THE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS' VALUE PREFERENCES. Abstract

Transcription

1 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS' VALUE PREFERECES Fatma BAŞARA Abstract In this paper, university students' value preferences based on a research that was done because of "Youth Year" will be presented. Values are one of the most important inner factors in determining and shaping the attitudes and behaviors of an individaul. Because of this reason, human being's way of arrangement of human values in order of their importance to them is very important. The aim of this research is to study how university youth arrange human values in the order of their importance to them. Research sumple consist of 679 students selected by random sampling from different faculties in Ankara. As a reseach instrument "The Rokeach Value Survey" was used. Data analyses were carried out for the total sample of Turkish Students as well as for sex and the generational subgroups. The results are presented with comparisons of the findings of similar studies conducted in different cultures (U.S.A., Australia, Israel and Canada). The University Syudents' Value Preferences The theoretical framework and methodology of this paper is based on the works of Rokeach (1973) who has spent a considerable time on research in this field. As widely acknowledged, it is rather difficult to understand and evaluate the problems of an individual without taking into consideration any sound information on his / her values, since values have an effect upon his attitude and behaviour. Thus, it is possible to predict the attitude and behaviour of individuals, groups and cultures by obtaining knowledge on their values. As Rokeach pointed out, the differences between social classes, professions, religious and political beliefs can only be explained by pondering on the differences of their values and value systems. The gap between generations can be understood more clearly by taking the value differences into consideration. The changes brought

2 14 FATMA BAŞARA about by maturation, education, persuasion and therapy along with cultural, institutional and technological changes can also be evaluated with reference to the development and modifications in values and value systems (Rokeach, 1973:26). Hence, a value is, "an eduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. A value system in an eduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states exists along a continuum of relative importance" (Rokeach, 1973: 5). A value-free approach should be employed in research on human values, comprising the following five assumptions on human values: 1. The total number of values that a person prossesses is relatively small, 2. Values are universal but individuals may possess them to diffirent degrees. 3. Values are organized into value systems. 4. The antecedents of values can be traced to personality, culture society and its institutions, 5. The results of values manifest themselves vividly in all phenomena considered worthy of investigation by social scientists. These assumptions account for the elevation of the concept of value, among other concepts, has a central position in all the disciplines of social sciences. Thus, value-based problems manifest themselves in all the fields of study in social sciences (Rokeach, 1973: 3). Research of this kind, even if not carried out with an empirical objective in the beginning, come to convey in the end, empirical and useful knowledge, and as a result provides necessary information to people of differens occupations such as educators, managers, planners, reformers and therapists. Objectives of the Study : This study is an evaluation of some of the data collected in a fieldresearch carried out with the following objectives in mind: a) To obtain information about the values of the university youth which will assume aneffective role in the labor-force of Turkey in the near

3 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS 15 future, and hence, to discover their hierarchy of values stated in an order of preference, b) To make a cross-cultural study by comparing these data with the results of research carried out in other cultures. c) To examine the differences in values of male and female students who, as members of a society, have been allocated different sex roles, d). To look into the conflict between generations in terms of differences in values*. Method This field research is based on Rokeach's model. However, due to some difficulties, the sample is a modest one compared to that of Rokeach, being limited to University students in Ankara. The sample consists of 679 students of both sexes, chosen by random sampling from the Universities in Ankara. The technique employed is Rokeach's "value survey", translated into Turkish with necessary controls and the instructions for application were identical. Unfortunately, technical difficulties prevented the application of the gummed "label version" of this technique. As it is well known, the value scale in question consists of two lists. Each list has 18 values altogether, placed in an alphabetical order. The first list is composed of "terminal" values, whereas the second includes instrumental values. What is required from the subject is to examine carefully each list and to place the stated values in each list in an order of preference in accordance with the importance of the value in his / her life, by assigning the number 1 to the most important, and the number 18 to the least important value. This value scale was applied to 679 students, in eight diffirent colleges in Ankara. Data obtained was processed at the Computer Centre of METU. * The mentioned research also takes into consideration the following points that have not been included in this paper: a) whether students studying in different fields display meaningful differences in their order of preferences, b) whether students undergoing a four-year instruction period at different faculties (colleges) show qualitative and quantitative differences in their order of preferences at the beginning and the end of their study period, c) whether there is any relationship between their order of preferences and their oscial origin (village, town, city), father's occupation, education of parents and the kind of secondary education (private, public or technical school) received.

