AN ANALYSIS 9F STUDENT SUBCULTURES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TI‘msls for II“: Dagmar OI EcI. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Donald Van Adams 1965 LIBRARY \xxxmuxxxxxmmgm ; Wm University This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Analyses of Student Subcultures at Michigan State University presented hg Donald Van édams . J: 7. tr 4‘ has been accepted towards fulfillment _ of the requirements for Ed .D. degree in Education y. //f. , i {L/ 1 Date fl'Zy'é’fi— 0-169 '6 tan; isms: I‘lv‘x-Ti hr‘ ‘ it use?" .. 17.: ‘_ - .3," ..‘ § :- .-._ «fitmql ' “ ' "w n ’ ' ~ (.4436 g... e y ”I “.l ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT SUBCULTURES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY by Donald Van Adams The Problem The general problem of this study was to examine some of the influences an institution of higher education may have, over a four year period, on the students enrolled at that institution. If we are to understand the problems of under- graduate education and the influences that an institution of higher learning has on its students, we must inspect all facets of the University as it relates to the student culture and institutional environment. There is need to study and understand the socialization procesSes by which students identify, interact, and integrate their experiences with the mission of the University. It is the attempt of this re- search project to study the subculture of undergraduate stu- dents on the assumption that the interactions of students with one another exert considerable influence on the nature and extent of the total educational process. 1 Donald Van Adams Theory To study the influences of an institution of higher education upon its student body a theoretical framework for the study is needed which will encompass a diverse student population. The theoretical framework for this study has its foundation in the sociological research done by Martin Trow. Trow was the first to distinguish four student subcultures on the campus, and he subsequently named them the vocational, the academic, the collegiate and the nonconformist. From his research Trow determined that these subcultures emerged from the combination of two variables: the degree to which students are involved with ideas; and the extent to which they identify with their college or university. Epsign and_Procedures The sample for this study was drawn from 535 stu— dents, the total number of second-term male students who entered South Case Residence Hall at the beginning of Winter Term, 1962. South Case Hall was the first coeducational residence hall and the first living—learning residence hall on the Michigan State University campus. Usable data were collected from 260 students or eighty per cent of the total number of students available. .After 230, or nearly ninety Donald Van Adams per cent of the students had completed the College Experience Inventory, a stratified, random sample of twenty-eight stu- dents was selected for interviews. A memorized interview guide was used for the interviews. The data for this study were analyzed according to the student's present subculture identity. The students were selected for the four subcultures on the basis of their responses to questions on the College Experience Inventory. The College Experience Inventory provided specific infor— mation pertaining to marital status, parent's education, residence while at the University, size of community where student had spent most of his life, college major, parent's occupation, perceptions of undergraduate education, re- action to the living-learning residence hall, and subculture identity. University records were checked for grade point average, rate of progression through Michigan State Uni- versity in four years (credits earned at the end of Winter Term, 1965), and College Qualification Test-Total Score. The statistical techniques used in this study were the chi- square non-parametric test and simple analysis of variance. Findings and Conclusions The present subculture identity of the student was the independent variable for the study. Over fifty per cent Donald Van Adams of the students selected as their present subculture identity the collegiate subculture; twenty-six per cent chose the vo- cational subculture; twelve per cent chose the academic sub- culture and ten per cent chose the nonconformist subculture. -As the students in this study recalled his freshman subculture identity, fifty-two per cent of the students se- lected the vocational subculture; eighteen per cent selected the academic subculture: twenty-six per cent selected the collegiate subculture; and four per cent selected the non— conformist subculture. When asked to select the most ideal subculture identity; forty-three per cent of the sample selected the collegiate subculture. The academic subculture was chosen by thirty per cent of the students and the vocational sub- culture and the nonconformist subcultures followed with twenty-one per cent and six per cent of the sample respeCtively. In describing the most typical subculture identity of Michigan State University students, fifty-five per cent of the sample selected the collegiate subculture. Thirty— five per cent of the sample saw the typical Michigan State University student belonging to the vocational subculture. Seven per cent of the sample thought the most typical sub- culture of Michigan State University students was the aca- demic subculture while three per cent selected the noncon— formist subculture. Donald Van Adams Differences in mean grade point average, parents education, size of community where student had spent most of his life, rate of progression through college, and socio— economic status did not differ significantly among the four subcultures. Significant differences were found in place of residence at the beginning of the students' third year at the University, academic major and academic ability, marital status, subculture identity selection and the individuals or experiences which altered or modified attitudes, values, interests and beliefs. The experiences and individuals within the living— group were identified fifty-four per cent of the time as the influence which was most profitable to the student. As the students reviewed their living—learning residence hall ex- perience, they were highly in favor of the coeducational as- pect of the hall, highly in favor of the all-freshman aspect of the living unit, and were greatly impressed with the aca- demic proqram in the residence hall. Information obtained from the interviews generally supported the findings of the questionnaire used for this study. AN ANALYSIS OF STUDENT SUBCULTURES AT MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY BY Donald Van Adams A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION College of Education 1965 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer is deeply indebted to many people for their help and assistence during the writing of the thesis and the total doctoral program. Dr. Walter F. Johnson, Chairman of the Guidance Committee, has been an inspiration in many ways. During his absence from campus this academic term, Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker has worked closely and carefully with the writer for the completion of the writing of the thesis. Dr. Nonnamaker has given unselfishly of his time to motivate and challenge the writer to his best efforts. .Appreciation and acknowledgement is also extended to Dr. Edward Blackman and Dr. Irving Lehmann. Not only have they been contributing members of the guidance committee but both have significantly contributed to the writer's knowledge and respect for the entire field of higher education. Dr. Orden Smucker, as the minor area committee member, was help- ful in planning the sociological emphasis of the doctoral program and also contributed to the planning of the research thesis. .In Dr. Johnson's absence it was left to Dr. James Costar, Department Chairman, to be sure the final deadlines were met and to give direction through the last stages of the doctoral program. These efforts are also greatly appreciated. ii Special mention must be directed to the many students who completed the research questionnaires and donated their time to the interviews. Without their valuable contribution the entire study would have been impossible. Most of all, my wife Carol, and two sons, Gregory and Garth, deserve much praise for their patience and under— standing during the entire doctoral program. iii Chapter I. II. III} IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS THE PROBLEM Introduction Statement of Problem Sample Hypothesis Definition of Terms Limitations of the Study Theory Overview of the Study REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction Theory Living-Learning Residence Halls at Michigan State University Research Relevant to the Specific Hypothesis Summary DESIGN OF THE STUDY Sample Collection of the Data Instrumentation Reliability Analysis of the Data The Statistical Hypotheses Summary -ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction Subculture Identity Academic Ability Grade Point Average Rate of Progression through Michigan State University iv Page H 14 20 23 27 36 38 38 43 45 47 51 53 54 57 57 57 66 70 72 Chapter College Major Place of Residence Reaction to Living-Learning Residence Hall Undergraduate Education Experiences Discussion of Undergraduate Experiences Parents Education Socio-Economic Status Size of Community Marital Status Sequence of Events—-Freshman to Senior Year Interviews General Reaction from Interviews Summary V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The Problem Theory Design and Procedures Findings and Conclusions Discussion Implications for Future Research BIBLIOGRAPHY . APPENDICES Page 74 76 82 86 93 96 99 101 102 103 104 111 112 113 113 114 115 119 125 132 136 142 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Comparison of College Qualification Test— Total Scores between Case Hall men and other freshman male students . . . . . . . . 39 2. Analysis of variance of mean differences for students in the study, students who were on campus but didn't reply to the questionnaire and students from the original population but who were not at Michigan State University during the 1964‘ 65 academic year on the College Qualifi- cation Test-Total Score and Grade Point Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3. PrOportion of freshmen classified as vo- cational, academic, collegiate and nonconformist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 4. Comparison of present subculture identity and freshman subculture identity with the important events described by the students that led to their present sub— culture identity and freshman subculture identity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 5. Frequency and prOportion of students' present subculture identity . . . . . . . . 58 6. Comparison of present subculture identity with freshman subculture identity . . . . . 59 7. Comparison of present subculture identity with ideal subculture identity . . . . . . . 61 8. Comparison of present subculture identity with the typical student subculture identity at Michigan State University . . . 62 9. Comparison of subculture identity with academic ability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 vi Table Page 10. «Analysis of variance of mean differences for the four subcultures on grade point average at the end of Winter Term, 1965 . . 7O 11. Comparison of subculture identity with grade point average . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 12. Comparison among the four subcultures in rate of progression through college . . . . 73 13. Comparison among the four subcultures of college major . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 14. Comparison among the four subcultures in place of residence, Fall Term, 1962 . . . . 77 15. Comparison among the four subcultures in place of residence, Fall Term, 1963 . . . . 78 16. Comparison among the four subcultures in place of residence, Fall Term, 1964 . . . . 79 17. Comparison among the four subcultures of the reactions to the academic experience of a living—learning residence hall . . . . . . . 82 18. Comparison among the four subcultures of the reactions to the all—freshmen aspect of a living—learning residence hall . . . . . . . 83 19. Comparison among the four subcultures of the reaction to the coeducational housing of a living-learning residence hall . . . . . . . 84 20. Comparison among the four subcultures with the most important or significant thing learned at college . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 21. Comparison among the four subcultures in the experience or activity which has been most profitable to the student . . . . . . . . . 89 22. Comparison among the four subcultures in the impact of Michigan State University . . . . 9O 23. Comparison of students' selections of the experiences of individuals which rein- forced their attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interests . . . . . . . . . . . 91 vii Table 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Comparison of students' selection of the most important individuals or experiences which modified or altered their attitudes, opinions, beliefs and interests Comparison among the four subcultures in father's education Comparison among the four subcultures in mother's education Comparison among the four subcultures with socio-economic status as measured by father's education . . . . Comparison among the four subcultures in size of community where student spent most of his life Comparison among the four subcultures in marital status viii Page 92 97 98 100 101 102 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. COLLEGE EXPERIENCE INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . 142 B. POPULATION OF STUDY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 C. LETTERS SENT TO STUDENTS ASKING FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY . . . . . . . . 152 D. INTERVIEW GUIDE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 ix CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM Introduction A question often raised by the academic community is: "What effect, if any, does the college experience have on students?" This question can be approached from many view- points, all of which depend on the individual's orientation to the problem. But, essentially, the problem still revolves around the basic objective that the university has set for itself. Numerous educators have spoken to the problem. Nevitt Sanford, for example, has remarked: The crisis in higher education is chronic. The great problem today is not essentially different from what it has been for a long time. It is how to do better the things that the colleges were intended to do; how to realize more fully, despite pressure from without and divided council within, the aim of developing the potentialities of each student.1 Defining the purposes of undergraduate education in American higher education as well as developing each indi- vidual to his fullest potential have commanded a high pri- ority on the list of educational needs in American education. lNevitt Sanford, "Higher Education as a Social .Problem," The American College, Nevitt Sanford, Editor (New ‘YOTk: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 19. The discussion of direction of undergraduate education and maximum individual deve10pment inevitably focus on the pressures resulting from larger enrollments, larger per— centages of high school graduates attending college, and hopefully more college graduates. The quantity of under- graduates to be educated, however, should not distract from the quality of the undergraduate education. Clark Kerr has translated the problem into several meaningful segments when he writes: The first problem of consequence is one which involves the improvement of the undergraduate instruction in the university. It will require the solution of many sub- problems. . . . How to treat the individual student as a unique human being in the mass student body; how to make the university seem smaller even as it grows larger; how to establish a range of contact between faculty and students broader than the one-way route across the lectern or through the television screen; how to open channels of intelligent conversation across the disciplines and divisions; and how to relate ad- ministration more directly to individual faculty and students in the massive institution. we need to de- centralize below the campus level to the Operating agencies. From this it is obvious that solving the problems of under- graduate education will not be easy. Each problem does not exist in isolation from other problems. The systematic method of gathering data and subjecting it to former methods of research no longer suffices. More valid methods of study- ing the influence of the academic experience for individual students must be developed. The Center for the Study of lClark'Kierr, The Uses of the University (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963), pp. 118- 121. Higher Education of the University of California at Berkeley, the western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, the Committee on Personality Development in Youth of the Social Science Research Council are just a few of the many organi- zations which have been developed for the expressed purpose of studying the specific problems of the undergraduate stu- dent and undergraduate education. The director of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education recently said: As "institutional research" by and about colleges and universities has increased, it has moved beyond the gathering of statistics on enrollments, space utili- zation, future needs for teachers and budget-related problems. Researchers have turned the spotlight of their inquiry increasingly on the more subtle social structures and processes that surround and effect the education which students receive. Although there has been increasing research by col- leges and universities and by organizations outside specific higher education institutions, too many of the value studies have categorized all students into a general, over-riding value orientation. The importance of individual differences appears to have been forgotten in these studies. Instead of considering the initial characteristics of each entering col— lege student, and the influences these characteristics have on value and attitude change, researchers have been content to look at "the college student." 1Robert H. Kroepsch, The Study of Campus Cultures, ed. Terry F. Lunsford (Boulder, Colorado: Western Inter— state Commission for Higher Education, 1963), p. v (Preface). Initial characteristics of students and character- istics of the colleges they select, however, are demanding increasing attention in research on higher education. Stu— dent characteristics as they interact with institutional characteristics directly produce the student culture and institutional environment. The climate for learning on any college campus is the outgrowth of the student culture and institutional environment. Edward Eddy had the following to say after he had visited a selected sample of institutions of higher learning: Parts of the environment may be positive, some neutral, and some obviously negative. we believe it is within the control of the colleges which shall be which.' And we believe further that the environment will never truly have a full impact on character growth until all of its components, large and small, important and relatively unimportant reinforce the best which the college has to offer. If we are to understand the problems of undergradu— ate education and the ability of a specific institution of higher education to meet the needs of its particular student enrollment, we must inspect all facets of the university. There is a need to study and understand the process by which students identify, interact and integrate their experiences with the mission of the university. For example, as we learn from this research we should be able to develop different experiences on the campus that will enhance a student's 1Edward D. Eddy, Jr., The College Influence on Stu- dent Character (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Edu- cation, 1959), p. 165. education so that his final characteristics will evidence the objectives and aims of the institution which he has selected. It will be the attempt of this research project to study the informal social environment or subculture of under- graduate students, on the assumption that the interactions of students with one another have considerable influence on the effectiveness of the college experience. Statement of the Problem The general purpose of this study is to examine some of the influences an institution of higher education may have, over a four-year period, on the students enrolled at that institution. Emphasis, in this study, is placed upon a particular sample of male students who were enrolled in the first living-learning residence hall at Michigan State University. To study the influences an institution of higher edu- cation may have upon its student body a theoretical frame— work is needed which will encompass a diverse student pOpu- lation. Research indicates that students attending large, state universities tend to View the purposes of higher edu— cation differently.1 It also indicates that students tend 1Burton Clark and Martin Trow, "Determinates of Col- lege Student Subcultures, The Study of College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research? (Berkeley, California: The Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1962), pp. 23— 35. (Mimeographed.) to select universities for different purposes.1 In this study these perceptions and purposes have been assigned to four student subcultures. These subcultures may well exert a strong influence which modifies or enhances higher edu- cation's impact upon student attitudes and values. Specifically, the purposes of this study are: (1) To identify some of the influences an institution of higher education has on student attitudes and values over a four-year period. (2) To identify different philosophies that students have for attending an institution of higher education and how these different philosophies lead to subcultures of students that may modify or enhance higher education's influence upon student attitude and values. (3) To examine students' attitudes about their experi- ences in an all-freshman residence hall and a living—learning residence hall. (4) To determine the nature of the student population en- rolled at a large, midwestern, land-grant university. (5) To determine the experiences and outcomes of member- ship in a particular subculture identity on the campus at a large midwestern, land-grant university. (6) To identify the student attitudes and values associ- ated with membership in a particular subculture. lBurton R. Clark, "College Image and Student Se- lection" (Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education), p. 1. (Mimeographed.) (7) To describe students who have identity with a par- ticular subculture. (8) To study all of the above from an adequate theoreti- cal framework within which a diverse student body can be studied. Sample The sample consists of male students who were second— term freshmen, Winter Term, 1962. The students were housed in South Case Hall, the first living-learning residence hall1 at Michigan State University. This sample of students was first administered the College Experience Inventory, lLiving-learning residence hall is the name given to a coeducational residence hall, with an instructional program for the students living in that residence hall and taught by instructors who have their offices in the residence hall. Students who reside in a living—learning residence hall usual- ly take two courses in that particular residence hall. These Courses are from a core of four courses that each undergradu— ate is required to take before he graduates from Michigan State University. Usually these courses are Completed during the students first two years at the university. 