2s~o- -2·s.o- 5o:o-- -23- 2Ci- -21.1- 56-.s· - _1&- 31_2_ -18.8- so~o--- 43- -25.6- 2o~9- -s3.5 

Sciences ?-laster's 5 60.0 40~0 10 40.0 20.0 .:.o.o 11 3b.4 9.1 54.5 26 30.8 23.1 46.1 

Bachelor's 3 100.0 6 33.3 16.7 50.0 lU 40.0 30.0 30 0 19 31.6 21.0 47.4 

Assoc. or other 6 1'6 7 50.0 33.3 7 28.6 -28 6 42.8 13 23 1 38.5 38 .. 5 

Total All Tvpes 18 11.1 38.9 50.0 46 28 3 21.7 50.0 37 35.1 18.9 :06.0 101 27.7 23.8 48.S BiOi~gic&C----- -r!J.D.--- .... ----- 1--- -- IoO.O----- -12- 2s-::-o- -33.3- 4f_)-- J- ·33-:-3----- 66_7_- - I6- -iS.O- 3f~3- -43.7 

Sciences !-taster's 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 3 100 0 3 100 0 9 11.1 11.1 77.8 

Bachelor's 1 100.0 2 50.0 50.0 3 33.3 66.7 

Assoc. or other 3 100.0 4 25.0 75.0 7 14.3 85.7 

____________ T2t!!l_A_ll_T.l:P~•- ___ l _ 14_3 __ 2J!.l> _ 27~1- __ 2l! _ 15~0- _3Q.l! _ 25.o ___ .!! _ ;?.5~0- _1;?..2 _ !>2_5 ___ }5 __ ll! _ ~5~7- _sz! 

Agriculture and Ph.D. 2 100.0 S 20.0 80.0 7 28 6 14.3 57.1 

RelatC'd Fields Naster 's 1 100.0 1 100.0 

(animal husbandry, Bachelor's 100.0 1 lOOvO 

forestry, etc.) Assoc. or other 100.0 2 100.0 

Total All Types l _1QO.A.O- __ j _ f!O...,O_ _ _ _ QO..~.O_ .2 _____ 2Q Q _ ~0_0_ 11 18 2 9 1 72 7 

Tlathematics ______ Pii.li.---------6 167 33.3 5o.o 6 33.3 66.7 1 1ou.o --,3--23.1-23~1--s3.8 

Naster's 16.7 83 3 6 100.0 1 100.0 13 7.7 7.7 8~.6 

nachelor's' 100~0 3 33.3 bb 7 50.0 50.0 8 25.0 75 0 

Assoc. or other 16.7 83.3 7 28.6 71.4 13 IS.!. 7 7 76.9 

Total All Types 21 _9.:.5_ 1.:..2 _ 16.:.2 ___ 2_? _ !8 __ 2 __ ~-2 _ l7_3_ _ . .1.2·9 _ .f5..:.0- __ ~7- 12.8 .!~.:.9 __ 7£.~ 

PhYsTc81 ________ rTi.n.---------2- so.o so.o 15 26.7 13.3 bOO so.o 250 2so 21 -333· 1.':.3 52.4 

Sciences }laster's 2 50.0 50.0 25.0 75.0 6 16.7 lb.7 66.6 

HachelM's 3 100 0 3 100 0 

Ass~lC, or other 20 0 ~0.0 ~0.0 8 25.0 75 0 13 23 1 1.5._. 6L5 

Total All Tvpcs 9 _ ]_3.!.3 __ 2.f. .f._ ~~-~- _ _ 3Q _ .f.O_.O __ lO.Q _ 10_,_0_ _ _ _20_,_0 __ 22-Q _ 25.0 ~3 25 6 13.9 60.5 En'g{ileCrin"R ______ r!J.D.---------g 250 250 SOvO 22 9.1 13.6 77.3 2-500 So~o---32--156-15_6 __ 68.8 