4 16 FATMA BAŞARA The median has been used for the measurement of central tendency and the Median test (Siegel, 1956) for non-parametric statistical significance. Findings and Discussions Value Bankings: Table 1 shows the terminal value rankings for the total college sample. At the top of the terminal value hierarchy, the five values, given by university students are; freedom, a world at peace, equality, self-respect and inner harmony. At the bottom of the hierarchy are the values of an exciting life, pleasure, salvation, a world of beauty and national security. Table 1. Terminal Value Medians, Means and Composite Rank Orders For College Students =679 A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love ational security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Median 12.2(13) 15.6(18) 8.1 (10) 5.5 ( 2) 14.1(15) 5.9 ( 3) 7.2(6) 4.4 ( 1) 7.7 ( 9) 7.0 ( 5) 10.2(11) 12.7(14) 15.4(17) 14.5(16) 6.9 ( 4) 11.7(12) 7.4 (8) 7.2 ( 7) Mean 11.4 (14) 14.4 (17) 8.2(10) 6.9(3) 13.4(16) 6.8 ( 2) 6.9(3) 5.7 ( 1) 7.9 ( 8) 7.5 ( 5) 10.2(11) 11.5(15) 14.5(18) 10.8(12) 7.4 ( 4) 11.1 (13) 7.7 ( 7) 7.9 ( 9) Figures shown are median and mean rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. Table 2 shows the instrumental value rankings of the same sample At the top of instrumental hierarchy are the values of being independent, honest, broadminded, logical, responsible and at the obedient, ambitious imaginative, clean and polite. bottom are of being As the measure of central tendency of obtained data, means and medians of the two lists are provided in the tables. In general, the two measures are in agreement, almost always leading to indentical rank orders. The only exception to this correspondance between the two me-

5 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS 17 asures in table 2 is the value of salvation which ranks as 16th according to median but 12th according to the mean ranking. Table 2. Instrumental value Medians, Means and Composite Rank Orders for College Stuedents =679 Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled Median 14.4(17) 5.4 ( 3) 11.3(13) 11.1 (12) 12.4(15) 6.8 ( 6) 10.2(10) 10.9(11) 3.0 ( 2) 13.6(16) 2.9 ( 1) 8.4 ( 7) 6.3 ( 4) 9.7 ( 9) 17.3(18) 12.0(14) 6.6 ( 5) 8.4 ( 8) Mean 12.8(17) 6.7 ( 3) 10.9(13) 10.6(11) 11.7(15) 7.6 ( 6) 9.8(10) 10.7(12) 4.3 ( 1) 12.6(16) 5.3 ( 2) 8.8 ( 7) 6.8 ( 4) 9.5 ( 9) 15.5(18) 11.4(14) 6.9 ( 5) 8.9 (8) Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. Cross-Cultural Comparisons: The Rokeach scale consists of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values. The main reason that this scale is preferred lies in the fact that its technique is comprehensive and universal at the same time. Therefore, when the same scale is applied to similar samples in different countries, a comparison becomes possible. Such an attempt is shown in Table 3 and Table 4. Table 3 consists of terminal value averages and composite rank orders for American, Australian, Israeli, Canadian and Turkish samples of College Students. In Table 3, the results of the study in Turkey were tabulated only for the male students since in the studies reported in four countries, only the college men were included in the analysis. The inspection of Table 3 shows that there are differences in the value preferences of university students as well as similar cross-cultural rankings. For example while Israeli ranks a world of peace from terminal values as the first and Turkey as the 2 nd, U.S.A ranks the same value