2This Inventory has been devised by this investi- gator for the purposes of this study. The College Experience Inventory contains questions prepared by the writer, from the Senior-Year Experience Inventory and College Student Question- naire, Part I. The Senior-Year.Experience Inventory was de- vised for C00perative Research Project No. 590, Critical Thinking, Attitudes, and Values in Higher Education. Per- xnission to use the items from the Senior-Year Experience Inventory was obtained from Dr. Irvin J. Lehman, Project .Director.' The College Student Questionnaire, Part I, was copyrighted in 1963 by Educational Testing Service, Princeton, .New Jersey. Permission for the use of pages 10-11 was ob- ‘tained from Dr. Francis Nulty of Educational Testing Service. This permission was obtained in a telephone conversation, January 15, 1965. which revealed their individual subculture identity. They were then asked to identify the college experiences or those individuals on the college campus that altered, modified, reinforced or stabilized their attitudes, values and sub- culture identity. After the subculture identity was es— tablished, a stratified random sample was selected and inter— viewed. The data from the interviews and questions from the inventory were interpreted to determine the influence of the living—learning residence hall program. Hypothesis From the statement of the problem it is possible to formulate a general hypothesis for this study. The general hypothesis is that there are significant differences among the vocational subculture, academic subculture, collegiate subculture and nonconformist subculture on the following variables: (A) marital status; (B) college grade point aver- age: (C) parents' education; (D) residence at the university; (E) size of the community where student spent most of his life; (F) college major; (G) rate of progression through col- lege; (H) aptitude for college work as measured by the Col— lege Qualification Test; (I) socio-economic status; (J) stu— dent perceptions of their undergraduate education; (K) re— .action to living-learning residence halls; (L) change in sub- <:u1ture identity. This general hypothesis will be restated irl research form in Chapter III. Definitions of Terms Throughout this study students are described in terms of four subcultures. These subcultures were determined from student responses to the College Experience Inventory. These subcultures are as follows: Vocational subculture (PhilOSOphy A on‘College~EXm- perience iInventory)--This philOSOphy emphasizes education essentially as preparation for an occupational future. Social or purely intellectual phases of campus life are relatively less important, although certainly not ignored. Concern with extracurricular activities and college tra- ditions is relatively small. Persons holding this philOSOphy are usually quite committed to particular fields of study and are in college primarily to obtain training for careers in their chosen fields. Academic SUbCUlture'(PhilOSOphy B on College Experi- ence .Inventory)-—This philosophy, while it does not ignore career preparation, assigns greatest importance to scholarly pursuit of knowledge and understanding wherever the pursuit may lead. This philOSOphy entails serious involvement in course work or independent study beyond the minimum required. Social life and organized extra-curricular activities are relatively unimportant. Thus, while other aspects of college life are not to be forsaken, this philOSOphy attaches greatest inqwmtance to interest in ideas, pursuit of knowledge, and cultivation of the intellect. 10 Collegiate subculture (PhilOSOphy C on College Ex- perience Inventory)--This philosophy holds that besides occu- pational training and/or scholarly endeavor an important part of college life exists outside the classroom, laboratory, and library. Extracurricular activities, living-group functions, athletics, social life, rewarding friendships, and loyalty to college traditions are important elements in one's college experience and necessary to the cultivation of the well-rounded person. Thus, while not excluding academic activities, this philOSOphy emphasizes the importance of the extracurricular side of college life. Nonconformist subculture (Philos0phy D on College Experience Inventory)--This philosophy is held by the stu- dent who either consciously rejects commonly held value orientations in favor of his own, or who has not really de- cided what is to be valued and is in a sense searching for meaning in life. There is often deep involvement with ideas and art forms both in the classroom and in sources, in the wider society. There is little interest in business or pro- fessional careers; in fact, there may be a definite rejection of this kind of aspiration. Many facets of the college-— organized extracurricular activities, athletics, traditions, the college administration——are ignored or viewed with dis- dain. In ShEEE? this philOSOphy may emphasize individual- istic interests and styles, concern for personal identity and, caften, contempt for many aspects of organized society. 11 Limitations and Scope of the Study The study is limited to a selected sample of under- graduate, male students who lived in the first living— learning residence hall at Michigan State University. Since this residence hall was also the first coeducational resi- dence hall on the Michigan State University campus, a great deal of attention was given to the students. The unusual amount of publicity and research that was directed at this student population their first year in South Case Residence Hall will necessarily limit the results of this study in that the students being tested may have developed much stronger relationships with university and fellow students. Some of the questions forced the students to recall information and experiences that happened four years ago. The study is thus limited to the accuracy of these perceptions. Subculture identity of the sample is described, but there is no attempt to predict the future identity selected, intensity of commitment to this subculture or prediction of behavior of any one individual in a subculture grouping. A cause and effect relationship between any of the variables found to be significant in this study is by no means in- ferred from the data. It is not the purpose here to describe behavior of students who have selected certain subculture identities. 12 The author served as the head resident advisor of South Case Residence Hall the first year of its existence. Though this appointment was for only one year, certain ac- quaintances resulted which might limit the validity of the results of this study. The results of this study should have applicability to administrators, faculty and staff on college and uni- versity campuses. It is assumed these parties would have an interest in understanding more about the college student sub- cultures on the college campus and how these relate to the students' education. Theory The theoretical framework of this study has its foundation in the sociological work done by Martin Trow. Al- though Trow's work will be the basis for the study, it is im- portant to state that much of this study has evolved from the writings of his associate, Burton Clark and especially Theodore Newcomb. Trow was the first to distinguish four student subcultures on the college campuses, and he subse- quently named them the vocational, the academic, the collegi- ate, and the nonconformist. From his research Trow de- termined that these subcultures emerge from the combination 0f two variables: (a) the degree to which students are in- volved with ideas, and (b) the extent to which they identify inith their college or university. A more detailed de- scuiption of Trow's theory will be found in Chapter II. Q Q" .- I.- v o 'IAA hh‘h .nn Dub \ A .'_: o ‘fl‘u- _:- cl... “:y 1.5- (I, D d D‘ n.- "' we. - b.,:. 13 Overview of the Study In this study certain undergraduate experiences of a selected sample of undergraduate male students were examined. These experiences are studied according to the present sub- culture identity of the student. Differences among the undergraduate experiences of the student in these subcultures are then described. To facilitate the process of research the undergraduate experiences are categorized into twelve areas. And finally, stability and change of the subculture identity and the undergraduate experiences of the student over a four-year period are described. In Chapter II the literature relevant to this study is reviewed. The design of the study is presented in Chapter III. vThe findings of the study are then reviewed in Chapter IV, and Chapter V presents the summary and conclusions. uyf ..- III ,..... . n-v .g. - ll) '1) “U '- 1' \g 5‘. .. on '1) CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The study of campus cultures had its earliest be- ginning in the 19th century when college historians compiled individual accounts of campus organizations, faculty-student relations, living arrangements, and extra—curricular activi- ties. At times these histories convey a negative impression of campus life, a good example being the riots and dis— turbances which provided a more than picturesque description of the campus culture. jDuring the nascent period of the American college few SOphisticated studies were undertaken with respect to the understanding of either the individual or the group. The preponderance of common sense terminology used by most of these historians reflected a superficial ap- proach to understanding the dynamics of student involvement. Ralph Tyler provides a concise and conclusive his- torical review of the study of campus cultures.1 He points Out that following WOrld War I there developed what was ‘ 1Ralph W. Tyler, "The Study of Campus Cultures," in Terry F. Lunsford (ed.), The Study of Campus Cultures (Berkeley: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1963), pp. 1-10. 14 15 called "the student personnel movement." This movement was led by people who were involved in the military psychological serVices. The founders of this movement strongly believed that the problems of the expanding colleges which developed after the first World War and the provisions for more varied educational programs could not be handled without psychologi— cal methods and knowledge in dealing with students. The stu- dent personnel movement emphasized the need for understand- ing the student as a whole person in dealing with his extracurricular life and his living arrangements, as well as his instruction. In Tyler's review of the doctoral theses written during this time (1920-1935) he discusses comparisons of drOp-outs with students who graduated, grades of fra- ternity and non-fraternity members and comparisons of par- ticipants and non-participants in various types of extra- curricular activities. In 1929 William H. Cowley, then at the University of Chicago, was asked to head the first division of student personnel research at the Ohio State University. His writings while at the university were representative of this pioneering period and showed evidence of his participation on the committee for student personnel of the American Council on Education and his editorship of the Journal of Higher Education. Graham Sumner, through his sociological ‘work, began to View student life as an important contribution to the total education of the student. His studies defined 16 the university image as seen by the students at that time, as well as the studbnts' purposes for attending the university. In Tyler's study he cites the depression as the prime reason for more students remaining in school than before. This was the turning point for comprehensive, systematic studies of youth that only research could answer. During the 1930's, Theodore Newcomb was to follow with his intensive study of Bennington College.l It was at this time that Newcomb develOped the very important concept of the mediating educational influence of the student peer group. Newcomb has provided a schematic diagram that illus- trates the interdependent influences upon final student characteristics.2 This diagram may be illustrated as follows on page 17. In this diagram the final characteristics of the stu- dents at any given university or collegezinaa combination of initial student characteristics and college characteristics interacting with the total students' experiences. Newcomb feels that little effort has been made to utilize these sub— cultures or to channel students into the areas that seem most likely to encourage growth and productivity, rather than 1Theodore M. Newcomb, Personality and Social Change (lbw York: The Dryden Press, 1943). 2Theodore Newcomb, "Student Peer-Group Influences," :in Sanford Nevitt (ed.), The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 472. 17 failure and departure.1 Thus it is that the kind of culture that the collegeStudent assimilates, given some choice, de— pends heavily upon the social organization of that college. Student cultures may be largely understood in terms of col- lective responses to problems commonly encountered. In insti- tutions of higher learning such decisions as intense partici- pation in athletics, joining a fraternity, and selecting a major field of study are made on the basis of the network of peer-cultures. One of the big questions, though, is whether or not the responses of the peer group are consistent with educational goals. INITIAL STUDENT ‘F——————"4> . COLLEGE CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS STUDENT EXPERIENCES (INCLUDING THOSE OF THE PEER GROUP) L’I FINAL STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS N ' lIbid., pp. 469-488. .c' ..v a 1 (I) 4-. F0- 5... IF. h uv.‘ (I) .u‘. "I. ”I” 18 Theodore Newcomb,l Leon Festinger,2 Prescott Lecky,3 James Coleman4 and David Reisman5 have discussed the need of the individual to maintain consistency within his own person- ality system. He must accept or reject new value systems as he sees them relating to himself. In the context of the aca— demic Setting this strain for consistency centers around the similarities and differences which intervene between the stu- dent's perception of the goal of higher education and his role within it, and more particularly how the college he has chosen fits within this perception. As the student relates his philosophy or perceptions of higher education to his individual needs, and as he selects certain parts of the com— munity or environment to strengthen or alter this perception, the student cannot avoid certain segments of the academic com— munity or intellectual environment. These segments become a reinforcement or a catalyst for change. Newcomb supports the theory that normative subsystems which emerge as a result of lTheodore M. Newcomb, Personality and Social Change (New York: The Dryden Press, 1943), pp. 155—156 and The Ac- guainggnce Process (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), p. 22. 2Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1957), p. l. 3Prescott Lecky, Self-Consistency: A Theory of Personality (Boston: The Shoestring Press, Inc., 1961), p. 152. 4James A. Coleman, The Adolescent Society (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1961). 5David Reisman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character, Anchor Book, Abridged Edition (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1953). 19 this strain could find support from peer-groups, parents, faculty, and other individual experiences.1 Talcott Parsons and Edward Shils observed that the various groups of which an individual is a member form a series of subsystems within his "total system of action."2 The commitment a student has to any one of these series of subsystems is determined by him. The diverse nature of the undergraduate student body and the complex nature of the aca- demic system demand that any given institution of higher education examine students' reasons for attendance. More recently Esther Rauschenbusch studied the campus culture and peer group influence at Sarah Lawrence College.3 Nevitt Sanford similarly did an extensive study at Vassar College.4 In addition there are the numerous publi— cations of the University of California's Center for the study lTheodore Newcomb, "Exploiting Student Resources," in Hall T. Sprague (ed.), Research on College Students (Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and Berkeley, California: The Center for Higher Education, December, 1960), pp. 6-21. 2Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, "Values, Motives, and Systems of Action," in Toward a General Theory of Action, Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (eds.), Toreh Book Edition (New York: Harper & Row, 1951), pp. 101-102. 3Esther Rauschenbusch and Lois Murphy, Achievement in the College Years; A record of intellectual and personal growth (New York: Harper, 1960). 4Nevitt Sanford, "Personality Development During the COllege Years," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. XII (1956), pp. 1—71. 20 of Higher Education, the Social Science Research Council and Nevitt Sanford's The American College.1 Pryor has reviewed over 30 of the more recent publications that discuss college subcultures.2 His summary statement describing the present research studies on the subcultures is as follows: Peer—group influence in college is now firmly en— trenched as a tOpic of major interest and concern in research in higher education. There is abundant evi- dence that diversified research is currently well underway, and will be rather steadily reported through organizations such as the American College Personnel Association, Social Science Research Council, College Entrance Examination Board, and the Center for the Study of Higher Education, among others. Although it is tiresome to read at every point in time that we are on the threshhold of great development, in virtually every sphere of human activity, that would seem the precisely appropriate appraisa130f the status of our knowledge of college peer groups. With the present status of the knowledge of college peer-groups in mind educators have begun to study the ele— ments that comprise the campus culture and have attempted to determine the variables that positively or negatively in- fluence college student peer-groups and college student cultures on the campuses of colleges and universities today. Theory The theoretical framework of student schultures 'within the larger campus culture is the focus of this study. lSee Bibliography. 2John J. Pryor, "Peer-Group Influence on the College Climate for Learning," The Journal of College Student Person- nel, Vol. V, No. 3 (March, 1964), pp. 163-167. 3Ibid. 21 For this study Martin Trow's theory of college students' sub— culture is used to study the undergraduate experiences of a selected sample of male students over a four—year period.1 The research related to peer-groups among college students has dealt primarily with their structure and internal pro- cesses and secondarily with their influence on members of the larger campus community. Also, little has been written on the social forces of the campus culture or the social forces of the large society which shape these peer-groups and subcultures. Concerning this, Clark and Trow have said that, "The college peer-group is the locus for a set of processes which intervene between the outcomes of college and the larger social systems which constitute the environment for higher education."2 Thus higher education cannot be divorced from the larger society of which it is a part. However, higher education has a distinctive social structure and culture. This social structure has a normative system with its own sanctions, rewards, punishments and well defined set of rules within which are found rights and obligations pe- culiar to the academic setting. Identifying student cultures allows us to focus on ‘their normative content instead of working with the formal lBurton Clark and Martin Trow, "Determinants of Col— .lege Student subcultures," The Study of College Peer Groups: Prcmlems and Prospects for Research, 1962. (Mimeographed.) 21bid., p. 2. 22 properties of informal associations among students. It is important to emphasize that in this study types of sub- cultures and not types of students, will be examined. How- ever, these subcultures are often described by characterizing their members. An individual student may be assigned to more than one of the subcultures available on campus; though, in most cases one of them will describe his dominant orientation. Trow has identified the dominant forms that student subcultures take on American campuses. As a first approxi- mation, he has distinguished four broad patterns of orien— tation toward college which give content and meaning to the informal relations of students. When these patterns of orientation define patterns of behavior, sentiment, and re— lationship, we can usefully think of them as subcultures. The names we have given to them are the collegiate, the aca— demic, the vocational, and the nonconformist.l These subcultures are fluid systems of norms and values which overlap and flow into one another on any par- ticular campus in ways that challenge us to distinguish them analytically. Yet, that effort, for all the violence it does to the complexity of university life, appears justified by the congruence of these types of students with observed reality, and by the light it sheds not only on student lIbid., pp. 3-8. 23 subcultures themselves, but on colleges as social organi- zations embedded in a larger social structure. Explaining this further, Trow has said: Each of these subcultures suffers from the imperson- ality of the mass campus in its own way: the col- legiates, in being permitted to insulate themselves against the values and ideas of higher education; the academics, in their loss of the critical encouragement and stimulation that they are most able to profit from; the vocationalists, in never having direct and per- suasive experience through a personal relationship of the rewards and challenges of human studies and the life of the mind; and the nonconformists, whose vitality and questing are allowed to waste themselves in trivial, meaningless, or self—destructive re- belliousness without being confronted and strengthened in a relationship with mature adults who share their interests. By applying Trow's theory of subcultures to an under— graduate student pOpulation we may study the socialization process of an institution of higher education. Living—Learning Residence Halls at Michigan State University For this study students from South Case Hall were chosen as they constituted the first students in a living— 1earning residence hall at Michigan State University. Michigan State University initiated living-learning residence halls in the Fall Term, 1961. It was the intention of these residence halls to take fullest advantage of the peer-group ‘ 1Martin Trow, "The Campus as a Context for Learning," Proceedings of the Forty-Sixth Anniversary Conference of the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators held in Detroit, Michigan, 1964. 