Abstract
The academic performance of 24 academically accelerated students (mean age at matriculation = 14 years) was compared with the of two groups of college students averaging four years older: 24 matched to the accelerants on pre-entry academic aptitude test scores (or "readiness"), and 24 National Merit Scholars. Accelerated students earned cumulative grade point averages comparable to those earned by National Merit Scholars and significantly high than those earned by university students matched on pre-entry aptitude tests scores. Accelerated students rated the importance of academic characteristics higher than did the students matched on pre-entry scores and they were more satisfied with the academic environment of the university than either comparison group. Implications of the results are briefly discussed.

Introduction
Since 1977, the Early Entrance Program (EEP) at the University of Washington has provided for the matriculation of junior high school age youngsters judged to be essentially ready for university level two (Robinson, 1983; Robinson & Robinson, 1982). These students, chosen for their exceptional ability and high motivation, have ranged in age at matriculation from ten to fourteen years. By Fall, 1983, ten such markedly accelerated students had graduated with bachelor's degrees and proceeded to the graduate schools of their choice (at a mean age of 17.2 years). Obviously, EEP students are somewhat distinct from other intellectually gifted students (Robinson, 1981), and generalizations from this report must be made with utmost caution.

Founded by the late Halbert B. Robinson, the EEP is predicated on the educational philosophy of the "optimal match," the well-accepted principle that learning is likely to be most effective when the learner is provided a challenge, neither too easy to promote real growth nor too hard to be mastered (Hunt, 1961). The essential elements of the EEP are careful selection of students, sufficient numbers of participants to provide a "peer group," structured and unstructured group meetings during at least the first year of full-time university involvement, a lounge to use as "home base," and continued support through the provision of counseling.

Since 1980, entry has occurred through a one-year Transition School on the campus, which provides preparatory education in conjunction with which the students gradually increase their load of university work. EEPers live with their families for at least two years, and many do so until graduation, though others have moved into a variety of group living situations as juniors and seniors.

Since the EEP represents so radical a departure from the "age-graded educational lockstep," it must be evaluated carefully. The present paper presents one aspect of that evaluation, namely, a comparison of the academic performance of the radical accelerants with classmates who entered the university of Washington at the customary age. Such a comparison bears directly on the issue of whether acceleration detracts from the optimal match by presenting a challenge that is too difficult to master. While such comparisons have been presented before (Daurio, 1979), subject samples have typically been less accelerated, selectively chosen to be mathematically talented, or lacking comparison groups, or comparisons have been limited to those slightly above average intellectual ability.

A few cases of persons who have accelerated their college educations by three or more years have been given detailed consideration (e.g., Montour, 1976,1977), but only Stanley and Benbow (1983) have collected what might be considered a representative group of markedly accelerated students and examined their academic and career progress. Stanley and Benbow's report conclusively documented that, as a group, the 32 students who had graduated from Johns Hopkins University before age 19 experienced outstanding success, academically at the undergraduate level, and in subsequent scholarly careers.

The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) (Keating, 1976; Stanley & Benbow, 1983; Stanley, Keating & Fox, 1974) has also made a serious attempt to assemble large samples of accelerants, but the majority of SMPY subjects are accelerated by fewer than three years. These and other studies have found moderately accelerated students to be perform at least as well as, and often better than, nonaccelerated, older classmates on both academic and nonacademic measures (Daurio, 1979; Eisenberg & George, 1979).

Ideally, one would like to compare accelerated students with equally bright students who follow the traditional high school route, presumably with lesser academic challenge but with the greater social and experiential "seasoning" often assumed to take place there. Unselected college age students are, because of their lower intellectual ability, less appropriate controls. Yet, other exceptionally bright students who have elected to pursue the age-dictated educational path are difficult to identify during high school and experience considerable delay before earning college grades.

We are following the progress of students who qualified for the EEP but elected not to join. In the interim, the academic progress of the EEP students has been compared with that of two groups of University of Washington students who entered the university at the customary age. One group consisted of students matched for pre-entry scores on a test of academic aptitude. The other group consisted of National Merit Scholars who, as a group, have demonstrated exceptional intellectual ability and career progress (Blumenfeld, 1966; Holland, 1959,1960a, 1960b; Nichols & Astin, 1966; Watley, 1969).

Academic data are imperfect predictors of learning, higher mental processing, or career performance (Dawes, 1975; Dressel, 1978; Hoyt, 1965; Huntley, 1976), but they are salient features of student life and critical determinants of options for graduate study. We recognize the important of assessing the impact of acceleration on other areas of students' lives (Chickering, 1981; Perry, 1981; Torbert, 1981; Weathersby, 1981). Data relevant to psychosocial adjustment and psychosocial development of the EEP students and comparison groups are reported elsewhere (Janos, Sather, & Robinson, 1983; Robinson & Janos, in press). In brief, those data indicate that EEP students compare favorably with older college students and with National Merit Scholars in general psychological adjustment as measured by personality inventories and in reported parent and peer relations. They evidence development of moral judgment comparable to that of National Merit Scholars, and are, in this respect, significantly more "mature" than the college students matched for pre-entry academic aptitude scores.