6 18 FATMA BAŞARA Table 3. Terminal value averaegs and composite rank orders for American, Australian, Israeli, Canadian and Turkish samples of college men U. States Austral: a Israel Canada Turkey A comfortable life ' An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality, Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love ational security Pleasure Salvation Slef-respect Social recognition Frue friendship Wisdom 10.3 (11) 10.8(12) 7.1( 5) 9.3(10) 14.4 (18) 12.3 (13) 8.1 (7) 4.7 ( ( 2) 8.8 ( 9) 7.4( 6) 13.8(17) 13.1 (J5) 13.4(16) 7.0 ( 4) 12.9 (14) 8.7 ( 8) 6.8 ( 3) 12.6(13) 9.2(11) 6.3 ( 4) 8.2 ( 9) 13.0(15) 9.0(10) 9.5(12) 4.9 ( 3) 7.5( 7) 7.7 ( 8) 6.6 (5) 13.9(17) 12.7 (14) 15.9(18) 7.5(6) 13.7(16) 4.9 ( 2) 4.7 ( 1) 12.8(15) 8.7 ( 9) 7.5 ( 7) 4.7( 1) 14.5(17) 9.3(10) 9.7 ( 8) 6.5 ( 4) 6.0 (3) 10.9(13) 6.5 (5) 5.6 ( 2) 11.2(14) 15.9(18) 9.7(11) 13.5 (16) 10.1 (12) 7.3( 6) 11.6(13) 9.8(11) 9.2 ( 9) 10.0(12) 12.3 (15) 9.7 (10) 7.5 ( 7) 4.5( 1) 4.7 (2) 7.4 ( 6) 5.6 ( 3) 16.6(17) 12.3(14) 17.6(18) 6.9 ( 4) 13.9(16) 7.3 ( 5) 8.3 ( 8) 12.0 (14) 15.7 (18) 8.0 ( 9) 5.6 ( 2) 14.3 (16) 5.8 ( 3) 6.8 ( 5) 4.5 ( 1) 8.1 (10) 7.4 (6) 10.4(11) 12.1 (15) 15.5(17) 10.6(12) 7.9 ( 8) 11.8 (13) 7.6 ( 7) 6.7 ( 4) Figures shown are median ranking for U.S., Australian, Canadian and Turkish samples, mean rankings for Israeli semple, and in paranteses, comosite remk orders as the 10 th, Australia the 9 th, and Canada the 12 th. This ranking makes one think about the period of anarchy Turkey went through and the long years of war Israel suffered. In the ranking of the value of ational Security Israel showed a similar evaluation as well, although Turkey is located in an area of strategic importance, she didn't enter any major wars after 1920's, Turkish sample ranked this value as the 15th. The equality value was given more emphasis by Turkish students which is quite interesting, undoubtedly this involves ideas of modernization and democracy. Again the Turkish students showed more interest (although slight) in salvation value compared to those from other countries. With this issue one may remember the impact of the recent period of anarchy; one may also take into consideration that other socio-cultural factors may be influental as well. The important point about salvation is that, unlike the rankings of other values, the value preferences of more than 2 / 3 of the students are condensed into opposite extremes. While 26.4 percent of university students rank this value as 1st, 38.9 percent rank it as 18th. This is considered as an important point to be analysed. Those who rank it as 2nd are 2.9 percent and those who rank it as 17th are 4.13 per-