24 influence to establish an environment or cultural influence that was conducive to the intellectual aims of the university. The living-learning program provided for a close student com- munity and similar curricula, thereby giving the students a commonality of attitudes and interests. In essence, smaller academic communities were built within the larger campus. Each of these smaller academic communities was established around the needs of the students who lived in that residential area or established around a curriculum in a particular area that would hOpefully serve students who lived or attended classes in that area. Con— cerning the educational value of such academic communities, Burton Clark and Martin Trow have written the following: It is worth re-emphasizing that the organization of the college as a community has profound effects on student life in ways that have been given too little consideration by administrators and too little study by scholars. The effective size of an institution can be reduced, even without a reduction of its abso- lute enrollment, by creating what are in effect dis- tinctive smaller communities within the larger organi- zation, communities which include both students and faculty which have a sense of identity, and above all whOSe members share interests and commitments which can be supported and furthered, rather than diluted and discOuraged, through the ordinary on-going re- lations of the members of the community. Such com- munities cannot be called into being by proclamation. They have to have structural definition and support, formal members, physical place for meeting and work- ing, and insulation against distracting and competitive interests and appeals. In short, these have to be genuine intellectual communities, rooted in residence halls and groups of departments, or in some other combination of structured interactions and shared intellectual interests. But little is known of the nature and determinants of student communities, and of the role which administrative action can play in 25 the creation of the best of them. Here, if anywhere a call for research is not mere ritual: the potential gains both for organizational theory and educational practice are very great. From these remarks it would appear that the concept of living-learning residence halls should provide ample edu- cational opportunities for the students who live there. Courses in the residence halls were limited to the {population of the hall. Students were somewhat homogeneous ssince they were predominately freshmen. These factors are cnompatible with Newcomb's postulates regarding peer-group in- ffluence and educational objectives: The formal group should be large enough to provide a range of selectivity based upon individual prefer- ences for companionship. but not so large that it will be improbable that most individuals will at least recognize each other. It is important, second, to take advantage of the fact that students' living ar- rangements provide the major single source of daily contact. Peer-group influence is most certain to be enhanced--for better or worse—-if there is a con- siderable overlap between membership in formal col- lege units and in living units. . . . The third con- dition has to do with instruction and faculty contact. It calls, again. for overlap--both with formal college- unit and with a living unit. The living-learning residence halls were an attempt tic: relate peer group influence to educational excellence. :IBXIaluation of the results of the living-learning residence 1'1alls was an important part of the preliminary planning for ._~___ 1Burton Clark and Martin Trow, "The Campus Viewed As gap Culture." in Hall T. Sprague (ed.), Research on College Stu- 4S§Lsapp§ (Boulder, Colorado: Western Institute Commission for JEifiigher Education and Berkely. California: The Center for the tludy of Higher Education), p. 122. 2Newcomb. "Student Peer-Group Influences," op. cit., b - 486. 26 these living units. The Evaluation Services at Michigan 1 State University was asked to perform this research task. The residence hall as a center for social science research is presently receiving increased attention in be- havioral science research, as is evident from the references A recent research conference on social science below . Imethods and student residences, held at the University of November 7, 1964, is but one Blichigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Esther Vreeland and Stanley King example of this interest. liaive done extensive research on the Harvard Houses as a part (>15 the Harvard Student Study.. The Harvard Student Study is Jo Ann El longitudinal investigation of undergraduate life. CFc>hnson has cited works by PaulIIeist, Theodore Newcomb, C. I1<>bert Pace, Donald Thistlethwaite, and George Stern as a SSC>ciological basis for assigning student housing arrangements by academic major . \ "Attitudes and Achievement of Case 1 LeRoy Olson, 1512311 Students, Winter Term, 1962," Office of Evaluation carvices, University College. Unpublished. This conference was sponsored'by the U.S. Office of Harlan Lane and :Eatiucation and the University of Michigan. ‘Cr<>hn Taylor, of the university of Michigan, coordinated the WOrking papers were distributed to the workshop <=<>nference. JE>Eirticipants for their review and study before the con- :E e rence convened . Stanley King and ESther Vreeland, Harvard Student' Specific information ~i§ilip§y, Unpublished Mimeograph Report. :Irfielating to this progect may be obtained from Stanley H. i "ng, Ph.D., Harvard Student Study, 75 Mt. Auburn Street, <:-‘-Eiltn‘bridge,Massachusetts. 4JO Ann Johnson, "Sociological Bases for Living— earning Residence Halls," Unpublished Mimeograph Report for it; 1‘11 chigan State University. 27 Harold Taylor has stated that the relationships among students in the residences are the greatest factors in their general attitude toward the college and toward themselves. Ruth Hill Useem pleads for experimental living- 1earning-caring units built around instant traditions such as international outlook; units oriented around science and ‘technology, units oriented around a characteristic of the stu- cient such as a unit composed of married students in which l)Cfih.husband and wife were full-time students; and an experi- nvental college oriented around the slow learner or achiever. Related Research To the best knowledge of the author the theoretical nn<3del used for this study has not been used for research £3:imi1ar to this study. For this reason the investigation ‘Vvias developed as a descriptive study. Some of the hypotheses, Stated in this study, can be reviewed with results of present 3research. The related research with respect to these hy— IPKDtheses appears in the following data interpretation. _ 1Harold Taylor, "Freedom and Authority on the Campus,‘ :111_Nevitt Sanford (ed.), The American College (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962) . 2Ruth Hill Useem, "A Sociologist Views Learning in College Residence Halls," Remarks prepared for delivery at ~the American Personnel and Guidance Association, April 13, 3L965; Minneapolis, Minnesota. 28 Subculture identity-~Benjamin Hodgkins, in a study in which he develops a theory of college subcultures, used Michigan State University for gathering his data. He found (using a crude education emphasis scale) that forty-three percent of the academic departments at this university were vocational in nature. Twenty-six per cent were vocational and academic and twelve per cent social and vocational. His findings support the position that a large, state—supported institution has its primary goal as vocational education. There is, however, variation in emphasis from one department to another within the same university setting. Hodgkins emphasizes that a content analysis technique, attempting to delineate the primary emphasis of a particular department recognizes that other goals may also be important to the de— partments considered. Thus, we expect that a large pro- portion of students come to the large state university look- ing for an education that has a vocational emphasis. Hodgkins also found that at Michigan State University the Social goal and total academic orientation of the university is emphasized to develop the "well—rounded" student. This Qbjective is evidenced in the following quotation from the university catalogue: "The University seeks in every way to Provide its students with a rich, well—rounded college 7, 1Benjamin Hodgkins, "Student Subcultures--An Analysis of Their Origins and Affects on Student Attitude and Value Change in Higher Education" (Unpublished Ph.D. €er cent were academic. Community where student lived most of life—-Research clited by Schwarzweller and others, indicates that rural and SSnnall town students tend to emphasize the vocational goal of h-igher education. \ 1Irving J. Lehmann and Paul L. Dressel, Critical' ~2Eflginking, Attitude, and Values in Higher Education. Final eaport of COOperative Research Project N. 590 (East Lansing, Michigan State University). 2H..K. Schwarzweller, "Value Orientations in Edu— ‘Czéitional and Occupational Choices," Rural Sociology, V01. 3'<3eetween the internalized values of the personality system Eirad the institutionalized norms of the social system. James Summs found congruence between the values of tllae student and those of his dominant pre-college and LE>J=esent reference groups to be an important variable in the \ lJames Coleman, The Adolescent Society (New York: “Elle Free Press of Glencoe,,l96l). 2James S. Coleman and Edward L. McDill, "The Social £3fizstem of the High School and Academic Aspirations and ‘ ‘CDJrientation," National Association of WOmenfs Deans and -§%¥9unselors Journal, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1 (Fall, 1964), pp. 10- '7. 3DuncanOsborn, "The Relationship of Personality Factors to Academic Achievement in College" (Unpublished 1551.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1963), Dissertation stracts XXIV; 3839, No. 9. 4Donald Whyte, "Social Alienation Among College E3tudents" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 5363), Presentation Abstracts XXIV; No. 9, 3875. 33 determinationtof academic achievement.1 "Non—intellectual" factors such as values and motivation play as important a role in determining academic achievement as factors which are purely "intellectualL" Parent's Education--Isabelle Payne found that atti- tude change and selected biographical factors revealed sig— nificant statistical relationships between groups of male students and parent's educational level.2 Results of the study indicate that factors most closely allied with change in beliefs and values are familial in nature, e.g. parents' education and father's occupation. ‘ Searles suggests that students perceiving a positive home climate will score higher on measure of selfwregard in terms of factors describing ones general adequacy as a person.3 Mental health factors are determinants in a col- lege student's academic aspirations. When a student per- ceives his home climate positively, he regards his intelli- gence, personality and mental health realistically. lJames Summers, "Values and Status Variables As De- terminants of Academic Achievement? (Unpublished dissertation, Emory University, 1962), Abstract XXIV, No. l, 423. 2Payne, 0p. cit. 3warren Searles, "The Relationship Between the Per- ceived Emotional Climate of the Home of College Students and Certain Variables in Their Functioning related to Self- Concept and Academic Functioning" (Unpublished dissertation, University of Maryland, 1963). 34 Trent found parents are a primary source of academic motivation.l Coleman and McDill found that the student's status in school contributes more to variations in his stated college plans than does either his father's or mother's level of formal education.2 Margaret Nolte found a positive relationship between amount of schooling of parents and per cent of off-spring at- tending college.3 Results of Joseph Kalista's research are inconclusive but indicate that students coming from homes where parents attended college differ from students coming from homes where neither parent had attended college.4 Outcome-of colleg§--Trent found the largest numbers Of college graduates consider the most important goal of col— lege as attaining knowledge and appreciation of ideas.5 ¥ lTrent, 0p. cit. 2Coleman and McDill, 0p. cit. . 3Margaret Nolte, "A Study of College Enrollment of Ii-I-gh School Graduates," National Association of WOmen's Deans ‘31161 Counselors, Vol. XXVIII, No. 1 (Fall, 1964), pp. 40-43. 4Joseph Kalista, "A Study of Parent's Education Level 1‘53 a Factor in the Planning Done for College by Superior High Sc311001 Students and Their Parents" (Unpublished dissertation, ea UniVersity of Wisconsin, 1963), Dissertation Abstract IV, No. 4, 1448. 5Trent, op. cit. 35 Donald Warwick suggests that a socialization model provides a comprehensive and effective approach to explain- ing change in attitudes and values among undergraduates.l The findings indicate that the social structure and culture of a community set the basic learning tasks for the new members, but the extent and direction of change will vary with the initial characteristics of the student and his inter— actions inside and outside the community. The findings also suggest that the degree of initial conformity to community expectations is a particularly important consideration in understanding the outcome of the socialization process. Academic major--The work cited by Pace',2 Stern,3 Heist4 and Thistlewaite5 indicates that there are certain 1Donald Warwick, "Socialization and Value Change in a College Community? (Unpublished dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1963). 2C. Robert Pace and George Stern, "An Approach to the measurement of Psychological Characteristics of College Environments," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XLIX (October, 1958), pp. 269-277. 3George Stern, "Environments for Learning," Tpp .Americah Collegg:i A Psychological and Social Inteppretation .Qf Higher Learning (ed.), Nevitt Sanford (New Yerk: Wiley, 1962), pp. 690-730. Also see "Student Values and Their Re- lationship to the College Environment," weStern Interstate Cbmmission for Higher Education, Research on College Students (ed.), Hall T. Sprague (Boulder, Colorado: The CommisSion, 1960), pp. 67-104. 4Paul Heist, "Implications from Recent Research on (Zollege Students," National Association of WOmen's Deans and igpunselors Journal, V01. XXII (April, 1959), pp. 116-124. 5Donald L. Thistlewaite, "College Press and Student ‘4Achievement,“ Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol.5L (October, 1959), pp. 183-191. Also see "College Press and ‘CManges in Study Plan of Talented Students," Journal of Edu- igational Psychology, Vol. LI (August, 1960), pp. 222-234. 36 characteristics of personality that are typical of persons in certain types of student cultures and academic fields and that certain types of student cultures tend to develop as a result. Summary Campus cultures have been studied for many years. Various stages of sophistication have accompanied this re- search. Recent studies indicate that students approach higher education with different orientations and different perceptions of the goals for higher education. The student's philOSOphy of education has been developed and supported or not supported by family, friends and acquaintances before going to college. When a student reaches the college campus, his behavior and his basis for decision—making are founded in his perceptions of educational goals and how these goals re— late to the college he is attending. The student's response to these goals is strengthened or reinforced by others in the academic community who share similar interests which emerge into a normative pattern of behavior that may or may .not be related to the larger normative pattern of the total college community. Taken together these subsystems or sub- <2ultures or orientations form the student culture found on 'the campus. Martin Trow's theory of subculture is an attempt to ESet forth a meaningful conceptual framework, within which 37 the effect of higher education upon attitudes and values may be assessed. It must apprOpriately utilize all the components of the campus culture to realize the outcomes of these goals and values. An attempt to maximize the educational influence of the student peer groups was one of the major reasons for the living-learning residence halls at Michigan State University. These living-learning residence halls were an attempt to in— crease student interaction with faculty and other students in classroom and out of classroom experiences. From the review of research relevant to the specific hypothesis, we can expect that the majority of students come to the university expecting an education that would lead to a specific vocational goal. Socio—economic status of parents, grade point averages, academic major and parent's education appear to be influenced by variables leading to a particular subculture identity. CHAPTER III DESIGN oF THE STUDY This chapter consists of six main sections,\vhich are the sample, the collection of the data, the instrumen- tation, the analysis of the data, the statistical hypotheses, and the chapter summary. Sample The sample for this study was drawn from the total number of male students who entered South Case Residence Hall for the beginning of Winter Term, 1962. Case Hall, as previously indicated, was the first coeducational residence hall and the first living-learning residence hall on the Michigan State University campus. North Case Hall, the women's living area of the coeducational residence hall, was opened for occupancy Fall Term, 1961. The residents of South Case Hall, second-term freshmen male students, moved from other men's residence halls at the beginning of Winter Term, 1962. The instructional program did not start until.the men moved into the residence hall, Winter Term, 1962, at which time there was a total of 535 students in South Case Hall. Of this number, approximately 326 students attended the Uni- versity during the 1964-65 academic year and were theo- retically available for this study. Of this group usable 38 39 data were collected from 260 students, or 80% of the total number of students available the entire year. (See Appendix B.) To determine how representative the sample drawn for this study is with other Fall Term, 1961, Michigan State Uni- versity freshmen male studentapopulation several comparisons were made. Ability and academic achievement comparisons1 were made between the South Case Hall freshmen and the all- university freshmen male students. The new freshmen.stu— dents in South Case Hall were quite similar to all freshmen students in regard to their total scores on the College Qualification Test (C.Q.T. Total Score). As a group, how- ever, Case Hall men had more homogeneous, slightly higher, total (C.Q.T.) scores than did all freshmen men. This is i1- lustrated in the following table: Table 1. Comparison of College Qualification Test--Total Scores between Case Hall men and other freshman male students. Range Quartile 1 Median Quartile 3 Case Hall Men 61-194 126.1 140.9 155.4 All Freshman Men 47-195 122.0 138.2 154.0 lLeRoy Olson, Case Hall Students: Their Character- istics and Initial Attitudes and Abstract, Attitudes and Achievement of Case Hall Students, Winter Term, 1962, Office of Evaluation Services, Michigan State University (un- published). March 6, 1962. 40 It is evident from the above table that the average College Qualification Test--Total Score was slightly higher at each quartile for the Case Hall men than for the all fresh- man men. The grade point average for South Case Hall new freshmen was slightly higher than the all~university fresh- man grade point averages at the end of Fall Term, 1961. The Case Hall men achieved a 2.28 grade point average while the all-University freshman men's average was 2.20. Accordingly, Case Hall men generally performed at a somewhat higher aca- demic level than comparable groups during Winter Term. Case Hall men had a 2.37, and all-university freshman male stu- dents a 2.33 grade point average. South Case Hall men moved to their new living quarters from the eight men's living units on campus at the beginning of Winter Term, 1962. Six of the residence halls were located in one area (Brody Group of Residence Halls), and two residence halls, in another area (Shaw Hall). Ap- proximately 20% of the students came from Shaw Hall and 80% from Brody Group of Residence Halls. In the Fall Term of 1961 one of the most serious in- conveniences for most freshman students was that they were assigned three to a room, rather than the conventional two per room. This is standard procedure at Michigan State Uni- versity when increased housing needs surpass the available two per room capacity. Getting away from a three-man room 41 situation was listed by students as the most important reason for leaving their present residence hall and moving tO South Case Hall. Also, students anticipated a better academic atmosphere in South Case Hall, and they had an Opportunity tO select more desirable roommates. Another area for review was the comparison Of stu- dents completing the questionnaire and the remainder Of the population on scholastic ability and academic achievement. The majority Of the total population (all students living in Case Hall, Winter Term, 1962) can be divided into three groups. These three groups were: (1) the students on the Michigan State University campus during the 1964—65 academic year who responded to the College Experience Inventory; (2) the students on campus during the 1964-65 academic year who were asked to respond to the College Experience Inven- tory but didn't; (3) the students who were not on campus at any time during the 1964—65 academic year, and who were not asked to respond to the COllege Experience Inventory. Simple analysis Of variance was used to compare the mean score Of these three groups on ability(C.Q.T.-Total Score) and academic achievement (Grade Point Average). The results are summarized in Table 2. It is evident from the data in the table that ability measures (C.Q.T.