Method Subjects
EEP applicants are considered for admission only if they are no older than 14. They first take the Washington Pre-College Test (WPCT) (Noeth, 1978), which is comparable in form and function to the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), provides estimates of SAT scores, and describes strengths in specific verbal, quantitative, spatial, and mechanical reasoning content areas. The test is required of Washington State residents who apply to four-year college and is ordinarily taken one year before college entry. Norms for the test are based on students who actually enter four-year colleges in Washington State.

EEP applicants who score above the 50th percentile in both verbal and quantitative composites, and above the 85th percentile on one or the other, are invited to proceed with the application process. They are asked to present evidence of high academic achievement and letters of reference from teachers. They are also interviewed several times, along with their families, to obtain information about their out-of-school activities, motivation for applying, and home support for this step. Students accepted into the EEP typically begin to take university courses shortly thereafter.

None of the EEP subjects recruited for the present project had participated in the Transition School, which came into existence in 1980. Although an additional year of schooling is usual for those who take the WPCT near the end of their high school careers, most of the EEP students had enrolled shortly after taking the test. Several had spent one or more quarters (but not more than a year) as part-time university students and, concurrently, part-time middle-school students, before beginning full-time studies at the University of Washington. Some had also participated in a special, fast-paced mathematics class.

Several students marginally associated with the EEP were not invited to participate in this study. Three students had enrolled in university courses for more than one quarter, but for one reason or another had elected to return to high school. Ten students had sampled university courses, usually during the summer quarter. The academic performance of these 13 students, whose registration for UW courses before the age of 15 was not followed by accelerated full-time involvement in university level work at the UW or elsewhere, is not reflected in this paper.

The subjects participating in the present investigation included 24 markedly accelerated students (EEPers ), 13 girls and 11 boys, who registered for their first UW course before the age of 15. Their mean age in September of the year of their first completed university course was 13.96 years (s.d. = 1.17). Of the 28 students who fit the criteria described, 4 declined to participate in the study. The grade point average of these students (mean = 3.41; range = 3.04 to 3.67), while not included in the computations reported subsequently, was identical to that of the balance of accelerated students.

The EEPers were compared with 24 student (REGS) who had entered the University of Washington between 17 1/2 and 18 1/2 years of age (mean = 18.27 years; s.d. =.33). On the basis of information in their admissions files, the REGs were matched individually with the EEPers for pre-entry achievement on the WPCT Verbal Composite (VC) and Quantitative Composite (QC) scores. Where several potential subjects were available, the REG subject with the closest higher WPCT composite scores was selected. In addition, the REGs were individually matched to EEPers by sex, year of UW entry d, when possible (N = 18), high school catchment area as a rough control or socio-economic and cultural background.

Although the EEPers were matched with the REGs on "readiness" for university work, the differences between the two groups in the ages at which the WPCT scores were earned suggested important intellectual differences. Consequently, a second comparison group was recruited consisting of 23 University of Washington National Merit Scholars (NATS) matched to EEPers by year of entry to the UW and sex. (Only one NAT female had entered the UW during 1977-1978, a period during which two accelerated females matriculated.) Mean WPCT scores and estimated SAT equivalents for the EEPers, REGs, and NATs are presented in Table I.

Table 1
Washington Pre-college Test Scores, Including Derived Estimates of Scholastic Aptitude Test Scores, for Early Entrance Program Student (EEPers), Regular-Age UW Students (REGs), and National Merit Scholars (NATs)

Instruments
The Concept Mastery Test (CMT) (Terman, 1956) provided a current estimate of the vernal ability differences among the groups. This untimed test was developed by Lewis Terman for his longitudinal study of gifted adults. It consists of 790 difficult synonym-antonym and analogies items and is described in the manual as "suitable for college juniors or seniors and for graduate students" (Terman, 1956, p. 3). The CMT has been utilized in several studies of gifted individuals (Ogburn & Colangelo, 1978; Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974). It is designed to assess an individual's ability to deal with abstract ideas at a high level rather than any specific instructional content commonly presented in college or graduate school. It is, in fact, heavily dependent on vocabulary knowledge and length of formal education (Terman, 1956).

From subjects' college transcripts, the number of credit hours and cumulative grade point averages (GPAS) were analyzed. In addition to these indices of academic performance, a questionnaire was devised to assess students' perceptions of their university experience. Students were asked to rate, on a five-point scale, the importance of five characteristics of the academic environment (i.e., intellectual level of offerings, pace of instruction, content. areas of interest, faculty attitudes about achievement, time for interaction with faculty). They were then asked to rate their satisfaction with these aspects of their university experience.