7 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS 19 cent of the sample. One may also observe that the values of Mature love, Happiness and An Exciting Life are given lower ranks by Turkish Students compared with other students from different countries. At present, the authors intuition is that for Turkish students these values are associated with a luxurious life style and looked upon with some contempt. This pattern, which may have multiple explanations, is worth considering in more detail in future studies. When all of the five countries are taken into consideration from the point of ranking values like a comforatable life, a world of beauty, freedom, pleasure and social recognition, it is observed that there are more similarities than differences. This fact may be regarded as promising for mutual understanding and tolerance between countries. Table 4 shows the instrumental value rankings of Turkey and the other countries. Table 4. Instrumental value Averages and composite rank orders for American, Australian, Israeli, Canadian and Turkish samples college men U. States Australia Israel Canada Turkey = Ambitious Broadminted Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled 6.4 ( 3) 6.7 ( 4) 7.5 ( 5) 12.0(15) 14.1 (17) 8.4 ( 8) 10.5(12) 11.9(14) S.2( 1) 10.8 (13) 7.7(6) 8.5(9) 8.3 ( 7) 9.1(11) 15.0(18) 13.2(16) 5.9 ( 2) 8.6(10) 7.8 (6) 4.6 ( 2) 8.2 ( 8) 8.5(9) 13.9(17) 8.7(10) 9.3(11) 10.2(13) 4.0 ( 1) 11.5 (15) 7.9 ( 7) 10.6(14) 9.9(12) 7.5(4) 15.3(18) 12.1 (16) 5.2 ( 3) 7.7(5) 8.7 (7) 9.2 ( 9) 6.5 ( 4) 12.2(14) 12.6(15) 9.8(12) 14.3(18) 9.3(10) 5.1 ( 1) 13.1 (16) 9.9(13) 7.7(6) 5.9 ( 3) 9.1 ( 8) 13.6(17) 9.7(11) 5.2 ( 2) 7.6 ( 5) 9.4(11) 6.4 ( 4) 9.9(12) 8.8 ( 6) (17) 9.1(8) 9.1(10) 9.1 ( 9) 3.0 ( 1) 10.6(15) 6.9 ( 5) 8.9 ( 7) 10.5(14) 6.4 ( 3) 16.6(18) 14.6(16) 5.6(2) 10.2(13) 13.9(17) 5.6 ( 3) 11.3(12) 11.5(13) 11.6(14) 6.6 ( 5) 9.9 ( 9) 10.6(11) 2.9( I) 13.4(16) 3.1(2) 8.7 ( 8) 6.5(4) 10.5(10) 17.1 (18) 11.7(15) 6.7(6) 8.3 ( 7) Figures shown are median rankings for U.S., Australian, Canadian and Turkish samples, mean rankings for Israeli sample, and in parantheses, composite rank orders. It is observed that Turkish students give a very low ranking to the value of being ambitious compared to other countries. The source of such an evaluation may have stemmed from the fact that this value is not considered as a desirable attitude and behaviour in the traditional

8 20 FATMA BAŞARA Turkish culture. Being ambitious has a negative aspect which might have influenced the low ranking and it may be said that it is based on the beliefs of a fatalistic society. The fact that the value of courageous is given a much higher rank may be explained by its being an approved and desirable attitude and behaviour among Turkish men. The value of independent is given a very high rank by Turkish students compared to students of other countries. This indicated that it is a desirable and suitable trait in the present period of modernisation of Turkey. The fact that the students place less emphasis upon responsible than independent, may indicate that the young generation may be going through an inner conflict of values. This conflict may be expected in Turkey which is in a transitional stage (i.e. from a traditional society towards a modern one). It is a very interesting result that in all of the five countries the value of honest is ranked as 1st and obedient as 18th. The value of Broadminded is ranked among the top of the list which shows that this value too, is positive and desirable for a democratic society. Values of Turkish Males and Females : In the Turkish society there is plenty of research evidence and are observations showing that in the process of socialization males and females are brought up differently to play their expected gender roles. For this reason, it is to be expected that the male and female subjects would dif- Table 5. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for Turkish male and female students A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love ational sewurity Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Male (14) 15.7(18) 7.96 ( 9) 5.6 ( 2) 14.3(16) 5.8 ( 3) 6.8 ( 5) 4.5 ( 1) 8.1 (10) 7.4 ( 6) 10.4(11) 12.1 (15) 15.5(17) 10.6(12) 7.9 ( 8) 11.8(13) 7.6 (7) 6.7 ( 4) Female (13) 15.4(17) 8.3(10) 5.3 ( 2) 13.8(15) 6.2 ( 4) 7.9 ( 8) 4.1 ( 1) 7.0 ( 6) 6.3 ( 5). 9.6(11) 13.7(14) 15.2 ( 6) 17.1 (18) 5.8( 3) 11.6(12) 7.2 ( 7) 8.1 ( 9) Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. P