-Total Score) do not differ significantly among the three groups. However, grade point averages among the three groups differ significantly. The students not at 42 Michigan State University during the 1964-65 academic year had lower grade point averages when compared with students who were currently enrolled during this same period. The difference in grade point average between students who com— pleted the College Experience Inventory and the students who were on campus but did not complete the Inventory showed nO significant difference. Table 2. Analysis Of variance Of mean differences for stu- dents in the study, students who were on campus but didn't reply tO the questionnaire and students from the original pOpulation but who were not at Michigan State University during the 1964-65 aca- demic year on the College Qualification Test-Total Score and Grade Point Average. COT-Total Grade Point Average Group N Mean F* N Mean F** Students in Study 255 59 255 2.65 Students on Campus-— NO Reply 66 58 66 2.52 Not at MSU during 64-65 128 58 128 2.04 *.319 Not significant. **32.25 Significant beyond .05 level Of significance. Even though the students volunteered for the new living-learning residence hall, it is Obvious, from the data summarized above, that this was a comparable sample Of fresh- man male students which comprised the population Of South Case Residence Hall. .7, u.- 0v». 0-. l 3 v x p. 43 Collection Of the Data Housing lists for the Winter Term, 1962, were Ob- tained from the business manager's Office Of Case Hall. These lists included all names, room numbers and roommates names for all students who lived in the residence hall. An alphabetical listing of all students initially enrolled in South Case Hall was made from these lists. The names, ad— dresses and telephone numbers were established for the stu- dents from this list who were on campus, Fall Term, 1964. Corrections were made for students who had withdrawn, re— turned tO the university or who had address changes after Winter Term registration. Permission was given by the Vice President for Student Affairs to send the students whose names appeared on the final list a letter over his signature asking them tO take part in the study. (See Appendix C.) Students not responding to the initial letter were sent a second letter indicating the researcher as the project di- rector and all future communications were sent and signed by the researcher. (See Appendix C.) Students not responding to the second letter were contacted by telephone. Those individuals who could not come to the Office tO complete a questionnaire were asked permission tO have one sent tO them. Those that responded favorably were sent questionnaires. If questionnaires were sent to the students, a post card re- minding them tO return the questionnaire was sent one week 44 later. If there was no response to the post card, the second telephone call was made. Those students desiring to com— plete the questionnaire at the researcher's Office were asked tO make an appointment. When students were unable tO keep the appointment, a follow-up telephone call was made. As a last resort, several appointments were made to deliver questionnaires, which the researcher subsequently collected. The complete research list Of student names was corrected from the Spring term housing Cards. Any new students were approached in the same manner as above. Between Fall and Winter Term there had been 82 major address changes. This may reflect the Off-campus housing regulations which stipulate that students must live in supervised housing until age 21. After 230 or nearly 90% of the questionnaires had been returned, a stratified, random sample Of the students was selected for the subsequent interviews during which the researcher employed a memorized interview guide (See Appendix D). Information received from the students during these interviews was written in note form by the researcher and summarized afterwards. (The stratification Of the sample consisted Of two groups: (1) students who had no change in their subculture identity from their freshman year, and (2) students who had changed their subculture identity from their freshman year. Eleven students were selected from the first stratification 45 and sixteen were selected from the second stratification group. The interviews followed a fairly specific pattern for acquiring certain information. The researcher de- termined the reliability Of the statements that the students had made on the College Experience Inventory (CEI),clarified any written statements by the students from the CEI,and at- tempted tO add depth and understanding to all aspects Of the Inventory responses. The student's initial reasons for at- tending Michigan State University, the student's meaning Of undergraduate education, questions that related to the stratification Of the random sampling from which the student was taken for the interviews, the student's reasons for a particular choice Of major, further recollections Of their living—learning experiences, and comparing their living ex- perience in South Case Hall to their first residence hall on the Michigan State University campus were other tOpics Of concern during the interviews. Instrumentation The data for this study were analyzed according tO the students' present subculture identity. As previously mentioned, the subculture identity for each student was one of the four subcultures: vocational, academic, collegiate, and nonconformist. 46 The students were selected for the four subcultures on the basis Of their responses tO questions on the COllege Experience Inventory (See Appendix A). As mentioned in an earlier footnote, the College Experience Inventory contains questions prepared by the author, from the Senior-Year Ex- perience Inventory and College Student Questionnaire, Part I. TO determine the present subculture identity Of each student, the student was asked tO "rank in order Of im— portance, the philOSOphies on the preceding page, tO de— scribe the kind Of philOSOphy you have at this time" (Question l4 — College Experience Inventory). The "PhilOSOphies on the preceding page" (Section III - College Experience Inven- tory) which were the choices from which the student had tO select were: (1) PhilOSOphy A: the vocational subculture; (2) PhilOSOphy B: the academic subculture; (3) PhilOSOphy C: the collegiate subculture; (4) PhilOSOphy D: the noncon— formist subculture. The definition Of subculture identity was taken from an instrument developed by Educational Testing Service. The instrument is entitled the COllege Student Questionnaire. The College Student Questionnaire, Part I and Part II, has been develOped to facilitate the gathering Of a large amount Of diverse information about groups Of college students for a variety Of research purposes. The material on page 10, Of Part I, from which the above questions are taken, was sug- gested by a typology Of college student subcultures 47 ("vocationa1," "academic," "collegiate," and “nonconformist") proposed by Burton Clark and Martin Trow. Every question in either Part I or Part II may be scored and understood indi— vidually; every query is intended to provide unique I I 1 information. Reliability As yet reliability coefficients have not been es- tablished for this instrument. Educational Testing Service has reported some preliminary results Of their attempts to establish reliability measures for the College Student Questionnaire. In an extended questionnaire survey Of some 13,000 entering freshmen at 23 colleges and universities Peterson reports the results Of this study in Table 3.2 This table indicates that students respond according to the type Of institution they are attending. Another attempt to establish a reliability measure was Item Eighteen Of the College Experience Inventory. This question attempted tO measure the consistency Of the student's selection Of a subculture identity. These subcultures were 1For further information concerning the instrument the reader is referred tO the College Student Questionnaire, Parts I and II, Experimental Form 284C, Richard E. Peterson, Educational Testing Service, May, 1963. 2Richard E. Peterson, "Some Biographical and Atti- tudinal Characteristics Of Entering College Freshmen: A snumnary Report Of a Questionnaire Survey," Princeton, New (hersey: Educational Testing Service, December, 1964, p. 7. 48 Hm m m N w umHEuomcoocoz me 46 6m am am mnmemmaeoo he NH mm ea ma OHEmomom h Hm mm mv hm Hmcoeumoo> Aoaanzv Anmmnzv AH>HHZV Ammmnzv Amvm.mauzv wusuasoflsm AcoEozv momoaaoo >uHmHO>HCD ouOUHumCH mHmEmm ucommum muuc Hmumflflq oumum oum>flwm HMOHGSUOB Hmuoa ucmochOOCH .umHEHomcoococ ocm mumemmaaoo .eroomom .Hmcoflumoo> mm ooAMAmmmao cmenmmum mo mOOADHOQOHm .m manna 49 his present subculture identity, his subculture identity as a freshman, his ideal subculture identity, and the subculture identity Of the typical Michigan State University student. Question eighteen asked the students to review their responses to the subculture identity questions and then to describe the sequence Of events from their freshman to senior year which have made a difference in the order Of importance for their own subculture identities. The results Of this question are summarized in Table 4. From this table it is evident that the events de- scribed as being important tO the student's present sub- culture identity are categorized in approximately the same prOportions tO the different subcultures as the student's present subculture identity. It is also evident that the events described as being important in determining the stu- dent's freshman subculture identity are categorized in ap- proximately the same proportions to the different subcultures as the student's freshmen subculture identity. The College Experience Inventory was administered tO all students responding tO the letters from the researcher. The Inventory provided specific information pertaining to Inarital status, parents' education, residence while at the university, size Of community where student had spent most Of his life, college major, parents' occupation, perceptions Of undergraduate education, reaction to living—learning resi- dence hall and subculture identity. Personnel records Of 50 .kHOpcm>cH OUCOHHmmxm mmoaaoo may :0 ma coaummso ou mcfiocommow Doc meEMm wnu CH mucoospm mo HwQEOZs m e pH 66 NH mm m6 AHA 6m .66 “may cmenwoum OCHHOQ muco>m ucmuuomEH 6 Ha mm 66 me 66 m6 mma m 6 sueucmee OHODHOOQOm cmesmoum m 6H mm Hm me am we 66 mm emu nmmw acecmm mcensc mucw>m ucmuuomEH OH pm 06 owe me am 6m 66 m 6 speecmee OHODHOUQOm pcommum e. z .x. z e. z a z a. z ymeEuOmcoocoz oumflmmaaoo UHEmomoc Hmcoflumoo> oncommmm oz .aueucoofl ousuasonsm cmenwoum can muflucooe muduasonsm ucomoum uflmnu ou OOH umcu mnemosum can we oocenommo muco>o ucmuuomEH onu cpHB kuHuCOOH OHODHOoQOm cmsnwoum ocm huHDOOOA muspasonsm ucowmum mo comHHmmEOO .w magma 51 the University were checked for grade point average, rate Of progression through Michigan State University in four years (credits earned at end Of Winter Term, 1965) and College Qualification Test—Total Score. The questions on the College Experience Inventory re- lating tO the student's undergraduate experiences and to his reactions tO the living-learning residence hall asked for an Open-ended response. This required the author to read each question, establish categories for each student response, and then categorize the responses after re—reading the responses to be certain the subjectivity Of the researcher's evalu- ations did not engender excessive error into the final results. Analysis Of the Data The statistical techniques used in this study con- sisted Of chi-square and simple analysis of variance. Chi- square was used to test the null hypotheses that no differ— ences existed among the groups in marital status, parents' education, place Of residence, size Of community where stu— dent had spent most Of his life, college major, academic ability, rate of progression in four years (total credits at the end Of Winter Term, 1965), sociO-economic status (fathers' occupation), perception Of undergraduate experience, reaction to living-learning residence hall experience, and subculture ixkentity change. The distributions were analyzed tO determine 52 how closely the Observed number Of responses in a given cate- gory approximated an expected theoretical distribution. The significance level used for the chi-square test statistic was the .05 level Of confidence. Contingency tables with theoretical frequency cells Of less than 5 were carefully reviewed. The data were ana- lyzed for the best way tO collapse the cells without losing data important to the total investigation. William Hays re— ports the dangers Of collapsing cells using the chi-square statistic. He states: The arrangement into pOpulation class intervals is arbitrary. In most instances this will require some combining of extreme class intervals (since the ex- pected frequency in each interval must be relatively large, at least five) tO make the expected frequen- cies large enough tO permit the test Of this com- bining Operation amounts to a tinkering with random- ness Of the sample and the loss of valuable data.1 The Control Data Corporation 3600 computer reports the contributions Of any one cell Of a contingency table tO the total chi—square. These were carefully reviewed before cells were collapsed. In some contingency tables which con- tained cells with theoretical frequencies Of less than five the researcher determined that tOO much data would be lost by collapsing cells. The final collapsing Of cells for chi- square analysis is reported in the statistical tables follow- ing each null hypothesis. 1William L. Hays, Statistics for PsychOlOgists (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), p. 588. 53 Simple analysis Of variance was used tO test the null hypothesis that the four subcultures in the study were from populations with the same mean. This analysis of variance was used to test differences among the four subcultures in regard tO grade point average. The test Of significance using the F distribution in the analysis of variance is valid when Observations are from normally distributed populations with equal variances.l The test Of variances showed that they met this statistical assumption. The significance level used for the analysis Of variance was the .05 level. Statistical Hypotheses As mentioned above, the data for this study were ana- lyzed according tO four subcultures. They were: The vocational subculture The academic subculture The collegiate subculture The nonconformist subculture The following null hypotheses were used tO study these subcultures. These null hypotheses relate to the back- ground characteristics and undergraduate experiences Of the students who selected the subcultures and form the basis for the study. lAllen L. Edwards, Statistical Methods for the Be- _havioral Sciences (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1961), P. 328. 54 Null Hypothesis I: NO differences exist among the four sub- cultures with respect tO marital status. Null Hypothesis II: NO differences exist among the four sub— cultures in grade point average. Null Hypothesis III: NO differences exist among the four subcultures in parents education Null Hypothesis IV: NO differences exist among the four sub- cultures in place Of residence at the University. Null Hypothesis V: NO differences exist among the four sub— cultures in the size Of community where student spent most Of,// his life. Null Hypothesis VI: NO differences exist among the four subcultures in college major. Null Hypothesis VII: NO differences exist among the four subcultures in the rate Of progression through college, as measured by the total number Of credits earned at the end Of the Winter Term, 1965. Null Hypothesis VIII: NO differences exist among the four subcultures in ability (C.Q.T. Total Score). Null Hypothesis IX: NO differences exist among the four sub-,/ cultures in sociO-economic status. Null Hypothesis X: NO differences exist among the four sub:/ cultures in the perceptions Of undergraduate education. Null Hypothesis XI: NO differences exist among the four sub- cultures in the experiences in the living—learning residence hall. Null Hypothesis XII: NO differences exist among the four subcultures in subculture identity change. Summary The sample for this study was drawn from the total number Of 535 male, second-term freshman students who entered South Case Residence Hall for the beginning Of Winter Term, 1962, after having spent the Fall Term in another men's 55 residence hall on the Michigan State University campus. Data were collected Winter Term and Spring Term, 1965, from students in this population who were still on the Michigan State University campus. When comparing the South Case Hall population and the all—university freshman male students on ability and academic achievement, little difference was found. The instrument used in this study for the collection Of data was the College Experience Inventory, which contained questions prepared by the researcher, from the Senior-Year Experience Inventory, and from the College Student Question- naire, Part I. A stratified random sample Of 27 students was interviewed for additional information and to provide a re— liability measure for the College Experience Inventory. Little difference was found between the Inventory responses and the interview remarks. The information from the COllege Experience Inventory was analyzed for the subcultural identity that the student felt best described him at this time. This subculture identi- ty became the independent variable for the interpretation Of the data. The subculture identities were: the vocational subculture, the academic subculture, the collegiate sub- culture and the nonconformist subculture. The four sub— cultures were then analyzed for differences in marital status, parents' education, residence while at the uni— versity, size Of community where student had spent most Of 56 his life, college major, parent's occupation, perceptions Of undergraduate education, reaction to living-learning resi— dence hall, subculture identity change, grade point averages and academic ability. The basic hypothesis for this study was that the four student subcultures differed significantly on each Of the 12 variables. The hypotheses derived from the basic hypothesis were then tested for the differences among the individuals in the four subcultures on the data collected. Results were analyzed by means Of chi—square and simple analysis Of variance. The final analysis of the results Of this study will be discussed in the next chapter. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction An analysis of the data is presented in this chapter. Also, the null hypotheses are restated in this chapter, and tables are presented which contain the data and the statisti— cal test for each Of the hypotheses. Following the presen— tation Of each hypothesis and table is a discussion section. In the discussion section an interpretation Of the results from the analysis Of the data is presented. A summary at the end Of the chapter provides the most significant findings Of the study. Subculture Identity Null Hypothesis I--NO differences exist among the four subcultures, in the freshman subculture identity, in the ideal subculture identity, and in the selection Of the typical Michigan State University student subculture identity. As mentioned earlier, all data for the investigation are interpreted by comparing the data collected with the Iqresent subculture identity Of the student. The present sub- <31lture identity of the students studied appears in Table 5. 57 58 Table 5. Frequency and proportion Of students' present sub- culture identity. Subculture Identity N Per Cent Vocational 68 26 Academic 31 13 Collegiate 129 50 NOnconformist 27 10 Thus, it is evident from the above table that the present subculture selected by the greatest number Of stu— dents in this study is the collegiate subculture. TO de- termine the change Of subculture identity during the four year period since the students in this study had been fresh- men at Michigan State University, the students were asked to select the subculture that best described them as freshmen. Table 6 presents the results Of the student's responses to this question. From this table it is evident that the majority Of students selected the vocational subculture as the subculture most accurately describing them as freshmen at Michigan State Emiversity. To understand the students' change in sub- culture identity and how this change indicated progress tO- 1Mards an ideal subculture identity, the students were asked to select the subculture that they thought was the most 59 u Eoommuw mo common .oocooflmcoo mo Ho>ma mo. onu Ocomon DCMOAMHcmHm .mn6.ma u mx Aooev 6mm 161 AH A6mv m6 Amav 66 Ammv mmH loose 6m Amav 6 Ame m Amev 6 A~6e 6H umesnomcoocoz Aooev owe Ame m Ammv m6 A6Hv om Acme 66 mumemmaaoo Aooav Hm 16v m A6Hv 6 lame m 166v ma oesmpmon Aooev m6 Ame m A6mv 6A lane ma A6mv am Hmcoenmoo> X z X z x z R z R z onspasonsm Hmuoe umHEHOMcoocoz oumemoaaoo eroomo< Hmcoflumoo> ucwmoum muflucooH onsuasonsm cmezmmum .muflucmpw onsuasunsm omenmmwm £ue3 wuflucmOH musuasonsm ucmmoum mo cemflummeoo .6 dance — 60 ideal. Table 7 presents the results of responses tO this question. As indicated in Tables 6 and 7 the majority Of stu- dents selected the collegiate subculture as both their present subculture identity and their ideal subculture identity. TO determine how the student in this study saw his present subculture identity as compared with the typical Michigan State University student subculture identity, he was asked to select the subculture that best described the typical student at Michigan State University. The results Of this question are found in Table 8. As evidenced in this table, the collegiate subculture is seen as the subculture Of the typical student at Michigan State University. From the data appearing in Tables 5—8 it may be con— cluded that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four subcultures in their selection Of a freshman subculture identity, an ideal subculture identity and a typi- cal Michigan State University student subculture identity is rejected. Discussion Of subculture identipy--The data from which the results in this study were taken was analyzed ac- cording tO the student's present subculture identity. The highest percentage Of the students, exactly fifty per cent, Classified themselves in the collegiate subculture. The sm>cational subculture, the academic subculture, and the non- CXDrlformist subculture followed in order Of importance. 