Results
Sex differences were found on only one variable. In a Group X Sex analysis of variance, females attained a higher mean on the stimulated SAT V (Mm 614; s.d. = 69) than males (M = 552; s.d. = 94; F = 6.38; d = (1.65); p =.001). Because there were no significant main effects for Sex, nor an Sex X Group interaction effects on any of the other variables, all other analyses were based upon the combined sample of males and females.

There were no significant differences among the groups in the number of university credits earned (F = .276; df = (2. 65); p = .76), implying that the differences in academic performance among groups (see below) were not due to systematic differences in size of course loads. It is possible that differences in course selection accounted for some of the differences later described, but analysis of transcripts at this level of detail was beyond e scope of this study. Among the EEPers, nine students were majoring in engineering, computer science, or the natural sciences; eight in the humanities and social sciences; and seven were undeclared at the time of data collection. All EEP students had completed or were making satisfactory progress toward meeting the University's course distribution requirements, indicating that accelerants were not "playing to" a narrow range of academic talent.

There were significant differences among groups on the CMT total score (F = 18.75; df (2.59); p < .0001) and on cumulative, GPA (F = 10.464; df (2.59); p =.0003). In both instances, the mean for REGs as substantially lower than means for the two other groups. In paired t-tests, EEPers scored significantly higher than REGs on the CMT (t = 4.45; df= 21; p < .001) d on cumulative GPA (t = 4.04; df= 23; p = .001). A tendency for NATs to be superior to EEPers appeared on the CMT (t = 1.61; df= 46; p = .08). The Newman Keuls test isolated the REGs as a group distinct from the others on both CMT and cumulative GPA, verifying that the t-tests were not capitalizing on chance. Table 2 displays these findings.

The importance assigned by students to certain academic characteristics provided partial insight into the findings just presented. In these analyses, three EEPer-REG pairs had to be dropped due to incomplete data; three NAT protocols were also incomplete or incorrectly completed.

Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Variables for Early Entrance Program Students (EEPers), Regular-Age University Students (REGs), and National Merit Scholars (NATs)

EEPers rated the importance of academic characteristics (t=2.32; df = 20;p= .031) and satisfaction with the academic environment provided by the university (t = 3.12; df = 20; p = .005) higher than did match d REGS. EEPers were similar to NATs in rating. The importance of academic variables (t = .08; df= 40; p = .688), but EEPers were significantly more satisfied with the academic environment provided by the university (t = 2.25; Of= 40; p = .0 8). Table 3 presents these data.

Discussion
The 24 academically accelerated students have demonstrated very satisfactory academic progress. Their performance, as reflected by cumulative grade point average, exceeded that reported for the University at large and that of the comparison group of older students matched for scores on the UW entrance examination. In number of credits earned and cumulative grade point average, their status was comparable to that of the National Merit Scholars, a highly select group of intellectually able university students. Their MT scores, reflecting growth of vocabulary and ability to handle abstract verbal concepts, substantially exceeded those of the students with whom they had previously been matched for verbal WPCT composite scores, although there was a tendency for National Merit Scholars to score even higher. Accelerated students assigned higher ratings to the importance of academic characteristics of the University than did traditional age students, and they reported greater satisfaction with their academic environment than did either comparison group.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings of Academic Characteristics by Early Entrance Program Students (EEPers), Regular-Age University Students (REGs), and National Merit Scholars (NATs)

These results suggest that, under propitious circumstances, certain students who matriculate before the age of 15 can perform well academically at the university level and report satisfaction with its intellectual challenge. This study replicates, with a younger sample having a wider range of superior intellectual abilities, previous work at Johns Hopkins University (Keating, 1976; Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974) and elsewhere (Daurio, 1979; Fund for the Advancement of Education, 1957; Pressey, 1949; Ward, 1950). That the finding is not regarded as common knowledge is probably due to the fact that young adolescents are rarely found in university settings, regardless of their ability to succeed.

Several caveats are in order. First, our conclusions are based upon 24 accelerated students, only 17 of whom have completed their undergraduate educations. These 17 it should be noted, have all enrolled in the graduate programs of their choice. Second, the possibility remains that the academic achievement of students who were equally qualified for early entrance but chose to proceed with high school will, because of that additional "seasoning," eventually attain academic goals superior to those of the EEPers. Third, this study made no attempt to address variables indicative of how successfully a liberal undergraduate education had been achieved with any of the student groups - EEPers, REGS, or NA TS. This is a weakness we share with previous studies of markedly accelerated students, and an issue future investigators would do well to address.