(excluding: }laster's 1 100 0 12 lb.7 H3 -3 100.0 14 14.3 85 1 

Aeroengineering) Bachelor's 1 100.0 12 8 3 91.7 13 7 7 7.7 84.6 

Assoc. or other S 20.0 80.0 11 45.5 9.1 !.5.5 16 31:3 12.5 56.2 

Total All Tvpes 15 20 0 20.0 60.0 57 12.3 12.3 75.:. _ ~ _ ;3_3"3- 66.7 75 1:..7 13.3 72.0 Aviati~n: Aero-:--- -rh.D.-------- - 2-- .---- - -10o~o-- - 8 - - -· - -25.0 - 7s-:o- -- - - - -lOo-=-o- -- 13- --- - 15-:-4- -84.6 

nautics, and Naster's 1 100.0 100.0 100.0 6 16.7 8) 3 

Re1atedFiclds· Bachelor's 1 100.0 500 50.0 500 50.0 5 40.0 60.0 

Assoc. or other 25.0 25.0 50.0 15 26 7 33.3 ~0.0 19 26.3 31.6 42.1 

Ai'i Othe"; ______ -!~r.·~1._A_!l_T_.:p.=s ____ ~ _ !2-5 ___ 1l -~ _ zs.:.o ___ 2~ _ -~3_._8 __ 2?_.!> _1 60

8 __ ._ 06 ____ 7 _ -}~~-~- -~tf _ ¥~~~- __ 5~- -~t~Y _ ~~.!;- -~t~ 100.0 20 20.0 20.0 

Naster's 22.2 77.8 12 16.7 lb 7 66.6 33.3 33.3 33 3 27 l!t.8 22.2 63.0 

Bachelor's 25.0 12.5 62.5 12 25.0 4Li 33.3 33.3 66.7 23 26 1 26~1 47.8 

Assoc. or other 14 21.4 28 b SO 0 19 2LO 15 ~ 63.2 33 21 2 21.2 57 6 

Total All Tvpes 38 13 2 18.4 68.4 b3 20.6 22.2 _?_7-!.1 ___ 1~ _ ~5.!..0 __ 4;!-Z 31.3 117 18 8 23.9 57.3 Unkn-;wn 'Fta1ot=---- -Ph.D.-------- -34- -8-:8- -32 4 ·- Sa-:-s-- -26 - -1-:1- -26.9 - 65.~ -- - -- - bo-- 8.3 - Jo-:-o- -6-L7 

(S's failed to Naster's !.7 8.5 14.9 76.6 17 11 8 5.9 ~2.3 6~ 9 4 12.5 78 1 

indicate major Bachelor's 26 7 7 7.7 8~.6 12 33.3 66.7 38 5.3 15.8 78.9 

areas) Assoc. or ather 75 12.0 26.7 61 3 18. 33.3 5.() f.ll.l 93 16 1 22.6 61.3 

Total .\11 T\ 182 9.9 22.0 68.1 73 13 7 17 ~ b8 5 255 11 0 20.8 68.2 

Total Ph.D. 73 13.7 24.7 61 6 181 16.0 21.0 63 0 61 24.6 27 9 47 s 315 17.1 23.2 59.7 

For All Areas Haster's 83 9.6 15 7 74.7 92 13.0 13.0 73 9 42 28 6 16 7 54.7 217 14.7 14.7 70.5 

of Study Bachelor's 52 13.5 ll. 5 75.0 68 14.7 22.1 63 2 29 31.0 24 1 .:.4.8 149 17 4 18.8 63.8 

Assoc. or other 136 ll.8 27.2 61.0 ll7 23 9 16.2 59.8 253 17.4 22 1 60.5 

Total ,\ll Types 344 11.9 21.5 66.6 458 17 3 18.3 f.l4.4 132 27 3 23 49.2 934 16 7 20.2 63 .l 

32