61 .m n Eooomum mo monsoon .mucmeemeoo no H6>6H 66. men ecosmn pcmoemeamem H66.mom n x N loose mmm 16v 6H xm6e can Acme 6p lame mm Aooav pm AH6V AH 161 H AH6V AH Amfiv 6 umesnomcoocoz Aooav mme Ame m Ashe mm Amev be Ame He mumemmaaou Icons Hm Aoev m 16v m Anne 6m 16V m oesmpmom loose R6 161 6 Away 6 A6me 6m Ammv mm Hmcoflumoo> R z X z X z X z x z wusuasonsm Hmuoa umHEHOwcoocoz mumflmwaaoo UflEoomoc HOOOHDMOO> ucomwnm sueucmnH wusuesonsm HmweH .muflucoofl ousuasonsw Hmwofl £ue3 muflucoofl ousuasonsm pcmmoum mo COmHHmmEOU .h magma 62 .m n Eocomum mo momnmon .mucmpflmcou to Hm>mH mo. wen pcosmn “cavemecmem 6mm.pe n «x loose 66m Ame p 166v mme 16v he Ammv 66 Aooav 6N Ase m Apmv OH 16V H Ammv 6H umeEpOmcoocoz Aooev mma o Am6v pp Ase m . Acme pm mumemmaeoo Aooav am 161 N Ammv 6H Amav 6 lame m mesmemom Aooav 66 Amy m 166v mm 161 m Am6e pm HmcoHnmuo> a z a .2 a .z a z a z mnsuasonsm Hmuoe umHEuOmcoocoz mamammaaoo OflEmomoc Hmcoflumoo> ucmmonm aneucon onsuasonsm amoemme .muflmuo>flcb oumum cmmflnoflz um muflucmofl mndpasonsm ucwosum amoemhu ozu zuHB muflucwcfl ousuasondm ucwmwum mo COmHHmmEOU .m magma 63 As freshmen, fifty—two per cent Of the sample identi— fied with the vocational subculture. Four years later, only twenty-six per cent identified with this subculture. The percentage Of change during this four-year period within the vocational subculture represented the largest change among the four subcultures. In analyzing the present subculture identity, com— bining the second choice with the first choice appears to give additional information. The collegiate subculture and the vocational subculture became mutual choices Of many stu— dents. The students who selected the collegiate subculture as their first choice selected the vocational subculture seventy-one per cent Of the time as their second choice. However, the students who selected the vocational subculture as their first choice are more evenly divided on their second choice. They selected the collegiate subculture fifty—three per cent of the time and the academic subculture forty-four per cent Of the time. The nonconformist sub- culture has little support from either the vocational sub- culture Or the collegiate subculture. Students in the academic subculture selected the collegiate subculture as their second choice forty-five per cent Of the time, but as a second choice chose the noncon— formist subculture thirty-two per cent of the time. SO, al— though the collegiate subculture does have the greatest per- centage of support as a second choice, the attachment between 64 students selecting the nonconformist subculture and the aca- demic subculture is evident. The nonconformist subculture is by far the most un- popular subculture on the Michigan State University campus. However, students who selected the nonconformist subculture as their first choice, selected as second choice the aca- demic subculture (forty-eight per cent); vocational sub— culture (forty—one per cent); and the collegiate subculture (eleven per cent). It appears that students identifying with the vocational subculture and collegiate subculture had a strong dislike for the nonconformist subculture. Students in the academic subculture appear most tolerant toward all other subcultures. However, students in the academic sub— culture had difficulty choosing between the vocational sub- culture and the nonconformist subculture as their last choice. Students selecting the nonconformist subculture have a strong dislike for the collegiate subculture since fifty-two per cent who selected the nonconformist subculture as their first choice selected the collegiate subculture as their last choice. As the sample of students recalled their choices Of subcultures as freshmen, over one-half (fifty-two per cent) of the students entering Michigan State University identi- fied strongly with the vocational subculture. The collegi- ate, academic and nonconformist subcultures followed in that ma mo. can ocomwn DCMOHMHcmHm .O u EOpmmuw mo monumoc 6x loose 66m x6ev 6m A6mv 66 166v 66 166v Aooav pm 166v 6 166v 6 1661 6 x6ev umesnomcoocoz Aooav 66H ANAL 6H A6mv 66 166v 66 A6HV mumemmaeoo loose H6 166v 6 A66v 6H A6HV 6 Aoev 66566664 Aooev 66 16v 6 166V 66 AH6V 66 166 Hmcoepmoo> x Z X z X z X z x ousuasonsm H6666 66-66 66-66 66-66 66-6 ucmmwnm mmsouo muflaflnm ermomoc . .mUHHHQm UfiEmomom suHB hufiucmofl ousuasondm mo conflummeoo .m- GHQMB 68 Discussion Of academic abilipy-—Significant statisti- cal differences were found among the groupings Of ability scores for the four subcultures. The student's percentile rank on the total score Of the COllege Qualification Test was used as the basis for ability groupings. Percentile scores are derived each year for entering students at Michigan State University. Normative data is established for each class based on the performance of each student on the COllege Qualification Test (C.Q.T.—Total Score). In this way each student can be compared in terms Of ability with other stu— dents in the freshman class. Thus, for the data summarized in Table 9, it would appear that the students in the four subcultures dO come from different populations with respect to academic ability. In the University setting it is Often meaningful tO categorize ability groupings. These groupings allow a de- scription Of certain categories Of scores rather than spe- cific scores. Often certain minimal percentile scores are used to identify students who should enter remedial work or advance honors study. Also this percentile score is used as a prediction Of future academic success and future grade point averages. For this study the scores were divided into four cate- gories. These categories provided frequencies which allowed for the use Of the chi—square test statistic. The four Slroupings are; 0-29; 30-59; 60-89; 90-99. 69 Table .9 presents the results Of a comparison Of academic ability groups with subculture identity. As indicated in Table 9: students in the vocational subculture most frequently had scores in the sixty tO eighty- nine percentile categories. However, in the two extreme ability groups fewer scores than theoretically expected by the chi-square analysis were found for students identifying with the vocational subculture. Students selecting the academic subculture con— tributed heavily tO the tOp one-half Of the CQT percentile rankings. Seventy-one per cent Of these students were above the sixtieth percentile. Forty-eight per cent Of the stu- dents in the vocational subculture and forty-two per cent Of the students in the collegiate subculture were above the sixtieth percentile. Students identifying with the col- legiate subculture were in ability groupings representing the lower sixty per cent Of ability to a greater proportion than would be expected. The nonconformist subculture tended to attract the extreme categories Of ability. The number Of students was larger than expected in the lower thirty per cent and also larger than expected in the upper ten per cent. One third Of the total students in the nonconformist subculture were in the tOp ten per cent Of the College Qualification Test total scores. Students identifying with both the academic 70 subculture and the nonconformist subculture contributed a significant number tO the upper ten per cent. Grade Point Average Null Hypothesis III-~NO differences exist among the four subcultures in grade point average at the end Of Winter Term, 1965. The data used tO test this hypothesis appear in the following table. Table 10. Analysis Of variance Of mean differences for the 'four subcultures on grade point average at the end Of Winter Term, 1965. Grade Point Average Present Subculture N Mean F* Vocational 67 2.59 Academic 31 2.74 Collegiate 129 2.47 Nonconformist 27 2.65 254 2.56 1.96 * Not significant. It is evident from the data in Table 10 that the HUIl hypothesis that nO differences exist among the four grxbups with respect tO grade point average is accepted. 71 Discussion Of grade point average--The differences among the mean grade point averages for the different sub— cultures was not statistically significant. However, there are reasons to study grade point averages by different grade point groupings. The basis for fraternity pledging, scho— lastic honors, honorary organization membership and many other experiences within the academic community is based on a minimal grade point average. In considering the above cri- teria the 2.5 and 3.0 grade point averages were selected for the basis Of the groupings. The following table presents the results Of comparing grade point average with subcultural identity. Table 11. Comparison Of subculture identity with grade point average. Grade Point Average Present 0-2.49 2.50—2.99 3.00-4.00 Total Subculture. N % N % N % N % Vocational 39 (58) 19 (28) 9 (13) 67 (100) Academic ' 8 (26) 14 (45) 9 (29) 31 (100) Collegiate 77 (60) 38 (29) 14 (11) 129 (100) NOnconformist , 13 (48) 8 .(30) 6 (22) 27 (100) 137 (54) 79 (31) 38 (15) 254 (100) X2 = 14.612 Significant beyond the .05 level Of confidence . Degrees Of freedom = 6. 72 From the above table it is evident that when stu— dents' grade point averages were studied by different group— ings significant statistical differences were found. Fifty— four per cent Of the sample received grade point averages be- low a 2.5. Fifteen per cent were above a 3.0. The major statistical differences found within groupings Of grade point averages were in the academic subculture. In the academic subculture fewer than one-half the number of students exe pected were below a 2.5, and twice as many students as ex- pected were above a 3.00. Students in both the vocational and collegiate subculture had grade point averages below a 2.5 more frequently than expected. The students in the aca- demic subculture and students in the nonconformist subculture consistently had a larger proportion than expected above a 2.5. Rate Of Progression Through Michigan State University Null Hypothesis IVr-NO differences exist among the four subcultures in the rate Of progression through college during the four—year period. The rate of progression for this study was measured by the number Of credits each student had earned at the end Of Winter Term, 1965. When a student has reached 130 credits he Obtains senior status and when a student reaches 180 credits he is eligible for graduation. The following table .Presents the data used to test the above hypothesis. 73 Table 12. Comparison among the four subcultures in rate Of progression through college. Credits Earned Subculture 0-130 130-179 180+ Total Identity N % N '% N % Vocational 12 (18) 44 (65) 12 (18) 68 (100) Academic 3 (10) 18 (58) 10 (32) 31 (100) Collegiate 16 (12) 89 (69) 24 (19) 129 (100) Nonconformist 7 (26) 16 (59) 4 (15) 27 (100) 38 (15) 167 (65) 50 (20) 255 (100) X2 = 7.369 Not Significant. Degrees Of freedom = 6. It is evident from the data in Table 12 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect tO rate Of progression through Michigan State University is accepted. DiscusSiOn Of progression through collegg—-Differ- ences in rate Of progression through the university over the four-year period were not significantly different for the different subcultures. The majority Of students were classi— fied as seniors although the total number Of credits earned indicated many Of the students would need an extra term tO graduate. Students in the academic subculture had the largest 74 number who had progressed faster than expected. The stu— dents in the nonconformist subculture had the largest per- centage proceeding slower than anticipated. College Major Null Hypothesis V--NO differences exist among the four subcultures in choice Of academic major. The data used to test this hypothesis appear in Table 14. It is evident from the data in Table 13 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub- cultures with respect tO college major is rejected. Discussion Of college majgr-—The College Of Agri- culture is the only college in the university not having a larger or smaller percentage Of students than expected se- lecting it for a major. The different departments within the College Of Agriculture appear to equally attract stu- dents from each Of the four subcultures. Students identifying with the vocational subculture tended to major in engineering, veterinary medicine, natural science and business. They seemed tO stay away from majors in the social sciences, education and arts and letters. Students within the academic subculture majored in the COllege Of Social Science and the College Of Arts and Letters. Not one student in this subculture majored in the College Of Business. 75 .GUCTUHMCOU NO H0>TH m0. .mH n Eooooum wo momumon 666 666666 6666H666666 mwo Om fl NX 166HV 666 H6H6 m6 H66 66 H66 om A6Hv 66 H6V 66 HHHV 6m 166Hv 66 H6Hv 6 166 m 166 6 Home 6 H666 6 HHHV m 66H6666666662 166HV 66H H6Hv 6H 166 6 HHHV 6H H6Hv 66 H66 6 HHHV 6H 666666HHOO HooHv 6m HpHv 6 H66 6 16v 6 HH6V NH H6Hv 6 H6HV 6 66666664 166Hv 66 166v 6H H6H6 6 166 6 H66 6 16v 6 HHHV 6 H66666moo> R z x z X .z X z X Z A .z X .z onouaoonom H6606 .666 .662 .666 .66 .666 666666H .66666 6666666 6 .oom 6 munc .66: .66> .Homma omoaaoo mo monouaoonom Hoow onu 0:026 coweummeou .ma manma 76 Students identifying with the collegiate subculture selected the COllege Of Business and the College Of Edu- cation as academic majors and seldom selected the College Of Arts and Letters curriculum. Individuals selecting the nonconformist subculture were most interested in the College Of Arts and Letters and the COllege Of Social Science. Just as in the academic sub— culture, students in the nonconformist subculture were least attracted tO the COllege Of Business. The variable Of college major seems to distinguish the subcultures more than any other variable in this study. Place Of Residence Null Hypothesis VI-—NO differences exist among the four subcultures in place Of residence at Michigan State University. As mentioned earlier, students came to South Case Hall at the start Of Winter Term, 1962. During their first term on campus the students in this sample had lived in the Brody Group Of Residence Halls and in Shaw Hall. Fall Term, 1962, the students had an Opportunity to live in housing Of their choice. Table 14 summarizes the choices they made. Since nearly seventy per cent Of the students se— lected to remain in South Case Hall, differences in choice Of residence were not statistically significant among the students selecting each Of the four subcultures. Beginning 77 the third year the students again selected a place Of resi- dence. The choices they made for this year are summarized in Table 15- Table 14. Comparison among the four subcultures in place Of residence Fall Term, 1962. South COOperative Case and Present Hall Fraternity Off-Campus Total Subculture N‘ % N’ % N" '% N % Vocational 39 (63) 8 (13) 15 (24) 62 (100) Academic 19 (73) 3 (12) 4 (15) 26 (100) Collegiate 79 (68) 25 (21) 13 (11) 117 (100) Nonconformist 21 (84) 3 (12) 1 (4) 25 (100) 158 (69) 39 (17) 33 (14) 230 (100) X2 = 10.935 NOt significant. Degrees Of freedom = 6. Again South Case Hall is the most popular choice Of residence for the students in this study. However the data in Table 15 suggest the many alternatives that students se- lected for place Of residence. Consequently the differences in housing were statistically significant for the third year at Michigan State University. Fall Term, 1964, represented the fourth year for the Students in this study. Table 16 presents the places Of residence for the students at that time. .ma n 6066666 60 monumoc .6666666606 66 H6>6H 66. 660666 6666H666666 666.66 u x 78 6 166Hv 666 H66 6H HoHv 66 H666 66 HH6V H6 166 66 H666 66 H66HV 66 6 H6HV 6 H6H6 6 A6Hv 6 H666 6 H666 6 66H6606606662 166HV 66H H66 6 H66 6 1666 66 H666 66 HoHv 6H H666 66 666H66HHoo 166HV 66 H66 6 AoHv 6 H666 6H HoHv 6 H66 6 1666 6 66666666 H66Hv 66 H6H6 6 H6HV.HH 266v 6H H6HV 6 H66 6 H666 66 H66666660> 6 .2 6 .2 6 J2 6 .2 6 .2 6 .2 6 .2 6666Hsunsm 66609 680$ 60 omwfl>uomomc5 oom6>nmmom mmflu maamm. Hamm ucwmwum omwuumz momEmolmmo momfimolmmo Iflcumumum mocoo mmmo ocm (Hmom Epsom w>flumuwmooo Honuo .momH .8669 Hawk .oocooflmwu mo oomam c6 monouaooOOm 650m 0:6 mcoEm COmHHmmEOO .ma magma 79 .mH n Eowmmum mo mmwumwa .HGMUHMHcmHm uoz hom.ma N 266Hv 666 AHHV 66 A666 66 H6H6 66 A6H6 66 AHHV 66 A6H6 66 266H6 66 266 H 2666 6H A66 6 A6H6 6 H6H6 6 H6H6 6 66H5606coucoz 266H6 H6H A66 6H A666 66 A6HV 6H A6Hv H6 AHHV 6H H6Hv 6H mumHmmHHoo 266HV 66 2666 6 2666 6H 266v 6 A66 6 A66 6 A66 6 UHsmumom 266Hv 66 H6HV HH H666 66 H66 6 H66 6 H6Hv 6 A6H6 6H HmcoHumoo> 6 z 6 .z .6 .z 6 .z 6. z 6 .z 6 .z wnsuHsonsm Hmuoe mwcmumm Ume>HmQDmCD Ummfl>ummsm mep maamm 666m ucmmmum nuHx 60 666260-660 msmemoummo :chmumum umnuo HH< mmmu wmfluumz .moou 666m .mmm ausom .6066 .Eume Hamm .mucmcflmmn mo mumam cw mwusuasonsm Hsom map macaw COmHHmmEOU .ma magma 80 From the data presented in Table 16 it is evident that the majority of students selected off-campus, unsuper— vised housing for Fall Term, 1964. Since place of residence while at the university was statistically significant for only Fall Term, 1963, the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to residence is accepted. Discussion of residence while at Michigan State Uni- versi y--Students came from the Brody Group of Residence Halls and the Shaw Residence Hall, Fall Term, 1961, to live in South Case Hall. Seventy per cent of the students in the sample remained in South Case Hall their second year. Sixty- four per cent of the students who moved from South Case Resi— dence Hall were from the collegiate subculture. Students in the collegiate subculture tended to move to the fraternities. Eighty—five per cent of the students in the nonconformist subculture remained in the residence hall. It was not until the Fall Term of 1963, the third year for many of the students at Michigan State University, that significant differences among the four subcultures in place of residence were found. At this time, many of the students had reached 21 years of age. At this age housing regulations allow students to live any place of their own choosing. Before this age students usually live in uni- versity supervised off-campus housing, residence halls, fra— ternities, COOperatives, religious living units or at home. 81 Thirty per cent of the sample still resided in South Case Hall at the beginning of Fall Term, 1963. The fraternities, cooperatives and supervised off-campus housing comprised forty-five per cent of the housing. Students identifying with the vocational subculture lived in unsupervised, off- campus housing and many of them were married. Students se- lecting the academic subculture tended to live in the co— operative houses or supervised off-campus housing. Again members of the collegiate subculture were still in fraterni— ties while students in the nonconformist subculture were living in other residence halls than South Case Hall. Stu- dents in both the academic subculture and the vocational sub- culture remained away from the fraternities. The fourth year most, nearly forty per cent of the sample,lived in unsupervised housing. Most of the students identifying with the vocational subculture returned to South Case Hall or were married. They appeared to remain away from the fraternity and supervised housing. Many members of the academic subculture were married or living in supervised off—campus housing. A disproportionate number of students infthe collegiate subculture were in fraternities and super— vised offecampus housing. Most of the students in the non- conformist subculture moved to unsupervised housing. 0““ 6'4 -. -.A\ k‘I , r-l 82 Reaction to Living:Learning Residence Hall Null Hypothesis VII--No differences exist among the four subcultures in the student's reaction to their experi- ence in a living-learning residence hall. Students' reactions to the living-learning residence hall are summarized in Tables 12, 18 and 19. The academic experience, the all-freshmen aspect of the residence hall and the reaction to living in a coeducational residence hall are the three areas for which data are presented. Table 17. Comparison among the four subcultures of the re- actions to the academic experience of a living— learning residence hall. Un- Present Payorable favorable Indifferent Total subculture N' % N' % N' % N’ % Vocational 48 (75) 7 (ll) 9 (14) 64 (100) Academic 21 (70) 5 (l7) 4 (13) 30 (100) Collegiate 97 (76) 18 (14) 12 (9) 127 (100) Nonconformist 20 (80) 2 (8) 3 (12) 25 (100) 186 (76) 32 (13) 28 (11) 246 (100) X2 = 2.266 Not significant. Degrees of freedom It is evident from the data presented in the above table that the null hypothesis that no differences exist 83 .NH n Eocmwnw mo momummn .6666H6H66H6 602 666.6H u 6x 266HV H66 AHHV 66 HHHV 66 H66 66 H6Hv 66 HH6V 6HH 266Hv 66 H6Hv 6 H66 6 H66 6 A6H6 6 H666 HH umHsuomcoocoz 266H6 6HH A6H6 6H x66 6H A66 6 H6H6 66 H666 66 666H66HH06 266H6 66 HHHV 6 A6Hv 6 HHHV 6 H666 6 H666 6 oHa66666 266H6 66 H66 6 H6H6 6 H6HV 6 HHHV 6 H666 66 H660H6660> 6 .z 6 .z 6 .z 6 .z 6 .z 6 .Z manuasonsm H6609 666H 66H6 666 .mmmHo H6662 .chcH .>66 .>66 6666666 .nmmum mm .>mm pwmzll.>mm:D lab .mxm .EHm .>mm . .Hamn mocmpflmmu maficummHlmcfl>HH m.wo Howmmm cmEQmmuwIHHm_6£u 06 mcofluommu may mo mmusuasondm usom mnu macaw cowaummeou .wH 6HQ69 84 among the four subcultures with respect to reactions to the academic experience is accepted. It is also evident from the data presented in Table 18 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four subcultures with respect to the all freshmen aspect of the hall is accepted. Table 19. Comparison among the four subcultures of the re- action to the coeducational housing of a living- 1earning residence hall. No In— Present Resp. Fav. Unfav. different Total Subculture N % N % N % N .% N % Vo- cational 28 (41) 34 (SO) 2 (3) 4 (6) 68 (100) Academic 18 (58) 9 (29) 3 (10) l (3) 31 (100) Col— legiate 48 (37) 74 (57) 3 (2) 4 (3) 129 (100) Non- conformist 14 (52) 11 (41) l (4) 1 (4) 27 (100) 108 (42) 128 (50) 9 (4) 10 (4) 255 (100) X2 = 12.627 Not significant. Degrees of freedom = 9. It is evident from the data in Table 19 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub- cultures with respect to reactions to coeducational housing is accepted. 85 From the above tables it is evident that the students in this study were highly in favor of the academic experience, the all—freshman aspect of the residence hall and were pleased to live in a coeducational residence hall. Discussion of the reactions to a living-learning residence hall—-The physical facilities for Case Hall are two living units, one for men and one for women, separated by public areas where dining, classrooms, recreation and snackshop facilities are provided. As the students re- membered their experiences in South Case Hall a large per- centage favored living in a coeducational residence hall. Students in all the subcultures viewed coeducational living as highly favorable. Only eight per cent of the students disliked living in the hall. The all—freshman aspect of Case Hall was also viewed positively by the students in this sample. Seventy-three per cent of the students expressed favorable opinions. Twenty-two per cent qualified their responses by saying upperclassmen were needed to add additional maturity to the residence hall student population. An additional eleven per cent liked the all-freshman hall as a freshman but they were glad they had left the residence hall at the end of their first year. Students in the academic subculture were least impressed by the all-freshman aspect of the residence hall. They liked the commonality of experiences that all freshmen had but felt upperclassmen could have added an atmosphere 86 more conducive for study and maturity. Most of the students in the collegiate subculture were either highly in favor or completely dissatisfied with the all-freshman aspect of the residence hall. Students identifying with the vocational subculture were indifferent to it all. After four years it was quite evident that students in the sample were highly impressed with the results of the academic aspect of the residence hall as seventy-six per cent of the students reacted favorably to this item. The con- venience of the classrooms and the interaction with faculty members were the aspects they remembered most. Most of the students saw the academic aspect of the residence hall with the same positive regard. Undergraduate Education Experiences Null Hypothesis VIII-—No differences exist among the four subcultures in students' perceptions of undergraduate education. To better understand some of the experiences that students encountered during their undergraduate years each student was asked to list the most important or significant thing learned at college. He was also asked to list the ex— perience or activity which had been most profitable and what had been the greatest impact of Michigan State University. In addition he was asked to list the most important indi- viduals or experiences which reinforced his attitudes, values, 87 opinions, beliefs and interests and the most important indi- viduals or experiences which had modified or altered his atti- tudes, Opinions, beliefs and interests. The following tables present the results of these questions. It is evident from the data in Table 20 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub- cultures with respect to the most important or significant thing learned at college is accepted. From the data in Table 21 it is evident that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four Subcultures with respect to the experience or activity which has been most profitable is rejected. It is evident from the data in Table 22 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to the impact of college is accepted. From the data in Table 23 it is evident that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to experiences or individuals which reinforced attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interest is accepted. It is evident from the data in Table 24 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to experiences or individuals which reinforced attitudes, values, opinions, beliefs and interest is rejected. 