9 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS 21 fer in the ranking of human values. Table 5 shows that terminal value rankings of male and female students. In Table 5, there are statistically significant sex differences in the rankings of, family security, happiness, inner harmony, national security, salvation, self respect and wisdom values. In 7 out of 18 terminal values, sex differences were found to be significant. Surprising, in some value rankings where important sex differences were expected, either the differences were not obtained or were not in the expected direction. For example, It was assumed that the male students, would place more importance on values like a comfortable life, an exciting life and self-respect and girls on values like salvation, which they did not. Table 6. Instrumental value medians and composite rank orders for Turkish male and female students Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled Male (17) 5.6 ( 3) 11.3(12) 11.5(13) 11.6(14) 6.6 ( 5) 9.9 ( 9) 10.6(11) 2.9 ( 1) 13.4(16) 3.1(2) 8.7 ( 8) 6.5 ( 4) 10.5(10) 17.1 (18) 11.7(15) 6.7(6) 8.3 ( 7) Female (17) 5.1(3) 11.2 (12) 10.5(10-11) 13.3(15) 6.9(6) 10.5(10-11) 11.7(13) 3.2 ( 2) 13.95(16) 2.4( 1) 7.9 ( 7) 5.9(4) 8.1(8) 17.5(18) 12.7(14) 6.5 ( 5) 8.7 ( 9) P Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. Table 6 gives ratings related to instrumental values. Here too, only in 7 values out of 18, significant sex differences ate observed. These are values like ambitious, cheerful, clean helpful, independent, loving and polite. The way the girls rank independent higher than the boys appears to be a discrepancy with the values of traditional female role.

10 22 FATMA BAŞARA In U.S.A. Rokeach (p ) found 12 significant sex differences out of 18 terminal values. In Turkish sample, the number of values which give significant sex differences are comparatively fewer (7 out of 18). This finding can he explained by the fact that the Turkish sample consists of College students while Rokeach used a national respesentative sample. In the Turkish sample, especially in female college students there is definite change in the traditional gender roles. The majority of these girls have accepted equal rights and common values with men. Undoubtedly as suggested by the result of other studies (Başaran 1985), gender differences on the lines of traditional value systems appear very clearly as the females with lower education are included in the sample. Generational Differences in Values Rankings: A lotal of students were selected from DTCF students in order to investigate the differences between generations in values. The same value scale applied to these students and their parents. The median rankings and composite rank orders of terminal value data are given in Table 7. Table 7. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for different generations A comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love ational security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Youngs 13.8(15) 15.0(17) 6.8(7) 9.5(10-11) 13.0(13) 7.8(8) 9.5(10-11) 6.5(6) 5.5(4) 5.0 (2) 5.3(3) 14.8(16) 13.2(14) 17.6(18) 4.5(1) 11.8(12) 6.2 (5) 8.2(9) Mothers 8.5( ) 16.1 (18) 9.5(13) 4.3(3) 14.7(16) 9.1 (12) 1.8(1) 7.2(7) 5.5(5) 5.0(4) 10.5 (14) 8.5 ( ) 15.0(17) 3.3(2) 8.2(8) 11.8(15) 6.5(6) 8.5( ) Gathers 8.8 (13) 16.5 (18) 5.8 (8) 3.0(3) 13.3 (16) 5.5(6-7) 2.1(2) 8.1 (11) 6.3(9) 5.3(5) 11.5(15) 8.5(12) 15.6(17) 2.0(1) 5.5(6-7) 9.3 (14) 6.5(10) 5.0 (4) Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. P

11 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS 23 The value rankings of a comfortable life, a world at peace, family security, mature love, national security, salvation and self-respect, showed remarkable differences (Students, their mothers and fathers.) Young people place more importance than their parents on freedom, mature love, pleasure and self-respect values, while the parents themselves prefer such values as a comfortable life, a world at peace, family security, national security and salvation. Table 8 shows the rankings of instrumental values for two generations: Table 8. Instruemntal value medians and composite rank orders for different generations Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled Youngs 15.9(17) 4.9(3) 11.5 (12-13) 8.5(9) 13.0(15) 8.2(8) 13.2(16) 11.5(12-1?) 5.0(4) 11.0(11) 2.5(1) 4.5(2) 6.9(6) 9.5(10) 17.8(18) 12.3(14) 6.8 (5) 7.9(7) Mothers 16.8(18) 5.5(2-3-4) 9.2(13) 7.5(8) 5.5(2-3-4) 10.5 (15) 6.0(5-6) 6.9(7) 2.5(1) 14.0 (17) 5.5 (2-3-4) 9.5(14) 8.5 ( ) 11.2(16) 8.8(12) 8.5( ) 6.0(5-6) 8.5( ) Fathers 12.0(18) 5.5(6-7-8) 8. (11) 5.5(6-7-8) 8.5(12-13) 5.5(6-7-8) 4.8(4) 7.5(9-10) 3.0(1) 10.5(15) 4.5(3) 11.5(16-17) 4.3(2) 11.5(16-17) 10.0(14) 7.5(9-10) 5.0(5) 8.5(12-13) Figures shown are median rankings and, in parantheses, composite rank orders. P As seen in Table 8 in the rankings of clean, forgiving, helpful, honest, independent and obident values, there are significantly different value rankings among these three groups. While the young subjects emphasize values like independent intellectual, loving, self-control, the parents emphasize more the values like obedient, honest, helpful, forgiving, clean, cheerful, and capable. We can easily assume that if the analysis are made on two groups, instead of three, then the clash of values between generations becomes more distinct and meaningful. /