Very early college admission is certainly not appropriate for every exceedingly bright student. The criteria for admitting a youngster at age 14 or below to full time participation in a university community include more than evidence of high ability and school achievement, although these factors are basic to such a decision (Robinson, 1983; Robinson & Robinson, 1982). For appropriate candidates provided with skilled support, this study high scholastic achievement, positive attitudes toward education, and subsequent entry to first-rank graduate programs. Academic acceleration to the university level, even radical acceleration, when carefully undertaken in a supportive setting, may, we believe, be considered one among an array of viable options for the very precocious adolescent.

References

Blumenfeld, W.S. (1966). Some characteristics of finalists in the 1966 National Achievement Scholarship Program. NMSC Research Reports, 2(4).

Chickering, A.W. (Ed.). (1981). The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Daurio, S.P. (1979). Educational enrichment versus acceleration: A review of the literature. In W. C. George, S. J. Cohn & J.C. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the gifted. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Dawes, R.M. (1975). Graduate admissions variables and future success. Science, 187,721-723.

Dressel, P.L. (1978). Handbook of academic evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

Eisenberg, A., & George, W. (1979). Early entrance to college: The Johns Hopkins experience. College and University, Winter, 109-118.

Fund for the Advancement of Education. (1957) They went to college early. New York: Research Division of the Fund.

Holland, J.L. (1959). The undergraduate achievement of National Merit Scholars and Certificate of Merit Winners. Bulletin if the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 43, 190-192.

Holland, J.L. (1960a). The achievement aptitudes, and personalities of National Merit Scholars and Certificate of Merit Winners. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals, 44, 100-104.

Holland, J.L. (1960b). A comparison of Nation Merit Scholars and Certificate of Merit Winners. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals.44, 140-142.

Hoyt, D.P. (1965). The relationship between college grades and adult achievement: A review of the literature. American College Testing Program Research Reports, No.7.

Hunt, J. McV. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald. Huntley, J.F. (1976). Academic evaluation and grading: A analysis and some proposals. Harvard Educational Review, 46(4),612-631.

Janos, P., Sather, K., & Robinson, N. (1983). The performance of students in a program of extraordinary acceleration on a development scale of moral judgment. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Keating, E.P. (Ed.). (1976). Intellectual talent: Research and development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Montour, K.M. (1976). Three precocious boys: What happened to them? Gifted Child Quarterly, 20. 173-179.

Montour, K.M. (1977). William James Sidis : The broken twig. American Psychologist, 32(4), 265-279.

Nichols, R.C., & Astin, A. W. (1966). Progress of the Merit Scholars: An eight-year follow-up. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 44, 673-686.

Noeth, R.J. (1978). Washington Pre-College counselor's guide. Seattle. W A: Washington Pre-College Testing Program.

Ogburn, M., & Colangelo, N. (1978). Test performance of superior students on the Concept Mastery Test: 1965-1976. Gifted Child Quarterly, 23(1), 79-84.

Perry, W.G. (1981). Cognitive and ethical growth: The making of meaning. In A. W. Chickering (Ed), The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1981.

Pressey, S.L. (1949). Educational acceleration Appraisal and basic problems. Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, No. 31. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.

Robinson, H.B. ( 1983 ). A case for radical acceleration: Programs of the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Washington. In C.P. Benbow & J.C. Stanley (Eds.), Academic precocity - Aspects of its development. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Robinson, H.B. (1981). The uncommonly bright child. In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The uncommon child. New York: Plenum.

Robinson, N., & Janos, P. (in press). The psychosocial adjustment of students in a program of marked academic acceleration. Journal of Youth and Adolescence.

Robinson, H., & Robinson, N. (1982). The optimal match: Devising the best compromises for the highly gifted student. In D. Feldman (Ed.), New directions for child development: Developmental approaches to giftedness and creativity (No. 17). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Stanley, J., & Benbow, C. (1983). SMPY's first decade: Ten years of posing problems and solving them. Journal of Special Education, 17(1), 11-25.

Stanley, J., Keating, D.P., & Fox, L. (1974). Mathematical talent. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Terman, L.M. (1956). The Concept Mastery Test manual. Form T New York: Psychological Corporation.

Torbert, W.R. (1981). Interpersonal competence. In A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modern American college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Ward, F.C. (Ed.). (1950). The idea and practice of general education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Watley, D.J. (1969). Career progress: A longitudinal study of gifted students. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 16,100-108.

Weathersby, R.P. (1981). Ego development. A. W. Chickering (Ed.), The modem American college. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Permission Statement

Copyright material from Gifted Child Quarterly, a publication of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), www.nagc.org . This material may not be reproduced without permission from NAGC.

This article is provided as a service of the Davidson Institute for Talent Development, a 501(c)3 nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted young people 18 and under. To learn more about the Davidson Institute’s programs, please visit www.DavidsonGifted.org.