88 .m u EOU6666 mo m66um6n .66666666666 602 666 HH n x m 266H6 666 AH6V 66 HH66 66 H666 66 H6H6 66 266H6 66 AH66 6 H666 6 H666 HH H66 6 6665606606602 266H6 H6H AH6V 66 A6HV 66 H666 66 H666 66 666666HH06 266HV 66 A666 6H HH66 6 H666 HH H66 H 6HE66666 266Hv 66 A6Hv 6H H666 6H H666 66 HH66 6H H66066moo> 6 z 6 z 6 -z 6 z 6 .2 6626650356 66609 c066snfluucoo haamoflmoH maaflxm 666006 6HQO6Q 6:6666m 66566>HUC6 #6636 06 w mHHHMm 66:60 £663 606 206666066m ImCHxMEICOHmflo6© .6mw6azocx 362 @6066 660 law :6 U6QOH6>6Q How mflmwm : .6666600 66 ©6C666H measu 6:606666m66 no 6666HOQEH 6608 636 £663 66656650956 6:06 656 macaw cowaummeou .om 6HQ69 89 .60C6pflmcoo mo H6>6H 60. 6:6 6com6n .m n 5066666 60 6666069 66666666666 666.66 u x m 666H6 666 HHHV 66 A666 66 A666 HHH A6Hv 66 A0066 om Hoav m 6066 m 6066 m AQHV m 666E606606602 266H6 66H H6HV 6H HoHv HH H666 66 H66 6H 666666HHoo 266Hv 66 A66 6 H666 6 2666 6 H666 6 66666666 HooHv 66 A66 6 H666 6H A666 66 H6Hv 6 H66066moo> 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 2 6656650956 66608 UHE6©mom 06866606 @5060 mCH>HQ 66666C6H6MMHQ UC666Hm no @5066 ; :65663 6.C60 . 66:9 66:60 660:6666mxm 66H6H>H6o< . 6666666 .6666566 636 06 6HQ666606Q 6608 6669 66: 30633 >66>6666 no 6UC6HH6QX6 6:6 :6.66656650Q56 6506 6:6 mCOEm COmflummEoo .66 66969 .6 n 6066666 60 6666m6a 9O .666066H6666 602 666.6 u 66 666H6 666 H6H6 66 HH6V 66 A666 66H 266H6 66 H666 6 HH66 6 A666 HH 6666606600602 266Hv 6HH A6Hv 6H A666 66 H666 66 666666HH00 266H6 66 HHHV 6 A6HV 6 HH6V 66 06666606 266Hv 66 AH6V 6H H666 6H AH6V 66 H66066600> 6 .Z 6 .z 6 .z 6 .2 6656650656 66609 6>666m6z 6UC6UC6Q6UCH mach 665656 6C6m66m 60 66666666 606 6666H306x 6>66Hmom 666666 66am06m \3 c066moHC5EEOU ..>66666>6CD 66666 66663062 60 uommefl 6:6 66 66656650656 6506 6:6 macaw c06666mEOU .NN 66669 91 .m n Eocwmum mo wmwummn .6660H6H26H6 uoz 666.6H u 6x AooHv 666 A66 6H A6HV 66 A666 66H AOHV m6 AOOHV 66 A66 H A666 6 A666 6H A66 H 66H2606coocoz AOOHV 66H A66 6 A6Hv 6H AH6V 66 AOHV 6H 666H66HHoo AOOHV 66 A6HV 6 A666 6 A666 6H 6 UHEmcmom AOOHV 66 A66 6 A666 6H A666 66 A6Hv oH HmcoHumoo> 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 z mu5ua5un5m H6uoe mcH>HA 06866 m5ouw 06860604 m5ouw m56>6q 6u6flucmuwMMflQ ucmwwum I60< C658 Hmnuo c6 6665©6>H©cH CH ma65©H>H©5H u.C6u 6H65UH>HUGH Ho mmocmflnmmxm Ho mmocwfluwmxm Ho mmocmflummxm .mummuquH UC6 mmmflamfl qmcoflcflmo nww5H6> «mmc5uflup6 H663“ Umouomcflwu 306:3 ma6566>6656 mo mmocwflummxm may mo mcofluowaww .mucmv5um mo COmHH6mEOU .mm wHQ6B 92 o u Eocwwum mo mwmummn .mocmvflmcoo mo Hw>ma mo. UCO>6Q uC6UHMHcmHm wm¢.N~ n mx AooHv 666 A666 H6 A666 66H AHHV 66. AooHv 66 A666 6 A666 6 AOHV 6 66H5606coucoz AQOHV 66H A666 66 A666 66 A66 6 666H66HH06 Aooav mm Aomv m 6666 66 o UHEmo6o< AOOHV 66 A666 06 A666 66 A666 6H HmaoHumoo> 6 Z 6 z 6 z 6 z wu5ua5un5m 66609 Q5OH0 06566604 Q5OH0 mafi>6q mu66ucmumMMHQ ucmmwum CH ma65©6>HUcH CH 6665UH>HGCH u.C6U HO mwocwflummxm no mmucwfluwmxm .muwwumucfl 6:6 mmmflamn 666606ch0 66665666656 H663“ wmumua6 HO cmHMHUOE £0633 mmocmflnmm Ixm Ho ma65UH>HUCH uC6uHOQEH 5608 may mo coauomamm .mucmw5um mo :066H6QEOU .mm 6696B 93 Discussion of Undergraduate Experiences Most important thing learned at Michigan State Uni— versity-—The largest percentage of the students in this study saw the most important thing learned at Michigan State University as the new ideas and new knowledge which they acquired. Nearly one-third of the sample felt this was the most important. Following in order of importance were: a framework for decision making, thinking logically, a respect for the significant contribution that any one individual can make to society, and getting along with peOple. Students in the academic subculture saw the most im- portant thing learned as the contribution an individual can make to society. Their response was larger than the chi— square theoretical value for this question. Students identi- fying with the collegiate subculture saw the most important thing learned as the ability to get along with people and vo— cational training. Students in both the nonconformist sub- culture and the academic subculture responded fewer times than expected that "getting along with people" was the most important thing learned at the university. Experience or activity most profitable—-Significant differences among the four subcultures were found in the ex- periences or activities that were "most profitable to them at the university." Students in the vocational subculture continued to find their academic experiences most profitable. 94 Their living unit was seen as the category least contributing to their university experience. Students selecting the aca— demic subculture had difficulty deciding between "all of col- lege life in general" and the other categories but they also saw the academic experience superior to their living group activity. Students that selected the collegiate subculture identified the living group experience contributing signifi- cantly to their education and the academic experiences having much less impact. Students in the nonconformist subculture listed areas that were hard to categorize but they also saw the academic experiences as more meaningful than their living—group experience. Impact of the university--The greatest impact the university had on the students in this study was the new ideas and new knowledge that were imparted to them. Stu- dents in the vocational subculture saw the impact of the university as training-centered and negative comments were frequently mentioned. Students selecting the academic sub— culture saw themselves becoming more of an individual and highly idea oriented; whereas the students in the collegiate subculture were highly positive in their comments on the im— pact of the university. Students selecting the nonconformist subculture were considerably more negative than any other subculture. 95 Individuals or experiences that strengthened and rein— forced attitudes and values--Students selecting the noncon- formist subculture found their academic experiences strengthening and reinforcing their attitudes and beliefs. Little satisfaction was found in the academic experience at the university by students identifying with the collegiate subculture. Many students in the vocational subculture found it difficult to distinguish the individuals or experi- ences that strengthened or reinforced their attitudes. The same was true for the academic subculture. Individuals or experiences which modified or altered values--When students were asked to identify the experiences and individuals who modified or altered their values, their responses were divided into two main categories: the living group experiences or individuals and the academic experiences or individuals. Fifty—nine per cent of the students identi— fied living group experiences or individuals as being most important in modifying or altering values; thirty per cent identified the academic experiences or individuals and eleven per cent could not differentiate the experiences or the indi— viduals responsible for the modification or altering of their values. Students in the vocational subculture had a difficult time determining the individuals or experiences who modified or altered their values. Academic experiences had greatest 96 impact for change in the vocational subculture and noncon— formist subculture. The living group experiences were identi- fied as agents for change by the students in the collegiate subculture more than any other subculture. Parents Education Null Hypothesis XIX-—No differences exist among the subcultures in parents education. The data used to test this hypothesis appear in Tables 25 and 26. It is evident from the data presented in these tables that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four subcultures with respect to parents education is accepted. Discussion of parents education-~The lack of re— lationship between parents education and subculture identity would indicate that the attitudes that cause students to se- lect the different subcultures are not related to the number of years their parents were in formal education. The stu— dents in this study came from homes where twenty—six per cent of the fathers and eighteen per cent of the mothers had not completed a high school education. The students in the vocational subculture tend to have fathers who started col- lege but didn't graduate. Parents with a college degree were found more than expected as parents of students in the nonconformist subculture. .NH u 80666Hm mo m66um6a .6660H6H66H6 “oz 6H6.6 u x 97 6 AOOHV 666 AHHV 66 A6Hv 66 A6H6 H6 A666 66 A666 66 AOOHV 66 A66 6 A666 6 A66 6 A666 6 A666 6 pmHeuo6coucoz AOOHV 66H A6Hv 6H A6Hv 66 A6HV 66 A666 66 A666 66 666666HH00 AOOHV 66 A66 6 A6Hv 6 A66 6 A666 6H A666 6 oHEmomom AooHv 66 A6Hv 6 A6Hv 6 A666 6H A666 6H A666 6H Hmcoflumoo> 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 z 6 .z 6H5uH5on5m H6609 xuoz 66656660 6665U6H0 u.cpfln Hoonom £06m .w.m uC6m6Hm 6665p6uw 6m6aaou 6066600 U6un6um ©6u6am500 6u6HmEOU u.cpfln .206660566 6.H6£u6m CH m6u5ua5on5m H50m 6gp mc0E6 c066H6QEOU .mN 66369 98 6066666 60 6666069 .66606666666 602 666.6 AQOHV 666 A66 6H A6HV 66 A6Hv H6 A666 66H A6Hv 66 AOOHV 66 A66 6 A666 6 A6Hv 6 A666 6 6066 6 666E606coocoz AOOHV 66H A66 6 A6HV 66 A6HV 66 A666 66 A6Hv 66 666666HH00 AOOHV 66 A66 6 AOHV 6 A6HV 6 6666 6H A666 6 06266606 AOOHV 66 A66 6 A6HV 6H A6HV 6H A666 66 A6Hv 6H H62066moo> 6 z 6 .2 6 _z 6 z 6 z 6 .2 musuHsuasm H6609 x603 66656660 66656660 6.C6HQ 600606 606: .m.m 6:6666m 66656660 6066600 6666600 6666666 6666HQEOU 66666800 6.C666 .c06660566 .6666605 :6 66656650656 6506 6:6 mc086 2066669500 .mm 66369 99 Socio—Economic Status Null Hypothesis X—-No differences exist among the four subcultures in socio-economic status as measured by father's occupation. The data used to test this hypothesis appears in Table 2?. It is evident from the data in this table that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to socio-economic status is accepted. Discussion of socio-economic status-—Socio-economic status, as measured by father's occupation did not signifi- cantly differentiate the four subcultures. Fifty-five per cent of the sample was classified as executive-managerial or laborers. Students in the vocational subculture tended to have fathers in executive and managerial positions but not in— volved in professional positions. Business owners tended to be the smallest group from which the academic subculture came but students in the collegiate subculture had more fathers than expected as business owners and in professional occupations. Students selecting the nonconformist sub- culture were represented by fathers who were identified as laborers and these students had few fathers who were business owners . 100 .66 n 8066666 mo 6666m6m .6cmoH66c66m uoz 6H6.6H u 66 AOOHV H66 A666 66 A66 66 AOHV 66 A66 66 A6Hv 66 A666 H6 AOOHV 66 AH6V HH AHHV 6 AHHV 6 A66 H A66 H 6666 6 6665606600602 AOOHV 66H A666 66 AOHV 6H A66 6H A6H6 6H A666 66 6666 H6 666666HH00 AOOHV H6 6666 OH 666 6 A6HV 6 AOHV 6 AOHV 6 A666 6 06266606 AOOHV 66 A666 6H A66 6 A66 6 A66 6 A6HV 6H A666 66 Hmco6pmoo> 6 z 6 .z 6 z 6. z 6. z 6 z 6. z 66:6H50666 H6608 6660966 66630 66HH00 Hmcoflmwmw 66:30 H6666m6C62 6:6666m EHMM @UHQS IOHm mmmCflwdm HO 6>H6506xm Uwhdmmme mm WDUMUW UHEOCOUGIOflUOm QHH3 WOH5UHSUQUW .60666Q5000 6.666666 an 6506 666 @6066 606666QEOU .bm 6666B Size of Community 101 Null Hypothesis XI—-No differences exist among the four subcultures in size of community where student spent most of his life. The data used to test this hypothesis appears in the following table. Table 28. Comparison among the four subcultures in size of community where student spent most of his life. Farm- 2,500- 25,000- 100,000 Present 2,499 24,999 99,999 + Total Subculture N' % N’ %' N' % N’ % N" % Vocational 18 (26) 19 (28) 16 (24) 15 (22) 68 (100) Academic 10 (32) 7 (23) 2 (6) 12 (39) 31 (100) Collegiate 32 (25) 34 (27) 26 (21) 34 (27) 126 (100) Non- conformist 7 (27) 8 (31) 4 (15) 7 (27) 26 (100) 67 (27) 68 (27) 48 (19) 68 (27) 4251 (100) X2 = 6.637 Not significant. Degrees of freedom = 9. It is evident from Table 28 that no differences exist among the that the null hypothesis four subcultures with re— spect to size of community where student spent most of his life is accepted. 102 Discussion of size of community--There were no sig- nificant statistical differences among the subcultures as to the size of community where the students had lived most of their lives. The only group with more than the expected numbers of students in any category was the academic sub— culture. Students in the academic subculture had a larger number of students from urban centers larger than 100,000 population, and fewer than expected from the 25,000-99,999 category. Marital Status Null Hypothesis XII-~No differences exist among the subcultures in marital status. The data used to test this hypothesis appears in the following table. Table 29. Comparison among the four subcultures in marital status. Present Single Married Total subculture N % N’ % N' % Vocational 55 (81) 13 (19) 68 (100) Academic 24 (77) 7 (23) 31 (100) COllegiate 115 (90) 13 (10) 128 (100) Nonconformist 27 (100) 0 27 (100) 221 (87) 33 (13) 254 (100) X2 = 9.721 Significant beyond the .05 level of COnfidence. Degrees of freedom = 3. 103 It is evident from the data in Table 30 that the null hypothesis that no differences exist among the four sub— cultures with respect to marital status is rejected. Discussion of marital status--Only thirteen per cent of the entire sample was married. The 1964—65 Report of the Registrar at Michigan State University lists fifteen per cent of the undergraduate pOpulation married. Thus the results of this sample appear consistent with the all-university popu- lation. The students in the nonconformist subculture were all single. More married students than expected chose the ,: if, - academic subculture. Sequence of Events-—Freshman to Senior Year As students described the sequence of events that led them from their freshman subculture identity to their senior subculture identity, it was evident that their fresh— man year or their first recollection of the reasons for at— tending the university were related to a specific vocational goal. Nearly seventy per cent of the students who responded to this question described their initial reasons for at— tending Michigan State University as job or vocation oriented. However, four years later their subculture identity was de— scribed much differently. The need for a "well-rounded" edu- cation; an education that emphasizes the classroom, a job, and ideas and how pe0p1e relate to each other became the 104 responses of over one-half the students. Students in the vo— cational subculture placed greatest importance on events re— lating to their future job or job experience. Students identifying with the academic subculture and the noncon- formist subculture found it difficult to differentiate ex- periences during the senior year that led to their present subculture identity. Students selecting the nonconformist subculture related negative experiences at the university that led to their identity. Interviews As mentioned earlier a random stratified sample of students was selected for interviews. For purposes of dis- cussion the interviews with the students are divided ac— cording to the student’s subcultural identity. Each sub— culture identity; vocational, academic, collegiate and nonconformist will be discussed. When applicable, the inter— views for students who started with a particular subculture identity and who did not change this subculture identity in four years will be'a separate category from those students who started with a particular subculture identity and did change their subculture identity at the end of four years. vocational subculture--Students who started at Michigan State University in the vocational subculture and who remained in this subculture at the time when the data were collected for this study saw themselves seldom changing 105 tflaeir ultimate goals while at Michigan State University. Ekome of the students changed majors because majors they se- ltacted when they came to Michigan State, e.g., pre-med, exugineering, pre-law, were too difficult and thus they had tfi) get out of these majors in order to remain in college. Cksnsequently, many of their overall grade points were low be— cuause of disastrous grades their first two years. However, 1nc>st of these students did keep their ultimate goals but cflu<>se other avenues reaching them. A typical statement from t11:is category of students was as follows: I dr0pped engineering, but selected management, be- cause I have found this Was my best route to the kind of engineer I wanted to be when I came to Michigan State University. The further I went I realized a management major also needs economics so management and economics are the route I have selected to be a good engineer. Participation in extra—curricular activities is seen ‘k35? these students as being very important sometime during tiklea student's collegiate career. These activities make the stil—Ident "more marketable." The students in this category a1- 53C> eaxpressed the idea that classes with a specific reference t:c’ tiheir job orientation were most helpful. The under- gra did not reply to the questionnaire with those students Individual letters, Who comprise the sample for this study. fol low-up letters, post cards, telephone calls and personal VL sitations were all used as methods of Obtaining as many Que stionnaires from the students as possible. After 230, or nearly 90 per cent, of the questionnaires had been returned, a Stratified random sample of 28 students was selected for A memorized interview guide was used for the int e rviews . a summary interviews. After the completion of the interview, of the remarks was written. The data for this study were analyzed according to the students' present subculture identity. The subculture Ldentity for each student was one of four subcultures; vo— and nonconformist. The stu— c - . . a~"‘—‘.‘Lc>nal, academic, collegiate, d . ents were selected for the four subcultures on the baSis Of t: - heir responses to questions on the College Experience 117 Inventory. As yet reliability coefficients have not been However, Educational Test— established for this instrument. ing Service has reported some preliminary results of their attempts to establish reliability measures for the College Student Questionnaire, Parts I and II. The results from these reliability tests indicate that students respond to subculture identity questions according to the type of Another reliability measure the institution they are attending. that was designed for the College Experience Inventory was a question that asked the student to describe the sequence of events from his freshman to senior year which made a differ— er; ce in the order of importance in which they ranked their Own subculture identities. Still another attempt to es- tablish reliability measures was the interview. The inter- view responses and the responses describing the sequence of e‘J'ents from their freshman to their senior year, were very close to the questionnaire responses. The College Experience Inventory provided specific information pertaining to marital Status, parent's education, residence while at the uni- versity, size of community where student had Spent most of his life, college major, parent's occupation, perceptions of undergraduate education, reaction to living—learning resi- dence hall, and subculture identity. Personnel records of the university were checked for grade point average, rate of pro- 9123 ssion through Michigan State University in four years ( Q:bedits earned at the end of Winter Term, 1965), and 118 College Qualification Test-Total Score. The statistical tech- niques used in this study were the chi-square non—parametric test and simple analysis of variance. Chi—square was used to test the null hypotheses that no differences existed be- tween the groups in marital status, parents education, ability, place of residence, size of community where student had spent rate of progression in four most Of his life, college major, 1965), years (total credits earned at the end of Winter Term, socio—economic status (father's occupation), perception of undergraduate experience, reaction to living—learning resi- .