12 24 FATMA BAŞARA Table 9. Terminal value medians and composite rank orders for difference generations A Comfortable life An exciting life A sense of accomplishment A world at peace A world of beauty Equality Family security Freedom Happiness Inner harmony Mature love ational security Pleasure Salvation Self-respect Social recognition True friendship Wisdom Youngs 13.8(15) 15.0(17) 6.8 ( 7) 9.5(10-11) 13.0(13) 7.8 ( 8) 9.5(10, 11) 6.5 ( 6) 5.5(4) 5.0 ( 2) 5.3 ( 3) 14.8(16) 13.2(14) 17.6(18) 4.5 ( 1) 11.8(12) 6.2( 5) 8.2 ( 9) Parents (13) 16.2(18) 7.5(9) 3.7 ( 3) 13.9(16) 8.5(11-12) 1.9( 1) 7.8(10) 6.2 ( 5) 5.1(4) 11.0(15) 8.5(11-12) 15.4(17) 3.0 ( 2) 7.0( 8) 9.8(14) 6.5 ( 7) 6.3 ( 6) P Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. Table 10. Instrumental value medians and composite rank orders for different genetations Ambitious Broadminded Capable Cheerful Clean Courageous Forgiving Helpful Honest Imaginative Independent Intellectual Logical Loving Obedient Polite Responsible Self-controlled Youngs 15.9(17) 4.9 ( 3) 11.5(12-13) 8.5 ( 9) 13.0(15) 8.2(8) 13.2(16) 11.5(12-13) 5.0 ( 4) 11.0(11) 2.5 ( 1) 4.5(2) 6.9 ( 6) 9.5(10) 17.8(18) 12.3(14) 6.8 ( 5) 7.9 ( 7) Parents (18) 5.5 ( 5) 8.8(13) 6.2 ( 6) 8.2(11) 6.3 ( 7) 5.2 ( 2) 7.0 ( 9) 2.7( 1) 13.5(17) 5.3(3-4) 10.5(15) 6.5 ( 8) 11.3(16) 9.1 (14) 8.0(10) 5.3(3-4) 8.5(12) P Figures shown are median rankings and, in parentheses, composite rank orders. Conclusions 1- Generally university students tend to rank such values as freedom, a world at peace, equality and self-respect among the top ranking values. Exciting life, pleasure, salvation, a world of beauty and national security are among the lowest ranking values.

13 THE UIVERSITY STUDETS In the hierarchical evaluation of students, there are common tendencies just as there are differences and similarities according to their cultural backgrounds. 3- It is an important and significant point that in this research done in Turkey, more than two thirds (2/3) of Turkish university students either ranked salvation as the 1st or the 18th in their evaluations. This might be taken as an indication of the presence of two divergent groups in Turkey, who tend to adopt opposite worldviews which are manifested in their attitudes and behaviour in a number of social issues. 4- Significant sex-differences are observed in the human value rankings, although, on the basis of traditional sex-roles, a greater number of significant value ranking differences were expected. We still maintain that this traditional pattern exists among the minimally educated or uneducated people in Turkey. 5- The generational differences are clearly observed in the hierarchical rank-ordering of values by the students themselves and their parents. References Çileli, Meral: Gençlik Değerleri Üzerine bir Araştırma Ana Yayıncılık, Feather,.T.: Values in education and Society ew York. Basic Books, Rokeach, M.: The ature of Human Values, Mac Millan Co. ew York, 1973, p Rokeach, M. and Sandra, J.: Ball Rokeach. Stability and Change in American Value Priorities, , American Psychologiet Vol. 44, o: May Sing LAV.: The Value Orientations of Chimese University Students in Hong Kong, International Journal of Peysychology 23 (1988),