- de nce hall experience, and subculture identity change. The _. dL stributions were analyzed to determine how closely the Ob— se rved number of responses in a given category approximated an expected theoretical distribution. The significance level u Sed for the chi-square test statistic was the .05 level of COJafidence. Simple analysis of variance was used to test the null hypotheses that the four subcultures in the study were from pOpulations with the same mean. This analysis of Variance was used to test differences among the four sub— cu:L‘Ltures in regard to grade point average. The significance level used for the analysis of variance was the .05 level of The twelve main null hypotheses which applied co 11 fidence . to this study were: no differences exist among the four sub— cl'1:L‘tures in marital status; no differences exist among the f<>Ll1': subcultures in grade point average; no differences exist 119 among the four subcultures in parent's education; no differ- ences exist among the four subcultures in place Of residence at the university during the four year period: no differences exist among the four subcultures in the size of community where student spent most of his life; no differences exist among the four subcultures in college major; no differences exist among the four subcultures in the rate of progression through college; no differences exist among the four sub— cultures in scholastic ability (the College Qualification Test-Total Score); no differences exist among the four sub— cultures in sociO-economic status; no differences exist among the four subcultures in the outcomes Of the student's under- graduate education; no differences exist among the four sub- cultures in perceptions of the student's experience in the living-learning residence hall; no differences exist among the four subcultures in present subculture identity, fresh— man subculture identity, and typical Michigan State Uni— versity student subculture identity. Findings and Conclusions Students in the sample identified with one of the four subcultures in this study; vocational, academic, col- legiate, and nonconformist. The present subculture identity of the student was the independent variable for the study. Over fifty per cent Of the students selected as their present subculture identity the collegiate subculture; twenty—six 120 per cent chose the vocational subculture; twelve per cent chose the academic subculture and ten per cent chose the non- conformist subculture. Since one of the purposes Of the study was to de— termine what changes, if any, took place in the four years between the admission to college and the collection of the data in subculture identity, each student was asked to de— termine his subculture identity as a freshman. As the stu- dent recalled his freshman subculture identity, fifty—two per cent of the students selected the vocational subculture; eighteen per cent selected the academic subculture; twenty- six per cent selected the collegiate subculture; and four per cent selected the nonconformist subculture. The most ideal subculture identity for the students in this study was the collegiate subculture. Forty—three per cent Of the sample selected this subculture. The academic subculture was chosen by forty-three per cent of the stu— dents and the vocational subculture and the nonconformist sub- cultures followed with thirty per cent and six per cent of the sample respectively. When asked to describe the most typical subculture identity of Michigan State University students, fifty—five per cent of the sample selected the collegiate subculture. Thirty—five per cent of the sample stated the typical Michigan State University student belonged to the vocational subculture. Consequently, the students in this sample felt 121 ninety per cent of the students at Michigan State University identified with the collegiate and vocational subcultures. Seven per cent of the sample categorized the typical Michigan State University student in the academic subculture and three per cent in the nonconformist subculture. The analysis indicated that marital status was related to the student's present subculture identity. In the four rfi‘ year period covered in this study, thirteen per cent of the sample had been married. None of the students identified E with the nonconformist subculture were married. :.~ Differences in mean grade point average among the Q} four subcultures were not found to be statistically signifi- cant. Statistical differences were found when grade point averages were analyzed according to groups representing certain minimal grade point averages for membership in vari- ous activities, honors, and organization membership. Grade point averages used for these groupings were the 2.5 and 3.0 grade point averages. The total percentile score on the College Qualifi— cations Test was used as the measure Of academic ability for this study. The differences among the four subcultures on this variable were statistically significant. After grouping the percentile scores to determine ability groups, statistical differences among the four subcultures were found. Four categories were used for this grouping; the lower 122 thirty per cent, the 30-59 percentile group, the 60-89 percentile group, and the upper ten per cent Of ability. Parents' education, size of community where student had spent most Of his life, rate of progression through col- lege (credits earned at the end Of Winter Term, 1965), and socio-economic status did not differlsignificantly among the four subcultures. ' ‘7 (ML-J" Students must live in residence halls their first year at Michigan State University. After their first year they may move to fraternities, cooperatives, or supervised tg‘nvu .5. .- Off-campus housing. At the beginning of the students' third year, significant differences in selection of housing were found for the first time. The second year seventy per cent of the students remained in South Case Hall.' Starting the third year of residence the students in the collegiate sub— culture moved to the fraternities. During the fourth year the majority of the students lived in unsupervised housing. The variable of academic major tended to differenti- ate the subcultures more than any other variable. The stu- dents in the vocational subculture tended to major in the College of Business, the College Of Natural Science, Veterinary Medicine, and the College of Engineering. On the other hand, the College of Social Science, the College of Arts and Letters, and the College of Natural Science were the choices of the students identifying with the academic subculture and the nonconformist subculture. Students 123 identifying with the collegiate subculture tended to identify with the College of Business, the College of Social Science, and the College of Natural Science. The small number Of majors in the College of Business identifying with the aca- demic and nonconformist subculture is very apparent. Also, the few majors in the College of Social Science and the COl— lege Of Arts and Letters among the students in the vocational ( and collegiate subculture is veryaeVident. Many of the students in this study found the most im- portant thing they learned at college was the new knowledge :3 and skills, both intellectual and social, that they acquired in their exposure to the university. Approximately the same percentage of students listed, "as the most important or sig nificant thing learned at college" was "getting along with f people";"developing an appreciation for the contribution an individual can make to society or tO their own welfare"; and "establishing a basis for decision making that helped me think logically to solve problems." The experiences and individuals within the living group were identified fifty-four per cent of the time as the experience or activity which was most profitable to the stu— dent. Academic experiences, academic activities, and other student activity Opportunities on campus followed in that order. Students in the collegiate subculture identified ex— periences within the living group as being most important to them. When asked to identify the experience or activity 124 most profitable to them in the past four years at Michigan State University, the students in the vocational subculture, the academic subculture, and the nonconformist subculture tended to identify academic experiences more than the col- legiate subculture. When students discussed the personal impact of the University they identified ideas learned, Oppor- tunity to express their own Opinions, Obtaining new skills, and learning to communicate with peOple, as the areas most prominent at Michigan State University. ~‘.‘ - l'.‘ .7: 1 ,ss‘ '0 The experiences and individuals within the living groups were selected by most of the students in this study as the factors which strengthened and reinforced their atti- tudes, values, Opinions, interests and beliefs. Sixty-five per cent Of the students identified with this category. Eighteen per cent of the sample identified academic experi— ences and academic faculty. Again, the experiences and individuals associated with the living group were identified as the agents for modification and altering attitudes, Opinions, beliefs, and interest. However, thirty per cent of the students identified the total academic experience, as Opposed to the living experience, which modified or altered their attitudes, opinions, beliefs and interest. This com— pared to the eighteen per cent who identified the academic personnel and experiences as strengthening and reinforcing these same areas. 125 As the students reviewed their living-learning resi- dence hall experience, they were highly in favor of the co- educational aspect Of the hall, highly in favor of the all- freshman aspect of the living unit, and were greatly impressed with the academic program in the residence hall. Information Obtained from the interviews generally supported the findings of the questionnaire used for this study. The interviews f 3 provided additional depth of understanding concerning all as— pects Of the influences of the university upon the student. Discussion J, The results of this study generally supported the theory of campus subcultures as a means of understanding the diverse nature of a campus population. Students were able to identify themselves with a particular philOSOphy which de- termined their subculture identity. Even though the majority Of the students identify with the vocational subculture, as freshmen, and with the collegiate subculture four years later, the academic subculture demands critical review. Thirty per cent of the sample identified with the academic subculture as the ideal subculture, and yet only seven per cent of the total sample thought the typical Michigan State University student identified with the academic subculture. When the results of student Opinion indicate this much di— versity in their perception of themselves, and other fellow students, there may be reason to question the why of this 126 perception. Also, the nonconformist subculture was over— whelmingly the least desirable category of the four sub— cultures. Few students see themselves having their main allegiance to this subculture. It may be, however, that this small minority is quite verbal and makes itself quite visible in the campus community. The collegiate subculture and the nonconformist subculture appear to represent the polar ex- tremes of philosophies among the subcultures. Within a large state university campus, where a high percentage of students identify with the collegiate subculture, it would appear that the nonconformist subculture may have a difficult time finding support for their ideas and philosophy of the university. Also, the academic and nonconformist subcultures appear to be most alike on the variables tested in this study, and the vocational and collegiate subcultures tended to answer questions similarly. The nonconformist and aca- demic subcultures tended to have higher scores of scholastic ability, higher grade point averages, and tended to major in the arts and letters and social science curriculums. Since many of these variables relate to the graduate student pOpu- lation, we may be selecting graduate students from a biased population as they define the Objectives and purposes of an institution of higher education. The nonconformist sub— culture, however, tended to be attracting the extremes of polarized groups. While they tended to have high scholastic ability test and grade point averages, their rate of _ 127 progression through the university was significantly slower than the other subcultures. Also, they tended to have socio— economic status both from the laboring class, and from the executive and managerial. They tended to have, however, more parents with college degrees as well as more parents who had not graduated from high school. The nonconformist subculture is also conspicuous by their absence of marital status; not one of the students in the nonconformist subculture is married. Comparing the three major groupings of students that comprise the population for this study: (1) the students who responded to the questionnaire, (2) students who were on campus but did not respond to the questionnaire, and (3) stu— dents who were not at Michigan State University during the 1964-65 year, non-significant differences were found in scholastic ability but significant differences were found in academic achievement. Since significant differences were found in academic achievement but not academic ability non— academic influences other than academic ability are con- tributing to the withdrawal of students from this institution of higher education. The majority Of the students who re— sponded to the questionnaire will graduate within a four— year period; however, fifteen per cent of the group have not reached junior status. A more meaningful way to study the rate of progression through college might have been to con— sider the mean number of credits that each subculture had 128 earned in the four year period. It was decided for the purpose of this study, however, that determining the groups of students who had maintained or reached senior status was more meaningful at this time. The students in the academic subculture do have the highest grade point average, the highest scholastic ability and also have the largest number of students who have pro- gressed through college faster than expected from the theo— retical frequency reported as a part of the chi-square analysis. Place of residence while attending the university showed a pattern of residence-hall living the first two years at Michigan State. The third year in residence at Michigan State the subculture identity did differentiate the resi- dence of the students. It is during this year that students in the collegiate subculture decided to live in fraternities. The students in the academic subculture, however, moved to supervised housing and the COOperatives; whereas, students in the vocational subculture tended to live in married housing or in unsupervised housing. But, students identifying with the nonconformist subculture remained in the residence hall. A more accurate statement might be that the students in the nonconformist subculture chose to remain away from the fra— ternities, the COOperatives, and supervised housing. During the fourth year the students found the unsupervised off-campus housing as their most pOpular choice for housing. 129 Students in this study favored an all—freshman resi— dence hall. Seventy—three per cent of the students indicated that it was a favorable experience to remain in an all- freshman residence hall for their first year. Eleven per cent Of these students qualified their remarks by saying they were "glad they left" at the end of their freshman year. Another eleven per cent saw some favorable aspects of the freshman residence hall as being,‘“the similarity Of the total experiencef' There were, however, unfavorable aspects; for example, "there was need for upperclassmen to give over— all direction." But the majority stated. that an all— freshman residence hall did have advantages over an upper— class residence hall including freshmen. "More Opportunities for decision-making" was the reason given for selecting all-freshmen residence halls. There was overwhelming support for the academic experiences Of the living—learning residence hall during their freshman year. This substantiated the fact that after four years students still saw this as a highly favorable experience. As students responded to questions discussing their undergraduate educational experiences they identified events that increased their general, intellectual ability and challenges which questioned their sterotypic thinking that gave impact to the total educational effect of Michigan State University. 130 The interviews substantiated the results that the students were able to verbalize and discriminate the different types of influences during their undergraduate years. Again, the majority of the interview sample identified the living- group experiences and the individuals identified with the living-group as important agents for education. The need for professional staffing and acceptance Of living units as contributing members of the academic community are important since students perceive the experiences and the staff at this level as being highly instrumental in their total under— graduate experience. Since parents' education was not significantly re— lated to subculture identity, the importance of each indi- vidual's contribution to higher education is maximized. The lack of any one particular background from which most of the students came suggest that each individual student has an equal chance in a campus community regardless of parents' education. From the review of related research, it was ex- pected that socio—economic status would differentiate the membership in the individual student subcultures. However, in this study significant differences were not found. Also, the lack of significance found in the size of community from which the student comes has relevance. The many family associations and backgrounds in a particular community do not tend to differentiate subcultures. Consequently, within 131 limits, the academic contribution of the university to any one student doesn't need to be influenced by these background characteristics. As mentioned earlier, since the nonconformist sub- culture does not have one student in the married category, marital status does differentiate the four subcultures. The academic subculture tended to have more students in the married category than the other subcultures. In the four- year period, however, only thirteen per cent of the students were married. The interviews again reemphasized the complexity in- volved in the undergraduate's problem-solving. More time must be given to understanding the searching, the question- ing, and the urgencies of developing their own weltanschauunq. Students go through countless "dark corridors" making sense out of life. Regardless of the reasons for which a student is attracted to an institution Of higher education the quality and sc0pe Of the undergraduate experience will be de- termined after he arrives on the campus. The questions in the College Experience Inventory that gave examples structured the responses too much, es— pecially the questions on reinforcement and modification of values, Opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. The results of this part of the questionnaire are not totally reliable. 132 Implications for Future Research The influences Of the total college environment Offer many Opportunities for learning that students consider very important to their total education. Opportunities outside 4 the classroom were named as the most significant experiences at Michigan State University by the majority of the sample of students for this study. The systematic method of investi— gating Or describing these influences to ascertain the posi- tive and negative effects of the peer-group culture needs to be refined. Once the peer—group influences are identified on the university campus, many facets Oftédministrative decision-making should be affected. Longitudinal research studies could define the initial characteristics of students, membership in subculture groups, the intensity Of this membership, and the change in membership and intensity and the reasons for these changes over a period of years. Variables that relate to consistent membership in a particular subculture identity can also be identified. 7 The communication of student normative behavior on a university campus appears to be very selective. The informal and formal communication channels relate to the goals and values formulated by an institution or an individual and how each relate to behavior. The entire system of communication as it relates to individual goal formulation or individual decisionemaking is an important area for further research. 133 Since students in this study identified closely with certain experiences in their living group, the impact of decision-making at the living-group level needs to be ex- plored. The staff at the living-group level that interacts with the students for providing meaningful educational ex- periences must meet the same standards for excellence that the university holds for its academic or instructional staff. It descriptive study of the staff or the ideal staff needed in the living units as seen by students, faculty and adminis- trators might prove beneficial. The use of a freshman residence hall as an agent of change in the transition from high school senior to college freshman should be explored. Possibly the similarity of a total pOpulation with certain experiences, anxieties, problems and interactions would provide the socialization base needed for the difficult transition between high school and college. The background characteristics of college students and how these characteristics determine the final character— istics of the college graduate needs continuous study. Replication of research studies could provide the continuity of variables that is needed to study one campus with another. The definition of critical terms, i.e., parents' education, socio—economic status, rate of progression throughicollege, need to be the same definition in each study, otherwise re— sults are not comparable. In this study certain findings 134 were contradictory to related research studies, but it was difficult to determine whether the population was different or whether the definition of terms used in the study was different. More attention could be directed to the students who comprise the different majors on the university campus. Special attention is needed in this area as the need for ad- ditional faculty at all universities and colleges is evident. Possibly the majors on our college campus that contribute the most graduate students are not producing the types Of graduate students needed in our institutions of higher edu- cation as faculty members. Or if these graduate students are going to be the university faculty of tomorrow, we need to understand their philOSOphy of higher education and its relationship to the broader goals of higher education in a democratic society. A follow-up of the student's description of the ex- periences and individuals who were most influential may re— late to certain personality characteristics, certain teach- ing methods, faculty—student interaction, influences of roommates, bull sessions, and membership in student—activity organization clubs. The process of academic major change on the college campus also needs special attention and follow- up. The information collected at time of admission or during orientation clinics is important for planning a total orien- tation to the university based on the different orientation 135 and philOSOphies Of each student. In addition to these problems, quantification of instruments and systematic methods of collecting data need constant refinement for the improvement Of behavioral science research. BIBLIOGRAPHY Asten, Alexander. Who Goes Where to College? Chicago, Illinois: Science Research Associates, Inc., 1965. Center for the Study of Higher Education, Annual Report, 1963—64. Berkeley, California: University of California, 1964. Center for the Study of Higher Education, "A Study of Differ- ential Selectivity and Institutional Impact in Se- lected Colleges," Berkeley, California: University of California, 1962. Clark, Burton R. "College Image and Student Selection," Berkeley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, (Mimeographed.) Clark, Burton, and Trow, Martin. "Determinates of College Student subcultures, The Study of College Peer Groups: Problems and Prospects for Research." Berkeley, California: The Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1962. (Mimeographed.) Coleman, James A. The Adolescent Society. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1961. Coleman, James S. and McDill, Edward L. "The Social System of the High School and Academic Aspirations and Orientation," National Association of WOmen's Deans and Counselors Journal, 28: 10-17, NO. 1, Fall, 1964. Cowley, William H. The Personnel Bibliggraphical Index. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1932. Darley, John G.. Promise and PerfOrmance: .A Study Of Ability and Achievement in Higher Education. Berkeley: California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1962. Davies, James. "Social Class Factors and School Attendance," Harvard Educational Review, 33:1755185, Summer, 1953. 136 A ' “smug -1 137 Dixon, Wilfred J. and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Sta— tistical Analysis. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 1957. Eddy, Edward D., Jr. The College Influence on Student Character. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959. Edwards,.Allen.L. _Experimental Design in Psychological Re- searcha'.New York: *Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford: University Press, 1957. Freund, John E. Modern Elementary Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1960. ! Goldsen, Ruth. What College Students Think. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand CO., 1960. Habern, Margaret L. (ed.). Spotlight on the College Student. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1959. . Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963. Heath, Roy. .The Reasonable Adventurer, A Study of the De- velopment of Thirtyesix Undergraduates at Princeton. Pittsburg, Pennsylvania: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 1964. Heist, Paul. "Implications from.Recent Research on College Students," National Association of WOmen Deans and Counselors Journal, Vol. XXII (April, 1959), pp. 116— 124. Hodgkins, Benjamin Joseph. "Student Subcultures——An Analysis of Their Origins and Affects on Student Attitude and Value Change in Higher Education." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1964. Jacob, Philip E...Changing Values in Colleges, An Exploratory Study of the Impapt of College Teaching; New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. M_ 77‘ H" 138 Johnson, JO Ann. "A Sociological Theoretical Basis for Living—Learning Residence Halls," Division of Resi- dence Hall Programs, Dean of Students Office at Michigan State University. (Mimeographed.) Kahl, Joseph. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys," Harvard Educational Review, 33: 186-203, Summer, 1953. Kalista, Joseph. "A Study of Parent's Education Level as A Factor in the Planning Done for College by Superior High School Students and Their Parents." Un- published Dissertation, The University Of Wisconsin, 1963. errr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1963. Lecky, Prescott. Self—Consistency: A Theory of Personality. Boston, Massachusetts: The Shoestring Press, Inc., 1961. Lunsford, Terry (ed.). The Study of Campus Cultures. Boulder, Colorado: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and;Berkeley, California: Center for the Study Of Higher Education and the Com- mittee on Personality Development in Youth of the Social Science Research Council, 1963. Lehmann, Irvin J. and Dressel, Paul L. Critical Thinking, Attitudes and Values in Higher Education. Final Project No. 590, U.S. Department of Health, Edh— cation, and Welfare, Office of Education, Michigan State University, 1962. Nalte, Margaret. "A Study of College Enrollment of High School Graduates," National Association of WOmen's Deans and Counselors Journal, Vol. XXVIII, NO. 1 (Fall, 1964), pp. 40-43. Newcomb, Theodore, The Acquaintance ProceSs. New York, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Newcomb, Theodore M.’ PersOnality and Social Change. New York, New York: The Dryden Press, 1943. Olson, LeRoy. "Attitudes and Achievement Of Case Hall Stu- dents, Winter Term, 1962," Office of Evaluation Services, The University College at Michigan State University. (Mimeographed.) 139 Olson, LeRoy. "Case Hall Students: Their Characteristics and Initial Attitudes," Office Of Evaluation Services, The University College at Michigan State University, March 6, 1962. (Mimeographed.) Osborne, Duncan. "The Relationship of Personality Factors to Academic Achievement in College." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1963. Pace, C. Robert and Stern, George. "An Approach to the Measurement Of Psychological Characteristics of Col- lege Environments," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. XLIX (October, 1952), pp. 269-277. Parsons, Talcott and Shils, Edward A. (eds.). Toward A General Theory of Action. New York: Harper and Row, Torch Book Edition, 1951. Payne, Isabelle K. "The Relationship Between Attitudes and Values and Selected Background Characteristics." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1961. Pryor, John J. "Peer-Group Influences on the College Climate for Learning," The Journal of College Student Person— nel, Vol. V, No. 3 (March, 1964), pp. 163-167. Raushenbusch, Ester and Murphy, Lois (eds.). Achievement in the College Years; A Record of Intellectual and Personal Growth. New York: Harpers, 1960. Raushenbusch, Ester. The Student and His Studies: Middle- town, Connecticut: wesleyan University Press, 1964. Reisman, David. The Lonely Crowd: A §tudy Of the Changing American Character. Anchor Book, Abridged Edition, Garden City, New York: Dohbleday and Company, Inc., 1953. Sanford, Nevitt (ed.). The American College. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Sanford, Nevitt. "Personality Development During the College Years," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. XII (1956), pp. 1—71. Schwarzweller, H. K. "Value Orientations in Educational and Occupational Choices," Rural Sociology, 24:257-264, 1959. 140 Searles, Warren. "The Relationship Between the Perceived Emotional Climate of the Home Of College Students and Certain Variables In Their Functioning Relating to Self-Concept and Academic Functioning." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, 1963. Sprague, Hall T. (ed.). Research on College Students. Boulder,COloradO: western Interstate Commission for Higher Education and Berkeley, California: The Center for the Study of Higher Education, December, 1960. Stern, George. "The Intellectual Climate of College 'Environments'." Harvard Educational Review, Vol. XXXIII (Winter, 1963), pp. 5—41. Summs, James. "Values and Status Variables as Determinants of Academic Achievement." Unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation at Emory University, 1962. Sumner, William Graham. Folkways. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1906. Sutherland, Robert L. (ed.).' Personality Factors on the College Campus, Review of A Symposium. Austin, Texas: Thetflogg’Foundation for Mental Health, 1962. Thistlethwaite, Donald L. "College Press and Changes In Study Plans Of Talented Students," Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, Vol. LI (August, 1960), pp. 222- 234. . Thistlethwaite, Donald L. "College Press and Student Achievement," Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol..L (October, 1959), pp. 183-191. Trent, James W. “Non-Cognitive Factors Associated with Varying College Experiences," Berkley, California: Center for the Study of Higher Education, paper pre- pared for address given to the-Annual Meeting of the Indiana College Personnel Association, November 6, 1964. Trow, Martin. "The Campus As'A Context for Learning," National Association of Student Personnel Adminis- trators. "Proceedings of the Forty—sixth Anniversary Conference." Detroit, Michigan, 1964. 141 Useem, Ruth Hill. ”A Sociologist Views Learning in College Residence Halls," Paper delivered at the American Personnel and Guidance Association, April 13, 1965. Minneapolis, Minnesota. Warwick, Donald. "Socialization and Value Change in A Cole lege Community." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The University Of Michigan, 1963. Whyte, Donald. "Social Alienation Among College Students," Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University, 1963. Wilson, Kenneth M. Institutional Research on College Stu- dents. Swannanon, North Carolina: Papers presented at the Swannanon Conference sponsored by Southern College Personnel Association and Southern Regional Education Board, March, 1962. -APPENDIX A COLLEGE EXPERIENCE INVENTORY I . ~a_J.'-n- W" J!“ in. par-F6 .-.:.., - . “'1. COLLEGE EXPERIENCE INVENTORY It is hOped that you will feel free to give frank and sincere responses to the questions you find in this Col— lege Experience Inventory. Your COOperation in this study is greatly appreciated. All informatiOn will be treated confidentially and will be used for research purposes only. SECTION I 1. Student Number 2. College Major 3. Marital Status: Single 1 Married Other 4. What does your father do for a living? (Describe in a line or two in the space provided.) 5. What does your mother do for a living? (Describe in a line or two in the space provided.) 6. Father's Education (Circle appropriate line) Did not finish first eight grades Finished first eight grades but not high school Graduated from high school ‘ ‘ Started college but quit before cOmpleting two years Completed two years but did not finish four years College graduate (four year) Graduate WOrk; How Much Other; Please explain 143 7. 144 MotherTSEducation (Circle appropriate line) Did not finish first eight grades Finished first eight grades but not high school Graduated from high school Started college but quit before completing two years Completed two years but did not finish four years College graduate (four year) Graduate WOrk; How much Other; Please explain SECTION II 10. This section requires some writing. There are no right or wrong answers. Just answer the questions as you think of them at this time. Use the back of the sheet of paper if needed. Be sure to identify the right question with your comments if you use the back of the paper. The most important or significant thing you have learned at college is The experience or activity which has been most profitable to you (What and why) is: ' What impact has this University had on you? 11. 12. 145 .In retrospect how do you view your living experience in South Case Hall? (Then and now) Amongst other things elaborate on the all freshman aspect of the hall, classes in the residence hall, faculty members in the residence hall, etc. Please list, in order of importance, the three individuals (e.g. instructor, resident assistant, roommate, etc.) or experience (e.g. fraternity, residence hall house, foot- ball, bull sessions) which you feel served to strengthen or reinforce your attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interests. Please give an explanation as to hgw these individuals or experiences served to strengthen or rein- force your attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interests. (If it is difficult to specifically identify individuals or experiences, then describe the sequence of individuals or experiences as you remember them.) .............. 13. 146 Please list, in order of importance, the three individuals (e.g. instructor, resident assistant, roommates, etc.) or experiences (e.g. fraternity, residence hall house, foot- ball, bull sessions) which you feel served to modify or alter some of your attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interests. Please give an explanation as to hgy these individuals or experiences served to modify or alter some of your attitudes, values, Opinions, beliefs and interests. (If it is difficult to specifically identify individuals or experiences, then describe the sequence of experiences or individuals as you remember them.) SECTIQN III On every college or university campus students hold a variety of attitudes about their own purposes and goals while at college. Such an attitude might be thought of as a personal philosophy of higher education} Below are de— scriptive statements of four such "personal philOSOphieS" which there is reason to believe are quite prevalent on ~American college campuses. .As you read the four state- ments, attempt to determine how close each comes to your own philOSOphy of higher education. PHILOSOPHY A: This philos0phy emphasizes education essentially as preparation for an occupational future. Social or purely intellectual phases of campus life are relative— ly less important, although certainly not ignored. Concern with extra curricular activities and college traditions is relatively small. Persons holding this philos0phy are uSually quite committed to particular fields of study and are in college primarily to Ob- tain training for careers in their chosen fields. 147 PHILOSOPHY B: This philOSOphy, while it does not ignore career preparation, assigns greatest importance to scholarly pursuit of knowledge and understanding wherever the pursuit may lead. This philosophy en- tails serious involvement in course work or inde— pendent study beyond the minimum required. Social life and organized extracurricular activities are relatively unimportant. Thus, while other aspects Of college life are not to be forsaken, this philoso- phy attaches greatest importance to interest in ideas, pursuit Of knowledge, and cultivation of the intellect. PHILOSOPHY C: This philOSOphy holds that besides occupational training and/or scholarly endeavor an important part Of college life exists Outside the classroom, labora- tory, and library. EXtra—curricular activities, living—group functions, athletics, social life, re- warding friendships, and loyalty to college traditions are important;e1ements in one's college experience and necessary to the cultivation Of the well—rounded person. Thus, while not excluding academic activities, this philOSOphy emphasizes the importance of the extra- curricular side Of college life. PHILOSOPHY D: This is a philosophy held by the student who 14. either consciously rejects commonly held value orien- tations in favor Of his own, or who has not really de— cided what is to be valued and is in a sense searching for meaning in life. There is often deep involvement with ideas and art forms both in the claser m and in sources (often highly original and individualiStic) in the wider society. There is little interest in business or professional careers; in fact, there may be a definite rejection of this kind of aspiration. Many facets of the college--organized extraCurricular activities, athletics, traditions, the college ad- ministration--are ignored or viewed with disdain. In short, this philosophy may emphasize individualistic interests and styles, concern for personal identity and Often, contempt for many aspects of organized society. Please rank in order of importance, the philosophies on the preceeding page, to describe the kind of philos0phy you have at this time. Most accurate.__ Second most accurate ___ Third most accurate __ Least accurate __ 15. 16. 17. 18. 148 Please rank in order Of importance, the philOSOphies on the preceeding page, to describe the kind of philosophy that you had when you first came to the university. Second most accUrate __ Third most Least accurate __. Most accurate accurate .Please rank in order of importance, the philosophies on the preceeding page, to describe the kind of philosophy ygu would like to have if you had a choice. Second most accurate __ Third most Least.accurate.__ Most accurate accurate Pleasecrank in order of impprtance the philOSOphies on the preceeding page, to describe the philosophy of the typical Michigan State University student. Second most accurate Third most Most accurate Least accurate accurate.__ .As you review your responses to the above questions de- scribe the sequence Of events from your freshman to senior year that have made a difference in the order of im- portance that you have given the philOSOphies on the pre- ceeding page. (e.g. You have felt philOSOphy A was most important from your freshman year to your senior year; you have felt each philOSOphy was most important at one time or another; my freshman year I definitely felt philOSOphy A was most important but my junior year philos0phy C be- came most important; be sure to state WHY you think you had this change Of philos0phy. SECTION IV Please indicate your local address while attending Michigan State University (e.g. State residence hall—South CaSe Hall; fraternity-Delta Tau Delta; supervised Off- campus housing-room; home; unsupervised off-campus housing— Haslett Street Apartments. Don't give street address but do give type of housing). _ Second year: Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term Summer Term lst year: Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term Summer Term Third year: _ Fourth Year: Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term Summer_Term Fall Term Winter Term Spring Term Summer Term 149 20. Before coming to college, in what kind of a community did you live most Of your life? (Circle apprOpriate de- scription Of community) Farm 250 - 2,499 population 2,500 - 24,999 population 25,000 - 99,999 population 100,000 population and over APPENDIX B POPULATION OF STUDY POPULATION OF STUDY Students in South Case Residence Hall, Winter Term, 1962 130 NOt in school during 1964-65 academic year 12 Resident-Assistants (upperclass staff members—- graduated) 260 Usable data collected (Winter and Spring Term, 1965) 133 On campus at sometime during academic year but didn't respond 66 On campus entire period but no response 29 On campus Fall Term only (No letters sent) 20 On campus Fall and Winter Term only 3 On campus Spring Term only 3 On campus Winter Term only 4 On campus Winter and Spring Term only 3 In South Case Hall too short of time to make judgement 2 Sent Questionnaire to me but didn't reach me 3 Refused to answer 535 Total Students in South Case Hall, Winter Term, 1962 Number of Students* Last Term Student At MSU 17 Winter — 1962 38 Spring — 1962 15 Fall - 1962 5 Winter - 1963 23 Spring — 1963 9 Fall - 1963 5 Winter - 1964 18 Spring - 1964 130 Students not at MSUe-l964-65 Academic Year *130 NOt in school during 1964—65 academic year. 151 APPENDIX C LETTERS SENT TO STUDENTS ASKING FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THIS STUDY February 12, 1965 Dear For the past three and one—half years Michigan State Uni— versity has been studying the views and Opinions of students who live, or have lived, in its living-learning residence halls. .During this time those conducting the studies have been able to gather data enabling them to asseSs something of the impact of the living-learning residence hall on the total edu- cation of students at Michigan State University. ~As you know, Michigan State University was the first university to attempt this innovation in higher education. The studies to date have given us information which has been used in curricular and in— structional planning. We appreciate the assistance you have given in the past. We know you were one Of the first students to live in a living- learning residence hall. NOw most of the freshmen who started in Case Hall, the first living-learning residence, are seniors. we now need your assistance more than ever before. Since you were directly involved in the operation of the first living- learning residence hall, we need your ideas before you leave Michigan State. The week of February 15-19 has been set aside for us to get your ideas. We are asking for one-half hour Of your time. Please come to 338 Student Services Building and complete the short questionnaire we have developed. we are asking for your impressions of your college experiences at Michigan State Uni— versity. we know how busy you are, so we have arranged as many hours as possible for you. Anytime between 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, someone will be in Room 338 to give you the queStionnaire to complete. If you cannot come to the Office during this time, please call 5-7490 and tell us when you can complete the questionnaire. .Without your COOperation and assistance during this final phase of your college experience much of the knowledge that students have regarding the living-learning residence halls will be lost. In Contributing some of your time to this pro- ject, you will be contributing to increased understanding of the COmulative, longéterm impact to the educational process. we feel that this study can be Of real importance and value to Michigan State University and urge your COOperation. Sincerely, J. A. Fuzak Vice President for Student Affairs 153 February 19, 1965 Dear A few days ago you received a letter from Vice President J. A. Fuzak requesting your cooperation in a study involving those students who lived part of their freshman year in South Case Hall. Since we have not heard from you, we are assuming that you forgot or that you were too busy last week to participate in the study. WOuld you please schedule one-half hour of your time this week so that we might have the benefit of your thinking at this time. For this study to be Of help to the students at Michigan State University, we must have as many participants as possible. Please come to Room 338, Student Services Building, to com- plete the questionnaire. We will have the Office Open from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you cannot come at this time, please call 355-7491 or 355—7733 and ar— range an appointment or we will mail the questionnaire to you. We hOpe to hear from you in the near future. Sincerely, Donald V. Adams Project Director 154 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW GUIDE INTERVIEW GUIDE GENERAL DIRECTIONS: We are interested.in learning more about your ideas of your college experience at Michigan State University. I know you are busy so I have prepared an outline to keep me on the sub— ject and to use our time most profitably. Please be honest and frank. I assure you complete confidentiality. What you say will in no way influence my evaluation of you as a person or will it ever appear in any records of this university. 1. Review the entire questionnaire for clarification and depth. 2. Return to Question 18, "Sequence Of events from your fresh— man to senior year that have made a difference in the order of importance that you have given the philosophies on the preceeding page," for more depth in understanding the process of change in philOSOphy. To understand the student's freshman philOSOphy dis— cuss his reasons for attending Michigan State University. To validate and give reliability to the students' re— sponses in question 18 discuss the purposes for which a university exists. .Also discuss how these perceptions of the purposes for which a university exists has changed in the student's mind over the past four years and why they have changed. 3. Specific questions related to the particular pOpulation this person represents as a random selection. 4. Why are you in your present major? Did you change? Why? 5. How would you describe your different living experiences on this campus? How did they compare to the freshman year in South Case? 156